Recently in Child Welfare News Category

This just out from Child Trends; some fascinating and sobering statistics about the high school class of 2013.

BETHESDA, MD — June 11, 2013 — Imagine a senior class of 100. They’re the product of their genetic predispositions, their families, their communities, and all of the opportunities (or lack of opportunities) they’ve encountered since birth. They’ve made both good choices and not-so-good ones. They’re on the threshold of adulthood. But what do we really know about them and what does their future hold?

Child Trends, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center on children and youth issues, examined a range of available statistics to provide this portrait of the high school class of 2013:

• 89 are covered by health insurance.
• 71 have experienced physical assault; 28 have been victimized sexually; 32 have experienced some form of child maltreatment.
• 68 will go on to a college or university.
• 64 have had sexual intercourse.
• 56 participated in school sports in the past year.
• 54 are white; 23 are Latino; 15 are African American; 8 are something else.
• 53 have parents who say their neighborhood is “always safe.”
• 51 used no alcohol, cigarettes, or illicit drugs during the past 30 days.
• 48 are sexually active. 27 of them used a condom and 25 were on birth control pills the last time they had sex.
• 45 get the recommended amount of physical activity.
• 45 watch television for one hour or less on weekdays; 20 watch four hours or more.
• 39 participated in school music or other performing arts in the past year.
• 39 have ever been bullied, physically or emotionally; 16 have been bullied in the past year.
• 38 have a reading achievement-test score that puts them in the “proficient or above” category.
• 35 volunteered in the past year.
• 35 eat meals together with their families 6 or 7 days a week; 35 do so on three or fewer days.
• 34 are overweight; of these, 18 are obese.
• 29 felt “sad and hopeless” continuously for at least two weeks during the past year.
• 28 attend religious services at least once at week; 26 say religion plays a very important role in their lives.
• 28 rode in a car during the past year with a driver who had been drinking.
• 27 were in a physical fight last year.
• 27 have a writing achievement-test score that puts them in the “proficient or above” category.
• 26 have a mathematics achievement-test score that puts them in the “proficient or above” category.
• 24 were binge-drinking in the past two weeks.
• 23 smoked marijuana in the past 30 days.
• 22 are living in poverty; 10 are living in deep poverty.
• 21 had a sexually transmitted infection in the past year.
• 18 have special health care needs.
• 17 are current cigarette smokers.
• 17 are employed.
• 16 carried a weapon in the past year.
• 14 thought seriously about attempting suicide in the past year; 6 went through with the attempt; and 2 required medical attention afterward.
• 12 have ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).
• 12 had unintentional injuries in the past year that required attention in a hospital emergency room.
• 11 have asthma.
• 10 have at some time been diagnosed by a professional with having a learning disability.
• 10 report they were victims of dating violence in the past year.
• 10 report they have been raped.
• 8 used an illicit drug other than marijuana in the past 30 days.
• 8 have unmet dental needs.
• 7 smoke marijuana every day, or nearly every day.
• 6 were victims of hate speech during the past six months.
• 4 have an eating disorder where they’ve vomited or taken laxatives to lose weight.
• 3 were victims of violent crime in the past year.
• Of the females, 3 or 4 have been, or are, pregnant. One has had an abortion.
• 1 used steroids in the past year.
• 1 or two are in foster care.

Child Trends Senior Research Scientist David Murphey provided the statistical composite by examining available data for U.S. high school seniors (or youth of about that age) that are nationally representative, and as close in time to 2013 as is available.

“This profile offers a revealing look at the characteristics of teens and many of the issues they have encountered in their lives,” said Murphey. “While, it depicts an ‘average’ class, any actual class may look very different. But, chances are, it’s not too far off the mark.”

Note: A list of references for the statistics above can be found online at Child Trends website.

Child Trends, based in Bethesda, Md., is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center that provides valuable information and insights on the well-being of children and youth. For more than 30 years, policymakers, funders, educators and service providers in the U.S. and around the world have relied on our data and analyses to improve policies and programs serving children and youth. Our work is supported by foundations; federal, state and local government agencies; and by nonprofit organizations.

