Cager et al Appendix of Appellants

    I n  th e

(Eourt of Appeals of Morglanfi
September T erm, 1967 

No. 353

IN RE CAGER et al.

APPENDIX OF APPELLANTS 
BARBARA JEAN CAGER, DORIS L. PATTERSON 

AND BRENDA LaVERNE JACKSON

J ohn H. Sexton 
Charles Dukes 
David T illotson 
Jack Greenberg 
L eroy D. Clark 
P hilip G. Schrag 
W . Haywood B urns 
Gerald Smith

Attorneys for Appellants

James 0 . F reedman 
Frank R eeves 

Of Counsel



INDEX TO APPENDIX

Excerpts From Trial Transcript ..................................  la

Opinion of the Court ............................................... la

Motion of Defendants That Counsel Be Fur­
nished Them and Motion to Appoint Counsel 
for Mothers ............................................................  7a

Motion to Stay Proceedings..................................... 12a

Motion to Appoint Counsel for Children ............. 13a

Motion That Welfare Board Records Be Sealed 14a

Motions to Consolidate Actions and to Suppress 
All Evidence Improperly Obtained ...................  16a

W itness foe State :

J. Charles Judge
Direct ...............    17a

Motion for Dismissal................................................  23a

Motion for Discharge of Petition........................... 27a

Statement of Amicus Curiae ................................... 28a

Reply to Statement of Amicus Curiae...................  30a

Motion to Dismiss Denied ....................................... 33a

W itness foe A micus Cueiae :

Vincent James Femia
Direct ..........................................................  35a
Cross ............................................................  42a
Redirect ......................................................  44a
Recross ...........   45a

PAGE



Closing* Statements ................................................ 47a

Decision Re Children ............................................  51a

Motions to Intervene as Party Defendant or Furnish 
Counsel .................................................................... 53a, 55a

Motion for the Court to Appoint Counsel for Mother 57a

Motion to Stay Proceedings..........................................  59a

Demand for Particulars ................................................ 60a

Answer to Demand for Particulars.............................  62a

Report of Master ...........................................................  64a

Exhibits Admitted into Evidence at Hearing 
of September 21, 1967

Amicus Curiae Exhibit 1—Form 218 of the Welfare 
Department ................................................................. 65a

State’s Exhibit 1—Certificate of Live Birth in re 
Cheryl Elaine Cager............................................ ........ 67a

State’s Exhibit 2—Certificate of Live Birth in re 
Patricia Ann Cager ...................................................  68a

State’s Exhibit 3—Certificate of Live Birth in re 
Tracy Louise Cager.................................................... 69a

State’s Exhibit 4— Certificate of Live Birth in re 
Bridgett Cager .................................................    70a

State’s Exhibit 5—Certificate of Live Birth in re 
Luther Paul Harper, Jr..............................................  71a

11

PAGE



I l l

PAGE

State’s Exhibit 6— Certificate of Live Birth in re 
Robert Page Harper ...........   72a

State’s Exhibit 7— Certificate of Live Birth in re 
Tammy Lynne Harper ................................................  73a

State’s Exhibit 8— Certificate of Live Birth in re 
Dwight Tyrone Jackson ......................_......................  74a

State’s Exhibit 9— Certificate of Live Birth in re 
Lisa Renna Jackson......................................................  75a

State’s Exhibit 10— Certificate of Live Birth in re 
Markitte Jackson ........................................................... 76a

State’s Exhibit 11—Memorandum to Raleigh C. Hob­
son ...............................................................................   77a



Excerpts From Trial Transcript

Opinioh of the Court

The Court: Well, gentlemen, it has been a long time since 
any case this member of The Court has had to consider 
has presented such an interesting spectrum of legal argu­
ments or has involved institutions so fundamental to our 
belief in what constitutes the very foundations of our so­
ciety as this case.

It is with a great deal of sorrow that The Court hears the 
arguments advanced that have been advanced in some parts 
of this case. It indicates to The Court how far indeed the 
public profession of morals has come from the time that 
this country was founded.

It is one thing to understand a problem with regret, it is 
another thing entirely to understand it and say that because 
it exists and has existed that nothing can be done about it 
and that it is perfectly all right, because a substantial 
number of people in the country are the victims of it.

The Court has ruled on the legal aspects of this case in 
the argument on the demurrer. We say at the onset that it 
is obvious to The Court and to everybody who has partici­
pated in these cases that they are test cases designed to 
determine whether or not this part of the State law fur­
nishes a vehicle to assist in the control of the problem of 
illegitimacy, its mounting costs to the taxpayers, and its 
mounting costs in human misery and suffering. We say in 
passing of the two we think the latter is the largest cost.

— 106—

If the statute, which is already on the books, is valid and 
is of some assistance in the problem, then we think the 
State’s Attorney’s office will proceed with its use in those

- 1 0 5 -



Opinion of the Court

cases where it applies. If it is not it can be readily deter­
mined in three cases as well as in three hundred. So we are 
not concerned with the fact that only three of these cases 
are before The Court. We are not concerned a great deal 
with the technical arguments that have been made and ap­
peals about the particulars in this case. As The Court sees 
it, these cases come before it on what is conceived to be the 
minimum of evidence that could be presented. Unquestion­
ably other evidence could be brought before The Court of 
the surroundings in these homes, of the disposition of the 
parents, of the condition of the children, and a great many 
other things. We think this case is designed to raise the 
question in the light of a minimum of evidence and The 
Court takes it in that framework and views it in the light 
of a minimum of evidence which stands unexplained before 
The Court.

Now the charge, as we understand it, is supported sub­
stantially only by the stipulation of facts. Other evidence 
can be gleaned perhaps from the birth certificates and from 
the report which was submitted, but we do not consider 
that, we consider this case on these facts: That these 
women have conducted themselves in such a way that they

- 1 0 7 -
have brought into the world more than one illegitimate 
child, that those children are now living together with their 
mother under the same roof, or in the same group unit.

Now the question to be decided is whether or not on that 
set of minimum facts, The Court can find that they are 
neglected within the meaning of the Maryland law.

This brings us to the resolution of the question raised 
by that law: are these children living in an unstable moral 
environment.



3a

This business of an unstable moral environment encom­
passes the intangible proposition that exists between human 
beings who live together as a unit related, by ties of blood 
or marriage. The mere absence of a man from a group is 
not what we are talking about. Widows and divorcees need 
not be considered as unstable because no man is involved 
in their home. What is sought to be elicited in the moral 
question is the recognition by the community that the rela­
tionships between the man in the house and the mother of 
the children are those which meet the minimum acceptable 
standards of the community. And the minimum acceptable 
standards in this community for men and women who wish 
to live together, to have sexual relations and to biing into 
the world children in union between themselves is that they 
be married. And something less than that, we think, is, 
under the regulations that society has imposed upon itself,

— 108—
immoral. There is nothing to stop this country from aban­
doning monogamy. There is nothing to stop the legislature 
from passing a law legalizing polyandry or polygamy, but 
the legislature hasn’t seen fit to do that and we think the 
reason that they haven’t seen fit to do that is that a majoi- 
ity of the people in this State believe that the present 
system is the best system.

Defense counsel, in part of their argument, say that the 
ties which bind mothers to children are the closest of any 
ties that exist, any natural ties. We don’t quarrel with 
that. We don’t think they are necessarily closer than those 
that bind fathers to children, if the fathers are the right 
kind of fathers.

We don’t concede that father’s role in raising children 
isn’t just as important as the mother’s. It may be different,

Opinion of the Court



4a

but there are bad mothers and there are bad fathers. The 
existence of a marriage ceremony does not perhaps improve 
the disposition of the parents, but it does insure to the 
children certain legal rights and social standing which they 
cannot under our system of government secure in any other 
way, nor in the light of the majority of our citizens, in any 
other way socially.

Now the bringing into the world of a single illegitimate 
child, we think, is no different on moral grounds than the 
bringing into the world of several. The difference we make

— 109—-
is this: It is almost impossible to tell who may or may not 
have an illegitimate child. There is no way this can be 
determined in advance. Most first illegitimate children we 
think are the result of a mistake. Most of them we think 
are engendered in a situation which is the result either of 
ignorance of natural functions or passion of the moment, 
the influence of outside forces on persons whose natural 
urges are stronger perhaps than their ability to reason, but 
we feel that that experience ought to put the person in­
volved on notice of what occurs. They ought to be aware 
after that of the penalties, both physical, social, and other­
wise of this type of activity, and that on the second occasion 
they can no longer say that this was a mistake. The second 
time around we think represents a lack of judgment and 
demonstrates an unstable moral attitude on the part of the 
mother. We think for her to continue to conduct herself 
in such a way as repeatedly to bring illegitimate children 
into her household, reflects a weakness in her character, and 
a demonstrable view of morals on her part, that is inconsis­
tent with the minimum moral standard the community re­

Opinion of the Court



5a

quires. And the reason therefor, that by her deliberate 
knowing course of conduct in engaging in sexual relations 
with men, that produce illegitimate children, she has demon­
strated in the most forceful and irrefutable way that she 
either does not care for the views of society on morals, or

^ -1 1 0 -
caring, is unable to conform her conduct to their minimum 
standards.

We think, therefore, that some outside influence on her 
conduct, such as that that The Court may be able to exert 
under this statute, would perhaps not solve the loroblem 
but at least be beneficial in the premises.

We have no difficulty concluding that the words unstable 
moral environment relate or were intended to apply to a 
situation where a mother has had a series of illegitimate 
children such as these mothers had in these cases. And 
that such a series of illegitimate children constitute on the 
part of the mother neglect of each of the children involved.

Neglect concerns itself not only with the physical aspects 
of the children’s lives, but with their moral and spiritual 
existence as well. That it is impossible for a mother of less 
than independent wealth to care for three or four or seven 
or eleven or twelve illegitimate children on the slender 
means provided her by the welfare department, we think is 
axiomatic. That it is virtually impossible for a mother who 
continues to have illegitimate children by a series of fathers, 
that it is impossible for such a woman to provide the moral 
training and the spiritual counseling that ought to surround 
the nurture of children of tender years so they will not 
themselves fall into the difficulties that she has fallen into, 
we think is a proposition of great difficulty, and that some

Opinion of the Court



6a

Opinion of the Court

-Ill-
incentive needs to be provided for mothers who insist on 
following their biological bent without regard to their social 
obligations or their community welfare and availing them­
selves of the right to what they may regard as the pursuit 
of happiness guaranteed by The Constitution and the Decla­
ration of Independence, while at the same time completely 
disregarding all obligations that the government created by 
that Constitution imposes on them, we think is not a valid 
position for them to take.

In short, gentlemen, The Court concludes that the unex­
plained facts presented in this case demonstrate to the 
Court’s satisfaction that these children are neglected with­
in the meaning of the statute.

Madam Clerk, the docket entries will show the fact of 
this hearing and that The Court finds these children to be 
neglected and dependent children by virtue of the fact they 
live in an unstable moral environment.

The Clerk: In the matter of Lisa Renee Jackson, Juvenile 
Action 7459; in the matter of Dewight Tyrone Jackson, 
Juvenile Action 7460; in the matter of Markitt Jackson, 
Juvenile Action 7461; in the matter of Bridgett Cager, 
Juvenile Action 7384; in the matter of Tracy Louise 
Cager, Juvenile Action 7385; in the matter of Luther Paul 
Harper, Jr., Juvenile Action 7389; in the matter of Robert 
Page Harper, Juvenile Action 7390; and, in the matter of 
Tammy Lynne Harper, Juvenile Action 7391.

Mr. Bourne: I f the Court please, preliminarily may I 
address the Court?



7a

Motion of Defendants That Counsel Be Furnished Them 
and Motion to Appoint Counsel for Mothers

The Court: Yes, you may.
Mr. Bourne: As I understand my position now in the 

case as Amicus curiae, and also as Amicus curiae I would 
like to make several motions.

In Juvenile Action 7384, 7385, 7389, 7390, 7391, 7459 and 
7461, in all the actions I have written motions in the Cager 
and Harper petitions, and as friend of the Court I would 
like to make a motion that the Court appoint counsel for 
the mothers in these actions.

The Court: All right, sir, I will he glad to hear you on 
it if you wish to he heard.

Mr. Bourne: In the matter of the Jackson children 
I would like to make oral motions on her behalf under

— 5—
United States vs. Blake.

I  would say to Your Honor that the mother has such 
an interest in these proceedings that her rights should 
be protected by counsel. These mothers are indigent and 
cannot afford to pay counsel, but to deny the mothers of 
counsel deprives them of their constitutional rights.

My thinking in this is this: that the language of the 
statute relates itself to the conduct of the mother. Any 
finding of this Court can deprive her of her rights, custody 
of her children, subject the children to custody of the De­
partment of Welfare or such other place the Court may 
determine they should be, that because she has such an 
abiding interest in this matter she is a necessary person 
to be represented and to deprive her of her rights to 
counsel in this would deprive her of her constitutional 
rights.



8a

The Court: Are you equating that deprivation of the 
right to counsel with the inability to employ counsel?

Mr. Bourne: Well, I say this, where you have indigent 
mothers, they have a right to counsel, they do have such 
an interest in this case that the Court should appoint coun­
sel for them in this case.

The Court: In other words, in addition to allowing them 
to be represented in the case by amicus curiae, you tell 
me that we should pay that amicus curiae out of the 
same funds that we pay attorneys to represent them in

— 6—
the case that they are subsequently charged with a vio­
lation of the law and become defendants?

Mr. Bourne: I am saying that they are entitled to more 
than just an amicus curiae, Tour Honor, they are entitled 
to an attorney of record that has some control over the 
presentation of the case, cross-examination in other mat­
ters.

The Court: If the Court concludes they are not entitled 
to that, then you abandon your claim for compensation of 
counsel in this case?

Mr. Bourne: Beg pardon?
The Court: I  say if the Court concludes that they are 

not proper parties to these cases, and that therefore the 
only form of interest that they may have would be as a 
friend of the court, then do you abandon your claim to 
court-appointed attorney?

Mr. Bourne: The purpose of this particular action, I 
would assure the Court, if the Court saw fit to appoint me 
as counsel for the ladies he would not ask the Court for 
compensation. It is not a matter of compensation in this 
matter that concerns me. The concern is a right to counsel 
in this matter, court-appointed counsel.

Motion to Appoint Counsel for Mothers



9a

The Court: All right, sir.
Do you gentlemen wish to be heard on that point?
Mr. Femia: If Your Honor please, I have the feeling

—7—
of the three motions Mr. Bourne has before the Court, it is 
a bit premature to have a motion seeking to appoint coun­
sel for the mother. As I recall the last episode of this pro­
ceeding the mothers are not parties hereto, in fact, as I 
recall, Mr. Bourne spent better—no, it was Mr. F is h e r -  
spent better than half a day having the cases against the 
mothers dismissed or abandoned. They are not at this 
juncture, at least, parties to the action, and based upon 
that I see no reason why the Court should appoint counsel 
for them in this action. The Court can appoint counsel 
for them all at once, but not in this action, and, therefore, 
that counsel would not be in this action until such time 
as Mr. Bourne’s other motion was heard. I think we are 
premature on the ones for appointment to counsel. They 
are not partners.

