| Printed Page 1640, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1660, Feb. 10 |

We had sat in his office the night before and I said what do we need to prepare for tomorrow and B. Brown told me, "Do they have any marks on them? Do they have any hospital reports, doctor's reports?" I said, "No." He said, "then you're getting your kids back tomorrow." I said, "Well, you better petition under discovery of evidence to see exactly what they're going to present tomorrow." B. Brown said, "No, don't worry about it, you're getting your kids back." We went into court the next day. They had called 20 witnesses. B. Brown said, "You can't fight these people."
Q. So are you telling me then that the witnesses that you say saw these children the day that they were picked up and saw there were no bruises or anything of those things, any harm to the children, were not allowed to testify? Were they in that 20 number that you're speaking of?
A. Yes. Leroy Montgomery was present in the courtroom that day. Bobby Byrd was present in the courtroom that day, but, no, Jeremiah Davis from SLED was not present.
Q. Your bottom line is that DSS had no reason to take those children into protective custody and Judge Barrineau allowed them to do so and he did this by a conflict of interest, not knowing the law and bad temperament?
A. And failure to hear both sides of the story, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Rockwell. Next is Ms. Amy -- Mrs. Amy W. Rockwell. If you would raise your right hand, please.
AMY W. ROCKWELL, having been duly sworn, testified and deposed as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. McNamee has some questions. Do you have any questions?
MS. MCNAMEE: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: The affidavit --

Now I had already been through my preliminary hearing and I had also been to the Grand Jury. I notice there were irregularities in it because whenever I went to check up on the case, it had been one year. In six of ninety was when we had our preliminary hearing and ten of ninety is when we had our Grand Jury. I was given a true bill.

One of ninety-one, I was taking my children to Geiger Elementary because it was still in the district, but yet a different school for my child. Fairfield Primary was the original school. So what happened was whenever I contacted the Solicitor's office in Chester, I asked for them what was the status of this case. They told me the case was dropped. I said "No. This case was not dropped. I didn't drop it." "You didn't have to," he said, "The solicitor did." I said "No, that's not true. That's not right. We've already been through the Grand Jury."

So I asked them, I said, "Well, what exactly are you saying dropped this case?" They said, "Well, there's initials besides the solicitor's initials and it was dropped in six of ninety." I said, "No. How can a case be dropped in six of ninety when I had a Grand Jury in ten of ninety?"
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, tell me how this ties in to Judge Barrineau. Is this --
A. Because this is how this initiated the taking of my children. My children were harassed repeatedly. I went to Fairfield County to try to get assistance in stopping the harassment.

I filed notices with the school board. It was Polly Parker at the time. Sheriff Montgomery, I filed notices with him. I tried to get them to look into the real issues of this case. It continued to be harassing towards my children.

It was getting to the point to where what used to be enjoyable going to school became they did not want to attend school. It came to the point to where my children were coming home saying that the social workers and it was not every social worker. It was two particular social workers. Tina Fuller and Patsy Black would come into their school telling them that they were going to a foster home if they testified against this teacher.

Mr. Holcomb, I went to him. He was the director of Social Services. He assured me there was no way that my children could be harassed about this court case, that they're not supposed to do that.

So Mr. Ellsworth, the Department of Social Services supervisor, told me he would get someone to look into this for me. Instead my children got removed from school, off the school grounds while I still had custody.

The Norfolk Southern what he's talking about is there is a train site that was on highway 34, Simpson area. The train stopped on the tracks right across from the Kennedy store. Norfolk Southern verified that there was activity on the tracks on March the 14th and March the 18th of 1991. There were two people service -- working on the tracks that day.

My children were taken on this train in attempt to bribe them and show them that they could get special little favors if they just didn't tell me what was going on and if they did not testify against this teacher. So this really angered me that they would remove my children and try to undermine our family and I saw chaos just occurring and it was really -- you know, I was going to the agencies that were supposed to be policing and they were not.

So Sheriff Montgomery came out to our house several times. He asked us to drop the case. He told my son point blank in the yard, "Go tell your mom you lied on the teacher for hitting you." My son came in crying. He was in tears. Tom talked to him outside.

Tom came in and got right in Sheriff's Montgomery's face and said, "Look, this woman has a hard enough job raising these children. There is no way that you should encourage a child to lie to a parent." We were angry. We told him we were going to SLED and we were going to have this. If Fairfield County would not look into this situation, we would go elsewhere.

My son, Anthony, the one that they took first, was the most adamant in saying Tina wore a pink dress, it was a blue car, it had an emblem on it. He was descriptive. He was not just saying, oh, she came and got me and then he couldn't explain. He was being very precise in his accusations. It got to the point where I had to start staying at school with my children to keep them from getting harassed at school.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, connect it again to Judge Barrineau because we're talking about -- it sounds like the relationship --

They accused me of forging -- signing checks that the State had given me. That was not true. I even had to do the leg work on this and went to the State Department of Financial Services and had to get them to prove that these child support checks were not coming to me.

They were staying within DSS, but DSS had such a big financial problem that they had a real mess up in their financial situation, but it showed that I did not receive those checks. So they couldn't throw us in jail on that.

Another thing was they said that we did not have mental health appointments. They kept insisting Fairfield County this, Fairfield County that, even though we lived in Richland County, so we had to adhere to these Fairfield County places.
THE CHAIRMAN: But these are all related to the concerns --

My attorney did not receive this until like the first week in December, which was Mr. McCormick at the time. So we went and got appointment cards and presented it to the court that, yes, we had an appointment, but it was a week or so after the court date. It was on the 19th. I did supply a copy of those to you. So we should not have been held in contempt, but we were held in contempt. And every courtroom that we have had, it's been like a circus there.

