Family Preservation, Preventing Unnecessary Removal To State Custody, 2009

Family Preservation in Georgia:
A Legal and Judicial Guide to Preventing Unnecessary Removal to State Custody
Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic
Supreme Court of Georgia Committee on Justice for Children
Family Preservation in GeorGia:

A Legal and Judicial Guide to Preventing Unnecessary Removal to State Custody
lila newberry bradley, Jd
Judge Stephen E. Franzen Judge Peggy H. Walker Editors Elizabeth A. Reimels, JD Editor-in-ChiEf
barton Child law and PoliCy CliniC emory University sChool oF law
Acknowledgments This guide was made possible through the generous financial support of the Georgia Bar Foundation and the resources and contributions of the project partners: the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation, the Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic Emory University, and the Supreme Court of Georgia Committee on Justice for Children. Special thanks to the judges, lawyers, and staff of the Gwinnett County Juvenile Court without whom, the participation of Judge Stephen Franzen would not have been possible. Special thanks, as well, to the judges, lawyers, and staff of the Douglas County Juvenile Court without whom, the participation of Judge Peggy Walker would not have been possible. The author and editors are particularly grateful for the research and editorial contributions of the staff of the project partner organizations. We give special thanks to Michelle Barclay, Melanie Mendenhall, and Stephen Reba with the Committee on Justice for Children, Kathleen Dumitrescu and Lynn Goldman with the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation, and Kirsten Widner and Michele Papotto with the Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic. Thanks to Tim Hussey, Emory Laws senior director of marketing and communications, for his gracious assistance with formatting, graphics, and design. Alyssa Parsons, a student at Emory Law, and Mindy Parks, a student at Georgia State University College of Law, kindly provided editing and research support to the project. We would also like to thank Bobby Cagle, Angela Coulon, and Mary Jenkins with the Georgia Department of Human Resources for reviewing this guide for accuracy with regards to Division of Family and Children Services Policy. Finally, we are grateful for the technical assistance provided by Jennifer Renne and Mark Hardin with the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law. The genesis of this guide was the vision of Tom Rawlings, the director of the Georgia Office of the Child Advocate. Citation and Reprint Permission Lila Newberry Bradley, Family Preservation in Georgia: A Legal and Judicial Guide to Preventing Unnecessary Removal to State Custody (Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic Emory University, 2009). This guide may be reprinted in whole or in part if distributed for free and if proper citation credit is given to the Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic Emory University. Any adaptation or translation must be authorized by the Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic Emory University.
2009 Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic, Emory University School of Law, Atlanta, Georgia
Table of Contents
Introduction .....................................................................................................................4 I. The Decision to Remove Children from Their Families.......................................5 A. The Forces Involved in the Removal Decision........................................5 1. The Rights of Parents and Child to Be Together........................5 2. The Safety of the Child in the Family Home .............................6 B. The Decision Whether to Remove a Child from the Home....................8 1. DFCS Intake .................................................................................8 2. DFCS Investigation ......................................................................9 3. DFCS and the Courts Authorization ..........................................9 II. Reasonable Efforts to Preserve the Family and Prevent Removal ................ 11 A. The Efforts Called for by DFCS Policy and the Child and Family Service Plan ............................................................................................. 11 1. Basic Services ............................................................................12 2. Family Support Services ...........................................................13 3. Family Preservation Services ...................................................14 B. DFCS Policy for Family Preservation services ......................................15 1. Diversion.....................................................................................16 2. Safety Planning ..........................................................................16 3. Family Team Meeting .................................................................17
How Can Georgias Juvenile Courts Contribute to Family Preservation and the Prevention of Unnecessary removal? ............................................19 A. Court Culture ..........................................................................................20 B. Knowledge and Use of Removal data ...................................................21 C. Collaboration Among Stakeholders ......................................................21 1. Community Resources .............................................................21 2. Training ......................................................................................22 3. Information Sharing .................................................................23 4. Maximizing Federal Funding ...................................................23 5. Protocols for Reasonable efforts .............................................23 D. Court Findings of Contrary to the Welfare.............................................24 1. Judicial Authorization of Removal ..........................................24 2. 72 Hour Hearing ........................................................................25 3. The Welfare of a Child Guidance from Case Law ................26 4. The Welfare of a Child Safety Decision ................................27 E. Court Findings of DFCS Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal ......28 1. How Can the Court Determine Whether DFCS Made Reasonable Efforts? ..................................................................29 2. How Can the Courts Make Effective Use of the Reasonable Efforts Finding? .........................................................................30 Conclusion......................................................................................................................31 Appendices.....................................................................................................................32
III.
Introduction
hildren are Georgias most precious resource, and safe and stable families are childrens most precious resource. When children are safe in their family homes, they have the greatest chance to grow into healthy and successful adults. When Georgias children are abused or neglected in their homes, however, Georgias Department of Human Resources (DHR), through its Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS), must intervene into the family to protect the children. Once suspected maltreatment is reported, DFCS county workers are responsible for investigating the report; assessing the child, family, and the risk involved; and then delivering social services and financial assistance to address the risk and potentially prevent the necessity of having to remove children from their families. While DFCS often must work closely with law enforcement to investigate cases of suspected abuse or neglect, DFCS alone shoulders the burden and responsibilities of protecting children while simultaneously attempting to preserve families.
DHR and DFCs The Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) is the agency responsible for the provision of health, economic, social, and rehabilitative services to Georgia residents. The Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) is a program division of DHR. DFCS Family Services Sections administer and manage Georgias public child welfare programs, which include: Adoptions, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment (CAPTA); Child Protective Services (CPS); Foster Care; Independent Living Services,: Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF); Relative/ Kinship Care; and Treatment Services / Provider Relations. These programs are supervised at the state and regional level. DFCSs statewide service delivery system is comprised of 17 service delivery regions and 159 county departments. The acronym DFCS is used interchangeably to refer to the State Division of Family and Children Services and the County Departments of Family and Children Services.
Source: 2008 Annual Progress and Services Report.
FAmIly PREsERvATIon In GEoRGIA: A Legal and Judicial Guide to Preventing Unnecessary Removal to State Custody
It is the weighty responsibility of our juvenile courts to balance the states responsibility to protect children against the liberty interests of families to be free from unreasonable governmental interference. Georgia receives substantial federal funds to assist DFCS with its efforts to strengthen and preserve families and protect children, receipt of which is contingent, in part, upon a judicial finding in removal cases that the state made reasonable efforts to prevent removal and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the childs welfare.1 Thus, the courts must answer the critical and difficult questions of when removal is necessary to preserve health and safety and what efforts would have been reasonable to prevent removal and keep the child safe in the home. Georgias juvenile court judges and the attorneys advocating for children, parents, and DFCS in the juvenile courts often struggle with the questions of when a child is safe, what conditions are contrary to the childs welfare, and what are the reasonable efforts that could protect the child from harm. This Guide attempts to address the legal issues in family preservation and removal decisions. In order to make this Guide on family preservation truly helpful to practitioners, we have limited its scope to the prevention of the initial removal of the child from the family home with a focus on the key question of the reasonable efforts inquiry. Reunification of children with their parents after removal to foster care is an equally important component of family preservation work, but it is beyond the scope of this Guide. This Guide addresses the laws and policy that determine our states involvement in families where abuse or neglect has been reported and when DFCS is proposing to remove the child from the home. It is intended for judges and legal practitioners as a guide to the removal process in the State of Georgia.
42 U.S.C. 671-72 (2008).
In Part I, we briefly discuss the forces involved in the removal decision parents constitutional rights and the countervailing interest of child safety and provide an overview of the removal process. In Part II, we describe DFCS policy regarding the provision of services and resources to families, including specific content addressing agency investigations of abuse reports, safety planning, and social services generally available to families regardless of geographic location. Finally, in Part III, we specifically address ways that the juvenile courts and the lawyers in those courts can impact removal. I. The Decision to Remove Children from their Families The decision to remove a child from the family home involves some of the most powerful forces that a meeting of government and private life can summon. In section A of this Part, we briefly explore the shield created by the United States Constitution that surrounds parent and child, and the powerful countervailing force that allows the government to penetrate that shield. In section B, we provide a short overview of the removal process. At every point in a case of child abuse or neglect, DFCS has the legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to prevent removing the child from the home. Congress and Georgias state legislature imposed this regulatory and statutory requirement on the states child welfare agency in recognition of the need to respect parents rights and in an effort to protect children from the harm of removal. A. The Forces Involved in the Removal Decision 1.
The Rights of Parent and Child to be Together
Our courts have a legal and ethical duty to respect and protect the rights of families. In both federal and Georgia case law, the parents fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of the child is well established.2 The Georgia Court of Appeals has stated that [t]he right to the custody and control of ones child is a fiercely guarded right in our society and in our law. It is a right that should be infringed upon only under the most compelling circumstances.3 The familys right to live together without governmental interference is, in many ways, central to our countrys culture. The United States Supreme Court has referred to the fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child,4 consistently finding this liberty interest to be protected by the privacy rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment.5 The deference shown to this fundamental right is reflected in the clear and convincing evidence
See In re M.S., 178 Ga. App. 380, 381 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986) (discussing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of the child). 3 In re D.N.K., 282 Ga. App. 430, 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). 4 Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). 5 Id.; Lassiter v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 37 (1981); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978); Smith v. Org. of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 845 (1977); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 63940 (1974); Stanley v. Ill., 405 U.S. 645, 65152 (1972), Prince v. Mass., 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Pierce v. Socy of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 53534 (1925); Meyer v. Neb., 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). For an extensive discussion of constitutional law relating to parents rights and child welfare in general, see Marvin Ventrell & Donald N. Duquette, Child Welfare Law and Practice: Representing Children, Parents, and State Agencies in Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Cases 185210 (2005).
2
santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.s. 745, 753-54 (1982) A parents liberty interest does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life.
standard required when the government seeks to terminate parental rights,6 and, specifically in Georgia, by the refusal to allow grandparents the right to petition for visitation from an intact family unit.7 Although the concept of a childs corresponding right to live with her family is a much less developed concept, one can argue that the child has a right that corresponds to the rights and duties of her parentthe right to receive from her parents care, maintenance, protection, and education. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, a national leader in the implementation of federal and state child welfare laws, begins its Key Principles for Permanency Planning for Children with the acknowledgment that [a]ll children have the right to a healthy and safe childhood in a nurturing, permanent family, or in the closest substitute to a family setting.8 While the right of parents to care for their child is firmly imbedded in both the United States and Georgia Constitutions, and a childs reciprocal right to such a relationship is increasingly recognized, the safety of the child sits opposite to the parents fundamental right to raise their child in what the United States Supreme Court has referred to as the powerful countervailing interest, protection, which can legally displace a parents constitutional right.9 2. The Safety of the Child in the Family Home Clear-cut cases of abandonment or severe abuse and neglect can render the removal question a mere formalitythat is, the countervailing interest of the childs safety is clear. The majority of abuse and neglect cases in our child welfare system involve murky facts and circumstances that require intense inspection and analysis. These types of cases leave the removal decisionmaker in a very difficult position. Some family advocates argue that no child should be removed from the home unless the parent is clearly unfit to care for the child or, in other words, that the child is in danger of being harmed.10 Many also argue that the standard for removal of a child is unclear and that it leaves too much room for abuse, misuse, or inconsistent application.11 The debate over when the state should intervene in a family to protect a child from harm is illustrated by the rulings of the Federal Courts of Appeal that have addressed the constitutionality of states emergency removal
Blackburn v. Blackburn, 249 Ga. 689, 692-93 (Ga. 1982). Brooks v. Patterson, 265 Ga. 189, 194 (Ga. 1995). 8 Natl Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, NCJFCJ Key Principles, Key Principles of Permanency Planning for Children, available at http://www.mncourts.gov/documents/0/ Public/Childrens_Justice_Initiative/Ch_05_-Key_Permanency_Planning_Principles.pdf. 9 M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 118 (1996) (quoting Lassiter v. Dept of Soc. Servs. of Durham County, 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1982). 10 Martin Guggenheim, Whats Wrong with Childrens Rights 36 (Harvard University Press, 2005) (Describing the limited role of government in the oversight of families. As dictated by our constitutional framework, parents must provide their children with a minimum degree of care, and only when they fall below this [low] standard and are found to be unfit in court proceedings charging them with abuse or neglect, parental childrearing decisions are virtually immune from state oversight.); Id. at 48 (discussing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)). 11 Justine A. Dunlap, Book Review: A Review of Whats Wrong with Childrens Rights: Still a Slogan in Search of a Definition, 11 U.C. Davis J. of Juv. Law & Poly 181, 190 (2007) ([T]he Supreme Court has never held that parents must be found to be unfit prior to state intervention or, even more significantly, the permanent termination of parental rights.); Donald N. Duquette, Protecting Our ChildrenAnd Our Liberty: Striking the Balance in Child Protection Removals (on file with author)(pointing out that over-response to child maltreatment not only erodes personal liberty but also causes additional harm to the children we are trying to protect).
6 7
statutes.12 The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed a balancing test in Doe v. Kearney. In order to properly define the interests at stake and weigh their relative importance, courts should be allowed to consider all relevant circumstances, including the states reasonableness in responding to a perceived danger as well as the objective nature, likelihood, and immediacy of danger to the child. Having considered all relevant factors, courts may then decide whether an imminent danger justified the states removal of a child without prior judicial authorization.13 When assessing all the relevant factors contributing to the risk of harm to a child from abuse or neglect, the age, cognitive development, and physical abilities of the child all must be taken into account. Medical research tells us that abuse and neglect during a childs early years lead to physical, cognitive, emotional, and social difficulties. Recent major research has demonstrated that stressful or traumatic childhood experienceswhat the researchers termed adverse childhood experiencesdisrupt neurodevelopment and can have lasting effects on brain structure and function.14 The research reveals a strong correlation between the cumulative effect of adverse childhood experiences and persistent problems in school, impulsivity, difficulties with peers, and emotional swings. Furthermore, children who have suffered the harm of early maltreatment are at risk for growing into adults who inflict maltreatment on their own children, thus sustaining the cycle of child abuse and neglect.
It must be acknowledged, however, that separation from a primary caretaker is also traumatic to a child, particularly very young children, and that removal from the home will become one of those adverse childhood experiences that will likely affect the childs brain development. Immediately upon removal, children often begin to exhibit fear, confusion, shock, anger, depression, anxiety, and guilt. In other cases, the symptoms are not immediately apparent and come out sometime after the child enters foster care. In either case, these emotional effects often manifest themselves behaviorally, including tantrums, bed-wetting, stealing, hoarding, nightmares, refusal to eat, and sleeplessness. Many children who are removed blame themselves
See generally Gates v. Texas Dept. of Protective Servs., 537 F.3d 404, 42829 (5thCir. 2008) (surveying the appellate decisions). The more rigid circuits focus the inquiry solely on whether a court orderor warrant if using a Fourth Amendment frameworkcould be issued. Using that framework, the daytime emergency-removal of a child who is allegedly sexually molested at night, and also the nighttime emergency-removal of a child who is allegedly locked-up during the day were found unconstitutional. Mabe v. San Bernardino County Dept of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2001). Other circuits use a more fluid framework, with a focus on the facts of each specific case. Gates, 537 F.3d at 430; Doe v. Kearney, 329 F.3d 1286, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003). Using this approach, the Eleventh Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have constructed a balancing test, weighing the forces involved parents rights and safety of the child. Gates, 537 F.3d at 430; Doe., 329 F.3d at 1295. 13 Doe , 329 F.3d at 1295. 14 Robert Anda, The Health and Social Impact of Growing Up with Adverse Childhood Experiences, The Human and Economic Costs of the Status Quo, available at http://www. aapweb.com/files/ReviewofACEStudywithreferencessummarytable.pdf ; see also Jordan Greenbaum, The Long and Short of Child Neglect, in If it Were Easy, Anybody Could do it: The Specialized Practice of Juvenile and Family Law, Childrens Law Manual Series 53 (Natl Assn of Council for Children, 2008).
12
for what has happened, feeling they caused DFCS to become involved in the familys life. 15 Accordingly, we must be constantly vigilant to ensure that children are removed from their families only when no reasonable combination of supports or services can assure a childs safety in the home. Notwithstanding, a failure to remove when the child is faced with harm in the home can have devastating consequences.
B. The Decision Whether to Remove a Child from the Home The initial assessment of a childs safety and the risk of further maltreatment falls on DFCS. Like any governmental agency faced with such a serious charge, DFCS has extensive policy detailing exactly how the decision should be handled. Appendices A and B contain DFCS risk assessment and safety assessment tools, which provide a more exhaustive description of DFCS child protective services policy and procedures. At the heart of DFCS removal policy is the mantra that [t]he removal of a child from [his/her] home represents the most extreme alternative the county department can take to assure a child is protected.16 The DFCS procedures that surround this core removal principal demonstrate the critical nature of the assessments and evaluations that DFCS must make. DFCS, however, is not the ultimate decision maker on child removal. After DFCS determines that removal is necessary, it must obtain court authorization and approval of its removal decision.
DFCs Regularly Accepts for Investigation:
DFCS begins to make reasonable efforts to preserve the family and prevent the need to remove the child from the home as soon as it receives the first report of suspected maltreatment of a child. In this sections discussion of the intake and investigation phase of a child welfare case, however, we do not address DFCS reasonable efforts obligation in depth. Part II describes the efforts that DFCS can and should make to preserve the family during the early stages of a case, as well as, during the ongoing family preservation stage of the case. 1. DFCS Intake
DFCS intake staff receives and assesses reports of child abuse and neglect, usually by phone or fax from any number of different sources. The intake staff makes the initial recommendation of whether to screen out the report or to refer the case for an investigation, and what response time to assign for the investigation. DFCS policy requires county offices to err on the side of caution when determining whether to assign a case for investigation.17 Prior history of involvement with DFCS child protective services, including previous reports involving the same family, is always a major factor for
Ventrell & Duquette, supra note 5, at 74. Ga. Dept of Human Res., Social Servs. Manual, Chapter 1000, 1009 (December 2007), available at http://www.childwelfare.net/DHR/policies/odis_fc_index.html [hereinafter DFCS Manual]. The DFCS Manual is a fluid document, as transmittals are issued by the state office as needed. Thus, the online DFCS Manual has various effective dates depending upon when the individual policy was issued. The author and editors took great care to ensure that the policies referenced in this Guide were the most current available as of December 31, 2008. 17 DFCS Manual, supra note 16 at 2103.18 (February 2008).
15 16
Allegations of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect; A child refusing to return home; A caretaker with significant physical, intellectual, or emotional instability; A parent who has caused the death of one child through maltreatment; Parents with a significant history of drug or alcohol addiction that renders them unable to care for their child; Parents who refuse to provide medical treatment for a serious illness or disability; A newborn of a parent who already has a child currently in foster care.
Source: DFCS Manual at 2103.16
DFCS intake staff in determining whether to investigate a case and how quickly that investigation will occur. 2. DFCS Investigation DFCS investigative staff determines whether the report of maltreatment is substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence based on interviews, observations, reports, and criminal and child protective service histories.18 During the course of the investigation, DFCS identifies any safety factors that would preclude the child from being maintained in the home, assesses whether the child is likely to be in immediate danger of serious physical harm, seeks to determine the childs immediate and future risk of further maltreatment, and decides what protective interventions are necessary. Policy requires investigators to maintain constant awareness of a childs safety and any changes within the home that may affect safety.19 Investigators use a tool called the Safety Assessment (available in Appendix B) to help identify safety concerns and to determine if any available resources exist that would allow the child to remain safely in the home.20 Investigators use a Risk Assessment Scale (available in Appendix A) to assess the risk of future maltreatment and to identify families who may benefit from services.21 DFCS recognizes that it is critical that case managers be capable of analyzing the information they gain in the risk assessment and be able to match families with services.22 DFCS has recently placed a new emphasis on the importance of conferences between the supervisor and the case manager, and supervisors must evaluate whether the case manager has accurately assessed child safety and the risk factors for each case.23 DFCS staff may determine that removal from the home is necessary at any point during its involvement with a family. DFCS may seek to remove a child from the home based on intake information in particularly dangerous cases or based on information gathered during an investigation that indicates that a child is in danger. DFCS may also seek removal at a later point in an on-going case, after reasonable efforts to address a neglect or abuse situation fail and the child remains at risk for maltreatment. DFCS policy requires that a caseworker seek removal from the home only as the last option to maintain the childs safety.24 3. DFCS and the Courts Authorization If DFCS concludes that it must remove a child from the home, the case manager must provide sworn testimony to the juvenile court regarding the need for removal of the child and request the court to order the childs
Id. at 2104.1 (October 1999), 2104.23 (October 2003). Id. 20 Id. at 2104.17 (October 2003). 21 Id. at 2104.27 (October 1999). These assessments and others are also available on Georgia SHINES. 22 Ga Dept of Human Res., Div. of Family and Children Servs., Annual Progress and Services Report FFY 2008, 19 (2008) (on file with author) [hereinafter APSR 2008]. 23 Id. 24 DFCS Manual, supra note 16, at 2102.1 (March 2006).
18 19
The Crime of Child Abuse The state does not remove children from parents as punishment for a parents wrong doing or criminal behavior. The fact that there is, or is not, a criminal investigation does not determine whether children should be removed from the home. Instead, the removal inquiry is focused on the safety and well being of the child. Nonetheless, the system and the courts do not operate in an evidentiary vacuum and relevant evidence of criminal activity and any fruits of a criminal investigation must be presented to and appropriately considered by the court in its deliberations.
Contrary to the Welfare Finding The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 provides that if the contrary to the welfare finding is not in the first court ruling that sanctions (even temporarily) the removal of the child from the home, the child is not eligible for Title IV-E foster care payments for the duration of that stay in foster care. The omission cannot be remedied. No federal statute or regulation addresses the factors that a court should consider when making the determination of whether remaining in the home would be contrary to the childs welfare.
Source: 42 U.S.C. 672-75 (2008).
detention or shelter care.25 In some courts in Georgia, the judge hears the testimony and gives the approval to take the child into care, and other courts designate a court officer to hear the testimony and make the determination. The court may grant a Shelter Care Ordersometimes referred to as an Ex Parte Order, Authorization, Emergency Order, or Pickup Orderauthorizing the caseworker to actually remove the child from the parent/legal custodians home. If a caseworker feels that the removal of the child will result in a hostile situation, he or she may contact law enforcement to assist with the removal. Some DFCS county offices have a practice of always requesting police assistance in removing a child, and other counties request police assistance only when there is some indication that a situation may place the child or caseworker in danger. If the life of a child is in immediate danger because of maltreatment and there is no time to get court approval for the removal of a child, law enforcement may remove the child immediately. A law enforcement officer may take a child into custody without a court order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is suffering from illness or injury or is in immediate danger from his or her surroundings and that his or her removal is necessary.26 After law enforcement removes a child due to immediate danger of maltreatment, a shelter care order must be obtained before DFCS can take placement responsibility. A licensed physician who is treating a child may also take protective custody of a child without a court order, but the physician must then promptly contact DFCS and the juvenile court.27 If the juvenile court orders that a child be removed from the home or that the child not be returned to the home after an emergency removal, Georgia law requires that the courts order be based on a finding by that court that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child.28 After a hearing on the evidence, the juvenile court must make the determination of whether the child is a deprived child,29 which Georgias Juvenile Code defines as one who is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for the childs physical, mental, or emotional health or morals . . . .30 Part III discusses in more depth what the court should consider in making the determination of whether the child is deprived under Georgia law and whether the evidence demonstrates that it is contrary to the childs welfare to return home. Finally, when the court gives custody to DFCS, the court must consider and determine as a finding of fact whether DFCS and any other appropriate agencies made reasonable efforts to preserve the family, prevent the need to remove the child from the home, and to return the child home safely, except in certain circumstances delineated by law.31 It is the requirement of reasonable efforts to prevent removal that is central to this Guide and the focus of Parts II and III.
10
O.C.G.A. 15-11-46(4) (2008); O.C.G.A. 15-11-48(f) (2008). O.C.G.A. 15-11-45(a)(4) (2008). 27 O.C.G.A. 15-11-15 (2008). 28 O.C.G.A. 15-11-58(a) (2008). 29 O.C.G.A. 15-11-54(a) (2008). 30 O.C.G.A. 15-11-2(8)(A) (2008). 31 O.C.G.A. 15-11-58(a) (2008).
25 26
Georgias Child and Family service Plan
II. Reasonable Efforts to Preserve the Family and Prevent Removal As we have set forth in the previous Part, the laws requirement that the state make reasonable efforts to preserve the family and prevent unnecessary removal of children to foster care has at least two significant goals. First, the state will not subject a child and family to the potential harm of removal from the home unless it is necessary. Second, the state will not unreasonably interfere in the legally protected parent and child relationship. To address the question in a deprivation case of whether the state agency made reasonable efforts to prevent the need to remove a child from his or her home as required by law, the judge and the lawyers for the parties have to understand how DFCS policy directs family preservation efforts. Further, the judges and lawyers in our juvenile courts should know what DFCS comprehensive state plan for child welfare services, known as the Child and Family Service Plan (CFSP), provides for in the areas of child abuse and neglect prevention, family support, and family preservation. Finally, the judges and lawyers working with deprivation cases in our juvenile courts should seek to educate themselves on the best practices for the child welfare community at large. With a knowledge of child welfare best practices, a grasp of DFCS policy and standard procedure, and with knowledge of what DFCS did in the case before the court, the lawyers can present the necessary evidence and make credible arguments, and the court can make a fair determination of whether DFCS made reasonable efforts to preserve the family and prevent the need to remove the child from the home. The court should take into consideration what services and efforts could protect a child at risk in the home. The court must know whether Georgias CFSP states that certain services are available in Georgia, whether those services indeed are available in the county in question, and whether DFCS provides the services in a timely and effective manner. A. The Efforts Called for by DFCs Policy and the Child and Family service Plan Georgias 2005-2009 Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP), along with the Annual Progress and Services Reports (APSR) filed with the federal government each year, describe the services DFCS provides to protect children and preserve families in Georgia.32 Georgias CFSP begins with the vision that: Every child will be secure from abuse and neglect and will become a literate, productive, economically self-sustaining citizen within a nurturing, caring, permanent home environment. This will be achieved through the development and enhancement of a coordinated and integrated children
32
Beginning in the mid 1970s, Congress adopted a series of laws related to child welfare and made substantial federal funds available to the states for the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect. One of the eligibility requirements of the various federal acts and funding programs is that states must develop a comprehensive state plan for child welfare services. The plan must describe the services and activities that the state funds with dollars from each federal program and must further describe how the services will achieve the purpose of protecting children and preserving families. Georgias Child and Family Service Plan (CFSP) was last revised and submitted in 2004 and covered years 2005-2009. DFCS is currently beginning the process of revising the CFSP for submission in 2010. On June 30 of each year, DFCS files an Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR), which provides information on DFCS implementation of the CFSP and any revisions DFCS has made to the policies and procedures described in the CFSP . The federal government monitors state compliance with the CFSP through a process known as the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR). In response to CFSR findings that Georgia was not in substantial conformity with the outcome measures in its CFSP related to safety, permanency, and child and family well-being, Georgia has developed program improvement plans (PIP), the most recent of which was approved in October 2008. Lawyers and judges who work in child welfare should be familiar with Georgias CFSP as updated by the APSR. DFCS has launched a website to provide the public with information on the CFSR and the PIP at http://www.gacfsrpip. , org/, and DFCS invites the public to use the website to monitor its progress in improving outcomes for Georgias children and families.
Sources: Childrens Bureau Child and Family Services Reviews Fact Sheet; GeorGia CFSP; APSR 2008.
11
CFSP is required to include the geographic areas where services will be available and the estimated numbers of the families and individuals to be serviced. 45 C.F.R. 1357.15(K)(2) (2008). It is expected to cover services funded under Title IV-B subparts 1 and 2, CAPTA, and the independent living program under 42 U.S.C. 677, and, it must discuss coordination with a range of other types of services and services providers. 45 C.F.R. 1357.15(l)(3)(viii) (2008).
and family services system which emphasizes collaborative approaches, early identification of issues and delivery of prevention and early intervention services which build on the strengths of families.33 Following is a description of the categories of services that DFCS uses to preserve families and prevent the need to remove a child from the home. These services are broadly defined by DFCS policy as Family Preservation Programs34 and include Early Intervention / Prevention Services, Parent Aide Services, Prevention of Unnecessary Placement Services, Homestead Services, and Diversion Services.35 The available services represent a continuum of care and each service has different strengths relative to the progression of the case.36 One way to distinguish the various types of services available to families involved in the child protection system generally is to categorize the services according to this continuum as we have done below beginning with basic services, followed by family support services, and finally intensive family preservation services.37 Keep in mind that despite the subheadings, all of these programs and services regardless of the category are tools that are available to child protection and family preservation workers to prevent the unnecessary removal of children from the home. 1. Basic Services
Basic services, or concrete services, as they are also called, include housing, income support, childcare, and healthcare. Basic services generally address the deficiencies of the poor in our communities. Poverty and unemployment have strong associations with child maltreatment, especially neglect, and the data supports a conclusion that poverty substantially increases a childs likelihood of suffering harm from abuse or neglect.38 Georgia provides basic services to many families living in poverty through the Food Stamps program, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (TANF), and the Childcare and Parent Services (CAPS) program, which is a subsidized child care program. DFCS administers these service programs. Families should have access to basic services, sometimes based on financial
Ga. Dept of Human Res., Div. of Family and Children Servs., Georgia Child and Family Service Plan Federal Fiscal Years 2005-2009, at 12, available at http://www. gacfsrpip.org/docs/GAchildAndFamilyServicePlan_2005_ 09.pdf [hereinafter Georgia CFSP]. 34 DFCS Manual supra note 16 at 2107 (September 2000). 35 APSR 2008, supra note 22, at 14; DFCS Manual, supra note 16 at 2107 (September 2000); 36 DFCS Manual, supra note 16 at 2107 (September 2000). 37 Jaquelyn McCroskey & William Meezan, Family-Centered Services: Approaches and Effectiveness, 8 The Future of Children 54, 5455 (Spring 1998), available at http://www. futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol8no1ART4.pdf . 38 Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, Dept. of Health and Human Servs., A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation for Practice (2003), available at http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundation. cfm. It is interesting to note, however, that the federal Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) does not report the poverty status at the point of child removal of the families of origin of the children in foster care, nor does it keep data on homelessness of the families. See Leroy H. Pelton, Informing Child Welfare: The Promise and Limits of Empirical Research, in Child Welfare Research, Advances for Practice and Policy 25, 26 (Duncan Lindsey & Aron Schlonsky, eds., Oxford University Press 2008).
33
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Food Stamps Childcare and Parent Services (CAPS)
12
qualifications, at all points during the course of their involvement with DFCS child welfare service units. In addition, DFCS can provide limited economic support, in addition to TANF and Food Stamps, in cases where DFCS has determined that child maltreatment has occurred and DFCS is providing family preservation services, under a policy referred to as Prevention of Unnecessary Placement or PUP. PUP funds can be used for emergency housing and financial assistance, temporary childcare, counseling, drug screens, substance abuse assessment, medical/dental services, psychological evaluation, and transportation services.39 2. Family Support Services The term family support services generally refers to services intended for families struggling with the normal stresses of parenting. Programs providing family support services may have a broad or narrow focus. For instance, some programs provide a wide array of services to all families in a community; whereas other programs work only with families or individuals who are experiencing similar challenges, such as infant health, family literacy, teen parenting, or children with special needs. Because family support programs are community based, they should be able to respond to changing or emerging needs of families in the community.40 The expectation is that families who receive adequate family support services will have fewer instances of child maltreatment. In Georgia, family support services may be available through DFCS county offices or private community and faithbased agencies.
Georgias Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program, established under the federal PSSF provisions of Title IV-B, Subpart 2, provides funds to county DFCS offices and a network of community-based non-profit organizations, faith-based organizations, and collaborative partnerships for family support services.41 Georgias PSSF program maintains a website as part of its effort to promote easy access to family support programs and services in communities across the state of Georgia.42 Georgia PSSFs website
13
Georgia CFSP supra note 33, at 8; DFCS Manual supra note 16 at 2107.15 (October 1999); DFCS Manual supra note 16 at 2107.20 (August 2006). But see Vermilyea v. Dept of Human Res., 155 Ga. App. 746, 750 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980) (occurrence of unfortunate circumstances does not create carte blanche for ignoring proper care of dependent children). Unfortunately, there is little research to determine whether providing concrete basic services to parents reduces removals to foster care. Pelton, supra note 38, at 2627. 40 The field of family support has developed over the past two decades, and it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the programs delivering family support services. Evaluations of some family support programs has suggested that such programs were producing modest benefit, at best, and had inconsistent effects on childrens development and family functioning. McCroskey & Meezan, supra note 37, at 60. 41 Georgias Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Program, About Us, http://www. pssfnet.com/ content /page.cfm/61/about_us (last visited Dec. 7, 2008). DHR has designated Public Health as the lead prevention agency, and PSSF Family Support Funding has been identified for transfer from DFCS to Public Health effective State Fiscal Year July 2008. APSR 2008, supra note 22, at 54. 42 Georgias PSSF Program, Resource Guide, http://www.pssfnet.com/resourceguide/ (last visited Dec. 7, 2008).
39
states that family support services offered through its network include:43 Prevention and early intervention services Parent education classes Connecting families to community resources School outreach and life-skills training Treatment and recovery support44
As part of an ongoing case, DFCS may also refer the family to Early Intervention Services, which focus on children at the vulnerable ages of birth to three years old. There are several early intervention programs in Georgia, but referral to the Babies Cant Wait program is mandatory for all cases involving a child under three who is involved in a substantiated case of child abuse or neglect.45 Babies Cant Wait is charged with identifying and providing services to children with disabilities who are eligible for services under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The program can provide in-home visits and can help connect the family with community resources to meet some of their needs.46 3. Family Preservation Services The term family preservation services describes intensive services that are designed to help families in crisis or who are at serious risk for child removal.47 When child welfare professionals speak of putting services into the home, they generally are referring to services that fall into the category of family preservation services. The major goal of family preservation services is to prevent removal of a child from the home or to quickly reunify families whose children have been removed and placed into out-of-home care.48 Ideally, family preservation programs encourage the family to build on its existing strengths and skills in order to enhance the familys support system. Services may include family therapy, individual psychotherapy or behavioral therapy, and crisis intervention. Family preservation services are usually delivered in the familys home and attempt to include all family members.49 DFCS provides family preservation services after a threat to the childs safety has been identified, primarily through its recently enhanced child protective services program (formerly called CPS ongoing), which it appropriately calls Family Preservation Services or FPS.50 In 2007, DFCS began implementing a family centered practice that combines early intervention, family team meetings, and building community support for each family. DFCS believes that its new family-centered model will enable it to develop a more positive
Georgias PSSF Program, About Family Support, http://www.pssfnet.com/content/page. cfm/62/about_ family_support (last visited Dec. 7, 2008). 44 Id. 45 42 U.S.C. 5106(2)(A)(xxi) (2008). 46 APSR 2008, supra note 22, at 1213. 47 McCroskey & Meezan, supra note 37, at 62. 48 APSR 2008, supra note 22, at 14. 49 McCroskey & Meezan, supra note 37, at 62. 50 APSR 2008, supra note 22, at 14. DFCS also uses PSSF funds for family preservation services. Georgias PSSF Program, About Family Preservation, http://www.pssfnet.com/content/ page.cfm/63 /about_family_preservation (last visited Dec. 7, 2008).
43
Early Intervention services Children 1st and Babies Cant Wait Georgia provides early intervention services through the Division of Public Healths Babies Cant Wait (BCW) Program. Children 1st is the single point of entry to BCW and other prevention based programs and services for families. Children 1st screens all referrals, and offers an in home family assessment through BCW when the screening indicates that a child may be at risk for poor health or development. BCW can arrange for services to address childrens disabilities, which may include training and counseling for family members, health services, nutrition services, a variety of therapies, and other services to address the childs needs. http:// health.state.ga.us/programs/ childrenfirst/.
14
working relationship with families as it strives to engage families earlier and build strong community relationships.51 The services that DFCS provides through FPS are Parent Aide, Homestead, and PUP Services. 52 Parent Aide Services use paraprofessional staff to provide parenting education, training, and support to families through inhome visits and providing referrals to community services.53 Parent Aides can also assist with obtaining emergency respite care, food and nutrition education, homemaking and budgeting, and assistance in accessing community resources.54 Homestead Services provide short term, intensive, crisis-oriented, in-home counseling to help stabilize a family in crisis which needs intensive therapeutic intervention.55 This service is the most intensive Family Preservation program.56 DFCS uses private providers to deliver Parent Aide Services and Homestead Services.57 To be effective, family preservation services should be staffintensive. Workers providing intensive family preservation should carry caseloads of only two to six families at a time, the workers should see the families from 4 to 20 hours per week, and the family should be able to reach the worker 24 hours a day.58 Intensive family preservation programs are typically time-limited, usually lasting between 4 and 12 weeks.59 As discussed above, PUP funds can be used to provide intensive family preservation services to the extent that they are used to provide treatment services such as drug screens, substance abuse assessments, medical/dental services, psychological evaluations, and counseling.60 B. DFCs Policy for Family Preservation services Within the DFCS county unit, the Child Protective Services (CPS) program or unit handles the intake of reports of suspected child abuse or neglect, the investigation of the report, and the provision of family preservation services,61 which used to be referred to as CPS ongoing. The FPS unit handles referrals, and other agency functions related to the child and her family, up
See Leadership Letter from Isabel Blanco, Deputy Dir. of Field Operations, Ga. Div. of Family and Children Servs., available at http://www.gacfsrpip.org (last visited Dec. 7, 2008) (expressing excitement about the development of the Family-Centered Practice Model). 52 APSR 2008, supra note 22, at 14; DFCS Manual, supra note 16 at 2107 (September 2000). 53 DFCS Manual, supra note 16, at 2107 (September 2000); See generally DFCS Manual, supra note 16 at 2107.8 2107.9 (March 2006). 54 Id. 55 DFCS Manual, supra note 1616 at 2017 (September 2000); 2107.26 (October 1999). 56 Id. 57 DFCS Manual, supra note 16 at 2107 (September 2000). 58 McCroskey & Meezan, supra note 37, at 62. 59 Id. at 63. As with family support services, however, research has not been able to confirm the effectiveness of any particular component or method of available programs. See Pelton, supra note 38, at 30. 60 Georgia CFSP supra note 33, at 8; DFCS Manual supra note 16 at 2107.15 (October 1999); Id. at 2107.20 (August 2006). 61 APSR 2008, supra, note 22, at 12. Although DFCS has begun calling the CPS ongoing unit Family Preservation Services, the DFCS Manual has not yet been revised to reflect the new terminology, and so still refers to CPS ongoing. E.g. DFCS Manual at 2105.1 (October 1999).
51
Parent Aide Services Homestead Services PUP Services
15
to the point when the child is deemed to be safe and not in need of further agency involvement or the point when the child is removed from the family and placed into foster care or relative care.62 A key to understanding DFCS policy is the Social Services Manuals description of case management. The manual states that case management, which includes everything the case manager does or uses to meet case plan goals and to help achieve change, includes direct services provided by the case manager along with services that the case manager arranges to be provided by others.63 The manual goes on to stress that good case management is comprised of good social work judgment and decision making strategies, and care, logic, common sense, and reasonableness.64 DFCS policy emphasizes that because individual families have unique needs, the department is not limited by the usual available practices or services. Instead, the determination of reasonable efforts in any individual case depends on whether DFCS offered and provided the services most likely to remedy a particular familys problem.65 1. Diversion