Selecting an adoptive or foster placement for a child is a major decision that has lifelong ramifications. There are numerous factors an agency must consider before approving the suitability of the placement. A comprehensive assessment of the applicant will include the applicant’s strengths, skills, training needs, areas for improvement, and family circumstances.

During the home study process personal inquiries are made, many of which may seem intrusive. One possible inquiry is: Should, may, or must the former spouse of a prospective adoptive or foster parent be contacted by the agency as part of the home study process?

Researchers estimate that 40%-50% of all first marriages in the United States will end in divorce or permanent separation. The risk of divorce for second marriages is about 60%.

Following a divorce, ex-spouses, especially if they were co-parents, redefine their communication patterns and the rules about how they relate to each other. A wide variety of new structural factors may impact the perception of their ex-spouse. If the relationship was abusive or divisive, renegotiating these boundaries, perceptions, and communication patterns will be challenging and ambiguous at best.

Along with this ambiguity, ex-spouses report a sense of loss of various dimensions of their parental role. This being the case, how credible will an ex-spouse’s opinion be of their former partner? Should home study workers ignore an ex-spouse’s opinion completely, or seek it out and then temper this information using their best judgment?

Golda Zimmerman, a retired New York attorney, and an acknowledged expert in the field, says: “The short answer is “no,” a former spouse should not be contacted, but a copy of the divorce decree and a number of standard questions should be asked. If any red flags are evident, then further inquiries should be made.”

As Ms Zimmerman suggests, an agency may have legitimate reasons to make contact with an applicant’s previous partners from a previous relationship. Here are some lead-up questions to elicit such information:

• Have you been previously married?
• How many times and for how long were you married?
• What are the names and present addresses of any former spouses?
• What are the names and present addresses of any children from all previous marriages?
• If you have been previously married, why did the marriage end?
• Are you in touch with your former spouse and children?
• What is your relationship with your former spouse and children like now?
• Would you mind if we contact your former spouse and children?
• Would you please supply us with copies of all divorce decrees?

Applying to become an adoptive or foster parent after divorce is an ambitious undertaking. The effort can be made more difficult if the applicant’s ex-spouse conveys incorrect unflattering information about the applicant.

Alison Foster Davis, a California attorney, relates that there is no such regulation directing a home study worker to contact a former spouse in her state. “I don't know of any agencies that routinely contact former spouses. Certainly there would be situations where that would be appropriate or best practice, such as a previous history of domestic violence by the applicant against the former spouse. But given the propensity for negative bias that is founded more upon emotions than facts, contacting former spouses would not generally yield helpful information upon which the agency could confidently rely while assessing the applicant.”

The Child Welfare Information Gateway’s publications, The Adoption Home Study Process (2010) ¹  and Home Study Requirements for Prospective Parents in Domestic Adoption (2012) ²  are both silent on this issue. A cursory review of state codes and regulations also yields no evidence of a requirement to contact a former spouse — nor, however, is there any prohibition to do so.

It should be noted that contacting adult children is usually required. ³  Some states require teenage children to be contacted as well. For instance, the foster care and pre-adoptive home screening form for Texas provides that “at least one contact must be made with each adult child and each minor child 12 years of age or older of the foster and/or adoptive family who is no longer living in the home.” ⁴

We all recognize that good information is valuable. The more significant the decisions we make, the more we value the information that assists us to make the right decisions. Few decisions are more critical than finding the right placement for a child.

1 http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_homstu.pdf

2 http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/homestudyreqs_adoption.pdf

3 See e.g. New Mexico Admin. Code § 8.26.4.12; Louisiana Admin. Code Admin. Code § 67:V.7315; Mississippi DHS/DFCS Policy, http://www.mdhs.state.ms.us/pdfs/fcspolicy/sectionf.pdf

4 http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Adoption_and_Foster_Care/About_TARE/Foster_Care/homestudy_guidelines.asp

Daniel Pollack MSSA (MSW), JD Professor, Wurzweiler School of Social Work, Yeshiva University, New York City, and a frequent expert witness in child welfare cases. He can be reached at dpollack@yu.edu or 212-960-0836.

This article originally appeared in Policy & Practice, 71(3), 28-29 (2013).

Just published in Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review is an article, Foster Care as a Mitigating Circumstance in Criminal Proceedings. The article addresses the question: should a history of foster care involvement serve as a legitimate mitigating circumstance for a defendant in a criminal trial?

