Georgia DFCS launches child abuse registry

By Staff Reports

Fri, 01 Jul 2016, 10:06 AM




Bobby Cagle, director of the Division of Family and Children Services

The Division of Family and Children Services on Friday launched a registry allowing employers of certain child-serving agencies to find out if a job applicant was deemed an alleged child abuser by the division.

The central child abuse registry, called the Child Protective Services Information System, will include names of people who allegedly abused a child. The registry will only be accessible to certain child caring employers and agencies, allowing these employers to learn if an applicant has a substantiated allegation of abuse with the division.

“We need to make sure we are doing everything we can to keep children safe, especially while in the care of others. The creation of the registry will make sure child caring agencies have access to the information they need to make the best hiring and licensing decisions,” said Bobby Cagle, director of the Division of Family and Children Services.

After a law signed by Gov. Nathan Deal last year, DGCS was required to establish and maintain a central registry of all allegations of abuse substantiated by the division and to notify individuals of his or her placement on the registry and provide instructions on how to appeal the decision.

The employers/agencies allowed access to information on the registry include:

Child Protective Services investigators for the purpose of assessing specific allegations.

State or other government agencies responsible for providing care for children.

The Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning for the purpose of determining the fitness of employees in day care facilities and prior to issuance of a child care license.

Court Appointed Special Advocate programs for the purpose of screening and selecting individuals to serve as CASA employees or volunteers.

Individuals who want to request a self-check.

For more information visit:dfcs.dhs.georgia.gov/child-...



http://m.onlineathens.com/mobile/2016-07-01/georgia-dfcs-launches-child-abuse-registry#article=82256F4F16445FE56501281E976AFAFD2E31

Texas' foster care capacity keeps shrinking, as CPS loses its top child placement decision maker

Texas has a dearth of treatment beds available for the most disturbed of its foster children, and facilities keep closing or losing their state contracts. The situation complicates the state's response to a federal judge's scathing criticisms about shoddy care. Last spring, a 7-year-old read a book at a shelter in Dallas County run by Jonathan's Place, which also operates a residential treatment program for girls.

By Robert T. Garrett



Updated: 08 July 2016 11:00 AM

AUSTIN Just as Texas’ foster care capacity crunch keeps getting worse, Child Protective Services’ top decision maker on child placements is retiring.

Over a six-month period, officials have lost nearly 200 residential treatment center beds where they used to be able to place foster children with complex emotional and behavioral problems.

Experts said the closures or holds on adding children to the centers, plus the sudden retirement of CPS placement director Melanie Cleveland, will complicate the state’s efforts to respond to a federal judge’s scathing criticisms of Texas foster care.

Cleveland is in charge of managing placements and building more capacity, a nerve-wracking job she has held for less than a year.

Last week, Sinclair Children’s Center in Woodville announced it is voluntarily closing two residential operations in southeast Texas. As a result, CPS will have 53 fewer beds for abused and neglected children it has removed from their birth families.

Earlier in the year, the Department of Family and Protective Services took enforcement action against four other residential treatment centers, including two in the Panhandle, where a mass removal of seriously disturbed children drew criticism.

Responding to requests fromThe Dallas Morning News, the department acknowledged Thursday that in late January, it also refused to re-up the contracts of The Treehouse, a 25-bed facility in Conroe, and Avalon Center Inc., a 32-bed facility in the Central Texas town of Eddy, because of concerns about the quality of care.

For a time, the department suspended additional placements of children withCarter’s Kids Inc., a 60-bed treatment center in Richmond, citing deficiencies. Last week, though, it lifted the placement hold on the facility, saying conditions had improved. The center is run by former NFL player Tim Carter.

Last August, nearly 1,700 children were living in the centers. The already or soon-to-be shuttered centers would have been able to house about 12 percent of those children.

That comes on top of an existing bed shortage.Children again are sleeping in CPS offices because there is no available placement that’s suitable.

Residential treatment centers, especially, are not distributed well geographically to align with demand. For years, the department has noted there are many in and around Houston but relatively few in Dallas-Fort Worth.

The department is working on a formal study of the imbalances, which is due out this summer.

Officials acknowledge it’s increasingly hard to place children in their home community, especially in rural Texas. That’s partly because operators can refuse to take a child in CPS care.

“We don’t have any cushion,” said department spokesman Patrick Crimmins. “We don’t have any [centers] opening as these are closing.”

A bill being debated in Congress, the Families First Prevention Services Act, may be delaying foster care vendors from building new residential treatment centers, said Nancy Holman, who heads the Texas Alliance of Child and Family Services, which represents centers and child placing agencies. It would require accreditation and minimum staffing levels.

“That could be causing people to ... pause in expanding or opening new residentials,” she said. “Residentials are expensive to launch.”

