Jeannie Nailon is no Martha Stewart. Her housekeeping techniques lack the fastidious flourish that is the Stewart hallmark. But neither does she live in squalor.
While the legislation protecting the children of New Jersey does not specifically address housekeeping issues, the agents for the state’s Division of Youth and Family Services apparently have their own set of standards and Nailon did not meet them. That cost her the custody of her children.
It all began on April 22, 1999. Jeannie, who lived with her two children (their names have been changed for this story), "Curt," who was 11 at the time, and "Mary," who was then 3, and husband Dennis, not the children’s father, had a 9 o’clock appointment at Social Services in Rio Grande.
The purpose of the appointment was to begin the necessary legal process to obtain support from Mary’s biological father, with whom Jeannie had had a relationship – which she now calls "a big mistake" – prior to marrying Dennis.
Mary’s father was denying paternity and refusing to pay child support so Jeannie had to go to Social Services to sign the necessary documents to ensure support.
Dennis had been out working all night, arriving home at 5:50 a.m. He was asleep in the bedroom when Jeannie was getting ready to leave.
Prior to leaving she said she went in and shook him awake, telling him where she was going, that she would take Curt with her and drop him at school. She also said she reminded him to "put the puppy out" and "give Mary her cereal when she woke up."
Mary was asleep in her bed when Jeannie left.
Prior to April 22, 1999, neither of the Nailons had been in any trouble with the law.
"I’d had a couple parking tickets," said Dennis, "but nothing else. I always respected the law from my upbringing because my grandfather was a warden up in Pennsylvania."
Jeannie and her son left before 8 a.m., what would happen during the next hour would change their lives forever.
After Jeannie left, Dennis fell back into a deep sleep, exhausted from working.
He did not hear when Mary got up from her bed.
He did not hear the puppy scampering around, whining to be let out.
He did not hear the front door open or Mary and the puppy run into the front yard, Mary wearing only a shirt. "She still wasn’t potty trained for the night and she hated her diaper, so as soon as she’d get up she’d take it off," Jeannie explained.
Dennis, sound asleep, heard none of this. But a neighbor did.
Instead of shepherding the child and the puppy back into the house, and alerting one of the parents, the neighbor called the police.
According to the official police report, the neighbor called in a complaint of an "unattended child" in the neighbor’s yard on School Lane at 8:45 a.m.
(The Middle Township Police Department refused to give this newspaper a copy of the report, saying the case was still open. The prosecutor’s office, however, said the case was closed. The report was obtained by this newspaper through other sources.)
Police Officer Sharon Haskins arrived at the Nailons at 8:57 a.m. and did not observe any child in the yard. She then proceeded to knock on the door, but received no response. Rather than leaving the property, she let herself inside. Once in the home, according to her report, she saw leftover food in dirty dishes on the living room floor, the puppy and cat running loose making a mess and dirty clothes in piles on the floor.
Jeannie and Dennis dispute the accuracy of the food and animal mess descriptions in the report but admit to the clothes being on the floor in piles.
"I was going to do the laundry when I got home and I had separated it in piles before I went," said Jeannie.
Haskins, in her report, describes that she walked down the hall to where the bedrooms were located. She opened the door to the first "on the west side of the house" and saw a small blonde child sitting quietly on her bed playing. When Mary saw Haskins, she ran off to Dennis’ bedroom crying, "Wake up, Daddy, there’s a policeman here!"
The report further states that the man came out of the bedroom with the child and apologized profusely to Haskins for being asleep, and asked what was the matter.
Haskins examined the child and reported that she found no bruises, marks or injuries of any sort but did note a "dirty face." She told Dennis why she was there and noted in her report that he was very cooperative.
Despite all this, before she left she said matter of factly that she would be calling DYFS for follow-up.
When his wife returned he told her what happened. She was annoyed with him for oversleeping but not overly concerned, believing it was just one of those things that can happen to any parent at some time or other when they’re raising children.
"Kids get into all kinds of stuff, especially with puppies around," Jeannie said, wistfully holding a photograph of Mary, who, along with Curt, would be taken from their parent’s home before the day was over.
Haskins was good to her word and, within three hours, DYFS agents Rose Sandburg and Diane Rhile (both of whom declined comment on this matter) were at the Nailons’ home armed with a camera.
Jeannie let them in and while one peppered her with questions such as "Does he (Dennis) beat you? Are you drug addicts? Are you alcoholics?" the other gave the white glove treatment to their house, looking in cupboards, closets, under the beds and inside the refrigerator.
"There were leftovers in (the refrigerator) uncovered and Rose Sandburg said I should never have leftovers, that I could poison my family and then she took a picture," recalled Jeannie.
They also took a picture of a small, dark brown, irregularly shaped object lying on the floor. In court DYFS would claim the photo proved there was "dog feces" in the house.
Jeannie stops her recounting of the incident and walks to a closet where she retrieves a small, dark brown, irregularly shaped object: A stuffed moose toy.
