Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
34428445
label
[Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997] [loose] [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34428445
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
[Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997] [loose] [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
34428445
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-002-004-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c3b39faf21f41bf5
ocrText
MEDICAL COVERAGE FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN UNDER
THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
to
fout?
MICHAEL S. MELBINGER*
J-
President Clinton signed into law the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993 on August 10. Buried among the sweeping changes in the tax and employee benefits
areas made by OBRA '93, is one substantive changes that should be of enormous benefit
to the families who have adopted a child and families that are considering adoption.
The new law requires that any "group health plan" which provides coverage
for dependent children of plan participants, must provide benefits to dependent children
placed with participants for adoption under the same terms and conditions as apply in the
case of dependent children who are natural children of participants under the plan. This
requirement applies irrespective of whether the adoption has become final.
Additionally, an employer's group health plan may not restrict coverage of any
dependent child adopted by a participant, or placed with a participant for adoption, solely
on the basis of a preexisting condition of such child at the time that such child otherwise
would become eligible for coverage under the plan, if the adoption or placement for
adoption occurs while the participant is eligible for coverage under the plan. The law
protects children who have not attained age 18 as of the date of the adoption or placement.
"Group health plans" includes the health and medical benefit plans of virtually
every employer that is subject to ERISA in the United States. Group health plans includes
both plans that are self-insured by the employer and fully insured plans, under which
benefits generally are provided directly by an insurance company. Employers that are not
subject to ERISA and, therefore, exempt from the new law, are governmental employers
(which would be subject to state or federal laws governing coverage) and "churches" (which
could include church sponsored organizations, such as hospitals).
For your adopted children to be entitled to coverage under your employer's
medical benefit plan you must be a plan participant and you must otherwise be eligible to
elect family coverage under the plan. You must follow all other applicable requirements
for coverage under the plan.
There still could be circumstances and plans under which your adopted child
would not be eligible for medical coverage or would be subject to an exclusion of coverage
for a preexisting condition. For example, if you adopted a child at a time when you were
not eligible to elect coverage under an employer's medical plan, any preexisting condition
clause could still be applicable. Similarly, if you changed jobs, any preexisting condition
clause in your new employer's plan could be applicable. Finally, any exclusions or
SCHIFF HARDIN & WAITE
U.S. Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
Washington. DC 20210
JUL 27 1995
THE
Michael S. Melbinger, Esq.
95-18A
Schiff, Hardin & Waite
7200 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6473
Dear Mr. Melbinger:
This is in response to your request, or. behalf of Adoptive
Families of America, Inc., for cuidance concerning the
obligations of group health plans under section 609 (c) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended (ERISA),
relating to coverage of dependent children in connection with
adoptions. Specifically, you have requested the views of the
Department of Labor (the Department) on a number of issues,
discussed below, relating to the application of section 609 (c) to
group health plans.
In general, section 609 (c) (1) requires group health plans
that provide coverage for dependent children to provide such
coverage to children who are placed for adoption with
participants or beneficiaries, with coverage being effective upon
such placement. Benefits must be provided under the same terms
and conditions that apply to dependent children who are natural
children of participants or beneficiaries under the plan,
irrespective of whether the adoption has become final. Section
609 (c) (2) provides that a group health plan may not restrict
coverage under the plan of any dependent child adopted by or
placed for adoption with a participant or beneficiary solely on
the basis of a preexisting condition of such child at the time
the child would otherwise become eligible for coverage under the
plan, if the adoption or placement for adoption occurs while the
participant or beneficiary is eligible for coverage under the
plan.
Section 609 (c) (3) (A) defines "child", for purposes of
subsection (c), to mean, in connection with any adoption or
placement for adoption, an individual who has not attained age 18
as of the date of such adoption or placement for adoption.
Section 609 (c) (3) (B) defines the term "placement" or "being
1/ Section 609 was added to ERISA by section 4301 of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, P. L. 103-66, (OBRA)
and, under section 4301 (d), became effective on enactment,
August 10, 1993.
2/ The term "group health plan" is defined in section 607 (1)
of ERISA to mean "an employee welfare benefit plan providing
medical care (as defined in section 213 (d) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986) to participants or beneficiaries directly or through
insurance, reimbursement, or otherwise."
Working for America's Workforce
3
609 (c) apply to any such plan as of August 10, 1993, without
regard to whether the plan is maintained under or pursuant to a
collective bargaining agreement. Section 4301 (d) of OBRA, which
contains the effective date of ERISA section 609, does not
provide any deferred effective date for plans maintained under or
pursuant to collective bargaining agreements.
In the view of the Department, a group health plan that
provided dependent coverage prior to August 10, 1993, is required
by section 609 (c) to provide coverage as of that date to any
dependent child previously adopted by or placed for adoption with
a participant or beneficiary under the same terms and conditions
as coverage was provided to natural dependent children of
participants and beneficiaries under the plan. Under section
609 (c), therefore, a group health plan may not impose or apply a
waiting period for coverage of dependent children who were
adopted by or placed for adoption with a participant or
beneficiary prior to, on, or after August 10, 1993, unless such
waiting period applies to coverage of dependent natural children
of participants and beneficiaries. Moreover, section 609 (c) (2)
specifically provides that, as of August 10, 1993, a plan may
not, regardless of the date of adoption or placement, restrict
coverage of any dependent child adopted by or placed for adoption
with a participant or beneficiary who is eligible for coverage
under the plan, solely on the basis of a preexisting condition of
such child at the time that the child would otherwise become
eligible for coverage under the plan.
Finally, a group health plan subject to Title I of ERISA
which provides coverage for dependent children of retired
participants may not, without contravening the requirements of
section 609 (c), deny such coverage to children who are adopted by
or placed for adoption with a retired participant solely on the
ground that the child has been adopted or placed for adoption.
Placement for adoption issues
Your correspondence presents several questions relating to
when a child will be treated as placed for adoption, i.e., when a
participant or beneficiary will be treated as having assumed and
retained a legal obligation for total or partial support of a
child in anticipation of adoption of such child. Assuming that
the adoptive parent is otherwise eligible for family coverage
under a group health plan, you present the following questions:
(a) Does an agreement to pay the birth expenses of the child
and the birth mother constitute "a legal obligation for total or
partial support of such child in anticipation of adoption" under
section 609 (c) ?
An agreement to pay the birth expenses of the mother is not,
by itself, an agreement to support the child, and thus is not a
5
Plan coverage issues
Your correspondence presents the following questions
relating to what benefits must be provided by a group health plan
in the case of a child placed for adoption. For purposes of
these questions, it is assumed that the participant or
beneficiary seeking dependent coverage otherwise is eligible for
family medical coverage under a group health plan and has a legal
obligation for support of the child in anticipation of adoption.
(a) Must a group health plan cover the birth expenses of a
child adopted or placed for adoption to the same extent that such
expenses would be covered if the child were born to the plan
participant?
Section 609 (c) (1) requires that a group health plan that
provides dependent child coverage must provide benefits to
dependent children placed for adoption with participants or
beneficiaries under the same terms and conditions as apply in the
case of dependent children who are natural children of
participants or beneficiaries under the plan. Accordingly, to
the extent that a group health plan designates certain covered
expenses attendant to birth as expenses of a dependent child, the
group health plan would be required to extend the same coverage
to children who have been adopted by or placed for adoption with
a participant or beneficiary at the time such expenses are
incurred. Whether any particular expense is attributable to the
child, rather than the mother, generally must be determined by
reference to the terms of the plan.
(b) Must a group health plan cover the birth expenses of the
birth mother as if the birth mother was a covered participant or
beneficiary?
No. Section 609 (c) imposes no obligation on group health
plans to cover expenses attributable to the birth mother of a
child that has been placed for adoption with a participant or
beneficiary.
(c) If, as a condition of the adoption, the adoptive plan
participant or beneficiary is required to pay certain birth and
other expenses of a child incurred prior to the assumption of a
the support obligation, is the group health plan of the
participant or beneficiary required to reimburse those expenses?
No. Section 609 (c) only requires a group health plan to
provide coverage to a child upon "placement for adoption" of that
child with a participant or beneficiary. As discussed above,
"placement for adoption" is defined, in section 609 (c) (3) (B), to
mean the assumption by a participant or beneficiary of a legal
obligation for total or partial support of the child in
anticipation of adoption of such child. Accordingly, a group
7
contravention of section 609 (c) 41 Thus, if a plan provides
coverage to a natural child of a participant or beneficiary in
cases in which governmental assistance equals or exceeds 50% of
the child's support, the plan may not deny coverage to a child
adopted by or placed for adoption with a participant or
beneficiary solely because governmental assistance equals or
exceeds 50% of the child's support.
This letter constitutes an advisory opinion under ERISA
Procedure 76-1 (41 Fed. Reg. 36281, August 27, 1976).
Accordingly, this letter is issued subject to the provisions of
the procedure, including section 10 relating to the effect of
advisory opinions.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. DOYLE
Director of Regulations
and Interpretations
4/ Section 609 (c) (3) (A), for instance, defines the term "child"
for the purposes of that subsection to include an individual who
has not attained age 18 as of the date of adoption or placement for
adoption. Accordingly, a plan may not deny dependent coverage to
a child within the meaning of section 609 (c) (3) (A) who has been
adopted by or placed for adoption with a participant or beneficiary
on the basis of an age that is different from that at which it
denies dependent coverage to natural children.
VCIS
ResearchNotes
Voluntary Cooperative Information System
810 First Street, N.E., Suite 500
Phone: 202-682-0100
American Public Welfare Association
Washington, D.C. 20002-4205
APWA
No. 12 (June 1996)
U.S. CHILD SUBSTITUTE CARE FLOW DATA FOR FY 1994 AND
TRENDS IN THE STATE CHILD SUBSTITUTE CARE POPULATIONS
Toshio Tatara, Ph.D.
Director
Research and Demonstration Department
American Public Welfare Association (APWA)
Child Substitute Care Flow Data for FY 1994
The U.S. child substitute care population reached 468,000 at the end of (state) FY 94, and
this figure represents a 5.4% increase from the first day of the same fiscal year. The national flow
data on substitute care children for FY 94, assembled and estimated by APWA's Voluntary
Cooperative Information System (VCIS), are shown below:
Difference from
First Day
Entered Care
Total Served
Left Care
Last Day
First Day
444°
254
698
230
468
+5.4%
As these flow data indicate, there were a total of 444,000 children residing in the U.S.
substitute care system at the start of FY 94. During FY 94, an estimated 254,000 children entered
care, bringing the total number of children served by the nation's substitute care system in that year
"All figures are in thousands. They also are estimates and will be verified/confirmed when more
detailed data become available in 1997.
the VCIS Research Notes shows the trends in the U.S. substitute care population, from FY 82 to FY
95, in histogram.
About VCIS Research Notes
APWA's Voluntary Cooperative Information System (VCIS) collected child substitute care
and adoption data from state public child welfare agencies between 1982 and 1993, with funding
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (Grant No. 90-OJ-2015). National
summaries of these data for each year were published in a report Characteristics of Children in
Substitute and Adoptive Care." Since 1993, VCIS has been operated jointly by LTG Associates
(the primary contractor) and APWA, under federal contract (Contract No. 105-93-0880).
The purpose of VCIS Research Notes is two-fold: (1) to conduct occasional analyses of
national trends in substitute care and adoption services using VCIS data (and data from other
sources, as needed); and (2) to disseminate these analyses in a timely manner to policy makers,
public child welfare administrators, and researchers. Each issue addresses one or two selected
topics. The views expressed in each issue are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
policies of APWA or the federal government.
"Copies of these reports are available at cost from APWA.
3
Trends in the U.S. Child Substitute Care Population
FY 82 to FY 95
600
494
500
468
445
427
414
400
383
400
340
Thousands
300
300
262
269
270
270
280
200
100
0
FY 82
FY 83
FY 84
FY 85
FY 86
FY 87
FY 88
FY 89
FY 90
FY 91*
FY 92**
FY 93
FY 94
FY 95***
*
Revised from 429,000
Revised from 442,000
*Rough estimate
Source: Voluntary Cooperative Information System (VCIS) of the American Public Welfare Association (APWA)
June 1996
SENT BY APWA
; 6-20-96 ; 9:36AM ;
702 7846628;; 2/ 3
AMERICAN PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION (APWA)
Voluntary Cooperative information Systeme (VCIS)
CHILD SUBSTITUTE CARE
FLOW DATA FOR FY 04
ITEM
D OF CHILDREN
1 OF CHILDREN
1 OF CHILDREN
# OF CHILDREN
1 OF CHILDREN
IN CARE AT THE
WHO ENTERED
WHO LEFT CAR
STILL IN CARE AT
IN CARE AS OF
STATE
START OF FY94
CARE DURING FY94
DURING FY94
THE END OF FY94
DEC. 31, 1994
Alabama
3,903
2,261
2,378
3,788
3,814
Alaska
1,716
1,625
1,465
1,876
1,541
Arizona
4,107
4,271
Arkansas
1,915
1,631
1,350
2,196
2,358
California
87,420
33,356
27,435
93,321
94,784
Colorado
5,700
5,957
Connecticut
4,557
4,648
Delaware
707
734
695
746
812
District of Columbia
2,401
1,109
1,546
1,981
Florida
9,568
4,459
4,743
9,284
9,233
Georgia
17,277
1,105
1,143
17,239
17,275
Guam
Hawaii
1,506
1,179
867
1,818
1,938
Idaho
924
1,203
1,080
906
949
illinois
33,815
11,969
4,623
41,161
44,825
Indiana
6,741
4,425
3,252
9,883
12,384
lows
3,267
3,193
2,934
3,526
3,800
Kansas
4,593
4,501
Kentucky
3,223
3,245
1,698
3,587
3,514
Louisiana
5,607
5,831
Maine
2,150
2,238
Maryland
6,162
3,793
3,019
6,936
7,143
Massachusetts
13,311
7,820
8,807
13,574
13,572
Michigan
10,382
8,086
7,862
10,608
10,709
Minnesota
9,700
10,379
Mississippi
3,293
3,425
Missouri
8,357
6,047
4,742
8,673
9,046
Montana
1,600
NA
NA
1,414
1,631
Nebraska
3,222
2,381
2,329
3,274
3,144
Nevade
2,831
2,440
2,479
New Hampshire
2,024
1,471
1,520
1,975
1,999
New Jersey
7,673
4,302
4,204
7,771
7,771
New Mexico
2,132
1,871
1,766
2,174
2,158
New York
59,658
58,656
North Caroline
11,024
3,980
3,095
11,859
12,189
North Dakota
782
852
759
875
931
Ohio
15,922
15,922
Oklahoma
2,953
4,926
1,172
6,707
5,872
Oregon
4,134
3,791
3,326
4,599
4,676
Pennsylvania
18,976
19,736
Puerto Rice
1,892
1,930
Rhode Island
2,894
2,270
2,025
3,139
3,249
South Carolina
4,469
3,402
1,691
4,761
4,886
South Dakota
674
551
594
631
534
Tennessee
5,766
3,184
2,764
6,186
NA
Texas
10,880
11,315
Utah
1,461
1,108
894
1,622
1,766
Vermont
1,245
863
772
1,336
1,384
Virgin Islands
Virginia
6,233
3,013
2617
6,429
6,629
Weshington
9,381
22,887
23,032
9,189
9,193
West Virginia
2,483
2,483
Wisconsin
7,873
5,670
5,485
8,058
8,070
Wyoming
NA
NA
NA
957
1,001
TOTALS
442,484
163,740
138,084
467,968
317,257
VCIS Nat. Estimates:
444,000
254.000
230,000
468,000
NA
SOURCE: Voluntary Cooperative Information System, June, 1996.
NOTES: The collection of the state data was supported in part by a gra nt (No. 990-OJ-2016) awarded to APWA by the
Administration for Children and Families (ACFY HHS. Some figures are estimates. The vc S national estimates may change
when more detailed statistics are collected sometime in 1995. Most etat ates used the "July to June cycle" to report their data, while
other states used the "October to September cycle" or the calender year 1994.
SPECIAL NOTES: State- by-state comparteons of the statistics are discouraged because . the definition of substitute care
varies among states and such analyses require additional information.
All Inquiries about the VCIS data should be dire cted to Toshio Tatere of APWA at 202/682-0100.
TESTIMONY OF:
Sister Josephine Murphy, D.C.
Administrator of St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home
Before the
Subcommittee on Human Resources
of the Committee on Ways and Means
June 27, 1996
St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home
4901 Eastern Avenue
Hyattsville, MD 20782
(301) 559-5500
Chairman Shaw and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources:
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today as you examine whether
the provisions of The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
promote adoption in appropriate cases. My name is Sr. Josephine Murphy and
I am a Daughter of Charity. I am also the administrator of St. Ann's Infant
and Maternity Home.
St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home began in 1860 and was incorporated in
1863. The Acts of Incorporation were signed by Abraham Lincoln. It began as
an infant and maternity home and remains that at present. From it's inception
until the present St. Ann's has been a non-profit corporation serving without
regard to race or religion. At present it cares for 57 abused/abandoned/neglected
children from the District and Maryland. Of these 57 children, 42 are three
years of age or younger. Children are accepted 24 hours a day, 365 day a year
on an emergency placement basis. There are no requirements except that there
is a bed empty. St. Ann's also serves 32 pregnant and parenting single,
adolescent young women in their prenatal program and mother/baby program.
Infant and regular day care is another program offered to 85 families in the
community. We are supported by fees from the agencies that use our services,
United Way, Foundations, business corporations and many other friends and
benefactors.
I received my M.S.W. from Virginia Commonwealth University and have worked in
child care homes as a child care worker or administrator for 40 years. I have
been administrator of St. Ann's for eight years.
My testimony will center around some specific cases, some of the problems I
see concerning The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 and some
of my own views about the terrible abuse and neglect of our children.
"Please don't send me home!" This is the cry we have heard more than once at
St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home. It is the cry of little Billy who at age
three has suffered severe abuse over a long period of time. When he was just
a year and a half old he was taken to the hospital for treatment of third
degree burns to the heel and sole of his right foot. He also had a hematoma
on the back of his head and bruises on his right jaw. In addition, X-rays
revealed old skull fractures. The injuries were inconsistent with the ex-
planation provided by his mother. Nonetheless he was returned home and came
to St. Ann's another year and a half later after again going to the hospital
and being seen for scrotal swelling and bruises. His buttocks were bruised
and he complained of his stomach aching. He also had a rectal fissure and
it took almost a year working with the doctors before he had normal bowel
movements again. My question is - why was he returned home in the first place
after the abuse he had suffered at age one and a half?
"Please don't send me home!" Billy's plea should be a trumpet call to all of
us. Never should we send them home - if home means more abuse and neglect.
I firmly believe that child protection should take precedence over family re-
unification. Children need a sense of permanency, some stability and con-
sistency in their lives. They need to be protected and given the same basic
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the rest of us have.
Our legal system that is so quick to advocate and demand through The Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 that children be returned to their
homes fails to take sufficient time to examine whether family reunification is
appropriate in the majority of child abuse cases. Many times I believe, if we
are looking to child protection, that it is not. The legal system, and I
include Corporation Counsel in the legal system, should take a good, realistic
look at what is happening to children and have the intestinal fortitude, when
it is needed, to terminate parental rights and place these children in adoption.
The time has come, and in my opinion is long overdue, for the legal syste= to
accept it's share of the blame for the continuity of the terrible abuse and
neglect that we see in the lives of the youngest members of society coming into
care today. Many times the courts assume that the best interests of the child
subsist within the best interests of the parent. This is wrong! The best interest
of the child or if you will, the safety of the child, takes precedence over
the best interest of the parent. I am a proponent of long-term OUT-OF-HOME
placement for children until a FULL INVESTIGATION is completed and SUFFICIENT
REHABILITATION has taken place. The parent should be confronted with the fact
-1-
that this rehabilitation takes place within a stipulated time or the child will
be placed in adoption. This stipulated time should not drag on for years but
the case should be reviewed in six months to see if the parent is really making
efforts to change and accept responsibility. Babies should not have to wait
years for this to take place!