DFCS has developed a practice of differential response, which it calls Diversion or Family Support, as part of its statewide efforts to ensure child safety and family stability for those families whose primary risk derives from a lack of basic requirements such as food, housing, or healthcare.66 Diversion is a strategy for addressing family needs when the safety of the children is not in question. When DFCS intake receives a report that does not immediately meet the criteria for maltreatment, but the family appears to need the basic services or family support services described above, DFCS diversion workers initiate contact with the family, assess the safety and risk, identify family needs, and refer the family to DFCS economic support programs or other community-based programs. Since the primary goals of diversion response are to identify and address family issues and problems before FPS involvement is required, DFCS believes that through improved screening, assessment, and service coordination families needing targeted support in order to meet the challenges of parenthood are identified early and linked to supportive services.67 2. Safety Planning If, during the course of an investigation, DFCS has concerns that a child might not be safe, it will develop a safety plan in collaboration with the family. The safety plan identifies each safety concern and outlines the steps that must be taken to ensure a childs safety.68 DFCS policy suggests that the reasonable efforts available to address safety concerns may include:
APRS 2008, supra note 22, at 13. DFCS Manual, supra note 16, at 2105.1 (October 1999). 64 Id. 65 Id. at 2102.3 (March 2006). 66 APSR 2008, supra note 22, at 13. Reports to DFCS that do not rise to the level of child maltreatment may be diverted for targeted support and linkage to community family support services and basic services to meet identified needs. Id. 67 APSR 2008, supra note 22, at 13. 68 DFCS Manual, supra note 16, at 2104.17 (October 1999); Form 455B, available at http://dfcs.dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site/DHR-DFCS/ (follow sitemap hyperlink; then follow forms on line hyperlink; then follow All DFCS Forms hyperlink; then follow CPS 455B hyperlink).
62 63
16
Use of family resources, neighbors or individuals in the community as safety resources; Use of community agencies or services as safety resources; Having the alleged perpetrator leave the home; Having the non-maltreating caregiver move to a safe environment with the child; and Having the caregiver place the child outside the home.69
safety Plans Most judges and lawyers in the juvenile courts have observed cases in which out of home safety plans have been misused. Such cases include those when parents have felt that they had no option other than to place their children out of the home, cases when children were placed into homes that were no safer than the home that they left, or cases when the children were left in an out of home placement indefinitely. Courts may want to consider developing a protocol with their local county DFCS staff regarding court involvement with safety plans that include out of home placement of the child.
DFCS policy requires that there be a safety plan in place by the completion of the investigation on all substantiated reports of abuse and neglect as well as unsubstantiated cases that will remain open for court-ordered supervision.70 Proper utilization of safety plans and safety resources can help DFCS prevent the need to place a child into foster care. As noted above, part of the safety plan may include the family agreeing to place a child temporarily with a relative or family friend as a safety resource. DFCS must respect the familys right to make its own decisions about using a family member as a placement resource to avoid foster care, but it cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that most families faced with a DFCS investigation will feel pressured to place their children out of the home in order to avoid the potential of removal. DFCS policy makes clear that out of home placement of children with the safety resource is never intended to become a permanent placement, nor is it a substitution for necessary court action.71 If a case is not closed out after investigation but the child was not removed from the home, the case can be transferred to FPS to monitor and assist with the safety plan. FPS will provide the family with case management services while the child remains in the home. 3. Family Team Meetings and Family Plan As discussed above, after an investigation has resulted in a substantiated instance of child maltreatment and DFCS determines that the risk to the child requires continuing DFCS involvement, the case moves to the FPS unit. In recognition of a familys right to be free from unreasonable governmental intervention,72 and with the knowledge that families respond best to the least invasive strategy, DFCS works to limit FPS services to those that are necessary to protect children. The overall goal of FPS is to provide more intensive services to families, while involving community partners and extended families.73 One of the most important elements of DFCS efforts in an FPS case is the family team meeting (FTM). Over the course of an FPS case, there should be
DFCS Manual, supra note 16 at 2102.3 (March 2006) (bullets added). Id. at 2104.18 (October 2003). 71 See generally DFCS Manual, supra note 16, at 2102.3 (March 2006).3; Id. at 2104.18 (October 2003)(stating that the safety plan is not the case plan and that the safety plan should be individualized and should be revisited as circumstances in the case change). 72 DFCS Manual, supra note 1616 at 2102.3 (March 2006). 73 APSR 2008, supra note 22, at 14.
69 70
Family Team meetings The family team meeting (FTM) can be a useful tool for engaging families in the change process. It can be a productive process for creating a team of supports for the family, effectively assessing and using family strengths and crafting plans that families embrace and follow. The FTM also provides a forum to periodically evaluate child and family progress, modify steps and services that are not effective, and address reemergent concerns. The FTM can empower and acknowledge family members while simultaneously using untapped resources within the family unit to assure the childs safety and wellbeing. The FTM should be effective in securing the familys investment in the plan for improving the coordination of services.
Source: Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, Div. of Family & Children Serv., Foster Care Unit, Georgia Family Conferencing Handbook, (September 1999).
17
a series of FTMs involving everyone who is a support for the family. The participants in the FTM develop a written family plan that is based not only on the family but their formal and informal support systems as well. The family plan may call for basic services through DFCS such as TANF and Food Stamps, or DFCS may find it necessary and appropriate to provide limited concrete services with PUP funds, which can be used for emergency housing and financial assistance, temporary child care, counseling, drug screens, substance abuse assessment, medical/dental services, psychological evaluation, and transportation services.74 In other cases the family plan may call for family support services available in the community.75 The family plan may include the provision of family preservation services, such as the Parent Aide and Homestead services described above. DFCS purchases Parent Aide and Homestead services through community-based organizations, vendors, and service providers, who may also be wraparound providers.76 The family plan guides the progress of the FPS case, including a detail of how many monthly contacts the case manager will have and with whom. Once the goals for the family are accomplished, there should be a final FTM to make sure the appropriate supports are in place so that the family will continue to be a safe and stable home for the children without further involvement from FPS.77 DFCS policy states that the goal of family preservation is to ensure the protection and safety of children, and the policy urges the investment of at least, as much time, energy and resources into preserving and strengthening a childs natural family as it would spend in providing out-of-home care for that child.78 DFCSs family preservation services are intended to promote a familys self-sufficiency and independence, but the policy cautions that the childs right to protection and safety [always] outweighs parents right to the child.79 Unfortunately, there is no single service or program that can address the complex needs of a family that is not safely caring for its children. DFCS ability to address the needs of families in crisis is often hampered by the lack of adequate resources and services in the community, such as employment, health care, mental health care, education, childcare, and housing.80 Nevertheless, it is the courts responsibility, even in the face of limited resources, to assess whether DFCS has made reasonable efforts to address the needs of those families to prevent the removal of the child from the home.
Copies of the Documents Lawyers representing children or parents in deprivation cases should obtain copies of all previous safety plans, family plans, and reports from family team meetings. The family should have copies of these important documents, but if not, the attorney should ask the court at the first opportunity to order DFCS to produce the documents as evidence of DFCSs reasonable efforts to prevent removal.
18
Id. Id. 76 The DFCS Manual sets forth the policies and procedures relating to the initiatives and services that should be provided to families with children who are in need of service and at risk for foster care placement. DFCS Manual, supra note 1616 at 21072107.32. It should be noted that the Family Preservation Services described in 2107 are often the same types of services and initiatives that are provided to families whose children are in foster care and are ready for reunification. 77 APSR 2008, supra note 22, at 15. 78 DFCS Manual, supra note 16, at 2107 (September 2000). 79 Id. 80 McCroskey & Meezan, supra note 37, at 55.
74 75
Similarly, when services are available they are often costly. Sometimes DFCS might argue that some services, or an extension of certain services, are beyond its budget. Again, the court has a responsibility to look at each case individually and determine if, in the case before it, those services might have been able to preserve a family. One thing to keep in mind when facing budgetary arguments is that most of the billions of dollars that the federal and state governments collectively spend on child welfare are used to pay for out-of-home care. When the court reviews the reasonableness of DFCS efforts to prevent a removal, it may appropriately consider the high cost of some family preservation services, but it should also consider the high cost of out-of-home care.81
III. How Can Georgias Juvenile Courts Contribute to Family Preservation and the Prevention of Unnecessary Removal? Georgia and federal law have given the juvenile courts the responsibility to oversee the exercise of DFCS power to remove children from the home, because the power to remove a child from the family is so significant and carries with it the potential for misuse or abuse of discretion. As we discussed in Part I, families have a fundamental right to autonomy and to be free from unreasonable governmental interference. In addition, we know that children who have been traumatized by maltreatment within the family also suffer trauma when they are removed from the family. When our legal system works appropriately, the judicial branchs check on the operations of the executive branch of our state government prevents the state agency from acting too quickly and removing children without making reasonable efforts to preserve the family. Therefore, the courts must take their responsibility seriously. As we described in Part I and II above, the social workers, case managers, therapists, and parent educators working for or through DFCS are the professionals who investigate reported abuse and neglect, intervene in families where maltreatment has occurred, and work to preserve families and prevent the need to remove children to foster care. It is DFCS workers, supervisors, and administrators who, in most cases, will make the decision whether to recommend removing a child from the home. The role of the judges and lawyers in family preservation is equally critical, however. Lawyers in deprivation cases must present evidence supporting their clients position in the case, and the lawyers must then advocate for the appropriate analysis of the evidence of maltreatment, safety, and risk so that the court can determine what, if any, state intervention is necessary to protect the child. Judges, of course, are the ultimate decision makers on the critical issue of whether to remove a child from the home and whether DFCS made the reasonable efforts to prevent removal that the law requires.
DFCs Policy Every lawyer and judge in Georgias juvenile courts should be familiar with DFCS policy. DHR publishes the policy manual online at http://www. odis.dhr.state.ga.us/home.htm Indexes and links to enhance access to the policies are also hosted at the Emory Law School Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic web page http://childwelfare.net/ DHR/ policies/cpindex.html
81
19
An analysis of data drawn from a variety of sources and sponsored by Prevent Child Abuse America estimated the annual cost to our country of child abuse and neglect at $103.8 billion in 2007 value. Ching-Tung Wang & John Holton, Total Estimated Cost of Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States, Economic Impact Study (Prevent Child Abuse America, 2007), available at http://www.preventchildabuse.org/about_us/media_releases/pcaa_pew_economic_ impact_study_final.pdf.
The federal government, by conditioning child welfare funding on the requirement that states make reasonable efforts to prevent removal and thus preserve families, has given the juvenile courts the power to penalize the state agency when the court finds that DFCS has not met its legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to prevent the need to remove the child. The Supreme Court of Georgia Committee on Justice for Children describes this judicial responsibility as follows. Children come before courts for protection from further harm, for guidance on the path to self-sufficiency and productive adulthood and for timely decision-making for their future. Judges are the gatekeepers of our states foster care system and must ultimately decide whether children in crisis will be separated from their families or if they can safely remain in their homes and communities. Today the issues coming before the courts are more complex, requiring more hearings and more people than ever before. To perform their expanded oversight role, courts need a clear vision of court procedures and research-based best practices to ensure justice for children.82 As we will describe in the sections that follow, judges can better preserve families by improving court culture, using data, and collaborating with stakeholders to enhance community resources, provide training, improve information sharing, maximize federal funding, and develop reasonable efforts protocols. A. Court Culture The first step for the juvenile court to fulfill its role in the effort to preserve families is to create and maintain a culture of professionalism and excellence for all of the participants in the child welfare system. As the juvenile courts set high expectations for DFCS and the families before the court, the courts must also strive for excellence. The judge sets the tone for the courtroom, especially with regard to punctuality, professionalism, and attention to the rule of law. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) recognizes this important judicial role and calls upon all juvenile courts to provide efficient and timely justice for children and their families.83 The judge can project a sense of urgency rather than permit delay. The judge and the lawyers can both acknowledge the shared responsibility of all of the parties and stakeholders, rather than project mistrust and blame. Lawyers can advocate for the agency to take knowledgeable action based on evidence and informed by best practices. The court, by setting high expectations for all of the parties and professionals involved in the childs case, can avoid passively reviewing the actions of the parties and can thus help to ensure childrens safety within their own families whenever possible.84
20
Supreme Court of Georgia Committee on Justice for Children, 2006 Annual Report 4, available at http://www.georgiacourts.org/agencies/cpp/FY06AR_cpp.pdf. 83 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases 11, 14 (1995). 84 The Hon. Nancy S. Salyers, Co-Dir., Fostering Results, Presentation at Georgia Committee on Justice for Childrens Court Improvement Initiative/Court Measures Project Workshop (Feb. 21, 2008).
82
B. Knowledge and Use of Removal Data A court makes decisions on a case by case basis, considering the facts before it and determining the proper balance between the risk to the childs safety, the legal mandate to preserve the family, and the familys rights. An analysis of child abuse and neglect and foster care data can assist juvenile courts in evaluating themselves and their decision-making in deprivation cases. Specifically, reviewing one countys removal rate in comparison to Georgias removal rate or in comparison to the removal rates of surrounding counties or similarly situated counties can provide valuable insight into the unique challenges that a county faces or the challenges that it shares with its neighbors. It can also aid in a self-awareness of the jurisdictions approach to removal. In recent years, the use of data as a mechanism for quality assurance has become more widely accepted across the state. Various organizations have played a key role in making publicly available the data collected by Georgias state welfare agency.85 Many courts have welcomed presentations of their own data at stakeholder meetings. Some counties have reacted to the data by making specific efforts to review their approach to removing children to foster care. C. Collaboration among stakeholders The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges promotes collaboration and mutual respect among stakeholders, as outlined in its Key Principles for Permanency Planning for Children.86 All juvenile court judges benefit from a working relationship with the director of their county DFCS office and the regional director. An open line of communication between the local and regional DFCS offices and the courts promotes an environment for identifying and solving problems to achieve better outcomes for children and families. Because DFCS often is not engaged with families until after child maltreatment has occurred, the courts may want to explore a collaboration with DFCS and the community to connect at risk families with the family support services that prevent the maltreatment from occurring in the first place. By coordinating with schools, for instance, court-based truancy programs identify families at risk and help in the effort to provide services to those families to assure the education of children. Courts can also help to connect families with run-away or unruly children with appropriate support services. 1. Community Resources
Georgias Promoting safe and stable Families (PssF) www.pssfnet.com Fostering Court Improvement: Georgia Removals
http://fosteringcourtimprovement.org/ ga/County/removals_rank.html
The court can be involved in the effort to build stronger community responses to child maltreatment. The court is in an ideal position to identify the unique needs of its community and promote the cohesive and effective use of local resources. For example, the court can support collaboration among
21
Those organizations include: Georgias Office of the Child Advocate, http://gachildadvocate.org /02/ca/home/0,2697,84387339,00.html; The Supreme Court of Georgia Committee on Justice for Children, http://www.georgiacourts.org/agencies/cpp/; and on a national level, Fostering Court Improvement, http://fosteringcourtimprovement.org/. 86 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Adoption and Permanency Guidelines 6 (2000).
85
service providers by co-locating prevention and intervention resources in the courthouse or in close proximity.87 Service needs differ across the state of Georgia and are affected by the urban, suburban or rural culture of the community, the ethnic and socioeconomic characteristics of the residents, and other variables. Service capabilities also differ across the state, depending on the resources available in the community. The agencies and organizations that provide family support and family preservation services are not licensed by the State Office of Regulatory Services, unlike the private agencies that provide institutional foster care or child placement services,88 and there is no comprehensive listing of approved in-home family preservation providers. This provides a challenge for lawyers and judges as they analyze whether or not DFCS has met the reasonable efforts standard in a particular case. One resource is the Georgias Promoting Safe and Stable Families web site. Georgias Promoting Safe and Stable Families program has worked in partnership with community and faith-based, non-profit organizations to build a network of service agencies throughout the state, and the PSSF website provides a guide to these agencies. This guide only describes one element of the efforts and services that should be encompassed by the reasonable efforts to prevent unnecessary removals. Therefore judges and lawyers practicing in Georgias juvenile courts and striving to fulfill their responsibility to oversee that DFCS is making reasonable efforts to prevent removals must become familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the programs available in their particular region.
Children With special needs Ideally, children with special needs should move from Babies Cant Wait, to Early Intervention, to Early Head Start, Head Start, and then to special education in public school so that their educational needs are met. The courts can assist in this effort by reviewing case plans for inclusion of these services and asking questions as outlined in Questions Every Judge and Lawyer Should Ask About Infants and Toddlers in the Child Welfare System, included as Appendix D.
Collaboration between the court and early intervention services and preschool programs helps connect children and families with a variety of services that may be available without charge to them or at reduced costs to them. When the court stresses the importance of these services to children, the court creates a culture of expectation in which case managers include Babies Cant Wait and other educational services in the case plans and attorneys seek these services to assist their clients. 89 2. Training The juvenile court is often a primary source of training for all stakeholders in its local child welfare community by providing opportunities for the cross
An example of this type of collaboration is the Strengthening Families Initiative, http:// www.strengtheningfamilies.net/. This program is being implemented in Hall County, Georgia through the Georgia Alliance for Drug Endangered Children. 88 The Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children (GAHSC) has pointed out in a Position Paper issued in 2003 that there is no comprehensive listing of approved in-home family preservation providers. The GAHSC is program member association dedicated to supporting those who care for children who are at risk of abuse and neglect. The GAHSC asserts that the oversight of the providers varies from program to program and occurs at both the State and County level. The GAHSC advocates that DHR develop a licensing or regulatory process for all providers of in home or community based services for abused and neglected children and their families. Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children, Position Paper: Family Preservation Provider Regulations, available at http://gahsc. org/nm/pp/2003/papers/pp20030101fpproviderregulations.doc. 89 42 U.S.C. 5106a (a)(2)(A)(v) (2008). Subsection (a)(2)(A)(xxi) of this section requires child welfare to refer substantiated cases of abuse and neglect of each child under the age of three to Early Intervention Services under Part C of Individuals with Disabilities Act. In Georgia these services are housed at Public Health with Babies Cant Wait and Early Intervention. 42 U.S.C. 5106(a)(2)(A)(xxi)(2008).
87
22
training of lawyers, educators, law enforcement officers, and providers of child welfare, mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence services. When parties have a grasp of the problems that often lead to child abuse and neglect and the services that are available, they can better assist in the appropriate referral to those services. Similarly, when service providers have an understanding of the legal process, they are better able to help the families they are serving. 3. Information Sharing The juvenile court can work to develop agreements to support appropriate information sharing among and between service agencies, including DFCS and the lawyers representing children and families in deprivation actions. Too often, the various agencies and offices that serve at-risk families operate independently of each other and are overly bound by a misunderstanding of their obligations to keep information confidential. The courts can sponsor or co-sponsor training to local educators and medical providers regarding the workings of the child welfare system and in turn can assist the schools to evaluate their policies to assure sharing of information to address the needs of children who are at risk of experiencing chronic abuse and neglect. 4. Maximizing Federal Funding Finally, by collaborating with DFCS, the juvenile court helps the agency maximize federal funding under the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance entitlement program.90 Title IV-E requirements include a reasonable efforts finding by the court and a finding as to why it is contrary to the welfare of the child to remain in the home. When DFCS makes reasonable efforts to preserve families and otherwise follows federal mandates, then DFCS has begun the process of assuring eligibility for this funding. When DFCS, the Special Assistant Attorney General (SAAG), and the court focus on IV-E requirements of timeliness of hearings and orders reflecting these findings, the state receives federal funding for foster care that otherwise must be paid for through the state budget.91 Training of judges, SAAGs, DFCS, attorneys, and guardians ad litem assures a strong collaborative relationship in which the court has the ability to make reasonable efforts findings that are meaningful and well documented. 5. Protocols for Reasonable Efforts When the court works with the local DFCS administration and other parties and advocates to develop protocols for documenting reasonable efforts, DFCS knows what the court expects from DFCS with regard to family preservation efforts. A protocol reflects mutual respect between the court and DFCS. The court does not develop the family preservation plan, but it does review the plan and determine whether the plan is adequate to address the reasons for removal and includes sufficient services to avoid removaland achieve reunification if removal has already occurred. If the court, DFCS, and other parties have a protocol regarding reasonable efforts
90 91
Title Iv-E Foster Care Reimbursements Out of 13,965 children in out-ofhome care in Georgia in 2005, only 5,113 children, or 36.6%, received Title IV-E federal foster care assistance. Title IV-E foster care reimbursements to states constitute the largest federal expenditure to address child abuse and neglect. The federal dollars are matched with state dollars to cover the costs of: Foster care maintenance, such as housing, food, and clothing; Foster care administration, including case management; and Foster care training. In 2004, Georgia spent $441,987,629 for child welfare services. Of this amount, 64% was from federal funds, 35% was from state funds, and 1% was from local funds. Of the federal funds Georgia received in 2004 for child welfare, 32% was from Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, 8% came from Title IV-B Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families, 19% was from Medicaid, 9% came from the Social Services Block Grant, 31% was from TANF and 1% came , from other federal sources.
Source: Child Welfare League of America, Georgias Children 2008.
23
42 U.S.C. 670-75 (2008). Making Reasonable Efforts: A Presentation by Judge Richard FitzGerald, available at http://www.law.emory.edu/webcast/fitzgerald.ram.(last visited Dec. 7, 2008).
to prevent removals, then the courts findings on reasonable efforts will less often come as a surprise to the agency. As judges work with the local administration, parties, advocates, and community service providers to develop protocols, they must take care that they do not relegate the consideration of reasonable efforts to a mere effort of checking boxes on a form. The findings are based upon individualized sworn testimony for each case as to the nature and extent of the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal. Some courts require the case manager to provide a sworn affidavit prior to the hearing that details the efforts that have been made. When such affidavits are provided to all parties prior to the hearing, the parties attorneys have the opportunity to review the description of services and other interventions with their clients to determine whether the services were provided, were effective, and if not, why not. D. Court Findings of Contrary to the Welfare When authorizing the removal of a child, the court must find that continuation in the home of the parent or legal guardian would be contrary to the childs welfare. The court must make the same finding at subsequent reviews of the courts order.92 The determination is not based on a best interest standard as in a case involving a custody dispute between parents, and the decision should not be based on a determination that the child might have better advantages outside of the family home.93 The decision to remove a child from the home must be based on the childs welfare.94 1. Judicial Authorization of Removal
The judicial authorization of removal is one of the most critical points in the deprivation case. In some judicial circuits, the judge takes the phone calls from DFCS requesting authority to remove a child from the home, and in other circuits, the judges delegate the authority to an intake officer.95 Juvenile courts are responsible for ensuring that DFCS removes children from their families only when there are no reasonable alternatives to ensuring the childs safety.96 To be able to evaluate the request for authorization to remove, the judge or intake officer must have a thorough understanding of DFCS policy regarding removal, knowledge of the services that DFCS has provided or could provide to the family to protect the child in the home, and a strong grasp of constitutional rights, due process of law, and the legal requirement of reasonable efforts to prevent the necessity of removal. A detailed set of questions for the court to ask the DFCS case manager at intake can help to ensure that the judge or officer granting removal authority has sufficient information to make a fair and just decision. The request for judicial authorization to remove may be the first opportunity for the court to set high expectations for DFCS efforts. DFCS staff should know that they will not get authorization to remove a child from the home
24
O.C.G.A. 15-11-57(a) (2008); 42 U.S.C. 672(a)(1) (2008). In re A.P.H, 236 Ga. App. 762, 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). 94 In re D.E.K., 236 Ga. App. 574, 577 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). 95 O.C.G.A. 15-11-45(1) (2008); 15-11-45(4) (2008). 96 O.C.G.A. 15-11-46 (2008).
92 93
unless they have exhausted the available alternatives to protect the child in the home. The court should first require information about the extent and results of DFCS investigation of the maltreatment. The next inquiry should be into DFCS assessment of the childs safety in the home and its assessment of the risk that the child faces if left in the home. The court should ask for details of the services that DFCS provided directly to the family and also what community resources DFCS tried to connect to the family. If the family received services, there should be inquiry into how active the case manager has been in the case and why services were not successful in avoiding the need to remove the child. Finally, the court should seek information about resources or assistance that could have been available to the family through relatives or friends. A suggested list of questions to be asked at intake is attached as Appendix C. 2. 72-Hour Hearing If the child is removed from the family in an emergency or based on judicial authorization without a hearing, Georgia law requires that the court hold an informal detention hearing no later than 72 hours after the child is placed into care.97 Because the 72-hour hearingalso called the detention hearing, probable cause hearing, or shelter care hearingis informal, the judge is permitted to consider testimony and other submissions that are not admissible under the rules of evidence. Nonetheless, lawyers representing the parents and the child should still consider objecting to evidence that does not comport with the rules, and judges should be cautious about considering such evidence. It is up to the court to ensure that families are not deprived of due process of law even at this informal stage of the proceedings. In addition to the incident or events precipitating the removal of the child from the home, the 72-hour hearing focuses on the prior contact between the family and DFCS and other community services. The same questions appropriate to ask at the time of the request for judicial authorization to remove are also appropriate to ask at the 72-hour hearing. The questions should include why the caseworker believes that DFCS efforts to prevent the need to remove the child from the home were unsuccessful. Furthermore, the court should inquire into how circumstances may have changed in the time between the initial removal of the child from the home and the time of the hearing up to three days later. After hearing the testimony, the court may determine that the risk to the childs safety in the home is no longer high enough to justify keeping the child in the custody of DFCS or anyone other than the parents. The court may find that there is probable cause to suspect that the child is deprived under Georgia law, but that it would not be contrary to the welfare of the child to return home. The court can then return the child to the family and impose conditions for the childs safety and care.98 Alternatively, if the court determines that it is still contrary to the childs welfare to return home, the court may place the child in the temporary custody of DFCS or others as authorized by law. 99
O.C.G.A. 15-11-49(c)(3) (2008). O.C.G.A. 15-11-55(a)(1) (2008). 99 O.C.G.A. 15-11-55 (2008).
97 98
Home Under Protective order Lawyers for the parties, including the parents or children, may request that the court allow the child to remain in the home or that the court return the child to the home under a protective order. The court may enter a protective order on its own motion at any time that the court is disposing of a case or is about to dispose of a case. O.C.G.A. 15-11-11. The court can promote the application for protective orders by DFCS by showing a preference for the orders over removals. The purpose of a protective order is to restrain or otherwise control the conduct of a person. The person who is the subject of the application need not be a party to the case at the time of the application, but the persons conduct in question must affect a partys success in complying with a juvenile court order. The conduct to be controlled must be reasonably related to the issues that bring the child to the courts attention, and the order may not impose unreasonable conditions on the person. The court must always inform the person of the fact that the order may be enforced by a contempt of court citation.
Source: Council of Juvenile Court Judges of Georgia, Bench Book, XXII at 1.
25
3. The Welfare of a ChildGuidance from Case Law It is clear under the Georgia Code that the court must base any order removing a child from the home on a finding that continuation in the home would be contrary to the childs welfare, but the Georgia Code gives no guidance on what factors the court should consider in making the contrary to the welfare finding. The case law from Georgias appellate courts provides some limited guidance. However, the Georgia Court of Appeals does not often get the chance to review a juvenile courts decision to authorize the initial removal of a child. The very nature of a deprivation case, in which parents and DFCS should be working together to enable the family to reunify as quickly as possible, coupled with quick statutory timelines, does not lend itself to the use of appellate review as a way to address concerns at the beginning of a case. One of the few decisions addressing the decision to remove a child, In re D.E.K., decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals in 1999, makes clear that a parents conduct or misconduct does not constitute deprivation that warrants removal unless the parents conduct has a negative impact on the childs welfare.100 The Court of Appeals noted the evidence of the unstable life of D.E.K.s mother, including numerous incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse, and an incident when the mother left her one-year-old child buckled into a car seat in an unattended parked car. The court found, however, that the mother had never injured D.E.K. and that she had met all of the childs basic needs. Therefore, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile courts finding that the child was deprived and that removal was necessary to ensure the childs welfare.101
A more recent case from the Court of Appeals, In re W.A.P., also focused on the needs of a child in the face of evidence of a mothers misconduct, but found that the child was indeed at risk, because there was sufficient evidence of the mothers habit of leaving the one month old child in lengthy time out, along with evidence that she took the baby out in cold weather without proper clothing and that she allowed him to sleep in a bed with soft blankets and pillows that could suffocate a child of that age.102 The court held that there was evidence to show that the mothers actions had a negative impact on the childs welfare.103 Appellate decisions in cases involving a termination of parental rights can also be instructive to the question of what the court would consider to be contrary to the welfare of a child in a removal setting. When a juvenile court terminates a parents rights, the court must find that continued deprivation is likely to cause serious physical, mental, emotional, or moral harm to the child.104 The Court of Appeals found in In re J.T.W. that although there was sufficient evidence of continuing deprivation from the mothers instability and pattern of victimization by domestic violence, there was not sufficient evidence that the continuing deprivation would lead to serious harm to the child.105
In re D.E.K., 263 Ga. App. at 574. Id. 102 In re W.A.P., 293 Ga. App. 433, 435 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). 103 Id. at 436. 104 In re T.B., 249 Ga. App. 283, 286 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). 105 In re J.T.W., 270 Ga. App 26, 36 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
100 101
26
It has long been clear that deprivation does not mean that a child is or could be better cared for in another home environment. In R.C.N. v. State, the Court of Appeals held that the state may not blithely intercede [in a familys life] simply because the childs lot is substandard. A mothers failure to fully live up to societal norms for productivity, morality, cleanliness, and responsibility does not summarily rob her of the right to raise her own offspring, nor does it end the childs right to be raised by its own mother.106 On the other hand, the Court of Appeals has recognized that the definition of deprivation under the law is broad enough to allow the trial court a great deal of discretion in reaching the finding.107 The Court of Appeals has also repeatedly stated that it is a fair inference that the chronic use of controlled substances has an adverse effect on a minor child.108 4. The Welfare of a ChildSafety Decisions As described above in Part II, DFCS policy guides case managers in making decisions about a childs safety and the risk of future maltreatment. Safety decisions require balancing the threat of danger, the childs vulnerability to the danger, and the familys ability to protect the child from the danger.109 Lawyers representing parties in a deprivation case, as well as the judges making the decision whether to remove the child from the home, need a structure for the decision making process. The court can begin to create such a structure by requiring DFCS to demonstrate that it based its recommendation regarding the childs safety on sufficient information. As noted above, asking DFCS the questions set forth in Appendix C will help lawyers and judges to determine whether DFCS has sufficient information on which to base its recommendation. The answers to those questions will also help the court make its own fully informed decision about the childs safety. To make a good decision, the court needs information about the alleged maltreatment, but it also needs extensive information about the child and the childs family. The legal professionals in the court must then apply their own analytical skills to the question of whether the child is safe and whether continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child. It is not uncommon for legal professionals to question whether they should second guess DFCS recommendations. To ensure that the courts are providing meaningful oversight of DFCS actions, however, the lawyers and the judges in our child welfare system need to have confidence in their own ability to apply logical reasoning to the question of child safety.
safetysix Key Questions to be Asked 1. What is the nature and extent of the maltreatment? 2. What circumstances accompany the maltreatment? 3. How does the child function day to day? 4. How does the parent discipline the child? 5. What are the overall parenting practices? 6. How does the parent manage his own life?
Source: Terry Rowe Lund, and Jennifer Renne, National Resource Center, Child Safety: A Guide for Judges and Attorneys.
27
R.C.N. v. State, 141 Ga. App. 490, 491 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977) (overruled on other grounds). In re S.S., 232 Ga. App. 287, 288-89 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). 108 In re T.L., 279 Ga. App. 7, 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting In the Interest of J.L., 269 Ga.App. 226, 229 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)); In re K.W., 279 Ga. App. 319, 321 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). 109 Terry Rowe Lund, and Jennifer Renne, National Resource Center, Child Safety: A Guide for Judges and Attorneys 8 (forthcoming 2009) (manuscript on file with authors).
106 107
E. Court Findings of DFCs Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal Once the court has determined that it would be contrary to the childs welfare to remain in or return to the home, the law then calls upon the court to determine as a finding of fact whether DFCS made reasonable efforts: To preserve and reunify families prior to the placement of a child in the custody of the Department of Human Resources; To prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from that childs home, and To make it possible for the child to return safely to the childs home.110
In order for the state to be eligible for federal reimbursement of the costs of caring for a child in foster care, federal law requires that DFCS have documentation of the courts reasonable efforts finding within 60 days of the date of removal.111 Failure to document reasonable efforts results in a loss of IV-E funding. Congress provided for the imposition of this potentially significant penalty on the state for failure to use reasonable efforts so that the courts could provide appropriate and meaningful oversight of the state agencys provision of family preservation services. The DFCS Social Services Manual reminds case managers that
[b]oth Federal law . . . and state law . . . require services to families to strengthen and support them in their ability to provide for the safety and care of their children. The desired outcome is to avoid the unnecessary removal of the child. The laws intent is to ensure that no child, who could have been protected in the home, is placed in foster care . . . .112 The policy goes on to note that the burden in a reasonable efforts determination is on the department, and therefore the case manager is instructed to [a]ttach a copy of Safety Assessment (form 455 A), which includes the Reasonable Efforts list, to a deprivation complaint filed at Juvenile Court.113 In acknowledgment of DFCS policy, the court should insist on the filing of the Safety Assessment and should carefully review it for sufficiency. Lawyers for the parents and children should ask for the production of DFCS Safety Assessment and included Reasonable Efforts list so that they can scrutinize it and consider challenges to DFCS testimony as to reasonable efforts. The responsibility of the judge to make this important decision regarding removal and the reasonable efforts required can seem overwhelming at times. Judges are very familiar with the limitations on the funding that Georgia provides to its child welfare agency and might be reluctant to
28
O.C.G.A. 15-11-58(a) (2008). 42 U.S.C. 671 (2008); 45 C.F.R. 1356.21 (a) & (b)(1)(i) (2008). 112 DFCS Manual, supra note 16, at 2102.4 (March 2006). 113 Id. at 2102.4 (March 2006).
110 111
penalize the agency. It is crucial, however, that the court be willing to enter the finding of failure to make reasonable efforts when the evidence shows that DFCS efforts were not sufficient. The paragraphs below offer some suggestions for how to use the finding most effectively. 1. How Can the Court Determine Whether DFCS Made Reasonable Efforts?
Child Welfare Information Gateway Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Childrens Bureau, provides access to print and electronic publications, websites, and online databases covering a wide range of topics, including supporting and preserving families. www.childwelfare.gov
In determining the reasonableness of DFCS efforts to prevent the removal of a child, the court seeks to find whether the agency has met local, statewide, and national standards for family preservation. Therefore, the lawyers advocating for a finding of reasonableness, or lack thereof, and the judges rendering the decisions on this point need a broad understanding of DFCS policy and the standards of family support and family preservation. The consideration of best practices begins with how DFCS articulates its own policies and procedures. Failing to follow agency policy is not reasonable, unless DFCS can articulate a compelling reason why an exception to the policy was required in that instance. The further indication of the use of the statewide best practices is whether the local DFCS office made available to the family the services that the Child and Family Services Plan (see Part II above) states are available for families in which maltreatment has occurred. The judge cannot be expected to make findings about reasonable efforts, however, without evidence presented by qualified counsel who have a firm grasp of the concept of reasonable efforts and who are familiar with the services that are or should be available in the community to keep children safe in their homes. The questions contained in Appendix C will provide a starting point for counsel in building their case. Attorneys representing parents and the children should also explore whether there are services not routinely available in their community that could have addressed the familys needs prior to removal. The Child Welfare Information Gateway, a web-based service provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Childrens Bureau, can be a good starting point for lawyers to explore the latest research in family preservation efforts. Additionally, lawyers arguing that DFCS efforts are not reasonably sufficient could benefit from the testimony of experts, and the attorneys should consider asking the court to pay for the use of experts when appropriate. Recognizing the reality that the court is likely to refuse many requests for court funding of expert testimony, however, the lawyers should be prepared to present citations from social work literature demonstrating that other means exist that could have remedied the familys problem without removing the children. The judge, after hearing evidence presented by the lawyers, must determine whether there were services available that could have kept the child safe, and whether those services were offered. The judge can further consider whether there are services that should have been available, but for some reason are not. The court should examine what risks were identified and how DFCS developed the plan to address the risk. It is important to note that the court is not bound by the limits of DFCS policy if the court determines, based on the evidence presented, that DFCS reasonably should be making efforts or providing services that are not described in its policy manual.
29
The courts finding on DFCS efforts is based both on the quality of the case management under DFCS policy and whether meaningful services were provided. The court does not simply accept a referral to services as evidence of reasonable efforts. The court inquires into how the case manager sought to ensure that the family accessed the services. Further, the court does not simply accept the provision of services as evidence of reasonable efforts. Services that are inadequate or poorly delivered cannot be expected to preserve families. By exercising court oversight of the quality of the services provided, the judge fulfills the responsibility to the community of maintaining high standards for DFCS and those agencies who work with families at risk. 2. How Can the Courts Make Effective Use of the Reasonable Efforts Finding? Most, if not all, of our states juvenile courts use language in their court orders that meets the standards of the federal review so that DFCS can obtain federal IV-E funding when it has met federal standards. The court must be sure, however, that each order reflects specific facts of the case, so the recitation of the courts findings should not be constrained by the form language. Further, the courts orders should specify what efforts DFCS made that the court considers to be reasonably sufficient. If the court makes a finding of failure to use reasonable efforts, the judge should specify in the order what additional or different efforts would have been reasonable. The judge can make especially effective use of a negative reasonable efforts finding by temporarily recessing or continuing a hearing before making the finding in order to give DFCS the opportunity to immediately make a specified effort or provide a certain service to the family. When the hearing is reconvened, the judge can then review DFCS renewed efforts during the interim and take those new efforts into account when making the finding of whether DFCS efforts to prevent removal or reunify the family have been reasonable. Attorneys representing parents or children are often reluctant to advocate for a finding of failure to use reasonable efforts to prevent removal, because they know that the family, which is seeking reunification, relies on services from DFCS over the course of the case. Judges are often reluctant to make a finding of no reasonable efforts, because they know that in many cases the case manager is constrained by difficult case loads and limited resources. Consider, however, that court findings that DFCS is failing to use reasonable efforts to preserve families can have a positive impact on the local and state agency because, with a series of negative findings, the agency director can seek additional support and resources to enable the agency to provide the services required by policy and community standards. Without lawyers advocating effectively on the issue of reasonable efforts and without judges willing to make the difficult negative findings, the intent of the federal and state law is thwarted, and the courts miss the opportunity to pressure the child welfare system to improve.
30
Conclusion The purpose of this legal guide for judges and lawyers in Georgias juvenile courts is to address the legal side of family preservation with a focus on the prevention of unnecessary removal. Georgias juvenile courts, DFCS, and the numerous other stakeholders in our child welfare system share the goal of keeping children safe in their family homes whenever reasonably possible. When it is necessary for DFCS to intervene into the family to protect the children, the juvenile courts make the ultimate decision of whether the children must be removed to state custody or if the children will remain in the home. We have addressed the laws and policy that determine our states involvement in families where abuse or neglect has been reported and when DFCS is proposing to remove the child from the home. We briefly discussed the forces involved in the removal decisionparents constitutional rights and the countervailing interest of child safetyand provided an overview of the removal process. We described DFCS policy regarding the provision of services and resources to families and finally we recommended a number of ways that the juvenile courts and the lawyers in those courts can impact removal. Our juvenile courts must maintain their focus on the safety and the needs of the children before them. We hope that this guide will serve as a tool to assist Georgias judges and lawyers in deprivation cases as they evaluate whether continuation in the home would be contrary to a childs welfare and whether the state made reasonable efforts to prevent removal.
31
Appendices Appendix ADFCS Form 457 Risk Assessment Scale Appendix BDFCS Form 455A Safety Assessment Appendix CQuestions for DFCS Regarding Safety and Reasonable Efforts Appendix DQuestions to Ask About Childs Health
32
Appendix ADFCs Form 457 Risk Assessment scale

