The D.C. Superior Court judge convicted Jacks on 11 of the 12 counts she faced: four counts of felony murder, four of cruelty to children, and three of first-degree premeditated murder in the deaths of her three youngest girls, Tatianna Jacks, 11, N'Kiah Fogle, 6, and Aja Fogle, 5.

The judge acquitted Jacks only of premeditated murder in the killing of her oldest daughter, Brittany, who was 16.

Over the course of two hours, Weisberg drew heavily on the evidence given by medical examiners and forensic experts, noting that their findings “were consistent that all four deaths were homicide."

But in Brittany's case, on the matter of premeditation, Weisberg cited the difficulty in determining the cause of death, saying it remained unclear whether Brittany was stabbed by Jacks or whether she had stabbed herself. Given the extent to which Jacks "tortured [Brittany] emotionally and physically,” he said, she could have committed suicide.

Weisberg said Jacks had proved herself conscious of guilt, in both word and conduct: She intentionally obstructed law enforcement officials when they came to her house and discovered the bodies in January of last year. She intentionally created the impression that the house had been abandoned; she stopped using the front door and allowed the mail to pile up.

Jacks sat expressionless as the verdict was delivered. In fact, it was Weisberg who sat with his head in his hands as the crowd filed out of the courtroom. Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines described the case as “very sad.”

Defense attorney Peter Krauthamer reiterated that he had not pursued an insanity defense at Jacks's insistence, but declined to comment on why he decided to make a last-minute appeal on the insanity issue yesterday.

"I feel bad for Miss Jacks," he said. "She is looking at life in jail.”

Krauthamer said he plans to appeal.

Sentencing has been set for Oct. 16.

Weisberg convicted Jacks on four counts of felony murder in the girls' deaths. Weisberg also found Jacks guilty of first-degree premeditated murder in the deaths of the three youngest girls but acquitted her on the premeditated murder of her oldest daughter. She also was found guilty on lesser charges, including child cruelty.

No word yet on what happened with yesterday's last-minute insanity appeal. More forthcoming.

Both sides exchanged final volleys about the reliability of forensic evidence and the credentials of witnesses. Neither side mentioned the central question: the lack of an insanity plea.

Admittedly, insanity pleas rarely result in acquittal. One study in the '90s found that just 1 percent of defendants use them, and only a quarter of those are successful. But with no insanity plea, the defense was left scraping together a few tenuous arguments. In his 90-minute closing argument, Defense Attorney Peter Krauthamer summed the case up as follows: "There are a lot of things that don't make sense, but we don't have to explain them."

The prosecution had failed to meet its burden of proof, he said; the forensic scientists "lacked scientific rigor" and their accounts were riddled with inconsistencies and discrepancies.

Krauthamer went on to claim that the infamous argument heard through the wall before 16-year old Brittany Jacks, the oldest of the four children Jacks stands accused of killing, disappeared in early April 2007 was a typical mother-daughter tiff.

If there was neglect - and Krauthamer conceded there was - there was no child abuse, he insisted. The children were perfectly happy. Neighbors who testified otherwise were obviously driven by some personal vendetta. Jacks didn't try to isolate the children. She didn't starve them. She just couldn't pay the bills.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Jackson, who presented the prosecution's closing argument, offered a less charitable description of Jacks' home. She called it a "prison of torture" presided over by a calculating mother. Jackson described Jacks as a systematic, methodical killer of her own children who took them out of school, and isolated them from friends and family, and lied to anybody who stopped by to ask about their well-being.

"This is exactly what nightmares are made of...but they didn't wake from it," Jackson told Judge Frederick H. Weisberg.

Weisberg alone will decide the verdict. A decision could come as early as tomorrow.

The judge rejected Krauthamer’s claim that there was no evidence to support the twelve charges against Jacks, who is accused of killing her four daughters. The charges include premeditated first-degree murder and cruelty to children.

Krauthamer spent Friday afternoon working to discredit State Prosecutor Deborah Sines’ forensic evidence. It was his last chance; closing arguments in the trial will be Monday.

For most of the two-and-a-half hour court session Krauthamer did his best to discredit the prosecution’s last witness. He grilled forensic anthropologist Dr. William Rodriguez, doing his best to make Rodriguez admit that there was no way to confirm what appeared to be strangulation and stab wounds on the children’s bodies.

