whateveryparentshouldknow

By Arthur Raymond
Deseret News
Published: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:45 p.m. MDT
17 comments
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + -
A Texas judge has ordered the nation’s largest child-custody case be severed into 234 individual cases, with separations based on biological mothers.

Previously, 346 of the 440 children taken from the Fundamentalist LDS Church’s YFZ Ranch were lumped into two large court cases. Texas 51st District Judge Barbara Walther issued the separation orders on Thursday in response to motions filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.

“We were able to file this motion with the court in an effort to make a very large and very complex case easier to manage for the court, for our agency, and for all of the other parties,” said DFPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins.

In April, Walther ordered all children living at the ranch in Eldorado, Texas, to be removed and placed into state custody. Several weeks later, an appeals court and the state’s Supreme Court both ruled that the children had been improperly removed from their families and the children were returned.

The families, however, are required to comply with a list of requirements as Child Protective Services workers continue to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect.

Lawyers for FLDS children and parents complained that CPS officials unfairly treated them as one large household, rather than as individual families. Walther’s order legally separates the families from one another.

Crimmins noted the new alignment of cases, in sibling groups according to mother, has consistently been one of his agency’s goals, and is standard practice in child protective cases.

He said his agency has been able to accurately establish family relationships of most children and mothers who were removed from the ranch.

FLDS leader Warren Jeffs and five FLDS men were indicted earlier this week on charges of sexual abuse of a child, bigamy and failure to report child abuse. The identities of the five men are sealed until the indictments are served.

E-mail: araymond@desnews.com

By Sam Stanton - sstanton@sacbee.com

Last Updated 2:45 pm PDT Thursday, July 24, 2008

Print | E-Mail | Comments (19) | |

Jonathan Lamar Perry, the 26-year-old former security guard accused of beating a 4-year-old boy to death, was under observation in a psychiatric cell today after he indicated a desire to harm himself, Sacramento County Sheriff’s officials said.

He was scheduled to be arraigned today. His arraignment was rescheduled for 1:30 p.m. Friday.

Perry is being held at the Sacramento County jail on murder and child endangerment charges in the death of Jahmaurae Allen, his girlfriend’s son.

September, 2006

This report provides information about the potential of effective child welfare caseworker visits in achieving positive outcomes for children and families, both those receiving in-home and foster care services.  It also offers strategies for legislators who are interested in supporting child welfare agency administrators in enhancing the quality and frequency of those visits.
Table of Contents

Introduction
Child and Family Services at a Glance
The Role of Child Welfare and the Importance of Caseworker Visits
State Policies on Caseworker Visits for Foster Care
Caseworker Tasks, Caseload and Caseworker Visits
CFSR Findings Regarding Caseworker Visits
Quality Caseworker Visits
What Can State Legislators Do?
Comprehensive Approach to Promoting Quality Caseworker Visits
Notes

Adobe PDF PDF Version Full Report.  To view PDF files, you must install Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Introduction

The case of Sara, age 6, was reported to the state child welfare agency by a teacher after the child came to school covered with bruises. Agency staff conducted the initial investigation, determined that Sara (but not her two younger siblings) had been abused by their father following a drinking episode, and then assessed the children’s current safety and risk of future harm. Because the father was temporarily living outside the family home and the mother indicated her interest in receiving agency services and supports to protect her children, the staff recommended that the family receive in-home services. Sara and her family were assigned a caseworker, who conducted a follow-up safety and risk assessment and met with the family to develop a safety plan (to include dealing with potential safety issues during visits by the father) and to discuss their needs.

The caseworker, after jointly conducting the needs assessment with all family members (including the father), then arranged for the family to receive services that were individualized to address the issues that they identified as leading to the reported incident, as well as services to enhance the family’s overall well-being. The caseworker subsequently met with the family every two weeks for the first two months and monthly thereafter until the case was closed. During those visits, the caseworker sought to ensure the safety of the children, monitored the implementation of the safety plan, and assessed the family’s engagement in, and response to, the services provided.1

State legislators know that cases such as Sara’s happen every day across America. The communities they represent are challenged by the effects of child abuse. Yet, the families in those communities benefit when child welfare services work effectively. Central to those child welfare services is the role of caseworkers, especially their interactions with children and families engaged in agency services. These interactions are known in the field as “caseworker visits.”

Caseworker visits provide an opportunity for child welfare staff to spend time with families and to observe them in their homes and in other settings. During these visits, caseworkers build relationships with families that enable them to help the families more effectively respond to crises, opportunities, and child and family needs. Caseworker visits also enable child welfare agencies to set boundaries; they are a statement that child safety is the priority and that caseworkers will monitor each child’s circumstances and hold adults accountable for their well-being. Effective caseworker visits provide a community framework for children—that of protection and support—when families are struggling to care for them.

Although child welfare experts have always known that caseworker visits are important, evidence now shows the extent to which such visits may be linked to positive outcomes for children and families who are engaged in child welfare systems. Findings from the federal Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs), which examine state child welfare agency performance, have shown an association between a positive rating on caseworker visits and positive ratings on other areas under review.2  The Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the CFSRs, believes that one of the most important ways to promote positive outcomes for children and their families is to ensure the quality and frequency of caseworker visits with the children and families in the agency’s care. (See box for more information about the reviews.

