The tragic death of five-year-old Tatianna Garcia, whether it proves to be murder or a tragic accident – and the jury is still out (figuratively) on that issue, may have also been entirely preventable. Court records, acquired by the Vanguard, of the family court battle between the two parents shows alarming allegations and ultimately a custody decision that may not have been in the best interest of either young and defenseless child.
I recently sat in a family courtroom during a custody battle with Judge Kathleen White presiding. She had to explain to a distraught mother trying to get her child back that the standard is not what the mother deserves, it is what is best for the kids.
The question that one must ask while reading through this tragic case is to question who was looking out for the kids in the Talamantes-Garcia home. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, but the accusations alone flying back and forth suggest – whether they were accurate or inaccurate – that at best the focus of the parents was on their own needs and not those of their kids.
In a filing that awarded sole custody to the mother, it notes that “Mother alleges that father is both physically and verbally abusive toward mother. Mother reports that both children have witnessed verbal and physical abuse, including an incident in September 2010 when father pulled a knife on mother.”
It goes on to state, “Father says that mother is making up stories and that the parents never argued or fought in the presence of the children.”
It goes on to note, “It is recommended that father have supervised visitation with the children.” It further notes, “It is recommended that both parents participate and complete parenting classes appropriate for young, school-aged children and provide proof of completion to the court.”
The recommendation is signed by Darlene Woodcock, Child Custody Recommending Counselor and the order is signed by Yolo County Judge Samuel McAdam on February 22, 2012.
Court documents note, “Mother does not agree to supervised visits” and “she states she has proof of abuse to child.” She provided the court with photos and text messages.
On the same day, Ms. Talamantes filed a restraining order against Oracio Garcia, then 24, of Suisun.
The court documents also note the father stated that he “would like (an) adult to be present at the time of the exchange due to she has a anger problem that could make the situation uncomtrable for our children.”
He stated that he had his parents supervise to see “that I don’t treat my kids bad. We use to stay with my parents 3 yrs so they could speak and say how I was with my children.”
The father claims that he was diagnosed with depression. “I can’t sleep just thinking what kind of environment my kids are in. Because she don’t have a stable home for my children.” He added, “I also hope she is not living with her oldest sister which they can be in a danger.”
He later stated, “She is a violent person I should be concerned of her I have. Police report copies that I got. One making threats to my oldest sister and second attacked my father in his own home while living in Modesto, CA.” He added, “In our own home she will get violent and damage the property in our childrens present.”
He also stated, “She left our home in Modesto without telling me where she was taking my kids. But I never filed a case for stealing my children. Because I haven’t been able to have a civil conversation with her, because of her attitude.”
He argued that his parents had a stable home and were willing to help him and the kids completely.
He claimed that when she called in January 2012, he could hear the children crying in the background and when he inquired as to why, “she just hung up on me.”
He wrote, “She was harassing my oldest sister with texting her and also my youngest sister where she makes threats in texting, on December 2011.”
In the court file is a certificate of completion for Oracio Garcia from the Safequest Solano for successfully completing a 28-hour or 14-week Domestic Violence Anger Management course on June 1, 2010, as directed by the Solano Superior Court.
In the meantime, in her request for a restraining and stay away order, Ms. Talamentes wrote, “Oracio Garcia has been harassing me through text messages and repeated phone calls.”
She claims there that she felt “threatened because of past domestic violence in our relationship.”
She added, “He would intimidate my son spoke about fights in all our conversations. Tried to stab me with a knife.”
She also stated that he would not properly care for the children, the son would cry when she left the home and the diapers would be soaked and at times the kids were not fed.
Hindsight in these matters is, of course, twenty-twenty. Both parents appear, whether it is genuine or not, to have concerns about the kids in the care of the other parent. It appears that the mother had evidence in the form of texts and photos of the father’s abuse.
On the day of the tragedy, an officer stopped in front of the Talamantes home to continue working traffic. She came outside and asked the officer several questions about why the officer was there.
Her behavior prompted the officer to call for another officer to come out so they could do a welfare check at the home. According to Assistant Police Chief Pytel, the officer was aware at that time that there was at least one small child there.
The officers would speak to the mother and another adult relative for about 30 to 40 minutes. At that time, they determined that there was no sign of abuse or neglect, and they determined the home to be clean.
The officers observed the children laughing and they appeared to be cared for. The officers would discuss resources for the family, but then left.
A few hours later, young Tatianna Garcia was dead and the mother in custody, although police officials and the District Attorney’s office have released very few details.
One question needs to be asked – if the court had taken more decisive action on February 22, 2012, would the young Ms. Garcia still be alive? And whose responsibility was it to make sure that the children were the ones put into the best possible position?
