Best Practice in Dependency, Abuse & Neglect Matters

I have written criticisms in here about practices by the Cabinet that I find unsettling and sometimes that I abhor. I have also written defenses for the Cabinet because of the monumental tasks they are required to accomplish with such limited resources. Both of these positions are open to being misconstrued and misapplied. Yes, there are some real concerns in the practices of many workers and supervisors in the Cabinet and which are fostered on up the chain of command. There are some significant systemic problems as well. However, if you find yourself in the unfortunate predicament of having the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Department of Community Based Services (what a mouthful of a title – I feel sorry for the folks who have to answer their phones) in your life, the single best approach is to keep a mindset of cooperation; avoid antagonism. I am writing this to correct any idea that I inadvertently promoted that being adversarial with the Cabinet is the way to win your case (I mean adversarial in the sense of ones attitude rather than in the sense that the court process is an adversarial process). Those criticisms are designed mainly for a global change in the system through political action; they are not meant to fuel a personal vendetta in an individual case.

Of course it is human to want to lash out in anger at this behemoth of an agency that does not seem to care or at workers who do not seem to understand. Of course it is a tragic and trying time when your child has been taken from you and young folks fresh out of college and are not yet fully raised themselves are telling you how to raise your children. Take all of those normal feelings, go in a closet, grab a thick pillow and scream every bit of outrage into that pillow where no one can hear. After that, whenever you are interacting with the Cabinet or with your children, you remind yourself that these folks are there doing what they believe is right for your child. That is actually the case about 9,999 times out of 1,000 or more (the key word is “believes”). In fact, the vast majority of the time they are at least hitting the paper that has the target printed on it even if they are missing the target itself, let alone the bullseye.

So, after screaming it out, you need to take a good, hard look at yourself regarding how the Cabinet says you screwed up. Do this for your child because if the Cabinet is close to right, then you owe it to your child to admit the shortcoming and fix it. Yes, they may have gone about things the wrong way, denied a Constitutional right or two, misrepresented what you said or sometimes flat out lied about you (they tend to justify the means by the end and the phrase “best interest of the child”). Those are NOT to be your focus unless you want to increase your chances at a termination of your parental rights down the road. Your focus is getting your child back in your home by becoming a better parent (we can all be better parents, so take the chip off of your shoulder when I say that). Don’t just play the game; honestly consider what they say and find how it fits. Believe me, they have enough work to do without needing to take your child for no reason at all or to just mess with you. Sure, they may have grossly overreacted, but that does not change that they picked up on a legitimate issue.

Now, I am not saying to admit to things that, after reflection, really are not true and this advise mainly applies to after an adjudication or stipulation has occurred (before that: be careful what your say, talk to a lawyer if you can, but still be kind). I am surely not telling you to say or do something your attorney has advised against. I am talking about a mindset and a cooperative approach that will increase the likelihood of the return of your children. Be kind and respectful in talking to your worker, avoid blaming them or others and never cuss or threaten them.

Why? you ask. Two reasons: 1) it is the right way to treat folks, even those who seem to be harming you; and 2) it is the pragmatic thing to do when faced with someone far more powerful than you. For a variety of reasons, Cabinet workers tend to take displays of anger towards them from parents as signs of denial and defiance. They equate denial and defiance as someone who is not going to take good care of their children and a likely sign of emotional instability. They want compliance, not consternation. I know, you are right, they are supposed to be trained professionals who understand the grief process and wildly swinging emotions that kick in when one’s family is ripped apart. Just forget about that. Being right is not going to get your children home. All you will achieve by pointing out the individual flaws of your worker is someone with a great deal of authority who believes you are a lost cause. Again, I am not saying to just parrot back to them everything they say, but if they say something that ticks you off, just say “You know, I really want to understand what you are saying there” or “I really want to spend some time thinking about what you just said” and then work it through later, somewhere else, with someone safe.

