Original subtitles

My God!

Terrence, are you okay?

Terrence.

Oh, my God.

Terrence, was there a fight? 'Cause you're pretty swollen here.

It's okay. You're safe here.

Who did this to you?

My father.

Not again.

We need to get Child Protective Services in here right away.

I'm Judy Sheindlin.

Before I was a judge on TV,

I was a judge in New York City for 15 years.

And a lawyer for 17 years before that.

While serving on both sides of the bench,

I learned that justice doesn't always end up feeling...

just.

Sometimes, the impact of one decision by a police officer, a lawyer,

or even a judge, can change the way justice is delivered.

We're going to demonstrate this

by taking landmark cases from actual crimes

committed by real people.

And we'll recreate them with our trial lawyers,

and yours truly as the trial judge.

While we're not going to recreate the trials verbatim,

the court's ultimate decisions are accurate.

It will be up to you to decide whether the case was fair

and the outcome just.

Real cases, actual lawyers,

surprising verdicts.

Justice on Trial.

This case is personal to me.

That's because I actually touched on it as a family court judge in 1988.

When I thought about cases we should profile in this series,

this one was first on my list.

The legal issue here is diplomatic immunity.

You see, the little boy in this case, Terrence Karamba,

was the son of a member of the diplomatic mission

from the country of Zimbabwe. According to international law,

high-level diplomats are not subject to the laws

of the foreign country where they serve.

So, they cannot be prosecuted for the crimes they commit.

But what about the rights of a child from Zimbabwe

living in America and being abused by his father?

After Terrence Karamba was placed into protective custody,

and removed from his parents' home, the first hearing on the State's demand

that Terrence be released from protective custody

was heard by a Family Court Judge in Queens,

where the Karambas lived.

That judge agreed with the State,

and ordered the child immediately returned to his father.

The child's lawyer asked me to reconsider that ruling

in New York County where I worked,

strongly suggesting that the child might be harmed or even killed if returned.

I reluctantly agreed.

Even though New York County technically, technically, had no jurisdiction.

But I thought the optics of the risk to the child

were worth rattling the cage.

Let's watch and see how the forces of justice

and the rule of law collide.

Counsel, note your appearance, please.

For the Petitioner, Terrence Karamba

and the Child Protective Services, I'm Dan Mentzer.

Good morning, Your Honor. Larry Bakman on behalf of the government,

specifically, the State Department

and by virtue of diplomatic immunity,

-the father in this case, Floyd Karamba. -Thank you.

This is a Child Protective proceeding

under the Family Court Act of the State of New York.

Terrence Karamba is a nine-year-old boy

who has allegedly been abused by his father,

who happens to be a diplomat from the country of Zimbabwe.

Child Protective Services removed the child from his home

and placed him in foster care.

The State Department, on behalf of the United States government

as well as Mr. Karamba, demanding immediate return of the child,

alleging that this court has no jurisdiction to hear this case

based upon the Vienna Convention and diplomatic immunity.

Once I determine whether the child is an abused child

and likely to be further injured or worse if returned to the family,

I have to make a determination whether or not the law mandates

that I return the child to his father,

or I can continue him in placement in foster care

until an entire trial is able to be held.

So, that's where we are. Am I correct, counselor?

-That's correct, Your Honor. -Yes, Your Honor.

All right. Counsel, do you wish to make an opening statement?

-I do, Your Honor. -I'll hear you.

As Your Honor noted, the reason we are here today is

because a nine-year-old boy was brutally beaten by his own father.

In this courtroom, you're about to hear graphic testimony

as to the nature of these vicious assaults.

You're gonna see just what this man did to his own nine-year-old boy.

In this courtroom, you're gonna see those scars on his back,

which someday may heal.

But you're also going to hear about those scars that may never heal.

Those are the psychological scars

that were inflicted on this boy by this man.

