Arizona CPS myths identified, cleared up by experts

by Mary K. Reinhart

Arizona’s child-welfare system has come under a microscope in recent months, with most of the attention focused on several high-profile deaths and how the state’s Child Protective Services might have prevented them.

State officials said at least six children, who had been the subject of one or more CPS reports, have died so far this year. Of the 70 children whose deaths officials attributed to maltreatment in 2010, 18 had prior CPS involvement.

As a gubernatorial task force on child safety works on recommendations, which will likely become legislation in the coming session, misconceptions and myths abound about the responsibilities and rules governing CPS and its workers.

“The myth is that there’s a simple solution to this problem,” said Karin Kline, who spent 26 years in a variety of CPS positions.

Another is that there are obvious red flags to show CPS workers which children should be removed, she said.

“That the kids who are killed have prior physical injuries and a prior report that a CPS worker somehow overlooked,” she said. “Often, it’s a kid sent to school dirty or hungry, or mom’s got drug problems.”

The Republic asked experts to help identify common myths surrounding child abuse and neglect. Among them:

CPS can force parents or caregivers into drug or mental-health treatment or to accept other services, such as parenting classes and child care.

In fact, state law limits the authority of CPS to require anything of parents or caregivers accused of abusing or neglecting their children. And the law requires the caseworker to inform the family of this right at the beginning of an investigation.

Once caseworkers remove children and place them in state custody, a judge can require the family to meet certain conditions in order for the state to return the children. Parents might be able to keep their children under an “in-home dependency,” which also involves a court order and requirements parents must meet to prevent the child’s placement into foster care.

But short of a court order, the law states that a CPS worker “has no legal authority to compel the family to cooperate with the investigation or to receive protective services offered.”

CPS will offer services to families accused or at risk of abuse or neglect, but participation is voluntary. Officials said families who agree to participate voluntarily are more likely to benefit than those forced to accept treatment or services as a condition for getting their children back.

Budget cuts over the past several years, however, have reduced the extent and the timeliness of voluntary services.

Confidentiality laws prevent CPS from talking publicly about cases.

In fact, Arizona has one of the least restrictive confidentiality laws in the country. State law allows the department to “confirm, clarify or correct” information about a case of child abuse or neglect that already has been made public.

That might include a situation where police investigating a missing or neglected child-release information about prior CPS involvement in the case. CPS could speak publicly about the case to correct misinformation or explain what caseworkers may have done to try to help the family.

The department rarely takes that opportunity, however, and some say that can make it appear that it’s got something to hide.

“They can talk until they’re blue in the face if they so choose,” said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. “If they don’t talk, they’re stonewalling.”

Kline sees it differently.

“The myth here is that CPS is not talking to cover for themselves,” said Kline, now with Arizona State University’s Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy.

The agency does release basic information about child fatalities and near fatalities. One of the concerns about providing more information, however, is that it could endanger federal funding under a child-welfare law that has its own confidentiality requirements.

But Wexler said that’s just an excuse. Federal officials have never taken a nickel away from a state for a confidentiality breach, he said, and the move in recent years has been toward more openness, not less.

Most children are killed by their mother’s boyfriend.

In fact, mothers were the perpetrators in 34 out of 70 child maltreatment deaths in 2010, according to the Arizona Child Fatality Review Program, and fathers were responsible for 18 child deaths.

A mother’s partner was the culprit in six child deaths last year.

“It’s true that a boyfriend presents a risk factor to a young child,” Kline said. “But it is not true that they’re more likely to harm a child.”

The statistics reflect the fact that mothers are the primary caregivers. Sixteen of the child-abuse and neglect deaths in 2010 were because of prematurity or other medical causes, such as a mother failing to seek medical care for a child or a baby born prematurely because of prenatal drug exposure.

Child abuse and neglect is spread equally across all socio-economic levels.

In fact, the most recent federal study shows that children in families earning below $15,000 a year are more than five times as likely to be considered maltreated compared with other children.

Researchers aren’t clear whether that’s because of the stress of poverty, or if greater scrutiny by state agencies results in more abuse and neglect reports. Most of these families receive some kind of public benefit, such as food stamps or subsidized housing.

“The more challenges that a family experiences and the more stress a family experiences, the more likely children’s needs aren’t going to be met, and they’re gonna be abused” or neglected, Kline said, adding that the vast majority of low-income families don’t abuse or neglect their children.

Other factors that can put children at risk include lack of child care and health care, and the lack of support from extended family. Some argue that case managers sometimes confuse poverty with neglect, and they remove children instead of offering help that would keep families together.

“The biggest connection between poverty and neglect is the confusion of poverty with neglect,” Wexler said. “Either way, your best solution is to target the poverty.”

