[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TO EXAMINE RECENT FAILURE TO PROTECT CHILD SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 6, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
92-618 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JERRY WELLER, Illinois MAX SANDLIN, Texas
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
Allison H. Giles, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of October 30, 2003, announcing the hearing............. 2
WITNESSES
Andrews, Hon. Robert E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey............................................ 9
Camden County Office of the Prosecutor, Vincent P. Sarubbi....... 31
Children's Rights, Marcia Robinson Lowry......................... 46
Come Alive New Testament Church, Reverend Harry L. Thomas, Jr.... 34
Communications Workers of America, Carla Katz.................... 40
Ferguson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.................................................. 15
New Jersey Department of Human Services, Colleen Maguire......... 20
New Jersey Office of the Child Advocate, Kevin Ryan.............. 27
Pascrell, Jr., Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey............................................ 11
______
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, New York, NY, Douglas H.
Reiniger, statement............................................ 75
Atwood, Thomas C., National Council for Adoption, Alexandria, VA,
letter......................................................... 87
Beebe, Jeanne M., Pueblo, CO, statement.......................... 75
Bell, Shirley and Robert, Aurora, CO, statement.................. 76
Child Welfare League of America, statement....................... 76
Cohen, Steven D., New Jersey Child Welfare Panel, Trenton, NJ,
statement...................................................... 88
Dooley Polcha, Kathleen, New York, NY, statement................. 81
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, New York, NY, Adam Pertman,
letter and attachment.......................................... 81
Frenzel, Hon. Bill, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care,
statement...................................................... 91
Haffner-Jones, William, Middletown, RI, statement and attachment. 83
Hanson, Joyce, Littleton, CO, statement.......................... 84
Home School Legal Defense Association, Purcellville, VA, J.
Michael Smith, statement....................................... 84
Hoxie, Bette, Old Town, ME, statement............................ 85
Kanos, Jaime and Lisa, New Port Richey, FL, statement............ 85
Kernaghan-Baez, Dorothy, Augusta, GA, statement.................. 85
Kulp, Jodee, Brooklyn Park, MN, statement........................ 86
Lambert, Christine, Twin Bridges, MT, letter..................... 86
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, statement....................................... 18
National Council for Adoption, Alexandria, VA, Thomas C. Atwood,
letter......................................................... 87
New Jersey Child Welfare Panel, Trenton, NJ, Steven D. Cohen,
statement...................................................... 88
O'Loughlin, Anna Marie, Bloomingdale, NJ, statement.............. 90
Pertman, Adam, Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, New York,
NY, letter and attachment...................................... 81
Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Hon. Bill Frenzel,
statement...................................................... 91
Reiniger, Douglas H., American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, New
York, NY, statement............................................ 75
Smith, J. Michael, Home School Legal Defense Association,
Purcellville, VA, statement.................................... 84
Sokoloski, Cheryl B., LaPorte, CO, statement..................... 92
Upton, Kay, Hodgenville, KY, statement........................... 93
TO EXAMINE RECENT FAILURE TO PROTECT CHILD SAFETY
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wally Herger
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 30, 2003
No. HR-5
Herger Announces Hearing to
Examine Recent Failure to
Protect Child Safety
Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine a recent failure to protect
child safety. The hearing will take place on Thursday, November 6,
2003, in the main Committee hearing room, 1100 Longworth House Office
Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include State and local officials and outside experts
familiar with the recent high-profile child abuse case uncovered in New
Jersey involving several boys who were starved by their adoptive
parents. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an
oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the
Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Recent news accounts documented cases of shocking abuse and neglect
of children adopted by a family in New Jersey (see http://
www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/nyregion/27JERS.html). Similar stories have
been written about cases in other States involving the death or abuse
of children involved with the child welfare system. Federal taxpayers
provided States $3.1 billion in 2002 to support children in foster care
and adoptive settings, and $2.8 billion more in administrative funding
for States and localities to use to ensure the safety of vulnerable
children.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated, ``It is hard to
imagine how adults could intentionally starve children. It is also hard
to accept the grim reality that we as taxpayers subsidized their
terrible neglect to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. This
hearing seeks to expose how these children's abuse went unnoticed so
that we can work to prevent other children from enduring such horrible
abuse.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will focus on: (1) what happened to the children
starved in the New Jersey case, (2) how their years of abuse escaped
the notice of child welfare workers and others in the community, and
(3) what Federal and State officials can do to prevent the recurrence
of such horrific acts in New Jersey and other States.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Due to the change in House mail policy, any person or
organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed
record of the hearing should send it electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, by the close of business, Thursday, November 20, 2003.
Those filing written statements who wish to have their statements
distributed to the press and interested public at the hearing should
deliver their 200 copies to the new Congressional Courier Acceptance
Site at the location of 2nd and D Streets, N.E., at least 48 hours
prior to the hearing date. Please ensure that you have the address of
the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Room B-317 Rayburn House Office
Building, on your package, and contact the staff of the Subcommittee at
(202) 225-1025 of its impending arrival. When a couriered item arrives
at this facility, it will be opened, screened and then delivered to the
Subcommittee office, within one of the following time frames: (1)
expected or confirmed deliveries will be delivered in approximately 2
to 3 hours, or, (2) unexpected items, or items not approved by the
Subcommittee office, will be delivered the morning of the next business
day. The U.S. Capitol Police will refuse all non-governmental courier
deliveries to all House Office Buildings.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed,
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.
1. Due to the change in House mail policy, all statements and any
accompanying exhibits for printing must be submitted electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, in Word Perfect or MS Word format and MUST NOT exceed a
total of 10 pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the
Committee will rely on electronic submissions for printing the official
hearing record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. Any statements must include a list of all clients, persons, or
organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet
must accompany each statement listing the name, company, address,
telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.
Chairman HERGER. This Subcommittee will come to order. Good
morning, and I welcome all our guests here today. I am pleased
to see that we have such an interested audience today. Please
remember that you are our guests and interruptions will not be
tolerated. Those who might disrupt this important hearing will
be asked to leave. I hope this will not be a problem, but I
want to make sure everyone understands the ground rules before
we get under way.
Today's hearing covers a child welfare tragedy in which
four boys suffered from apparent starvation while under the
care of their adoptive parents. The oldest, at age 19 and just
45 pounds when found, was rooting through a neighbor's trash
for food. The other boys, age 9, 10, and 14, weighed about a
third of what is typical for their ages. This tragedy unfolded
in the New Jersey town of Collingswood, a community in suburban
Philadelphia, but it might have happened anywhere.
Unfortunately, these cases too often occur despite the best
efforts of thousands of hard-working caseworkers, caring foster
and adoptive parents, and those of us here today who want the
very best for these vulnerable children.
I believe I speak for us all when I say we are deeply
concerned about the Jackson boys and any other children like
them suffering abuse. Our hearts go out to them, and we hope
and pray that they can overcome this tragedy.
Nearly every one of our States has witnessed high-profile
tragedies in which vulnerable children have been horrifically
abused, neglected, and even killed. Several features of this
particular case demand a close review of whether Federal and
State protections designed to prevent such tragedies are
working. Based on what we have learned to this point, they were
not working in the case of the four Jackson boys.
As representatives of Federal taxpayers, we oversee the
billions of dollars provided to States for maintenance payments
to foster and adoptive families. In this case, approximately
$28,000 was paid last year alone to care for the children in
this family.
Congress also oversees Federal funds used to administer
child welfare programs in the States. Sadly, in this case,
these funds were not put to the good purpose Congress intended.
These taxpayer dollars were not used to better the lives of
children in need of a good home. Instead, it appears these
funds subsidized appalling neglect.
This case is about a lot more than Federal funds, so we
have asked a panel of local experts and officials familiar with
this specific case, as well as New Jersey's recent efforts to
prevent such tragedies, to help us answer some very basic
questions: what happened, what should have happened to prevent
or at least detect such abuse, and how can we ensure other
children do not suffer a fate similar to these four innocent
boys?
Joining us today are individuals representing the adoptive
parents, New Jersey's child welfare agency, and the caseworkers
involved in this case as well as other local officials. We also
will hear from experts monitoring New Jersey's efforts to
reform its child welfare programs following the death of a
child earlier this year. This pattern of tragedy and the fact
that caseworkers entered the Jackson's home literally dozens of
times in the past several years without taking action are key
reasons for today's hearings.
I want to thank my Democrat colleague, Mr. Cardin, for his
help in putting this hearing together. Mr. Cardin and I have
worked together in recent weeks to pass legislation promoting
adoption, continuing our record of cooperation in this
important area for children. Today, there are no Democrat or
Republican witnesses because our purpose is simply to get the
facts. This is the only way we can make an informed judgment
about whether changes are needed.
Subsequent hearings, including one a week from today, will
probe more deeply into the policy implications of this case for
the Nation. For example, we will review efforts in all States
to monitor foster and adoptive children as well as ask broader
questions related to how the Federal Government can help State
and local officials across the country prevent such horrific
cases of abuse.
As this suggests, our hearing today marks a continuation,
not an end to our efforts to protect children. Based on just
what we know so far about this tragic case, there is a lot of
work ahead.
Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to
submit a written statement and have it included in the record
at this point. Mr. Cardin, would you like to make an opening
statement?
[The opening statement of Chairman Herger follows:]
Opening Statement of the Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman, and a
Representative in Congress from the State of California
Good morning, and welcome to all our guests today.
Today's hearing covers a child welfare tragedy in which four boys
suffered from apparent starvation while under the care of their
adoptive parents. The oldest, at age 19 and just 45 pounds when found,
was rooting through a neighbor's trash for food. The other boys, ages
9, 10 and 14, weighed about a third of what is typical for their ages.
This tragedy unfolded in the New Jersey town of Collingswood, a
community in suburban Philadelphia. But it might have happened
anywhere. Unfortunately, these cases too often occur despite the best
efforts of thousands of hard-working caseworkers, caring foster and
adoptive parents and those of us here today who want the very best for
these vulnerable children.
All of us here today are concerned about these boys, and any other
children like them suffering abuse. Our hearts go out to them, and we
hope and pray that they can overcome this tragedy.
Nearly every one of our States has witnessed high-profile tragedies
in which vulnerable children have been horrifically abused, neglected
and even killed.
But several features of this case demand a close review of whether
Federal and State protections designed to prevent such tragedies are
working. Based on what we know so far, they are not.
As representatives of Federal taxpayers, we oversee the billions of
dollars provided to States for maintenance payments to foster and
adoptive families. In this case, apparently $28,000 was paid last year
alone to care for the children in this family.
Congress also oversees Federal funds used to administer child
welfare programs in the States. Sadly, in this case, these funds were
not put to the good purpose Congress intended. These taxpayer dollars
were not used to better the lives of children in need of a good home--
instead these funds subsidized appalling neglect.
But this case is about a lot more than Federal funds.
So we have asked a panel of local experts and officials familiar
with this specific case, as well as New Jersey's recent efforts to
prevent such tragedies, to help us answer some very basic questions:
What happened?
What should have happened to prevent--or at least detect--such
abuse?
And, how can we ensure other children do not suffer a similar fate
as these four innocent boys?
Joining us today are individuals representing New Jersey's child
welfare agency, the caseworkers involved in this case, the adoptive
parents and the local community. We also will hear from experts
monitoring New Jersey's efforts to reform its child welfare programs
following the death of a child earlier this year. This pattern of
tragedy, and the fact that caseworkers entered this home literally
dozens of times in the past several years without taking action, are
key reasons for today's hearing.
I want to especially thank my Democrat colleague Mr. Cardin for his
help in putting this hearing together.
Mr. Cardin and I have worked together in recent weeks to pass
legislation promoting adoption, continuing our record of cooperation in
this important area for children.
Today there are no Democrat or Republican witnesses because our
purpose is simply to get the facts. This is the only way we can make an
informed judgment about whether changes are needed.
Subsequent hearings, including one a week from today, will probe
more deeply into the policy implications of this case for the Nation.
For example, we will review efforts in all States to monitor foster and
adoptive children, as well as ask broader questions related to how the
Federal Government can help State and local officials across the
country prevent such horrific cases of abuse.
As this suggests, our hearing today marks a continuation, not an
end, to our efforts to protect children. Based on just what we know so
far about this tragic case, there is a lot of work ahead.
Mr. Cardin, would you like to make an opening statement?
Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank Chairman Herger for holding this
very important hearing, and I thank you for your concern and
working together, as you said, not as Democrats or Republicans
but together to deal with America's most vulnerable children.
I also want to acknowledge our colleagues that are here. I
note that Don Payne from New Jersey has joined us, Mr. Andrews,
Bill Pascrell, and Mike Ferguson. We appreciate all your
concerns on this issue and your participation in today's
hearing.
Mr. Chairman, my staff has shown me a photograph of the
Jackson family, and you are not going to be able to see it from
here, but I think particularly the picture of Bruce will haunt
me for some time. It should shock all of us what has happened
to four children who were adopted to the same family in New
Jersey: Bruce, Michael, Tyrone, and Keith. Their total weight
was 134 pounds for the four children. They ranged in age from 9
to 19.
I know that we are all asking questions how this happened,
but one thing we should be doing is asking how can we be
motivated into action to make sure that we provide more help
and greater tools to deal with children who are very, very
vulnerable in our society today. The first question, of course,
is how did these boys become so malnourished.
Now, the county prosecutor has charged the couple who
adopted them with aggravated assault and child endangerment,
saying they intentionally starved the children. The couple have
indicated that the children had eating disorders, but that is
hard to balance with the fact that once the children were
removed from the family, they seemed to have gained weight.
This indicates that something could have been done a lot
earlier in regards to these children.
The next big question is how did the State agency charged
with protecting the children fail to help these boys, even when
a caseworker was routinely visiting the home? You would think
that we would have picked up these issues earlier and been able
to act on this case at an earlier time. Unfortunately, the
boys' circumstances were not discovered until one of them was
found looking for food in the neighbor's trash.
The final question this panel should be asking is what
implications does the New Jersey case present for our Nation's
child welfare system. For example, one issue raised by this
case is how vulnerable certain children can be if they do not
go to school or have regular medical checkups. If these boys
would have interacted with a broader group of adults earlier,
we may have been able to catch this matter at an earlier stage.
One of my major concerns is whether we are providing
adequate support for our child welfare system. We know that
turnover among caseworkers is very rapid. We are not able to
maintain experienced caseworkers. We do not pay our caseworkers
enough. Their caseload is way too high for them to effectively
be able to monitor the families they are responsible for. All
of that calls upon us as Federal policymakers to do something
about our child welfare system. The U.S. General Accounting
Office has told us that low salaries, high caseload, and
insufficient training has led to some very high turnover rates
for child welfare caseworkers throughout the Nation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that the New Jersey case suggests
that we have a problem, but it may not just be in New Jersey.
In fact, I think it is systematic around the Nation that we
have to be doing a better job in our work. We know that there
may very well have been negligence involved in this case, but
the environment in which caseworkers work in has a direct
impact on how effective they can be in our child welfare
system.
So, I hope that this hearing will help us in plotting a
strategy to try to deal with the broader issue, not just one
family's circumstance, but the broader issue throughout the
entire system.
Today's hearing focuses on alleged abuse in the adoptive
home, but we have also heard enough stories of abuse in birth
families and in foster care to know that the whole system needs
to be improved. I look forward to working with you as we sort
through this circumstance to plot a strategy to help America's
children. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The opening statement of Mr. Cardin follows:]
Opening Statement of the Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, we are confronted with some very troubling questions
today regarding four children who were adopted into the same home--
Bruce, Michael, Tyronne, and Keith. These boys, who range in age from 9
to 19, reportedly had a combined total weight of 134 pounds when they
were removed from their home. Not one of them weighed more than 50
pounds. The thought of these boys slowly wasting away is something that
should shock and haunt all of us.
The first question, of course, is how did these boys become so
malnourished. The local county prosecutor has charged the couple who
adopted them with aggravated assault and child endangerment, saying
they intentionally starved the children. The couple has said the boys'
malnourishment was caused by eating disorders. This declaration,
however, does not seem to account for the fact that all of the kids
have reportedly gained significant weight since being removed from
their home.
The next big question is how did the State agency charged with
protecting children fail to help these boys, even when a caseworker was
routinely visiting their home. Although these visits were focused on a
foster child in the same house, they should have revealed obvious signs
of starvation in the four boys. After all, the foster child was being
considered for adoption, which should have led to an assessment of the
children already in the home. Unfortunately, the boys' circumstances
were not discovered until one of them was found looking for food in the
neighbor's trash.
The final question this panel should be asking is--what
implications does the New Jersey case present for our Nation's child
welfare system. For example, one issue raised by this case is how
vulnerable certain kids can be if they do not go to school or have
regular medical checkups. If these boys had more interaction with a
broader group of adults who had experience in assessing the welfare of
children, their situation would have been detected much sooner. Of
course, this reality has to be balanced against our goal of treating
adoptive families like any other family.
The plight of these four boys also raises much broader issues that
affect the safety of all children in the child welfare system,
regardless of whether they are in birth, foster or adoptive homes. One
of the most significant of these concerns is the apparent inability of
the child welfare system to retain qualified and experienced
caseworkers.
The General Accounting Office has told us that low salaries, high
caseloads and insufficient training have led to very high turnover
rates for child welfare caseworkers throughout the Nation. Most of
those on the job now have less than two years experience--a low
threshold from which to make potentially life and death decisions.
News accounts in the New Jersey case suggest the relative lack of
experience for the lead caseworker, coupled with an excessive caseload,
may have been part of the problem. I am certainly not ruling out
negligence, but I am suggesting that certain environments are more
likely to produce both innocent errors and a dereliction of duty.
Mr. Chairman, there are other systemic problems that I do not have
time to examine in detail now, such as the inadequate response to the
link between substance abuse and child abuse, and insufficient access
to prevention activities and post-adoption services. So let me say
generally that I hope this case leads us to look at the big picture,
instead of hoping for a quick fix.
Today's hearing focuses on alleged abuse in an adoptive home, but
we all have heard enough stories of abuse in birth families and in
foster care to know that the whole system needs improvement. We can all
make speeches today, but ultimately we need to step up to the plate
with adequate supervision and resources to prevent future tragedies
from occurring. Thank you.
[The opening statement of Mr. Foley follows:]
Opening Statement of the Honorable Mark Foley, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
I want to start by thanking you for calling this very important--
and long overdue--hearing to examine our nation's child welfare system.
As someone who has worked on child protection issues throughout his
career, the incident recently in New Jersey was one of the most
shocking cases of state mismanagement that I have ever seen.
Over a year ago in Florida, we were rocked by the horrible news
that our Department of Children and Families (DCF) could not locate
several hundred children in its custody. Immediately after this story
came to light, Governor Bush ordered a Blue Ribbon commission to
investigate DCF's failures and to recommend ways to improve the system.
Soon after the report was released DCF, under its new Secretary Jerry
Regier, made acclaimed changes to his agency--now making it the model
for all other states to follow.
After our terrible time last year, you would think that other
states would have ``woken up to smell the coffee.'' That states would
have done a thorough review of their own systems to prevent this
tragedy from ever happening again. However, we once again find
ourselves with a state social service agency asleep at the wheel--with
unbuckled children in the backseat and the car is about to go over the
cliff.
New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) failures
were catastrophic. Thirty-eight visits over several years--what more
did they need to see? A 19 year old who is 4 feet tall and weighs 45
pounds . . . where were they? A 14 year old who is a little over 3 feet
in height . . . again I say, where were they? The fact is, Mr.
Chairman, that most Americans treat their pets better than New Jersey
cared for their children.
Mr. Chairman, I expect to hear arguments today that the Division
lacked funds, resources, cap caseloads--what have you. These are
completely outrageous statements and do not explain the events of this
case. It took nothing more than common sense to have saved these kids
years ago. DYFS should have acted immediately and removed these
children the first time they were there.
I know all too well that New Jersey is not alone in this tragedy.
We must get to the bottom of this crisis and fix it once and for all.
Excuses and reasons will not save the lives of our children--only
action will.
Mr. Chairman, in that light, I would like to state that I intend to
introduce a bill in the next two weeks that will give state social
service agencies access to the NCIC criminal data base. As those who
have worked in this area know, this resource will give field staff the
ability to determine whether the guardian the child is being placed
with has an out-of-state criminal record--something they don't
currently have access to.
Though this is a first step towards strengthening our states
ability to further protect our children, there is much more work we
need to do.
I am very grateful for this opportunity to bring this issue to
light and I look forward to working with you and Chairman Thomas to
ensure--once and for all--that all of our nation's children are safe.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Before we move on
to our testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to limit their
oral statements to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all
of the written testimony will be made a part of the permanent
record. To begin our hearing, I would like to welcome three
Members of Congress from the State of New Jersey, the Honorable
Robert Andrews, the Honorable Bill Pascrell, and the Honorable
Michael Ferguson. Congressman Andrews your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. ANDREWS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Cardin, Members of the Committee. We deal with a lot of very
important questions in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I
know that the Members of this Committee in this room deal with
very consequential matters all the time. I can't think of a
more consequential or important subject that the Committee will
take up ever than the issue that you are looking at today.
Thirty days ago, a young man and three little boys in
southern New Jersey, in Collingswood, New Jersey, their names
were not known beyond their own family, neighborhood, and
friends. Today, their names are being reported in the national
media, worldwide media, because of the horrific events
surrounding their lack of care and what has happened to them.
I thank Mr. Cardin for mentioning in his very opening
remarks the most important subject, which is the very good news
that reports are that each of these four young men are making
medical progress. We are thankful for that, and we hope that
that continues.
This is a matter where there is one set of facts that is
indisputable, there is another set of questions that is very
much in dispute, and there is a third set of questions that I
think we have a responsibility to take under our wing and
answer. What is not in dispute is that a young man and three
boys were in grave medical distress when they were discovered
by the Collingswood, New Jersey Police a few days ago. As Mr.
Cardin said, these four young men were shockingly underweight
and in terrible, terrible condition. That is indisputable.
There is much dispute as to how they got there and whose
responsibility that is. It is the responsibility of the county
prosecutor, Mr. Sarubbi, in whom I have great confidence, and
the court system, in which I have great confidence, to sort out
the question of whose legal responsibility this terrible
situation is. I am certain that the courts and the criminal
justice system and the administrative law system will sort
these questions out.
Frankly, it is important that the Committee know the facts,
but it is even more important that the regular legal processes
that deal with these children, their parents, and other people
associated with this matter run its course and be dealt with
properly. The Congress of the United States is not a place that
decides innocence or guilt or liability or the lack thereof.
The third question is the one for which we have great
responsibility, and that question is not simply how did these
four young men find themselves in such desperate straits that
day, but whether we know for sure whether there are other
little boys or other little girls elsewhere in America that are
in the same situation as we meet this morning.
The taxpayers of the United States in the last fiscal year
spent $5.8 billion of Federal money to erect and maintain a
system to look after the most vulnerable children in America.
Now, I know that many people in that system are everyday
heroes; moms and dads, foster moms and dads who go far beyond
what is legally required of them and love those children with
their whole heart and their whole soul.
It has been my experience that the vast majority of
caseworkers and professionals in the child welfare system also
go far beyond what is legally required of them. The clock may
say they are supposed to punch out at 5 o'clock, but they do
not stop caring about children at 5 o'clock. Many of them use
their own time and their own money to do what needs to be done
for the children under their care.
I am confident that throughout this system there are many,
many good people who perform exceptionally good work every day,
and I would hope that none of them would think that the purpose
of this hearing is to impugn their performance or their
integrity.
It is also, however, indisputable that, as these facts so
sadly point out, not every child receives the benefit of such
high quality care. The question that I think we need to focus
on here is who is watching the watchers. Each State has a child
welfare agency that is responsible for looking after children
who are placed in foster care or who are under consideration
for adoption, and that looking-after process involves home
visitations and interviews with people who know the parents and
others who were involved. It is the job of the child welfare
agencies to make sure that the people entrusted with the
everyday care of the children are doing their job.
It is our job to make sure that the State child welfare
agencies who receive this $5.8 billion are doing the job that
we have entrusted them to do with that money. We don't know the
answer to that question. What I would hope the Committee would
focus on would be ways that we could improve our own oversight
so that an incident like this never happens again to any child
anywhere in our country.
Now, let me also say, in concluding, that these tragedies
are not new to New Jersey, I am saddened to say. As my friend
and colleague, Mr. Payne, can tell you, we have been rocked
with horrible stories in recent months throughout our State of
children forgotten, abused, and killed. I would say that the
State of New Jersey did not wake up the morning after the
Jackson case became news and start trying to do something about
it. In fact, there has been a consistent effort over the last
number of months in particular, where Governor McGreevey and
the administration in New Jersey has made a concerted effort to
try to make things better.
I believe you are going to hear from Mr. Kevin Ryan this
morning, who is the Child Advocate who has been appointed as a
result of the settlement of a Federal lawsuit against the New
Jersey Child Welfare System. I think New Jersey is in the lead
in this category of bringing in an independent observer to try
to make sure these things do not happen again.
I don't say these things by way of explanation for what we
found in Collingswood, but I say them to say that you can be
assured that in New Jersey the efforts to try to fix this
reprehensible problem did not begin the day after the case of
these young men became public.
Finally, let me say that I want to give some credit to the
Collingswood, New Jersey Police Department here. It is the
first public agency that took action when these grave facts
became known. It is the very first agency that stepped forward
and did something to help these boys. In our system, Mr.
Chairman, that is not really the job of the police department,
but the police officers who responded, responded as human
beings, and they deserve our credit.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that another hearing like this is
never necessary again, but I commend you for calling it so we
can collectively work together and do a much better job of
supervising those to whom we are giving $5.8 billion and, more
importantly, giving the high moral responsibility of guarding
those who are least able to guard themselves.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Representative
Andrews, for your testimony. Representative Pascrell to
testify.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL PASCRELL, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cardin, and Members of the Subcommittee, my brother Donald
Payne from New Jersey, Michael Ferguson, and Rob Andrews here.
I think the main reason we come down here to Washington or
come over to Washington or up to Washington is to protect the
most vulnerable in our society; older people, our kids, those
who are infirm, and those who are disabled. I think this is a
priority. I think good can come of this painful experience if
we hold a mirror to ourselves. I think that is critical to this
issue, to be honest about this entire situation.
As a member of the State legislature, I thought I had seen
the worst in the foster care system. In 1994, foster parents
Marilyn and Bruce Wylie were given custody of Yasmin Taylor,
better known as Pumpkin to all of us, a medically fragile
child. Pursuant to a court order later that year, the Division
of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) took Yasmin from her foster
parents and returned her to her biological maternal
grandmother. The foster parents protested, argued that Yasmin
was too sick and weak at the time. This was a child that needed
immediate medical attention, Mr. Chairman. Ignoring the pleas
and concerns, Yasmin was removed, and she died 2 days after she
was released. It was a tragedy. It shook me, it shook my
hometown of Paterson, New Jersey.
As a result of that incident, I started to really dig into
what DYFS was all about. There are many good people, as
Congressman Andrews just pointed out, who served there and
still serve there from then. I introduced several bills, a bill
that would have established an Office of Ombudsman. Who are the
advocates for these children? Who advocates for them? Not just
simply has oversight responsibility but who advocates for these
kids? In fact, then State Senator Jim McGreevey introduced a
companion measure in the State senate, I introduced it in the
State assembly.
Our bill would have created an independent office for a
child advocate outside the Department of Human Services or DYFS
bureaucracies. If in existence, the Wylies could have used this
ombudsman as a resource. After 7 years, that concept has
finally been enacted this past September by Governor McGreevey
establishing the Office of Child Advocate. Kevin Ryan, the
newly appointed Child Advocate, you will hear from in a few
moments.
This was among many recent changes prompted by the court-
enforced settlement this past summer. The settlement required
an immediate safety assessment for every child in the foster
care system. Of the 14,000 children in the system, the report
found only 87 children where their safety was a concern, of
which 31 were removed from foster homes or the facility, which
brings us here today. Unfortunately, as we know, the Jackson
boys were not part of the 87; in fact, not even after the
caseworker visited a foster child in the same household 38
times.
As Mr. Ryan has stated, the caseworker reported that those
children were all safe, despite the fact that the utilities had
been turned off for the last 6 months, the kitchen doors were
locked shut, and the four boys were obviously starving, quote-
unquote. Whatever the reasons, whatever those may be, why the
system failed to identify the abuse of these boys, we need to
recognize that the same problems keep on surfacing.
One issue I believe that can be better addressed is the
issue of transparency. On the Federal level and on the State
level there needs to be accessibility to records. We need to
know which agencies are able to go to those records, protecting
privacy of course at all times, accessibility to records by
those proper agencies. As I said, 7 years ago confidentiality
laws protected DYFS from public scrutiny but did not protect
the children.
Requiring public knowledge of child abuse and neglect
investigations, as I had proposed while serving in the State
legislature, is key to holding any agency accountable. While
DYFS should take the lead, all social and educational services
can certainly be on the same page.
I am proud that New Jersey is having incredible success in
placing foster care children into permanent homes. New Jersey
placed over 5,000 children in permanent homes, earning a total
of $4.5 million in adoption bonuses, which is the ninth highest
nationwide over the past 4 years. I praise the Governor and his
administration for taking the steps that should have been taken
7 years ago, 14 years ago, 20 years ago. I am confident these
major systemwide improvements will be illustrated in the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Family and Child
Services review due early next year, I believe it is in March.
That is for New Jersey.
You know this is not just a New Jersey problem, Mr.
Chairman. I am concerned about the penalties issued after the
secondary Title IV-E Federal review processes. New Jersey is
working through a case that is costing the State $6 million.
While I understand that HHS wants to make sure that States
comply with program requirements, I do not believe that
imposing monetary penalties will necessarily help the States
improve their system.
My friend Mr. Cardin has a proposal to help the States
improve their foster care systems, including funds for
training. As we see the number of children in the program
increase, and the State has increased its commitment 50 percent
over the past 5 years, that is a tremendous number, Mr.
Chairman. We need the Federal Government to be a participant in
paying its share.
Mr. Cardoza has legislation for a National Commission on
Foster Care. We can and must find the best models nationwide
and then create incentives to encourage States to implement
these best practices.
