|
|
Post by stoney on Dec 30, 2009 12:18:00 GMT -5
Bobbie, I worked in that system most of my life. If a worker has so many cases she/he can't give each one proper time, who is going to be hurt? The child. These workers are so over-loaded with cases & under paid that of course they end up leaving.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Dec 30, 2009 12:23:41 GMT -5
Here's another example: The School Partnership for Youth program. It ia going to be phased out in 2010 due to lack of funding. They deal with abused/neglected kids & their parents in the city's school system who are falling through the cracks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Dec 30, 2009 12:23:52 GMT -5
And when are those departments going to get the money they need in order to hire enough qualified people so that they don't lose good workers to 'burn-out'  They have the money, they just have poor policies in effect and incompetent administrators. In Broome County, one deputy commissioner ordered all her caseworkers to review cases as old as 10 years ago and reopen any that were missing final paperwork. There is a lot of red tape in reopening old cases like that. And, if the file is sealed, there is even more red tape. All of that was unnecessary and only because the deputy commissioner's position was looked at as a possible cut, so to show her position was still necessary, she made that directive. Do we need more caseworkers? Yes, and there needs to be an increase in funding for it. But often times, the increased funding the agencies do receive goes towards administrative payraises. |
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Dec 30, 2009 12:25:24 GMT -5
And when are those departments going to get the money they need in order to hire enough qualified people so that they don't lose good workers to 'burn-out' They have the money, they just have poor policies in effect and incompetent administrators. In Broome County, one deputy commissioner ordered all her caseworkers to review cases as old as 10 years ago and reopen any that were missing final paperwork. There is a lot of red tape in reopening old cases like that. And, if the file is sealed, there is even more red tape. All of that was unnecessary and only because the deputy commissioner's position was looked at as a possible cut, so to show her position was still necessary, she made that directive. Do we need more caseworkers? Yes, and there needs to be an increase in funding for it. But often times, the increased funding the agencies do receive goes towards administrative payraises. I agree 110%. |
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Dec 30, 2009 12:26:52 GMT -5
Ok so this adds to my confusion. Why doesn't DSS step up in more cases? Isn't it their job to see the case to the end and do anything in their power to help a child? Isn't this the reason why they are in that field? Why avoid court? What are the percentages of cases going to trial? Is that somewhere out in the internet?
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Dec 30, 2009 12:30:05 GMT -5
And another thing, often times DSS contracts out to private non-profit agencies (such as the Neighborhood Center) to handle these cases. They save money because they don't have to pay higher county wages. These folks don't have a union, so their workload & payscale is worse than the county's!
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Dec 30, 2009 12:42:00 GMT -5
Lucy,
I cannot answer those questions. Only DSS administrators can because they're the ones enforcing these policies. I don't know why dss steps down from a case it feels is important when an "acceptable" alternative party petitions the court for custody. It is bad for two reasons: 1. often, the acceptable alternative party is someone not as atrocious as the biological parent; 2. there is no oversight over the situation on an on going basis to get the family the help it needs.
As for statistics, I have none. I do know that many of my cases where I'm assigned counsel go to trial because my clients (the biological parents) have nothing to lose They don't pay for me. They don't care about their children and would rather draw it out as long as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Dec 30, 2009 13:09:15 GMT -5
It is just horrible. I'm sure not all of it is DSS itself but the policies that they have in place. I wonder how long they have been working with the same policies and procedures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Dec 30, 2009 13:26:15 GMT -5
What I would like to see, and stoney please let me know what your opinion on this is considering your background with cps, is the CPS unit of dss merged into the county Sherriff's office. From reading voluminous casenotes, I'm aware that often times these caseworkers go into very dangerous places where police have to be called and arrests are made. Why risk their safety without adequate protection? They would then also have arrest powers where an arrest is necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Dec 30, 2009 13:28:16 GMT -5
Bobbie, I worked in that system most of my life. If a worker has so many cases she/he can't give each one proper time, who is going to be hurt? The child. These workers are so over-loaded with cases & under paid that of course they end up leaving.  Stoney, I have also worked in the system as a foster parent for many years which two of my foster children I did adopt. I speak of the other side that has see the laxity in the way the department of DSS handles cases. I have seen children returned to their biological parents on approval of the DSS which should have not taken place if they had done their investigation properly. I have seen children remain in a household where I wouldn't keep a dog. I did voice my opinion rather loudly on many of these cases which fell on deaf ears only to see these children damaged beyond repair, and only after the fact, removed from the household the DSS kept them in. Every job has it's pressures but that does not mean you don't continue to do the best job you can with what you have to work with and when you're talking about the lives of children there is no excuse for laxing up on the job. I think it's a sin when I hear the statement, "this case just fell through the cracks." NO, I know it didn't just "fall through the cracks." I know someone in the right department didn't take a complaint seriously enough to do a proper investigation. There are far too many cases that are "falling through the cracks."  |
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Dec 30, 2009 13:36:03 GMT -5
What I would like to see, and stoney please let me know what your opinion on this is considering your background with cps, is the CPS unit of dss merged into the county Sherriff's office. From reading voluminous casenotes, I'm aware that often times these caseworkers go into very dangerous places where police have to be called and arrests are made. Why risk their safety without adequate protection? They would then also have arrest powers where an arrest is necessary. Swimmy, I had two foster children taken away from their parents brought to me with a brief notice by a DSS worker accompanied by a member of the Sheriff's department who went on the call with the DSS's worker to pick up the children from the parent's home, so I'm sure that is already happening in some cases.  |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Dec 30, 2009 14:27:23 GMT -5
I'm not talking about the removal phase. I read in case notes where the caseworker is assaulted by the parents or threatened with weapons and the police had to be called after-the-fact. In some instances, if it wasn't for the fact that the female worker was accompanied by a male worker, there would be rape and murder charges pending. So I'm sure it's not happening in situations where removal is not the objective of the visit.
