Infant’s Tragic Death Pits Foster Mom vs. System : Child Care: Experts and judges disagree over the consequences Mara Jo Grimes should bear for the accidental death of an infant in her care. The case has put the foster care system under new scrutiny.

Over the strong objections of San Diego County social workers, a Juvenile Court judge has placed a 23-month-old foster child in the permanent custody of Mara Jo Grimes, the La Mesa woman whose “gross negligence” resulted in the death of another foster child in her sun-baked van last June.

Last month, Judge Elizabeth Kutzner appointed Grimes the permanent legal guardian of the 23-month-old toddler, despite efforts by government social service officials that concluded Friday with the revocation of Grimes’ foster care license.

“The accident was an indicator of other concerns,” said Patti Rahiser, a manager with the Department of Social Services, which in a series of court hearings attempted to block the reunion of Grimes and the toddler. “Based on further investigation and based on our evaluation of the home, it was determined that it was in (the child’s) best interests not to be returned.”

But Grimes and some child advocates say that, despite the June 30 death of Frank Martinez, the toddler’s rightful place is with the only parent he has ever known, a woman who took him in at the age of 6 weeks as a high-risk infant born to a mother who was a drug abuser and a prostitute.

Grimes, a 46-year-old psychologist, is planning a lawsuit against county social workers, who, she said, “destroyed” her family by yanking three foster children from their beds on the night of a tragic accident that has left her grief-stricken.

“We don’t try to destroy families that have had accidents,” she said in a lengthy interview. “That’s not what we do in this Western society. If your child drowned in your back-yard pool . . . they wouldn’t come in and tear your family apart 10 minutes later.”

The conflict among judges and experts over whether Frank’s death should disqualify Grimes from caring for other children highlights the kinds of difficult questions that have recently pushed the confidential workings of the Child Services Bureau of the Department of Social Services into the public limelight.

Prompted by numerous complaints that overzealous workers are breaking up families without reason, the county grand jury is investigating the bureau’s workings. In a separate audit, the county Juvenile Justice Commission is probing complaints made about cases involving 10 different children. The grand jury, which has heard testimony from Grimes, will examine how social workers decide when considerations of child safety override a policy of trying to keep a child and his parent together, said Richard Macfie, the jury’s foreman.

Those questions are especially difficult in the Grimes case, where there was no abuse to the child in question. Rather, it was another foster child who died in what the district attorney’s office later called “a terrible misunderstanding,” but which an administrative law judge considered “gross negligence.”

“The way social workers are trained is to look for certain variables, certain factors, and on the basis of that to make a sound judgment,” said Anita Harbert, director of the School of Social Work at San Diego State University.

For Kutzner, “it is a judgment call,” Harbert said. “It is very complex. You have parties involved with different interests.”

Kutzner declined to answer questions about her decision, saying in a message left on a reporter’s telephone answering machine that the deadline for an appeal had not passed. County officials said that, while they have made no final decision, they are leaning toward not appealing.

Grimes’ attorney, Sherri Sobel Sokoloff, said through a secretary that she would not discuss the case.

The child’s public defender, J. Lynn Faber, also did not return several telephone calls over the course of two weeks. A representative of a nonprofit child advocacy group, which recommended reuniting Grimes and the child, refused to comment, citing the confidentiality of the report and of all cases heard by the Juvenile Court.

The child--whose name The Times is not publishing to protect his privacy--and two other foster children were taken from Grimes’ home after the death of Frank, a 5-month-old infant who suffered from Down’s syndrome and a heart defect.

Frank succumbed to hyperthermia after he was left in a van in the sun outside Grimes’ home in the 5100 block of Guava Avenue in La Mesa.

When found after more than three hours, he had stopped breathing and had no pulse. A spokeswoman at Alvarado Hospital, where Frank was pronounced dead, said his body temperature when he arrived was more than 108 degrees. The temperature in the van had risen to 122 degrees.

Frank was left unattended in the van after Grimes, her brother and her sister-in-law returned from a trip to Alpine with the infant, the three other foster children and Grimes’ adopted 4-year-old son.

According to a ruling on Grimes’ foster care license by Administrative Law Judge Marguerite C. Geftakys, none of the adults removed the sleeping infant from the van. Grimes, who had begun to do so but ran into the house because she became ill, lay down intending to rest for a few minutes. She awoke three hours later to the screams of her sister-in-law, who had discovered the unconscious child still strapped in his car seat in the van.

In the confusion of settling five children down after the outing, the couple, Ray and Deborah Grimes, apparently believed that Mara Grimes had taken Frank upstairs to nap with her. After an investigation, the La Mesa police recommended that charges be filed against Grimes. But Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller determined that Grimes’ actions “did not constitute provable criminal negligence.”

“That there was inattention with a tragic result is indisputable, but the error of the adults cannot be said to be ‘aggravated, reckless and gross,’ or so much of a departure from the conduct of an ordinary and prudent person to constitute indifference to the consequences of those acts,” Miller wrote in a Sept. 10 decision not to file charges against Grimes.

But Geftakys, in a ruling released Friday that prompted the state Department of Social Services to revoke Grimes’ foster care license, was much more critical.

Grimes “has been guilty of gross negligence in that she failed to exercise even scant care in caring for (Frank) on June 30, 1991,” she wrote. “It is found that she (Grimes) simply forgot about (Frank) when she went to sleep.”

The three foster children were removed from Grimes’ care immediately after Frank’s death and placed in three separate foster homes.

They included the toddler who has been returned, another child of similar age and a child whom Grimes had accepted 17 days earlier in violation of provisions of her license limiting her to three foster children.

