Today, Sunday, January 22, 1995, we celebrate. We celebrate the birth of a boy, a “grand”son, to Walt & Tracy on January 18th, some 15 days beyond his reported entrance. We celebrate a year to the day (the 18th) that I entered the same hospital, Holy Redeemer, to discover a squiggly in the left ventricle artery. We celebrate three years since I became committed to a non-alcoholic existence, but the best of the best is the coming of ERIC BRIAN BERGER, also known as EBB! A boy of great promise, if he can survive the exuberant affection of his three-year-older brother, Paulie. We’re sure, with the guidance and overseeing of Sean and David (now 11!), he’ll make it. The miracle of birth stirs us all and around the time he was pending in the womb, I heard a hymn or song that touched me. It was children singing “How God has knitted me together in my mother’s womb” and gave me “wonderful me”. When you look at a newborn in his mother’s arms, it is with “full of wonder”. God is in his heaven and all is right with the world! It certainly was with a great deal more pleasure that I visited Holy Redeemer on 1/18/95, as compared to my stop on 1/18/94. June, Grandmom, feels exactly the same way!
Another subject broached at our New Year’s Day dinner party was an article on the opinion page of the Evening Bulletin circa 1972. Bill King remembered that I was a “bear for paperwork”. The expression came from the article written about me by columnist, Adrian Lee. It appeared with a picture of my face as it was in 1966-campaign material. Pudgy Paul. Under it read “…a bear for paperwork”. In fact, that part of the article was what offended me more than all the sly inferences in the written part.
I had, at that time in my life, lost some 40 pounds due to running and eating less. My face had shrunken, so much so that I was misidentified in one of my favorite haunts as a brother of Paul McSorley – no kidding! So my ego was boosted by the article but then quickly deflated by the picture – sic transit gloria mundi!
The “bear for paperwork” allegation had to do with my processing questionnaires of prospective jurymen while serving at the same time as court appointed defense counsel in homicide cases. I’ve re-read the article. It must have appeared in 1973 or late 1972. The appointments as counsel were made when I was without employment between 1/1/72 and 6/30/72. The trials however, occurred after the appointment. The article reported that, “…he is a diligent and capable practitioner, his clients well represented.” He, the author then goes on to infer that my job as Master (later we became “Assistant Commissioners”) gave me access to jury records – the questionnaires – that gave me an advantage over the A.D.A. “…is he in a position to pick and choose with greater insight than the DA? …” He answers the question himself “…there’s no question; the defense would have the advantage.” What the author, Mr. Lee, failed to do is ask me that question. In fact he, in his interview, never advised me that he intended to write an article referring to my practice as an attorney. He merely asked about my working habits and what I did at the Jury Commission.
He never examined the “Questionnaire” or he could never have called it “quite detailed”. The information is so basic that his description is a travesty. Further, he did not ask me nor the D.A. if they had access to this information, because they did, as well as I did. It was substantially what was noted on the list of jurors, namely, name, address and occupation. The additional information was the date of birth, education (i.e., could they write or write), physical capacity to serve, and if there was any reason he or she couldn’t serve. It, the article, was a good example of “yellow”journalism – accent what makes for sensation and ignore the facts! And never even try to obtain them!
But, there were some flattering comments, so we’ll take the bad with the good – including that awful obese Paul picture at the top of the column. So much for the “bear for paperwork”.
The article brought back other memories. The actual trial of criminal cases in the presence of a jury. The whole world now watching the jury system being tried by the OJ Simpson case. I have difficulty remembering that I really addressed 12 people on behalf of clients. I do remember one that had been charged with first degree murder of one person and aggravated A&B of another in the course of a gang killing. We managed to have the A&B charge against him dismissed and a jury returned a not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of conspiracy to murder. I felt quite pleased with the result, but the client inquired if he had to go to jail. I advised him he could get up to 10 years – he was disappointed and I was flabbergasted. It, as I recall, was my last murder trial. My bosses, Nick Kozay and Paul Tranchitella, were both seeking the bench, and were adamant about my appearing before any other juries. They even acted as if they had previously advised me against doing so, which was not true. But now that they had to be ”chaste as Caesar’s wife” they claimed they had. Both ultimately made the bench. Paul has since joined the heavenly court and Nick is still with us and can be found in Divorce Motion Court.
There was another time I was the subject – indirectly – of an article in the local paper, this time, the Inquirer.
I had been the intermediary in a private adoption something I had done many times before. It was around 1983 when I was approached by an expectant mother to place her expected child. I should have been forewarned considering the source of the recommendation, i.e., the person who suggested me as the attorney/intermediary was not one with the best of reputations. This may be more like “Monday morning quarterbacking”, since at the time my anxiety to place a child with one of the many desperate couples I had on my list blinded me to any chance that I would become a victim of a very mixed-up woman.
Her name was Cadwallader – a name that recalls Main Line and early American Philadelphia history. But as of today I am not even sure that it was not something she picked up – though I do recall talking to her father in the course of the matter. He was a Mr. Cadwallader living in Delaware, just over the Pennsylvania line.
The usual manner in which those cases were handled was, after an interview, the mother executed a “Moral Commitment” to place the child through me. It was understood that the adopting parties – who remained unknown – would pay for the mother’s prenatal and postnatal care. We would even consider paying other legitimate expenses, but nothing more. It was explicit in the Commitment – or contract – as it was interpreted by the Court in cases where the party later reneged after receiving the care and then did not give up the child.
