By Erin Lewis
Assistant County & District Attorney, &
Ben Kaminar
First Assistant County & District Attorney in Lamar County
Everyone in Paris knew about the missionaries and their van. For months, they had camped out in the Home Depot parking lot, soliciting donations of cash and fast food in between occasional trips to a truck stop for showers. Even when the van broke down and could no longer drive around town, no one suspected the couple were anything besides a strange pair of traveling preachers. It wasn’t until a local family convinced them to allow the van to be towed for repairs that anyone had a clue that there was a child living inside, a discovery that led to one of the most heart-wrenching cases we’ve prosecuted.
Good Samaritans step in
Tom and Jennifer Bramlett are Paris locals. Tom is a handyman and does odd jobs for people as part of his family’s ministry. The Bramletts were contacted by an elderly couple they had not met to fix a broken-down van. They went out to the Home Depot parking lot and met Ray and Ruth Macabbee. The Macabbees were “missionaries.” Tom agreed to make repairs to the van but told the couple that the van had to be towed off the parking lot because he needed to drop the gas tank and he wouldn’t do that in the parking lot. Ray refused and the Bramletts left—Jennifer later reported that it was clear Ray was in charge.
A few weeks later, the Bramletts got word that Ray was willing to have the van towed so they returned to the parking lot and called a tow truck. At some point, the tow truck driver opened a door to the vehicle and observed someone who appeared to be a 5- or 6-year-old girl in the back of the van. In the month that the Bramletts had been helping the Macabees, no one had ever seen or heard mention of a child.
The van was towed to the Bramletts’ home that day and Tom got to work on it. Jennifer started trying to speak to Ruth and the child. Jennifer would ask questions and Ruth would respond, “The Lord is great; the Lord is good.” Ruth would look to Ray before answering any questions, and the child was not allowed to speak. Ruth would tell the child to be quiet or shush her anytime she tried. As it got later in the evening, Tom stopped working on the van. Jennifer and Tom allowed the family to stay at their home that night. They offered to let them sleep inside but the family refused. That evening, Jennifer made a call to police because in her gut, she knew something was not right. The Paris Police Department responded that night, along with Child Protective Services (CPS) investigators. Ray and Ruth refused to exit the van and refused to let CPS lay eyes on the child. Because there was no warrant, police and CPS left the scene with plans to return the next morning.
While at the Bramletts’ place, police determined the van was registered to Ray Alvarez Macabee. That name didn’t produce any results, so the officer ran the name Ray Alvarez with his birth date, and lo and behold, that name produced a result for a Ramon Alvarez who had a protective order against him for two women. The photo on Ramon Alvarez’s driver’s license looked just like Ray Macabee and it was determined they were the same person.
The next morning, police and CPS returned to the Bramletts’. This time, detectives could see the inside of the van and it was horrendous. Inside was a makeshift toilet with urine and feces still inside, no food, and a small space near the wheel where the little girl (named Naomi) slept. The van was full of adult clothing but no children’s clothes.
At this point, law enforcement decided to arrest Ramon and Ruth (whom they later learned is named Felisha Scroggins) for child endangerment. Felisha was able to produce a birth certificate to prove that Naomi was her daughter, and it was determined that Ramon was not Naomi’s father. Naomi’s date of birth was also located on the birth certificate, and this child that everyone thought was between 5 and 6 was actually 10 years old. Once maternity was established, CPS decided to remove Naomi from her mother’s custody.
CPS investigators took Naomi to the Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) for a forensic interview. Naomi was dirty and hungry so CAC employees got her bathed, and prosecutor Erin Lewis (a co-author of this article), who had been alerted that the interview was about to take place, ordered Chick-Fil-A for Naomi to eat. The CAC employees found clothing for Naomi in her size, which was a 4T, while the forensic interviewer got set up for the interview.
To say the interview was not productive is a gross understatement. Naomi was able to give her name but not her birthdate. She would not answer questions and instead responded with statements like, “That’s none of your business.” She was convinced that the interview was a CIA operation. The interview lasted about four minutes before Naomi got up and left. Forensic interviewers see children and talk to them about the worst things that have happened to them, and the interviewers deal with this in their own way but we as prosecutors rarely see it. The interviewer that day was visibly emotional after seeing Naomi and talking to her, however briefly, because though Naomi made no outcries, it was obvious by her size and her statements that she had been through hell in her 10 years. After leaving the CAC, CPS transported Naomi to a nearby foster home.