Now, the fact that the perpetrator of these assaults

happens to be a diplomat that works for the Zimbabwe mission

doesn't change the fact that this young child's safety

is in imminent danger if he were to be brought back to his father.

So, what we're asking Your Honor to do

is to maintain the current system where he's in foster care

until at such time where he can get the therapy

where it's safe to return to his home,

and this man will be prosecuted for what he's done.

-Thank you, Your Honor. -Thank you. Mr. Bakman?

Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

The problem with this case is this court has no jurisdiction.

There's something called separation of powers.

The Judiciary branch doesn't get to determine foreign policy considerations.

That's soley within the discretion of the Executive branch and the State Department.

Diplomatic immunity is the cornerstone of diplomacy.

We don't set that aside, even for the welfare of one child.

As cold and as callous as that sounds,

it protects 13,000 diplomats of the United States

that are scattered around the globe. This court does not have jurisdiction.

I would move right now for this court to dismiss this action.

Thank you. I'm gonna hold your motion in abeyance, sir,

and start to take witnesses. Counsel?

Thank you, Your Honor.

The Petitioner calls Darren Bronson.

-Swear the witness, Kevin, please? -Yes, ma'am.

Raise your right hand, please.

Do you swear to tell the truth in these matters today?

-I do. -Thank you. Have a seat.

-You may inquire. -Thanks, Your Honor.

Now, Mr. Bronson, were you working as a teacher

at P.S. 178 on December first of last year?

Yes.

Mr. Bronson, did anything unusual happen on that day

with respect to one of your students?

Yes. One of my students, Terrence,

came into the classroom that morning looking hurt.

He had a bruise on his forehead and his face was swollen.

Hey, hey, stop running.

Stop running.

Good morning, Mr. Karamba. How we doing today?

Hi, Mr. Bronson.

Hey. You okay, little man?

What happened, Terrence?

Did you get in a fight before school today?

It's cool, you can tell me. I got you.

I promise.

It was... my father.

Now, what did you do when you saw him in that condition?

I immediately took him to the nurse's office.

And were you met with anyone in the nurse's office?

Yes, we were met by the school's guidance counselor.

Did anyone ask Terrence how he got in that condition,

bruised and cuts on his face?

Yes, the nurse asked him what happened and how did he get hurt.

What did Terrence say?

He said his father beat him.

Now, I'm gonna call your attention, Mr. Bronson, to December 11th.

Did anything again happen that brought your attention to Terrence Karamba?

Yes, yes, it did.

I saw a bruise and a cut, and he looked hurt.

Oh, my God!

What did you do with Terrence?

Well, I took him back to the nurse, and she called the Child Welfare office.

-Thank you, Mr. Bronson. -Mm-hmm.

You may inquire, sir.

Yes. All right, Mr. Bronson, as I understand it, sir, you're a teacher?

-Yes. -And you have received training

with respect to mandated reporting for child abuse, yes?

Yes.

When you saw the injuries for the first time,

did you comply with your mandated reporting obligations and call CPS?

No.

And then, when you received the child's statement,

"my father beat me,"

did you call CPS?

No, not the first time.

You didn't call CPS and you didn't call law enforcement, did you?

No, that's not my job.

All right. So, let's switch gears to December 11th.

You observed Terrence injured again, yes?

Yes.

This time, you took him again to the nurse,

and more injuries were discovered. Is that right?

Yes, that's right.

And this time, CPS was called. Yes?

Yes.

And the school called CPS in an effort

to avoid civil liability on your part. Is that right?

No, we did it because it was the right thing to do.

But you didn't do that on December first, the right thing, did you?

That's argumentative, counsel. Let's move on.

Witness is excused. Thank you very much.

Call your next witness, sir.

The Petitioner calls Taylor Neal.

You may inquire, sir.

Thank you, Your Honor. Miss Neal, are you employed?

-Yes. -And where do you work?

I'm a school nurse at P.S. 178 in Queens.

Could you please describe for us the circumstances

under which you first met Terrence?

