Child advocate columns, Dec. 5, 2008

Office of the Child Advocate
3312 Northside Drive, Suite D-250 Macon, Georgia 31210
478-757-2661 or 1-800-254-2064 www.gachildadvocate.org
______________________________________________________________________________
A Less Traditional Child Welfare System
By: Tom C. Rawlings, Director
Georgia's child protective system is increasingly focused on keeping children safe in their own homes or with family members. Since 2004, foster care rolls have decreased by almost 25%. Changing its focus from intrusive investigations and removals to foster care, DFCS has adopted policies that encourage troubled families to voluntarily place children with relatives. The number of cases handled by diverting families to community resources has increased dramatically, while the number of child protective service "investigations" has decreased. Over half of all reports of child maltreatment are now handled through an alternative response system that focuses on the family's need for services rather than determining whether the parent was "at fault" for neglecting the child.
These changes are generally welcomed by the child advocacy community. Across the country, these more family-friendly approaches are being credited with improving outcomes for at-risk children and families while keeping children safe. But fewer "traditional" child protective services interventions also means less involvement from the juvenile courts that have traditionally served the role of ensuring parental compliance, speeding appropriate permanent placements for neglected children, and protecting the rights of the families caught in the nets of the child welfare bureaucracy.
Some of the more common complaints we hear at the Office of the Child Advocate come from families who are involved with the Department of Family and Children Services but whose cases are not overseen by the courts. Often the scenario we hear began with a complaint to DFCS about the parent's fitness. The Department comes in to do an investigation and offers the parent the opportunity to place the child with a relative or family friend for a short period of time until the investigation is complete.
Too often those investigations drag on for months -- up to a year in some cases -- and the children may be required to attend a different school in a different county during that time. DFCS may ask the parent to accomplish certain things before the child can return home, and visitation between the parent and child may be left completely to the temporary caretaker. And while these arrangements are said to be voluntary on the parent's behalf, we too often hear that they are made under threat that the child otherwise will be removed and placed in foster care. Families give in to DFCS' demands rather than face that possibility.
The irony, however, is that court involvement may have been a better option for these families. If these children had been placed in foster care, or if the agency had sought court intervention, the parent and child would have many rights: the right to a lawyer, guardian ad litem, or Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) to assist in the case; the right to regular, scheduled visitation; the right to demonstrate to the court that all necessary tasks had been accomplished and the child can return home safely. However, when the courts are not involved, the parents and children often have no one watching out for their rights and interests.
Keeping children safe and protecting their rights and those of their family requires that the executive and legislative branches work together. In the past, that joint work has primarily revolved around the court's role in determining whether children are abused and neglected and overseeing their placements in foster care. But in these new, non-adversarial approaches the child welfare agency is focused not on the identity of the wrongdoer but on how best to serve the family. What should be the role of the juvenile courts in that process?
One solution would be to adopt legislation giving the courts a role in supervising what are often labeled "CHINS," or "children in need of services." If such legislation were adopted, the courts would be given a clear role in determining the services that these at-risk children and families need and overseeing the state's provision of those services. The new "model" juvenile code proposed by a coalition of child advocates would provide this sort of statutory mandate, and the Legislature should consider that in the coming year.
Whether it's through legislation or policy, however, our child welfare system must strive both to protect the child from harm and protect the family's and child's rights, including their rights to be together. As our state moves toward less "traditional" child protection work, the challenge for all involved will be to make sure we maintain that balance.
For more on the proposed CHINS legislation, visit www.justgeorgia.org and take a look at the proposed model code. For more on the national trend toward more non-adversarial, community-based approaches to child protection, including the "alternative response" model, visit the American Humane Society's website at www.americanhumane.org/protecting-children.
Tom Rawlings, Georgia's Child Advocate for the Protection of Children, was appointed by Governor Sonny Perdue to assure quality and efficiency in Georgia's child protective systems. The Office of the Child Advocate is a resource for those interested in the welfare of our state's neglected and abused children. Tom can be reached through the OCA website at www.gachildadvocate.org