Grimes’ adopted son was not removed from her home.

Grimes was not alone in her plea that the 23-month-old toddler, whom she had previously moved to adopt, would fare best with her.

The child’s court-appointed attorney and a representative of a nonprofit agency that reviews child protection cases for the Juvenile Court joined Grimes’ attorney in urging Kutzner to return the child to Grimes, according to confidential court documents obtained by The Times.

Those advocates argued that Grimes and the boy had forged a strong mother-son attachment during the 17 months that she helped him overcome the debilitating effects of his exposure to heroin, cocaine and alcohol while in the womb.

“There is no question in this advocate’s mind that (the child’s) best interests would be served by returning him to the care of the mother who ‘loved him to life,’ and to whom he has an unquestionable bond,” Deborah Hall, a representative of Voices for Children, wrote in a confidential Sept. 26 report.

Grimes, a former nun who left the order to become a psychologist, is depicted as an exemplary foster parent in the report, which reviewed assessments made by a physician and social workers as the child grew up in her home.

She is credited with nurturing a 6-week-old child suffering from “drug withdrawal symptoms,” “severe failure to thrive” and “poor sucking and feeding behavior” into a healthy, well-adjusted toddler. Before the accident, Grimes had begun the process of adopting him.

Grimes’ friends and supporters, who rallied around her after Frank’s death, believe that she literally saved the child’s life. They gathered 200 letters in praise of her love for the foster children and skill in raising even the most difficult ones.

“She always took the children who were the neediest,” said Patty Ann Born, a 20-year friend of Grimes.

The report cites the letters, compiled during the investigation of Grimes’ foster care license, “which testify at length to Dr. Grimes’ outstanding skills, love for children and commitment to caring for special needs children.”

Grimes’ care of Frank also was praised in the letters, according to the report. She is described as “extremely vigilant about Frankie’s health,” having learned all she could about Down’s syndrome and pediatric congestive heart failure.

In fact, Grimes said, Frank’s death came as his heart defect was healing and he was thriving.

“I will spend the rest of my life waking up at 2 in the morning, saying ‘Where is Frankie?’ ” she said. “How could Frankie die in my front yard with me not knowing?”

The death was a tragedy that she and her family will never live down, a cataclysm that, along with social workers’ mishandling of subsequent events, has caused severe turmoil for her adopted son, Grimes claimed.

“How are they ever going to heal the harm they did to this 4-year-old? That’s my question to the department (of Social Services),” she said. “He talks constantly about (whether) the bad social workers (are) coming to take him away.”

But social workers and Judge Geftakys paint a much darker portrait of Grimes. In her ruling, Geftakys agreed that Grimes was overextended as she attempted to care for five children while running a small private practice, conducting semi-annual seminars for the psychology licensing exam, teaching and remaining active in her church.

“Mara Grimes was a lady who didn’t know her limits,” said Dan Garcia, the state attorney who successfully argued for revocation of Grimes’ foster care license.

“I just have serious reservations about anybody placing any children in that home under any circumstances,” he said.

Ivory Johnson, deputy director for children’s services at the county Social Services Department, said information developed in the course of the adoption process and the inquiry into Frank’s death led to the conclusion that Grimes should not receive another child.

Without specifying the information, she said such investigations focus on a parent’s ability to be aware of a child’s needs and provide individual attention. Johnson said that, “when you put all these things together, it increases the probability factor” of another accident like the one involving Frank.

Moreover, the department compiled evidence that Grimes allegedly “harassed” two families who took in two of the foster children removed from her home after Frank’s death, Johnson said.

Grimes filed several complaints of abuse and neglect against Pat and Maria Narvaez, who housed the 23-month-old who has since been returned to Grimes. Investigators found no substantiation for the complaints.

Maria Narvaez said her family endured “harassment and verbal abuse” from Grimes, who, she said, would also attempt to peer into their back yard. Eventually, meetings between the Narvaezes and Grimes were shifted to a neutral location, but one of those ended in a public scene when Grimes exploded at her, said Narvaez, who also wanted to adopt the child.

“Foster parents shouldn’t have to go through this from ex-foster parents,” she said.

Grimes contends, however, that her accusations of finding spider bites and bruises on the child were true. In the Voices for Children report, Faber, the child’s attorney, is quoted as saying that the Narvaez home is “barely adequate” and that she had found a “large abrasion” on the child’s arm during a visit.

A second family, Rachel and David Cross, who still are caring for another of Grimes’ ex-foster children, filed a document with the court requesting safeguards for their family. The desired protections included no contact with Grimes at the Cross home and a ruling keeping all parties in the case 50 yards away from the house.

“During the time that we thought we had a confidential placement, Mara was able to gain our names, our address, our phone number and information on the contents of our back yard,” Rachel Cross wrote. “It is worth noting that our back yard is completely enclosed by a seven-foot redwood fence.”

The couple declined to comment on the matter.

Grimes, who said she accidentally stumbled on her foster son at the Cross home while visiting friends nearby, maintains she has given up attempting to regain that child because he has formed new bonds with the couple.

For Grimes, who disagrees with virtually all negative characterizations of herself and views herself as the victim of a social services system run amok, there remains one major unanswered question: Why were child protective workers so intent on separating her from her family?

“I have been saying from the beginning ‘Why are you doing this? Why are you doing this to me? You have no right to take my children from me unless you have some kind of suspicion that they are in danger,’ ” she said.

But for Garcia, the state attorney, the bottom line is Frank’s untimely demise in the front passenger seat of Grimes’ van.

“My feeling is there is a baby who is dead today who should still be alive, and it was a preventable accident,” he said.