Saved?
I'm reading "Irresistible Revolution" by Shane Claiborne right now. It is a very challenging book. He is describing his search for people who live like Jesus did, who hear what Jesus said and do it.
He heard Rich Mullins speak on a college campus about being saved. Rich said that we all talk about being born again as being the way to be saved. He said that this is what Jesus said to one man in one place when the man asked what he should do to be saved. Another man asked Jesus the same question and Jesus said to sell everything he had, give all the money to the poor, and then come follow Jesus. We have not decided that this instruction is for everyone. Mullins suggests that this is why God invented highlighters---so we can choose the verses we like the best.
Claiborne suggests that religion is often about finding ways to explain why we are not expected to live exactly as Jesus said to live. This is challenging talk and I lie awake at night thinking about it. How much would I give up? Is there a limit?
* * * * * * * * *
We attended our son's hearing this afternoon. The hearing was to determine in whose custody he should be, in light of his tendency to run away and to steal things. We never really got to that.
A month ago this hearing was set, as well as a second one that will sentence him for some of the things he has admitted to doing. At that time a request was sent to the judge that the second hearing be moved forward so that our son would spend less time in detention without a court decision stating that this was the best placement for him.
This afternoon the judge came into the courtroom and began the hearing by announcing the case number and the plaintiff and the reason for the hearing. He had the reason for the hearing completely wrong. He was obviously shuffling papers he had not even looked at prior to entering the room. The lawyers had to correct him.
Then he wants to know why we are having two hearings instead of hearing both issues today. The person who sent the request spoke up and mentioned the request that had been sent regarding that issue. The judge said he saw no such request. Then he looks at the file in front of him and picks up the memo that contained the request. He admits that the request is right there in his hand but that he had not seen it before today and he still wants to hear both issues today. The person who wrote the request is my son's case manager. She does not have all the paperwork she needs for the second issue. The judge leaves the room temporarily so that the lawyers can talk and the lawyers agree to save the second issue for the other date a month from now. They agree to this because the case manager discloses that her recommendation will be to send my son to a juvenile correctional facility. This change requires more deliberation than they are prepared for.
The judge comes back, but he still does not ask for any information regarding the issue to be heard today. He decides that he will hear both issues in a month. Then he wants to know who is paying for my son's stay in juvenile detention. The case worker says that our county is responsible because it is court ordered. The judge, who is the same one that heard all of our son's other local cases, claims not to have ever ordered detention. He clearly is trying to avoid our county paying for this detention stay. He says that he ordered placement in the most appropriate facility.
Now I don't remember details very well, but I know that at the hearing in question it was stated in court that my son had already run from three placements, that he had charges filed against him in another county for car theft, and an arrest in a third county for car theft, illegal possession of firearms, and marijuana with intent to sell. I know that it was stated by someone in that hearing, most likely the judge, that it would not make sense to put my son in a placement that was not secure until his other charges were heard and decided. So this little wrangling about words seems a little stupid to me.
But it gets worse. The judge insists that our county will not be paying for this stay. He wants to know if Juvenile Justice (which employs the case manager) is paying and the answer is 'no'. He takes the sheriff who transported my son to the hearing and they go into the adjoining room, leaving the door open. In that room they contact the sheriff from the county where the first car theft charges were heard and we hear them each asserting strongly that neither of their counties are responsible for the cost of my son's stay in detention.
The judge re-enters the courtroom and summarily orders the case manager to find my son another appropriate placement as soon as possible. Then he orders the county attorney to write up an order for reimbursement. Then he leaves the courtroom with a flourish.
We talk with my son for a moment, who is ecstatic that he will no longer be in a secure setting and he is sure that his life will be different, and I really really want to believe him.
Then the sheriff leads him away and his lawyer asks to speak with us. He wants to speak with us because he knows what I know. An order for reimbursement means that no county pays for my son's stay in detention. They just send a bill for the entire amount to the parents. The last time this happened, about a year ago, the rates were around $90/day. My son has been in detention since mid-June. The lawyer explains to us that he is calling our family lawyer for us to suggest that as soon as possible we get a court agreement that sets a child support limit for us. He believes that this court agreement will protect us from any huge bill that may or may not be coming soon.
But I have already looked into this with our lawyer. I have called state agency after state agency and the answer I got was this. The court agreement only protects you as long as your child is in a group home setting. When it is detention there is this never never land where there are no clear rules. Some detention centers bill parents. Some don't. But my guess is that all of them will if they are court ordered to do so.
But that isn't the point. If we get billed, we will try to figure things out. We will call our lawyer on Monday and see if there is any action we can take now. But that isn't the point.
The point is our son. There was no concern from this judge about what placement would serve the interests of our son best, and there was no concern about what placement would serve the interests of society best. The concern was about sparing our county from paying. Who gets saved here?
I'm not saying that detention is the best place for my son. If I was good at knowing what is best for my son we probably would not have been sitting in court this afternoon. I'm just angry, really angry that a judge who is chosen for his wisdom spent his afternoon worrying more about who pays than about a juvenile offender, or a victim, or making the world a better place.
