Protect the children - within the parameters of the law

Frontiersman editorial board

If society is a condition in which people must learn to temper their emotional impulses and be guided by their logical tendencies, then the law is the tool we use to accomplish that end. Our efforts to live as purely logical creatures have never approached anything like perfection, however. There are many intersections of emotion and logic, even where the law is concerned.

The Kelley child abuse case has forced Alaskans to closely examine one of those intersections. We know the Office of Children's Services is tasked with the daunting challenge of protecting children from several forms of abuse and neglect. The job is greater than the resources available. The job is also mentally, emotionally, and sometimes physically overwhelming. Most people would not choose to work in that environment - an environment in which the news is bad more often than it is good; an environment in which it quickly becomes clear that even the most strenuous efforts will fail to even stem the tide of abuse and neglect.

In an attempt to protect abused children from further trauma, the agency has enjoyed a high level of secrecy. Because the OCS charter is to protect children, who often have little self-determination in the eyes of the law, the agency also enjoys a more lenient application of evidence to justify intervention. While the law must bear the burden of proof before assigning guilt, OCS must simply be convinced (sometimes without any physical evidence) that a crime has been committed. An impassioned accusation can be as damning as a smoking gun.

Coupled with this reduced burden of proof is a remarkable level of power over individuals and families. In the case of Mark Ruby that became all too clear when law enforcement found no sufficient evidence to bring child abuse charges against him, but OCS (then DFYS) determined his guilt, based upon little more than an accusation. From that point forward, OCS meddled in Ruby's life, sending letters that affected a future custody battle, and making statements that ruined Ruby's chances to land employment in his field of expertise.

We must note that the police investigation did not find Ruby innocent - no police investigation can ever do that for anyone. But it failed to produce any evidence to warrant charges. We support OCS' efforts to protect children. We also believe those efforts must function within our society's definition of due process, however. We urge the Legislature to open a window on this important agency, and we urge OCS to consider the law as well as the safety of children.