Meanwhile, in this day and age of social media, someone with knowledge of the situation started posting about it on Facebook and the situation became local news. It also made the news in surrounding counties. Once the story got out, we were alerted to some TikTok videos that were circulating. Those videos introduced us to a woman claiming to be Ramon’s daughter, Jacqueline. She stated that he had also abused her and that she was coming to town to report it to police. She did end up speaking to Detective David Whitaker about the abuse she suffered at Ramon’s hands. Another person contacted Detective Whitaker and reported that she was Ramon’s ex-wife and that they had a child together who lived in town. She believed Ramon came to Paris to look for that child.
The charging decision
Ramon and Felisha were initially arrested for endangering a child based upon the living conditions in the van, as well as the danger of leaving a person in the vehicle while it was being towed. However, from the beginning our instincts told us that charge didn’t accurately reflect what Naomi had been subjected to. Those instincts were confirmed once we obtained the records from her first medical appointment in foster care. At barely 40 pounds and a little over three and a half feet tall, Naomi’s height and weight were both far below the first percentile on the growth chart for her age. The pediatric nurse practitioner noted protein calorie malnutrition, uncorrected strabismus (misalignment of the eyes so they point in different directions) affecting her vision, and developmental delays in her motor skills. Naomi’s foster mother also reported that she had difficulty walking for more than brief stints and had to be carried between classes at her school. We obtained her occupational therapy records, which documented that she had the motor development of a 3-year-old. Because she presented with stunting, meaning lost growth from childhood malnutrition, and because of the significant developmental delays, we believed we had a case for injury to a child causing serious bodily injury.
We decided around this time to try Ramon and Felisha separately. From what we had learned of them by this point, we knew that Ramon was the leader of their mini-cult and that Felisha would be a far more sympathetic defendant. We suspected that a jury would be more likely to assign the blame entirely to him and acquit her if we tried them together. By trying them separately, we could focus a jury’s attention on Felisha’s role in Naomi’s captivity. Trying Felisha first would also give us a chance to fine-tune our case for Ramon’s trial.
CPS proceedings
When a child is removed by CPS, the first hearing determines if the State will continue to have temporary managing conservatorship (TMC) of the child. After the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS, also called the Department) caseworkers removed Naomi from Felisha, they began searching for Naomi’s father. Detective Whitaker also assisted. He received information that a man, James Reynolds, was claiming to be Naomi’s father and had been looking for her for several years, even working with a police chief from Louisiana in his search. CPS reached out to him and amended its petition to include James as an alleged father to Naomi. Felisha corroborated that this man was indeed Naomi’s father, but the Department wanted to confirm using genetic testing. The test was ordered at that first hearing. Felisha also listened to all the evidence presented about the removal and showed no emotion. She had already told the investigator and the CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate, or guardian ad litem) that she wanted to relinquish her parental rights. She stated that she planned to continue on her mission with Ramon and she knew we wouldn’t let her take Naomi with her so she would just relinquish. Ultimately, the Department was named temporary managing conservator for Naomi and her parents (Felisha and James) were ordered to complete services designed to reunite them with their daughter.
Meanwhile, Naomi was still in the foster home and was doing well. Part of a child being placed in a foster home is that she is provided with services and regular medical and dental care. At her first pediatric visit, Naomi’s foster mom reported that the child had to be carried in because her legs were exhausted and hurting. It was so bad the nurse had to help Naomi and her foster mother to the car. The nurse practitioner ordered several tests and observed signs of severe malnutrition. Foster mom was told to supplement Naomi’s diet with Ensure to get more calories in her. Foster mom also enrolled Naomi in school, got her into occupational, physical, and mental health therapy, and provided a safe space for Naomi to grow and thrive—and Naomi did just that. When she started school, Naomi had to be carried almost everywhere because her legs were so weak, but by the end of her six-month stay with the foster family, Naomi was running and playing and acting like a normal 10-year-old.
At some point, the genetic testing came back and Reynolds was indeed Naomi’s dad, so the child’s therapist and CASA began talking to her about him and introduced them. Reynolds was significantly older than Felisha; he had met her while she was a dancer at a club where Reynolds was a patron. The Department and CASA were reluctant to place Naomi with him because of his age and that he lived out of state—it would be very difficult to set up services for both of them. But the judge disagreed with all of us and ordered Naomi to be placed with her father immediately after the first permanency hearing, so in July, after six months with the foster family, Naomi was placed with her dad. She was so excited to have a dad to live with.