The Court: Well, gentlemen, this matter brings before 
the Court for consideration once again the relationship of 
the mother to a juvenile proceeding involving her illegiti­
mate child. The effect of the Court’s prior rulings in this 
case has been to conclude the mothers were not a proper 
party to this proceeding. Nothing that has been said in 
argument here today, and nothing contained in the motion 
filed, impresses the Court that there is an incorrect opinion. 
There is, of course, no question but the fact that this case 
may involve the future of the parent and may involve it in 
a way that is unique to these cases. It is in recognition of

Argument Re Motions



1 0 a

Argument Be Motions

this relationship that the Court has permitted the mothers 
to intervene in these cases by amicus curiae.

The argument that the mother is a necessary party to 
the proceedings, since the result may relate to her conduct, 
we think has no force. A  witness in a criminal case is not 
a necessary party to the proceedings, even though the 
result to the parties may depend in large measure on the 
conduct of the witness. All persons who have vital interest 
in the outcome of lawsuits are not necessarily proper 
parties to those lawsuits. A  parent, whose child is before 
the Juvenile Court, charged as a neglected child, is always 
vitally interested in the outcome of that case. It seems to 
the Court that everyone has lost their sense of perspective 
about this case, simply because the grounds of neglect are 
charged as the conduct of the mother in bringing into the 
world more illegitimate children. This is just the one 
ground for negligence. It is a ground for negligence just 
as if the mother were indulging in alcoholic beverages to 
the extent the children were brought up in an unstable and 
immoral surrounding. Certainly the Court has heard of 
many a case involving neglected children but never until 
this one has the argument been asserted that mother was 
a proper party or ought to be represented by counsel at 
the expense of the State. We know of no opinion on con­
stitutional law which supports the proposition raised in

—9—
this motion, that the denial of the petition for the mother 
to intervene constitutes a violation of her constitutional 
rights. The mere fact that she may subsequently have to 
face future action in this Court is not, we think, a sufficient

—8—



11a

ground to base claim to representation in this case. She 
is entitled to representation only in a case where she is a 
defendant and in which her rights, as a defendant, are an 
issue before the Court.

We next consider the proposition that she should be 
allowed to hire an attorney for her children in this case 
to the exclusion of the guardian appointed by the Court.

Mr. Bourne: If the Court please, the motion does not 
say to the exclusion of the guardian ad litem.

The Court: Well, Mr. Bourne, I know it doesn’t, but 
that is the effect of the result you seek. We couldn’t have 
two or three persons representing the same interest. We 
feel that either the mother’s responsibility to hire an at­
torney to represent these children, or the Court is re­
sponsible to provide a guardian for them. We think it 
would be a possible situation to have the guardian asserting 
the one, on one hand, his right to present the position of 
the children, and beside him at the table another attorney 
asserting his right to present their position. We think that 
whatever position they may have with respect to their 
mothers, or whatever position the mothers wish to bring

— 10—
to the attention of the Court, can best and most properly 
be presented by their friend at court. We think the ancient 
proposition that minor children are always in the bosom 
of the Court is still a valid one and that this case presents 
an illustration of that principle. The interest of the chil­
dren here may be adverse to that of the mothers. It takes 
no great amount of imagination to see how that could be.

The interest of these children may be well better served 
by taking them out of the influence of their mother’s orbit

Argument Re Motions



12a

Motion to Stay Proceedings

and placing them in homes where they will receive the 
minimum standards of moral and ethical training that the 
Court feels they should have. It would be a rare case, we 
think, in which mothers, the position that these mothers 
occupy, would assert that proposition to the Court. It is 
not unheard of, but we think that it is too much to expect 
that the average mother in this situation would be objec­
tive about the situation to make such a presentation to 
the Court. It is because of this possible conflict the Court 
thinks the proceedings, whereby the Court appoints a 
guardian for these children to present their position, with­
out the necessity of considering at the same time the best 
interest of the parents, represents a better way to secure 
an impartial adjudication of their best interests.

Accordingly, gentlemen, the motion of the mothers to 
intervene as party defendants in these cases is denied.

— 11—

The motion of the defendants to be furnished counsel at 
public expense is denied.

Now, Mr. Bourne, do you wish to present other motions!
Mr. Bourne: Yes, in view of Your Honor’s ruling in 

those two matters, I have a motion to stay the proceedings 
pending a final ruling on the motion to intervene herein. 
It is my opinion this is an appealable motion and that the 
matter should have determination in the Court of Appeals 
prior to this matter proceeding.

Mr. Marshall: We, of course, oppose the motion to stay. 
Mr. Bourne, as a friend of the Court, has no standing be­
fore the Court at this particular time, inasmuch as he is 
not permitted to intervene. We wish to dispose of this. 
It might be appealable. We don’t deny that Mr. Bourne



13a

Motion to Appoint Counsel for Children

can file an appeal on whatever points he thinks are proper, 
but we do not think it is proper to stay these proceedings 
that are in no way in connection with Mr. Bourne’s position 
or client, as far as the State is concerned.

The Court: Very well, gentlemen, the Court concludes 
that motion to stay ought to be denied. We think this mo­
tion is appropriate only to those who are parties to the 
proceedings and whatever appeal may be possible, al­
though we haven’t had time to research it, no authority 
has been pointed out to the Court as required by the local

— 12—

rules to support this motion, and the Court knows of none.
Accordingly, gentlemen, the motion is denied.
Madam Clerk, your docket entry will show the fact of 

this hearing and that the motions are denied as to—I 
assume you want these motions treated as though they were 
filed in each of these cases; is that right, Mr. Bourne?

Mr. Bourne: Yes, Your Honor, they have their file in 
each.

I would like the motion I have made on behalf of the 
Harper and Cager children to apply to the Jackson cases.

The Court: That is what I say.
Madam Clerk, will you note that the docket entries in 

each of these cases will be just as if written motions had 
been filed in each case and heard and denied in each case?

Mr. Bourne: I have another motion, if the Court please.
The Court: All right, sir.
Mr. Bourne: As a friend of the Court, I would like to 

make a motion that an attorney be appointed to represent 
the children.

The Court: Very well.



14a

Motion That Welfare Board Records Be Sealed

If the Guardian ad litem appointed in this case were 
not a member of the Bar, the Court would, of course, 
appoint a member of the Bar to represent him.

— 13—
However, the Court is confident that his appointment, 

and his standing at the bar were considered by the judge 
who made the appointment, and that he has devoted an 
extraordinary amount of time to the preparation of his 
position in this case, or these cases, and that no justful 
purpose would be served by appointing a further member 
of the Bar to represent him in his position as guardian ad 
litem.

Accordingly, upon the facts of this case, the motion is 
denied.

Mr. Hertz: Your Honor, may I address the Court? 
I am Mr. Hertz from the County Attorney’s Office. Under 
Article 88A we are charged with the duty of representing 
the Welfare Board. It is my understanding in talking with 
members of the State’s Attorney’s Office and members of 
the counsel for defense, that certain records of the Welfare 
Board have been subpoenaed. The Welfare Board, through 
its counsel, does not object to the records being used in 
evidence. We feel there is case law for the authority that 
this can be so.

However, Article 88A, Sections 5, 6 and 8, require that 
the records be kept confidential. Accordingly, we would like 
to move, on behalf of the Welfare Board, that if those 
records are introduced into evidence or if there is testimony 
given by members of the Welfare Board, from those rec­
ords, that the record be sealed and that the Court undertake



Motion That Welfare Board Records Be Sealed

— 14—

to enter such order as will protect the confidentiality of 
those records. We recognize that for purposes of eliciting 
those records can be used but for other purposes they 
should be sealed and kept under strict court supervision.

The Court: Very well, sir, the Court will undertake to 
take good care of the records and keep them from public 
scrutiny.

Mr. Hertz: Thank you.
The Court: I only wish the Welfare Board was as zealous 

in its other obligations imposed on it by the statute as 
they are of keeping these records secret, and I trust you 
will convey to them the Court’s opinion in that regard.

Mr. Hertz: Counsel will. Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Bourne: I f the Court please, I would like permission 

of the Court for a member of the Bar of the State of New 
York and a member in good standing of the Bar of the 
Supreme Court to associate with me as amicus curiae in 
this case, Mr. Leroy Clark.

The Court: Is he as good as you are, Mr. Bourne?
Mr. Bourne: I believe he is even better than I am, Your 

Honor.
The Court: I don’t believe that. If that is true I will 

have to start staying up even later than I am now. And 
you know I am glad to have anybody that you recommend 
appear in court.

— 15—

Mr. Bourne: Thank you, Your Honor.
The Court: Glad to have you.
Mr. Femia: Could we have the gentleman’s name for 

the record?
Mr. Bourne: Mr. Leroy Clark, C-l-a-r-k.



16a

Motions to Consolidate Actions and to Suppress 
All Evidence Improperly Obtained

Mr. Femia: Everybody else lias made a motion, I think 
I will make one also.

At this time the State would move to consolidate Juvenile 
Actions 7459, 7460, 7461, 7384, 7385, 7389, 7390, and 7391 
for the purposes of trial.

The Court: I assume, gentlemen, there is no objection 
to that motion. We have been considering these cases 
right along together. I think it should probably be con­
tinued.

Mr. Bourne: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Very well, there being no objection, the 

motion will be granted. Madam Clerk, we will hear the 
cases together.

Mr. Bourne: If the Court please, to clarify my position 
as amicus curiae, would I be entitled to make technical 
motions to the Court during hearings on this matter?

The Court: Mr. Bourne, we expect you, and now Mr. 
Clark with you, to do whatever you think is necessary to 
present your position in this matter and to that extent we 
will hear you on any matters that you think are appro-

— 16—
priate. You may participate in the examination of witnesses 
and to all extent, to the full extent that you desire.

Mr. Bourne: In view of that, I would like to make a 
motion to suppress all evidence obtained by way of illegal 
search or seizure, improper conversations or by way of a 
confidential relationship. And we will ask the Court to 
rule on it at the appropriate time.

The Court: Does improper conversation include the third 
definition of conversation, Mr. Bourne?

Mr. Bourne: No, Your Honor, oral conversation.



17a

Mr. Femia: We will concede all evidence illegally con­
ceived should be suppressed. The State of Maryland al­
ways said that.

The Court: The Court rules all evidence illegally seized 
will be suppressed.

*̂*  ̂ *̂  ̂ ^

—17—
J. Charles Judge was called as a witness by and on 

behalf of the State of Maryland, and, having been first 
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Femia:

Q. Mr. Judge, give the Court your full name and occu­
pation, please. A. My name is J. Charles Judge, J-u-d-g-e. 
I am Chief of the Division of Vital Records of the Mary­
land State Department of Health.

Mr. Femia: Mark those 1 through 4 for identi­
fication.

— 18—
(Certificate of Live Birth in re Cheryl Elaine 

Cager was marked for identification State’s 
Exhibit No. 1.)

(Certificate of Live Birth in re Patricia Ann 
Cager was marked for identification State’s 
Exhibit No. 2.)

(Certificate of Live Birth in re Tracy Louise 
Cager was marked for identification State’s 
Exhibit No. 3.)

(Certificate of Live Birth in re Bridgett Cager 
was marked for identification State’s Exhibit 
No. 4.)

J. Charles Judge—for State—Direct



18a

J. Charles Judge—for State—Direct 

By Mr. Femia:

Q. Mr. Judge, in this capacity do yon have charge of 
certain records that we commonly call birth certificates? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you asked to bring to the court certain of those 
records? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I hand you those that have been marked for iden­
tification as State’s Exhibits Nos. 1 through 4 and ask 
you to tell us what they are, sir.

Mr. Bourne: I f  the Court please, he can identify 
them, but to read the material off of them would 
be objectionable.

Mr. Femia: Well, I agree with that, counsel, but 
I didn’t ask him to read the material. I asked him

— 19—
to tell us what they are.

The Witness: A  certificate of live birth, all four 
of them.

By Mr. Femia:

Q. Are these certified certificates, sir? A. They are 
certified certificates, certifying to the fact that they are 
true copies of records on file in the Division of Vital 
Records.

Mr. Femia: Mark these, please.

(Certificate of Live Birth in re Luther Paul 
Harper, Jr. was marked for identification 
State’s Exhibit No. 5.)



19a

(Certificate of lave Birth in re Robert Page 
Harper was marked for identification State’s 
Exhibit No. 6.)

(Certificate of Live Birth in re Tammy Lynne 
Harper was marked for identification State’s 
Exhibit No. 7.)

By Mr. Femia:

Q. I ask yon, sir, to identify these for us. A. These 
are certificates of live birth of the Maryland State De­
partment of Health, and they are certified to as true copies 
of the records on file in the Division of Vital Records.

J. Charles Judge—for State—Direct

Mr. Femia: Mark these.
— 20—

(Certificate of Live Birth in re Dwight Tyrone 
Jackson was marked for identification State’s 
Exhibit No. 8.)

(Certificate of Live Birth in re Lisa Renna 
Jackson was marked for identification State’s 
Exhibit No. 9.)

(Certificate of Live Birth in re Markitte Jack- 
son was marked for identification State’s Ex­
hibit No. 10.)

By Mr. Femia:

Q. I hand you that which has been marked State’s Ex­
hibit No. 8, 9 and 10 for identification and ask you to 
identify those for us. A. They are certificates of live 
birth and are certified to as a true copy of the records on 
file in the Division of Vital Records.



Q. Who certified those, sir? A. I did.
Q. Who certified to all of these Exhibits Nos. 1 through 

10? A. I do, sir.

Mr. Femia: I move their admission, Your Honor, 
at this time.

Mr. Kratovil: The Court’s indulgence just a mo­
ment.

Mr. Bourne: If the Court please, I would object 
to the admission of-—•

— 21—

Mr. Marshall: If it please the Court, as amicus 
curiae I don’t believe he has a right to object. I 
believe he has a right to come to the court and argue, 
but I don’t believe he has a right to object to any­
thing.

The Court: Well, he is an unusual amicus curiae. 
I  will let him object. We don’t have a chance to 
hear what is on his mind, but I will hear him. I 
think you are right as a matter of law, but we will 
bend the rule today.

* * * * *
— 24—

* * * * *

The Court: Gentlemen, the objection to the offer 
of these exhibits will be overruled and they will be 
received in evidence with the identifying numbers.

Mr. Kratovil: Exception.
The Court: You have an automatic exception to 

every adverse ruling of the Court, gentlemen.
(The documents heretofore marked for identi­

fication State’s Exhibits Nos. 1 through 10 
were received in evidence.)

