♪ I AM SUE: SUE: SO OH, NO.

TONIGHT ON "GREATER BOSTON," FOX NEWS WILL PAY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SETTLE A DEFAMATION SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THEM BY DOMINION VOTING OPRAH 2020 LIES SPREAD ON AIR.

WE DID INTO WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE.

THEN IF FORTHCOMING BOOK BECAUSE OUT THE STATEWIDE FAILURES THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO THE ASSUMED MURDER OF FIVE-YEAR-OLD HARMONY MONTGOMERY.

I AM JOINED BY THE AUTHOR OF THAT BOOK ALONG WITH THE COUPLE WHO ACCEPTED HARMONY'’S HALF-BROTHER.

♪ THE COURT ROOM WAS PACKED, THE CAMERAS WERE READY.

BUT THE TRIAL WAS CALLED OFF AT THE LAST MINUTE WHEN FOX NEWS AGREED TO PAY DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS NEARLY 70088 MILLION DOLLARS TO SETTLE THE LOSS OF THE COMPANY BROUGHT AGAINST THE TELEVISION NETWORK.

IT REVOLVES AROUND FOX'’S POLYGAMIST INFORMATION AROUND THE VOTING SYSTEMS ON AIR AND ONLINE, INCLUDING BASELESS LIES THAT THE MACHINES WERE RIGGED.

STILL THE 2020 ELECTION.

AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT, FOX PUT OUT A STATEMENT READ BY HOWARD KURTZ.

IN ONE OF THE FEW MISSIONS OF THE CASE, IN IT THE NETWORK MAKES THIS CONCESSION.

>> WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RULINGS FINDING CERTAIN CLAIMS ABOUT OPINION TO BE FALSE.

SUE: WHAT YOU ARE NOT HEARING THERE IS THEM ADMITTING TO PROMOTING LIGHTS ABOUT DOMINION OR ISSUING ANY APOLOGY, OF ANY KIND.

THE MORE THAN THREE QUARTER OF A BILLION-DOLLAR SETTLEMENT IS THE LARGEST OF ITS KIND.

BUT WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DOES IT BODE FOR FOX'’S FUTURE AND FOR THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE?

TO DISCUSS, I AM JOINED BY ELAHE IZADI, MEDIA REPORTER AND COHOST OF "POST REPORTS," WHICH I LISTEN TO EVERYDAY ON WASHINGTON POST.

WELCOME.

AND LECTURER ON LAW AT HARVARD WHO FOCUSES ON TECHNOLOGY, DEMOCRACY AND FIRST AMENDMENT LAW, DANIEL RAUCH.

LET'’S START WITH YOU, AND I ELAHE, WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN HE HEARD THERE WAS GOING TO BE A TRIAL AND -- A SETTLEMENT, AND NO TRIAL?

ELAHE: AFTER THE RACES.

[LAUGHTER] WE KNEW ALL ALONG THAT TECHNICALLY THE TWO PARTIES COULD REACH A SETTLEMENT AT ANY POINT DURING THE TRIAL.

WE WERE EXPECTING THE JURY TO HAVE BEEN SELECTED AND FOR OPENING STATEMENTS TO HAVE BEGUN ON MONDAY AND THAT WAS DELAYED BY A DAY.

WE GOT INDICATION THAT THAT WAS TO ALLOW BOTH PARTIES TO MAYBE REACH A LAST-MINUTE SETTLEMENT.

OUR REPORTING DID NOT INDICATE THEY WERE NEAR THAT.

WE WERE ANTICIPATING THAT AFTER THE JURY WAS SELECTED ON TUESDAY, THEY WENT TO LUNCH AND OPENING STATEMENTS ONE HOUR LATER.

THIS REALLY REPRESENTS A STUNNING CONCLUSION TO A TWO YEAR LONG LEGAL BATTLE.

SUE: DANIEL, I DON'’T WANT TO SAY THIS OUT LOUD, BUT THERE IS A PART OF ME THAT WAS, LIKE, WHO AM I SUPPOSED TO BE ROOTING FOR HERE ON THE MEDIA STANDPOINT?

OBVIOUSLY FOX LIED.

THEY DID TERRIBLE THINGS.