I am aware that the present trend of our child welfare system is toward family
reunification, believing that every family can be "fixed" and that the biological
family is ALWAYS the best place to raise a child. I have listened to too many
children and seen too many badly abused babies to ever believe this. I do
believe that there is a placement of choice for every child. This may be back
in their own homes if investigation proves them to be safe and rehabilitation
has taken place. It could be in foster care, in adoption or in long-term
homes for children. Children entering the system today, for the most part, are
extremely traumatized by physical/sexual abuse. Placing them back in their own
abusive homes or in unsuccessful foster placement only damages them further.
The best thing for some abused/neglected children is to go into a long-term
facility which is a neutral placement where they don't have to relate immediately
to another parent substitute figure. I especially think this is helpful for
teenagers who have been so horribly abused for so many y ears that they no longer
trust anyone. Mary one of the girls in our maternity program had a horrible
early childhood but did well at St. Ann's. Her mother was a drug addict with
many run-ins with the law who abandoned her at three weeks of age. Her father
was an alcoholic who was given custody of Mary and soon remarried, letting the
child believe the woman was her biological mother. He was abusive to both
his wife and daughter and a divorce soon took place. Mary was devastated when
she learned this woman was not her mother and was leaving her. At age eleven
Mary began taking care of herself and doing what she could to run the house.
Her father suddenly stopped drinking but then began to sexually abuse her.
She went to a counselor at school for help and her father was put in jail.
She was placed in the home of her father's former wife and that placement did
not last long. From there she went into foster care. Mary says of her foster
mother, "It was hell living with her". She ran away and went from shelter
homes to girls' homes. She developed an "I don't care" attitude. She got
pregnant and her boy friend left her - alone and with no place to go. She
knew of St. Ann's and sought help there. Mary did well in both the maternity
and mother/baby programs, finished school and got a scholarship to college.
Many young people, like Mary, wind up in the shuffle of the welfare system,
going from one home to another feeling rejected each time they are moved,
feeling unwanted, unloved, and that nobody has time for them. In general
they feel they are a nuisance to everybody and that the world wouldn't be
in the mess it's in if they had never been born. Hence the increased rate
of teen suicides. However, over the years I've seen many desperate teens
blossom when placed in long-term care and given a chance to stabilize and
feel they belong.
As I reflect on what's happening to these adolescents and young children today
I come to one unavoidable conclusion: They are present day slaves. I hate to
use the word since I thought slavery had ended in our country years ago. I was
mistaken. It has just changed its focus. Those in slavery today are our children.
I see it in their eyes when they come into our home. It's a heart-wrenching look
of defeat and longing. I can't explain it, but I've seen it hundreds of times.
It's become a constant image in my prayer - the eyes of Christ in this dis-
tressing disguise. It's what I imagine the look of the slave was, this child
with no hope.
They are the little chattels of their mothers who hold the power of life or
death over them. They are the slaves of people's perversions, whims and
frustrations. They are beaten, burned, bartered, sold, used and abused -
just as the slaves of years ago. I worked with a young girl in Virginia who
had been traded, like a slave, by her mother for a transistor radio when she
was just a few weeks old. In a few months her new mother did not want her
anymore and gave her up to the welfare department. She should have been adopted
as an infant but instead spent all of her life in the system going from
placement to placement.
-2-
We see these little slaves often at St. Ann's. Many of them are sexually
exploited to gratify the passions of adults who are obsessed with sex;
Alice, a little two year old who had to have stitches for vaginal
lacerations because she had been raped.
Kathy, two weeks old, came to us withgonorrhea of the throat.
Pam who at 15 months of age suffered from venereal warts. She had been sexually
abused by her mother's boyfriend and needed surgery because of it. Surgery was
scheduled but before it took place she was discharged to her mother and right
back to the same situation.
They are burned, oh yes, they are burned. That's what happened to Ben who came
in with both hands so badly burned that we sent him to the hospital because the
nurse on duty thought his hands were infected. He was hospitalized for six
days while the hospital staff worked on his hands. When he came back to us
we were told by the hospital that they were not water burns but that his hands
had been held over an open fire. When his mother came the following week to
visit him he took one look at her and raced off down the hall screaming. He
and his brother both accused their mother of abuse, and the aunt admitted that
there had been long-term sexual activity between the mother and the boys. Yet
they were released to their aunt who had been around while all this was going
on and done nothing.
Children today are beaten also, but no longer with a hair brush as in years
gone by. The implement of abuse now is the electric cord because "loving"
mothers and their boyfriends have found out that it inflicts much more pain
and the pain lasts a lot longer., Tommy came in at age seven with his back
all torn up in this manner. It took months to heal his "mommy sores" as he
called them. As he prepared to go home he wanted to know why we were sending
him back when we knew what was going to happen to him. Why indeed! I wish I
had been able to come up with a good answer but all I could say was that we
were not sending him home but had received a court order which meant the judge
had ordered us to send him home. It's nothing but slavery!
This does not happen with every child, but it happens too often for any of us
to be complacent. I'm not speaking as a burned out social worker but as one
who has become incensed about the plight of children today. We freed the
slaves once; it's time we freed the new slaves by making child protection and
nurturing the number one priority in our courts, schools and homes. If we do
then maybe we won't be trying eight and ten year old children as adults for
murder. I don't think age matters, it's just getting big enough and strong
enough to do the job. We had a seven year old little boy at St. Ann's who
was looking forward to the day he would be big enough to kill his mother's
boyfriend who beat him and his younger brothers and little sister and sexually
abused them also. They have been back to St. Ann's twice and still the goal
is family reunification. Why do we leave children with mothers who can't
or won't protect them? Our courts are rather naive to think these moms are
going to give up their boyfriends. Maybe we need to clear up the violence in
our homes before we can clear up the violence on our streets!
Children are born with a clean slate, all behavior is learned, so what we are
seeing played out in our homes, our schools, and our streets today is what they
have learned from us - the families, schools, churches, the society that has
taught them so well. Children are very quick to learn the bad as well as the
good and we are finding that out to our dismay. This is not a minority/white
issue, it is not a poor/wealthy issue. It hits all races and classes because
our traditions and values, our families have collapsed. Our children are growing
up scared, daily exposed to violence and with no support or protection from
family because family does not exist for many children. Their family is just
a group of people living in the same house and many times these people change
rather frequently.
Children have been devalued in our country to the point that their right to
"life and liberty" plays second fiddle to their parents' right to the "pursuit
of happiness" in whatever form that may take. This devaluing of children
occurred gradually and went unnoticed. It began, I believe, when motherhood
lost its rightful place as the greatest vocation on earth and fathers became a
thing of the past for many children. It began when parents stopped loving and
enjoying their children, when they became so caught up in their own pleasureable
-3-
pursuits they couldn't even see their children's very basic needs. It began
when parents had no time for their children and began to substitute "quality"
time for "quantity " time. I had a teenage boy tell me that his parents had
given him everything he ever wanted since he had been born except five minutes
of their time. He added that he would trade it all in for just a little of
their time. We need to speak up for motherhood again whether it be the birth
mother, the adoptive mother or the foster mother. What is more important than
forming the heart, mind and soul of a child? What profession offers such a
challenge or such a great reward?
Every child deserves freedom, the freedom that comes from a happy childhood;
freedom from the fear of physical and sexual abuse, freedom from the fear
of hunger, freedom from adult responsibilities and worries. Yes, they assume
these at a very young age also. They have to just to survive, We took in a
little five year old girl and her baby sister and the five year old told us it
was hard to realize she didn't have to take care of "her baby" anymore because
she had done it since her sister was born. She added that she had also taken
care of her mother who, as the child said, "stayed stoned from morning until
night". She was also an accomplished thief which means someone had taught her
well and she was a quick learner. So we wonder why our jails hold so many
juvenile offenders! This little girl is only one among many, believe me.
Their emancipation requires our participation in the fight for their basic
rights. We have no problem with putting orphans up for adoption. Yet many
of the children described above are orphans of the living. Though their
parents are alive they are too overwhelmed with their own problems - drugs,
alcohol, prostitution and crime - to function as parents in the raising of
their children. This gives rise to the terrible abuse and neglect we are
seeing today. We wonder about children killing at younger and younger ages.
Maybe it's a case of those who have been so horribly neglected and abused finally
turning on a society that has treated them so savagely and could care less. Our
children are lonely afraid and pushed into adult lives at too early an age.
Many come to St. Ann's knowing all about drugs and hiding from the police and
living on the streets but they don't know how to jump rope, play dodge ball
or ride a bike. Maybe it's time to spend QUANTITY time with them and turn
some of them around. Or would we rather continue to leave them to the drug
dealers, the rappers and their rock group idols. Believe me these people have
plenty of time for them, not because they love them or care about them but
because these children represent the almighty dollar to them. It's time to
take back the souls of our children and give them all back their childhood.
For many it's already too late but adoption could be the road for those that
still have a chance.
Now is the time to end this terrible abuse. It's not just stress or the lack
of money or health care or the lack of affordable day care that's causing all
this. It's our lack of putting some effort into raising children instead of
just letting them grow up which is much easier. It's our watering down our
educational system until our chilren are bored to tears and find no exhilaration
in learning. It's our making a god of sex and not teaching our children it's
only a piece of the total love story commitment. We don't need any more reports
or congressional hearings. We know the sad statistics. What we do need is for
enough of us to get angry, really and truly angry enough to do something about
the terrible injustice that is being done to children by returning them to
abusive homes and losing another generation to violence and hate. We have to
get angry enough to let our legal system and our welfare departments know
we won't put up with child slavery any longer. We need to tell our political
leaders they should not be talking about human rights issues in any other
country until they clean up their own backyard, the backyard that holds the
skeletons of too many neglected little bodies already.
I am aware of all the "we care about kids" rhetoric, but I can't help wondering:
"Do we really?" Do we care that 1,271 children died last year as a result of
abuse and neglect. Do we care that 88% of the victims were younger than five
years of age? Do we care that 46% of the victims were one year old or younger?
Do we care that most of the deaths were at the hands of parents or caretakers,
the very people responsible for keeping the children safe.
Congress and our legal system are set up to protect the rights of ALL our
citizens; and children even though they cannot vote, are citizens too.
Therefore, those institutions should be the first to take action on behalf
of our children in crisis. I, feel they need to address the following issues:
-4-
THE FAMILY REUNIFICATION ACT should be clarified or changed to put the
best interest of the child (child safety) before the rights of the parent.
This was an act of Congress, so Congress needs to define what constitutes
a family and realize that not every family can be fixed. The rhetoric
concerning this Act is great, but the reality for abused children is
horrible and cries to heaven for vengeance.
OUR LEGAL SYSTEM must stop sending children right back to abusive and
dysfunctional home situations before the home is THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED
and some degree of REHABILITATION has occured. To really insure the safety
of the child this should mean that real change has been brought about not
just promises made. Our judges, lawyers and social workers have to face the
fact that you don't cure a drug addict in a week or a month, and stop acting
like this is possible.
OUR LEGAL SYSTEM should set a time limit, a short one, for abused/neglected
children to be shuffled around before terminating parental rights and
placing those children in adoption. Thousand of children stay in the system
for years because judges, lawyers and social workers won't terminate parental
rights and give the children a chance at some degree of permanency, stability
and normalacy in their lives. Babies need to be adopted when they are babies
not when they are older and their little personalities and self concepts have
been destroyed.
OUR LEGAL SYSTEM needs to take stronger steps to pursue and prosecute those
who murder and sexually abuse children and those who permit it to be done.
According to a recently released Justice Department study, most of the
crimes against children took place in the home of the assailant or victim.
More than three million children nationwide were reported abused/neglected
in 1994. Then, of course, there are the tens of thousands of other crimes
against children that never get reported or prosecuted. It's easy enough
to say children are abused but stop for a moment and think of the pain they
endure and have to endure over and over again. Do we want any child to go
through this?
Let me say that throughout this article I am talking about severe abuse
and neglect and sexual abuse, the kind of abuse that children should never
have to endure a second time. I am also talking about a parent who is
probably never going to change ( we had one child whose mother had been in
19 drug treatment programs), mothers who permit their boyfriends to
physically and sexually abuse their children and either take part in the
abuse or do nothing to protect the child. There has to be REAL CHANGE.
Seven to thirty days in drug rehabilitation and staying clean for a few
weeks, going to counseling sessions, coming to St. Ann's on visiting days
and getting your little slip in saying you came, none of these things
do I see as making a difference if change doesn't occur and the boyfriend
isn't really out of the house for good. Promises and talk don't mean
anything and don't do anything to change the person or the situatuion.
Neither do I feel children have to be returned so mom can keep her housing.
We had a very young baby retruned for this reason and came back to us three
days later because mom had taken him home and left him locked the apartment
alone from Friday until Sunday when concerned neighbors called St. Ann's
and were told to notify the welfare department. That baby hadn't been fed
or changed during all that time but mom had her apartment. So that's what
child protection is all about!
Finally I ask that you DON'T SAY THE WORD MONEY TO ME. It simply infuriates
me when we have money for everything else we want including sports stadiums
but are always counting the cost of raising children. If it costs so much
then how come many poor people raise their children very well on very little.
We can't place a money value on our children because each and everyone of
them is priceless. I would say though that the mon ey will be spent either
when they are older and occupying our jails and prisons. Abused and neglected
children are growing up with hate and anger in their hearts and in the future
they will feed our prison census ans I think we are already beginning to see.
All the money in the world won't help if we don't do something to turn the
tide for our children who are drowning in a sea of avuse and neglect that
stems from drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity and the lack of any family
support.
-5-
And so I question: When will Congress look at the Family Reunification Act
with a "children come first" attitude? When will our legal system hold itself
accountable for what's happening to our children instead of blaming it all
on the welfare system? When will we as a society see that it is better for
our children to worship God than drugs, money and sex? When will we be more
concerned with building and updating our educational system than our sports
arenas? When will we realize that our children need the loving support of a
permanent family? When will we realize that children who are abused and
neglected are likely to end on a path that leads to jail? When will we begin
to do more than meet and talk?
We say we love children. We say they are the future of our nation. We say
they are the most vulnerable members of our society. If we believe it,
then we should put some action as well as our money where our mouth is.
I'm tired of all the rhetoric, the studies, the meetings and the statistics
while our children's lives are wasted and their bodies and spirits broken.
I beg you to please take some ACTION. Thank you for this opportunity.
-6-
E CLAY SHAW, JR., FLORIDA CHAIRMAN
BILL ANCHER TEXAS, CHAIRMAN
SUBCOMMRITEE ON HUM as SOURCES
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
DAVE CAMP. MICHIGAN
IV, LOUISIANA
PHILLIP a MOSELEY LHIEF OF STAFF
MAC COLLINS GEORGIA
PHILIP ENGLISH PENNSY VANIA
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
NON HASKINS. SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF DIRECTOR
MUST KYWA
5 DUNN, WASHINGTON
JOHN ENSIGN NEVADA
JANIS MAYS. MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DEBORAING COLTON BURCOMANTILE MINORITY
HAROLDE FORD. TENNESSEE
BARBARA a KENNELLY, CONNECTICUT
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
I
MM LEVIN. MICHIGAN
is . RANGEL NEW YORK
MORTHEY PETE STARK, CALIFORNIA
"
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
3:
all ARCHER TEXAS
SAM M. GIBSONS, FLORIDA
June 17, 1996
Mr. David Thomas
Founder and Chairman Emeritus
of the Board of Directors
Wendy's International
4288 West Dublin-Granville
Dublin, OH 43717
Att: Jann Heffner
Dear Mr. Thomas:
I am pleased to invite you to appcar before the Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means on Thursday, June 27, 1996. The
Committee intends to examine whether the provisions of The Adoption Assistance and
Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272) promote adoption in appropriate cases. I am
particularly interested in your views on how the foster care system creates special
needs children and whether the Federal foster carc law facilitates adoption as it was
designed to do.
A press release announcing the hearing is enclosed. The hearing will bc held in
Room 1100 Longworth House Office Building beginning at 1:00 p.m.
I am grateful that you have agreed to appear before the Subcommittee. Please
read the enclosed press release for particulars regarding submission of your written
statement. We would like to have 200 copies of your testimony by Wednesday, June
26. If that is not possible or if you have additional questions, please contact Carol
Bevan or Richard Gelles at (202)225-1025.
We look forward to seeing you June 27th.
Sincerely
E. Clay Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman
ECS/rgm Enclosure Look formal to seeing you in
It Laududale
ID:
JUN 19'96
15:48 No .011 P.02
ADVISORY
DRAFT
FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
June 20, 1996
No. IIR-[X]
Shaw Announces Hearing On Barriers to Adoption
Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittec
will hold a hearing on barriers to children being placed for adoption. The hearing will take
place on Thursday, Junc, 27, 1996, in room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building,
beginning at 1:00 p.m..
Oral testimony at this hearing will be heard from invited witnesses only. Witnesses
will include Members of Congress, foster parents, scholars, and program administrators. Mr.
Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy's International and Chairman Emeritus of Wendy's Board of
Directors will also testify. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral
appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for
inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272) requires that
"reasonable efforts" be made to keep children with their parents prior to the placement of a
child in foster care, both to prevent or climinate the need for removal of the child from his
family and to make it possible for the child to return to his family. A central goal of
Congress in creating the "reasonable efforts" provision was to reduce the likelihood that
children would be inappropriately removed from their parents. However, there have been
some unintended consequences of this legislation. In several well-publicized cases, it is clear
that children were abused, damaged, or even killed when state departments of child welfare,
in attempting to meet the "reasonable efforts" mandate, left or returned these children to
abusive familics. Witnesses have testified before the Subcommittee in the past that the
reasonable efforts provision plays some role in children being left with or returned to
maltrcating families. In addition, the way in which the reasonable efforts provision is actually
implemented in many states may bc a barrier to children being placed for adoption. Since
many states now use intensive family preservation programs as a way of keeping families
together, the Subcommittee is interested in learning more about the success of these programs.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Shaw stated: "Removing barriers 10 adoption is
an important means of addressing the crisis of the nation's child welfare system. While many
familics can and should be preserved, there are some families and caretakers that cannot be
rehabilitated. In these cases we must find caring, loving, and permanent families for children
who need them."
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed
record of the hearing should submit at least six (6) copies of their statement, with their
address and date of hearing noted, by the close of business, Friday, July 12, 1996. to Phillip
D. Moselcy, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives,
1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written
statements wish to have their statements distributed to the press and interested public at the
hearing. they may deliver 200 additional copies for this purpose to the Subcommittee on
Human Resources office, room B-317 Rayburn House Office Building, at least one hour
before the hearing begins.
$
(MORE)
ID:
JUN 19'96
15:49 No.011 P.03
WAYS AND MEANS SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
PAGE TWO
DRAFT
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing 10 the Committee by a witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments is response to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement
or exhibit not in compliance with these guidalines will not be printed. but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.
1.
All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must be types in single space 00 legal-size paper and may
not exceed a total of 10 pages including attachments.
2.
Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. Instead. erhibit material
should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not mesting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee
files for review and use by the Committee.
3.
A witness appearing at a public bearing. or submitting a statement for the record of a public hearing. or submitting
written comments in response to a published request for comments by the Committee. must include on his statement or submission a list of
all clients. parsons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
4.
A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the name, full address, & telephone number where the
witness or the designated representative may be reached and a topical outline or summary of the comments and recommendations in the full
statement This supplemental sheet will not be included in the printed record.
The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or
supplementary material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press and the public during the course of a public hearing may
be submitted in other forms.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are now available on the World Wide Web
at "HTTP://WWW.HOUSE.GOV/WAYS_MEANS/ or over the Internet at
'GOPHER.HOUSE.GOV under THOUSE COMMITTEE INFORMATION'.
LIST OF WITNESSES TO APPEAR BEFORE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
ON HOW P.L. 96-272, THE ADOPTION
ASSISTANCE AND CHILD WELFARE ACT,
IS A BARRIER TO ADOPTION
THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1996 - BEGINNING AT 1:00 P.M.
ROOM 1100 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
PANEL:
The Honorable Mike DeWine, U.S.S., Ohio
The Honorable George Miller, M.C., California
The Honorable Harris W. Fawell, M.C., Illinois
The Honorable Connie Binsfeld, Lieutenant Governor, State of Michigan
Dave Thomas, Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Directors,
Wendy's International, Dublin, Ohio
***
PANEL:
Judith Goodhand, Ph.D., Executive Director, Cuyahoga County Department of
Children and Family Services, Cleveland, Ohio;
accompanied by
Patricia Newell, Foster Parent, Cleveland, Ohio; and
Deborah Benn, Birth Parent, Cleveland, Ohio
Sister Josephine Murphy, Administrator, St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home,
Hyattsville, Maryland
Patricia Warenda, Grandmother, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Robert Dean, Foster Parent, Omaha, Nebraska
***
PANEL:
The Honorable D. Bruce Levy, Administrative Judge, Juvenile Division,
11th Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida
David Liederman, Executive Director, Child Welfare League of America, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.
