LOOK NO FURTHER THAN ...
Foster care has its problems in Clark County and Judge Gerald Hardcastle is a good reason why
BY HEIDI HARRIS

Heidi Harris is co-host of KXNT 840 AM's morning show with Alan Stock. Listen to her Monday through Friday from 5 to 9 a.m. Other stories by Heidi Harris

There's been a lot of talk recently about the foster-care system in Clark County and Child Haven, southern Nevada's shelter for abused and neglected children. This organization has come under increased scrutiny from the federal government. We could talk all day about the increasing caseload of the child welfare system, which is really the result of family disintegration, but I'll address those issues in future columns. 

If you'd like an example of what's really wrong with our foster-care system in Clark County, you need to look no further than the courtroom of Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle. Hizzoner refuses to terminate the "rights" of Tamara Bergeron, whose daughter Brittney Bergeron is paralyzed for life due to mamma's loser lifestyle. It seems Mom and her boyfriend had the girls living with them in a travel trailer parked in a casino parking lot. Apparently, mom and boyfriend sold a couple of losers (Beau and Monique Maestas) a bag of salt instead of drugs. 

On the night of the attack, in the wee hours of the morning, Tamara Bergeron and Prince Valium (whom a California court had forbidden to be near the kids) were in the casino, possibly looking for the next druggies to rip off. Meanwhile, back at the travel trailer, the Maestas monsters came looking for revenge. The attackers stabbed both girls repeatedly, while Brittney, then only 10 years old, valiantly tried to fight them off, using her body to try to save her 3-year-old sister, Krystyanna Cowan. 

Little Krystyanna died in the attack, and Brittney will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life. Unbelievably, Tamara Bergeron still refuses to take any blame for the events leading to the attack. When asked about the drug deal gone bad, Tamara explained it by saying, "We don't owe anybody money." In her drug-twisted mind, she's not responsible. She even tried to elicit sympathy by saying, "I have realized every parent's worst nightmare." Nightmare? No, darlin', that's called a foreseeable consequence. 

In complaining that his client Tamara Bergeron might not get custody of Brittney, her lawyer whined, "This is a case where the state did everything in its power to destroy the most important constitutionally protected right a citizen has. It makes me physically ill. What's next? Will the state try to take our cars and our homes?" 

Silly me, what was I thinking? As far as he's concerned, kids are mere possessions, to be used and abused at will. Clearly the attorney and his client are on the same mental page. 

Brittney has been in foster care for years, with a loving family who wants to adopt her, special needs and all. She has stated that she wants to be adopted, yet Judge Hardcastle refuses to allow it. He's more concerned about the rights of the alley cat who bore her. 

Did I mention that Tamara Bergeron had already lost custody of another child more than 10 years ago due to drug use? Judge Hardcastle knows this, yet he still believes it is in "Brittney's best interest" to have a relationship with her mother. 

Is he insane? I wonder, because in the 2003 custody case involving Brittney's biological dad (also a loser), Judge Hardcastle claimed, "Reasonable, responsible care for her is the goal of this court." Really? When does it start? I guess if you only destroy the lives of three children, you still get another chance. Maybe she'd have to damage a fourth child to get the judge's attention. 

Judges like Hardcastle, who are blind and deaf to the needs of the truly innocent in our society, should never preside over child welfare cases. Call me hard-hearted, but drug-using parents are last on my list of people who should be given numerous chances to change. Unfortunately, there are too many stories of children who are left in limbo while the parents are given "time." Certainly there are parents who fall on temporary hard times and subsequently demonstrate their fitness and willingness to parent correctly, and each case should be evaluated individually. However, the emphasis should always be placed on what's best for the innocent children, not the errant adults. 

We can't force people to be good parents, but we can enforce the laws and uphold the rights of those who have no one to speak for them. In the state of Nevada, if a child is out of the parents' home for 15 to 20 months, the state is obligated to pursue a termination of parental rights. In the case of infants, I'd like to see that timetable shortened considerably.

Many caring people don't want to be foster parents because they're afraid they'll become too attached and have to relinquish the children to parents who haven't really changed. The first step in improving our foster-care system is to get children out of the system as quickly as possible and into loving, stable homes. LW