Cager et al Appendix of Appellants
Public Court Documents
September 19, 1967

85 pages
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Cager et al Appendix of Appellants, 1967. ba001849-b79a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/dc63ff48-4a8c-4ded-a601-5d6eab2fab5a/cager-et-al-appendix-of-appellants. Accessed July 20, 2025.
Copied!
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.