Tale of Girl, 3, Offers Look at Disputed Custody Policy

She is only 3, a dark-eyed, pigtailed toddler far too young to understand the often conflicting goals that accompany society’s intervention in the lives of its youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

Yet the North Hollywood girl finds herself caught in the middle of a social experiment the state calls “family reunification,” which offers a second chance to parents who have gone wrong.

She is waiting to see if she will remain with the grandmother and brother who have been her family virtually since birth or be placed with her mother, a woman with a record of using drugs whom she has always known as “Kim.”

The girl’s case is hardly unique in a county that must decide each year where to place thousands of children. But because The Times was given access to records that are almost always sealed, this case provides a rare look at a system caught in a complicated balancing act between society’s desire to keep families together and its obligation to make sure children are kept safe.

The county’s child welfare agency--engaged in an extraordinary boycott of a court commissioner--this week asked a state appellate court to block his order that the girl be sent to her mother. The county Department of Children and Family Services contends that Commissioner Bradley A. Stoutt has ignored strong evidence that the girl’s health and safety could be imperiled in her mother’s home.

Beginning in March, the agency has used its legal power to block Stoutt from hearing new cases, saying he has a “pattern of making orders which endanger children.”

But Stoutt continues to hear as many as 500 older cases that are part of his ongoing caseload. As in many other cases that have come before him, social workers contend that Stoutt has given far too much weight to blood lineage and not enough to the imperatives of parental responsibility and child safety.

Reports from the county child welfare agency point to mother Kimberly Scott’s many years on and off drugs, her failure to stick with rehabilitation programs and her recent decision to move in with a boyfriend who just got out of state prison as potential dangers to the girl.

Reunification “will put the minor’s well-being and safety at risk,” a county social worker’s report to the judge declares. Grandmother Samantha Scott, 52, expresses the same fear.

“If I thought for one minute that my daughter loved this child or cared for her, I would not be fighting so hard,” she says. “But I know this baby will be hurt. I have to do everything I can to keep these children safe.”

Kimberly Scott, 23, declined to answer questions, as did her attorney. Commissioner Stoutt and most other parties in the case also cited confidentiality laws surrounding child dependency cases in declining to comment.

But in one social worker’s reports and in an appearance last year on a daytime television talk show, Kimberly Scott spoke for herself, telling of her effort to reform her life and regain her daughter, by staying off drugs and holding a regular job. “I’m trying to build a relationship with my daughter,” she said on the program, “and things are going wonderfully.”

She depicted herself as the victim of a power struggle with her mother, saying Samantha Scott wants to keep her granddaughter only “to make up for the mistakes she made with me and my brothers and sisters.”

Acknowledging that she had “a lot of work to do,” she pledged to make every effort to become a responsible parent.

The reports end with Stoutt’s order that the girl move into her mother’s Simi Valley home this coming Monday for a 30-day visit. If that trial run is judged successful, Kimberly Scott could permanently regain custody of her daughter.

The plan comes despite the strong protests of the child’s county social worker, who last month asked that the youngster be placed for permanent adoption in the “stable home” where she is “well bonded” to her grandmother Samantha Scott, 52, and her 4-year-old half brother.

Reports as recently as last month by the county children’s welfare agency cite a litany of problems that it said should prevent the placement of the girl with her mother:

* Despite orders by Stoutt and referrals from a county social worker, the mother had not taken a random drug test from March through last week. Such testing, typically required once a week, is standard procedure for drug abusers who want their children back. Scott’s lawyer has pledged to the court, however, that she will immediately begin taking daily drug tests.

* The mother did not enroll in a court-ordered drug counseling program. Instead she is “hostile, uncooperative, manipulative and blaming of others, without taking any responsibility for her own choices and actions,” according to a social worker’s report.

* Kimberly Scott recently moved in with her boyfriend, whom the agency’s reports describe as a “violent criminal.” He was released from state prison in May, after serving more than three years of a seven-year sentence for burglary. His 3 1/2-page rap sheet, attached to a social worker’s report, shows he has been accused over a period of years of numerous robberies, as well as battery, assault with a deadly weapon, violating a domestic violence court order and other crimes.