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES RISK ASSESMENT SCALE OF ABUSE/NEGLECT
Case # Case Manager Score 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 Abuse Date CM ID# Score 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 1
Complaint Date Case Name County Neglect N1. Current Complaint is for Neglect a. No b. Yes N2. Number of Prior Investigations (substantiated or unsubstantiated) a. None b. One c. Two or more N3. Number of children in the home a. Two or fewer b. Three or more
A1. Current Complaint is for Abuse a. No b. Yes A2. Prior abuse investigation (substantiated or unsubstantiated) a. None b. Abuse complaints (except sexual abuse) c. Sexual abuse complaints d. Both b and c A3. Prior CPS ongoing services history a. No b. Yes, family has received ongoing services A4. Number of children in the home a. One b. Two or more A5. Caretaker(s) abused as children a. No b. Yes 0 1 1 1 A6. Secondary caretaker has a current Substance abuse problem a. No, or no secondary caretaker b. Yes (check all that apply) Alcohol abuse problem Drug abuse problem A7. Primary or secondary caretaker employs excessive and/or inappropriate discipline a. No b. Yes A8. Caretaker (s) has a history or domestic violence a. No b. Yes A9. Caretaker is a domineering parent (rate both primary and secondary caretaker) a. No b. Yes A10. Child in the home has a development disability or history of delinquency a. No
N4. Number of adults in home at time of complaint a. Two or more b. One/None N5. Age of primary caretaker a. 30 or older b. 29 or younger N6. Characteristics of primary caretaker Check and add for score a. Not applicable b. Significantly lacks parenting skills (inability/unwillingness to care for children) c. Significantly lacks self-esteem (withdrawn, lacks confidence) d. Apathetic or hopeless (overwhelmed, indifferent, decline in hygiene) N7. Primary caretaker involved in harmful relationships during the investigation period a. No b. Yes, but not a victim of domestic violence c. Yes, as a victim of domestic violence N8. Primary client has a current substance abuse problem a. No b. Yes c. Other drugs (with or without alcohol
0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1
0 1
0 2
0 1 2
0 1
0 1
0 1 2
33
CPS_457 Risk Assessment
(Revised 09/06)
Page 1 of 2
Appendix ADFCs Form 457 Risk Assessment scale (p.2)

