Good experiences with CFS? How to help children in need?

[Blue Mountain]

Here are a couple of questions I've been struggling with for a while now.

As a person with a left-leaning mindset, I believe there is space for government to step in when people's lives are endangered or threatened. This includes safety regulations, food and consumer goods inspections, and universal health care. A natural outcome of this belief is the government has both a right and a duty to intervene when a child's physical or mental health are in danger due to neglect or abuse.

But somewhere along the line things seem to have gone off the rails. I don't think I've seen any posts here on the forum from people who have been on the receiving end of CFS (Child and Family Services) assistance who aren't upset and bitter about the whole experience. From social workers interfering over trivial matters to inept foster parents who seem to do the work just for the money, I've seen very little positive press about these agencies.

Is this because only the bad stories--usually the spectacular failures that ended in the death of a child in care--make the papers? Or is it because the agencies are fundamentally failing in their mission?

My questions for discussion are:

Has anyone here had an experience with CFS, as a parent, child, worker, or bystander, that can be rated as positive? (Positive may be a tricky thing to define, but for me it means an intervention that resulted in the parents and the children getting the care they needed, with the family reuniting and becoming a functional family again.)

Do CFS agencies do more harm than good? If your answer is "more harm", how would you fix it? By abolishing the agencies and letting kids fare for themselves? Improving funding and oversight?

(While I would prefer this thread not become a bash-fest against social agencies, I can't police that. The best I can hope for is the co-operation of the posters.)

 

[DragonLady]

I grew up in foster care. I've had both positive and negative experiences. I'm more than happy to talk about it, as long as I don't have to say anything that might identify myself or my family to someone "out there" who may be reading the forums.

I believe the agencies usually do more harm than good. I'd fix it by:

-removing the federal funding, and forcing states to pay for the children in their care.

-by treating abuse as a crime, and arresting parents so they have the protections of due process.

-by removing the "privacy protections" and making case files public records -including the names of social workers and their supervisors.

-by allowing the agencies, their employees, and foster parents to be sued. As it is, they are almost entirely unaccountable to anyone.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I grew up in foster care. I've had both positive and negative experiences. I'm more than happy to talk about it, as long as I don't have to say anything that might identify myself or my family to someone "out there" who may be reading the forums.

I believe the agencies usually do more harm than good. I'd fix it by:

-removing the federal funding, and forcing states to pay for the children in their care.

It's mostly this way already, isn't it, in the US anyway.

-by treating abuse as a crime, and arresting parents so they have the protections of due process.

This is also done. Kids can be removed in an emergency but it takes a court process to continue the separation. It's a balance if the kids might be in danger though, vs parental rights. Both need due process.

-by removing the "privacy protections" and making case files public records -including the names of social workers and their supervisors.

You going to protect them when the abusive family member goes after them? I reported a man once who claimed he had blackouts all the time while he had very young kids in his care. He came after me and threatened me physically while I was at work at the clinic. He knew I was the only one who could have reported him.

It turned out he was a welfare cheat, the kids weren't even his and the blackouts were a lie to claim a disability. Now there was a case where a little more investigating should have happened.

Fortunately he left without more than threats.

-by allowing the agencies, their employees, and foster parents to be sued. As it is, they are almost entirely unaccountable to anyone.

Supervision, yes, accountability yes, especially the foster parent situation since there's a financial incentive to take in kids but not care well for them.

But this isn't some magic bullet.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I grew up in foster care. I've had both positive and negative experiences. I'm more than happy to talk about it, as long as I don't have to say anything that might identify myself or my family to someone "out there" who may be reading the forums.

You're certainly welcome to contribute your experiences, even if you have to be vague or even completely self-censored. You could also alter dates, locations, and names.

I believe the agencies usually do more harm than good. I'd fix it by:

-removing the federal funding, and forcing states to pay for the children in their care.

