It is a pet peeve of mine that DCF investigators think they can talk to children at school and that schools let them.
It has been a major debate in several federal appeals courts, amongst attorney members of the National Association of Counsel for Children, on the American Bar Association Child / Parent Attorneys email discussion list, amongst members of the National Association of CPS Defenses Attorneys and even at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unfortunately it remains an open question. But I lean toward the proposition that schools should not permit DCF personnel, police or other employees of outside agencies to interview children, who are not in the custody of the interviewing person, at school.
My answer to the question "is it legal?"on avvo.com, which lays out some of my reasoning, can be found here: http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/my-child-is-being-questioned-at-school-by-dcf.
If your school committee has a policy about visitors or interviews and you know or suspect that your child might be a target for an interview, consider adapting the form letters in my previous post to your situation.
And consult with an attorney who is familiar with DCF policies and practices.
Showing posts with label DCF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DCF. Show all posts
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Saturday, March 2, 2013
10 Things You Should Know About CHINS
1. There is no such animal anymore.
On November 5, 2012, a new law went into effect that revamped CHINS and did away with that term. The new law was supposed to be called FACES (Families and Children Engaging in Services) but is instead going to be known as CRA (Children Requiring Assistance). Read AN ACT REGARDING FAMILIES AND CHILDREN ENGAGED IN SERVICES here: Session Laws Acts 2012 Chapter240.
2. Definitions changed.
The new statute applies to children between the ages of 6 and 18. The old law only went up to 17. Since the mandatory school attendance law only requires school attendance until age 16, school-based applications must still be dismissed when the student reaches age 16.
A Runaway is a child between the ages of 6 and 18 who repeatedly runs away from the home of a parent, legal guardian or custodian.
The other home-based category makes clear that the rules violations to trigger an application must be important ones. An application may be filed for a child between the ages of 6 and 18 who repeatedly fails to obey the lawful and reasonable commands of a parent, legal guardian or custodian, thereby interfering with their ability to care for and protect the child.
A Truant is a child who when not otherwise excused from attendance in accordance with lawful and reasonable school regulations, willfully fails to attend school more that eight school days in a quarter.
The other school-based application is for a child who repeatedly fails to obey lawful and reasonable school regulations.
3. Police officers may no longer file applications.
Mass. General Laws chapter 119 § 39E (which will be here: www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVII/Chapter119/Section39E but has not yet been updated with the new statute) lists those who may file an application for assistance as "A parent, legal guardian, or custodian of a child having custody of such child." Custodian and having custody are additions to the statute. Practitioners question if "having custody" applies to a parent. Some courts were not letting non-custodial parents file under the old CHINS law.
Police officers are no longer listed in those who may file. The new statute no longer requires a certified supervisor of attendance to file school-based applications. Applications may be filed by a school district. Practitioners question whether that means a school district employee or if a school district may only be represented by an attorney.
4. The bail provisions of the old CHINS law were eliminated.
There is no reference to bail in the new CRA law. The court may place the child in the temporary custody of DCF but the order is only good for 15 days at a time and may only be renewed twice for a total of 45 days.
5. Arrest is no longer allowed.
If a child fails to obey a CRA summons or the a police officer has probably cause to believe a child is a runaway AND will not respond to a summons, s/he may be taken into custodial protection.
BUT custodial protection does not allow police to bring child to the police station or a lockup (not even the juvenile court detention facility) and cannot be handcuffed or shackled.
Court orders for to bring a child to court for failure to obey a summons are not to be entered into the state's Warrant Management System (WMS).
6. CRA cases are not be placed on CORI, CARI, BOP or WMS.
The cases are not to be entered on the child's Criminal Offender Record Information, Court Appearance Record Information, Board of Probation record or Warrant Management System. If the application is dismissed before a fact-finding hearing it is supposed to be expunged. No record "shall be maintained or remain active" after the case is dismissed.
7. Parent applicants may now dismiss their petitions.
Overturning the In re Gail, 471 Mass. 321 (1994) case, which said that the petitioner-mother could not dismiss her CHINS petition, the new CRA law authorizes any party to file a motion to dismiss until the disposition hearing. The judge "may" order dismissal if it is in the best interests of the child or if all parties agree.
