Child Care Law for Health Professionals Book

I'm going to start by saying I don't usually leave reviews. Mainly because my views for the books I read tend to change as time passes. A book I disliked might grow on me later on and vice versa. But A Tug of War made me break my method. For the first time in a while I felt really compelled to leave a review. Not just for the book overall, but as a warning to anyone who reads it.

Prior to this book I was familiar with the case. While I was studying to be a social worker, Kelsey's case came up repeatedly. It's hard not to come across it. The number of case examples that come out of this one story from Meeker, Oklahoma is amazing. You can analyze this case from so many different angles and still get blown away by what you uncover. So I picked this book up already knowing the background, but I wanted to read it to get an idea of the judge's view because as he said his decision has been blamed for what ultimately happened.

From the very beginning I knew I was not going to find what I hoped to. First off, Judge Key stated that he wanted to present the case as he saw it to allow the reader to decide what they would have done in his place. How can a reader give an unbiased opinion when the case is being presented in a biased way? Every page of this book was filled to the brim of all the amazing ways Raye Dawn is the best mother. When the occasional negative point was made about her, it was sandwiched inbetween other amazing things. On the flip side when he speaks about the paternal family, the page is filled with negative comments and then when a praise is given, it's followed by half a page of criticism. If a judge is presiding over this case and he already sees one party as the angel, and the other as a demon, is he really looking at the facts or is he basing it on his opinion? If this was the judge's view during the case, mom is a victim, grandmother and father is the devil, then it's no wonder he gave her back to mom. He's basing his judgement on feelings not fact.

Issue two, the 'he said she said.' I'm sorry, but what is this book listed as? Not non fiction for sure. Maybe autobiographical? The number of "allegedly" and 'he said she said' that is in it brought be back to my high school days. As I read the comments, I kept flipping to the back of the book to look for an appendix where the documents proving these statements were to be found (spoiler, there isn't one.) Since when does gossip stand up in a court of law? Since when does gossip have a higher standing than facts? If you want to make these comments and allegations, you have to be able to back it up. Saying "person A heard from person B that" doesn't say anything. This book is like a bad game of telephone.

Third, the glossing over of information. Peppered in with no expansion is information that any lay person would know is pertinent to the case. Smith and Porter started dating in October 2004, the grandparents file for visitation, bruises and scratches are noticed. The last two are repeated again and again but the first is mentioned in one sentence and then nothing. Isn't that important information? Smith and Kelsey spent the night at Porter's house around the time the clavicle was broken. Mentioned once then never again. Why? Porter was around Kelsey after the restraining order was placed (they got married when there was a restraining order against her boyfriend for her daughter). Mentioned once then never again. Porter was there around the time Kelsey's legs were broken. Briggs had custody but they changed the visitation giving Smith more access. The August visit mentioned a lamp falling on the child bruising her cheek before the auto accident. Mentioned once, then nothing. These are important facts that should have been expanded on to give the reader a better understanding of the case. But it seems if it didn't help the mother's case it was disregarded.

Lastly, the editing. I don't know who edited this book but they did a poor job. Grammar and the repeating of statements was hard to handle. One sentence was repeated three times on one page. That same sentence was repeated on two more pages. Whoever advised the author should have done a better job guiding him during the writing stage.

Overall, this book wasn't a very good case study. I wish it was because issues aside, if it had been written properly, this book would have presented a really good reference for future lawyers, social workers, judges or anyone interested in being part of the protection of children. Instead the reader was presented with a biased, inaccurate account of the case. For anyone wanting more information on the case, I do not recommend reading this or the paternal family's version either. Understanding a case doesn't necessarily mean hearing two sides of a story. Documents were released under the Ryan Luke law, I recommend reading those to get a better understanding of what happens. What you'll find is some of what was stayed by the judge contradicts what the mother said actually happened.