Krauthamer used passages from medical textbooks Rodiguez had co-authored to suggest that the marks around the necks of the three younger children, which the prosecution claimed were impressions left by whatever was used to strangle them, could also have been left by their t-shirts after they were already dead. Bodies expand as they decompose, Krauthamer noted, and t-shirts do not.

The defense attorney also claimed there was no proof that the punctures found in 16-year-old Brittany Jacks’ abdomen were what killed her. Rodriguez, pressed by Krauthamer, said the punctures were likely stab wounds, but that he could “not say that they were the absolute cause of death.”

After the prosecution’s final witness left the stand, Krauthamer called his own less than impressive witnesses. First, he had forensic examiner Herald A. Deadman cast doubt on whether the ligatures presented by the prosecution had been used to strangle the three youngest children.

Next, Krauthamer did his best to guide Public Defenders Service Staff Investigator Timothy Ruck into saying that, when he examined the Jacks’ house back in January 2008, the skylight over young Brittney Jacks’ body was un-shuttered, allowing sunshine to stream in and accelerate the decomposition. But Ruck failed to follow the script.

At first he said he thought it had been, but then---under Sines’ cross-examination---he acknowledged he couldn't be sure because it was a long time ago.

Worse, in a telltale blunder that threatened to overshadow his testimony, defense witness Ruck said he’d gone to Jacks’ house in 2008 “to examine the scene of the crime”---a somewhat unfortunate remark, given the defense’s claim that the four children had died in their sleep.

But enough about rule-makers.  All the rule-breakers, in DC and beyond, are after the jump.

• As countless politicians have proven, adultery is not an excuse to give up your elected office.  John Ensign agrees, regardless of his parents' $96,000 payoff of his mistress - he plans to seek reelection when his term runs out in 2012.  Could he still be holding out for the White House?  Only time will tell.

• The judge hearing the Banita Jacks case was treated to an earful during the second day of listening to her eight-hour police interrogation.  During the recording, Jacks admitted that she believed her three daughters were possessed by demons but would rise from the dead when the demons left their bodies.  She also contends that all four of her daughters died in their sleep, as a result of the demons, a fact that is inconsistent with the evidence gathered at the crime scene.

• A House panel investigating the Red Line crash heard testimony yesterday, with the majority of witnesses asking for money to fix the flawed transit system.  John Catoe, Metro's General Manager detailed the precautions he has taken since the crash but admits he still does not know what to do about the malfunctioning circuit between Takoma and Fort Totten that presumably caused the collision.

• Violent crimes are being reported with more frequency, in what are thought to be safe areas of the city.  The Borderstan blog reports an armed assault and a robbery in the 1400 blocks of Corcoran and S Streets NW, respectively, in addition to the armed robbery and several burglaries that occurred in the first week of July.  Meanwhile, in Georgetown, a young woman was sexually assaulted in her home, less than two blocks from the main gates of the university.  Neighbors and students are concerned, not only for their safety, but because very few people have been informed about the attack.

So keep your eyes and ears open, City Desk readers.  Rules and laws are for following, not breaking.

The plaintiff's, Children's Rights, a New York-based advocacy law firm which specializes in exposing troubled child welfare agencies and turning them around, was in its element. The District's lawyers were no match for Children's Rights founder and executive director Marcia Lowry. While both sides disputed whether or not the agency met those benchmarks---with the city attorney lamely complaining that some of the benchmarks were too difficult to meet---Hogan seemed most annoyed with point No. 4 of his stipulated order. It stated that the city must consult with the assigned court monitor as well as Lowry's group during the selection of a new CFSA director.

Lowry had contended that Children's Rights was not consulted. Hogan stated from the bench that the city had "blatantly" failed to comply with this aspect of his court order.

This evening, Loose Lips (aka Mike DeBonis) reached AG Peter Nickles and asked him to comment on Hogan's statements. Let's just say Nickles argument was less than legalistic. His response was all about feelings.

Nickles: "I know that I personally consulted with both [Court Monitor] Judith Meltzer and plaintiff's counsel on the very same day. I asked, is this sufficient consultation?" Nickles says that Meltzer thought it was enough to meet the court order. Lowry disagreed.She said she was notified of Dr. Roque Gerald's selection the day before the official announcement was made.

"She said she was opposed, that [this] wasn't sufficient consultation," Nickles recalls. "There's no way of consulting in advance with the plaintiffs, because they don't agree with anything we're doing."

