Connecticut announces program to deal with child neglect

The Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut officials say they are finalizing changes that will soon reform how the state's child welfare agency deals with less serious neglect cases by working more closely with families.

Department of Children and Families Commissioner Joette Katz announced Thursday that the department will implement a Differential Response system for reports of child abuse and neglect, beginning in early March.

The Differential Response system allows DCF to respond more appropriately to allegations of neglect and reports of child abuse by considering the factors surrounding a claim.

This system will fall under the department's new Strengthening Families practice model, which focuses on family participation in evaluating reports of neglect and abuse, foster care and other services provided by DCF.

Connecticut officials say they are finalizing changes that will soon reform how the state's child welfare agency deals with less serious neglect cases by working more closely with families.

Department of Children and Families Commissioner Joette Katz announced Thursday that the department will implement a Differential Response system for reports of child abuse and neglect, beginning in early March.

The Differential Response system allows DCF to respond more appropriately to allegations of neglect and reports of child abuse by considering the factors surrounding a claim.

This system will fall under the department's new Strengthening Families practice model, which focuses on family participation in evaluating reports of neglect and abuse, foster care and other services provided by DCF.

Source http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/x1882849878/Connecticut-announces-program-to-deal-with-child-neglect#axzz1lyf5xDhr

Poverty is an inadequate reason to take children from families - Michigan

By Vivek Sankaran

Detroit Free Press Guest Writer


A loving father sees a judge place his children in foster care because his Walmart job doesn't pay enough, and he and his child live with his sister.

Another father can't get his two boys out of foster care because he can't afford to buy them separate beds.

And a baby is removed from her parents' custody and placed with strangers simply because the family is homeless -- despite the parents' attempt to place the baby with family friends, instead.

All three Michigan families share a common denominator: poverty.

The foster care system exists to protect children from being abused by their parents. Yet, every day, children are separated from their families and placed in the system for no better reason than their parents' low income.

A short conversation with lawyers, caseworkers and judges bears this truth out. And in a state like Michigan, where the child poverty rate has increased by more than 60% in the last 10 years, recent cuts in public assistance and a staggering economy have only made things worse.

The Legislature, courts and the Department of Human Services must take immediate actions to address this growing problem. Here are steps they should consider taking:

• First, Michigan's Legislature should join other states around the country and revise current laws to clarify that a child cannot be placed in foster care -- nor can a parent's rights be terminated -- solely because of poverty. As noted by the California Court of Appeals, "Indigency, by itself, does not make one an unfit parent."

• Second, courts must enforce federal laws that require the Department of Human Service to make "reasonable efforts" to prevent a child's removal from his or her home. When dealing with poor families, this must include providing services such as emergency cash and housing services, day care or assistance in paying utilities, which may be the only barriers preventing the family from being able to take care of itself. Making these types of efforts is far cheaper than paying for children to live in the homes of licensed foster parents.

• Finally, the DHS must offer comprehensive training and enact policies to help its caseworkers, hundreds of whom are brand new, understand the difference between poverty and neglect. Too many caseworkers seem to be confusing the two and, as a direct result, Michigan children face a risk of being unnecessarily separated from their families.

The unfortunate reality in our state is that some families will continue to struggle for as long as the economy does.

But we need to remember: Society's failure to eradicate the evil of poverty can never justify taking children from their loving parents.

Vivek Sankaran is a clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and the founder of the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy.

Source http://www.freep.com/article/20111229/OPINION05/112290395/-Guest-commentary-Poverty-is-an-inadequate-reason-to-take-children-from-families-?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7COPINION

Interesting Recordings of CPS - Parent Calls

There are no pictures on these videos - they are voice recordings but they are most certainly interesting and show the garbage families go through in dealing with CPS - DCFS. It also shows how our freedom of speech is being trampled on.

Services Part 1



Services Part 2



Allegations -V- Evidence Part 1



Allegations -V- Evidence Part 2

New law to benefit state’s foster care program

Federal rules will let funds be used to keep kids in homes

By Paris Achen

As of Monday, September 26, 2011

A bill awaiting President Barack Obama’s signature would give new federal support to state programs like Washington’s that help keep children out of foster care, according to the bill’s sponsors.

