I wish to begin this final segment by stating my support for Francine Garcia, the Victim’s Advocate for the Department of Corrections. In my first blog, I had some strong criticism of Ms. Garcia’s position and I stand by those.

 I do wish to make it clear that I believe Ms. Garcia pushes the envelope in her position as far as she can and she works diligently each day for the victims she represents. Even if her position does not allow her a place at the table, I am well aware of Ms. Garcia’s kicking down doors to at least get into the room. My children might not be alive today except for Ms. Garcia’s actions in December 2005 and May of 2006 and I am grateful.

 We need to give her a place at the table. We need to provide victims with a role in the decision making process. I can think of no better person to assume this expanded role.

 Back to my three laws of bureaucratic behavior and how they dictate the actions of the Department of Corrections. The three laws are 1) protect the bureaucracy, 2) maintain control internally, and 3) do as little work as possible.

 One of the many words Tim Kline yelled at me during Patricia’s last parole hearing focused on my willingness to take my arguments with the Department of Corrections to the media. Two Albuquerque Police officers proposed that I do so this today about this latest issue.

 I do not believe anyone would disagree with the effectiveness of my first push with the media. Despite everyone claiming the parole board is only a rubber stamp for the Department of Corrections, the parole board decided to go ‘against’ the Department and not release Patricia. Second, I notice stories where victims are now being warned about good time in accordance with the state law and constitution.

 I did not go to the media the second time, I went to the governor. Same result – Patricia remained incarcerated for an additional eleven months.

 Both times I used the first law of bureaucratic behavior to change the direction of the Department of Corrections.  Both times they also lost control and faced additional work due to my interference.

 Now, it gets a little subtle. Since the May incident, the Department appeared to take a very cooperative position with me. I am granted a meeting with the head of the probation division on my first request. I am provided information about this ‘confidential legal proceeding’. I am promised the probation division will go to Judge Murdoch and ask him to place new conditions on Patricia. They even like my idea to use the missing Bridges program as a basis for the request (Patricia was ordered into the Bridges for Women program on her release but the program no longer exists).

 As I found out Friday, talk is cheap. It is a great deal easier for the Department of Corrections to make all of these wonderful promises then to actually break the third law and work on them.  We shall see.

 But here is the nightmare, here is the real horror.

 For most of the five years, I struggled to make others understand both the extent of Patricia’s mental illness and the danger she represents to herself and the family.

      Even her arrest did not win me universal understanding. Many people speculate about my part in her actions. I wonder if he really did hit her? She did not get this crazy overnight. The most common question I receive is – Was she always this crazy?  For those who have looked at the first three chapters of my book the simple answer is no – she was not this crazy during our first fifteen years of marriage.
     
      I am so use to having to convince people about this, that I almost let the attitude of the Department of Corrections slip past unnoticed. An almost critical error.
     
      I let Glen go with me to meet with the probation people. I did this for a couple of reasons
     
      First, people who do not know Glen and I, assume Glen’s attitudes toward his mother originate with me. They assume Glen is a parrot mouthing words and attitude picked up from me. I am not going to tell Glen’s story until this resolves, but everyone who knows the two of us, knows Glen opinions are his own and contrary to the one’s his father wishes he held. I let Glen go this meeting to start establishing these differences.
     
      Which leads to the second reason, Glen, at eighteen, is Patricia’s next of kin. If Patricia, as we maintain, is a danger to herself and others, then my poor eighteen year old son assumes familial responsibility. Glen went to the meeting representing himself as a victim of his mother’s abuse and as the young man who may ultimately hold responsibility for her future.
     
      I left the meeting with the probation office a little frustrated with the comments made by the head of probation. She sensed Glen’s anger and immediately assumed his siblings held the same attitude. She lectured me about raising my children to hate.
     
 To quote my youngest son “Whatever”. I really do not care enough about her opinion to discuss it, but it is why she spent time on this subject and what she said that I almost missed.

 Why – well for the very simple reason that she had nothing else to discuss with me. She knew as well as I did how mentally ill Patricia was and the danger she posed to herself and the community. What she said went to this point again and again. She stated several times with assurance that Patricia would violate her parole and return to incarceration. By placing emphasis on the children, she had written off their mother, assumed there was no hope. I was reminded of the scene in the novel Dune where the Revered Mother focuses on the son Paul because she has written off his father. “For the father, nothing” becomes “for the mother, nothing”.