Child and Family Services Reviews At A Glance

* Congressionally authorized review of state child welfare systems.
* The first round of reviews, conducted from 2000 to 2004, was administered by the Central and Regional Offices of the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
* States conduct their own Statewide Assessment with support from the federal government.
* Federal and state teams conduct an onsite review of three sites in the state; the teams examine outcomes for a sample of children and families served by the state child welfare agency.
* States prepare a Program Improvement Plan to develop or enhance policies, training and practice identified as needing improvement.
* Federal penalties apply if states do not make the required improvements.

Welfare Outcomes Assessed by the Reviews

* Safety: Children are protected from abuse and neglect and are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
* Permanency: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations and continuity in their family relationships and connections.
* Child and family well-being: Families are better able to provide for their children’s needs, and children are provided services that meet their educational, physical health and mental health needs.

Performance Is Assessed Through the Reviews

* State child welfare data are compared with national standards.
* Qualitative information on state performance is collected through reviews of actual case records and interviews with children, families and others.
* State performance is evaluated with regard to how well critical components of the child welfare system function (“systemic factors,” such as the agency’s responsiveness to the community and the training of child welfare staff).

More information about the Child and Family Services Reviews is available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/index.htm#cfsr.

State legislators can help promote the delivery of quality caseworker visits through their budgetary and oversight roles. In their role as the appropriators of funds for child welfare agencies, state legislators can mandate caseload and workload studies and authorize funding for additional caseworkers as needed. In providing oversight of state child welfare systems, legislators can support child welfare agency administrators in identifying best practices in casework and ensuring that staff are trained and supervised on those practices. They also can jointly monitor outcomes for children and families who are engaged in child welfare services.

State legislators therefore can have an enormous positive influence on important child welfare practices; to do so, it is critical that they fully understand the role of caseworker visits in protecting children and promoting the well-being of children and families.

This report provides information about the potential of effective child welfare caseworker visits in achieving positive outcomes for children and families, both those receiving in-home and foster care services. It also offers strategies for legislators who are interested in supporting child welfare agency administrators in enhancing the quality and frequency of those visits.
The Role of Child Welfare and the Importance of Caseworker Visits

Every state has a public agency that is charged with the delivery of services in response to reports of child abuse and neglect. These child welfare agencies also play a role in prevention and early intervention, and they are required to ensure a child’s safety when the child is abused or neglected or when a caregiver is unable or unwilling to protect his or her child. They do so by receiving and assessing allegations of abuse and neglect, assessing children’s safety and risk of future harm, evaluating a family’s capacity to participate in services provided, and planning and coordinating services and interventions for the child and family.3 In addition, these agencies are involved in determining whether children need to be removed from their homes. More important, once children enter the child welfare system, child welfare agencies are responsible for monitoring their ongoing safety and providing services to promote their well-being and that of their families.

Child welfare agencies conduct these activities by assigning caseworkers to families that come to the attention of the child welfare system. Caseworkers work closely with families, conducting regular visits with intact families and with children in foster care and facilitating visitation between family members when children are placed outside the home.

These caseworker visits are a critical component of child welfare system procedures for ensuring the safety of children and the well-being of families. Caseworkers meet with children and families to monitor children’s safety and well-being; assess the ongoing service needs of children, families and foster parents; engage biological and foster parents in developing case plans; assess permanency options for the child; monitor family progress toward established goals; and ensure that children and parents are receiving necessary services. At each stage of the intervention, caseworkers, with the support of their supervisors, determine the type of supports that children and their families need to ensure that the children are safe, are in or moving toward permanent homes, and have stable living arrangements that promote their well-being.
State Policies on Caseworker Visits for Foster Care

Although no federal standards currently exist regarding specific activities that caseworkers should perform during visits with children in foster care, a number of states have written standards.

* Frequency: Forty-three states have statewide written standards that require caseworkers to visit children in foster care at least monthly.4
* Quality: Forty-one states have reported implementing standards that address the content of caseworker visits with children in foster care; 38 of these have written standards specific to caseworker visits, such as the following:

– Address safety needs, including monthly face-to-face contact with children in foster care.

– Promote communication between the children and the caseworker (to address children’s concerns and adjustment to placement), between the caseworker and other family members, and between children in care and other family members (visitation).5

Caseworker Tasks, Caseload and Caseworker Visits

Caseworkers obviously play myriad roles when they intervene in the lives of children and families. In addition to their case management activities, caseworkers prepare for and attend court hearings, arrange for and facilitate visitation among family members, manage crisis situations, and handle vital administrative duties. These include documenting case histories, managing case records, and entering case data into the state’s child welfare management information system. Ensuring that caseworkers have the time needed to visit with children and families requires that they have a manageable caseload size.

The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), one of the national organizations that represents and provides training for the child welfare field, has recommended standards of excellence for caseload ratios for workers in child welfare program areas. Although CWLA acknowledges that computing caseload size is an inexact science, it suggests that states err on the side of ensuring child safety and well-being. To that end, CWLA recommends developing a maximum number of cases per worker by considering such elements as the position (for example, investigative staff versus case manager), the range of other tasks expected of a worker (for example, work with community groups), and the time period (cases per day or cases per month).6

Although caseload size plays a significant role in the quality and frequency of caseworker visits, it is not the only—or perhaps the most important—variable. Others include effective case assignment strategies (for example, that take into consideration case type, level of effort required and geographic location); creative workload management techniques (for example, visiting families with extensive problems early in the week so that identified issues might be addressed before too much time elapses); and sufficient resources to perform caseworker functions (for example, access to time-saving technologies or transportation).