Senate Bill 1542 would reform rules that now prohibit states from using federal foster care funding on programs that help keep children at home with their families. States that reduce the number of case- loads now lose federal dollars for foster care, called Title 4-E funds. Under the bill, those states could tap that stream of money for programs that help keep children at home or reduce the duration of their stay in foster care.

The changes could significantly benefit Washington, which wasn’t able to claim about $2.7 million in federal appropriations between 2008 and 2010 because it reduced its caseload by 13.8 percent.

“We have been implementing innovative programs to improve (the) foster care system for years,” said bill co-sponsor Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., during a speech on the Senate floor Friday. “Unfortunately, instead of being rewarded for these actions, we were penalized, and that is what this legislation has helped to correct.”

The existing federal funding system reimburses states for the number of children placed in foster care. When a state decreases its caseload, it loses money from the federal government. The bill’s supporters said the system offers no incentive for reducing caseloads and penalizes states that have developed innovative programs to keep children out of foster care.

“We do a good job of preventing kids from being taken out of their home in the first place or unifying children with their families,” said Rich Pannkuk, finance director for the state Children’s Administration. “What happens is we lost those Title 4-E funds. This bill gives us the ability to focus on the front end by preventing out-of-home placements while using (federal) Title dollars.”

Sharon Osborne, chief executive officer for the Children’s Home Society of Washington, said keeping children with their permanent family is crucial to emotional and mental development.

“Giving the child the ability to bond is extremely crucial,” Osborne said. “To the extent at which that is interrupted it can cause problems with the child throughout their lives.”

Children’s Home Society, which has offices in Vancouver and Washougal, offers parenting skill development programs to families referred by Child Protective Services. The bill could benefit those programs.

States that want to use the new option for spending the federal dollars have to apply for a “flexible funding waiver” from the federal government and may do so beginning in 2012. The application includes a plan and goals for reducing caseloads. Between 2012 and 2014, 30 states will be awarded the waiver, said Dan Ashby, chief of federal funding at the Children’s Administration. The waivers last for five years, he said.

One of the state services that could receive federal funding under the bill is the Intensive Family Preservation Services Program. That state-backed program provides in-home crisis intervention, education, assistance and skill development to families whose children are at imminent risk of being removed from their home. The skills and resources given to families through the program often can make it safe for the children to remain with their family instead of being placed in a foster home, said Cindy Hardcastle, an area administrator for Child and Family Services in Clark and Skamania counties.

Clark County now has money to serve about 100 families in the program, Hardcastle said.

“We have just so many families we can serve, and that’s it,” Hardcastle said. “We have many, many more who could benefit from the in-home services. If we don’t have capacity to provide intensive at-home services to keep children safe, then we really have to weigh if the child should remain in the home.”

The state has been a national leader in innovative child welfare reform. Cantwell wanted the state to be able to keep federal dollars to support its proactive approach, said Janeen Heath, Cantwell’s deputy press secretary.

The bill was passed in the Senate and House Thursday and Friday and is now in queue for the president’s signature. Obama could sign it by the end of the week, Heath said.

About 600 children are in the foster care system in Clark County, and another 200 families are in the Child Protective Services program, Hardcastle said.

Source http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/sep/27/new-law-to-benefit-states-foster-care-program/?print

Reseda family reunited after year of foster care

Blog author note:
It's interesting to note that this article comments that reunification of children with their family is a "recent" policy. Then why does CPS state that they always try to reunify and they have said that for years? Also, this article makes note that CPS knows that they are ripping families apart. Why would they do that? There are other ways to handle situations rather than add other issues to families by ripping them apart. And what is missing from this story is how false allegations and other strange situations can cause this ripping apart of families. They don't bother to note that many families have done nothing wrong, yet their children are removed. Futhermore, why isn't the number of children abused, neglected and killed in foster care noted? Such dirty secrets....
---

Pablo Nino smiled proudly while posing for pictures with his family on a patch of grass in downtown Los Angeles.