I AM AN OPINION COMMENTATOR, IF I COME UP WITH AN OPINION BASED ON WHAT I THINK THE FACTS ARE AND I AM WRONG, DOES THAT MAKE ME OPEN TO A LAWSUIT?

NOT OBVIOUSLY OF THIS SIZE.

BUT WHAT WAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT PART OF THIS THAT MADE IT MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST SAYING "LIARS, YOU ARE WRONG!"

DANIEL: THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

I FEEL LIKE DEFAMATION LAW IS HAVING ITS MOMENT IN THE SUN IT COMES DOWN TO A VERY FAMOUS AND PROMINENT SUPREME COURT CASE, NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS SULLIVAN.

IT CAME OUT AT THE HEIGHT OF THE CIVIL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND WAS SEEN AS A MAJOR VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH.

IT SET VERY HIGH BARS AND HURDLES FOR A DEFAMATION PLAINTIFF TO SURMOUNT BEFORE THEY CAN SUCCESSFULLY SUE THE PRESS.

THEY HAVE TO ESSENTIALLY SHOWED NOT ONLY THAT THERE WAS A FALSE OPINION OR A MEAN OPINION OR EVEN A LIE OR NEGLIGENT BY, THEY NEED TO SHOW ACTUAL MALICE.

I THINK WE SAW AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE THIS PROOF IN SOME OF THE JAW-DROPPING DISCOVERY WE SAW THROUGHOUT THIS CASE.

SUE: ELAHE, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, A LOT OF FRIENDS IN THE LOWER WORLD SAY DON'’T EVER TEXT ANYTHING.

[LAUGHTER] DO NOT DM ANYTHING.

IF YOU WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT SOMETHING, HAVE A CONVERSATION.

I HAVE COWORKERS WHO WILL NOT SAY ANYTHING UNLESS THEY MAKE SURE THE PHONES ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROOM.

[LAUGHTER] I AM NOW UNDERSTANDING THAT.

THIS RECKLESSNESS THAT FOX ENGAGED IN ON THE AIR -- [LAUGHTER] -- AND THEN BEHIND THE SCENES, I AM SURPRISED DOMINION DID NOT END UP WITH MORE MONEY.

ELAHE: AS WE SAW THROUGH THE DISCOVERY PROCESS -- THIS IS WHY A LOT OF MEDIA COMPANIES DON'’T EVEN WANT TO GO TO TRIAL.

IT'’S RARE FOR A DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST A MEDIA COMPANY TO GET TO TRIAL, WHICH IT TECHNICALLY DID IN THIS CASE.

PART OF THE REASON, IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS EXPLAINED AS A HIGH LEGAL BAR THAT PAINTERS HAVE TO SURPASS WELL SUING, THE DISCOVERY HAPPENS AT PRECISELY ALL OF THESE INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS, TEXT MESSAGES AND EMAILS BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AND IN THIS CASE, A TROVE OF INTERNAL DOCUMENTATION FROM FOX NEWS WAS MADE PUBLIC AND NOW, WE, THE PUBLIC GET THIS UNPRECEDENTED VIEW INTO THE INNER WORKINGS OF A VERY POWERFUL MEDIA COMPANY THAT IS ALSO A FORCE WITHIN REPUBLICAN POLITICS, AS WELL.

I DON'’T KNOW WHAT THE CONTENT OF YOUR EMAILED OR TEXT MESSAGES ARE, BUT IN THIS CASE WE SAW POSTS BY TUCKER CARLSON WHO IS VERY POPULAR AND GETS LOTS OF BIG RATINGS SAYING PRIVATELY, THAT HE THOUGHT SIDNEY POWELL, THE ATTORNEY ALIGNED WITH TRUMP, THAT SHE WAS LYING.

HE SAID THAT HE HATES DONALD TRUMP.

HE PROVIDED US A SENSE OF, WHAT TO PEOPLE PRIVATELY SAY EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT IN PUBLIC AND ON THEIR PROGRAMS.

THAT IS WHY THIS CASE WAS SO CLOSELY WATCHED, NOT JUST FOR THE DEFAMATION CLAIMS HAMMERED OUT IN THE COURT ROOMS, BUT ALSO FOR THESE ANCILLARY ISSUES AS WELL.