J. Charles Judge•—for State—Direct



Stipulation

* * * * *

Mr. Femia: The Court’s indulgence.
If Your Honor please, at this point the State will 

proffer, we believe we understand that this is now 
the stipulation, it is stipulated that the children, 
on these birth certificates, are, and each of them is 
born out of wedlock to the respective mother. I 
think I had better narrow that down by saying that 
Dwight Tyrone Jackson, Lisa Renna Jackson and 
Markitte Jackson are three children born out of 
wedlock to Brenda LeVerne Jackson; that Cheryl 
Cager, Patricia Cager, Tracy Louise Cager and 
Bridgett Cager are four children born out of wed­
lock to Barbara Jean Cager; and that Luther Paul 
Harper, Jr., Robert Page Llarper and Tammy Lynne 
Harper are three children born out of wedlock to 
Doris Jean Patterson. And I understand further 
that counsel stipulates that what is now on the birth 
certificate is before the Court. Of course, it is be­
fore the Court without stipulation. I don’t think 
that is necessary.

The Court: I don’t think you need any more 
stipulations about that, Mr. Femia. You got in 
trouble a minute ago with that.

Mr. Femia: Yes, sir. That is before the Court.
Now that is the stipulation as I now understand it.

— 26—

Mr. Clark: And that is the sole factual basis that 
the State will adduce on this charge?

Mr. Femia: And if that stipulation is accepted 
we will rest at this point.

— 25—



22a

Stipulation

The Court: Do you gentlemen agree to the stipu­
lation ?

Mr. Kratovil: The stipulation that Mr. Femia has 
indicated and that this is the sole basis for the 
charge.

The Court: Well, if he rests that will be—
Mr. Marshall: The Court’s indulgence for just a 

moment.
Mr. Femia: And it is further stipulated, Your 

Honor, that these children all live with their re­
spective mother in the same household at this time.

The Court: All right, gentlemen, the Court re­
ceives the stipulation that we understand is agree­
able—we understand it is agreed upon by all coun­
sel, including the guardian ad litem and various 
State’s Attorneys and the two gentlemen who are 
amicus curiae for the mothers, that is that each of 
the children described in the birth certificates be­
fore the Court were born to their mothers out of 
wedlock, that they are presently alive, and that all 
of the children born to a given mother are residing 
with that mother at the present time.

Mr. Femia: I f Your Honor please, there has to be
—27—

one exception to that. I did not put that in the 
stipulation.

The Court: Put what in the stipulation?
Mr. Marshall: The Court’s indulgence.
Mr. Bourne: I f  the Court please, it might solve 

the matter to say that except for Patricia Cager, 
I believe it is Patricia.



23a

Mr. Femia: Yes.
The Court: All right, with the exception of Patri­

cia Cager.
All right, does everybody agree to the stipulation 

as the Conrt stated it? Because that is the Court’s 
understanding, whatever it is.

Mr. Kratovil: And that is the factual issue, sole 
factual issue of the case.

The Court: I  understand the State will rest.
Mr. Femia: And also that they are living in the 

home with the mothers.
The Court: That is what I said, with the excep­

tion of Patricia Cager.
All right, the Court accepts that stipulation.
What else do you have, Mr. State’s Attorney?
Mr. Femia: We have to rest at this point, Your 

Honor.
The Court: All right, Mr. Kratovil.
Mr. Kratovil: Your Honor, we will at this time

- 2 8 -
make a motion for dismissal for the following 
reasons:

The pleadings in the ease here indicate that a 
demand for particulars was filed. Eight questions 
were asked, which are in the record, and I need not 
go into them.

However, they were in general, in what ways have 
the minors been denied a home that fails to provide 
a stable, moral environment, what elements consti­
tute, during what period did the home, has the home 
failed to provide, what places did the failure occur,

Motion for Dismissal



24a

what parties manifested such behavior, during what 
time period have some persons manifested such be­
havior and what specific acts of morality, and the 
sole answer to those questions was that the children 
are living in an immoral atmosphere, by reason of 
the fact they are living with their mother, who has 
and has had illegitimate children.

Now as the Court knows in my demurrer I raised 
two points, I think, and the first point was really 
two parts. First of all that the State is bound by 
these particulars. Now this is sufficient. We are 
proceeding civilly. They are bound by the particu­
lars. We stipulated pretty generally to what they 
have answered in the particulars, but they are bound 
by them. So what they are saying is that fact, the 
fact there are children living in a home with other 
illegitimate children constitutes neglect.

Now the statute indicates that, subparagraph says
- 2 9 -

in determining whether a stable moral environment 
exists. Well, the word environment is defined as 
surroundings, an aggregate of things, conditioned 
influences. It is not one thing.

Now this one particular factor may have been 
part of an environment and nobody is denying that, 
but it is not the sole, there cannot be a finding solely 
on the fact there are illegitimate children living in 
this home and I think it is obvious if you read the 
original act. I think it is Chapter 728. There was, 
in the original act, a provision that says it is prima 
facie evidence of, but that was stricken and it was

Motion for Dismissal



25a

stricken for a good reason because it can’t be prima 
facie evidence of, they didn’t want that in there. 
They wanted to indicate that possibly that you could 
go through these and this might be one or there are 
a lot of things making up an environment and the 
Court should take a look at this. Perhaps that is 
what they indicated, but they did not indicate and 
they did not want the Court to look at that factor 
and determine illegitimate—I mean determine neg­
ligence.

*  #  #  #  *

— 33—
#  *  *  *  #

Mr. Kratovil: * * *
Now there have been some indications that the 

general purpose of this action that is before the 
Court was to create an interest in more birth control 
clinics, in dealing with the problem of illegitimacy. 
There have been indications that the idea is to keep 
more people off the Welfare rolls. I don’t think that, 
if that is the case, is a proper way to use the negli­
gence statute. Now this statute deals with negli­
gence. It is a very serious thing. It has to do with 
the interest of the children. I don’t think these chil­
dren should be used for a larger, greater purpose. 
Now if there should be birth control clinics, if there 
should be ways to remove women who are receiving 
welfare from the welfare rolls, all right, then those 
problems should be dealt with, but not through the 
negligence statute. It is the improper way to deal 
with it. And I think we ought to look at some of the 
questions that have come up in this. Now isn’t this

Motion for Dismissal



26 a

Motion for Dismissal

law really seeking to punish these women, through 
this neglect action here, aren’t we really trying to 
punish these women because they have had illegiti­
mate children and in effect the children themselves I

- 3 4 -
Now is it proper to have a law of this type that 

affects someone else for the conduct of a person over 
whom they have no control!

The Court: Aren’t you arguing your case on the 
merits now! What you are doing in effect is re­
arguing your demurrer. But you are now getting 
into questions on the merits, aren’t you!

Mr. Kratovil: Very well, I will simply point out—
The Court: What you are saying is the evidence 

is insufficient to sustain a finding of neglect at this 
point.

Mr. Kratovil: That is correct.
Mr. Marshall: The State doesn’t believe probably 

a reply is necessary. The same matters have been 
raised before on the demurrer. I have a copy of the 
Court’s previous finding. I do not think it is neces­
sary to re-argue the matter which has been argued 
before.

Mr. Bourne: I f Your Honor please, in view of the 
language of the Supreme Court, Gault case at 35 
Law Week, quoted at Page 4399, 116—October Term, 
1966, I am not at all certain that these proceedings 
are completely civil in nature and believe that con­
sidering whether they are due process under the 
Fourteenth Amendment, due process also goes to the 
sufficiency of the evidence.



27a

I would respectfully submit under the statute that 
the petition should be discharged. Petitions were

—35—
brought under Article 26, Section 52, and the sub­
section 6 of Section 52 reads:

. . who is living in a home which fails to provide 
a stable moral environment.”

The Legislature, in giving some direction to the 
Court, uses this language:

“ In determining whether such stable moral en­
vironment exists, the court shall consider, among 
other things, whether the parent, guardian, or per­
son with whom the child lives

“ (i) Is unable to provide such environment by 
reasons of immaturity, or emotional, mental or phys­
ical disability;

“ (ii) Is engaging in promiscuous conduct inside 
or outside the home;

“ (iii) Is cohabiting with a person to whom he or 
she is not married;

“ (iv) Is pregnant with an illegitimate child;— ”

The evidence presented to the Court could not sus­
tain any inference or deduction relative to those four 
subsections.

Section v uses the past tense “has” :

“ Has, within a period of twelve months preceding 
the filing of the petition alleging the child to be 
neglected, either been pregnant with or given birth

Motion for Discharge of Petition



28a

Statement of Amicus Curiae

—36—
to another child to whose putative father she was 
not legally married at the time of conception, or 
has not thereafter married.”

I respectfully submit that the only inference or 
deduction the Court may make from the evidence 
before it, relate only to the subsection v of the direc­
tion of the Legislature. And accordingly, there are 
no other things that may be considered by the Court 
in order to find the child neglected.

In the evidence presented to the Court today, 
accordingly, I would say the evidence is insufficient.

Now I am making my motion for judgment of 
acquittal. I would like to say—

The Court: Dismissal?
Mr. Bourne: To discharge the petition.
The Court: Motion to dismiss.

#  *  #  #  *

—37—
# # # * *

Mr. Clark: Your Honor, I think you have heard 
the arguments upon both of my counsel at the table 
as to what the Maryland Legislature intended in 
passing the statute as to whether or not the mere 
having of illegitimate children constitutes neglect.

—38—
I would like to direct myself, however, to the con­

stitutional implications of that decision. First, it is 
certainly unclear, from a reading of the statute, 
how the mere having of illegitimate children, as a 
sole factual basis, constitutes neglect, which means 
that the statute may well be subject to a claim of



vagueness unless the parties such as women involved 
in this case are clearly informed that their conduct 
will cause them to lose their children. And ultimately 
cause them to be charged criminally.

I would suggest also that the statute, if interpreted 
in this manner, may be open to serious claims that 
the mothers are being denied equal protection of 
laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution.

If the State wishes to proceed against women who 
are living in a home without a man, I would suggest 
they will have to proceed against every divorced 
woman in this State.

If in fact there has not been a legally constituted 
ceremony or marriage, which the State of Maryland 
will recognize, if that is the basis upon which the 
State wishes to proceed, I would suggest that the 
State would also have to make a search of the records 
to find out which women in the State have married, 
but whose marriages are not effective because their 
previous divorces were not effective. And if the

- 3 9 -
State is not willing to proceed against other women 
in the State, who are living without the benefit of a 
man in the home, nor if they are not willing to pro­
ceed against other women whose children are not 
formally illegitimate, then I would suggest that such 
an interpretation of the statute is a denial of equal 
protection of the laws and due process of the law.

And I would suggest further that such an inter­
pretation of the statute is subject to serious charges

Statement of Amicus Curiae



30a

of an interference with privacy. The State certainly 
has a right to protect children from the serious mis­
conduct of their parents, but I would suggest that 
the evidence which the State is relying upon is 
totally insufficient to establish such harm and abuse 
of the children and that since the evidence is inade­
quate and insufficient, the State cannot interfere with 
the privacy rights guaranteed to these mothers under 
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 
Constitution.

Mr. Marshall : If it please the Court, just a brief 
response to the statements of the amicus curiae.

They are correct in that there has been a slight 
change in the wording of the statute as decided by 
the Legislature as opposed to the wording as origi­
nally recommended by the Commission to study the 
Problem of Illegitimacy in which this particular sec­
tion was adopted.

—40—
Mr. Bourne: If the Court please, I would inter­

rupt that argument because in the State of Maryland 
the Court of Appeals time and time again has said 
that there is no legislative reference in this State 
because no detailed record of the hearings are kept 
and the legislative intent is not a factor to be con­
sidered in interpreting statutes in the State of Mary­
land.

Mr. Marshall: My recollection is they also have 
brought out legislative intent.

The Court: You may proceed.
Mr. Marshall: We will consider this is not law.

Reply to Statement of Amicus Curiae



31a

The Court: You may proceed.
Mr. Marshall: The change is under recommenda­

tions too, which has been filed to the Court, his 
reply to Mr. Kratovil’s reply brief. They do state 
that certain things, and they list the five things, be 
prim a facie evidence. This has been changed to say 
that these same five things may be considered by 
the Court.

Now this is, in reading both, the only change that 
the State can find in the proposed wording and the 
eventual outcome. I read the comment, which for 
the Court’s consideration is as follows:

“ Existing law provides that a child is neglected if 
the person having its custody is unfit by reason of 
immorality to ‘care properly’ for the child. The

—4 1 -
Commission believes, that ‘immorality’ creating an 
improper environment for a child should be clearly 
defined in order that public welfare workers and 
others may know under what specific circumstances 
they have the duty to file petitions alleging child- 
neglect.

“ After reviewing definitions of child-neglect in 
the statutes of other states, the Commission adopted 
its five-point criteria. Florida, Minnesota and Wis­
consin have reported the successful application of 
one or more of these criteria in handling the prob­
lem of illegitimacy and immorality.

“ It is not the intention of the Commission that 
neglect petitions be filed under this proposed new 
section against the woman whose only child is an

Reply to Statement of Amicus Curiae



32a

illegitimate child. Actions hereunder would be for 
the benefit of any child, legitimate or illegitimate, 
whose parent or guardian is unable to provide a 
stable moral environment or whose pattern of be­
havior constitutes prima facie neglect. This act 
would give the court an indirect approach to the 
parent’s unacceptable behavior by relating it to the 
neglect of other existing children.”

I point out this recommendation also uses the 
words “ is” , “ is” and “has” .

—42—
The Commission did consider the retroactive as­

pect in the utilization of the word “ is” . They go on 
further in their concluding statement and say:

“ Years ago in the interest of children, it became 
necessary to adopt stern though unpopular laws to 
enforce school attendance. To retard tuberculosis 
and venereal disease, the community has passed laws 
and coordinated all available means of attacking 
the problems. Today the community stands at a simi­
lar point of decision with respect to illegitimacy. 
Either we must bring into the light of public concern 
all the ugly facts relating to illegitimacy and attack 
it through such means, for example, as recommended 
by the Commission; or accept the alternative of ad­
mitting that we are powerless to uphold the Judaeo- 
Christian concepts of sanctity of marriage, standards 
of family life and concern for the welfare of chil­
dren.”

We presume that our statute is constitutional and 
we believe the defense should go forward with their 
defense in this case.

Reply to Statement of Amicus Curiae



33a

Motion to Dismiss Denied

The Court: Gentlemen, the Court—
Mr. Bourne: I believe-—I thought I had the right 

to reply to the State. It is my motion.
Mr. Marshall: I don’t believe the amicus curiae

—43—
has a right to a motion.

The Court: Gentlemen, we believe it has to come 
to an end sometime and we think this is the time.

