On the news tonight on King 5 was a story about a 3 year old child being reunited with her grandparents. Reporter Susannah Frame got choked up in the studio talking about the story.
Investigators: Judge gives girl back to grandparentsAfter a two-year battle, an Enumclaw couple has been reunited with their granddaughter. A judge ruled the child is leaving foster care to be with family...It's a stunning turn of events in a bitter custody case that the KING 5 investigators have been following for months.
Of course, the reversal in recommendation by the state's social service agency is being hailed as making up for a grievous mistake. However, as a former child abuse investigator both in Arkansas and Missouri, I can tell you firsthand that we really don't know if the mistake is the initial recommendation or this later one.
We live in a very mixed up society with people split down the middle on the subject of child abuse. About one-half the people always view this subject solely through the lens of parents/relatives and they believe that the state too easily removes children. The other half views this subject in the opposite way. Social service agencies are too slow to remove children from abusive families.
Consequently, whatever social services does, they know going in they will be severely criticized by at least one camp and, in some situations, by both at the same time!
I don't know anything specific about the case in the report. It could very well have been bungled by social services and the situation has now been rectified. On the other hand, the original recommendation -- that the child be placed in foster care -- may have been in the best interest of the child and the only reason social services has flip-flopped is due to the negative publicity coming immediately prior to the beginning of the new legislative session.
What I do know is that the news media tends to take one side or the other in these cases. The media tends to simplify very complex situations and it is presented to the public in black and white terms when everything, in reality, is various shades of gray. It is for this reason alone that I assume King 5 has not been very objective in the report of this ongoing situation.
We live in a very mixed up society with people split down the middle on the subject of child abuse. About one-half the people always view this subject solely through the lens of parents/relatives and they believe that the state too easily removes children. The other half views this subject in the opposite way. Social service agencies are too slow to remove children from abusive families.
Consequently, whatever social services does, they know going in they will be severely criticized by at least one camp and, in some situations, by both at the same time!
I don't know anything specific about the case in the report. It could very well have been bungled by social services and the situation has now been rectified. On the other hand, the original recommendation -- that the child be placed in foster care -- may have been in the best interest of the child and the only reason social services has flip-flopped is due to the negative publicity coming immediately prior to the beginning of the new legislative session.
What I do know is that the news media tends to take one side or the other in these cases. The media tends to simplify very complex situations and it is presented to the public in black and white terms when everything, in reality, is various shades of gray. It is for this reason alone that I assume King 5 has not been very objective in the report of this ongoing situation.
What happened was the media spotlight forced them to do the right thing. The mistake was letting those babystealers in the door in the first place.
ReplyDeleteLao Tzu would turn over in his grave if he knew what you people were doing.
Since you refer to me as a "Taoist babystealer" on your blog, I take it that you're in the camp that views everything through the lens of the parents.
ReplyDeleteDuring my career as a CPS worker, I'd guess I removed from the home over 100 children. However, I lost my job due to a child that I did NOT remove. His parents later killed him and, when the media got a hold of the story, it became my fault because I could/should have removed him from the situation.
I followed state procedures. My decision was upheld by my supervisors and their supervisors. Yet, in the glare of the media spotlight, the state honchos said we had erred in our decision.
So, I understand firsthand how media involvement can skew things in either direction.
The media will make a 'good story', regardless of the truth. I'm sorry to hear you're another victim of the lowest form of life on the planet.
ReplyDeleteSince the law was broken in the Stuths case; how can you say its an area of gray?
ReplyDeleteYes, some people are going to present a good front and kids are going to suffer with bad real parents. However, studies consistently show that kids are more likely to be sexually molested, emotionally, and physically abused in foster care AND WHEN ADOPTED OUT.
The problem is that criminal abuse, including neglect need to be prosecuted in a criminal court. Not some "substantiated" by a single social worker. So if you weren't in a position to play God you wouldn't have to be in the position you are.
Of course, you choose to work there so I guess you like playing God. Upon that is the crux.
Since the law was broken in the Stuths case; how can you say its an area of gray?
ReplyDeleteBe specific. Which law?
However, studies consistently show that kids are more likely to be sexually molested, emotionally, and physically abused in foster care AND WHEN ADOPTED OUT.
What studies? Please supply some citations.
The problem is that criminal abuse, including neglect need to be prosecuted in a criminal court. Not some "substantiated" by a single social worker. So if you weren't in a position to play God you wouldn't have to be in the position you are.
You obviously don't understand how the system works. For one thing, each state has it's own procedures. For another, while a social worker might have the legal authority for initial removal, in almost every state that I know of, a judge makes the final decision in a short amount of time.
Of course, you choose to work there so I guess you like playing God.
For starters, I don't believe in God, so it would not be likely that I would want to impersonate something I don't believe in. Secondly, someone must look out for the best interests of the child and I certainly liked being one of those people.
First; If you have read the posts at the TV station concerning the Stuths- they stated that Washington State law had been violated by placing the child with a foster parent over the grandparents.
ReplyDeleteSecond; Go to the NCCPR Child Welfare website and the statistics are there which show that most children do better in the natural home than foster care. AND further, that in foster care children are much more likely to be abused.
Third; As an expert I thought you would understand the system better. Yes, all states have enacted CAPTA to varying degrees. However, most states have created an administrative child abuse system which does not involve a jury or even a judge. In the administrative system, a single social worker and their supervisor can designated a private citizen as a child abuser and put them on a child abuser list.
At least with a criminal trial one has a chance to prove your innocence.
Fourth; Whether you believe in the Living God, or other gods, or no god- Its the power trip that social workers can't handle. The amount of power given to a single social worker is more than what is given to a police officer. Therein lies the problem. A social worker who provides services should never also be the 1) Investigator and the 2) Judge.
First; If you have read the posts at the TV station concerning the Stuths- they stated that Washington State law had been violated by placing the child with a foster parent over the grandparents.
ReplyDeleteI had a feeling that this is what you might be referring to! The law states that relatives must be CONSIDERED first, not that the child MUST be placed with relatives.
Since the child was initially placed with the grandparents, it shows they were given first consideration.