Can Our Child Protection System Evolve Into A Child Welfare System?

This country does not have a child welfare system.  Instead, we have a child protection system that is far too expansive in the children it chooses to separate from their parents.  But – to be clear – the welfare of children isn’t this system’s primary focus.  If it were, given what we know about the impact of family separation on children – the system would be hyper-focused in ways it could support families to keep them together whenever possible.  And families would want support from such a system trying to help them.   Instead we have constructed a system in which families fear “child welfare” agencies and don’t seek any assistance, even when it might be available.

Two stories I recently heard illustrate this point.  The first involved a mother escaping a violent domestic violence relationship.  She and her children had left her abuser and were reconstructing their lives.  But her abuser was being released into the community so her lawyer was counseling her on a safety plan.  When he asked what might prevent her from calling 911 in case of an emergency, without hesitation, she responded, “Because I’m afraid they’d report me to the child welfare agency.”  A parent would rather risk the torment of her abuser rather than incur the possibility of involvement from an agency purportedly serving her child’s welfare.      

Another parent – on the verge of reunifying with her child – expressed similar feelings.  He had stable housing, had maintained sobriety for nearly a year and was enjoying unsupervised parenting time with his child.  For the first time in years, things were looking good in his life.

But then the fragility of living in poverty was exposed.  His stable housing was in fact unstable because he had been duped into entering a fraudulent lease.  When he discovered this, his landlord informed him that he had to leave within days.  Then he got sick at work and told his boss that he needed to get to the doctor.  In response, he was immediately fired from the job.  Just like that, this father was without housing and without a job.

In such a time of crisis, whom should he turn to?  In theory, he had a foster care worker from his “child welfare” agency there to support his efforts to reunify with his family.  But that was the last person he wanted to confide in.  If he did so, his setbacks would be dutifully documented in a court report and used against him.  We’ve created a schizophrenic system in which the same agency designed to support parents, uses their setbacks as the basis to request termination of parental rights.  And asking for assistance on concrete issues – like housing or income security – is usually futile since most agencies lack the tools to address them.  So why bother calling?  In other words, reaching out the “child welfare” system is risky, without any clear benefits. 

I raise these examples to highlight a broader point.  Recently, the Children’s Bureau has shifted its focus to prioritize the welfare of children by trying to support families to prevent family separation.  At a recent meeting, the Bureau highlighted incredibly promising programs and efforts that support families on a variety of issue – like housing, income security and medical needs – that support families in exactly the right ways.  These innovative efforts – combined with the possibility of more flexibility in how states can spend “child welfare” funds – may creates opportunities for different relationships between “child welfare” agencies and families. 

Yet, will families ever trust the “child welfare” agency to engage in these programs?  Should families trust agencies that have historically mistreated them in a myriad of ways?  As a lawyer, would I ever encourage clients to contact the agency when they need help?  Or would that just be exposing them to the risk of family separation?  These are the questions I struggle with. 

I struggle because I entered this work to help at-risk families, not to simply limit the government’s involvement in their lives.  When I win a case and reunite families, I often leave them at a time when their basic needs are still unmet.  They might still be homeless.  Or lack food.  Or not have stable job.  Yet I’ve done my job because the “child welfare” agency is out of their lives.  I can hoist the victory flag.   

I no longer want to be the emergency room physician, putting band-aids on serious wounds.  I want to help in a more meaningful way – if that possibility even exists. 

So how do we convert our child protection system into a child welfare system?

At a minimum, we need to disconnect the two concepts.  The child protection system should only get involved when serious allegations of abuse or neglect are made.  In contrast, the child welfare system should include a panoply of community-based programs that are supported by federal child welfare funds.  Community centers – like the Center for Family Life in NYC (https://sco.org/programs/center-for-family-life/), and the Community Action Network in Washtenaw County, Michigan (https://www.canwashtenaw.org/), that work with families long before child protection agencies ever get involved reflect these types of programs.  At these neighborhood centers, families can get a myriad of supports, including child care, housing and employment assistance.  The goal is to stabilize the family before a problem turns into a crisis.  These programs must be the soul of a true “child welfare” system.

Families also be able to access legal assistance whenever a crisis arrives.  Parents must have the opportunity to consult with a trusted advocated – bound by duties of confidentiality – to get advice about the risks of engaging with an agency that might take their children away, and who can help them address legal issues.  While this type of advocacy might dissuade some parents from seeking help, it will also play a critical role in changing the culture of child protection agencies, who have much work to do to earn a family’s trust to effectively work with them.  So long as parents feel coerced to work with agencies that might separate their family, they will never truly engage with that agency. Lawyers can play a critical role in improving agency practice to give families a reason to believe that agencies have changed and actually want to help them. 

I want a world where the father – on the verge of being evicted – will reach out to her caseworker to help him through that crisis.  Or a mother – fearing the violence of her abusive ex-partner – will call 911 without fearing the intervention of “child welfare.”  But we are not there.  Transforming our current child protection system into a child welfare system must begin with rebuilding the trust between parents and agencies that simply does not exist right now.