When a Child Safety Plan = Coercion

The recent trend in child protective services (CPS) of creating safety plans received a set back recently in federal court. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois ruled that in-home safety plans created by the Illinois Department of Children and Families (DCFS) were illegal because they were secured in a coercive manner.

The coercion at issue was the CPS worker’s express or implied threat of to take the child into protective custody lasting more than a brief or temporary period of time. The court also ruled that DCFS failure to provide a mechanism to review safety plans once they were put in place violated due process. The court declared that not all child safety plans trigger constitutional issues and gave DCFS 60 days to create constitutionally adequate procedures consistent with the opinion.

The ruling seems to indicate that DCFS can create an acceptable review process that does not require families to hire legal counsel. The issue of coercion is tricky. While it is possible to use non-coercive language, the imposition of safety plans in which parents agree or the child is removed has features not unlike the old consent dockets of juvenile courts which were also ruled unconstitutional.

If the agency judges a child to be in imminent danger of serious harm–general statutory language for justifying removal of a child–acceptance of a reasonable in-home safety plan may be the family’s only alternative to placement. If the family does not consent to the plan (assuming the plan is reasonable and justified by the safety assessment) there is a seemingly inevitable coercive reality that without acceptance of the plan, the agency will need to take protective custody in order to ensure the safety of a child.

The issue in this decision is that a family’s acceptance of a safety plan must be made only after a full understanding of these realties and the lawful alternatives. Under our constitutional system, state intervention in family life, including the threat of removing a child, is limited. According to this court, due process protections are required to balance the rights of families and the state’s compelling interest in a child’s welfare.

Guest Commentary by
Thomas Morton
President and CEO
Child Welfare Institute


8 Replies to "When a Child Safety Plan = Coercion"

  • Pat Howard
    March 31, 2005 (3:36 pm)

    n Southeastern Ohio, CPS agencies regularly use child safety plans as a form of coercion or as a way of bootstrapping children into agency custody where a situation may not be serious enough to warrant immediate court involvement.

    One county in particular uses a 30 day ‘safety plan’ and on day 28, the agency turns around and files for emergency custody claiming that the child is already in agency care due to parental unsuitability. This same agency will then contrive to keep the child in care for the next twelve months and then will file for termination of parental rights. This has happened a number of times, particularly when a newborn or very young child is involved.

    As a rule of thumb, I advise clients not to sign any safety plan that involves placing a child into custody. I would rather force the agency to seek custody through the court and be able to litigate against such actions ab initio, as opposed to having to deal with a ton of social work doublespeak and red tape.

    Patrick Howard

  • Linda
    April 7, 2005 (8:37 pm)

    In Illinois the dcfs workers will tell people that if they do not sign these safety plans that they will lose their kids. DCFS workers have threatened parents and denied visits when the parents go against them.
    I tell parents do not sign them if the case worker wants them signed the have the judge order it. there is fine print on these plans that state if they are not followed the parents rights can and will be terminated

  • Anonymous
    June 6, 2005 (9:29 am)

    I am tired of the constant abuse by DCFS and the ASAs that file their BS cases in court. It is time for you to stand up for your rights under the constitution. you do not have to take the abuse!!!!

  • ray
    August 22, 2005 (11:40 pm)

    I LIVE IN ILLINOIS,I WAS GIVEN THE SAME KIND OF SO CALLED SAFETY PLAN BY DCFS. I AM IN THE MIDDLE OF A CUSTODY BATTLE WITH ME EX,THIS IS THE 3RD CALL SHE HAS MADE TO DCFS, TO TRY TO GET ME TO STOP TRYING TO GET MY LITTLE ONE.DCFS DID NOT DO WHAT JUDGE PALLMEYER RULED THEY MUST DO REGARDING SAFETY PLANS, I RETAINED DIANE REDLEAF FROM CHICAGO,I HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS HITLERISK AGENCY FOR A YEAR, SO NOW IM PALINTIFF 17 IN THE SUIT AGAINT THEM,AND IM A POLICE OFFICER, NOW ONE IS SAFE FROM THESE THUGS

  • cindy
    October 30, 2005 (11:26 pm)

    my children were taken from school by dcfs & put into protective custody, now their father(my ex) has temporary custody until our nov. court date. The dcfs worker didn’t like my family member at the school to pick up my kids. now my ex is making alot of accusations about me such as i’m psycho and need meds, which the dcfs agency that is supposedly working with us has repeated to me,these so called proffessionals also don’t care that their father owes over $30,0000.00 in back child support or that he has battery, drug & alcohol convictions and is in a paternity suit with an ex-girlfriend. they also don’t care this so called father has had nothing to do with his kids until dcfs contacted him. they don’t like it when you disagree with them, also my children’s rights have been violated many times over, i can’t get any information from any of these agencies except for the advocacy office. i’ve appealed my “indicated” status for inadequate supervision, the part i don’t understand is that the kids were in school and i had a family member there to pick them up. dcfs is trying to claim i didn’t have a care plan until my return the next day! my children are 13 & 15 years old! they were still in school! this system is screwed up.my children are living in fear at their fathers house,they want and need to come home,i have consumed each day with fighting for my children and trying to get some kind of justice.

  • melissa
    March 3, 2010 (7:47 pm)

    My son has made up 5 different stories of abuse in the last week when they came here and asked us what happened we told them my son punched my boyfriend and he held him down to calm him down then we were told we need to find a place for him to go for 5 day’s and if we didnt and they put him in protective custody they would take our other child to. this mon i was cleaning my son’s room since he is still gone and found a hit list with the school and pe teacher not to mention me and my boyfriend dcfs say’s oh he said it was a joke. bridgeway got involved and he told them the same thing but the principal and the school counslor not to mention us all think he need’s to go to a mental hospital to get checked out but no one is helping us. where do i turn to now he has made so many lies the only people who believe him is dcfs and now i’m afraid they are going to believe him and indicate us then take my other child. can some one please give me some advice on what to do. thanks

  • anonymous
    August 13, 2010 (1:11 am)

    Unless you are a married man in Illinois, you have no rights to your child. There are some women that use these kids as bargaining chips in the relationship. My son’s g-friend has a son from her marriage to someone else, and he has had several “daddies.” One of them threw him into a wall- she was into leaving him alone with the “daddy” because she had to work- and this kid is a mess. He has finally gotten used to my son, who is not his dad, and now there is a baby girl in the picture, who does belong to our son. The g-friend is a complete head case, and every time she gets mad at our son, she wants to kick him out and take the kids away from him. DCFS thinks this is ok- She is supposed to be having counseling over domestic battery, but who watches over that? No one, that’s who.
    I agree- there are many abused women and children, and I feel for them. But there are also many men who are being denied because “they’re not the mother and custodial parent.” They sign a paper that states they’re the father, but all that means is someone to finger when there’s money needed. This freak spends her extra money on fake fingernails- forget the rent!

  • Anonymous
    July 7, 2011 (10:10 pm)

    safety plans are changed at a moments notice without regard to who is caring for the child at the time, no proper notice is given to the person caring for the child at the time and discrimination seems to be the cause for a lot of heartaches
    —–