The motion that has been argued by all parties, 
we think at this point fully, raises substantially the 
same issues as raised in the argument on the de­
murrer. The Court at that time expressed itself in 
some detail about the matter and we adopt those 
comments in ruling on this motion. At that time the 
constitutionality of the statute was raised, as well 
as the sufficiency of the evidence pleaded. The Court, 
in reviewing the evidence presented, concludes that 
a prima facie case has been made by the State of 
negligence.

The repeated births of illegitimate children, we 
think, indicate a problem of moral stability to the 
part of the mother and the rearing of the children 
in a home where illegitimacy is a factor and is ap­
parently taken for granted, we think requires the 
Court to consider whether or not on the merits of 
the matter, this is an unstable moral environment. 
It is the statute which deals with unstable moral 
environment rather than the subsections that set 
out what may be considered, with which we are con­
cerned. And accordingly, gentlemen, the motion to 
dismiss is overruled.



34a

Mr. Kratovil: The Court’s indulgence for a mo­
ment.

The Court: Gentlemen, at this point the State has
completed its case. * * *

# # *  # #

— 46—
# # # # #

Mr. Kratovil: I have nothing further to present. 
I would like to close.

The Court: All right, sir, Mr. Bourne, do you or 
Mr. Clark wish to present any testimony or evidence 
in your position as amicus curiae f

Mr. Bourne: Yes, Your Honor, since I can’t get a 
stipulation on this matter I would like to call Mr. 
Femia as a witness.

Mr. Marshall: If it please the Court, I never heard 
of an amicus curiae calling a witness in a case. We 
have no objection to Mr. Kratovil, if he wishes to 
call Mr. Femia.

If it is through the friend of the Court it should 
be through the parties of the matter. This could be 
quite damaging to Mr. Kratovil’s position I assume, 
otherwise Mr. Kratovil would have called Mr. Femia 
himself.

The Court: We are going to permit Mr. Bourne to 
do it under the relaxed rules which we are operat­
ing, but for the purposes of this case, but we don’t

—47—
intend thereby to set a precedent on how the Court 
would rule in a different type of case. This is a mat­
ter for this case and this one only.

* * # # #

Witness Permitted for Amicus Curiae



35a

V incent James F emia was called as a witness by and on 
behalf of the amicus curiae, and, having been first duly 
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. Bourne: I am sorry, Your Honor, I was a 
little slow. I would have asked the Court to waive 
any requirement that Mr. Femia take an oath.

The Court: Well, we want to get the full treat­
ment.

Mr. Bourne: Excuse me, Your Honor, I have so 
many papers here.

Direct Examination by Mr. Bourne:

Q. State your full name and address, please. A. Vincent
— 48—

James Femia, 108 Talbot Drive, Oxon Hill, Maryland.
Q. Mr. Femia, on May 24, 1967, were you on duty as 

Assistant State’s Attorney for Prince George’s County on 
the Courthouse of the State’s Attorney’s office? A. Yes.

Q. During the course of your duties there, did you have 
occasion to meet a Barbara Jean Cager? A. I did.

Q. Do you recall, sir, the circumstances under which 
you met her? A. I do.

Mr. Bourne: Would you mark this as Defendant’s 
Exhibit No. 1?

(A  copy of sheet entitled “ Support of Dependent 
Child” was marked for identification Amicus 
Curiae No. 1.)

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Direct



36a

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Direct 

By Mr. Bourne:

Q. I show you what has been marked, if Tour Honor 
please, for identification as Amicus Curiae No. 1 and ask 
you if you can identify that form? A. This is a State 
Department Public Welfare Form No. 218, titled “ Support 
of Dependent Child.”

Q. On the 24th, was it, of May? A. 24th of May.
—49—

Q. 24th of May. When you met Miss Cager, did she pre­
sent you with one of these forms? A. I don’t believe she 
presented it, but it was presented on her behalf at the time 
she came to our office, yes.

Q. And— A. To be frank with you, I don’t remember 
whether it was just one—two forms, if I am not mistaken.

Q. Two forms? And you know the Form 218 is a form 
for support of dependent children; is that correct? A. Mr. 
Bourne, I honestly don’t know. It is something that comes 
to us during the course of your duties. We have specific 
instructions with reference to it. What its purpose is, I have 
never been able to discover. I know there is a place on there 
where I am supposed to sign.

Q. And you are supposed to sign in your capacity as 
State’s Attorney? A. As Assistant State’s Attorney.

Q. As Assistant State’s Attorney.
Now the information you gathered in regard to Barbara 

Jean Cager and her children was information you had read 
on the form that she presented to you that date? A. In­
formation that I had gathered, sir?

Q. That you obtained on May 24th. A. The information
— 50—

that I had about Barbara Jean Cager on May 24th was in­



37a

formation I gathered from three sources: The 218s pre­
sented to me, Mrs. Cager’s representation to me, and Mrs. 
Stockton’s representation to me.

Q. Now the information with regard to the birth of the 
children was obtained from the forms; is that correct? A. 
No, sir, I don’t believe so. What do you mean when you 
say with reference to the birth of the children?

Q. The fact, the names and ages of the children. A. The 
names and ages of two of the Cager children, Bridgett. and 
Tracy, were on these form s; yes, sir.

Q. That was your initial contact of that information? 
A. That was my initial contact with that information; yes, 
sir.

Q. In relation to the 218 form, what are your instruc­
tions as to what you are to do with regard to them? A. 
Well, sir, my understanding of our instructions is that the 
218 form will be presented to our office by people who have 
applied for welfare through the Welfare Department, that 
we take this form and we glean from it what information 
we may with reference to the father. I must bring to your 
attention, of course, the 219 is not restricted to cases of 
illegitimate children. It is used in cases of dependent chil­
dren that may be legitimate, illegitimate or what have you, 
runaway fathers and what have you.

—51—
We take the form for the purpose of gleaning the in­

formation about the runaway father, or reputed father, or 
the lack of father, which has been the case, and then we 
also now, in our office, which we did when we were coming 
up, require the would be recipient to fill out an information 
sheet to give us some information about the father, where 
we may be able to find him, where we may at a later date

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Direct



38a

be able to contact the recipient, where the children are, how 
old the children are, and just about all the information we 
may glean, so we may prepare a proper case, if that be the 
case, if we decide a case should be prepared.

Now based upon the information we get we normally do 
one of two things. If it is the case of a runaway father, 
we know where we can get him, or we are told where we 
can find him, we then institute a warrant for his arrest 
under the non-support laws by having the woman proceed 
to the J. P.’s and swear out such a warrant. Upon her re­
turn, and upon advice by the J. P. that such a warrant that 
has been sworn out, we then sign the bottom of this form.

In other instances where you do not have a father, and 
when I use the word father I mean father by marriage, we 
refer the woman to one of our secretaries and she prepares 
paternity proceedings against the alleged father.

Q. Excuse me, to interrupt. A. Yes, sir.
— 52—

Q. Both of these procedures are under your responsi­
bility under Article 66A of the Maryland Code? A. I 
wouldn’t venture to guess at the article number. This is 
what I have been told to do by the man who pays me and 
that is why I do it, to be quite blunt with you.

There are instances, a number of instances, where these 
forms come to us, where, for instance, I realize this is not 
in evidence, but referring for illustrative purposes to the 
line that says, “ Data re : absent parent

“ Name
“Last Known Address
“ City County State”

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Direct



39a

It is quite common these forms come to ns with the name 
filled in, John Jones. Last known address: Unknown. And 
inquiry of the, usually woman, develops nothing except 
possibly she met him at Chubby’s or she met him at the gas 
station at Largo Eoad and that is the last she ever heard 
or saw of him, and therefore we cannot institute any official 
action against this unknown person, for all practical intents 
and purposes, other than his known name is John Jones.

And I have myself, and I don’t think this is office policy, 
if it is I am not aware of it, but I know myself, I have in 
many instances marked on the bottom of this form unable 
to initiate action, and return it unsigned to Welfare, which

•—53—
I understand is a very unpopular thing to do, but I do it 
anyway, because there is nothing I can do about it. The 
form, for all practical intents and purposes is meaningless 
to me at that point.

I have also, a number of instances where the person says 
—you say well, where did you meet him.

I met him out on 301.
Well, I can’t sign this form, you will have to take it 

back to Welfare to the worker.
Then all of a sudden, it is not uncommon that they have 

this miraculous-like recall of where he lives, with whom he 
lives, where he works, how long he has worked there. In 
many instances that is how we get our information.

Q. All right, sir, in the Cager matter, the Patterson chil­
dren, three Patterson children and Jackson children, the 
information is all gained from the 218 forms? A. I can’t 
answer that. I  can’t answer that.

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Direct



40a

Q. Well, with regard to the Patterson children. A. And 
Cager children.

Q. And Cager children, indicated from the 218 form? 
A. What information?

Q. With regard to the names, ages and birth dates of the 
children. A. It didn’t all come from the 218 form. It came 
from Mrs. Cager, Mrs. Stockton and the 218 form.

— 54—-
Q. Tour initial contact was through this, she was pre­

senting the 218 form to you? A. Yes, although in Mrs. 
Cager’s case, Mrs. Stockton actually put the form up there. 
Yes. My initial contact with the Mrs. Cager and the two 
children, Tracy and Bridgett, was through the 218 form 
put up on the counter; yes.

Mr. Bourne: May I move this into evidence? 
* * * * *

(The document heretofore marked for identifica­
tion Amicus Curiae No. 1 was received in evi­
dence.)

—55—
By Mr. Bourne:

Q. Now the Mrs. Stockton you referred to is who, sir? 
A. Mrs. Stockton introduced herself as a case worker for 
Welfare. I believe that is what they call themselves, case 
workers. And it was in charge, as I understand from her, 
of Mrs. Cager’s particular problems.

Q. Prior to April 24, 1967, had you ever filed a warrant 
against a mother for contributing with neglect of her chil­
dren and petitions against those children on the basis of 
information you got from the 218 form? A. Had I, sir?

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Direct



41a

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Direct 

Q. Yes. A. No, sir.
Q. To your knowledge, had anyone else in your office 

ever filed such an application for the warrant or petition!

Mr. Marshall: I am going to object to materiality 
as to whether or not it has been done in the past or 
whether or not it should be done in the future. It 
has no bearing on this particular case, Your Honor. 

The Court: Objection sustained.

By Mr. Bourne:

Q. Mr. Femia, to your knowledge, since May 25, 1967, 
have any other prosecutions of this nature been instituted 
by your office?

Mr. Marshall: I am going to object once again. It
— 56—

is not germane to this particular—
The Court: Objection sustained.

By Mr. Bourne:

Q. Sir, to your knowledge has your office received other 
applications from Welfare for the signature of an Assis­
tant in your office, who is obtaining welfare for illegitimate 
children other than the matters pending before the Court?

Mr. Marshall: Mr. Femia has testified he has, on 
many occasions, and given him examples. We will 
concede we have had many times.

The Witness: Since?



42a

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Cross 

By Mr. Bourne:

Q. Yes, since. A. Since, I don’t know. The only one I 
know of since is Mrs. Jackson.

Q. Since Mrs. Jackson on May 25th? A. Mr. Bourne, 
that I couldn’t say. Let’s put it this way: Nobody has 
brought any to me.

Mr. Marshall: The Court’s indulgence.
If it please the Court, I believe by stipulation the 

State would indicate we have received others, numeri­
cal numbers I could not say, 218 forms, which are 
now referred in to the Juvenile Division of our office, 
Mr. Shepherd’s office in the basement, and are no 
longer presented to Mr. Femia on the upper level of

—57—
the courthouse, but there have been a continuation 
of 218 forms filed in the State’s Attorney’s Office.

Mr. Bourne: Would the State further stipulate 
there have been no further prosecutions since May 
25, 1967?

Mr. Marshall: I am not certain of the date. Other 
than the three cases before the Court today there 
have been no other prosecutions.

Mr. Bourne: I have no further questions of the 
witness at this time.

Cross Examination by Mr. Marshall:

Q. Mr. Femia, as to the Cager case, or do you recall of 
your own knowledge how many children were referred to 
you from Welfare for your consideration on this 218 form? 
A. Two, Bridgett and Tracy.



43a

Q. And would you tell us how many children, to your 
own knowledge, sir, Mrs. Cager has had?

Mr. Bourne: Objection, Your Honor.
Mr. Kratovil: Objection.
Mr. Bourne: This is not pertinent to the testimony 

of the witness. It is in the record in another matter. 
This testimony is going strictly to my motion to 
suppress or it be, a motion to strike.

The Court: Overruled.
-—58—

The Witness: Four, three living, one dead.
Mr. Bourne: Of your personal knowledge do you 

know this?
The Witness: As much knowledge as I know she 

had Bridgett and Tracy.

By Mr. Marshall:

Q. Mr. Femia, could you tell the Court how you arrived 
on the information that there were more than two, since 
this information was not given to you? A. I think my ini­
tial information—no, I am incorrect. I did not get it from 
Mrs. Stockton. I got it as a result of an investigation done 
by our office.

Mr. Bourne: Now—

By Mr. Marshall:

Q. And this was an independent investigation as to the 
condition of Mrs. Gager’s family; is that correct? A. Yes, 
I believe, if I am not mistaken, Welfare did that investiga­
tion for us, if I am not mistaken.

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Cross



44a

Mr. Marshall: The Court’s indulgence.
I have nothing further.
Mr. Bourne: Just two questions, if Your Honor 

please.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Bourne:

Q. The Cager and Patterson petitions were filed by you
— 5 9 -

May 24, 1967? A. Yes.
Q. Now this investigation you got through the Depart­

ment of Public Welfare is at some subsequent time? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have a court order to get the information 
from the Department of Welfare? A. What information?

Q. You say they supplied you, this independent investi­
gation. A. No, sir.

Mr. Bourne: No further questions.
Mr. Marshall: I f  it please the Court, I have one 

further question.
State’s Exhibit No. 11 would this be, for identifi­

cation purposes?

(Three-page document dated May 26, 1967, en­
titled “ Memorandum to Mr. Raleigh C. Hob­
son, Director, State Department of Public 
Welfare,” was marked for identification as 
State’s Exhibit No. 11.)

The Court: Very well, gentlemen, what happened 
to our exhibit?

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae Redirect



45a

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Recross 

By Mr. Marshall:

Q. Mr. Femia, I  show you what has been marked as 
State’s Exhibit No. 11 for identification and ask you if you

— 6 0 -
can identify this for us? A. This is the report of the—

Mr. Bourne: The question is can he identify it. 
The answer should be yes or no.

The Witness: Yes.

By Mr. Marshall:
* # # # #

— 62—
# # # # #

The Court: * * *
Tell us, Mr. Femia, what you were going to say. 
The Witness: This is the report received in our 

office, from which I gleaned the information to which 
I testified earlier.

By Mr. Marshall-.

Q. And testified earlier you are referring to which chil­
dren? A. Mr. Bourne asked me about the Cager children, 
about where I found that information, you or Mr. Bourne 
one, I don’t know which, but I testified I found out about 
the other two children from the report received in our 
office. That is the report.

