GRANT SCHULTE Associated Press
LINCOLN, Neb. — Nebraska's attempt to reform its child welfare system this year fails to address the fact that too many children are yanked from their homes and kept in foster care, a national child advocacy group said Monday.
The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform criticized Nebraska's reform proposals in a biting new report, which blamed most of the state's problems on a "take the child and run" mentality that needlessly splits families apart.
Lawmakers are on the verge of passing child welfare measures this session that would scale back caseloads for social workers, create a child welfare watchdog that reports to the Legislature and end the state's experiment with privatized services in all but two Omaha-area counties.
But family advocates said most of the measures fail to address the core problems: Nebraska removes children from their homes at a rate twice the national average, and keeps a higher proportion of its children in foster care than any other state.
Nebraska state officials say they use an evidence-based tool to decide which children are safe and unsafe in their homes, and will work with families and community services when possible to keep them together.
Richard Wexler, the coalition's executive director, said Nebraska child welfare workers too often see poverty in homes and assume the children are suffering from neglect.
Wexler said the glut of children becoming state wards led to high caseloads, which contributed to caseworker burnout and turnover that has destabilized the system. Costs have soared as well, and some children have had more than four caseworkers.
"Not only does Nebraska's obscene rate of removal do enormous harm to the children needlessly taken, it also overloads caseworkers so they have even less time to find children in real danger," Wexler said. "As a result, the take-the-child-and-run mentality which dominates Nebraska child welfare leaves all children less safe."
Richard Wexler, the group's executive director, says Nebraska social workers too often see poverty in homes and assume the children are suffering from neglect.
Melanie Williams-Smotherman, executive director of the Nebraska's Family Advocacy Movement, said the state's child welfare services are comprised of "career child savers" who use confidentiality and safety laws to pry children away from families.
"Their spirit is broken, their children have been harmed and alienated, and they have lost all necessary resources to remain stable and functioning," Williams-Smotherman said.
State child welfare officials said they are "on the same page" as the family advocates, and want to see fewer children taken from their homes. Lawmakers and child advocates have repeatedly criticized the state Department of Health and Human Services for failing to reduce caseloads and control costs.
Vicki Maca, who oversees the Division of Children and Family Services, said the state's Families Matter effort "is built on the goal of having fewer children in the state's care and serving them at home when it's safe to do so.
"We want a system that allows parents the opportunity to have access to services in their own community without state involvement," she said. "That is what our reform is all about."
Maca said the Department of Health and Human Services plans to apply for a federal waiver that would give the state more flexibility in how it uses child welfare dollars.
States are required to use most of the federal money for out-of-home services, which, according to some critics, creates a financial incentive to keep children in the system. Lawmakers and child advocates have pushed a measure that would require the department to apply for the waiver, which would free state officials to use the money for in-home services, such as parental counseling and substance abuse programs.
Child advocates have said Nebraska should seek the waiver right away, because states must compete for the waiver. Maca said the state needs to maximize the amount of waiver money the state can receive.
Nearly 8 out of 1,000 children were taken from their homes in Nebraska in 2010, compared with 3.4 nationally, the report found. The report also found a "racial bias" in foster care placements, with African-American children entering the system at a rate 3.4 times higher than the general population, and Native American children at 6.8 times greater.
Source http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/de2585a5c2254972946afca8e961d683/NE--Child-Welfare-Report/
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Showing posts with label child welfare system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child welfare system. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
L.A. judge plans to open child dependency courts to press, public
The presiding judge of Los Angeles County’s juvenile court said Monday he would issue an order in the coming days that would increase access for the press and public in a branch of the legal system that handles child abuse and foster care cases.
Judge Michael Nash’s annoucement capped a hearing on his proposed order that drew an overflow crowd to hear a debate that had sharply divided many involved in the child welfare system.
Much of the debate since his proposal was floated in November centered on the perceived benefits or weaknesses of more openness, but Nash opened his hearing by saying he wanted to focus solely on existing law and stay clear of broader policy discussions.
“My purpose is to implement the statute that applies and the case law that applies,” Nash said.
Under his proposed order, the news media would be presumed to have a legitimate interest that would allow them to attend hearings. Other members of the public would have to demonstrate a legitimate interest or be present with the consent of the child or the child's attorney.