Moreover, the quality of caseworker visits appears to be correlated with better outcomes in other areas, as indicated by the federal CFSRs. Those findings suggest a need for a more comprehensive approach to enhancing caseworker visits.
CFSR Findings Regarding Caseworker Visits

The first round of the federal CFSRs, conducted between 2001 and 2004 in all states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, provided a snapshot of the relationship between caseworker visits and how children and families fare when engaged in child welfare services. (“Caseworker visits with child” and “caseworker visits with parents” are two items reviewed through the CFSRs; see the box “Child and Family Services Reviews at a Glance” for information about the reviews.)

The quality and frequency of caseworker visits—how caseworkers interact with children and families, what they discuss and how often they visit—are associated with a range of state child welfare actions that are reviewed through the CFSRs. The reviews showed that, when state child welfare agencies do well on the caseworker visits, they are better positioned to assess children’s risk of harm and need for alternative permanency options, to identify and provide needed services, and to engage children and parents in planning for their future.7

The reviews also identified common concerns regarding caseworker visits, including insufficient face-to-face contacts with children or parents to address their safety and well-being and an inconsistent focus on issues regarding case plans and goals during visits.8  These concerns suggest the need for state requirements regarding the frequency of face-to-face contact with children in care and both standards for and training on how to conduct quality caseworker visits with children and their parents.
Quality Caseworker Visits

So what comprises a quality caseworker visit? There certainly are key elements that quality visits should include. For example, they should be:

* Scheduled to meet suggested national or prescribed state standards and the needs of children and families.
* Primarily held in the family home (biological and foster) and at times convenient for children and both biological and foster parents.
* Planned in advance of the visit, with issues noted for exploration and goals established for the time spent together.
* Open enough to offer opportunities for meaningful consultation with and by children and parents.
* Individualized; for example, providing separate time for discussions with children and parents. This provides the opportunity to privately share their experiences and concerns and to ensure that domestic violence or other issues that might not be disclosed when other family members are present are identified and addressed, as needed.
* Focused on the child and family’s case plan and the completion of actions necessary to support children and families in achieving the goals established in their plans.
* Exploratory in nature, examining changes in the child’s or family’s circumstances on an ongoing basis.
* Supportive and skill-generating, so that children and families feel safe in dealing with challenges and change and have the tools to take advantage of new opportunities.

Although these and other caseworker visit practices are important, the overall focus of the visits is most important. For caseworker visits to be successful, the focus should shift from examining only the performance of families (for example, did the parent attend the substance abuse treatment offered?) to assessing both the performance of the agency and caseworker (for example, did the agency ensure that the treatment matched the needs, age and gender of the intended recipient and was available at a time and location appropriate to their schedule?) and how well the family is functioning relative to the support and services provided by the agency.

This fundamental shift in perspective promotes caseworker engagement in a continuous quality improvement loop similar to that which most child welfare agencies are now implementing. Their goals for a visit with a family are casework goals and goals related to a family’s progress. Moreover, child welfare agencies should monitor the link between the achievement of the caseworker’s goals and the achievement of family goals. When assessing a visit, caseworkers might ask the following general questions (as well as others specific to the family visited):

* Did I spend sufficient time planning the visit, did I meet the goals established for the visit, and what were the positive outcomes for the family associated with meeting my goals?
* What worked well during this visit, and how might I share my successful approaches with other agency staff? How will I track patterns in the success of specific approaches so that I might report those to my supervisor for possible incorporation into the agency’s case practice procedures?
* What types of challenges did I experience during the visit and how might I have addressed those better? Are there specific areas in which I need additional guidance or training?
* What did I learn through the visit that needs to be addressed (family needs/goals and caseworker performance goals)?

Each question is designed to create a new level of self-examination among caseworkers—a continuous quality examination that will lead to improvements in individual caseworker and agency performance. Legislators can support state child welfare agency administrators in creating this shift in perspective and operation through the analysis of overarching child welfare system successes and challenges.
What Can State Legislators Do?

Caseworker visits with children and families are at the heart of child welfare practice. Legislators might consult with child welfare administrators about how best to promote caseworker visits with an appropriate focus and frequency. State legislators and their staff can initiate those discussions using the following questions.

* How would the child welfare agency administrator describe the state standards (or policies) for ensuring that caseworker visits are conducted with the frequency and quality (focus/content) necessary to protect children’s safety and promote child and family well-being?
* How do caseworker visit strategies complement or support other important child welfare practices?
* If the state does not have standards or policies, is the administrator planning to develop or implement such standards?
* How does the child welfare agency train staff on the standards/policies and the role of caseworker visits in achieving positive outcomes for children and families? How might they do so more effectively?
* What is the role of supervisors in promoting the quality and timeliness of caseworker visits? How does the agency support supervisors in undertaking these activities?
* How does the state monitor the quality and frequency of caseworker visits by caseworker, by agency and statewide?
* Does the agency examine the link between caseworker visits and outcomes for children and families, for example, through analysis of agency data or quality assurance results?
* Is the state meeting the established caseworker visit standards? If not, what is the state doing to analyze and then address the barriers to doing so?
* Are there requirements and/or restrictions in state law or policy that can be eliminated or modified to enable caseworkers to devote more time to visits with children and families and to conduct those more effectively?
* Has the child welfare agency conducted an analysis of current caseworker caseloads, responsibilities, turnover or access to time-saving technologies? What is the effect of these on achieving positive outcomes for children and families generally and on conducting routine and supportive caseworker visits specifically? If the agency has conducted this analysis, what were the findings and what does the agency need to be able to address the identified issues?
* How is the child welfare agency engaging its community partners and other state and local agencies in supporting and monitoring children and families in the child welfare system? What can state legislators and elected officials/political leaders do to support the agency’s efforts to involve others and integrate caseworker visits into a broader, community-based effort on behalf of families?
* What type of resources does the child welfare agency need to enhance caseworker visits with children and parents?