Prepping Naomi for trial
As we began to prepare for Felisha’s trial, we looked at our general plan for prepping child witnesses and knew that those would not work. Normally, we meet with them three or four times prior to trial. During our first meeting, it’s all very relaxed and non-threatening. We don’t talk about the case—it’s just introductions and ice breaking. The second meeting, we get into the facts a little bit but not in real depth. In the final meetings, we really delve into their testimony and take them down to the courtroom to let them sit in the witness chair and talk and get comfortable. In Naomi’s case, though, by the time we started to get ready for trial, she lived several hours away in another state, which created challenges not only with preparation but also with getting her to trial.
The day before trial started, Naomi arrived, and we crammed months of pretrial prep into an afternoon. Sitting on the floor in his office, Ben (a co-author of this article), Naomi, and a CAC counselor built random stuff out of Legos while Ben told her about the courtroom and the super-secret staircase we would take to get there. With her dad’s encouragement, Naomi opened up a little bit, enough for us to prepare her for the courtroom. Before we went downstairs to explore it, Naomi picked out a stuffed animal from the basket in Ben’s office and named her “Rosie the Fluff.”
Felisha’s trial
Felisha’s injury to a child trial began with Jennifer Bramlett’s testimony. She and her husband, Tom, were the ones who helped Ramon and Felisha with their van. As expected, she started our case with a vivid illustration of Naomi and her living conditions. We proceeded through the CPS investigator’s testimony and then moved to the pediatric nurse practitioner who had assessed Naomi when she was placed in foster care. One expected pitfall in her testimony was that Naomi’s bloodwork actually turned out much better than expected. Although we addressed that on direct examination, it still gave a point for the defense to hammer on cross. The defense also highlighted that while Naomi was extremely small for her age, she didn’t look emaciated.
While Naomi was waiting to testify, she and the counselor from the CAC walked past Erin’s office where the girl noticed Erin’s cutout of Taylor Swift hanging on her door. Naomi thought it was Barbie and asked the counselor if Barbie worked in that office. As it turns out, Erin’s maiden name is actually Barbee, which the counselor knew, so she told Naomi that Barbee did work in that office. (It didn’t hurt that Erin was wearing a pink suit that day.) Naomi called Erin “Barbie” the rest of the day!
When Naomi was on the stand, Ben did the questioning. He asked her to identify her mother and she gave an appropriate identification, though later, Naomi asked if her mother was in the room. Naomi testified that she got Cheerios for breakfast, peanut butter and jelly for lunch, and half a block of dry ramen for dinner. She said that Ramon and Felisha got pork chops and hamburgers and anything they wanted, but if Naomi asked for anything they were eating, she was told no. She never went to the park, never went to school, never went to the doctor, and never played outside. Defense counsel asked a few questions on cross and Ben asked a few more things on re-direct, and Naomi was done. Erin walked out of the courtroom with Naomi to get something, and as she walked up the stairs, Naomi called out, “Bye, Barbie.”
After Naomi left the stand, we moved on to her therapist from her months in foster care, followed by the investigating detective, and then Naomi’s foster mother, Catherine Barnett. Barnett turned out to be an amazing asset to the case. Where every other witness had dealt with Naomi for only brief periods, Barnett saw her day-to-day life. She painted a picture for the jury, a picture of a child who was too weak to walk for more than a few minutes at a time and had to be carried between classes at the first school she had ever attended. Barnett described how Naomi would run into counters around the house because of her uncorrected vision—but also her amazement when she received glasses. She also took Naomi to months of occupational therapy, as an assessment showed that she had the motor development of a 3-year-old and was unable to pedal a bike or open a bottle of water. We finally put on brief testimony from a CASA, whom Felisha told during a status hearing that she wanted to give up her parental rights so she could go back out on her “mission.”
At that point, we rested, and it was the defense’s turn. Defense counsel had Felisha admonished as to her Fifth Amendment rights, and Felisha decided to testify. Defense counsel questioned her about her background and life up to the point of the arrest. Felisha said that after Naomi’s birth, she fell back into her old ways of drugs and strip clubs and “needed the Lord.” She had prayed for God’s guidance, and while driving, she saw Ramon Alvarez holding a wooden cross next to a van covered in Scripture and the name of Jesus. She took that as a sign from God and pulled over to talk to him. Shortly after meeting Ramon, Felisha and Naomi got in the van with him and off they went. Describing life with Ramon, Felisha testified that they would go where the Lord sent them and they lived on the donations of strangers. They were “married in the eyes of the Lord” pretty soon into their relationship and had been “married” for about seven years.