The news media and other members of the public could be barred from the courtroom but only after an objection is raised by one of the parties to the case. The objection would have to demonstrate that “there is a reasonable likelihood that access will be harmful to the child’s or children’s best interest.”
Kelli Sager, an attorney for the Los Angeles Times, said Nash’s proposed order finally provides a road map for judges who are attempting to implement a law that allows them to “admit such persons as he deems to have a direct and legitimate interest.”
“For 20 years,” she said, “there has been no process set up … and the process has been inconsistent or ad hoc at best.”
Leslie Starr Heimov, executive director of the Children’s Law Center of California, which represents the vast majority of children in the dependency system, said her firm continues to consider an appeal if the order is implemented. However, she said recent revisions “largely cured” her objections by raising the bar for non-news-media members of the public to remain in the courtroom.
Heimov said in an interview that her biggest remaining concern involves the hearings that would take place if an objection to public or news media attendance is raised. Such hearings should be closed to the public, she said, while lawyers argue about the potential harm to the child’s interests.
“Otherwise, we’re exposing the child to harm before the finding of the harm,” she said.
If that issue is resolved, she said her office may not appeal the order.
Source http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/judge-to-allow-public-access-to-dependency-court.html
Judge Michael Nash’s annoucement capped a hearing on his proposed order that drew an overflow crowd to hear a debate that had sharply divided many involved in the child welfare system.
Much of the debate since his proposal was floated in November centered on the perceived benefits or weaknesses of more openness, but Nash opened his hearing by saying he wanted to focus solely on existing law and stay clear of broader policy discussions.
“My purpose is to implement the statute that applies and the case law that applies,” Nash said.
Under his proposed order, the news media would be presumed to have a legitimate interest that would allow them to attend hearings. Other members of the public would have to demonstrate a legitimate interest or be present with the consent of the child or the child's attorney.
The news media and other members of the public could be barred from the courtroom but only after an objection is raised by one of the parties to the case. The objection would have to demonstrate that “there is a reasonable likelihood that access will be harmful to the child’s or children’s best interest.”
Kelli Sager, an attorney for the Los Angeles Times, said Nash’s proposed order finally provides a road map for judges who are attempting to implement a law that allows them to “admit such persons as he deems to have a direct and legitimate interest.”
“For 20 years,” she said, “there has been no process set up … and the process has been inconsistent or ad hoc at best.”
Leslie Starr Heimov, executive director of the Children’s Law Center of California, which represents the vast majority of children in the dependency system, said her firm continues to consider an appeal if the order is implemented. However, she said recent revisions “largely cured” her objections by raising the bar for non-news-media members of the public to remain in the courtroom.
Heimov said in an interview that her biggest remaining concern involves the hearings that would take place if an objection to public or news media attendance is raised. Such hearings should be closed to the public, she said, while lawyers argue about the potential harm to the child’s interests.
“Otherwise, we’re exposing the child to harm before the finding of the harm,” she said.
If that issue is resolved, she said her office may not appeal the order.
Source http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/judge-to-allow-public-access-to-dependency-court.html
Saturday, January 7, 2012
N.J. Assembly panel approves bill to broaden how DYFS investigators define child abuse
By Susan K. Livio/Statehouse Bureau
TRENTON — After the deaths last year of two girls whose parents were not deemed a threat by the Division of Youth and Family Services, an Assembly panel approved a bill Thursday that would broaden how investigators define child abuse in New Jersey.
The measure (A-4109/S1570), which was unanimously approved by the Assembly Human Services Committee, must be approved by the full Assembly no later than Tuesday morning, when the two-year legislative session draws to a close. The Senate has already approved it.
Under the proposed bill, agency investigators could choose among three findings when determining whether there is a valid abuse complaint instead of the current two, which some say limits the ability to protect children.
The proposed measure would allow investigators to "substantiate" a claim if there was sufficient evidence, consider it "unfounded" if no safety risk was detected, or select a new third option — "not substantiated." That would apply if there was not enough evidence to support a complaint, but investigators suspected the child was still "placed at substantial risk of harm."
The families of both children had been investigated for abuse and neglect, but a number of times DYFS workers considered the concerns "unfounded."
Since 2004, the term "unfounded" has held two meanings — no evidence of abuse, or some evidence but not enough to make a solid case. The state dropped the "unsubstantiated with concerns" category out of concern that investigators were not gathering enough facts to make a valid decision.