8. No more jury trials.
The new statute specifies that the fact-finding hearing is before a judge, not a jury. When the legislature did away with trial de novo in every other area of law, it left it in the old CHINS statute. The new CRA law does away with the child's ability to have a second trial in a jury session. Instead appeals are no longer whole new trials but will be decided on issues of law in the single justice session of the Mass. Appeals Court (under M.G.L. c. 231, § 118).
9. Disposition is a two-step process and is time-limited.
Under the new CRA law the court must convene and may participate in an on-the-record "conference" of the probation officer, petitioner, school, parent, child, child's attorney, DCF and "any other person who may be helpful in determining the most effective assistance available to be offered to the child and family." The probation officer must write recommendations and other persons may submit written recommendations to advise the court on appropriate treatment, services, placement, conditions and limitations.
The first disposition order may last for not more than 120 days. It may be extended after hearing for 90 days. A maximum of 3 extensions are allowed for a total of 390 days.
10. Links to resources.
The Massachusetts Juvenile Court Department issued a Handbook for Parents, Legal Guardians, and Custodians in Child Requiring Assistance Cases it is no longer available here, but can still be found by searching for it by title.
The Children and Family Law Program of the Committee for Public Counsel Services has compiled a set of links which includes the Juvenile Court Memorandum of October 25, 2012 and links that let you download "a detailed memorandum discussing the new law," "a short summary of the changes," and "the sections of Chapter 119 that pertain to status offenses, as it will read on November 5, 2012"; or go here to access the links from the CAFL News page.
Special thanks to Attorney Michael Kilkelly who prepared a lot of the CAFL materials and presented them in a series of workshops for interested attorneys.
On November 5, 2012, a new law went into effect that revamped CHINS and did away with that term. The new law was supposed to be called FACES (Families and Children Engaging in Services) but is instead going to be known as CRA (Children Requiring Assistance). Read AN ACT REGARDING FAMILIES AND CHILDREN ENGAGED IN SERVICES here: Session Laws Acts 2012 Chapter240.
2. Definitions changed.
The new statute applies to children between the ages of 6 and 18. The old law only went up to 17. Since the mandatory school attendance law only requires school attendance until age 16, school-based applications must still be dismissed when the student reaches age 16.
A Runaway is a child between the ages of 6 and 18 who repeatedly runs away from the home of a parent, legal guardian or custodian.
The other home-based category makes clear that the rules violations to trigger an application must be important ones. An application may be filed for a child between the ages of 6 and 18 who repeatedly fails to obey the lawful and reasonable commands of a parent, legal guardian or custodian, thereby interfering with their ability to care for and protect the child.
A Truant is a child who when not otherwise excused from attendance in accordance with lawful and reasonable school regulations, willfully fails to attend school more that eight school days in a quarter.
The other school-based application is for a child who repeatedly fails to obey lawful and reasonable school regulations.
3. Police officers may no longer file applications.
Mass. General Laws chapter 119 § 39E (which will be here: www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVII/Chapter119/Section39E but has not yet been updated with the new statute) lists those who may file an application for assistance as "A parent, legal guardian, or custodian of a child having custody of such child." Custodian and having custody are additions to the statute. Practitioners question if "having custody" applies to a parent. Some courts were not letting non-custodial parents file under the old CHINS law.
Police officers are no longer listed in those who may file. The new statute no longer requires a certified supervisor of attendance to file school-based applications. Applications may be filed by a school district. Practitioners question whether that means a school district employee or if a school district may only be represented by an attorney.
4. The bail provisions of the old CHINS law were eliminated.
There is no reference to bail in the new CRA law. The court may place the child in the temporary custody of DCF but the order is only good for 15 days at a time and may only be renewed twice for a total of 45 days.
5. Arrest is no longer allowed.
If a child fails to obey a CRA summons or the a police officer has probably cause to believe a child is a runaway AND will not respond to a summons, s/he may be taken into custodial protection.
BUT custodial protection does not allow police to bring child to the police station or a lockup (not even the juvenile court detention facility) and cannot be handcuffed or shackled.
Court orders for to bring a child to court for failure to obey a summons are not to be entered into the state's Warrant Management System (WMS).