SUE: AS ELAHE SAYS, RARELY DO THESE CASES GO TO TRIAL BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANY THAT CARRIES LIBEL INSURANCE FOR THE PUBLICATION OR MEDIA COMPANY WANTS TO SETTLE, OR THEY HAVE DEEP POCKETS AND DID NOT WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THEIR BUSINESS, BUT HAD THIS GOING TO TRIAL, COULD IT HAVE CHANGED, AND HAS IT CHANGED THE WAY PEOPLE VIEW LIBEL AND SLANDER LAWSUITS, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE MEDIA?

DANIEL: IT'’S A WONDERFUL QUESTION.

I THINK THE QUESTION TO ASK IN SOME SENSE IS NOT JUST WHAT THIS LAWSUIT HAS GOT TO CHANGE AND WHAT TRIAL WOULD HAVE DONE, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN QUITE DRAMATIC, I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN TUCKER CARLSON AND RUPERT MURDOCH TAKING THE STAND UNDER OATH MEMBER.

AT ALYSSA SAY THAT COURTROOMS ARE WHERE CONSPIRACY THEORIES GO TODAY.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN -- I ALWAYS SAY THAT COURTROOMS ARE WHERE CONSPIRACY THEORIES GO TODAY.

THE DEFAMATION LAWSUIT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CHANGE THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE.

ELAHE REPORTED TODAY ABOUT ANOTHER LAWSUIT AND HOW THERE IS A SMOOTH LAWSUITS AROUND THE GEORGIA ELECTION WORKER WHO WAS SLANDERED AND HAS GONE AFTER MANY OF THESE SIMILAR DEFAMER'’S.

COMBINED, THOSE LESSONS HAVE GREAT POTENTIAL TO CHANGE THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE.

SUE: DANIEL MENTIONED THE SMART MURDER CASE, THAT IS NEXT ON THE DOCK FOR FOX NEWS.

WHAT IS THAT LAWSUIT ABOUT?

ELAHE: THAT CLAIMANT WAS ALSO A LAWSUIT FILED IN 2021 AROUND THE SAME TIME, THE DELAY IN LAWSUIT, IT WAS A $2.7 BILLION LAWSUIT, SMARTMATIC IS CLAIMING AS DAMAGES.

A JUDGE IN FEBRUARY ALLOWED IT TO PROCEED.

WE ARE STILL A WAYS AWAY FROM A TRIAL, FOX NEWS SAID IT WOULD BE 2025 AS WHEN THEY ARE DIAGNOSED, AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING, IT'’S SIMILAR SORT OF THINGS AS WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT THE MINYAN THAT WAS ALSO SAID ON AIR ABOUT SMARTMATIC .

NOW, THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES.

I HAVE TO SAY, FOX DEFENSE, THEY WERE AGGRESSIVE IN SAYING THAT THE CLAIM BY DOMINION OF $1.6 MILLION WAS INFLATED.

THAT COULD PLAY A PART.

WHAT WAS FASCINATING ABOUT THE DOMINION CASE WAS THAT THE JUDGE HAD ALREADY RULED IN A PRETRIAL HEARING THAT FOX'’S LAWYERS COULDN'’T ARGUE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS A DEFENSE FOR LIBELOUS SPEECH.

AND SO EVEN THOUGH FOX IN THE LEAD UP TO THE TRIAL KEPT ARGUING THAT IT WAS A FIRST AMENDMENT CASE AND THAT THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF ACTUAL MALICE HAVE TO DO WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IN THE COURTROOM, THEY WERE VERY LIMITED WITH WHAT THEY COULD HAVE ARGUED.

I DON'’T KNOW WHAT WILL TAKE PLACE WITH THE SMARTMATIC CASE, BUT THEY ARE ALREADY SEEING THAT THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO CHILL FREE SPEECH.

SUE: DANIEL, I ALWAYS THOUGHT FOX WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF SAYING IT IS ENTERTAINMENT, IT IS SATIRE, NOT EVEN NEWS.

WHAT IS THEIR DEFENSE GOING TO BE ON THIS?

I IMAGINE THEY WILL BE IN THE SAME POSITION.

JARED: IT MAY PLAY OUT IN A SIMILAR WAY.