His teacher brought him in on December first

because his face was bruised.

Did you ask Terrence how he got bruised?

Yes, I did. He said his father hit him.

And what did you do?

I immediately called the guidance counselor,

and they called the parents.

Were you present when the parents came to school?

Yes.

Mr. Karamba, thank you for meeting with us today.

It's attaché Karamba, actually.

Of course. Representing the Country of Zimbabwe, I believe.

That is correct.

We're here to talk about your son.

What has he done this time?

It's what you did, Mr. Karamba.

This morning, Terrence came to school

with a noticeably bruised and swollen face.

And he indicated to a teacher that the person who inflicted these wounds

was his father.

And what of it?

What of it?

So, you admit it, then.

Yes. I admit to disciplining my son.

That is what a parent is supposed to do.

When a child needs correction,

it is a parent's responsibility to provide it.

Striking a person repeatedly in the face is considered assault in this country.

And it's our responsibility at this school to protect the children under our care.

Assault? No, this is not assault. It is love.

This is what a parent does who cares about their child in my country.

You see, you do not understand our ways.

This is how my father raised me.

And instead of becoming a criminal or a drug addict,

like you are teaching him to be in this school,

I became the diplomatic attaché to the United States of America.

Well, here in America, sir, it's child abuse.

And if this ever happens again,

we will immediately call Child Protective Services,

and they will remove Terrence from your home.

Was there a time that you saw Terrence Karamba again,

later on that month?

Yes, I saw him about ten days after that.

And what happened when you saw Terrence Karamba?

His teacher brought him in again because he had bruising to his face.

As I took him to my office, I put my hand on his back

and he visibly winced. That's when I knew something was wrong.

And I asked him to remove his sweatshirt and his t-shirt.

And I was absolutely horrified by what I saw.

Miss Neal, if you can try and tell the judge

exactly what you saw when you removed Terrence's shirt.

He had scars and welts on his back.

After observing those scars on his back,

what did you and the guidance counselor do?

-We immediately called CPS. -Thank you, Miss Neal.

-Counselor? -Now, Miss Neal,

-December first... -Yes.

...that's when you first saw Terrence. Is that right?

Yes, sir.

And there were bruises about his face?

-Yes. -And when you saw the bruises,

you then asked the child how that happened?

And the child said, my father beat me, or my father hit me?

Yes.

And of course, as a mandated reporter,

you called CPS, did you not?

Not the first time, no. I called the guidance counselor.

So, nobody at the school, as far as you knew,

on December first, called CPS, correct?

Correct.

And you all sent the child home with the abuser on December first.

Do I have that right?

Yes, sir. His father said he was a diplomat and there was nothing we can do.

And on December 11th,

the child was brought in again with injuries?

Yes.

Any reports that you wrote to forward to CPS on this day?

-No. -No further questions.

Witness is now excused.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Call your next witness, Mr. Mentzer.

The Petitioner calls Jaime Gilbert.

-You may inquire, sir. -Thank you, Your Honor.

Miss Gilbert, where are you employed?

I am a social worker for the city of New York.

And what does a social worker for the city of New York do?

First, we investigate allegations of child abuse in the home.

Then, if we think it's warranted,

we remove the abused children from the home and place them into foster care.

Miss Gilbert, I want to call your attention

to December 11th of this past year.

Did you get involved with the investigation

into an allegation of abuse involving an individual named Terrence Karamba?

Yes, I did.

And what did you observe, if anything, as to the physical condition of Terrence?

Terrence had bruises on his face.

He had about 15 to 20 scars in various stages of healing on his back.

Miss Gilbert, did you ask Terrence how he got those injuries?

Yes, I did.

And what did Terrence tell you

as to how he got those injuries you're talking about?

Terrence told me that his dad had been beating him on a regular basis.

I'm sorry. I'll eat all my dinner next time.

This is the consequence of disrespecting your mother.

Stop!

Did Terrence tell you any other places that he had been hit

by his father other than on the back?