6. CRA cases are not be placed on CORI, CARI, BOP or WMS.
The cases are not to be entered on the child's Criminal Offender Record Information, Court Appearance Record Information, Board of Probation record or Warrant Management System. If the application is dismissed before a fact-finding hearing it is supposed to be expunged. No record "shall be maintained or remain active" after the case is dismissed.
7. Parent applicants may now dismiss their petitions.
Overturning the In re Gail, 471 Mass. 321 (1994) case, which said that the petitioner-mother could not dismiss her CHINS petition, the new CRA law authorizes any party to file a motion to dismiss until the disposition hearing. The judge "may" order dismissal if it is in the best interests of the child or if all parties agree.
8. No more jury trials.
The new statute specifies that the fact-finding hearing is before a judge, not a jury. When the legislature did away with trial de novo in every other area of law, it left it in the old CHINS statute. The new CRA law does away with the child's ability to have a second trial in a jury session. Instead appeals are no longer whole new trials but will be decided on issues of law in the single justice session of the Mass. Appeals Court (under M.G.L. c. 231, § 118).
9. Disposition is a two-step process and is time-limited.
Under the new CRA law the court must convene and may participate in an on-the-record "conference" of the probation officer, petitioner, school, parent, child, child's attorney, DCF and "any other person who may be helpful in determining the most effective assistance available to be offered to the child and family." The probation officer must write recommendations and other persons may submit written recommendations to advise the court on appropriate treatment, services, placement, conditions and limitations.
The first disposition order may last for not more than 120 days. It may be extended after hearing for 90 days. A maximum of 3 extensions are allowed for a total of 390 days.
10. Links to resources.
The Massachusetts Juvenile Court Department issued a Handbook for Parents, Legal Guardians, and Custodians in Child Requiring Assistance Cases it is no longer available here, but can still be found by searching for it by title.
The Children and Family Law Program of the Committee for Public Counsel Services has compiled a set of links which includes the Juvenile Court Memorandum of October 25, 2012 and links that let you download "a detailed memorandum discussing the new law," "a short summary of the changes," and "the sections of Chapter 119 that pertain to status offenses, as it will read on November 5, 2012"; or go here to access the links from the CAFL News page.
Special thanks to Attorney Michael Kilkelly who prepared a lot of the CAFL materials and presented them in a series of workshops for interested attorneys.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
When DCF Comes a-Calling: How to Try to Stay Out of the Fire When You're Already in the Frying Pan
In the article "Attorney Participation in Family Partnership Meetings," Sara R Brennan, NACC Legal Intern, wrote:
Without the assistance or guidance of an attorney, many parents volunteer information that can later be used against them, without a complete understanding of the consequences some of their statements can have. Parents may also agree to safety plans that can later be used against them in proceedings if they do not comply with every single provision of the plans. Furthermore, parents are sometimes forced to agree to out-of-home placements for their children, usually without a full understanding of their options.e-Guardian v. 34, no. 7, National Association of Counsel for Children, August 2012, pp. 1-2.
The article proposes that state courts should exercise their discretion in favor of appointing attorneys to represent parents during the initial, pre-court stages of child protective services (CPS) investigations. It mentions two programs that provide pre-petition representation and suggests that NACC members disseminate information about solo practitioners who provide pre-petition representation.
I provide representation to parents in Massachusetts facing those frightening calls and letters from CPS that a worker "needs" to meet with the family to discuss an allegation that their child(ren) has(have) been abused or neglected. I work with families during Initial Assessments, Investigations and Assessments and represent parents at Fair Hearings, in court and at other aspects of the "variable response," Integrated Casework Practice Model.
A couple weeks ago, I fielded a call from a parent in just that position. S/he was being investigated by the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families [DCF, Massachusetts's CPS agency, formerly known as the Department of Social Services (DSS)] for the second time in as many months. S/he couldn't afford an attorney and so, as I had done for others, many times before, I gave the caller a free, (not so) brief, initial consultation. I say "(not so) brief" because, after our one and a half hour phone call, I spent another half hour writing an email to send links to the Mass. DCF regulations and other material I had summarized on the phone.