Q. This is the report you saw in your office; is that cor­
rect? A. This is the one. That was the one brought to 
our office.



46a

Mr. Marshall: The State would move State’s Ex­
hibit No. 11 be received for that purpose.

Mr. Bourne: I object. Very strenuously.
m * # # #

—64—
* # # # #

The Court: * * *
I overrule the objection and the report will be re­

ceived in evidence.
— 65—

(The document heretofore marked for identifica­
tion State’s Exhibit No. 11 was received in 
evidence.)

By Mr. Marshall:

Q. Now, Mr. Femia, do you know of any further investi­
gation that was made by any other investigative agency in 
these matters? A. Yes.

Q. And if you know, sir, who and what was the investiga­
tion conducted? Who conducted it and what was the type of 
investigation? A. As far as I was able to determine from 
our records, I believe Mr. Kriner.

Mr. Bourne: Before the Court reads that I would 
like to address the Court on something else.

The Witness: And I believe also our staff itself 
has done an investigation in the matter. I say our­
self, our investigative staff.

* # # # #

Vincent James Femia—for Amicus Curiae—Becross



Closing Statements

^

Mr. Bourne: The other part of my argument, 
Your Honor, and that is this: It is perfectly clear 
this information comes to the attention of the State’s 
Attorney’s Office in its capacity to act as counsel 
for these girls in a paternity action.

The Court: Whoa. Hold up right there, now. 
Let’s put a pen right there.

What makes you believe the State’s Attorney’s 
Office is acting as counsel for these mothers! It 
occurs to me the State’s Attorney’s Office is acting 
as counsel for the people of the State of Maryland 
in an attempt to make the fathers support the chil­
dren. That that is incidental to the interest of the 
mother we think is unimportant. In a case where 
only the mother’s interests are concerned they go 
to the County Solicitor.

Mr. Bourne: Except for this, Your Honor, the 
statute says the State’s Attorney’s Office represents 
the interest of the mother.

The Court: I understand that, but they are acting 
in the, really, interest of the people of this State.

— 70—
They are not acting to prosecute any private claims 
of the mother.

Mr. Bourne: The law forces them to come to tell 
and give them information to file the paternity ac­
tion without being pre-advised of all that they would 
be subject to if they did something.

The Court: All right, gentlemen, I will be glad 
to hear you on anything further.

— 69—



48a

Mr. Marshall: The only other matter I would like 
to point out is on the matter of the birth certificates 
themselves, Your Honor. They are before you for 
a very simple purpose, one that they are introduced 
not only with the witness, but under Article 35, 
Section 79, which permits the introduction of these 
records without testimony.

Too, because there are matters, the Court has 
pointed out that should be brought to the Court’s 
attention and this was the purpose of the introduc­
tion and obviously the reason counsel would not 
stipulate to the introduction of these records in the 
beginning as we thought they would, that is the age 
of the mother, the date of the birth of the children, 
the names of the alleged fathers and the fact that 
in each instance, except in the case of one woman, 
they are different.

Mr. Kratovil: I would object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Marshall: Their occupation, what they are

- 7 1 -
doing on different times and places and the Court 
can glean from that, as Mr. Femia keeps saying, 
the ages of the children and repetitions of one and 
every April of three straight years.

This is before the Court because we are not lim­
ited and we have never limited ourselves to solely 
talking about anything else other than what Article 
26, Section 52 provides under Section 6, 1, 2, 3, 4 
and 5. We talk about immaturity, the Court can 
infer this; we talk about promiscuity and the Court

Closing Statements



49a

can infer this, and we talk about the fathers that 
the Court can see on the birth certificates themselves 
and that is the reason they have been introduced 
into evidence, not by stipulation but by testimony. 

* * * # *

— 81—

# # # # #

Mr. Bourne: Your Honor will take certainly ju­
dicial notice that in this county we have no receiv­
ing home for juveniles, no adequate foster homes 
to place them in. Now if the Legislature had in­
tended to cope with illegitimacy, it would have 
passed the law, it is against the law for a woman 
to have a child out of wedlock, period, and punish 
them for it. The State doesn’t go to say it is im­
proper to have a child out of wedlock. It says it 
is improper to bring him up in an unstable moral 
environment.

The Court: That is correct.
Mr. Bourne: So you have to show that environ­

ment that it has some way affected the children. 
Showing pure illegitimacy alone is no basis on which 
the Court could come to a decision of what is hap­
pening in that home.

The mother may have made provision for the 
care of children while she was in pregnancy and 
go away somewhere to have the child. She may not 
have had any relations in the house and may have 
lived as husband and wife and the children called 
the man father.

The Court: Why doesn’t she come in here and 
say that?

Closing Statements



50a

Closing Statements

— 82—

Mr. Bourne: Because it isn’t the burden on the 
mother to do it, especially when there is a threat 
of criminal prosecution over her head.

I don’t think the burden should shift. I differ with 
the Court on the ruling on a prima facie case. I 
differ with the Court in saying this is purely a 
civil action. This type of activity, this type of pro­
ceedings, has the nature of possibility of removing 
the children from the home, placing them in insti­
tutions, where people have confined for criminal con­
duct and out of this county we have twice as many 
children confined for non-criminal behavior as we 
have confined for criminal behavior.

That is something the children would be subjected 
to. We are not going to solve the social problems 
and prosecution of these mothers. If the responsible 
people of the community don’t help them to develop 
a program to help themselves.

[T he Opinion op the Court {supra, pp. la-6a) 
W as T hen Delivered]

.jj. -jj. ^

Now, gentlemen, we will be glad to hear you on 
the disposition of these children.

Mr. Marshall: If it please the Court, I think 
under the circumstances, having limited ourselves 
to information for the purposes, as the Court said, 
presentation of a test case, that the Court would 
recommend the children at least at this time remain 
in the homes that they are presently in and allow 
the Department, I suggest, of Juvenile Services, we

— 112-

ask that department rather than the Welfare De-



51a

Decision lie Children

partment, make this investigation into the condi­
tions of the home itself.

The Court: Mr. Kratovil, these are your wards, 
do you wish to be heard in the matter further?

Mr. Kratovil: Well, I, of course, agree with the 
State that the children should remain in the home. 
As to an investigation conducted, I would suggest, 
since there has never been any secret about the 
matter, that the matter would undoubtedly be ap­
pealed, we be allowed to pursue our appellate rem­
edies, that the investigation be stayed until the re­
sults of that are heard.

Mr. Marshall: I believe they are under protective 
custody of the Welfare Department.

Mr. Bourne: If Your Honor please, procedural- 
wise in these matters I have been surprised the way 
they have been handled.

There were documents executed May 24th as to 
the Cager children, giving them to the Department 
of Welfare and the Department of Welfare placed 
them in the home where they are in. There has been 
no appeal afforded that procedure. The Patterson 
children, they have been given to the grandmother, 
who was in the same home. There has never been 
any hearing on those papers.

I agree with the State I see no difficulty leaving
—113—

the children where they presently are until we get 
to a final result of this matter.

The Court: Very well, gentlemen, the Court will, 
acting on the recommendation of the State, not 
remove the children from their homes at this time.



52a

Decision Re Children

Madam Clerk, your docket entries will show the 
children are to be maintained in their present status 
pending further order of the Court. Each of these 
cases is referred to the Department of Juvenile Ser­
vices for an investigation and report.

*  *  #  #  #

—114—
# * * # #

The Court: Well, Mr. Bourne, since you have 
the primary interest of the mothers at heart, the 
Court will indicate to you what sort of disposition 
it would make in this case, all other things being 
equal. I think this is probably a poor idea for a 
judge, but when you are dealing with children I 
think you ought not to stand on judicial ceremony 
and dignity and I think you are entitled to know 
what the Court’s thinking is in this matter so you 
can govern yourself accordingly.

I believe that some headway can be made in these 
cases against the third illegitimate child, because if

— 115—
this case had come before the Court with two, and 
it is now here some of these people have three, but 
I would require them to conduct themselves in cer­
tain ways in their homes. I would require them to 
study and understand methods of birth control and 
to practice them at the risk of losing their children 
if they do not.

#  #  *  *  #



53a

Isr th e

CIRCUIT COURT

F oe Pbince George’s County, Maryland 

Sitting as a Juvenile Court 

Docket No. JA 7385

Motion to Intervene as Party Defendant
or Furnish Counsel

I n  the Mattes of 

B eidgett Cagee and Tracy Cagee

Comes now Barbara Jean Cager by her attorney J. 
Franklyn Bourne and moves this Honorable Court for leave 
to intervene as party defendant in the above captioned 
proceedings, or, in the alternative, to permit counsel of her 
choice to represent her minor children herein, and, as 
reasons therefor, states as follows:

1. That petitioner is the natural mother of the infants.

2. That petitioner desires that her children be repre­
sented by counsel of her choice.

3. That the mother is a necessary party since the find­
ings under Article 26, Section 58 (6) are in relation to 
her conduct.

4. That to deny the petitioner the right to defend de­
prives her of her Constitutional rights in that she could



54a

be subject to subsequent criminal action based solely on 
the findings in this proceeding.

5. That to deny the petitioner the right to furnish her 
natural children with counsel of her choice might deprive 
the petitioner of custody of her children.

6. Such other and further reasons as may be presented 
upon oral hearing of this petition.

J. F ranklyn B ourne 
Attorney for petitioner 

6819 Roosevelt Avenue 
Seat Pleasant, Maryland 20027 

336-3900

Motion to Intervene as Party Defendant
or Furnish Counsel

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served 
on the State’s Attorney & Frank Kratovil, Esquire, this 19 
day of September, 1967.



55a

I n  th e

CIRCUIT COURT

F oe P kince George's County, Maryland 

Sitting as a Juvenile Court 

Docket No. JA  7389, JA  7380, JA  7391

Motion to Intervene as Party Defendant
or Furnish Counsel

In the Matter of

L uther P aul H arper, Jr. and R obert P age H arper 
and Tammy Lynne H arper

Comes now Doris Jean Patterson by her attorney J. 
Franklyn Bourne and moves this Honorable Court for leave 
to intervene as party defendant in the above captioned 
proceedings, or, in the alternative, to permit counsel of her 
choice to represent her minor children herein, and, as rea­
sons therefor, states as follows:

1. That petitioner is the natural mother of the infants.

2. That petitioner desires that her children be repre­
sented by counsel of her choice.

3. That the mother is a necessary party since the find­
ings under Article 26, Section 58 (6) are in relation to her 
conduct.



56a

4. That to deny the petitioner the right to defend de­
prives her of her Constitutional rights in that she could be 
subject to subsequent criminal action based solely on the 
findings in this proceeding.

5. That to deny the petitioner the right to furnish her 
natural children with counsel of her choice might deprive 
the petitioner of custody of her children.

6. Such other and further reasons as may be presented 
upon oral hearing of this petition.

J. F ranklyn B oijene 
Attorney for petitioner 

6819 Roosevelt Avenue 
Seat Pleasant, Maryland 20027 

336-3900

Motion to Intervene as Party Defendant
or Furnish Counsel

9/21/67: Denied



57a

In the

CIRCUIT COURT

F oe Pbince Geoege’s County, Maryland 

Sitting as a Juvenile Court 

Docket No. 7385

Motion for the Court to Appoint Counsel for Mother

The Mattee of

Beidgett Cages and T racy Cages

Comes now J. Franklyn Bourne and, appearing specially, 
petitions this Honorable Court to appoint counsel for the 
natural mother of the infants herein, and, as reasons there­
for, states as follows:

1. That the mother has an interest in this proceeding 
which should be protected by counsel.

2. That the mother is indigent and cannot afford to 
pay counsel.

3. That to deny the mother counsel deprives her of her 
constitutional rights.



58a

Motion for the Court to Appoint Counsel for Mother

4. Such other and further reasons as may he presented 
upon oral hearing of the motion.

J. F ranklyn B ourne 
6819 Roosevelt Avenue 

Seat Pleasant, Maryland 20027 
336-3900

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion was 
served on the State’s Attorney and Frank Kratovil, Es­
quire, this 21st day of September, 1967.

J. F ranklyn B ourne



59a

Motion to Stay Proceedings

I n  th e

CIRCUIT COURT

F or Prince George’s County, Maryland 

Sitting as a Juvenile Court 

Docket No. JA  7389, JA  7380, JA  7391

In the Matter of

L uther P aul H arper, J r. and R obert Page Harper 
and Tammy L ynne H arper

Comes now J. Franklyn Bourne, attorney for the natural 
mother of the infants therein, who is presently appearing 
amicus curiae, and moves this Honorable Court to stay the 
proceedings herein pending a final ruling on the Motion 
to Intervene filed herein, and, as reasons therefor, that to 
proceed before the natural mother’s right to counsel and 
mother’s right to secure counsel of her choice for her 
children is determined will cause irreparable harm to the 
mother.

J. F ranklyn B ourne 
Attorney for petitioner 

6819 Roosevelt Avenue 
Seat Pleasant, Maryland 20027 

336-3900



60a

I n the

CIRCUIT COURT

F oe P rince George’s County, Maryland 

Sitting as a Juvenile Court 

Docket Nos. JA 7384, JA 7385

Demand for Particulars

I n  the Mattee op

B eidgett Cagee, Age 4 mo. and T racy Cager, Age 1 year 
313 Locust Street, Oakcrest, Maryland

Comes now Bridgett Cager and Tracy Cager, by their 
guardian ad litem, Frank M. Kratovil, and pursuant to the 
Maryland Rule 346 a of the Maryland Rules of Procedure, 
demands the following particulars as to the petition filed 
in the above captioned juvenile proceeding by Vincent 
Famia, Assistant State’s Attorney, petitioning said Bridgett 
Cager and Tracy Cager before the Court as being neglected 
in that said children are living in a home which fails to 
provide a stable moral environment, said particulars to 
be furnished within the time provided in the Maryland 
Rules of Procedure.

1. In what ways have Tracy Cager and Bridgett Cager 
been denied a home which fails to provide a stable moral 
environment.

2. What elements constitute the instability of the home 
environment.



61a

3. What elements constitute the immorality of the home 
environment.

4. During what period has the home failed to provide a 
stable moral environment.

5. At what place or places has the failure to provide a 
stable moral environment occurred.

6. What party or parties have manifested behavior so 
as to constitute a failure to provide a home with a stable 
moral environment.

7. During what period of time have such persons, if any, 
manifested behavior so as to constitute a failure to pro­
vide a home with a stable moral environment.

8. What specific acts of immorality or instability con­
stitute a failure to provide a stable moral environment in 
the home.