In conclusion, I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to use this
hearing as the first in a series to get to the heart of the
problem. I urge you to continue to work on these issues,
bringing in interested Members to help in this purpose. Let us
not wait until another horrific incident happens. I compliment
the Committee for its oversight. I can assure you there are too
many children throughout this Nation with too many needs to
allow us to rest. This is a first step. I commend you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pascrell follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey
Chairmen Herger, Ranking Member Cardin, Members of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me to testify today.
Back when I was a member of the State assembly and the Mayor of
Paterson, NJ, I thought I had seen the worst in the foster care system.
In 1994, foster parents Marilyn and Bruce Wylie were given custody of
Yasmin Taylor, a medically fragile child. Pursuant to a court order
later that year, the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) took
Yasmin from her foster parents and returned her to her biological
maternal grandmother. The Wylies protested the removal--argued that
Yasmin was too sick and weak at the time. This was a child that needed
immediate medical attention. But ignoring the pleas and concerns,
Yasmin was removed. She died two days later from a virus that attacked
her heart. It was a tragedy that shook my hometown of Paterson.
As a result of that incident and others, I introduced several State
assembly bills to improve the foster care system in New Jersey,
including a bill that would have established an Office of the Ombudsman
for Abused and Neglected Children. In fact, then-State Senator James E.
McGreevey introduced a companion measure in the State Senate.
Our bill would have created an independent office for a child
advocate, outside the Department of Human Services or DYFS
bureaucracies. If in existence, the Wylies could have used this
ombudsman as a resource in its fight with DYFS. The office would serve
as an advocate for abused and neglected children by receiving and
investigating complaints about DYFS, and increasing coordination and
collaboration among State and local agencies. After seven years that
concept was finally enacted into law this past September, establishing
of the Office of the Child Advocate. Kevin Ryan, who is scheduled to
testify on the next panel, is that newly appointed Child Advocate.
As more and more cases began to appear in the 1990's, New Jersey
focused on the staffing issue. The State hired an additional 120
employees, bringing its statewide compliance with workload standards to
over 80 percent. In addition, New Jersey purchased 2,300 computers,
finally bringing DYFS into the information age. The hope was that the
new computers would enhance the ability of caseworkers to do their work
more efficiently, thus allowing them to spend more time with troubled
families. But as we know, technology and staffing alone are not enough
to solve the major problems continually found at DYFS.
In January 2003, New Jersey found itself in a familiar situation
with the horrific story of Faheem Williams. Only seven years old,
Faheem's battered, lifeless body was found in a trunk. His half brother
was suffering from starvation.
Like we as legislators do on many tough issues, only the extreme
cases wake us up to the realities.
New Jersey went through the process of attempting to hire more
workers. While successful on its surface, because of turnover, DYFS has
had a net gain of only 60 workers, and nearly 80 vacancies remain. In
addition efforts to create a computerized child welfare tracking system
are in the works which would allow caseworkers to call up a complete
file on a child or a family to provide a whole picture of the family.
New Jersey is one of six States not to have such a system.
Many recent changes were prompted by the court-enforced settlement
this past summer. The settlement required an immediate safety
assessment for every child in the foster care system. The assessments
were completed October 23, 2003 for more than 14,000 children in the
system. The report found only 87 children where their safety was a
``concern'' of which 31 were removed from the foster home or facility.
Which brings us here today. Unfortunately, as we know, the Jackson
boys were not part of those 87 in danger. In fact, not even after the
caseworker visited a foster child in the same household 38 times. As
Mr. Ryan has stated, the caseworker ``reported that those children were
all safe despite the fact that the utilities had been turned off for
the last six months, the kitchen doors were locked shut, and the four
boys were obviously starving.''
Whatever the reasons are as to why the system failed to identify
the abuse of these boys, we also need to recognize that the same
problems keep on surfacing. One issue I believe that can be better
addressed is transparency. There is no question that a certain degree
of privacy is important and should certainly be respected. But
requiring public knowledge of child abuse and neglect investigations--
as I had proposed while serving in the Assembly--is a key to holding
DYFS accountable. Ensuring transparency should also work hand in hand
with coordination among agencies and other governmental institutions.
While DYFS should take the lead, all social and educational services
can certainly be on the same page.
Focusing on number of workers alone hasn't proven completely
effective. Dedication of resources to hire new workers is important,
but we also must address retention rates of workers. About 80% of
workers end up leaving DYFS, limiting the experience of many staff
members. This is certainly an issue to address.
I am proud that New Jersey has had incredible success in placing
foster care children into permanent homes. Congress began to address
the question of adoption in 1997 with the Adoption and Safe Families
Act, which we just reauthorized in October. As you know, the Act
provides States an incentive payment of $4,000 per child adopted above
prior year levels, as well as an additional $2,000 on top of that for
each child with special needs placed in a caring home.
New Jersey has used this program very effectively, and made
permanent improvements in practices. In fact, New Jersey placed over
5,000 children in permanent homes earning a total of $4.5 million in
adoption bonuses which is the ninth highest nationwide over the last
four years. In FY 2002, New Jersey received $1,923,000 after a 13%
increase rate of adoption.
We should praise Governor McGreevey and his Administration for
taking these issues head on the past ten months. Their commitment to
reform is commendable. I am confident these major system wide
improvements will be illustrated in the HHS Family and Child Services
review due early next year. But Mr. Chairman, as you know, this is not
just a New Jersey problem. We have heard horror stories from Florida
and other States in the past few years.
I encourage Congress--and in particular this Committee--to continue
to look at the whole picture. Presently, States have campaigns to
recruit foster families, but many foster families don't have support
systems. After all the training they receive, when a child is finally
dropped off at the household, foster parents have no one to call if
something goes wrong. As a result, we find a lack of available foster
families. Relationships between the caseworker and the families are not
established. Right now, overworked caseworkers with limited time visit
homes and miss the whole picture. The Jackson boys are an extreme case
of that.
If only the caseworker had more time and a relationship with the
whole family. While I do believe this was an isolated incident, if only
they discovered the abuse of these boys while they were foster kids,
then maybe the Jackson boys and all foster children would not be abused
or neglected.
While there is no silver bullet, there are several proposed
solutions and recommendations I believe that the Committee should
support.
I am concerned about penalties issued after secondary IV-E reviews.
New Jersey is working through a case that is costing our State a much
needed $6 million. While I understand that HHS wants to make sure that
States comply with program requirements, I do not believe that imposing
monetary penalties will help the States improve their system. Rather,
we should only require that they reinvest that potential disallowance
back into their system improvements.
My friend Mr. Cardin has a proposal (H.R. 1534) to help the States
improve their foster care systems, including funds for training. Many
of our State's are in severe budgetary situations, New Jersey is no
exception. As number of children increase, and the State increases its
commitment 50% over the past five years, we need adequate increased
funding from the Federal Government.
Mr. Cardoza of California has a proposal for a Foster Care Reform
Commission. We can and must find the best models nationwide, and then
create incentives to encourage States to implement these best practices
in their foster care systems.
Mr. Chairman, I urge you to use this hearing as the first in a
series, to get to the heart of this problem. I urge you to continue
working on these issues, bringing in interested Members to help
propose--and enact--solutions. Let us not wait until another horrific
incident happens.
I compliment the Committee for its oversight today and encourage
you to keep moving forward. There are too many children throughout this
Nation, with too many needs, to allow us to rest.
We can all do better.
Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, very much, Representative
Pascrell. Now Representative Ferguson to testify.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE FERGUSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
Ranking Member as well for holding this important fact-finding
hearing. I also want to thank my colleagues from New Jersey for
their thoughtful and obviously heartfelt comments.
No one can absorb the tragedies that have befallen the
children under the care and supervision of DYFS and be anything
but horrified. The DYFS is perhaps the most important agency of
our State government, for its duty is to protect the most
vulnerable of our citizens. The DYFS has failed unimaginably in
this duty.
My wife and I are parents of three young children. Like
millions of parents across New Jersey, I have been both
outraged at DYFS's failure to fulfill its duty and heartbroken
for the children under its care.
In New Jersey just last month the DYFS program completed a
review, and I want to read an article, just a very small
passage from an article from the Newark Star-Ledger of an event
which prompted this review which was just recently completed.
This is from January 6th of this year. ``The gruesome story
began to unfold Saturday when a man who lives in the house
searched the windowless basement for a pair of misplaced boots.
When he kicked in a locked door, he discovered what he
described as a `head with hair on it,' beneath a bed and he
called police. The police arrived to find the two children
starved and dehydrated. Police said the children apparently had
not eaten for 2 weeks. The children were not able to answer
questions from detectives until yesterday. When they did, one
of the two, a boy identified as Raheem Williams, 7 years old,
told them, `I have a brother I haven't seen in a while.' Police
returned to the house with the Essex County Sheriff
Department's cadaver dog and made the grizzly discovery in a
separate room in the basement. They found the boy's brother and
his mummified body.''
This event prompted the review, which was recently
concluded by DYFS. Numerous recommendations were made, policies
were changed, people lost their jobs, but more, much more,
needs to be done. While that review focused on the death of one
boy under DYFS's care in Newark, a second tragedy struck one
day after this report was issued. The DYFS caseworkers say they
visited a home in Collingswood 38 times in the last 4 years,
and one even reported that a ``very supportive environment''
was in place. The truth is that that environment was ghastly.
Four boys, severely malnourished, and one, a 19-year-old,
weighed, as you said, 45 pounds.
The DYFS is so dysfunctional, plagued by shocking lapses of
judgment, poor to nonexistent supervision, and inexperienced
caseworkers, one can fairly ask can DYFS be fixed? The agency
has already failed two Federal audits. The HHS regular Child
and Family Services review is scheduled to begin in March. The
State already has forwarded data to HHS in preparation for this
review.
In the face of what can only be described as incompetence
on a grand scale, I have significant questions about the
validity of this data. That is why today I will be sending a
letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson. I will be requesting a
meeting with him and our New Jersey congressional delegation to
discuss the status of the data collection to date and to
outline the steps HHS will be taking to ensure this Federal
review is fair but thorough. I don't want a one-time meeting. I
believe every member of our State's delegation must be briefed
on an ongoing basis on the status of this review.
This week I have also requested meetings with the HHS
Inspector General and with the U.S. General Accounting Office
to discuss formal Federal investigations of DYFS. At the moment
I am not calling for these investigations. Instead, I want to
monitor the data collection from the State and the State's
cooperation with HHS and HHS's regular review. Many of the
leaders of my State, both Republicans and Democrats, have been
working hard and in good faith to fundamentally reform DYFS and
the manner in which it supervises its workers and oversees the
children under its care. I want to allow that process to
continue and I want it to be successful.
If, however, the State fails in its reforms and fails to
fully cooperate in the HHS review, I will call on Federal
authorities to investigate DYFS not only to ensure Federal tax
dollars are spent wisely but for a far more important goal:
that the horrors that our State's children live through while
under this State's care never happen again.
In summary, I look forward to the testimony of the
Subcommittee and to the conclusions it reaches and the
recommendations you may make. No matter what State we
represent, each of us has a duty to step in when an agency like
DYFS fails to fulfill its duty. After all, Mr. Chairman, our
children are our Nation's most precious resource. Can DYFS be
fixed? It must be fixed, and it must be fixed now.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferguson follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Mike Ferguson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey
I want to thank Chairman Herger for holding this important fact-
finding hearing. I also want to thank my colleagues from New Jersey for
their thoughtful comments.
No one can absorb the tragedies that have befallen the children
under the care and supervision of DYFS and be anything but horrified.
DYFS is perhaps the most important agency of our state government, for
its duty is to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens.
DYFS has failed unimaginably in this duty.
My wife and I are parents of three young children. Like millions of
parents across New Jersey, I have been both outraged at DYFS' failure
to fulfill its duty and heartbroken for the children under its care.
The state last month completed a review of DYFS. Numerous
recommendations were made. Policies were changed. People lost their
jobs.
But more needs to be done.
While that review focused on the death of one boy under DYFS care
in Newark, a second tragedy struck one day after the report was issued.
DYFS caseworkers say they visited a home in Collingswood, New
Jersey, 38 times in the last four years, and one even reported that a
``very supportive environment'' was in place. The truth was that the
environment was ghastly; four boys were severely malnourished, and one,
a 19-year-old, weighed 45 pounds.
DYFS is so dysfunctional, plagued by shocking lapses of judgment,
poor to non-existent supervision and inexperienced caseworkers, one can
fairly ask: Can DYFS be fixed?
The agency already has failed two federal audits. The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services' regular Child and Family
Services Review is scheduled to begin in March. The state already is
forwarding data to HHS in preparation for this review. In the face of
what can only be described as incompetence on a grand scale, I have
significant questions about the validity of that data.
That is why today I'm writing a letter to HHS Secretary Thompson. I
am requesting a meeting with him and New Jersey's congressional
delegation to discuss the status of the data collection to date and
outline the steps HHS will take to ensure this federal review is fair
but thorough. I do not want a one-time meeting; I believe every member
of my state's delegation must be briefed on an ongoing basis on the
status of that review.
This week I also have requested meetings with the HHS Inspector
General and with the General Accounting Office to discuss formal,
federal investigations of DYFS. At the moment, I am not calling for
these investigations. Instead, I want to monitor the data collection
from the state and the state's cooperation with HHS on HHS' regular
review.
Many of the leaders in my state, both Republicans and Democrats,
have been working hard and in good faith to fundamentally reform DYFS
and the manner in which it supervises its workers and oversees the
children under its care. I want to allow that process to continue, and
I want it to be successful.
If, however, the State fails in its reforms and fails to fully
cooperate in the HHS review, I will call on federal authorities to
investigate DYFS not only to ensure Federal tax dollars are spent
wisely--but for a far more important goal: that the horrors our state's
children lived through while under the State's care never happen again.
I look forward to the testimony before this subcommittee and the
conclusions it reaches and the recommendations it makes. No matter what
state we represent, each of us has a duty to step in when an agency
like DYFS fails to fulfill its duty. After all, children are our
nation's most precious resource. Can DYFS be fixed? It must be fixed,
and fixed now.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, very much, for your testimony,
Representative Ferguson. Are there any questions of the
Members? If not, we ask the next panel----
Mr. CARDIN. Let me just thank all three of our colleagues
for their passion on the subject. We need to develop broad
coalitions within the Congress to work on these issues, and we
very much thank you for your commitment in these areas.
Let me just comment, Mr. Andrews, I agree with you
completely the system is going to have to hold accountable
those responsible for the specific actions, whether it was the
family or whether it is the people from the department who
failed their responsibilities. Ultimately, we have
responsibilities to work together to improve the system, to
make it less vulnerable for what happened, and I want to thank
all three of you for your testimony.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, and I join in thanking you for
taking the time this morning.
Mr. CARDIN. If I might, Mr. Chairman, if I could yield to
Mr. Payne for one moment.
Chairman HERGER. Yes, without objection.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me also commend the
Subcommittee for calling this very important hearing, and you
can see how important my colleagues from New Jersey feel that
this is. I think the testimony from Congressman Andrews,
Congressman Pascrell, and Congressman Ferguson really
pinpointed some of the very serious problems we have in the
system.
I take particular interest, being a former schoolteacher, a
former social worker, and having dealt with issues of this many
decades ago when I served in those capacities. I do believe
that this is going to be an issue that we have to take a look
at the total parameters. I don't think this is something to
point fingers at. This is something to find out how we can
improve the quality of life for the most vulnerable in our
society, our young.
I think a nation actually should be judged by how it treats
its young and its elderly. So, issues of stability, of the
system turnover rates, salaries, the whole question of
training, I think these are issues that we really have to come
to grips with. Home schooling. How do we ensure that home-
schooled children are not in situations like this? There is a
movement in New Jersey and around the country to take
registered nurses out of public schools because it is felt it
is too costly and that we should downgrade the registered nurse
in public schools. Would that be something that should be done
at this time?
I think there are a number of issues that we need to look
at, and I just wanted to thank you all for calling this very
important hearing. Thank you.
Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank my colleague, Mr. Payne. Mr.
Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that a statement from
Mr. George Miller, Congressman from California, the Ranking
Democrat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, also
be made part of our record.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Statement of the Honorable George Miller, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Good morning and thank you for affording me this opportunity to
testify. I commend the Chairman for examining this horrendous failure
to protect children.
Today you will hear about a State welfare system that allowed
parents to starve their four adopted children--children who were known
to the welfare system, because they lived in a home that New Jersey
State welfare workers had visited on 38 occasions over the past 4
years. We will also hear about another New Jersey tragedy that occurred
earlier this year. In that case, a 7-year-old boy was found dead and
his two brothers were found emaciated and locked in a basement filled
with feces and rodents. Social workers had also paid multiple visits to
that family investigating allegations of abuse and neglect.
New Jersey is not alone; these tragedies are symptomatic of a
chronic failure of our Nation's child welfare systems to properly care
for children. There are more than 550,000 children in foster care
nationally, taken by States out of dangerous homes and supposedly
placed in safe, nurturing environments where they will receive the
services they desperately require.
The reality is very different. In recent months, the national scope
of the failures has become apparent. A recent Health and Human Services
report assailed California's system of care for abused and neglected
children. Michigan officials recently admitted that they had lost track
of 302 abused or neglected children. An audit of Maryland's child
welfare system revealed that the State had lost track of some foster
care children for months, failed to ensure proper health care and, in
at least one case, entrusted a foster child to a sex offender.
In Milwaukee, 48% of families investigated for abuse had prior
involvement with the child welfare system; in the District of Columbia,
32% of such families had been previously reported to protected
services; and in Florida, at least 37 children died of abuse or neglect
over the past 5 years despite having been the subject of an abuse or
maltreatment complaint. Of the estimated 1,500 children annually who
die of abuse and neglect, more than 40% were already known to the child
welfare agencies.
Over 25 years ago, I launched an investigation into the failures of
the Nation's child welfare system. For tens of thousands of children,
foster care was a living horror where services were denied, placements
were unsupervised, and legal rights routinely flaunted. I called it
``State sponsored child abuse.'' And those hearings and investigations
led to the enactment of the Child Welfare and Adoption Assistance Act
in 1980 that required States to improve the services and accountability
in their foster care programs, and to promote adoptions for children
unable to return home.
Yet here we are, 23 years after the 1980 law, and in spite of
additional legislative action to further the goals of child safety and
well-being, far too little has changed. Today's headlines are almost
carbon copies of those written over two decades ago, filled with
stories of States' failures to provide services and protection to
foster children.
In the past 2 years, 32 State child welfare programs have been
subjected to Federal reviews, and every single one has failed to meet
national standards.
Last November, I joined national child welfare experts and my
colleagues Charles Rangel, Ben Cardin, and Pete Stark in sponsoring a
Child Welfare Summit to discuss urgent problems facing child welfare
services and to recommend improvements for Federal and State
accountability and oversight. Following last year's Summit, I joined
Representative Cardin in cosponsoring a bill that would strengthen
Congress' will and commitment to protect children.
The Child Protective Services Improvement Act will include
provisions designed to improve outcomes for children in foster care,
address substance abuse problems, update eligibility standards,
minimize multiple placements of children in foster care and move
quickly to either return them to their families or find permanent
adoptive homes. The bill is designed to enhance caseworker retention by
providing grants to enhance social worker training, raise salaries and
reduce caseloads.
Our legislation is drawn from the frontline experience of those
around the country most knowledgeable about foster care and about the
kinds of reforms that are needed to achieve permanency, appropriate
services, and accountability. Improved services, support for
caseworkers, flexibility in foster placements, and a renewed commitment
to permanent homes--these are urgent goals for children and families in
the child welfare system.
The Federal Government spends $5 billion annually to protect abused
children. Today's hearing cannot merely examine the failure of New
Jersey officials to protect abused children. It must raise serious
questions about the adequacy of Federal oversight of State child
welfare programs. There are those who propose changes in the child
welfare system that would diminish accountability and grant even
greater latitude to the States in managing their Federally financed
foster care systems. With 32 State agencies failing to meet basic
standards for their foster care programs, it would be foolhardy to
award States a block grant in hopes they would run their programs more
responsively than they do with the specific mandates in current law.
Instead, I urge my colleagues to consider the reforms proposed in
the Child Protective Services Improvement Act. As I have said before,
many of these children who are abused, and then re-abused, could have
been saved had there been an adequate social services safety net to
catch them. Congress only lacks the will, not the ability, to help
families in crisis.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection, it will be made part of
our record. Also without objection, Mr. Payne, who is not a
Member of our Committee, has requested to sit with us for a
time, and we will allow that. Again, thank you very much for
being with us.
Today, in our second panel, we will be hearing from Colleen
Maguire, Deputy Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of
Human Services; Kevin Ryan, Child Advocate for the State of New
Jersey; Vincent Sarubbi, Prosecutor from the Camden County
Prosecutor's Office; the Reverend Harry Thomas, Come Alive New
Testament Church; Carla Katz, President of the Communications
Workers of America Local 1034; and Marcia Robinson Lowry,
Executive Director of Children's Rights. Ms. Maguire to
testify.
STATEMENT OF COLLEEN MAGUIRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHILDREN'S
SERVICES, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, TRENTON, NEW
JERSEY
Ms. MAGUIRE. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
Herger, and Members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of Governor
McGreevey and Commissioner Harris, we thank you for inviting
the New Jersey Department of Human Services to be part of this
hearing today and to share our outrage and concern regarding
the conditions of the New Jersey child welfare system.
Sadly, the Jackson family is the latest in a series of
tragedies that have caused all of us in New Jersey to express
outrage at the depth of the problems that confront the child
welfare system and our commitment to rebuilding the system so
that all children are safe. Governor McGreevey has taken some
very bold steps in acknowledging the serious need for reform in
New Jersey and in fixing its child welfare system, a system
that has experienced decades of neglect.
In June, Governor McGreevey ordered the settlement of a
longstanding class action lawsuit against the State filed by
Children's Rights, Inc. The settlement agreement provides New
Jersey the assistance and oversight of a panel of national
child welfare experts underwritten by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation. He signed an Executive Order creating a Cabinet for
Children, which includes Cabinet-level officials from sister
departments. He stabilized an Independent Office of the Child
Advocate as a watchdog for New Jersey's child welfare system,
and he committed in excess of $30 million, in these very
difficult budget times, to hire more staff, buy more equipment,
upgrade technology, and expand training for workers.
Governor McGreevey also became the first New Jersey
Governor to commit State dollars to begin the development and
implementation of the Federally-mandated Statewide Automated
Child Welfare Information System. New Jersey just completed an
unprecedented effort in assessing the safety of 14,000 children
in out-of-home placement.
Tragedies like the Jackson family are not unique to New
Jersey. As you know, many States have experienced similar
tragedies, and in a few minutes you will hear from Marcia
Lowry, who has tirelessly championed the welfare of children by
filing lawsuits. These lawsuits all too often highlight the
failures in the child welfare system.
Some of the issues facing New Jersey's child welfare system
and its failures include a fundamental lack of core principles
and standards for practice, uneven case practice, excessive
caseloads, inadequate training and supervision for the
caseworker and supervisory staff, flawed decision-making,
inadequate supports for foster and adoptive parents, and an
overall lack of systemic accountability. Regrettably, the
Jackson case has reinforced these all-too-familiar issues that
have been unraveling for the past several months.
On October 10th, the starving 19-year-old boy named Bruce
Jackson was discovered rummaging through the garbage in
Collingswood, New Jersey, looking for food. Bruce is 4 feet
tall, and at the time weighed less than 50 pounds. He and his
three adopted brothers, who are 14, 10, and 9, had essentially
grown up in New Jersey's foster care system. Our State child
welfare agency has placed these boys in their adoptive home and
provided financial subsidies to their parents for their care.
It appears that over the years these four boys had been
systematically deprived and neglected by the adoptive parents,
unlike the girls living in the home. Even more tragic, since
1999, as many of you have said today, DYFS staff had been in
the home on 38 different occasions, and none of them apparently
voiced any concern about the boys or took any action to follow
up. They all believed the parents' explanation that the
children had eating disorders.
Together, the boys weighed a total of 135 pounds, their
teeth are rotted, and five of the seven children had head lice.
I am happy to report, Mr. Chairman, that today the boys have
gained a combined total of almost 50 pounds since October 10th.
Bruce has gained 18.4 pounds, Keith 13.5 pounds, Tyrone 8
pounds, and Michael 9.5 pounds.
Because of our commitment to accountability, we are going
to reassess 6,000 cases, because, quite frankly, the
alternative would not be acceptable. In an effort to remake the
child welfare system, Governor McGreevey, and those of us who
are charged with leading the change, have accepted the fact
that the system is so broken it cannot be fixed in a few weeks
or a few months. We are working in concert with the Child
Welfare Panel to complete a comprehensive public planning
process which will result in a reform plan due in January 2004.
We are also currently engaged in a self-assessment phase of the
Child and Family Services review, and plan to integrate the
performance improvement plan and our reform plan together.
Our ability to reform New Jersey's child welfare system
requires strong and sustained political will over time both at
the State and Federal levels, and, unfortunately, for long
after the Jackson story is off the front page. It also requires
sufficient resources and supports to our children and families,
to our workforce, and to our community to prevent child abuse,
protect children, and provide for permanency, all in an effort
to meet the laudable goals of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act (P.L. 105-89).
We invite you to partner with us and States across the
Nation to provide for better outcomes for all children. We ask
that you consider expansion of Title IV-E entitlement funding
for new services, including post-adoption assistance and
community supports, in updating the 1996 Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (P.L. 104-193) standards used in determining
the Title IV-E eligibility, and in allowing States to reinvest
disallowances for Title IV-E to improve child welfare services.
We support and applaud Representative Camp's bill, which
reauthorizes the adoption incentive payments program;
Representative Cardin's bill, which seeks to improve the
ability of child welfare systems to prevent and respond to
child abuse and place children in safe, loving, and permanent
homes; and Representative Stark's bill, which would provide
grants to States to improve quality standards by authorizing
training funds for child welfare workers.
We ask for your support of our current reform effort and
your continued support of adoption subsidies, which has been
essential in helping hard-to-place children become a permanent
member of a family of their own. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Maguire follows:]
Statement of Colleen Maguire, Deputy Commissioner, Children's Services,
New Jersey Department of Human Services, Trenton, New Jersey
Good morning.
Thank you for inviting me to be a part of this hearing.
I am here with mixed feelings.
I am saddened because I understand that this hearing has been
called in response to one of the most terrible and heartbreaking cases
of child abuse that has ever come to light in New Jersey.
Unfortunately, this case is only the latest in a series of
tragedies that has caused all of us in New Jersey to acknowledge the
depth of the problems in our child welfare system--problems we are
working hard to try to solve.
Unlike previous Governors in New Jersey, Governor McGreevey has
taken bold steps to try to get New Jersey's child welfare on track.
Rather than dig in his heels and fight, the Governor chose to
acknowledge how broken our system is and settle a longstanding class
action lawsuit against the State filed by Children's Rights Inc.--so
that reforms could move forward and New Jersey could benefit from the
expertise of a panel of national experts in child welfare.
In addition, the Governor has committed in excess of $30 million
this year to hire more staff, buy more equipment, upgrade technology
and expand training--to give case workers the tools they need to do
their jobs and keep children safe.
He has also established an independent Office of the Child
Advocate, to fight for the rights of children, and created a Cabinet
for Children to engage many State departments in the child welfare
change process.
Tragedies like these are not unique to New Jersey.
Many states have experienced similar tragedies.
Too often, the people who are supposed to love and nurture
children, instead, hurt and deprive them. That appears to be what
happened in the Jackson house. In the midst of a supposedly loving
family, these children were literally starving.
When police discovered the children--they weighed a combined total
of 134 pounds.
Too often, child protection workers are not held accountable for
how well they supervise children in the child welfare system--
particularly if the children in question--as in this case--are now
adopted.
In New Jersey, we are holding staff accountable for the welfare of
children. The child welfare workers who were in this home should have
noticed the children's physical condition and they should have done
something about it.
They didn't and that is why they have been terminated.
In New Jersey, we are in the midst of a massive reform effort that
seeks to address significant flaws in our child welfare system. We are
focusing not just on hiring more workers and buying more cars,
computers and equipment but also developing and adhering to a case
practice model that places the welfare of the child and the family at
the center of our deliberations.
Unfortunately, cases like the one that brings us here today,
obscure the fact that most subsidized adoptions are working and the
children in those placements are living in loving, supportive homes.
So it would be tragic if the case we are discussing in
Collingswood, and other tragic cases around the country, are used to
condemn or indict adoption altogether.
But in New Jersey, we must acknowledge that our child welfare
system, as administered by our Division of Youth and Family Services,
is broken.
And as Governor McGreevey stated recently about actions we have
already taken in response to the Collingswood case, what we are about
here is not scapegoating, but accountability.
We must be accountable to those children in New Jersey who are not
receiving the kind of protection a strong child welfare system should
be providing.
Fixing a system like DYFS, which has suffered as the result of a
long-term erosion of support and resources, cannot happen overnight.
It will require real political will that continues to exist long
after the TV cameras have been turned off and the story is off the
front page of our newspapers.
Only that kind of political will will ensure that a broken child
welfare system is repaired from the bottom up, and that it becomes a
system which will sustain itself over many years, through a series of
administrators and administrations.
It is that kind of political will that can guarantee that a child
welfare system receives the resources and supports it needs over time.
And that it has a well-trained workforce, accountable for what it
does and working with its partners in the community.
In New Jersey, Governor McGreevey is providing that type of
political will.
He has been strong, firm and consistent in his pledge to reform the
DYFS system.
And so I am also heartened--and encouraged--by the fact that you
have responded so quickly to the case in New Jersey by calling this
hearing.
It provides us with a forum to talk not only about the very serious
issues affecting children in our own child welfare system, but also
about the reform efforts already underway in New Jersey.
It also gives us the opportunity to talk with you about the
unintended consequences of current federal policy and legislation as it
affects children who are adopted after passing through the child
welfare system.
Briefly, the facts of the case that has brought us here today are
these:
On October 10, at about 2:30 a.m. a starving 19-year-old boy was
discovered rummaging through the garbage in Collingswood, New Jersey, a
middle-class, suburban town outside Philadelphia.