The parent who called from a remote part of the state, had, without representation, just gotten through an "Initial Assessment" for an allegation of neglect with a determination of "unsupported." S/he was now being subjected to an "Investigation" by the same intake worker (who was determined to vindicate him/herself by "supporting" this abuse / neglect report from a "mandated reporter," even if the children were no more at risk than they had been the previous month). The caller to my office was worried about what being investigated means that was different than the previous initial assessment and what the consequences of a determination that s/he had neglected his/her children would be.
Since it did not seem that s/he was at risk of having his/her children removed from his/her care even though the DCF worker said it was definitely "illegal" to leave children alone in a car under any circumstances, I started by telling him/her:
Stay calm about your DCF matter and don't let the investigator trick you into saying anything about being overwhelmed or stressed out by the process.
The "variable response" differentiation between an "Initial Assessment" and an "Investigation" are not yet in the official regulations of DCF in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. For the purposes of this article, it should suffice to say that an Initial Assessment results in a finding of unsubstantiated, minimum risk or refer for assessment, and seems, at least partially to exclude less serious cases from being able to seek reversal of any findings through the Fair Hearing process, discussed later.
Under the statute, DCF must "investigate" whenever there is a report of suspected abuse or neglect of a child. The law setting out when a report becomes mandatory and authorizing any person who has reasonable cause to believe a child is being abused or neglected to report is in section 51A of the statute, so these are typically called "51A Reports." The resulting "evaluation" report is called a 51B because of where the requirements for the investigation are in the statute.
The current DCF "Intake" regulation that attempts to detail the statutory "investigation" scheme is here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/
Once DCF concludes, either through an Initial Assessment or an Investigation, that the family needs to engage in "services" to correct the problems that caused them to be reported to the Department, they enter into a stage called "Assessment." DCF's regulations about the 45 day Assessment are here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/
"Service Plans" are the "agreements" DCF workers try to get the parents to sign, either on an "emergency" basis, i.e., during the investigation, or for ongoing case work, i.e. for 6 month increments after Assessment. The regulation about service plans is here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/
The regulations about requesting copies of the reports that were filed (51As) and that the caseworker doing the initial assessment or investigation writes (51Bs) are in article 12.00, here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/
How to request a Fair Hearing to appeal the finding that you did abuse or neglect your children is in article 10.00, here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/
Definitions of abuse and neglect (though not particularly good ones) are in the Glossary, article 2.00, here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/
Most of what it all means is in court interpretations of things DCF did that parents appealed, which is covered in a 3 day course and 1200 page two-binder notebook for lawyers in this field and changes all the time, so you can see why I couldn't really teach you everything you need to know in one phone call or even a way-too-long blog post.
The Mass. Trial Court Law Libraries has a good set of resource pages, called "Mass. Law About ...". You might find the cases and additional links at the one about Child Abuse and Neglect to be informative. Here's a link: http://www.lawlib.state.
I have included them here because the handling of these subjects is typical of how mandated reporters and DCF workers in Massachusetts deal with issues. That is, they seem to believe that "there is a law" that makes certain actions "illegal" when, actually, the case law makes it a fact-specific determination and leaves a good deal to the discretion of the parent, as long as the parent is being reasonable.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Leaving 3 year old in car for 13 minutes is not neglect
This New Jersey court is as good at overturning their child protective services agency's findings of neglect as the Massachusetts courts are at upholding them:
Dept. of Children Youth & Families v. A.S., New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, decided 9/29/11
Dept. of Children Youth & Families v. A.S., New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, decided 9/29/11
Three year old wanted to stay in car to continue watching DVD while mom did some last minute barbecue shopping at big box store. Mom left her strapped in her car seat, the doors locked, the car started with remote start and the air conditioner on for 13 minutes. Child was unfazed when police arrived, police could not get car doors opened. DCYFS found her neglectful. So did the administrative hearing.
But, citing the statute and a couple of other New Jersey cases that also reversed neglect findings, the court reversed and ruled in favor of mother.
Thanks to Leagle.com for posting this unpublished, per curiam decision.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Details of Temporary Custody Hearing in Orlando paper or And Yet Something Else Not to Do to Your Child
The "Yet Something Else Not to Do to Your Child" in the article linked below is shoot him. Yes, you read that right, a father is alleged to have shot his own son.
The horrendous circumstances depicted in the headline caught my attention. I think you knew already that parents should NOT shoot their children. That's not why I posted the article.