Demand for Particulars



62a

I n  th e

CIRCUIT COURT

F ob P rince. George’s C o u n ty , M aryland  

Sitting as a Juvenile Court

Docket Nos.: JA  7459, JA 7460, JA  7461 

In the Matter of

L isa R enee J ackson, age 2 years 

and

Dwight T yron Jackson, age 3 years 

and

Markett J ackson, age 1 year,

811 Maple Avenue, Laurel, Maryland.

Answer to Demand for Particulars

Comes now the State of Maryland by and through Arthur 
A. Marshall, Jr., State’s Attorney for Prince George’s 
County, Maryland and in answer to Demand for Particu­
lars, states as follows:

1. That the Children are living in an immoral atmos­
phere by reason of the fact that they are living with their 
Mother who has and has had illegitimate children.

2. Same as one (1).

3. Same as one (1).



63a

Answer to Demand for Particulars

4. Same as one (1).

5. Same as one (1).

6. Same as one (1).

7. Same as one (1).

8. Same as one (1).

A rth u r  A . M arshall , J r . 
State’s Attorney

J oseph  C. S aubrweijst 
Assistant State’s Attorney



64a

Report of Master

Bridgett Cager and Tracy Louise Cager were petitioned 
before the Court as neglected children on May 24, 1967. 
Their mother, Barbara Jean Cager, an adult, is charged 
on warrants alleging that she contributed to their neglect. 
Barbara Jean Cager is represented by J. Franklyn Bourne, 
Esquire.

Luther Paul Harper, Jr., Robert Page Harper and 
Tammy Lynne Harper were petitioned before the Court 
as neglected children on May 24, 1967. Their mother Doris 
Jane Patterson, an adult, is charged on warrants alleging 
that she contributed to their neglect. Doris Jane Patterson 
is also represented by J. Franklyn Bourne, Esq.

Lisa Renee Jackson, Dwight Tyrone Jackson and Mar- 
kitt Jackson were petitioned before the Court as neglected 
children on June 11, 1967. Their mother Brenda LeVerne 
Jackson, an adult, is charged on warrants alleging that 
she contributed to their neglect. Counsel’s appearance has 
not been entered in her cases.

The charged parents of the named infants are recipients 
of Welfare aid or have requested aid through the Welfare 
Board. If found to be neglected these infants could be 
removed from the custody of their parents and as their 
interests might conflict with the interests of their parents, 
the Master recommends that a guardian ad litem be ap­
pointed to represent the interests of the infants petitioned 
in these cases.

J am es H. T aylor 
Master for Juvenile Causes

JH T /f
6/12/67

Exhibits Admitted into Evidence at 
Hearing of September 21, 1967 follow



65a

Amicus Curiae Exhibit 1
[ F o r m  2 18  o p  t h e  W e l f a r e  D e p a r t m e n t ]

SUPPORT OF DEPENDENT CHILD 
Notification of Dependency and Bequest for Report of Action 

C o m p l e t e  O n l y  t h e  S e c t io n  ( s ) C h e c k e d

TO: _____________________________________________  DATE : ________________
law enforcement official

PROM: _____________________________  Case Number ______  Category---------
local department

District________  Territory________

Da t a  R e  : Absent Parent D a t a  R e  : Recipient □  o r  Applicant □

name

last known address address

city county state relationship to child(ren)
Name(s) and Age(s) of Child(ren)

name age name age

name age name age

name age name age
The ability to support the above named wife and/or children by the parent
named above needs to be determined by court action or legal agreement.

□  ACTION I REPORT OF INITIAL ACTION
Date of Complaint______________
□  A summons has been issued
□  A  hearing will be held_________

aipproximate
date

□  A summons will be issued
□  Case referred to Magistrate’s 

Court

Type of Complaint________________
□  Case referred to Police Depart­

ment for warrant
O  Action initiated under Uniform 

Support Law
□  Other action (specify)— _______

□  ACTION II DECISION ON SUPPORT
Court Order □  Agreement—State’s Attorney □

___________________ p e r _____________ to begin-------------------------------------
amount week or month date

to be paid to _________________________________________________________
No support was ordered because ---------------------------------------------------------

□  ACTION III FURTHER ACTION ON SUPPORT
Court Order □  Agreement—State’s Attorney □

□  _______________________________________ as follows:
date

□  _____________________p er_____________ to begin-----------------------------
amount week or month date

Signature ---------------------
T itle___________________

(S e e  I n s t r u c t io n s  o n  R e v e r s e  of  D u p l ic a t e )



66a

Amicus Curiae Exhibit 1

Ct. Ct. Pr. Geo. Co.
Amicus Ident. # 1  

Curiae Ex. #1  
Law # J A  7384 
Equity #7391 

9-21-67

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM #218

The local department is to send two copies of Form 
#218 to the law enforcement official— one for the offi­
cial’s reply to the department. The form is set up in sec­
tions :

Section I is for use by the law enforcement official to 
notify the local department of action taken preliminary 
to the decision regarding support.

Section II is for use by law enforcement officials to notify 
the local department as to the decision on support—when 
it is to begin (if it is to be paid) and to whom it is to be 
paid—whether to the complainant or to the local depart­
ment. If there is to be no support order, the reason is 
given to the department in this section.

Section III is for use by the law enforcement official for a 
report to the local department regarding further action 
regarding the support of dependent children.



DIVISION O'; sTATtsilCAJ. R ls :\ ...C i 
x 10 i..;J O , V> - ! ’ ̂

; C .̂v-
KAiiE O f i lS T H  

: 3 COUNTY P r i ’.ico floor ('O a
C it y , t o w n  O i< i o c a T io n

M ARYLA N D

/ .  Lc. 'o/.* . i ;
jC f  i v; p ..;-on s. . d/.ltj.ao.:£ i , m a kyia .'.o

o'.- LiV- . ,
] 2 . USUAL .'LSID t-N C i O f  MOT M i W (W here d o n  mother 
! „  v lA IL  b C O U N IT  .  ^YA. i'i’ xnco 'Miori'.oa

........ .....C’hbirly___ _ _____________
;  . M v i  ^  (ll not in lw»p>u*i. y -'C  rlreet Ovf.irett)! hv M*i IA l OK •. J .U n*- >i»vu’uiion inco F-oor^os uonora 1 iiospxuui.
I 4 IS PLACE O f  BtrtTfi IN S iD t C ITY LIMITS'/

‘ Y tS  C3 N O  n  _____________________________________  ___________

■ 1 CHUB'S N AM E ' “ *•

t C ITY . TO W N . OK tO t A11ON 

d v l k l l  I A D b k j Vi.

L<vurol V.O,
.  is  n s u H N C t  i n s i u i  c u r  l im i i s ?

YES □  N O  □

I . IS RESIDENCE O n  a  f Ate MV 

' YES Q  N O lH

G h o r v l U l a i n o C a r o r

‘-l A So Th is  b'RltT 1 56 If Twin, or Triplet, Wo» Ch ild  Born 6 a . DATE 
O r

B IRTH

Month Day Year 6b. HOUR

f e r . a l G
SIN GLE TW IN

" o £T j I S T D  2 0  □  30  □ J u n o 2 9 ,  l y U i i 6 : 4 0  P m

NAME t ir»f

V / i l b u r

Middle lo if

P o v / o l l

i  o I  *GE (Al time of (hit birth)

.! . >1?__/ }/ _
1 ^ O L N  NAMt’

• t .  ̂ fo f  (AI lime of ih.\ L>
' i .  m

//"/ Md.
10a. USUAL O CCU PATIO N

/f. Jani t o r  [ //

Barbara
Middl«

J  o a n

Lml

Gafi'or
o. How many b. H ow  m any other

i _____  . - '. i i * -- ----------- other children c h ild re n  w ere  born

y .ve name ond relotion»hip to child) living? d e a d ?

. .iior 0 0

U . CHILDREN PREVIOUSLY BORN TO THIS MOTHER (Do Not Include Tim  Child !
H o w  m any o ilie r | d. Tolui
ch ild ren  were iiillt-om  j previoui
(b o rn  d e a d  a f te r  20 b m b . 
week* p reg n an cy }?  ;(»om of a . b. c .)

0 j 0
,  "  1 hereby c e rt .r , . u ' A '

I j l  •*«'» C h ild  w a i 
; * Ql'»« on the V.O.C I . - '
’ ; W  Mated above  ’ '* •' 1 " JA|' ,T S  Nam £

/-Nl ^ .SIGNATURE
M 0 □ M IDW IFE Q  6 l

16c. DATE S IG N ED‘A
ADDRESS (Street, city or town, dote)

j  J . Francis Warren 2015 F ST«, •N* > Vfo-shi nation , 9.C«

[C
e

r
t

if
ic

a
t

e o
f L

iv
e B

ir
t

h
 in

 
r

e C
h

e
r

y
l E

l
a

in
e C

a
g

e
r]



DIVISION OF STATISTICAL
A/iASYL/*'  'D STATS DEPARTM ENT OF HE A ' 'U u i s A

ARCH AND RECORDS — 301 W. PRESTON ST., &ALTlMonc ), MARYLAND*
CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH

J

i AACl Of BIRTH
o COUNTY _  ^

- u r g e ' s  MARYLAND

---------------------- --- ------ - - i- i  ^  ~  * 1 5 1 ..... - -
2. USUAL RESIDENCE OF MOTHER (Where does mother live?) 

o STATE b. COUNTY
McL P rin ce  G eorge 's

C CiTY /. _/v a c. CITY, TOW N, OR LOCATION

Laurel
1 bA>. . ti» ..oi I. i-<> give street oddress) d. STREET ADDRESS

u rg e 's  G eneral H osp ita l Locust S tree t
S - i M  : .  . . . , t L . . LIMITS? ® IS RESIDENCE INSIDE CITY IIMITS? f. ts RESIDENCE ON  A Fa r m ?

. i Y E S g ]  NO □ YES Q  NO Q2

r ;

P a t r ic ia
Middle

Ann
last

C a g e r

- I t ,

i So TM.S b iRTh
S lf .O .c  TW IN TRIPLET

i -  □ □
5b. If Twin, or Triplet, Wos Child Born 6a. DATE Month 

OF
Doy Year

i s r  □  5 D Q  3D Q B i K T H D a c o B i b e r 2 0 i» 6 4

6b. HOUR

11 :22?m.
First

Pdward
Middle

Leo
last

Mooro
'Al e .. v „ 9. BlRTHPlACE (Stale or foreign country) lOo. USUAL OCCUPATION

2 ' N . C . u n l c n o w n

10b. KIND O f BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY

First

Barbara
Middle

Jean
lost

Cager

1 7

13. BlRTHPlACE (Stale or foreign country) 14. CH ILDREN PREVIOUSLY BORN TO THIS MOTHER (Do Not Include This Child)
T .M•Cle

UMtR or give name und relationship to child)

Motlior ,
'■(a,  A . ,t n Oa n T'S s ig n a t u r e

A f t  *. l/ANT'S n a m e

a. How many 
other children

^ 1

b. How m any oilier 
ch ildren  were born 
o live  but are  now 
dead?

0

C. How m0  n y 
children woie 
(b o rn  d ea d  o 
weeks preynan

0

illborn 
ter 20

ty)?

d. lotal 
previous
bn tin

(sum or 0 . Q.c.) 
1

/ /
/  * M. D. " p f/ "  MIOWIFE Q O U lEK (S pecify )'^

16c. DA IE SiC.iNLD 

1 2 - 2 1 - 6 4
/  ( ^ADDRESS (Street, city o town, stole)

— ___ J'#Li Edvard J . Connor ‘ P rinoo Georg ii 'o  G eneral llocp. C lieverly, Mi.
W l , « UAVt AiaL l ^

BY ST A f,  r.tA lTH  DEPT PER
— ----- -------.A~* ij/UAs. A A i.tm .il . K jH  ,‘A i.iU N G  AAl tO U  KirsTtrF

iUo. Ree d By Rcgislro

QuiJ ) j i 1 ‘ J;
____ .I. 20, COLOR 0

IBb. REGISTRAR'S SIGNATURE

r RACE, O  ^

[C
e

r
t

ific
a

t
e 

o
f L

iv
e B

ir
t

h
 in

 r
f P

a
t

r
ic

ia A
n

n
 C

a
g

e
r]



CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH 0 7 4 3 2

MARY \fD STATE DEPARTMENT OF HE TH
DIVISION OF STATISTICAL RESEARCH AND RECORDS — 301 W. PRESTON ST., BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201

I .  PLACE OF BIRTH
o. COUNTY

P rin ce  Georges_____ Maryland
b. CITY. TOW N. 0 8  LOCATION

C heverly

2. USUAL RESIDENCE OF MOTHER (Where doot mother live?) 
o. STATE b. COUNTY

Md, P rln ce  George?
CITY, TOW N, Oil IO CATIO N

Oak Croat
c. NAME OF (If not in hoipitoi. give »treet oddretk)

HOSPITAL OR
institution p7̂ riCfl Qaorgea GeneraJ^HospltaL.

d, IS PLACE OF 8IRTH INSIDE CITY LIMITS?

YES Q  NO □

d. STREET ADDRESS

515 L ocust S tre e t
«. IS RESIDENCE INSIDE CITY LIMITS? 

YES □  NO gg

f. IS RESIDENCE ON A FARM? 

YES Q  N O B

FIRST MIDDLE LAST 1

Tracy _______Louise Cairor
So. THIS BIRTH Sb. If Twin, or Triplet, Wot Child Born 6a. DATE Month Day Year 6b. HOUR T

SINGLE T 'Q N  TRIfJET
' S T D  30  □  30 □ BIRTH March 3A, i ?  6 6 ll:3 7 A « .f

3. CHILD'S NAME 
(Type or P'int) ___
SEX

7. NAME 
(Type or 
print)

FIRST

Harry
MIDDLE

James
LAST

T olson
£
< i .  AGE (At time of thi* birth) 9. BIRTHPLACE (State or foreign country) 10a. USUAL OCCUPATION 10b. KIND OF BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY

P t  YEARS ________  Md._____________ U n k n o w n _____ Unknown

i

11. NAME FIRST MIDDLE 
(Type or T
r-int) Barbara Jean

• LAST (MAIDEN NAM E)

Cager
12- AGE (At time of thi* birth)

_______________________ YEARS

13. BIRTHPLACE (Slote or foreign country)

Hd._________
IS. INFORMANT (Write "MOTHER", or give nome ond relotionthip to child)

Mother

a. How many b. How m any other c. How m any other
other children children were born children were itillborn
ore now o live  but ore now (b o rn  d ea d  after 20
living? d ea d ? week* pregnancy)? (»um of o. b ,c.)

1 1 0 2
16a. I h e re b y  ce rtify  
th a t  th is  c h i ld  wo* 
born a liv e  on the  d ale  
and hour ita ted  ab o ve .