The resignation of Cleveland, a 30-year “lifer” at CPS, comes at a very inauspicious time.

“Melanie has done a terrific job under very trying circumstances,” Crimmins said. “It's a really tough job, but she has been laser-focused on finding the right home for every child in foster care, regardless of the circumstances. In terms of her motivation for leaving, it was a strictly personal decision, nothing else.”

Cleveland’s last day will be July 27, she said in an email last week to her supervisor, CPS director of permanency Camille Gilliam.

“I will continue to pray for you all as you continue to fight the good fight,” she wrote.

In December, U.S. District Court Janis Graham Jack of Corpus Christi found, among other things, that Texas maintains an “inadequate placement array” in serving foster children. At any given time, the state has between 16,000 and 18,000 children in paid foster care. About 12,000 have been in state care for a year or more.

The lack of capacity is not new. Several years ago, officials and foster care vendors persuaded lawmakers to begin testing “foster care redesign,”which gives a super-contractor in a particular region responsibility for developing the right mix of institutional beds and family foster homes. But it’s had a troubled rollout and is operating only in Tarrant and several nearby counties.

Experts describe a fractious relationship between the department and the contractors on which it relies to house more than 90 percent of foster children. They say the Legislature has resisted increasing reimbursements to providers.

Meanwhile, private vendors can -- and often do -- refuse to accept “bouncers,” children who have been in state care for a long time and are troubled, traumatized and ill. The care for such children is  very costly.

On Feb. 1, the state removed 88 high-needs children -- many of them with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities from two treatment centers run by Children’s Hope in Lubbock and nearby Levelland. State officials  said they were shoddy, though a lawyer for the owner has disputed that assessment.

Initially, the department had no place to put the children. It spent $1.3 million housing them at shelters in San Antonio, 400 miles away, until treatment center beds or therapeutic foster homes could be found. Matthew Thigpen, a lawyer for Children’s Hope, said the transfers were unwarranted and greatly upset most of the children.

An investigation of the facilities is ongoing, Crimmins said.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20160708-texas-foster-care-capacity-keeps-shrinking-as-cps-loses-its-top-child-placement-decision-maker.ece

App now available

http://app.appsgeyser.com/What%20Every%20Parent%20Should%20Know%20About%20CPS

DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN ARIZONA CPS/DCS CUSTODY

NOVEMBER 17, 2014

Terri LaPoint

With the recent stories of children allegedly being medically kidnapped in Arizona, as well as reports that there are not enough foster homes to house all the children in DCS custody, some parents have asked if this is truly an increasing trend or if there are simply more of these stories being reported. The trends they are seeing are concerning.

An average of 32 children enter the foster care system in Arizona every single day. Kris Jacober, the executive director of the Arizona Friends of Foster Children Foundation, told KTAR, “There’smore kids in foster care than there has ever been before.”

She is correct. According to the latest DCS Semi-Annual Child Welfare Report, there has been close to a 50 percent increase in the number of Arizona children in out-of-home care over just the last four years, from 10,514 in the period from April 2010 to September 2010 up to 15,751 in the period from October 2013 to March 2014. “New removals” have increased at just about the same rate, from 4,010 in 2010 to 5,701 in the 6 month period ending in March 2014.

Besides having half again as many children living in foster care as were there four years ago, Arizona has the greatest increase in the nation of child removals from their home. While most of the nation has seen fewer CPS cases, only 11 out of 50 states have shown an increase in the past decade. Arizona leads the pack, by a large margin, according to a Data Brief by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. Arizona’s own data confirms that increase.

in foster care has skyrocketed.

Despite a federal law that ties Title IV-E funding to a requirement that CPS/DCS seek to place a child with a relative first, many parents allege that this is not being done. They may be correct. According to the Child Welfare Report, only 42.7 percent of children removed from their homes in Arizona are placed with family members.

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of children whose parents’ rights have been terminated, who have been adopted out of foster care — again, it is a 50 percent increase over the past four years, from 991 over 6 months in 2010 to 1,518 in the 2014 period. Over half of those placements are finalized within one year of the child being taken from their parents’ custody. This could indicate that any parents who may be falsely accused are not given adequate time for a defense.

All of these numbers might be good if it meant that the government was getting better at protecting kids from abusive parents. But it is far from clear that this is the case. While the numbers have remained fairly steady for removals for physical, sexual, and emotional abuse over the four years between 2009 and 2013, it is neglect cases that make up the staggering increase in DCS cases, according to data from the DCS Oversight Committee.

image: http://1.1.1.1/bmi/cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Arizona-CPS-Abuse-Chart-670x322.png

Also, the same report show that the number of children entering the DCS system has sharply increased, but the number of children exiting the system has remained steady.