N9. Household is experiencing severe financial difficulty a. No b. Yes N10. Primary caretakers motivation to improve parenting skills a. Motivated and realistic (agrees with and follows safety plan) b. Unmotivated, does not agree with and/or does not sign safety plan c. Motivated but unrealistic, agrees with safety plan, but unable to follow it N11. Caretaker response to investigation (rate both primary and secondary CT) a. Viewed situation as seriously as case manager b. Viewed situation less seriously than case manager c. Failed to cooperate d. Both b and c TOTAL NEGLECT RISK SCORE Risk Level: Assign the familys risk level based on the Highest score on either scale, using the following chart. Neglect Score 0-4 5 -11 12 - 20 Abuse Score 0-3 4-8 9 - 16 Assigned Risk Level Low Moderate High b. Yes Developmental disability including emotionally impaired History of delinquency A11. Secondary caretaker motivated to improve parenting skills a. yes, or no secondary caretaker in home b. No A12. Primary caretaker views incident less seriously than case manager a. No b. Yes, refused to sign safety plan and/or minimizes incident 1
0 2
0 1 2
0 2
0 1
0 2 2 3 TOTAL ABUSE RISK SCORE
Service Disposition (check one) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Case remains open Close Low risk case Close for CPS and transfer to foster care Close Perp no longer has access to child victim(s) Close Unsatisfactory family response court not feasible Close CPS services not needed referred to other program Close Clients unavailable for services location of clients unknown Other Date
Supervisors Review
Policy Override Required (Override to High reason 1-6. Check appropriate reason) 1. Sexual abuse case where the maltreater is likely to have access to a child victim 2. Non-accidental physical injury to an infant or physical injury or threat of physical injury to a child with a disability. 3. Non-accidental physical injury that requires hospitalization or medical treatment. 4. There is medical documentation of abuse 5. Non-accidental injury to a child age four and younger. 6. Death (previous or current) of a sibling as a result of abuse or neglect. 7. Other / Optional. Reason Override Risk Level Low Moderate High Date
Supervisors Review / Approval of Optional Override
34
CPS_457 Risk Assessment (Revised 09/06) Page 2 of 2
Appendix BDFCs Form 455A safety Assessment
455A SAFETY ASSESSMENT

