|
|
|
| |||||||
| ||||||||
| Home | Contents | MediaStream ↑News+Blog↑ |
Entities | Newsletters | Book | Philosophy | Photos |
[Other accounts of this case are found in The Trauma of the Family Court Guy and on the Patricia page.]
I suspect that Kevin Leik was placed on this planet for my inspiration. Along with caseworker Shari Sanchez (now deceased), he shares credit for the existence of this website and its mission.
Mr. Leik was the court-appointed attorney for my foster daughter Patricia, who I raised from birth to the age of 5-1/2. After he was appointed by the court, he declined to talk to me in any form until I showed up unexpectedly in court, and he steadfastly maintained that the child didn't want to see me.
Although hired by Clark County Legal Services as a professional child advocate, Leik appears to have no background or skills in dealing with children. He is, however, always very confident of himself (so confident that he could size me up without ever talking to me).
Leik's participation came fairly late in my case, but his contributions were memorable. Here's the story...
Although we raised this child from birth and she thought we were her parents, she was never legally ours. The case became very complicated and involved two failed reunifications with the birth mother. In my view, it involved even worse neglect by the caseworker, who did little on the case for years and was virtually uncontactable. I believe that the child's adoption by our family should have been completed in about 2-3 years, but due largely to the delays and disinterest of Ms. Sanchez, it was still not completed when Patricia was nearly six and my marriage collapsed.
Had the adoption been completed, Patricia's custody would have been a matter for divorce court, and I would have at least had a right to see her. Foster parents, however, have no rights, no matter how long they have had the child, and after Patricia was taken from our home in Jan. 2004, I never saw her again. In every emotional way, she was my daughter and I was her very involved "Daddy," but because I had no genetic connection to the child, our relationship had no legal standing under Nevada law and got no attention whatsoever from the caseworker—not even a single returned phone call.
Although it is within the state's rights as the "owner" of a foster child to whatever it wants with her, it is hard to call their treatment of Patricia thoughtful or in her best interests. Although I raised this child from birth and knew her better than anyone, my input was completely rejected. When I finally hired a lawyer to try to get through to her, the caseworker told the lawyer she would answer one of my calls if I phoned at a certain time, but she never did.
For all emotional purposes, this child had to suffer through the "death" of her parents, even though they were very much alive. It was even worse, because the child was told that her father were a threat to her, and absurd attempts were made to hide her from me and prevent any contact. (This was based only on my ex-wife's claims about me during the course of the divorce and no one actually talking to me.)
Hearing indirectly that my daughter had become a "behavioral problem" in foster care and was doing poorly, I hired another lawyer who worked to have an independent Child Advocate Attorney appointed for the child. When the effort was successful, I thought, "Finally, someone is going to take a look at this case and see how badly the state screwed up."
Several months later, I wrote a 27-page report on Patricia's lengthy history with the state (a link to it is available from the webmaster), which I sent to both DFS and Mr. Leik. DFS never responded in any way, but Leik at least acknowledged receiving it. In an email, I asked Mr. Leik if the report was accurate. Here is his only reply.
A few months after that, I wrote another shorter report, which I released on my website after it got no significant response from DFS. At the same time, I published some of my family photos of Patricia on my website. When I saw Mr. Leik in the courthouse, he had no comment on the new report, but he politely requested that I remove two of the photos. Both photos showed 4-year-old Patricia without a shirt, and he was concerned that pedophiles on the internet may take the photos out of context. I removed one photo but retained the other (my explanation).
With both Leik and the new caseworker ignoring me and Patricia going from one bad placement to another, it seemed that the only way I could help her was to become more actively involved in the court. I became, at first, a neutral court observer and later a more opinionated activist.
I occasionally saw Mr. Leik in the hallways of the court, and our relationship was cordial. He never, on any occasion, asked me anything about his client or her history, and he told me very little about her circumstances, but he always assured me that she was doing well. When I made a formal request through the new caseworker to see Patricia, both the caseworker and Mr. Leik concurred that Patricia did not want to see me.
At one point, I asked Mr. Leik how he can know what such a young child "wants" without the child being biased and manipulated by the observer. This is a profound question for the Child Advocate Program, which is supposed to represent a child's "wishes", not his "best interests." (There is some question about whether a Child Advocate is even appropriate for a child this young, simply because their expressed wishes are so unstable.) Mr. Leik replied, with his usual self-confidence, that he was good at talking to children and could figure it out.
I also asked Mr. Leik about his background and credentials for dealing with children, but I got no concrete response. He did reveal, however, that he was from "the Midwest."
As a member of the public, I am entitled to attend the six-month status-check hearings of foster children unless a hearing is explicitly closed by the judge. At Patricia's final hearing, however, Mr. Leik arranged with the bailiff to have me excluded from the courtroom without a proper motion or the knowledge of the judge. (Here is my account of the incident. I suspect that I was excluded to prevent me from learning the date of her pending adoption.)
I understand that Patricia has now been adopted by a new family, who both the caseworker and Mr. Leik have assured me is a good one. Due to the bureaucracy and backlog of the system, foster child adoptions usually take a long time. (There was no progress for years when we had Patricia.) Patricia's new adoption, however, went through with amazing speed — almost exactly 6 months after she began living with the new family (the legal minimum). I credit this to my new position as a vocal Family Court activist and the desire of Mr. Leik and the caseworkers to dispose of the case as quickly as possible.
Mr. Leik is... someone special to me. In a sense, he created my new role in the Family Court and gave me focus. He must have been part of my Plan, and I guess I should be grateful.
Emotionally, however, I have other opinions about Mr. Leik and the organization that gave him power. I do not believe that Mr. Leik was "bad" in himself, merely incompetent and clueless about human nature and placed in a position of power where he clearly did not belong.
Other accounts of this case are found in
The
Trauma of the Family Court Guy and on the
Patricia page.
 |
©2005-07, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 30303, Las
Vegas, NV 89173.
This is an independent and unofficial website. All opinions expressed are those of the webmaster and not any other party. Information conveyed here is accurate to the best of our knowledge but is not guaranteed. You should seek your own independent verification of critical information.
Total page hits at FamilyCourtChronicles.com: |
