Except for that one thing–smothering her 6-week-old daughter to death–Latrena Pixley was a good mother, the lawyer told the judge.
Which argument surely explains why Pixley is gaining custody of one of her other three children, even though the boy has been raised by another woman since birth.
Confirming that America’s dumbing-down has reached the highest levels, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals last week ordered the return of Cornilous, 2 1/2, to his “real” mama.
The story of Latrena Pixley and baby Cornilous is the sort of maddening tale that sends sane people searching the Yellow Pages for voodoo dollmakers. For the judges who have ruled on this boy’s fate during the past few years have managed to contradict common sense, while possibly endangering the child’s life.
The cycle of insanity leading to last week’s bombshell began before Cornilous was born, back in 1992 when his bio-mom–then 19 and already mother to three children by three different fathers–killed her baby girl. The judge in her murder trial inexplicably bought defense arguments that Pixley was suffering “postpartum depression” when she smothered the baby with a blanket.
He even attacked prosecutors for seeking the maximum sentence of 15 years to life, suggesting that they wouldn’t demand such a tough sentence for “some high-class society woman” with a similar ailment. To prove his unique interpretation of even-handed justice, the judge suspended Pixley’s 5- to 15-year sentence and ordered her to spend weekends in jail for three years.
Not bad for murder.
But then, oops, Pixley got pregnant again, this time with Cornilous, who was born in January 1996. Cornilous was problematic for a weekend inmate. What to do with the baby? A police officer in training, Laura Blankman, whom Pixley had met a few years earlier, felt sorry for Pixley and offered to keep her baby on weekends.
Blankman’s baby-sitting job quickly evolved into a full-time guardianship as Pixley continued to get in trouble with credit card fraud and probation violations. Eventually, Blankman, whom Cornilous had begun calling “Mommy,” sought to adopt the boy, and Pixley protested.
Incomprehensibly, a judge ruled that Pixley should have her child. She had “maintained meaningful contact” with Cornilous (20 visits in 1997), the judge said, and had contributed to the child’s needs (she gave Blankman $100). Thus, under the mandates of quaint family reunification laws, she met the criteria for parental rights.
Unless Blankman appeals to the Supreme Court and wins, Cornilous will lose the only mother he’s ever known in favor of a woman who murdered her own child. What’s especially frustrating about Cornilous’ pathetic fate is that it needn’t have happened. The hitch, in addition to an appalling lack of horse sense, is our poor understanding of what constitutes a child’s best interest.
For the past two decades, the emphasis in adoptions of children in foster care has been on family reunification. But recent cases in which children have been returned to abusive homes or torn from adoptive homes after they’ve emotionally bonded have prompted revisions. Last year, President Clinton signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which shifted emphasis from reunification to “best interest of child,” defined by concerns for a child’s safety, permanency and protection. Ironically, even that law wouldn’t have helped Cornilous, who wasn’t officially in the foster-care system; Blankman was merely his guardian.
If we’re ever to get through breakfast again without choking on more rulings that nearly guarantee pain and suffering for a child, states must shift the emphasis of their adoption policies to the needs and rights of children rather than on adults’ rights to claim them, says Janet Snyder, executive director of Hear My Voice, a volunteer child advocacy group that worked on behalf of Blankman and Cornilous. “Cornilous hasn’t had his best interests considered,” says Snyder.
Meanwhile, one prays Pixley doesn’t have another child. That darned postpartum depression is a killer.
———-
E-mail: [email protected]