He heard Rich Mullins speak on a college campus about being saved. Rich said that we all talk about being born again as being the way to be saved. He said that this is what Jesus said to one man in one place when the man asked what he should do to be saved. Another man asked Jesus the same question and Jesus said to sell everything he had, give all the money to the poor, and then come follow Jesus. We have not decided that this instruction is for everyone. Mullins suggests that this is why God invented highlighters---so we can choose the verses we like the best.
Claiborne suggests that religion is often about finding ways to explain why we are not expected to live exactly as Jesus said to live. This is challenging talk and I lie awake at night thinking about it. How much would I give up? Is there a limit?
* * * * * * * * *
We attended our son's hearing this afternoon. The hearing was to determine in whose custody he should be, in light of his tendency to run away and to steal things. We never really got to that.
A month ago this hearing was set, as well as a second one that will sentence him for some of the things he has admitted to doing. At that time a request was sent to the judge that the second hearing be moved forward so that our son would spend less time in detention without a court decision stating that this was the best placement for him.
This afternoon the judge came into the courtroom and began the hearing by announcing the case number and the plaintiff and the reason for the hearing. He had the reason for the hearing completely wrong. He was obviously shuffling papers he had not even looked at prior to entering the room. The lawyers had to correct him.
Then he wants to know why we are having two hearings instead of hearing both issues today. The person who sent the request spoke up and mentioned the request that had been sent regarding that issue. The judge said he saw no such request. Then he looks at the file in front of him and picks up the memo that contained the request. He admits that the request is right there in his hand but that he had not seen it before today and he still wants to hear both issues today. The person who wrote the request is my son's case manager. She does not have all the paperwork she needs for the second issue. The judge leaves the room temporarily so that the lawyers can talk and the lawyers agree to save the second issue for the other date a month from now. They agree to this because the case manager discloses that her recommendation will be to send my son to a juvenile correctional facility. This change requires more deliberation than they are prepared for.
The judge comes back, but he still does not ask for any information regarding the issue to be heard today. He decides that he will hear both issues in a month. Then he wants to know who is paying for my son's stay in juvenile detention. The case worker says that our county is responsible because it is court ordered. The judge, who is the same one that heard all of our son's other local cases, claims not to have ever ordered detention. He clearly is trying to avoid our county paying for this detention stay. He says that he ordered placement in the most appropriate facility.
Now I don't remember details very well, but I know that at the hearing in question it was stated in court that my son had already run from three placements, that he had charges filed against him in another county for car theft, and an arrest in a third county for car theft, illegal possession of firearms, and marijuana with intent to sell. I know that it was stated by someone in that hearing, most likely the judge, that it would not make sense to put my son in a placement that was not secure until his other charges were heard and decided. So this little wrangling about words seems a little stupid to me.
But it gets worse. The judge insists that our county will not be paying for this stay. He wants to know if Juvenile Justice (which employs the case manager) is paying and the answer is 'no'. He takes the sheriff who transported my son to the hearing and they go into the adjoining room, leaving the door open. In that room they contact the sheriff from the county where the first car theft charges were heard and we hear them each asserting strongly that neither of their counties are responsible for the cost of my son's stay in detention.
The judge re-enters the courtroom and summarily orders the case manager to find my son another appropriate placement as soon as possible. Then he orders the county attorney to write up an order for reimbursement. Then he leaves the courtroom with a flourish.
We talk with my son for a moment, who is ecstatic that he will no longer be in a secure setting and he is sure that his life will be different, and I really really want to believe him.
Then the sheriff leads him away and his lawyer asks to speak with us. He wants to speak with us because he knows what I know. An order for reimbursement means that no county pays for my son's stay in detention. They just send a bill for the entire amount to the parents. The last time this happened, about a year ago, the rates were around $90/day. My son has been in detention since mid-June. The lawyer explains to us that he is calling our family lawyer for us to suggest that as soon as possible we get a court agreement that sets a child support limit for us. He believes that this court agreement will protect us from any huge bill that may or may not be coming soon.
But I have already looked into this with our lawyer. I have called state agency after state agency and the answer I got was this. The court agreement only protects you as long as your child is in a group home setting. When it is detention there is this never never land where there are no clear rules. Some detention centers bill parents. Some don't. But my guess is that all of them will if they are court ordered to do so.
But that isn't the point. If we get billed, we will try to figure things out. We will call our lawyer on Monday and see if there is any action we can take now. But that isn't the point.
The point is our son. There was no concern from this judge about what placement would serve the interests of our son best, and there was no concern about what placement would serve the interests of society best. The concern was about sparing our county from paying. Who gets saved here?
I'm not saying that detention is the best place for my son. If I was good at knowing what is best for my son we probably would not have been sitting in court this afternoon. I'm just angry, really angry that a judge who is chosen for his wisdom spent his afternoon worrying more about who pays than about a juvenile offender, or a victim, or making the world a better place.
Comments
Becca