Jeannie said neither Sandburg nor Rhile examined the subject of their photo while they were at the house.
"I told them it wasn’t poop," she said. "I even picked it up to show them but they just ignored me and walked into the bedroom."
Once in the bedroom Rhile and Sandburg picked up Mary and sat her on the unmade bed and began taking pictures. The Nailons objected to this and demanded the pictures, which were handed over to them. This would be the last photo Jeannie and Dennis would have of Mary.
Rhile and Sandburg left, saying they would be in touch later. Rhile went to Curt’s school, pulled him out of class and questioned him about his home life. According to what Jeannie now says that Curt told her about his interview with Rhile, the DYFS agent told him that if he would tell her something bad about his family, that she would make sure he was able to stay with his family.
At around 3:15 p.m., Rhile returned to the Nailons’ home, this time with five Middle Township police cars.
The Nailons’ neighbors remember the day vividly.
"I thought it was a hostage situation like on TV," said one woman.
A man added: "There was about half dozen police all with their weapons at the ready. I was in the military, so I know the drill. I thought it was a drug bust. Can you imagine they were there to get a kid?"
Neither neighbor would give their name because they said they "feared retaliation," but would not state from whom.
There is no police record of this DYFS assist but it was confirmed by the Nailons and by a Middle Township police officer, who was promised confidentiality.
Rhile told Jeannie that she was "guilty of neglect" so they were taking her children. "Diane Rhile also told me, ‘I know you’re a party girl and you don’t deserve your kids,’" said Jeannie.
Curt was taken into police custody and driven away in a police car. Mary, now screaming hysterically, was driven away by the DYFS agent as she clutched her raggedy bear. The children were taken for the night to DYFS headquarters in Cape May Court House. The Nailons followed the procession to the headquarters. Jeannie and Dennis were told the children were being separated from them for further investigation. When Rhile told Curt, the angry 11-year-old who remembered Rhile’s promise that if he told her something bad about his family that she would make sure he stayed with his family, called Rhile a liar and ran from the DYFS office down Route 9. It was Jeannie who corralled him and talked him into going back to the office.
Nearly three weeks went by before the Nailons received any information about their children or why this was happening to them.
On May 10, 1999, a letter from A.J. Coughlin-Neville, supervising family service specialist II, stated: "We have completed our initial assessment on behalf of your children and family. A social worker will be assigned to visit with you in the near future to discuss the assessment and services you will be receiving from the Division of Youth and Family Services."
In order to understand the process by which the courts confirm DYFS confiscations of children, court experts met with this newspaper to explain the technicalities of the process.
Family Court Division Assistant Manager Kim James and Children in Court Coordinator Bernadette Myers, who works for the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division – Family Part, in Cape May County met with this newspaper for nearly two hours. At no time did they discuss a specific case.
"If a DYFS worker calls and says ‘We have an emergent case and we need a hearing,’ then we get a time for DYFS to come to court. They usually FAX the facts of the case over before the hearing," Myers said. "We give them a time to come and the law requires that to be within 24 hours of the first business/court day following the removal."
Myers said DYFS does not need the court’s permission to initially remove a child from his/her home.
Both she and James indicated that their involvement in these cases was strictly within the workings of the court system and had nothing to do with the initial reporting process, determination of validity or subsequent investigation of any child endangerment, neglect or abuse. All the investigations, decisions on when to remove children and judgment calls, were strictly made by DYFS agents.
Their job began only after DYFS had decided to take the child or wanted to take over the formal legal custody or supervision of the child from the parents or guardian and needed the sanction of the court after the fact.
Asked by James, during her explanation if the parents don’t sometimes voluntarily surrender custody, Myers replied: "(DYFS) has (its) own system and has (its) own standards. They’re really getting away from voluntary custody surrender. It’s too complicated legally and causes confusion for people."
If parents thought their children were being wrongly taken from them, they can request, within the "24-hour rule," an Order to Show Cause hearing before a judge. The judge would hear the information from DYFS representatives, not from the parents.
If the judge agrees with DYFS, he/she would approve the removal of the children and then set a date, usually within two weeks, for the parties to return for further action.
In fact, according to Myers, there could be a whole series of "case management conferences in court before the judge to determine if the family has been receiving the services it needs."
In the meantime, the children are away from home in some kind of foster/temporary care. If they are lucky, they are permitted limited contact with their parents.
"DYFS tries to make a placement with an appropriate relative if at all possible. They check them out and if they’re OK, the child would be placed there," added Myers.
James stressed that the parents were entitled to be represented by counsel and could have counsel appointed—at taxpayers’ expense—from the pool of available lawyers. However this usually did not happen until there was an actual evidentiary hearing concerning the reason for removing the child in the first place, he said.
