1. The standard that the judge had to use to make a decision was whether a child 1) had been abused or 2) was in imminent danger of abuse.
This was what the ACLU said as reported by Catholic
News:
I have a problem with the idea that infants are in imminent danger of abuse, or that every child is in imminent danger of abuse.
2. The lack of hearings for each child to consider that child's unique circumstances. There are reports that some children were visiting and had been there for only a few days. Again from the ACLU:
From the
SL Tribune:
3. The judge not responding to objections from lawyers representing parents and the children. Hence the
AP calling the hearing "a farce":
That is not careful consideration.
From the
DN:
4. In some cases lawyers volunteered to represent infants and toddlers and were provided no information by the state as to why they were seeking to remove custody from the parents.
5. Lastly, this is not a legal argument, but an argument that the judge has
admitted, I think, to being incompetent and unable to handle the case:
There is only reason she described herself as "simple." The way she has handled the case demonstrates exactly that.