Have Maine’s DHHS child-protective services improved?
BY RAMONA DU HOUX
September 22nd, 2011
Maine's Department of Health and Human Services in Augusta, Maine.
While sweeping changes were mandated in Maine’s DHHS system in 2004, change is hard to accept — and implement. Families like the Handlers, whose civil rights were abused, continue to fall through the cracks. The Handler case shows a mother’s disability was exploited by DHHS and kinship rights brushed aside, when kinship placement papers could have placed the son with his loving grandmother or a cousin.
All these atrocities are contrary to the official guidelines and the legislation passed since the tragic death of Logan Marr in foster care. But they happened.
Some child protection history --
In 1974 there were sweeping changes to the foster-care system, enacted by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Cases of children in foster homes and at home had been highlighted during testimonials. True stories of abuse, malnutrition, and third-world living conditions had taken place. Congress concluded that more funding was necessary to ensure proper care for the children of the nation, in its care.
Although the additional funding did put food in mouths and clothes on the backs of children in care, it also led to a different kind of abuse, as some states took more children into care — children who weren’t being abused. Some children found themselves in a state’s foster-care system because of a single unsubstantiated claim. Realizing the imbalance of the system, Congress enacted the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, only to be followed 17 years later by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997. ASFA shifted the emphasis back to child safety over family reunification, and it offered cash “bonuses” to states for every child they managed to adopt out of foster care.
“In order to receive the ‘adoption incentive bonuses’ local child-protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sell, and you must have plenty of them so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 bonus for each child adopted and an additional $2,000 for a ‘special needs’ child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing,” wrote state Senator Nancy Schaefer of Georgia in her November 2007 report entitled The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services.
States regularly also accept the two-to-one Medicaid payment made available to help fund the care of children in foster care.
“Guidelines” were implemented, which child-protective agencies had to confirm they followed. More often than not, a caseworker could say anything, because the validity of their statement was not checked. Judges regularly signed documents, which confirmed that the guidelines were adhered to. States needed the funding. There wasn’t any money to enforce the guidelines.
What good are the guidelines, if the system can systematically use the courts to hide behind, when mistakes that could be embarrassing occur?
James Beougher, director of Child and Family Services for Maine’s DHHS, publically stated that seven years ago 3,000 children were in the state’s care; now it’s down to 1,370. The numbers are down, but have the services improved?
David Handler at home before DHHS took him from his parents. He could have been adopted by his grandmother or a cousin, but DHHS failed him. He was adopted by strangers.
The quality of child-protective care --
The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) is the federal government’s program for assessing the performance of state child-welfare agencies with regard to positive outcomes for children and families. Their 2009 review for Maine confirms that areas where the Handlers had problems with DHHS were also areas the state constantly underperformed.
The onsite case review process was from April 1, 2008, through May 22, 2009. The report found that especially in the area of preserving the continuity of family relationships and connections, known as Permanency Outcome 2, the state’s “percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. Maine is not in substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 2.”
All these deficiencies highlighted in the CFSR report in this area were also elements of neglect by DHHS in the Handler case:
• Children’s connections with extended family, school, and community were not consistently preserved.
Attorneys for the Handlers discovered that there are no records for the Handlers’ son, David, in any of Maine’s 16 counties. They are left with the conclusion that he has been adopted in another state. David was known and liked in the Northport community and had made good friends. It was the only home he had ever known.
• The State was not consistent in making concerted efforts to seek and assess relatives as placement resources. (The 2003 previous CFSR report also found this outcome, which means no new measures changed the outcome from 2003 to 2009)
David visited his grandmother’s house regularly; she even had given him his own room. She filed for kinship placement in 2005, but her application was ignored. His first cousin’s application was termed “frivolous” by the Attorney General’s Office.
• The State was not consistent in supporting the parent-child relationship, while the child was in foster care.
Both Ellie and Russell Handler, David’s parents, struggled to talk to and/or see their son. After Ellie lost custody to David, she was not allowed to make any phone calls to her son.