This is also not to say that you don’t fight for your rights. It is just a different way of fighting. Let your lawyer fight using the tools of the system in court. Fighting does not have to involve emotional attacks. I have represented many people in dependency, neglect and abuse actions. Those that get their children back home the quickest are the ones who take the approach I outlined above. Those that are determined to right the wrongs in their case usually take the longest to see their children return. Those that are adamant about beating the Cabinet are usually the ones who lose their children for good. Remember, the Cabinet has the overwhelming advantage because the statutes give them the upperhand, because they have far greater resources that you can imagine, and because the judges believe and trust them. You can stand shaking you fist and yelling about the injustice all you like, but that approach, in my experience, always makes justice more elusive.

As an aside: there is one supervisor with the Cabinet who is terribly fond of telling parents from whom she has removed children or terminated rights that “it isn’t personal”. I think of her as the Vulcan of the starfleet Cabinet. There is nothing more personal than having one’s children taken away. I think it is her way of constantly insulating herself from the inevitable pain that goes with her chosen profession. I also think she is trying to tell parents not to hold her personally accountable for the decision; that she is just a cog in the wheel. She’s wrong on both accounts. But, if you have this supervisor or another who uses “it’s not personal” as their catch-phrase, let it remind you that your personal feelings are not safe in their hands. Find someone for whom it is personal in the sense that they care, have compassion, but can still confront you when your are wrong rather than just commiserate to share those personal feelings with.

Stall Tactic – Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights

Kentucky sets forth the grounds for a court involuntarily terminating parental rights in KRS 625.090. The statute basically gives the essential elements, all of which much be proved by the heightened standard of “clear and convincing” evidence: the child has been abused or neglected (and there are three wasy to show this) and that it is in the best interest of the child for the parental rights to be terminated (interestingly, the likelihood of the child actually finding a permanent home through adoption is not supposed to be considered in determining “best interes”, but that is a topic for another day).

After laying out those two essential elements, the statute provides a laundry list of other things, one of which must also be found to be true. Supposedly, this list is to put the breaks on a little to keep parental rights from being terminated too easily. Unfortunately, built into that list is one item that is not ulitmately within the parent’s control and is a strict liability type provision. In other words, it is either true or not and there is no consideration for intent or mitigating circumstances. The provision is KRS 625.090(2)(j). Where the legislative intent appears to be to put on the brakes, provision (j) disables those breaks and leaves parents careening toward a crash.

How this plays out is if the Cabinet for Health & Family Services worker and surpervisor wishes to do an involuntary termination of parental rights with a parent, but that parent is basically doing fair, they stall the case. Most of the families they deal with are lower income and less educated with multiple challenges facing them. Even in families with great resources, one can find issues and challenges pop up. It is even easier to find such issues when the families are also facing stressors related to socio-economic status or who are less sophisticated in dealing with government agencies. So, the Cabinet highlights those challenges. For example, the parents long term friends may have brushes with the law or be involved in drug use or alcohol abuse. Even if the parent does not have those challenges, then the whole guilt by association sets in and the Cabinet demands they give up their friends creating isolation that is not readily filled (by the way, from my experience some workers partake of illegal substances or drink to excess at times and there is no mandatory employee testing for Kentucky governmental employees, but that is also a topic for another day). Perhaps the worker is concerned about an unsafe neighborhood and they demand the parent move to a nicer one. Or, perhaps the parent has a criminal history of minor, but frequent criminal incidences and they tell the parent they want to see a pattern of stability over time – let’s say twelve (12) months. The list can go on, but before anyone realizes it, they are up against that 15 of the last 22 months from (j).

So, you say, what’s the big deal? Well, if one examines all of the other items (a – i) in list, only one of which needs to be proven, (j) stands alone. The other items all require a showing that the parent has done something horrible or continues to really mess up and is not caring for the child. However, (j) is a strict timeline and the parent could actually be doing okay during that time, but (j) still gets them. The other items show some kind of mental status or intent on the part of the parents: they are either negligent which is requires a state of mind (mens rea)for latin geeks) or act willfully. Item (g) even expressly says that the failure in it must be for reasons “other than poverty alone.” Bu, item (j) requires no state of mind whatsoever; it just happens. In all the other items (a – j), the parent has some level of control over whether the even comes to pass whereas in (j), unless there is an active judge, they are at the mercy of the Cabinet.