Complaint Date Case Name Case Manager Child #1 Child #3 Caretaker (CT) #1 age age County # C.M. ID Child #2 Child #4 Caretaker (CT) #2 Case # Date age age
Assessment of Caretaker Behaviors and Safety Conditions
The following factors describe behaviors or conditions associated with a child being safe or unsafe. Identify the presence of absence of each factor for each child placing an X in each childs Yes or No column. Children 4 years old and under or any child with a disability need special safety considerations.
CT 1 2 #1 Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N #1 Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N
1.
Caretakers history indicates violent or out of control incidents or maltreatment that is callous, deliberate or cruel.
CT 1 2
2.
Caretaker describes or acts toward child in negative terms or has unrealistic expectations.
#1 CT 1 Y N
#2 Y N
#3 Y N
#4 Y N
3.
2 #1 CT 1 2 #1 CT 1 2 #1 CT 1 2 #1 CT 1 2 #1 CT 1 2 #1 CT 1 2 Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N
Caretaker caused physical harm to the child or has made a plausible threat to cause physical harm. This is a critical factor for a child four years and younger or any special needs child.
4.
Caretaker has previously maltreated a child and the maltreatment, or the caretakers response to the prior incident, makes child safety a concern.
5.
The family refuses access to the child, or there is reason to believe that the family is about to flee or the childs whereabouts cannot be ascertained.
6.
Caretaker has not, cannot or will not provide supervision necessary to protect child from harm.
7.
Caretaker is unwilling, or is unable, to meet the childs needs for food, clothing, shelter, medical, education, emotional or mental health care.
8.
Explanation for the injury is unconvincing or inconsistent.
9.
35
Child is fearful of caretaker(s), other family members or other people living in or having access to the home.
CPS_455A Safety Assessment (Revised 09/06)
1 of 1
Appendix BDFCs Form 455A safety Assessment (p.2)
455A SAFETY ASSESSMENT (p. 2)

