Well, dear reader, from what I can tell Nunu’s hearing is rescheduled to Tuesday, November 29.
In 20 days, Judge C. Stanley Austin will decide whether to terminate Nunu’s parental rights. With less 70 days left in her sentence, the fact that the prosecution team is moving forward with this termination petition breaks my heart.
Nunu, who accepted a plea agreement in order to expedite the time-frame in which she would be reunited with her son, is in very real danger of losing him within months of being released. The possibility of this breaks my heart.
There are three people who possess the ability to stop this termination hearing: Kathleen Anderson (Guardian ad Litem), the foster family, and Judge Austin.
The following is an open letter to the Guardian ad Litem, Kathleen Anderson:
Dear Ms. Anderson,
In the role of Guardian ad Litem, you serve the most vulnerable of society: children. The commitment associated with such a position is to protect them from harm, neglect or abuse. A very noble calling indeed. I have no doubt in my mind you are passionate about the career you have chosen. Protecting children is very serious business. Far too many children are in need of an advocate—someone willing to go-to-bat for them. I am certain you devote hours of time, attention, and detail to ensure each child in your caseload is granted a safe environment, positive role models, and nurturing adult supervision.
It seems to me most people who avail themselves to such careers have high regard for family structure and integrity. I’d imagine the reason you became involved in this profession was to serve and protect children, but also placing high value on family, to see the family unit restored. After all, restoration of the family would be the epitome of success. I’d imagine one of the hardest aspects of your job as Guardian ad Litem is separating families.
Given such ideals, I would imagine tearing a family apart is often a last resort saved for cases involving the worst offenders—abusive environments; hostile homes; parents who show no inclination to change or uphold court mandates, etc.
But, the case involving Nunu Sung … I think there is something in her that is worthy of parenting her son, worthy of reunification with Joshua, and worthy of a second chance.
First, I would like to state that I do understand the initial concern of reuniting Mother and child. A very poor choice and mistake was made by Nunu on the night she delivered Joshua. In previous posts I have attempted to provide some critical background information to help the reader understand the emotional and cultural crisis Nunu was facing at the time of her pregnancy. I understand the protocol in such instances is to locate temporary housing for the child (in this case placement with a foster family) until the details can be sorted through and a plan of care put together.
What I don’t understand, however, is why, after reviewing Nunu’s growth and progress over the past two years, you are attempting to terminate her biological parental rights.
I do know that case workers from D.C.F.S. and Evangelical Child and Family Agency have attended supervised sessions of Nunu with Joshua. In all honesty, I do not know the name of the husband and wife fostering Joshua, although I do know that the foster mother attended sessions also. I do know that a woman named Kathleen attended several of the supervised visits between Nunu and Joshua. I am assuming as Joshua’s Guardian ad Litem, the “Kathleen” referenced is you.
If my assumption is correct, I struggle to see how you can attend supervised sessions and deny that a bond formed between Joshua and Nunu. I struggle to understand the contempt you feel towards Nunu when she has worked so diligently over the past few years to prove her love for Joshua. While many women say they would go to great lengths to prove their love, how many women do you know who are willing to go prison compelled by the love of their children? Nunu has.
Nunu (gladly) made incredible sacrifices to provide for Joshua’s needs and make her appointments. Nunu cherished every moment of her supervised visits with Joshua. What is more, Nunu dedicates every day of her life to becoming a good, competent, and loving mother.
This hardly sounds like a “worst case scenario” to me. Quite the contrary, it sounds like a success story.
Having observed Nunu’s efforts over the past few years to prove her capability as a parent and unwavering devotion for her son, I struggle to understand the prosecution’s unyielding position on this case. What concerns me more than the blatant pigeonholing of Nunu, is your willingness to violate a court appointed and approved plea agreement. (I hope this is not a common practice.)
All members of the prosecution team were kept in the loop regarding the details of the Nunu’s plea agreement. In such capacity, you had foreknowledge of the “forfeit of termination of parental rights” clause. What I struggle to understand is why, after having full knowledge of the terms of the plea deal, you chose to file the petition to terminate Nunu’s parental rights.
In twenty days, Judge Austin will render a ruling on this petition, filed by you.
In twenty days, a fully committed and devoted Mother may lose the right to raise and parent her son.
In twenty days, a family may be torn apart–permanently.
I’m sure you believe in your heart you are doing the right thing for Joshua. I wish you could see the right thing for Joshua is to allow him the right to be raised, and loved, and cared for by his birth-mother, Nunu Sung.
Ms. Anderson, it is not too late to do the right thing.
For More Information Relating to Nunu’s Case: Related Blog Articles