We sort of do that here in Canada. The federal government assists indirectly via the Canada Social Transfer program, but it's up to the provinces to implement and run the programs. Some provinces have multiple agencies; for example, here in Manitoba there are agencies set up and run by First Nations (Aboriginals, formerly known as "Indians.")

-by treating abuse as a crime, and arresting parents so they have the protections of due process.

That will work for cases of direct abuse, but what if the problem is something like the parents with chronic alcoholism, or two people too caught up in fighting each other they don't make space for the kid?

-by removing the "privacy protections" and making case files public records -including the names of social workers and their supervisors.

-by allowing the agencies, their employees, and foster parents to be sued. As it is, they are almost entirely unaccountable to anyone.

I must confess I find that idea scary. I think it would paralyze the agencies into total ineffectiveness. They remove a kid and promptly get sued. They'd end up spending most of their budget and time fighting lawsuits.

It may actually be impossible to find a balance between giving social workers the protection they need to do their jobs but with the transparency needed to find and fix the mistakes.

 

[DragonLady]

It's mostly this way already, isn't it, in the US anyway.

States receive Federal funding for the kids they take into care. I don't know how much per child, but I do know children with disabilities garner more.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/title-ive-foster-care

This is also done. Kids can be removed in an emergency but it takes a court process to continue the separation. It's a balance if the kids might be in danger though, vs parental rights. Both need due process.

Is done; but is not ALWAYS done. I was removed from my home on multiple occasions, and neither of my parents was ever charged with a crime. As a result, they weren't made aware of their rights, and they weren't offered the services of an attorney. The state didn't have to prove any wrongdoing, and the only thing the judge heard was the social worker's testimony.

Later, when I was in foster care with an infant daughter, the judge made her a ward of the court without asking me a single question, or saying a single word to me. I didn't even know I had the right to an attorney; in fact, my social worker (and her supervisor) told me otherwise -that attempting to hire a lawyer would be seen as "trying to make trouble" and the judge might order me to juvenile detention.

You going to protect them when the abusive family member goes after them? I reported a man once who claimed he had blackouts all the time while he had very young kids in his care. He came after me and threatened me physically while I was at work at the clinic. He knew I was the only one who could have reported him.

If those abusive family members have been charged with a crime, we have protective custody, restraint orders, and other protections in place already. We don't need to hide who the social worker was, any more than we have to hide who arresting officers are.

It turned out he was a welfare cheat, the kids weren't even his and the blackouts were a lie to claim a disability. Now there was a case where a little more investigating should have happened.

Those are criminal acts. Why not call the police and have him charged with those crimes?

Fortunately he left without more than threats.

Right. The threat was a crime. Why not call the police, have him charged with that crime, then have him assigned an attorney who could help him sort out his troubles?

Supervision, yes, accountability yes, especially the foster parent situation since there's a financial incentive to take in kids but not care well for them.

Yes; there is.

 

[DragonLady]

That will work for cases of direct abuse, but what if the problem is something like the parents with chronic alcoholism, or two people too caught up in fighting each other they don't make space for the kid?

Well, first we'd have to prove alcoholism or being caught up in fighting are criminal acts or somehow harm the kids.

If their behavior isn't harming the kids, then why do we feel we have to intervene?

If is harming the kids, then we shouldn't have any trouble having them charged for the crime.

If "parental alcoholism" isn't currently a crime, but we think it should be, we can attempt to have that legislation put into place.

If we can't prove many of these behaviors actually cause enough harm to be made into criminal acts, then we shouldn't use them as excuses to destroy families.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Well, first we'd have to prove alcoholism or being caught up in fighting are criminal acts or somehow harm the kids.

If their behavior isn't harming the kids, then why do we feel we have to intervene?

If is harming the kids, then we shouldn't have any trouble having them charged for the crime.

If "parental alcoholism" isn't currently a crime, but we think it should be, we can attempt to have that legislation put into place.

If we can't prove many of these behaviors actually cause enough harm to be made into criminal acts, then we shouldn't use them as excuses to destroy families.