#1 CT 1 2 #1 CT 1 2 #1 CT 1 2 #1 CT 1 2 Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N Y N #2 Y N #3 Y N #4 Y N
10.
Childs physical living conditions are hazardous, threatening or unsafe.
11.
Child sexual abuse is suspected and circumstances suggest that the childs safety may be an immediate concern.
12.
Caretakers drug or alcohol use affects his/her ability to supervise, protect or care for the child
13.
Domestic Violence / or Other (specify)
For each behavior or condition identified, consider the resources available in the family and the community that might help to keep the child safe. For each child, place an X in the space by each response that is selected to protect that child. Describe in the Evidence section of Form 454 all safety interventions taken or immediately planned and explain how each intervention protects (or protected) each child.
Children
Reasonable Efforts Checklist
#1 #2 #3 #4 1. Use family resources, neighbors or individuals in the community as safety resources. 2. Use community agencies or services as safety resources. 3. The alleged maltreater leaves the home, either voluntarily or through legal action. 4. Have the non-maltreating caregiver move to a safe environment with the child. 5. Have the caregiver(s) place the child outside the home. 6. Legal action must be taken to place the child outside the home. 7. Other If CPS is initiating legal action to place the children, document on a Form 452 (1) explain for each child why responses 1-5 could not be used to keep the children safe and (2) your discussion with caretakers regarding the placement.
Identify your safety decision for each chills by placing X in the box below the childs number for the childs safety decision. Make each childs decision based on the assessment of all safety factors and any other information known about the child and this case. Select Safe only if all of the above thirteen safety factors are marked NO.
Children
Safety Decision
#1 #2 #3 #4 UNSAFE: child is in immediate danger of serious harm. Conditionally Safe: Controlling safety interventions have been taken since the referral was received, and those interventions have resolved the unsafe situation for the present. Safe: Child is not likely to be in immediate danger of serious harm.
Supervisor Signature/Approval of Plan CPS_455A Safety Assessment (Revised 09/06)
Date 2 of 2
36
Appendix CQuestions for DFCs Regarding safety and Reasonable Efforts Questions to Ask DFCS Regarding the Decision to Remove a Child from the Home Following is a list of questions that the judge or intake officer should consider asking when DFCS is seeking judicial authorization to remove a child from the home, and which the lawyers for the parents and the child should ask at the court hearings in the case. Depending on the facts of the case, not all of the questions may be appropriate or applicable, and there may be other questions that the facts of the case will suggest. Intake and Investigation 1. Provide details of the initial report of maltreatment, including: a. Date DFCS received the report
b. Was there more than one reporter? (The identity of the reporter may be held confidential by DFCS) c. What did the reporter allege? 1. Date or dates when the alleged incidents of maltreatment occurred 2. Name and age of each child involved
d. Who else lives in the home with the family? e. Was the report assigned a 24-hour response or a 5-day response time? Why?
2. Has DFCS received reports of maltreatment regarding these parents before this? a. When were the reports received and what was the nature of previous reports?
b. Were any previous reports substantiated? c. What were the outcomes of previous cases?
d. Has DFCS removed children from these parents before this case? e. f. Have the parents received child protective services or family preservation services from DFCS before this case? How long ago have the parents received ongoing services and what were the nature of the services?
3. Provide details of the present investigation: a. How many times did you or another case manager visit the home?
37
b. What did you observe in the home?
Appendix CQuestions for DFCs Regarding safety and Reasonable Efforts (p.2) c. How many times did you or another case manager observe or interview the child?
d. Did you observe or interview the child alone or with the parents or both? e. f. g. What information did you obtain from the child? Which family members were interviewed regarding the maltreatment? What information did family members provide regarding the maltreatment?
h. Who else was interviewed regarding the maltreatment? i. What information did collateral sources provide regarding the maltreatment?
4. Are both parents in the home? If not, describe your efforts to find and involve the non-resident parent. 5. Have you identified family members that you did not or were not able to contact in connection with this case? Please explain. 6. What community partners or other agencies providing family support services have been involved with this family in the past? a. Have you contacted the community partners or other agencies?
b. Did you obtain written reports or records from the identified support organizations regarding this family? c. What did you learn from the identified support organizations regarding this family?
7. What conditions or actions did you identify that you believe make the child unsafe on an ongoing basis? 8. Did you complete a Safety Assessment on Form 455A? If so, which of the 13 behaviors or conditions associated with child safety did you identify as being present? 9. Did you develop a Safety Plan with the family? 10. Do you believe that the child will suffer immediate and ongoing harm if he or she remains in the home? Ongoing (if the family had an open Family Preservation (CPS) case) 1. How long has DFCS been working with this family as an ongoing Family Preservation or CPS case? 2. Has there been a Family Team Meeting? How many FTMs have there been? Describe the results.
38
Appendix CQuestions for DFCs Regarding safety and Reasonable Efforts (p.3) 3. Was a Family Plan developed? 4. What risks did it identify? 5. Have there been additional incidents of maltreatment or additional risks identified since the opening of the ongoing case? 6. What measures did the Family Plan require to address the identified risks? 7. Were the following services provided to this family? If not, why not? a. a. Parent Aid PUP
b. Homestead c. Early Intervention
d. Diversion 8. Were any other services provided to the family?