------------------------

16b. A T T EN D ^ T^  S IG N A T U R E ,., ""  ' V  _  STAFF X _
M. D. □  MIDWIFE □  OTHER {Specify)

16c, DATE SIGNED  

i .  3 /1 6 /6 6
16d. AT7f N D A N TS NAMP"^ -  *  ADDRESS (Street, city or town. Date)

•'Tpn"'l.Ale1andro P a tr ic io P r in c e  G eorges General H osp ita l,C h everly ,M d.
1A GIVEN NAME ADDEO 

DATE BY ST^TE HEALTH DEPT. PER

18a. Rec'd By Regitlror

MAR 2 ],,.J9£hI
18b. REGISTRAR'S SIGNATURE

[C
e

r
t

if
ic

a
t

e o
f L

iv
e B

ir
t

h
 in

 r
e T

r
a

c
y L

o
u

ise C
a

g
e

r]



CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH

MARYL/ D STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEA' \
DIVISION OF STATISTICAL RESEARCH AND RECORDS — 301 W. PRESTON ST., BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201

07543
1, PLACE OF BIRTH

0  COUNTY
P rin ce  Georges Ma r y l a n d

2. USUAL RESIDENCE OF MOTHER (Where does mother live?) 
0 . STATE b. COUNTY

Md. P rin ce  Georges
b. CITY. TOW N, OR LOCATION

C heverly
c. CITY, TOW N, OR LOCATION

Laurel
c. NAME OF (If not in hospital, give street address)

HOSPITAL OR
iNsmuTioNpr in c e  Georges G eneral H osp ita l

d. STREET ADDRESS

313 Locust S t r e e t , Dakcrest
d. IS PLACE O F BIRTH INSIDE CITY LIMITS? 

YES 3  NO □

e. IS RESIDENCE INSIDE CITY LIMITS? 

Y E S g  N O D

f. IS RESIDENCE O N  A FARM? 

YES □  NO £3

J .  CHILD'S NAME 
(Typ* or
print)

FIRST

B ridget
LAST

Cager
4 . SEX

__fem ale
So. THIS BIRTH

SINGLE T W IN ' T R g E T
5b. If Twin, or Triplot, Wo» Child Born 

1ST □  20 □  30 Q

6o. DATE Month Day
OF _

»‘Bth March 8 ,
Yoor

'67
6b. HOUR

1:^7
7 . NAME 

(Typo or 
print)

FIRST

Maur i
MIDDLE

£dmpn<i_
LAST

8. AGE (At time of this birth) 9. BIRTHPLACE (Stole or foreign country) lOo. USUAL OCCUPATION

p i f  YEARS Md. Trains Horses
10b. KIND OF BUSINESS OR INOUSTRY

Race Tracks
11 , NAME 

(Typo or
•Print)

FIRST

Barbara
’ 12. AGE (At time of this birth) 13. BIRTHPLACE (Stole or foreign country)

19 Md.

LAST (M AIDEN NAM E)

■ Cager

15. INFORMANT (Writ# "MOTHER ", or give nom« ond relotionship to child)

Mother

M . CHILDREN PREVIOUSLY BORN TO THIS MOTHER (Do Nol Inc lud . ThU Child)
0 . How many b. How m any other C. How m any other

other children children were born children were stillborn
ore now olive  but a re  now (b o rn  d ea d  otter 2Q
living? d ea d ? weeks pregnancy)?

2 1 0

d. Tolol 
previous 
births

(sum of a, b, c.)

3
16o. I h e r e b y  ce rt ify  
th a t  th is  c h i ld  wot 
b o rn  o liv e  on the  dole  
ond h o u r ttoted  ab o ve .

M w f i  s ig n a t u r e  7 STAFF X
MIDWIFE Q  OTHER (Specify)

16c. DATE SIGNED

3 /9 /6 ?
. ATTENDANT'S NAME /  ADDRESS (Street, city or town, stale)

o, 0 N arciso  E„ Ig n a c io . P rin ce  Georges General H osp ita l,C h evcrly ,M d17, given name added
DATE BY STATE HEALTH DEPT. PER

18a. Rec'd By Registrar

o... MAR
18b. REGISTRAR'S SjpNAT̂ RE

1 3 19S7

[ C
e

r
t

if
ic

a
t

e 
o

f L
iv

e B
ir

t
h

 
in

 
r

e B
r

id
g

e
tt C

a
g

e
r]



'ATE
: e ? t . CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH 0 ? H 7

MAP " AND STATE DEPARTMENT OF V MTH
DIVISION OF STATISl.w.1 RESEARCH AND RECORDS — 301 W. PRESTON ST., BAl.IMORE 1, MARYLAND

■w

1. PLACE Of BIRTH
o COUNTY

P rin ce  Geornes MARYLAND

2. USUAL RESIDENCE OF MOTHER (Where does mother live?)
o. STATE b COUNTY j

Md. P rin ce .G eorges :
o. CITY, TOW N, OR LOCATION

Che verier__
c. CITY, TOW N, OR LOCATION . j

_ __handover____________________________________________________________________________________ , i
c. NAME O f (If not in hospital, give street oddresi)

HOSPITAL OR
in s t it u t io n  p r j n c o  Georges Croneral Hosrrital

d STREET ADDRESS !„']

7900 C en tra l Avenue '! ]
d IS PLACE OF BIRTH INSIDE CITY LIMITS? 

YES Q .  NO □

« IS RESIDENCE INSIDE CITY LIMITS? . f. IS RESIDENCE ON A EAR M i ,! >
'-H

YES g  '  N O □  YES □  NO Q  j - -

A. SEX 5o THIS BIRTH 5b. If Twin, r Triplet, Wos Child Born 6a . DATE Month Day Yeor

M a  1 e
SINGLE TW IN

4  .....a
TRIVET

1ST Q 3D □  3D □
OF

BIRTH w  .
-  - ...... M a r c l x _ . 2 6 ” 6 /

3. CHILO'S NAME Middle

Paul
lost

H arper, Jr.
6b. HOUR

A
First

Luther
Middle

Paul
•< 8. AGE (At time of this birth) 9. BIRTHPLACE (State or foreign country) | 10a. USUAL OCCUPATION 10b. KIND OF BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY l

28 YEARS V irg in ia 1 Drake Mechanic Van Mort, Rrakft S ervice
11. M AIOEN NAME First

D oris
Middle

Jane
12. AGE (At time of this birth) 13. BIRTHPLACE (State or foreign country)

I Q  YEARS n.c.
15. INFORMANT (Write "MOTHER", or give name ond relationship to child)

_______Mother
16a. I h e r e b y  c e rt ify  
t h a t  th is  c h i ld  was 
b o rn  a l iv e  o n  the  date  
a n d  hou r ito ted  o bove.

16b. ATTENDANT S SIGNATi

I6d. ATTENDANT S NAMl 
(Type

lost

P atterson M

.. /' \ n

U . CHILDREN PREVIOUSLY BORN TO THIS MOTHER |0o Nol Mclud. Thii Ch.ldl
a. How many 

other children 
are now 
living?

0

b. How m any other 
children w ere born 
o liv e  but are  now 
d ea d ?

0

c. How m any other 
children were stillborn 
(b o rn  d ea d  after 20 
weeks pregnancy)?

_________________ Q .

d. Total 
previous, 
births ■ 

(sum of o. t ,c .

0
MIDWIFE Q  OTHER (Specify)

16c. DATE SIGNED

3-27-64 !
ADDRESS (Street, city or town, stole)

o'p..*,i W alter B. Shaer 7200 M arlboro P ik e , D is t r i c t  H fjts, Mi
17: GIVEN NAME ADOED 18a. Rec'd By Registrar 18b. REGISTRAR'S SIGNATURE

DATE BY STATE HEALTH DEPT. PER -  MAR 31 1984
l^AACTH EICi NAME A A n n u m  fO »  M AIIIARViEOHHAIION .NO.Tirf, mXQAQLst. toCti.

M
WMwHw

wB
t-1q1-3W
B
W

>
q
r

M
►
ahB
W

S3AMaoSB
W
I
cr
M *
•H*

01

M
P

[C
e

r
t

if
ic

a
t

e o
f Lrv



MARYLAf”> STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DIVISION OF STATISTICAL RESEA , AND RECORDS —  301 W . PRESTON ST., BALTIMORE, IYLAND 21201

L J -J _____________ - .. . si..... -..................... ..... ...................................... ........_ _

CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH % O M l H
i. f u c e  Of BIRTH

• COUNTY

P rin ce  G eorg e 's
} l  city, t o w n , o r  l o c a t io n

£hey.erly

2. USUAL RESIDENCE O f MOTHER (Where doe* mother l.ve?) 
o. STATE b. COUNTY

------- Maryland-------
c. CITY, TOW N. OR LOCATION

-Ganfiody Hi l l s ,  J3n»
J^rince-Georgals-

< S * v f  OF (if not m hospital, give street address)
HOSFiTAl OR

l*J"!uT'ONP rin ce  G e o rg e 's  G eneral H osp ita l
d. STREET ADDRESS

6 «S fLACE OF BIRTH INSIDE CITY LIMITS? 

YES $  N O  □

511 Carmody Dr.
. IS RESIDENCE INSIDE CITY LIMITS? 

YES $  N O  □

f. IS RESIDENCE ON A FARM? 

YES Q  N O  £ )

3. CHILD'S NAME 
fly?* or 
print)

FIRST

Robert
MIDDLE

Page
LAST

Harper
4 SEX

. Kale
5o. THIS BIRTH

SINGLE TV^IN TR IV ET
Sb. If Twin, or Triplet. Wot Child Born 

1ST Q  20  □  3D □

6a . DATE
O F

BIRTH

Month

k

1 
rH

Year

1 9 6 5

6b. HOUR 

1 2 : 3 8 1
7. NAME FIRST MIDDLE LAST

flyp* or 
print) Luther . .Paul Harper
ACT (At time of this birth)

2 9 ___________ YEARS

9. BIRTHPLACE (Stole or foreign country) 10a. USUAL OCCUPATION

__Mechanic________
10b. KIND OF BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY

V a n .-H a r t  Brake .ServicII. NAME 
(Type or
Flint)

FIRST

D oris
MIDDLE

Jane
LAST (M AIDEN NAM E)

P atterson
AGE IAt iim« of this binh)

------2CL Y£A8S
13. BIRTHPLACE (Slot# or foreign country)

IUJL
15 'W&IUANT (W rit. " M O tH fl" . or give nome ond relationship to child)

U . CHILDREN P6EVIOUSEY BQ8N TO  THIS M O IH E8  (Do Not Includ . Th i. Child)
Q. How many b. How m any other C. How m any other

other children children  were born children were stillborn
ore now o liv e  but a re  now (born d ea d  otter 20
living? d ea d ? weeks pregnancy)? (sum of a. b. c.)

___1 0 ______ 0______ 1ta'fT X
MIDWIFE □

16b.ATTENDANT'S SIGNATUREj <• I he leb y cortlfy
| ,r6t c h i ld  w as
l1' 1* 0,'*« on the date’■M hivc jio led  above. 

7 ^'YlM NAME ADDED

OTHER (Specify)

y '  ADDRESS (Street, city or town, slate)

s G eneral H osp ita l C h everlv . Maryland

16c ,pATE SIGNED

V l/6 5

BY STATE HEALTH DEPT. PER

18a. Rec'd By Registrar

Dpi. APR 2 1955
. i  NAME & ADDRESS FOR MAILING REGISTRATION NOTICEi 20. COLOR or RACE: 

White

IATURE

(Specify)

[C
e

r
t

if
ic

a
t

e o
f L

iv
e B

ir
t

h
 in

 r
e R

o
b

e
r

t P
a

g
e H

a
r

p
e

r]



MARYL D STATE DEPARTMENT OF HE A' 1
DIVISION O f VITAL RECORDS —  301 W. PRCSTOH ST., BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201

’ T. 13315
1. PLACE OF BIRTH

o COUNTY
Prince Georges Ma r y l a n d

2. USUAL RESIDENCE OF MOTHER (Where does mother live?) 
o. STATE b. COUNTY

________ Mi._____ ___ P rin ce  Georges
b. c i t y , t o w n , o r  l o c a t io n

Cheverly
c. CITY. TOW N, OR LOCATION

Seat P leasant
c. NAME OF (If not in hoipitol, give street address)

HOSPITAL OR
iNSTiTunoNprincc Georges. G eneral H osp ita l

d. STREET ADDRESS

API 73rd. S t .
d IS PLACE OF BIRTH INSI0E CITY LIMITS? 

YES S3 N O  □

e. IS RESIDENCE INSIDE CITY LIMITS? - 

YES O K  N O  □

1. IS BESIDENCE O N  A fABM? 

Y f S Q  NO 0

)

J .  CHILD’S NAME 
(Typ* or print)

MIDDLE

Lynne ' / / / / / / / / /  Harper
X 4. SEX 5o THIS BIRTH 5b. if Twin, or Triplet, Wos Child Born 6a . DATE Month Day Year 6b. HOUR

Feci a le
S lf g J E  TW IN T R Q E T

1ST Q  I D  □ 3D O
OF

BIRTH May 1 9 1167 l:21a> c

2
/ .  NAME 

(Type or
print)

FIRST

Luther
■ MIDDLE

Paul
LAST

Harper’ S r .
8. AGE (At lime of this birth) 9. BIRTHPLACE (Stole or foreign country) lOo. USUAL OCCUPATION 10b. KINO OF BUSINESS OR NDUSTRY

3 1  ' YEABS D.C. Brake Mech. Unknown
) 1 .  NAME 

(Type or 
Print)

FIRST

D oris
MIDDLE

Jane
LAST (MAIDEN NAM E)

Patterson
12. A CE (At time of this birth)

2 2  YEARS

13. BIRTHPLACE (Slot* or foreign country)

D.C.
15. INFORMANT (Writ# '■MOTHER ', or giv« name and relationship lo child)

Mother ______

14. CH R08EN  PREVIOUSLY 8QBN TO THIS MOTHER (Do Not Includ. Thb Child)
0 . How many b. How m any other

other children children  were borrv children were stillborn
ore now a liv e  but a re  now (born d ea d  offer 20living? d ea d ? weeks pregnancy)? (sum of q. b. c.)
2 0  .

V0

2
16a. i hereby certify 
th at th ii ch ild  was 
born alive on^lhe date 
and hour stated above.