Since the majority of the children removed from their homes are neglect cases, and since the greatest increase in DCS removals are based upon that charge, it is helpful to understand how neglect is defined by the Arizona DCS. According to the state code in Arizona, “neglect exists when parents, guardians or custodians place children at unreasonable risk of harm.”

“Neglect occurs when children are not given necessary care for illness or injury. Neglect also includes leaving young children unsupervised or alone, locked in or out of the house, or without adequate clothing, food, or shelter. Allowing children to live in a very dirty house which could be a health hazard may also be considered neglect.”

Further clarification states that neglect includes “a denial or deprivation of necessary medical treatment or surgical care or nourishment with the intent to cause or allow the death of an infant who is protected under A.R.S. § 36-2281.”

Herein lies the rub. Recently there have been a string of cases that have been taken up by Arizona’s DCF which have been termed “neglect.” Most of these allege medical neglect of the child(ren), when what is actually happening is that the parents challenge, debate, or disagree with a treatment plan or diagnosis by a doctor, or simply ask for a second opinion.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1615232/dramatic-increase-in-the-number-of-children-in-arizona-cpsdcs-custody/

Volunteers sought for county's child protection advisory panel

By Michelle Leonard on Mar 10, 2016 at 12:58 a.m.

Washington County is looking for volunteers, ages 21 and older, to help some of the county's youngest, and most vulnerable, residents.

The Washington County Child Protection Citizen Review Panel is in need of three to five new volunteers to join the board. Normally, it carries a roster of 10 to 12 individuals, but a handful of recent retirements from the board leaves it at seven members—which is the minimum it can have to remain an active board.
The Citizen Review Panel is an advisory group, of sorts, to the county's child protection division, according to Nissa Knutson from Washington County Social Services. It was established in 1999, and is one of only five such panels in the state of Minnesota. All of the members must live in Washington County, but the decisions and recommendations they make also directly affect local families.
Although the panel members do not work directly with children or parents in the county's child protection program, they do advocate for issues facing child protection. Last year, Knutson said, some members were called on to testify before state legislators, or write editorials on matters of concern in child protection laws.
The panel also does different projects to better the county's child protection services. For instance, in 2015, members created duffel bags for kids, filled with personal hygiene items, socks and blankets, so that when a child is taken in by child protection services, he or she has the essentials to get through the first hours. Those duffel bags are stored at the county offices, and used whenever necessary.
A big piece of what the Citizens Review Panel does is called "reconsiderations." Almost every month, the panel reviews documentation regarding the care children are getting from caregivers. If a maltreatment report has been made against a caregiver, the caregiver has the right to appeal the report. The panel reviews those cases and provides an advisory opinion to the county, which in turn helps the county decide whether or not the report will be overturned.
Membership on the Citizens Review Panel comes from all walks of life, from all parts of the county, Knutson said. While meetings are held at the county's Woodbury Service Center along Radio Drive, the panel members live in communities throughout Washington County.
"We have a variety of members," Knutson said. "We really want people with varying backgrounds, who have an interest in how child protection works and how it affects the community and how they can make a difference."
Meetings are held from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. the third Tuesday of each month. The reconsiderations are done at separate times, scheduled by the panel members. Terms on the Citizen Review Panel are for two years.
There is an application process for interested volunteers, which includes a short questionnaire. The county also asks for references, and does do a background check on potential panel members. The panel members are appointed by the Washington County Board of Commissioners.
Knutson is happy to share more information with anyone who may be interested in a post on the Child Protection Citizen Review Panel. It is, she said, a great chance for residents to become involved and make a difference in the county.
"It is really a great opportunity to get an understanding of issues families face in our community," she said. "It's a chance to understand it, and to make recommendations back to the county on how to serve those families, and what services are needed. I think it is a great opportunity to also get an understanding of what child protection means. It really does allow someone in the community to have some input on what families are receiving as services."
For more information, contact Nissa Knutson at 651-430-4111, or by email at nissa.knutson@co.washington.mn.us. She will be able to send applications and information sheets about the program, and answer any questions.
More information is also available at: the county's website, co.washington.mn.us; under the "Government" tab, select "Advisory Boards and Commissions," then click on the "Child Protection" link.

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4874430117222606808#editor/target=post;postID=4710044396546672109

Plan to expand staffing and hours for child protection services could take effect in September

 by ALLIE MORRIS Monitor staff - Mar 1, 2016

The Division for Children, Youth and Families unveiled a $1.8 million plan Monday to provide around-the-clock staffing at child protection services, which is currently open during business hours only.

The state agency, which investigates reports of child abuse and neglect, has come under renewed scrutiny following the recent deaths of two New Hampshire toddlers.

