Family Court Judges need to keep children safe

[dgriffin]

I'm going to be first theoretical, so forgive me in advance.

Bobbbiez, I wouldn't want to draw a hard line here, but I think the police should spend their time apprehending and arresting people who have definitely broken the laws. Social workers should work with families who need assistance in raising children. That is a simplified view, of course.

In the case where a social worker determines that the police should be involved, I believe it is the worker's duty to involve them. But to have a social service unit report into a police structure seems to me to potentially problem ridden.

In a sense, police work is aimed at bringing law breakers to justice; social work's intention (in this case) is to keep families intact and prevent some from becoming lawbreakers.

I spent a lot of time in industrial and educational organizations and I can safely say that reporting structures matter. You can tremendously warp the function of a department and the value of its contributions by having it report into the wrong management structure.

I certainly won't argue that in today's world the police are often needed to protect the social worker, but I don't think that justifies the merging of functions.

I would like to hear from a social worker, too, and I guess that's Stoney?

[bobbbiez]

Dave, I hear what you're saying in normal cases and I do agree. In the case Swimmy spoke about the case worker put herself in danger knowing the mother was allowing a registered sex offender in her home with her children. When in fact, there is sex offender divisions in police departments, which the worker could have given the information to and all would have been taken care of by that division. The man was breaking the law just by being in the presence of the children. Don't know about NYS, but other states have charged mothers for aiding and abetting sex offenders for allowing them to be in the presence of their children.

I'm sure in many cases of abuse the two departments can work together and I'm sure they have. Not an idea to throw completely out the window.

[Ralph]

Well, from personal experience I can tell you that there are plenty of cases where they came in and removed a child from the home when it was the very worse thing they could have done.

Nothing is perfect and nothing is set in stone, but they ALL do need to do a better job in some instances than they do.

All you need is one over zealous caseworker with an ax to grind and you're toast in the courts eyes.

[dgriffin]

Ralph, I'm wondering if the cases you're thinking of where removal was (or turned out to be) unwarranted were CYA.

I would think that before removing a child from his home, DSS would require a special peer and management review with someone arguing from the position of devil's advocate. It can happen as quickly as DSS wants it to and not delay action in a dangerous situation. That was the norm for a drastic action in any professional environment I ever worked in.

Belay that .... come to think of it, that was not true in the first school district where I worked. There, one's authority was commensurate only with title, not experience nor even common sense, and certainly not with good judgment.

I think Bz is right. More cooperation between DSS and the PD is better than less.

[Swimmy]

Dec 30, 2009 23:38:23 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

I'm going to be first theoretical, so forgive me in advance.

Bobbbiez, I wouldn't want to draw a hard line here, but I think the police should spend their time apprehending and arresting people who have definitely broken the laws. Social workers should work with families who need assistance in raising children. That is a simplified view, of course.

In the case where a social worker determines that the police should be involved, I believe it is the worker's duty to involve them. But to have a social service unit report into a police structure seems to me to potentially problem ridden.

In a sense, police work is aimed at bringing law breakers to justice; social work's intention (in this case) is to keep families intact and prevent some from becoming lawbreakers.

I spent a lot of time in industrial and educational organizations and I can safely say that reporting structures matter. You can tremendously warp the function of a department and the value of its contributions by having it report into the wrong management structure.

I certainly won't argue that in today's world the police are often needed to protect the social worker, but I don't think that justifies the merging of functions.

I would like to hear from a social worker, too, and I guess that's Stoney?

In Oneida County, there is a police-run "Child Advocacy Center" that investigates reports of child abuse. So, technically, there is already an investigative unit within the police force that does some of what your theory suggests should not be done. My idea is that by having the police investigate and look after this stuff instead, they'd be able to detect certain dangers that the untrained social worker does not, and be able to make lawful arrests when necessary.

[Swimmy]

Dec 31, 2009 8:23:28 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Ralph, I'm wondering if the cases you're thinking of where removal was (or turned out to be) unwarranted were CYA.

I would think that before removing a child from his home, DSS would require a special peer and management review with someone arguing from the position of devil's advocate. It can happen as quickly as DSS wants it to and not delay action in a dangerous situation. That was the norm for a drastic action in any professional environment I ever worked in.

Belay that .... come to think of it, that was not true in the first school district where I worked. There, one's authority was commensurate only with title, not experience nor even common sense, and certainly not with good judgment.

I think Bz is right. More cooperation between DSS and the PD is better than less.

To commence a dss investigation, someone needs to make a hotline call regarding the children's safety. A caseworker goes out to investigate the home. They will make suggestions and discuss the allegations with the all-too-often hostile residents. The caseworkers will discuss their visits with supervising caseworkers and dss attorneys. The caseworker will follow up with the household to see whether the suggestions are implemented. There are several supervisor reviews of the case in the meantime. And the DSS attorneys have reviewed the case at least 2 or 3 times with the caseworker. This process takes months sometimes.

But despite all of that involvement, many cases "slip through the cracks" and the victims are the children. It is easy to blame the judges, but if there isn't a petition before the judge, the judge can't do anything. Also, many times in these cases, a responsible relative will step in and petition for custody. From dss's pov, the child safety concerns are abated and they cease their investigation and their services for the parents and children. It makes no sense. And then a few years later the biological parents who have not received treatment for their behaviors that cost them their children in the first place petition for custody. DSS isn't involved any longer and doesn't even get notified about this new development (even when they are, they decline to appear). And by then the responsible relative is tired of caring for the children and willing to turn over custody. With DSS choosing not to appear and their casenotes concluding there are no more child protective concerns from years ago, the judges have no choice but to make an order returning custody to the parents because the parents can get an evaluation stating they don't have (or no longer have) a drug problem and the court takes that into evidence. Now, you have seemingly fit parents who have done nothing to remedy their situations. And the judge's hands are tied because there is no other application for relief before the judge (many times, despite a blatant invitation to dss to make its application).

As I said earlier, judges are not entirely free from criticism, but they should not bear the brunt of the blame nor all of the blame. There are certainly cases where the judges made the wrong decision, but those are rarities.

[Swimmy]

Dec 31, 2009 1:31:32 GMT -5 Ralph said:

Well, from personal experience I can tell you that there are plenty of cases where they came in and removed a child from the home when it was the very worse thing they could have done.

Nothing is perfect and nothing is set in stone, but they ALL do need to do a better job in some instances than they do.

All you need is one over zealous caseworker with an ax to grind and you're toast in the courts eyes.

There is some truth to that. But even the over zealous caseworker can be exposed for it. Facts don't lie and can't be made up. A good attorney can expose the flaws in the caseworker's notes on cross examination. And succeed!

To address your other point, yes there are times where removal was the wrong decision. Again, better investigations would resolved that issue. And it's mostly because one parent has done a great job of manipulating the system to his or her advantage (both sexes are guilty of this) and it's typically the parent least fit to have custody of the child.

[stoney]

Dec 30, 2009 13:26:15 GMT -5 Swimmy said:

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 didn't work within DSS but had to work with them (I was supplying services from another agency) & still am good friends with some. They are stressed to the max.

I don't know if combining DSS w/sheriff's would be best, though officers are often used in volatile situations. The thing is you don't know there is going to be problem until you're actually there, as was in the case of that girl. I've been in some hairy pickles (a technical term) myself where I made sure my back was to the door the entire time I was there & never sat down.

[bobbbiez]

I'm going to try to make this as short as possible but my experience is the reason why I feel the two departments really need each other and can work together.

Two years ago a family moved in on my street. The family consist of a mother, her two children (the girl was 7 yrs old & the boy 10 yrs old who is mentally challenged) and the mother's live-in boyfriend. Both mother and boyfriend are alcoholics and do drugs. They had weekly WILD parties at their residence (inside & outside) lasting into the wee hours of the mornings with the kids running up and down the streets at all hours.
On numerous occasions I witnessed the 10 yr old boy running up the street screaming, "I won't come back! Don't hit me!" with the live-in boyfriend chasing him.
Finally, I couldn't take seeing this any more and decided to call the "hot line" for child abuse.
HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER DONE THAT? Let me tell you it's not as easy as they state or advertise. By time I got done talking to the person at the child abuse center, I felt like I had done something wrong. The end result of our conversation was since I hadn't seen the man actually hit the child there was no abuse to report.

The Wild parties continued. I again witnessed the boy running up the street screaming and the mother's boyfriend chasing him. Now, it's 12:30 in the morning and I have had it! I called the police and reported the situation 'BUT" now I lied and said I saw the man grab and shake the child. Wrong to lie, yes. Do I regret my decision to lie, hell no!
The police answered the call and in the long run the mother's boyfriend was arrested for disorderly conduct being he was totally drunk and started a fight with the police and was found with drugs on his possession.

End of story, the police reported this situation to the right department who in turn finally investigation the household. The Wild parties ended, the mother went through rehab, the live-in boyfriend is no longer around and the children are now being taken care of properly and seem very happy.

Yes, I do feel both departments need to work together if we truly want to end the abuse that is taking place. They can both assist and watch over the other. In other words, let the right hand know what the left hand is doing.

[dgriffin]

I'm not against DSS and the police working closely together. Mine was a theoretical argument regarding who reports to who. And against the background of what really happens on the street or in the household, probably doesn't appear very important.

But I think the "falling through the cracks" is the main problem, and suspect that the structures now in place got that way and remain that way largely because they make sense, absent politics. It's the cracks that need to be fixed.

[dgriffin]

Dec 31, 2009 13:17:37 GMT -5 bobbbiez said:

Finally, I couldn't take seeing this any more and decided to call the "hot line" for child abuse.
HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER DONE THAT? Let me tell you it's not as easy as they state or advertise. By time I got done talking to the person at the child abuse center, I felt like I had done something wrong. The end result of our conversation was since I hadn't seen the man actually hit the child there was no abuse to report.

Your experience is not uncommon. A colleague called the state Hotline and was told that for them to take a complaint the abuser had to be related to the victim. A neighbor perp did not qualify to be called into the hotine, and the caller was directed to contact the local police. Of course, that is not easily done anonymously.

I am (or was, if that's possible) a "certified reporter." Took the one evening course as a job requirement. I'm sure there are also others on this forum. And it ain't what they told us, I'm thinkin'.

[Swimmy]

What is a certified reporter? I'm aware of mandatory reporters like teachers. Is that what you're referring to?

[stoney]

I thought that was what he meant, Swimmy, until I read that part about taking a course. So I'm not sure.

[dgriffin]

Both mandatory and certified. I think anyone who works with children, at least for a public agency such as a school, is a "mandated reporter." Most agencies will require the worker to take a two hour course for certification. "This two-hour certification course is required for mandated reporters of child abuse and maltreatment applying for New York State certification or licensure."
I took the course as a teacher.

www.capsli.org/ny.php

[Swimmy]

Dec 31, 2009 11:40:28 GMT -5 @stoney said:

Dec 30, 2009 13:26:15 GMT -5 Swimmy said:

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 didn't work within DSS but had to work with them (I was supplying services from another agency) & still am good friends with some. They are stressed to the max.

I don't know if combining DSS w/sheriff's would be best, though officers are often used in volatile situations. The thing is you don't know there is going to be problem until you're actually there, as was in the case of that girl. I've been in some hairy pickles (a technical term) myself where I made sure my back was to the door the entire time I was there & never sat down.

That's why I suggested combining Child Protective Services (not the entire department of social services) with the police because there are instances where you do not know what the outcome will be and having the intimidation factor carried with being in law enforcement (that's not intended to be an insult) can subdue an otherwise hostile situation before it brews. And where the situation does turn hostile, the now police officer can make an arrest and defend himself/herself.