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 Child’s 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 widow’s 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 one’s 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, children’s 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 judiciary=all children in the child welfare system must have judicial oversight • Set up the federal dollar system that was triggered by a judge’s 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 weren’t 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 • Georgia’s 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?