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/

Oregon - Girl’s death spurs lawsuit

The state Department of Human Services faces a $1.5 million case over the abuse suffered by Jeanette Maples

By Karen McCowan

The Register-Guard

Oregon’s child protective services agency faces a $1.5 million lawsuit for failing to prevent the 2009 starvation, torture and beating death of north Eugene teenager Jeanette Maples.

Portland attorney David Paul mailed the wrongful death complaint Monday to Lane County Circuit Court. The court clerk had not received or filed the lawsuit Tuesday afternoon, but Paul’s legal assistant provided a copy to The Register-Guard. Paul has successfully represented children injured in state foster care, including a record-breaking $2 million settlement for twins injured by poor foster care.

The suit on behalf of Jeanette’s estate targets the state Department of Human Services, which is responsible for investigating reports of child abuse and neglect. The complaint accuses the agency of failing to reasonably respond to multiple reports over four years that Jeanette was being abused. It called the state’s inaction “a substantial factor” in her death at age 15.

Jeanette’s mother, Angela McAnulty, is on Oregon’s death row after pleading guilty in February to the aggravated murder of her daughter. The dead teen’s stepfather, Richard McAnulty, is serving a life sentence after pleading guilty to murder by abuse. He denied inflicting harm, but admitted failing to protect Jeanette from her mother or to report her injuries and starvation to authorities.

“Jeanette Maples’ death could have been prevented if the State of Oregon exercised reasonable care in responding to reports that Jeanette Maples was being abused,” the suit charges. It alleges that state workers failed to “investigate and heed” allegations of abuse from reliable sources beginning in 2006, four years before Jeanette died. It also accuses the agency of failing to consider Angela McAnulty’s documented history of child abuse in California before moving to Oregon.

The suit also faults the agency for failing to adequately assess Jeanette’s “vulnerability to abuse.” It says workers wrongfully concluded that Jeanette “could fend for herself as a young teenager” despite “a history of abuse and neglect by the adult parents in her home.”

Those charges echoed the January 2010 findings of an internal Department of Human Services critical incident team.

The suit says state “negligence” was a substantial factor in Jeanette’s “suffering, humiliation, pain, fear, anguish, and torture” and ultimately in her violent death. As a result, she suffered “severe hunger, starvation, anemia, dehydration, alienation of affection, distress and a lack of the enjoyment of her short life, to her non-economic damage in the amount of $500,000.”

Siblings not considered heirs

The Oregon Attorney General’s Office, which will defend the Department of Human Services in the case, declined comment on the suit Tuesday.

“It is the policy of the Department of Justice not to comment on pending litigation,” spokesman Tony Green said.

The bulk of the lawsuit’s damages would go to Jeanette’s father, Anthony Maples, of California. The suit seeks $1 million in noneconomic damages for his loss of Jeanette’s “society, love and companionship.” As her “lone qualified heir” under Oregon law, Anthony Maples would also receive $500,000 the suit seeks as the value of the estate his daughter would probably have accumulated in her lifetime if not for her wrongful death.

The suit seeks an additional $7,000 to cover the teen’s burial and related expenses.

Anthony Maples could not be reached for comment Tuesday. He told The Register-Guard shortly after Jeanette’s death that he had not been in touch with his daughter for nearly a decade. According to his unsuccessful February 2010 court petition to be appointed personal representative of her estate, he had nine drug possession convictions — at least five involving methamphetamine — between 1990 and 2008. The petition shows that he was in and out of jail until late 2008, when he entered and completed a one-year residential treatment program. According to a June 2010 declaration in support of that petition, Maples had been clean and sober for 16 months.

Lane County Circuit Judge Lauren Holland in August 2010 denied Maples’ request, instead appointing Portland attorney Erin Olson as the estate’s personal representative.