The boy was four feet tall and weighed less than 50 pounds.
He was looking for food.
He and his three adoptive brothers, who are 14, 10 and 9, and who
also each weighed less than 50 pounds, had essentially grown up in New
Jersey's foster care system.
Again, together, the four boys weighed a total of 134 pounds.
Our state child welfare agency, the Division of Youth and Family
Services, had placed these boys in their adoptive home and provided
financial subsidies for their parents.
The financial subsidy was no greater than they would have received
if the boys had remained in foster care.
And the chance that these boys would have been adopted without the
subsidy is virtually zero.
It now appears, however, that the subsidy had become the family's
primary, if not sole, means of support.
This family had adopted the four boys, one at a time, between 1996
and 1997.
Two girls, ages 5 and 12, also had been adopted and the couple was
seeking to adopt another foster child, who is a girl.
There is some indication that the boys may have had medical issues
prior to adoption.
However, it appears that over the years, these four boys had been
systematically starved by their adoptive parents.
The girls living in the home had not.
Even more tragic, since 1999, DYFS staff had been in the home on 38
different occasions.
Over the past two years, no fewer than five (5) DYFS staff members
had visited the home for one reason or another, and none of them,
apparently, voiced any concern about the boys or took any action to
follow up on them.
Most recently, in June, a young caseworker visited the home in
order to determine whether the foster child in the home was safe.
This caseworker, like all the other DYFS staff who had dealt with
this family in one context or another before her, missed the fact that
other children living in the home were starving and malnourished.
Like others before her, she accepted the parents' explanation that
all that ailed these boys was that they were suffering from eating
disorders.
However, it has been documented that none of these boys had seen a
doctor in at least five years.
The children's teeth were rotted. Some had evidence of lice.
Ironically, this case came to light just one day after we had
announced the completion of the safety assessments of almost 14,300
children who currently are living in out-of-home placements.
These safety assessments were done in a relatively short amount of
time and they were not perfect.
We are the first state ever to fashion a safety assessment protocol
for children in out-of-home placement and it did identify other
children in unsuitable and unsafe foster care situations.
The safety assessments, however, are not the issue here.
The fact that the caseworker and other DYFS staff did not recognize
or understand the dire condition of these boys, is the issue.
And it is one fact about the case that helps to set in stark relief
all of the other issues we are fighting to correct in our child welfare
system.
It also underscores how steep a mountain we have to climb.
In a nutshell, the problem in New Jersey is this: past efforts to
reform the Division of Youth and Family Services have tackled the job
in pieces.
What we are left with, and what a series of tragedies has brought
to the fore this year, is a tragically fragmented system.
This case is an example of that.
The caseworker was focused solely on foster care and assessing the
home in relation to a single foster child.
She saw the home and the parents only in the context of that child.
Several other system flaws that we have identified early on in the
change process must also be addressed.
We have been working to address these issues since another tragedy
came to light at the beginning of the year.
These include:
Poor or uneven case practice methods
Inadequate supervision of caseworkers
Flawed decisionmaking
Lack of training for foster and adoptive parents
Lack of accountability
In addition, the Collingswood case has raised other issues
regarding staff hiring and training methods at the Division of Youth
and Family Services.
Specifically, we realize we must now look more closely at:
The educational requirements for the job. Clearly, not
everyone who simply has a bachelor's degree is necessarily qualified to
be a caseworker for the Division of Youth and Family Services.
The quality of the training provided for our workers, and
how we can be sure that the training we provide is really absorbed by
our staff. We need to know, perhaps through a program of periodic
testing, that staff are integrating what they have learned into their
daily activities.
In the wake of this case, the Department of Human Services has:
Taken action to terminate nine (9) employees who were in
the home or supervised the workers who were in the home and who should
have taken action.
Taken action to ensure that no foster care license is
granted unless all of the members of the family are seen.
Begun to consider how to address the need for some type
of annual medical examination for all children receiving adoption
subsidies.
Decided to enlist qualified professionals from the law
enforcement, child welfare, education and health care arenas to redo
the safety assessments for children managed by the office that handled
the case in Collingswood.
We have:
Decided to redo approximately 5,000 other safety
assessments that were done prior to August 18.
And we have:
Decided to enlist outside experts to research what types
of caps other States place on the number of foster and adoptive
children allowed in a given foster or adoptive home. Three years ago we
reduced that number to eight, but we may now reduce the number further.
In the Collingswood case, seven children were living in the home. Six
of these were adopted, and one was a foster child.
Begun to examine the issue of post-adoption supports and
supervision including, but not limited to, the issue of home-schooling
and annual medical reviews of children in out-of-home placement.
As part of the context for these changes, I would like to again
refer to the court-approved settlement that New Jersey reached in the
Children's Rights lawsuit.
Again, this is the case that our Governor and his administration
chose to settle, and take swift action to reform the system, rather
than fight.
As a result of this settlement, our Division of Youth and Family
Services is working under the supervision of a Child Welfare Panel with
underwriting from the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
The members of this panel are all national experts.
They are working with us to complete a comprehensive public
planning process, which under the terms of the settlement must be
complete by January, 2004.
This process is involving us in an intensive top-to-bottom
determination of what a model child welfare system should look like in
New Jersey, and developing a plan to get us there in a relatively short
period of time. This plan will be completed by January.
Currently, more than 150 individuals are participating in three
workgroups convened by the panel and the Department.
These panels are addressing the system issues I have already
mentioned in addition to others, including a lack of community supports
and resources for children and a scarcity of out-of-home placement
resources.
These efforts dovetail with a number of other significant steps
taken this year by the New Jersey Department of Human Services.
We are, for example, deeply involved in our federal Child and
Family Services Review.
New Jersey is the last state in the country to undergo this review
and in a number of ways we have been able to benefit from the
experiences of the states that have gone before us.
For example, as we embarked on the Child and Family Services Review
process, one of the first things we did was to form workgroups on
domestic violence and substance abuse.
These workgroups have studied these issues and their findings will
be incorporated into the review process.
As part of his commitment to reforming the child welfare system,
Governor McGreevey has created a Children's Cabinet.
Its members include the Commissioners of almost every state
department that interacts with children--including the Departments of
Community Affairs, Law and Public Safety Education, and Health and
Senior Services, and the Juvenile Justice Commission.
The State legislature has also lent its support by creating an
independent Child Advocate with broad powers to investigate and ensure
that we are, in fact, serving children appropriately.
We are also looking for a commitment outside the Department of
Human Services through partnerships with various institutions of higher
education to develop comprehensive supervisor and management training
academies.
Our Department is also deeply aware of the need to engage the
public in the process of improving New Jersey's child welfare system.
No single agency, indeed not even all of state government, can do
all that is necessary to keep children safe.
As a result, in June our Department instituted a series of ``Save
the Children'' days, in which the Commissioner of the Department of
Human Services is visiting with stakeholders in each of New Jersey's 21
counties.
The goal of the Save the Children Days is to engage the community
at all levels in the work we are doing to improve our child welfare
system, and to elicit their input in ways to make those improvements.
I would like to make a special mention at this point of how
gratified we were to see the response of the borough of Collingswood to
the tragedy that occurred in their community.
I also want to thank Mayor Jim Maley for his concern and efforts.
Conversations have taken place, and community members have asked
themselves whether there should have been a role for them to play in
this case.
We also welcome the role that could be played by the federal
government to provide the state with the kind of resources and
assistance that will make sure another Collingswood situation never
arises.
In that context, I would like to offer you some specific
recommendations:
FEDERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) Congress needs to recognize the growing national problem of
child abuse and neglect and make a major financial commitment to assist
the states to address this problem.
We appreciate that Title IV-E funding is an open-ended entitlement.
However, there are so many restrictions on its use that states are
left with a disproportionate share of the child welfare costs.
As a result, New Jersey spends almost twice what the federal
government spends to protect children in our state.
I mentioned earlier, for example, that the Governor provided $31
million in additional state funds for DYFS this year.
These funds, however, will only draw down about $12 million in
federal funds.
The restriction that imposes the greatest limitation to federal IV-
E funding, however, is the one that states that a child must be
eligible for AFDC as it existed on July 16, 1996.
This standard has not been increased to reflect changes in the cost
of living and it is well below the poverty standard for most states and
it is the main reason that about half of all the children who are
adopted in New Jersey are not eligible for federal foster care funding
or adoption assistance.
For that reason, the state bears the entire cost of assisting these
children.
In addition, many relatives who accept a child for placement are
not eligible for federal payments, so we must use our very limited TANF
funds for this purpose.
We also recommend that IV-E funds be available to support broader
community-based training that would include both formal and informal
supports to families under DYFS supervision.
It is clear in the Collingswood case that the community could have
been better prepared to identify abuse.
We also believe that more community supports are needed for
families with adopted children that have special needs.
This would allow states to take more of a preventive approach
towards child abuse and neglect.
(2) At a minimum, the federal government should not exacerbate
child welfare problems in a state by withdrawing funds.
It is ironic that while we are trying to cope with the increase in
emergency child welfare needs in our state, we recently received a
disallowance of $6 million as a result of our secondary IV-E review.
We strongly believe that we should be allowed to reinvest those
funds to improve child welfare services.
We are advocating a reinvestment policy similar to the effective,
common sense approach allowed under federal law when a state exceeds
certain error rates in the Food Stamp program.
For example, New Jersey had experienced an ongoing problem with
payment accuracy in its Food Stamps program, and we were assessed a
penalty of approximately $3.5 million in FY 2001.
Because we had the option to reinvest these funds to improve our
performance, by FY 2002 we had reduced the error rate to the lowest
level in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
(3) We need to review how other support services can be utilized
to provide better care of adopted children receiving state and federal
assistance.
One of the problems that we have already identified in the
Collingswood case is that the children were isolated from the
professional community.
It appears the children were never taken to a doctor for a medical
exam and because they were home schooled they were never seen by
teachers on a daily basis as most children are.
The Department is therefore considering requiring medical
documentation on an annual basis.
There has also been some discussion regarding whether more
oversight is needed when an adopted child who is receiving adoption
assistance payments is also being home schooled.
(4) Federal policy needs to be evaluated in terms of allowing for
post-adoption assistance or oversight.
The federal government does not allow Title IV-E funding for post-
adoption assistance for children with special needs, other than the
adoption subsidy.
It assumes that these payments will be made until the child becomes
an adult, without any oversight or further state involvement.
This may be appropriate policy in many, but not necessarily all,
adoptions.
Caring for certain special needs children is very difficult and may
require post-adoption supports similar to those that a birth parent
would require.
Also, some adoptive parents have no history with the children they
adopt and therefore may need assistance, such as participation in
support groups, to cope with the needs of their adopted child.
I caution that we need to be careful about this type of
intervention.
We do not want to discourage legal adoptions or encourage more
adoptions through private agencies, simply as a way to circumvent any
new state requirements.
We believe the right balance could be struck in a variety of ways,
such as requiring information on an annual basis on the status of the
family and the welfare of the children, in addition to information that
is already required each year.
We may also need to visit some of these homes on a periodic basis,
or monitor certain data on all families that have adopted children with
special needs and investigate those where the data indicate there is a
high risk.
More follow-up would be required, for instance, if there are more
than two adopted children in the home, when the special needs are
particularly severe, or when one or both of the parents loses a job.
Federal policy should be changed to allow for these post-adoption
expenditures under Title IV-E or remaining national adoption incentive
funds.
(5) The federal government must continue to support adoptions of
children with special needs.
Adoption is still the best means of achieving permanency for
children, including those with special needs, who otherwise would
linger in foster care.
In most cases, a stable family is key to a child's happiness and
development.
The Collingswood case must spur us to do more--not less--to support
adoptions.
We are particularly concerned that legislation reauthorizing the
Adoption and Promotion Act has not passed the Senate yet.
We strongly support this bill, which was introduced by
Representative Camp.
We also would like to commend Representative Cardin for introducing
HR 1534 which addresses many of the issues that I have raised today.
Lastly, we also support Representative Stark's bill (HR 2437) which
would help states improve the working conditions of child welfare
staff.
Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. Maguire, for your
testimony. I do want to stress the 5-minute rule. We have been
a bit generous to this point, but we would like to have you
adhere to that. Mr. Ryan, for your testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN RYAN, CHILD ADVOCATE, NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF
THE CHILD ADVOCATE, TRENTON, NEW JERSEY
Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My name is
Kevin Ryan. I am the Child Advocate for the State of New
Jersey. I lead a new, independent agency, statutorily charged
in our State with monitoring the public systems that serve
children and youth at risk of abuse and neglect. Our
jurisdiction includes the child welfare system, the juvenile
justice system, schools, daycare centers, mental health
facilities, and the public health system.
We are a new entity in New Jersey, as you have heard, and
we have taken office just a month ago. We have two primary
tasks. The first of these is to probe systemic and individual
problems throughout State government with regard to the care
and the support of children and youth at risk of abuse and
neglect. Our second role involves problem solving. As we
identify systemic deficiencies, my staff of investigators,
public interest lawyers, and child welfare specialists must
develop solutions to those problems and champion their
implementation across and among government agencies.
The Office of the Child Advocate was born of tragedy and a
desire to better serve our most vulnerable children. The deaths
of children this past year in New Jersey due to abuse and
neglect, some of them already known to various State and
municipal agencies, has really captured the public imagination.
New revelations of maltreatment in the child welfare system,
which were brought to light by the Federal class action lawsuit
championed by Children's Rights, Incorporated, led the Governor
to return to an idea that he and now Congressman Pascrell had
years ago as Members of the State legislature, the creation of
this independent ombudsman office for children in State
government.
The Office of the Child Advocate is equipped with broad new
powers, including the power to investigate government agencies,
the power to subpoena, the power to sue State government, the
power to demand corrective action, the power to hold public
hearings, the power to disclose all of our findings publicly,
and, most vitally, the power of our independence.
On October 24th, I learned from the State Department of
Human Services that four children living in the Collingswood
home of Raymond and Vanessa Jackson had been taken to the
hospital for treatment of severe malnourishment. I also learned
that the household included a foster child, visited numerous
times by the State child protection agency during the past
several years. The boys were severely underweight and, as all
of us know by now, none of them weighed more than 45 pounds.
One child weighed 38 pounds when adopted in October 1996, and 7
years later weighed just 40 pounds. In 7 years, the child had
gained just 2 pounds, but has gained more than 15 pounds in the
last 4 weeks.
The oldest child weighed 49 pounds in December 1995, around
the time of his adoption, but weighed only 45 pounds when he
was removed from the Jackson home last month. So, that is a net
loss, obviously, of 4 pounds in all those years, and now weighs
nearly 65 pounds.
The State child welfare agency had visited the Jackson home
38 times in the last 4 years. These visits included meetings
with the foster child and Mrs. Jackson, licensing inspections,
a child safety assessment, and in a few instances discussions
with all of the Jackson children, including the malnourished
boys.
We have opened an investigation and seek to answer this
central question: how did the condition of all four boys endure
for so long, despite the family's involvement with the child
protection agency, other government agencies, their neighbors,
family, and friends?
It did not take this tragedy to teach me or any of my
fellow citizens in New Jersey that the child welfare system is
badly broken. The playgrounds of heaven are too crowded with
children we should have saved, and we are lucky that we count
the Jackson boys among the saved and not among the lost, but
that really is a matter of luck and good fortune in the case.
Our investigation is only 2 weeks old. We are cooperating
with the Camden County Prosecutor's Office, which is running a
concurrent investigation with criminal jurisdiction, and I
anticipate a thorough investigation will take 3 months to
complete. As we identify systemic deficiencies, we are
committed to bringing them to light prior to the completion of
our full investigation.
All of the malnourished children had been adopted through
the State child protection agency, and the Jacksons received a
subsidy from government to help meet the special needs of their
children following the adoption. The adoption subsidy program
is a success story in the United States, of which this Congress
should be very proud. Changes to Federal adoption laws and
innovative tools like the subsidy have enabled States to
dramatically increase the number of adoptions in the United
States over the last several years. New Jersey is near the head
of that pack, receiving the second highest bonus payment this
year for increasing adoptions. I want to unequivocally
acknowledge that as a good thing.
As time is limited, I want to say that I do believe that as
a recommendation to this Congress and to the States
implementing child welfare reform, it would be a very good idea
for all States to require documentation of an updated physical
examination by a doctor when the adoption subsidy is annually
renewed, and States need to be vigorous in continuing to offer
services to special needs children following an adoption.
Respectfully, no matter how hard you try, government will
never love a child the way his or her family must. When those
families cannot or will not provide that love and attention,
government has a fundamental moral obligation to protect
children. We all have a long way to go before we are meeting
that obligation satisfactorily. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan follows:]
Statement of Kevin Ryan, Child Advocate, New Jersey Office of the Child
Advocate, Trenton, New Jersey
Good morning. My name is Kevin Ryan. I am the Child Advocate for
the State of New Jersey. I lead a new, independent agency, statutorily
charged with monitoring public systems that serve children and youth at
risk of abuse and neglect. Our jurisdiction includes the state's child
welfare system; its juvenile justice system; the public health system;
schools; day care centers and mental health facilities.
We are a new entity in New Jersey, having taken office less than
one month ago.
We have two primary tasks. The first of these is to probe systemic
and individual problems throughout state government with regard to the
care and support of children and youth at risk of abuse and neglect.
Our second role involves problem solving. As we identify systemic
deficiencies, my staff of investigators, public interest lawyers and
child welfare specialists must develop solutions to those problems and
champion their implementation across and among government agencies.
The Office of the Child Advocate was borne of tragedy and a desire
to better serve our most vulnerable children. The deaths of children
this past year due to abuse and neglect, some of them already known to
various state and municipal agencies, captured the public imagination.
New revelations of maltreatment in the child welfare system brought to
light by the federal class action lawsuit championed by Children's
Rights, Inc. led the Governor and the State legislature to create this
office by statute two months ago.
The Office of the Child Advocate is equipped with broad new powers,
including the power to investigate government agencies; the power to
subpoena; the power to sue state government; the power to demand
corrective action; the power to hold public hearings; the power to
disclose all of our findings publicly; and, most vitally, the power of
independence.
On October 24, 2003, I learned from the State Department of Human
Services that four children living in the Collingswood home of Raymond
and Vanessa Jackson had been taken to the hospital for treatment of
severe malnourishment. I also learned that the household included a
foster child who was visited numerous times by the state child
protection agency during the past several years. The boys were severely
underweight, none weighing more than 45 pounds.
One child weighed 38 pounds when adopted in October 1996, and 7
years later weighed just 40 pounds. In 7 years, the child had gained
just 2 pounds, but has gained more than 15 pounds in the last four
weeks. The oldest child weighed 49 pounds in December 1995, but weighed
only 45 pounds when he was removed from the Jackson home last month,
and now weighs nearly 65 pounds.
The state child welfare agency had visited the Jackson home 38
times in the last four years. These visits included meetings with the
foster child and Mrs. Jackson; a home licensing inspection; a child
safety assessment; and in a few instances, discussions with all of the
Jackson children including the malnourished boys.
The Office of the Child Advocate opened an investigation on October
25, 2003. My staff and I are poring through more than 20,000 pages of
documents from public agencies, and expect to speak with at least 20
witnesses as part of our investigation. The central question we seek to
answer is this: how did the condition of all four boys endure for so
long despite the family's involvement with the child protection agency,
other government agencies, their neighbors, family and friends?
It did not take this tragedy to prove that our child protection
systems in the United States are badly broken. The playgrounds of
heaven are filled with the children we should have saved. And we are
lucky the Jackson boys can be counted among the saved, not the lost.
Our investigation is only two weeks old. We are cooperating with
the Camden County prosecutor's office, which is running a concurrent
investigation with criminal jurisdiction, and I anticipate that a
thorough investigation will take 3 months to complete.
As we identify systemic deficiencies, we are committed to bringing
them to light prior to the completion of our full investigation. For
example, the licensing protocols for foster homes in New Jersey have
historically required proof of a pet's vaccination, but no requirement
that all the children in the home be interviewed or their medical
records be reviewed. A new group of leaders hired at the Department of
Human Services as part of the reform movement has now changed this
policy to ensure that every child in a household, no matter their
status, is seen by the licensing team. But real reform can't happen
protocol by protocol, policy by policy. It requires an organizational
renaissance. In New Jersey, that renaissance has to overcome 25 years
of malaise, poor resources and wavering political will.
All of the malnourished children had been adopted through the state
child protection agency, and the Jacksons received a subsidy from
government to help them meet the special needs of their children
following the adoption. Federal subsidies were created by Congress
through Public Law 96-272--(the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act of 1980) to encourage the adoption of special needs children and
strip the financial disincentives to adoption for families. Children
may receive a Federally funded subsidy under Title IV-E or a state-
funded subsidy as per state guidelines. Depending on the age and needs
of the child, and the date of their adoption, the typical subsidy
ranges between $315 and $678 per month. Adoptive parents of the most
medically fragile children can receive an ``exceptional rate'' of as
much as $1,407 per month.
The adoption subsidy program is a success story of which this
Congress should be proud. Changes to federal adoption laws and
innovative tools like the subsidy have enabled states to dramatically
increase the number of adoptions in the United States over the last
several years. New Jersey is near the head of that pack, receiving the
second highest bonus payment this year for increasing adoptions in
2002. I want to unequivocally acknowledge that as a good thing.
Permanence and stability are essential for children.
It would be a very good idea for all states to require
documentation of an updated physical examination by a doctor when the
adoption subsidy is annually renewed. And states need to be vigorous in
continuing to offer services to special needs children following an
adoption. Neither occurred in the case of the Jackson boys, and both
steps could have prevented the tragic outcome of four boys found
starving, their parents charged with criminal wrongdoing and a family
torn apart.
This Subcommittee has a critical role to play to improve our
nation's child welfare systems, many of which do not evidence a robust
national or state commitment to children. Too many include caseloads
for workers that are too high; inadequate training for caseworkers and
supervisors; scarce access to resources, such as prevention and
placement services; and a complete failure to track outcomes for
children longitudinally. In New Jersey, these failures, and many
others, will be addressed when a panel of child welfare experts
approved by the Federal court pursuant to the state's settlement
agreement with Children's Rights, approves a federally enforceable
series of benchmarks and outcomes for children in January.
But it remains very troubling throughout the nation that real
progress in lowering caseloads, instilling accountability and improving
services to our most vulnerable children are more likely to result from
public interest litigation and advocacy than anything else. This
Subcommittee is uniquely positioned to ensure that these systems have
the resources and operational accountability necessary to save
children.
Respectfully, no matter how hard you try, government will never
love a child the way his or her family must. But when those families
cannot or will not provide that love and attention, government has a
fundamental moral obligation to protect children. We have all got to do
a much better job of filling the void.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Sarubbi to
testify.
STATEMENT OF VINCENT P. SARUBBI, PROSECUTOR, CAMDEN COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY
Mr. SARUBBI. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee
on Human Resources, I am pleased to have the privilege of
appearing before this distinguished Subcommittee today to
address serious and substantial issues relating to the health
and welfare of our greatest and most important human resource:
our children.
By way of background, I have been a practicing attorney in
New Jersey since 1988. As you may know, in my home State,
county prosecutors are not elected, rather they are appointed
by the Governor for 5-year terms. I was nominated by Governor
James E. McGreevey to be the prosecutor of Camden County for a
5-year term, and following my confirmation by the senate, I was
sworn in and commenced my term in July 2002.
My office consists of more than 250 staff members. Included
in this number are some 65 assistant prosecutors, more than 100
investigators, who have full police powers, as well as clerical
and support staff members. The community we serve includes
approximately 550,000 residents. The city of Camden, our county
seat, lies directly across the Delaware River from
Philadelphia. Many of our residents work in the Philadelphia
area. The Borough of Collingswood is a residential community of
about 14,000 people, and it borders Camden City and is located
about 5 miles from Philadelphia. Collingswood is a quiet and
peaceful, proud municipality, which has recently experienced a
renaissance of its downtown area.
In the early morning hours of October 10, 2003, a
Collingswood resident heard and observed someone rooting
through the trash outside their home. The resident approached
and observed the boy he believed to be about 10 years old. The
boy was emaciated in appearance. The Collingswood Police were
summoned and responded to the scene. The boy was subsequently
identified as Bruce Jackson, an adopted son of a local family.
He stood just 4 feet tall and weighed just 45 pounds. The
responding officers were shocked to learn that Bruce was 19
years old.
When the police entered Bruce's home, they observed three
other adopted boys, aged 14, 10, and 9, small in stature and
emaciated in appearance. Also living in the home were other
adopted and biological children of parents Raymond and Vanessa
Jackson. These other children of Mr. and Mrs. Jackson appeared
to be in good health. The 14-year-old boy Keith weighed 40
pounds. Tyrone, aged 10, weighed 28, and 9-year-old Michael
weighed just 23 pounds.
The New Jersey DYFS removed the four boys from the Jackson
residence that day, and they were admitted to area hospitals.
We learned that the four boys had been adopted through DYFS,
and Mr. and Mrs. Jackson had been paid monthly stipends.
Members of this Committee, the investigation that I am
engaged in currently is likely to be ongoing for several more
months to come. Between October 10, 2003 when the boys were
discovered and October 24, 2003, we enlisted medical experts to
evaluate the boys' condition. We made an effort to take a
responsible and objective view of the conditions of these
children by looking into their medical history and their
background. Our focus was to determine what caused them to be
so dramatically underdeveloped. These medical experts
determined that the boys had been deprived of adequate
nutrition and medical care.
Based upon these medical assessments and other
investigative information developed, I was satisfied that
probable cause existed to support criminal charges of
aggravated assault and child endangerment against Raymond and
Vanessa Jackson, the adoptive parents. I therefore authorized
officers to pursue these charges. On October 24, 2003,
following review of the charges by a judicial officer, arrest
warrants were executed and served upon the defendants. They
were lodged in the Camden County Correctional Facility until
November 1, 2003, when each posted bail of $100,000.
The medical review that we did in this case included a
genetic review and also additional experts to rule out the
possibility of any type of a Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid (DNA)
defect or other type of genetic defect. We also ruled out
thyroid problems and any other type of medical conditions that
could have contributed to these boys' resulting weight and
their health problems. Admittedly, our investigation revealed
through the parents that these children had not seen medical
attention for a period of 4 years. To this day Bruce remains in
the hospital and has undergone two separate blood transfusions
because of an iron deficiency that exists in his system.
It should be noted in this case that the Jacksons were in
the process of attempting to adopt another foster child, a 10-
year-old female. The DYFS workers visited the home on numerous
occasions to evaluate the suitability for the adoptive girl. My
office is investigating also DYFS's involvement with the
family.
It is my understanding that in addition to this
information, the Subcommittee wants to know the present
condition of the children. In this regard I am pleased to tell
you that they are doing well. As of November 3rd, Bruce had
gained 18 pounds, weighed approximately 63 pounds; Keith gained
16.5 pounds, weighed 56.5 pounds; Tyrone had gained 11.6
pounds, weighing 39.6 pounds; and Michael had gained 9 pounds
and weighed 32 pounds. It should be noted that the progress was
achieved simply through a proper diet and vitamins with no
growth medications administered or steroids of any type.
I want to emphasize that our investigation is in its
preliminary stages. We have numerous documents to go over, many
statements from witnesses to take. Our focus has moved from the
Jacksons primarily to the DYFS aspect of this case. We also, as
Mr. Ryan does, anticipate that our investigation should take
somewhere in the area of 3 months. I will be happy to return to
supplement this record should the Chairman or this Subcommittee
determine that my testimony is relevant.
I also want to state that we have rules in the State of New
Jersey which restrict my ability to indicate all investigative
aspects and evidence with respect to this case. I want this
Committee to know that we will give the Jacksons every legal
right that they are entitled to. We firmly believe that they,
like any defendants in the New Jersey criminal system, are
entitled to a full and fair trial and the outcome to be
determined by a jury.
I want to thank again the Committee for the opportunity to
appear here today, and I commend you for your care and concern
of these children. I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sarubbi follows:]
Statement of Vincent P. Sarubbi, Prosecutor, Camden County Office of
the Prosecutor, Camden, New Jersey
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources,
I am pleased to have the privilege of appearing before this
distinguished Subcommittee today to address serious and substantial
issues relating to the health and welfare of our greatest and most
important human resource, our children.
By way of background, I have been a practicing New Jersey attorney
since 1988. As you may know, in my home State, county prosecutors are
not elected; rather, they are appointed by the Governor for five-year
terms. I was nominated by Gov. James E. McGreevey to be Prosecutor of
Camden County and, following my confirmation by the New Jersey Senate,
I was sworn in and commenced my term in July 2002.
My office consists of more than 250 staff members. Included in this
number are some 65 assistant prosecutors, more than 100 investigators,
who have full police powers, as well as clerical and support staff
members. The community we serve includes approximately 550,000
residents. The City of Camden, our county seat, lies directly across
the Delaware River from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Many of our
residents work in the Philadelphia area.
The Borough of Collingswood is a residential community of about
14,000 people. It borders Camden City and is located about five miles
from Philadelphia. Collingswood is a quiet, peaceful and proud
municipality which has recently experienced a renaissance of its
downtown area.
In the early morning hours of Oct. 10, 2003, a Collingswood
resident heard and observed someone rooting through the trash outside
his home. The resident approached and observed a boy he believed to be
about 10 years old. The boy was emaciated in appearance. Collingswood
Police were summoned and responded to the scene. The boy was
subsequently identified as Bruce Jackson, adopted son of a local
family. He stood just 4 feet tall and weighed just 45 pounds. The
responding officers were shocked to learn that Bruce was 19 years of
age.
When the police entered Bruce's home, they observed three other
adopted boys, ages 14, 10 and 9, all small in stature and emaciated in
appearance. Also living in the home were other adopted and biological
children of parents Raymond and Vanessa Jackson. These other children
and Mr. and Mrs. Jackson appeared to be in good health.
The 14-year-old boy, K.J., weighed 40 pounds. T.J., age 10, weighed
28 pounds, and 9-year-old M.J. weighed just 23 pounds. The New Jersey
Division of Youth and Family Services (known as DYFS), removed the four
boys from the Jackson residence that day, and they were admitted to
area hospitals. We learned that the four boys had been adopted through
DYFS and that Mr. and Mrs. Jackson were paid monthly stipends for each
of the boys.
