Child Protective Services Demand Submission, Not Cooperation

A few days ago a young married couple appeared in my law office for their first consultation. Their children had been taken into custody by the Kansas SRS, our state's child protective agency. The parents had completed all of the tasks assigned to them by the state's social worker. Nonetheless, the social worker described them as "uncooperative."

The couple had clearly cooperated with the foster care system. They completed all tasks assigned to them. However, in juvenile cases, the label "uncooperative" often means "unsubmissive."

The child protective system enforces social hierarchy. Social workers are, by definition, professionals. They must have at least a bachelor's degree from a university. They must pass licensing examinations and maintain continuing education units.

Everyone else involved in child protection shares their elilte background. The lawyers and judges all graduated from law school and passed bar exams. The therapists completed their college degrees and obtained their professional licensures. Other court officials had to achieve professional or paraprofessional credentials to get their jobs.

In contrast, the families they serve usually come from a different culture. They found fewer opportunities for education and cultural enrichment. They often aren't college educated or professionally licensed.

Child abuse and neglect happens with equal frequency across all income classes, ethnicity and culture. However, the poor and disadvantaged are disproporiationatly likely to lose their children to foster care.

To get their children back home from foster care, these parents must complete the tasks assigned to them on a case plan or plan of reintegration. The assigned tasks often go beyond the reasons for the child's removal. For example, if a child is removed because of the parents' substance abuse, the plan might require more than drug rehabilitation. The plan typically requires steady employment, stable housing, and completion of parenting classes. In effect, the case plan requires the parents to fake for a while the middle class lifestyle that the professionals take for granted.

In short, the plan requires the parents to look and behave like the ideal "Leave It To Beaver" family envisioned by the professionals in the case. Like the professionals' s own elite experience or imagination, this ideal family looks and acts like white, college educated, upper middle class parents.

I don't believe child welfare professionals know that they enforce social hierarchy. As they go about their daily business, they think they are helping children. However, all child welfare professionals-- including social workers, lawyers, therapists and judges-- must acknowledge their deeply held prejudices about their image of ideal parents. A parent does not need to share their elite background to parent adequately.

We encourage parents with children in foster care to "cooperate" (that is, to submitt) to the social worker and other officals in your case. Make your social worker your best friend. Leave the hard advocacy to your lawyer.

Texas Juvenile Justice System Continues to Unravel

The Texas juvenile justice system continued to unravel this week. The Chicago Tribune reported that the sentences of many of the 4,700 delinquent youths being held in Texas juvenile prisons might have been arbitrarily and unfairly extended by prison authorities. Thousands of youths could be freed in a matter of weeks as part of a sweeping overhaul of the scandal-plagued system.

Meanwhile, the Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle ran a story from the Associated Press that frustrated state lawmakers told the man put in charge of the scandalized Texas Youth Commission he isn't moving fast enough to change the agency and restore public confidence in the juvenile justice system.

"We're studying this thing to death," said Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, the chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. "It's time to act, heads to roll."

The problems in Texas arise from indeterminate sentences. Juvenile offenders can be sent to youth correctional facilities, such as the John Shero State Juvenile Correctional Facility pictured above, for an indterminate time up to the age of 21. However, they may become eligible for release any time after serving nine months at the discretion of prison officials.

The detaining authorities are supposed to use an elaborate point system to modify behavior. However, the system leaves too much discretion in the hands of the adults. In Texas, some of the adults abused that discretion to sexually abuse the youth offenders.

"The system is wide open for abuse and corruption," said the ACLU's Harrell. "How difficult would it be for a 12-year-old kid to file a complaint on an assistant superintendent of a facility when that assistant superintendent is actually the one who is sexually abusing her and that same person gets to decide when she gets out? Basically the official gets to say, 'Comply and keep quiet or I'll keep you here until you're 21.'"

Without excusing the individuals involved, the very structure of indeterminate sentences opens the children to abuse. This same structure appears not only in Texas, but in juvenile systems throughout the United States.

For example, in Kansas, where I practice Juvenile Law, direct commitments to the Youth Correctional Facility must state a determinate sentence. However, juvenile offenders might also be placed into the custody of the state's Juvenile Justice Authority for an indeterminate time. The Kansas Revised Juvenile Offender Code incorporates requirements from the federal Adoptions and Safe Families Act (ASFA) to ensure adequate progress toward returning the juvenile home. Nonetheless, the case managers and facility managers maintain substantial discretion on the child's daily privileges and duration of incarceration.

Discretion should permit the courts to adapt sentences to the specific needs of the child, especially for the seventy percent of juvenile offenders with mental disorders. However, that discretion should be excercised by a court, not by a prison guard. In court, the child and her family would have the right to legal counsel and the opportunity to present their case before an impartial judge. Of course, this proposal assumes that in practice juvenile courts extend due process to families of juvenile offenders. Whether that is true in practice remains another issue for a different post.

Does day care make children misbehave in school?

A federally financed study found that keeping your child in day care for a year or longer increases the likelihood that your child's behavior will later disrupt a school class. The affect on behavior persists through the sixth grade. Moreover, this impact occurred regardless of the quality of the day care.

Child custody lawyers and litigants may use the study to support their cases. For example, a stay-at-home parent could propose a parenting plan that limits the amount of time a child spends in day care. Because the study has been widely reported (as in the New York Times), the study could be referenced by the parent's expert witness, such as a therapist or custody expert.

This tactic would prove especially frustrating for the working parent. The primary residency of the stay-at-home parent would be financed by the child support paid by the working parent. In this way, the proposal to stay at home would create a self fulfilling case.

The working parent could respond that the study strongly emphasized that behaviour problem effect was very small in comparison to the difference that parenting quality made to child development.

If your child was already enrolled in day care prior to the divorce, the working parent could argue hypocrisy in the proposal to stay at home. The working parent could also point out the self fulfilling nature of requiring child support to finance the proposal to stay at home.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog about policies and practices affecting the well being of our children. If you view my profile, you'll see that I care passionately about this issue. I started a law practice in Kansas and Missouri dedicated solely to advocating for children and the adults who love them. Our web site is at www.yourchild1st.com.

Let's use this blog to stir a spirited discussion on public policies and practices that affect the well being of our children. You may post your comments directly to this blog. You can also e-mail me with your comments and suggestions. My e-mail address is Scott@yourchild1st.com. I'll look forward to participating with you.