Some months later the mother entered Abington Hospital and delivered a little girl. We arranged to pay and paid the bill for the care. The mother left the hospital without the child. We, after the hospital pediatrician approved the health of the child, met with the adopting parents and delivered the child to them. We then contacted the birth mother who was with her father, to have her execute the Consent. A Consent to adoption under Pa. law cannot be executed until 72 hours have elapsed after the birth. The mother failed to respond. We contacted the putative father and he executed a Consent. He had at that point no contact with the mother. I advised the adopting parents of the developments and they were further advised to hire counsel. The mother continued to refuse to execute a Consent and now denied that the person she named as the father was in fact the father. He continued to accept the proposition and was surprised at her denial. The bizarre behavior continued and the mother began an action in Habeas Corpus – directed to me – and I joined through counsel the adopting parties.
The defenses were: the commitment, the abandonment of the child, the father’s consent and later, after investigation disclosed other facts – the woman was incapable of parenting. This last defense was a new theory. It had not reached our Supreme Court, but did after our matter was decided, affirming it was a valid theory or reason in certain circumstances. We never had an opportunity to develop it because the Judge decided since the adoption statute said (or did at that time) a natural parent can revoke a Consent anytime up to six months, she therefore had revoked any consent or consensual acts, and the child had to be returned to her.
But before the Judge reached that decision, the investigation into the woman’s background revealed she had been hospitalized at least twice for an overdose of drugs – allegedly attempted suicides. She had also apparently had another child, a boy, who was removed or taken from her because of abuse or whatever. We were thwarted in obtaining information on the child’s whereabouts and history due to the Judge’s predilection to go by the strict reading of the Adoption Law.
Somewhere in the time between her refusal to execute a Consent and the Judge’s decision, there appeared on the front page of the “Inquirer’s” Metro Section a picture of Ms. Cadwallader beside an empty crib apparently in a nursery like room –under which was a caption, something like “He refuses to give me my child”. The “he” in the article noted was attorney P.L. McSorley.
The article was full of half-truths and none of what I had told the reporter who interviewed me was reported. For example: the father had consented, the mother had committed in writing, and had accepted her care being paid for, the mother had left the hospital without the child, and the mother refused to divulge information about a prior child – its whereabouts, etc., etc. It merely moaned on about this monster lawyer stealing her child – inferentially, for profit.
Another weird twist to this story was the mother picketed my office at 431 Rhawn Street, walking up and down with signs stating I was “unfair”, etc. She tried to have 60 Minutes cover the story, or so I was advised. A nice twist to the picketing was when Joe Golden heard she was there at the office (I vacated it for a while that day) and thought he would go up and interview her. He took his camera and did so. Maybe that’s where I learned she was attempting to get 60 Minutes involved?
The Court upheld her right to take back the child. The parties could not afford to appeal and so it then seemed the end of a strange saga. But no – one day before two years elapsed from the day I took the child, Ms. Cadwallader served me with a Summons. I have conveniently forgotten the attorney’s name, but it never ceased to gall me that he did not have the professional courtesy, or guts to call and inquire from me my side of the incident. No “sue first and ask questions at depositions” –regardless of the basis for the action! It’s the American (lawyer) way!
We, that is my attorney, Frank Allen, and I served the Summoners with a demand that they file a Complaint within 20 days or have the matter dismissed. They filed a 30-page complaint of absolute fantasy -alleging that I had prevented her from bonding with the child, causing her psychological damage, etc., etc. to the tune of $200,000!
Some months later Frank deposed her. I did not attend for fear I might assault her attorney and then her. After several hours, Frank learned she was now driving a truck over the road, being away for days at a time, had trouble remembering who her babysitter was, had never been tested by a psychologist, a psychiatrist, etc. regarding her “bonding” loss, etc., etc. She was without a case and apparently she knew it, since when the case was listed for trial her lawyer withdrew. He could not locate his client! Thus ended the saga – finally. But it was another example along the way of the press and the truth – how divergent they are, so often. It makes you feel sorry for Will Rogers, who said all he ever knew he read in the newspapers – could not have been much.
The real tragedy in matters like this is the child. This one disappeared into wherever, as apparently the previous one did. The courts today at least tend more to look into the best interest of the child in most instances – when there is no fraud involved in the placement that has gone forward for some time. Included in the best interest is also consideration of the parenting ability of the natural mother who has given up the child.
A little twist to this story, as Judy pointed out, was that shortly after the child was returned to her mother we were able to place another child with the adoptive couple.
Before closing, I want to leave with you two of the many get-well thoughts I received a year ago. I received this from Sean Hopkins, written in his own hand:
“Dear Pop-Pop:
I know I can’t go in your room so I’m writing this card to tell you how much I hope your operation is a success and to tell you that too many people including me love you and would hate to see you go away forever. Get well soon.
Love, Sean”
And this one from David:
“Dear Pop-Pop:
I hope you get better. Well that’s the reason for writing this letter I hope you get better for goodness sake so you can play the piano Book of Fakes (Ha Ha get it?).
P.S. I’ll Be the First one to visit you.
Love, Dave”
(For those not familiar with “Book of Fakes”, it is really a “Fake Book” of music used by Pop-Pop to play tunes!).
When you receive an expression of love as wonderful as that from your loved ones, it makes all life’s disappointments seem trivial and small.