I have often thought that child protective services (CPS) agencies (the Department of Children and Families, DCF, formerly DSS, in Massachusetts) overreach in bringing "failure to protect" cases. I went to read the details in the article thinking I would find myself objecting with statements such as, "What more did they expect her to do? How could she have predicted that?" But the article convinced me, as the Florida DCF lawyer convinced the Orange County (FL) judge, that this was probably a reasonable failure to protect case.
That's not why I posted the article.
Two things really caught my attention:
1. The reporter seems to have been in the courtroom. She published details about the allegations and comments about what the attorneys said.
In Massachusetts, child protection cases are closed to the public. We might get a snippet in the news about the police bringing DCF into a case when they find children in a "house of horrors" or when parents are arrested. But we don't get to see inside the CPS system -- the public doesn't know how it is decided whether children are released to their parents or placed.
2. The article said that the children were upset when told they wouldn't be going home and it has comments about what the parents' attorneys said. Nothing was said though about what the children's attorney said.
In Mass children's counsel are supposed to follow their clients' expressed wishes or, if the child is too young or otherwise incompetent for reasons other than just minority, use substituted judgment to determine what the children would want if they were competent.
Hmm, on third thought, did the children need to be taken away from the mother?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Legal Consequences of Teen Sexuality
The following question was posted here:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-16-year-old-consent-to-sex-in-ma-to-a-29-yea-233319.htmlParaphrasing the question:
I am 16 and see a personal counselor. I told her I am in a relationship with a 29 year old man. She checked with her advisers and DCF to see if it was legal or not and said yes it is legal -- there's nothing anyone can do about it. Then a couple of months after that my counselor brought my mom in with us during a session to work on my relationship with her. My mom brought up her concerns of me possibly being with this man. I have always said to her I wasn't with him and he has told her the same. The next day tells me that it's illegal and she needs to tell the authorities. So, is it legal or not?
My answers:
The age of consent for sexual relations in Massachusetts is 16. I'll post more in a few minutes after searching to give you some citations.Call me at 781-641-3472 if you would like a free, brief initial consultation about your rights.
The Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries have put together a great set of links on a page called "Massachusetts Law About Sex."
I suppose it could be argued that it might be "abuse" under DCF (formerly DSS)'s definition if the counselor had "reasonable cause to believe" that your relationship with this man "causes, or creates a substantial risk of physical or emotional injury," or if the man can be defined as a "caretaker" in relationship to you because "any sexual contact between a caretaker and a child under the care of that individual" also constitutes "abuse." I'll link the definition page below as well as the statutory link about what a counselor is "mandated" to "report."
On the other hand, a child in DCF custody is allowed to consent to her own "family planning services" which can include contraception. See §11.05 of the Medical Authorizations regulation linked below.
If the counselor is required to report under §51A, linked below, your right to privacy of your conversations with her is essentially voided. If she is wrong about her insistence on reporting and ignores your reasonable requests that she keep your confidences, you may have a claim against her.
DCF's Glossary regulation
Mandated reporting Law
DCF's Medical authorizations regulation
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Shaken baby or not?
A report in the Brockton Enterprise Increases in shaken baby cases concerns officials tells of various officials' speculation about the rise in reported cases of suspected shaken babies.
There are experts in the field of evidence-based medicine who suggest that there are other explanations for many of the injuries that the shaken baby prevention advocates attribute solely to vigorous shaking. The pediatric neurologist and pediatric radiographer who spoke at a seminar I attended sponsored by the (Massachusetts) Juvenile Bar Association two years ago delineated the genesis of Shaken Baby Syndrome. They pointed out the flaws in the "research" of the founder of the Shaken Baby movement and how the advocates ignored contrary evidence in a series of cases.
The Shaken Baby Advocates insisted that the injuries and signs apparent in various infants and toddlers could not have been caused by anything other than being vigorously in the manner they propose. Then the evidence-based medicine teams would scientifically prove that the injuries could have been caused by a car accident as described by the accused parents in one case, by falling down the stairs with the baby as described by the accused parents in another case and even by falling out of a high chair as described by the accused parents in yet another.