I THINK THERE IS ALMOST A CONSENSUS THAT THIS MIGHT BE THE LEAST SATISFYING 800 MILLION DOLLAR PAYOUT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE CATHARSIS PEOPLE HOPES TO COME FROM THIS, IT DID NOT.

PARTLY FOR FOX, WHICH HAD A $4 BILLION CASH SURPLUS ON HAND ACCORDING TO THE LATEST INFORMATION, THIS MIGHT EITHER COST OF DOING BUSINESS.

YOU MIGHT SEE THEM CUT A SIMILARLY LARGE CHECK TO SMARTMATIC AND NOT SEE A DRAMATIC CHANGE THERE EITHER.

SUE: IT'’S AMAZING THAT THERE DOESN'’T SEEM TO BE ON AIR, ON FOX, I THINK WE SHOULD THE ONLY -- [LAUGHS] POINT THAT IT WAS MADE.

AT WORK I HAVE SCREENS EVERYWHERE AND I DON'’T SEE THEM TALKING ABOUT IT.

WILL THEY CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THIS WORLD WHERE THIS MAJOR NEWS STORY WHICH IMPACTS ALL MEDIA, JUST DID NOT HAPPEN?

ELAHE: INTERESTING THAT YOU BRING THAT UP.

I JUST PUBLISHED A PIECE REVIEWING HOW FOX DID COVERAGE OF THE DOMINION CASE.

I FOUND A HANDFUL OF INSTANCES IN WHICH THE CASE WAS MENTIONED, THE BROAD CONTOURS OF IT WERE DESCRIBED.

ONLY ONE INSTANCE I FOUND IN WHICH THE ACTUAL SETTLEMENT AMOUNT WAS SAID ON AIR, IT WAS SAID ON AIR ONCE AND ATTRIBUTED TO "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL."

BY AND LARGE THE STORY HAS DOMINATED ALL OF ITS COMPETITORS ON TELEVISION AND IT WAS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF ALMOST EVERY MAJOR NEWSPAPER IN THE COUNTRY TODAY.

IT WAS MENTIONED HERE AND THERE ON FOX.

THAT IS THE BIG QUESTION ON MY MIND WOULD OUR FOX VIEWERS AWARE THAT THIS CASE EVEN EXISTED OR SOME OF THE DEEPER CONCEPTS RELATED TO IT?

ARE THEY AWARE THAT THE JUDGE RULED FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THEY COULD NOT ARGUE IN COURT, THAT THERE WAS ANY POSSIBILITY OF VERACITY OF THESE ELECTION FRAUD CLAIMS?

AND HE MENTIONED, THERE IS NO APOLOGY NO RETRACTION ON AIR, THAT WAS NOT THE PART OF THE SETTLEMENT ACCORDING TO SOURCES CLOSE TO THE NETWORK THAT SPOKE TO A COLLEAGUE OF MINE.

SO WILL THEIR VIEWERS KNOW THE TRUTH THAT THE ELECTION WAS NOT STOLEN AND THAT DOMINION VOTING MACHINES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT?

SUE: WHAT IS YOUR LESSON PLAN WHEN YOU ARE TEACHING THIS CASE, WHAT IS THE TAKE AWAY?

[LAUGH] DANIEL: I THINK THE TAKEAWAY IS, "STAY TUNED."

THE BIG TAKE AWAY MIGHT COME IN TWO OR THREE YEARS DEPENDING ON WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES WITH "NEW YORK TIMES" V. SULLIVAN.

THAT WOULD BE THE RULES THAT WORKED WITH WALTER CRONKITE WILL NOT WORK VERY WELL WITH PIZZAGATE AND STOP THE STEAL.

SUE: AS WE WRAP UP, I AM ALWAYS ARGUING THAT IN THE MEDIA, WE MAKE A MISTAKE, WE HAVE TO PUT A RETRACTION AND SAY WE MADE A MISTAKE.

PLUMBERS MAKE MISTAKES OF THE TIME AND THEY DON'’T HAVE TO MAKE A MISTAKE.

THAT WE ARE BASICALLY DOING OUR BEST TO TELL THE TRUTH.

AND THEN THIS HAPPENS, WHICH WE KNEW THAT THEY WERE DOING.

THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING FOX DON'’T SEEM TO KNOW THAT THEIR SUSPICIONS ABOUT THE REST OF US ARE RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSE AT THE WERE BEING LIED TO.

ELAHE: AND IT ALSO SPEAKS TO THE MEDIA BUBBLES THAT SO MANY OPERATE IN.

THE DAYS OF WALTER CRONKITE ARE GONE IN MANY WAYS.

A LOT OF PEOPLE CONSUME THEIR NEWS FROM OUTLETS THAT ARE ALREADY ALIGNED WITH THEIR WORLDVIEW AND PROVIDING A SKEWED PERSPECTIVE.

WE ARE NOT CONSUMING THE SAME FACTS AND INFORMATION.

THAT IS AN ISSUE FOR OUR ENTIRE DEMOCRACY, NOT JUST FOR MEDIA LAW.

SUE: WE WILL LEAVE IT THERE.

I APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU, ELAHE IZADI AND DANIEL RAUCH.

I APPRECIATE YOU TALKING TO ME.

JOIN ME FOR THE NEXT LAWSUIT.

[LAUGHTER] ELAHE: THANK YOU.

DANIEL: DANIEL: SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN.

SUE: AFTER FIVE YEAR OLD HARMONY MONTGOMERY WENT MISSING IN 2019, QUESTIONS SWIRLED ABOUT WHETHER THE STATE FAILED TO ACT AS WARNING SIGNS THAT WOULD HAVE KEPT HER SAFE.

HARMONY IS PRESUMED DEAD, AND HER FATHER, ADAM MONTGOMERY, IS CHARGED WITH HER MURDER.

IN A NEW REPORT FROM THE STATE OFFICE OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE, THE REPORT STATES THE STATE IS STILL NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTING CHILDREN IN CUSTODY CASES HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS.

IN HARMONIES CASE, HER FATHER WAS GRANTED SMALL CUSTODY DESPITE A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE AND ABUSE AND SHE REMAINED IN HIS CARE EVEN AFTER THE RENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES WERE TOLD SHE WAS HIT HER MOTHER AND LATER SAW SIGNS OF FADING BRUISE ON HER FACE.

IN THE MONTHS AFTER HER DISAPPEARANCE, A CHILD ADVOCATE REVIEWED HER CASE AND MADE SEVERAL ACCOMMODATIONS ABOUT HOW THE STATE SHOULD HANDLE THE CASES IN ITS LATEST REPORT, THE OFFICE OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE SAYS IT CONTINUES TO BE CONCERNED THAT THE WELFARE AND BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD IS NOT ADEQUATELY PRESENTED IN CHILDCARE CASES, PUTTING SOME CHILDREN IN UNSAFE SITUATIONS.

I AM JOINED BY CAROL ERSKIN, FORMER JUSTICE OF THE CHILD JUVENILE COURT.

SHE OVERSAW THE ADOPTION OF HARMONY'’S HALF BROTHER JAMISON.

AND JONATHAN AND BLAIR MILLER, THE COUPLE WHO ADORED JAMISON, AND HAVE SINCE THEN WORKING TO PREVENT WHAT HAPPENED TO HARMONY, DOES NOT HAPPEN TO ANYONE ELSE.

BLAIR, I WANT TO START WITH YOU.

AND JUST ASK IF YOU COULD SHARE WITH US ANY MEMORIES YOUR SON HAS ABOUT HIS SISTER.

GUEST: HE DOES.

HE WILL ASK ABOUT HER OFTEN.

HE REMEMBERS WHAT HER FAVORITE COLORS WERE, PURPLE AND PINK.

HE KNEW THAT SHE LOVED MINNIE MOUSE.

"MATTER OF FACT", HER MOM MADE PILLOWS FOR MICKEY MOUSE AND MINNIE MOUSE AND HE SAID HE WILL KEEP THAT FROM A SISTER, HARMONY.

IT'’S HARD TO SHARE WITH HIM THAT IT IS NOT A REALITY, THAT HE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GIVE THAT TO HER.

HE REMEMBERS THAT THEY WERE IN FOSTER CARE, SHE HAD A "TICKLE ME ELMO" ALBUM HE REALLY WANTED AND SHE GAVE IT TO HIM AS A GIFT AND DIDN'’T HAVE ANY CHOICE IN THE WORCESTER HOMES THEY WERE IN.

