Child Protection in Kentucky part 7

Is this Heral Leader article about child protection workers just pointing out a few bad apples or is this just one clust of problems that permeate the culture of the Cabinet? Consider this prior post of mine and a few others entitled Child Protection in Kentucky part 1 through 6.

Here’s a hint if you don’t want to go back and review all of the prior posts: these problems permeate the Cabinet making it so much tougher for the many good, compassionate and ethical workers to do their job.

Child Protection in Kentucky makes a grade (academic probation!)

Anyone following the issues of child protection in Kentucky needs to read this post at Kentucky Law Review.

Shaken Baby Syndrome, a second look:

Here is a thought provoking article about shaken baby syndrome. The main question is about the time frame in which symptoms are likely to present. Some experts now question the conventional wisdom of immediate onset and consider a window of 15 hours or more as possible. Some innocent people may have been jailed based the traditional view. The court in this article refused a second look even though the prior conviction may have been based on faulty science.

Good to see progress with Child Protection in Kentucky:

No need to re-write - check out this post at Lawreader. It is a step in the right direction.

Child Protection in Kentucky

The “Boni Bill” was signed into law. It provides for funding of an optimistic estimate of 60 to 80 new workers. Kentucky has 120 counties. Lexington and Louisville will get more than one each for certain. It also provides for increased security. Unfortunately, these measures do not address the actual safety concerns. The bill’s namesake was killed away from the office in a clients home taking the child to a visit with parents. Home visits with children will continue to need to occur if we want to reunite children and parents. The security measures, by and large, protect workers at their offices where the risk is lowest.

The criminal records checks are helpful in a limited way. The Cabinet was always able to run these checks and the existence of a criminal records, including violence offenses has always been common. Often, prior to an initial home visit, workers do not have sufficient information to even get an accurate check. Even with accurate information - what is the worker to do when they are mandated to initiate their investigation within a fixed period of time. The higher the risk of the allegation, the sooner the response has to be. Police accompanying workers on a frequent basis is likely to meet with resistance since police resources are also limited.

Absolute safety can never be assured. However, the best answer is to adequately staff the Cabinet so that the workers have time to be careful, time to team partner up on high risk situations, and time to be thorough. The Boni Bill is a step in the right direction. It is like taking your money out from your mattress and putting it into a savings account. At least you are now earning some interest, but with inflation, you are still losing ground. Even with 60 to 80 new workers, the Cabinet is still losing ground to Kentucky’s growing population and increasing poverty.

Child fatalities in Kentucky

Reading the stories about Michaela in the ol’ H-L have been especially disconcerting. You see, I knew Michaela. At least briefly. She lived in Lexington when my family moved about four houses down from her. Even though she exhibited some significant behavioral challenges, my own daughter of the same age tried to befriend her.

Michaela was living with her mother and maternal grandparents then. She always appeared well-nourished and cleanly dressed. Her mom would not allow Michaela to come to our house to play until she met my wife and I face to face. This impressed me as being responsible at the time.

Things must have gone down hill when the mom moved out and the grandparents sold the house (I am not sure which event triggered the other). Michaela moved to a different school district and we did not see her again until her picture was in the H-L. We did not recognize her at first, but once we realized she was the same girl that needed a friend so badly, we all felt a deeper sense of shock and sadness.

Everyone is quick to point fingers in such circumstances. Usually the finger pointing is at the Cabinet. The Cabinet in turn points the finger at a single worker or supervisor who often is demoted or loses their job. This serves the wonderful political need for a scapegoat, but it does not solve the problems. The real truth is that we all share the responsibility.

It may be true that child deaths have increased recently. I would have to really look at the statistics, but I suspect that there are cycles of increase and decline that could be tied to a number of variables, such as poverty levels. If you recall, I wrote a couple of posts recently about the rise of the ultra poor that you can see here and here.. I am not claiming to be a statistician, but I discern a connection between the increase in child fatalities and these economic phenomena.

I hear from inside the Cabinet that things are worse than ever in terms of morale and the ability for workers to do their jobs. This also plays a role and may also be tied to economics on some level. I know that the Cabinet stays underfunded and understaffed. The recently passed Boni Bill provides a modicum of increased funding for more staff but it remains to be seen how far that will stretch. It is only a band-aid trying to dress a gaping wound.

