Defends Parental Rights of Mother Who Sexually Abused Child
In 1991, Oregon Legal Services succeeded in preserving a woman’s parental
rights to the son she had sexually abused. This lengthy case began in 1984
when Anita West was found guilty of second degree sexual misconduct with
her then three year-old son. West committed the crimes during scheduled
visits following her divorce from the boy’s father, Robert Eder, who had
formal custody. West was given five years probation and prohibited from
having further visitation. The court ordered that the mother could not
resume normal visitation until she obtained psychiatric treatment
for her sexual misdeeds. However, the mother steadfastly refused to get
treatment claiming that she was innocent of any wrongdoing. However, psychiatrists
unanimously agreed that West, who they judged to be paranoid and emotionally
unstable, did commit the crime for which she was convicted but that she
was in total denial. Furthermore, as late as 1988 psychiatrists concluded
that West continued to demonstrate a sexual interest in the boy. When Robert
Eder and his new wife initiated stepparent adoption proceedings of the
boy, they claimed that West’s consent to the adoption should not be necessary
given her past behavior. Specifically, they claimed that West had demonstrated
“wilful and unexcused neglect” of her children by repeatedly refusing court-required
treatment for her sexual misconduct, the essential precondition for resuming
full visitation rights. It was at that time that Oregon Legal Services
took up West’s cause. They claimed that West had not “wilfully neglected”
her son but had continued to demonstrate a concern to continue a parent-child
relationship. This so-called concern included letters to the boy laced
with sexual innuendo. After three years of litigation, legal services took
the case to the Oregon Supreme Court which denied the adoption and sustained
West’s parental rights.
See Eder v. West, 312 Oregon 244, 1991
Advocates Unemployment Benefits for Drug-Users
In 1994, Oregon Legal Services opposed an attempt to make it more difficult
for individuals fired from their jobs for illegal drug use to get unemployment
compensation. The rule-change was sparked by political leaders and businessmen
who argued that giving unemployment to individuals fired for failing drug
tests undermined their efforts to promote a drug-free workplace. Many also
objected to the huge expense of subsidizing such undeserving people. For
instance, one businessman said he began pressing for a tougher policy after
he discovered that 65 percent of the worker compensation claims, totaling
$600,000, paid out in the last 9 years went to the 5 percent of the workers
he laid off for illegal drug use. Oregon Legal Services objected to any
effort to limit drug users access to unemployment claiming that it encouraged
discrimination.
See Kathy Brock, “Rules, Drug Use Collide,” Business Journal-Portland,
April 8 1994, pg. 1
Seeks Welfare for Hustler
In 1995, Lane County Legal Aid Service argued the case of a man who
was attempting to lie his way on to welfare. Raymond Andrews was a High
School dropout who had been in and out of numerous jobs before deciding
to live on the street. Representing Andrews in a bid to get Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), Legal Aid claimed that Andrews was disabled by drug
addiction and various mental disorders which prevented him from getting
a job. Andrews said he felt "anxious and trapped in employment situations."
However, HHS denied Andrews claim noting that he was “a very skillful,
manipulative person who has learned to exploit persons and situations to
his best advantage.” Legal Aid then took Andrews baseless claim all the
way to a US Appeals Court. The Appeals Court likewise rejected Andrews
bid for disability noting that his use of drugs and alcohol did not constitute
a disability. Furthermore, the court noted that Andrews even admitted to
learning “manipulation on the streets” and learning how to “play stupid”
before a court to get what he wants.
See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, US App. Ct., 1995
Strikes Down Tough Anti-Welfare Fraud Regulation
In a pair of court cases decided in 1995, Oregon Legal Services overturned
a state regulation to discourage Food Stamp fraud. In both cases, recipients
were found to have illegally received Food Stamp benefits in the past and
were accordingly sanctioned by being disqualified from receiving benefits
for six months. However, the sanction could not be immediately enforced
because they were not qualified to receive benefits at the time they were
found guility. Years later though, the individuals reapplied for Food Stamps.
Because they had yet to “serve their six-month ineligibility period” for
their earlier transgressions, they were denied benefits for the requisite
six months. Legal services overturned the strict anti-fraud rule on the
grounds that the six month period must immediately follow the time the
sentence was handed down regardless if the individuals were even eligible
for welfare. The state argued that the new ruling would rob the six-month
penalty of much of its deterrent effect.
See Devi v. Senior and Disabled Services, 137 Ore. App. Ct.,
1995; Garcia v. Espy, 67 F.3d 256, US App. Ct., 1995