SUE: WHAT AN EXTREME EXAMPLE OF THE WAY THAT TWO CHILDREN'’S LIVES COULD SIMPLY GO, ONE ENDING UP IN A LOVING HOUSEHOLD WITH CARE OF PARENTS WHO ARE PUTTING IN HIS BEST INTERESTS FORWARD, AND OBVIOUSLY THE GOVERNMENT'’S ROLE IN HELPING THAT TO HAPPEN.

AND THEN THE OTHER CHILD MURDERED.

IS THIS HOW IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN?

AND IS THIS HOW IT HAS TO BE?

GUEST: I THINK THE CHILD LEGAL ADVOCACY SYSTEM HAS BEEN INEFFECTIVE FOR A LONG TIME.

THAT IS WHY THE OFFICE OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE CHILD SERVICES, WHICH HAS THE UNIT THAT REPRESENTS CHILDREN AND PARENTS, IS A DEFECTIVE SYSTEM.

THAT BASICALLY, WHAT I WRITE ABOUT IN THE BOOK IS THAT YOU HAD THREE ATTORNEYS ON THAT CASE, AS THE GOVERNOR SAID, AND NOT ONE OF THEM HAD HARMONY'’S HALF-BROTHER'’S INTEREST AS A PRIORITY.

THE SYSTEM IS A REALLY DAMAGED SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS WHEN YOU HAVE A LAWYER FOR THE MOTHER, A LAWYER FOR THE FATHER AND A LAWYER FOR THE CHILD, ALL HIRED FOR AND PAID FOR BY THE SAME PEOPLE, IN THE COURTROOM.

THE POINT I MAKE IN ONE ASPECT FOR THE BOOK IS THAT AS A PARENT-FOCUSED AGENCY, IT IS TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE CHILD'’S BEST INTEREST.

MY PREDICTION IS THAT THERE WILL BE MORE CHILD FATALITIES BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE SAYS IT DOESN'’T HAVE TO CHANGE ITS PARTICULAR WAY OF REPRESENTING CHILDREN.

MEANING THAT THEY ALLOWED HARMONY AT AGE 4 TO DECIDE WHAT HER FUTURE WOULD BE.

SUE: I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO WORK BOTH IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FOR SOCIAL AGENCIES, DEALING WITH FAMILIES IN DISTRESS.

THEY HAVE OFTEN SHARED WITH ME HOW, AS MUCH AS THEY WANT TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN, THEY OFTEN FEEL THAT TAKING A CHILD AWAY FROM A PARENT, REMOVING A CHILD AWAY FROM A HOME, TO THEM IT IS A LINE CROSSING THAT SOMETIMES THEY FEEL THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT THEY ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE RIGHT INFORMATION, AND SOMETIMES THEY DON'’T LIKE THEY HAVE THAT.

IS THIS AREA THROUGH THE ENTIRE SYSTEM?

IS IT BOTH THE SOCIAL WORKERS ON THE GROUND, NOT AS INDIVIDUALS, BUT AS A SYSTEM?

ARE WE JUST TOTALLY OVER THE LINE HERE?

GUEST: IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE THROUGHOUT MASSACHUSETTS, I MEAN, THE DEPARTMENT IS UNDERFUNDED, SOCIAL WORKERS LITERALLY PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE.

THEY ARE AMAZING.

THEY WALK INTO SOME OF THE MOST DANGEROUS SITUATIONS.

AND YOU HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO SAY, YOU KNOW, FOSTER CARE ISN'’T ALWAYS NEEDED.

SOMETIMES THAT IS TRUE.

BUT THAT IS FOR A JUDGE TO DECIDE AT THE TEMPORARY HEARING.

THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHERE I WOULD SAY, "I DON'’T THINK WE NEED TO REMOVE THIS CHILD, LET'’S GET SOME SERVICES IN, HAVE A SAFETY PLAN AND LET'’S RETURN THE CHILD."

BUT THERE ARE OTHER CASES WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT THE CHILD IS AT RISK AND NEEDS TO BE IN A SAFE PLACE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT AS WE KNOW, FOSTER CARE CAN BE REALLY TRAUMATIC FOR CHILDREN.