According to the article:

The sensationalism of many criminal trials, especially those of a capital nature, often result from the aggravating circumstances impacting the victim. Conversely, the mitigating circumstances that affect the accused‘s criminality rarely grab headlines. During the sentencing phase of a criminal trial, mitigating factors may justify leniency or otherwise serve to lessen the sentence for the crime with which the accused has been charged. Whether a particular factor will be considered a mitigating one will depend upon the particular facts of the case.

The federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 provides guidance in this process, but each state maintains the discretion to dictate its own criteria within the confines of constitutional constructs. The United States Supreme Court has increasingly addressed the importance of clarity in the presentation and consideration of mitigating evidence, which is integral to the trial and sentencing of an accused.

Should a history of foster care involvement serve as a legitimate mitigating circumstance for a defendant in a criminal trial? Although this article does not provide a definitive answer, it does attempt to provide a better understanding of the foster care experience to those contemplating the question.

Part I provides a general introduction to the topic of foster care. Part II discusses different types of foster care. Part III discusses the impact of foster care on children. Finally, Part IV offers a brief conclusion.

For a copy contact Daniel Pollack, a Professor at Yeshiva University’s School of Social Work in New York City, and a frequent expert witness in child welfare cases. He can be contacted at dpollack@yu.edu, (212) 960-0836

The Jerry Sandusky criminal trial is over; the civil lawsuits are in active settlement mode. Undoubtedly, the entire country is more tuned into child abuse than it ever was. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that about 105 bills on the reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect have been introduced in 2012 legislative sessions in 30 states and the District of Columbia. ¹ All of them include a penalty for failing to report suspected child abuse.

Oregon is one of the states which recently enacted child abuse reporting legislation. It added to the list of mandated reporters any employee or volunteer of organization providing child-related services or activities, any employee of a higher education institution, and any coach, assistant coach or trainer of child athlete and individual who provides guidance, instruction or training in youth development activities and youth camps.

Overlooked in the wake of this new awareness is the sad reality of false allegations of child abuse. There is no disputing that child abuse is a serious and pervasive worldwide problem. ² In most situations, abuse allegations are made responsibly, based on actual abuse. Sometimes they are not.

To address this concern, Oregon also passed legislation regarding the false reporting of child abuse. The law ³ reads:

(1) A person commits the offense of making a false report of child abuse if, with the intent to influence a custody, parenting time, visitation or child support decision, the person:

(a) Makes a false report of child abuse to the Department of Human Services or a law enforcement agency, knowing that the report is false; or

(b) With the intent that a public or private official make a report of child abuse to the Department of Human Services or a law enforcement agency, makes a false report of child abuse to the public or private official, knowing that the report is false.

(2) Making a false report of child abuse is a Class A violation.”

In fact, most states ⁴ have similar statutes. For instance, Arkansas ⁵ provides that:

“(a) A person commits the offense of making a false report under this chapter if he or she purposely makes a report containing a false allegation to the Child Abuse Hotline knowing the allegation to be false.

(b) (1) A first offense of making a false report under this chapter is a Class A misdemeanor. (2) A subsequent offense of making a false report under this chapter is a Class D felony.”

Colorado ⁶ provides that “No person … shall knowingly make a false report of abuse or neglect to a county department or local law enforcement agency. Any person who willfully violates the provisions …commits a class 3 misdemeanor and shall be punished … [and] shall be liable for damages proximately caused thereby.”

The repercussions of false abuse allegations are traumatizing and stigmatizing to the child allegedly abused. The child may have to undergo unnecessary psychological and medical examinations. And commonly, rifts between the child and his or her parents and siblings may develop. In the divorce and custody context, an accusation of child abuse may begin in family court, but it can quickly wind up in civil, criminal, and juvenile courts.

When child abuse allegations are true, CPS must do everything possible to protect the child. When false accusations are made, the accused individual's morally upright reputation can be permanently damaged. CPS workers know that abuse allegations are difficult to prove. Learning to decipher false allegations from real ones is a demanding and perpetual challenge. In either case, they can lead to protracted and difficult legal battles.