So, this parent who is not messing up royally, but that is also not blowing people away with their progress, loses all the safequards that the statute is supposed to afford because the Cabinet structured the case that way. The Cabinet worker can simply drag the case along, picking at issues enough justify their “cautious” approach and then suddenly say, “Oh, we’re going to terminate your parental rights – see ya’ in court and have a nice day.”

The only way to combat this stall tactic is to be active in getting the case before the court on a regular basis. Insist on having reviews every three or four months and get the progress, or lack thereof, on the record. For attorney’s representing parents, it does mean more work and it does mean the County Attorney, the Cabinet, and maybe the Judge being frustrated at filling the dockets up. For parents, it means speaking up both to the court and to your attorney. For everyone, it means remaining focused on confronting legitimate issues head on and in a timely manner. Otherwise, this loophole in the involuntary termination of parental rights statute can ensnare the unwary and once again, where Constitutional protections should be at their height, they are found at their lowest ebb.

Crisis brewing

The Fayette County office of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Protection and Permanency, is already in crisis mode and headings towards disaster. According to one source, there are only a dozen investigating workers and, due to budget constraints, none are being hired. This means a either referrals that normally would be accepted are being turned away, or these workers are stretched beyond reason. I suspect many other counties in Kentucky are faced with extremely excess case loads. And upon whom will the blame fall when the next child fatality occur? Sorry, that is rhetorical. It will be the front line worker despite not having the resources to do an adequate job.

I have also learned that other services, specifically the juvenile services team, are losing workers to retirement and better job prospects with no present means to fill those vacancies. This teams works with youth who are exhibiting behavior problems and/or moderate criminal activity to prevent further criminal involvement. I fear the consequences to our community and those youth with services being curtailed out of sheer necessity from understaffing.

We want a safe community where vulnerable people are protected and crime is minimized. It is time we become willing to pay for the services that will achieve those goals and insist our law makers find appropriate revenue sources (this means increased taxes, the end of corporate welfare, and/or monies redirected from industries that can survive without government incentives) to fund these agencies.

Cabinet practice has huge unintended (or is it?) consequence

A routine practice by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services in Fayette County seems innocuous to the untrained eye, but it has a huge unintended consequence for certain parents. I wonder if this consequence is actually unintended, but absent confirmation, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Although the Cabinet developed a standard Consent to Adopt and Waiver of Appearance form, in Fayette County (and perhaps others) parents who have decided to voluntarily terminate their parental rights to a child removed for neglect or abuse sign a Petition for Voluntary Termination. The petition has standard language, but each is written for the particular parent. This petition shows parental consent to the termination, but it does not waive the right of the parent to appear at the termination hearing.

Instead of filing the Petition for Voluntary Termination, the Cabinet attaches the signed document to an Involuntary Petition to Termination Parental Rights. This allows them to proceed with the termination even if the parent does not show for the hearing or is not served with the Involuntary Petition. The Consent to Adoption and Waiver of Appearance form would be just fine and allow for the same action, only it would be a Voluntary Termination rather than Involuntary.

This may seem like a meaningless distinction to most people and I am confident few, if any, of the parents signing these Petitions know of the ramification. Only after looking at KRS 625.090(2)(h) is there any concern for this practice. A voluntary termination is not held against a parent regardless of the reason; an involuntary termination counts against them for the rest of their lives:

(2) No termination of parental rights shall be ordered unless the Circuit Court also finds by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one (1) or more of the following grounds:
(h) That:
1. The parent’s parental rights to another child have been involuntarily terminated;
2. The child named in the present termination action was born subsequent to or during the pendency of the previous termination; and
3. The conditions or factors which were the basis for the previous termination finding have not been corrected;

Let’s say birth mom is addicted to cocaine and realizes she is in no shape to parent Child A. She does the caring and courageous things and voluntarily terminates her parental rights. Unbeknownst to her, though, the Cabinet attaches that voluntary to an involuntary petition. A few years later, she has cleaned up and has another child. Subsequent to a painful birth, she develops an addiction to pain pills and her baby is removed due to the addiction and history, even though Child B is healthy and shows no overt adverse effects indicative of neglect. Mom freaks out and relapses and uses cocaine one time which is caught on a drug screen.

