A History of the Child Welfare System Why do things work like this? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

A History of the Child Welfare System Why do things work like this?

Description:

A History of the Child Welfare System Why do things work like this? – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:187
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 28
Provided by: Barclay
Learn more at: http://www.gahsc.org
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: A History of the Child Welfare System Why do things work like this?


1
A History of theChild Welfare System Why do
thingswork like this?
2
Civil and Criminal Court Process
  • Criminal prosecution of child abuse
    perpetrators
  • Civil focus is on protecting the child
  • Different Standards of Proof

3
How Did We Get To This Point?
  • A Volunteer Started
  • The Child Welfare System

4
First 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

5
Mary 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

6
Ms. 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

7
Impact Around the Nation
  • Notoriety
  • 1899 Juvenile Court
  • Community based organizations formed that focused
    on child protection and monitoring governmentally
    run child protection services

8
Child 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

9
But 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

10
Movement to Get Outof Institutions
  • Orphan Train Movement
  • Children of Choice were shipped out west
  • Smithsonian exhibit
  • http//pda.republic.net/othsa/

11
Clinic-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)

12
Quasi 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

13
Late 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

14
Gaulting 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

15
Court-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

16
Clopperation 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

17
Adoption 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

18
Problem
  • 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

19
State 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

20
1997-New Laws and Their Effect on the System
  • Adoption and Safe Families Act,
  • Reasonable Efforts
  • Reunification of Families

21
1997 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

22
SB 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

23
SB 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

24
HB 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

25
HB 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

26
Where 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

27
A History of theChild Welfare System Why do
thingswork like this?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com