All but one of the Reseda construction worker's six children had spent about a year in foster care, and he was deeply grateful to have them back.

"I'm so happy," the father said in halting English.

Nino is a beneficiary of the county Department of Children and Family Services' relatively recent drive to reunite children with biological parents and relatives who have consistently shown desire and ability to once again safely care for them.

"I think it's important for families to be together," said Phillip Browning, who took over as interim director of the DCFS three weeks ago.

"So often, we've taken families and pulled them apart," he said. "Now, I think there's a renewed emphasis to make sure that we can provide the support that is needed to keep a family together."

Nino was among several parents and social workers honored by the county Board of Supervisors on Tuesday for being "Family Reunification Heroes."

During the fiscal year that ended in June, DCFS reunited 9,730 children with their families, though 977 of them were in foster care again as of Tuesday.

DCFS had more than 35,000 open cases as of Aug. 31, including about 9,100 who are receiving family reunification services.

Another 15,500 are in out-of-home placement, such as foster homes and group homes. Five years ago, that number was around 50,000.

Sometimes returning children to families that harmed or neglected them in the past can lead again to tragic outcomes, acknowledged Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.

Still, he contends that returning them is less risky than keeping them in prolonged foster care, citing research from 2007 and 2008 that involved more than 15,000 children.

The studies found that children who were left in their own homes fared better in later life than comparably maltreated children placed in foster care.

"When you think about how traumatic it is to be completely uprooted from everyone you know, and bounced from one home to another, and then another, the findings should not surprise anyone," Wexler said.

"Some children really do have to be taken away, but foster care is an extremely toxic intervention that has to be used sparingly and in small doses," he added.

The DCFS was unable to provide statistics on the number of children who died from abuse or neglect after being returned to their families.

Wexler said when such tragedies do occur, they can be blamed on lack of sufficient staffing at the DCFS.

About 34,000 children entered its system during the last fiscal year.

"By and large, when you have the cases that go wrong, it's because workers don't have time to investigate carefully enough because they're so overloaded, they can't make that extra phone call or check with that extra source, or review the child's history carefully enough," Wexler said.

Browning said he intends to have more employees handle casework.

"We're looking at all the positions within the department that can be moved to do frontline work, move them from administrative role back to a case-carrying situation," he said.

He also intends to provide them with better technology so they can have as much data as possible to make an informed decision about cases.

In Nino's case, DCFS intervened to take custody over his children after his only daughter, then age 6, came to school with a bloody gash at the top of her head.

Nino had hit her with a belt buckle for telling a lie.

DCFS placed the five children in two separate foster homes. Nino's sixth child had not been born at the time.

"I felt bad, I was so sad," Nino said Tuesday while recalling the incident.

He spent about a year trying to win his children back, including attending parenting and anger management classes.

Finally, last November, DCFS deemed it safe to reunite the family.

Judge Michael Nash, presiding judge of the Los Angeles Juvenile Court, said parents should be given a chance to redeem themselves.

"A family that is unfit at a particular point in time may not be unfit forever," he said. "Families are the cornerstone, the foundation of our community in this country, and we should do everything possible to maintain families when we can safely do so."

Source http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_18941445

Justice Brownstone Talks About Child Protection and What To Do When CPS Is At Your Door

Billed as:

Find out what to do when child protection services come knocking on your door. Justice Brownstone interviews two lawyers - one that represents families against child protection agencies, and the other that represents the agencies in disputes.

Our Opinion:

This video is done on the side of the courts, in our opinion. It does offer a bit of information on the inner workings. Otherwise, they don't really offer parents any advice on what to do to protect themselves, their children or their rights.

The best advice in this video - Get A Lawyer!

CASA - Best Interest Of The Children?