Step-grandmother speaks out

The prospect of Anthony Maples collecting damages from the suit distressed Jeanette’s step-grandmother, Lynn McAnulty. She testified during Angela McAnulty’s trial that she made multiple — and apparently futile — abuse reports to the Department of Human Services in the last months of the teen’s life.

“Why should he profit off Jeanette’s death?” the Leaburg woman said. “He doesn’t deserve it because he wasn’t involved in her life. He didn’t know her. He didn’t even come to her memorial service.”

Lynn McAnulty said lawsuit proceeds would more rightfully go to Jeanette’s surviving half-siblings — a 14-year-old girl and an 8-year-old boy — both in foster homes and in state protective custody. Absent a will, however, only a deceased person’s parents, spouse or children are legal heirs under Oregon law.

In a interview this month, McAnulty elaborated on her trial testimony that she repeatedly and unsuccessfully phoned child protective service workers in 2009, urging them to investigate Jeanette’s emaciation and injuries. She acknowledged posing as a concerned neighbor, saying she feared losing the limited access she had to her grandchildren if Angela McAnulty learned she’d reported abuse. (According to child protection caseworkers, the agency protects the confidentiality of people who report abuse.)

Lynn McAnulty said she told one phone screener, “This child looks like an Ethiopian (famine victim),” only to have the screener respond with “something like, ‘You’re telling us she needs medical help — that’s not us,’ and, ‘Are you sure she’s not anorexic?’ ”

McAnulty said she placed her last call to the agency the week before Jeanette died, after her son called to tell her he’d caught the girl drinking from the toilet.

“I said, ‘Someone needs to go there. Something’s wrong with this child. It’s urgent,’” McAnulty said. “I told her, ‘I’ve called several times,’ and she said, ‘We don’t just drop everything — we have to go through channels.’ ”

McAnulty also reiterated her trial testimony that she asked one screener if she should call the police, but was advised that child protection workers could more effectively investigate.

The agency’s internal investigation, now posted on its website (www.oregon.gov/DHS/abuse/publications/children/cirt-jm-initial-report.pdf) without the redactions that originally blacked out information that might have compromised Angela McAnulty’s trial, reports only two calls in 2009, both from “the same individual” on Dec. 1. It says the person reported that Angela McAnulty’s children were being “abused and neglected, especially the older one.”

Report details decisions

The newly public material says the caller reported that the older child — Jeanette — was not attending school, had “current marks and bruises” and “appeared malnourished.” It also said the caller reported that the child was “not allowed to speak with her.”

“The (caller) initially would not provide the last name of the children or an address,” the state’s internal report said. “In a subsequent call that same day, the reporter called back and provided the last name and address for the family. Concluding that the call did not constitute a report of abuse or neglect, the matter was closed at screening.”

The critical incident team found that conclusion to be in error, the internal report said.

“This report in fact constituted abuse or neglect and should have been assigned for child protective service assessment,” it said.

The team’s report also acknowledged that additional calls “may have been made but not documented” if they “did not rise to the level of abuse or neglect.”

The newly public material from the internal report shows that the agency responded to two 2006 reports that Jeanette was “being punished by being forced to kneel on the tile floor with her nose to the wall and hands behind her back for extended periods of time, that she was being forced to eat chili peppers, and that her hair was being pulled making her head sore.” But the agency “could not determine whether there was a safety threat” to the girl because of inconsistent information about food deprivation and punishment from Angela and Richard McAnulty, Jeanette’s sister, and Jeanette herself.

The new material also details the agency’s response to a 2007 report from “a credible source” that Jeanette had a bruise on her chin. It says the critical incident team found that the agency erred in closing that case without further assessment, based on Jeanette’s “denial that abuse had occurred.”

The agency has adopted new protocols in response to the internal report — including a policy of more thoroughly investigating cases involving children such as Jeanette, who are not in school or other settings where other adults can see their condition.

Source http://www.registerguard.com/web/updates/26794414-55/jeanette-maples-death-oregon-paul.html.csp