SUE: JOHNATHON AND BLAIR, I WILL LET YOU CHOOSE WHO TO ANSWER, BUT WHAT IS MOTIVATING YOU HERE?

WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU CAN IMPACT IN A POSITIVE WAY TO PROTECT CHILDREN?

GUEST: I THINK WE SIT HERE YEAR AND A HALF NEARLY, SINCE WE FOUND OUT THAT HARMONY WAS MISSING AND WHILE THERE HAS BEEN PLENTY OF OUTRAGE AND CONCERN AND THE COMMUNITY HAS PLAYED A VITAL ROLE IN SUPPORT AND SEARCH, HERE WE ARE.

I WOULD ASK, HOW MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN?

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?

WHY HASN'’T ENOUGH CHANGED TO MAKE SURE THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN?

THOSE ARE SOME OF OUR BIGGEST QUESTIONS AND THAT IS OUR MOTIVATION NOW.

SURE, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT JAMISON GROWING UP AND LEARNING ABOUT THIS, BUT EVERYTHING WE ARE DOING IS IN JAMISON'’S AND HARMONY'’S NAME AND HONOR.

SUE: AS I WAS PREPARING FOR THE SEGMENT AND WE WERE TALKING, PEOPLE GET CONFUSED ABOUT WHICH CHILD WAS IN DANGER, WHICH CHILD WAS MURDERED.

WHICH SPEAKS VOLUMES AS TO HOW HORRENDOUS THIS PROBLEM IS THE STATE HAVE, ESPECIALLY A STATE LIKE MASSACHUSETTS WHICH PRIDES ITSELF ON BEING GOOD AT MANY THINGS.

WHAT STEPS DOES THE STATE IN WHICH WE HAVE TO TAKE?

AND I KNOW IT IS IN THE REPORT, BUT WHAT WOULD YOU URGE LAWMAKERS AND PEOPLE TO DO TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE?

GUEST: IT'’S A GREAT QUESTION.

I WRITE ABOUT THE EFFORTS WE MADE WITH SENATOR MOORE TO PUT A WORKING COMMISSION TOGETHER TO LOOK AT THE ANTIQUATED LAW, AND LEGAL ADVOCACY SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS.

IT WAS VOTED ON UNANIMOUSLY AND THEN IT WENT TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, AND IT WAS JUST CRUSHED THERE.

YOU HAVE THE JUDICIARY, YOU HAVE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, ALL OF THEM NOT DOING ENOUGH TO MAKE THE CHANGES.

ONE OF THE IMMEDIATE CHANGES, IN MY VIEW, AND THIS IS IN THE OCA REPORT, BUT I EXPLAIN IT TO A GREATER DEGREE, IS, YOU CAN'’T HAVE FOUR-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN CITING THEIR FUTURE.

IT'’S DANGEROUS.

IT'’S NOT DONE LIKE THAT.

MOST OF THE STATES WHICH HAVE A BEST INTEREST MODEL ALONG WITH EXPRESSED PREFERENCE, BUT THE COMMITTEE HIS FIGHTING THAT IN MASSACHUSETTS.

I SPEND TIME TALKING ABOUT HOW IT IS SUCH AN INDIGNITY TO HARMONY FOR PEOPLE TO IGNORE THIS REALLY DEFECTIVE SYSTEM THAT IS IN PLACE.

SUE: JOHNATHON, I IMAGINE THE GRIEF YOUR FAMILY FEELS OVER HARMONY'’S HALF-BROTHER, HOW DO YOU AS A FAMILY DEAL WITH PROCESSING THIS GRIEF AND TRYING TO TURN IT TO ACTION?

GUEST: NUMBER 1, WE CAN'’T CHANGE WHAT HAPPENED TO HARMONY.

IF WE COULD GO BACK, WE WOULD DO ANYTHING TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

WE ARE NOT ABLE TO CHANGE THAT, SADLY.

BUT WE CAN TELL JAMISON THAT HE IS LOVED.

IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS.

HE LOOKS AT US AND SAYS "WHY DID MY SISTER HAVE TODAY?

WHY DID SOMEONE HURT MY SISTER?"