Comprehensive Approach to Promoting Quality Caseworker Visits

As with all child welfare policies and practices, caseworker visits do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of an overall system in which change in one area has implications for other arenas.

To be effective, all good social service reform begins with a re-examination of the organization’s mission and its process for establishing policies and practice standards in support of that mission, providing training to and supervising staff, and managing the quality assurance loop that generates continuous quality improvement throughout the organization. This is especially true for child welfare agencies; in fact, changes to individual policies or practices will not remedy what ails most child welfare systems. Instead, leaders should continually take stock of their efforts by analyzing whether existing policies and procedures are helping the agency achieve its mission. At the core of that mission is, of course, the protection of children and the promotion of stronger families. It now appears that caseworker visits—when they are of good quality and sufficient frequency—might be one of the central practices that supports that mission.

When considering improvements in caseworker visits, legislators therefore will want to coordinate with state child welfare agency administrators and other experts about the range of policies and practices that might contribute to improved visits. Although providing funding for more caseworker positions might be appropriate and necessary, legislators should first collaborate with child welfare administrators regarding the need for studies to examine the status of caseloads, determine the causes of high turnover and vacancy rates among child welfare workers, assess the quality and frequency of caseworker visits, and identify ways to increase caseworker efficiencies and shift certain tasks to support personnel.

Once guided by sufficient information, legislators and child welfare administrators can establish pilot programs to test innovative ways to promote quality caseworker visits or to address issues that are preventing such visits. This might include, for example, achieving lower vacancy rates by hiring new caseworkers in anticipation of vacancies, rather than hiring as vacancies occur. Legislators also can request a review of their state’s civil service system to determine whether there are ways to streamline employee classification, hiring and performance reviews, or address compensation issues to make these processes more responsive to the unique needs of the child welfare system. More important, legislators and child welfare administrators might focus on improving the actual activities that comprise a caseworker visit by redesigning caseworker practice guidelines and offering new and enhanced training and supervision to staff.

Caseworker visits are a vital component of state child welfare agency efforts to address the needs of abused and neglected children and their families. State legislators can engage state child welfare agency administrators in examining every aspect of state law, policy and funding to determine how to most effectively promote caseworker visits that are frequent enough, and, more important, focused on protecting children and supporting them and their families in achieving positive outcomes.
Notes

1. Please note that this is an illustrative child welfare case example and is not representative of a specific child.

2. Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Findings From the Initial Child and Family Services Reviews, 2001–2004, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/index.htm.

3. Charmaigne Britain and Deborah Hunt, eds., Helping in Child Protective Services: A Competency Based Casework Handbook (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

4. Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. State Standards and Capacity to Track Frequency of Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care (Washington, D.C.: DHHS, 2005).

5. Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, State Standards and Practices for Content of Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care (Washington, D.C.: DHHS, 2005).

6. Child Welfare League of America, Guidelines for Computing Caseload Standards, http://www.cwla.org/programs/standards/caseloadstandards.htm, May 2006.

7. Administration for Children and Families, U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Findings From the Initial Child and Family Services Reviews, 2001–2004. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/index.htm.

8. Ibid.

You have to understand that CPS will not give you or your spouse a Miranda warning nor are they required to do so. If CPS shows up at your door and tells you they need to speak with you and your children, you have the legal right to deny them entry. However, before they leave, you should bring your children to the door but never open it, instead allow them to see that the children are not in imminent danger and that they are fine. If you do not at least show them your children, they could come back with an unlawful and unconstitutional warrant even though your children are not in imminent danger.

Everything CPS sees and hears is written down and eventually given to the AAG for your possible prosecution. If the focus of the investigation is on your spouse or significant other, you also need to know that though you are the non-offending spouse, you may think you are in the clear, wrong. If your spouse is charged with anything, you are likely to be charged with allowing the (alleged) offence to take place. So if a spouse gets the bright idea to lie or makes things up, he/she is also confessing that he allowed whatever is being alleged.

What you say will more than likely not be written down the way you said it or intended.

For example, the CPS worker questions the wife:

“Does your husband yell at the children?”

Your response could be, “Once in a while.”
Then they ask, “Does he yell at you and argue with you?”

Your response could be, “Yes, we argue sometimes and he may raise his voice.”
The next question is, “Does your husband drink alcohol?”

Your response could be, “Yes, he has several drinks a week.”

Now let’s translate those benign responses and see what the CPS worker may write in his/her report.

“When the father drinks, he yells at children and wife. The wife is a victim of domestic violence.” This is a far cry from what actually took place in that conversation. Case-workers routinely take what you say out of context, actually fabricating their report, in order to successfully prosecute the case. They have an end game in mind and will misrepresent facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged incident.

Something similar happened to the authors where DCF employees lied in front of the judge, testifing that the husband was a victim of domestic violence, even though all 5 family members clearly stated that domestic violence never took place. The husband would like to know when this occurred because he wasn’t there.

They will also misrepresent the condition of your home, as DCF did in our case. Even if you were sick or injured and had no opportunity to tidy up. CPS will not put anything exculpatory on the record. Anyone reading her reports will be lead to believe that the house was unkempt and cluttered. Never give CPS a chance to falsify the record or twist your words. Before allowing any CPS official into your home, if you choose to do so, inform them that you want your attorney present and schedule an interview. Better still schedule the interview to be held in their office instead of in your home.