Laureen D'Ambra, Child Advocate, State of Rhode Island,
Providence, Rhode Island
Peter Digre, Director, Department of Children and Family Services, County of
Los Angeles, California
Committee:
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and
Means
Thursday, June 27th, 1995
Room 1100 Longworth House Office Building, 1:00 p.m.
Chairperson:
B. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Testimony Submitted by:
Robert Dean, Foster Parent from Omaha Nebraska
I would like to thank you, Chairman Shaw, Ladies, and Gentlemen of the Subcommittee on
Human resources of the Committee on Ways and Means for inviting me to speak on this issue.
My name is Robert Dean. I am a foster parent to a little girl who is five years old who has been in
our home for almost 3 years. I have seen first hand how a stable loving home has helped this child
grow up happy and healthy. I have also seen the pain and confusion this child is suffering while
she waits for her mother to prove she can parent this child. She has waited over half her life for
permanency; a place to call home with certainty.
For the purpose of this testimony I will refer to her as Ann.
Ann came to our house in late March, 1993. She was almost 2 years of age. She was not yet
speaking more than 5 or 6 words and kept a bottle in her mouth at all times. Ann did not know
how to use silverware, but could operate a television remote easily. On her first day with us, she
sat on the floor, grabbed a bag of chips and can of pop from the refrigerator and pointed to the
television and said "watch".
Ann was a scared, shy, 'unbonded' toddler. Prior to being in foster care, she was moved several
times, running from police and crawling out of windows with her mother. She was repeatedly left
with her mother's acquaintances or relatives too weak to properly care for her. Ann came into the
system when her mother left her with a friend and did not return after a couple of weeks. The
friend took Ann to her great-grandmother's (Ann's) home. Ann was dropped off without food,
clothing, diapers, or any knowledge of where her mother was at. After two months and several
unsuccessful attempts to locate her grand-daughter, Ann's great-grandmother called the police.
Ann was placed in our home and we immediately consulted a physician for an uncontrollable, deep
cough. We were told than Ann had an extraordinary high level of lead in her blood, 45 (normal
range is under 10). The physician stated this is typical for a child that had lived in older
neighborhoods, where lead-based paint was chipping off the walls and a baby could put these in
their mouth; especially an unsupervised, malnourished, homeless child.
Ann was returned to her mother, Debbie, on 4-6-93; even though she had been arrested less than 1
week before for felony shoplifting. On 8-4-93, Ann returned to our home as the caseworker had
found out Debbie was using drugs and alcohol while she was pregnant with her second child, due
in early October.
Debbie gave birth to Gloria in September of 1993. At the time of the birth, both Gloria and her
mother tested positive for cocaine. Gloria was born 5 weeks premature. Gloria was placed in out-
of-home care once she was able to leave the hospital. Gloria has Osteopenia (low bone density)
and Hepatitis of the liver. She continues to have problems with her bowels, ears, liver,
susceptibility to infection, and food intolerance. She requires careful medical monitoring as any
virus, infection, and/or dietary change could place her medical health in jeopardy. Ann was
diagnosed as possible FAE, as Debbie admitted to drinking daily while pregnant with her.
Debbie was ordered in juvenile court to complete many services to address her drug addiction, her
parenting skills, her ability to find stable legal employment, and her ability to provide a home for
herself and her daughters. She was also ordered to attend weekly supervised visits with her
daughter.
Debbie did not comply with any of these services and at first she abandoned Ann. Since then her
visits with Ann have been sporadic, sometimes she would not show up, other times she was
incarcerated.
There is no father's name listed on the birth certificate. However, a man identified as Ann's father,
Mike, petitioned the court to intervene in the case in October of 1995. Ann had been in out-of-
home care for 2 1/2 years. Paternity has never been established by the court or by genetic tests. A
home study on Mike's residence has not been completed. Mike has not completed a bonding
assessment nor does he pay child support. In spite of these facts, in 12-95, Mike was authorized
by the court to have weekly unsupervised visits for 7 hours. In February of 1996 we learned that
Mike had no intentions of pursuing custody or attending further court hearings. Visitation with
Mike continues.
Debbie is scheduled to finish her rehabilitation program in August of 1996. In September she will
gain the custody of Ann. She will gain the custody of Gloria in October. Debbie will not have
proved the ability to live without the structure her program has provided her, the ability to maintain
a job or stable environment, or the ability to parent her children.
Will Debbie be able to lovingly accept that the children she abandoned, have come to know and
love other persons as their stable family? Will she be able to gain their trust in her and protect their
innocence?
Reunification has to mean that there was a bond before the tragedy of separation. In the case of
Ann and Gloria, the facts show they were never "together" before out-of-home placements were
found. Reasonable efforts must be tied to strict time frames; and the best interests of the children
should be the first priority.
I wish I could say this is an isolated case but it is not. In Nebraska, I volunteer my time and serve
on a local foster care review board. I review the permanency plans for children in out-of-home
care and along with my fellow board members, I make recommendations to the legal parties
regarding the case. My board review cases of children in out-of-home care every month like my
foster daughters. My personal experience with my foster daughter and my experience of reviewing
hundreds of cases of children from my community has led me to the conclusion that "child
protection" and "child advocacy" must be made the primary focus of our child welfare system
rather than reunification.
The data collected by the Foster Care Review Board on children in out-of-home care shows that in
Nebraska, as of June 18, 1996, out of the 3,360 children in out-of-home care:
41% (or 1,360 children) of Nebraska's state wards have been removed from the
home for abuse and/or neglect at least twice
Of the 194 state wards under the age of 5 who have been removed from the home
on more than one occasion;
157 have been in foster care twice
32 have been in foster care three times
3 have been in foster care four times
1 child has been in foster care seven times
Of the 2,940 state wards returned home during 1995, 336 (11%) were returned to
foster care within the first 5 months of 1996.
To preserve families, The Child Welfare System often exerts a great deal of effort on parents who
through their actions, (abandonment, disregard to court orders, continued drug use, sporadic
attendance to visitation, etc.) tell the professionals involved in the case that they are not interested
in parenting their children. These lengthy, expensive and frustrating reunifying efforts hurt the
children involved by extending the chaos and instability that may have brought the child into care in
the first place.
I believe it is possible to strike a balance between parental rights and best interests of the child.
The policy of reunification can be qualified to ensure that parents who are habitual drug abusers,
violent physical and sexual abusers, mentally ill, or who abandon their children, are kept to a strict
time frame to rehabilitate themselves, if the court determines rehabilitation and reunification to be in
the best interest of the child(ren), so the child(ren) have a chance to attain permanency.
I would respectfully suggest to the committee that the qualifications and restrictions applied to the
policy of reunification outlined in the Utah Law §78-3a-311, be amended to the Federal Law, P.L.
96-272.
Utah Law 78-3a-311 is as follows:
(1) The court may make any of the dispositions described in Section 78-3a-39, place the child
in the custody or guardianship of any individual or public or private entity or agency, order
protective supervision, family preservation, medical or mental health treatment or other
services.
(2)(a)
Except as provided in Subsection (3), whenever the court orders continued removal
at the dispositional hearing, and that the minor remain in the custody of the Division of
Family Services, it shall order that the division make reasonable efforts to provide services
to the minor and his parent for the purpose of facilitating reunification of the family, within
a maximum time period not to exceed 12 months from the date that the child was initially
removed from his home by the division.
(b)
Any physical custody of the minor by the parent during the period described in
Subsection (a) does not interrupt the running of the period.
(c)
At the expiration of the 12 month period described in Subsection (a), a dispositional
review hearing shall be conducted by the court in accordance with Section 78-3a-312. If at
that time the child cannot be safely returned to the care and custody of his parent without
court supervisions, a permanency plan for the child shall be finalized. If the child clearly
desires contact with the parent, the court shall take the child's desire into consideration in
determining the permanency plan.
(3) Because of the state's interest in and responsibility to protect and provide permanency for
children who are abused, neglected, or dependent, the Legislature finds that a parent's
interest in receiving reunification services is limited. The court may, under any
circumstances, determine that efforts to reunify a child with his family are not reasonable,
based on the individual circumstances, and that reunification services need not be provided.
In any case, there is a presumption that reunification services should not be provided to a
parent if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following
circumstances exist:
(a)
the whereabouts of the parents are unknown, based upon a verified affidavit
indicating that a reasonably diligent search has failed to locate the parent;
(b)
the parent is suffering from a mental illness of such magnitude that it renders him
incapable of utilizing those services; that finding shall be based on competent evidence from
mental health professionals establishing that, even with the provision of services, the parent
is unlikely to be capable of adequately caring for the child within 12 months;
(c)
the minor has been previously adjudicated as an abused child due to physical or
sexual abuse, that following the adjudication the child was removed from the custody of his
parent, was subsequently returned to the custody of that parent, and the minor is being
removed due to additional physical or sexual abuse:
(d)
the parent has been convicted of causing the death of another child through abuse or
neglect;
(e)
the minor has suffered severe abuse by the parent or by any person known by the
parent, if the parent knew or reasonably should have known the person was abusing the
minor;
(f)
the minor has been adjudicated as an abused child as a result of severe abuse by the
parent, and the court finds that it would not benefit the child to pursue reunification services
with the offending parent;
(g)
the parent's rights have been terminated with regard to any other child;
(h)
the child was been removed from his home on at least two previous occasions and
reunification services were offered or provided to the family at those times; or
(i)
if any other circumstance that the court determines should preclude reunification
efforts or services.
(4) (a)
Failure of the parent to respond to previous services or comply with any previous
treatment plan, the fact that the child was abused while the parent was under the influence
of drugs or alcohol, a past history of violent behavior, whether a parent continues to live
with an individual who abused the child, any patterns of the parent's behavior that have
exposed the child to repeated abuse, or testimony by a competent professional that the
parent's behavior is unlikely to be successful, are relevant factors to consider in
determining whether reunification services should be ordered.
(b)
The court shall also consider whether the parent has expressed an interest in
reunification with the child, in determining whether to order that reunification services be
provided.
(5) If reunification services are not ordered pursuant to Subsection (3)(a), and the whereabouts
of a parent become known within six months of the out-of-home placement of the minor,
the court may order the division to provide reunification services. The time limits described
in Subsection (2), however, are not tolled by the parent's absence.
(6) If a parent is incarcerated or institutionalized, the court shall order reasonable services
unless it determines that those services would be detrimental to the minor, In determining
detriment, the court shall consider the age of the child, the degree of parent-child bonding,
the length of the sentence, the nature of the treatment, the nature of the crime or illness, the
degree of detriment to the child if services are not offered and, for minors ten years of age
or older, the minor's attitude toward the implementations of family reunification services.
and any other appropriate factors. Reunification services for an incarcerated or
institutionalized parent are subject to the 12 month limitation imposed in Subsection 2
unless the court determines that continued reunification services would be in the child's
best interest.
(7) If, pursuant to Subsection (3)(b), (c),(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i), the court does not order
reunification services, a hearing shall be conducted within 120 days of establishment of a
permanency plan for the child, in accordance with Subsection 78-3a-312(3).
I would like to thank Chairman Shaw, Ladies and Gentlemen of the sub-committee for allowing
me, as a foster parent, to share my personal experiences with the child welfare system and the
policy of reunification with you.
I respectfully urge you to change the Federal Law, P. L. 96-272, from directing child welfare
agencies across the country to pursue reunification in all cases of children in out-of-home care - at
all costs, to a policy that considers "the best interests of the child" first and foremost.
Please look at this legislation through the eyes of the children it affects. Every day I see the pain
and upheaval in one little girl's life caused by this legislation and its interpretation that parental
rights have precedence over what the parents have done or what the child's best interests are. I
hope by sharing her story with you, you too will see the necessity of qualifying the pursuit of
reunification.
Thank you for your time.
HEARING STATEMENT
BARRIERS TO ADOPTION
U.S. SEN. MIKE DEWINE
JUNE 27, 1996
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, too many children are spending their most
important, formative years in a legal limbo that denies them
their chance to be adopted that denies them what all children
should have - - the chance to be loved and cared for by parents.
The job of finding parents for these children becomes
infinitely more difficult the longer they are suspended in this
foster-care limbo. Sometimes we focus our energies on fruitless
attempts to reunify certain families that can't be fixed. As a
result, the children lose the opportunity to find a permanent
adoptive home.
We are sending too many children back to dangerous and
abusive homes. We send them back to live with parents who are
parents in name only - - to homes that are homes in name only.
We send these children back to the custody of people who
have already abused and tortured them.
We send these children back to be abused, beaten, and many
times killed.
We're all too familiar with the statistics that demonstrate
the tragedy that befalls these children.
Every day in America, three children actually die of abuse
and neglect at the hands of their parents or caretakers. That's
over 1200 children every year.
And almost half of these children are killed after their
tragic circumstances have come to the attention of child welfare
agencies.
Tonight, almost 421,000 children will sleep in foster homes.
Over a year's time, 659,000 will be in a foster home for at least
part of the year. Shockingly, roughly 43 percent of the children
in the foster care system at any one time will languish in foster
care longer than two years.
Ten percent will be in foster care longer than five years.
And the number of these foster children is rising. From
1986 to 1990, it rose almost 50 percent.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, too many of our children are not
finding permanent homes.
2
Too many of them are being hurt.
Too many of them are dying.
0 Most Americans have probably heard of the tragedy that
befell nine-year-old Elisa Izquierdo of New York City. Her
mother used crack when she was pregnant with Elisa. A month
before Elisa was born, her half-brother Ruben and half-sister
Cassie had been removed from her mother's custody and placed into
foster care. They had been neglected unsupervised and unfed
for long periods of time.
In other words, this woman left her children alone and
didn't feed them.
But then, Mr. Chairman, the children were sent back - - sent
back to her!
Then Elisa was born.
When Elisa was born, she tested positive for crack. She was
taken from her mother and transferred to her father's custody.
Tragically, in 1994, Elisa's father died.
Elisa was then five years old. The director of Elisa's pre-
school warned officials about her mother's history of child abuse
and drug abuse. But without any further investigation, and
without ordering any further monitoring of Elisa's home
situation, a family court judge transferred Elisa back to her
mother.
In March 1995, when Elisa was six years old, she was
admitted to the hospital with a shoulder fracture.
A shoulder fracture, Mr. Chairman. A little girl from a
household with a history of child abuse shows up at the hospital
with a shoulder fracture.
The hospital sent her back home to her mother.
Eight months later, in November of 1995, she was battered to
death by that same mother. You see, Elisa's mother was convinced
that Elisa was possessed by the devil. She wanted to drive out
the evil, so she forced Elisa to eat her own feces, mopped the
floor with her head, and finally bashed her head against a
concrete wall. On November 22, 1995, Elisa was found dead.
It was on the front page of the New York Times. Millions of
Americans were shocked.
3
What shocked me, Mr. Chairman, when I read the story was
that anyone would be shocked.
While this horrible tragedy captured the attention of the
country, the sad fact is that atrocities against children happen
every day in this country. Children are reunited with brutal
abusers they are abused again and yes, sometimes, they die.
0 Here's another incredible story. A Chicago woman had a
lengthy history of mental illness. She ate batteries and coat
hangers. She drank Drano. She stuck pop cans and light bulbs
into herself. Twice, she had to have surgery to have foreign
objects removed from her body.
Then, when she was pregnant, she denied that the baby was
hers.
While pregnant, she even set herself on fire.
That's her idea of what being a parent is all about.
On three occasions, her children were taken away from her by
the Department of Children and Family Services - - known as DCFS.
One of her children was named Joseph. Joseph's second
foster mother reported to the DCFS that every time Joseph came
back from visiting his mother, he had bruises.
But, in 1993, the children were returned to this mother
one last time.
A month later, in April 1993, she hanged Joseph. She hanged
her three-year-old son. Her comment to police was, "I just
killed my child. I hung him."
She stood him up on a chair and said "bye." He said, "bye."
Then he waved.
And she pushed the chair away. She hanged him.
What kind of person does something like that to her child?
She told a policeman: "DCFS was" blankety-blank "with me." "
Mr. Chairman, why on earth would anyone think we should keep
trying to reunite that family?
0 Last year in Brooklyn, New York, there were allegations
that baby Cecia Williams and her three older siblings had been
abandoned by their mother. As a result, they were temporarily
removed from her mother's custody. It turned out that they had
4
not been abandoned by the mother. She had placed them in the
care of an uncle and he had abandoned the children.
Later, Cecia and the other children were sent back home.
Last month in New York, Cecia Williams died after being battered,
bruised, and -- possibly sexually abused. Her mother and her
boyfriend have been charged with the crime.
Cecia was nine months old.
Today, Cecia is dead a victim of blunt blows to her
torso, and lacerations to her liver and small intestinal area.
0 A young boy in New Jersey named Quintin McKenzie was
admitted to a Newark Hospital after a severe beating, for which
his father was arrested. Quintin was placed in foster care
but when the charges were dropped, he was sent back to his
family.
In 1988, Quintin was three-and-a-half years old when his
mother killed him. She plunged him into scalding water because
he had soiled his diapers.
0 In Franklin County, Chio, the local Children Services
agency was trying to help Kim Chandler deal with her children - -
7-year-old Quiana, four-year-old Quincy, and one-month-old Erica.
In July 1992, they closed the case on her. On September 24,
1992, all three children were shot dead and Kim Chandler was
charged with the crime.
0 In Rushville, Ohio, in March 1989, four-year-old
Christopher Engle died when his father dumped scalding water on
him.
Mr. Chairman, I could multiply example after example of
households like these households that look like families but
aren't. People who look like parents but aren't. People who
never should be allowed to be alone with a child.
Why are atrocities like this happening?
There are many factors contributing to this problem.
0 In many cases, the abuse is caused by parents who were
themselves abused as children.
0 In other cases, the parent is deeply disturbed or mentally
ill.
0 Often, the parent IS teenager emotionally unprepared
for the responsibility of raising a child.
5
0 All of these factors were present in earlier generations.
What's different today is that 110 many of the young parents have
no role models of good parenting. They didn't have good parents
themselves -- so they have no idea how to be parents for their
own children.
0 Another major problem is the decline of the extended
family -- the support system that used to do SC much to make sure
the children were taken care : f .
0 Add to this, the relatively new phenomenon of crack. As
we all know, since the late 1980s we have seen the explosion of a
new form of cocaine that's readily available, cheap, and
explosively addictive. Crack is SO addictive that mothers have
sold their children SO they can get some more of it.
Put all these factors together and you have a major social
problem on your hands. We ask social workers to try and patch up
the wounded, but the social workers are underpaid and overworked.
When I was an assistant county prosecutor, and then county
prosecutor, I worked closely with these dedicated, hard-working
social welfare professionals. I have great respect and
admiration for them. They are at the front line of our efforts
to save children. We expect the impossible from them, and
frankly don't give them all the tools and resources they need to
do their job. Often, the only option they have and the only
choices they have for these children are all bad.
Many times our social welfare agencies are simply
overwhelmed. Some experts say a social worker ought to handle no
more than 15 cases but we have social workers handling 50 to
70 cases. They don't have enough time they don't have enough
resources to solve the problems these kids have.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, there are many causes for the
tragedies I have discussed. Further, there are many things that
must change, many things we can do to help these children.
There are many things we can do to lessen the time it takes
for children to be adopted, and to lessen the time these poor
kids have to spend in the legal limbo of the system. Further,
there are many things we can do to lessen the odds of tragedies
like the cases of Elisa Izquierdo and Joseph Wallace.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to keep working to find solutions to
these problems, recognizing that their causes are multiple - - and
that to solve them, we must do many things.
But today, I would like to focus on one of the causes of
these tragedies, one that most people haven't heard about. It's
the unintended consequence of a small part of a law passed by the
6
U.S. Congress.
In 1980, Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act known as CWA. The Child Welfare Act has done a
great deal of good. It increased the resources available to
struggling families. It increased the supervision of children in
the foster care system. And it gave financial support to people
to encourage them to adopt children with special needs.
