1 / 27

A History of the Child Welfare System Why do things work like this?

A History of the Child Welfare System Why do things work like this?. Civil and Criminal Court Process. Criminal = prosecution of child abuse perpetrators Civil = focus is on protecting the child Different Standards of Proof. How Did We Get To This Point?. A Volunteer Started

norman-kemp
Download Presentation

A History of the Child Welfare System Why do things work like this?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A History of theChild Welfare System Why do thingswork like this?

  2. Civil and Criminal Court Process • Criminal = prosecution of child abuse perpetrators • Civil = focus is on protecting the child • Different Standards of Proof

  3. How Did We Get To This Point? A Volunteer Started “The Child Welfare System”

  4. First Civil Case AcknowledgingA Child’s Rights • “I saw a child carried out on a horse blanket at the sight at which grown men wept aloud and I knew a chapter was being written in the rights of man” • Jacob Reese (Court Reporter) in the 1870s • Story of Mary Ellen-1st reported case of civil court intervention in a child abuse or neglect case

  5. Mary Ellen • Privately placed out in a home by the NY Department of Charities • Decisions were made without court review • Father had died during the civil war • Mother, after widow’s pension was cut off, became ill with tuberculosis • Ms. Etta Wheeler visited the tenement buildings

  6. Ms. Wheeler • Looked for legal relief, but there was no governmental response to child maltreatment • Teamed up with Henry Bergh & Elbridge T. Gerry of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals • Obtained a special writ from a civil judge in Brooklyn • Mary was made a ward of the court

  7. Impact Around the Nation • Notoriety • 1899 Juvenile Court • Community based organizations formed that focused on child protection and monitoring governmentally run child protection services

  8. Child Protection Servicesin the Early 1900s • Child Rescue Societies = Institutional Care • Cultural assumptions about parenting children • Fathers generally did not raise the children • African-American Community

  9. But What Is Primary Bonding For A Child? • A great deal was learned about warehousing children • Influenza epidemic hit twice at the turn of the century and again in 1918

  10. Movement to Get Outof Institutions • Orphan Train Movement • “Children of Choice” were shipped out west • Smithsonian exhibit • http://pda.republic.net/othsa/

  11. “Clinic-Court” • Only a few • Still a contract system-saw children as property • Slowly a new concept of child protection services emerged • Sometimes children must be removed • Yet, children removed should get a new safe permanent home (not institutions)

  12. Quasi Recognitionof Parents’ Rights • Institutional care debate lingered • Judicial gatekeeper role developed very slowly across the country • Courts were only for parents to have a place to voice their complaints • No formal review process of children in the system

  13. Late 1960s and into the 1970s • The concept of judicial review of children in placement emerged over time • The case of Gerald Frances Gault pushed us down this path • Concept of due process was applied • When the state takes an action and that action abuts a fundamental zone of family privacy … the state must do so with the least restrictive alternative

  14. “Gaulting the System” • Officially recognized the liberty interest in the right to raise one’s own child • Response was to become a “court-clinic” • Lawyers were appointed, notices were served, appellate records kept, codes were drawn

  15. “Court-Clinic” • We separated the clinic and the court • We did not teach clinicians the value of the law, the role of due process and fundamental rights, how to investigate a case, or use evidence in a court of law • We did not teach our judges about child development, children’s needs or psychological issues about separating families

  16. Clopperation instead of Collaboration • By late 1970s, we were saying that judges had a much stronger role in overview & responsibility in the system • We were testing the limits of judicial authority versus executive authority

  17. Adoption Assistance andChild Welfare Act 1980 • Federal law that strengthened the role of the state judiciary=all children in the child welfare system must have judicial oversight • Set up the federal dollar system that was triggered by a judge’s order • Plan was to get significant federal dollars into the foster care system

  18. Problem • Courts and agencies did not get together and develop a strategic plan with local protocols built around judicial findings • They searched for ways to pass the federal audit • No money was designated for courts so many really weren’t interested in developing a schematic of practices

  19. State Funding • Passed -In effect October 2000 • Why? 3 Primary Reasons • Provide Judges in Jurisdictions where Local Governments were Without the Resources to Do So • Allowing for the Opportunity to Appoint More Full-time Juvenile Court Judges When Needed

  20. 1997-New Laws and Their Effect on the System Adoption and Safe Families Act, Reasonable Efforts & Reunification of Families

  21. 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act • Focus of law is on health & safety of the child • Georgia’s laws which bring us into compliance with this act • SB 611 • HB 1585 • Both Georgia laws offer dramatic changes to our system

  22. SB 611 • Shortened time frame from 18 months to 12 months • Allows for submission of a non-reunification plan where reasonable efforts do not have to be made to reunify

  23. SB 611 • Submission of a non-reunification plan requires a hearing w/ a report listing specific items • A presumption against providing reasonable efforts emerges in 3 instances • failure to comply w/ prior case plan • third time removing a child (3 strikes) • any of the grounds for TPR

  24. HB 1585 • Focus is on safety of the child v. reunification • Further pushes the states to move children to permanent homes • Courts must hold a permanency hearing

  25. HB 1585 • 15/22 months/ abandoned infant/ murder provision • 3 Exceptions • in care w/relative • services have not been provided to the families by DFCS • compelling reason

  26. Where Are We Today? • Intent of the new laws was to make the process more balanced and get more court involvement and more community involvement • Concern is how the laws will be implemented

  27. A History of theChild Welfare System Why do thingswork like this?

More Related