Overall, good points. Unfortunately, I doubt people could ever come to a consensus as to what constitutes "harm." Also, "harm" itself is relative: what might cause one child psychological harm with life-long effects could well be shrugged off by another child as part of growing up.

For certain, the common charge of "failing to supply the necessities of life" is grounds for intervention. It is, after all, a criminal charge and neither you nor I would have a problem intervening.

But I also read threads on this forum of people who grew up with terrible parents. There's even been the odd case where kids have petitioned the courts for a divorce from their parents. Do we draw the line only at where the child has a place to sleep, enough clothes to go to school in, and enough food so they aren't starving? Even at those absolute minimal levels, where a charge of failing to provide the necessities wouldn't stick, the children are disadvantaged. The lack of food especially will make it tough to concentrate in school, impacting the child's education, and possibly setting him/her up for an entire lifetime of low wage jobs and marginal living, along with possible long-term impacts on health, which directly impacts employability.

In addition, physical abuse is usually easy to see. But emotional abuse is much trickier. Is it a crime to yell at your son day after day, telling him he's an unwanted brat who will never amount to anything? Do we have to make it a crime when parents to force their daughter to spend all her time alone in her bedroom without access to toys, books, media or friends before the family can receive assistance?

Or are you saying that because we don't know if those children are being harmed we shouldn't be helping them?

Sorry for asking so many questions. I'm not trying to minimize or belittle your comments, although I'm afraid it might look like I'm doing that. I'm looking for input that will help me form a better understanding of how child welfare systems should or could work. I certainly don't want to get into a dystopia where the state takes no interest at all in the welfare of its children. Neither do I want to be in a similar dystopia where children are the property of the state and parents can care for them only so long as their license is valid, and the Ministry of Children puts every family under a microscope. (Hmm, can you say "Fallacy of the excluded middle?")

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

States receive Federal funding for the kids they take into care. I don't know how much per child, but I do know children with disabilities garner more.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/title-ive-foster-care

I stand corrected. But I can't see why state funding would make a difference.

Is done; but is not ALWAYS done. I was removed from my home on multiple occasions, and neither of my parents was ever charged with a crime. As a result, they weren't made aware of their rights, and they weren't offered the services of an attorney. The state didn't have to prove any wrongdoing, and the only thing the judge heard was the social worker's testimony.

Later, when I was in foster care with an infant daughter, the judge made her a ward of the court without asking me a single question, or saying a single word to me. I didn't even know I had the right to an attorney; in fact, my social worker (and her supervisor) told me otherwise -that attempting to hire a lawyer would be seen as "trying to make trouble" and the judge might order me to juvenile detention.



If those abusive family members have been charged with a crime, we have protective custody, restraint orders, and other protections in place already. We don't need to hide who the social worker was, any more than we have to hide who arresting officers are.

Those are criminal acts. Why not call the police and have him charged with those crimes?

Right. The threat was a crime. Why not call the police, have him charged with that crime, then have him assigned an attorney who could help him sort out his troubles?

Yes; there is.

The problem with tying all this to criminal convictions is that can make some things worse. I didn't need to file charges against the threat. That kind of stuff just clogs the courts: "Were you injured?" "No." "Case dismissed."

A lot of these cases are managed through CPS because the criminal justice system is not always the best approach.

You say your parents weren't charged with a crime. That doesn't mean no court order was involved in your case.


I am not defending the foster care system. It looks like it sucks. I'm just not convinced your solutions are the right ones.

 

[DragonLady]

Okay...this is a touchy subject for me, so forgive me if my words start to sound like a rant...I promise it's not intentional.

*Most* of my comments will reflect my personal experiences, and I don't expect anyone to see them as being more than anecdotes. I'll try to include links if I can find them, but if Google "CPS abuses" you'll find more than enough to choke several forums, and trying to wade through it to find documented facts is difficult. Partly because the agency keeps itself well-hidden by citing privacy concerns.