We are all responsible because we decide, by voting and contacting our elected officials (or not), how much of a priority child protection is to us. How much are we willing to pay out of our pockets to prevent how many deaths. Politicians will swear they are going to see the end of child fatailities with increased oversight or a new committee or two. The reality is, we will alway have some child deaths. But we can minimize them, but not with political posturing.

We will not accomplish this goal by a knee-jerk increase in removing children from their homes. Unnecessary removals cause tremendous harm to children as well. Also, on rare occasions a child is killed or seriously injured in a foster home. No, we need proper funding for the Cabinet so that there are enough quality, highly trained workers in the field to thoroughly investigate and assist families in crisis. We need comprehensive and expanded economic support programs for impoverished families rather than continually tightening the purse strings. And, we need increased funding for treatment programs addressing violence and chemical dependency. If we invest our dollars in this three prong approach, there will be fewer child fatalities. And with that, I announce my candidacy for gub’ner of Cantuckee.

My daughter - she’s the one we should look to in this. She is the one who befriended Michaela when no one else would. Her kindness and generosity are the examples we need to follow.

Improving Child Protection in Kentucky, Part 6

I want to point out a connection that seems to be getting little attention. Today’s Herald Leader has this article regarding proposed legislation to increase social worker safety. Yesterday, the Herald-Leader had this article about removing language from proposed legislation that would have required judges to give oral and written notice of looming termination of parental rights. The connection is that the Cabinet has needed MORE workers for years to address both the issue of safety for workers and the issue of providing sufficient services to families to avoid having to terminate parental rights.

I did that job for years and frankly, whether a judge gives an oral and written warning about an impending termination proceeding is not going to make a huge difference. It would be a nice thing and it would allow lawmakers to say, “See, we’ve done all we can do - they were warned!” What will really make a difference, though, is to INVEST IN OUR CHILDREN and provide hundreds more social service workers.

Improving Child Protection in Kentucky Part 5

I believe this recommendation from the Office of Inspector General report is huge but under-appreciated by policy makers.

6. DCBS Permanency and Protection staff should receive consistent and repetitive training with regard to the elements required to substantiate abuse, neglect, or dependency. These elements should be standardized across the state and easily identifiable. For example, DCBS policy should mirror KRS (i.e. must have “physical injury” or “serious physical injury” to substantiate physical abuse) and define what elements are necessary to substantiate the abuse. Workers appear confused about what actually exemplifies abuse. For example, some social service workers have told parents it is “illegal” to spank their children.

During my tenure, two sources primarily defined terms such as abuse and neglect. One tended to be popular trends in society. This can be a legitimate way to define terms but only if we are talking about long-term and well established trends. For example, a long term trend has been to treat children as having autonomous rights as opposed to being chattel that are owned. Rejecting the use of a paddle in schools for discipline is shaping up to be a long-term trend. Use of spanking as a form of discipline in the home has not become a long-term trend.

The other source of definition for abuse and neglect was individual social worker’s biases. These should never be the basis for defining abuse or neglect because that would mean that someone’s entirely subjective belief could result in the removal of your neighbor’s child, of my child, or even your child. What constituted a dirty home was very different between each worker. What constituted physical abuse differed significantly also. In my county, anytime physical contact resulted in a visible mark, then that was physical abuse. This tended to include even red marks that would clear up after a few hours from a swat on the buttocks. In other counties, bruising was required.

I know this is a generalization and many may say it an unfair one, but from my experience a significant number of person drawn to the helping profession of social work had turned their own abuse and neglect into motivation to make a difference. This is fine and admirable. However, it can also be a barrier. It is a barrier when one consciously or subconsciously defines the terms they use in their work by their own personal experiences. It is a natural and human thing to do so I do not mean to insult anyone. Rather, I point it out to stress how important it is to develop uniform criteria that defines abuse and neglect in Kentucky.

For those wanting to see the full report:
Report by the Office of Inspector General

Improving Child Protection in Kentucky - Part 4

Here is the 4th recommendation from the Office of the Inspector General on improving services from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.

In situations where parents are potentially threatening to social service workers, or deny entry to the social service worker, law enforcement should accompany the worker to assure the worker’s safety. Since law enforcement may assume protective custody of a child, without prior approval of the court, workers should be required to contact law enforcement and request verification of the safety of any children in a home, whenever a parent denies access to a social services worker, prior to the worker contacting the court for an ECO. Based on the fact that, once an ECO is issued, even if the worker, upon entry to the residence, determines conditions in the home are safe, they have no recourse but to remove the children. Contacting law enforcement first would prevent the unnecessary removal of children from a home simply because the parent denied the social service worker’s request for access. Further, it will eliminate the perception, whether accurate or not, that children removed in such cases are being removed by social service workers for the purpose of punishing the parent for originally denying access.