My office, together with the Collingswood Police Department, under
the leadership of Chief Thomas J. Garrity Jr., commenced a criminal
investigation.
Members of the Committee, that investigation is ongoing and will
likely continue for many weeks to come.
Between Oct. 10, 2003, when the boys were discovered, and Oct. 24,
2003, we enlisted medical experts to evaluate the boys' conditions. Our
focus was to determine what caused them to be so dramatically
underdeveloped. These medical experts determined that the boys had been
deprived of adequate nutrition and medical care. Based upon these
medical assessments and other investigative information developed, I
was satisfied that probable cause existed to support criminal charges
of Aggravated Assault and Child Endangerment against Raymond and
Vanessa Jackson, the adoptive parents. I therefore authorized officers
to pursue these charges. On Oct. 24, 2003, following a review of the
charges by a judicial officer, arrest warrants were executed and served
upon the defendants. They were lodged in the Camden County Correctional
Facility until Nov. 1, 2003, when each posted a $100,000 bond.
The arrest warrants charge the Jacksons with ``recklessly, under
circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human
life, causing serious bodily injury'' to the four boys. In addition,
warrants allege the couple endangered the boys by failing to provide
adequate medical care. The investigation indicates the children have
not seen a doctor for approximately five years despite the fact that,
as children adopted through DYFS, they were eligible to receive health
care services through Medicaid benefits.
An additional six endangering counts allege the Jacksons failed to
provide a proper home for six children under 18 living there. The
investigation indicates the home had no electricity from June 18, 2003,
through Oct. 6, 2003, and no gas service from Sept. 8, 2003, through
Oct. 6, 2003.
I want to make clear to the Subcommittee that I understand and
respect the fact that these defendants are innocent of any and all
charges until and unless proved guilty in a court of law. My office and
I are committed to recognizing and honoring all of their legal rights
and ensuring that they will get a fair trial.
Towards this end, I trust you will understand that I am unable at
the present time to share with you in public session specific and
detailed investigative information. As I see it, my role here today is
not to make a case against these defendants, rather it is to provide
the subcommittee with facts so that you may more knowledgably perform
your critically important legislative functions.
The investigation further revealed that social workers employed by
DYFS were not required to and did not monitor the physical, emotional
or psychological condition of these children once their adoptions were
finalized. Simply put, there was no ``safety net'' in place.
It should be noted that the Jacksons were in the process of
attempting to adopt another foster child, a 10-year-old female. DYFS
workers visited the home on numerous occasions to evaluate its
suitability for adopting the girl. My office is investigating DYFS's
involvement with the family.
It is my understanding that, in addition to information regarding
the condition of these boys on Oct. 10, 2003, this subcommittee wants
to know of their present condition. In this regard, I am pleased to
share with you the following update, which was provided to me on Nov.
3. As of that date:
Bruce had gained 18 pounds and weighed 63 pounds;
K.J. had gained 16\1/2\ pounds and weighed 56\1/2\
pounds;
T.J. had gained 11.6 pounds and weighed 39.6 pounds;
And M.J. had gained 9 pounds and weighed 32 pounds.
It should be noted that this progress was achieved simply through a
proper diet and vitamins, with no growth medications administered.
I thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today. I
commend you for your care and concern for these children and I welcome
your questions.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Sarubbi, for your
testimony. Now the Reverend Harry Thomas to testify.
STATEMENT OF REVEREND HARRY L. THOMAS, JR., SENIOR PASTOR, COME
ALIVE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH, MEDFORD, NEW JERSEY
Reverend THOMAS. Good morning. My name is Harry L. Thomas,
Jr. I am Senior Pastor of the Come Alive New Testament Church
located in Medford, New Jersey. Ray and Vanessa Jackson are
long-time members of my congregation, and I want to thank this
Committee for the invitation to appear here today.
In America a person is supposed to be innocent until proven
guilty. That is not what has happened to Ray and Vanessa
Jackson. They have been charged, tried, and convicted in the
media. It has been less than 2 weeks since their arrests, yet
even in the language used by this Committee, there is an
assumption of their guilt. Let me quote from the Committee's
advisory: ``This hearing seeks to expose how these children's
abuse went unnoticed so that we can work to prevent other
children from enduring such horrible abuse.''
I respectfully would like to suggest the reason that no
abuse was noticed was that there was no abuse going on. This
Committee instead might want to consider the following
questions: why would anyone want to be a social worker if they
have been summarily dismissed? Why would anyone want to adopt
fetal alcohol syndrome, crack, or sexually abused children and
take significant legal risk of being accused of neglect?
My own experience with this family is much different than
what has been portrayed. Ray and Vanessa Jackson have a real
love for children. Their children were always clean, happy, and
well dressed. Whenever I saw them, it was clear that Ray and
Vanessa had made every attempt--have made education a real
priority to all the kids to read well.
Unlike what has been reported, Ray and Vanessa treated
their adopted and foster children the same as their own
children. For example, when they went to Disney World, they
took along their foster kids. This trip included Bruce, the
troubled 19-year-old, who has been--who has made numerous false
accusations.
The DYFS had a knack, in my opinion, of taking advantage of
this family. The DYFS would contact the Jacksons and ask them
to provide emergency housing for just a weekend. Invariably the
children would have to stay much longer, and some of these
children were eventually adopted by the Jacksons.
These children were also some of the most difficult kids in
the system. It is my understanding that the three younger boys
had fetal alcohol syndrome. The oldest, Bruce, had developed an
eating disorder by the time he was 3 years old. He also had
been hospitalized because of abuse at the hands of his birth
father. On the first day he arrived in the Jackson's home, he
proceeded to urinate on the floor. Apparently he had been
living in the street, and this is what he was used to.
Bruce has a very unusual psychological eating disorder in
that he voluntarily brings up his food back from his stomach to
his mouth very much like a cow chewing its cud. Yesterday, as
we were preparing for this hearing, we stumbled on a very
interesting medical article about a disorder called rumination.
This article was written by Dr. Cynthia R. Ellis, M.D., and was
posted on the Internet at http://www.emedicine.com/ped/
topic2652.htm. It certainly sounds like the condition that
Bruce has.
Here are a few quotes from this paper. This article states
that rumination is the voluntary or involuntary regurgitation
and rechewing of partially digested food that is either
reswallowed or expelled. This regurgitation appears effortless,
may be preceded by a belching sensation, and typically does not
involve retching or nausea. Rumination may cause the following:
halitosis, malnutrition, weight loss, growth failure,
electrolyte imbalance, dehydration, gastric disorders, upper
respiratory distress, dental problems, aspiration, choking,
pneumonia, or death. Rumination is more common in individuals
with severe and profound mental retardation than in those with
mild or moderate mental retardation. Prevalence rates of 6 to
10 percent have been reported among the institutionalized
population of individuals with mental retardation. Rumination
is estimated to be the primary cause of death in 5 to 10
percent of individuals who ruminate. Mortality rates of 12 to
50 percent have been reported for institutionalized infants and
older individuals.
I am not a doctor, but I would like to suggest that perhaps
Bruce is suffering from this condition. One question that I
think needs to be answered is this: did DYFS know about this
condition before placing the child in the Jackson home? If so,
did it explain the serious nature of this illness and provide
the necessary support structures and resources to cope with it?
Should Bruce perhaps be institutionalized?
The family has numerous stories about Bruce's bizarre
eating habits. For example, Bruce used to eat his lunch on the
way to school and then tell his teachers that his home had not
packed the lunch. The teacher and Vanessa came up with a system
involving a notebook that had to be signed and returned home to
ensure that he was, in fact, eating the lunch at the right
time. Before Bruce even arrived at the Jackson's home, it was
discovered he had gotten into a litter box and eaten cat feces.
Bruce, to say the very least, was a very difficult child
for the Jacksons to handle. The Jackson family tried their very
best to keep him from eating drywall. There was a spot near to
the couch that he used to peel off and eat the drywall. The
family had to repeatedly spackle that area. Bruce also got into
the dog food in the basement and even hid a stash for later
use.
Bruce apparently was kicked out of several schools. The
Pennsauken school system could not cope with his behavior, so
they kicked him out. At the Central School, he was caught
stealing lunches, eating them and then throwing up in the kid's
lunch bag. At Roosevelt School, he was there only 1 day when
they asked him to leave because teachers could not handle it.
At Carson School, there was more eating and throwing up. The
final straw was when he stole food and then threw up upon the
teacher.
This is the reason that the Jacksons started home schooling
Bruce. The police theory is that they are using home schooling
as a way to avoid detection of the abuse of their children.
This is silly. All the boys have been taught to read and can
even do addition and multiplication.
Ray Jackson was asked one time why in the world did he
choose to adopt someone like Bruce after having him as a foster
child for a number of years. Ray said that he and Vanessa had
discussed it and decided that if they didn't adopt him, no one
else would. How many of us in this room would have taken a
project like Bruce? I don't know the exact number, but I think
if you were to get $7,000 annually to feed, clothe, house, and
educate him, the police theory is that this was a money-making
scam. Ridiculous. In fact, when you convert from fostering a
child to adopting a child, there is no guarantee that your
benefits will continue. That is what happened to one of the
Jackson kids. After adoption, they lost their income for this
child.
As I was sitting down to write this statement, my office
received a phone call from a person who is heavily involved
with DYFS and does not want their identity known for fear of
being fired. Here are some of her quotes: ``DYFS is out of
control. They think they are God. Every day I am faced with
foster parents asking me how can I get rid of my kid when faced
with difficult problems on health issues. Crack addict moms who
put their babies in trash cans to rot will not be punished, but
a very real effort will be made to reunite the baby with its
mother. Then they will wrap support around the mother in order
to keep the family together. Adopted foster parents just get
thrown to the wind.''
That is what we have with the Jackson family. Even though
they have provided a loving, supportive family for some very
difficult children, their only thanks is to be thrown in jail.
In my judgment, this is a case of jumping to conclusions, a
very rush to judgment. Thank you for hearing me.
[The prepared statement of Reverend Thomas follows:]
Statement of Reverend Harry L. Thomas, Jr., Senior Pastor, Come Alive
New Testament Church, Medford, New Jersey
Good morning. My name is Reverend Harry L. Thomas, Jr. I am the
senior pastor for the Come Alive New Testament Church located in
Medford, NJ. Ray and Vanessa Jackson are long time members of my
congregation.
I want to thank this committee for the invitation to appear here
today. In America a person is supposed to be innocent until proven
guilty. That is not what has happened to Ray and Vanessa Jackson. They
have been charged, tried and convicted in the media.
It has been less than two weeks since their arrest yet even the
language used by this committee assumes they are guilty. Let me quote
from the Committee's advisory, ``This hearing seeks to expose how these
children's abuse went unnoticed so that we can work to prevent other
children from enduring such horrible abuse.''
I respectfully would like to suggest the reason that no abuse was
noticed was because there was no abuse going on. This committee instead
might want to consider the following questions.
1.) Why would anybody want to be a social worker if they can be
summarily dismissed?
2.) Why would anybody want to adopt fetal alcohol syndrome, crack
and/or sexually abused children and take the significant legal risk of
being accused of neglect?
My own experience with this family is much different then what has
been portrayed. Ray and Vanessa Jackson have a real love for children.
Their children were always clean, happy and well dressed whenever I saw
them. It is clear that Ray and Vanessa have made education a real
priority and all the kids read well. Unlike what has been reported, Ray
and Vanessa treated their adopted and foster children the same as their
own children. For example, even when they went to Disney World they
took along their foster kids. This trip included Bruce, the troubled
nineteen-year-old who has made numerous false statements.
DYFS had a knack in my opinion of taking advantage of this family.
DYFS would contact the Jacksons and ask them to provide emergency
housing for just the weekend. Invariably the children would have to
stay much longer and some of these children were eventually adopted by
the Jacksons. These children were also some of the most difficult kids
in the system. It is my understanding that the three younger boys have
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The oldest, Bruce, had developed an eating
disorder at the age of three. He also had been hospitalized because of
abuse at the hands of his birth father.
On the first day he arrived in the Jackson home he proceeded to
urinate on the floor. Apparently he had been living in the street and
this was what he was used to. Bruce has a very unusual psychological
eating disorder in that he voluntarily brings his food back up from his
stomach to his mouth very much like a cow chewing its cud.
Yesterday as we were preparing for this hearing we stumbled on a
very interesting medical article about a disorder called rumination.
This article was written by Dr. Cynthia R. Ellis, MD and was posted on
the Internet at http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2652.htm. It
certainly sounds like the condition that Bruce has.
Here are a few quotes from this paper. This article states that
rumination is the voluntary or involuntary regurgitation and rechewing
of partially digested food that is either reswallowed or expelled. This
regurgitation appears effortless, may be preceded by a belching
sensation, and typically does not involve retching or nausea.
Rumination may cause the following:
Halitosis
Malnutrition
Weight loss
Growth failure
Electrolyte imbalance
Dehydration
Gastric disorders
Upper respiratory distress
Dental problems
Aspiration
Choking
Pneumonia
Death
Rumination is more common in individuals with severe and profound
mental retardation than in those with mild or moderate mental
retardation. Prevalence rates of 6-10% have been reported among the
institutionalized population of individuals with mental retardation.
Rumination is estimated to be the primary cause of death in 5-10%
of individuals who ruminate. Mortality rates of 12-50% have been
reported for institutionalized infants and older individuals.
I am not a doctor but I would like to suggest that perhaps Bruce is
suffering from this condition. One question that I think needs to be
answered is this. Did DYFS know about this condition before placing the
child in the Jackson home? If so, did it explain the serious nature of
this illness and provide the necessary support structures and resources
to cope with it? Should Bruce perhaps be institutionalized?
The family has numerous stories about Bruce's bizarre eating
habits. For example Bruce used to eat his lunch on the way to school
and then tell his teachers that his mom had not packed a lunch. The
teacher and Vanessa came up with a system involving a notebook that had
to be signed and returned home to insure that he in fact was eating
lunch at the right time.
Before Bruce even arrived at the Jackson home it was discovered
that he had gotten into a litter box and eaten the cat feces. Bruce to
say the least was a very difficult child for the Jacksons to handle.
The Jackson family tried their very best to keep him from eating
drywall. There was a spot near their couch where he used to peel away
at the drywall to eat. The family had to repeatedly spackle this area.
Bruce also got into the dog food in the basement and even hid a stash
in a secret place for later use.
Bruce apparently was kicked out of several schools. The Pennsauken
School System could not cope with his behavior and so they kicked him
out.
At Central School he was stealing lunches, eating them and then
throwing up in the kid's lunch bag.
At the Roosevelt School he was there only one day and then was
asked to leave because the teachers could not handle him.
At Carson School there was more eating and throwing up. The final
straw was when he stole food and then threw up on a teacher.
This is the reason that the Jacksons started home schooling Bruce.
The police theory though is that they are using home schooling as a way
to avoid detection of their abuse of these children. This is silly. All
the boys have been taught to read and can even do addition and
multiplication.
Ray Jackson was asked one time why in the world did he choose to
adopt somebody like Bruce after having him as a foster child for a
number of years. Ray said that he and Vanessa had discussed it and
decided that if they didn't adopt him that nobody else would.
How many of us in this room would have taken on a project like
Bruce? I don't have the exact number but I think that you would get
$7,000 annually to feed, clothe, house and educate him. The police
theory is that this was a money-making scam. Ridiculous! In fact, when
you convert from fostering a child to adopting a child, there is no
guarantee that your benefits will continue. In fact, this is what
happened to one of the Jackson kids. After the adoption they lost their
income for this child.
As I was sitting down to write this statement my office received a
call from a person who is heavily involved with DYFS and does not want
their identity known for fear of being fired. Here are some of her
quotes:
``DYFS is out of control! They think they are God. Every day I
am faced with foster parents asking me, `How can I get rid of my kid,'
when faced with difficult problems or health issues. Crack addict moms
who put their babies in trash cans to rot will not be punished but a
very real effort will be made to reunite the baby with mother. They
then will wrap support around the mother in order to keep the family
together. Adopted and foster parents just get thrown to the wind!''
That is what we have with the Jackson family. Even though they have
provided a loving supportive family for some very difficult children,
their only thanks has been to be thrown in jail.
In my opinion, this is a case of jumping to conclusions. A very
real rush to judgment.
Thanks for listening.
__________
Please find below a random list of quotes and comments that tend to
support the Jackson family.
1. A man called to say that the Jackson family watched his two
children six days a week for over five years from 1997 to 2001. They
even potty-trained his son. All the kids sat together to eat. He and
his wife would often show up at unexpected hours and never saw anything
weird. This information has been verified as correct.
2. A key employee of a prominent mental health and retardation
facility says that the family would regularly perform as the entire
family for the benefit of the patients and medical personnel. The
person though did not want me to mention the name of this facility for
obvious reasons.
3. Bruce, the 19-year-old, was clearly the most afflicted. He has
made statements that are clearly not true.
a.
He says he has never eaten in a restaurant but there are
many photos that show Bruce eating in restaurants beside his family.
b.
He said he was not allowed to attend church yet the church
attendance records show that he attended church 67 times in 2 years.
c.
He claims that he was not allowed to watch TV but was forced
to sit in front of a black screen as punishment. Another newspaper
article though quotes Bruce as saying that he wanted to go to ``Chili's
Restaurant because he saw their ad on TV.'' The article also stated
that apparently Bruce did watch a lot of TV in the Jackson household.
Another reasonable explanation is that the TV was off because the
electric had been off for a period of months.
d.
Bruce apparently says that he ate nothing but uncooked
pancake batter, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and drywall. People
have come forward and are willing to testify that this is totally false
and have had meals with the family and saw Bruce eat what everybody
else did. Also, please take a rational look at the allegation. People
actually get good nutrition from peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
This allegation looks like one of those IQ questions that ask you to
find the word that does not belong.
4. We received a phone call from a specialist in pre-natal
addictions and fetal alcohol syndrome from a NJ hospital. She said
nothing she has read about the children was inconsistent with these
conditions. She was upset that the prosecutor apparently had not
consulted a specialist in this field before rendering a judgment.
5. A Jewish holocaust survivor has come forward. She was on board
the famous ``Kinder'' train from Germany to Britain. In Britain she
suffered from low food rations and knows what hunger is all about. She
is willing to testify that the entire Jackson Family including Bruce
came to a picnic that she was sponsoring. The whole family, Bruce
included. It is my understanding that she has known the family for 11
years.
6. Ray's boss called. He was enraged and said something to the
effect that the Ray he has read about is not the Ray that he has known
and worked with for many years. This certainly runs counter to the low-
life welfare hustler image that many have tried to paint.
7. When I was interviewed by the prosecutor's office, one of the
interviewers whispered to me when they were alone that he had
interviewed the children after they were taken from the home. He said
that they were the best mannered and pleasant children he had ever
interviewed.
8. There were no locks on the refrigerator, cabinets or even the
door. There was though an alarm that was only turned on at night.
According to the family this was done to prevent Bruce from sneaking
down at night and raiding the food and vomiting it up. This is much
different than what has been portrayed by leaks.
9. Three Jackson family siblings were individually interviewed by
the investigators. The children claim that they were held for three
hours under very intimidating conditions. They say they were yelled at
and called liars. They say they remained calm and told the
investigators, ``What do you want us to say, we are telling you the
truth already. Anything else would be a lie!'' The siblings also stated
that one line of the questioning seemed to suggest the investigators
thought that the Come Alive New Testament Church might be a cult that
had something against doctors.
10. Does it make any sense that the family would starve their
children but also teach them to read at a high level? Even the new
foster families have reportedly commented on the fact that the boys
apparently read well and are quite happy. The three younger boys
apparently are getting along fabulously if news reports are to be
believed. If the boys were starved to within an inch of their lives how
could they have recovered so quickly? It certainly flies against common
sense. Why has Bruce done so poorly? Is it possible the hospital is
experiencing the same chronic problems that the parents claim have been
misdiagnosed as starvation?
11. All the family photos and videos that were at the Jackson
house have been confiscated by the prosecutor's office. These photos
and videos are needed immediately by the family to show that the
prosecutor's theory is not correct.
12. There was no lock on the refrigerator, the cabinets or even
the door leading into the kitchen. There was though an alarm that was
turned on at night that would be triggered if somebody went into the
kitchen. Bruce had a history of gorging on huge amounts of food and
needed to be deterred.
13. All the boys can read, write, multiply and spell. The police
claim that the home school was a sham and that there were no books. The
books are there but were overlooked by the police in their search.
There are also photos and videos to back this up.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Reverend Thomas. Now Ms. Carla
Katz, President of the Communications Workers of America (CWA)
Local 1034, to testify.
STATEMENT OF CARLA KATZ, PRESIDENT, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA LOCAL 1034, WEST TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA
Ms. KATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Carla Katz. I am President of CWA
Local 1034. Our local represents 16,000 public workers in New
Jersey, including more than 700 Child Protective Service
workers in South Jersey, and represents six of the nine workers
who have been fired in connection with this case in
Collingswood. I am speaking today on behalf of the CWA and
specifically on behalf of the three locals, 1034, 1037, and
1039, that represent DYFS workers.
Before I begin to discuss the systemic problems that we
believe contributed to this case, I want to say unequivocally
that I do not believe that New Jersey is the only child
protective system in crisis. From what we understand, child
protective service is in trouble all over the country. There
are many examples of the systems breaking down in Connecticut,
Florida, Indiana, Ohio, New York, and around the country. The
agency that sued New Jersey has sued many other systems. In
preparing this testimony, I did an Internet search for the last
30 days of news. I submitted the words ``foster care'' and
``death'' to find only those cases where a foster care
situation could have resulted in a child death, and there were
321 hits. These tragedies are occurring in Utah, Missouri,
Michigan, North Carolina, California, and Florida.
We believe that the problems that result in children being
in foster care and sometimes in custody are complex, and we
know that the solutions are expensive and difficult. As a
society, we need to address and move to solve the horrific
problems that lead to child death and child abuse because
children are our most vulnerable citizens and our most
precious. Having said that, I want to address some of the
problems specific to New Jersey DYFS if we are to solve them.
It has taken nearly two decades for things to get this bad
at DYFS in New Jersey. The agency has been consistently and
grossly underfunded. It has suffered budget and staffing cuts
despite the fact that caseloads were and are growing, and more
children need our protection. Caseloads have increased by one-
third over the past decade at the same time that the turnover
rate for workers harbors around 9 percent. This is
unacceptable, and it will only mean more tragedies.
Despite the reality that children suffer in every State in
our great Nation, other States have made reforms that did not
happen in New Jersey, and as a result, caseworkers are doing
without the basic resources they need to do their jobs well.
What are some of the conditions in New Jersey? We have a
computer system from the Stone Age, and millions of dollars
that were allocated for a new system to serve the 50,000 DYFS
families was turned over to purchase one for 1,200 families
involved with the Children's Initiative, which was a special
initiative by former Governor Christie Whitman designed for
families with needs that have children with mental health
problems.
New Jersey didn't give DYFS workers the safety tools and
structured decisionmaking that they need. These tools were in
place in other States for years. Some of them have been put in
place in New Jersey over the last few months, but there was no
vetting by the workforce, no significant input by the workers
or the union. Many workers continue to criticize the tools they
are being asked to use as not being appropriate or tested.
New Jersey didn't give workers the latest training, and
they need it. The DYFS training involves 21 days of new worker
training and very little else. There is very little in-service
training. There are no incentives for workers to pursue
graduate training on their own. Additionally the union believes
that all workers should have some time in a district office
learning protective services work before moving exclusively
into foster care or adoption units.
New Jersey didn't recruit any significant number of
additional new foster parents. Recruitment of foster families
had been turned over to faith-based and private nonprofit
groups during Governor Whitman's era of privatization. This
program, considered a panacea, has failed to recruit any
increase in foster homes, and our foster home experts say it
has resulted in the recruitment of many inappropriate foster
homes.
New Jersey didn't also cap caseloads. The Child Welfare
League of America (CWLA) says that caseworkers handling intake
cases should have no more than 12 families on their caseloads.
We have intake workers with as many as 100. The CWLA says that
caseworkers handling adoption cases and that of home placement
supervision should have no more than 15 children on their
caseloads. The caseworker in the Collingswood case had more
than double that.
The CWLA says that caseworkers supervising children in
their homes should have no more than 25 children on their
caseloads. The worker who repeatedly went out to see Faheem
Williams, the little boy whose tragic death this past January
made national news, but failed to do so, at one point had 106
children on her caseload.
In the Collingswood case and in the case of adoption,
generally there are severe systemic issues that contributed to
this tragedy. Let me be clear, the firing of nine workers will
not solve any of those problems.
What keeps going wrong? Caseloads are too high. In this
case, the inexperienced caseworker had more than double the
number of cases she should have had.
There is not enough staff, and the turnover is too high. In
1999, the Child Death and Critical Incident Panel and the
Governor's Review Panel both said, lack of staff is a major
problem, end quote. If we think that it is hard to find and
keep good DYFS workers now, just imagine what the impact of
criminal prosecution on any DYFS worker will have on the
ability of that agency to hire good, qualified staff.
Supervision is compromised. In this case in Collingswood,
the caseworker's immediate supervisor was overseeing two units
of workers who all had excessive caseloads.
There is a fractured system of communication. It is not
clear that there was appropriate communication between all of
the parties, and the basic DYFS policy on foster parents is
that they are, quote, colleagues, end quote, and DYFS is not
investigating them.
There is a lack of sufficient quality foster care homes. As
a result, children are placed in homes like this one with many
other children or homes that are compromised in some way. The
DYFS is currently proposing limiting the number of foster
children in the home to three, which we believe will make the
problem of available placement much worse, not better. Our
union made a proposal more than 3 months ago to recruit quality
foster parents out of the ranks of organized labor, and instead
of widespread interest throughout the New Jersey labor
movement, the State of New Jersey has not even met with us on
this proposal.
There is inadequate follow-up after adoption. There is no
requirement for any DYFS contact with children of subsidized
adoption once that adoption is final. There is no mandated
schedule of medical care for children post-adoption.
Much has been said about what the workers saw or didn't see
in the Jackson home in Collingswood, and we do not know the
answer to that question because we, the union, have not seen a
single document in this case. We do know that there was not one
person that was sent into the home to see those boys. The DYFS
caseworker was in that home to see the foster child named
Breanna. She was the only child in that home under DYFS
supervision. She was the only child with an open case, and it
seems clear to us that DYFS should be following up on
adoptions.
Since I am way over time, let me just conclude by saying
reacting to a crisis such as this by firing people
indiscriminately encourages the workforce to believe that there
is no real accountability, there is merely retribution. I ask
that you respect and honor the people who do the most difficult
job. Our members knock on unknown doors in the most dangerous
neighborhoods in New Jersey in places the police do not go
without backup. They do it alone, and they ask the people
behind those doors to ``let me see your children.'' They spend
their work lives with babies and children with bruises, burns,
welts, broken bones, unimaginable sexual abuse, and some of the
worst cases of neglect that can be imagined. These workers have
been held hostage, choked, beaten, and threatened in the
carrying out of their work.
There are real systemic solutions. Our union wants to
participate in implementing them as quickly as possible and our
members who engage in child protective services are by and
large unsung heroes, and we at least in CWA honor them.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Katz follows:]
Statement of Carla Katz, President, Communications Workers of America
Local 1034, West Trenton, New Jersey, on behalf of the Communications
Workers of America
Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
for allowing testimony from the Communications Workers of America.
My name is Carla Katz. I am the President of CWA Local 1034. Local
1034 represents 16,000 public workers in New Jersey, including more
than 700 Child Protective Services workers in South Jersey. We
represent 6 of the 9 workers who have been fired in connection with the
case in Collingswood.
I am speaking today on behalf of the Communications Workers of
America and specifically on behalf of the three Locals 1034, 1037 and
1039 in New Jersey that represent DYFS workers.
Before I begin to discuss the systemic problems that we believe
contributed to this case, I want to say unequivocally that I do not
believe that New Jersey is the only child protective system in crisis.
From what we understand, child protective services is in crisis all
over the country. There are many examples of this system breaking down,
in Connecticut, in Florida, in Indiana, in Ohio, in New York and all
over the country.
The agency that sued New Jersey has sued many other systems. In
preparing this testimony, I did an Internet search of the last 30 days
of news. I submitted the words ``foster care'' and ``death'' to find
only those cases where a foster care situation could have resulted in a
child death and horribly there were 321 hits. These tragedies are
occurring in Utah, in Missouri, In Michigan, in North Carolina, in
California, in Florida, and across our country.
We in CWA believe that the problems that result in children being
in foster care and sometimes in custody are complex and we know that
the solutions are expensive and difficult. But as a society, we need to
address and move to solve the horrific problems that lead to child
deaths and child abuses, because children are our most vulnerable
citizens and our most precious.
Having said that, I want to address some of the problems specific
to New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) if we are
to solve them. It has taken nearly two decades for things to get this
bad at DYFS. This agency has been consistently and grossly underfunded.
This agency has suffered budget and staffing cuts despite the reality
that caseloads were and are growing and more children need our
protection. Caseloads have increased by one third over the past decade
at the same time that the turnover rate for workers hovers at 9%. This
is unacceptable and can only mean more tragedies.
Despite the reality that children suffer in every State of our
great Nation, other States have made reforms that did NOT happen in New
Jersey. And as a result, caseworkers are working without the basic
resources they NEED to do their jobs well.
What are the Conditions in New Jersey?
We have a computer system from the stone ages. And the millions of
dollars that were allocated for a new system to serve 50,000 DYFS
families was turned over to purchase one for the 1,200 families
involved with the Children's Initiative, a special initiative by former
NJ Governor Whitman designed for families with means that have children
with mental health problems.
New Jersey didn't give DYFS workers the safety tools and structured
decisionmaking they need. These tools were in place in other States for
years. Some of them have been put in place in New Jersey over the last
few months, but there was no vetting by the workforce and no
significant input from the workers or the union. Many workers continue
to criticize the tools they are being asked to use as not appropriate
or tested.
New Jersey didn't give workers the latest training. They need it.