1 http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/2012-child-abuse-mandatory-reporting-bills.aspx

2 See e.g. Lalor, K. & McElvaney, R. (2010). Child sexual abuse, links to later sexual exploitation/high risk sexual behavior and prevention/treatment programmes. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, (11), 159-177.

3 ORS 419B.016.

4 AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NY, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VI, WA, WY. A summary of state laws regarding penalties for the failure to report and false reporting of child abuse, written by the Child Welfare Information Gateway, is available at https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/report.cfm.

5 Title 12, Subtitle 2, Chapter 18, Subchapter 2, § 12-18-203.

6 CRS Title 19, Article 3, Part 3, § 19-3-304.

Daniel Pollack is a professor at Yeshiva University’s School of Social Work in New York City and a frequent expert witness in child welfare cases. He can be reached at dpollack@yu.edu. This article originally appeared in Policy & Practice, 71(1), 30 (2013).

On February 7, 2013, at 1 p.m. E.T., the Children’s Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, will host the 1-hour Webinar, Child Maltreatment 2011—Key Findings and Expanded Discussion to expound on the findings reported in Child Maltreatment 2011. The report presents national data about child abuse and neglect known to child protective services agencies during fiscal year 2011.

During FFY 2011, an estimated 3.4 million referrals, were received by CPS agencies. The national estimate of 3.4 million referrals were estimated to include 6.2 million children.

For FFY 2011, more than 2 million reports were screened in, had a CPS response, and received a disposition. The national rate of reports that received a disposition was 27.4 per 1,000 children in the national population.

For 2011, professionals made three-f­ifths (57.6%) of reports of alleged child abuse and neglect. The term professional means that the person had contact with the alleged child maltreatment victim as part of the report source’s job. This term includes teachers, police officers, lawyers, and social services staff.

Nonprofessionals—including friends, neighbors, and relatives—submitted one-­fifth of reports (18.2%). Unclassified sources submitted the remainder of reports (24.3%). Unclassified includes anonymous, “other,” and unknown report sources.

The three largest percentages of report sources were from such professionals as teachers (16.0%), legal and law enforcement personnel (16.7%), and social services personnel (10.6%).

The unique victim rate was 9.1 victims per 1,000 children in the population. Using this rate, the national estimate of unique victims for FFY 2011 was 681,000. Comparing 2011 (unique count) victim data to 2010 data, 42 States reported a decreased number of victims. Other victim demographics include:

• Victims in the age group of birth to 1 year had the highest rate of victimization at 21.2 per 1,000 children of the same age group in the national population.
• Victimization was split between the sexes with boys accounting for 48.6 percent and girls account­ing for 51.1 percent. Fewer than 1 percent of victims were of unknown sex.
• Eighty-­seven percent of (unique count) victims were comprised of three races or ethnicities— African­-American (21.5%), Hispanic (22.1%), and White (43.9%).

As in prior years, the greatest percentage of children suffered from neglect. A child may have suffered from multiple forms of maltreatment and was counted once for each maltreatment type. CPS investigations or assessments determined that for unique victims:

• more than 75 percent (78.5%) suffered neglect
• more than 15 percent (17.6%) suffered physical abuse
• less than 10 percent (9.1%) suffered sexual abuse

Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. For FFY 2011, 51 States reported a total of 1,545 fatalities. Based on these data, a nationally estimated 1,570 children died from abuse and neglect. Analyses are performed on the number of child fatalities for whom case­level data were obtained:

• The overall rate of child fatalities was 2.10 deaths per 100,000 children.
• Four-f­ifths (81.6%) of all child fatalities were younger than 4 years old.
• Boys had a higher child fatality rate than girls at 2.47 boys per 100,000 boys in the population. Girls died of abuse and neglect at a rate of 1.77 per 100,000 girls in the population.
• Nearly 90 percent (86.5%) of child fatalities were comprised of African­-American (28.2%), Hispanic (17.8%), and White (40.5%) victims.
• Four-f­ifths (78.3%) of child fatalities were caused by one or more parents.