NCCPR has written a good article about CASA and how sometimes, the best interest of the child takes the back seat to arrogance and know it all attitudes. While there are some very good CASA workers who really do care about the children and do a very good job, some CASA volunteers can and do help CPS to destroy families.

http://www.nccprblog.org/2011/07/foster-care-in-texas-casa-rubs-salt-in.html

Is Kinship Care Good for Kids?

by Tiffany Conway and Rutledge Q. Hutson

March 2, 2007

More than 2.5 million children are being raised by grandparents and other relatives because their parents are unable—for a variety of reasons—to care for them. 1 These relative caregivers are willing to care for the children—but they may require financial help in order to meet the children’s needs. A number of states have utilized subsidized guardianship programs as a way of supporting such families, often called “kinship families.” Such placements help the child to, among other things, maintain family—and oftentimes community—connections. These programs provide subsidies to relatives and, in some cases, other interested, non-relative adults who are caring for and have a close emotional bond with children who are not biologically their own.

Subsidized guardianship is consistent with national policy preferences espoused in both the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997,2 and there is considerable evidence of the value of subsidized guardianship programs. Still, some wonder whether kinship care is a good thing—and how we know this. This fact sheet addresses these often unasked but crucial questions.

Children in kinship care experience greater stability.

􀂾 Children in kinship foster care have been found to experience fewer placement changes than children placed with non-kin foster parents do.3

􀂾 Multiple studies indicate the value of placing siblings together, when safe and appropriate.4 Perhaps equally as important, children in foster care consistently express the desire to be with their siblings. Research has shown that children in foster care are more likely to live with their siblings if they are placed with kin.5

􀂾 Fewer children in kinship care report having changed schools (63 percent) than do children in non-relative foster care (80 percent) or those in group care (93 percent).6

􀂾 Children who reunify with their birth parent(s) after kinship care are less likely to re-enter foster care than those who had been in non-relative foster placements or in group care facilities.7

􀂾 The Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR) are designed to ensure that states are achieving safety, permanency, and child and family well-being. Kinship care bolsters states’ ability to comply with federal requirements by providing children with stability and permanency.8

Children in kinship care report more positive perceptions of their placements and have fewer behavioral problems.

􀂾 Compared to children in non-relative foster care and those in group care, children in kinship care are:

􀀹 More likely to report liking those with whom they live (93 percent vs. 79 percent [non-relative foster care] and 51 percent [group care])

􀀹 More likely to report wanting their current placement to be their permanent home (61 percent vs. 27 percent and 2 percent)9

􀀹 Less likely to report having tried to leave or run away (6 percent vs. 16 percent and 35 percent)10

􀀹 More likely to report that they “always felt loved” (94 percent vs. 82 percent [non-relative foster care])11

􀂾 In terms of scores in physical, cognitive, emotional, and skill-based domains, children in kinship care have scores more like those of children who are able to remain at home following a child abuse and neglect investigation than do children in foster or group care.12

􀂾 Both teachers and caregivers tend to rate children in kinship care as having fewer behavioral problems than do their peers in other out-of-home placement settings.13

Kinship care respects cultural traditions and may reduce racial disparities in a variety of outcomes.

In a number of cultures—including many communities of color—the family and home are understood to include the extended family, and in some cases the community. Kinship care represents an opportunity for states to provide federally required safety and permanency to a greater number of children who come into contact with the child welfare system, while enhancing their well-being by providing them with access to their ethnic, racial, and cultural traditions.14

Kinship caregivers provide stability to children and youth with incarcerated parents.

According to a 2000 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 75 percent of mothers and about 18 percent of fathers incarcerated in state prisons in 1997 reported that their children were being cared for by a grandparent or other relative.15 The incarceration of a parent is often traumatic on a variety of levels for children, and living with family members can provide some measure of stability.

In spite of the numerous benefits associated with kinship care, myths remain.

Myth: “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
In fact, research shows that children living with relatives are no more likely—and are perhaps less likely—than children living with non-kin foster parents to experience abuse or neglect after being removed from their homes. A 1997 study found that non-kin foster parents were twice as likely as licensed kinship foster parents to have a confirmed report of maltreatment.16 Furthermore, Illinois found that children in kinship foster care are at lower risk for maltreatment than are children in either specialized or non-relative foster care.17

Myth: “It’s your moral responsibility.”
Clearly, kinship caregivers agree. They take the responsibility of raising their grandchildren, nieces, and nephews when the children’s parents, for a variety of reasons, cannot. These caregivers lack neither morals nor a sense of responsibility; they do, however, lack resources. They may be living on a fixed income or be retired; whatever the reason, it is highly unlikely that they planned financially for raising a relative’s child.18

􀂾 The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that it costs at least $7,000 per year to raise a child.19

􀂾 The vast majority of children living with relative caregivers are eligible for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) child-only grant. However, 70 percent of relative caregivers do not access TANF or any other public financial assistance.