      Add to this the willingness to go to the judge, the ‘confidential legal proceedings’, the willingness to meet, and the discussion during the meeting and I argue the Department understands Patricia’s problems.
     
      The critical term is now. The Department of Corrections finally understands the extent of Patricia problems now on the eve of her release. As opposed to their previous actions of the last three years where they ignored the judge's orders and appear to have provided no real treatment.
     
      What generated the change in attitude?  Perhaps several factors.
     
* A possible fifth suicide attempt since incarcerated. Neither Patricia, Kline, the parole board, or anyone else at corrections denied my testimony about the two, possibly four attempts before last May. They simply objected to my knowledge. Maybe five is the magical number, especially when she is supposedly segregated.

* Another act or offense that indicated her health. Perhaps she did something that finally convinced the Department.

* The dreams she told her mother about where she would be dead within three months of release.

* We placed the Department of Correction on notice as to our belief that they had failed to follow the orders or the Court, ignored Patricia’s mental health problems, and this resulted in a situation more dangerous on her release then on her incarceration. We also notified them of our intention to hold the Department accountable for any harm Patricia visited on herself or others.

* The media attention placed on this case. If things went south, the Department could place reasonable assurance on significant media attention.

   All of this could lead to a new understanding by the Department of Corrections as to the danger Patricia represented to herself, the family and their precious bureaucracy.
  
   And the critical questions are what did they do with this new understanding and what are their intentions.
  
   What they did is schedule some kind of ‘confidential legal proceedings’ and what their intentions are to protect, control, and minimize effort.
  
   This ‘confidential legal proceeding’ is either internal to the Department of Corrections or not.
  
   If it is internal it is either in formal or formal. An informal hearing is where they all stand around and try to convince Patricia to enter into the treatment program.
  
   The Department may not have a lot of leverage. The lawyer stated Patricia’s status would be ‘on probation for five years’. Probation is a court function, not a Department of Corrections function. Judge Murdoch would have to order Patricia into treatment under probation; the Department could not do so. If Patricia volunteered for treatment she would be able to walk away, possibly under the threat of them taking her to the judge, but no active threat.
  
   A formal internal hearing could be based on some disciplinary infraction or crime Patricia committed. She could face revocation of good time or extended sentence based on something she did. This could provide leverage for the Department to get her into the treatment program if she faced more time in jail as an alternative.
  
   Once the released her to probation, Patricia might consider all bets off. They had the chance to charge her, they had the chance to hold her and they did not. I guess it might depend on the infraction. If Patricia committed a crime, they should be able to take that to the judge and have her probation revoked.
  
   The Department is on some slippery ground in reference to their relationship with Patricia. If they are honestly taking the position she is a danger to herself or others then the Department is standing in loco parentis for Patricia as her parent or guardian acting in her best interest to do so. If the Department declines this responsibility, they should turn to her next of kin or seek appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem to represent Patricia’s best interests.
  
   As we found out with Virginia Tech, a danger to oneself and others is the basic tenant for commitment and the need for some one to act in loco parentis.
  
   The easy way for the Department to avoid this is for the entry into treatment be characterized as voluntary, leaving the question of Patricia’s competency resting with Patricia herself.
  
   An actual legal proceeding generates more concern. This would be either going to Judge Murdoch or opening up a new procedure in front of another Judge. Both of these would produce records and a Guardian Ad Litem. A competent Guardian Ad Litem would contract the family. There is no such record an any legal proceeding.
  
   Is it any wonder that the phone went dead after I began to question the ‘confidential legal proceedings?’ Is it any wonder, the Department’s Lawyers were suddenly no longer available?
  
   Especially when one nails their true motivation. They do not care if Patricia is released and harms anyone. They only care if they get blamed for it. Send her to a treatment program, (FINALLY!!!!) and then argue you did your best or that is no longer the Department of Corrections problem, it is the Department of Health’s.
  
   Thanks guys, thanks for less the nothing. Thanks for continuing to make it worse and then making stupid attempts to bury the problem.