DYFS training involves 21 days of ``new worker training'' and then very
little else. There is very little continuing in-service training and
there are no incentives for workers to pursue graduate education on
their own. Additionally, the union believes that all workers should
have some time in a District Office learning protective services work
before moving exclusively into foster care or adoption units.
New Jersey didn't recruit any significant number of additional
foster parents successfully. Recruitment of foster families was
essentially turned over to faith-based and private non-profit groups
during Governor Whitman's era of privatization. This program,
considered a panacea, has failed to recruit any increase in foster
homes and our foster home experts say that it has resulted in the
recruitment of many inappropriate foster homes.
New Jersey didn't cap caseloads. The Child Welfare League of
America says that caseworkers handling intake cases should have no more
than 12 families on their caseloads. We have intake workers with as
many as 100. The CWLA says that caseworkers handling adoption cases and
out of home placement supervision, should have no more than 15 children
on their caseloads. The caseworker in the Collingswood case had more
than double that.
CWLA says that caseworkers supervising children in their homes
should have no more than 25 children on their caseloads. The worker,
who repeatedly went out to try to see Faheem Williams, the little boy
whose tragic death this past January made national news, but failed to
do so, at one point had 106 children on her caseload.
In the Collingswood case and in the case of adoption generally,
there are severe systemic issues that contributed to this tragedy that
must be solved. Let me be clear--the firing of 9 workers will not solve
ANY of these problems. Not a single one.
What Keeps Going Wrong?
Caseloads are too high. In this case, the inexperienced caseworker
had more than double the number of cases she should have had.
Not enough staff and turnover is too high. In 1999, the Child Death
and Critical Incident Panel and the Governor's Review Panel both said,
``lack of staff is a major problem.'' And, if we think that it's hard
to find and keep good staff at DYFS now, just imagine the impact that
criminal prosecution of any DYFS worker will have on the ability of the
agency to hire.
Supervision is compromised. In this case, the caseworker's
immediate supervisor was overseeing TWO units of workers who all had
excessive caseloads.
There is a fractured system of communication. It is not clear that
there was appropriate communication between all of the parties. And the
basic DYFS policy on foster parents is that they are ``colleagues'' and
that DYFS is NOT ``investigating'' them.
Lack of sufficient, quality foster care homes. As a result,
children are placed in homes like this one with many other children or
homes that are compromised in some way. DYFS is currently proposing
limiting the number of foster children in a home to three, which will
make the problem of available placement worse, not better. CWA made a
proposal more than three months ago to recruit quality foster parents
out of the ranks of organized labor. In spite of wide spread interest
through the New Jersey Labor Movement, the State of New Jersey has yet
to even meet with us on this proposal.
Inadequate follow up after adoption. There is no requirement for
any DYFS contact with children of subsidized adoption once that
adoption is final. And there is no mandated schedule of medical care
for children post adoption.
Much has been made and said about what workers saw or did not see
in the Jackson home in Collingswood. And we do not know the answer to
that question because we have not seen a single document in the case,
not one. But we do know that there was not one person sent into that
home to see those boys. DYFS was in that home to see the little girl
named Breanna, who was a foster child to the Jacksons. She was the only
child in that home who was under DYFS supervision. She was the only
child with an open case. It seems clear--DYFS should be following up on
adoptions.
Home schooling creates gaps. Nearly 20% of all abuse cases are
reported by schools. When children are outside the school system, extra
protections are critical.
There are no home schooling regulations that would require home-
schooled children to see anyone from the public education system.
There is no cross-referencing with the Department of Education to
look for children who are in the ``system'' but have not been seen by
anyone.
And finally, there is no requirement that shut off notices of
electricity, gas or water be sent to DYFS for State supervised homes or
homes with subsidized children. In this case, the electricity in the
home was off for months. This is unacceptable.
These are systemic failures and we need systemic reforms.
Caseworkers do not kill children. Caseworkers do not abuse children. We
will keep having tragedy after tragedy if we don't fix the system.
We offer these solutions, which we call the CWA Five Point Plan.
Point 1: We must hire considerably more staff. We need caps on
caseloads that meet Child Welfare League of America standards. We
believe that Congress should adopt those standards, so that vulnerable
children in every State have a fighting chance. There is no way of
knowing how caseloads directly impacted the Collingswood case, but we
do believe that the size of caseload had a direct impact on the Faheem
Williams case, the little boy found dead this past January.
Point 2: We need many more substance abuse services and treatment
programs. A huge percentage of abuse and neglect cases involve
substance abuse in the home. There are not enough placements available
in treatment facilities and too often treatment involves a couple of
days of detox--not nearly enough to help someone recover from
addiction. More substance abuse treatment would mean more reunited
families, less foster care and fewer needed adoptions.
Point 3: We need many, many more quality foster homes. New Jersey
should take CWA up on its Labor Foster Care proposal and it would be
wonderful if Congress could find ways to provide more incentives and
recognition to those families that step up to the plate and help by
becoming foster parents.
Point 4: We need more training and better technology. We are glad
that New Jersey is finally implementing the standard child welfare
information system--SACWIS. We need more training for our staff and it
should be ongoing training and continuing education.
Point 5: We need both accountability and respect. Much has been
said about ``holding people accountable'' for their actions or failure
to act. We believe in accountability. But accountability must mean that
the appropriate individuals are held appropriately accountable for
those actions that they individually had control of.
Firing workers who had little to do with a case, or who
realistically could not have known what was going on, is not
accountability. If the system is designed to discourage curiosity or
further investigation--because it encourages a ``collegial''
relationship between workers and foster parents and not one that would
promote investigation OR because the sheer volume of the workload makes
further investigation or supervision improbable--then the system itself
must be changed. It is unfair to workers and ultimately harmful to
children to require or demand such ``accountability'' retroactively.
Reacting to a crisis by firing people indiscriminately encourages
the workforce to believe that there is no real accountability--there is
merely retribution.
Finally, I ask that you respect and honor the people who do the
most difficult job. Our members knock on unknown doors, in the most
dangerous neighborhoods in New Jersey, in places the police do not
venture without backup. They do it alone and they ask the people behind
those doors to ``Let me see your children.'' They spend their worklives
looking at babies and children with bruises, burns, welts, bro-
ken bones, unimaginable sexual abuse and some of the worst cases of
neglect that can be imagined. These workers have been held hostage,
choked, beaten and threatened in the carrying out of their work.
Even when there are individual and/or systemic failures, New Jersey
does these professionals a terrible disservice when we publicly attack
them. The workers at NJ DYFS have dedicated their lives to protecting
and serving children and families and when they are characterized as
``incompetent, uncaring or indifferent'' as the Commissioner of Human
Services in New Jersey has done, the credibility of the entire
workforce is damaged, their morale is devastated and the work of
protecting children is compromised.
There are real systemic solutions. Our union wants to participate
in implementing them as quickly as possible. Our members, who engage in
Child Protective Services, are by and large, unsung heroes and we, in
CWA, honor them.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee
today. My colleague, Paul Alexander, and I are happy to answer any
questions you may have. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Katz. Now Ms. Marcia
Robinson Lowry, Executive Director of Children's Rights, to
testify.
STATEMENT OF MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Ms. LOWRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Members
of this Subcommittee, for holding this hearing, and
particularly thank you for inviting me to testify. We really
appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about what is going
on in New Jersey and also what is being reflected around the
country.
My organization, Children's Rights, is a nonprofit
organization based in New York that advocates on behalf of
abused and neglected children around the country, both by
bringing lawsuits and by having a very active policy department
that issues reports on critical issues. We currently have seven
States' child welfare systems under some form of court
supervision and are actively litigating in one other.
We do not have for you the facts about this particular
family. We do have the facts about this particular system. What
the panel should be aware of is that the problems in New Jersey
did not, as other speakers have said, begin overnight. In 1997,
the system was bad enough that former Governor Whitman convened
a blue ribbon task force which found basically that everything
that could go wrong in the child welfare system was going
wrong. In 1998, the Governor did not, in fact, respond to the
findings in this report. In 1999, my organization brought a
lawsuit against the State because we were convinced that the
State was not going to take action to remedy these problems. In
fact, Governor McGreevey, in settling the lawsuit, said that
the reason the money was now going to become available and the
reforms that we think will take place in New Jersey are going
to take place is only because the lawsuit was filed. That is,
in fact, how children are getting protected all too often in
this country.
What we learned about the child welfare system as we were
proceeding toward trial, which the public didn't know because
the State wasn't maintaining the data, was that 1 in 10 foster
children in that State was abused or neglected while in foster
care, while in government custody. Twenty percent of the
children who left foster care either to be returned to their
own families or to be adopted reentered foster care because
they were not in safe situations. Caseloads were over 80, and
as you heard from Ms. Katz just a minute ago, there was no
functional computer information system. That is why we brought
the lawsuit.
The State defended this lawsuit vigorously until the death
of Faheem Williams, the 7-year-old boy, in January of this
year, maintaining that they had a good system, wasn't really
that bad. They would have continued to do so had there not been
an incredible media blitz based on the young boy's death and on
the fact that we were providing to the media our expert reports
about the failings of this system.
The lawsuit was settled and has both short-term and long-
term provisions. In the short term, Governor McGreevey agreed
to immediately make available $30 million additionally for
additional workers and for supplies such as cell phones, access
to cars, things like that, and $1.5 million in additional
foster home recruitment funds. The reason that the additional
foster home money was because the State was also required to do
immediate safety assessments on all children in custody. We
knew from the abuse rates in care that it was likely that there
were other children in addition to Faheem Williams who were in
serious danger. So, we wanted the State to immediately do
safety assessments on all children. Unfortunately, the State
did that, and the Jackson family actually passed the safety
assessment, which is why you heard from Ms. Maguire that a
large number of them are going to be redone, and redone with
independent people. That is why we also required the State to
come up with additional foster home recruitment because we
anticipate that many more children are going to be taken out of
their homes.
Over the long term, there is a 6-month planning process
with a group of experts that a plan that emerges from that will
be court-ordered and will be under the supervision of a Federal
court, and there will be monitoring with enforcement powers in
the Federal court.
Now, why is this necessary? Congress has passed a number of
statutes, most recently in 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families
Act, which was intended to address two really important
situations: one, the fact that children lingered far too long
in foster care without getting adopted; and two, it was unclear
whether children's safety was really supposed to be paramount.
That legislation made clear that that is what Congress
intended. However, what has happened with regard to that
statute, it is being honored in an extremely uneven way, and
that is why what I am going to recommend to you today that you
do something about it.
We were glad to have the opportunity to address this
Subcommittee on what Congress could do about these awful
situations. They are not unique to New Jersey, as I am sure you
realize. Many of us remember the name of Rilya Wilson, the
little girl who has disappeared from the Florida foster care
system. We are actively litigating in another jurisdiction
where only today the State has announced the takeover of four
county offices because children are in danger in that system.
Now Congress, did, in fact, require that there be Federal
reviews of these systems. Every State that has had a Federal
review, and thus far there are 38 reported on, has not passed
the Federal review. Now what difference does that make to the
State? Almost nothing. We are taking depositions now in one of
our cases which failed its Federal review, failed it badly, and
has also its own State reports on how dangerous that particular
system is, and it has a program improvement plan which is
required by HHS. Nobody is paying any attention in that State
to the program improvement plan, and the accountability
measures and outcome measures in that State are declining, and
nothing is happening.
One of the key people responsible for implementing that
program improvement plan in that State testified in a
deposition a week and a half ago that the State didn't have to
pay any attention to the fact that they were failing on the
program improvement plan and not meeting their own guidelines
because nobody was going to do anything until a 2-year period
had ended. In fact, nobody is doing anything to them, except
that there is now a lawsuit against them, and we are going to
document these problems and bring them to court.
What would I ask this important group to do? What can you
do? There is something very real that you can do. You pass good
legislation, presumably you want it enforced. Do you want it
enforced the same way New Jersey is enforcing it? It is a good
thing to increase the number of adoptions. Are we happy with
what we know about the adoptive family that these four little
boys and this fifth little girl were going to go into? I would
guess not. If you want to do something about protecting
children, instead of having States tote up higher numbers and
get Federal incentive payments, I would suggest you haven't
gone far enough.
I understand the importance of allowing States to make
their own decisions and allow for local variations about ways
to do things. It is obviously a very important good government
principle.
Chairman HERGER. If the witness could conclude her
testimony.
Ms. LOWRY. I would ask you to consider legislation that
mandates minimum standards in the States with regards to
applying the Federal law; minimum standards with regard to such
things as caseloads, worker qualifications, training, the
frequency of visitation of workers with children, and a system
of accountability or some quality assurance system so that you
can have some sense of security that, in fact, the States are
applying your statutes in the way that I am sure you intended.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this group.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lowry follows:]
Statement of Marcia Robinson Lowry, Executive Director, Children's
Rights, New York, New York
My name is Marcia Robinson Lowry and I am the Executive Director of
Children's Rights. Children's Rights is a national non-profit advocacy
organization dedicated to promoting and protecting the legal rights of
abused and neglected children. I want to thank Chairman Herger and
other Members of the Subcommittee of Human Resources of the Committee
on Ways and Means for providing me with the opportunity to testify
today.
As Executive Director of Children's Rights, I have overseen class
action litigation in over 12 jurisdictions across the country,
including New Jersey, seeking to vindicate the constitutional and
Federal statutory rights of children under the care of public child
welfare agencies. These are, more often than not, poorly managed and
inadequately funded agencies that are rarely held accountable for their
chronic failures. As you know, of the dozens of states that have been
audited for their child welfare performance by the Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) in the recently implemented Child and
Family Services Reviews (CFSRs), not one has passed.
I appreciate the opportunity to address this Committee and detail
the current situation in New Jersey and across the country that will
continue to produce child welfare tragedies such as witnessed recently
in Collingswood, New Jersey, as long as Federal child welfare statutes
are not strengthened and enforced.
As you are probably already aware, Children's Rights filed a
lawsuit against the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services
(DYFS) in 1999. That lawsuit was filed after years of attempted reforms
of the child welfare system in New Jersey had failed--blue ribbon
reports and concerted efforts by local advocates had effected little--
if any--change in a child welfare system uniformly seen as
dysfunctional and failing. Our lawsuit detailed a host of serious
problems that required immediate attention to ensure the safety and
well-being of children in the New Jersey foster care system. The class
action on behalf of the over 12,000 children in foster care in the
State of New Jersey was certified by the Federal court last year.
The lawsuit was met by stiff opposition and resistance by DYFS--
that is, until the discovery of the death of Faheem Williams and the
deplorable condition of two half-starved brothers in January of this
year. DYFS faced, under intense media pressure, the horrific
consequences of having essentially ``lost'' these children in its
system, failing to protect them despite being placed on clear notice
that the children were at considerable risk of harm. At the same time,
independent experts retained by Children's Rights to examine the safety
practices of DYFS, delivered the devastating results of their review of
state data and hundreds of randomly selected foster children's case
records maintained by DYFS. Concluding that children in foster care in
New Jersey were simply not safe, they found that:
Over one in ten foster children in New Jersey are abused
and neglected in foster care;
Foster children supervised by the Adoption Resource
Centers were over three times more likely to be abused and neglected in
their foster homes than other foster children;
20% of foster children had ping-ponged back into foster
care at least once from a failed reunification or adoption; and
Many caseworkers carry caseloads well over 80 children,
when the national standard calls for a caseload of 15 to 17 children
(12 children for adoption workers).
Under increasing public pressure to address the undeniable dangers
that children in the New Jersey foster care system faced, DYFS entered
into settlement negotiations with Children's Rights. An agreement was
signed by all parties on June 23, 2003, and on September 2, 2003, Judge
Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court in Trenton, New
Jersey, approved the settlement agreement that for the first time
mandated sweeping reforms of the New Jersey foster care system.
In the settlement, the State agreed to both emergency and long-term
reforms aimed at protecting children, all under the oversight of an
outside panel of experts and the Federal court. Under the Settlement
Agreement, $30M in emergency State funds have already been appropriated
for additional casework staff and needed supplies such as computers,
cell phones and cars, and every child in foster care--including some
4,000 children placed with families supervised by DYFS's Adoption
Resource Centers--is being individually assessed to be safe or removed
from an unsafe foster home. Additional reforms will include the re-
training of all casework staff and the elimination of barriers to
hiring experienced staff, the belated implementation of a Statewide-
Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) allowing the proper
tracking of children, foster homes, and case progress, and the
resurrection of a defunct Quality Assurance function for continuous
internal review and assessment of the State's child welfare case
practice.
Meanwhile, though, the number of reports of child abuse and neglect
in the State has risen dramatically this year and caseloads have
actually increased. The State was also just penalized $6.2M in Federal
funds after failing a second audit of its Title IV-E claiming for
Federal foster care matching funds, due to placing foster children in
unlicensed homes or facilities, and failing to document the children's
legal status. Clearly, reform is a long-term proposition, and
Children's Rights will be actively monitoring the progress of the
court-ordered reforms.
This is the context in which the latest scandalous oversight of the
New Jersey child welfare system needs to be understood. While aberrant
mistakes can occasionally be made in any child welfare system,
egregious oversights are highly predictable in an underfunded and
mismanaged agency such as DYFS in New Jersey. Caseworkers are
overwhelmed with too many children to monitor and an insufficient
number of foster homes and few supportive services for foster children.
They are poorly trained and supervised. Staff has not been given
adequate tools to track children, their needs, and whether they are in
safe placements. Without such accountability, the State cannot assure
the safety of the children in its care.
In the Collingswood case, over the course of the last two years,
caseworkers visited the Jackson home dozens of times--a home in which
four already adopted children were apparently being starved, so badly
malnourished that their tiny sizes masked their true ages. The
caseworker reportedly did not question the children's condition or
refer any concerns for further investigation. Nor did an emergency
safety assessment of this foster home by DYFS in July, mandated by the
Children's Rights settlement because the family was caring for a DYFS-
supervised foster child who was also slated to be adopted by the
family, identify any safety concerns.
In the case of the children adopted and then apparently mistreated
by the Jacksons, the agency failures fall squarely into two categories:
1. An inadequate assessment of the Jacksons when they applied to
adopt--that is, a failure to carefully consider their psychological
status and parenting abilities, which, even if not evident at the time
of the boys earlier adoptions, were certainly apparent when the child
in foster care was most recently placed with them pre-adoptively.
2. A failure to adequately conduct a safety assessment on behalf
of the child in foster care who was placed with them--an assessment
which should have included an evaluation of the home environment and
any and all health and safety issues affecting all children in the
home. Had such a complete assessment been conducted, the terrible
circumstances under which the four adopted boys were living would have
become obvious.
None of this happened, however--why not?
First, it is clear that DYFS currently lacks the capacity on its
own to conduct valid and credible safety assessments. Its caseworkers,
as a group, lack the skills and the time to appropriately assess the
risk of harm to children and the threat of imminent danger, and they do
not have the skills, the time or the supervision needed to take
appropriate protective action to ensure the safety and well-being of
children for whom DYFS is legally responsible. For this reason, the
state is seeking independent professionals to make in-person visits to
thousands of children for whom emergency safety assessments under the
Children's Rights settlement must be redone. This issue, obviously,
raises the larger question of capacity-building within DYFS itself to
ensure that in the future, DYFS staff do indeed have the skills to
assess the safety of children and to ensure that the results of their
safety assessments can be relied upon with confidence.
Second, supervisory and administrative accountability within DYFS
is critically lacking. The failure to detect and respond to the alleged
abuse and neglect of the children in the Jackson home cannot solely be
attributed to the caseworker's inadequate assessment and response. That
individual had a supervisor and that supervisor was accountable to
higher-level administrative staff who also have responsibility for the
quality of safety assessments and for ensuring that action is promptly
taken to protect children in foster care. Clearly, substantial work is
needed within DYFS to develop and implement strong supervisory and
administrative processes that monitor and ensure the quality of
casework practice.
It is these two areas of unacceptable practice on which we must
focus. Nationally, there are 600,000 abused and neglected children in
foster care custody. As you know, the Federal Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997 was enacted with two laudable goals: to speed the
placement of these foster children into permanent homes and to
prioritize child safety at all times for children under the care and
supervision of state child welfare agencies. For FY 2002, New Jersey in
fact qualified for the second largest financial incentive award in the
country under the Act ($1.9M), due to its significant increase in the
number of adoptions it completed. This is a positive development if the
homes are being screened and chosen appropriately in each child's
interests, rather than solely in the state's interest in showing
compliance with a Federal statute.
We must demand that DYFS, and every child welfare system in the
country meet the highest safety standards for children in foster care.
It has been suggested that the Collingswood case demonstrates the need
for some focus on post-adoption monitoring. The truth is that too many
states, certainly including New Jersey, cannot even do an adequate job
of monitoring children while they are in foster care. It would indeed
be a mistake if instead of focusing our energy and efforts on critical
safety issues, we instead began to question the viability of adoption
as a permanency option for children in foster care; to question the
vital role of adoption subsidies in making possible the adoptions of
thousands of children in foster care each year (a role that adoption
subsidies have played since 1980); or to question the commitment and
love with which tens of thousands of adoptive families have embraced
children in foster care, giving them the nurturing, stability and hope
that they otherwise would not have had.
We know that adoption ``works'' for children in foster care. We
know that adoption subsidies are a critical adoption resource. It is
important to recognize that subsidies typically do not even cover the
basic expenses of raising a child--a fact that undercuts the argument
that families adopt ``for the money.'' Nonetheless, subsidies provide
an important support for families who adopt children with special needs
because they defray some expenses and because health insurance coverage
accompanies subsidies. Finally, we know that with the exception of a
few disturbed adoptive families like the Jacksons (who should have been
screened out of the process in the first place), families who adopt
children with special needs from foster care are strong, healthy
families who contribute to their children's lives and to their
communities. Upon adoption, they socially and legally become ``just
like'' other families. To treat these families as ``second class''
citizens who need continuous monitoring and oversight would not only
deprive them of their constitutional rights--a matter of not
insignificant importance--but would create a system of government
intrusion very likely to discourage families from stepping forward to
adopt the now 126,000 children in foster care in this country for whom
adoption is planned.
The agency failure in Collingswood was not a failure to supervise
adopted children as has been suggested. It was a failure to properly
screen and match the Jackson family with foster children they could
handle, and then a complete failure to adequately re-evaluate the
family--including the children in it--before repeatedly approving them
to adopt those foster children. Since adoptions are meant to be
permanent, before the child welfare agency signs off on an adoption the
child's safety and well-being in the home need to be evaluated and
assured. Standard social work practice (and, in New Jersey, state law)
requires that every member of the household be part of that evaluation.
Any concerns must be fully explored and resolved. Only upon such a
complete evaluation, if positive, should an adoption be finalized. Once
finalized, however, the family is and should be considered legally
indistinguishable from any other family. Children are entitled to be
considered equal members of the family, and not subject to the
conditions of further agency review.
As children's advocates, we deeply appreciate the interest of this
Committee in the situation in New Jersey, and its concern about abused
and neglected children. I would like to suggest positive actions that
Congress can take to protect the well-being of these children. Congress
has already passed legislation several times, beginning in 1980 with
the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, and most recently in
1997 with the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This legislation is
directed at ensuring that children are safe, that they do not remain in
state foster care systems indefinitely, that they are treated
appropriately while they are in state foster systems and that they grow
up in permanent families, either their own or new adoptive families.
However, in this legislation Congress has given the states only the
broad outlines of its desirable public policy goals and then left the
states on their own to comply with those broad outlines. But by now
Congress should realize that far too many states are either not meeting
even those broad outlines or, when they do, for example, raise their
adoption numbers, are doing so by including many clearly inadequate
families, as the Jacksons appeared to be, along with the genuinely
committed loving families who want to make a home for these children,
just to ``succeed'' by boosting their numbers.
If Congress wishes to really protect these children, to make the
broad outlines of its child welfare statutes meaningful instead of a
cruel hoax, and to ensure the best possible utilization of billions of
Federal dollars, it will also impose minimum standards in such areas as
job qualifications, worker training, caseloads, and systems of
accountability on these child welfare systems. With Federal money the
states can either save or destroy young lives. We are destroying far
too many. If you are appalled at the stunted bodies of the boys in
Collingswood, and if you remember the mummified body of 7-year-old
Faheem Williams and his starving brothers discovered in a New Jersey
basement in January, you will consider mandating minimum standards for
the operation of any child welfare system that has the lives of these
young children in its hands.
Thank you for this opportunity to present these thoughts to your
Committee.
Chairman HERGER. I thank you, Ms. Lowry, for your
testimony. I want to thank each of you for your testimony. I
have been very generous on the time, and we have gone
considerably over on each of our witnesses. That is due to the
incredible seriousness of this hearing. Our purpose here today
and the reason we have invited those who we feel are closest to
the issue in New Jersey is to try to get the facts out so that
we as a Congress representing the concerns of innocent children
that are within your jurisdiction, and not only in New Jersey,
but all 50 States, that we do everything we can to ensure that
these innocent children are taken care of in the best way that
we can--and that we eliminate as much as possible all abuse.
Before I get into my question, I do want to recognize
another Member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is
sitting with us on the panel, Mr. Mark Foley. Without
objection, he will sit with us.
If I could just open up the questions just with a yes or no
answer as much as you are able to, again those of you who are
closest to this issue, if I could ask based on your
professional or personal opinion, were the Jackson boys abused?
Ms. Maguire?
Ms. MAGUIRE. Yes.
Mr. RYAN. Yes.
Mr. SARUBBI. Yes.
Reverend THOMAS. No.
Ms. KATZ. We have not been given enough information to make
that determination.
Ms. LOWRY. It seems likely, but I agree we don't have all
the facts.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. With that, we open up for
questions. Mrs. Johnson.
Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you. I was first elected to the
legislature in the seventies as a State senator. The first
national hearings on foster care were held. I was on this
Committee when we passed the first round of foster care reform
legislation. I have been deeply involved in reforming the
independent living program. My State has been subject to a
suit, and I see how court monitoring does and does not make a
difference, and all the resources it puts in place that are
helpful, and those that it squanders. So, I have one short
question to ask of Reverend Thomas, and then I would like to
ask Ms. Maguire a question. Reverend Thomas, did the four boys
cited in this suit attend church regularly?
Reverend THOMAS. They attended church regularly.
Mrs. JOHNSON. Were, all but the one, the oldest, well
behaved?
Reverend THOMAS. Extremely well behaved.
Mrs. JOHNSON. You had no reason to suspect, even though
they were very small and very skinny, that there was any other
problem other than an eating disorder?
Reverend THOMAS. No. They were always well dressed.
Mrs. JOHNSON. They did come with the rest of the family?
Reverend THOMAS. Absolutely. We keep church records, and I
looked it up, and it was approximately 67 times in the past 2
years, about 60 percent.
Mrs. JOHNSON. Ms. Maguire, I am interested in the long run
and how you select foster homes and how you oversee them and
how you keep track. Clearly what your testimony lays out in
spades is the same testimony that has been laid out for two
decades. This is the hardest job there is is to be a protective
services worker. It is very hard to be a teacher in our urban
areas, but to be a protective services worker where you are
dealing with very difficult children and families, it is the
hardest job there is. It is true that the cases when they go
bad are the most spectacular, and heads roll because that is
all we know how to do.
I agree with many of the comments that were made that this
is the quickest way to discourage the quality of people we need
in the foster care and child protective services from wanting
to serve.
I am impressed, Mr. Sarubbi, with the number of people you
have, but you see, it really didn't make any difference. It is
after the crime that you matter. It is irrelevant. We want to
prevent the crime. So, I want to know, and I hope this
Committee will look at best practices, I want to know what are
we doing to support foster families. Do you have any mandatory
meetings for children in foster care? Do we have any compulsory
requirement that they be brought to certain child support
situations so that if there is a problem, they can talk about
it, because they have different problems than ordinary
children. They have two families.
I want to know a little bit more, and I know you don't have
much time, but in the long run I am interested how you recruit
foster families, how you support foster parents, how you
support foster children, and how you prevent out-placement of
children into foster care.
So, it is the whole systemic issue we have to face here,
and certainly lower caseloads is absolutely crucial. We can
make--the idea that we would lay another level of bureaucracy
on you or even another office without looking at the obvious
blatant problem of caseload is really just too ludicrous to
entertain. Your lack of training, ongoing training, the lack of
integration of protective services training and foster care
training and any other kind of training, we need to hear from
you new views, new thinking. I don't want to hear the same old
stuff. I have heard the same old stuff, the same old
accusations and problems.
How are we going to use what we have learned in medicine,
for example, support groups, family resource centers, to bring
families together? Are we using them at all? Is there any
mandatory requirement that foster children attend the local
resource center play sessions? What are the resources in the
community that are already there that we can require people
with foster care children to participate in?
The same is true of kinship care. I would like--I know we
have thrown out a lot, and we only have 5 minutes to question,
but we need new thinking. You think we are going to legislate
the same way the State is responding to this? We can't afford
to do that.
Ms. MAGUIRE. Your points are very legitimate, and the truth
of the matter is the New Jersey system does not do those things
that you suggest. One of the work groups that we have currently
engaged that involves foster parents, other community members
as well as staff is a resource family group to do precisely
what you are doing, to plan a set of standards, a set of values
about how we do value foster parents. We don't do that well at
this point. It is to develop strategies to include them in a
far different way that includes them not only in participating
as a team member for the planning for the children under their
care, but also in support of them.
I have never understood, quite frankly, why we don't treat
foster parents like we do natural parents who have accepted
children into their homes.
Mrs. JOHNSON. Be thinking about it, because maybe we will
have a hearing on those kinds of progressive ideas.
Chairman HERGER. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman from Maryland Mr. Cardin to inquire.
Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank all of you for your testimony. The
first way to correct the situation is acknowledge you have a
problem, a serious problem, and, Ms. Maguire, I compliment your
acknowledgment of the problems in New Jersey, which, again, is
not unique to New Jersey. As the testimony has indicated here,
particularly from Ms. Lowry, this is a problem that is being
confronted in many parts of the country, if not in every
system.
I am concerned, though, as you pointed out, New Jersey
conducted safety assessments in foster homes before the Jackson
children were discovered, and 14,000 plus homes had been
inspected, including the Jackson home, which got a clean bill
of health. Now you are going to re-evaluate 6,000. I am curious
as to how you selected the 6,000, and if you have the resources
to do a safety assessment, because when you put a stamp of
approval on a safety assessment, I think the public has a right
to expect that, in fact, these homes have met your standards.
