Chapter 7 - The Dependency Hearing
Dependency court was not criminal court.
Different questions.
Criminal:
Did Julian commit offenses beyond reasonable doubt?
Dependency:
Is Mia abused, neglected, or unsafe under applicable civil standard, and what placement protects her?
Judge Marianne Foster made that clear.
The state presented:
Medical documentation.
Forensic interview.
School report.
Party witnesses.
Recorded statements.
Temporary financial evidence only insofar as control/motive relevant.
Julian testified? On advice, he invoked Fifth Amendment on questions overlapping criminal charges. In civil dependency case, adverse inferences may be allowed in some circumstances, but carefully. His attorney focused on records and experts.
He proposed:
Mia return under in-home safety plan.
Professional nanny.
No corporal punishment.
Therapy.
Monitoring.
CPS opposed immediate return.
Why?
Mia feared him.
He had not accepted responsibility.
The recorded attempt to conceal injuries showed poor protective capacity.
Pending criminal charges serious.
He had instructed child to give false explanation.
Judge agreed.
Finding:
Mia dependent due abuse and unsafe parental conduct.
Placement:
Remain with Evelyn.
Julian:
No in-person contact initially.
Therapeutic communication only when Mia’s clinician and court deem appropriate.
He could send neutral letters through therapist.
No direct calls.
No gifts used to pressure.
Important:
Parental rights not terminated.
Not yet.
Julian remained legal father.
He retained right to counsel.
Case review.
Reunification services unless court later changed goal.
He had to complete:
Parenting program focused nonphysical discipline.
Individual therapy.
Domestic/anger assessment.
Child-abuse intervention.
Follow criminal orders.
Demonstrate accountability.
No financial coercion around Mia.
Then family decision-making.
Evelyn had temporary physical custody/kinship placement.
Could I make medical decisions?
Dependency order granted me day-to-day and routine medical authority, major decisions under agency/court depending jurisdiction.
I did not become owner of Mia’s trust.
Pioneer still trustee.
First County Trust still UTMA successor custodian.
Separate.
Then school.
Mia did not want return Hawthorne immediately.
Too many adults knew.
We enrolled her in a smaller school two months later after therapeutic plan.
Pioneer trust could pay tuition because directly for Mia.
I had own pension and savings.
I did not request caregiver salary.
Could I?
Kinship stipend available from state.
I accepted it.
At first I felt ashamed.
Social worker Tara said:
“Support intended for child placement is not profiteering.”
Good.
I documented.
No need martyrdom.
Then Julian’s letters.
First:
Mia, Daddy loves you. I’m sorry the party became scary.
Therapist did not deliver.
Why?
No ownership of harm.
Second:
I’m sorry I grabbed you and that your wrists were hurt. I should not have restrained you. I should not have hit you. I should not have hidden you.
Therapist considered.
Mia chose not to read.
Her right.
Third months later:
No request.
Stored.
Then criminal pretrial.
Julian’s attorney moved to exclude mic recordings as violation of privacy.
Caleb’s system recorded audio from a microphone Julian knowingly agreed to wear for event production.
But did Julian consent to continuous private recording?
Contract had clause:
“Audio may be continuously recorded during event coverage.”
Julian signed.
Nathan’s conversation might raise attorney-client privilege separate.
Judge ruled:
Julian’s statements admissible.
Mia’s statements admissible with protections.
Nathan communications involving legal advice partially privileged unless crime-fraud exception or privilege waived.
The most incriminating abuse concealment lines did not require Nathan.
CFO conversation was not privileged.
Prosecution did not overreach.
They excluded some Nathan advice.
Good.
Then party guest videos.
Several guests recorded Julian grabbing bottle and shouting:
“I own this house and I’ll do whatever I want with her.”
Admissible.
My slap also visible.
Defense would use.
I was prepared.
Then financial case:
Would be tried separately? To avoid prejudice, judge severed child-abuse trial from financial-misappropriation trial.
Excellent.
Child jury would not hear every money allegation.
Financial trial later.
Then Julian’s plea offer.
State proposed:
Plea to felony child abuse, unlawful restraint, obstruction.
Dismiss bottle assault count maybe.
Recommendation 4-6 years active.
Resolve financial case separately.
Julian refused.
He still believed jury would see strict parent destroyed by overreaching mother and police.
Then he violated a bond condition.
Not contact Mia directly? He sent a birthday gift through a party guest without therapist.
A new doll.
Identical to broken one.
Mia opened package and froze.
No threatening note.
Daddy loves you.
Was that contact violation? Yes if direct gifts prohibited.
Court sanctioned:
Tighter monitoring.
No further indirect contact.
Bond remained, but warning.
Mia asked me to donate doll.
I did.
No symbolism forced.
Then my house camera captured someone at 2:00 a.m. leaving flowers.
Police found Julian? No. Could be random, don't need.
Keep grounded.
Then six months after party, the child-abuse trial began.
Mia would not testify live if avoidable? Confrontation clause. Her forensic interview may not be admissible if testimonial without cross-exam unless she testifies or exception. Prosecutors often need child testimony via accommodations. At seven/eight, she may testify remotely with statutory safeguards if court finds trauma. Let's do.
Judge allowed closed-circuit testimony after expert finding live courtroom with father would cause serious emotional distress, consistent law.
Defense could cross-examine live remotely.
Mia would still face questions.
May you like
I hated that.
Continue to the next chapter: Mia remained safely with Evelyn while Julian retained his legal status as her father, but his refusal to accept responsibility meant the criminal trial would now require the eight-year-old child he had hidden behind the curtain to answer questions under oath.
