Elisa Izquierdo’s Death and Jacqueline Sands’ Alleged Wrongs
One of NY's Most Notorious Child Welfare Cases and Unveiling Systemic Failures and Ethical Breaches in Child Welfare
The story of Elisa Izquierdo, a six-year-old girl whose life ended in one of New York City's most horrific child abuse cases, is a haunting reminder of systemic failures in child welfare. Born in 1989 to Gustavo Izquierdo and Awilda Lopez, Elisa initially thrived under her father’s care after her parents’ separation, living a stable life[^1]. However, following Gustavo’s death in May 1994, a court’s catastrophic decision to award custody to her abusive mother, Awilda Lopez, tragically ended this stability, leading to Elisa’s brutal death on November 22, 1995[^2]. The aftermath of this case not only led to legislative changes but also cast a spotlight on the actions of those involved, including the appointed attorney for the child (AFC)[^4].
Parallel to this, Jacqueline Sands, an AFC in Rockland County, New York, has faced allegations of misconduct in a separate custody case, Matter of Ross V Ross[^5]. Working within the framework of legal aid services, her career highlights the challenges and ethical dilemmas faced by law guardians in child welfare proceedings. This article delves into the details of Elisa’s tragedy, the role of the AFC in that case, and the extensive allegations against Sands in Ross V Ross, weaving together a narrative of systemic issues, individual accountability, and the profound impact on children caught in these legal battles.
The Elisa Izquierdo Case: A Descent into Horror
Elisa Izquierdo’s early life with her father offered a glimmer of hope amidst a challenging family dynamic. Born to a mother struggling with crack cocaine addiction[^6], Elisa was placed under Gustavo’s care, where she found stability until his death in 1994[^7]. After his passing, Elisa entered foster care, where she thrived, displaying the resilience of a child given proper care and attention[^8]. However, this stability was disrupted when an AFC, appointed as Elisa’s law guardian to represent her best interests in court, recommended in 1995 that Elisa be returned to her mother, Awilda Lopez, despite Lopez’s well-documented history of drug abuse, mental instability, and prior violent behavior towards Elisa[^9].
Lopez’s background was a litany of red flags: significant substance abuse with cocaine and alcohol[^10], a poorly managed diagnosis of schizophrenia[^11], and a history of physically abusing Elisa, which had led to her initial removal from Lopez’s care[^12]. Despite these risks, the AFC advocated for the custody transfer, seemingly disregarding the evident dangers[^13]. This decision was met with resistance from Elsa Canizares, a cousin to both Gustavo and Elisa, who contested the ruling[^14]. Canizares applied for custody herself, highlighting the documented abuse Elisa suffered during unsupervised weekend visits with Lopez and the harmful way Lopez spoke to her daughter[^15]. Support for Canizares came from Elisa’s head teacher and Prince Michael of Greece, who wrote letters to Judge Phoebe Greenbaum opposing the temporary custody decision[^16]. Prince Michael even committed to funding Elisa’s education at Brooklyn Friends School if Canizares were granted custody, underscoring the belief that Elisa’s safety and future depended on being kept away from her mother[^17].
Despite these efforts, the AFC’s recommendation held sway, and Elisa was returned to Lopez[^18]. The consequences were catastrophic. On November 22, 1995, city officials reported what they described as the “worst case of child abuse they had ever seen,” admitting they had been warned five times but failed to act[^19]. Elisa endured years of physical, sexual, and mental abuse at Lopez’s hands, who was convinced the girl was possessed by the devil[^20]. Lopez forced Elisa to eat her own feces, used her hair to mop floors, and allowed her husband, Carlos Lopez, to physically abuse her[^21]. The abuse culminated in Lopez throwing Elisa into a concrete wall, leaving her overnight as brain fluid leaked from her nose[^22]. A medical examination revealed the extent of her suffering: a fractured skull, brain swelling, and numerous bruises[^23]. Lopez was convicted of second-degree murder, but the damage was doneand Elisa was gone[^24].