16b. ATTENDANT'S SIGNATURE S t a f f
M. 0 . □ MIDWIFE Q

X
OTHER (Specify)

16d. ATTENDANTS N A M E\

- ^ ^ 0A lejan dro  P a t r ic io

16c. DATE SIGNED

5/19/67
ADDRESS (Street, city or town, stole)

P rin ce  Georges General H osp ita l Cheverly,Md
17. GIVEN NAME ADDED

DATE BY s t a t e  h e a l t h  o e p t . p e r

18o. Rac'd By 

Dale

Reaislror ] 18b. REGISTRAR'S SIGNATURE

MAY X Sl, 196F

[ C
E

R
T

IF
IC

A
T

p
^

l^
L

lV
E

 B
lR

T
H

 IN
 R

E
 T

a
M

M
Y

 L
y

N
N

E
 H

A
R

P
E

R
^



M A R Y L A N D  ^ T A T F  n P P A D T M F M t A C  U E A I T U

.a
vi

? \

MAR’ \ND STATE DEPARTMENT OF HI „TH
DIVISION OF STATISTICAL RESEARCH AND RECORDS —  301 W. PRESTON ST., BALTIMORE 1, MARYLAND

CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH 0 ^ 7 9 1

,N>,l'UTl0N p£ in ce  Georges G eneral H ospital.
4 IS PLACE OF BIRTH INSIDE CITY LIMITS?

y e s  g  NO □

■’N
Mi*

_ 5 1 3 _ 8th.. S tree t
•• IS RESIDENCE INSIDE CITY LIMITS? 

YES n  NO □

f. IS RESIDENCE ON A FARM? 

YES □  NO n

.22
It. MAIDEN NAME

_ M c L

10a. USUAL OCCUPATION

Unknown
10b. KIND O f  BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY

First

Brenda
AGE (At time o f  this birth)

1 C VCi,

Middle

Luverne
13. BIRTHPLACE (Stale or foreign country)

M .
DORMANT (Write • MOTHER ', or give name ond relationship to child)

Mother\ /" ',  /_
l< ' h e reb y  ce rtify  
'h“ ' •E li  c h i ld  w as  

ohve on the dole  
,r '̂  jio ted  ab o ve .

(

16b. ATTENDANT'S SIGNATURE

ufZ^^Ld„0:

lost

Jackson
U . CHILDREN PREVIOUSLY BORN TO THIS MOTHER (Oo Npl Irclud. This g ild )

1 PtACE OF BIRTH
o COUNTY

__________P rin ce  Georges________________Maryland
2. USUAL RESIDENCE O f MOTHER (Where does mother live?)

a. STATE b. COUN TY |
Md. P rin ce  Georges !

b. City, TOWN, OR LOCATION

C h everlv
c. CITY, TOW N. OR LOCATION

Laurel_____________________ ____________

q
3. CHILD'S NAME

(Type or
print)

First

Dwight
Middle

Tyrone
Lost

Jackson
i

< SEX | So. THIS BIRTH Sb. If Twin, or Triplet, Was Child Born Year 6b. HOUR [

i c a  I n
SINGLE TW IN TRIPLET

1 ft P □ 1ST □ 3D □  3D Q
OF

BIRTH .  .  0
A p r i l  2 ” 6 / l o i n  M -i

7 NAME f.rsl

P h i l l ip
Middle

F ran cis
lost

Hebron
j |

o. How many b. How m any other c. How m any other
other children ch ildren  were born children were stillbornare now o live  but are  now (born d ea d  after 20
living? d ea d ? weeks pregnoncy)? (sum of a. b.g.

0 0 0  . 0

^  OTHER (Specify)

ADDRESS (Street, city or town, stole)

t v 'VEn  n a m e  ADDED

,16c!/ATTENDANT'S NAME

J Tp ^ ' )  J o h n  S .  Haupht 3 3 0 3  Perry S treet Mt. R a i n i e r ,  Md.
18o, Rec'd By Registrar............................... | ~18b. REGISTRAR'S SIGNATURE

16c. DATE SIGNED ;

m- l- u  _L

BY STATE HEALTH DEPT. PER ■ APR 7/ 1QB4

OteiwH
O
!>

W
O
tel

t"*w
<1
tel

W
w
H
B

tei

o

r*1 oM  Mh
H3Kj
Wo
tel

>
o
W

<■+SO
qn
wx
f e r

sr
PH*

05

- 3

SB



MAPvYL/ D STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEA \
DIVISION OF STATISTICAL RESE/uiCH AND RECORDS — 301 W. PRESTON ST., BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201

CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BSRTH ' 0 ^ 8 4 4

ATl PLACE Of RUTH
i  C O U N T Y P rin ce  G eorg e 's
b City, t o w n , o r  l o c a t io n

________________ C heverly
( NAME OF (l< not in hospital, give itreel oddreu)HOSPITAL OR
iMiiumoN Prince G e o rg e 's  General H osp ita l

4 'S PLACE Of BIRTH INSIDE CITY LIMITS? 

YES f)g N O  □

2. USUAL RESIDENCE OF MOTHER (W her. does mother live?)--- b. c----
Md. P rin ce  G eorge 's

c. CITY, TOW N, OR LOCATION

Laurel
d STREET ADDRESS

811 Maple Avenue
. IS RESIDENCE INSIDE CITY LIMITS? 

YES Q3 N O  Q

f. IS RESIDENCE ON A f ARM? 

YES □ NOjfl
J CHILD S NAME 

(Type or 
print)

LAST

Jackson
*  SEX

Ferale
So. THIS BIRTH Sb. If Twin, or Triplet, W ai Child Born 4a . DATE Month Day Year

S lh g LE  TW IN T R Q E T
1ST Q  2D □  3D Q BIRTH A p r il 16 15 65

6b. HOUR

b : *+9a
7. NAME 

(Type er
print)

FIRST

A lb ert
LAST

B radley
l  *GE (At time of thil birth) 9. BIRTHPLACE (State or foreign country) 10a. USUAL OCCUPATION

20 YEABS D. C. Feeder
10b. KIND O f BUSINESS OB INDUSTBY

Pace Tracks ___
11. NAME (Type FIRST

Brenda
MIDDLE

Leavers Jackson
*GE (At time ot thii birth) |l3 . BIRTHPLACE (Stote or foreign country)

16 D. C.
YEARS 1 , B l ..........................

KotKe.
| *• • h«rtby certify 
| 'fctt c h ild  ~ o i 

olive on the dote 
itetmj obovo,

L
i } Given Name t

/OIbb.VATTENpANTSyftlGNATURE
:L

14. CHILDREN FBEVIOUSLY BOHN TO THIS MOTHER (Do Not Incivd. Thil Child]

: u .  M D r~l MIDWIFE Q  OTHER (Specify)

OfccjwH
O

fej

■ W  
H
.w

wft

a. How many b. How m any other C. How m any other d. Total
other children children were born children were itillborn previoui
are'now o live  but ore now (born d ea d  otter 20 births
living? d ea d ? weeks pregnancy)? (iwm of 0 . 0 , c.)

1 0 _______________0 - -  ......4 1
16c. DATE SIGNED

V16/65
ATTENDANT'S NAME ^  '  *  7  4 ?  ~  ADDRESS (Street. city or town, Hale)

<<V p£ q John S . Haught.  P rin ce  G eorge 's  G eneral H osp ita l,C h everly ,M d.

. W.
‘ >

W
w!zj
E>' ■ 

,C^H 

■ O
w
CD
o

BY STATE HEALTH DEPT. PER

18a. Rec'd 8y Regiitrar 

Date APR 19 1965
i.MAUJN&ĴClSIUIlOS-NOUCa- L3S,.£OLOI erJRCti

cnA*
SB
«
OB

w
&M *sr
?**

VC

• < 301
P



MARYL; D STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEAr 1
DIVISION Of STATISTICAL RESEARCH AND RECORDS — 301 W. PRESTON ST., BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21301

CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH ' 10506
I. PUCC OF RUTH

o COUNTY

P rin ce  G e o rg e ^
a. USUAL RESIDENCE O f  MOTHER (Where does mother live?) 

o. STATE b. COUNTY
Md» P rin ce  G e o rg e ^  ______

h. CITY, TOWN, 0 8  LOCATION

.Ciieverly,
c. CITY, TOW N, OR LOCATION

la u r e l . W
t . NAME OF (IF not in hotpilol, give tlreet oddresi)

h o s p it a l  o r

— ..P r ince G e o rg e 's  H osp ita l
i . IS PLACE OF BIRTH INSIDE CITY LIMITS?

Y E S ^  N O  □  ____________________ ______________________________

d. STREET ADDRESS

Ell Maple Avenue.
. IS RESIDENCE INSIDE CITY LIMITS? 

YES £ )  N O  Q

I. IS RESIDENCE O N  A FARM? 

YES □  N O  3

1. CHILD'S NAME 
(Type or 
print) M arkltte Jackson

4- SE X

Female
So. THIS BIRTH

SINGLE TW IN TRIVET
5b. IF Twin, or Triplet, Wot Child Born 

1 S T Q  20  Q  30  □

6 a . DATE
OF

BIRTH

Month Day

A p r il  2§
Yeaj

1
6b. HOUR
10:10P

7. NAME 
(Type or 
print)

FIRST

David
LAST

Brown
'■ AGE (At time ©F thi» birth)

2 1  years

9. BIRTHPLACE (Stole or Foreign country)

Maryland
I 10a. USUAL OCCUPATION

I Laborer_____
10b. KIND OF BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY

la u re l  Race Track
U . NAME 

(Type or
____________•- _ _

I?. AGE (At time oF ihit birth)

FIRST

Brenda
MIDDLE

Levaen
LAST (MAIDEN NAME)

13. BIRTHPLACE (Slot* or Foreign country)

-MarylandL
•S INFORMANT (Write "MOTHER", or give name and relation»hip lo child)

166 ATTENDANT'S SIC/NATURE

16d^ATTENDANT'S NAME 
(Typt

-Jackson
14. CHILDREN PREVIOUSLY BORN TO THIS MOTHER (Do Not Include Thit Child)
O. How many b. How m any other C. How m any other

other children ch ildren  were born children were itiliborn
ore now o live  but ore now (b o rn  d ea d  after 20
living? d ea d ? week* pregnancy)?2 ■ ) 0 0 |(»um ofa,  b, c.)

,4c I hereby certify 
lKof *hii child wqj 

olive on fhe dole 
<5n̂  hour Hated above.

i ;- Given  NAME ADDED

cate

MIDWIFE Q  OTHER (Specify)

ADDRESS'iSlreet, city or town, dale)

16c. DATE SIGNED

V28/66

A1.g1o.ndro P a t r i c io .  P rin ce  Georges G eneral H o s p ita l , Cheverly,Md

BY STATE HEALTH DEPT. PER

18a. Rec’d By Regittror

pc APR 2 9 1966
18b. REGISTRAR’S SIGNATURE

- i a a  . r m n a  M  uaC C .___

[C
e

r
t

ific
a

t
e o

f L
iv

e B
ir

t
h

 in
 r

e M
a

r
k

it
t

e J
a

c
k

so
n

]



77a

[M em orandum  to R aleigh  C. H obson]

(Letterhead of Prince George’s County Welfare Board, 
4318 Rhode Island Avenue, Brentwood, Maryland 20722)

May 26, 1967

Mr. Ealeigh C. Hobson, Director 
State Department of Public Welfare

V. A. Hampton, Director

Clarifications— Support From Legally 
Responsible Relatives

This will transmit to you the report which I discussed 
with you by phone today.

It appears that there are different interpretations rela­
tive to State Law coming from our local State’s Attorney’s 
office versus State policy around clarifying the support for 
the dependent child and our Agency policy as to the suit­
ability of the home.

I am sending on to you the report which was done by our 
caseworker, Mrs. J ane Stockton. I did raise questions about 
a member of our staff providing transportation for clients 
to the Courthouse and have been told that this is the first 
time that this has happened.

As I told you by phone I have had calls from five different 
newspapers. One of the reporters did raise questions about 
the State Law and State policy that would require a mother

State’s Exhibit 11

M em orandum  t o :

F r o m :

Re :



78a

to provide incriminating evidence as a step in completing 
her application for assistance.

We should appreciate any help from our State Office on 
clarifying these questions. Should you need additional in­
formation let us hear from you.

Miss C., age 19, applied for AFDC on May 11, 1967. She 
lives with her mother, Mrs. C., Mrs. C.’s five children, and 
her three children in substandard housing where there is 
no plumbing and heat is supplied by a pot-bellied stove. 
Miss C.’s father is deceased and her mother supports the 
family on OASD1 and by earnings of $1800' per year as 
a hospital maid. In addition, Mrs. C. also supports Miss 
C.’s oldest child, Cheryl. The family has been known to 
P.S.C.V.B. since 11-57, when an application was made for 
AFDC, which was not authorized as Mrs. C.’s earnings 
were overscale. Since that time there were two applica­
tions for CHC. Miss C. came to our agency in Dec., 1964 to 
request AFDC for Cheryl and Patricia who died three 
months later. Patricia’s father also died about the same 
time. Paternity was never established for Cheryl, age 4.

Miss C.’s present application for AFDC is for Tracy, born 
3-14-66 whose father’s whereabouts are unknown, and Bridg- 
ett, born 3-8-67 whose father is incarcerated. Miss C. 
hopes to return to her former job in July. During the ap­
plication interview, Miss C. said it would be difficult for 
her to get to Upper Marlboro to file for paternity and sup­
port. She made several telephone calls to the worker as 
she had no money, was out of milk and baby food, and un­
able to get to Upper Marlboro regarding legal action.

State’s Exhibit 11



79a

It is not the policy of the agency for intake workers to 
take their clients to Upper Marlboro to initiate legal action. 
This worker had two dire cases that were dire emergencies 
and therefore due to the lack of transportation for both 
clients a decision was made for her to take them to Upper 
Marlboro. The other client at the last moment was unable 
to go.

On 5-24-67, Miss C. gave to Mr. Vincent Femia, Assistant 
State’s Attorney, the two SDPW #218’s in order to initiate 
legal action against the fathers of her children. Mr. Femia 
told Miss C. that she was leaving herself open to criminal 
prosecution by filing these forms and asking that paternity 
be established. We were taken into his office where a juve­
nile officer was present. Mr. Femia read the Md. Code 
defining a neglected child to Miss C. and advised her of her 
rights. He then charged her with criminal neglect and 
ordered the juvenile officer to pick up the children, after 
Miss C. was booked and incarcerated. Miss C. was 
frightened and there was no legal counsel available even 
though it was requested.

After much discussion, Miss C. was released on her own 
recognizance and the custody of the children was given to 
the Welfare Board. The children are remaining in their 
home and there will be a court hearing (date unknown).

During the above, another client of the P.S.C.W.B. was in 
the room and was hearing this exchange. She was also 
charged. It is my understanding that other people were 
charged with criminal neglect of their children on the 
same basis that day.

State’s Exhibit 11



80a

It is the policy of the Intake Division to inform clients of 
the neglect laws in a non-threatening way. This had been 
done with Miss C. on 12-64 and also with the other client 
at her time of application.

V. A. H am pto n , 
Director

(Mrs.) Jane Stockton 
Social Worker

JS :bpw

VAH /lfm  
Inch 1
cc—Mr. Francois, County Commissioner 

Mrs. Stelzer, Chairman of the Board 
Mr. Wyatt, Vice-Chairman of the Board 
Mr. Arthur A. Marshall, Jr.,

State’s Attorney, Prince George’s County

State’s Exhibit 11



I

RECORD PRESS — N. V. C.