Maine’s state Capitol in Augusta
“The Department of Health and Human Services will not authorize such contact, due to the telephone contact not being in David’s best interest,” wrote caseworker Claudia Kjer to Ellie Handler.
For all intents and purposes, it must seem to David that his parents gave up on him, for they didn’t even call him while he was in foster care.
• The State was not consistent in making diligent efforts to achieve permanency for children through reunification, guardianship, or adoption.
DHHS encouraged Ellie to divorce Russell, so she would have custody of their son. She was undergoing a mental crisis at the time and did divorce. Instead of “reunification” the State broke this family apart. As previously stated, David’s grandmother and his first cousins tried to adopt him.
“Maine is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of the Case Review System,” read the report. Out of a list of many key concerns identified in this area of the CFSR review, two pertain directly to the Handler case:
• Parents’ involvement in case planning remains a challenge for the State.
Ellie and Russell were never involved in “case planning.” They were told what they should do after Ellie agreed to a Jeopardy Order, which took away her parental constitutional rights.
• Foster parents pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children are not consistently provided opportunities to be heard in court hearings.
Mrs. Kern, David’s grandmother, traveled to Maine to participate in court hearings but was told she needed a lawyer to participate. Mrs. Kern desperately wanted to adopt her grandson. She wanted to be heard in court, but DHHS denied her that right. David was adopted by a foster-care family, even though Mrs. Kern filed paperwork back in 2005 for kinship placement. Not being “heard” obviously damaged her chances to adopt David.
There are many more areas outlined in the CFSR report that conclude DHHS needs substantial changes.
Will more guidelines help?
As the evidence in the CFSR report shows, guidelines only go so far. It’s a hard balance DHHS has to find between allowing caseworkers enough freedom to complete their work and protecting the rights of every citizen.
There are areas where new laws would help all concerned.
- See more at: http://maineinsights.com/perma/have-maine%E2%80%99s-dhhs-child-protective-services-improved#sthash.8P77PWme.dpuf
September 22nd, 2011
Maine's Department of Health and Human Services in Augusta, Maine.
While sweeping changes were mandated in Maine’s DHHS system in 2004, change is hard to accept — and implement. Families like the Handlers, whose civil rights were abused, continue to fall through the cracks. The Handler case shows a mother’s disability was exploited by DHHS and kinship rights brushed aside, when kinship placement papers could have placed the son with his loving grandmother or a cousin.
All these atrocities are contrary to the official guidelines and the legislation passed since the tragic death of Logan Marr in foster care. But they happened.
Some child protection history --
In 1974 there were sweeping changes to the foster-care system, enacted by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Cases of children in foster homes and at home had been highlighted during testimonials. True stories of abuse, malnutrition, and third-world living conditions had taken place. Congress concluded that more funding was necessary to ensure proper care for the children of the nation, in its care.
Although the additional funding did put food in mouths and clothes on the backs of children in care, it also led to a different kind of abuse, as some states took more children into care — children who weren’t being abused. Some children found themselves in a state’s foster-care system because of a single unsubstantiated claim. Realizing the imbalance of the system, Congress enacted the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, only to be followed 17 years later by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997. ASFA shifted the emphasis back to child safety over family reunification, and it offered cash “bonuses” to states for every child they managed to adopt out of foster care.
“In order to receive the ‘adoption incentive bonuses’ local child-protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sell, and you must have plenty of them so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 bonus for each child adopted and an additional $2,000 for a ‘special needs’ child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing,” wrote state Senator Nancy Schaefer of Georgia in her November 2007 report entitled The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services.
States regularly also accept the two-to-one Medicaid payment made available to help fund the care of children in foster care.
“Guidelines” were implemented, which child-protective agencies had to confirm they followed. More often than not, a caseworker could say anything, because the validity of their statement was not checked. Judges regularly signed documents, which confirmed that the guidelines were adhered to. States needed the funding. There wasn’t any money to enforce the guidelines.