The AFC’s choice to advocate for this custody change has been heavily criticized. It appeared to overlook or ignore crucial warning signs: Lopez’s substance abuse, her history of abuse towards Elisa, and her mental instability[^25]. Reports from social workers, Elisa’s teachers, and Lopez’s family members highlighted Lopez’s unfitness, yet the AFC failed to adequately assess these risks or follow up on Elisa’s welfare post-transfer, neglecting to ensure Lopez complied with court orders for supervision or therapy[^26]. The public and media backlash was swift and severe, with the AFC bearing much of the criticism[^27]. She was accused of negligence for recommending Elisa’s return to such an unsafe environment, and there were suggestions of ethical misconduct, though no direct evidence supported claims of influence beyond professional judgment[^28]. The case led to the enactment of "Elisa’s Law" in 1996, aimed at increasing accountability in child welfare cases, fostering better inter-agency coordination, and reducing confidentiality barriers that might hide child abuse[^29]. The AFC became known as the "child murderess," reflecting the public’s perception that her negligence directly contributed to Elisa’s death, casting a long shadow over her career and impacting her standing in both public opinion and the legal community[^30].
Jacqueline Sands: A Law Guardian Under Scrutiny
Jacqueline Sands, an AFC in Rockland County, New York, has faced her own series of allegations of misconduct in the custody case Matter of Ross V Ross[^31]. Sands, registered with the New York State Unified Court System since 1974 and employed by the Legal Aid Society of Rockland County[^32], has been accused of a litany of wrongdoings in this case, as detailed in the appellant’s brief filed on September 28, 2010[^33]. The Legal Aid Society of Rockland County, a nonprofit providing free legal services to low-income residents, appoints AFCs like Sands to represent children in family court, making her actions in Ross V Ross particularly significant. These allegations paint a troubling picture of ethical breaches, bias, and harm to the child’s interests, echoing some of the systemic issues highlighted by the Izquierdo tragedy.
The case of Ross V Ross began with a history of shared custody agreements between the parents, established by a 2002 order and reaffirmed in a 2004 divorce decree[^34]. Tensions escalated when the mother filed petitions on February 9, 2009, seeking an order of protection and a change of custody, alleging the father exposed the child to 'adult movies' and 'sexual intercourse in the kitchen' with his girlfriend[^35]. Sands’ involvement in this case, as the child’s law guardian, began with her appearance at an ex parte hearing on February 26, 2009, where she inserted herself without official appointment[^36]. She admitted her "investigation" was unauthorized (04-01-09:14.15-19)[^37], yet proceeded to make ad hominem attacks against the father, stating, "I remember Mr. Ross very well. He has constantly denigrated Mrs. Ross. He has a very bad temper, and there was always a problem" (02-26-09:7.19-8.6)[^38], despite no evidence in the record, violating 22 NYCRR 7.2[b][^39]. The court’s response, "Ms. Sands, it’s nice of you to be here today. Do you want more work on your case load, ma’am?" and her reply, "Oh, I’ve actually already received these, Judge," suggest she may have been padding her billing, raising questions of professional ethics and suggesting bias that could prejudice the court against the father[^40].
On March 4, 2009, Sands submitted an Order to Show Cause (OTC) that introduced new allegations of physical and emotional mistreatment by the father, claims not present in the mother’s petitions[^41]. These included false assertions of "CPS findings" and "often supervised" visitations, contradicted by annulled CPS findings (OTC-03-27-09.Exhibit)[^42]. The brief argues this was a deliberate strategy to prejudice the court upfront, leveraging psychological concepts like confirmatory bias and anchoring effects, as noted in Kessler, 10 N.Y.2d 445[^43]. For instance, Sands falsely claimed, "in fact at his next visit [after Mother’s 02/09/09 petition], the father took the child to see a priest" (§9 of OTC)[^44], when it was the 10th visit, pre-arranged months in advance[^45], violating Standards for Attorneys Representing Children (NYSBA Committee on Children and the Law, June 2008, commentary to C-7)[^46]. This action risked biased judicial decisions, potentially leading to unjust outcomes by tainting the court’s perception of the father from the outset[^47].
Sands’ alleged misconduct extended to habitual ex parte communications with Judge Linda Christopher, a former colleague, as evidenced by her September 4, 2009, letter mentioning an August 24, 2009, conference where the court agreed to admit the 2002 forensic evaluation[^48]. This conference was held ex parte, violating NY Rules of Professional Conduct (2009) R.3.5(a)(2) and ABA Model Rules R. 3.5(b), as per 22 NYCRR Part 100(B)(6)[^49]. The brief describes post-adjournment "powwows" with the judge and mother, emerging 10 minutes later, concealed from the record, potentially voiding the proceedings, as per Signet Constr. Corp. v. Goldin, 99 A.D.2d 431[^50]. These communications suggest collusion, undermining due process by allowing Sands to influence decisions outside the presence of all parties, potentially skewing the custody outcome in favor of the mother[^51].
