Nor was it the emotional testimony of Connie and James Roska, who sued three Utah child welfare caseworkers for taking custody of their 12-year-old son in 1999 without a hearing or warrant, violating the Davis County couple's constitutional rights.
It was the revelation that, in the late '90s, Utah caseworkers routinely took children from their parents with no due process.
Child welfare officials say the practice has changed; they now credit the Roska case. The eight-year lawsuit gave rise to legislation in 2006 that requires caseworkers to get a court order or warrant before removing a child from a home, except for emergencies.
This new way of doing business safeguards parents' civil rights, said Duane Betournay, director of Utah's Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). It may also have contributed to a drop in removals - from 3 per 1,000 Utah children in 1999 to 1 per 1,000 kids in 2006 - even as complaints of child abuse grew in number.
"We're protecting children from within the context of the family," Betournay said. "It's a better way, because it means longterm protection and avoids the trauma of removal."
Struggles with reform. For 14 years, another prominent child welfare case - David C. vs. Leavitt - drove reform of the state's child welfare system. In agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit in late June, attorneys for the National Center for Youth Law said Utah's foster care system, once rife with negligence, is now a "national model."
The lawsuit alleged some children languished in foster care while others remained in abusive homes with no help from the state.
The state's critics say the David C. lawsuit drove caseworkers to pursue abuse investigations more aggressively; to bully parents in order to look good on paper.
Leecia Welch, a senior attorney at the Center for Youth Law, acknowledged, the "Roska [case] happened at a time when the system was struggling with reform."
The David C. lawsuit had initially been settled in 1994, but changes lagged, and the child welfare system was placed under court supervision in 1999.
Caseworkers took Rusty Roska from his Layton home on May 28, 1999, saying they feared he was a victim of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, a condition in which a parent acts as if a child is ill or even causes the child's illness.
The removal occurred despite a call from the boy's doctor that same day, corroborating the Roskas' explanation that he had a disorder related to his gallbladder and kidneys.
Welch stressed isolated cases like the Roskas prove nothing. She said she doubts large scores of parents were ever falsely accused of harming their kids.
No questions asked. But according to testimony during the Roska trial, unconstitutional removals were commonplace.
Back then, Utah law didn't require warrants to take custody of a child, said Mark May, chief of the Utah Attorney General's child protection division. May testified that when caseworkers did seek orders, some juvenile judges would say, 'You don't need my authority to do that; that's your responsibility.'
No one - not defense attorneys, judges nor caseworkers - questioned the practice until 2002, when a federal court determined caseworkers had violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by taking Rusty without a hearing.
Taking the boy was the state's strategy for building a case, argued the Roskas' lawyer, Steven Russell. "If Rusty got better while in foster care, that proved Munchausen's."
The Roskas' caseworker, Shirley Morrison, who worked at DCFS for one year, later condemned the division's "Gestapo-style" tactics. In a taped phone conversation with Russell, she initially agreed to be a witness for the family, but changed her mind when they sued her personally.
But the fact that caseworkers were doing as they were trained probably persuaded a jury "they shouldn't be punished" by paying damages, said their lawyer, assistant Utah attorney general Matthew Bates.
Connie Roska retorts that if no one is held accountable, the state could continue to abuse its power.
Case closed. Missteps in at least one other case around that same time resulted in a Salt Lake City woman losing two of her four children.
In 2000, social workers took Lisa Bierly's diabetic son, alleging she wasn't providing proper medical care. A younger child was subsequently deemed at risk and removed.
But in 2004, an audit found DCFS made procedural mistakes. It said the question of whether there had been support for taking the children could not be "definitely concluded."
In the meantime, Bierly's parental rights had been terminated because she did not complete a service plan and was uncooperative. Her children were placed for adoption.
Connie Roska, whose character came under attack during the trial, said she is quitting her advocacy work on behalf of falsely accused parents. She spearheaded an organization, Utah Families, that helps parents navigate the system.
"I've been humiliated. It's time for me to heal my family, move on and enjoy my grandkids," she said on Thursday.
Attorneys for the state say Connie Roska got what she wanted: reform.
And the caseworkers she sued?
Knowing what they know now, all three testified they still would have taken Rusty into protective custody - though with a court order. They believe the removal and daily supervision of the family by DCFS helped the boy to recover and resume a normal life.