Source http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/11/27/arizona-cps-myths-identified-cleared-up-by-experts/

Does Foster Care Protect Children?

by Law Journal for Social Justice at Arizona State University

November 16, 2011

by Fatima Badreddine

On Jenna’s eighteenth birthday, she arrived at her home only to discover that her foster parents had taken all of her belongings and placed them in the driveway. She stayed at a friend’s house for a few days, but she soon became homeless. Jenna had been in foster care since she was six years old and was passed around from foster home to foster home. The lack of stability in her life left her traumatized, feeling alone and unwanted. Jenna’s eighteenth birthday should have been a happy day. Instead, it was one of her most hurtful experiences, invoking a renewed sense of anguish and rejection.

Unfortunately, Jenna’s experience illustrates one of many examples of the problems associated with foster care in America. Foster care has been a traumatic experience for children, many of whom are shuffled between different foster homes. Sanda Chipungu and Tricia Bent-Goodley reported in 2004 that after about three months of being placed in a foster home, many children exhibited symptoms of “depression, aggression, or withdrawal.” In severe cases, children exhibited symptoms of “sleep disturbance, hoarding food, excessive eating, self-stimulation, rocking, or failure to thrive.”[1] Like Jenna, more than half of the former-foster children that were surveyed reported that they were not prepared to support themselves after leaving foster care.[2]

However, foster care was created as a temporary injunction to find safe havens for abused and neglected children. Foster care was not designed to be a permanent remedy for abused and neglected children. Rather, the goal was to either return the foster children to their parents, or to place the children for adoption when returning them to their families is inappropriate. However, some children have remained in foster care permanently, being shuffled among different foster homes until they reached the age of majority. This unstable and continuously evolving environment contributes to the psychological problems described by Sandra Chipungu and Tricia Bent-Goodly. Furthermore, some children have been placed in abusive foster homes, meaning that they were shuffled from one abusive or neglectful environment to another. Considering that many children have been negatively impacted by foster care, is it an appropriate method for protecting abused and neglected children?

In Arizona, the statistics for children who have been removed from their home, both temporarily and permanently, are staggering. The number of children in out-of-home care[3] increased monthly from January to June 2011. In January 2011, 10,512 children were in out-of-home care, and by June 2011, 11,082 children were in out-of-home care.[4] These statistics become more significant when compared to the length of time that children remain in out-of-home care. About 22.6% of children remain in out-of-home care for over a year, while 20.7% of children remain in the state’s care for over two years.[5] This means that over twenty percent of foster children in Arizona have not been in a permanent living arrangement for more than two years. Furthermore, the report fails to clarify how long children are in state custody beyond two years, leaving the impression that the Department is attempting to bury this important information.

Likewise, the Arizona Department of Economic Services does not include statistics regarding the mental health and emotional well-being of children under state care. As mentioned above, the longer a child is separated from his/her family and support system, the more likely he/she is to experience emotional distress. Yet, the Department excludes this information from its statistical reports, which prevents the public from reviewing whether the Department adequately meets the needs of foster children.

Unfortunately, some children in Arizona have suffered from abuse while in foster care. Arizona Child Protective Services (“CPS”) does not consistently visit all children in out-of-home care, which is an important element in preventing and reporting foster care abuse. In March 2011, CPS case managers failed to visit 17.5% of children, and licensing case managers failed to visit 11.5% of foster homes.[6] This is a significant amount of children who have not received the minimal monitoring required by the state, thereby increasing the potential for unreported abuse in foster homes and families. In fact, during a mere six month time period, from October 2010 to March 2011, two children in Arizona died while in CPS custody due to “alleged abuse.”[7] The report did not include statistics concerning the number of reported abuses that resulted in harm other than death. Furthermore, the majority of children in out-of-home care are under the age of six[8] and unlikely to have the mental and emotional capacity to understand, let alone report, abuse. Thus, the actual amount abuse inflicted on foster children in Arizona is likely higher than disclosed in the Semi-Annual Child Welfare Report.

Victims of abuse while in state custody may seek restitution through the courts, but this process is complicated by state statutes that grant sovereign immunity to government officials and employees. Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 permits victims of foster care abuse to overcome sovereign immunity, the burden to overcome it is heavy. As a result, there is minimal litigation in the United States and Arizona involving foster care abuse.