Someone has tragically failed this young girl and she has lost her life because of it. As a community, it is time to ask what went wrong. We need a full investigation into the child welfare system in Yolo County and the family courts.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Someone has tragically failed this young girl and she has lost her life because of it. As a community, it is time to ask what went wrong. We need a full investigation into the child welfare system in Yolo County and the family courts.[/quote]
Just like I stated earlier, it will be interesting to see who would be blamed for this other than the person who did it.
What do you consider the function of the family court system? Don’t they have the obligation in your view to remove innocent children from parents that might do them harm? If they failed in their duties, would you consider that blameworthy?
And if she came crying to you because the courts had taken away her children I could’ve easily seen you demanding an investigation for that. It’s easy to Monday morning quarterback.
I did state that hindsight was 20/20, but I have had dozens of mothers come to me after the courts took their kids away and I have yet to call for an investigation. So perhaps you need to have a fuller understanding of things before you leap to conclusions.
dozens? I don’t believe you.
Thanks. Also thanks for answering my four questions.
I was going to post a few, but the accounts are too personal even redacting information.
OK David… these are not GI’s answers to your four questions, but mine…
First, you should (although I know you won’t) acknowledge that you were not asking four questions that you needed answers to, you were lashing back…
[quote]What do you consider the function of the family court system? [/quote]Within the limits of law (not necessarily morals), to adjudicate contested matters, respecting rights of the individuals involved, and being particularly sensitive to the rights of safety for those who cannot assert their own rights. Perhaps they could have leveled the playing field by arming the child, teaching her to use the court-issued weapon, and instructing her about the right of self-defense.
[quote] Don’t they have the obligation in your view to remove innocent children from parents that [u][b]might[/b][/u] do them harm?[/quote]Right. Family court should be omniscient, perhaps god-like, and anticipate any possible bad outcome for every case that comes in front of them, and make decisions that will absolutely prevent any bad outcome for any child. Do you allow the children under your care to ride a bike or go outside? I do not, based on what has been presented see where the Court should have deemed there to be a “clear and present danger”.
[quote] Don’t they have the obligation in your view to remove innocent children from parents that might do them harm?[/quote]In MY view, they had an obligation to determine the rights of the parties, interpret the law, and act if there was a “clear and present danger”. This question was somewhat petulant.
[quote] Don’t they have the obligation in your view to remove innocent children from parents that [u][b]might[/b][/u] do them harm?[/quote]See above, plus you need to weigh your term “might” in the context of your other ‘positions’. MIGHT Mr Dev did what he was accused of? If so, by the logic you have presented, he should definitely been incarcerated. MIGHT I be a sociopath, and possibly do harm? Send the police immediately.
GI
[quote]Just like I stated earlier, it will be interesting to see who would be blamed for this other than the person who did it.[/quote]
I don’t think the issue that David is attempting to address is “who to blame” but rather, what steps can be taken to prevent these tragedies from occurring. As a doc who was previously asked to provide medical expertise to panels making decisions about child placement ( and who had to stop doing it because I could not stand the “Family Reunification” at any cost attitude in the system with which I was working at the time, I can say that this is not easy. Certainly an individual who harms or neglects a child is responsible. Does that mean that the rest of us should just shrug, close our eyes and pretend that we don’t see ? I don’t think so. I think that there must be some middle ground.
One substantive question I have about this case is , at the time the officers were interviewing the mother and doing the home safety check, were they aware that there had been mutual accusations of violent behavior ? If they had known, would they potentially have viewed the home situation the same way in light of the first officers apparent first impression that he should call back up ?
Please do not make the assumption that I am blaming anyone at this point. I think that this is tragic all around. There are no winners here. Not the mother, not the father, not the sibling or grandparents. Not the police who are likely to agonize over the decision they made that day. Not the social service workers
and officials who made the decision to place the children with their mother. Perhaps there might have been multiple points at which some different decision or process might have avoided this tragedy. That is where I think we should be focusing our questions.
“First, you should (although I know you won’t) acknowledge that you were not asking four questions that you needed answers to, you were lashing back… “
You are correct, I was not asked questions I needed answers to, instead I was trying to figure out the point of Growth Izzue’s comment. As Medwoman noted, I wasn’t looking for who to blame, but rather to determine how we could avoid the tragedy in the future and my questions were aimed at ascertaining GI’s view of the system, but he for whatever reason dodged that and instead challenged whether i had spoken with parents whose children were taken away – too many to count. I usually get a few each month, and now that we do public meetings, a number have come forward that way as well. More often than not, I end up agreeing with the system and believe that as Medwoman stated, the system is too predicated on reunion at all costs.
Family Court is a tough place and in Yolo County it seems there is room for improvement. Maybe the Grand Jury should look into it but let’s not dog pile our public safety people in this case. I’m sure there are many who are second guessing themselves about this tragic case. I doubt that anyone could be harder on them then they are being on themselves.
[quote] I’m sure there are many who are second guessing themselves about this tragic case. I doubt that anyone could be harder on them then they are being on themselves.[/quote]
I feel for the police officers that did the home safety check.