Do you have the resources, and how did you select these 6,000?
Ms. MAGUIRE. Again, a very legitimate question. The safety
assessments began in New Jersey for all out-of-home placements
prior to the settlement of the lawsuit. At that time--and
nowhere in the United States is there a safety tool that exists
for out-of-home placements. There is a structured decision-
making tool for children in their own homes, but none for out-
of-home placement. We took a modified version of an in-home,
tried to enhance it for purposes of out-of-home, and we began
those reviews on June 2nd.
Mr. CARDIN. My question is how did you get to the 6,000
that are now being selected?
Ms. MAGUIRE. I am trying to get there, sir. Prior to the
lawsuit, we had accomplished a number of safety assessments.
When the lawsuit was settled, we changed that form yet one more
time that drove the decision-making and the process of safety
assessing. Six thousand children had already been assessed. We
are going back over the ones we have done prior to the
enhancement of the safety tool.
Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate that. Just for my own curiosity,
was the Jackson family in that 6,000?
Ms. MAGUIRE. The Jackson family was assessed on June 6th.
It is important to note that safety and assessing safety is a
point in time, and that child welfare system needs to expand
that.
Mr. CARDIN. I agree with you there, and I just point out
that the public believes that when you do a safety assessment,
that the children are safe, and that is not the case, I am
afraid.
Let me move on if I might. Mr. Ryan, I would like your
suggestion in regards to those families that have adoption
subsidies, there is at least an obligation for us to make sure
that the children are being treated properly, and having some
type of a review on their health is a good suggestion. You
might want to try to find out whether or not it would be too
burdensome on the families and refine your recommendation. I
think our Committee would be interested in following up on
that.
Mr. RYAN. I would be happy to do that and submit something
to the Committee.
[The information follows:]
The recommendation regarding adoption subsidy can be found in the
Executive Summary of the ``Jackson Investigation: An Examination of New
Jersey's Child Protection System and Recommendations for Reform,''
which was released by the Office of the Child Advocate on February 12,
2004. The recommendation is to provide an array of post-adoption
supports, including the requirement that families, who elect to apply
for and are approved to receive an adoption subsidy, ensure that a
physical examination is completed for each child annually by a State-
licensed physician.
The report can be viewed in its entirety at
www.childadvocate.state.nj.us.
__________
Mr. CARDIN. Reverend Thomas, I think we would be more
sympathetic to your point if there was some evidence that in
the last 4 years, the children had some medical attention. If
you have a problem you can't deal with, you would think that
you would have sought some medical advice. From at least what
has been presented so far, there is no evidence that the
children in the last 4 years have had medical attention, and
this is very concerning, at least to me and, I think, to the
public.
Let me move forward, I guess and try to figure out where we
go from here. Nationwide tenure for caseworkers is under 2
years. Salary is $33,000 on average. Is that adequate in order
to get the type of people and the type of expectations for
caseworkers that are taking care of America's most vulnerable
children, and what do we do about it?
Ms. LOWRY. What we find in the systems that we have become
involved in is it is not simply a matter of money, but the
worse the system operates, the least likely it is to retain
good workers. You have to make these systems work better. It is
very often the case that there are private agencies providing
services, and the private agencies pay less than the public
agencies. The good workers go to the private agencies because
most people want job satisfaction, particularly people in this
field. When the agency insists on high caseloads, has no
placements to put the children into, and doesn't provide any
training, good workers leave. So, you have to fix the system if
you want to have good workers.
Mr. CARDIN. I agree with you. Money is not the whole issue,
but it is very difficult to understand how you can do the
training and keep people with the types of budget supports that
are out there today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. The gentleman from Kentucky Mr.
Lewis to inquire.
Mr. LEWIS OF KENTUCKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ryan,
can you give us more specifics about the medical condition of
the boys today? How they are doing? I think you mentioned they
are gaining weight, but can you give us an update?
Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. I am especially thankful
that you referred to them as the boys and not as a project. I
don't begrudge advocacy on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. I
think that in some ways, Reverend Thomas' advocacy on behalf of
them is a friend standing by them in a dark time. The public
vilification of these boys, characterizing any one of them as a
liar and describing them as a project, is despicable, and I
think it needs to stop.
In terms of their medical condition, I think the boys are
all making a very steady recovery. They are gaining weight. As
the prosecutor indicated to you, that is simply because they
are being fed. There is no magic medicine occurring here. These
boys are eating and growing.
Mr. LEWIS OF KENTUCKY. Was there any evidence for any type
of medical condition that caused an eating disorder at all as
the Reverend made mention?
Mr. RYAN. My investigators have not concluded that that is
a cause of their condition. As I indicated, there is 20,000
pages of documentary evidence to be reviewed. There are
witnesses that my team is still talking to, and I think Mr.
Sarubbi has a better sense of that than I do at this point
because he is more invested in the medical component of the
investigation than my team.
Mr. SARUBBI. It is true that some of the boys--one of the
boys did have acid reflux, but my discussions with the
physicians are it was easily treatable. It is a common illness
that many of us suffer from, and with the right kind of
medication and medical attention over a period of time, it is
not something to cause you to be 19 years old and appear to be
10 years old in your stature.
In terms of the children's mental outlook, I can tell you
that they have been meeting with the social worker at the
hospital and the other facilities that they are at right now,
and upcoming in the next month or next week, we expect that
they are going to be going into some formal therapy sessions to
help deal with their situations. Their outlook is good. They
are positive. They enjoy their placement where they are at. My
investigators have been interactive with Bruce on a regular
basis, and he is pleasant and charming and has kept a positive
attitude about this whole situation.
Mr. LEWIS OF KENTUCKY. I read somewhere that there was a
lock on the kitchen door.
Mr. SARUBBI. That is correct. We actually found two locks.
There are two entranceways to the kitchen, one that goes from
the dining room, and the other that goes from the hallway. Both
were locked. There is an alarm on the kitchen door as well and
a sign that said, ``Stop and think and pray before entering,''
which was a reference to the children going into the kitchen
and getting food unsolicited or without approval.
Mr. LEWIS OF KENTUCKY. Mr. Ryan, let me go back to you. The
income--the benefits that the Jackson family were receiving,
were there other sources of income, do you know? Is there any
reason why they couldn't have used other opportunities to get
food for these children? There are food stamps, cash welfare
benefits, disability benefits, unemployment benefits, and
hopefully a food pantry at the church. Any reason why those
kids were not fed?
Mr. RYAN. None that I can understand. I think one of the
most frustrating aspects of the investigation is that it is
very difficult to know what is in the heart of a person, and it
is difficult to know what was in the heart of Mr. and Mrs.
Jackson.
To answer your question directly, all of those public
supports were available and more. New Jersey has the most
comprehensive child health insurance program in the country
that covers children up to 350 percent of poverty. Every one of
those children was eligible for free public health insurance,
and the public health insurance system indicates no hits
against those boys in the last several years.
Mr. LEWIS OF KENTUCKY. Let me just say this: there is a lot
of finger-pointing, but, listen, good parents, parents have to
be responsible for their children, whether adopted children--I
am an adopted--parent of an adopted child. The responsibility
is with us to make sure our children are fed, they get good
medical care, they get clothing. It is our responsibility. If
we don't live up to those responsibilities, then we should be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I know there is
evidence out there that has to be looked at, but the bottom
line, the responsibility is on the parents. I yield back.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Now the gentleman
from Washington to inquire.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lowry, we have
a family that sounds like who got $30,000 under the adoption
subsidy program. Fetal alcohol syndrome is well recognized.
There was a recent article, I guess, on Monday in the New York
Times about further research that has been done in that whole
area. These kids were clearly eligible for $30,000. What seems
to me that was missing was anybody looking at how that $30,000
was spent in terms of dealing with these. Mr. Lewis is correct
and the State is correct in that there is a health care system.
There was nobody--they just handed the $30,000 to these people
and said, go on your merry way.
I would like you to take the rest of my 5 minutes to tell
me what kind of a law you think we ought to pass with what kind
of enforcement mechanisms to be able to stop this, because we
are putting out the money. They got a good idea--the idea of
adoption subsidy is a good idea. I instituted it in 1971 in the
State of Washington. I would like to hear what you think needs
to be done nationally, because sometimes the Congress has to
act when States clearly----
Ms. LOWRY. I really appreciate you asking me that question
because I think this case is so awful that it has raised a lot
of somewhat confusing issues. What is really important is that
we provide families for children, and when children in foster
care get adopted, they should be members of that family just as
Mr. Lewis' child is, I am sure, a full member of his family. We
want people to realize that--we want the people to realize that
they have the responsibility that the Congressman was talking
about. We want the child to realize that this is really their
family, not a pretend kind of family.
The problem in this case, and what I would ask Congress to
think about, is not whether there was post-adoption monitoring,
because if post-adoption monitoring had taken place in New
Jersey, it would have been just as bad as the pre-adoption
monitoring. Four children--almost five children were placed by
DYFS in that family, children with problems, and the family had
other children as well. Who is making the decision to place
those children there in the first instance? When it came to the
point that these children were going to be finalized, how is
the decision made to turn these children permanently over to
this family, at least after the first boy was there? There were
children starving, malnourished, stunted growth. These were
kids with problems. There were a lot of kids in the home, maybe
too many under the circumstances.
The problem is before the adoption is finalized. I would
urge you not to think that the answer is to undermine the
permanence of an adoptive placement, but to insist the
laudable, enormously important goal of giving children
permanent families is made with careful decision-making. We are
turning these kids loose. We should, but we should know what we
are doing before we allow the State to leave.
Once again, it gets back to the quality of decision-making,
to caseloads, to training, to accountability. Those are all
critical issues. Congress says, please get more kids adopted.
Right thing to do, but we don't want them to get adopted with a
tick on a piece of paper. We want them to get adopted----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Give me the minimum standards that ought to
be in the Federal law.
Ms. LOWRY. Yes, Congressman. I think there really have to
be, because we know by now that the States are running these
systems with high caseloads, untrained workers. We know these
conditions exist. It was fair enough to say to the States,
here, we are giving you the money. Here are the general
outlines of our public policy. You all implement this public
group policy if you want to do it here, here and here.
What we know today, whatever happened in this case is not
an aberration. We know this is happening in other States. So,
we have already given the States the opportunity to set their
own standards. They are not protecting these kids. So, I think
it is time for Congress to take another look at the goals in
the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 to see whether you
need to impose more strictures, loose strictures but more
strictures, on the States and tell the States that your
caseloads may not go below X. Eighty is not acceptable. I think
everybody would agree with that.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. This woman had 38, but that is after. What
about before? What should an adoption preparation worker have?
Ms. LOWRY. An adoption worker ought to have reasonable
caseloads, ought to have training. The pressure in New Jersey
is to get kids out of the system and count another adoption.
Some of these kids really luck out, and they are incredibly
wonderful families, but that is not being decided by the State.
It is a matter of luck. Whether or not children are safe and
are getting good families should not be a matter of luck. The
State ought to have the capacity to make those decisions. If
you don't have the basic tools, if you don't have workers which
have training, which have supervision, if the system doesn't
have accountability that workers are going to have their
decisions reviewed higher up within the agency, if you don't
have a quality assurance system, you have a whole atmosphere in
which nothing matters.
We have case records from the State of New Jersey in which
there are notations children are abused in foster homes. The
abuse is not substantiated because there is no place to put the
kids if they have to remove the kids, and the notation on the
record says, well, this is another case of business as usual.
The States should not be allowed to do business as usual that
allows kids to get abused, and I think the only answer to it
from a Federal level is to say you can't run the system if you
are below certain minimal standards. I don't mean the best
standards. I mean certain minimal standards. I don't know what
they are today, but smart people can figure them out.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman from Washington Mr.
McDermott. Now the gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr. English to
inquire.
Mr. ENGLISH. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say as I
have listened to this testimony, this has been as extraordinary
a hearing as I have attended in my service in Congress, and it
is stunning to think that these things are happening in the
United States in some of our relatively affluent communities
and apparently that this is not an isolated incident.
Ms. Katz, during your testimony, you cite various reasons
why caseworkers in New Jersey are unable to perform their jobs.
You also state that the State didn't give caseworkers the
latest training. The thing I am grappling with is we have heard
testimony to the effect that there were 38 visits to this home
over the previous 4 years. Is it a function of the fact that
the workers were poorly trained that they failed to note that a
19-year-old only weighed 49 pounds.
Ms. KATZ. One of the things that I tried to talk about is
two different types of systems that DYFS has. Protective
services and adoption in foster care are essentially separate
systems. The caseworker that visited the home, the most amount
of those 38 times, the 38 represents a number of different
visits over 4 years. This worker was on the job 2 years, 26
years old, her first job with the agency.
There is no training in protective services mandated for
workers that are going into the Adoption Resource Centers. That
caseworker had no training about what to look for. It is the
union's belief that all workers that, before they go into
foster care or adoption units, spend a year in a district
office doing protective services work, learning what to look
for and what to see. We haven't seen the records. We haven't
been given any documents, which is unusual, but I believe that
this particular caseworker was seeing what the members of the
church were seeing, what the neighbors were seeing, and
believing that this foster home was an appropriate home.
It had been approved for adoption over and over and over
and over; had been approved as a foster care home over and
over, and the family was lauded in the community.
Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. Katz, you also noted in your testimony
that because home schooling was involved in this home, that the
children were not subjected to the kind of oversight that they
might have had in a public school setting. I guess my question
for you, or for Ms. Lowry: is there any empirical evidence to
suggest that the risk of this sort of incident is greater in a
home-schooling setting? There seems to be a lot of empirical
evidence to suggest that home-schooling families
disproportionately are strong in certain other areas. Is there
some reason to believe that home schooling is part of the
problem here?
Ms. KATZ. Well, let me comment, and then--what I was
testifying to is that home schooling creates gaps. In New
Jersey, nearly 20 percent of the abuse cases are reported by
schools. I come from a family of all teachers, elementary
schoolteachers, and because they see children every day, they
get to know them well, especially young children, and that is a
very large source of information going into the system that
there may be abuse, that there may be neglect. When kids are
outside the school system, it seems you need extra protections.
It is not that home schooling causes the problem, but it
creates a gap. Other States, New Jersey is not one of them,
have regulations about children needing to be seen and tested
by their public education system.
Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. Lowry, if you want to comment on that, I
would welcome it, and while you are at it, you had cited a
class action lawsuit and that around 4,000 children placed in
New Jersey foster homes are being individually assessed. What
are the results of those assessments, and how many children
have been removed from unsafe homes to date?
Ms. LOWRY. When the first round of assessments was
concluded, which was about 3 weeks ago, prior to this Jackson
case, only 31 children had been removed. Frankly, we had some
serious question about that, but no basis on which to question
it. Given our data that the rate of abuse was so high, it
seemed unlikely that only 31 children needed to be removed.
The new assessments have just started, so we don't know how
many children are going to be removed this round. We expect
these assessments will be better. In fact, we are going to ask
the State, if the removal rate turns out to be very high, if
the assessments turn out to be very faulty, as this one may
have been, we are going to ask to have all of the homes
reassessed, not just these that were done, because that 31
number seemed awfully low to us.
On the home-schooling issue, I think that the very
important point was made, which is that New Jersey has very,
very few requirements with regard to home schooling. So,
frankly, I wonder, given what else we know about this family,
whether the kids who were home schooled got any education at
all. I suspect they didn't get very much.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
California Mr. Stark to inquire.
Mr. STARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the
witnesses for not being here at the beginning of your
testimony. I have tried to glance through it to get up to
speed. Mr. Sarubbi, am I pronouncing that correctly?
Mr. SARUBBI. That is pronounced correctly. Thank you.
Mr. STARK. In New Jersey, as I think we do in California
and many other States, the law would require, say, a teacher in
a public school to report a case of child abuse or serious
mistreatment or illness. What is the law generally in New
Jersey? Is there an obligation to report this kind of thing?
Mr. SARUBBI. If they believe that there is a problem there,
yes. I think with our schools there really is a requirement on
an annual basis that children be examined by a physician.
Mr. STARK. If a teacher saw, say, in third grade, saw a kid
coming in with a black eye or a bruise frequently, does the law
require that teacher to report to somebody that they suspect
something?
Mr. SARUBBI. Yes.
Mr. STARK. Now, other than teachers, in some States, I
believe the State of Maryland, anybody can----
Mr. SARUBBI. It is everybody in New Jersey. It is not just
limited to a teacher.
Mr. STARK. Okay. I am not a lawyer, so help me through if I
am not getting the right words here. Have you prosecuted a lot
of child abuse cases; is that part of your department?
Mr. SARUBBI. Yes. In fact, my child abuse unit is handling
this investigation in conjunction with the Collingswood Police
Department.
Mr. STARK. I have a daughter-in-law that does that in
Berkeley, I might add. Very proud of her. Although she was just
appointed to the bench by Davis before Schwarzenegger got in.
Let me go back a minute. Would you, if you can give your
opinion here, and I do not know whether that is--would you
consider these children, their treatment, constituted abuse
under the terms of New Jersey law? Maybe that is not a----
Mr. SARUBBI. What I can tell you is what I had stated in my
testimony, that based on our investigation that we have done so
far, I believe that there was probable cause to sign a
complaint for endangering the welfare of children and
aggravated assault. In addition to that, a judicial officer was
required to pass on the evidence to make a determination as to
whether they felt the charges were appropriate. They were
signed, a warrant was issued, and the Jacksons were arrested.
So, I hope I have answered your question.
Mr. STARK. Yes. I am trying to use colloquial terms, and I
don't suppose that you can. Maybe you can--and, again, this is
an opinion. I notice that in this picture that was in the
paper, that the girls in the family all appear to have been
well fed and not mistreated, or whatever the legal term is.
Does that mean anything to you, say anything to you? Do you
have an opinion as to how----
Mr. SARUBBI. That is an excellent observation, Mr. Stark,
and one that we have compared to the physical condition of the
boys. We do not have the answer, unfortunately, as to why the
girls were treated one way and the boys were treated another.
Now, our investigation is continuing.
Mr. STARK. Was that question raised by people investigating
it? Did they point it out that this seemed----
Mr. SARUBBI. Absolutely. We have mulled over that question
on numerous occasions in my office amongst the legal staff and
the investigators, and we are really still at this point trying
to pin down the true motive in this case. That is one of the
questions we have asked ourselves, and we may get an answer to
it, we may never get an answer to it.
As I mentioned earlier, part of our investigation is going
to include psychiatric evaluations of the children, and perhaps
those questions may be answered during that process.
Mr. STARK. Reverend Thomas, did you ever talk with--was it
Keith--no. Or Michael. Who is the 19-year-old?
Reverend THOMAS. Bruce.
Mr. STARK. Bruce.
Reverend THOMAS. Bruce was more in the shadows than the
other children.
Mr. STARK. Did you ever chat with him?
Reverend THOMAS. Oh, sure. He would come out of church.
Mr. STARK. These kids go to Sunday school?
Reverend THOMAS. They went to Sunday school. Their Sunday
school teachers have expressed to me how----
Mr. STARK. What grade in Sunday school was Bruce?
Reverend THOMAS. Bruce was in one of the lower grades
because he kind of stuck with his other siblings.
Mr. STARK. Were they all like in second, third grade? Where
were they? I do not know how you rank that.
Reverend THOMAS. I am not actually sure, but I do have
some--I am probably the only one--can I say something? I am
probably the only one that knows the family, or really knows
the family, for 15 years. I am probably the only one who has
consistently been around this family. I have video here of what
this family looks like where they are in a talent show in the
church. Actually, it was a missions banquet. I have pictures
here of this family.
Some of these allegations that I am hearing are absolutely
startling to me. I know the family, I have talked to them about
the kitchen being locked and things of that nature, and those
things are simply not the way they appear. Bruce would go down
to the kitchen at night and eat most of the food. The family
had to put an alarm, no locks, just an alarm, so that they
would know. The family dog would often alert them if he was
trying to go and do a disturbing thing in the neighborhood.
These allegations are simply not true. The family had
plenty of food. They ate three meals a day. They didn't need
assistance. They never even came to the church for financial
assistance until a landlord called me and said, I think they
are in trouble financially.
Mr. STARK. Things, I guess--you and I, Reverend, probably
aren't the judge and the jury in this case, and things aren't
always, I guess, as they appear. We find serial killers and
bank robbers and people that happen to live next door to us,
and you are just shocked to find out that people who we see
every day are----
Reverend THOMAS. Yes, sir. I have been around a while.
Mr. STARK. So, that is something that Mr. Sarubbi and the
criminal justice system will decide.
Reverend THOMAS. May I just--do I have a chance to say
anything more?
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman's time has expired, but
maybe a short statement.
Mr. STARK. Sure, Reverend, go ahead.
Reverend THOMAS. I have no political interest. I do not
know all the things in the system. I am just a pastor. What
just was said about the boys being treated differently, well,
here is all the boys together, including the father, and this
was taken just 2 and a half weeks ago. The picture that you are
very familiar with, the picture of the girls. Believe me,
folks, these are not monsters. They are----
Mr. STARK. All that is missing are the four loaves and the
seven fishes, hey, Reverend?
Reverend THOMAS. Pardon me? Yes.
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Reverend THOMAS. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. With that, I yield 5 minutes to a Member
of the full Committee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Foley,
to inquire.
Mr. FOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and as Co-Chair of the Congressional Missing and
Exploited Children's Caucus, I sit here trembling, listening to
what I have heard today.
Reverend Thomas, with all due respect, this lack of even
empathy for the kids. I almost feel or hear you saying, let's
just call off the hearing and have an exorcism on these
heathens. It is troubling that in a church--and other points,
home schooling is being attacked today; money in the system, we
don't have enough money, training. What type of training does
somebody need, additional training, to find these problems in
these kids? Isn't there a doctor in your church that recognized
the frailty of these young boys?
I am astonished. I am astonished. People treat their pets
better than New Jersey has treated their children in this
instance. If they treated a dog like this, people would be in
jail already in the Humane Society. Gopher tortoises have a
better safety net in this country than these kids.
I do not know where to start. I do not know where to start,
but I see these four children wasting away, going to Sunday
school and church every week, and nobody in the congregation
thought to call someone. Thirty-eight visits on this home,
$30,000 a year, not a dollar going to a doctor, nobody going to
seek intervention.
So, it is not all about money--and maybe it is about money.
Maybe we have turned kids into money machines. Here, you take
these kids. No one else wants them.
With all due respect to this family, if they are so
demonic, then let somebody else deal with them. I heard you
say, Reverend, he didn't want to turn them in because nobody
else would take them. When you ignore the obvious, your
statement that somehow the kid ate his lunch on the way to
school and then lied to the teacher, well, at least he would be
a normal-weight liar.
Reverend THOMAS. May I respond?
Mr. FOLEY. Please.
Reverend THOMAS. Yes. First of all, these children came in
looking pretty much the way they look to you, very startling to
you. I have a cousin who has cerebral palsy, and my cousin
looks differently than other people and very underweight. I do
not go up to my cousin every week and say, what is wrong with
you, or turn to her mother and say, show me some papers or say
what are you doing.
Mr. FOLEY. Reverend, these are boys.
Reverend THOMAS. These boys were energetic, you will see in
the video, energetic, coming up and hugging me, the first to
come out after church, the little girls and the little boys.
Believe me, our focus is on these children. Ray and Vanessa
have been accused as being animals and everything else, but let
me tell you what, these children are happy children, and they
have been a great blessing to our church. There is not only me,
there is 300 some other people who have observed them and loved
them, and their condition was always taken into account because
that is the way they came. I saw them when they first came.
Mr. FOLEY. Then how do you account for the gain of weight
under State supervision?
Reverend THOMAS. I seriously question it. If I was placed
in the hospital with 24-hour, around-the-clock care for the
purpose of gaining weight, I would gain weight. You would gain
weight. We would all gain weight. I want to know if it is
water. I want to know if it is convoluted in any way. Did they
have shoes on when they came in? What is the story? Did they
have shoes only when they were weighed?
Mr. FOLEY. Do you discount the rummaging through the
garbage next door looking for food?
Reverend THOMAS. Bruce? That was not the first occasion
this child has done this kind of thing, and this is part of his
sickness, and there is a need for his psychological well-being.
He escaped one other time, went to a neighbor's house, just
like we have the problem now; went to a neighbor's house, said,
my parents are in Florida, they have left me here home alone.
When the police came, checked it out, parents were there. This
time he said, I don't have any parents, I am from Camden, I am
homeless. Of course, that was obviously not true. They were
right there in Collingswood frantically wondering where he was.
Mr. FOLEY. Well, I just know Florida has had its share of
problems, a lot of States have, so I am not casting aspersions
only on New Jersey.
The Governor ordered a blue ribbon panel on May 6, 2002,
reported May 28th. We have had two progress reports. There is
some good information the State can glean from this, but I have
to tell you, we have to get moving. We have to get on this
program.
It is only when a politician's job is on the line do we
start waking up and shaking up these agencies. Typically what
happens is we just change the name of the agencies so people
can forget what the problems were in the past, and we don't
change the fundamentals.
Our colleagues have asked some very important questions,
and I think all of us share a responsibility. This isn't just
pointing to a State and saying, how did you let this happen?
Too many kids are falling through the system, we are asking too
much of those very same people to go in homes that most people
armed at the waist with guns wouldn't go into.
It still troubles me that 38 visits occurred, and I do not
know whether they took place at Starbucks, but they do not seem
to have been focused at the house. Obviously, someone missed--
even if they were looking at 1 child in a house of 12, they
still missed some telling stories of that home.
So, at the end of this, hopefully, it is not about
federalizing child protection, but it is all of us taking
individual State responsibilities to see that these agencies
are monitored; that the people sent out there tasked with the
jobs were listened to. I have looked at some of these in
Florida where caseworkers come back and tell their bosses, and
the boss says, don't bother me with that, I can't fix it, or, I
can't do anything about it.
Whether we are in our churches, in our Boy Scout troops, or
in our hospitals, we all have to band together, because this is
an epidemic problem for our kids, and it is just startling.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman from Florida. I
recognize the Ranking Member from Maryland Mr. Cardin.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous
consent if I could yield my time to the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Payne, who is not a Member of our Committee, but he
is a person who has a great deal of interest in this subject,
and a distinguished Member of Congress.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I appreciate your yielding
the time, and thank the Chairman for allowing me to ask a few
questions.
I would just like to once again ask Reverend Thomas how he
feels that the weight gain could happen? What was the amount of
weight totally gained by the--how much--about 50 pounds, when
together they weighed--it is probably about half of the amount
of weight that they were when they were discovered? You said
you think that they are doing abnormal things, when we have
heard the prosecutor and Mr. Ryan say they are simply being
fed.
Reverend THOMAS. Mr. Payne, I didn't mean abnormal things.
I am saying these children have fluctuated in their weight
before. These children have never received 24-hour, around-the-
clock care to put on weight. Anyone would put on weight. I
would really like, with the indulgence of the Committee, to
have a little snippet of that video shown.
Mr. PAYNE. I only have 5 minutes, and I know we don't have
time, Mr. Chairman. Let me just ask you another question. It
seems like it is normal that people have three meals a day, and
so you are saying now that because they are concentrating on
gaining weight, that something different is being done. It
seems to me they are getting three meals a day, which every
child is supposed to get. That doesn't seem abnormal.
I am also kind of shocked, too. We look to the church for
leadership, and I know that evidently you have a nice place in
your heart for the parents, but you make the children, the
victims, seem like the perpetrators. The way you describe
Bruce, you make him like he is a criminal. He would do these
horrible things, and all the focus is on the victim. It is
unbelievable.
I have triplet grandchildren, and they are 5 years old, and
I just cannot believe that somebody's children weighed less
than them. It is almost impossible. I don't see how a person of
the church--and I really respect the church, but I remember it
sounds like some of the missionaries back in the Belgium Congo
in 1890 when they went and treated in a paternalistic way
people--it incenses me that a person of the cloth could sit
there and defend people who are wrong. They are wrong. There is
no question about the fact. These parents are wrong. These
children are victims. You turned the children around, as a man
of the Bible, to say that there is something wrong with these
abnormal children. It is absolutely wrong. When we have people
making excuses for wrong people, we are going nowhere in this
society.
In our town of Newark, where this young boy, 7-year-old
Faheem Williams, was found dead in the basement, not one single
person in the church, not one single public official, came out
in defense of this horrible parent who allowed a child to die
and to leave them in a box in the basement of a place.
When you are wrong, you are wrong. For us to continually
make excuses for wrongdoing is wrong. We are as wrong as the
parents when we make excuses for people that there is no
question that something was done wrong here; that these
children were not fed. Why would a kid be out at 2 a.m. anyway?
How can you defend a child being out at 2 a.m., being heard
by a neighbor, being picked up by the police, if this is such a
great church-going good family? It is absolutely ludicrous.
Reverend THOMAS. May I respond?
Mr. PAYNE. No, I don't want a response. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Reverend THOMAS. That is very unfair, sir.
Chairman HERGER. I will allow Reverend Thomas a short
response.
Reverend THOMAS. Yes. In all due respect to Mr. Payne, we
are dealing with allegations that are extremely serious against
this family, and the truth must come out, allegations such as
they never went to eat in a restaurant. I have pictures here of
them. The prosecutor has many more pictures of them at Disney
and other places.
We are not out to make any of the children look bad, but
there are untruths that have been told that has made this
entire family look bad, has split this family up. I am with the
birth children, and I would like to see the children. I have a
pastoral responsibility to see the children, and I have not
been able to get to see the children. I have been told that I
am not allowed at this point to pursue it any further,
basically to just--we will call you back when we want to call
you back.
These children, there is no truth to these allegations. I
can be called a liar. I have nothing personal to gain. I am
simply their pastor. I am not elected to any office. I have
nothing else. I am just telling you these people are innocent,
and I am telling you they had three meals a day, they ate like
everyone else, and there are some serious difficulties with
these children that have absolutely--they have had to deal
with, and they have had very little support in that whole
thing. So, I really believe that you at least should see the
children on that video.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn, if I could
have 30 seconds?
