Embattled Judge Feels Liberal Heat

In today's Houston Chronicle I read this article by Lisa Falkenberg regarding a juvenile court judge's attempts at damage control and found it very interesting- a good real-life example of why its dangerous to make enemies of the Fourth Estate.

From Falkenberg's article:

"To my fellow conservatives,” reads the letter, followed directly by the headline “CONFRONTING THE LIBERAL MEDIA.”

Juvenile court Judge John Phillips is the ill-tempered, perpetually misunderstood jurist I’ve written about who removed two young boys from the home of their 50-something grandmother and step-grandfather last year after he remarked from the bench that the couple was too old to raise the children.

The judge has since removed himself from the case after the grandparents’ attorney learned he was being investigated by the state’s Judicial Conduct Commission.

Phillips has always claimed his decision to remove the boys was based not on age, but on drug allegations against the grandparents that emerged coincidentally, and conveniently, late. And after glowing reports from Child Protective Services and other child advocates about the happy environment Yolanda and Arnold Del Bosque were providing in their La Porte mobile home.

In Phillips’ e-mail, sent last month to the president of Clear Lake Republicans, he reminds voters that he’s in his seventh year on the bench and may soon face a difficult re-election bid.

After all, Phillips writes, “the confrontations with a liberal agenda are much more serious than I ever anticipated when I was first elected.”

The Del Bosque case is one example.

Phillips states that “all the various advocates for the children” recommended removing them from the home. In fact, the CPS caseworker most familiar with the case, Brian LeStrapp, never advocated the removal and even risked his job by testifying later that he disagreed with his agency’s stance. CPS’ stance, supporting removal, came about only after children had been removed and after I started asking questions.

Phillips writes that advocates “pointed out” in open court that “their information was the step-grandfather bragged of being a drug dealer, provided cocaine to the children’s mother, fondled one of the boys, and had a large judgment for failure to pay child support for his own children.”

Arnold says he made some child support payments directly to his wife but couldn’t afford to make all. But the rest is as accurate as a tabloid headline.

While Arnold often talks about his past, it is his past. He did cocaine 20 years ago and sold it for a while to support his habit. The claim that he provided cocaine to the children’s drug-addicted mother was soon debunked by none other than the children’s mother.

The fondling accusation was a tickling habit that CPS investigated and dismissed as a “cultural” thing that could be resolved by educating Arnold about appropriate touching.

In his last example of liberal conspiracy, Phillips recounts how he was asked “to approve a placement of an infant with a same-sex couple consisting of two 30-year-old men.” He writes that when he asked CPS about a traditional home, he later received threats of media coverage.

I don’t know who made the threats, but, yes, if I’d known about the case, I would have written about it. The couple, according to CPS, went through extensive training, as well as background checks and home studies. The placement was approved by the nonprofit DePelchin Children’s Center and CPS: “We did place this child in a home that we felt was the most appropriate and the best foster home placement for him,” said CPS spokeswoman Estella Olguin.

And many organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, cite evidence showing children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents.

Phillips writes in the third paragraph: “The law says that the best interest of the child is my primary consideration. That is my job, period, and I follow the law.”

Further down, he asks Republican voters to help him “keep conservatism alive in Harris County.”

If Phillips loses his seat it won’t be because of some liberal conspiracy. It will be because he doesn’t know the difference between discretion and discrimination. Phillips’ “primary consideration” should be guided by the evidence and the law, not personal bias or the Republican Party platform.