"Hopefully this legislation will help investigators capture a sizeable portion of abuse cases that might otherwise fall through the cracks," said Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen), the committee chairwoman who was a sponsor of the bill.
Jesse Moskowitz, a retired assistant director of DYFS, said passage of the measure by the panel "represents an acknowledgement that a well-intended but flawed change six years ago required correction and clarification in order to accurately classify child abuse or neglect findings."
Support for the bill is not unanimous.
"They should be focusing on clarifying policy and improving quality of investigations so that they make good determinations, not feel comfortable with an inconclusive category," Judith Meltzer, a court-appointed monitor who is overseeing an overhaul of the state’s child welfare system, said afterward.
A representative from the Communications Workers of America Local 1038, representing 3,000 DYFS employees, testified in support the bill, but at the same time asked the committee to look into an increasing number of caseloads investigators are handling but the agency is hiding.
The representative, Cataherine Donatos, said the agency was trying to conceal the number of cases out of concern that the judge who ordered the overhaul would find the state out of compliance and order sanctions.
She said that in one DYFS office, 27 workers who investigate child abuse exceeded the court-imposed limit of 12 cases a month, with some juggling 15 to 21 cases.
She added that some cases were transferred to other professionals on paper, but that that staffers were still doing the work and that those who did not find a way to lower casesloads were disciplined.
Donatos said that after the union filed a grievance, the agency transferred six workers and hired a supervisor.
A spokeswoman for DYFS, Leida Arce, said transferring cases to other staff when the workload increased was "a common practice" because everyone is trained in investigations.
Source http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/assembly_panel_approves_bill_t_2.html
TRENTON — After the deaths last year of two girls whose parents were not deemed a threat by the Division of Youth and Family Services, an Assembly panel approved a bill Thursday that would broaden how investigators define child abuse in New Jersey.
The measure (A-4109/S1570), which was unanimously approved by the Assembly Human Services Committee, must be approved by the full Assembly no later than Tuesday morning, when the two-year legislative session draws to a close. The Senate has already approved it.
Under the proposed bill, agency investigators could choose among three findings when determining whether there is a valid abuse complaint instead of the current two, which some say limits the ability to protect children.
The proposed measure would allow investigators to "substantiate" a claim if there was sufficient evidence, consider it "unfounded" if no safety risk was detected, or select a new third option — "not substantiated." That would apply if there was not enough evidence to support a complaint, but investigators suspected the child was still "placed at substantial risk of harm."
The families of both children had been investigated for abuse and neglect, but a number of times DYFS workers considered the concerns "unfounded."
Since 2004, the term "unfounded" has held two meanings — no evidence of abuse, or some evidence but not enough to make a solid case. The state dropped the "unsubstantiated with concerns" category out of concern that investigators were not gathering enough facts to make a valid decision.
"Hopefully this legislation will help investigators capture a sizeable portion of abuse cases that might otherwise fall through the cracks," said Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen), the committee chairwoman who was a sponsor of the bill.
Jesse Moskowitz, a retired assistant director of DYFS, said passage of the measure by the panel "represents an acknowledgement that a well-intended but flawed change six years ago required correction and clarification in order to accurately classify child abuse or neglect findings."
Support for the bill is not unanimous.
"They should be focusing on clarifying policy and improving quality of investigations so that they make good determinations, not feel comfortable with an inconclusive category," Judith Meltzer, a court-appointed monitor who is overseeing an overhaul of the state’s child welfare system, said afterward.
A representative from the Communications Workers of America Local 1038, representing 3,000 DYFS employees, testified in support the bill, but at the same time asked the committee to look into an increasing number of caseloads investigators are handling but the agency is hiding.
The representative, Cataherine Donatos, said the agency was trying to conceal the number of cases out of concern that the judge who ordered the overhaul would find the state out of compliance and order sanctions.
She said that in one DYFS office, 27 workers who investigate child abuse exceeded the court-imposed limit of 12 cases a month, with some juggling 15 to 21 cases.
She added that some cases were transferred to other professionals on paper, but that that staffers were still doing the work and that those who did not find a way to lower casesloads were disciplined.
Donatos said that after the union filed a grievance, the agency transferred six workers and hired a supervisor.
A spokeswoman for DYFS, Leida Arce, said transferring cases to other staff when the workload increased was "a common practice" because everyone is trained in investigations.
Source http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/assembly_panel_approves_bill_t_2.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)