Hmm. Shouldn't you consult in advance with the plaintiffs because a federal judge ordered you to? How hard would it have been to notify Lowry a week prior to Gerald's appointment?

This morning in U.S. District Court, Judge Thomas F. Hogan took up the on-going legal battle over the District's Child and Family Services Agency. At issue was whether or not the agency could be held in contempt. Hogan devoted much of his consternation on the how the District went about picking Dr. Roque Gerald (pictured) to head up CFSA.

At the time of Dr. Gerald's selection, City Desk questioned whether the District violated Hogan's order. We wrote:

"Last fall, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan issued an order stipulating a series of directives. One of those stipulations involved the future selection of a permanent director at CFSA. On Tuesday, Fenty announced his selection of interim director Roque Gerald to take over in a permanent capacity. Hogan had stipulated that “the Court Monitor and Plaintiffs will be included in the selection process for the permanent Director.'...

The Plaintiffs–Children’s Rights–say they were never consulted during the selection process. “We were not included in the process and I think given the problems the agency has had over the last several years the choice of the director was critically important,” says Children’s Rights Executive Director Marcia Robinson Lowry. She adds that this violated the court order."

While Gerald has gotten high praise from child advocates and has definitively saved the agency from the fallout over the Jacks case, Hogan suggested today that the city had indeed violated his order. Hogan dubbed the city's following of his order a "blatant" failure. Maybe he too doesn't like Fenty's secretive m.o.

The bulk of the nearly two hour proceedings over the contempt motion did not center on Gerald's selection. Instead, Children's Rights and the city's attorneys debated whether or not CFSA had made significant progress in helping kids in care. No kids testified. It was all lawyers debating the whether or not the agency had cleared various benchmarks.

Children's Rights' Lowry showed charts proving that the agency had failed to meet the majority of those benchmarks which covered everything from staff training to placing kids in foster homes. She told the court that the agency had "not yet reached a level where they are protecting children."

Lowry provided a staggering timeline of accepted benchmarks and the agency's slow and often negligent response dating back several years. She stated that CFSA had only met 15 out of the 68 benchmarks. This was just a mere snapshot of the agency's problems which were detailed in a recent court monitor's report.

Lowry's testimony touched on the court monitor's findings that fewer and fewer kids are leaving the system through adoption. The monitor also reported that a huge number of children and youth are living in unlicensed foster homes or facilities.

"As of January 31, 2009, there were 1575 children in foster home placements. Of the 1574 children, 74 (5 percent) children were placed in foster homes that exceeded their licensed capacity. Additionally, there were 178 children placed in group homes as of January 31, 2009. Of the 178 children, 39 (22%) children were placed in group homes that exceeded their licensed capacity of 8 children...."

The monitor also reported that of the 1007 foster homes where children were placed, 10 percent of those homes did not have current and valid licenses. Prior to the hearing, Children's Rights had flagged other aspects of the monitor's report---chief among them was the agency's alleged overuse of group homes and residential treatment facilities as housing options for children in care as well as how quick the agency investigated neglect/abuse allegations.

Again, this was a short hearing. City Attorney Ellen Efros kept her points short. She emphasized that the agency had made progress but that the benchmarks were too old and too tough to actually meet. She argued that the standards are lower in other cities---in other words, why can't we just lower our standards? Efros, though, could not cite any other jurisdiction's standards.

At one point early on in Efros' testimony, Hogan interrupted her and sounded an exasperated note: "We've been at this since 1989."

Hogan was referring to the agency's rollercoaster history---the inception of the class-action case, subsequent receivership and bumpy road since the city agency shedded court oversight in 2003. Hogan did not at all seemed pleased with Efros' attempts to jettison benchmarks that didn't fit her theory of a fit agency and denounce other benchmarks as too harsh.

"It seems...oversight by the judiciary is important," Hogan later stated.

Still, Hogan declined to rule on the contempt motion. He says he is keeping it under consideration. The next hearing is set for July 20.

As he left the courtroom, Gerald had no comment.

Prior to the hearing, Lowry talked about the problems with the city warehousing kids. "The placement process in the District is extremely hit or miss," she said. "There is not a real effort to develop the kinds of resources that the kids need and certainly there’s a very slipshod process about where the kids should go. There’s no question, there are too few appropriate foster homes and too few foster homes all together."

