The federal government’s role in helping states administer child protection programs was the topic of a hearing held on March 23 by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Opening the hearing, Subcommittee Chair Nancy Johnson (R-CT) said that Congress “created the current structure of federal support for child protection” with the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96-272), which was enacted in 1980. Then, Congress revisited the area of child protection in 1997, enacting the Adoption and Safe Familes Act (P.L. 105-89).
The hearing focused on two areas of concern: the availability of training funds for those involved in the child protection system and the role of substance abuse in the lives of children who experience abuse and neglect.
Training Funds Rep. Johnson noted that under current law, federal matching funds are available to help provide training for caseworkers, administrators, and others employed by state child protection agencies. However, the funds cannot be used to provide training for court personnel, such as judges, guardians ad litem, and volunteer Court Appointed Special Advocates.
Legislation (H.R. 3073) approved last year by the House contains a provision to make “a simple change” allowing the funds to be used for court personnel, Rep. Johnson said (see The Source, 11/12/99, p.1). She added: “I hope today’s hearing will provide additional motivation for the Senate to take action on this important bill.”
Witnesses praised the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which emphasizes moving children out of the foster care system quickly when children are removed from family settings due to abuse and neglect. As part of that effort, the Act contains strict timelines for court action on child protection cases.
Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), a cosponsor of the Act, told the subcommittee: “It is clear to me that the laudable goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act have resulted in additional strain on the courts and court personnel.”
Justice Robert Leuba of the Supreme Court of Connecticut said the Act “significantly increased the responsibilities of the courts…but did not provide the court systems with additional resources to assist them in meeting the new demands.”
Judge David Grossman of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges told the subcommittee, “The lack of adequate funding for this training is the only barrier to providing each of this nation’s judges the tools with which to improve court practice in child abuse and neglect cases.”
Substance Abuse Several witnesses testified on the role of substance abuse in families involved in the child protection system. Kristine Ragaglia of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families said, “Children with substance-abusing parents are more likely than other children to suffer from significant developmental delays and have a higher risk of developing substance abuse problems as adults. In addition, these children are more likely to abuse and neglect their own children when they become parents.”
Much of the testimony focused on treatment for parents whose children have been taken into custody by the child protection system, particularly single mothers. Dr. Thomas Kirk of the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services said, “To be effective, programs for women must…provide child care, focus on parenting, and place more attention on other barriers facing mothers…such as their immediate needs for safe housing and jobs.”
Dr. Gale Saler of Second Genesis treatment center in Maryland advocated residential programs for women who “want to have their children live with them while they are in treatment.” Many women, he said, have “no safe alternative” for their children, and “the decision to seek, avoid, or refuse treatment centers on their concerns about their children.”
Dr. Saler described one of his center’s residential programs, saying none of the involved mothers had their children removed from their care after leaving treatment. “This was true despite the fact that some of the children had come directly from foster care…and other mothers were in treatment because of pressure from child protective services.”