The cases often rely on the assertion that certain retinal damage patterns can only be caused by a baby being vigorously shaken but the evidence-based presenters showed that the claim was based on believing an assumption that did not look at a wide enough collection of retinal damage patients. When retinal images across other medical specialties besides just child abuse pediatrics are viewed, there are many other causes including some as benign as sneezing that cause the retinal images that shaken baby prosecutors so often rely upon.
The bad economy may be causing a lot of hardship but it is not necessarily the cause of an increase in reported shaken baby cases. An increase in reported shaken baby cases may not even be caused by an increase in shaken babies. When DCF investigators or police are investigating an injured baby case they may well have a predilection to think shaken baby and be dealing with a system of "experts" too quick to disbelieve the parents and assume inflicted injury.
If you are the subject of a 51A (report of child abuse or neglect), are accused of having shaken your baby or are subjected to any other investigation by police or the Department of Children and Families (DCF, formerly the Department of Social Services, DSS) be sure to contact an attorney with experience in this field BEFORE your interviews, BEFORE letting them into your home.
There are experts in the field of evidence-based medicine who suggest that there are other explanations for many of the injuries that the shaken baby prevention advocates attribute solely to vigorous shaking. The pediatric neurologist and pediatric radiographer who spoke at a seminar I attended sponsored by the (Massachusetts) Juvenile Bar Association two years ago delineated the genesis of Shaken Baby Syndrome. They pointed out the flaws in the "research" of the founder of the Shaken Baby movement and how the advocates ignored contrary evidence in a series of cases.
The Shaken Baby Advocates insisted that the injuries and signs apparent in various infants and toddlers could not have been caused by anything other than being vigorously in the manner they propose. Then the evidence-based medicine teams would scientifically prove that the injuries could have been caused by a car accident as described by the accused parents in one case, by falling down the stairs with the baby as described by the accused parents in another case and even by falling out of a high chair as described by the accused parents in yet another.
The cases often rely on the assertion that certain retinal damage patterns can only be caused by a baby being vigorously shaken but the evidence-based presenters showed that the claim was based on believing an assumption that did not look at a wide enough collection of retinal damage patients. When retinal images across other medical specialties besides just child abuse pediatrics are viewed, there are many other causes including some as benign as sneezing that cause the retinal images that shaken baby prosecutors so often rely upon.
The bad economy may be causing a lot of hardship but it is not necessarily the cause of an increase in reported shaken baby cases. An increase in reported shaken baby cases may not even be caused by an increase in shaken babies. When DCF investigators or police are investigating an injured baby case they may well have a predilection to think shaken baby and be dealing with a system of "experts" too quick to disbelieve the parents and assume inflicted injury.
If you are the subject of a 51A (report of child abuse or neglect), are accused of having shaken your baby or are subjected to any other investigation by police or the Department of Children and Families (DCF, formerly the Department of Social Services, DSS) be sure to contact an attorney with experience in this field BEFORE your interviews, BEFORE letting them into your home.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Families are too important to fail.
In an op/ed piece in today's Boston Globe, Vulnerable children are suffering twice, the chief of Ambulatory Pediatrics at Boston Medical Center and the executive director of The Children's League of Massachusetts tell the story of a mother helped by the Department of Children and Families despite budget cuts.
The "vulnerable children" piece starts by saying the mother brought her children into the clinic "recently." By a couple paragraphs later they are "back home". More often, in my experience, the other parent or a caring family member, let alone "a family friend" is denied the opportunity to help with their troubled relative's children when troubles are brought to the attention of DSS/DCF. It seems to me that not having this repeat customer's kids be subjected to a longer stay in foster care with strangers might be an unintended benefit of DCF's increasing caseload and decreasing budget. Maybe DCF's budget crisis helped these children get home more quickly.
If increasing caseloads and a tightening budget cause DCF workers and supervisors to give additional thought to whether children need to be in foster care and whether their families can be helped instead of being discarded while the children get a brand new "forever family," it might go a long way toward making DCF into a valuable safety net to which troubled parents feel safe turning for help instead of a feared monster set only on gobbling up their children and spitting out the parents who love them.
The authors end by saying:
Read the rest of the Globe op/ed here.