Remember, CPS could care less about your rights or your children’s constitutional rights. Removing a child from a safe home is more harmful than most alleged allegation, as stated by many judges. CPS workers will lie and say that they have to come in or that you are required to comply. Remember, CPS has no statutory authority to enter your home, when no crime has been committed. They are trained to use deceptive means, in order to gain access to your home, by any means possible. (This information was gained from DCF employee interviews.) Do not sign anything or agree to anything. Even if you are not guilty and you agree to go through some horse and pony show. This will be used against you, as if you admitted to the false allegation(s).

The case for Foster Care Reform …is written in stone [picture of a head-stone]

Yes they are, the 4th Amendment is applicable to CPS investigators in the context of an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect as are all “government officials.” This issue is brought out best in Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588.

The social workers argued, “the Fourth Amendment was not applicable to the activities of their social worker employees.” The social workers claimed, “entries into private homes by child welfare workers involve neither searches nor seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and thus can be conducted without either a warrant or probable cause to believe that a child is at risk of imminent harm.”

The court disagreed and ruled: “Despite the defendant’s exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose request to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door.” The Court also stated “The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies whenever an investigator, be it a police officer, a DCFS employee, or any other agent of the state, responds to an alleged instance of child abuse, neglect, or dependency.” (Emphasis added)

The social worker’s first argument, shot down by the court. The social workers then argued that there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, and that the situation was an “emergency.” They state, the “Defendants argue their entry into the home, even absent voluntary consent, was reasonable under the circumstances. They point to: the anonymous complaint about clutter on the front porch; and the plaintiff’s attempt to leave.

These circumstances, the defendants argue, created an ‘emergency situation’ that led Darnold and Brown reasonably to believe the Walsh children were in danger of imminent harm. (Thus is the old “emergency” excuse that has been used for years by social workers.) The Court again disagreed and ruled: “There is nothing inherently unusual or dangerous about cluttered premises, much less anything about such vaguely described conditions that could manifest imminent or even possible danger or harm to young children. If household ‘clutter’ justifies warrantless entry and threats of removal of children and arrest or citation of their parents, few families are secure and few homes are safe from unwelcome and unjustified intrusion by state officials and officers.”

The Court went on to rule, “They have failed to show that any exigency that justifies warrantless entry was necessary to protect the welfare of the plaintiff’s children. In this case, a rational jury could find that ‘the evidence points to the opposite conclusion’ and a lack of ’sufficient exigent circumstances to relieve the state actors here of the burden of obtaining a warrant.” The social worker’s second argument, shot down by the court.

The social workers then argued that they are obligated under law to investigate any reported case of child abuse, and that supersedes the Fourth Amendment. They argued, “Against these fundamental rights, the defendants contend that Ohio’s statutory framework for learning about and investigation of all allegations of child abuse and neglect supersede their obligations under the Fourth Amendment. They point principally to § 2151.421 of the Ohio Revised code as authority for their warrantless entry into and search of the plaintiff’s home. That statute imposes a duty on certain designated professionals and persons who work with children or provide child care to report instances of apparent child abuse or neglect.” This is the old “mandatory reporter” excuse.

The Court disagreed and ruled: “The defendant’s argument that the duty to investigate created by § 2151.421(F)(1) exempts them from the Fourth Amendment misses the mark because, not having received a report described in § 2151.421(A)(1)(b), they were not, and could not have been, conducting an investigation pursuant to § 2151.421(F)(1).” The social worker’s third argument, shot down by the court.

The Court continues with their chastisement of the social workers: “There can be no doubt that the state can and should protect the welfare of children who are at risk from acts of abuse and neglect. There likewise can be no doubt that occasions arise calling for immediate response, even without prior judicial approval. But those instances are the exception. Otherwise child welfare workers would have a free pass into any home in which they have an anonymous report of poor housekeeping, overcrowding, or insufficient medical care and, thus a perception that children may be at some risk.”

The Court continues: “The anonymous phone call in this case did not constitute a ‘report’ of child abuse or neglect.” The social workers, Darnold and Brown, claimed that they were immune from liability, claiming qualified immunity because “they had not had training in Fourth Amendment law.” In other words, because they thought the Fourth Amendment did not bind them, they couldn’t be sued for their “mistake.”

The police officers, Chandler and Kish, claimed that they couldn’t be sued because they thought the social workers were not subject to the Fourth Amendment, and they were just assisting the social workers. The Court disagreed and ruled: “That subjective basis for their ignorance about and actions in violation of the fourth Amendment does not relieve them of the consequences of that ignorance and those actions.” The Court then lowers the boom by stating: “The claims of defendants Darnold, Brown, Chandler and Kish of qualified immunity are therefore denied.”

The 9th Circuit Court Said, Parents Have The Constitutional Right To Be Left Alone By CPS And The Police.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Calabretta v. Floyd, 9th Cir. (1999) “involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency.”

The court did not agree that the social worker and the police officer had “qualified immunity” and said, “the facts in this case are noteworthy for the absence of emergency.” No one was in distress. “The police officer was there to back up the social worker’s insistence on entry against the mother’s will, not because he perceived any imminent danger of harm.” And he should have known better. Furthermore, “had the information been more alarming, had the social worker or police officer been alarmed, had there been reason to fear imminent harm to a child, this would be a different case, one to which we have no occasion to speak. A reasonable official would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search warrant.”