A perpetrator is the person who is responsible for the abuse or neglect of a child. Fifty States reported case­level data about perpetrators using unique identifiers. In these States, the total duplicated count of perpetrators was 885,003 and the total unique count of perpetrators was 508,849. For 2011:

• Four-f­ifths (84.6%) of unique perpetrators were between the ages of 20 and 49 years.
• More than one­-half (53.6%) of perpetrators were women, 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men, and 1.3 percent were of unknown sex.
• Four-f­ifths (80.8%) of duplicated perpetrators were parents.
• Of the duplicated perpetrators who were parents, 87.6 percent were the biological parents.

Caring for a foster child, especially in a therapeutic setting, is a full-time undertaking. Because it can have severe emotional repercussions on the family, respite care by another trained foster parent or other professional is frequently made available.

Respite care is an intervention that may reduce the risk of abuse or neglect to the foster child (Goldman, Salus, Wolcott, & Kennedy, 2003) while it simultaneously offers welcome benefits to the caregiver (MacDonald & Callery, 2004). Indeed, one study (Chan & Sigafoos, 2001) found that the more frequently families made use of respite care, the lower their scores were of perceived family conflict.

Not only does respite care provide a break for foster parents, it also may provide a challenging opportunity for foster children to have an added degree of independence and allow them to experience relationships with people outside their customary environment. Alternatively, there may be an advantage to have the respite care professional come to the foster children’s home so that the foster children can stay in familiar surroundings. In either case, respite care may not just be welcome, it may be clinically indicated as well.

For these reasons, there is a consensus among professionals and researchers that providing respite care is a national concern^* and a significant recruitment and retention tool for foster parents (Corkin et al., 2006).

States allow respite care to take a number of forms: informal help from family, friends, and neighbors, or formal respite care in or out of the user’s home. There is not a single blueprint for providing, administering, or funding respite care.

Many states allow respite care to be used on a regular basis. Nebraska emphasizes that it is helpful “especially in cases where the child's needs are high or foster parents have several children. Respite can be provided by a family member of the foster parent or by a provider” (Nebraska Health and Human Services Manual § 7-001.10). Nonetheless, some states require that child care providers used for children who are wards of the state must be licensed or approved by the department, and Central Register and law enforcement checks must be done on all respite providers (e.g. Nebraska Health and Human Services Manual § 7-001.10).

Some states (e.g., Wisconsin (DCF 56.21) and Vermont (He-C 6355.19)) mandate that formal respite care providers be held to a similar standard as foster parents, with safety being the key issue. In Kentucky (922 KAR 1:310.Section 6(7)(j)1), the administrative regulations require that the child-placing agency identify and make available necessary supports to a foster home, including a plan for respite care.

Often overlooked may be issues of information sharing and confidentiality. Prior to a child being placed in a respite care setting, especially an extended one, to what extent must information be shared between the child placing agency and the respite care provider, as well as between the foster parents and the respite care providers?

Ultimately, from a legal, policy, and practice perspective, respite care may be second best, but it should never be second rate.

*See Public Law 96-272, the federal “Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980” as amended by Public Law 105-89, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, and the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. Sections 1901-1963. Section 1915(c) (42 U.S.C.S. § 1396n(c)) of the Social Security Act permits states to include in their Medicaid plans non-medical services, such as case management, habilitation services, and respite care. § 1396n(c)(4)(B).

Endnotes

Chan, J. B., & Sigafoos, J. (2001). Does respite care reduce parental stress in families with developmentally disabled children? Child & Youth Care Forum, 30(5), 253-263.

Corkin, D., Price, J., & Gillespie, E. (2006). Respite care for children, young people and families: Are their needs addressed? International Journal of Palliative Nursing 12(9), 422-427.

Goldman, J. Salus, M.K., & Wolcott, D. & Kennedy, K. Y. (2003). A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation for Practice. Office on Child Abuse and Neglect (HHS), Washington, DC. Available here. (Site last visited 11-28-11)

MacDonald, H., & Callery, P. (2004). Different meanings of respite: A study of parents, nurses and social workers caring for children with complex needs. Child: Care, Health & Development, 30, 279-288.

Daniel Pollack is Professor at Yeshiva University’s School of Social Work in New York City, and a frequent expert witness in child welfare cases. He can be contacted at dpollack@yu.edu, (212) 960-0836. This article originally appeared in Policy & Practice, 70(6), 31.