What good are the guidelines, if the system can systematically use the courts to hide behind, when mistakes that could be embarrassing occur?
James Beougher, director of Child and Family Services for Maine’s DHHS, publically stated that seven years ago 3,000 children were in the state’s care; now it’s down to 1,370. The numbers are down, but have the services improved?
David Handler at home before DHHS took him from his parents. He could have been adopted by his grandmother or a cousin, but DHHS failed him. He was adopted by strangers.
The quality of child-protective care --
The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) is the federal government’s program for assessing the performance of state child-welfare agencies with regard to positive outcomes for children and families. Their 2009 review for Maine confirms that areas where the Handlers had problems with DHHS were also areas the state constantly underperformed.
The onsite case review process was from April 1, 2008, through May 22, 2009. The report found that especially in the area of preserving the continuity of family relationships and connections, known as Permanency Outcome 2, the state’s “percentage is less than the 95 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. Maine is not in substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 2.”
All these deficiencies highlighted in the CFSR report in this area were also elements of neglect by DHHS in the Handler case:
• Children’s connections with extended family, school, and community were not consistently preserved.
Attorneys for the Handlers discovered that there are no records for the Handlers’ son, David, in any of Maine’s 16 counties. They are left with the conclusion that he has been adopted in another state. David was known and liked in the Northport community and had made good friends. It was the only home he had ever known.
• The State was not consistent in making concerted efforts to seek and assess relatives as placement resources. (The 2003 previous CFSR report also found this outcome, which means no new measures changed the outcome from 2003 to 2009)
David visited his grandmother’s house regularly; she even had given him his own room. She filed for kinship placement in 2005, but her application was ignored. His first cousin’s application was termed “frivolous” by the Attorney General’s Office.
• The State was not consistent in supporting the parent-child relationship, while the child was in foster care.
Both Ellie and Russell Handler, David’s parents, struggled to talk to and/or see their son. After Ellie lost custody to David, she was not allowed to make any phone calls to her son.
Maine’s state Capitol in Augusta
“The Department of Health and Human Services will not authorize such contact, due to the telephone contact not being in David’s best interest,” wrote caseworker Claudia Kjer to Ellie Handler.
For all intents and purposes, it must seem to David that his parents gave up on him, for they didn’t even call him while he was in foster care.
• The State was not consistent in making diligent efforts to achieve permanency for children through reunification, guardianship, or adoption.
DHHS encouraged Ellie to divorce Russell, so she would have custody of their son. She was undergoing a mental crisis at the time and did divorce. Instead of “reunification” the State broke this family apart. As previously stated, David’s grandmother and his first cousins tried to adopt him.
“Maine is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of the Case Review System,” read the report. Out of a list of many key concerns identified in this area of the CFSR review, two pertain directly to the Handler case:
• Parents’ involvement in case planning remains a challenge for the State.
Ellie and Russell were never involved in “case planning.” They were told what they should do after Ellie agreed to a Jeopardy Order, which took away her parental constitutional rights.
• Foster parents pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children are not consistently provided opportunities to be heard in court hearings.
Mrs. Kern, David’s grandmother, traveled to Maine to participate in court hearings but was told she needed a lawyer to participate. Mrs. Kern desperately wanted to adopt her grandson. She wanted to be heard in court, but DHHS denied her that right. David was adopted by a foster-care family, even though Mrs. Kern filed paperwork back in 2005 for kinship placement. Not being “heard” obviously damaged her chances to adopt David.
There are many more areas outlined in the CFSR report that conclude DHHS needs substantial changes.
Will more guidelines help?
As the evidence in the CFSR report shows, guidelines only go so far. It’s a hard balance DHHS has to find between allowing caseworkers enough freedom to complete their work and protecting the rights of every citizen.
There are areas where new laws would help all concerned.
- See more at: http://maineinsights.com/perma/have-maine%E2%80%99s-dhhs-child-protective-services-improved#sthash.8P77PWme.dpuf