9. Identify the service providers; describe the services, the length of time the services were in place, and the results. Are the service providers available to testify? 10. If DFCS provided PUP funds to the family, please provide the amount and what the funds were used for. 11. Are the services family centered? Please describe how each service was expected to address the identified risk. 12. What efforts other than providing services or making referrals to community services did DFCS make? 13. If you made referrals to services or supports available in the community, how did you assist the family in obtaining the identified services or supports? 14. How often has the case manager visited the family since the ongoing case was opened? a. Were the case managers visits announced or unannounced?
b. Did the case manager visit the children separately at their schools or day care provider? 15. Describe the case managers relationship with the family and the efforts the case manager made to address the risk to the children. 16. How did the case manager monitor the effectiveness of the Family Preservation Services?
39
Appendix CQuestions for DFCs Regarding safety and Reasonable Efforts (p.4) 17. Does this family have a need for basic services that it is not currently receiving, such as TANF, Food Stamps, WIC, SSI, SSD or Medicaid? If so, have you offered assistance to the family to obtain the necessary services and support? Decision to Remove the Child 1. Is there any way to leave this child in the home and ensure his or her safety? 2. Did you consider using family resources, neighbors or individuals in the community as safety resources prior to removal? Please explain. 3. Did you refer the family to community agencies or services as safety resources? Please explain. 4. If applicable, did you ask the caretaker to have the alleged maltreater leave the home, either voluntarily or through legal action? Please explain. 5. If applicable, did you ask the non-maltreating caregiver to move to a safe environment with the child? Please explain. 6. Did you ask the caregiver(s) if he or she would consider temporarily placing the child outside the home as part of a safety plan? Please explain.
7. Who at DFCS approved the decision to seek judicial authorization to remove the child from the home?
40
Appendix DQuestions to Ask About Childs Health Questions Every Judge and Lawyer Should Ask About Infants and Toddlers in the Child Welfare System, by Joy Osofsky, et al. Physical Health Has the child received a comprehensive health assessment since entering foster care? Are the childs immunizations complete and up-to-date for his or her age? Has the child received a hearing and vision screen? Has the child been screened for lead exposure? Has the child received regular dental services? Has the child been screened for communicable diseases? Does the child have a medical home where he or she can receive coordinated, comprehensive, continuous health care? Developmental Health Has the child received a developmental evaluation by a provider with experience in child development? Are the child and his or her family receiving the necessary early intervention services, e.g., speech therapy, occupational therapy, educational interventions, family support? Mental Health Has the child received a mental health screening, assessment, or evaluation? Is the child receiving necessary infant mental health services? Educational/Childcare Setting Is the child enrolled in a high-quality early childhood program? Is the early childhood program knowledgeable about the needs of children in the child welfare system? Placement Is the child placed with caregivers knowledgeable about the social and emotional needs of infants and toddlers in out-of-home placements, especially young children who have been abused, exposed to violence, or neglected? Do the caregivers have access to information and support related to the childs unique needs? Are the foster parents able to identify problem behaviors in the child and seek appropriate services? Are all efforts being made to keep the child in one consistent placement?
41

