I wish the headline I just wrote was out of context, but from reading both this OC Register article and its LA Times counterpart, it is clear that in the case of the McFetridges of Irvine that nanny government ran amok, a social worker lost all common sense, and the law provided inadequate recourse for the parents.

In a nutshell: OC Deputy District Attorney George McFetridge and his wife Bette were in the process of adopting a teenaged girl, Holly.  In 2008, Holly ran away from the McFetridge’s Irvine home to the Huntington Beach Youth Shelter, where she accused Bette of shoving her into a towel rack.  The shelter called the Orange County Social Services Agency.  Social worker Bridget Hannegan investigated the allegations and found Holly’s accusation “unfounded.”  However, Hannegan then investigated Holly’s hair and found “inconclusive” evidence of emotional abuse due to the haircut.

The McFetridges were then placed on the child abuse central index due to the “inconclusive” finding of emotional abuse.  It took them 11 months to get themselves off the child abuse central index.  The McFetridges then sued for $28,011.  The $28,000 was for the costs charged to the McFetridges of housing Holly in a residential program, and the $11 is $1 for each month the McFetridges were on the list.

Putting aside the residential program costs, the law really should have had provisions to allow the McFetridges to win the $11 for this disturbing loss of common sense by social worker Hannegan.  Unfortunately, to win their lawsuit, the McFetridges needed to show that Hannegan had lied or acted maliciously, but what happened here was Hannegan was incapable of using common sense and was blinded by her love of bureaucratic procedure.

The law has since been changed so that only “substantiated” child abuse allegations result in parents ending up on the child abuse central index, so “inconclusive” ones do not.  However, that still doesn’t change the fact that Hannegan’s bizarre worldview that cutting a child’s hair oddly constituted “inconclusive” child abuse.  The haircut should have been deemed an “unfounded” abuse allegation; an allegation we should all recall that was not made by Holly the alleged victim or by the youth shelter, but rather an allegation that social worker Hannegan created all on her own.  In our society, we rely on the policy makers create the laws and regulations, and the front-line employees, like the social workers, are supposed to use their discretion to carry out those laws and regulations, but this is clearly a case where that discretion was horribly abused.

The quotes from Hannegan are disturbing – not disturbing because of horrible abuse, but disturbing because of Hannegan’s thought process.  Here’s an excerpt from the OC Register article that shows social worker Hannegan’s idiocy:

Hannegan, a senior investigative social worker, visited Holly at Woodbridge High School and was shocked at what she saw. “Immediately I noticed her hair,” Hannegan told the jury. “It looked like she got hazed.”

While Holly’s bangs looked normal, her hair was “cut severely uneven to the back” at about one inch in length, Hannegan said. She lifted up the back of Holly’s hair and saw three circular, silver-dollar sized bald spots, Hannegan testified.

Holly said that George McFetridge had restrained her while Bette cut her hair as punishment for lying, Hannegan testified.

Then George McFetridge got something most parents never do: the chance to cross-examine a social worker.

He questioned Hannegan’s investigative techniques, asking if she had spoken to any of Holly’s friends or teachers to try to corroborate her story (answer: no) or had taken a photograph to document Holly’s severe haircut.

Hannegan replied that she is not “trained” to use a camera. “It’s not part of my job description,” she said.

In her report about the family, Hannegan determined that Holly’s allegation of physical abuse by Bette McFetridge was “unfounded,” but she added an “inconclusive” finding of alleged emotional abuse based on the hair-cutting incident. The inconclusive finding landed the McFetridges on the state’s Child Abuse Central Index without them having a chance to see Hannegan’s report or challenge it in a hearing.

Clearly, I should have called the Orange County Social Services Agency and Bridget Hannegan when I was a child for that bowl cut my mom gave me in elementary school and that buzzcut in middle school.  It’s amazing that I survived such stunning abuse.