Felisha’s testimony minimized her involvement and painted her as Ramon’s victim. She testified that Ramon was in charge, he made the rules, and he made the decisions. She was to be submissive to him in all things. Her reasoning for hiding Naomi from the world was that they hid her only until they got to know people and then Naomi was always able to go out and play. All of this was contradicted by what Jennifer Bramlett and Naomi herself had testified. Felisha said on cross that until they left with Ramon, Naomi had grown normally and appropriately and that she noticed that Naomi was smaller than she should be but that she didn’t really think anything of it. She testified that Naomi’s meals were fine. Toward the end of cross, she testified that even if she disagreed with Ramon, she wouldn’t ignore his directions.
Guilty on a lesser-included
Although we had indicted Felisha on first-degree injury to a child by intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily injury, the defense requested a lesser-included instruction on injury by recklessness, a second-degree felony. Our judge was skeptical whether recklessness could apply when there was injury by omission, but he ultimately included the instruction, reasoning that failure to include a requested instruction would be likely grounds for reversal.
The first part of our closing arguments focused on two elements of the offense, serious bodily injury and the culpable mental state. For the injury, we shifted our focus from malnutrition to Naomi’s developmental delays. Even though we were unable to locate the occupational therapists who had worked with her, we did obtain her records and enter them into evidence. We argued to the jury that her developmental delays, which required months of therapy, were a protracted loss or impairment of her normal bodily functions because she was unable to do simple tasks such as holding a pencil or opening a package of snacks. Turning to the mental state, we conceded that Felisha was probably not intentionally starving Naomi and instead we leaned on her knowledge. We pointed out the parental instinct to feed one’s children, even if it meant the parent going without and the near-universal experience of kids needing to eat, and eat a lot.
The defense argument attacked the main weakness with our medical evidence, the lack of follow-through treatment and assessments as a result of Naomi’s rapid placement in foster care. The defense also attempted some creative interpretation of the records and testimony by arguing that it wasn’t believable that Naomi was completely unable to walk and if that were the case, the nurse practitioner would surely have noted it. On rebuttal, we took aim at that and highlighted it for the jury as the misleading ploy it was. We reminded the jury that during the foster mother’s testimony, she kept correcting defense counsel every time he claimed Naomi was unable to walk. To underline the misstatements about Naomi’s condition, we pulled out the medical records and directly read from the nurse’s observations: “She can hardly walk.” When Felisha took the stand earlier, she had said that they started living in the van with Ramon when Naomi was 3 years old. That became our final theme for the jury, that time stopped when Naomi entered the van. Her growth was frozen at that of a 3-year-old, as was her ability to grasp objects. Instead of growing up to be a normal 10-year-old girl, she was trapped for seven years eating dry ramen and sleeping under a shelf.
The jury deliberated for about 45 minutes that afternoon before breaking overnight, then deliberated another hour and a half the next morning. They sent out a note asking about the punishment range for the lesser included offense, which we had not addressed during voir dire. Ultimately, the jury found Felisha guilty of second-degree injury to a child causing serious bodily injury by recklessness.
Felisha was the only witness in the punishment phase. She testified that she had been sexually abused by her father and had dropped out of school in the eighth grade to take care of her family when her father went to prison. She turned to drugs to deal with her pain. She continued to make herself the victim and never took any responsibility for victimizing Naomi due to her choices. On cross-examination, Felisha stated that she had not filed for divorce from Ramon and that she didn’t know if she would. Her final statement was that she didn’t know if she’d go right back out with Ramon or not.
Because Felisha had never been convicted of a felony, she was probation-eligible and we knew the defense was going to argue for probation—which counsel did. Counsel argued that Felisha has been a victim all her life and she just needed help. On rebuttal, Ben argued that probation was the easy way out for Felisha, that with probation there wasn’t justice for Naomi. What Felisha had done to Naomi were not things probation could fix.
The jury deliberated for less than an hour, and as the court was about to announce a lunch break, the jury let the bailiff know they had a verdict. Shortly before noon, the judge read the verdict of 20 years’ confinement in prison with no fine.