Family Preservation, Preventing Unnecessary Removal To State Custody, 2009

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Family Preservation, Preventing Unnecessary Removal To State Custody, 2009

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Family Preservation in Georgia:

A Legal and Judicial Guide to Preventing Unnecessary Removal to State Custody

Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic

Supreme Court of Georgia Committee on Justice for Children

Family Preservation in GeorGia:

lila newberry bradley, Jd

42 U.S.C. 671-72 (2008).

The Rights of Parent and Child to be Together

DFCs Regularly Accepts for Investigation:

Source: DFCS Manual at 2103.16

Georgias Child and Family service Plan

Parent Aide Services Homestead Services PUP Services

Appendix ADFCs Form 457 Risk Assessment scale

CPS_457 Risk Assessment

Appendix ADFCs Form 457 Risk Assessment scale (p.2)

0 2 2 3 TOTAL ABUSE RISK SCORE

Supervisors Review / Approval of Optional Override

Appendix BDFCs Form 455A safety Assessment

455A SAFETY ASSESSMENT

Assessment of Caretaker Behaviors and Safety Conditions

Explanation for the injury is unconvincing or inconsistent.

CPS_455A Safety Assessment (Revised 09/06)

Appendix BDFCs Form 455A safety Assessment (p.2)

455A SAFETY ASSESSMENT (p. 2)

Childs physical living conditions are hazardous, threatening or unsafe.

Domestic Violence / or Other (specify)

Reasonable Efforts Checklist

Supervisor Signature/Approval of Plan CPS_455A Safety Assessment (Revised 09/06)

b. What did you observe in the home?

b. Homestead c. Early Intervention

d. Diversion 8. Were any other services provided to the family?

Anda mungkin juga menyukai