The man could not be reached for comment. He and Kimberly Scott are the parents of the 4-year-old boy who is the girl’s half brother. Samantha Scott has been declared the boy’s legal guardian, and neither Kimberly Scott nor her boyfriend is currently trying to gain his custody.

In the Scott case, like most others in the dependency system, social workers, lawyers and judges must sift through information that is far from definitive.

For example, the reports from social workers criticize the mother and grandmother for going on a TV talk show hosted by Marilyn Kagan to battle over who should win custody. In addition, one of the reports says the mother and grandmother can be overly dramatic.

The reports also faulted Samantha Scott for animosity toward her daughter, saying such feelings hinder any chance of resolving the conflict. And the grandmother acknowledges that she lost a job and is on welfare.

Social workers have at times said they believed Kimberly Scott was making progress in building a relationship with her daughter. The staff at a county-operated visitation center reported after daylong meetings that the girl “is attached to mother and sometimes even cries when the visit ends.”

Yet the girl’s current social worker reported another potentially confounding fact last month--that two preschool teachers said the girl told them, “Kim hit me.” This allegation, though, was far from definitive. Asked to demonstrate, the little girl put her hand on her face. Then when asked if her mother had been playing she said, “Yes.” The girl had no marks on her face. One teacher reported her behavior as normal; the other said she was “real distant” after visits with her mother.

Kimberly Scott vehemently insisted that she would never hit her daughter, the social worker’s report says.

In weighing such allegations, welfare workers are supposed to follow state law that sets at least three major goals: First, to provide “maximum protection” for children currently being abused or neglected or in danger of such harm. Second, to focus on the “preservation of the family whenever possible.” And third, to reach a final disposition as expeditiously as possible.

Typically, the courts have required that biological parents who have lost their children be given 18 months of “reunification services”--everything from random drug testing and parenting classes to support groups and substance abuse counseling--to help them prove they are ready to regain custody. In the eyes of the law, even felons and drug addicts deserve a chance to prove they can be good parents.

In the Scott case, the county has argued that the 18 months expired and the birth mother showed through her lack of attention to the mandated programs that she is not ready to parent. Stoutt ruled, however, that Kimberly Scott should continue to be offered the programs until at least October.

Some lawyers who regularly appear in Stoutt’s court defend him, saying he is a sensitive jurist who makes protection of children a top priority. The lawyers would not comment on the Scott case.

As she awaits the court’s final decision, Samantha Scott gains solace once a week in a support group called Grandparents as Parents. On Monday nights in West Los Angeles, she and at least a dozen other men and women--who would normally be planning or living their retirements--console each other and protest what they say is the dependency court’s coddling of their children who have proved to be wayward parents.

Samantha Scott has told the group that she lost everything as she helped her troubled daughter raise two children, beginning in 1991 when they moved to Sacramento for the birth of Kimberly’s son. In 1993 the situation reached rock bottom when the grandmother--having lost her job as a medical receptionist--went on welfare. Later, caring for both the girl and her brother, grandmother Scott moved for two months into a homeless shelter.

“I wasn’t working. I was going to court a lot. I was caring for an infant and a toddler,” she said. “It was very hard.”

Now, she strains to make ends meet caring for her grandchildren on $594 a month in welfare and $245 in food stamps. Rent for her two-bedroom apartment is $500 a month. Sometimes, it takes selling a little jewelry or other possessions at the end of the month to make it through, she says. That government support would be cut if the girl is sent to her mother.

Now, the Scott case rests at an uneasy crossroads. Samantha Scott is not sure yet what to tell her granddaughter. She knows that she will probably have to prepare her for a dramatic change in routine. But she holds out hope that the state appellate court will block the transfer of the girl.

“How do I explain to this baby that she has to leave, that we have to pack up her clothes?” asked Samantha Scott. “I don’t know. I just don’t know.”