And now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals defines the law: “In our circuit, a reasonable official would have known that the law barred this entry. Any government official (CPS) can be held to know that their office does not give them unrestricted right to enter people’s homes at will. We held in White by White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1986), a child welfare investigation case, that ‘it was settled constitutional law that, absent exigent circumstances, police could not enter a dwelling without a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed.’

The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people’s houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it.”

And there we have it: “Any government official can be held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples’ homes at will. … The fourth Amendment preserves the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses … ‘without limiting that right to one kind of government official.”

In other words, the parents have the constitutional right to exercise their children’s and their 4th and 5th Amendment protections and should just say no to social workers especially when they attempt to coerce or threaten to call the police so they can conduct their investigation. “A social worker is not entitled to sacrifice a family’s privacy and dignity to her own personal views on how parents ought to discipline their children.” (The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to protect the people from the government, not to protect the government from the people. And within those documents, the people have the constitutional right to hold the government accountable when is does deny its citizens their rights under the law even if it is CPS, the police, a government agency, or local, state, or federal government.)

The Court’s reasoning for this ruling was simple and straight forward: “The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children. An essential aspect of the privacy of the home is the parent’s and the child’s interest in the privacy of the relationship with each other.”

Parroting Of The Phrase “Best Interest Of The Child” Without Supporting Facts Or A Legal Basis Is Insufficient To Support A Warrant Or Court Order To Enter A Home.

In North Hudson DYFS v. Koehler Family, filed December 18, 2000, the Appellate court granted the emergency application on February 6, 2001, to stay DYFS illegal entry that was granted by the lower court because DYFS in their infinite wisdom thought it was their right to go into the Koehler home because the children were not wearing socks in the winter or sleep in beds.

After reviewing the briefs of all the parties, the appellate court ruled that the order to investigate the Koehler home was in violation of the law and must be reversed. The Court explained, “[a]absent some tangible evidence of abuse or neglect, the Courts do not authorize fishing expeditions into citizens’ houses.” The Court went on to say, “[m]ere parroting of the phrase ‘best interest of the child’ without supporting facts and a legal basis is insufficient to support a Court order based on reasonableness or any other ground.” February 14, 2001.

In other words, a juvenile judges decision on whether or not to issue a warrant is a legal one, it is not based on “best interest of the child” or personal feeling. The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987). If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. Anonymous tips are never probable cause. “[I]n context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation … a court order is the equivalent of a warrant.

” Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 602 (2nd Cir. 1999).
F.K. v. Iowa district Court for Polk County, Id.”

The U.S Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit Court recently ruled that child abuse investigations held on private property are unconstitutional.

The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and child protective services investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted.

The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that this practice, i.e. the “no prior consent” interview of a child, will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court, the investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the private property.

Considering that one critical purpose of the early stages of an investigation is to determine whether or not the child is in danger, and if so, from who seems to require a high threshold level of evidence to commence the interview of a child, whether the child is on private or public property.

“In our circuit, a reasonable official would have known that the law barred this entry. Any government official can be held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples’ homes at will. We held in White v. Pierce County a child welfare investigation case, that ‘it was settled constitutional law that, absent exigent circumstances, police could not enter a dwelling without a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed.’ The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into peoples’ houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it.”

“We conclude that the Warrant clause must be complied with. First, none of the exceptions to the Warrant Clause apply in this situation, including ‘exigent circumstances coupled with probable cause,’ because there is, by definition, time enough to apply to a magistrate for an ex parte removal order. See State v. Hatter, 342N.W.2d 851, 855 (Iowa 1983) (holding the exigent circumstances exception to the Warrant Clause only applies when ‘an immediate major crisis in the performance of duty afforded neither time nor opportunity to apply to a magistrate.’). Second, as noted by the Second Circuit, ‘[I]n context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation . . . a court order is the equivalent of a warrant.’

Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 602 (2nd Cir. 1999).
F.K. v. Iowa district Court for Polk County, Id.”

“Another recent 9th Circuit case also held that there is no exception to the warrant requirement for social workers in the context of a child abuse investigation. ‘The [California] regulations they cite require social workers to respond to various contacts in various ways. But none of the regulations cited say that the social worker may force her way into a home without a search warrant in the absence of any emergency.’ Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999). Calabretta also cites various cases form other jurisdictions for its conclusion.

Good v. Dauphin County Social Servs., 891 F.2d 1087 (3rd Cir. 1989) held that a social worker and police officer were not entitled to qualified immunity for insisting on entering her house against the mother’s will to examine her child for bruises. Good holds that a search warrant or exigent circumstances, such as a need to protect a child against imminent danger of serious bodily injury, was necessary for an entry without consent, and the anonymous tip claiming bruises was in the case insufficient to establish special exigency.

The 9th Circuit further opined in Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000), that ‘[b]ecause the swing of every pendulum brings with it potential adverse consequences, it is important to emphasize that in the area of child abuse, as with the investigation and prosecution of all crimes, the state is constrained by the substantive and procedural guarantees of the Constitution. The fact that the suspected crime may be heinous - whether it involves children or adults - does not provide cause for the state to ignore the rights of the accused or any other parties. Otherwise, serious injustices may result. In cases of alleged child abuse, governmental failure to abide by constitutional constraints may have deleterious long-term consequences for the child and, indeed, for the entire family. Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create significant injury where no problem of any kind previously existed…’ Id. at 1130-1131.”

This is the case involving DCF in Connecticut. Many of their policies are unlawful and contradictory to the Constitution. DCF has unlawful polices giving workers permission to coerce, intimidate and to threatened innocent families with governmental intrusion and oppression. They use police presences to squelch and put down any citizen who asserts their 4th Amendment rights by not allowing an unlawful investigation to take place in their private home when no imminent danger is present.