This was pretty much standard procedure in my county and it worked well. However, the Cabinet instituted a two track system for referrals during my tenure. Some low risk referrals were taken as family assessments that, on paper, were supposed to be voluntary for the families. This was contrasted with the dependency, neglect and abuse investigations which families had to participate in or at least face non-removal petitions to court order cooperation.

This second tier of Cabinet involvement seemed like a great way to engage in preventive services. Unfortunately, some beaurocrat decided that if a family said they did not want to participate, then that bumped the risk level up so it became a full blown investigation. So much for engaging families.

Even then I was mindful of the careful balance that needed to be maintained between interfering with a family to protect children and respecting the rights guaranteed us through the Constitution. Police officers are specifically trained to be mindful of where that balance point is; the lines that should not be crossed (and yes, sometimes that training is disregarded). Hopefully, this awareness of balancing rights and protection can be, or has been, integrated into social service training.

Improving Child Protection in Kentucky part 3

This one sounds straight-forward but it would be difficult. How exactly does one define “neglect, abuse, and dependency” in such a way as to eliminate overreaching but also allow family court judges to protect children in need. I do think the “reasonable grounds” standard should be bumped up to probable cause though how much this would change actual practice is questionable.

3. The vagueness of the definitions of neglect, abuse, and a dependent child under KRS 600.020 makes it difficult to apply the statute in a fair and uniform fashion. Likewise, the statute’s broad terms create the opportunity for findings of neglect, abuse, and dependency to be inappropriately applied. For example, as written, the statute can and, in some cases, has been applied to impoverished families as well as accidental injuries and deaths. The Cabinet should work with the Legislature to make any and all appropriate modifications to the statute to clarify the intent of the statute and, to the extent possible, eliminate the potential for misuse or over-application of the statute. Further, while KRS 620.040 requires a ‘probable cause’ standard before a judge may issue a search warrant to enable a law enforcement officer to enter a residence to evaluate the condition of a child, KRS 620.060 requires petitions for emergency custody to only meet a ‘reasonable grounds’ standard that one of three elements exists, in addition to a finding that the parents or other person exercising custodial control or supervision are unable or unwilling to protect the child. The second condition also includes the statement, “This condition shall not include reasonable and ordinary discipline recognized in the community where the child lives, as long as reasonable and ordinary discipline does not result in abuse or neglect as defined in KRS 600.020(1).” There are nine elements in KRS 600.020(1), adding to the confusion as to what substantiates abuse, neglect, or dependency.

When I was a worker and supervisor for the Cabinet, I only once heard of an ex parte order for the emergency custody of a child to be declined by a judge in my county. Most of the time, the worker presenting the ECO and petition went unquestioned by the judge. I heard from other counties, though, that getting an ECO was very difficult. Neither extreme is desirable. I think in my county, the workers always took the most cautious approach and trusted that the judge would say no if it was unreasonable. The judge always trusted the worker. Neither wanted to hear that the child they refused to remove the night before was now dead or seriously injured.

This “better safe than sorry” approach is entirely understandable. As I explained to someone recently, our society has gone from one extreme of underprotecting children through a slow progression to where we are now. We are now on the upswing of that pendulum and heading into the overprotection range. I suspect the pendulum has a bit farther to go in that direction and what we are hearing now are just the beginnings of recognition that we actually can be overprotective and we are heading that way.

How can we “overprotect” our children? They cannot protect themselves! When I refer to overprotection I am referring to the cost we pay for each increment of increased protection. At some point, that cost is too high. Some of those costs include children being removed when they would not have been at imminent risk of serious injury, death or sexual abuse. I have seen children removed for potential risks (non-imminent) and for non-compliance with workers. That is a high cost. It is damaging to children to remove them from their home - even if it is a far less than ideal environment. I have spent hours moving children from home to home to agency because they were unable to attach to care providers. Many of those attachment disorders were exacerbated or even caused by removal from their homes.

So, the most practical thing that could come from recommendation number 3 above is that both workers and judges are encouraged or somehow required to engage in discussion about each ECO and petition brought, before it is signed, about the imminence of the risk and alternatives that might exist instead of relying on the face of the document alone.