No-one is second guessing themselves in the family court system. They refuse to admit or correct their mistakes, they make no effort to revisit their decisions to see if they might have been wrong, and they make no effort to correct the mistakes that are pointed out to them.
To the little legal cabal, closure is more important than correct.
This is not the first disaster from the Yolo Family Court and it won’t be the last. Many people have died as a direct result of the family court decisions, children have committed suicide, teenage girls raped by mother’s boyfriend, the list is endless…. and there is no effort to fix the mess.
Woodcock has a standard “parenting plan” that she recommends to the court; regardless of the “best interests of the children”. Woodcock is not making the effort to get it right, and this death (like the many before) is not going to change a thing.
McAdam has openly admitted he has made mistakes in a number of cases, yet he has neglected to correct a single one of his mistakes. When the facts don’t fit his predetermined outcome, he makes up his own “facts.” Is that someone who should be involved in family decisions??? Kathleen White is no different, and the rest of that crooked club is not willing to alter a decision made by a colleague.
The Grand Jury is a waste of breath. They are selected by the presiding court judge and managed by a designee from the DA’s office. Hence, anything they might want to do is unlikely to go anywhere. We would all be better served having decisions made by juries, rather than arrogant and unqualified “judges”. Wolk & Yamada have been MIA on legal reform. Where do the Assembly candidates stand?
Do we, or are we ever likely to have information about whether or not they had information about the mutual charges of violent behavior ? I am continuing to belabor this point because many times, at least in medicine, when there is a near miss, or a tragedy, it is often because a critical person made an erroneous decision because they simply did not have the information that would have helped them see the same situation in a different light. Missing a critical piece of information is a systems issue and if it played a role, would be one concrete improvement that could be made.
What would you suggest the legislature do?
Mr. Toad
[quote]What would you suggest the legislature do?[/quote]
I don’t know to whom you were addressing the question, but for me it is not necessarily a matter of what the legislature should do. It is a matter of how processes can be improved. For example in this case, if the police doing the investigation at the home, did not have what would appear to me to be a critical piece of information, that would be a process that could be improved. If, given significant suspicion that all might not be well, enough for instance to prompt an in house evaluation with a 30 to 40 minute conversation with the mother, would it not seem prudent to know if any charges or claims of parental endangerment have been made much in the same way that if I report a suspicion of domestic violence, there is a process by which this is investigated that involves past history of same if applicable.
This is not about speculation, or a witch hunt, it is about taking reasonable precautions to make sure that
clues to a potentially dangerous situation are not missed.
Anonymous Pundit
I do not know how I managed to overlook your post, but I did. It would seem that you have a lot of knowledge that I do not share. If still on the thread, could you answer a few questions:
1) Do you have examples of the cases that you are referencing ?
2) Do you have access to the “standard parenting plan” that you feel is being consistently used ?
3) Were the mistakes you say McAdam made irreversible ? For example, in my field, if I give the wrong
medication and the patient is allergic, I provide some Benedryl or epi, and the patient will almost
invariably be fine. If I remove the wrong organ…..not so much so.
4) Are there specific areas of legislation which you feel Wolk and Yamada had brought to their attention
and failed to pursue, or do you feel that they simply have not been proactive in this area ?
B Nice [quote]I feel for the police officers that did the home safety check.[/quote] Me, too. 🙁
Medwoman [quote]Were the mistakes you say McAdam made irreversible? For example, in my field, if I give the wrong medication and the patient is allergic, I provide some Benedryl or epi, and the patient will almost invariably be fine.[/quote] If you are there with the patient at the time when they take the medicine, which rarely occurs. As you must know, epi needs to be administered very quickly after the onset of potentially fatal anaphylaxis.
DG [quote]GI’s view of the system, but he for whatever reason dodged that and instead challenged whether i had spoken with parents whose children were taken away – too many to count.[/quote]Speaking to parents who have had their children taken away is different than what GI originally asserted, which was:
[quote]And if she came crying to you because the courts had taken away her children I could’ve easily seen you demanding an investigation for that.[/quote]
To which you replied you’ve had dozens such interactions.
Medwoman [quote]One substantive question I have about this case is , at the time the officers were interviewing the mother and doing the home safety check, were they aware that there had been mutual accusations of violent behavior ?[/quote] I am not sure, but I highly doubt it. A welfare check, from what I understand after doing some research, is generally about immediate peril. The police called for a welfare check in this instance it seems because the mother was acting oddly…it was determined that there wasn’t any imminent threat to the children (obviously incorrectly). Because of the immediacy of welfare checks, I highly doubt law enforcement has access to court documents, mental health records, etc.
In fact, I hope they don’t…not that I personally have anything to hide (I am far too law-abiding and boring for that), but it seems a bit police-statey to me.