Re-charging Ramon
With Felisha’s trial behind us, it was time to focus on Ramon. While preparing for Felisha’s trial, we learned that Naomi had received a full psychological assessment upon being placed in foster care, and we obtained a copy of it. The psychologist had diagnosed Naomi with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was consistent with her therapist’s testimony. However, it wasn’t until after Felisha’s trial when we watched a video replay of a session from the Crimes Against Children Conference (provided by the Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center) that we realized that PTSD is a distinct injury with its own charge. We searched through caselaw and concluded that PTSD could not only qualify as a serious mental impairment or injury under the injury to a child statute, but also that bodily injury and mental impairment or injury were distinct offenses that could each be charged.
Armed with that research and diagnosis, we sent Ramon’s case back to the grand jury to obtain a superseding indictment on an additional first-degree count and set him for trial a few weeks later. Going into the second trial, we felt like we were in a far better position than we were the first time around. Unlike Felisha, Ramon would not be a sympathetic defendant, and we were now armed with a stronger case. Of course, knowing the case was stronger didn’t reduce anyone’s anxiety or make the second trial any easier.
Ramon’s trial
The majority of evidence in Ramon’s trial tracked Felisha’s but with some adjustments. For example, during the nurse practitioner’s testimony, we had not distinguished between acute and chronic malnutrition very well. The defense exploited that to conflate symptoms of the two conditions during the first trial. During Ramon’s trial, we had the nurse describe the differences and explain how even a child with relatively normal lab work could be severely malnourished. She was also much more definitive in her opinion that Naomi had been malnourished for years.
Prepping Naomi this time was even more rushed. She arrived at the courthouse 30 minutes before she was set to take the stand. The CAC worker was there, and Ben went to prep her while another witness was on the stand. This time, Naomi was very hesitant to answer questions and shut down completely. The court took a lunch break and Erin came in to help with prep. Naomi remembered “Barbie” and was excited for more “glitter freckles” (Erin had gotten some temporary face tattoos of sparkly freckles for a concert and given them to Naomi after the first trial). She opened up some more and it was decided that Erin would do the direct on Naomi this go-’round.
Naomi did great in testimony and was able to tell her story again. Naomi had a stress ball that she carried this time instead of a stuffy. After defense counsel finished questioning Naomi, she got up to leave. She had been squeezing the stress ball so hard, the ball had popped open and the liquid inside had leaked everywhere. The bailiff and court reporter immediately went into clean-up mode. From the jury box, it looked like she had wet herself. But once outside of the courtroom, she jumped on her dad and hugged him tightly. She got her new glitter freckles and promised to come back and see us when she was close by. Dad was ready to get out of the courthouse.
The biggest change in the trial was the addition of psychologist Kevin Weatherly as our final witness. After walking through his education and experience to qualify him as an expert, we turned to the process of Naomi’s psychological evaluation. For Naomi, the evaluation involved a clinical interview; mental status exam; and battery of intelligence, behavioral, and trauma assessments. While we discussed all components of the evaluation, we spent most of our time discussing the Trauma Symptoms Checklist for Young Children (TSCYC). Naomi displayed extremely high scores on the TSCYC assessment, scoring at the 97th percentile for post-traumatic stress. The medical evidence had shown that Naomi fell below the first percentile for height and weight; now, the psychological evidence showed that she tested at the opposite extreme for trauma. After explaining each step of the evaluation process, Dr. Weatherly testified that he diagnosed Naomi with PTSD. The next questions tied everything together. Ben described Naomi’s situation, living in a van, forced to sleep under a shelf, physically abused, and deprived of food, then asked if Dr. Weatherly would expect that to lead to PTSD. “One hundred percent, yes,” was his answer. A couple of questions later, Ben asked if he would consider PTSD a serious mental impairment or deficiency. “Yes,” he replied.
We rested after cross and prepared for argument. Unlike Felisha’s attorney, Ramon’s chose an all-or-nothing approach and did not ask for instructions on any lesser-included offenses. The State’s arguments were largely the same, but Ramon’s attorney framed the case as one of homelessness and Felisha’s bad parenting. In rebuttal, we reminded the jury that every single witness who saw Ramon and Felisha said that Ramon was in charge. We pointed out that Felisha and Naomi had minimal clothing while Ramon had a whole wardrobe, that Ramon ate anything people brought him but tossed Naomi a block of dry ramen. Ramon was the leader of their miniature cult and the time had come for him to be held accountable. An hour and twenty minutes later, Ramon was found guilty as charged on both counts.
