As a kid who has been removed from my mother’s care at age 11 and had my father’s rights terminated when I was 14, and lived in several different kinds of family structures, I was very upset when I read this story in the Austin-American Statesman. I do not think it is necessarily a good thing that CPS is caring for fewer children than they used to.
By Corrie MacLagganThe number of Texas children removed from their homes because of abuse or neglect has declined following a series of reforms to Child Protective Services, the agency said today.In the 2008 budget year, CPS removed 14,295 children, which is down from 15,920 in 2007 and 17,536 in 2006. That’s a decrease of 18.5 percent.“Generally, children do better if they can remain safely with their families,” CPS spokesman Darrell Azar said. “Foster care is really intended as a last resort.”Lawmakers passed CPS reforms in 2005 and 2007. As part of that, the state invested in programs that help keep families together, including one that provides cash assistance to certain low-income families.“More often than not, neglect is at the heart of the problem,” rather than abuse, Azar said. “Some families are so impoverished, they can’t meet basic needs. The whole theory behind this is working with the family … to help them find the supports they need.”
Does this mean that they are removing kids just because their families are poor? If kids really are better off with their families, then give the family the help they need to not be so poor. Duh!
State officials say the decline in removals is partly due to the reforms and partly to a 5th Circuit Court decision that clarifies that in most cases, CPS must get a judge’s permission before — not after — removing children.Other changes include an increase of children being placed with relatives, a practice CPS officials say is a “safe alternative to foster care.” Between 2005 and 2008, the number of children placed with relatives increased 32 percent, officials said.Caseloads have also dropped for CPS investigative caseworkers, officials said.
Family care is not always safe, and I’ve been removed from THAT too. The state should worry a lot less about the cost of supervision and a lot more about making sure that kids are safe for good. The case load should not be dropping because CPS is failing to make sure that family placements work out. That’s not good for the kids or for the state.
22 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Thank you for your strong voice advocating for kids and families.
Amen, Cassie. In this era of reduced resources I fear that the most vulnerable and least vocal among us will receive too little attention and support–to the peril of our society for years to come. Thanks for speaking out.
thank you for speaking up and speaking out.
Cassie,
Do you think the highly publicized case where children of a polygamy cultist were removed from their families, and then over-ruled by a court, has been a factor in the decrease of CPS removals?
Keep up your reports on these things! Maybe you’ll be the next Rachel Maddow, if not President!
Aloha,
Bob in HI
Cassie:
Thank you for seriously thinking and commenting. Your experiences are valuable to our understanding.
Karen
Good work on this, Cassie. CPS has been squeezed budgetary, like other Texas Agencies thanks to our Republican dominated State Government. Meanwhile Governor Goodhair lives in his rented home which costs the taxpayers $11,000 a month. We certainly wouldn’t want Perry to be unduly inconvenienced by having to exercise some kind of personal austerity-that’s only for the “little people” I guess.
Good work Cassie. Keep it up!
FWIW, CPS workers in all states have what has to be the most thankless job around.
If they don’t remove children and something happens it is, “Why didn’t you take the children from that home?”
If they do take the children, it becomes “Why are you removing those children from their parents? Don’t the parents have rights to raise the children as they want?’ (I know it is not a logical argument but it is made, nonetheless)
And doG forbid something happen to the child in any situation where s/he has been removed from the home, whether in stranger foster care or relative foster care either one.
dakine01, why do they only supervise kids for the first six months when they are placed with family?
That sounds like a Texas unique requirement that may well haunt them at some time in the future.
My experiences have been working with states on their SACWIS (Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems) applications. The federal requirements for SACWIS include licensing foster care, whether stranger or family and re-licensing annually plus standing visits to the home when children are placed there, sometimes monthly but at least quarterly. This way, the worker keeps up with the charges in the care of the state.
Well I have had two family placements and one non-family placement, and they don’t pay attention to you when you’re with family.
Well, like I say, that may be a Texas unique situation as the states I’ve worked with (IIRC) required many of the same types of visits and follow-ups, whether it was a relative placement or non-relative placement.
Cassie,
You do good things, but I still think you should hang out with people your own age.
Fire me, ignore me, whatever.
Just, Aunt Debbie caring about you, girl.
I meant it. Hug.
Yes, I think you are correct. I worked as a guardian ad litem in Florida and my ‘family placements’ were visited on the same schedules as the foster care ones. In a couple of cases, even more so. The visits lasted as long as the case was still open, and then for another six months after it was closed if the placement was deemed permanent. If the family requested it, the GAL could continue to visit up to two years afterwards.
That 5th circuit ruling sounds bad – my understanding of the law (as it pertained in Florida) was that if the child was deemed to be in imminent danger, a CPI (Child Protection Investigator) could remove the child on the spot. A hearing was held in front of a judge within 24 hours, and the parent/guardian had a right to attend that hearing, but the issue was the ‘imminent danger’ to the child as first consideration. Seems the 5th Circuit is re-interpreting and I would hope some child advocacy organization would challenge that.
Stress on families intensifies during periods of financial downturns due to unemployment and all the rest. As a result, substance abuse goes up, and so does abuse of others within the family unit. The fact that they are reporting all their numbers down is also very worrisome.
Thanks for the post Kassie. Keep up the good work. And since you have first hand experience, it is more important then you know for you to be an advocate because you DO have that first-hand experience.
On the other hand, CPS investigators also operate like a Star Chamber. And getting disentangled from them can be like getting disimpacted from Br’er Tarbaby.
I had one encounter with them, and that was one too many.
I looked up some info on Ohio children’s service caseload, and it’s very high.
Thank you for speaking out on this where you are. It only makes sense in hard times that there will be more kids in need of safe homes, not less. The state agencies must be pinching pennies. Kids need a whole crew of lobbyists, big time lobbyists who get stuff done.
(Thinks of new job for Cassie.;)
Very good question is the Guv looking for Mormon support to be President or maybe Mitt’s VP?
Is Texas doing not monitoring after 6 months to save money? This kind of thing leads to disaster. The kind that if it gets into the Press costs elections.
Cassie can ace any college poli sci class she takes in college after hanging out here. And probably a few other subjects law, economics, Feminist studies.
Plus the book club is great reading for any student.
Cassie should be a kid and do what kids do still its her choice I worry too but you got to give kids freedom.
To be responsible as well as irresponsible. Its kind of weird to worry about kids being responsible though:)
Well, they pretty much have to operate with a lot of secrecy because of the children. That’s part of the reason that they are inherently in a no-win situation.
That’s a practice that has not been standard, IMO. It also is very risky. The kind of thing that causes a big scandal if something happens to a child, and reports show that the Caseworker has not been visiting. Curious about the accuracy and authority for limiting visits.
As a former school nurse I appreciate this article. Families are not often the best.
In theory, that’s true, but did they also fund CPS for caseworkers to monitor the children s situation? If not then those children are in trouble.
Family patterns are so hard to break and without supervision, those patterns are repeated!