DCFS doublespeak endangers Utah's children: Try to imagine the traumafor a young child. He's suddenly taken from everyone he knows and loves bythe state child protection agency.

DCFS doublespeak endangers Utah's children
By Richard Wexler
Article Last Updated: 09/22/2007 01:08:48 PM MDT

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6971299

Try to imagine the trauma for a young child. He's suddenly taken from
everyone he knows and loves by the state child protection agency.
Perhaps that was necessary, perhaps not; either way, for a young child
it can be an experience akin to a kidnapping.
First the child is institutionalized, his “care� in the hands of
rotating shift staff. Then the child is uprooted again to spend a couple
of weeks with total strangers.
All the while, waiting in the wings, is someone ready to comfort
this child and cushion the blow of substitute ca grandma. But grandma
is denied custody for weeks on end.
When a willing grandparent comes forward in such cases, 49 states
avoid needless delay. One state keeps the child waiting for weeks: Utah.
And now, rather than simply admit they made a huge mistake, Utah
officials have resorted to scare tactics.
At issue is the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act. This federal law
added a time-consuming extra layer of background checks for all
prospective foster parents, including relatives. States already were
required to do lots of background checking before making placements. So
the federal government said that, rather than force children to languish
for weeks in institutions, states could place children with relatives
while these extra checks are completed.
But Utah jumped the gun and changed state law to prohibit such
Advertisement

placements. We know of no other state which did that, and neither does
the Utah Division of Child and Family Services.
DCFS director Duane Betournay has admitted this was a mistake, and
said he would ask the Legislature to undo the error. But when pressed to
act immediately instead of waiting until next year, Betournay and his
boss, Executive Director of Human Services Lisa-Michele Church,
contradicted themselves and started claiming the extra checks are needed
to keep children safe.
That is not true. In fact, it is the delays that endanger children's
well-being and even their safety.
Every decision in child welfare involves balancing risks. Placing a
child with grandma before new checks are completed creates a slim chance
something might be overlooked. Sadly, that risk has been exaggerated in
the minds of some by widespread prejudice against extended families.
That bias may explain why Utah uses kinship care at one of the lowest
rates in the nation.
But research shows that kinship placements are not just more stable
and better for children's well-being, they also are, on average, safer
than what should properly be called “stranger care.� Indeed, several
studies have found alarming levels of abuse of children in foster homes
with strangers and in institutions, rates of abuse far higher than
reflected in official figures that involve agencies investigating
themselves.
Furthermore, no matter how well-meaning the staff may be and how
hard they try, institutionalization for weeks at a time can devastate
young children emotionally. And it is emotional harm that often is the
most crippling of all.
So while DCFS keeps children in limbo for weeks because of the tiny
chance a child might be harmed by grandma, hundreds of children are
definitely harmed by their needless confinement to shelters.
DCFS' response to its blunder is contradictory. Officials admit they
delay placements only because they misunderstood the law. Then they turn
around and claim they're doing it to keep children safe.
George Orwell had a term for that: doublespeak.
It's time to stop the doublespeak, put the children first and let
Utah's grandparents take care of their grandchildren as soon as they
step forward.
---
* RICHARD WEXLER is executive director of the nonprofit National
Coalition for Child Protection Reform, funded by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation
Richard
Wexler
DCFS: Wrong



CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
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.


CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...


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...