A daughter’s testimony
Back at the beginning of this whole case, Detective Whitaker spoke to Ramon’s biological daughter, Jacqueline. We could not use her testimony during the guilt–innocence phase, but we sure could use it in punishment. Ben reached out to Jacqueline by phone and talked to her about testifying. She was more than willing to testify, so the day before trial started, Jacqueline drove to Paris from another state to wait for her chance to tell her story.
Jacqueline’s tale was slightly different from Naomi’s but the abuse was similar. She had lived with her mom, dad (Ramon), and sister, and that life was unstable. They moved around a lot until they landed in New Mexico when she was 4. They stayed there for seven years. In New Mexico, Ramon operated a homeless shelter and moved his family into it. He was also running an unlicensed, illegal radio station that was eventually shut down by the Federal Communications Commission. At that point, the family was forced to sell the building that housed the shelter, and they started traveling in the van and a tiny RV. It was the same van in which Naomi was later found.
After several years of travelling, they landed in a Louisiana town south of Shreveport. They were attending a church where another pastor observed the hatred in Jacqueline’s eyes toward Ramon. She eventually opened up to the pastor and told him about all of the abuse she had suffered at his hands, how she had been allowed to eat only rice and beans but that Ramon got the best of everything and she and her mom and sister got what was left, which wasn’t much. At 18 years old, Jacqueline weighed 89 pounds, and it wasn’t because she was suffering from an eating disorder. That malnourishment led to her being fully disabled at age 24 because she was unable to walk around while they were living in the van. She has irritable bowel syndrome and feels all her emotions in her stomach. She has complex PTSD and has nightmares every night about Ramon and the conditions she lived in. She has borderline personality disorder, which was linked to the trauma she endured. She attends individual therapy every two weeks and group therapy the other two weeks a month. Her most poignant testimony was about the physical and emotional abuse she suffered at her father’s hands: “I was hated for no reason,” she testified. “He hated me. Like, he wanted me dead, and I had no idea why. He loved my sister for some reason. She was the favorite, but me, I was hated.” She testified that Ramon would kick her and hit her so hard she would have to catch her breath. He left bruises from grabbing her and holding onto her. He hit her on her right temple numerous times. The verbal abuse was also constant. Ramon was always screaming at her. One day, Ramon told her that he didn’t care if Jacqueline went and drowned in the lake. Defense counsel did a minimal cross and then both sides rested and closed.
Closing arguments on punishment were simple. During the first part, we discussed the jury charge and common questions, such as how the parole instruction worked, that fines aren’t paid to the victim, and that stacked or concurrent sentencing isn’t a question for the jury to consider. The defense argument centered on Ramon’s age, suggesting that at 60, he was unlikely to reoffend after his first felony conviction and should be given a lenient sentence. In rebuttal, Ben asked the jurors to think about Lady Justice and her scales and to consider the two lives Ramon had devastated. The only thing that could balance the scales, he argued, was a life sentence. After a little under two hours of deliberation, the jury returned punishment verdicts of 60 years on each count. We’re fortunate in Lamar County to have a judge who defaults to stacking in child abuse cases, and Ramon’s sentences were no exception. The judge ordered the sentences to run consecutively for a total of 120 years. Many times, after discharging the jury, our judge will offer jurors the courtroom balcony to observe sentencing (our historic district courtroom looks like it was taken straight from To Kill a Mockingbird). Not only did all 12 jurors remain for sentencing, but they also came back downstairs to hug Jacqueline.
Conclusion
While we were writing this article several months after the second trial, Ben received a text message from Reynolds, Naomi’s father. He would occasionally call to give an update or text Ben a photo to share with the office, so we’d gotten to see some of her other new experiences, such as gymnastics and chicken fried steak. He wanted to let us know how she was doing and, of course, sent along a photo. Like any 11-year-old, Naomi looked unenthusiastic about her dad taking a picture while mid-bite at lunch. She was up to 70 pounds, almost twice the size of when we first saw her, and doing well in a home where she is loved. The difference from a year and a half before was absolutely astonishing.
In so many cases, we give our best effort and hope that we can make a difference in a victim’s life. Naomi’s case was the rare opportunity to see the difference and know that for one person, we did help make that change.