Child Welfare & Protection concerns in DC

Image via Wikipedia

D.C. child services: Legitimate concerns and complex challenges

Roque Gerald Washington

Sunday, January 16, 2011 

Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of opinions expressed on this page regarding child welfare and child protection in the District ["Taking toys from foster kids won't fix D.C. child services," Jan. 9; "Three years after Banita Jacks, has anything really changed?," Jan. 2; "Sacred cows in D.C.'s child services budget," Dec. 26]. Many criticisms of the imperfect system here and nationally are valid. At the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), we certainly acknowledge the legitimacy of many of these criticisms. But the critics and advocates do not agree on appropriate solutions, and even the most well-intended opinions do not confront the full range of issues affecting child welfare nationally, and especially locally, in all their complexity. 

The CFSA is working to address many of the concerns that have been expressed. While we have reduced placements into traditional group homes by 30 percent, we still place too many children in these environments, and we need loving families to volunteer to provide foster care for our children and youths. A reduction of the number of children placed in residential treatment centers, from an all-time high of 148 in 2007 to a historic low of 44 in 2010, still results in many youths entering these facilities. By improving our initial practices, we have also dramatically reduced the rate of children entering foster care as a result of calls to the hot line reporting child abuse and neglect, from one in five to one in 10, but we are not satisfied with that rate, which remains high compared with those of other jurisdictions. 

There are further local challenges that must be taken into account. The situation in the District is affected, among other things, by high poverty and teen pregnancy rates compared to those of the states, resulting in many mothers, mostly single, who are unprepared to provide adequate support and care for their families. The current economic climate, local and federal legislative mandates - both funded and unfunded - and court-directed processes all contribute to the challenges for the CFSA and its partners in developing the strongest possible safety net for those we serve.  There are further local challenges that must be taken into account. The situation in the District is affected, among other things, by high poverty and teen pregnancy rates compared to those of the states, resulting in many mothers, mostly single, who are unprepared to provide adequate support and care for their families. The current economic climate, local and federal legislative mandates - both funded and unfunded - and court-directed processes all contribute to the challenges for the CFSA and its partners in developing the strongest possible safety net for those we serve. 

But we know we must push for continued improvement, and Mayor Vincent Gray's vision of "One City" provides an excellent framework for open discourse and development of lasting solutions that strengthen the local safety net. At the CFSA, we must do our part by deepening our commitment to address these issues, in collaboration with our partners. Constructive discussion that identifies system strengths and seeks solutions to the deeply rooted social ills that place children at risk has never been more necessary than at this critical economic time. 

True community development includes investments in infrastructure and human capital. A return to civility in our discourse can help in avoiding complacency and feelings of defeat stemming from the challenges. The child welfare system will benefit most by accepting valid criticism that also acknowledges the social challenges and systemic improvements that form the real-world context for further growth.

No child should be injured by a family or by the system designed to protect him or her. But no system can function at its best in a climate that does not allow for a dialogue involving realistic expectations and balanced, constructive criticism. The Child and Family Services Agency must continue to improve its transparency so that public input and community support can contribute to its ability to fulfill its mission as a critical member of the "One City" safety net

Related articles

• On Gov. Jerry Brown's 'Realignment' Plan / A shift from the state to local control (sfgate.com)
• What's Worse Than Homelessness? Gay Foster Parents, Apparently (gayrights.change.org)
• The Amoral, Psychiatric--Pharmaceutical Victimization of Foster Children in the United States of America (legallykidnapped.blogspot.com)
• Arizona Gunman Worked for CPS...Media Reports (michellelanthony.wordpress.com)
• Untitled (michellelanthony.wordpress.com)
• Nunavut child act changes needed: director (cbc.ca)
• Manitoba to get $177 M boost to help kids on reserves (canada.com)
• Legal Child Abduction: How the U.S. Government Profits by Stealing Your Children (via Repeal Bradley: Unconstitutional) (alisonsgypt.wordpress.com)
• Chicago's Lutheran Child Family Services Won't Let Gay Couple Be Foster Parents To Gay Teen (queerty.com)
• Homeless Teen's Potential Foster Parents Deserve Medal, Not Hate (homelessness.change.org)
• New funding for child-welfare on Man. reserves (cbc.ca)
• Focus on parents, child services minister told (cbc.ca)
• California custody battle sparks overseas outrage (sfgate.com)

MOTHER FALLS & LOSES CHILD - Reports Christopher Booker TELEGRAPH

Christopher Booker Writes:

A mother's fall causes her to lose her child     By Christopher Booker 7:12PM GMT 15 Jan 2011

A woman who was temporarily paralysed in a fall had her baby taken into care while she lay in hospital, writes Christopher Booker

Anne Gedde

In recent months, I have reported on many disturbing examples of how our system of “family protection” has gone horribly off the rails, but none is more bizarre than this week’s. As usual, I am legally barred from identifying the mother at the centre of this case or giving many other details, but she is in her mid-thirties, has various academic qualifications and some time back returned to England after 10 years working in America. There, among other things, she had worked as a counsellor in Guantanamo Bay, but what she saw there led her to start a new career as a financial adviser.

In September 2009, after a difficult pregnancy, she gave birth to a daughter, by an old friend with whom marriage was not possible. Two months later, she was sitting on her mother’s windowsill, dressed in a coat and hat ready to go out, when she fell, snatching at a curtain in a vain attempt to save herself.

She woke up in hospital, paralysed from the neck down. Soon afterwards, a nurse handed her a phone. It was a social worker from the local council, to tell her that her daughter – who was being looked after by her sister – was to be placed in care and put up for adoption within six weeks. “I was so paralysed,” she says, “that I couldn’t wipe the tears from my eyes.”

Because she was very fit (having been something of a star athlete), she made a miraculously quick recovery, and was discharged from hospital – after a psychological evaluation which confirmed that her fall was accidental and that she posed no risk to herself or anyone else. Still, in January last year the social workers applied for an interim care order. She was told that this was because her baby was at “potential risk of harm” due to her “suicide attempt”, and that she was in a “violent relationship” – whereas there had been no man in her life for over a year.

The interim order was issued, as is routine, but the social workers were told to produce evidence for their case, and the baby was allowed to remain with the mother’s sister’s family. The mother was given a hair-strand test which, she was startled to be told, showed “traces of cocaine” and “chronic excessive drinking”, though she rarely drinks, and a re-test for cocaine was negative.

In March, another hearing was cancelled because the council’s documentation was not yet available. In April, a case management conference was cancelled because the local authority was “not prepared”. Another hearing was adjourned in May because the council’s paperwork was incomplete, and in June it was cancelled, for the same reason.

The baby was still in the care of her aunt and the mother was allowed regular visits, in the presence of a “contact supervisor”, who was impressed by the happy bonding of mother and daughter. This supervisor was invited by the mother to attend a Family Group Conference, which looked at a pile of her reports provided by the social workers. When the mother queried some of the documents’ dates, particularly one or two which were critical of her, the supervisor insisted, to general surprise, that they weren’t written by her. The social workers were asked to look into how the notes had been “edited” – but the supervisor was suspended from the case and has subsequently been given little work by the council.

In August, an order was made that the baby should be put into foster care, and that no family members other than the mother should see her. (The aunt’s young daughter, who had come to look on the baby as her own little sister, was heartbroken.) In September, the baby was placed in a foster home 35 miles away (making regular visits extremely taxing). A new contact supervisor, however, remained positive about the mother-baby relationship.

In October, an Issue Resolution Hearing was cancelled at short notice when the council’s legal team said it had not been supplied with necessary documents. In December another hearing was cancelled for the same reason. The magistrates then said they wanted the case sent to a county court.

It now seems the next hearing will be in May, 18 months after mother and child were parted. Fortunately, the mother is a bright, determined and organised woman, whose child is the centre of her life. Otherwise, subjected to such treatment, like many parents before her she might long since have cracked.

Image via Wikipedia

Average time in Care USA

 

Link To Article Directly:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8262049/ 

 Related articles

• Child protection: how a cruel council plays its cat-and-mouse game (telegraph.co.uk)
• Forced adoption: another win for the child snatchers (telegraph.co.uk)
• Victory for the family: Couple fled UK after social workers took their child. Now they have been declared fit parents by Spanish officials and reunited with baby No2 (dailymail.co.uk)
• Baby P social worker says spending cuts will cost children their lives (guardian.co.uk)
• Social workers suspended over father's attack on baby (independent.co.uk)
• Social worker censured over child (bbc.co.uk)
• Where is her shame: People are too busy blaming me over the Baby P tragedy, says Shoesmith (dailymail.co.uk)
• Social worker ignored abuse alert (bbc.co.uk)
• Social worker 'failed Sanam' (thesun.co.uk)
• You: A year in the life of a foster parent (guardian.co.uk)