Even though mom was clean for a couple of years, the Cabinet believes the necessary bells have been rung to satisfy the statute, gets approval to dispense with “reasonable efforts” to reunify Child B, and moves to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of mom to Child B. Because the judge has considerable discretion, he or she finds that: 1) there was a prior involuntary termination of parental rights (even though it was based on a voluntary consent), 2) Child B was born after Child A, and 3) mom’s relapse shows the conditions or factors for the previous removal have not been corrected. Even if none of the other items in KRS 625.090(2) have been proven, the termination regarding Child B will occur.

Sure, mom can appeal and argue that the conditions and factors of the previous removal had been corrected and that this was a new episode of drug abuse only tenuously related to the first, but there are major problems with this. First, mom cannot afford a lawyer to file the appeal and Kentucky does not give her the right to court appointed counsel on appeal. Second, the judge’s discretion is broad and incredibly unlikely to be overturned on appeal. One would be hard pressed to say the judge’s findings were “clearly erroneous”.

I am confident that no one from the Cabinet would sit down and explain to the birth mom that she is not only signing away her parental rights to Child A, but is also signing away a safeguard for the parental rights of any future children. Since the Voluntary Petition also waives the parent’s right to appointed counsel, they have no real way to know about this unintended consequence. Now, whether the Cabinet worker and Cabinet lawyer think about how much easier it will be for them to terminate the rights of any future children if they convert a voluntary into an involuntary without anyone being the wiser is anyone’s guess. Regardless, the practice amounts to preventings the parent from truly making a knowing and voluntary consent.

You can fight City (or State) Hall, Ms Hall:

I’ve been wanting to comment on the antics of Cabinet for Health and Family Services’ Service Region Coordinator, Grace Akers, for some time. You can find out more about the events here and here from the Herald-Leader. Basically, Jami Hall, a social services worker from Jessamine Count cooperated with an investigation into Cabinet wrongdoing. She believes she was retaliated against and so she filed a whistleblower lawsuit. While on leave, Grace Akers, the highest level administrator for Fayette and some of the surrounding counties, obtained police cooperation to go out and deliver a written reprimand to Jami and allegedly try to obtain some missing case records. She got the police to cooperate by making Jami sound like a violent person.

I have met and worked on a case with Jami Hall. She is a character, but nothing about her bespeaks violence potentiality. I know Cabinet protocol because I used to supervise a protection team. While with the Cabinet I saw some really crappy, unbusiness-like, and downright unprofessional behavior – Grace Akers’ performance in this absolutely takes the cake! She made the police think she needed protection in making a home visit – OH PLEASE! The police routinely assist social services workers on home visit to client homes who are being investigated for abuse and neglect. When risk factors make the situation appear extra dangerous or when the children are being removed, police presence is essential. Grace Akers absolutely abused this relationship by calling on them to help with a personnel matter. I find this unbelievably irresponsible and downright foolish behavior and I hope the police are offended by this misuse of their resources.

Furthermore, Grace Akers had no business taking a work issue into Jami’s home. The procedure would be to offer Jami a chance to sign the written reprimand to preserve her right to appeal the action. If she refuses that option, the reprimand can be entered unchallenged into her personnel record. There was no call to deliver the reprimand in person. This was incredibly unprofessional by Grace Akers.

Worse yet, Grace Akers attempted to coerce an illegal search of Jami Hall’s residence because of the authority of having a police escort. Frankly, I think this was an imbecilic ploy to make it appear that Grace Akers really believed Jami Hall had the records and have a witness to verify the sincerity of her belief. I have no information to bolster this next statement and I base it only on my personal opinion: the behavior of Grace Akers makes me think she was motivated by fear and guilt. If Grace Akers’ knows what became of those records, perhaps took part in their disappearance, this dramatic antic would be designed to misdirect suspicion back onto Jami Hall. In my mind, it makes Grace Akers look desperate.