DCF is the “moving force” behind the unceasing violations of federal law and violations of the Constitution. The idea of noncompliance with the 4th and 14th Amendment is so impregnated in their statutes, policies, practices and customs, it affects everything they do. They subsequently take on the persona of exaggerated power over parents and believe they are totally immune and can do basically anything they want including engaging in deception, misrepresentation of the facts and perjury under oath. This happens thousands of times daily in the United States where the ends seemingly justifies the means even if it is unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional.

We can tell you stories for hours, where CPS employees committed criminal acts and were prosecuted and either went to jail and/or were sued for civil rights violations. CPS workers have lied in reports, court documents and coerced others to lie. They have kidnapped children without court order, crossed state lines impersonating police and were later prosecuted. In a number of cases the worker has even killed the child in question.

It is sickening the number of children who have been subjected to abuse, neglect or even killed at the hands of Child Protective Service workers. The numbers below include DCF in Connecticut

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best, “The government’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.” Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999).

This statement came in a case, which held that social workers who, in pursuit of a child abuse investigation, invaded a family home without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of both children and parents. Upon remand for the damages phase of the trial, the social workers, the police officers, and the governments that employed them settled this civil rights case for $150,000.00.

Contrary to the assumption of hundreds of social workers, the Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment applies just as much to a child abuse investigation as it does to any criminal or other governmental investigation. Social workers are not exempt from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when they act alone. They are not exempt from its rules if they are accompanied by a police officer. And police officers are not exempt from the requirement even if all they do is get the front door open for the social worker; this would include intimidation, coercion and threatening. The general rule is that unreasonable searches and seizures are banned. But the second part of the rule is the most important in this context. All warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable.

If a police officer says, “If you don’t let us in your home we will break down your door.”

A parent who then opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent.
If a social worker says, “If you don’t let me in the home I will take your children away.”

A parent who then opens the door has not given free and voluntary consent.
If a social worker says, “I will get a warrant from the judge or I will call the police if you do not let me in.”

Negate consent. Any type of communication, which conveys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative, but to allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the channel of consent. DCF’s policy clearly tells the social worker that they can threaten parents even if the parents assert their 4th Amendment rights.

Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances

The Fourth Amendment does not put a barrier in the way of a social worker who has reliable evidence that a child is in imminent danger. For example, if a hot line call comes in and says, “My name is Mildred Smith, here is my address and phone number. I was visiting my grandchildren this morning and I discovered that one of my grandchildren, Johnny, age 5, is being locked in his bedroom without food for days at a time, and he looked pale and weak to me.” The social worker certainly has evidence of exigent circumstances and is only one step away from having probable cause.

Since the report has been received over the telephone, it is possible that the tipster is an imposter and not the child’s grandmother. A quick verification of the relationship can be made in a variety of ways and once verified, the informant, would satisfy the legal test of reliability, which is necessary to establish probable cause.

Anonymous phone calls fail the second part of the two-prong requirement of “exigent circumstances” and “probable cause” for a warrant or order. Anonymous phone calls cannot stand the test of probable cause as defined within the 14th Amendments and would fail in court on appeal. The social worker(s) would lose their qualified immunity for their deprivation of rights and can be sued. Many social workers and Child Protection Services (CPS) lose their cases in court because their entry into homes was in violation of the parent’s civil rights because the evidence in their possession did not satisfy the standard of probable cause.

It is not enough to have information that the children are in some form of serious danger. The evidence must also pass a test of reliability that our justice system calls probable cause. In H.R. v. State Department of Human Resources, 612 So.2d 477 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992); the court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable cause. The Calabretta court held the same thing, as have numerous other decisions, which have faced the issue directly. The Fourth Amendment itself spells out the evidence required for a warrant or entry order. No warrant shall issue but on probable cause. The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987). If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. Anonymous tips are never probable cause.

Children are not well served if they are subjected to investigations base on false allegations. Little children can be traumatized by investigations in ways that are unintended by the social worker. However, to a small child all they know is that a strange adult is taking off their clothing while their mother is sobbing in the next room in the presence of an armed police officer.

This does not seem to a child to be a proper invasion of their person - quite different, for example, from an examination by a doctor when their mother is present and cooperating. The misuse of anonymous tips is well known. Personal vendettas, neighborhood squabbles, disputes on the Little League field, child custody battles, revenge, nosey individuals who are attempting to impose their views on others are turned into maliciously false allegations breathed into a hotline.

“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.”

U.S. v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928),
Justice Brandeis

We the people of the United States are ruled by law, not by feelings. If the courts allow states and their agencies to rule by feelings and not law, we become a lawless nation making decisions based on subjectivity and objectivity. CPS has been allowed to bastardize and emasculate the Constitution and the rights of its citizens to be governed by the rule of men rather than the rule of law. Citizens should find it alarming when governmental officials are allowed to have unfettered access to their homes. It is also very dangerous to allow CPS to violate the confrontation clause in the 6th Amendment where CPS hides and conceals an accuser/witness making anonymous reports. It allows those individuals to file fraudulent reports with CPS aiding and abetting in this violation of a fundamental right. All citizens have the right to know their accuser/witness in order to preserve the sanctity of the rule of law and the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Yes it is illegal and an unconstitutional practice to remove children which results in punishing the children and the non-offending parent. In a landmark class action suit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinsein ruled on Nicholson v. Williams, Case No.: 00-cv-2229.