Despite their increasing caseloads, the late-night DCF worker and a supervisor came to assess the situation. They knew something we didn't - that this wasn't the first time this mother, a depressed refugee who had been through God knows what before arriving in the United States, had told a caregiver that she was in trouble. By the end of the evening, the mother was in the hospital being treated for her depression, and the children were safe in an emergency placement. The next day, with the mother's agreement, they were placed with a family friend. Now, the mother is out of the hospital with daily supports and the children are back home.From my perspective as an attorney who has seen way too many cases in which the only help a troubled family received from DSS was to have their children placed in foster care and to face an unnecessarily long and arduous process of getting them back, this case may represent an unintended benefit of DCF's budget and caseload problems. All too often, in my and my colleagues' caseloads, a mother with a history with the Department mentions to a "caregiver" that she is feeling overwhelmed only to have had DSS place her kids in foster care and put them on an adoption track because the mother couldn't "correct" her condition quickly enough.
The "vulnerable children" piece starts by saying the mother brought her children into the clinic "recently." By a couple paragraphs later they are "back home". More often, in my experience, the other parent or a caring family member, let alone "a family friend" is denied the opportunity to help with their troubled relative's children when troubles are brought to the attention of DSS/DCF. It seems to me that not having this repeat customer's kids be subjected to a longer stay in foster care with strangers might be an unintended benefit of DCF's increasing caseload and decreasing budget. Maybe DCF's budget crisis helped these children get home more quickly.
If increasing caseloads and a tightening budget cause DCF workers and supervisors to give additional thought to whether children need to be in foster care and whether their families can be helped instead of being discarded while the children get a brand new "forever family," it might go a long way toward making DCF into a valuable safety net to which troubled parents feel safe turning for help instead of a feared monster set only on gobbling up their children and spitting out the parents who love them.
The authors end by saying:
Citibank, AIG, and the automakers have received unprecedented amounts of money from the federal government because they are deemed "too big to fail." We need to remember to look out for those who are "too little to fail."To that I would add that families need to be thought of as "too important to fail" and that therefore more of them may need to be treated with the respect and true assistance that this refugee mother apparently received instead of keeping them from their families and rushing them to "permanency" in non-family placements.
Read the rest of the Globe op/ed here.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Whom is this law supposed to benefit?
The Associated Press reported on September 26, 2008, that on September 24th in Nebraska, 11 children (9 of them siblings) were abandoned at two different hospitals under the state's so-called "Safe Haven" law. (See the full Boston Globe story here.)
According to the article,
In my opinion it is disastrous to let children be dumped like so much not-worthy-of-my-time-to-repair-but-too-good-for-the-trash "Free-cycle" material, especially when states can achieve the same goal by just making it clear that they do not intend to prosecute troubled parents who seek help when they are overwhelmed with child-rearing.
Massachusetts has a "Baby Safe Haven Law" but it only applies to babies 7 days old or less. It is still problematic, though, because it permits the voluntarily-abandoning-parent to do so without providing any information about him/herself or the child. There is then no ability to notify the other parent nor any other family member who might be interested. The babies so abandoned are turned into complete foundlings without any birth-family history, medical history or sense of place in the world that can be difficult to overcome even in the most caring of adoptive homes.
As a society we should be able to help struggling parents and their children without the need to say "Children Wanted - No Question Asked."
According to the article,
Todd Landry, director of Health and Human Services' division of Children and Family Services, said that in nearly every case, the parents who left their children felt overwhelmed and had decided they didn't want to be parents anymore.
In my opinion it is disastrous to let children be dumped like so much not-worthy-of-my-time-to-repair-but-too-good-for-the-trash "Free-cycle" material, especially when states can achieve the same goal by just making it clear that they do not intend to prosecute troubled parents who seek help when they are overwhelmed with child-rearing.
Massachusetts has a "Baby Safe Haven Law" but it only applies to babies 7 days old or less. It is still problematic, though, because it permits the voluntarily-abandoning-parent to do so without providing any information about him/herself or the child. There is then no ability to notify the other parent nor any other family member who might be interested. The babies so abandoned are turned into complete foundlings without any birth-family history, medical history or sense of place in the world that can be difficult to overcome even in the most caring of adoptive homes.
As a society we should be able to help struggling parents and their children without the need to say "Children Wanted - No Question Asked."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