Now for the reprimand. The Cabinet overlooks sins and poor performance as a routine matter. The only reason they begin issuing written reprimands is when they have already decided to fire someone. As a supervisor myself, I was trained by the personnel cabinet to begin building a paper trail and scrutinize errors I would otherwise have dealt with informally if I wanted to fire someone. ABSOLUTELY NO WORKER can do the job duties placed on them perfectly and I never saw anyone adhere to the convoluted and heavy policies to the letter. Therefore, as a supervisor, I could always find just cause to build a case for firing if I so desired. This undermines the spirit of the merit system. Jami Hall probably did commit some minor violation or omit some policy requirment, but I suspect it was an error overlooked in her co-workers.

Now, the smart thing here would be for the Cabinet and Grace Akers to back off, admit their wrongs (which I never saw out of administration folks at the Cabinet) and quit giving Jami Hall and her co-workers a hard time for bringing problems to light. Rather, I am confident they will continue to hold tight to the traditional line of the Cabinet and deny, blame, deny, blame. In the meantime, the children are the losers. I do not know Jami well enough to say she was a great worker, but I did sense she had true care and compassion for her clients. I agree with Judge Goodwine, Cabinet officials are hypocrits.

“Reasonable efforts” has real meaning

A recent decision of the Court of Appeals illustrates a an omission of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services that seems all too common. In the unpublished opinion, M.G.F. II v. CHFS, 2006-CA-002093-ME (March 21, 2008)(NOT to be published), the Court remanded an involuntary termination of parental rights case because the Cabinet failed to evidence reasonable efforts to reunite the non-removal parent, the father. I have often seen this phenomena when children are removed from one parent and the non-residential parent either lives far away, is uninvolved, or has some “issues”. The Cabinet focuses on reunification with the parent of removal instead of devoting those efforts towards both parents. I suspect this is not so much an intentional omission, but more of a systemic problem.

Such a circumstance of divided households is one case on the worker’s caseload even though there are two separate parental residences. If a worker only gets credit for one case, what incentive is there to provide services to two households. That is double the work for the credit of one family. With caseloads stretched beyond reason and the government unwilling to sufficiently fund child protective services, the pressure to focus only on the residence of removal is significant.

Further exacerbating the problem, unless it has been changed since my time, the computer system used by the Cabinet (TWISt: The Worker Information System) automatically makes the parent the child was removed from active as well as the children. A non-residential parent is not put into the referral screens because no allegation are made against them. TWISt captures data, including face to face contacts, with each active individual in the case. This information is used to generate reports to measure compliance with Federal regulations that tie payments of block grant monies to Kentucky. The reports are also used to measure an individual worker’s performance. TWISt has no idea if these face to face visits actually occur; it is an honor system that expects employees to input accurate data even if it is going to hurt their employment situation.

One way to prevent low numbers of contacts, but still be technically truthful, is to forget to add a parent who does not live in the home of removal as an active individual. This means there is no tracking of services to that person. Whether this occurred in MGF’s situation is unknown, but the point remains.

Now, the factual background provided in the MGF case do not show if the scenario I laid out above applies. All the case reveals is that the Cabinet did not put forth substantial evidence that they provided services to the father, MGF, to assist him in obtaining custody of his children. I make the inferential leap that if such evidence was able to be offered up, it would have been.

MGF is no father of the year by any stretch. He allowed a couple of years to pass with only four phone calls to his children. Even when they were moved to within 20 miles of him, he did not go visit them. Regardless, the Cabinet was under the duty to provide services to help him get up to speed as a father. No evidence of this duty being discharged was entered into the record and so the court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Improving Child Protection in Kentucky (Moment of Silence) postscript:

I followed up regarding my concerns, posted here, about Representative Stan Lee’s sweeping and innaccurate portrayal of ALL the family court judges in Fayette County being against ALL of HB 151. I have confirmed from a very knowledgeable and reliable source that ALL of the Fayette family court judges were, in actuality, in favor of HB 151 as it had been amended. This directly contradicts Mr. Lee’s assertion. I will not venture in to try and discern why his stated reason for voting against HB 151 was false except that, even if the best light, it was sloppy on his part.