HE DOESN'’T REALIZE IT WAS HIS FATHER, THAT IS TOO MUCH FOR A SIX ORDER TO UNDERSTAND.

ALL WE CAN DO IS LOVE HIM UNCONDITIONALLY AND GIVE HIM THE SERVICES HE NEEDS AND FIGHT TO MAKE SURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN TO ANOTHER CHILD.

IT IS, AND IT COULD HAPPEN.

FOR INSTANCE, A FEW MONTHS AGO, OUR DOORBELL WRONG AND EVEN AFTER JAMISON KNEW THE TRAGIC ENDING TO HARMONY, HE SAID "I HOPE THAT IS MY SISTER AT THE DOOR."

THAT WAS HIS ONLY STABLE PERSON IN HIS LIFE UNTIL HE WAS ADOPTED.

SUE: IT IS HEARTBREAKING.

AND IT IS UNNECESSARY.

BLAIR -- I GET FRUSTRATED IN THIS BUSINESS COVERING TERRIBLE STORIES LIKE THIS WHERE THERE IS AN ENORMOUS REACTION OF LOVE AND CONCERN AND HEARTBREAK, AND THEN WE JUST KIND OF MOVE ON, AND THEN THE NEXT TIME IT HAPPENS WITH THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE ALL SHOCKED THAT IT HAPPENED AGAIN.

WHAT CAN HE SAY TO PEOPLE AT HOME, STEPS THEY CAN TAKE TO STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN?

GUEST: I SAY THE SAME THING.

I GET IT, THERE IS A LOT GOING ON IN THIS WORLD EVERYONE IS BUSY AND TRYING TO SORT OUT LIFE FOR THEMSELVES AND WHEN THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN, THERE IS A LOT OF OUTRAGE.

THE SAME QUESTIONS WERE ASKING OUR LAWMAKERS IS, WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THIS?

WHY HASN'’T THIS CHANGED?

WHAT IS YOUR ROLE IN MAKING SURE WE ARE KEEPING ALL OF OUR KIDS SAFE?

SUE: CAROL, IS THERE A STATE THAT IS DOING IT RIGHT?

SOMEBODY WHO COULD BE A MODEL OF AT LEAST MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF AT LEAST TRYING TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY?

GUEST: MASSACHUSETTS IS ONLY ONE OF EIGHT STATES THAT ALLOWS A SINGULAR EXPRESSED PREFERENCE MODEL, ALLOWING CHILDREN TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT COULD PUT THEM AT EXTREME RISK.

.

BUT THERE ARE 32 STATES IN THE UNITED STATES THAT EVEN IF THEY HAVE AN EXPRESSED PREFERENCE MODEL, THEY HAVE A GUARDIAN AD LITEM OR INDEPENDENT VOICE TO SPEAK FOR THOSE CHILDREN SO THAT YOU ARE NOT JUST GETTING ONE STORY.

IN HARMONY'’S CASE, THE LAWYERS AGREED THEY WERE GOING TO PRESENT -- THEY DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THE JUDGE ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL RECORD, ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE DIDN'’T DO ANY SERVICES SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE CUSTODY ORDER WENT IN.

SO IT IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION WHEN YOU ARE A JUDGE AND ON EVIDENCE AND THE EVIDENCE IS NOT COMING IN.

SO I THINK MASSACHUSETTS SHOULD MOVE TO A SIMILAR MODEL, WHERE A CHILD'’S VOICE GETS TO BE HEARD, SEPARATE FROM THE LAWYER.

SUE: I APPRECIATE YOU ALL TAKING TIME TO SHARE THIS CONCERN AND CALL TO ACTION WITH US.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND EXPERTISE, THANK YOU.

THAT'’S IT FOR TONIGHT.

BUT COME BACK TOMORROW, A BOSTON CITY COUNCILOR JOINS US ON HER SUPPORT FOR THE PHYSICIANS, INTERNS AND FELLOWS AT THE MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM WHO ARE FIGHTING TO FORM A UNION, ALONGSIDE ONE OF THE RESIDENT ADDITIONS AT THE HOSPITAL LEADING THE CHARGE.

THAT AND MORE TOMORROW AT 7:00.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

GOOD NIGHT!

♪