Title: A History of the Child Welfare System Why do things work like this?
1A History of theChild Welfare System Why do
thingswork like this?
2Civil and Criminal Court Process
- Criminal prosecution of child abuse
perpetrators - Civil focus is on protecting the child
- Different Standards of Proof
3How Did We Get To This Point?
- A Volunteer Started
- The Child Welfare System
4First Civil Case AcknowledgingA Childs Rights
- I saw a child carried out on a horse blanket at
the sight at which grown men wept aloud and I
knew a chapter was being written in the rights of
man - Jacob Reese (Court Reporter) in the 1870s
- Story of Mary Ellen-1st reported case of civil
court intervention in a child abuse or neglect
case
5Mary Ellen
- Privately placed out in a home by the NY
Department of Charities - Decisions were made without court review
- Father had died during the civil war
- Mother, after widows pension was cut off, became
ill with tuberculosis - Ms. Etta Wheeler visited the tenement buildings
6Ms. Wheeler
- Looked for legal relief, but there was no
governmental response to child maltreatment - Teamed up with Henry Bergh Elbridge T. Gerry of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Obtained a special writ from a civil judge in
Brooklyn - Mary was made a ward of the court
7Impact Around the Nation
- Notoriety
- 1899 Juvenile Court
- Community based organizations formed that focused
on child protection and monitoring governmentally
run child protection services
8Child Protection Servicesin the Early 1900s
- Child Rescue Societies Institutional Care
- Cultural assumptions about parenting children
- Fathers generally did not raise the children
- African-American Community
9But What Is Primary Bonding For A Child?
- A great deal was learned about warehousing
children - Influenza epidemic hit twice at the turn of the
century and again in 1918
10Movement to Get Outof Institutions
- Orphan Train Movement
- Children of Choice were shipped out west
- Smithsonian exhibit
- http//pda.republic.net/othsa/
11Clinic-Court
- Only a few
- Still a contract system-saw children as property
- Slowly a new concept of child protection services
emerged - Sometimes children must be
removed - Yet, children removed should get a new safe
permanent home (not institutions)
12Quasi Recognitionof Parents Rights
- Institutional care debate lingered
- Judicial gatekeeper role developed very slowly
across the country - Courts were only for parents to have a place to
voice their complaints - No formal review process of children in the
system
13Late 1960s and into the 1970s
- The concept of judicial review of children in
placement emerged over time - The case of Gerald Frances Gault pushed us down
this path - Concept of due process was applied
- When the state takes an action and that action
abuts a fundamental zone of family privacy
the state must do so with the least restrictive
alternative
14Gaulting the System
- Officially recognized the liberty interest in the
right to raise ones own child - Response was to become a court-clinic
- Lawyers were appointed, notices were served,
appellate records kept, codes were drawn
15Court-Clinic
- We separated the clinic and the court
- We did not teach clinicians the value of the law,
the role of due process and fundamental rights,
how to investigate a case, or use evidence in a
court of law - We did not teach our judges about child
development, childrens needs or psychological
issues about separating families
16Clopperation instead of Collaboration
- By late 1970s, we were saying that judges had a
much stronger role in overview responsibility
in the system - We were testing the limits of judicial authority
versus executive authority
17Adoption Assistance andChild Welfare Act 1980
- Federal law that strengthened the role of the
state judiciaryall children in the child welfare
system must have judicial oversight - Set up the federal dollar system that was
triggered by a judges order - Plan was to get significant federal dollars into
the foster care system
18Problem
- Courts and agencies did not get together and
develop a strategic plan with local protocols
built around judicial findings - They searched for ways to pass the federal audit
- No money was designated for courts so many really
werent interested in developing a schematic of
practices
19State Funding
- Passed -In effect October 2000
- Why? 3 Primary Reasons
- Provide Judges in Jurisdictions where Local
Governments were Without the Resources to Do So - Allowing for the Opportunity to Appoint More
Full-time Juvenile Court Judges When Needed
201997-New Laws and Their Effect on the System
- Adoption and Safe Families Act,
- Reasonable Efforts
-
- Reunification of Families
211997 Adoption and Safe Families Act
- Focus of law is on health safety of the child
- Georgias laws which bring us into compliance
with this act - SB 611
- HB 1585
- Both Georgia laws offer dramatic changes to our
system
22SB 611
- Shortened time frame from 18 months to 12 months
- Allows for submission of a non-reunification plan
where reasonable efforts do not have to be made
to reunify
23SB 611
- Submission of a non-reunification plan requires a
hearing w/ a report listing specific items - A presumption against providing reasonable
efforts emerges in 3 instances - failure to comply w/ prior case plan
- third time removing a child (3 strikes)
- any of the grounds for TPR
24HB 1585
- Focus is on safety of the child v. reunification
- Further pushes the states to move children to
permanent homes - Courts must hold a permanency hearing
25HB 1585
- 15/22 months/ abandoned infant/ murder provision
- 3 Exceptions
- in care w/relative
- services have not been provided to the families
by DFCS - compelling reason
26Where Are We Today?
- Intent of the new laws was to make the process
more balanced and get more court involvement and
more community involvement - Concern is how the laws will be implemented
27A History of theChild Welfare System Why do
thingswork like this?