Improving Child Protection in Kentucky Postscript (or – a moment of silence, please)

The title of this article from today’s Herald Leader was a bit too prophetic to be accidental: “Child protection revisions all but dead“. The impetus for this bill began back with the Office of Inspector General’s report many long months ago. Let’s parse through this article:

A bill that would have opened Kentucky’s child protection courts to the public on a limited basis was rejected Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee. And measures that would improve procedures in child protection courts and require ethics training for social workers have been procedurally buried.

Ethics training? Obviously too radical an idea.

Rep. Susan Westrom, D-Lexington, who sponsored a bill on training social workers, said that officials from the Cabinet, which oversees the system, want to kill it.

“They are trying to keep me from creating a system of checks and balances,” said Westrom.

Checks and balances placed on the government. . . hmmm – where have I heard that idea before?

But Rep. Robin Webb, an attorney, said she didn’t think the bill went far enough to protect information about children whose futures are being decided in the courts.

“The child’s interest is my No. 1 concern,” said Webb, D-Grayson. “I don’t want it in my county.”

I’m confused – does she not want the ethics in her county, the checks and balances . . . maybe she means that everyone else’s number one concern is promoting child abuse, hmmm. Nope, still confused.

And Rep. Brent Yonts said he was concerned that the legislation would allow people in the community to spread information they heard in hearings.

“How do you keep the town gossip from talking?,” said Yonts, D-Greenville.

Heaven forbid that the town gossip would wander into court and discover that the neighbor’s children were removed. The absence of the children wouldn’t have tipped him off. The police cars and social workers taking the kids to the cars wouldn’t have tipped him off. Oh, thank God we can now keep the removal of the children a secret so people won’t talk.

But Westrom said that legislation is in jeopardy because it calls for increasing the fees for court-appointed attorneys for children and parents for the first time since the 1980s. House Bill 151, drafted by the Cabinet’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Adoption, will be sent to the House Appropriations and Revenue Committee, which Westrom said could be “a graveyard for bills.”

That was a close one. If these parents started getting court appointed attorney’s that were compensated as well as those representing criminals in federal court, they might start challenging the Cabinet more. We woudn’t want them getting ideas of seeking legal protections now would we?!

Rep. Stan Lee, R-Lexington, said that Family Court Judges in Fayette County were against House Bill 151, so he voted against it.

I know this is untrue. Mr. Lee shouldn’t make such sweeping and inaccurate statements. There was a concern about the practicality of having attorney’s present and representing parents at the temporary removal hearing, but still have that hearing within the statutorily mandated timeframe. Mr. Lee, though, makes it sound like ALL the judges were against the ENTIRE bill and that is patently false. Besides, does Stan Lee ONLY represent the Family Court Judges or is he supposed to represent the community?

In regard to a third bill, Cabinet spokesperson Vikki Franklin said Wednesday that training curriculum for social workers is already sufficient. She said that a bill sponsored by Westrom would be costly and decrease the amount of time social workers could spend on services.

It never was sufficient before and from what I have seen and heard, it still is not sufficient.

However, Westrom says the additional training called for in her legislation is necessary and won’t cost the Cabinet money.

“The Cabinet would rather pay $425,000 to settle whistleblower lawsuits than train their social workers,” Westrom said, referring to a recent case in which former social workers said the Cabinet mishandled cases.

Did I mention that Susan Westrom has a Master’s degree in Social Work.

Meanwhile, Cabinet officials say they have made internal changes that address the problems involving improper removal of children.

And those measures are . . . ? Oh, that must be the information that must be kept behind closed doors to protect the children’s privacy.

Child Advocate David Richart said yesterday that the Cabinet’s resistance to change was the basic reason the reform legislation failed.

Resistant to change is such a harsh criticism. Let’s reframe that to being glad that the Cabinet is consistent and predictable.