The authors of the CWA deserve a great deal of credit for
how they dealt with the problems they faced. Their legislation
has done a lot to improve the lives of America's children. But
while the law has done a great deal of good, I have come to
believe that the law is being commonly misinterpreted, with some
truly unintended and undesirable consequences.
Under the CWA, for a state to be eligible for federal
matching funds for foster care expenditures, the state must have
a plan for the provision of child welfare services approved by
the Secretary of HHS. The State plan must provide:
"that, in each case, reasonable efforts will be made (A)
prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or
eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home, and
(B) to make it possible for the child to return to his home."
In other words, Mr. Chairman, no matter what the particular
circumstances of a household may be - - the state must make
reasonable efforts to keep it together, and to put it back
together if it falls apart.
What constitutes "reascnable efforts"?
This has not been defined by Congress. Nor has it been
defined by HHS.
This failure to define what constitutes "reasonable efforts"
has had a very important and very damaging - - practical
result. There is strong evidence to suggest that in the absence
of a definition, reasonable efforts have become in practice
extraordinary efforts. Efforts to keep families together at all
costs.
There are hundreds of examples I could give you. Over the
last several months, I have talked to people all over Ohio who
deal with this problem every day. I have asked them the
following hypothetical question: "Let's say there's a cocaine-
addicted mother who has seven children. The father is an
alcoholic. The seven children have been taken away
permanently - - by the county.
7
"The mother gives birth to an eighth child. The child tests
positive for cocaine. The father is still an alcoholic. What
would you do?"
Some said they would apply for emergency temporary custody
of the child but they would still have to work to put that
family back together. Others said a court wouldn't grant them
even temporary custody of the child. One county told me it would
be two years before the child would be available for adoption.
Another county said it would be five years.
Now, Dr. Goodhand who is here today and will be
testifying in response to a similar hypothetical told me that
her department would move immediately for permanent custody. But
she said that their success would really depend on the judge
assigned to the case.
Now, the answers I got were different from county to county.
But one thing is clear: It is the 1980 law, and how it is being
interpreted by social workers and judges, that leads to these
different results.
In my view, this is certainly not what was intended by the
authors of the CWA.
Mr. Chairman, much of the national attention on the case of
Elisa Izquierdo has focused on the many ways the social welfare
agencies dropped the ball. It has been said that there were
numerous points in the story when some agency could have and
should have intervened to remove Elisa and her siblings from her
mother's custody.
I am not going to revisit that ground. Rather, my point is
a broader one: Should our Federal law really push the envelope,
SO that extraordinary efforts are made to keep that family
together efforts that any of us would not consider reasonable?
Throughout human history, the family has been recognized as
the bedrock of civilization. The family is where values are
transmitted. It's where children learn behavior develop their
character - - and form their personality.
Over the last couple of years, a remarkable convergence has
occurred in American social thought. Liberals and conservatives
are now in near-total agreement on the need to strengthen the
family as an institution. Without stronger families, it will be
impossible to avoid a social explosion in which troubled children
turn into dysfunctional adults on a massive scale.
But what we are confronting in the terrible stories I have
just recounted are not families. They are households that look
8
like families - - but aren't.
If you look inside one of these households, you see some
children. And you see some people who - - superficially, at least
- - resemble parents. But this is not what you and I and most
Americans would call a "family."
In this household, the children are beaten and abused and
neglected. Mr. Chairman, what do we, as a society, do about
these households - - these households that aren't families?
By 1980, the child welfare system in this country had come
under some pretty strong criticism. After many hearings,
Congress concluded that abused and neglected children too often
were unnecessarily removed from their parents - - that
insufficient resources were devoted to preserving and reuniting
families - - and that children not able to return to their parents
often drifted in foster care without ever finding a permanent
home.
That's how the CWA came to be enacted. The phenomenon known
as "foster care drift" children who get lost in a child
welfare system that cannot or will not find them a permanent home
- - simply had to be faced and reversed.
Let me interject at this point that I had substantial
experience on this issue before the passage of the CWA
legislation in 1980. As long ago as 1973, I was serving as an
assistant county prosecutor in Greene County, Ohio - - and one of
my duties was to represent the Greene County Children Services in
cases where children were going to be removed from their parents'
custody.
I saw first hand that too many of these cases dragged on
forever. The children end up getting trapped in temporary foster
care placements, which often entail multiple moves from foster
home to foster home to foster home, for years and years and
years.
Congress enacted the CWA to try to solve this very real
problem. There were good reasons for the CWA, and the CWA has
done a lot of good. There are some families that need a little
help if they are going to stay together, and it's right for us to
help them. Not only is it right it's also clearly in the best
interests of the child.
We shouldn't be in the position of taking children away just
because the parents are too poor or just because there's a
problem in the family. If the problem can be fixed, we must try
to keep the family together for the children's benefit. It's
just that at some point, when it comes to cases of child abuse
9
and child neglect, we have to step in and say: "Enough is enough.
The child's health and safety have to come first."
And that's where we are now, in a lot of cases. Fifteen
years after the passage of the CWA, I think we need to revisit
this issue, and see how the system is working in practice.
I believe we need to e-emphasize what all of us agree on
the fact that the child ought to come first. We have to make the
best interests of the child our top national priority.
In many of the cases WE have looked at, it looks like the
CWA has been not been correctly interpreted. Try to imagine what
the authors of the CWA would have said if they had been asked:
"Should Joseph Wallace be sent back to his mother?"
I can't believe that that was the authors' intent. I can't
believe that they would say, "In that case, and in every case,
the child must be reunited with the adult at all costs."
Reasonable people agree on one point: Nothing - - nothing
should take precedence over the health and safety of the child.
It's common sense. And I think we need to make sure the CWA is
interpreted consistently and correctly to reflect that
common sense.
It is my hope that an important new book will spark the
national debate that America need to have on this issue. The
book is called The Book of David: How Preserving Families Can
Cost Children's Lives, by Richard J. Gelles.
Dr. Gelles is the director of the Family Violence Research
Program at the University of Rhode Island. For years, Dr. Gelles
thought children should be permanently removed from their homes
only as a last resort, even if it meant that the children may
spend years moving back and forth between birth homes and foster
homes. He now says - - and I quote: "It is a fiction to believe
one can balance preservation and safety without tilting in favor
of parents and placing children at risk." End of quote. He
believes that the system is weighted too far toward giving the
mother and father chance after chance after chance to put their
life in order -- putting the adults first, rather than putting
the children first.
Even some social-work professionals will tell you how true
this is. Krista Grevious, a Kentucky social worker with 21 years
of experience, says - - and I quote: "I think it's probably one of
the most dangerous things we have ever done for children." End
of quote.
Patrick Murphy is the court-appointed lawyer for abused
10
children in Cook County, Illinois. He says and I quote:
"Increasingly, people in this business do not look at things from
the point of view of the child. But the child is the defenseless
party here. We've forgotten that." End of quote.
In 1993, Murphy published an article in the New York Times
that put the problem in historical context. I quote from his
article: "The family preservation system is a continuation of
sloppy thinking of the 1960's and 1970's that holds, as an
unquestionable truth, that society should never blame a victim.
Of course, the children are not considered the victims here.
Rather the abusive parents are considered victims of poverty and
addiction. This attitude is not only patronizing, it endangers
children.
Marcia Robinson Lowry, head of the Children's Rights Project
at the American Civil Liberties Union, sums it up. She says
and I quote: "We've oversold the fact that all families can be
saved. All families can't be saved."
Mr. Chairman, let me make this absolutely clear. I think
there's nothing wrong with giving parents another chance. But we
have to make sure the health and safety of the child come first.
Is that child going to get a second chance at growing up? A
second chance to be four years old - - the age when a personality
is already fundamentally shaped?
Jann Heffner, the director of the Dave Thomas Foundation for
Adoption, has a useful way of looking at this problem the
concept of "kid days." When you're three years old, one month of
experience does a lot to the formation of your personality. It's
not a month that can be taken for granted, or treated as routine.
One helpful way of looking at it is this: If you're fifty
years old, one year is two percent of your life. If you're three
years old, one year is one-third of your life.
There's some important psychological activity going on with
these children. And every day - - every hour really counts.
Lynne Gallagher, director of the Arizona Governor's Office for
Children, says and I quote: "It's as though these people think
we can put the kids in the deep freeze for awhile and then pull
them out when the parents are ready to parent." End of quote.
We all know how crucial those formative years can be.
Let me return to the work of Dr. Gelles. He says -- and I
quote: "It is time to face up to the fact that some parents are
not capable of being parents, cannot be changed, and should not
continue to be allowed to care for children." End of quote. He
advocates changes in Federal laws to protect children. He also
11
thinks that child-protecticn officials should move to terminate
parental rights sooner, thus freeing children for adoption.
I think the time is rige for these changes. In New York
City, Mayor Giuliani has pledged to shift. the city's priorities
away from family preservation - - and toward protecting children
from harm.
But we need to examine how much of the problem we face is a
consequence of Federal law - - the lack of precision of the CWA
legislation back in 1980. And this is truly a national problem
that needs a national response. According to the National
Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, child abuse fatalities have
increased by 40% between 1985 and 1995.
I think there's something the U.S. Congress should do about
that. I think we should make it absolutely clear that the health
and safety of the child are the primary concern of social policy.
I think it's time to clarify Congress's intent. While
family reunification is a laudable goal, and should usually be
attempted, the health and safety of the child should always come
first. That, in my view, was the intention of the drafters of
the 1980 law. Congress should reaffirm this - - by making
whatever clarification is necessary in the law.
It's time for us to break this cycle - - to help children
escape their abusers and find a permanent home before they have
suffered absolutely irreparable physical and emotional damage.
Let's make explicit the commitment of Congress and the American
people: The health and safety of America's children must come
first.
# # #
STATEMENT BY U.S. SENATOR MIKE DEWINE (R-OH)
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
HEARING ON BARRIERS TO ADOPTION
JUNE 27, 1996
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit a more detailed
statement for the record.
Mr. Chairman, too many children are spending their most important,
formative years in a legal limbo that denies them their chance to be adopted --
that denies them what all children should have -- the chance to be loved and
cared for by parents.
The job of finding parents for these children becomes infinitely more
difficult they longer they are suspended in this foster-care limbo. Sometimes we
focus our energies on fruitless attempts to reunify certain families that can't be
fixed. As a result, the children lose the opportunity to find a permanent
adoptive home.
We are sending too many children back to dangerous and abusive homes.
We send them back to live with parents who are parents in name only -- to
homes that are homes in name only.
In my view, this situation is caused in part by a misinterpretation of the
1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act.
That legislation did a great deal of good. I'm very glad to be here with
some of the distinguished individuals who wrote that law.
The Child Welfare Act increased the resources available to struggling
families. It increased the supervision of children in the foster care system. And
it gave financial support to people to encourage them to adopt children with
special needs.
The authors of the Child Welfare Act did an outstanding job -- and their
legislation has done a great deal to improve the lives of America's children. But
while the law has done a great deal of good, I have come to believe that the law
is being commonly misinterpreted, with some truly unintended and undesirable
consequences.
2
Under the Act, for a state to be eligible for Federal matching funds for
foster care expenditures, the state must ensure that -- and I quote -- "reasonable
efforts" must be made to reunify families.
Too often, Mr. Chairman, these "reasonable efforts" have in practice
become extraordinary efforts. Families that are families in name only --
households in which abuse and torture take place -- are being reunited.
There are hundreds of examples I could give you. Over the last several
months, I have talked to people all over Ohio who deal with this problem every
day. I have asked them the following hypothetical question: "Let's say there's a
cocaine-addicted mother who has seven children. The father is an alcoholic.
The seven children have been taken away -- permanently -- by the county.
"The mother gives birth to an eighth child. The child tests positive for
cocaine. The father is still an alcoholic. What would you do?"
Some said they would apply for emergency temporary custody of the
child -- but they would still have to work to put that family back together.
Others said a court wouldn't grant them even temporary custody of the child.
One county told me it would be two years before the child would be available
for adoption. Another county said it would be five years.
Now, Dr. Goodhand -- who is here today and will be testifying -- in
response to a similar hypothetical told me that her department would move
immediately for permanent custody. But she said that their success would really
depend on the judge assigned to the case.
Now, the answers I got were different from county to county. But one
thing is clear: It is the 1980 law, and how it is being interpreted by social
workers and judges, that leads to these different results.
Mr. Chairman, I have no absolutely no doubt that the authors of the Child
Welfare Act did not intend for the law to bring about the results I have just
described. They wanted to make it easier for families with problems to work
out their problems and stay together. They clearly did not intend to favor the
interest of dangerous and abusive adults over the health and safety of children.
But in the years since the passage of the Child Welfare Act, we have seen
3
case after case after case in which the children are sent back to the custody of
people who have already abused and tortured them. Every day in America,
three children actually die of abuse and neglect at the hands of their parents or
caretakers. That's over 1200 children every year.
And almost half of these children are killed after their tragic
circumstances have come to the attention of child welfare agencies. Mr.
Chairman, there are many causes for this. I believe the misunderstanding of the
1980 Act is one of them.
I think it's time to clarify Congress's intent. While family reunification is
a laudable goal, and should usually be attempted, the health and safety of the
child should always come first. That, in my view, was the intention of the
drafters of the 1980 law. Congress should reaffirm this -- by making whatever
clarification is necessary in the law.
It's time for us to break this cycle -- to help children escape their abusers
and find a permanent home before they have suffered absolutely irreparable
physical and emotional damage. Let's make explicit the commitment of
Congress and the American people: The health and safety of America's children
must come first.
###
TESTIMONY OF
R. DAVID THOMAS
WENDY'S FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN
THE DAVE THOMAS FOUNDATION FOR ADOPTION
BEFORE THE
U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEAN
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1996
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M DAVE THOMAS, AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DAVE THOMAS
FOUNDATION FOR ADOPTION. THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME TO TALK
WITH YOU TODAY. AS YOU KNOW ADOPTION IS A SUBJECT THAT'S
CLOSE TO MY HEART.
I DON'T CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT ON ADOPTION LAWS, AND THERE ARE
MANY PEOPLE HERE TODAY WHO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT THAN I DO.
WHAT I DO KNOW IS HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR EVERY CHILD TO HAVE
A HOME AND LOVING FAMILY. I WAS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK AND
ADOPTED WHEN I WAS SIX WEEKS OLD, AND I KNOW I WOULD NOT BE
WHERE I AM TODAY WITHOUT A FAMILY TO CALL MY OWN.
1
I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE 600,000 CHILDREN
IN AMERICA WHO ARE HELD IN THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM, INCLUDING
ABOUT 100,000 THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE ADOPTION.
THAT'S 100,000 TOO MANY. EVEN ONE CHILD WITHOUT A PERMANENT
HOME IS WRONG.
NOW, FOSTER PARENTS ARE WONDERFUL. THEY OPEN THEIR HEARTS
EVERYDAY TO THESE CHILDREN. BUT FOSTER CARE WAS NEVER
MEANT TO BE A PERMANENT SOLUTION, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT HAS
BECOME.
FOSTER CHILDREN ARE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF A SYSTEM THAT TAKES
AWAY THEIR HOPE AND THEIR TRUST. IT WEARS THEM DOWN WHILE
THEY WAIT FOR A FAMILY TO LOVE THEM AND A PLACE TO CALL HOME.
MOST OF THEM WAIT FOR YEARS MANY FOR AN ENTIRE CHILDHOOD.
2
NOW, I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING WITHIN REASON SHOULD
BE DONE TO KEEP CHILDREN WITH THEIR BIRTH PARENTS IF, AND
ONLY IF, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE CHILD. HOWEVER, TOO
MANY CHILDREN REMAIN IN HOMES THAT AREN'T SAFE, HEALTHY OR
CARING.
PARENTS NEED TO ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RAISING AND
CARING FOR THEIR CHILDREN. THIS IS NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S JOB, AND
IT CERTAINLY ISN'T THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. I THINK WE CAN ALL
AGREE THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T MAKE A GOOD PARENT.
3
LISTEN TO THE ODDS THAT CHILDREN AWAITING ADOPTION ARE UP
AGAINST. MANY CHILDREN GO THROUGH MULTIPLE ASSESSMENT
STUDIES DURING THE ADOPTION PROCESS. WHY DO WE NEED so
MANY STUDIES TO LEARN THE SAME THINGS?
THEN CHILDREN IN THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM ARE MOVED AROUND
TO FOUR, EIGHT, SOMETIMES 10 DIFFERENT FOSTER HOMES BEFORE
THEY ARE ADOPTED. THAT'S SIMPLY TOO MANY FOR ANY CHILD TO BE
ABLE TO GAIN THE STABILITY THEY NEED TO GROW.
I MET A LITTLE BOY IN SOUTH CAROLINA WHO HAD BEEN IN SO MANY
HOMES THAT HE LITERALLY COULDN'T REMEMBER HIS LAST NAME.
AND I MET A THIRTEEN-YEAR-OLD TEENAGER IN CHICAGO WHO HAD
BEEN IN 15 DIFFERENT FOSTER HOMES AND HE WAS SICK AND TIRED
OF BEING PASSED AROUND. ALL HE WANTED WAS A PERMANENT,
LOVING FAMILY. HE WAS WORRIED THAT PEOPLE WANTED TO ADOPT
BABIES AND HE WAS TOO OLD. WHAT KIND OF LIFE IS THAT FOR A
CHILD? WHAT KIND OF AN ADULT CAN WE EXPECT HIM TO BE?
4
I ALSO MET A LITTLE GIRL WHO TOLD ME SHE KEEPS EVERYTHING SHE
OWNS - ALL HER TOYS AND ALL HER CLOTHES - IN A SINGLE PILLOW
CASE BECAUSE SHE MOVES SO OFTEN FROM FOSTER HOME TO
FOSTER HOME.
THE NUMBERS KEEP GETTING WORSE. A FOSTER CHILD IN AMERICA
WAITS BETWEEN THREE AND SIX YEARS BEFORE BEING ADOPTED. UP
TO SIX YEARS BEFORE RECEIVING THE LOVE OF A PERMANENT FAMILY.
I THINK YOU'LL AGREE THE NUMBERS ARE STACKED AGAINST WAITING
CHILDREN IN AMERICA. THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM SHOULD PROTECT
THE CHILDREN FIRST AND FOREMOST, AND ENSURE EACH FOSTER
CHILD HAS EVERY OPPORTUNTY TO HAVE A LOVING FAMILY AND
BECOME A PRODUCTIVE CITIZEN.
5
GROWING UP WITHOUT YOUR OWN FAMILY IS REALLY TOUGH. AND
WHAT IT DOES TO KIDS IN THE LONG RUN IS EVEN WORSE.
EXPERTS TELL US THAT KIDS WHO GROW UP IN FOSTER CARE ARE
MORE LIKELY TO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL, GIVE BIRTH OUT OF
WEDLOCK, GO ON WELFARE OR END UP HOMELESS. THEY ARE ALSO
MORE LIKELY TO ENTER A LIFE OF CRIME. ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE A STABLE FAMILY THAT CARES ABOUT THEM, ONE THAT HELPS
THEM ESTABLISH A SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, A SENSE OF SELF
WORTH, AND A PRIDE IN WHO THEY ARE.
AND THE ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM IS SIMPLE: THE NUMBER ONE.
ONE HOME STUDY, ONE CASEWORKER, ONE FOSTER HOME AND A
PERMANENT FAMILY IN JUST ONE YEAR. WE NEED AN ADOPTION
SYSTEM THAT LIVES UP TO ALL THESE ONES AND SO DO AMERICA'S
WAITING CHILDREN.
LET ME EXPLAIN.
6
MANY OF US IN THE ADOPTION COMMUNITY SUPPORT SOME SIMPLE
GOALS OUTLINED BY THE KELLOGG FOUNDATION.
HERE ARE THOSE GOALS.
GIVE FAMILIES THE SUPPORT THAT THEY NEED TO STAY TOGETHER.
BUT REMEMBER THAT THE CHILD'S CONCERNS ARE NUMBER ONE.
JUST ONE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MADE FOR
EACH CHILD AND EACH FAMILY INTERESTED IN ADOPTION.
ONE CASEWORKER OR TEAM SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO EACH CHILD
AND EACH FAMILY -- AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WILL STAND BY THAT CHILD
UNTIL HE OR SHE FINDS A FAMILY.
