Introduction

You probably think that as a child abuse defense attorney, my life is full of stress. You're right. I've found that some tasks are more fun than others, however. I had a blast writing this letter in December of 2001, but I wrote it to the wrong police chief! I should have written to Rindge. Easily corrected, but one of my dumber mistakes as an attorney. On the other hand, I was extremely stressed over a project due two days hence, and I took a pretty fast break to write this little gem. I like doing these so much, I sometimes toss them in for free. (As well I should have writing to the wrong police chief!) Actually, as the investigation progressed, my client had numerous opportunities to complain about the social worker's actions, but we chose to wait to see if she would violate the law. The social worker must have interpreted silence as the opportunity to get back to business as usual. She grabbed the noose with both hands! The names have been redacted, except of course for the offending social worker, who probably didn't think that she'd get caught, as few attorneys think to check if they follow the law. This is not where any NH social worker would like to see her name in print! The italics are explanatory, and not part of the letter. I'll keep writing the letters until they obey the law. Gotcha!

December 5, 2001

Robert Pelio
Jaffrey Police Chief
26 Main Street
Jaffrey, NH
Re: Criminal Report

Dear Chief Pelio,

I am making this report on behalf of my client, [Client], of Rindge, NH. Ms. [Client] has been the subject of an investigation from DCYF out of the Keene office. Wendy Keith is the name of the social worker conducting the investigation. Apparently the report involved two of her children fighting over the front seat of the car in September of this year, and an allegation that the older one was too rough in claiming the spoils of victory. Ms. Keith went to the home of Ms. [Client] in late October for a meeting, at which I was present. Ms. [Client] insisted on knowing the nature of the allegations. [Ms. Keith first wanted to know my role, and I told her I was there to assist. She asked me if I was an attorney, and I told that I tried to be. She apparently didn't believe that I was, so she felt free to push the issue.] Ms. Keith only generally informed her of the nature of the allegations, not any specific incident. She did later send Ms. [Client] the written report, as she was required to do by law. Ms. Keith apparently wanted to interview the younger child at that home meeting, who was the apparent "victim" of this "crime." At the time of the October meeting, Ms. [Client] told Ms. Keith in no uncertain terms that the older children would not get away with harming the younger children without appropriate interference from Mom and that whatever the allegations were, they could not be true.

Ms. Keith apparently did not believe Ms. [Client] , because some days later, [date redacted] Ms. Keith appeared in the parking lot of Ms. [Client] 's younger children's private [unnamed building], apparently for purposes of embarrassing my client and pressuring her to allow the younger children to be interviewed over this ridiculous report. She still refused. Ms. Keith threatened to get a warrant under RSA 169-C:38, which she had no right to obtain or to threaten to obtain. I am enclosing a copy of the statute for your convenience. [paragraph IV explains when a social worker may interview a child without parental consent.]

Not only did Ms. Keith expect to interview the younger children for this ridiculous report (which was apparently called in based on an eyewitness report from [information deleted], she called one of the children's schools to obtain Ms. [Client] 's work and cell phone telephone numbers, and proceeded to harass her at work by calling her there. After being told in no uncertain terms that the woman was only permitted telephone calls at work for legitimate emergencies, Ms. Keith called Ms. [Client] at work again for purposes of cajoling assent to an interview with her younger children by threatening to obtain a warrant under RSA 169-C:38.

This week, Ms. Keith entered the public school of the older child, [child's name], to interview her regarding this event, against the wishes of my client. Not only was there no legal authorization to do so because the level of harm was totally lacking, Ms. Keith interviewed the alleged underaged perpetrator of the "crime," almost certainly without giving her Miranda warnings or the opportunity for legal counsel. When [the child] asked her about whether or not she was supposed to videotape the interview, she said that she didn't bother with the video camera, because it was too bulky. [Didn't this clue the social worker in that the child had been explained her rights by a half way decent attorney?] DCYF has repeatedly assured the Children and Family Law committee in the legislature that they now videotape interviews with children, so her statement shows that she had no intention of bringing a video camera in the first place. There is also absolutely no authorization in RSA 169-C:38 for interviewing an alleged underaged perpetrator without parental consent.

My client, [Client] , would like Ms. Keith to be criminally prosecuted for violating RSA 169-C:38, IV, and for stalking based on showing up at her children's private school at dismissal time. If your police department declines to prosecute, would you please inform me, so that I can undertake a private prosecution within the one year statute of limitations? Ms. [Client] can be reached at 899-**** at her home in Rindge. Thank you.

	Sincerely,
	Paula J. Werme.

cc: Byry Kennedy, DCYF
NH Attorney General's Office
Cheshire County Prosecutor
[Client]
Children and Family Law Committee

Contact Paula Werme, Esq. or return to Law Practice home page.

Last updated 2001 December 8.