Myers emphasized that "within 120 days of a child being removed from the home there must be a fact-finding hearing before a judge. It could be a full-blown, fact-finding hearing or a parent could simply" give in to what DYFS wants them to do.
According to Myers, the judge would then make a finding of abuse or neglect, and determine that the family was in need of services.
Asked if a judge could determine that a family was not in need of services, Myers thought a moment. "I guess so. Then the child would just be returned to the parents, I suppose," she said.
Myers also told the Gazette that most cases never even got to court because the parents would agree to accept the services DYFS says they need.
The families rely on DYFS to tell them what they need much like the court also relies on the evidence gathered and presented by DYFS agents, especially during the initial hearings to show cause.
Perhaps that is why the day after Curt and Mary were taken from their mother and stepfather, the court, relying on a DYFS recommendation, placed both children in the custody of Dirk Cancelosi Sr., Curt’s natural father but not Mary’s.
He was approved by DYFS to receive custody of the two siblings even though he had a restraining order placed against him from Superior Court in Atlantic County prohibiting him "from having any contact with the plaintiff (Jeannie Nailon) or the plaintiff’s relatives."
This order arose out of an incident described in court papers filed on May 24, 1990, that state police were called several times because Cancelosi had beaten Nailon and had "put a shotgun to her head and threatened to kill her," in the presence of Curt. The court documents claim Cancelosi tried to break into Jeannie’s house and that she feared more harm.
Asked why the children were placed with Cancelosi, Rhile declined comment.
About a year after Cancelosi received custody of Mary and Curt, Jeannie said, he turned Mary over to her biological father, who had initially denied paternity of her and had only limited contact with her. Jeannie said DYFS approved the transfer.
Dirk Cancelosi Sr., at first, did not return several messages seeking comment, but his wife, Teresa, told this newspaper she and Dirk wanted to adopt Mary but "we found her real father and thought she should be with her blood."
She also said Dirk has improved his life and all the problems he had were in the past. He’s now a counselor and "he’s cleaned up his life."
Dirk, after his wife spoke to this newspaper, called and said he had made mistakes in the past and said he didn’t even remember the 1990 incident when he held a shotgun to Jeannie’s head and threatened to kill her in front of Curt.
"That was a different life for me. I’m a different person now," he said.
Dirk said DYFS came to him and asked him to take his son and Mary because they had been removed from the Nailons’ custody.
He admitted he has had trouble with Curt.
"My son is screwed up. His mother screwed him up," he said. "He has to take medicine and he sees a psychiatrist, and he ran away from home just last month."
Teresa said DYFS agents told her that they took the children from the Nailons because they wanted Jeannie to leave Dennis. Jeannie and Dennis said DYFS agents told them the same thing, which is similar to the situation in which the Hall family (Families in Crisis with DYFS, Part 1) was placed. (DYFS agents told Debbie Hall she should divorce her husband, Jerry.)
The court, in an order dated May 4, 2000, formally granted custody of Curt to Cancelosi and approved a supervised visit by Jeannie with Curt and Mary in the DFYS office in Cape May Court House.
It was during one of those supervised visits that DYFS decided to conduct a random drug test, insisting that Nailon was an addict.
While visiting with Curt, Jeannie was approached by a worker at the Court House Commons building who said, "OK dearie, it’s time for your drug test. You gotta pee in the cup."
Curt ran from the room horrified.
"He never looked at me the same after that," said Jeannie, who believes the incident made him believe she was abusing drugs. "The only drugs I use are those prescribed by my doctor, Dr. Scott Stringer, who performed back surgery on me."
Nicole Liapold, of Coastal Physicians, confirmed that Jeannie was the doctor’s patient but said the "information of their patients is strictly confidential."
None of the DYFS reports that Jeannie has received (she said DYFS has not given her all documents relating to her case) and saved say anything about her using drugs.
She has never been determined to have been abusive to her children. In a letter dated May 10, 1999, however, DYFS said its "investigation determined that child neglect was substantiated." It continues: "You have been identified as placing the child at risk of harm."
This all arose out of a neighbor’s complaint on April 22,1999.
"I got up that morning with children and a family, but by the nighttime DYFS took everything away. I never even got a chance to tell my side in court. They only listen to and believe what the DYFS people (have) to say," said a sobbing Jeannie.
She hasn’t seen her children for over a year and does not even know where Mary is.
She is scheduled to have more surgery in a few weeks, which she hopes will help heal her body but, she said, there is no surgery to fix her shattered heart.
"If you’re a drug addict or an alcoholic, or if you just completely submit to them (DYFS), you get to keep your kids. Dennis and I were just poor and struggling, so they took them away like they were things and not people, (all because) we’re poor," said Jeannie.
"I couldn’t even protect my family when all the cops came to take them away," Dennis said. "It makes me feel like (I’m) not a man, or even a person. That’s how DYFS makes you feel."
"And there’s something else," added his wife, "this isn’t because they thought my house was dirty. Every child of mine is money to them."
|