Rethinking Foster Care

Last week, I received word that many courts – including the juvenile court in which I practice – were closing. That is, for the indefinite future, my court would not be holding any hearings, other than emergency hearings, to address whether a child needs to be removed for their immediate safety. So parents that have met the milestones to reunify with their children might have to wait because that is not deemed an emergency. Parents that are requesting more visits with their families during this time of crisis is not an emergency. Children stuck in group homes or residential centers might not be able to get out, because the type of placement in which they call home during the pandemic is not the subject of what our courts would consider to be an emergency. Older youth might reach the age of majority without ever appearing before a judge, because the transition from childhood to adulthood while in the custody of the child welfare agency is not an emergency.  Undoubtedly, there was

A few weeks ago, NBC ran a troubling story involving Wisconsin doctor John Cox, who lost custody of his daughter after he accidentally fell asleep on top of her. He feared he broke her collarbone so he immediately called his wife, also a doctor. While the baby appeared to be fine, his wife suggested he take her to the hospital. But in Cox’s   words, “[T]aking her to our own hospital was the single most harmful decision that we made for our baby.”   According to the story, a nurse practitioner misinterpreted the baby’s birthmarks as bruises. A pediatrician misread a crucial blood test result. Despite the fact that 15 medical experts reviewed the record and determined that there was little reason to suggest that the child had been abused, Wisconsin child welfare authorities still removed the child. This story reflects a troubling dynamic within the child welfare system – the refusal to admit that we might be wrong. So much of our work is based on guesswork