DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency WorkerRenews Concerns About Child Welfar

[Guest fx]

DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?

 

Judge's Rebuke Of Agency Worker Renews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases

 

By COLIN POITRAS | Courant Staff Writer

July 16, 2007

 

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-dcflies0716.artjul16,0,6131912,full.story

 

 

Three years after a Superior Court judge chastised the Department of

Children and Families for deliberately distorting facts in a child abuse

and neglect case, concerns about the agency's fairness toward parents

persist.

 

Most recently, Superior Court Judge Francis J. Foley III rebuked a state

social worker for failing to mention a deaf father's strengths and

successes in therapy while that social worker tried to terminate the

man's parental rights to his 12-year-old son.

 

In a decision handed down in Superior Court in Willimantic, Foley called

the social worker's reports "disingenuous," "misleading" and

"intellectually dishonest." The veteran judge said in his May 8 decision

that the child protection agency could not attempt to protect children

"through deception."

 

Foley refused to terminate the father's rights, but also did not reunite

him with his son, who has severe emotional problems and has spent most

of his life hospitalized or in special foster homes. Foley said the

son's refusal to learn sign language and the father's inability to deal

with the boy's disruptive behavior concerned him.

 

Foley also criticized DCF for placing unreasonable demands on the

father, a Massachusetts resident who commuted two hours each way to

attend DCF meetings and required the services of a sign language

interpreter.

 

Agency critics say Foley's rebuke illustrates how parents continue to be

treated unfairly by DCF. They say better-trained lawyers and more

openness in the state's closed juvenile courts is needed to ensure

accountability.

 

A bill that would have opened more of the juvenile court proceedings to

the public died in the legislature this year.

 

The agency critics also say the structure of child welfare proceedings

gives DCF an unfair advantage. In the Willimantic case, most of the

worker's misleading statements were contained in a so-called "social

study" that summarized the facts in the case and the parent's good and

bad traits. Judges often rely on those summaries in weighing the merits

of a case.

 

In criminal courts, such studies are conducted by independent court

officials. That DCF - effectively the prosecutor in the proceeding - is

allowed to summarize the facts opens the door to possible bias, critics

charge.

 

"DCF's failure to be fully candid in its court filings continues to be a

serious problem," said Paul Chill, associate dean of academic affairs at

the University of Connecticut School of Law.

 

"I've always believed these social studies were an invitation for DCF to

load up the trial record with lots of bad stuff," said Chill, who ran

the law school's legal clinic for child welfare cases for more than a

decade.

 

When Judge Carmen Lopez chastised DCF for distorting case facts and

ordered agency workers to be fairer to parents in a landmark decision in

2004, Chill called the ruling "the tip of the iceberg."

 

Gary Kleeblatt, a spokesman for DCF, denied social workers have problems

with fairness. He said the Willimantic case and the one in Lopez's court

reflected the casework of two employees among more than a thousand.

 

After Lopez's order, social workers received mandatory training in the

preparation of court affidavits. Kleeblatt said the worker reprimanded

in Foley's decision was not punished, although the case was "discussed"

at the agency's Willimantic office. He suggested Foley's concerns may

have been a misunderstanding.

 

"While we regard seriously this requirement to offer balanced and

truthful information, it may be the case in some instances that

information that a judge may find to be relevant may not be perceived

that way by DCF staff," Kleeblatt said.

 

In the Willimantic case, Foley took issue with the social worker's

characterization that the father was "ignorant of his son's needs" and

not compliant with new orders for counseling.

 

Foley said the worker failed to mention that the father, 30, had

completed anger management classes and had just finished a year of

counseling, during which the therapist described him as "highly

motivated" and "intelligent" and that his "improved self-esteem bodes

well for his potential."

 

"The failure of social workers to give the respondent credit for his

successes, even if they are limited or not complete, amounts to

intellectual dishonesty," Foley wrote.

 

"It does not represent a balanced presentation of the facts," Foley

said. "While the court understands that the department is advocating for

a termination of the parent's rights ... the department cannot protect

or advocate for the child through deception."

 

Foley also chastised the worker for misleading the court into believing

she made a reasonable effort to find the father when he moved to another

address and could not be located for more than six months in 2006. The

father's absence was a mark against him in the report.

 

Foley said the worker's sworn statement that she checked Connecticut

motor vehicle and social service records in her effort to locate the

father was irrelevant because he was living in Massachusetts. Also,

there was no effort to contact the father's mother in Massachusetts.

Though the mother made repeated calls to DCF the past year, Foley said,

those calls were never returned. There was also no effort made to reach

the father's employer.

 

Michael H. Agranoff, an Ellington attorney specializing in DCF matters,

said he has been involved in numerous cases where DCF presented

misleading information to a judge.

 

Agranoff cited a case in which DCF asked a judge to allow the agency to

continue to supervise an Enfield couple because their child remained

disturbed and maladjusted.

 

The agency's report cited the child's psychologist, psychiatrist and

teacher.

 

Agranoff said he checked with the professionals mentioned in the report

and was told that the child was fine, that the parents were doing well

and DCF involvement should end. Agranoff said the teacher "quoted" by

DCF in the report claimed a social worker had never spoken to her.

 

In another case, Agranoff said DCF charged a rural couple with multiple

counts of neglect, claiming their three children had amblyopia (lazy

eye) that was untreated and could lead to blindness; that a 6-year-old

was anemic, and that all of the children had dental disease.

 

Agranoff said he was able to prove that the social worker's descriptions

of the children were based on one overzealous doctor's impressions and

that the family's regular pediatrician and optometrist were never

interviewed. Agranoff said the family's doctors minimized the health

threat and said the children were generally doing well.

 

Agranoff said such incidents underline the importance of families

obtaining qualified attorneys when DCF opens an investigation. The

state's juvenile courts, where most DCF cases are heard, rely on

overworked, underpaid and often poorly trained public defenders who

often don't have the time or resources to double-check DCF's facts.

 

Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, president of Connecticut DCF Watch, a parent

advocacy group, said he hears parents complain about DCF being unfair

all the time.

 

"They never put exculpatory evidence into their records," Dutkiewicz

said. "They're trying to build cases. This goes on all the time. That's

why so many parents are so angry."

 

Florida lawmakers, frustrated by social workers who lied in child

protection records, made falsifying child welfare reports a felony

punishable by up to five years in prison.

 

Since the law passed in 2002, there have been three convictions, 19

firings and 24 resignations of workers.

 

Lawyers for the parent or child in a child welfare case are free to

challenge any questionable facts or omissions in court, Kleeblatt said.

At the same time, he said, DCF will always aggressively pursue a case it

feels is justified.

 

"It is to be expected that a party in a legal proceeding is going to

present its case in such a fashion as to most effectively achieve the

desired outcome - and that is precisely the responsibility of the

department as it seeks to take all actions that are in the best interest

of the child," Kleeblatt said.

 

Contact Colin Poitras at cpoitras@courant.com.

 

 

 

 

 

CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A

DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL

SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

 

CPS Does not protect children...

It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even

killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

 

every parent should read this .pdf from

connecticut dcf watch...

 

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

 

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

 

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US

These numbers come from The National Center on

Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)

Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

 

Perpetrators of Maltreatment

 

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59

Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13

Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241

Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12

Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

 

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that

are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per

100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse

and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the

citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold

parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY

government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and

death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more

human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which

they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that

they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when

children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a

bunch of social workers.

 

BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF

REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES

TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY

ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...