He said he would sometimes hit him in the head.

He would hit him with his fists and sometimes a belt.

It's just that I don't like cabbage.

What do you have to say for yourself?

I can't hear you!

I'm sorry.

Did you examine Terrence's body

with an eye toward recording those injuries?

I examined his body and I took pictures.

Your Honor, if I may approach?

You may approach the witness.

I'm going to show you what's been previously marked Petitioner's A, B and C.

Three photographs. And I'd ask you just to take a look at it.

When you're done, please, look up.

Miss Gilbert, do you recognize those pictures?

Yes, I do.

What do you recognize those photographs to be of?

They are of Terrence's body.

Miss Gilbert, when Terrence told you that his father had bound his wrists,

prior to hanging him from this pipe in the basement,

did you see any physical evidence of that on his wrists?

Yes, there were scars on his wrists.

When Terrence told you that he had been choked by his father,

did you see any physical evidence of that?

Yes, I did. There were marks on his neck.

Now Miss Gilbert, after you spoke with Terrence,

did you make a determination as to Terrence Karamba's safety and well-being?

-I did. -And what was that?

I determined that Terrence was in imminent danger to his welfare

if he stayed living with his parents.

Thank you, Miss Gilbert. I have no further questions.

-Cross. -So, Miss Gilbert,

that's the standard, isn't it?

Imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death.

That equates to removal.

Yes, absolutely.

Now, you made this determination

based upon your observations of the child's injuries, yes?

Yes.

And you are aware that Terrence's father had diplomatic immunity. Is that right?

I was informed.

When you were informed of that,

you made the conscious decision of not calling law enforcement

because of the immunity. Is that right?

I had him removed from his home whether he was a diplomat or not.

My obligation is to remove the child out of danger,

and that is what I did.

No further questions.

Thank you very much. The witness is excused.

Mr. Mentzer?

Petitioner calls Dr. Riley Hills.

You may inquire, Mr. Mentzer.

Dr. Hills, what type of work do you do?

I am a board certified child psychologist.

And what does a board certified child psychologist do?

I treat children who have been removed from the home due to allegations of abuse.

Have you, during the course of your employment,

-treated a boy named Terrence? -Yes.

Did Terrence describe for you any abuse he has received by his family?

He did. He said that his father would beat him with his fists,

with belts and electrical cord.

Now, did Terrence tell you what the rest of his family was doing

while his dad began to whip him?

He told me that his father

made his mother and his sisters watch and ridicule him.

Is the physical damage that you observed in Terrence

the most important thing to you as his treating therapist?

No, it's the psychological damage.

And what do you mean by that?

Well, he believes that his family hates him.

Now, at some point,

you had to tell Terrence that he had to go back home.

-Yes. -Now, when he actually went back

to have this meeting to go back to his parents,

did he react in any way in the car ride over?

He did. He tried to jump out of the car while it was moving.

And when he got to the building

where he was supposed to be turned over to his parents, did he do anything?

He attempted to jump out of a second story window.

-To avoid seeing his parents? -That is correct.

And did you make a determination as to whether it's safe

for Terrence to return to his parents now?

-Yes. -And what is that determination?

That it is not safe to return him.

Thank you, Dr. Hills.

You may inquire, sir.

Now, in terms of your duties,

you treat children of abuse and you attempt to protect them.

-Is that right? -Yes.

And in this case, would you say that removal from the home

is equally damaging to the child

as is the physical trauma inflicted by the father?

I mean, it depends on the relationship,

and we deal with it on a case-by-case basis, so.

And what specifically have you done

with respect to reunification therapy for Terrence and the family?

We've made attempts to reunite Terrence with his mother,

but he's still in fear of her.

-How many attempts? -Two attempts.

And in your opinion,

given the circumstances, that's sufficient?

-Yes. -No further questions.

I The witness is excused.

Is that your final witness, sir?

Yes, Your Honor, the Petitioner rests.