One more word on personal accounts on the 'net: I tend to believe the parents in most cases over CPS. It's my general attitude to believe a LEO over a suspect, an elected leader over a citizen, a doctor over a patient. However, when it comes to CPS, I don't believe anything they say 'til they can show it to me cast in marble and signed by an LEO, an elected leader, and a doctor...but that's the result of their own actions toward me and my family, so they've only themselves to blame.

I'm just not convinced your solutions are the right ones.

Understood.

That doesn't mean no court order was involved in your case.

A court order is usually involved. The standard operating procedure is to remove the children, then tell a judge a few days later why they did so. The judge will usually just rubber stamp the order to keep them in foster care 'til the parents are able to complete whatever case plan the agency has put in place.

Or are you saying that because we don't know if those children are being harmed we shouldn't be helping them?

Not if the "help" is only going to destroy their families. In too many cases, the cure is far worse than the disease. Not always, of course; there are enough "success stories" to warm enough hearts to keep the system in place. But there's very little ink spent on the kids who end up suffering from the "help" in ways that are far, far worse than whatever they were living with before CPS knocked on the door.

 

[jasonpatterson]

I'm a teacher and legally a mandatory reporter regarding child abuse/neglect. I've contacted social services (usually through the school counselor) on half a dozen occasions when it was clear a student was in trouble. Of those, I don't know how many were extensively investigated by CFS.

What I do know is that none of the kids (high school aged) were put into foster care in the time that I knew them and that in 2 of the cases, the kids' home life improved significantly. In the other cases, I honestly don't know. I wasn't close enough to the kids to really find out and legally speaking it's none of my business as long as I don't see continued evidence of it. In the two cases in which I'm aware of a positive outcome, the student told me that CFS had been involved and that their parent (a mom and a dad) had changed since the involvement. Neither knew that I was the person who started the whole thing; they just considered me an adult they could trust and shared it.

I can't imagine that anyone's position in the entire process is a fun one to be in.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm a teacher and legally a mandatory reporter regarding child abuse/neglect.

(shakes head)

I'm not sure I agree with "mandatory reporting". I don't see how any nation anywhere is "helped" by forcing one group of people to report on the activities of another group.

We already have anonymous hotlines; that a teacher can be fined or imprisoned for failure to report a bruised knee -especially in light of the terrible fallout a family may suffer over it- is a terrible idea.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm going to pipe up real quick and say: I have had positive experiences with foster care. It's NOT all gloom-n-doom.
And:

I have directed at least 500 children to call the CPS hotline, and in every case I believe calling it was in the absolute best interests of the child. Because sometime it is the ONLY sane thing to do, I'll post it here:

The Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline 1-800-4-A-CHILD (1-800-422-4453) is dedicated to the prevention of child abuse. Serving the United States, its territories, and Canada, the Hotline is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with professional crisis counselors who, through interpreters, can provide assistance in 170 languages. The Hotline offers crisis intervention, information, literature, and referrals to thousands of emergency, social service, and support resources. All calls are confidential.

If a child is being abused or neglected, I'm 100% behind reporting the abuse. However, I believe *most* calls to the agency are unwarranted, and most of their investigations are direct, 4-lane highways to hell.

I believe it should be just as illegal to make a false report to the Childhelp line as it is to file a false report to the police. That legislation alone would help lower the number of calls from people who just see a knock from CPS as a great way to vindicate a neighborly dispute over a fence or divorcing parents who want to aggravate each other.

 

[Blue Mountain]

*Most* of my comments will reflect my personal experiences, and I don't expect anyone to see them as being more than anecdotes. I'll try to include links if I can find them, but if Google "CPS abuses" you'll find more than enough to choke several forums, and trying to wade through it to find documented facts is difficult. Partly because the agency keeps itself well-hidden by citing privacy concerns.

Too true. Partly what's driving this for me is a very noticeable failure here in Manitoba: Phoenix Sinclair.

Throughout her five years, Phoenix was in the care of the child welfare system for the first few months of her life, and again, for a time, at age three. She was shuffled between the homes of Kematch, Sinclair, his sisters, and his friends Kim Edwards and Rohan Stephenson, never attending daycare, nursery school, or any community programs. When Kematch and her new partner, Wesley Mackay, moved her from Winnipeg to Fisher River and then killed her, nobody knew she was missing, except the boy who saw her die.

Meanwhile, at least 13 times throughout her life, Winnipeg Child and Family Services received notice of concerns for Phoenix’s safety and well-being from various sources, the last one coming three months before her death. Throughout, files were opened and closed, often without a social worker ever laying eyes on Phoenix.

In Phoenix's case, the girl's mother (Samantha Kematch) left Winnipeg and returned to her native Reserve because she was tired of all the interventions from CFS. Unfortunately, the man she ended up with on the reserve had very little self control and killed the little girl in a fit of rage. The only witness was a 12 year boy who kept quiet about it for months out of fear he could be the next victim.

One more word on personal accounts on the 'net: I tend to believe the parents in most cases over CPS. It's my general attitude to believe a LEO over a suspect, an elected leader over a citizen, a doctor over a patient. However, when it comes to CPS, I don't believe anything they say 'til they can show it to me cast in marble and signed by an LEO, an elected leader, and a doctor...but that's the result of their own actions toward me and my family, so they've only themselves to blame.

Indeed. There are lots of horror stories out there about inept and heavy -handed interference from CPS. I hope they're the exception and not the rule, but the lack of transparency makes it really difficult to reach conclusions. Again, one tends to hear only about the failures, not the successes. It's not news when 100,000 commercial airline flights a day take off and land safely (Source: IATA) The attention is paid the odd few that don't.

A court order is usually involved. The standard operating procedure is to remove the children, then tell a judge a few days later why they did so. The judge will usually just rubber stamp the order to keep them in foster care 'til the parents are able to complete whatever case plan the agency has put in place.

Here in Manitoba a child can be apprehended for a maximum of 48 hours before a court order is required.

Not if the "help" is only going to destroy their families. In too many cases, the cure is far worse than the disease. Not always, of course; there are enough "success stories" to warm enough hearts to keep the system in place. But there's very little ink spent on the kids who end up suffering from the "help" in ways that are far, far worse than whatever they were living with before CPS knocked on the door.

It must be difficult determining in advance if an intervention is going to go well or if it will make things worse. According to the inquiry report I referenced earlier, here in Manitoba there is a checklist for determining how urgently a child heeds help, but there doesn't seem to be one weighing the risks of intervention vs leaving things as they are. I don't know if this has even been studied in an attempt to determine these factors and quantify them.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm reading the .pdf files at your link now.

I don't know if this has even been studied in an attempt to determine these factors and quantify them.

I don't think there have been any studies here, either. If there have, I'd like to see the results if anyone has any links?

 

[DragonLady]

I'll pop in to say this right now: only when dealing with CPS do educated, erudite judges say things like this:

Phoenix’s parents, Samantha Kematch and Steve Sinclair, were teenagers. They
themselves had suffered abuse and neglect as children and had come of age as
wards of the child welfare system. Neither had much in the way of a parental role

model in their lives.

​

​

(my bold)

The very same people sending kids by the hundreds into foster care are admitting in plain English they understand those homes do not provide parental role models and that children who grow up in -and age out of- the foster care system very rarely have any idea what the word "parent" even means.

So...what, exactly is the role of "foster parenting" if not to provide parental role models? Whatever it is, a lot of people who take the job never seem to get the memo, and the people who are entrusting children to their care know it!
​

 

[DragonLady]

Unfortunately, because of
their past involvement as wards of a child welfare agency they are not

receptive to services from the agency and

​

​

More from the link Blue Mountain posted. Do the people of child welfare agencies even stop to think for one second about the implications of the things they're bandying about in their memos to each other?

Didn't the author of that passage ever stop to wonder what happened to these two young people that they hated the agency she represented before she ever even stepped through the door? What, exactly, did she expect?

"Hi, I'm representing the people who kidnapped you from your family, held you hostage for years, tossed you out when you became too old to bring in a Federal paycheck and forgot your name before the door was closed. I'm here to see your daughter."​

 

[sgtbaker]

I had an experience with CFS that was neutral. Some years ago, my son had what his school considered a "suspicious injury." I knew what happened and knew what it looked like and wasn't sure how to handle it so I sent him to school with a note regarding the incident that caused the injury and told them to call me if they had any questions. They called me and asked me to come down so I did. The woman in the office apologized to me but said it was standard procedure, they have to report it. A sheriff's deputy and a CFS agent came to my house, they interviewed me, inspected my house, saw evidence to back up my version of events, spoke to my neighbors, my children's teachers, the preschool where my youngest went, and pretty much anyone else who came in contact with my children. Some time later I received a letter that cleared me of any charges. It wasn't my favorite period in our lives but everyone was just doing their jobs. I don't blame anyone or hold any resentment because they were acting in the best interest of my son. The agent and the officer were very nice to me and took the time to talk me down when I started having anxiety about the whole situation and even offered me advice when I had questions.
That doesn't mean the whole system is perfect, I do know of situations where people fell through the cracks or periods where actions should have been taken long before they were. My personal experience was not a bad one, though.

 

[Blue Mountain]

More from the link Blue Mountain posted. Do the people of child welfare agencies even stop to think for one second about the implications of the things they're bandying about in their memos to each other?

Unfortunately, because of their past involvement as wards of a child welfare agency they are not receptive to services from the agency ...

Didn't the author of that passage ever stop to wonder what happened to these two young people that they hated the agency she represented before she ever even stepped through the door? What, exactly, did she expect?​

​

The problem there was the note wasn't addressed to anyone in particular; it was just put into the file.

"Hi, I'm representing the people who kidnapped you from your family, held you hostage for years, tossed you out when you became too old to bring in a Federal paycheck and forgot your name before the door was closed. I'm here to see your daughter."

A huge problem here is the interventions are temporary. Family has issues. Children are put into foster care until the immediate issue is resolved. Children are returned to the family, on the assumption they are best off in the care of their birth parents. But the underlying problems are not resolved. Another crisis erupts, children are removed ... lather, rinse, repeat.

I'll note studies indicate children overall are best raised by their birth parents. In 1980s Romania, for example, a quirk of social policy left a large number of children in orphanages. (The policy was to encourage people to have children, but didn't provide the funding required to raise them. As a result many were simply abandoned.) Overall the children raised in orphanages did not fare as well as children who were adopted, who in turn did not fare as well as children raised by their birth parents.

DragonLady, I'd be interested to hear your overall impression of the role Winnipeg CFS played in the life of Phoenix Sinclair. The story of her life is covered in detail in pages 115-299, contained in Volume 2 of the report.​

 

[Craig4]

I was a foster parent and I had generally good experiences with CFS. I took extreme exception to some other foster parents who were not reporting behaviors in children like fire starting and sexual boundary issues to the case worker. How most places recruit, train and monitor foster parents is as screwed up as a football bat.

New topic, the helping professions like MA level therapists and social workers and juvenile parole officers, generally get the shaft. If you look at what a cop makes versus an SW II who needs a master's makes, it's sick. After a while the ones who can get jobs in private institutions because they can't live off what they make. We really need to stop exploiting people who want to help people for a living.

 

[DragonLady]

If you look at what a cop makes versus an SW II who needs a master's makes, it's sick

I agree that better pay and benefits for social workers would be a step in the right direction, because turnover is so huge. Kids in foster care may have four or five different social workers assigned to them over a single year's time, and never get to know or start to trust any of them.

I'd also like to see them do away with the practice of shuttling kids from one home to another to another. A social worker once told me they moved us around so we "wouldn't get attached" but that seems counter-productive to me.