GRIEVANCE Regarding Case of the Leonard Henderson Family

On September 17, 1999, per instruction from his lawyer, Leonard Henderson sent a WRITTEN Formal Grievance to Stephanie Williams of the Enterprise SCF. In her September 27, 1999 reply, Stephanie Williams declined to respond to the grievance in writing and stated “What we normally do is sit down informally with the individuals with the grievance and see if we can work something out”.

In the afternoon of October 1, 1999 this meeting was held at the offices of Kirby, Johnson, and Moffet. Henderson’s attorney, Victoria Moffet plainly iterated that the Henderson family originally went to SCF for help with Philip and SCF rewarded Leonard Henderson with an absurd abuse allegation. Considering that, the Hendersons certainly DO NOT wish to have any further “services” rendered to them by SCF.

We did note Stephanie and your unwillingness to withdraw the alleged abuse finding.

Quoting form Stephanie Williams August 30, 1999 letter: “When I spoke with Ms. Moffet on 8/19/99, I relayed to her that because of inconsistent information I received in doing my assessment regarding allegations of Phillip being emotionally abused, I was going to document this as “Unable to Determine. However, after receiving additional information after I spoke with Ms. Moffet, I have decided to call this a “Founded” mental injury of Phillip by Leonard.”

The foremost issue Leonard wished to discuss at the October 1, 1999 meeting was to determine if the alleged “additional information” Stephanie referenced actually existed- and if so, what the “additional information” might be.

Stephanie’s pretext was along the line: “The additional information was our own internal system of determining risk”. We assume she was referring to the SCF internal document “Level of Vulnerability for Children Entering Oregon’s Child Welfare System”. Viewing the “Type of abuse/neglect” categories of that document and accompanying notes, it is evident that the assignment of risk is an entirely subjective process.

Leonard Henderson Grievance Page 2

Further, a reasonable assumption might be that a “Risk Level” assessment would NOT have been made AT THE COMPLETION of an investigation, since the internal document title contains the words “Entering Oregon’s Child Welfare System”.

I believe I heard you (Elizabeth Clark-Stern) say something about “protecting confidentiality” of sources, but I did not get the impression that you were even implying there was a “source to protect” in my case. Neither “explanation” is particularly illuminating and could appear as lacking candor.

We also note your and Stephanie’s profuse apologies for the unwarranted injury done to Leonard Henderson personally, to his marriage, to the entire Henderson family, and to Leonard’s business.

With strict questioning and offers to take the issues to court from Leonard Henderson’s Business Manager, Bill Peach, you and Stephanie agreed to desist in “harassing” Leonard Henderson, and Stephanie Williams agreed to Leonard’s request to receive a WRITTEN statement to that effect.

We instead received a letter dated 10-6-99 from you (Elizabeth Clark-Stern) simply closing the case effective October 1, 1999.

We believe that Stephanie Williams’ decision to “found” the abuse allegation may have been rash, poorly calculated, and indefensible. Viewing the verbiage Stephanie Williams used in her August 30, 1999 letter, it may appear that Ms. Williams acted punitively for unknown reasons by citing unspecified “additional information”.

We have defeated Stephanie Williams’ claim of observing “rejection, belittling, and humiliation of Philip”, in that she had only one instance of observing anything (The first CRT meeting), in which instance SHE CREATED the situation that cast Leonard Henderson in the semblance of humiliating. At no time has Leonard rejected, belittled, nor denied love to Philip.

We have defeated the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis made by Dr. Conant-Norville as having been made in the artificial and EXTREMELY STRESSFUL environment at EOAMTC, and with Dr. Conant-Norville being completely unaware of the extensive Manic-Depressive (Bi-Polar Disorder) history of Philip’s mother.

Further, Stephanie Williams’ attempt to use Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as “Syndrome Evidence” of abuse has been discarded as discredited and unacceptable by numerous courts across the United States, prominently noted in Report 7a by the San Diego Grand Jury of 1994:

"Child Sexual Abuse Syndrome (CSAS), or Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or other theories utilizing behavior as a basis for proof of child sexual abuse is discredited and unacceptable". (San Diego County Grand Jury, Report 7a, Analysis of Child Molestation Issues, June 1, 1994).

If the San Diego Grand Jury of 1994 found Syndrome Evidence “discredited and unacceptable”, in SEXUAL cases- how much more so should it be unacceptable in bogus “mental abuse” accusations?

Leonard Henderson Grievance Page 3

I believe focusing the microscope on me was wholly unwarranted. I did not contribute to Philip’s genetic makeup. I did not cause Philip to be born with his personality. I did not cause Philip to steal. I did not cause Philip to be aggressive. Philip simply has the same personality he was born with that has just “aged”. Philip apparently has inherited his mother’s mental problems. I have attempted to manage Philip’s behavior with the few tools available to me. I did not physically or mentally abuse Philip. I have not caused Philip’s problems.

Philip may have fewer and poorer chances of success as a result of SCF involvement in his life, particularly considering SCF’s attempts to undermine my authority as a father. I have already given SCF full credit for this with Wallowa County Juvenile.

I am personally conducting my behavior and parenting technique “angelically” and completely in compliance with the New Age rules of parenting. I am ensuring that my conduct is unimpeachable and well witnessed. If Stephanie Williams intended to “change” me, she most certainly has. After having my civil rights so trampled on with impunity, I don’t want to be an American. I most certainly WILL NOT go to SCF for “help” again.

Any future problem Philip brings upon himself will be his own issue. This is not my own invention. It comes directly from the “Love and Logic” parenting class. What does a kid learn when his own behavior simply gets his parents in trouble?

SCF has been completely out of line. The real shame is that Oregon’s standing in “The Best States to Raise Children in 1999” according to the Children’s Rights Council has PLUMMETED from 22^rd in 1995 to 40^th in 1999. It appears Oregon Services to Children and Families has made it DANGEROUS to be a parent (or child) in Oregon.

I believe the obtuse “investigation” of me may have been created, pursued, and prosecuted with a malicious spirit. I believe the accusation was built on sparse “evidence” garnered from my entire lifetime under a microscope. I feel like a Supreme Court nominee. If I failed to meet some narrow twisted New Age rule IN THE DISTANT PAST, do I deserve the kind of remedy that SCF may dispense to an 18-year-old “doper dad”?

You may have some information from sources that have questionable motives. I believe it is both unethical and unconstitutional to use “secret” information to accuse a person without giving the accused the opportunity to answer such information.

I do not believe Stephanie Williams has ANY viable “evidence” to found a “mental abuse” accusation against me. Therefore, I request that Stephanie Williams’ decision to “found” the accusation be reversed and Leonard Henderson’s records at SCF be expunged.

Do you think 10 days would be sufficient time to respond to this grievance?

Sincerely,

J. Leonard Henderson

CC: Nancy Keeling, Regional Administrator; Ramona Foley, Director