Do you want to renew your motion to dismiss, counselor?

I would, Your Honor, at this point in time.

Now it's denied.

The government's demand that the case be dismissed

because the father and child were protected by diplomatic immunity,

was just denied by me.

The State, which was demanding the immediate return

of the child to the father, was then forced to continue with the hearing.

Please call your first witness.

Yes, Your Honor. At this time, I would call Kirby Davidson to the stand.

-Mr. Bakman, you may inquire, sir. -Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Davidson, if you would,

can you please tell the court your current profession or occupation?

I work with the United States State Department.

And with respect to that profession, sir,

tell the court, if you would,

what kind of training you've received and what it's encompassed.

I've received extensive training in the areas of diplomatic immunity,

uh, as it was afforded in the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

Can you explain what that is?

Well, diplomatic immunity was established

so that sending states could send their diplomats and be assured

that they would be free from criminal and civil prosecution in those states.

How many diplomats and their families do we have abroad

representing the United States?

Upwards of 13,000.

And we are concerned with upholding the provisions of the Vienna Convention

for protection of those diplomats. Is that right?

That is correct.

Now, in this particular case,

the nation of Zimbabwe itself has sent the State Department

a request to have the child returned to the father

and returned to the country of origin. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Does diplomatic immunity trump this court's decision

to keep this child in protective custody?

-It does, yes. -Why is that?

Well, because the things we need to protect are diplomats around the world.

So, hypothetically, if our foreign diplomats were say,

in a country that enforced headscarves for women,

and one of our diplomats or their family members

were to go out without a headscarf, they could be arrested and prosecuted.

And we don't want that. So, we have to afford the same here.

We can't break the rules. This was agreed to in 1961

in the Vienna Treaty and we need to adhere to it.

No further questions.

Any questions?

-Oh, yes, Your Honor. -Okay.

Mr. Davidson, you first got involved in this case

by receiving a call from the Zimbabwe mission

notifying you that the son of one of their diplomats was abducted.

That is correct.

And you of course, as a representative from the State Department,

wanted to find out what happened. Why was this child removed?

Yes.

You conducted your own investigation, right?

That's correct.

And you found that he was removed for his own safety

because the boy had accused his father of stripping him down naked

and beating him over the naked back with an extension cord.

You learned that to be the case, right?

Yes, I did.

And you found that those child protective workers

felt that his life was in danger if he continued to live with his father.

-Yes. -That's why they removed him.

-Yes. -And you further found

that the mission of Zimbabwe demanded

that we immediately release him back to his family.

And if he didn't, they reserved the right to retaliate against our diplomats.

-That is correct. -You got a crisis on your hands.

Yes, we do.

Your job, how do we deal with this?

And you found out you had options.

One of those options was you can expel the diplomat.

The problem is with that option, you expel the diplomat,

you gotta send the child back to the home of the man who had been brutalizing him.

-Right? -Yes.

You had another option. You could have simply asked Zimbabwe

to waive immunity in this case.

Yes.

Had you asked, and they gave you immunity,

you could have kept this child in foster care.

-Right? -That is correct.

So, we never even asked them to waive immunity, did we?

No.

In fact, the representative from Zimbabwe was specifically asked

what would happen if this judge gives them what you're asking for

and returns the child to Zimbabwe?

What the representative from Zimbabwe said when specifically asked

whether Terrence would go back to the man who hung him up and whipped him,

-they said, "no comment." -Correct.

The truth is that if this court gives you what you're asking for,

and sends this boy back to Zimbabwe,

you really don't know what's gonna happen to him.

-No. -Thank you.

-Witness is excused. -Thank you.

Next witness, please.

I would call Floyd Karamba to the stand, Your Honor.

You may inquire, sir.

Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Mr. Karamba,

what is your current profession or occupation, sir?

I am a diplomat representing the Republic of Zimbabwe.

Do you have children?

-I do. -How many?

-Three. -And their ages?