Lowry says the city needs to invest in a real plan. "I don't think there's anything approaching long-term planning," she explains. "One thing that's so alarming about the course that they are now on---they don't have any long term plans for the agency and certainly their aspirations for the agency are very insufficient."

In late August, Gerald moved to reduce the backlog. By the end of the year, the backlog had been all but finished as an on-going issue. At a recent conference, Gerald admitted that at least a few CFSA staffers celebrated with a small party. It had been a tough year. He also warmly cheered on his staff. This is a man who loves what he does and loves his people.

I've heard that Gerald had done well in his acting post---boosting morale and reaching out to the area's advocates and non-profits. The agency had gone through a significant turnover and still faces huge issues in terms of providing consistent care (there's still the pending federal court case). But at least from what I've heard people are hopeful that Gerald is the right person for the job.

"There are many areas of practice where the District continues to fall far short of the standards required in the LaShawn Amended Implementation Plan (AIP). Additionally, as is documented
in this report, there are multiple examples of inconsistent performance over time, suggesting that long-term sustainability of progress has not been achieved. The Quality Service Reviews
(QSRs), which assess the quality of case practice, continue to show inconsistent results."

The problems that the report highlights are significant.

After giving the report a quick read, we provide a few of the problem areas. Here is what the report states:

*Investigations into allegations of child abuse and/or neglected must be initiated within 48 hours. This means seeing the child or making a good faith effort to see the child within that time frame. CFSA has only met that 48 hour threshold 75 percent of the time.

*Investigations into abuse and neglect must be completed within 30 days. CFSA was only meeting that time threshold in 17 percent of its cases. It has showed improvement. But still the agency is not in the clear here. They have met that threshold 73 percent of the time for investigations opened in January of this year.

*No case worker shall handle more than than 12 cases at any given time. Twelve percent of CFSA's social workers had more than 12 cases. Nine percent had more than 15. The highest caseload found: 21 cases with one worker.

*No cases shall go unassigned for more than five business days. The monitor's report states that there were 35 cases that had not been assigned after five days.

*The monitor found that the number of employees overseeing cases--making sure they are done correctly--is insufficient for proper quality assurance.

Why is this important? The monitor notes that there were 69 children who had been the subject of four or more abuse/neglect cases in the past year, there were 223 children who had been placed in four different homes in the last year, and 83 children placed in facilities more than 100 miles from D.C.

The next hearing in federal court over CFSA is this Thursday.

The IG's office provides a timeline of events. Here's what caught my eye:

• May 1, 2007: A CFSA "Investigations Worker" and a D.C. cop visit the Jacks house. No one answers the door. But old junk mail is observed---the same junk mail from a previous visit---in front of the door. Also still at the door: a letter previously left by the CFSA worker.
• May 2, 2007: The CFSA worker goes to the house. Again, no one answers the door.
• May 16, 2007: Investigations Worker erroneously believes that the family has relocated to Charles County, Maryland. This came from another government worker. "Therefore recommends to his supervisor that the investigation be closed," the report states. "CFSA closes the case, and the Investigations Worker then sends a fax to Charles County Child Protective Services..."

By Aug. 25, D.C. Water and Sewer Authority disconnects service to the Jacks house; Washington Gas disconnects service as well. On Sept. 5, Pepco disconnects service.

On Jan. 9, U.S. Marshals begin eviction at the house, where they discover the bodies of Jacks' children.

The IG's office rips the CFSA worker:

The CFSA Investigations Worker told the team that had he been given more time, he might have been able to make contact with the family. The CFSA Investigations Worker recommended to his supervisor close the case 20 days after receipt of the hotline call to CFSA even though he had 30 days to complete the investigation.

Also looks like the D.C. police failed big time as well:

On April 30 between 11:54-11:57 a.m., an officer arrived at the Jacks house and tells the "dispatcher that he is available for assignment because 'there's an adult on the scene.' After being reminded by the dispatcher that the mother has withdrawn the children from school and has 'mental problems,' and that he is there to check on their welfare, Officer #1 says, 'The kids seem fine to me, ma'am.'

But there's a catch: The officer never sees the kids. According to the report, a police memo dated Jan. 13, 2008, states that when the officers arrived on the scene, the person that answered the door--presumably Banita Jacks--refused to allow them to check on the children.