CHILDREN SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO JUST ONE FOSTER HOME, AND
NOT MOVED FREQUENTLY LIKE THEY ARE NOW.
AND EACH CHILD SHOULD BECOME PART OF A PERMANENT FAMILY
WITHIN ONE YEAR.
7
WE THINK THESE IDEAS ARE SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND AND WE
SUPPORT THEM. WE ASK THAT YOU MAKE THEM YOUR GOALS TOO AS
YOU LOOK FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE THE ADOPTION PROCESS.
THE COMMITTEE HAS THE ABILITY TO FIX THE SYSTEM THAT HOLDS
THESE CHILDREN HOSTAGE. LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY ARE NUMBER
ONE IN YOUR MINDS.
THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME TO TESTIFY HERE TODAY. I LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU TO HELP AMERICA'S WAITING
CHILDREN.
8
DAVE THOMAS
FOUNDATION
FOR ADOPTION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Denny Lynch/Rebecca Lusk
(614) 764-3413
WENDY'S FOUNDER DAVE THOMAS VISITS CAPITOL HILL:
PROPOSES GOALS FOR FOSTER CARE; ADOPTION SYSTEM REFORM
Thomas Calls For Waiting Children To Be Adopted Within One Year
DUBLIN, OHIO (June 27, 1996) - Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy's Old
Fashioned Hamburgers Restaurants and chairman of the Dave Thomas
Foundation for Adoption, returned to Capitol Hill today offering some goals to
achieve in adoption system reform, claiming that "each waiting child should
become part of a permanent family within one year."
Thomas - who was adopted at the age of six weeks-appeared before the
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources to share the
plight of children caught in foster care limbo and propose five goals to be
considered to improve the adoption system in this country.
On any day in the United States, there are an estimated 600,000 children in the
foster care system, including about 100,000 who need to be adopted.
"Many foster children in America wait between three and six years before being
adopted six years could be half a lifetime spent waiting to share the love of a
permanent family. That's a shame," said Thomas. "Foster parents are
wonderful. They open their hearts and homes every day to these children. But
foster care was never meant to be a permanent solution, and that's what it has
become for many children. "
"The solution is simple," said Thomas. "It's the number one. Support should be
given to keep a family together but the child's safety should be number one. Only
one_assessment study of each child should be conducted, only one caseworker
should be assigned per child, and a child should be placed in no more than one
foster home while awaiting adoption. And finally, each child should be placed in
a permanent home within one year."
- more -
2 -
"These kids need an adoption system designed to keep their interests as it's
number one priority," claimed Thomas.
The five goals Thomas shared were originally outlined by the Kellogg Foundation
and are supported by many in the adoption community.
In urging the Ways and Means Subcommittee to streamline the adoption
process, Thomas shared personal stories of children who are held hostage by
the system and passed from one foster home to another.
"I met a young man in South Carolina who had been in so many homes that he
literally couldn't remember his last name, Thomas told the subcommittee. "And
I met a 13-year-old in Chicago who had been in 15 different foster homes and
was sick and tired of being passed around. He was worried that people wanted
to adopt babies and that he was too old."
Thomas is a longstanding advocate of adoption-related issues. In 1991,
President Bush asked him to head the "Adoption Works for Everyone" White
House initiative and he continues to work on behalf of waiting children
throughout America.
This is Thomas' fourth visit to Washington in the last two years to share his
viewpoint on adoption. Last November, Thomas joined First Lady Hillary
Rodham Clinton for a White House celebration of National Adoption Awareness
Week. He also addressed the House Ways and Means Committee in January
1995 to encourage Congressional approval of a $5,000 refundable tax credit for
parents who adopt a child. And in January 1994, he addressed the governors of
all 50 states, encouraging them to implement adoption benefits (paid time off and
financial assistance) for those employees who adopt.
- more -
3 - -
Established by Thomas in 1992, the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption is
dedicated to the philosophy that every child deserves a permanent home and
loving family. Foundation efforts focus on raising public awareness of the tens of
thousands of children available for adoption, and on offering educational
programs to help prospective parents better understand the adoption process.
In addition to urging employers in both the public and private sectors to provide
adoption benefits, Thomas taped radio and television public service
announcements encouraging the adoption of special needs children, and
donated all royalties from his two books (Dave's Way and Well Done!) to the
cause of adoption.
# # #
3 -
Established by Thomas in 1992, the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption is
dedicated to the philosophy that every child deserves a permanent home and
loving family. Foundation efforts focus on raising public awareness of the tens of
thousands of children available for adoption, and on offering educational
programs to help prospective parents better understand the adoption process.
In addition to urging employers in both the public and private sectors to provide
adoption benefits, Thomas taped radio and television public service
announcements encouraging the adoption of special needs children, and
donated all royalties from his two books (Dave's Way and Well Done!) to the
cause of adoption.
# # #
S5710
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
June +. 1996
Congratulations. Mama.
The director of Elisa's preschool
"hye." He said. "bye." Then he waved.
warned officials about the mother's
And she pushed the chair The She
FOSTER CHILDREN
history of child abuse and drug abuse.
hanged this little boy.
Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President. I rise
Vithout any further investigation and
Mr. President. what kind of L person
today to talk about an American trag-
without ordering any further monitor-
does something like that CO .1 child?
inz 01 Elisa's home situation. 1 family
edy. First. Mr. President. too many
She cold a policeman. "DCFS was"
court Judge transferred Elisa back to
blankety-blank "with me.'
children in this country are spending
her mother.
Mr. President. why on Earth would
the most important formative years in
In March 1995. when Elisa was 6 years
1 legal limbo. a legal limbo that denies
anyone think we should keep reving to
old. she was admitted to the hospital
reunite that family?
them their chance to be adopted. that
with a shoulder racture-a shoulder
denies them what all children should
Another example. Last year in
fracture. Mr. President. This is 1 little
Brooklyn. NY. there were allegations
have: the chance to be loved and cared
girl from a household with a history of
that Jahy Cecia Williams and her three
for by parents.
child abuse. and she shows up at the
Second. we are sending many chil-
older siblings had been abandoned by
hospital with a shoulder fracture. What
their mother. is a result. they were
dren in this country back to dangerous
did the hospital do? The hospital sent
temporarily removed from their moth-
and abusive homes. We send them back
her back to her mother.
to live with parents who are parents in
er's custody. It turned out they had not
Eight months later. in November
name only. and to hornes that are
been abandoned by the mother. She
1995. she was battered CO deach by that
had actually placed them in the care of
homes in name only. We send these
same mother. You see. Ellsa's mother
an uncle. and he had abandoned the
children back to the custody of people
was convinced that Elisa was possessed
children.
who have already abused and cortured
by the devil. She wanted to drive out
Later. Cacia and the other children
them. We send these children back to
the evil. so she forced Elisa to eac her
were sent back home. Last month.
be abused. beaten. and. many times.
own feces. mopped the floor with her
after they were sent back home in New
filled.
head. and finally bashed her head
York. Cecia Williams died after being
Mr. President. we are all too familiar
against 1 concrete wall. On November
battered. bruised. and. possibly. sexu-
with the statistics that demonstrate
2. 1995. Elisa was found dead.
ally abused. Her mother and her boy-
the tragedy that befalls these children.
Mr. President. this story then was on
friend have been charged with the
Every day in America-every day-
the front page of the New York Times.
crime.
three children actually die because of
and for days after that the story was
Cacia was 9 months old. Cecia is dead
abuse and negligent at the hands of
covered. Millions of Americans were.
today-a victim of blunt blows to her
their parents or caregivers. over 1.200
understandably. shocked. But you
corso. and lacerations to her liver and
children per year.
know. Mr. President. what shocked me
small intestinal area.
Mr. President. almost half of these
when I read the story. when I heard
Another example. A young boy in
children. almost haif of them. are
about it. was that anyone would be
New Jersey named Quintin McKenzie
killed after their tragic circumstances
shocked at all. because the horrible
was admitted to a Newark hospital
have already come to the attention of
truch is that while this horrible trag-
after a severe beating. for which his fa-
the local authorities. Tonight. Mr.
edy capcured the attention of the coun-
ther was arrested. Quintin was placed
President. almost 421,000 children will
try, the sad fact is that atrocities such
in foster care. But when the charges
sleep in foster homes. Over 3 year's
as this are happening against children
were dropped. he was sent back to that
time. 659.000 will be in a foster home
every single day in this country. Chil-
family. In 1988. Quintin was 33/3 years
for at least part of the year.
dren are being reunited with brutal
old when his mother killed him. She
Shockingly. roughly 13 percent of the
abusers. They are abused again and
plunged him into scalding water be-
children in the foster care system at
again. and. yes. sometimes they are
cause be had soiled his diapers.
any one time will languish in foster
killed.
In Franklin County. OH. the local
care longer than 2 years. Mr. President.
Here is another story. A Chicago
children services agency. in another
10 percent will be in foster care longer
woman had a lengthy history of mental
case. was trying to help Kim Chandler
than 5 years.
illness. She ate oatteries. she ate coat
deal with her children--year-old
Mr. President. the number of these
hangers. and she drank Drano. She
Quiana, 4-year-old Quincy. and 1-
foster children is rising. From 1986 to
stuck pop cans and light bulbs into
month-old Erica. In July 1992. they
1990. it rose almost 50 percent.
herself. Twice she had to have surgery
closed the case on her. On September
In summary. Mr. President. too
to have foreign objects removed from
24. 1992. all three children were shot
many of our children are not finding
her body. Then when she was pregnant.
dead. and Kim Chandler was charged
permanent homes. Too many or them
she denied that the baby was hers.
with the crime.
are being hurt. and too many of them
While pregnant. she set herself on fire.
In Rushville. OH. in March 1989. +-
are dying.
That is her idea of what being 3. parent
year-old Christopher Engle died when
Mr. President. most Americans have
is all about. On three occasions. her
his father dumped scalding water on
probably heard of the tragedy that be-
children were taken away from her by
him.
fell Elisa Izquierdo in New York City.
the department of children and family
Mr. President, we could go on and on
Her mother used crack when she was
services. known as DCFS.
and on. Tragically. there is not a Mem-
pregnant with Elisa. A month before
One of her children was named Jo-
ber of the Senate who could not cite
she was born. her half brother. Ruben.
seph. Joseph's second foster mother-
examples from his or her own State of
and her half sister, Cassie. had been re-
keep in mind that this was a child that
these tragedies. I could multiply exam-
moved from her mother's custody and
was being pushed back and forth be-
ple after example of households like
placed into foster care. They had been
tween foster homes. back and forth
these-households that look like fami-
neglected. unsupervised. and unfed for
with his mother. Joseph's second foster
lies but are not, Mr. President: people
long periods of time. In other words.
mother reported to the DCFS officials
who look like parents. but who are not:
Mr. President. this woman left her
that every time Joseph came back
people who never, never should be al-
children alone and simply did not feed
from visiting his mother. he had
lowed to be alone with any child. I do
them.
bruises. Yet. in 1993. all the children
intend, in the months ahead. to discuss
But then. Mr. President. amazingly.
were returned to this mother-one last
many of these stories on this floor, Mr.
the children were sent back to the
time.
President
same woman. and then Elisa was born.
A month later. in April 1993. this
Why are atrocities like this happen-
When Elisa was born. she tested posi-
mother hanged Joseph: she hanged her
ing? There are many factors contribut-
tive for crack. She was taken from her.
little boy. She hanged her 3-year-old
ing to this problem. In many cases, the
mother and transferred to her father's
son. Her comment to the police was, "I
abuse is caused by parents who were
custody. Tragically, in 1994. Elisa's fa-
just killed my child. I hung him." She
themselves abused as children. In other
ther died. Elisa was then 5 years old.
stood him up on a chair and said.
cases. the parent is deeply disturbed or
June 4. 1996
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
S5711
mentally ill. Often. the parent is 1
Mr. President. 1 intend to keep work-
of civilization. The family is where val-
teenager. who is emotionally unpre-
ing to and solutions to these problems.
aes are transmitted. It : where chil-
bared for the responsibility of raising 1
recognizing that their causes are mul-
aren learn behavior—:evelop their
child.
tiple-and that to solve them. VP must
character-and form their personality.
All of these factors were present in
10 many things.
Over the tast couple of years. & re-
earlier generations. What Is different
But today. I would like to focus on
markable convergence has occurred :a
today IS that too many of the young
one of the causes of these tragedies.
American social thought Liberals and
parents have no role models of 500d
one that most people have not heard
conservatives are now in near-total
parenting. They did not have good par-
about It is the unintended con-
agreement On the need to strengthen
ents themselves. 30 they have no idea
sequence of a small part of 1 haw passed
the family is 15 institution. Without
how to be parents for their own chil-
by the U.S. Congress.
stronger families. it will be impossible
dren.
In 1980. Congress passed the Adoption
to avoid a social explosion in which
Another major problem. Mr. Presi-
Assistance and Child Welfare Act
troubled children turn into dysiunc-
dent. is the decline of the extended
known as CWA. The Child Welfare Act
tional adults on a massive scale.
family. the support system that used
has done a great deal of good. It !n-
But what we are confronting in the
to do so much to make sure children
creased the resources available to
terrible stories I have just recounted
were taken care of. In many cases. it
struggling families. It increased the su-
are not families. They are households
just does not exist today.
pervision of children in the foster care
that look like families-but are not.
Add to all of this the relatively new
system. And it gave financial support
If you look inside one of these house-
phenomenon of crack. Since the late
to people to encourage them to adopt
holds. you see some children. And you
1980's. we have seen an explosion of this
children with special needs.
see some people who-supericially. at
new form of cocaine that is readily
But while the law has done a great
least-resemble parents. Sut this is not
available. is cheap. and explosively ad-
deal of good. many experts are coming
what you and ! and most Americans
dictive. Crack is 30 addictive that
to believe that this law has actually
mean when we calls about families.
mothers have sold their children so
had some bad unintended con-
In this type of family when we have
they can get more of it. Someone said.
sequences.
heard the horror stories. the children
when talking about crack. that crack
Under the CWA. for 3. State to be eli-
are beaten and abused and neglected.
is the only thing that has ever been in-
gible for Federal matching funds for
Mr. President. what do we. as a soci-
vented by man that will cause 3. moth-
foster care expenditures. the State
ety. do about these households-these
er to behave not like a mother and
must have 1 plan for the provision of
households that are not families?
abandon all the natural instincts that
child welfare services approved by the
By 1980. the child welfare system in
she might have-to leave that child.
Secretary of HHS. The State plan must
this country had come under some
sell that child. to abuse that child.
provide:
pretty strong criticism. That is why we
Mr. President. put all these factors
that. 10 each case. reasonable efforts
have the bill. After many hearings.
together and we have a major social
will be made (A) prior to the placement of a
Congress concluded that abused and ne-
problem on our hands. Now. we ask so-
child in foster care. to prevent or eliminate
glected children too often were unnec-
cial workers to try to patch up the
the need for removal or the child from his
essarily removed from their parents-
wounded. Buc the social workers are
home. and (8) to make it possible for the
and very significantly that insufficient
underpaid and overworked. When I was
child to return to his home.
resources were devoted to the com-
an assistant county prosecutor over 20
In other words. Mr. President. no
mendable task of preserving and re-
years ago. and then when I was the
matter what the particular cir-
uniting families-and that children not
county prosecutor in Greene County.
cumstances of 3. household may be-the
able to return to their parents often
OH. I worked closely with chese dedi-
State must make reasonable efforts to
drifted in foster care without ever find-
cated. hard-working social welfare pro-
keep it together. and to put it back to-
ing a permanent home.
fessionals. I have great respect and ad-
gether if it falls apart.
That is how the CWA came to be on-
miration for them. They are literally
What constitutes "reasonable ef-
acted. The phenomenon known as fos-
at the front line of our efforts to save
forts"? Here is where maybe we have
ter care drift-children who get lost in
children. We expect the impossible
part of the problem.
a. child welfare system that cannot or
from them and. frankly. do not give
This has not been defined by Con-
will not find them a permanent home-
them all the tools and resources they
gress. Nor has it been defined by HHS.
simply had to be faced and reversed.
need to do their jobs. Often. the only
This failure to define what con-
Let me Interject at this point. Mr.
options they have. and the only choices
stitutes "reasonable efforts" has had a
President. that I had substantial expe-
they have for these children. are all
very important-and very damaging-
rience on this issue before the passage
bad-no good options. no good choices.
practical result. There is strong evi-
of the CWA legislation in 1980. As long
Many times. our social welfare agen-
dence to suggest that in the absence of
ago 33 1973. I was serving as an assist-
cies are simply overwhelmed. Some ex-
a definition. reasonable efforts have be-
ant county prosecutor in Greene Coun-
perts say that the social worker han-
come-in some cases-extraordinary ef-
ty. OH. and one of my duties was to
dling children ought to handle no more
forts. Efforts to keep families together
represent the Greene County Children
than 15 or 20 cases at 3 time. But the
at all costs.
Services in cases where children were
truth is that we have social workers
Mr. President. much of the national
going to be removed from their par-
today handling 50. 60. 70 cases. They do
attention on the case of Elisa Izquierdo
ents' custody.
not have enough time or enough re-
has focused on the many ways the so-
I saw first hand that too many of
sources to solve the problems these
cial welfare agencies dropped the ball.
these cases dragged on forever. The
kids have.
It has been said that there were numer-
children end up getting trapped in tem-
In summary, Mr. President. there are
ous points in the story when some
porary foster care placements. which
many causes for the tragedies I have
agency could have and should have in-
often entail multiple moves from foster
discussed. Further. there are many
tervened to remove Elisa and her sib-
home to foster home to foster home.
things that must change. many things
lings from her mother's custody.
for years and years and years.
that we can do to help these children.
I am not going to revisit that ground.
Congress enacted the CWA to try to
There are many things we can do.
Rather. my point is a broader one:
solve this very real problem. There
Mr. President. to lessen the time it
Should our Federal law really push the
were good reasons for the CWA. and the
takes for children to be adopted. and to
envelope. 30 that extraordinary efforts
CWA has done a lot of good. There are
lessen the time these poor kids have to
are made to keep that family to-
some families that need 3. little help if
spend in the legal limbo of the system.
gether-efforts that any of us in this
they are going to stay together, and it
Further. there are many things we can
Chamber or anyone listening would not
is right for us to help them. Not only is
do to lessen the odds of tragedies like
consider reasonable?
it right-it is also clearly in the best
the cases of Elisa Izquierdo and Joseph
Throughout human history. the fam-
interests of the child to reunite fami-
Wallace.
ily has been recognized as the bedrock
lies when we can.
S5712
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
June 4. 1996
Mr. President. I ask unanimous con-
Cost
Children
S
Lives."
by
Richard
J.
really counts. Lynne Gallagher. direc-
sent for 5 idditional minutes. and I Gelles.
cor of the Arizona Governor's Office for
apologize to my colleague.
Dr. Gelles is the director of the Fam-
Children. says:
Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to ob-
ily Violence Research Program at the
(C's as though these people think we can
ject. I would like to see what the par-
University of Rhode Island. For years.
put the kids in the deep ireeze for awhile
liamentary procedure is and 18% the
Dr. Gelles thought children should be
and chen pull them out when the par-
Chair to make a ruling. I have 15 min-
permanently removed from their
eats are ready to parent.
utes that was assigned to me under the
homes only as 1 last resort. even if it
:Ve all know how crucial those forma-
original schedule. and also Senator
meant that the children may spend
live years can be.
LEAHY. The time is about up. I would
years moving back and forth between
Let me return to the work of Dr.
not object to the request from the Sen-
birth homes and Coster homes. He now
Gelles. He says:
ator so he can finish his remarks $0
says-and I quote:
It is time to (ace up to the fact that some
long 18 the same procedure would be
It is & Action to believe one can balance
parents are not capable of being parents.
afforded to this Senator after he has
cannot be changed. and should JOC continue
preservation and safety without cilting in
to be allowed to care for children.
finished his presentation.
favor of parents and piacing children at sisk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is their
He advocates changes in Federal 13.ws
He believes that the system is
objection CO the Senator's request?
to protect children: He also thinks that
weighted too far toward giving the
Hearing none, it 18 so ordered.
child-protection officials should move
mother and father chance after chance
Mr. DEWINE. I thank my colleague.
to terminate parental rights sooner.
after chance to put their life in order-
Again I apologize for taking his time
chus freeing children for adoption.
putting the adults first. rather than
and the Senate's time. But I would like
I think the time is ripe for these
putting the children first.
to complete. It should not take any
changes. In New York City. Mayor
Even some social-work professionals
more than just a few more moments.