I have a nine-year-old son and two daughters, ages seven and three.

Your boy and your older daughter go to school in Queens. Is that correct?

That is correct.

And tell me, on December first, were you called to come down to the school?

-Yes. -And when you got to the school,

-were you questioned? -Yes.

And what kind of questions were asked of you?

They asked me if I knew how my son got these, uh, bruises on his face.

And they asked me if I beat my son.

And what was your response to that question?

My response was "no."

And did they in fact tell you that Terrence stated to them,

my father beats me.

Yes.

Do you discipline your son?

Yes. I spank my son

on his rear-end, above his clothing.

So, they let you take the children home with you. Is that right?

Yes, they did.

Now, ten days later, did you get another call?

Yes.

And on December 11th, were you again confronted by the school

with allegations of additional child abuse?

Yes.

And what did you say?

I told them that I did not beat my son.

And no one, between December first,

when the school allegedly heard Terrence say, my dad beats me,

and they saw bruises on his face,

no law enforcement, no police officer came knocking and saying,

we are here to investigate child abuse allegations.

No.

And CPS didn't come down either, did they?

No, they did not.

On December 11th, did things change? Was your son taken away from you?

Yes.

Have you since demanded the city of New York

-to return your son to you? -Yes.

Now, in your culture, sir,

does that culture allow and permit corporal punishment of a child?

-Yes. -In what way?

You can do a number of things, but spanking a child above the clothing

is one of those methods.

And were you in fact disciplined in that manner by your father growing up?

Yes, I was.

And when you discipline him,

do you tie him up to a pipe in your basement

and then whip him with an electrical cord?

No.

Do you believe, sir, that if Terrence is returned to you

he is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death,

-if he's returned to you? -Not at all.

No further questions.

You may inquire, sir.

Mr. Karamba, did I hear that right? That you did nothing more

than spank your son Terrence over the clothes on the behind?

Yes, this is where he was struck, yes.

So now, you've heard the testimony of his teacher

who said that he observed cuts and bruising to his face, right?

Yes.

You've heard the testimony of Taylor Neal,

who testified that Terrence said you caused those injuries to his face.

Yes.

And you've also heard the testimony of Miss Gilbert, the social worker,

who testified that Terrence told her that you strung him up naked

down in the basement and beat him with an extension cord.

-Right? -Yes.

But that's all a pack of lies?

I believe it to be all lies, yes.

So, your nine-year-old son lied to his teacher when he said you beat him?

Unfortunately, Terrence does lie.

Now, you talked to this court about corporal punishment.

You said, in your country, this is a method for disciplining children.

Yes.

So, you believe that this corporal punishment,

this method of discipline worked for you, right?

Yes. My father would use corporal punishment.

He would spank me with a belt and I turned out just fine.

When you say you turned out just fine, you're a successful diplomat, right?

-Yes. -But you're also a man

who beats his own children, aren't you?

-I discipline my children. -Step back, counselor.

You're also a man whose own kid would rather jump out of a moving car

than come back and live with you, right?

I have never seen my son jump out of a car and I do not believe this behavior.

Now, as somebody who has only spanked his son

over a clothed behind with a belt. Your Honor, can I please approach?

Absolutely.

Can you tell me, Mr. Karamba, how your son got those?

At this time, I would like to invoke my diplomatic immunity.

Counselor?

Your Honor, I believe he has a right to do that at any stage of the proceedings.

Well, Mr. Bakman, he does have that right.

He chose to waive that right when you called him as a witness.

If he now chooses, as a result of evidence that he has seen,

to invoke his right, that's fine, but I'm going to strike his entire testimony.

In that case, Your Honor, I'd like to ask for a five minute recess.

Allow me sufficient time to talk to my client.

-Absolutely. -Thank you.

Let me explain what just happened here.

Floyd Karamba declined to answer certain questions on cross-examination,

invoking diplomatic immunity.