Systemic apathy and the attorney’s charge

Apathy is the predominate risk with judicial venues where the majority of defendants are guilty of what is alleged against them, such as criminal court or dependency, neglect and abuse court. This systemic apathy leads to the few truly innocent people who come through those courts to be shuffled along as expeditiously as possible and often being presumed guilty because they are amongst the guilty. The only way to combat this apathy systemically is through proper funding so that mandates can be met and advocates are encouraged to advocate. The only way to combat this apathy individually is through personal integrity. We need both!

For lawyers, this means engaging the political system to adequately fund the systems that handle criminal law and quasi-criminal matters such as dependency, neglect and abuse. It also means practicing law with more than just compliance with ethical rules; it means practicing with personal integrity.

The Cabinet takes a stand for the “best interest of the child (umm – no) . . . Cabinet/Worker”

I try to take at least 24 hours to calm down over a topic before I write a post about it. This time I took about 96 hours. I recently had a conversation with Cabinet worker’s in Fayette County. The topic was reunification services to a parent whose child was removed by the Cabinet a few months back and where the child was placed in the temporary custody of the other parent. Even though the removing worker had been giving this parent hope of reunification, it turns out that the Cabinet’s official position is that they have nothing more to do; they have achieved “permanency” for the child by recommending custody be given to the other parent. I could tell the removing worker was struggling with what the right thing to do and I respect her for being willing to struggle with it. The other worker just summary stated, without knowing the family, circumstances or issues (and frankly without even being invited into the conversation) that should such a case be “transferred to [her], she would give it 30 days and then give permanent custody to the [other parent].” She stated quite righteously that her job would be done because she would have achieved permanency for the child.

Interestingly, the Cabinet, as an executive branch agency, has achieved something quite miraculous. They have changed the law. The standard for removal and placement given in KRS 620 is whatever is in the “best interest” of the child. The Cabinet, however, has decided the only thing that really matters is permanency. It gets even more interesting. Permanency is achieved by the Cabinet not when the child has a permanent place to live (I’ve seen enough disrupted adoptions to know this isn’t really possible), but when there is a goal in place that looks like it may lead to permanency. So, what is worker number 2′s rush to give permanent custody to the other parent really all about?

I hope you noticed that she said nothing about trying to figure out the best home for the child for the long-haul. She said nothing about why the child was originally with parent 1 to being with (which might have been an indicator that something about that parent was “best” for the child at some point – and may be again). No wrestling or struggling. That is why I was angry. This worker, with the blessing of the Cabinet, had changed “best interest of the child” to “best interest of the worker’s caseload”. You see, as soon as parent 2 gets permanent custody, the worker gets to close her involvement out. Since most teams go on a strict rotation basis for assigning new cases, she gets to have a lower caseload as a result.

You may be mentally telling me that it is obvious that if the child got hurt with parent 1, then of course it is in the best interest to be with parent 2 permanently. All I can say is that is an oversimplification. You may be right often enough to justify being simple minded about it. Certainly worker 2 felt very justified in staying simple minded. This is a life-altering decision that is multi-faceted. Parent 1 may have encountered a pure accident or something else beyond their control – a one time fluke – and otherwise be a good parent. Parent 2 may have some problems that were not discovered on the Cabinet’s very cursory home evaluation. There are many factors in both KRS 620 and KRS 403 that make it clear even the legislature knows it isn’t a simple matter. Besides, occasionally the Cabinet flat gets things wrong. How can this worker take it so lighlty?

On to rant number 2 which I touched on in a previous ponderment. Worker 1 had children (and even grandchildren). Worker 2 had none and was quite young (with the air of being used to getting what she wanted – perhaps thats why she felt okay about intruding in the conversation). I won’t now be simple minded myself and say that having children equals good worker or not having children equals bad worker. What I will say is that workers without sufficient life experiences to create a level of understanding and empathy towards their clients tend to be very hard in their approach. Having children tends to promote these experiences, but it is not the only path. Worker 1 had the experience and so she struggled. Worker 2 had not and so she had more empathy for her caseload than for a parent and child relationship that is to be forever altered.

Best interest is not exactly a fool proof or specific standard, but it is sure a sight better than “permanency”. Permanency should be left where it belongs – a factor to consider in determining best interest.