Sands further overstepped her role by acting as a witness and self-appointed expert. On April 1, 2009, she provided extended prejudicial testimony (04-01-09:14.12-17.24)[^52], criticizing MMPI tests (06-02-09:4.15-18)[^53] without cross-examination, violating Weiglhofer v. Weiglhofer, 1AD3d 786[^54], which prohibits law guardians from being investigative arms of the court. She attacked the second forensic’s opinions, claiming, "contrary to the opinion of a number of experts that I’ve [Ms.Sands] heard... His opinion that if Child were afraid of his father everybody would be able to see it even during supervised visitation" (06/02/09:4.1-25)[^55], without providing references, misleading the court and undermining her impartiality as the child’s advocate[^56].
One of the most severe allegations is Sands’ distortion and concealment of evidence. At the February 26, 2009, hearing, the mother admitted the child recanted the "sex in the kitchen" allegation (02-26-09:5.9-13)[^57], yet Sands concealed this, morphing it into "sexual conduct" in her OTC, violating due process[^58]. She also hid critical audio-video evidence, such as a recording of the child saying, "My mom hates you so much. She says you are a walking idiot and everybody laughs at you. But I think you are a fine gentleman, and you have millions of friends and everybody likes you. But I love you. You are so nice and so kind," kept off-record at attorneys-only conferences[^59]. This concealment constitutes fraud upon the court, as per Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468[^60], potentially altering the custody outcome by suppressing evidence of the mother’s alienation and the child’s affection for the father[^61].
The brief alleges Sands coached the child to make damaging statements, as evidenced by the child’s forensic interview statement, "My mom told me to say what I told the last supervisor, Jackie [Sands]" (H:7.P3)[^62]. This suggests Sands fed misinformation to the court, potentially suborning perjury, violating NY Rules of Professional Conduct (PART 1200 – RULE 3.3)[^63]. The brief compares her methods to the 1990s child abuse hysteria, citing Ceci, Stephen J.; Maggie Bruck (1995), p.79[^64], indicating a serious ethical breach that could lead to wrongful outcomes by manipulating the child’s testimony to align with the mother’s narrative[^65].
Sands is accused of acting as the mother’s advocate, supporting her false claims despite evidence of the mother’s violent history, such as "Mother has demonstrated a poor ability to control her aggressive impulses. She has acknowledged that she has been violent with Father and she has been arrested for assault" (F:15.P3)[^66]. This violated Blank v Blank, 124 App Div 2d 1010[^67], which mandates law guardians protect the child’s rights, not the parents’. By aligning with the mother, Sands created a conflict of interest, potentially harming the child’s interests by prioritizing the mother’s agenda over the child’s well-being, leading to an unjust custody decision[^68].
In an attempt to discredit forensic reports, Sands considered ordering a third evaluation after the second forensic’s May 27, 2009, report found parental alienation by the mother (06-02-09:4.20-25)[^69], a practice described as "psychologist shopping" at taxpayers’ expense[^70]. This violated professional standards, suggesting bias and a waste of resources, as she sought to avoid challenging the forensic’s findings in open court, which would have undermined her position[^71].
Finally, Sands misrepresented the 2002 forensic report as a "2005 Report" at the September 8, 2009, hearing (09/08/09:5.9-10)[^72], confusing the court and violating truthfulness standards (NY Rules, RULE 3.3(a)(1))[^73]. This deception implied dishonesty, potentially affecting the probative value of evidence, further tainting the judicial process[^74].
The Ross V Ross case culminated in the court transferring custody to the mother on September 9, 2009, ordering supervised visitations for the father, a decision the brief argues was marred by Sands’ actions[^75]. The brief calls for Sands’ removal from the case, repayment of billed fees to the Legal Aid Society, and reversal of the custody order, citing her actions as fraudulent and detrimental to the child’s best interests[^76].
