Comments on: Criminals who sue dept.: the case of Danieal Kelly

By: Irving L. Abramson

Irving L. Abramson — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:54:19 +0000

To those of you attacking the lawyers involved in the Danieal Kelly case, please be advised that you really ought to learn all the important operative facts before you make your hackneyed observations and attacks on the lawyers involved. Did you know, for example, that the Register of Wills required the minor child’s estate to be initially brought in the names of the parents? So it was not chutzpah or the lawyers’ greed that began this legal action, but the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Register of Wills, and the laws that apply for any action to be brought against the child welfare agency and the City of Philadelphia under which it operates. Lyn Abraham, a lawyer herself, undoubtedly knew when she made her inflammatory charges against the lawyers that this is the way it had to be done. The parents were removed and a trustee was appointed by the Court at the earliest possible time, also governed by the rules and laws the lawyers must follow to protect the worthy beneficiaries, Danieal Kelly’s neglected and disadvantaged brothers and sisters. It’s the usual case that those least affected by the crime or neglect and abuse attack the lawyers who are virtually the only ones in society standing up for the victims. The victims and those closest to the victims are not denouncing their lawyers. The workers at Children and Youth responsible for forging records to reflect proper supervision of the child where it did not occur will not be brought to account without lawyers. The City of Philadelphia will not clean-up its act with regard to proper funding and supervision of Children and Youth without lawyers to bring it to account for the victims of its mismanagement and neglect. The finger of blame should not be directed at the lawyers and those who stand behind them, the victims, but rather at those responsible for this tragedy. And don’t blame the technicality of the rules for some supposed outrage that is not happening where the parents were removed from the lawsuit at the earliest opportunity afforded by the law.

Irving L. Abramson
Attorney-at-law

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:00:41 +0000

See also the Bochetto & Lentz law firm press release linked here, arguing that attorney Brian Mildenberg "should be applauded for courageously" filing the suit.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:14:31 +0000

@4, there are bedsores, and then there are bedsores. There is absolutely no question that Danieal’s bedsores were appalling and an obvious cry for immediate medical attention. The photo on page 18 of the grand jury report is nightmarish.

@1, I agree that a bureaucracy as ossified and unionized with do-nothing jobs as that in Philadelphia in 2007 isn’t going to be especially responsive to suspensions when there’s no real threat of adverse job action and supervisors are indifferent about competence. Criminal sanctions for social workers, however, really imbalances the incentive structure. (I have no objection to charges of perjury or fraud, assuming that they are factually well-founded.)

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:56:50 +0000

William, read the grand jury report.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:06:52 +0000

For Tom T:

How exactly were the social workers slothful?

Why wasn’t the child in school? She had a bedridden illness. Could the social worker call up medical records to verify the claim? Probably not without a court order. Could the social worker check the child for bedsores? Probably not. And we have to be cautious of claims of bedsores. Such claims are used to rile juries and profit lawyers.

No one expects traffic lights to be perfect. We are satisfied when traffic lights mitigate accidents. The best we can expect of social workers is mitigation of child abuse. Perfection is beyond us.

As Ted points out, there are real costs to state intervention in family matters. Policy should not be driven by an occasional tragedy.

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:24:57 +0000

If there is a court-appointed trustee for the dead child’s estate, wouldn’t mandatory joinder of the parents as defendants be appropriate? If so and they lose, can we expect the parents to then sue their original attorneys for malpractice? I haven’t thought this through, but I’m not sure I’d put it past anyone who sued DHS under these circumstances, whatever the protestations that it’s “not about the money.”

By: David Wisniewski

David Wisniewski — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:55:15 +0000

Whenever an attorney says that their client’s complaint isn’t about money (as was claimed here), it is always about money.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:19:22 +0000

I think there's reasonable room for disagreement here as to whether criminal charges are appropriate against the slothful social workers. It seems worth noting, though, that the primary social-worker defendant here had previously been suspended three times for poor work performance, yet his conduct appears never to have changed. Empirically, this weighs against the theory that imposing sanctions on social workers for poor performance will lead them to a countervailing excess of zeal in the future.