This suit challenged the practice of New York’s City’s Administration for Children’s Services of removing the children of battered mothers solely because the children saw their mothers being beaten by husbands or boyfriends. Judge Weistein ruled that the practice is unconstitutional and he ordered it stopped.
Are Parents Guilty Of Maltreatment Or Emotional Neglect If The Child Witnesses Domestic Violence?

Not according to Judge Weistein’s ruling and to the leading national experts.

During the trial several leading national experts testified regarding the impact on children of witnessing domestic violence, and the impact on children of being removed from the non-offending parent. The views of experts on the effects of domestic violence on children, and defining witnessing domestic violence by children as maltreatment or emotional neglect is a mistake.

“Great concern [regarding] how increased awareness of children’s exposure [to domestic violence] and associated problems is being used.

Concerned about the risk adult domestic violence poses for children, some child protection agencies in the United States appear to be defining exposure to domestic violence as a form of child…Defining witnessing as maltreatment is a mistake. Doing so ignores the fact that large numbers of children in these studies showed no negative development problems and some showed evidence of strong coping abilities. Automatically defining witnessing as maltreatment may also ignore the battered mother’s efforts to develop safe environments for their children and themselves.” Ex. 163 at 866.
Effects Of Removals Of Children And On The Non-Offending Parent

Dr. Wolf testified that disruptions in the parent-child relationship might provoke fear and anxiety in a child and diminish his or her sense of stability and self. Tr. 565-67. He described the typical response of a child separated from his parent: “When a young child is separated from a parent unwillingly, he or she shows distress … At first, the child is very anxious and protests vigorously and angrily. Then he falls into a sense of despair, though still hyper vigilant, looking, waiting, and hoping for her return …” A child’s sense of time factors into the extent to which a separation impacts his or her emotional well-being. Thus, for younger children whose sense of time is less keenly developed, short periods of parental absence may seem longer than for older children. Tr 565-65. See also Ex. 141b.

For those children who are in homes where there is domestic violence, disruption of that bond can be even more traumatic than situations where this is no domestic violence. Dr. Stark (Yale New Haven Hospital researcher) asserted that if a child is placed in foster care as a result of domestic violence in the home, then he or she may view such removal as “a traumatic act of punishment … and [think] that something that [he] or she has done or failed to do has caused this separation.” Tr. 1562-63.

Dr. Pelcovitz stated that “taking a child whose greatest fear is separation from his or her mother and in the name of ‘protecting’ that child [by] forcing on them, what is in effect, their worst nightmare, … is tantamount to pouring salt on an open wound.” Ex. 139 at 5.

Another serious implication of removal is that it introduces children to the foster care system, which can be much more dangerous and debilitating than the home situation. Dr. Stark testified that foster homes are rarely screened for the presence of violence, and that the incidence of abuse and child fatality in foster homes is double that in the general population. Tr 1596; Ex. 122 at 3-4. Children in foster care often fail to receive adequate medical care. Ex. 122 at 6. Foster care placements can disrupt the child’s contact with community, school and siblings. Ex. 122 at 8.

Yes they do, children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the age of majority. Parents also have legal standing to sue if CPS violated their 4th and 14th Amendment rights. Children have a Constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 7th Cir. (2000) A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parents. Ward v. San Jose, 9th Cir. (1992) State employees who withhold a child from her family infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association. K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan, 7th Cir. (1990)

The forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time, represents a serious infringement upon the rights of both. J.B. v. Washington county, 10th Cir. (1997) Parent’s interest is of “the highest order.” And the court recognizes “the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of health care professionals and government officials.” Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc., 8th Cir. (1996)

You must protect you and your child’s rights. CPS has no legal right to enter your home or speak to you and your child when there in no imminent danger present. Know your choices; you can refuse to speak any government official whether it is the police or CPS as long as there is an open criminal investigation. They will tell you that what they are involved with is a civil matter not a criminal matter. Don’t you believe it. There is nothing civil about allegations of child abuse or neglect. It is a criminal matter disguised as a civil matter. Police do not get involved in civil matters if it truly was one.

You will regret letting them in your home and speaking with them like the thousands of other parents who have gone through this. Ask a friend, family member or some one at work. They will tell you if you agree to services, they will leave you alone or you can get your kids back.

Refusing them entry is NOT hindering an investigation, it’s a Fourth Amendment protection and CPS or the juvenile judge can not abrogate that right as long as your children are not in imminent danger. Tell them to go packing.

Do Not sign anything, it will come back to be used against you in any possible trial. You are protected by FERPA and HIPAA regarding your children’s educational and medical records. They need a warrant. Tell them they need a lawful warrant to make you do anything. CPS has no power; do not agree to a drug screen or a psychological evaluation.

The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parent. Ward v. San Jose (9th Cir. 1992)

Children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the age of majority. Children have a constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)

The private, fundamental liberty interest involved in retaining custody of one’s child and the integrity of one’s family is of the greatest importance. Weller v. Dept. of Social Services for Baltimore (4th Cir. 1990)

State employee who withholds a child from her family may infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association. Social workers could not deliberately remove children from their parents and place them with foster caregivers when the officials reasonably should have known such an action would cause harm to the child’s mental or physical health. K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan (7th Cir. 1990)

The forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time (in this case 18 hours); represent a serious infringement upon the rights of both. J.B. v. Washington County (10th Cir. 1997)

Absent extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. Malik v. Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social Services (10 Cir. 1999)

Parent interest is of “the highest order,” and the court recognizes “the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of health care professionals and government officials.” Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc. (8th Cir. 1996)