|
The same column was in the Herald yesterday, they have a follow up
today, the follow up says, A judge ruled yesterday that a 3 1/2 year
old boy must be returned to his natural parents.
It tells what the parents are suspected of doing to this child when
he was 6 months and younger.
The DSS is in need to some major help.
Lisa
|
| Quite right Tracy. I am not suggesting that under appropriate
circumstances that children not be removed from the home. My beef
is that I see children being removed when it is not appropriate to
remove them. The checks and balances (agencies/courts) which decide
'what is in the best interest of the child' need careful supervision,
and checks and balances themselves. Human error, indifference, poor
research and follow up all contribute to inappropriate removal.
IMO removing a child from a home is a MOST SERIOUS thing to do and
the reason for that removal should be VERY SERIOUS to have it happen.
Jeff
|
| I work with the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program as a
volunteer. As part of our training, we had a session last night with
both a judge from the Worcester (MA) juvenile court system, and with a
social worker from DSS.
.1> A judge ruled yesterday that a 3 1/2 year old boy must be returned
.1> to his natural parents.
.1> The DSS is in need to some major help.
As it was stated in the first sentence there, it was a judge, not DSS,
that made that decision. And the judge was acting under the current
laws. Judge Grace was clear last night about what the law states in
Massachusetts. At the time of the trial, it must be shown that the
parents are *currently* unfit to care for the child. Being unfit in
the past is not reason enough to remove a child from a family. She
said that she has seen lots of cases where the parents did pull it
together -- through drug/alcohol rehab programs, therapy, parenting
training, realising that the possibility of loosing their children is
real -- in time to regain custody of their children.
The problem, IMHO, is that the process is allowed to drag on for too
long sometimes. This is sometimes due to ineffectiveness in DSS, but
is largely due to the laws. The bill referenced in .0 is trying to
remedy that situation by limiting the amount of time before a case
comes to trial, and by unifying the process that currently takes place
in two different court systems.
Right now, in Massachusetts, the Care and Protection (C&P) cases are under
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, while the Termination of
Parental Rights cases are under the jurisdiction of the probate courts.
Even if DSS is able to bring the C&P case to a close quickly, the child
is not available for adoption until the termination has happened.
There is currently a 2 year (!) backup for termination cases, at least in
Worcester. During that 2 years, DSS must continue to work with the
parents, even though the child has been found to be in need of Care and
Protection, and if at any time the parents get it together and become
"fit", they can ask for and be awarded custody of the child.
.4> IMO removing a child from a home is a MOST SERIOUS thing to do and
.4> the reason for that removal should be VERY SERIOUS to have it happen.
I agree, and I believe the DSS workers do as well. Of course there are
going to be good workers and bad workers, as well as workers who just
plain make mistakes. This is why the checks and balances are so
important.
The social worker that spoke to us last night assured us that removing
the child from the home is that last thing they want to do. There are
many reasons for this, including :
It is the job of DSS to keep families together whenever possible,
and it is easier to work with a family that is still intact than one
that is split up.
There is a lack of decent foster homes in which the children can be
placed.
There is an incredible amount of paperwork that must be done in order
to place and keep children in foster care.
Foster care costs big bucks; much more than it costs to only provide
services to an intact family.
This social worker is extremely overworked, underpayed, and dedicated
to what she is doing. Besides hearing her presentation last night,
I've been working with her on one of the cases that I'm involved in
through CASA. She is a very talented woman who has an amazing ability
to work with parents without making them feel defensive or inferior.
And she lays it on line about the steps that they must take in order to
keep their family together. I'm not trying to say that DSS is all
peaches-and-cream by any means, but there are workers out there trying
to do their best for the families that need their services.
Tracy
|
| In every organization you are going to find the good, bad, and mediocre.
In the case of DSS, we need laws in place to handcuff (to a certain extent)
the bad and mediocre. Whether it is the best way or not, we need to
legislate for the least common denominator in this case.
It should NEVER be up to a social worker whether a child is removed from
a household. And ESPECIALLY not the decision of whether the removal is
permanent.
The only exception to this should be IMMEDIATE physical harm - and you
darn well better be able to prove it in a court of law with HARD FACTS.
This may seem like handcuffing too much, but the government is here to
serve and protect, not tell us what is right and wrong for us to do.
Ed..
|