August 2009 Archives

Yesterday, the Miami Herald revealed that in a report "expected to be released publicly later this month," a "panel of child-welfare experts, including two top administrators from the" Florida Department of Children & Families, "says child welfare authorities too often rely on the potent medications to manage abused and neglected children -- but fail to offer psychiatric treatment to help them overcome the trauma they suffered."

The report states that "caregivers for children in state custody frequently use powerful mind-altering drugs to manage unruly kids, rather than treat their anger and sadness." According to the report, "psychotherapeutic medications are often being used to help parents, teachers, and other child workers quiet and manage, rather than treat, children." The Herald adds that "the use of psychiatric drugs among children in state care is widespread." In fact, "records updated by DCF last week show that, among children in state care aged six to 12, more than 22 percent are being given psychiatric" medications.

From today's Christian Science Monitor:

Federal prosecutors and New York lawyer James Marsh are persuading courts to order anyone caught with illicit images to pay financial restitution to child victims.

Federal prosecutors are embracing an aggressive approach to fight the spread of child pornography on the Internet, urging judges across the country to order full restitution to identified child victims in cases where the defendant possessed the images but played no role in their creation.

Generally, restitution is awarded in cases where a defendant's direct actions caused the injuries suffered by the victim. In a child pornography case, the person most responsible for injuring the child is the pedophile who abused the child, recorded images of the abuse, and then traded or sold those images to others.

But child-victim advocates say that is not the only harm. Those who download child pornography help set the stage for future abuse by fostering an active market for such images.

This novel - and controversial - strategy is the brainchild of New York lawyer James Marsh. He represents a 20-year-old woman who was raped and sexually abused at age 8 or 9 by an uncle who recorded the abuse and sent the images to a pedophile who requested them. The resulting still photographs have been actively traded on the Internet since 1998.

Read this entire article by Warren Richey in the Christian Science Monitor.

The critics and plaintiffs’ attorneys are out there. They seethe with frustration in their assertion that there are child protection workers who are as dysfunctional and flawed as some of the abusive and neglectful parents they investigate. They feel mistreated, ambushed, without recourse to a neutral oversight authority, and fume that the courts will believe the word of child protection workers over their clients. And yet, when there is a credible allegation that a child protection worker has knowingly made misleading or false statements which resulted in the wrongful removal of a child, their criticism and anger seem justified. Such misrepresentations may involve highly contested issues of material fact that more properly should be examined by an agency supervisor or in court on the merits. The supervisor or court, inadvertently giving credence to the worker’s misrepresentation, may thereby be swayed in favor of the worker’s recommendations.

Guest Feature Article by Daniel Pollack, MSW, JD