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Just to reflect, and thank you for holding this
hearing. It is somewhat painful, but I think it is important
that we have a record of what happened in New Jersey. New
Jersey is not alone. In Miami a young girl was missing for 15
months before anyone knew that she was missing. In Pennsylvania
a young girl 3 years old died after allegedly being beaten and
starved to death by a woman and a boyfriend just a day after a
social worker visited. So, this is not a unique circumstance.
Ms. Lowry, keep up your good work. Mr. Ryan, I am glad to
see you are independent and giving a voice in New Jersey. Keep
up your work. People are listening. We have to change the
system.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. I
would like to just conclude, and I want to thank each of our
witnesses. I want to conclude by rephrasing just a bit the
question that I started with, and I have to say that in my 17
years in Congress, this is the most alarming issue, the most
alarming hearing that I have sat in as a father of nine.
When we look at the fact that Bruce had gained 18 pounds
and now weighs 63 pounds, and this is over a period of 24 days,
Keith had gained 16.5 pounds and now weighs 56.5 pounds, Tyrone
had gained 11.6 pounds, now weighs 39.6 pounds, and Michael had
gained 9 pounds and now weighs 32 pounds, my original question
to each of you was based on what you know--and the purpose of
this Committee was to get those who are closest to this issue
in New Jersey to come before this Committee so we would be able
to get the facts out so that we could move forward, and it
appears that we will be moving forward with further hearings on
what we can do to help prevent something like this from ever
happening again. My original question was your personal
opinion, as an answer yes or no, were the Jackson boys abused.
I think I would like to rephrase that. Now, in this, what
is it, less than a month period of time that the boys have been
out of this home, are these boys better off now than they were
before--and if I could just ask in your opinions, and that is
all they are, whether they are or not better off after this
hearing?
Ms. MAGUIRE. Well, they are certainly in a safe environment
now, and they are gaining weight. I think that is indicative of
the answer, Representative.
Mr. RYAN. Representative, they are healthier, and they are
on the road to recovery, but this is not a happily ever-after
story. These boys and their sisters have seen their family
implode, and these boys and their sisters are separated now.
One boy is in one facility, two others in another, the fourth
boy is in another facility, the sisters are somewhere else. One
can only characterize that as tragic.
We would all do well, I think, to think about how these
systems can work to strengthen families and support them so
that at the end of the day families don't implode, parents
aren't charged with these sorts of crimes, and children aren't
left languishing and starving. This is really a failure that
these children will have to live with for a very long time.
Chairman HERGER. Mr. Sarubbi.
Mr. SARUBBI. I think clearly they are, from a physical as
well as a psychological standpoint, but I have to echo Mr.
Ryan's statements in that these boys have so many hurdles to
overcome over the next several years. They are entering a very
critical period in their rehabilitation in terms of their
ability to grow to be somewhat normal height. Tests will
continue to be run. If their growth plates are closed, there is
not a good chance that they will grow to within normal ranges
for children their age.
So, they are coming to a very difficult time, and I think
that is complicated by the fact that they have been separated
from what they have known for so many years, however horrible
it may have been.
Chairman HERGER. Reverend Thomas.
Reverend THOMAS. Just to preface my remark, the night--or
the day that the children were taken from the home, and I went
to the home as a pastoral visit and was there to give support
to the family, they were devastated. They were crying. They
were in terrible shape. Raymond turned to me and he said,
perhaps what will come out of this is that Bruce will get the
kind of help that he needs. That is where we are. Any help that
can be given to these children, anything that can make their
health and strength better, of course we are in favor of that.
Chairman HERGER. Good. Ms. Katz.
Ms. KATZ. I have two kids, and as much as they fight, I
think that one of the most horrible things that we could do to
them would be to separate them. I would have to echo what Kevin
said. I think that as healthy as these boys may be becoming, it
is tragic, and we need to find the ways to stop these things
from happening before we get here, because there is no good
outcome here.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Ms. Lowry.
Ms. LOWRY. I think there is very little question that these
children have been permanently and irrevocably damaged.
Although they may physically get better, they have been
deprived of a chance for a real family that they can grow up
with, and I think it is very hard to put them back together
again.
Chairman HERGER. Well, I want to thank you. Again, I want
to thank each of you for your testimony. It has provided useful
information for us to consider as we assess this case and its
implications in subsequent hearings and discussions. Our goal
is to ensure the safety of all children, and we appreciate your
help to that end.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. May I ask unanimous consent to include in the
record the blue ribbon panel report of Florida?
Chairman HERGER. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information is being retained in the Committee files.]
Chairman HERGER. With that, this hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Questions submitted from Chairman Herger to Mr. Ryan and
Ms. Maguire, and their answers follow:]
Questions from Chairman Wally Herger to Kevin Ryan
Question: I understand doctors have seen the boys since they were
removed from this home.
a. Can you share with us their professional medical evaluations of
the boys' condition and any ailments or physical disorders they might
have? (For example, it has been alleged the boys suffer from everything
from fetal alcohol syndrome, to being crack babies, to--in Rev. Thomas'
testimony--``rumination.'' Is that true?)
b. Have the doctors offered any type of prognosis for their
recovery?
c. What should all this tell us about claims that the boys
suffered from eating disorders that resulted in their being so severely
malnourished?
Answer: (a) With respect to the boys' medical conditions and any
ailments or physical disorders that they might have, my office has done
three things: (i) we have subpoenaed medical records from the three
medical providers that were referenced in their case files, including:
CAMCare Health Corp., Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center and Voorhees
Pediatric Rehabilitation Hospital; (ii) we have requested an
independent medical review of this information from two pediatricians,
in order to glean a fuller understanding of their medical conditions
and treatment since October of this year when they were removed from
the Jackson home; and (iii) we are awaiting the reports on each of the
boys from Dr. Marita Lind, the treating pediatrician under contract
with the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) who has had the
most regular and comprehensive contact with them.
(b) We know that a variety of medical professionals, including but
not limited to, pediatricians, endocrinologists and dentists have
examined the boys since October. In light of their varying medical
conditions, growth stages and ages, we anticipate a fuller
understanding of the prognosis for recovery for each boy, once we
review the individual medical reports. We expect to receive this
information in the next week or so.
(c) Dr. Lind's comprehensive report on each boy should help
explain, at least in part, whether claims that the boys had suffered
from eating disorders that led to their severe malnourished states,
were in fact true. What is indisputable, however, is that, to date, the
boys have gained both height and weight and, to my knowledge, have been
administered nothing other than a normal diet and vitamins.
Question: What specifically in this case has led you to begin your own
investigation? I understand that you are working with the prosecutor's
office as you move forward. What do you intend to do as part of your
own investigation? Do you anticipate making recommendations for how New
Jersey could improve its child welfare system based on the findings of
your case? (In addition to answering these questions, I encourage you
to share such findings or recommendations with the Subcommittee when
they are available.)
Answer: Approximately 9 pm on October 24, 2003, I received a call
from a high-ranking official at the Department of Human Services (DHS),
which first alerted me to the facts surrounding the Jackson's home,
that four boys had been removed from that home in severely malnourished
states, and that the Camden County prosecutor was planning the next day
to conduct a press conference announcing criminal charges against the
parents for aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child
(in this case, the four Jackson boys). That call prompted my office to
begin an investigation into the Jackson matter which includes, but is
not limited to, an in depth inquiry into the systems that serve
children in the care and custody of the State, and the factors that
permitted the Jackson boys' deteriorated medical conditions to persist
virtually unchecked.
As you are aware, my office was created by statute in September
2003 and, among other things, is charged with identifying systemic
problems with the various entities, public or private in New Jersey,
that serve children. Having taken office just one week prior to the
call from DHS on the evening of October 24th, the Jackson case served
as a catalyst for my office to begin its inquiry into the child welfare
system that apparently failed these boys.
As I mentioned earlier, we do anticipate making recommendations for
how New Jersey could improve its child welfare system, based upon our
findings, and will gladly share that report with you. We recognize,
however, that the Jackson case provided just a small snapshot of the
entirety of the problems facing New Jersey's system, and are cognizant
of the enormity of the task of creating real and lasting reform. To
that end, you should know that New Jersey is facing a January 18th
deadline with which it must comply as part of a lawsuit settlement with
Children's Rights, Inc. The very simplified significance of that date
is that DHS must present an independent panel of five experts its plan
for comprehensive reform of the child welfare system, which the panel
will evaluate and ultimately accept or reject.
Question: Do you have any data about other children in foster care or
who have been adopted from foster care in New Jersey who have fetal
alcohol syndrome? For example, do we know if any of them suffer from
the sort of malnutrition evident in this case? What does that suggest
about this case?
Answer: We have not made a specific inquiry about data concerning
other children either in foster care or who have been adopted from
foster care, who have fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), and have therefore
not necessarily linked malnutrition to this factor. Examining FAS as an
independent and early identifier of future complications for foster
children may be an idea worth considering, however, in the Jackson
case, I have not yet seen evidence that necessarily draws this
conclusion. Indeed, it appears at this juncture that proper nutrition
and consistent medical attention might have averted many of the boys'
problematic health issues. Again, the medical reports should be helpful
in this regard.
Question: How much Federal and State money did the family receive in
the form of maintenance payments to support the children? Is there any
evidence suggesting what those funds were spent on?
Answer: On average, the Jackson family received approximately
$4,800 annually in the form of subsidy payments for each child. Half of
that money is provided by the Federal Government; the other half by the
state. Other than a per diem clothing allowance calculated as part of
each child's subsidy, there is no requirement, reporting or otherwise,
that the funds be spent in any particular manner for the children's
care.
__________
Questions from Chairman Wally Herger to Colleen Maguire
Question: You state in your testimony (page 4) ``it has been documented
that none of these boys had seen a doctor in at least five years.''
a. First, how is this documented?
b. Second, even if we accept the parents' claims that the boys
suffered from eating disorders, and that is the explanation behind
their size and weight, doesn't the absence of medical attention for
that long in and of itself amount to neglect?
Answer:
a. Documentation: The four boys were all enrolled in New Jersey
Medicaid, which is a component of the adoption subsidy program.
According to initial Medicaid claim history, there is no documentation
of any claims for any of the boys for almost 5 years. Further, there is
no evidence that the boys received medical care from any provider not
affiliated with the Medicaid subsystem. No provider has come forward;
nor have the parents provided anyone with the name of any provider.
Information provided by the Camden County Prosecutor indicates that
Mrs. Jackson admitted that she has not taken these boys to a doctor for
the past five years. However, the Department of Human Services (DHS) is
continuing to review all of this information.
b. Does this constitute neglect? The failure to provide children
who have medical problems with appropriate medical treatment does
constitute child neglect under New Jersey law. New Jersey law requires
any person who has reason to suspect that a child is being abused or
neglected to make a report to the Division of Youth and Family Services
(DYFS). The report would then be investigated. In this situation, no
report was made until the night that Bruce was observed eating from a
neighbor's trash.
Question: What is the boys' long-term medical prognosis? Are they going
to be regularly seen by doctors? Will they receive specialized medical
care? How will you ensure that occurs?
Answer: The prognosis of the two younger boys is that we expect
them to make a full recovery, whereas the two older boys have more
significant obstacles to overcome and therefore have a more guarded
prognosis. All of the boys are still undergoing testing to assist in
fully understanding the medical implications of their health issues.
Each of the boys will be receiving specialized medical/dental care
as determined by their individual needs. All four boys are receiving
weekly in home/hospital visits by a nutritionist who is working in
coordination with them, their primary care physicians and their foster
parents.
The children remain under the care of the NJ Division of Youth and
Family Services (DYFS) which will continue to monitor their medical
care. A senior level administrator in the DYFS' Southern Regional
Office is coordinating all of the issues related to this situation. A
physician and medical consultant are reviewing their medical needs and
care, and assisting in coordination. Also, plans for the boys are being
reviewed by the Family Court.
Question: Ms. Lowry's testimony states that her review of this case
finds:
``A failure to adequately conduct a safety assessment on behalf of
the child in foster care who was placed with (the Jacksons)--an
assessment which should have included an evaluation of the home
environment and any and all health and safety issues affecting all
children in the home. Had such a complete assessment been conducted,
the terrible circumstances under which the four adopted boys were
living would have become obvious. None of this happened, however--why
not.''
What does the safety assessment require? What aspects of the house
and the family are examined? Why did this safety assessment not happen?
Do you have any doubt that if a proper assessment had occurred, that
not only would the female foster child not have been placed in this
household, but the State would have taken action to protect the boys as
well?
Answer: Effective June 2, 2003, the NJ Division of Youth and Family
Services initiated a safety assessment of all children in out of home
placement. The process was subsequently modified effective August 18,
2003, to provide casework staff with additional information about the
foster home. This initiative concluded on October 23, 2003. For
children placed in adoptive homes, a Placement Assessment format was
utilized which was originally developed to guide adoption decision-
making concerning permanent placement with an appropriate family. This
process, guided by a series of questions, solicits information about
the care the child is receiving, how the family understands and is able
to meet the youngster's needs, his/her safety in the home, and the
family's ability and commitment to raise the child to majority.
The Placement Assessment (which was conducted on the foster child
in the Jackson home) is divided into six sections. These include:
An initial face sheet containing identifying information,
any allegations of abuse/neglect, or criminal record of all adults
residing in the home, and any waivers previously granted.
Child Issues--information obtained about an individual
child. This information includes an assessment of any special needs;
observations of the child, their clothing, their living space and
incorporation into the family unit; the child's perceptions of family
members, discipline methods and other family member relationships;
status of birth siblings; child's placement history; dates and findings
of last medical and dental exams and the status of the child's life
book.
Family issues--information to be obtained about the
foster/pre-adoptive family. This asks for a list of each individual
residing in the home and a description of their role within the family.
Any special care needs of the child in question are to be recorded, as
well as how those needs are being met and by whom. Other information
requested is the age and health status of the parents; an assessment of
the stability of their relationship and their individual feelings about
the child; family member interaction; integration of the child into the
family unit; parent perceptions of the child's current and future
needs; disciplinary methods; support systems; and prior parenting
experiences.
Physical space issues--an assessment of the living and
sleeping space and housekeeping, health and life safety standards.
Collateral contacts--documentation of contacts with
doctors, schools, therapists or other service providers, and an
exploration of any difficulty that the foster family had in handling
other children and how they resolved those difficulties.
Final assessment--This section is completed by the
caseworker and supervisor about the child's needs and the family's
ability to meet them, the child's safety and adoption status. The date
of the final supervisory conference is documented and the approval/
disapproval of the foster parent adoption plan.
As you will note, this is a very comprehensive review, and it was
this protocol that was completed on the foster child in June 2003. The
conclusion reached was that the foster child was safe and receiving
adequate care in the home. The questions related to other family
members focused on the other children in the home only as they related
to the prospective foster home adoption plan.
The completion of a thorough assessment at that time should have
initiated an immediate investigation concerning the care of all of the
children in the home, leading to protective actions on their behalf.
Although the foster child was placed in the Jackson home in August
1999, which predates the implementation of New Jersey's safety
assessment process and the adoption office's placement assessment
process, ongoing assessment activities should have uncovered these
problems, leading staff to take appropriate actions.
Question: What concerns me about this case is what might have happened
to the children in this house if the neighbor had not called the police
last night. It was the police and the neighbor who immediately realized
that something about this boy was not right, not the numerous
caseworkers who had visited this house. Add to that the point Ms. Lowry
makes in her testimony about how over one in ten foster care children
in New Jersey are abused and neglected in foster care. That's a
startling statistic. What is your department doing to ensure that there
are no additional children who are currently being neglected while in
foster care and whose neglect is unnoticed by caseworkers?
Some of the facts about the house and the family that are being
uncovered raise some concerns. The electricity had been off for 6
months. The family was behind in their rent and had recently received
assistance from their church to help pay some bills. The father was
unemployed.
a. Why would this information not raise concerns with a
caseworker?
b. Are the State's protocols for assessing a child's current
living arrangement designed to find out this type of information?
c. Are you considering changes to capture this information?
Answer: As noted in the information in question #3, caseworkers are
required to routinely gather and assess information about a wide range
of child/family issues. In this case, clearly the lack of electricity
is a concern that should have been identified and addressed.
Since the state is concerned about this issue, DYFS has taken a
number of steps to strengthen our processes. First, licensing for
foster parents has already been revised to require that every family
member be seen before a foster home license is granted or renewed.
Second, following the state-wide initiative to ensure that each
child in substitute care was safe, on October 23, 2003, DYFS
implemented procedures to assure that the safety of each child placed
into substitute care by the agency is assessed on a continuous, ongoing
basis. New protocols were developed to facilitate the policy. This
activity is unique to New Jersey. We believe that no other state child
protective service agency in the nation has developed a tool and
implemented procedures to assess the safety of children placed in
substitute care, including home-like settings and congregate care
facilities.
NJ policy specifies that a child's safety in foster care will be
assessed, and thus assured, at the following set intervals:
Within five (5) work days of the agency first placing a
child into substitute care. The child safety assessment is conducted
during the agency's first visit to the foster home after placing the
child.
Within five (5) work days of moving/re-placing a child
into a new foster home. The child safety assessment is conducted during
the agency's first visit to the foster home after placing the child
there.
When investigating a child protective services allegation
regarding a foster home.
Every 6 months, when the agency prepares case recording
documents.
Child safety may be reassessed at any other time, when
appropriate and as necessary, to assess the safety of one or more
children residing in the substitute care home.
Agency Caseworkers, Supervisors, Managers and Administrators make
the decision whether additional child safety assessments need to be
conducted on a case-by-case basis, based on the circumstances of the
child.
Procedures followed by agency field staff for assessing child
safety in a foster home include:
Interview the child in private.
Observe other children in the home, including birth
children and other foster children.
Observe the physical condition of the home to determine
whether there are any apparent safety hazards or life-safety concerns
present.
See the child's room and assure the child has a bed.
Determine whether the child's physical needs are being
met. (Is the home clean? Is there an adequate supply of food for the
children? Are the utilities operational--heat, running water,
electricity?)
If the household has a pet(s), ask to see the animal and
assure that it does not pose a danger to children.
Interview the foster parents. Ascertain how the child is
adjusting to the home and substitute care family.
Observe interactions between the various members of the
household.
Confirm the names and relationships of all adults and all
children currently residing in the home; obtain identifying information
about any other persons residing in the home. If other adults reside in
the home, find out who they are, and whether they have a role in caring
for the foster child.
Return to the home/conduct a follow-up field contact if
an adult or a child household member is not at home during the agency's
field visit.
Take prompt action if a child is found to be in danger in
the foster home. Develop and implement a plan to assure the child's
immediate safety; remove the child, if necessary.
Notify the State's Office of Licensing and the DYFS
regional foster home unit if there is a concern about the physical
structure of the foster home, or a violation of standards. Life/safety
concerns are addressed immediately.
Third, there will be another safety assessment review of
approximately 5,000 children placed in substitute care settings. We
anticipate utilizing community providers, who will receive specialized
training for this process. This will commence in January 2004.
Beyond the above efforts to assess safety in foster homes, DYFS is
requiring staff to identify and assess safety concerns including such
basic factors as working utilities, appliances and adequate food. These
include a continued roll-out of our Structured Decision Making program
which will include new tools and training for all casework staff. To
support an overall improvement in case practice, the state is hiring
additional supervisors and case practice specialists, which will
provide casework staff with greater support with their decisionmaking.
Question: Is it unusual for families to survive solely on foster care
and adoption payments, as apparently was the case in the Jackson
family? Do you know what share of all cases does so? Does that raise
any red flags with your office? How about when a parent is laid off?
Does that affect anything with the case?
Answer: As part of the assessment process, foster and adoptive
parent applicants are required to document that they have financial
resources to support themselves, separate from any board payments
provided by the state to assist them in the care of the child(ren).
Further, they are required to notify DYFS if their financial
circumstances have changed. Currently, once the home receives its
initial foster home license, income monitoring does not occur. However,
once an issue is identified that may affect the safety or welfare of a
foster child, there is an expectation that it be appropriately
addressed, up to and including the removal of the child(ren) and
closure of the home.
Adoption subsidy is more complicated. Documentation of adequate
financial resources is required during the assessment process. Families
are currently required to sign Subsidized Adoption Annual Renewal
Agreements that indicate they continue to provide financial support for
the child. We do not have information on the number of adoptive
families where subsidy has been the only source of income. However,
just as with birth parents, the state's current authority in adoption
matters is very limited as it relates to on-going monitoring of issues
such as income. We are looking into ways to strengthen our ability to
monitor adoption subsidy payments.
As a result of this matter, there will be a complete review of the
state's licensing process for foster parents and the adoption subsidy
policy. As previously noted, in areas where system weaknesses have been
identified, these will be strengthened.
Question: Your testimony (page 4) states ``there is some indication
that the boys may have had medical issues prior to adoption.''
a. What does this mean?
b. What specifically did your department know about the medical
condition of the boys when they were originally placed in foster care
with the Jacksons?
c. I can only assume that if the boys suffered from fetal alcohol
syndrome, which has been alleged and which is known at birth, that that
condition was known to caseworkers. Is that true?
d. What were the Jacksons told?
e. Were the Jacksons instructed to provide regular medical care,
including doctor visits for the boys?
f. Obviously, no one followed up to check on their medical
conditions. Should that have happened in this case, under your
protocols? How about other cases?
Answer: The closed DYFS records for the four boys indicate that
each of these youngsters had significant medical issues before coming
to live with the Jackson family. It also appears that there were
indications before the boys were adopted, that their medical conditions
were not resolving.
While the children were followed at a local pediatric clinic, it
does not appear that any alarms were raised about their condition,
although two of the boys had at best, minimal weight gain, and for two
of the children there was a loss of weight. In the fall of 1996, three
of the children were seen by a specialist. The physician indicated that
the children had medical conditions but no instructions were given to
the parents that anything should be done differently.
The Jacksons were given extensive medical and social histories for
all of the children. The parents were present for a medical evaluation
for two of the boys in 1996 and discussed the medical conditions of the
children with the pediatrician. Both boys were adopted on March 14,
1997.
We expect that adoptive parents understand and are prepared to meet
all of the needs of the children they are adopting, including medical
and dental care. When a child is being adopted, the adoptive parents
are told that they are now responsible for meeting all of the child's
needs just as they would be for a child born to them. Because the
family had been very cooperative and involved in the children's medical
appointments prior to adoption, there was no suspicion that they would
not continue to do so after adopting the boys. It is unfortunate that
no referrals were made to the division by the hospital clinic where
they were treated for a number of years when these children stopped
coming for medical care after the adoption finalizations.
Once the adoption is finalized, there is no protocol to monitor
that children receiving adoption subsidy are receiving appropriate
medical treatment. However, this issue is under review as we look to
strengthen our adoption subsidy program.
Question: The purpose of this hearing was to review in detail what went
wrong in this case, and what that means. Let me turn this around. Based
on what we know now, what should have happened?
a. When should your department have acted?
b. Should these boys have been placed with this foster family in
the first place?
c. Should they have been allowed to adopt them?
d. I want to know at what point the system broke down and started
doing things that in retrospect shouldn't have happened. And based on
that, what changes have you made or plan to make so that similar
breakdowns don't happen in the future?
Answer: From all collateral reports, the Jackson family appeared to
be doing very well with their first foster child, and the case record
documents his progress. This is most likely why other children,
seemingly having somewhat similar problems, were placed with them. The
extensive court reports completed at the time of adoption for each of
these boys are extremely positive. The family is portrayed in very
glowing terms, and the medical issues are noted as being successfully
addressed. Because it probably didn't happen all at once, it is
difficult to say from a safety perspective just when DYFS should have
acted.
This case illustrates that, in our efforts to effect a permanent
plan for a child, we often turn to the same individuals and families
who previously answered our call to accept a child who needed a home
and family. While these families are to be applauded, we all must
recognize that the more they extend themselves, the more that they need
the on-going support of family, community, and government.
This case also illustrated weaknesses in our systems and practices.
We have already made a number of changes, such as requiring that
licensing see every member of the household, instituting safety
assessments for children in out-of-home care, and implementing new
Structured Decision Making training in February 2004. We will make
other adjustments as further investigation and review of ``best case
practices'' are conducted.
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of Douglas H. Reiniger, American Academy of Adoption
Attorneys, New York, New York
The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys is a non-profit
association of attorneys, judges, and law professors from around the
country and Canada. It is dedicated to the study and improvement of
adoption laws and practice standards. The members of the Academy
represent adoptive parents, birth parents, adoption agencies and others
involved in adoptions. The Academy supports policies that help make
adoptions more available, less bureaucratic, and more clearly in the
best interests of all concerned, particularly the children. One of the
Academy's primary missions is to support the rights of children to live
in safe, permanent homes with loving families.
My purpose in submitting this statement today is to assure the
Members of this Committee and of Congress that they need not have
second thoughts about the wisdom or the good effects of the Adoption
and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) or other Federal legislation which
encourages the movement of children from foster care into permanent
homes just because of the occurrence of isolated cases like the tragic
one reported in New Jersey recently.
The members of the Academy have seen the paradigm shift that the
Adoption and Safe Families Act has spurred in child welfare departments
and courts across the country. Our members can attest that ASFA has
been a great success. By including adoption as a permanency goal in
child dependency cases and by providing a financial incentive for
increases in the number of adoptions, Congress has successfully focused
state attention on the important role adoption can play in finding
children safe, happy, and permanent homes.
Members of the Academy are directly involved in adoption related
cases every day, in every state, and I can assure you that situations
like the one in New Jersey are aberrations. The facts of the New Jersey
case are still coming out, but it appears clear that it had no
relationship to the incentives or procedures created by ASFA, since the
adoption of the boys involved appears to have occurred before ASFA was
implemented. The overriding requirement of all the Federal government's
statutes and programs which encourage the states not to let children
languish in foster care is that the health and safety of the children
should be the paramount concern.
Federal incentives to adopt are not the cause of tragedies like the
one in New Jersey. We should not ignore the fact that there are poor
prospects for parenthood and child abusers out there, but AFSA has not
failed to address those concerns. The Adoption and Safe Families Act
has requirements for criminal record checks of prospective foster or
adoptive parents, provisions for risk assessment tools, and an
insistence that the best interests of the children must be forefront in
all decisions affecting them. The array of safeguards built into this
effort to help children find permanent, loving homes is formidable.
However, even the best designed programs are implemented by people who
can be fallible and every government program has benefited from
applying the lessons learned from implementing it.
Based on the experience of our members in the child welfare
trenches, the Academy has previously given Congress recommendations for
improving the implementation of various aspects of ASFA, including the
Adoption Incentive Program. But, in response to Chairman Herger's
question about how to prevent another case like the one in New Jersey
from occurring, what I would add to those recommendations is improved
recruitment, training, and supervision of child welfare staff and
oversight, oversight, and more oversight. This hearing is a good
example of letting everyone in the child welfare process know that
Congress cares about how this program works and is watching to insure
compliance with its directives.
Statement of Jeanne M. Beebe, Pueblo, Colorado
I have read about the case in New Jersey where a family adopted
multiple times, receiving subsidies for their adopted children, yet
provided awful living conditions. This is a very sad case, but it is
also an unusual one, in my experience.
I have 3 children, all special needs adoptions with subsidies of
varying amounts. I am involved in local adoption support groups in my
area of Colorado and am well informed regarding adoption issues. I also
meet many other adoptive families. It has been my experience that
adoptive families, some of which are receiving subsidies and some of
which are not, are as a rule providing superior care to their children.
Adoptive families are families by choice, whereas often biological
families are not. Adoptive families are usually more aware of special
needs issues and resources, whereas biological families often are
unable to identify or effectively obtain help when trying to cope with
special needs. I am making generalizations here, but I think it needs
to be recognized that, by and large, families who step forward to adopt
special needs children are usually very special people. Many are also
very grateful to be able to adopt a child, including one with special
needs, because they may not be able to have biological children and yet
may not be able to afford to pay the high fees charged for private
adoptions. And this brings me to the subsidy part.
Children with special needs very often require services that
require funds above and beyond basic medical care. I will use my own
family as an example. My husband and I adopted because we were unable
to have biological children. We also sat on a private adoption waiting
list for an extended period. We were then told by the adoption agency
that they could place a child with us immediately if we were willing to
accept the risk involved with pre-existing psychological damage, as
well as the substantial risk that he might be returned to his birth
family. In short, we would have to be his foster parents with no rights
to him at all, providing all the while the healing and love to repair
the brokeness in his little heart, transporting him to twice weekly
visits to his birth family, having caseworkers come through our home
twice monthly, and knowing that the courts might return him at any time
to the home that had damaged him. We said yes. We endured 2 years of
this legal limbo, all the while coping with his attachment disorder,
before we were able to adopt him. We received a subsidy of $590/month.
Our next 2 children were a severely drug-exposed infant and a
troubled teen. All 3 of these children require a lot of parenting.
Children like these cannot be placed in daycare while both parents
return to work. I was a professional RN Quality Improvement Manager,
but I gave all of it up to provide the care my children require. They
and my husband are the great loves of my life. And there is simply no
way I could have continued not to work and give them everything they
needed if we had not received adoption subsidies. That's just reality.
These are not the kinds of children who can be latch-key kids. The 2
with attachment problems need a parent who is not absent for long
periods. The drug-exposed child, even now at age 3, can't tolerate long
periods of exposure to excess stimulation, as would be present in a
daycare center.
I urge you to consider the larger picture when thinking about and
discussing the issue of adoption subsidies. The children need them. The
adoptive parents who cope with damage birth parents often created need
them in order to provide the healing that the children must have to
become whole. And society needs them, because without this wholeness,
these children will not become productive members of our world.
Statement of Shirley and Robert Bell, Aurora, Colorado
We are a middle class family that live in a nice community with
some of the best schools. My husband and I have worked for most of our
lives. We intend to work up until retirement for our own security. We
are very capable of taking care of ourselves. Adoption subsidies
allowed us to adopt and continue to care for a sibling group of 2
children. It takes care of daycare that otherwise we could not afford.