In Weatherford ex rel. Michael v. State (2003), the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that foster children could establish liability against state employees for abuse under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court concluded that a foster child “has a right to reasonable safety while in foster care” and that this right required more than protection just from “known or obvious dangers.”[9] So, the Court expanded the previous Grubbs II test to include a negligence liability for social workers.[10]

However, a foster child still has a difficult burden to overcome. He/she must prove that: 1) the social worker was unjustified in acting “with deliberate indifference” by putting or keeping a child in foster care, when the social worker knew or should have known that the child would be exposed to danger; or, 2) the state worker deliberately ignored or refused to obtain information that placing the child in foster care would expose that child to danger, and the worker had “time to consider the placement for a foster child . . . .”[11] Furthermore, the court must consider “the totality of the circumstances” because the social worker is not liable if he/she cannot find placement for the child or is bound by “financial constraints.”[12] The totality of circumstances rule grants wide deference to social workers because the Court does not clarify what constitutes adequate time to consider or find placement. The Court also fails to specify the extent of reasonable “financial constraints.” So, although the Court expanded the state’s liability under § 1983 to include negligence, it simultaneously granted wide deference to social workers, making the plaintiff’s burden difficult to overcome.

Foster care in the United States and Arizona is in a state of chaos and confusion. Although foster care was created as a temporary tool to protect abused and neglected children, a significant amount of children in Arizona remain in foster care for over a year. A year or longer in an unstable and impermanent home environment is a considerable amount of time for a child, making it more likely that the child will develop psychological or physical harm. Until foster care is reformed to account for these issues, it should be reserved as an emergency solution for extreme cases of abuse and neglect that seriously threaten the safety and/or health of the child.

[1] Douglas Abrams & Sarah Ramsey, Children and the Law: Doctrine, Policy and Practice 439 (West, 4th ed. 2010).
[2] Id. at 440.
[3] Defined by the Arizona Department of Economic Security as the number of children in CPS custody “who require placement in a foster care setting.” Clarence H. Carter, Dep’t of Econ. Sec., Child Protective Service Bi-Annual Financial and Accountability Report, at 3 (Ariz. 2011), http://www.azdes.gov/InternetFiles/Reports/pdf/dcyf_ financial_and_program_accountability_2024_report.pdf.
[4] Id. at 3a, 3f.
[5] Clarence H. Carter, Dep’t of Econ. Sec., Child Welfare Reporting Requirements: Semi-Annual Report, at 44 (Ariz. 2011), http:// www.azdes.gov/InternetFiles/Reports/pdf/semi_annual_child_welfare_report_oct_2010_ mar_2011.pdf.
[6] Id. at 46.
[7] Id. at 58.
[8] Id. at 39.
[9] Weatherford ex rel. Michael v. State, 206 Ariz. 529, 537 (2003).
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 538.

Source http://ljsj.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/does-foster-care-protect-children/

CPS seeing a growing number of child abuse deaths in Arizona

Child Protective Services Had Investigated Hospitalized 6-year-old’s Parents

by JJ Hensley on Aug. 12, 2011

State officials were already in the process of investigating an allegation of child abuse on a 6-year-old Phoenix boy when the child’s parents took him to the hospital earlier this week with injuries that Phoenix police allege the child received when one of his parents slammed the boy’s head into a bedroom wall.

Phoenix police arrested Jacob Gibson’s parents, Jennifer Paul, 37, and Benny Gibson, 49, at Phoenix Children’s Hospital earlier this week on suspicion of child abuse.

Jacob remains hospitalized with a swollen brain and is not expected to survive his injuries, according to police.

Child Protective Services officials have been a consistent presence in Jacob’s life, according to a preliminary report released Friday morning, investigating at least five allegations of child abuse during the past four years.

The most recent CPS investigation into allegations that Jacob had golf-ball sized knot on the side of his head and two black eyes was launched last month and is still ongoing, according to the brief CPS report on the state’s involvement with Jacob.

Another investigation -into allegations that Benny Gibson “put his hands around Jacob’s neck in a choking motion” after he picked the boy up from school in May- is also ongoing, according to the report.

CPS officials had also launched three prior investigations into allegations of abuse against Jacob in 2007, 2009 and 2010, but investigators determined each of those allegations were unsubstantiated and offered the family “community services.”

The unsubstantiated allegations listed in the report included:

- A 2007 claim that Jacob was seen with bruises on his legs.

- A report in 2009 that Benny Gibson was yelling at Jacob and hitting him on the head in addition to forcing the boy to sit outside the family’s apartment naked because Jacob wet his pants.

- A 2010 claim that the left side of Jacob’s face was swollen as a result of abuse and that “Benny Gibson rants and yells at Jacob and requires Jacob to stand on a box at attention for punishment.”

A Phoenix police spokesman said officers also went to the family’s apartment near 19th and Glendale avenues during the past two months to investigate a report that Jacob was abused, but no one was home at the time and officers left unable to follow up on the anonymous tip.

Source http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/08/12/child-protective-services-had-investigated-hospitalized-6-year-olds-parents/