Giulisni has pledged to shift the city's
will tell you how true this is. Krista
We should not be in the position of
priorities away from family preserva-
Grevious. 3 Kentucky social worker
taking children away just because the
tion-and toward protecting children
with 21 years of experience. says:
from harm.
parents are too poor-or just because
I think it's probably one of che most Jan-
But we need to examine how much of
there is a problem in the family. If the
rerous things we have ever done for children.
the problem we face is a consequence of
problem can be fixed, we must try to
Patrick Murphy is the court-ap-
Federal law-the lack of precision of
keep the family together for the chil-
pointed lawyer for abused children in
the CWA legislation back in 1980. And
dren's benefit. It is just that at some
Cook County. n. He says:
this is truly a national problem that
point. when it comes to cases of child
abuse and child neglect. we have to
Increasingly. people in this business do not
needs a national response. According to
look at things from the point or view " the
the National Committee to Prevent
step in and say: "Enough is enough.
child. But the child is the defenseless party
Child Abuse. child abuse fatalities have
The child comes first."
here. We've forgotten that.
increased by 40 percent between 1985
And that is where we are now. in a
In 1993. Murphy published an article
and 1995.
lot of cases. Fifteen years after the
in the New York Times that put the
I think there is something the U.S.
passage of the CWA. I chink we need to
problem in historical context. I quote
Congress should do about that I think
revisit this issue. and see how the sys-
from his article:
we should make it absolutely clear
tem is working in practice.
I believe we need to reemphasize
The family preservation system is a con-
that the best interests of the child are
cinuation or sloppy thinking of the 1960's and
the primary concern of social policy.
what all of us agree on-the fact that
1970's that holds. 13 an unquestionable truth.
We need to examine. Mr. President.
the child ought to come first. We have
that society should never blame a viccim. or
whether in fact the 1980 Child Welfare
to make the best interests of the child
course. the children are not considered the
Act has been misinterpreted-and
our top national priority.
victims here. Rather the abusive parents are
whether we need to clarify It 50 there
In many of the cases we have looked
considered victims of poverty and addiction.
can be no misunderstanding of Con-
at. it looks like the CWA has been not
This attitude 13 cot only patronizing. It an-
dangers children.
gress' intent. While family reunifica-
been correctly interpreted. At least
wion is a laudable goal. and should usu-
that is the way it appears. Try to
Marcia Robinson Lowry. head of the
ally be attempted. the best interests of
imagine what the authors of the CWA-
Children's Rights Project at the Amer-
the child should always come first.
the people who stood on this Senate
Ican Civil Liberties Union. sums it up.
This. Mr. President. was the intention
floor and the House floor in 1979 and
She says:
of the drafters of the 1980 law. Congress
1980-what would they have said if they
We've oversold the (act that all Camilies
should reaffirm this-by making what-
had been asked: "Should Joseph Wal-
can be saved. All families can't be saved.
ever clarification is necessary in the
lace be sent back to his mother?
Mr. President. let me make this abso-
law.
Should this little Joseph. this little
lutely clear. I think there is nothing
To the extent that the 1980 law has
boy, be sent back?"
wrong with giving parents another
been imprecise, ambiguous. and un-
I cannot believe that anyone would
chance. But we have to make sure the
clear. or just misinterpreted. it has
say he should have been sont back. And
child comes first. Is that child going to
contributed to the syndrome in which
I cannot believe that it was the au-
get a second chance at growing up? A
children move from child.abuse to fos-
thors' intent that it would take place.
second chance to be 4 years old-the
ter home to child abuse. It is time for
I cannot believe that they would say,
age when a personality is already fun-
ца to break this cycle-to help children
"In that case, and in every case, the
damentally shaped?
escape their abusers and find a perma-
child must be reunited with the adult
Jann Heffner, the director of the
nent home before they have suffered
at all costs."
Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption.
absolutely irreparable physical and
No. I don't think SD.
has a useful way of looking at this
emotional damage.
Reasonable people agree, Mr. Presi-
problem-the concept of "kid days."
If we make explicit our commitment
dent. on one point: Nothing-nothing-
When you are 3 years old. 1 month of
to putting the best interests of the
should take precedence over the best
experience does a lot to the formation
child first, in almost all cases that will
interests of the child. It is common
of your personality. It is not a month
mean family reunification. The best in-
sense. And I think we need to make
that can be taken for granted, or treat-
terests of the child are almost always
sure the CWA is interpreted consist-
ed as routine.
served by reuniting and preserving
ently-and correctly-to reflect that
One helpful way of looking at it is
families. But in the ca3es where family
common sense.
this: If you are 50 years old, 1 year is 2
reunification is not in the best interest
It is my hope that an important new
percent of your life. If you are 3 years
of the child, in those cases we must
book will spark the national debate
old. 1 year is one-third of your life.
protect the child. Federal law must be
that America need to have on this
There is some important psycho-
clearly on the side of the child.
issue. The book is called "The Book of
logical activity going on with these
I intend to introduce-in the near fu-
David: How Preserving Families Can
children. And every day-every hour-
ture-legislation that will clarify once
June 4, 1996
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
S5713
and for all the intent of Congress on
those kids enter the system because of
local child protection agencies to be in dan-
this issue. Congress should stand with
abuse. neglect or "parental conditions" in-
ger. Their deachs are heartbreaking evidence
the highest values or the American
cluding drus abuse. In the District or Colum-
that current policies and services are failing
people. And the mind and heart of
bis. social workers don't have enough cars or
10d must be changed.
America are crystal clear on this issue:
Tax machines to keep abreast of cheir case-
But the answers don't come easy. The
loads. If child protective agencies need more
problems are overwhelming the system and
The children come first.
money. they should have it.
getting worse. as dysfunctional families and
When they do not. we. 38 a society, as
But the heart of the problem 15 not money:
single-parent homes increase. drug abuse
Americans, have every right to become
it is philosophy. Most 30cial-service agencies
srows ind state agencies are dangerously
outraged. to get mad-and demand
pursue the yoal of "family preservation."
pinched for resources. In his new book. "The
change.
Federal money 15 tied to state efforts to keep
Book of David" (subtitled "How Preserving
I simply conclude by saying we need
biological families together. Children. once
Families Can Cost children's Lives". Gelles
to look at the best interests of the
removed from abusive homes. are returned
points out the worrisome realities. State and
child. We need to reexamine this law.
again and again. Social workers see their
local child protection agencies yet almost 3
We need to look at how it is actually
jobs as the provision of "services" to parents
million reports of abuse and neglect every
who abuse their children. in one case the
year: about 38 percent are substantiated.
working.
parents of 10 children were hurting some of
Many charges are dismissed-In part because
I understand that this may be an up-
them. The Calld Welfare Administration 38-
some child abuse and neglect can be difficult
hill battle. that there is a reluctance to
signed them a full-time housekeeper. la-
to detect.
revisit this. But I think we should re-
menting only that budget cuts forced them
The cassworkers who must make the life-
visit it. I think we should look at it.
to withdraw her after 1 year or so.
ind-death decisions about which children are
keeping in mind only one thing. what
Unless social-service agencies nationwide
actually in danger and how to help them.
really is in the best interests of chil-
can stiffen their spines. stop thinking of the
Gelles says. are typically in their 20s-lib-
abusing parents as the victims and focus on
arai-arts majors with about 20 hours of train-
dren.
terminating parental rights in cases of abuse
ing. Part of that training is how to fill out
I ask unanimous consent that four
and neglect. this plague of tiny coffins will
paperwork. and some of it emphasizes keep-
articles on this subject be printed in
continue. There are thousands of would-be
ing families together.
the RECORD.
adoptive couples ready to provide loving
But family preservation. however adpeal-
There being no objection. the mate-
homes for kids who have been abused. Yet
ing its philosophy and goals. has been dan-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
the system frustrates them at every turn.
gerously oversold as an answer to child
RECORD. as follows:
abuse and neglect. Gelles insists-and as
(From the Tampa Tribune, Apr. 21. 19961
savings for taxpayers.
(From the Baltimore Sun. Dec. 4. 1995]
TAKE CHILDREN OUT OF HARM'S WAY
He urges that the rights of abusing parents
TINY COFFINS
be terminated much (28ter-after no more
(By Joan Beck)
(By Mona Charen)
than 2 year. for example. for those with drug
Every day at least three children in Amer-
WASHINGTON.-The death of 5-year-old
or alcohol problems who are not making
ICA die-killed by their parents or care-
Elisa Izquierdo, allegedly 10 the hands of her
good progress in rehabilitation He would
takers. Often they are also the victims or ef-
mother. has touched New York 38 few such
also end parental rights quickly in cases like
forts by child protection agencies to keep
cases do. Her funeral was attended by the
David's in which abusing parents have 12-
families together. whatever the risks.
city's mayor. the state's licutenant governor
ready lost oustody of another youngster.
Such 3 child was David Edwards. dead at
Gelles concedes that the foster-care system
and hundreds of mourners who didn't even
the age of 15 months. whose mother. Darlene.
is overwhelmed with the needs of all the
know her.
23. called 911 one morning to 3AY her SOD
children who should be placed out of their
It mystifies me that some cases of child
wasn't breaching. Paramadics arrived quick-
homes for their own safety. But his other so-
abuse receive extravagant attention and
:; and immediately began CPR. inserting 1
lutions only nibble away at the problem.
evoke the tears and guilty questions they
breathing tube into his throat and rhyth-
Making endangered children available for
ought to arouse. Thousands of others are 1g-
mically compressing his chest in hopes or
adoption at the youngest ages possible gives
a their funerals sparsely attended. their
keeping blood flowing to his brain.
them the best shot they can have at a safe
files closed. and we never 13k how this is
Continuing CPR. the paramedics rushed
and benign childhood. Gelles points our
possible in a country that calls itself civ-
David to 3 Rhode Island hospital. where fur-
Adoptive parents are easiest to find for ba-
Ilized. According to Richard Gelles of the
ther efforts at resuscitation were fucile. An
bies and toddlers. before a youngster has
University of Rhode Island. between 1.200
autopsy showed signs of repeated child abuse
been permanently damaged emotionally or
and 1.400 children are killed by their parents
and suffocation. Investigators found that
physically by abuse.
or caretakers every year in America. At
after David's (ather. Donald. had left for
Even David's sister was eventually adopt-
least half are known to social-service agen-
work. Darlene. who had been working 33 a
ed. although she was permanently disabled
cies before they die.
prostitute out or their apartment. had enter-
by her parents' abuse. New parents could
Elisa Inquierdo had been tormented for 3
tained a "trick." To keep David QUICK she
easily have been found for David had the
very long time. When she died from a severe
forcibly held him down and suffocated him.
rights of his biological parents been termi-
beating. her body bore old scars of scores of
What's chilling is that David was known to
nated. Gelles points out.
other injuries. Neighbors recalled hearing
be 1t deadly risk. His parents had earlier logt
Gelles also recommends setting up more
her scream in pain and beg her mother not to
custody of David's older sister. Marie, be-
small residential group homes. He says this
hurt ner. Her cousin. who had sued for cus-
cause of severe abuse. The state child protec-
setting gives a child the chance to make the
cody. revealed that the mother had. among
tive agency had been called twice about
long-term attachment to a caring adult that
other cortures, forced the child to eat her
David. His father had raged at the case-
is psychologically ossential. although be
own feces.
worker when she tried to check on the child.
does not recommend such homes for young-
The number of New Yorkers who knew of
But the casework plan had been to keep the
sters under age 3.
Ellsa's suffering but did nothing 19 astound-
family together.
Most important, every kind of help for
ing. She was being seen regularly by social-
Questioned after David's funeral. attended
abused children must put their safety first,
Service workers at her kindergarten. She was
only by his grandparents and a state inves-
Gelles insists. even at the expense of the
known to the city's Child Welfare Adminis-
tigator, Darlene WAS charged with murder.
rights of biological parents or the benign-
tration and to a private agency that inter-
She pleaded guilty to manalaughter and was
sounding goals of family preservation.
venes in troubled families.
sentenced to four years in prison, followed
Better solutions to problems of poverty.
Social service agencies nationwide com-
by a long probation.
unemployment, dangerous neighborhoods.
plain that they are impossibly overburdened.
There's nothing new about David's story.
drugs. teen pregnancy. crime and poor
"There are people who have 46 cases." com-
Similar tragedies are old stuff in big-city
schools would also help. Gelles agrees, in
plained a caseworker to the New York
newspapers and on TV stations. Only the
hopes of reducing abuse and neglect. Better
Times. "They don't have time to go back and
names of the children are different.
welfare policies could help families "where
make second visita." Budget cuts have made
But David shouldn't have died. insists
the overriding problems are those of poverty
it even harder to do their jobs.
Richard J. Gelles, director of the family via
rather than inflicted injury or sexual abuse."
Who else can intervens?
lence research program at the University of
Gelles knows there is no single answer to
Though I Am generally opposed to bureauc-
Rhode Island. Contributing to David's death.
problems of child abuse. He acknowledges
racy, preventing child abuse is an excaption.
he says, are the laws. casework philosophy
that family preservation efforts do help in
Who else but the government can intervene
and public sentiments that keep emphasizing
some instances. that foster care sometimes
to protect these children? The number of
the rights of biological parents and the goal
fails, that money and public patience run
children in foster care is increasing dramati-
of (amily preservation.
out But he has done a public service with
cally. from 434,000 in 1982 to more than
Like David more than half of the annual
his insistence that we make the well-being of
600,000 today. According to the American
toll of 1,200 children killed by parents or
children the center of our welfare and pro-
Public Welfare Association. 70 percent of
caretakers were already known by state or
tection policies-in ways that we don't now:
S5714
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
June 4. 1996
(From the Washington Post. May 12. 19967
the care of her mad mother. Given that the
with the bureaucracy. to families deemed 1:
ADOPT A SENSE OF OUTRAGE
numerous 300:a1 workers involved should
risk or having their children removed. Finan-
(By Mary McGrory)
have been more watchful and more demand-
cially supported and marketed ov private
:08. the mayor should have realized that the
Coundations such 35 the Edna McConnell
After Stater Josephine !nished her wreth-
(u) remarks about abused children 1C the
crawedy hegan with the custody award.
Clark Foundation. embraced by the Chil.
Beshasrov. who served on the mayor's com-
dren's Octense Fund and che Child Velfare
spring adoption seminar 10 3 Washington law
71156101. says the terrible Irony :3 that the
office. the chairman. former Pennsylvania
League of America. and ultimately the recip-
lucks who made the decision had had Elisa's
governor Robert P. Casey. spoke 10 praise of
leat at $1 billion or federal support. incensive
mother before her when the first custody
family-preservation programs are couted as
outrage.
"If you don't have a sense or outrage as a
choice was made. She apparently forgot all
able to both preserve families and protect
about It-and had no lawyer or clerk 3 rc-
children.
politician. you are not worth a damn. If you
mind her. thereby sentencing Elisa to beat-
But reasonable afforts and intensive family
have lost it. get out of polities."
He 19 quite right. Sister Josephine Murphy
!ngs and tortures and eventual teach.
preservation have been 1 false promise.
Too had Giuliant didn't read "The Book of
Child-welfare-agency directors and workers
or the Daughters of Charity told of the gross-
David." aiso a true-life tale. by Richard
believe that family preservation and child
ly abused babies who pass through her hands
Gelles of the Family Violence Research Pro-
safety can be balanced. Because they believe
1L St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home in
can or the University or Rhode Island.
family-greservation programs are effective.
Hyattsville. where she !a the admitistrator.
Gelles. author of 20 books about child wel-
child welfare agencies and workers often
I add. in the interests of full disclosure. that
sare. :5 currently :n Washington. working for
make every possible effort to preserve fami-
I am 1 mend and fan of hers and aweatruck
Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn) on adoption
lies. even when what they are creserving
at her competence. I believe she could run
laws. David. 15 months old. died 16 the hands
could hardly be called a family and even
the Defense Department. I am familiar with
her views on what she regards as the uneven
or his mother. 1 part-time prostitute. It was
when there is no evidence that the pareots
avoidable. His mother had also abused Da-
can or will change their abusive behavior.
contest between women and children-she
71d's older 3ister. almost to death. Gelles
There have been nearly 1 dozen scientifically
notes with asperity the hullabaloo over rape
shows the tension in social workers who
reputable evaluations of intensive family-
in contrast to the relatively mild sentences
must work under WAITING mandates: inves-
preservation programs and not one has found
for infanticide.
She described graphically the sufferings or
ligating abusive parents while drawing up
that such programs reduce costs. reduce out.
the abused. abandoned and negicated: infants
plans to reunite them with their endangered
bi-home placements. or improve child safety.
children.
Similarly. research finds that children need
who have been burned at an open fire: chil-
The policy. Gelles says. comes of "1 per-
A stable. giving caretaker. not necessary a
drea :aped and assauited-and sent back to
sistent unwillingness to put children first."
biological caretaker.
their sbusive homes by ;udges who don't care
to know what 18 happening. She told of 3 7-
It :8 also the anwillingness or public men to
IC is 1 fiction to believe one can balance
year-old boy who reproached her for sending
break shibboleths. We as 3. nation. profess to
preservation and safety without Hilting in
believe that all mothers are like Whistler's
favor or parance and placing children at risk.
him home. He warned her that when he grew
and that 1 family" can consist of One (e-
More than 1.200 children are killed by their
up he was soing to "50 out and kill my
male. 1 drug addict and 1 "home." 3 drug
Parents or caretakers such year. and nearly
mother's boyfriend." She had a warning too.
den. As Casey says. Outrage is needed.
half of these children are Tilled after they or
"The money we don't spend protecting call-
their parents have come to the attention or
dren we will have to spend on !ails."
The Family Reunification and Preserva-
(From the weekly Standard. May 27. 1996]
child welfare 1400c:es. Tens of thousands. If
tion Act is the cause of these grotesque prac-
Two WORDS THAT KILL
not hundreds or chousands. or children are
re-abused each year after they or their par-
tices. The body count of children abused to
By Richard J. Galles)
ents have been identified by child weifare
death in 1995 was 1.271. according to the Na-
What if. by changing :wo vords in 1 federal
agencies.
tional Committee to Prevent Child Abuse.
!aw. you could prevent the deachs of hus-
It :9 time to replace the words "reasonable
Yet in the much-praised adoption reform
dreds of children each year and siso prevent
addrts" with two others: "child safaty. IC is
bills being pushed through Congress in time
tens or even hundreds of thousands of abused
time to fact up to the fact that some parents
for Mother's Day. no mention is made of
children from being victimized usain and
are not capable of being parents. cannot be
this.
again?
changed. and should not continue LO be al-
The law's folly-requiring social workers
For 16 years. child welfare policies have
lowed to care for children. Of course. the
to make "reasonable efforts" to send 2 child
been guided by two words: "reasonable of-
change will be a bit difficult than merely
back to abusive parents-was remarked upon
iDITS." One of the cornerstones of the Adop-
substituting two words. There will be howls
at the seminar by William Pierce. president
don Assistance and Child Welfare ACC of 1980
of protest from advocates who will claim
of the National Council for Adoption. Imag-
;PL 96-272) was the mandace that states
that abolishing "reasonable efforts" means
ine. he said. if s. wife-batterer were brought
make "reasonable efforts" to keep or reunite
that more children will be placed in Coster
into court and the judge ordered the wife to
abused and neglected children with their bio-
care. thus straining already over-taxed state
return to him while he tried to straighten
logical parents. This provision was designed
child welfare Sudgets. Claims that children
out.
to reduce the number of maltreated children
are sbused or harmed by foster care will also
The pendulum has begun to swing the
placed in foster care. Although reducing the
DE srotted out. typically without actual =e-
ocher way. Casey says. Some states have
cost of out-of-home placement w38 certainly
search to support such claims. Indeed. some
passed laws requiring delinquent parents to
3. factor behind the reasonable-efforts provi-
children are harmed in foater care. but re-
improve within S. year-or forego their pa-
ston. the major rationale for these two words
search does show that abused children placed
rental rights.
was the deep-seated belief that children do
out of the home do better in the short and
way don't politicians selze on this deadly
best when raised by their biological parents
long runs than children left with abusive and
danger to children? Well. it could be dan-
and chat parents will stop maltreating their
neglectful parents. Advocates will also argus
verous to them. Douglas Besharov of the
children if they are provided with sufficient
that child welfare policy should not be based
American Enterprise Institute. 2 leading 2u-
personal. social and economic resources.
on child fatalities. because such catalities
thority on child welfare. points out the polit-
There was bipartisan support for the doc-
are rare. Well. child fatalities are not rare
ical trickiness of revising the statute.
trine of reasonable efforts. Conservatives
enough. Elisa Izquierdo in New York City.