􀂾 Even when caregivers access TANF child-only grants, this assistance amounts to, on average, just over $4,000 per year—or about 57 percent of the anticipated cost of raising a child.20

Research debunks these old fears about the risk of placing children with kin.

In fact, the research tells us that many children who cannot live with their parents benefit from living with grandparents and other family members. Supporting kinship caregivers in their efforts to address the needs of these children thus provides an opportunity to improve the lives of many children who have already experienced trauma.

1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census American Fact Finder Advanced Query. Calculations by Children’s Defense Fund of the number of children living in relative-headed households without either parent present.
2 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104-193) requires states to consider giving preference to relatives over non-related caregivers when determining a placement for a child, assuming that relative meets all relevant state child protection standards. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89) clearly establishes legal guardianship as an acceptable and appropriate permanency plan.
3 Testa, M. 2001. Kinship care and permanency. Journal of Social Service Research, Vol. 28 (1) pp. 25 – 43.; Chamberlain, P., et al. 2006. Who disrupts from placement in foster and kinship care? Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 30, pp. 409 – 424.
4 Herrick, M. & Piccus, W. 2005. Sibling Connections: The importance of nurturing sibling bonds in the foster care system.
5 Shlonsky, A., Webster, D., & Needell, B. 2003. The ties that bind: A cross-sectional analysis of siblings in foster care. Journal of Social Service Research, Vol. 29 (3) pp. 27 – 52.; Wulczyn, F. & Zimmerman, E. 2005. Sibling placements in longitudinal perspective. Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 27, pp. 741-763.
6 National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) CPS Sample Component Wave 1 Data Analysis Report, April 2005. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, 2005).
7 Courtney, M. & Needell, B. “Outcomes of kinship care: Lessons from California.” In Child welfare research review. Vol. 2. J.D. Berrick, R.P. Barth and N. Gilbert, eds. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, pp. 130 – 149.
8 Outcome P1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations; and, Outcome P2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
9 NSCAW 2005.
10NSCAW 2005.
11 Wilson, L. Satisfaction of 1,100 Children in Out-of-Home Care, Primarily Family Foster Care, in Illinois’ Child Welfare System. Tallahassee, FL: Wilson Resources, 1996.
12 NSCAW 2005.
13 NSCAW 2005.
14Casey Family Programs. Commitment to Kin: Elements of a support and service system for kinship care. 2004; CFSR Outcome S2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
15 Mumola, C. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2000).
16 Zuravin, S.J., et al. “Child Maltreatment in family foster care: Foster home correlates.” In Child welfare research review. Vol. 2 J.D. Berrick, R.P. Barth. And N. Gilbert, eds. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, pp. 189-200.
17 A Child Welfare Research Agenda for the State of Illinois. 1999. Urbana, IL: The Children and Family Research Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
18 Some question whether relatives who cannot afford to care for a child without assistance are appropriate placements. CLASP believes that placements with relatives, like all placements, should be made on a case-by-case basis and that when relatives offer benefits, like greater stability and less trauma, they should be supported in caring for a child.
19 This calculation is based on the cost of raising the younger of two children in a single-parent, two-child household with a before-tax income of less than $41,700. Lino, Mark. 2005. Expenditures on Children by Families, 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1528-2004. Retrieved 12/7/06 from http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2004.pdf
20 Table 42, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families- Active Cases, TANF Families with no adult recipients receiving cash assistance October 2003 – September 2004. Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. Retrieved 12/6/06 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov//programs/ofa/character/FY2004/tab42.htm.

Source: Center for Law and Social Policy • www.clasp.org