They would have people in there that were in no way related to our case, sitting in on our cases. Whenever I would try to testify, anything that was beneficial to our case was not allowed in court, anything that was detrimental, falsified, et cetera was allowed by Judge Barrineau, so we did not get a fair hearing and I believe that had we gotten a fair hearing, my children would not be where they are at right now because these court orders have been used against us.

Since there has been a judge to say, "Oh, yes, there is a finding of threat of harm here," that order has carried out tremendously and every one looks at this order and this is fact, but it is not fact. Instead it has been a piece of paper that has been maneuvered through the court system to appear as fact and my children are victims terribly.

To this day, we have tried to make Judge Barrineau aware, 207 Evans Street. This house was not fit to be a foster home, yet $900 a month was received to keep my kids there. Three children lived in this home. Rat infested. It was terrible. This house is not something that should have been used. These people are in financial stress. They have foreclosed on this home. They had another house to go in default. They had to order it back and somehow that involved B. Brown.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right.

Had he worked in the best interest of my children, he would have never allowed my children to live in a house that looked like this that's only a couple of blocks from the court house. He would have never allowed my children to be placed outside of family members. He would have never allowed my children to be placed with people who had adoption goals.

Now my children were jerked out of my home because they alleged assault, yet my children had no bruises on them, no hospital reports. There was nothing that should have removed my children. My children should have been protected.

We went to the State Department of Social Services, asked to be put under a witness protection program prior to this removal of my children. I was told there was no such thing, but yet my children are suffering and Judge Barrineau I believe could have been more available to me. I believe he could have been more willing to listen to the facts of the case, looking at all issues and not just what the State presented to him.

I believe that my children are not the only children that are suffering this. I believe that if it has occurred to me, than it has occurred prior to me.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. --
MS. ROCKWELL: And I feel that in his case, it should be investigated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Rockwell, and our role here is to determine the qualifications of Judge Barrineau to sit as a retired judge. You know, talking --
MS. ROCKWELL: My --
THE CHAIRMAN: -- about other cases that may be out there, we're limited to what we have before us and what's on the record, so --
MS. ROCKWELL: I understand.
THE CHAIRMAN: -- please understand that. Now I think we understand the thrust of your and your husband's allegations. Are there any specific questions from the Committee members? All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.
MS. ROCKWELL: Well, I would like to say this, I believe that it would be in the best interest of our society that we do try to find a judge that is going to listen to both sides and present -- what is presented before him, allow the people who are the defendants to at least have a hearsay in court.

You know, that is something that should not have occurred. I understand I have to keep in different areas, you know, who can do what --
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
MS. ROCKWELL: Please consider that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Judge Barrineau. You're still under oath.
JUDGE BARRINEAU: Well --
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me just --
JUDGE BARRINEAU: -- first of all, let me --
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me suggest. Mr. Beatty, I think, succinctly stated what the issues are here and if you could try to respond to those. I think the questions that have been raised as I understand them relate to an alleged conflict of interest because of a business relationship with the judge -- with the former Sheriff Montgomery and also some questions about your proper application of the law and some temperament questions.
JUDGE BARRINEAU: All right, first of all, the judge is -- let me address the application of the law. She just says that I didn't know the law pertaining to removal of children from the state. I didn't know the children had been removed from the state until she brought it to my attention at some point and I brought the DSS in and admonished them about removing those children from the state. And they said it wouldn't happen again. And I assumed that it never happened again because I never had another complaint, but that's my response to that part of it.

She says in her complaint that I'm -- I acted as God or king or whatever in one place in her complaint, she must think I am God or king or something if she thinks I can go around and inspect every foster care home that DSS chooses to place a child in.

I had no knowledge of where those children were placed. I wasn't interest in where they were placed. That's DSS' responsibility. Mr. Griswald gets $50,000 a year more than I do to administer those kind of situations. I'm not charged with that responsibility. I'm not charged with inspecting DSS or making them abide by the federal law. That's not

I don't know what she did with Sheriff Montgomery on the train. I have no knowledge of that. All I know is what was presented in that courtroom and the evidence.

Now, you want to know why there were no bruises on the children because she held them underwater. She held them underwater. That was the report that I got from the Sheriff's Department and the testimony in the case. There wasn't any bruises from holding them under water. That's the way she controlled her children.

As far as me telling her to sit down and whatever, all of the transcripts and all of the things that she's alleged have been -- has been appealed to the Supreme Court or should have been appealed to the Supreme Court. If I didn't apply the law right, if I didn't listen to the facts right, she had a right to appeal and she had a right to have me reversed. That wasn't done. She -- he say it's his fault because he had a bad lawyer or whatever, I don't know. He had six lawyers in the case.
JUDGE BARRINEAU: And there has never been any objection to Sheriff Montgomery testifying in my court or any conflict of interest because of that. He's never testified in my court.
JUDGE BARRINEAU: But I've never had an objection and that affidavit, if they asked me to recuse myself in that case, it was not because of any ownership of property between myself and Sheriff Montgomery.

Sheriff Montgomery and I have owned that property for several years. It's a little old store on Main Street in Winnsboro and there's another little tract out in the country of one acre, I think. It has nothing to do with any conflict of interest in the courtroom, so I don't have -- you don't have to have anything to hide behind in regards to that. I'll be happy to answer any question that you might have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Questions?
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR RUSSELL:
Q. Your testimony is you never communicated with the Sheriff?
A. Outside the courtroom, I never talked to the Sheriff about this case. He came to the courtroom, but he didn't testify. All the officers that investigated it testified as I recall. This was in 1991.

By the way, this case was removed from Fairfield County by their motion over a year ago. All the children are now in foster care in Richland County. The DSS in Richland County was supervising the children. All the connecting parts of the case are now in Richland County.

| Printed Page 1640, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1660, Feb. 10 |