Was Judge Forced to Return Child?
By Steve Vogel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 13, 1998; Page B01
A Montgomery County judge's decision to award custody of a
toddler to the boy's mother, even though she killed her infant
daughter in 1992, has focused attention on a Maryland law that
strictly protects the rights of biological parents and on the judge's
finding that the woman no longer poses a physical threat to
children.
Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Michael D. Mason
awarded Latrena Pixley, 23, custody of her son, Cornelious, 2,
last month. He did so despite Pixley's conviction for murdering
her 6-week-old daughter in a highly publicized case five years
earlier.
The judge's decision, in a closed proceeding, has sparked public
outrage since it was reported Dec. 31 by The Washington Post.
It also has led children's rights advocates to question why the
judge, while denying an adoption request by the child's current
caretaker, did not at least award that caretaker legal custody of
the boy.
Pixley's son has been in the care of Laura Blankman, 27, a
Montgomery County police trainee, since his biological mother
went to jail. Blankman, meanwhile, filed for adoption.
Unless the judge stays his order, after a hearing scheduled for
today, or is overruled by an appellate court, Cornelious will be
returned next month to his mother, who is living now in a
halfway house in the District.
"Cornelious has a family here," Blankman said in an interview.
"He has a mother who loves him very much."
Pixley continues to decline requests for interviews. "There's
nothing she can say, or I can say, that's going to change public
opinion," said her attorney, Jennifer Evans.
Pixley pleaded guilty in March 1993 to second-degree murder,
after she admitted smothering her infant daughter, Nakya
Dannyell Scott, with a blanket and dumping the body in a trash
bin.
"In many states, that's enough to conclude that a child can't
safely go home," said Mark Hardin, director of child welfare at
the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law.
Mason's Dec. 22 ruling suggests that he believes the evidence
presented during the five-day adoption proceeding was
insufficient to prove Pixley's unfitness as a parent. The ruling,
observers say, was governed in part by a Maryland law that sets
strict conditions that must be met before a child can be taken
from a natural parent, even a convicted child killer.
"The judge has his hands tied," said Natalie Rees, a Baltimore
lawyer specializing in adoption law. "The real problem is [with]
the legislature and public policy. The real issue in this kind of
case is that we don't really believe in the best interest of the
child. We only pay lip service to it."
Even if a judge finds that adoption would be in the child's best
interest, he must also find that the biological parent has not
maintained meaningful contact with the child, or has failed to
contribute to his or her care, or has been convicted of abusing
the child or the other parent.
Murdering the child's sibling does not disqualify a parent from
custody under the law. And Mason determined that Pixley had
maintained contact with her son and contributed to his care.
Blankman "had no shot at winning adoption," Rees said. "The
standard of proof is 'clear and convincing,' and there's a
preference for the natural parent."
Blankman also filed a petition for custody of Cornelious, but
Mason ruled against that option, as well. Unlike adoption,
custody would not necessarily be permanent and would provide
Pixley visitation rights.
But in order to award Blankman custody, Mason would still have
had to find that Pixley is an unfit parent or that there were
exceptional circumstances, lawyers said.
"I would certainly think that the murder of a sibling would
qualify," said Nancy Poster, Blankman's attorney.
During last month's adoption trial, Pixley's 1993 conviction for
second-degree murder was entered as evidence, according to
lawyers.
In that case, a D.C. Superior Court judge sentenced Pixley to
five to 15 years in prison but immediately suspended the
sentence, placing her on probation and ordering her jailed only on
weekends for three years.
In the adoption case, Mason "accepted the [prior judge's] finding
that [Pixley] had been suffering from postpartum depression,"
said Evans, Pixley's attorney.
Social workers and psychologists testified that Pixley had been
rehabilitated, despite the fact that she was convicted of credit
card fraud in 1996. There was no testimony from either side that
Pixley is currently prone to violence.
Richard Gelles, a family violence specialist, said he testified that
he does not believe Pixley represents a threat to Cornelious's
life. But he said he still believes that there is a "substantial risk"
of her neglecting the child.
Julie Dietrich, the attorney appointed by Mason to represent
Cornelious, argued strongly in favor of adoption, according to
sources close to the case.
However, a report prepared for the judge by a court-agency
investigator recommended in favor of Pixley, according to
several sources. Both Dietrich and the investigator declined to
comment.
"One of the judge's big issues was that the rights of biological
parents are paramount over the rights and best interests of the
child," Blankman said.
On the bench since 1994, Mason is regarded by defense lawyers
to be a conscientious, methodical and slightly conservative judge.
He was a prosecutor for 10 years and headed the major
offender division in the Montgomery County state's attorney's
office in the early 1980s.
Mason has ruled against biological parents in several previous
adoption cases, according to lawyers.
Mason held a hearing in the Pixley case Wednesday to consider
releasing a transcript of his 50-minute oral ruling, despite the fact
that adoption proceedings are closed and records sealed in
Maryland. Attorneys for the various parties disagreed sharply
over the release. Faced with a lack of consensus, Mason opted
against releasing his opinion, attorneys said.
Today, Mason is scheduled to consider a motion from
Blankman's attorney asking him to stay his ruling, pending an
appeal to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.
One issue in the appeal, Poster said, will be Mason's opinion,
expressed at the Dec. 22 hearing, that the child, who is African
American, would be better off with an African American parent.
Mason and Blankman are white.
"The judge chose to make trans-racial adoption one of the
points," Poster said. "There was no evidence presented to
establish that there would be any harm to the child because of
trans-racial adoption."
Some emphasis in the appeal will be placed on simply gaining
custody of the child, according to sources familiar with the case,
as such a course would require a lower standard of proof than
would outright adoption.
Staff writer Bill Miller contributed to this report.
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company