Right now, I have a client whose boyfriend got upset upon over-hearing (my client told the caseworker the boyfriend was not present, facts get hazy whether it was an intentional misrepresentation or she really thought her boyfriend was not present at the time) the caseworker say that he's not appropriate for my client's children to be around because he's a registered sex offender, came running around from another room with a steak knife at the caseworker. He tripped over some garbage laying in his pathway and that's the ONLY reason the caseworker was able to escape unscathed. She later returned with the police, but the boyfriend had long since taken off.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Dec 30, 2009 20:16:28 GMT -5
I'm not talking about the removal phase. I read in case notes where the caseworker is assaulted by the parents or threatened with weapons and the police had to be called after-the-fact. In some instances, if it wasn't for the fact that the female worker was accompanied by a male worker, there would be rape and murder charges pending. So I'm sure it's not happening in situations where removal is not the objective of the visit. Right now, I have a client whose boyfriend got upset upon over-hearing (my client told the caseworker the boyfriend was not present, facts get hazy whether it was an intentional misrepresentation or she really thought her boyfriend was not present at the time) the caseworker say that he's not appropriate for my client's children to be around because he's a registered sex offender, came running around from another room with a steak knife at the caseworker. He tripped over some garbage laying in his pathway and that's the ONLY reason the caseworker was able to escape unscathed. She later returned with the police, but the boyfriend had long since taken off. Swimmy, that's what really upsets me. A mother having a sex offender as a boyfriend and this is known by the caseworker. What, do they think the kids aren't going to be around the man? Do they realize how many children are sexually assaulted or killed by a mother's sex offender boyfriend? Plenty can be done by a caseworker in a situation as this. Number one the man can be violated for just being in the household with any children. A caseworker with any suspicion of this can just report it to the police and they will do the rest. The worker shouldn't rely on the mother for any information because most likey she will lie for her boyfriend. This mother should not have custody of her children when she puts them in harms way by choosing a sex offender as a boyfriend. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Dec 30, 2009 21:40:19 GMT -5
What I would like to see, and stoney please let me know what your opinion on this is considering your background with cps, is the CPS unit of dss merged into the county Sherriff's office. From reading voluminous casenotes, I'm aware that often times these caseworkers go into very dangerous places where police have to be called and arrests are made. Why risk their safety without adequate protection? They would then also have arrest powers where an arrest is necessary. I think for the time being, the government wants to consider the welfare of a child and his possible removal as social work, rather than police work. In many cases, that's lamentable, but probably will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Just my guess. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Dec 30, 2009 22:33:41 GMT -5
Swimmy might be on the right track since many cases such as the one discussed in this topic where the police and the courts have the clean up after the fact when the child is killed. Or the case Swimmy quoted when a registered sex offender is allowed by the mother into her home with her children. That alone seems to be a criminal offense on the mother's part if she willing allows the man into her home. Maybe it's not a bad idea for the two departments to work hand in hand to get some action before instead of after the fact. Just might be able to save more lives of the innocent who are suppose to be protected.
|
|
Stoney, I have also worked in the system as a foster parent for many years which two of my foster children I did adopt. I speak of the other side that has see the laxity in the way the department of DSS handles cases. I have seen children returned to their biological parents on approval of the DSS which should have not taken place if they had done their investigation properly. I have seen children remain in a household where I wouldn't keep a dog. I did voice my opinion rather loudly on many of these cases which fell on deaf ears only to see these children damaged beyond repair, and only after the fact, removed from the household the DSS kept them in. 
