I get warm cuddlies for abused children, not for parents... In fact, in the scenario presented in this thread, if mom wanted dad still involved, I'd probably want to talk about termination on her, for failing to recognize the need to protect the kid.

Back to the practical, in general if a prosecutor passes the buck on to legal aid, or whoever, and misses the opportunity to secure relinquishment affidavit, then said prosecutor has whiffed on reducing a weeklong trial (for termination) and hundreds of hours of work (for overloaded caseworkers AND attorneys and judges, etc.) down to a near-ministerial act.

If its ok to make parental rights termination a formal part of a criminal plea bargain, then the same logic would hold that it is ok to force a defendant accused of Family Violence Assault, etc., to get a divorce as part of the plea. Divorce and parental rights termination are both Family Code matters. Question: Why aren't we making every scumbag wife beater in Texas divorce his wife so that she can live in peace? Answer: such a plea bargain goes WAY beyond our oath. If it is absurd to require a divorce, then it is equally absurd to require a termination.

Sad as it may be, it is dangerous to seek this type of extreme "relief" for the victim. Once you cross the line between civil and criminal, it gets messy. Yes, yes, we all want to protect the kiddos, but we can't be all things at all times. If simply telling the victim to call Legal Aid leaves you feeling empty (knowing that they may never get around to helping them) then get on the phone to your legal peers (who aren't prosecutors) for the names of some good family lawyers who may be looking for a little pro bono work. Call your local Bar Association's Family Law section, or the closest equivalent. Heck, call the media to spotlight your victim's plight....There is ALOT we can do to help the victim out in a scenario like this, short of mucking up a solid plea with an ethically dubious stipulation to the defendant's surrender of parental rights. Use your imagination...use your telephone...but dont abuse your oath.

And if this means that a CPS attorney or one of my fellow prosecutors down the hall has to expend hours upon hours getting ready for a termination trial, so be it. Doing the right thing is always worthwhile. Conversely, doing the wrong thing is never justified, no matter how much time it saves someone. I've tried my share of termination cases and I know they aren't fun. But thats why they call it work.

Yes, our oath requires us to seek justice. Unfortunately, sometimes it is simply not practical(or ethical) for us prosecutors to dole out ALL of the justice that a defendant has coming to him. Gee, often times justice would be served by the defendant getting a good ass kicking. Does our oath require that we be the ones to administer that partuclar form of justice?

But aren't we treating like cases alike.
In most of the cases I get like this CPS is involved because Mom is as big a threat as Dad. Generally, she is a participant to the abuse by commission or ommission and is not just a "less sympathetic party" but often a defendant or one of the parties in a CPS case. Rarely do I come across a mother who reports the abuse of her child immediately, supports her child 100% and doesn't try to provide a defense for the perp. I just think its a shame that ANY time we do have protective parents we can't give that parent (not to mention the child) the ultimate resolution without having to worry about fighting a grievence somewhere down the road.

PS: I know I'm preaching to the converted choir and I appreciate everyones input. Hey Fred, at least this time the Mom didn't go back and marry the perp before our trial !

PSS: No one said anything about requiring the termination. Just another part of the bargaining. And somewhere in the back of my mind I do remember a Houston civil case where the plaintiff got to smack the defense atty., hmmmmm.

What's "absurd" is someone who doesn't personally have dual responsibility passing judgment while using words like "ethically dubious" and suggesting unrealistic panaceas like "alert the media" and "pro bono". Maybe Williamson County has silkleg firms looking to give away billable hours so they feel better about driving their beemers past beggars in the street. Solos in rural areas who grind just to make ends meet, not so much. Most of them won't touch a termination case, regardless of whether they're getting paid, much less doing it for free. And having worked in several different forms of mass media, and from several perspectives, the idea of any meaningful coverage of such a relatively mundane situation is highly implausible.

Give me the cite to the termination order that got, "mucked up" and reversed, please.

And spare me the condescending sophomoric lecture. This is not talk radio.

I was unaware that the legislature has "ordered" us to seek parental rights terminations in criminal cases.

Maybe I missed it because they didn't put it in all caps, like the subject line of the last post. It's so much easier to understand that way....