|
Q:
|
What was the genesis of this piece?
|
|
A:
|
In 2003, the Washington State legislature followed the lead of 20-some other states in opening child dependency court hearings. This new law followed a series of high-profile foster-child fatalities and a class-action lawsuit by foster children. My editor, Mark Higgins, and I decided to test the complaints about the Child Protective Services by following one or two families who had lost a child to the state. I spent several days sitting in on 72-hour, shelter-care hearings (the first appearance by parents on whom the state has filed a child-protection order). That's where we found Mike Testa and Liz Campo. A Seattle Times photographer, Mike Siegel, came aboard soon after.
We truly had no idea where the story would go. We picked the couple primarily because they had legitimate hope of winning their child back. They were active and motivated. And, secondarily, the couple had strong personalities, which we thought would help us create a compelling narrative.
|
|
Q:
|
Please describe your reporting process. How much is reconstruction and how much were you present for? What sort of research did you do?
|
|
A:
|
We began staying in weekly contact with Mike and Liz, attending their court hearings and other appointments, as well as doing background checks and interviews with people involved in their case. I was present for all scenes in the story with three exceptions: The birth of Baby M was reconstructed from medical records, an interview with Mary Marrs and interviews with Mike, Liz and Liz's daughter. The domestic violence at their Edmonds apartment was reconstructed with a same-day interview with Liz and through police reports and CPS observation report. The car crash was reconstructed through interviews with a witness and with Liz and police reports. We also researched Washington's dependency system, court data, national studies by court improvement projects and the Pew Commission.
|
|
Q:
|
What challenges did you encounter during the reporting process?
|
|
A:
|
Although the court hearings were open, records on the case were not. An audio recording of an open hearing was deemed part of the sealed file, requiring a special order from the presiding judge for us to get a copy. Mike and Liz signed waivers allowing access to their files, but some records were not provided, including a psychological evaluation of Mike. We had to get that through other means.
In addition, some service providers (drug treatment providers, observation workers) felt Mike and Liz's waiver with the Times was insufficient and kicked us out of appointments.
The couple was homeless for most of the reporting. They had no cell phone, but they did have a voice message machine. We had to find ways other than the phone to keep in touch. I often had to simply show up at appointments that I knew the couple had scheduled in order to find them.
Finally, source management was a challenge. My access to the case flowed directly through Mike and Liz. It was a struggle at times to keep outside folks—lawyers, social workers, and child-welfare bureaucrats—from undermining my relationship with the couple. It became difficult to draw boundaries with Mike as he spun into mental illness; at times he believed photographer Mike Siegel and I were sleeping with Liz.
|
|
Q:
|
Please describe your process of structuring and writing the piece.
|
|
A:
|
This was a very personal, intimate tale, and we reported it and then told it very much in a chronology. There was an easy narrative arc to the story, with high points, including when the couple had the most hope of reunification, and later, when their dreams fell apart. We tried to tell the story through scenes as much as possible and used step-back sections to weave in additional context.
|
|
Q:
|
What sort of reaction did you get to the story? Emails? Phone calls? Response from other media?
|
|
A:
|
A tremendous response, with at least 120 e-mails/telephone calls in the first two days. Readers responded in a visceral, emotional way; many started their emails with "I've never done this before, but your story…" and described them crying at the end. A common theme was that it clearly explained this Byzantine dependency-court process. Social workers, CASAs and lawyers wrote to us, saying they found the story true to their experience. Even long-standing critics of state CPS felt it was fair to the agency and to the parents because it humanized both parties. The social worker and mother felt it was fair and accurate. The one exception was a parents'-rights group, which felt it gave the state a free pass on accountability.
|
|
Q:
|
Please include any other comments you think would be interesting to fellow reporters, editors and students of narrative.
|
|
A:
|
I ordinarily write policy or watchdog/investigative stories on the social issues beat, and approached using a narrative story telling technique with trepidation. The e-mails and phone calls we received made me a believer.
At the suggestion of other reporters more skilled at this type of story telling, I did extensive on-the-record interviews with as many people as possible early on. These were excellent touchstones for perceptions and hopes that changed over the life of the case. I wrote most of the scenes as they happened, including my notations about unanswered questions.
It seemed at times like this project would never be published, in large part because the story did not have an ending. Once the fate of Baby M was resolved, I knew we could move ahead and publish this story. My biggest recommendation is to persevere.
|