But the law doesn't allow you to pick and choose

what questions you will and will not answer.

If he decides to invoke diplomatic status, his entire testimony would be stricken.

Let's see what he decides.

Counselor?

Your Honor, I've spoken to my client at this point.

He advises me out of the love for his children,

and the fact that he wants his son back,

he is waiving his diplomatic status so that he can get his child back.

Fine. Mr. Mentzer, you want to ask your question again?

-Yes. You've seen the picture? -I have.

I ask you again, Mr. Karamba, how did Terrence get those whip marks?

What happens in my house stays in my house.

Are you now owning up to what you did?

What happens in my house stays in my house!

You did whip that boy!

Sir, what happens in my house stays in my house!

Terrence wasn't lying, you are!

Objection, argumentative.

The last part is stricken. All right. Mr. Karamba, you can take a seat.

Mr. Mentzer, would you like to make a closing argument, sir?

Thank you, Your Honor.

The reality here is there really is no dispute over what happened.

This man, Floyd Karamba, battered his child,

he abused his child, he placed his child's life in danger.

His health and safety are in jeopardy were he to be sent back to Zimbabwe.

And the State Department knows this.

Yet, the State Department would rather maintain their cozy relationship

with the country of Zimbabwe by not even asking for a waiver of immunity.

That's all we're asking here for, is for them to start doing their job

and ask Zimbabwe for a waiver of immunity here

so that this man can be prosecuted, and more importantly,

that this child can be protected.

Because if he's sent back, his life will be in danger.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you. Mr. Bakman?

Quite frankly, Judge, I find counsel's argument offensive.

The implications are that the State Department

does not want to protect this child. That couldn't be further from the truth.

The State Department wants this child protected.

Just not on U.S. soil. The protection has to come from the sending state.

That's Federal law and because of Separation of Powers.

As callous as it may sound, protection for this child must take place in Zimbabwe

given their demand for the child's return.

This court is divested of jurisdiction. Submitted.

The scope of this hearing is a limited one to determine whether or not

the immediate future of this child's life would be at risk of further abuse,

either physical or psychological, if he were returned home.

It seems to me that this country has failed this child.

Not once, but twice.

The city of New York failed the child on December first.

There were visible signs of abuse.

And rather than doing a full evaluation of the child in the nurse's office,

the nurse, the social worker in school, and the teacher

chose to bring father in, without examining the child further,

which would have shown clearly

a pattern of consistent abuse over a long period of time.

Because those scars, some are fresh, some are old.

They were certainly there on December first.

Failure number one of a governmental agency towards this child.

Some ten days later, the child was in fact beaten again by his father,

who for all intents and purposes acknowledges that in his outburst here

because he considers whatever happens in his home

inviolate from inspection of authority.

The government of the United States of America

has the obligation, in my view, to at least attempt

to reach out to the government of Zimbabwe,

show their representative these photographs

and say, we would like some time to ensure that the child, if returned, is safe.

The government of the United States chose not to do that.

Two failures. I think that it is the responsibility of the government

to do exactly what Mr. Mentzer is requesting,

which is to ask the sending state, and that is Zimbabwe,

to take a fresh look at these fresh welts. In the interim,

I find that the child is in fact at risk of being further abused and neglected.

We will pick a trial date for a full trial on this date.

Until that time, the child remand to Child Protective Services is continued.

Well, believe it or not, my ruling caused a bit of a firestorm

when I continued the child in protective custody.

The United States State Department immediately appealed

and the case was heard in federal court.

This time, the key legal concept

was called the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

which establishes that federal laws and treaties made under federal authority

supercede any laws made by a state,

and state courts must defer to those federal laws and treaties.

But the question for me remained:

What about the issue of a little boy who everyone now admitted had been abused?

Here's how it went.

Counsel, note your appearances.

Good morning, Your Honors. Larry Bakman on behalf

of the government representing the United States Department of State.

Good morning. For the Respondent Terrence Karamba

and the city of New York, I'm Dan Mentzer.

