System Failure
"Jana's View" Phoenix Magazine
June 2003

     Imagine this: Somebody walks in your front door and beats the hell out of your child.
     I know three things about every woman and man who just read that sentence. One: Their blood pressure immediately rose. Two: None would rest until that abuser was brought to justice. And three: Nobody would suggest that the attacking guy or gal was just having a bad day, and that they should be allowed to visit any time they want, or even babysit.
     Don't be absurd. People who abuse children - physically, sexually - not only need to be punished, but should also be kept away from the children they've hurt.
     That is why the "family reunification" policy that has governed so much of our child welfare laws has never made any sense to me.
     How is it that we make "keeping the family together" a higher priority than "keeping a child safe"? But that's what we do - we have for a long time. We minimize and forgive horrors done behind a family's door that we would never tolerate from a stranger.
     And so I was very encouraged recently to see leaders of both political parties in Arizona say that it's simply not right.
     Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, a Republican, called a news conference to say he's sick and tired of leaving kids in "harm's way," which also happens to be the title of the investigation into Child Protective Services that he sponsored.
     That message had already been delivered by newly elected Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano, who has her own task force examining CPS. That report is due this month.
     Neither of these officials is trying to attack families - the cornerstone of our society - but Romley's probe nails it with these words: "The family must be honored and not undermined in our law. However, the family must never be a shield for criminality."
     Who could argue that this doesn't make perfect sense?
     Well... society has, for more years and more battered bodies than anyone has the stomach to count.

     Karina Bland is a sensitive, probing reporter for The Arizona Republic who has covered the sad story of what happens when families, not children's safety, come first.
     Her words, in fact, were quoted on the opening page of Romley's study, titled: "In Harm's Way: A Report on Policy Conflict that Fails Children and the System Established to Protect Them."
     Here are the devastating words Bland wrote: "Liana Sandoval was already dead on September 27, 2001, when a state Child Protective Services caseworker closed her file on the little girl, writing off allegations as 'unsubstantiated' that her mother's boyfriend was abusing her."
     By the time that story ran in January of this year, we knew that boyfriend Juan Velazquez had confessed to beating the 20-month-old girl to death, tying her tiny body with heavy wire to an 18-pound chunk of concrete and throwing her into a filthy canal.
     Little Liana had been dead six months by the time Romley launched a probe into CPS. For 10 months, starting in March 2002, professionals and those involved in child welfare were grilled about what was wrong and what needed fixing.
     By the end, 163 professionals had their say, and what they said was clear: CPS is broken, and that's putting thousands of children in danger.
     Some simple math tells the horrifying story: Ninety-five reports of mistreatment are received by CPS in Arizona each and every day of the year - nearly 35,000 reports each year. And yet the "substantiation" rate for these allegations of abuse is far below the national average.
     Here is, perhaps, the most infuriating thing of all: Many of those charges are not "substantiated" because CPS can't identify the perpetrator. And so the child remains in that home, abused but "unsubstantiated," and we're supposed to just pray the problem goes away?
     That would be like saying a murder wasn't a murder if somebody wasn't standing there holding a smoking gun. It defies logic, it defies common sense, it defies human compassion.
     "There remains widespread confusion over whether child abuse is a crime or a civil 'family' matter," Romley's report notes.
     Who's confused? Are you confused, dear reader? I'm not confused. It seems pretty clear to me. I'm certain it's clear to many of the dedicated professional caseworkers at CPS who are handling those calls of abuse each day. They aren't the bad guys here, even though they're the ones who get the rap. The problem here is that when we say Americans have inalienable rights, we forget our children.
     "The 'lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness' of many children, indeed millions of children every year, are most certainly 'alienated' by criminal abuse and neglect, and we have not moved with clear purpose to protect them," Romley's report says.
     Some want to point fingers at federal law, saying it demands family reunification as the cornerstone of policy - and, in fact, that is a central consideration. But since the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, federal law has recognized the importance of putting child safety above any other consideration.
     But you don't have to go all the way across the country to finger the problem. Arizona law is so flawed that to fix it, we must change the very definition of what "protective services" means. Right now, Arizona law says it means "stabilizing family life."
     Public debate has also blurred the lines, especially in a state like Arizona, where some circles not only distrust, but despise, government "interference."
     There's good reason this debate is so important, and often, so emotional.
     It is an awesome thing for government to take a child from his or her parents. There should be nothing cavalier about this. Next to waging war and executing criminals, it is the most breathtaking power government has.
     But just as stunning, to quote national child welfare expert Richard Gelles, is our "persistent unwillingness to put children first."
     These small people aren't possessions. They aren't chattel. They're not trading beads. They're small, vulnerable victims who must be protected. Period. End of paragraph.

     It's important to understand the factors that lead to child abuse if we are to stop it. Because that has got to be the twin goal here. Nobody wants the government raising tens of thousands of children; nobody thinks foster homes are preferable to nurturing family homes. But we're faced with a situation where too many families aren't nurturing, they're abusing.
     And we don't even know the number of families out there where the threat and potential of abuse is looming. But we do know the signposts:

     It makes such obvious sense to do whatever we can to help erase these signposts for at-risk families. And I'm happy to say Arizona has not been negligent in setting up programs to do just that. OK, they're too few and far between, and they've never been properly funded, but at least we're trying.
     Arizona has programs to prevent child abuse, to help parents at risk, to offer substance abuse treatment to parents, to provide child-care subsidies to low-income parents, to offer health insurance to the working poor.
     Look at the list of signposts of trouble, then look at the list of programs the state has inaugurated, and you can see that government hasn't been blind to dealing with the problem. But then know this: The state Legislature wants to eliminate or gut every single one of those prevention programs to balance this year's budget.
     Governor Napolitano is fighting them on every front. She's got some powerful help, including the editorial page of The Arizona Republic, which has called on the Legislature to change its mind about the "devastating" cuts.
     But if you want insight into the mindset of some of our legislative leaders, then note these words from Republican Representative Karen Johnson, who represents a Mesa district:
     "Rather than aggressively investigate claims of child abuse and neglect, CPS has become crippled by a coddling culture that calls for government to be the answer to poor parenting. Instead of removing children from dangerous homes, agency caseworkers now focus much of their time and attention on enrolling families in government welfare programs."
     She doesn't like the prevention programs; she doesn't want to fund them; she doesn't think them worthy. She thinks removing kids from abusive families is enough. She scoffs at "intellectuals and social liberals" who call for prevention programs and asks, "When will they learn that government can never compensate for a broken family - no matter how many taxpayer dollars we spend?"
     And I ask back: When will you learn that prevention of child abuse is so much better than mopping up after the abuse has occurred? When will you learn that helping vulnerable people is a far more worthy government function than burying dead babies?
    But with her kind of thinking - and believe me, she's not a lone voice out at the Capitol - you can see why this problem is so much worse than it should be.

     Romley's report offers several recommendations. Number one, of course, is to change the focus of CPS from reunification of families to protection of children. I believe this is a change that is decades overdue.
     It also calls for parents to be accountable and prosecuted for abuse and neglect. I absolutely agree.
     It calls for CPS records to be open to the public - an issue I have advocated for years. While CPS says it must keep records confidential to "protect the privacy" of minors and families, no other crime is allowed that luxury.
     I also agree with the recommendation to give more resources to the agency, so it can reduce caseloads and ensure that properly trained professionals are on the job.
     And I can't stress enough how much I support this recommendation: "More needs to be done in the area of prevention, and education of the public, the media and children about the definition and scope of child abuse."
     So far, Arizona has done a lousy job protecting our most vulnerable children. And this shame hangs over all of our heads.