Conclusion: A Call for Accountability and Reform
The tragedies of Elisa Izquierdo and the allegations in Matter of Ross V Ross highlight the critical role of law guardians in child welfare cases and the devastating consequences when they fail in their duties[^77]. In Elisa’s case, the AFC’s recommendation to return her to an abusive environment, despite clear warning signs, led to her death and spurred legislative changes through "Elisa’s Law"[^78]. The public backlash labeled the AFC a "child murderess," reflecting the perception that her negligence was a direct contributor to the tragedy, leaving a lasting mark on her professional reputation[^79].
Similarly, Jacqueline Sands’ alleged actions in Ross V Ross—from unauthorized involvement and false allegations to ex parte communications and evidence manipulation—suggest a pattern of ethical breaches that, if substantiated, could have harmed the child’s interests and undermined due process[^80]. While these allegations remain unverified without full court records, they echo the systemic failures seen in the Izquierdo case, where oversight, accountability, and adherence to ethical standards were lacking[^81].
Both cases underscore the need for rigorous oversight of law guardians, ensuring they act in the child’s best interests, free from bias or external agendas[^82]. The enduring implications of these incidents call for continued reform in child welfare systems, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and the protection of the most vulnerable[^83]. This article does not aim to attack individuals personally but to explore systemic issues brought to light by these tragic events, inviting comments, corrections, or further insights to foster a dialogue on how to prevent such failures in the future[^84].
Footnotes
[^1]: "Mother Charged in Daughter's Death," New York Times, November 23, 1995.
[^2]: "Elisa's Death: A Father's Dream, a System's Failure," New York Times, November 29, 1995.
[^3]: "Mother Charged in Daughter's Death," New York Times, November 23, 1995.
[^4]: "Elisa's Death: A Father's Dream, a System's Failure," New York Times, November 29, 1995.
[^5]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, Docket No: V-01017-01/09, Index No: 2010-00122, filed September 28, 2010.
[^6]: "A Life So Short, a Death So Savage," People, December 11, 1995.
[^7]: "Elisa's Death: A Father's Dream, a System's Failure," New York Times, November 29, 1995.
[^8]: "Elisa Izquierdo's Life and Death: The Overview," New York Times, December 11, 1995.
[^9]: "Elisa's Death: A Father's Dream, a System's Failure," New York Times, November 29, 1995.
[^10]: "Mother Charged in Daughter's Death," New York Times, November 23, 1995.
[^11]: "Mother Convicted of Murder in Child's Death," New York Times, June 25, 1996.
[^12]: "Elisa's Death: A Failure of the System," New York Times, November 24, 1995.
[^13]: "Elisa's Death: A Father's Dream, a System's Failure," New York Times, November 29, 1995.
[^14]: "Elisa Izquierdo's Life and Death: The Overview," New York Times, December 11, 1995.
[^15]: "Elisa's Death: A Father's Dream, a System's Failure," New York Times, November 29, 1995.
[^16]: "Elisa's Death: A Father's Dream, a System's Failure," New York Times, November 29, 1995.
[^17]: "Elisa Izquierdo's Life and Death: The Overview," New York Times, December 11, 1995.
[^18]: "Elisa's Death: A Father's Dream, a System's Failure," New York Times, November 29, 1995.
[^19]: "Mother Charged in Daughter's Death," New York Times, November 23, 1995.
[^20]: "Mother Convicted of Murder in Child's Death," New York Times, June 25, 1996.
[^21]: "Mother Convicted of Murder in Child's Death," New York Times, June 25, 1996.
[^22]: "Mother Charged in Daughter's Death," New York Times, November 23, 1995.
[^23]: "Mother Convicted of Murder in Child's Death," New York Times, June 25, 1996.
[^24]: "Mother Convicted of Murder in Child's Death," New York Times, June 25, 1996.
[^25]: "Elisa's Death: A Failure of the System," New York Times, November 24, 1995.
[^26]: "Elisa Izquierdo's Life and Death: The Overview," New York Times, December 11, 1995.
[^27]: "Elisa's Death: A Failure of the System," New York Times, November 24, 1995.
[^28]: "Elisa's Death: A Father's Dream, a System's Failure," New York Times, November 29, 1995.
[^29]: "New Law Aims to Prevent Child Abuse Cases Like Elisa’s," New York Times, February 14, 1996.
[^30]: "Elisa's Death: A Failure of the System," New York Times, November 24, 1995. (Note: The term “child murderess” reflects public sentiment reported in media coverage.)
[^31]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, Docket No: V-01017-01/09, Index No: 2010-00122, filed September 28, 2010.
[^32]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, Statement Pursuant to CPLR 5531.
[^33]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, cover page.
[^34]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, "The Timeline" section.
[^36]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(a).
[^37]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, transcript citation 04-01-09:14.15-19, POINT 1C(a).
[^38]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, transcript citation 02-26-09:7.19-8.6, POINT 1C(a).
[^39]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(a), citing 22 NYCRR 7.2[b].
[^40]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, transcript citation 02-26-09:7.19-8.6, POINT 1C(a).
[^41]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(b), comparing 02/09/09 petitions by Ms. Ross with 03/04/09 OTC, transcript citation 04-01-09:19.1-4.
[^42]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(b), referencing OTC-03-27-09.Exhibit.
[^43]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(c), citing Kessler v. Kessler, 10 N.Y.2d 445, 225 NYS2d 1, 180 NE2d 402 (1962).
[^44]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(b), OTC §9.
[^45]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(b).
[^46]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(b), citing NYSBA Committee on Children and the Law, Standards for Attorneys Representing Children in Custody, Visitation and Guardianship Proceedings, June 2008, commentary to C-7.
[^47]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(c).
[^48]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(d), referencing Fax Letter to Judge Linda Christopher, September 4, 2009.
[^49]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(d), citing NY Rules of Professional Conduct (2009) R.3.5(a)(2), ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (2009) R. 3.5(b), and 22 NYCRR Part 100(B)(6).
[^50]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 2A, citing Signet Constr. Corp. v. Goldin, 99 A.D.2d 431, 470 N.Y.S.2d 396 (1st Dept. 1984).
[^51]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 2A.
[^52]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(f), transcript citation 04-01-09:14.12-17.24.
[^53]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(f), transcript citation 06-02-09:4.15-18.
[^54]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(f), citing Weiglhofer v. Weiglhofer, 1 A.D.3d 786, 766 N.Y.S.2d 727 (3rd Dept. 2003).
[^55]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(f), transcript citation 06/02/09:4.1-25.
[^56]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(f).
[^57]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(g), transcript citation 02-26-09:5.9-13.
[^58]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(g).
[^59]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 2F.
[^60]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 2F, citing Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468, 761 NYS2d 317 (2d Dept. 2003).
[^61]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 2F.
[^62]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(i), forensic report citation H:7.P3.
[^63]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(n), citing NY Rules of Professional Conduct (PART 1200 – RULE 3.3).
[^64]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(n), citing Ceci, Stephen J.; Maggie Bruck (1995). Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children’s Testimony. American Psychological Association. ISBN 1557986320, p.79.
[^65]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(n).
[^66]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(m), forensic report citation F:15.P3.
[^67]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(m), citing Blank v Blank, 124 App Div 2d 1010, 509 NYS2d 217 (4th Dept. 1986).
[^68]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(m).
[^69]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(o), transcript citation 06-02-09:4.20-25.
[^70]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(o).
[^71]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1C(o).
[^72]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1E, transcript citation 09/08/09:5.9-10.
[^73]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1E, citing NY Rules of Professional Conduct (PART 1200 – RULE 3.3(a)(1)).
[^74]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, POINT 1E.
[^75]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, "The Timeline" section, decision dated September 9, 2009.
[^76]: Matter of Ross V Ross, Appellate Brief, "Appellant’s Pleadings" section, pp. 78-79.
[^77]: "Elisa's Death: A Failure of the System," New York Times, November 24, 1995.
[^78]: "New Law Aims to Prevent Child Abuse Cases Like Elisa’s," New York Times, February 14, 1996.
[^79]: "Elisa's Death: A Failure of the System," New York Times, November 24, 1995.
[^80]: "Elisa's Death: A Father's Dream, a System's Failure," New York Times, November 29, 1995.
[^81]: "Elisa Izquierdo's Life and Death: The Overview," New York Times, December 11, 1995.
[^82]: "New Law Aims to Prevent Child Abuse Cases Like Elisa’s," New York Times, February 14, 1996.
[^83]: "Elisa's Death: A Failure of the System," New York Times, November 24, 1995.
[^84]: "Elisa Izquierdo's Life and Death: The Overview," New York Times, December 11, 1995.