Last night, City Desk got a bit of news on the triple homicide case---that the family did have contact with social services in 2006. Today, the Washington Post has an in-depth look at the problems between Erika Peters, her children and her live-in boyfriend.

The live-in boyfriend, Joseph Randolph Mays, was charged in the murders Saturday night.

The Post reports that Kimberly Trimble, Peters' sister, notified authorities about Joseph Mays' alleged abuse of one of the children: "Trimble said that about two years ago, she contacted the District's Child and Family Services Agency to report that Mays had shaken his daughter. A year after that, she said, she warned the principal at Holy Redeemer Catholic School to look out for marks on her sister's children. She said she did not remember what became of either warning."

This brings us back to CFSA and its involvement. Today we reached Attorney General Peter Nickles for a little more clarification.

Nickles says that CFSA received a hotline call in October 2006 concerning Erika Peters and her family. The call was for potential neglect or abuse. "The family engaged with CFSA in treatment," Nickles says. He refused to elaborate on the nature of the treatment.

"In 2007, a little more than a year after, the view was on behalf of the agency [that] the family was stable," Nickles says.

"Since that time, there has been no call, no indication" that there were problems in the Peters home at the Carver Terrace Apartments, Nickles added.

*photo of Erika Peters courtesy of WJLA.

Last fall, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan issued an order stipulating a series of directives. One of those stipulations involved the future selection of a permanent director at CFSA. On Tuesday, Fenty announced his selection of interim director Roque Gerald to take over in a permanent capacity. Hogan had stipulated that "the Court Monitor and Plaintiffs will be included in the selection process for the permanent Director."

It is that order that is now being seriously questioned. When appointing top posts, Fenty isn't known as a big outreach guy. His appointment of Chief Cathy Lanier is exhibit A. Now his selection of Gerald is coming under scrutiny.

The Plaintiffs--Children's Rights--say they were never consulted during the selection process. "We were not included in the process and I think given the problems the agency has had over the last several years the choice of the director was critically important," says Children's Rights Executive Director Marcia Robinson Lowry. She adds that this violated the court order.

This point may be brought up in the next round at U.S. District Court, Lowry says. "We have an open contempt motion that is going to be briefed to the court...This is another violation," Lowry adds.

Attorney General Peter Nickles has a different take.

Nickles says Fenty and Co. did an exhaustive search for the CFSA director slot. "I'm not going to get into numbers," he says. "We both interviewed and called people...Dr. Gerald put his name in the hat and he was interviewed."

Yesterday, we reported that Councilmember Tommy Wells, who chairs the Committee on Human Services which covers CFSA, was left out of the loop. Charles Allen, Wells' chief of staff, was not aware of anyone being interviewed for the position.

Lowry says Nickles only notified her on Monday that Gerald had been selected. Nickles says there was a reason why Children's Rights wasn't consulted during the vetting process.

"It didn't seem at least to us to have them interview people who weren't going to be seriously considered," Nickles says. "It's tough to get people to come in if they think they are going to be answerable to the mayor but also to the court monitors and advocates."

Nickles goes on to sharpen his point. "We have a terrible problem in getting people interested in being considered because of the buzz saw they see themselves getting into," Nickles explains i.e. heading an agency with a court monitor. "As far as I know the plaintiffs haven't liked any of our directors."

I asked Nickles if there was any reason to have liked the previous directors? He stated that the previous directors at least tried to make the agency better. And that, well, they now have a great director in Gerald.

Lowry is skeptical with the Gerald selection. "Leadership is absolutely critical," she says. "The previous director was from inside the agency. The person they just appointed was from inside the agency."

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/02/12/did-cfsa-director-search-violate-court-order/feed/ 1 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/02/11/the-one-and-only-roque-gerald/ http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/02/11/the-one-and-only-roque-gerald/#comments Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:38:48 +0000 Jason Cherkis http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=15789 Yesterday, Mayor Adrian Fenty announced his nomination of Roque Gerald to become the permanent director of Child and Family Services at a press conference. Gerald had served as the agency's interim director since this past July. Fenty called his nomination a "shot in the arm" and touted Gerald as an old-hand within the troubled agency which apparently is a net plus.

What may be troubling is the possibility that Fenty's people did not interview anyone else for the position. Even before the Banita Jacks case, the agency faced serious questions about its case management and the thoroughness of its investigative work. The agency is currently in the midst of a huge court battle. And its problems are vast.

Charles Allen, Councilmember Tommy Wells' chief of staff, says his office is not aware of any other candidates being vetted for CFSA's top job. I asked him if anyone else was interviewed. "We're not aware of one," Allen says. Calls to the mayor's office have not yet been returned.

Allen says this may be a concern that there were no other candidates. "We expect that to come out in the confirmation hearing," Allen says.

Allen does add that the agency has made some improvements. In particular, the agency's notorious backlog has been cut. "[Gerald] certainly has the ability to tout some accomplishments and hear if there are any concerns," Allen says. "We'd be looking to hold a confirmation hearing in the near future. Budget hearings start next week. It will probably take a month or two before we get to a confirmation hearing."

Allen adds: "There are still several concerns about the agency. There's clearly more work that has to get done. The folks who feel that they are not happy with the progress can come to the confirmation hearing."

Gerald certainly came into the job with some controversy. There was the news that he had sex with a female patient years ago. We chronicled one messy CFSA case.

One CFSA staffer says that Gerald may have trouble touting the closing of the backlog as a major accomplishment. The staffer points to a relaxation of standards in getting it closed:

Gerald's appointment was not unexpected by people here....It's true that more needs to be accomplished, and it would not be correct to give him the credit for the end of the backlog.  That credit is more due to the independent advisers and what actually happened was the severe relaxation of the original standards for case investigations.

When that happened in early November, then the number of case closings rose dramatically.  From what I can gather, the court monitors did not have Gerald as their choice and this led to conflict with the mayor.  Probably his appointment, therefore, is a result of a negotiated settlement that will be reflected in the upcoming court hearings on the show cause and motion to be removed from federal control by the respective parties.

So far calls to the court monitor have not been returned. I have been told that the monitor has been traveling and is not in D.C.

Now, the Washington Post, reporting from today's hearing before Judge Weisburg notes:

"But in the hospital's most recent report filed yesterday, hospital staff said Jacks had made progress and was no longer taking medication. They also asked the court to keep Jacks at the hospital until her trial to 'assure her competency.'"

Does this make any sense? She's competent to stand trial as long as she remains at St. Elizabeths. Jacks was arrested last January after marshals found the bodies of her four daughters in her home. The news of the murders rocked Child and Family Services and became national news. Jacks has since refused the assistance of two defense attorneys. It is unclear whether Jacks still wants to represent herself at trial. It is also unclear how Jacks is suddenly off meds and competent.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan did what no one else in the city seemed to be able to do: He ordered CFSA to come up with a plan to fix itself. He gave the troubled child welfare agency a two-week deadline.

Hogan's directive spells certain trouble for the already troubled agency! CFSA has definitely heard the words "plan" and "deadline" before Wednesday. It's understanding those words that's given the agency fits, according to Marcia Robinson Lowry, the executive director of Children's Rights, the national advocacy group that has watchdogged the agency for decades. Children's Rights spurred this latest round in U.S. District Court after filing a contempt order in late July.

It is the concept of deadlines and plans that caused Children's Rights to take action in U.S. District Court.

“We had certainly been concerned for at least the last four or five months," Lowry told me in early August. "CFSA was supposed to have agreed to an acceptable 12-month plan in January. It became clear they were not going to be able to do that…They couldn’t come up with a satisfactory plan. Finally, we withdraw our objections to [a] six month [stabilization] plan. It was March already and they did not have a plan that we thought was adequate. Since the period was half over, we decided to do a 12-month plan starting on July 1. We expected to have an adequate plan by the end of June. We did not get an acceptable plan by the end of June.”

Lowry's group met CFSA officials several times to express its dissatisfaction. Those meetings, Lowry says, were disappointing and failed to address the agency's lack of progress on righting the agency. The meetings sometimes included D.C.'s top lawyer Peter Nickles.

Nickles did confirm to City Desk that Children's Rights' main beef with CFSA concerned the agency's failure to address its issues in a systematic way. The agency just never could get specific enough to satisfy Children's Rights, Nickles says.

[Nickles told the Post in July: "I had looked to Marcia and the plaintiffs as partners to improve the agency," Nickles said. "This has sort of taken my invitation and said we'll hold you in contempt."]

Lowry says that given the agency's bad marks in a November '07 review and the handling of the Banita Jacks case, the agency should have been more aggressive.