Mr. Bakman, you may proceed with your opening statement.

Thank you, Your Honors. Floyd Karamba is a diplomatic envoy

from the nation of Zimbabwe.

As such, he has absolute diplomatic immunity,

precluding him from being either criminally charged or civilly charged.

And the Supremacy Clause prevents the state or the city of New York

from attempting to dictate in foreign policy.

And the only entity that can waive diplomatic immunity

is the sending country, the nation of Zimbabwe.

And because they refuse to do that, there is no waiver of immunity,

and Floyd Karamba and his child Terrence Karamba

are not subject of the city of New York. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bakman. Mr. Mentzer, please.

Thank you, Judge.

If you give the State Department what they're asking for,

and send Terrence Karamba back to Zimbabwe,

his life will be in danger

because Floyd Karamba doesn't think he did anything wrong.

So, what we want this court to do is to compel the State Department

to do what they haven't done yet, and that is to ask Zimbabwe

for a waiver of immunity so that we can prosecute Floyd Karamba

for what he's done to his son. And more importantly,

with a waiver of immunity, Terrence Karamba will continue to receive

the therapy he so desperately needs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mentzer.

We will now recess to deliberate.

We are not a unanimous court.

Judge DiMango and I are in the majority.

And Judge DiMango will present the majority opinion.

And Judge Acker will then give the dissent.

The essence of this appeal involves the issue of diplomatic immunity

as it pertains to child protective proceedings

conducted pursuant to the Family Court Act.

The alleged abuse suffered by the child Terrence

at the hands of his father in the name of discipline

indeed offends even the hardest of sensibilities.

But the question presented here is,

did the Family Court have the authority to exercise jurisdiction

over the parties to hear the case and to reach a decision

on the merits in light of the assertions of diplomatic immunity

by both the United States and the sending state, Zimbabwe.

The answer to the question is a resounding no.

Diplomatic immunity is considered the cornerstone of diplomacy.

It is intended to protect the diplomat and their families

from the service of civil process, criminal prosecution

and the jurisdiction of the courts

of the foreign states of which they are stationed.

Were we to affirm the decision of the Family Court,

our decision could be viewed as condoning this misapplication of the law.

And so, based upon the foregoing reasons,

it is with a heavy heart that the lower court's decision is reversed.

My colleagues are right to point out the importance

of the doctrine of diplomatic immunity, and how critical that doctrine is

to our diplomatic services and international interests around the world.

But they make a false and unnecessary choice.

The City's request won't compromise our diplomats.

The City simply seeks a stay

so that all of the various interests at stake here may be heard.

Diplomats and their families have a right to immunity,

but diplomats and their families also have a right to asylum,

and to have those claims fairly and properly adjudicated.

That is the law too. Here, in this country,

a child endures this, and we can't maintain a simple stay

that would permit him to complete a request for help?

And to satisfy the legal requirements of properly hearing an asylum claim?

If the State Department's commitment to human rights is to mean anything,

if it cares to send a message that this will not be tolerated

in these United States,

it has the duty to try to bring this abuser to justice.

It has the duty to ask. I respectfully dissent.

Terrence Karamba was removed from his foster home and returned to Zimbabwe

to live with his family.

His father, Floyd Karamba was never prosecuted for child abuse.

How could our government place this child in harm's way without protection?

Even though Terrence Karamba was ultimately sent back to Zimbabwe,

my ruling, which was to have the child remain in protective custody,

caused the case to delay as it wound its way through the court system.

This enabled certain safeguards to be put in place

for the child's protection when he was ultimately returned to his family.

The complex issue of diplomatic immunity continues to plague the justice system.

Every year, it seems, a new case of a diplomat

committing a horrendous crime is protected by diplomatic immunity.

Sometimes, the rule of law, when you factor in common sense,

just doesn't equal justice.

JUDGE JUDY PRESENTS JUSTICE ON TRIAL