"Don't forget." he says. "that six years ago
supported It because it was consistent with 2
Joseph Wallace in Chicago. and hundreds of
David Dinkins ran for mayor of New York
family-values approach to social policy. Lib-
other less publicized child (atalities were the
against (Ed) Koch on a charge that be was
erals supported it because it was in the best
direct results of unreasonable efforts to keep
taking too many black kids away from their
tradition of the safecy net for children and
children with their abusive biological care-
families."
families in need. Child advocates enthu-
takers. A change In two words will force
Maybe that 18 why today's mayor. Rudy
siastically embraced "reasonable efforts" be-
child welfare agencies to take stape to en-
Giuliani. one of the most astute politicians
cause they saw taking children from Abusive
bance and speed up adoptions and to consider
in the country. is avoiding the issue in the
parents as even more harmful than the
the ase of congregate care facilities (or what
most notorious (and still reverberating)
abuse. because they felt there WES subtle rac-
some have called "orphanages") for some
child-abuse horror: the murder of 6-year old
Ism in the child welfare system that made
children who have no other safe permanent
Elisa Izquierdo by her mother. Gluliani has
minority children more likely to be placed in
home.
created 1 new child walfare agency and 2 re-
foster care. and because "reasonable efforts"
The 1995 report on child (atalities by the
view panel that issued a voluminous report
created a new funding stream for a social
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Nc-
and suspended two employees involved in the
service system whose funding. in the 1980s,
gleet was dedicated to children killed by par-
CB88. But he never came to grips with the
was being restricted or cut.
ents or caretakers and concluded with 2 rec-
crime in the courtroom.
Soon after the adoption of the doctrine of
ommendation that all child and family pro-
Elisa had been in the care of her adoring
reasonable efforts. family-preservation pro-
grams make child safety a "major priority."
father. When he died, his sister. Ellsa's aunt.
grams were developed. These provide inten-
Changing two words in welfare reform legis-
applied for custody. But under the Family
sive services. such as parent education. help
lation now before Congress would go 2 long
Reunification Act. the judge gave Elisa into
with housekeeping. and assistance dealing
way toward achieving that goal.
Testimony before the
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources
June 27, 1996
Connie Binsfeld
Lieutenant Governor
State of Michigan
Thank you very much for inviting me here today. I consider it an honor to come
before the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources on an issue that
has been a driving force in my life since becoming Lt. Governor - the issue of
giving children a permanent, loving family through early adoption.
In the first few months of our administration, I had a startling experience that
became the foundation of my work in the five years Governor Engler and I have
been in office. I was invited to a meeting of people who were experiencing
problems with "special needs" adoption of state wards. I was totally unprepared
for the experience that awaited me. I thought I was going to meet people who
were upset with their experience of adopting state wards. What I found were
people who WANTED to adopt state wards, but were unable to because of various
bureaucratic roadblocks!
The things I heard that night astounded me. I had believed that there were very
few people willing to adopt "special needs" children. What I learned was that
families were sometimes forced to go outside the state to adopt a "special needs"
child! They wanted my help in making state wards more available to the many
families who wanted to adopt them. That was the beginning of my work that
brings me here today.
When I shared that experience with Governor Engler, he immediately began to
take action. He issued Executive Order No. 1991-14 creating the Lieutenant
Governor's Special Commission on Adoption. He gave us one year to develop
recommendations to address the problems of adoption.
As in all difficult issues, we found that even in Michigan, a model for other states
in our adoption process, there were multiple obstacles to adoption, not the least of
which is the attitude that adoption is the last resort for children instead of a
loving, positive way to build a family.
We focused on voluntary infant and state ward adoptions. They are distinguished
by the source of the funds which pay for the adoption services. State wards,
because they are the responsibility of the Family Independence Agency Adoption
Services (formerly the Department of Social Services), are primarily funded by the
State of Michigan. Infant adoptions are paid through fees charged to the adoptive
families.
1
For state ward adoptions, we learned how the public/private partnership for
adoption service delivery affects the ability to achieve permanent placements. For
voluntary infant adoptions, the major concern was the appropriateness of the
adoptive placement and the need of birth mothers to have more control over the
placement of their infants.
Most of our report focused on state ward adoption issues where the greatest
number of children were awaiting permanent homes. Too many of them were
waiting too long to be adopted. We learned how complicated the adoption process
was and that the adoption system contains several subsystems and is interrelated
with other major systems. Each of the subsystems has its own procedures and
problems, and each seems powerless to improve adoptions beyond its own portion
of the process. The larger, interrelated systems, including in-home services,
foster care, the judicial system, legislative funding system, and the public at
large, all impact immensely on the adoption system.
In order to improve adoption services in Michigan, we found that our public/
private partnerships must be extended to include all of the parties involved, the
adoption triad (the birth parent, adoptive parent, and the best interest of the child),
private and public child placing agencies, the courts, funding entities and the
public - a very complex situation.
In many instances, there were no timeline requirements when tasks had to be
completed or goals achieved. In other instances, timelines had already been
established, but were not enforced. Administrative rules and statutes needed to be
changed in order to structure the timeliness of adoptions.
Workers, public policy makers, and court personnel needed better training on
planning for children's permanency. Accurate and comprehensive data needed
to be collected and shared for informed decision-making to occur. Additionally,
the collection and dissemination of this data would assist in the effort to inform
the public. We know that when families are aware that children are waiting, they
do adopt.
We found that most transracial placements occurred when the recruitment
system failed to keep up with the flow of children entering foster care. The
systemic problem of family recruitment that causes children to be placed
transracially must be addressed, but not at the expense of children who are
already bonded. Rather, recruitment efforts must be increased on the foster care
side to ensure an adequate number of families are available. We strongly believe
that like-race placement, when possible, is optimal for children. We also believe
as strongly that permanency for children should not be sacrificed because of it.
Early permanency is essential to child nurturing and connectedness. It is basic
to child development.
2
Adoptive services must emphasize helping families with adjustment during and
after adoption. As children and families grow and develop together, resources
must be available to support and sustain them.
We found that insurance issues had a profound affect on adoption - the issues of
coverage of pre-existing conditions of the "special needs" child and the need to
have adopted children added to private insurance policies upon adoptive
placement.
We took the somewhat controversial step of recommending parental consent
adoption, but we insisted on safeguards for the child through private agency home
studies and prohibiting exchange of anything of monetary value beyond the
established fee structure to prevent the "buying" of a baby. This prohibition is
ensured by sworn testimony by the parties during court proceedings.
Our Commission's report contained sixty-seven recommendations. After our
report was issued, the Department of Social Services (now the FIA) formed a
working group to study and implement the recommended policy changes and the
legislature introduced a legislative package to make our recommended changes
in statute. I am proud to be able to tell you that in the years from 1991-1995, there
has been an overall increase in adoption of special needs children by forty-four
percent and an increase in adoption of African American special needs children
by one hundred fifty-one percent!
However, until we address the issue of foster care, we will always have problems
in adoption. Foster care drives adoption. As long as children are captives of the
foster care system, the dream of a childhood in a permanent, loving home will be
denied. Because foster care and adoption are inextricably woven, I was lead to a
deeper understanding of the effect foster care policy had on permanency for
children. I began to hear heartbreaking tales of abused children, of children
removed too late from horrifying home situations, of children languishing in
foster care as their parents failed and failed again to be rehabilitated by the
services they were given.
I was deeply troubled then, as I am still, by the world our children face, a world
that so often makes them its last concern. Again I shared my concerns with the
Governor and again he took action. He issued Executive Order 1995-12 which
created the Lt. Governor's Children's Commission. Our charge was to review
state and federal statutes, rules and policies regarding prevention/preservation
programs, removal/foster care placement, reunification, termination of parental
rights, post termination placement, and adoption of children.
Each meinber of my Commission came to their duties with the belief that the
biological family is the basic and natural structure for raising children.
However, in the real world, we know that this is not always possible. Child abuse
and neglect has grown at such an alarming rate it is now considered a national
emergency. The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect reports that
3
deaths from abuse and neglect of children age 4 and under outnumber those from
falls, choking on food, suffocation, drowning, residential fires, and motor vehicle
accidents combined!
Society has changed and in many cases government has been left to pick up the
pieces. Unless we open new pathways for children of severely abusive homes to
flourish and grow, an increasing number of children will be raised by the state.
Children will lose something that can never be replaced: a chance at childhood; a
chance at a forever family.
The history of child welfare reveals that the foster care system became
overwhelmed by the number of children entering the system which resulted in
"foster care drift" - a term used to describe years of foster care placement with no
permanency for the child. To address the problem, Congress enacted The
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272). This Act
requires that "reasonable efforts" be made both to prevent the need for removal
from the family and to provide services to the family so the child can be returned
as quickly as possible if removed from the home. Congress hoped, through the
creation of the "reasonable efforts" provision, to reduce the number of children
removed from their parents. The federal legislation was well intended and may
have been appropriate at the time. However, as society changed, due to an
increase of drugs, violence and abandonment by birth parents, we have witnessed
unintended consequences of that legislation.
We face a new kind of "foster care drift" resulting from the "reasonable efforts"
provision of this Act. "Foster care drift" was not eliminated by that provision. It
merely changed. Prior to the 1980 Act, "foster care drift" was caused by taking
children from their families, placing them in foster care and not providing
services to the parent to help them reunite with their children.
Today, however," foster care drift" continues as a variation of its former self.
Today, "reasonable efforts" have become "unreasonable efforts" as we provide
services again and again to abusive parents. Children are entering foster care
more damaged because they are left in their abusive homes while workers
attempt to prove the unprovable to the federal government - that the undefined,
nebulous "reasonable efforts" have been made to prevent the removal of the
children from their home.
Because children are more damaged upon entering the system, our foster care
and adoption subsidy costs have soared due to the intensive care these children
need. Their damage is compounded as they are shuffled from disrupted
placement to disrupted placement due to their behavior and overwhelming needs.
They become unadoptable.
We need to challenge the present trend of our child welfare system which is based
on the "reasonable efforts" provision that implies that every family can be "fixed"
and a biological family, regardless of the severity of its dysfunction, is always the
4
best place to raise a child. I have seen far too many loving and happy adoptive
families with children adopted from abusive homes to believe that. There is a
placement of choice for every child. The placement may be back in the child's own
home, if investigation proves the parents have learned rather than simply
complied with the services they have received. It could be adoption if the
biological family can not be saved. However, our current system, instead of
focusing on the best interest of the child, directs its attention on the adults. The
rights of the adults override the needs of the child. In my opinion, reuniting a
child with an abusive parent is nothing less than ordering a beaten wife to return
to live with her abusive husband. The abused wife is no longer seen as the
property of her husband. It is time we free our children from similar bondage.
Let me tell you a little bit about the children of whom I speak lest you think I'm
referring to all the children who come under the supervision of the child
protective services. I'm not talking about children whose parents keep a dirty,
cluttered house or who don't know how to prepare nourishing meals or have no
food in the refrigerator. Nor are they the children whose parents love them but
need our help in learning the skills to care for their children. Those families
deserve our help and our department works compassionately and determinedly to
provide the services needed to teach them the proper skills to care for their
children. It is our duty and moral obligation to help those families help
themselves.
The children of whom I speak are the shattered bodies in tiny coffins; the little
ones who have been raped; the babies who have been shaken so hard the blood
vessels burst in their skulls; the children who have been burned with cigarette
butts or set on hot stoves or put in scalding water to "make them behave"; the little
faces and bones broken by the people who brought them life or those they allow
into their homes.
Generally, the public and state and federal officials continue to regard these
stories as rare and tragic events. Let me assure you, from five years experience of
working with abused children, they are not rare.
Let me give you just two startling examples of how taxpayer's money is spent on
achieving "reasonable efforts" to preserve families. A woman with four felony
convictions and who was known by protective services to have abused, abandoned,
terrorized and sold one of her children for one year's free rent and twelve hundred
dollars cash was flown, on probation, round trip from another state, housed in a
motel, provided meals and spending money for weekend visitation with her
children. This continued for a period of thirteen months. These children were so
traumatized by the visits that they experienced nightmares and bedwetting after
the visits. In another case, services were provided for a parent who put her
baby's face in scalding water because she was tired of her crying. The child's face
was virtually melted and required countless surgeries to try to rebuild her face,
but still "reasonable efforts" had to be made snd reunification services were
offered and visitation, though terrifying to the child, was ordered.
5
I've told you the problems, now let me tell you some of the recommendations our
Children's Commission made that will help our caseworkers document abuse
and establish grounds for early termination, without reunification efforts and
free our waiting children for early adoption. We have recommended: increased
training for protective service workers; field investigations on all complaints;
portable computers for field investigations; development of a uniform assessment
tool for investigations; increased ability to track families who have moved to avoid
further protective services involvement; multi-disciplinary teams of the
prosecutor and appropriate specialists to identify and collect enough evidence to
sustain the "clear and convincing" burden of proof to terminate parental rights;
decentralizing protective service workers to off-site assignments in hospitals that
make more than 200 referrals of abuse and neglect per year; development of a data
bank with each county prosecutor; and the establishment of a presumption to seek
termination of the parent's rights at the first dispositional hearing when certain
severe abuse has occurred. These abuses that the Commission determined merit
termination are as follows:
when children have been tortured; there has been severe physical
abuse of a child or sibling; a sibling has been killed by the parent(s);
the parent(s) has attempted to murder a child or sibling; a child or
sibling has been sexually penetrated by a parent; or a very young or
severely impaired child has been abandoned by the parent(s). This
presumption should also be made in cases when parental rights to
previous children have been terminated, or multiple attempts have
been made to rehabilitate the family or when substance abuse has
been ongoing and has resulted in previous harm to the children and
the addiction has proved to be intractable even with appropriate
treatment. This presumption that a termination petition should be
filed at the first dispositional hearing should only be negated if it can
be demonstrated that termination of parental rights is not in the
child's best interest.
These are just a few of our one hundred and ninety-seven recommendations that
are designed to achieve a permanent family for abused children, whether that is a
return to a rehabilitated family or through adoption if the family can't be saved.
But we need your help on the federal level. Without it, we will never be rid of the
fear that the federal government may come into our state and tell us that we have
not reached that undefined, nebulous standard of "reasonable efforts". We need
your support to put into federal law what we have recommended be put into state
law. Without it. we are still at the mercy of federal regulators and judicial
interpretation. Without federal changes, states will continue to fear that federal
money will be lost because we have not met the mysterious and vague standard of
"reasonable efforts."
6
There is such a small window of opportunity to save an abused child. If we allow
them to stay in an abusive home for years as we struggle to change their parents,
they become damaged. If we leave them in foster care for years as their parents
fail repeatedly to change, they become damaged, so damaged that adoption is
not possible. When abuse is severe, we must move quickly. Identify it, prosecute
it, and terminate parental rights with no reunification efforts. As we are doing
this, we should simultaneously and aggressively identify a permanent, loving,
adoptive home for the child.
I am the guardian of our vulnerable children by virtue of my moral and my civic
responsibility. And so are you, my fellow colleagues. On behalf of every child who
shudders when Daddy - or Mommy's boyfriend - opens the bedroom door at night;
whose screams are ignored by the neighbors; whose tortured minds and bodies
are sick with fear, I ask your help.
Thank you for receiving this testimony today.
7
U.S. House Of Representatives, Committee On Ways and Means, Subcommittee on
Human Resources. E. Clay Shaw Jr. Chairman.
Written Testimony of Deborah Benn. 1393 E. 59th Street, Cleveland Ohio 44102.
Phone (216)229-2221, Fax (216)229-1707
Thank you Mr.Chairman, members of the committee for inviting me to testify.
I am Deborah Benn, a 34 year old mother of 3
Both my parents are deceased. My mom was a L.P.N. nurse, my father was a welder.
My father as an alcoholic, and while growing up I witnessed domestic violence between
my parents. My mother was the primary caretaker for the family, due mainly to my
fathers alcoholism. My mom died of M.S. when 1 turned 22 years old. I was pregnant
with my second child when she died. I was living with the father of my two sons. I was
a manager with Burger King, Inc., and was doing well, I thought however, I was in a
violent relationship, and I stayed with this relationship for six years, despite my families
pleading for me to leave. One night I came home late; and we got into a physical fight.
This night I was really tired of the beatings. I had suffered a broken arm, black eyes,
and, hospitalized for one week due to internal bleeding. I took enough clothes for my
kids and went to a friend's house. However, my sons' father would consistently harass
me at work and in the community. Burger King, Inc., changed my job site 2 times, and I
was eventually fired. I became so depressed with everything and one night some
friends invited me to their house and I was introduced to crack/cocaine. Within the
same week I tried it again. the drugs were free and available whenever I needed them.
Within the next three - four months I saw myself becoming addicted, but I rationalized
it, telling myself that I could quit anytime.
I moved in with my sister, and stayed with her for a year. I would leave my kids with my
sister for days at a time, or if necessary leave them by themselves. They were 6 and 3
years old. After a year of this, my sister put me out. I went into the West Side Shelter.
They helped me find housing, where I stayed for two years. I was still using drugs, but I
thought I was okay, I was working and taking care of my kids. Finally, things got worse,
I spent all my rent money, food stamps, and utility money on drugs. I was finally
evicted. Me and my kids moved in with a drug using friend, who I became pregnant by
with my 3rd child. I had no running water (1 got water out of the fire hydrant), no gas
and no heat, I lived this way for a year. One day I came home from picking up my
check and found a note from a social worker. I never called, but the worker came back
a few days later and my friend had told them that I moved. Actually I came back, and
me and my friend had spent all my money on drugs. We got into a fight, and me and
my kids left. It was cold, and 1 had no place to go. We slept at an RTA bus shelter,
That morning I went back to my friend's, but couldn't get in. I don't know why I kept the
card from the social worker, but I did, and I called. I asked the worker what would
happen if I brought my kids down. Would I get them back? The worker told me if I
brought them down she would give me referrals for treatment, and would work with me
to help me get my children back. She told me it would take at least a year. I told her
that I would talk to my kids and get back to her. The worker kept asking me to bring my
kids now that day. I did not give the worker any information she wanted. In fact, I think
the worker was "shocked" when I showed the next day. The worker met me in the
lobby. She explained to me what I needed to do. She helped me get into a shelter,
and placed my kids in foster care. Within a week I was in treatment. I was in treatment
for 6 months. I saw my children once per month. Once I completed treatment, my
worker referred me to Family Transitional Housing. I was accepted, but didn't have
enough income for the program. I was able to work at the treatment facility and earn
enough to live at Family Transitional Housing. During this time my children were able
to have overnight visits with me. My oldest son came home first. When he came home
I got a chance to meet the foster parent, who lived in the same community. My second
son came home a month later. My daughter who was placed in another foster home
came home a month after my second son. Within 90 days I had all my children back.
2
1 lived at Family Transitional Housing for 2 years. 1 went back to school, received my
G.E.D., and did volunteer work at Family Transitional Housing, I moved into a SAFH
(Facility to assist the Homeless) home. I lived there for about a year. During this time I
applied for a Habitat House, and was hired as a full time child advocate for Family
Transitional Housing, I work with children of recove. parents. I moved into my own
home two years ago.
I still work for Family Transitional Housing, and I am a part-time student at Tri-C
Community College. I also train new social workers and foster parents. My children
are recovering as well. My oldest is 15 and in the 10th grade. He carries a B average,
and plans to be a architect. My second son is 13, in the 8th grade. He is a straight A
student with a 4.0 average. He is an Upward Bound program at Case Western
Reserve University. Only two children from the Cleveland School district received this
scholarship; my daughter is 8, and also does well in school. I currently have her in
private school.
It was hard, but because my social worker believed in me and made efforts to help me,
I was able to get my children back. I don't know where me or my children would be if
these efforts had not been made.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee On Ways And Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources. E. Clay Shaw Jr, Chairman.
Written Testimony of Patricia Newell. 1264 East 123rd Street, Cleveland, Ohio
44108. Phone (216) 268-3909, Fax (216) 268-0207.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee for inviting me to testify
concerning this vitally important subject which is one that is very dear to my
heart.
1 wear two hats as I sit before you today. I am the assistant director of St. Martin
De Porres Family Resource Center, a private nonprofit agency in Cleveland,
Ohio, and I am a foster parent. Our agency was selected as one of the two sites
to pilot the Family To Family Neighborhood Foster Care Initiative and 1 had no
idea at that time that as a result of that contract my life was about to be radically
changed. In fact my very soul was about to be challenged.
My husband and I opened hearts and our home to a scrawny little 10-year-old
boy named Damu Bridges on May 28th 1992. We had no idea at that time how
long we would have Damu with us and that seemed relatively unimportant to us.
We had no children of our own at that time and we had plenty of room in our
home and in our lives for little Damu. Damu was the middle child of a family of
nine children and, needless to say, he was enjoying all of the attention lavished
upon him by our family and friends. He would often ask us if we could adopt him
so that his last name would be Newell like ours. I would always respond by
telling him that his parents loved him very much and that they had not given him
to us - that they were only asking us for a little help while they got their lives
back in order. Having a professional background in the field of drug treatment I
was able to talk to Damu about his father's chemical dependency without ever
putting his dad down. Damu never talked much about his mom at first. I later
found out that she had abandoned Damu and his brothers and sisters about six
months prior to the children being taken from the home by the Department of
Children and Family Services. He had a great deal of anger locked inside about
his mom leaving him and the other children.
Well, having given you a little background information about Damu 1 need to talk
about how the Family To Family Initiative affected us. An important part of the
Family To Family agenda was to begin to bring about more interaction between
the foster family and birth parents. I was concerned when I heard this concept
being tossed about. After all I had not become a foster parent thinking I would
ever have to interact with the child's parents. I knew that this could be risky not
to mention potentially dangerous. However, being the type A personality that I
am I stepped up to the challenge. I determined that 1 would be willing to meet
Damu's parents as a sort of test case. I would arrange for the meeting to take
place at St. Martin De Porres, a safe place, on my own turf. I remember that day
vividly. 1 was a nervous wreck but 1 tried to appear to be in control. 1 waited in
my office busying myself with paperwork, having given my staff instructions to
notify me when Mrs. Bridges entered the building. Finally, the moment had
arrived, and out to the main lobby I went. There sat this very docile unassuming
little woman. She looked so very scared and 1 remember thinking that she
looked nothing like I had imagined. Up to the conference room we went, not
saying a word to one another in the elevator. We sat around trying to make
small talk until Damu was brought from school by his social worker. Suddenly
there was a knock at the door. Damu walked into the room with a timid look on
his face and what 1 saw after that would change my life. Mrs. Bridges looked into
her son's eyes and pulled his little chin toward her and kissed him. It was a
gesture that only his mom could make. I could provide Damu with shelter,
clothing and food but 1 knew at that moment that she had just given him
something that I could never give him. I was moved to tears just watching her
tenderness with him and his respect for her. 1 didn't know how I would be able to
help but 1 knew that Damu needed to be with his mom.
2
Four years later on June 17th 1996, Damu Bridges went home. Adoption is a
wonderful thing and I applaud the efforts of those who make it happen, but it is
not the answer for every child. In reality, there may be too many barriers for
adoption of a 15-year-old African-American male. For "iamu, permanency was
achieved when he went home to his mothe: Demu's mom will need a great deal
of support and I have pledged to give her that support so that this reunification
will be a successful reunification.
In closing, I plead with you members of the government that in our effort to
contain cost, and keep children safe, we do not decimate the resources that
should be available to provide the supportive services to families to preserve
them and to protect children when they cannot protect themselves.
Page 1
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Human Resources
E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Chairman
Written Testimony of Judith Goodhand
Department of Children and Family Services
3955 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Phone (216) 432-3390, Fax (216) 432-3379
I am Judith Goodhand, Director of the Department of Children and Family
Services in Cleveland, Ohio and 1 have worked in children's services for 24
years. I began my career in Knox County, Ohio, a small rural county of 45,000
people, later moved to the county agency in Toledo (population: 350,000) and,
for the past 4 years, 1 have directed the county agency in Cleveland. So for 24
years, I have known the rewards and the pain of developing children's services
under a broad range of circumstances and conditions.
Today in Cleveland we are working to improve and reform our system in
response to dramatically changing conditions. Currently my agency must
respond every month to 1,500 reports involving children who are abused,
abandoned, homeless, hungry or toxic with drugs at birth. We provide services
to almost 60,000 children and their parents each year, take custody of close to
300 children each month and on any given day are seeking adoptive families for
700 waiting children.
These are very different circumstances than existed in 1972 in Knox County or
even Cleveland when we often removed children from their homes to foster care
or institutions for the slightest reasons. We took children from their parents too
easily, and worse, kept them indefinitely. In that process we sometimes lost
track of where, and who, they were. In 1972, we did not have 15,000 homeless
children on our streets and in our shelters in Ohio, as we did in 1994. We had
never heard of crack cocaine, which did not hit our streets until the late 1980's.
The threats to children are significantly different and greater today from what
they were in 1972, and the decisions we are called to make are more complex.
As this Committee opens discussion on the reasonable efforts standards for
agencies such as ours, 1 ask you to please keep in mind the pressures on social
workers and other professionals every day to make the right decisions about
when to remove the child, when to reunite the child with the birth parents, and
when to permanently sever the ties between the two. Social workers need
sophisticated training and a broad range of knowledge, tools and skills to protect
children today. Our response to that first notice of an incident of abuse or
neglect is critical. We must be thorough investigators to determine the
appropriate action. A child's safety must and always does come first. In
Cleveland we use a structured risk assessment process to help social workers
determine the level of risk to that child. Our goal is to make sure the most
serious cases get quick and intense action. We also need to have access to a
broad range of preventive services based on what is best for the child and the
family, including family preservation, drug treatment, health care, and parent
training. If a child needs to be removed to be safe, we need a wide range of
placement resources for children who aren't safe in their own homes. We need
to provide special services for those foster and adoptive families who care for
special needs children. And we must be able to provide adoptive families for
those children who can never return home. Mr. Chairman and members of this
Committee, there is no one response or service that is appropriate for every
child, or every family. Wr do not have a one-size-fits-all system. We need both
Page 2
home-based services, such as family preservation, and out-of-home services,
such as foster care.
We often hear and read about what doesn't work: the child who is not removed
and dies of abuse, the child who is reunited and reabused.
We do not hear very much about the thousands of children who remain safely in
their homes because they received appropriate services, which is why 1 urge you
to pay close attention to the testimony of Pat Newell and Deborah Benn, who
join me here today. They are successful because our system worked for them
and their children. They represent the thousands of children and families who
are in safe, secure and stable homes because of systems that worked. And we
rarely hear about the other risk: the risk of growing up without a family,
separated from home, brothers and sisters, schools and friends when children
are removed unnecessarily. A review of reasonable efforts should not focus on
just family preservation or reunification or adoption services. We need all of
these services to respond to different levels and different kinds of risk. Most of
all we need safe, secure, permanent families for our children.
There are successful programs which protect children at home, and others which
place them outside of their homes in foster care. We need to build on these new
models. In Cleveland we've been very fortunate to have private funds to assist
us with our reform effort. Thanks to a grant from the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, we have developed a program called Family to Family, which trains
foster parents who live in the same or nearby communities as the birth parents.
Birth and foster parents work as a team with social workers for changes that will
allow the child to be returned home and, when that is not possible, to facilitate
adoption. (Sixty percent of our children are adopted by their foster parents.)
This process involves a whole network of community and neighborhood supports
for these families, and builds on a partnership with the private sector.
Our first goal is to keep children safe from harm and we must use every resource
available to do this. The key is to choose the right resource in each case. We
know that some children cannot be protected in their own homes, even with
family preservation or other resources. No one has ever claimed that family
preservation is right for all families. But we also know that foster care does not
always provide the stability, commitment or nurturing that all children need. And
I tell you, with great sorrow, that if we are not able to find adoptive homes for the
700 children in our permanent custody, they will grow up without families of their
own.
I firmly believe that children need families. And that we should make reasonable
efforts to help families break the cycle of violence, learn how to discipline
children without abusing them and stop neglect, too often due to poverty. As a
society, we cannot afford to take children from their homes, breaking family ties,
just because they are poor. If you look at the child welfare system through the
eyes of a child, reasonable efforts need reasonable services.
Yes, we must do what is best for the child, but permanent families, whether birth
or adoptive, are best for children and young people. We all need families.
Specifically on barriers to adoption there are a number of things that could help
children who wait too long for families.
Wendy's and the Dave Thomas Foundation have done a good job developing
public/private partnerships around the country with child welfare agencies. With
a grant from the Families for Kids Initiative of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, nine
counties are working together on a special Wendy's recruitment project in
northern Ohio focusing on five key outcomes described by Mr. Thomas.
Quite frankly, the proposed legislation passed by the House on tax credits would
not really help children in foster care who are waiting for families. There are
Page 3
important issues Congress and the government can do on adoption. Over the
past twenty years, you have identified many of these problems, but it is time to
take another look at what is working. Specifically in the areas of:
Technology and uniform data collection: Most child welfare agencies still
rely on paper systems to track their children and families. Computerization
has been too slow in coming to our field. This is why so many children can
literally get "lost" in the system. Good management information systems and
improved data collection and utilization technologies are key toward
identifying problems and finding solutions for the backlog of children in the
system. We are just beginning this process in Ohio and it is a hard one.
Each state should not have to recreate the wheel, over and over again on
MIS systems and data collection. Congress has taken action in this area
over the last ten years. But we need more and better technical assistance
given the rapid advances in this area.
Recruitment: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Adoption
Opportunities Program provides funds for developing recruitment campaigns
featuring special needs children legally free to be adopted. Under this
excellent program, our county developed a set of materials that I would like to
submit for the record as an example of what others are doing around the
country. The program is under-funded and still is just a "pilot." But much
more can and should be done. The Federal government could provide
ongoing funds for national and regional recruitment efforts. Just as the Army
asks people to "Be all that you can be" or the Parks Service has Smokey the
Bear telling people "Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires," we could use some
leadership on foster care and adoption utilizing both mass media, radio and
television spots, and on-going, child-specific recruitment.
The backlog of Waiting Children: In Ohio and many other states, the log jam
for kids in foster care and permanency comes during the home study
process. We must be thorough in our investigations when certifying foster
and adoptive families. The public expects us to set high review standards
and to ensure that children in foster and adoptive homes are truly safe,
secure and stable. But a good home study costs between $600-$1200. I
fear that without additional resources to help relieve the backlog of children
in foster care, we may never find enough homes for all the children who need
them.
Ohio is very lucky to have several national foundations investing in us to reform
our system. Both the Family to Family program supported by the Annie E.
Casey Foundation in six states and the Families for Kids Initiative by the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation in 11 states are identifying important best practices to
improve the child welfare system in foster care and adoption. We now know
what parts of the system can be fixed and the new and improved tools needed
for reform.
I urge you to preserve the entitlement which IV-E maintenance and
administrative dollars give to our children in foster and adoptive placements.
But there is more Congress can do: we also need to assure that there are
adequate funds to support family preservation, prevention services, drug
treatment, health care and other services. And finally we need both resources
and technical assistance to help us in developing and supporting adoptive
families for special needs children. I am keenly aware that it is not a good time
to come and talk about additional needs. But out of the 24 years of my
experience in working with children. | am telling you that the situation of our
children today is desperate and they need your help.
###
STATE OF NEBRASKA
THE
STATE
STATE FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD
Carolyn K. Stitt
THE
Director
521 S. 14th Street. Suite 401
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508-2707
Phone (402) 471-4420
of
Omaha Office
1313 Farnam-on-the-Mall
E. Benjamin Nelson
June 24, 1996
Omaha, Nebraska 68102-1846
Governor
Phone (402) 595-2764
Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Chairman
Subcommittee on Human Resources
B-317 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
FOR THE RECORD
Dear Congressman Shaw:
I would like to commend the Subcommittee for looking into the serious issue of the
problems that arise when children and youth are inappropriately returned home. Thank you
for allowing me to submit written testimony for this hearing.
As Executive Director of the Nebraska Foster Care Review Board, I respectfully request
that you consider changing PL 96-272 to define cases when reasonable efforts are not
required to meet federal law. There are many fine aspects to PL 96-272, including
requiring case plans for each child in foster care, having a state-wide information system
that provides data on the children. and requiring 6-month court or administrative reviews.
However, I think it is important the law be revised to reflect the type of cases we're seeing
today. Every day I see the damage children suffer when the system puts children and
youth back home inappropriately. They return to foster care, never knowing the
fundamental security most of us take for granted.
One area of evidence regarding how badly the system is functioning is the recidivism rate
we are seeing in Nebraska.
41% of Nebraska's state wards have been removed from the home for abuse
and/or neglect at least twice.
14% of the state wards have experienced being removed from the home for abuse
and/or neglect at least 3 times.
Of 2,940 state wards returned home during 1995, 336 (11%) were returned to
foster care within the first 5 months of 1996.
The following chart shows the number of times children were placed in foster care and the
ages of the children:
No. of times
No. of
Newborn
6 yrs
-
13 yrs -
16 yrs
in foster care
children
5 vrs
12 yrs
15 yrs
or older
2
905
157
312
257
176
3
309
32
98
94
85
4
101
3
39
26
33
5
28
1
5
9
13
6
13
0
8
2
3
7
4
1
2
0
1
In my role working with citizen reviewers, I have seen the implementation of the
reasonable efforts requirements of PL 96-272 as everything but reasonable. It offers little
or no protection to children who have suffered extreme abuse. The following is a typical
case example:
Case Example: "Betty," age 10 and twins "Bobby" and "Benjamin" age
9; were first placed in foster care in 1987 due to neglect and unsanitary home
conditions. When "Barbara" was born the following year, she too was
placed in care because of physical abuse by her mother. The children have
gone home and been returned to care three times. Their parents have been
provided intensive services, yet have difficulty demonstrating stability and a
safe home for their children. In 1993. a new baby, "Billy," was also placed
in foster care. All five children have spent more than 50% of their lives in
out-of-home care. Recent testing indicates Betty suffered childhood trauma
symptomatic of being Sexually abused. Bobby is behaviorally impaired, has
set at least two fires in the home. and has threatened to kill himself with a
Page 2
knife. The behavior of all of the children regress when visitation occurs. In
spite of the length of time these children have spent in care, the services
provided, and multiple unsuccessful reunification attempts, the plan remains
"reunification."
As a result of PL 96-272 and other regulations, agencies have interpreted "reunification" in
the most absurd way requiring agencies to pursue reunification at all costs. Since 1988 the
Foster Care Review Board has recommended that "child protection" and "child advocacy"
replace "family reunification" as the guiding policy of child welfare agencies. In Nebraska,
our state legislature change the Nebraska Family Policy Act so "best interest of the child"
could replace "reunification."
In my research of what other states have done, I've been impressed with Utah. Because of
that state's interest in and responsibility to protect and provide permanency for children
who are abused, neglected. or dependent. the State of Utah has found that the parent's
interest in receiving reunification services is limited. Based on individual circumstances,
the court may determine that efforts to reunify the family are not reasonable. Reunification
service need not be provide to a parent if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence,
any of the following circumstances exist:
(a)
the whereabouts of the parents are unknown, based upon a verified affidavit
indicating that a reasonably diligent search has failed to locate the parent;
(b)
the parent is suffering from a mental illness of such magnitude that it
renders him incapable of utilizing those services; than finding shall be based on
competent evidence from mental health professionals establishing that, even with
the provision of services, the parent is unlikely to be capable of adequately caring
for the child within 12 months:
(c)
the minor has been previously adjudicated as an abused child due to
physical or sexual abuse, that following the adjudication the child was removed
from the custody of his parent. was subsequently returned to the custody of that
parent, and the minor is being removed due to additional physical or sexual abuse;
(d)
the parent has been convicted of causing the death of another child through
abuse or neglect;
(e)
the minor has suffered severe abuse by the parent or by any person known
by the parent, if the parent knew or reasonably should have known the person was
abusing the minor'
(f)
the minor has been adjudicated as an abused child as a result of severe abuse
by the parent, and the court finds that it would not benefit the child to pursue
reunification services with the offending parent;
(g)
the parent's rights have been terminated with regard to any other child;
(h) the child was been removed from his home on at least two previous
occasions and reunification services were offered or provided to the family at those
times; or
(i)
if any other circumstance that the court determines should preclude
reunification efforts or services.
I have enclosed a fact sheet of case examples of children who have suffered as a result of
being returned home prematurely or to parents who are unwilling or unable to parent their
children. I want to emphasize that these are not isolated incidents. It is time we started
thinking of the children first. Again. I would like to thank your Subcommittee for doing
just that.
If you have any questions or need additional data from our tracking system, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
Barilyn Carolyn Stitt
Executive Director
CKS:pk
Nebraska Foster Care Review Board
Recidivism Case Examples
Case Example #1: "Sam," age 10. and "Susie," age 8, were removed from their home
in 1989 because the home was filthy. roach-infested, and contained no food. "The "Smith"
family had been receiving nearly constant services since 1986. The children were returned
home in June, 1992. Within a month. the children were showing signs of sexual abuse.
Sam was masturbating, playing with matches and attempting to have sex with his sister.
Susie was masturbating and killing animals. The children returned to foster care in March,
1993, because they were not attending school. The children reported sexual misconduct by
their father who threaten to cut off their hands if they told. A therapist has stated that
unless measures are taken to terminate parental rights, the damage to the children will be
irreversible. While the plan has been changed to "long term foster care," monthly visits
with the parents are still being pursued.
Case Example #2: "James," age 8. was placed in foster care in 1987 due to physical
abuse and abandonment. His mother completed the case plan and James was returned
home. He re-entered foster care in 1989 due to physical abuse by his mother and her
boyfriend. The mother completed the case plan and James again returned home. James
was voluntarily placed in care in 1993 due to his aggressiveness. At the time he had
bruises on his back and buttocks. Numerous support services were put in place, including
individual and family therapy and family support services, and he returned home. In 1994,
James again was placed in foster care. He was bruised and withdrawn. James has become
increasingly more aggressive, and. according to his therapists. his aggressiveness is a
learned behavior. James is in the third grade. The permanency plan for James is
reunification.
Case Example #3: "Mike," age 8. and "Mark," age 7, have been involved with Social
Service since they were born. At9 months. Mike was treated for burns on the palms of his
hands. Shortly thereafter, he was treated for serious facial lacerations. Mike and Mark
were placed in foster care in 1989 when their father pour scalding water down Mike's
diaper. The father was charged with child abuse. The children were returned home. In
1990 the children were placed in care because the family was homeless and they had been
evicted from a mission due to alcohol possession. Services were provided and the children
returned to their parents. Numerous CPS reports were received between 1990 and 1991
for neglect and physical abuse. The children re-entered foster care in 1991 when Mike was
burned on his back by his father and Mark displayed several healing burns on his body. A
petition was filed alleging the children were suffering behavioral, psychological, and
emotional disorders as a result of abuse by their father. This abuse included being teased
with knives, held under water, and having hot sauce poured on their food. There have
been numerous court delays on this case including genetic testing to determine paternity of
Mike, Mark, and their two siblings and a finding that the children fall under the Indian
Child Welfare Act. The children have been in foster care four years.
Case Example #4: "Terri," age 13. "Tom," age 12, "Tony," age 9, and "Tess," age 8,
were placed in foster care in 1988 due to sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, and
unsanitary living conditions. Because of their mother's transient lifestyle, the children were
moved frequently so their mother could visit. After several reunification attempts, the
children returned home in 1991. In 1992, the girls were removed from the home due to
sexual abuse by the mother's boyfriend. The boys were returned to foster care later that
year. Terri has experienced 15 placements. Tom and Tony have had 16 placements, and
Tess has had 10 placements. The children exhibit oppositional and aggressive behaviors,
are having difficulties in school, and the boys are sexually acting out. All of the children
are receiving therapy. Parental rights were relinquished in 1995, and the current plan for
the children is adoption or guardianship.