A state commission to review child abuse fatalities has been weighing whether to expand the agency’s hours beyond the current Monday through Friday schedule between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

The division’s proposal, presented Monday, would re-purpose existing state money to bring on 18 new child protective workers and supervisors who would primarily cover a new shift from noon to 8 p.m. Some of the workers would also cover overnights and weekends.

The division currently has 176 child protection field workers on staff.

“It would significantly enhance the department’s ability to investigate and respond to reports of abuse and neglect,” said Jeff Meyers, head of the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes child protection services.

Currently, weekend and nighttime complaints are typically covered by local law enforcement, which has requested longer hours at DCYF.

The plan could be in place by September, Meyers said, but it first needs approval from the commission and a legislative fiscal committee.

Some officials questioned whether the agency should beef up its existing staffing levels before expanding its hours.

The report revealed the child protection services division suffers from high staff turnover – which reached 50 percent in the last two years – and a growing number of caseloads. Reports of child abuse and neglect accepted by the division rose 17 percent over the last five years, officials said.

“If you continue to have high turnover rate, you are really never going to catch up. I am concerned about the turnover rate,” said Marc Clement, who represents the New Hampshire Child Fatality Review Committee on the commission.

The commission, going forward, needs to understand what’s behind the turnover, said its chairman, Sen. David Boutin.

“What is (the turnover) related to? Is it related to pay, is it related to benefits, is it related to the work?” asked Boutin, a Hooksett Republican. “What do we need to do to correct it?”

The division had previously released a more expensive 24/7 staffing plan in January, which proposed bringing on more than 50 workers at a cost of $4 million. But that proposal was pulled back in favor of the staffing report released Monday.

HHS Assistant Commissioner Mary Ann Cooney said the new recommendation is scaled back so the department can collect data before it presents a full request in the next state budget – which will be crafted by the governor and Legislature in 2017.

Boutin said the proposal is a good first step, and it will likely come up for a commission vote at the next meeting in late March.

(Allie Morris can be reached at 369-3307, amorris@cmonitor.com or on Twitter @amorrisNH.)

https://politics.concordmonitor.com/2016/03/gov-state/plan-to-expand-staffing-and-hours-for-child-protection-services-could-take-effect-in-september/

The Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement

Once the Fourth Amendment applies to a particular search or seizure, the next question is under what circumstances is a Warrant required. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution expresses a preference for searches, seizures, and Arrests conducted pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant (see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 [1978]). A warrant is a written order signed by a court authorizing a law-enforcement officer to conduct a search, seizure, or arrest. Searches, seizures, and arrests performed without a valid warrant are deemed presumptively invalid, and any evidence seized without a warrant will be suppressed unless a court finds that the search was reasonable under the circumstances.  An application for a warrant must be supported by a sworn, detailed statement made by a law enforcement officer appearing before a neutral judge or magistrate. The Supreme Court has said that probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge provide a reasonably trustworthy basis for a man of reasonable caution to believe that a criminal offense has been committed or is about to take place (see Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 [1925]). Probable cause can be established by out-of-court statements made by reliable police informants, even though those statements cannot be tested by the magistrate. However, probable cause will not lie where the only evidence of criminal activity is an officer’s affirmation of suspicion or belief (see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 [1964]). On the other hand, an officer’s subjective reason for making an arrest does not need to be the same criminal offense for which the facts indicate. (Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 [2004]). Probable cause will not lie unless the facts supporting the warrant are sworn by the officer as true to the best of his or her knowledge. The officer’s oath can be written or oral, but the officer must typically swear that no knowing or intentionally false statement has been submitted in support of the warrant and that no statement has been made in reckless disregard of the truth. Inaccuracies due to an officer’s negligence or innocent omission do not jeopardize a warrant’s validity. The Fourth Amendment requires not only that warrants be supported by probable cause offered by a sworn police officer, but it also requires that a warrant "particularly" describe the person or place to be searched or seized. Warrants must provide enough detail so that an officer with the warrant can ascertain with reasonable effort the persons and places identified in the warrant. For most residences a street address usually satisfies the particularity requirement, unless the warrant designates an apartment complex, hotel, or other multiple-unit building, in which case the warrant must describe the specific sub-unit to be searched. Warrants must describe individuals with sufficient particularity so that a person of average intelligence can distinguish them from others in the general population. The magistrate before whom an officer applies for a warrant must be neutral and detached. This qualification means that the magistrate must be impartial and not a member of the "competitive enterprise" of law enforcement (see California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 [1991]). Thus, police officers, prosecutors, and attorney generals are disqualified from becoming a magistrate. States vary as to the requirements that candidates must possess before they will be considered qualified for the job of magistrate. Some states require that magistrates have an attorney’s license, while others require only that their magistrates be literate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment