Foster Careless?: Did culture wars quash a bill to protect childrenin placement?

Foster Careless
Did culture wars quash a bill to protect children in placement?

by Doron Taussig

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/20...oster-careless

child welfare
CAREGIVER: Fatima Williams now serves as her sister's guardian.



There was an alarm system in the living room of Fatima Williams' foster
home, and her foster mother wouldn't give her the code. On weekend
mornings, teenaged Fatima would sit in her room while the woman slept in
— she couldn't start her day, even visit the kitchen, for fear of
setting off the alarm. One time, she thought she heard her guardian up
and about, and headed downstairs. But she had heard wrong, and the
woman, roused from bed against her will, came storming down as if Fatima
had perpetrated some horrible crime. Fatima was standing at the sink,
drinking tap water from a glass.

"She was ****ed ," Fatima says.


Fatima had come into the foster system at 16, after showing up at school
with scars from a bloody fight with her mother. Rather than suggest
counseling, a Department of Human Services (DHS) worker asked Fatima if
she wanted to go into placement. Fatima, who says she witnessed her
mother beat her older sisters when they reached their mid-teens, said
she did. The life she found in the foster system, however, had troubles
of its own. After spending 60 days in shelters, Fatima was placed in a
foster home that was not a home, with no apparent plan for the long
term. She had no idea who, or what, was controlling her life.

There are close to 20,000 Pennsylvania children in foster homes and
institutional settings. Though many caregivers try their best, too many
kids have stories like Fatima's — children denied keys to their homes,
denied basics like eyeglasses, and worse.

Last week, while Philadelphia was discussing how to fix the
investigative piece of its child welfare system, the state House
considered a bill aimed to improve foster care. The bill is now, in the
words of its sponsor, "dead in the water." It's not clear whether the
legislation was a victim of concerns about its efficacy, or a collateral
casualty of the culture wars.

The Children in Substitute Care Act (CSCA) was to be a "bill of rights"
for children in placement — a guarantor of things like "clothing that is
clean, seasonal and age and gender appropriate," "freedom from
unreasonable searches," and, significantly, "freedom from discrimination
because of race, color, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
national origin, age or gender."

Many of the bill's provisions are already enumerated in various
regulations; the rationale for restating them, rather than seeking
better enforcement, is twofold, according to Jenny Pokempner of the
Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center (JLC). First, some of the
original laws are "more applicable to a congregate-care setting than a
family home," she says, and proponents wanted to extend basic rights to
all foster children. Second, the bill would have created a
comprehensible document to provide kids entering foster care. That way,
a child could recognize a violation and complain to her social worker
or, if need be, file a grievance in juvenile court.

"This bill would not solve all [foster care's] problems," says JLC legal
director Marsha Levick. It would not help, for instance, with the hard
question of whether many children should be there in the first place.
But it might help give foster kids the foundation that Fatima lacked.

The CSCA, which grew out of a 2001 House task force chaired by local
advocate Frank Cervone, was introduced by Rep. Phyllis Mundy of Luzerne
County. It passed through two committees, where, in response to concerns
it would lead to foster children suing their caretakers, it was amended
to clearly state that its provisions were enforceable only in juvenile
court, and not a cause for private action.

Supporters thought the bill had been thoroughly vetted. On the House
floor, however, it encountered unexpected opposition. The Catholic
Conference, the Family Institute and several legislators were concerned
about aspects of the bill — including the part about not discriminating
on the basis of sexual orientation.

Now, to be fair, the detractors articulated a broader, philosophical
objection: that the bill undermined parents' authority. Could "age and
gender appropriate" clothing mean fashionable shoes? Could "culturally
appropriate" activities be interpreted as a right to listen to rap music?

"Foster kids would say, 'Hey, you're not allowed to look at my e-mail,'"
says Rep. Kate Harper. "I don't think that's how you handle children."

Both Harper and Rep. Brad Roae introduced amendments. Roae's removed
several strictures on parents, including a line forbidding the use of
corporal punishment. Harper's replaced the section on "freedom from
discrimination" with "protection from any conduct" prohibited by
applicable law. It also changed the bill of rights into a statement of
"principles" or unenforceable suggestions.

The opponents wanted to remove extra laws from foster homes, enabling
parents to treat foster kids more like their own. But, argues Pokempner,
"They aren't their own." In many cases, their parents still have rights
to them. What's more, she wonders what foster system the opponents are
looking at.

"I wish what they say is the problem was the problem," she sighs. But
she doesn't see kids looking for ways to sue their foster parents. She
sees kids who don't get a winter coat.

In response to this, Harper says simply, "That's abuse," and already
clearly against the law. But many child welfare groups, from Liberty
Lutheran Services to Covenant House to Pennsylvania's State Foster
Parent Association (PSFPA), found existing law insufficient, and
supported the act (though PSFPA didn't mind Harper's amendment).

Mundy feels the case for the bill was so strong that she suspects her
opponents' objections were just a "cover-up" for their concern about the
sexual orientation language. That's not to say they were secretive about
that concern. In his testimony, the Catholic Conference's Francis
Viglietta wondered aloud whether, under the anti-discrimination clause,
a foster agency would be required to place a child who "thinks they are
gay" with gay parents, or if foster parents would be forbidden from
trying to dissuade the child from "pursuing a gay lifestyle." The
phrase, he said, is "not at all clear."

Asked what "discrimination because of ... sexual orientation" means,
Mundy replies that it's no different from religious discrimination: You
can't punish someone for it. She kept the language in, she says, because
"a lot of foster kids are in foster care in the first place ... because
they're gay" and their families rejected them.

After these disagreements were aired on the House floor last week,
Roae's amendment eliminating the prohibition on corporal punishment
failed. Harper's amendment making the bill a "statement of principles"
passed. In Mundy's mind, this rendered the legislation "meaningless." It
was sent to the Appropriations Committee for review, but Mundy has asked
the chair, erstwhile Philly mayoral candidate Dwight Evans, "not to do
anything with it." Evans' office says he will honor the request.

For now, the bill is dead. As for Fatima, she's 22, and acting as
guardian for her sister Phyllicia, who says she also started getting
beaten by her mother when she turned 15. Phyllicia was initially placed
with a different sister, but Phyllicia says that sister treated her like
a "modern-day Cinderella," even making her complete the foster-parent
paperwork. Reading this material helped Phyllicia realize she was being
treated inappropriately. She was able to ask to move in with Fatima
because she knew her rights.






CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.

BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...