With clothes, school supplies, activities, food, entertainment,
vacations and time lost from work with sick children, school
conferences, suspensions, doctors, dentist, vision, and therapy
appointments, it would be more than we could afford. Also as the
children get older their needs start to change. Not to mention the
emotional draining aspect of it all. We hope to adopt other children in
the future. The adoption subsidy allows us to consider moving other
children from the system into a healthy, nurturing environment. With
direct parental guidance we can possibly keep them from bringing up
children without the knowledge, skills and education on how to provide
for them. Without adoption subsidy we couldn't consider the possibly of
adoption. This would reduce the amount of children being placed in
healthy loving homes and receiving the attention and care that every
child deserves.
Statement of the Child Welfare League of America
The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) welcomes this
opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of our 1,000 public and
private nonprofit child-serving member agencies nationwide for the
hearing on the ``Recent Failure to Protect Child Safety'' focusing on
the recent tragic case in Camden County, New Jersey. We share with this
Subcommittee a desire to ensure that we can work together to prevent
other children from enduring such horrible abuse.
It has been nearly two weeks since the Nation has learned of some
of the details surrounding the New Jersey family that had adopted six
children. The image of a child--indeed a young man--rummaging through a
trash can to find food is both sad and appalling. It easily causes us
to ask the question how could this happen and, more importantly, to ask
how can we make sure that this never happens again.
Adoption Is an Important Permanency Option
It is important to begin with a reminder that adoption is a very
important permanency option for some children. Although the majority of
children in foster care are able to be safely reunited with their
families (in 2001, 263,000 children exited foster care, and 57%
returned to their birth parents or primary caregivers), adoption is a
very important option for those children who cannot safely return to
their families. Adoption for these children can be their best chance
for safety and security.
Research has shown that adoption produces good outcomes for
children. A study in 1994 on special-needs adoptive families indicated
that most outcomes, in particular, school performance, family
functioning, and parents' reports of the adoption's impact are
distinctly positive.\1\ Another study on postadoption experience
indicated that placements were very stable with approximately 97% of
parents reporting that the adoptive children were still living in the
home at the time of the survey up to two years later. In addition, this
study reported positive outcomes not just for the children but the
parents involved.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``A Longitudinal Study of Special Needs Adoptive Families'' by
James A. Rosenthal and Victor K. Groze, Child Welfare, 1994.
\2\ ``The Postadoption Experience: Child, Parent and Family
Predictors of Family Adjustment to Adoption,'' by Thomas P. McDonald,
Jennifer R. Propp, and Kimberlee C. Murphy, Child Welfare, January-
February 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The numbers of legalized adoptions from foster care have increased
since the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997.
Nationally, adoptions have increased 37% from 37,059 in 1998 to 50,950
in 2002. In the last three years, these national figures have remained
relatively stable.
Existing Federal Supports for Adoptions from Foster Care
Federal policy recognizes the importance of adoption of children
from foster care and supports such adoptions in several ways. The
primary support is the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program. That
program provides subsidies to families who adopt children with special
needs (as defined by the state) from foster care. In FY 2003, federal
funding for that program was $1.6 billion. That federal program had
increased its level of support from serving 34,698 children in 1988 to
195,243 in average monthly claims in 1999.
Since the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997,
the federal government has also provided states with incentive payments
for every child adopted above the previous year's level. On October 8,
2003, by voice vote, the House of Representatives extended an
authorization of $43 million per year for those incentive payments
through 2008. Current funding for these federal payments to states is
$42.7 million.
Since 1981 adoptive families have also been supported with a
federal tax credit. Currently, families who adopt children from foster
care are eligible to receive a federal adoption tax credit of $10,000
per child.
The current federal supports in place to support adoption are
important and should continue, however, more needs to be done. Despite
the strides that have taken place to promote adoptions, the need
continues: The number of children in foster care waiting to be adopted
in 2001 was 126,000. Approximately 59% of these children were living in
nonrelative foster homes. The average age of these children was 8.3
years.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ AFCARS report, Preliminary FY 2001 Estimates March 2003, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for
Children and Families, Children's Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need for foster and adoptive families continues to grow. Many
states are instituting expedited permanency planning systems that seek
to place foster children with resource families who will eventually
become the adoptive parents. Despite this trend, the need for unrelated
adoptive families has not diminished; there continue to be waiting
children. Renewed efforts must be made to recruit and retain well-
qualified foster and adoptive families.
Federal Supports for Other Permanency Options
In addition to adoption, there are a number of other permanency
options that are desirable and good for children. First and foremost is
the option of keeping children safely at home with their families.
Family support and preservation strategies are not always associated
with permanency planning, yet they should be the first consideration in
our efforts to ensure permanency for children. Primary prevention
services can prevent many families from ever reaching the point where a
child is removed from the home. Family support, home visiting, and in-
home services enable many parents to gain competence and confidence in
their parenting while addressing other family concerns. Child care,
housing, and job training/employment are services that enable families
to stay together to the fullest extent possible. These and other
preventive services need to be much more available to families early on
as well as when a crisis occurs. Currently, the federal government
provides only limited support for prevention and family support
services. Too often, these programs must compete with other human
services programs for scarce federal resources.
For children who are away from their families, in family foster
care, or in residential care, the preferred option is that of
reunifying children with their families, whenever that can be done
safely. Forty-three percent (239,552) of children in care on September
30, 2000, had a case plan goal of reunification with their parents or
other principal caregiver whereas 57% (157,712) of the children who
exited care during FY 2000 returned to their parent's or caregiver's
home.\4\ Successful permanency through reunification requires many
things, but at a minimum, skilled workers, readily available support
and treatment resources, clear expectations and service plans, and
excellent collaboration across involved agencies. There also is a
critical need for aftercare or post permanency services to ensure that
safety and permanency are maintained following reunification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The AFCARS Report: Interim FY 2000 estimates as of August 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, guardianship with relatives or, in special circumstances,
with foster parents or another caring adult can be a positive
permanency outcome for children. Kinship care, when properly assessed
and supported, has been shown to provide safe and stable care for
children who remain with or return to their families.\5\ Twenty-five
percent of children in care are living with relatives, and some of the
children will not be able to return to their parents.\6\ States vary in
their use of kinship guardianship, even though federal regulations
state that there is a preference for relative placements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Benedict, M.I., Zuravin, S., & Stallings, R.Y. (1996). Adult
functioning of children who lived in kin versus non-relative family
foster homes. Child Welfare, 75 (5), 529-549; Berrick, J.D., Barth,
R.P., Needell, B. (1994), A comparison of kinship foster homes and
foster family homes. Implications for kinship foster care as family
preservation. Children and Youth Services Review, 16 (1-2), 33-63.
\6\ U.S. Children's Bureau. (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all these efforts, we must resist--on a national level--the
temptation to see any one program or option as the answer for all
children or any one child. If maintaining the child at home or
reunifying the child with parents is not possible, the remaining
options should be pursued on a case-by-case basis, weighing the
strengths and risks of each option for a particular child and family.
CWLA's Observations About New Jersey's Child Welfare System
The CWLA has been engaged in a series of practice improvement
projects with the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services
(DYFS) over the last several years. These activities have ranged from
broad-based planning efforts to highly targeted assessment of direct
case practice.
DYFS has made a consistent and conscientious effort to evaluate the
scope of its programs and to assess the quality of its direct services.
It has developed generally sound plans, has sought both community and
legislative support for implementation, and has initiated many program
improvements.
Despite the ongoing effort, the division has not been fully able to
implement its plans and has continued to struggle in achieving a
consistent standard of practice in all of its field offices. The
practice issues faced by DYFS are similar to those that CWLA sees in
other public child welfare systems that are confronted with resource
shortages, larger than recommended caseloads, and ongoing staff
turnover.
In recent reviews of DYFS case records, CWLA has observed practice
weaknesses that are similar to those seen in other jurisdictions and
are consistent with inadequate investment of caseworker time in
individual cases and lack of internal review and oversight. Concerns
have included such issues as:
Case records may not be well organized, making it
difficult to follow the family, and child, progress over time.
The basis for case decisions frequently is undocumented
or lacking clarity.
The results of investigations of alleged abuse in
placement settings are not documented in a location easily identified
or accessible.
Application of policy may be uneven among the various
district offices.
Case narratives and other documents suggest that
caseworkers make efforts to obtain services needed by a child. However,
the outcomes of the services or utilization patterns are not clearly
documented.
Supervisory oversight of casework activities is not
clearly documented.
Case plans appear to be developed within appropriate time
frames. However, they are sometimes missing from case records.
CWLA's experience in New Jersey has revealed a microcosm of many of
the serious problems that confront child welfare systems throughout the
United States. Inadequate staffing levels coupled with staff turnover,
at both the front line and state office levels, have made it difficult
to implement what might otherwise be sound plans for reform and
improvement. The need to respond to continuing crises has distracted
the agency's staff and has worked against orderly and sustained
implementation of new practices. The system is most in need of a
consistent, long-term commitment to support well-trained, well-
supervised staff who are provided with the tools to implement the
established standards of sound child welfare practice that DYFS has
recognized in its own plans.
Workforce Supports Are a Fundamental Building Block to an Improved
Child Welfare System
We know that the majority of child welfare workers are dedicated
with a commitment to helping children and families. We also know that
child welfare workers do not have the necessary supports and tools to
protect children under their care.
No issue has a greater effect on the capacity of the child welfare
system to effectively serve vulnerable children and families than the
shortage of a competent and stable workforce and the adherence to
national service and caseload standards. As more information on this
particular case in New Jersey is revealed, we are likely to learn that
high caseloads, inadequate supervision and inadequate training
contributed to this tragedy.
Initial information from the New Jersey case indicates that
adoption workers are operating with a caseload that is well beyond what
is considered good practice. The CWLA Standards of Excellence for
Adoption Services (2000) recommend a caseload of 10-12 children per
social worker preparing children for adoption who are older or who have
special needs and supporting the children and families following
placement.
The challenges facing the child welfare workforce are not unique in
New Jersey and are well documented in a March 2003 U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled HHS Could Play a Greater Role
in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff (GAO-03-
357). The report found that the child welfare system is seriously
understaffed, undertrained and undervalued. The GAO report found that
workforce problems limit state's ability to meet the goals established
in the newly mandated federal Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR).
The report found that ``our analysis of the 27 available CFSR's
corroborates caseworkers' experiences showing that staff shortages,
high caseloads and worker turnover were factors impeding progress
toward the achievement of federal safety and permanency outcomes.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies
Recruit and Retain Staff. General Accounting Office, March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GAO report also found:
Workforce issues were cited by one-third of the 27 states
reviewed as a barrier to caseworkers maintaining diligent efforts to
provide services to families in order to protect children in the home
and to prevent removal.
Another one-third of the states reported that workforce
issues meant that caseworkers had difficulty finalizing adoptions with
appropriate and timely efforts.
Twelve states reviewed reported that they had problems
with their caseworkers adequately monitoring safety and well-being
through frequent visits with children, focusing on case planning, the
delivery of services, and reaching goals for the family.
All 27 states reviewed reported problems providing
adequate training and necessary staff development to reach the goals of
safety and permanency set forth in the CFSR.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid.
Recent evidence from the federal CFSRs and the Program Improvement
Plans (PIP) submitted by states to U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) present a clear picture of how workforce issues impact
outcomes for children. The federal government has found through this
process, designed to measure the performance of state child welfare
systems, that states need additional workforce supports to make the
improvements required to meet the needs of children and families. More
than half of the states that have submitted a PIP to HHS have addressed
the need to improve workforce training, reduce caseloads, improve
management, and provide better supervision.
The bottom line is that child welfare work is labor intensive.
Workers must be able to engage families through face-to-face contacts,
assess the safety and well-being of children, monitor progress, assure
that essential services and supports are provided, and assist with
problems that may develop. This cannot be done if workers are unable to
spend quality time with children, families, and caregivers.
State budget decisions have contributed to the reductions in the
child welfare workforce even though caseloads continue to climb. State
cutbacks in workforce, whether direct cuts or hiring freezes, as well
as reductions in training opportunities, undermine states' ability to
guarantee a competent and stable workforce and increases the caseload
burden on the remaining child welfare workforce. CWLA recently
conducted a survey of state budget decisions. The findings of that
survey revealed that:
Virtually every state has developed spending or reduction
plans for their child welfare agencies over the past three years. Forty
states reported formal spending reduction plans and two states reported
informal plans. The average annual percentage cut is approximately 8%,
with a range of 3% to over 20%.
States have made significant reductions in staffing and
services within their own agencies. Nearly half have reduced staff
training, tuition/education reimbursement, and other professional
development/continuing education.
Although New Jersey experienced a $30 million cumulative
increase in the budget for the Office of Children's Services in FY 2003
and 2004, including an exemption of front-line child protection workers
from the state's hiring freeze and a re-focus on protection and
permanency, New Jersey's baseline budget and the cumulative increase
were still insufficient to guarantee an adequate workforce and to
restrict caseloads to CWLA's recommended standards.
Although the issue of supporting a child welfare workforce defies a
simple solution, we do know that providing staff the right supports,
including training and a manageable caseload, will result in better
outcomes for our most vulnerable children. This can only be
accomplished with greater financial investments by both the states and
the federal government.
Comprehensive Reform of Nation's Child Welfare System Is Needed to
Ensure Children Are Protected
CWLA recognizes that the child welfare system, as currently
constructed, cannot protect all children adequately. Failures occur.
They are not limited to any single state. These failures to protect
children will continue to occur until we put into place a comprehensive
child protection system.
This tragic case in New Jersey does bring into focus the need for a
renewed national commitment to support abused and neglected children
and underscores the urgency of that reform. We are overdue in
implementing an improved and strengthened system. True child welfare
reform will hinge on an improved system of shared financing
responsibilities among federal, state, local, and tribal governments.
The national child welfare system continues to be in need of:
A reliable, responsive, and predictable method of
guaranteed funding, for a full range of essential services, as well as
placement and treatment services.
A means of maintaining consistent focus on safety,
permanency, and well-being as outcomes for children.
Rigorous standards combined with strong federal and state
accountability mechanisms.
Recruitment and support of adequately trained child
welfare professionals, foster and adoptive parents, mentors, and
community volunteers.
Resources that enable parents to provide adequate
protection and care for their own children.
Conclusion
This recent case in New Jersey is another reminder that we need to
do better to care for our most vulnerable children. CWLA believes that
important and necessary reforms must be enacted to ensure a consistent
level of safety and care for all of America's children. We look forward
to working with this subcommittee to develop a comprehensive child
welfare reform proposal that meets all the needs of America's most
vulnerable children and families and ensures that every child is
protected.
Statement of Kathleen Dooley Polcha, New York, New York
As a child welfare professional with 32 years of experience I fully
support and encourage the continued focus of ASFA in it's goal of
securing a more timely permanent home for children. In the past
children remained in ``temporary'' situations far too long, some
children were never returned to family members or adopted and they were
discharged from foster care only to become homeless or involved in
criminal behavior.
Children need families who are mature, loving, non-judgmental and
accepting of the child who may have been the victim of physical/
emotional/sexual abuse. These children require services to address
those very issues that resulted in their being removed from their
families, and to accept the loss of their family and the adoption. Pre-
adoptive preparation of both the child and family are vital to a
successful placement and post-adoptive services are vital to the
support of the children and their adoptive families who will experience
problems over the course of time as a very natural expression of the
child's feeling secure in the home and sharing (either verbally or
through acting out) some of the anger/rage/confusion/hurt over their
past in both their birth homes and other foster home placements.
There are many families who adopt children and receive subsidy,
these families do not ``live off the backs'' of the children, rather,
use the financial support to adequately care for those children. As in
all life situations, there are some people who do a very poor job and
misuse the funding, and sadly, abuse the children. Post-adoptive
services are a necessary component to support ALL families and children
adopted though the Nation's foster care system. Adequate funding is
essential.
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
New York, New York, 10005
October 31, 2003
The Honorable Wally Herger
Chair, Human Resources Subcommittee
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Herger:
The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute is submitting the attached
commentary that I wrote on the recent New Jersey abuse case and foster
care adoption (published in the October 30, 2003 edition of the Los
Angeles Times) to help inform the discussion during the Subcommittee on
Human Resources' November 6, 2003 hearing on child safety.
The Adoption Institute is one of the pre-eminent policy, research
and education organizations in its field; because it is independent of
any interest group, the Institute has long been a source of accurate,
unbiased information for policymakers, journalists, researchers and
professionals. Attached please find a fact sheet about the Institute
and its programs. I am the author of ``Adoption Nation: How the
Adoption Revolution is Transforming America'' and have received a
Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute Angel of Adoption award.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit my commentary for the record
and distribution at the hearing. If you have any questions, please feel
free to contact me at [email protected] or at (617) 332-
8944.
Sincerely,
Adam Pertman
Executive Director
__________
Copyright, Los Angeles Times, 2003
COMMENTARY
Adoption Horrors Blur the Real Story
By Adam Pertman
October 30, 2003
Once again, an adoption horror story is in the headlines. And, once
again, we are learning less than we think we are.
This time the spotlight is on New Jersey, where Raymond and Vanessa
Jackson have been criminally charged with starving the four sons they
adopted from the State's foster care system. The boys, now aged 8 to
19, evidently lived on pancake batter, peanut butter and plaster
wallboard; the heaviest of them weighed less than 50 pounds when they
were removed from their home October 10.
Everyone who listens to talk radio, watches TV news or reads the
paper knows these gory details, and also knows a few more things: that
the foster-care system in New Jersey, as in many other States, is badly
in need of repair; that children in the system generally have special
needs; and, as reported in Wednesday's New York Times, that ``some
State officials and child welfare experts'' worry that federal
financial incentives meant to help kids get permanent homes instead may
be ``transforming adoption into an extended form of foster care and a
possible peril to children.''
Based on available research and personal experience, I think all
those observations are accurate--as far as they go. The problem is they
do not go far enough or provide sufficient perspective. Even in the
worst foster-care systems, good things are happening every day; many
children are being reunited with newly healthy biological families, and
a growing number of kids are being adopted by loving parents who treat
them well. Yes, the boys and girls in public care are there because
they suffered from abuse and neglect and they may bear painful physical
or psychological scars as a result, but the unambiguous evidence from a
multitude of studies is that those who are adopted improve and thrive
far more readily than they would have if they had remained in the
system.
Similarly, federal financial incentives intended to increase the
number of adoptions from foster care--which come in the form of annual
payments to the States--evidently have led some child welfare officials
to lower their standards for adoptive parents in order to get the
money. And state subsidies intended to pay for special-needs children's
care have lured some people to adopt in order to get the cash. But
there is no indication that horrors such as the one in New Jersey are
being repeated with any regularity elsewhere, though nearly every state
has received federal incentives and thousands of parents have received
state subsidies.
I am not minimizing the tragedy unfolding in New Jersey or
defending any system that does less than everything humanly possible to
protect the children within it. But we live in a society in which
nearly every program that helps children in need receives insufficient
resources; in which well-intentioned quick fixes like federal
incentives replace (rather than augment) thoughtful, long-term
solutions such as post-adoption services; and in which people like the
Jacksons can fuel our worst stereotypes about adoptive parents, about
the children they raise and about adoption itself.
Alas, we have not learned as much as we think we have. That's
certainly true of the ``State officials and child welfare experts'' who
told the New York Times that adoption itself is at risk of becoming a
``peril for children.'' Such thinking stigmatizes millions of Americans
for whom adoption is a positive, everyday reality. Worse, suggesting
that foster children may be endangered if placed in adoptive homes
undermines their prospects for the future and robs them of one of the
few treasures they have: hope.
Adam Pertman is the Executive Director of the Evan B. Donaldson
Adoption Institute, and is the author of ``Adoption Nation'' (Basic
Books, 2000).
Statement of William Haffner-Jones, Ph.D., Middletown, Rhode Island
BACKGROUND:
I'm a certified teacher, age 56. I've worked with children one-on-
one for 30+ years. I paid for much of my college education working for
the Iowa State Auditor's Office. I ``grew up'' in a domestic relations
court, and my father was a prominent attorney. I served in the military
at USMA, West Point.
In Colorado, I was the ``mark'' in an illegal adoption scheme; my
foster son was ``bait.'' I made more than 20 trips to court to
extricate him from the system--that's how I acquired the information on
these pages. There's much more where that came from, if you are
interested.
FOCUS:
The following changes need to be made in our foster-care system:
1. Adequate fiscal controls, including ``performance audits,''
must be instituted, to ensure that money intended to help the children
is not passed ``under the table'' to keep them in the system.
2. ``Middle men,'' i.e. foster-care agencies, must be eliminated.
They take more than two-thirds of every foster-care dollar, and do
almost nothing to earn it. Worse yet, they insulate child abusers in
the system from investigation and prosecution; and they enable State
and municipal departments of social services to distance themselves
from abuse when it occurs.
3. Confidentiality Laws must be repealed. The federal government
should withhold federal funds from states which do not repeal these
antiquated laws. When these laws were passed, the unfortunate histories
of children in foster care were disturbing and shocking. Their
histories are no longer shocking--they are the stuff of nightly TV
drama. Confidentiality Laws no longer protect children; the only people
being protected today by Confidentiality Laws are child abusers in the
system.
4. The position of Inspector General at D.H.S. must be removed
from the political arena. The recent spectacle involving the Rehnquists
only gave a free hand to those who would abuse the system and its
children.
__________
Re: CHILD ABUSE IN FOSTER CARE
Why do grotesque cases of child abuse occur within this nation's
foster-care system?
Read how it happens:
Foster care money is approximately 55% federal and 45% state. The
average combined expenditure per foster child, per month, is roughly
$3,000. But normal foster parents receive only about one-sixth of this;
if medical expenses, therapy, and other special needs of the child are
added in, then another 10 to 15 percent of the total amount benefits
the child in one way or another. The remainder, roughly $2,000 per
month for each foster child, goes to a private agency (read ``middle-
man'') for supposedly overseeing the foster parents.
This money is tax free! And all that some of these agencies do to
earn that $2,000 per child, per month, is place a few pieces of paper
in a file folder. None of these agencies come anywhere close to
providing services that are worth the money being paid.
Federal rules allow that any foster home with four or more children
(this includes ``natural born'' children) can qualify as an ``agency,''
and receive the larger amount (c. $3,000 per month for each foster
child) instead of the lesser amount (c. $500 per month) normal foster
parents receive.
What happens to all this money? Nobody knows, because ``performance
audits'' or ``compliance audits,'' designed to ensure that tax dollars
are spent for what is intended, are never conducted--not by the U.S.
Department of Human Services, not by the General Accounting Office, not
by the state auditors, nor by state social services. If audits are done
at all, they do nothing but confirm arithmetic on a bunch of financial
statements. They are meaningless in terms of ensuring quality care for
the children.
So what happens to the money? As a former state auditor, I can tell
you that a share of it goes ``under the table,'' in cash, to
caseworkers, supervisors, therapists, and even judges, to look the
other way when abuse occurs within the system. This is a systemic
problem which needlessly imprisons thousands of children in our foster-
care system.
How do these people get away with it, time after time, year after
year? Why did it take two weeks for the current scandal to hit the
media, even after it was uncovered? Here is the sad truth: The actions
of people in the system are hidden by Confidentiality Laws--laws which
are supposed to protect the children, but which, in fact, protect no
one but child abusers in the system. At best these laws are antiquated;
at worst, it is doubtful they should have ever been passed. Easy money,
combined with protection from prosecution, actually attracts criminals
into our foster-care system.
An old saying goes, ``The measure of a society is how it treats its
weakest members.'' There is no one weaker in any society than its
homeless children. We don't seem to be ``measuring up'' right now!
Statement of Joyce Hanson, Littleton, Colorado
I appreciate the opportunity to communicate with you via e-mail. As
an adoptive parent, I am truly horrified and deeply hurt over the
incidence of brutal child abuse uncovered this past week in New Jersey.
Sadly enough, even with the greatest efforts to ensure the safety of
our children, this type of incidence will occasionally come to be. The
sad truth is that these incidents happen in both adoptive and
biological families as well.
As an adoptive parent, I can speak for my husband and myself in
stating that in adopting our daughter Jessica, we did so out of wanting
to give her the best life and the best chance of a great life that she
could have.
We personally adopted Jessica while we were living in South Africa
for several years. When we returned to the United States, we obviously
brought Jessica (and our son) back with us. We therefore receive no
subsidy (nor are we presently qualified according to the law). I would
like to speak, though, through our own experiences with Jessica's
special needs getting her the adequate help is so very vital! She
presently is in private therapy and gets help in her school because of
an IEP. If we were receiving subsidy for her, I can honestly say that
we would need it very much in order to ensure Jessica a better life.
Our daughter has attachment disorder because of being abandoned during
the first year of life, has bi-polar disorder as well as fetal alcohol
effect (she operates with an IQ of 73). Trying to ``make it'' as a 13-
year-old girl is so difficult for her because of the mistakes of her
birth mother, as well as fighting a mental illness.
Jessica is one of many who are like her. I ask that any efforts to
``cut back'' on subsidy to adoptive families not be continued. On
behalf of our children, they desperately need all of the avenues
available to them.
Thank you for reading this letter. . . . I pray that such an
incident will be extremely isolated so that those of us who are
seriously and lovingly trying to do the best for our children can
continue to do so.
Statement of J. Michael Smith, Home School Legal Defense Association,
Purcellville, Virginia
I am the President of the Home School Legal Defense Association
(HSLDA), a homeschool advocacy organization with over 80,000 member
families. For over 20 years, HSLDA has represented homeschooling
families in the courts and in the legislatures. At times, these matters
have included the allegation that homeschooling families are committing
abuse. Fortunately, these matters are very rarely substantiated. I
commend the Committee for undertaking this hearing. However, I do take
issue with the testimony of one of the witnesses and its implications.
In her written testimony, Carla Katz, the President of the
Communications Workers of America, the union representing social
workers in New Jersey, stated that ``Home schooling creates gaps.
Nearly 20% of all abuse cases are reported by schools. When children
are outside the school system, extra protections are critical. There
are no homeschooling regulations that would require home-schooled
children to see anyone from the public education system. There is no
cross-referencing with the Department of Education to look for children
who are in the `system' but have not been seen by anyone.''
Katz's testimony comes on the heal of a two-part CBS News story
called ``The Dark Side of Home Schooling'' and ``Home School
Nightmares,'' and was recently echoed in a similar New York Times
editorial calling for additional regulation of homeschools (November
15, 2003). I submit that these calls for additional involvement of
homeschooling families with the public schools are in error.
The mistaken idea behind these calls for new regulation is the
notion that it is the role of the public school to detect child abuse.
While this undoubtedly occurs, and I am thankful it does, the truth is
that the detection of child abuse is not the purpose of public
education as declared by the courts. The purpose of public education is
to promote literacy and self-sufficiency. Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S.
205 (1972). It is for this reason that it has been held that a state
may not require all students to participate in the public school
system. Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (children are
not ``mere creatures of the state''). It continues to be the
presumption in America that parents act in the best interests of
children, even if there is the inherent risk that a very small
percentage may abuse children. Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).
The situation in New Jersey, at least as it would seem at this
early stage, is a tragedy. But to suggest that the reason why these
four allegedly abused boys were not identified by authorities is
because they were being homeschooled would also be a tragedy, as
nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, this family was
visited at least 38 times by government social workers, and as most
recently as June. Nine employees of New Jersey Department of Youth and
Family Services were fired for missing what should have been obvious.
This case is not about homeschooling. If anything, it is about the
failure of child protective services.
Unfortunately, statements like that made by President Katz plant a
seed in the public's mind that there is a link between home education
and child abuse. Consequently, some people might actually believe it
and use the anonymous tip procedures available to report homeschool
families for abuse and neglect without any factual basis for doing so.
Child Protective Services are obligated to follow-up these reports and
homeschool families will face unwarranted harassment. This already
happens all too frequently to families all across America. More
importantly, real abuse will be missed because the system may be
clogged with false reports.
Homeschooling meets the educational needs of 2 million children and
is the safest environment to teach children to become mature productive
adults. It deserves fairer treatment.
Statement of Bette Hoxie, Old Town, Maine
I am writing to inform you of how saddened I was to learn of the
horrible tragedy that occurred in an adoptive home in NJ. I want to
share that I have adopted 8 children from the State of Maine and have
fostered over 150. I maintain contact with over 30 former foster
children and 4 of the children I fostered were never adopted but
consider my home as theirs. I have 5 children still at home. Four are
my adopted children and I am raising my grandson who is the child of
one of my adult adopted children. All of my children have significant
special needs. None of them were adopted because I got a subsidy but
the subsidy allowed me to provide for them in a way that would not
otherwise have been possible. All of my birth and adopted children
continue to be on my holiday gift list and get birthday, new baby
gifts, etc. At no time do I think of them as other than my children.
The adopted children's babies are my grandchildren just as are those of
my birth children. There are no subsidies for that kind of extended
family observances. Subsidies stop when the child reaches maturity.
Parenting goes on for a lifetime. Please keep this in mind as you
advocate for continuation of adoption subsidies and post adoption
services.
Statement of Jamie and Lisa Kanos, New Port Richey, Florida
We wanted to share that our family is in the process of adopting a
2-year-old little girl who has Down Syndrome. We are adopting her
through the State of Florida, where she has been in foster care since
birth. We are a middle class family including a self-employed husband,
stay-at-home mom, and three kids under the age of 7. It is our desire
to give a home to several more hard-to-place children over time. We
live very modestly and are homeschooling our children. Our financial
situation is adequate and stable, but not affluent. Without subsidies,
we may not be able to help more of Florida's special needs children
find a forever family. We are equipped emotionally to provide a home to
some special kids; subsidies make it possible. It's pretty unrealistic
to think that the families who are willing to take on special needs
children can also afford to pay for the extra expenses related to their
care. We think that if there were no subsidies, there would be a lot of
people who would love to help a child, but can't afford to. Please
consider this while making your decision regarding the necessity of
adoption subsidies. Thank you.
Statement of Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez, Augusta, Georgia
Situations similar to the recent case in New Jersey happen because
families are investigated and persecuted for such things as
breastfeeding an infant or for eating donuts for breakfast. Legitimate
cases will continue to slip through the cracks as long as families are
forced to deal with Mickey Mouse allegations that do not meet the
statutory definition of child abuse. The problem is not a lack of
resources, but a lack of judgment and common sense. If this nonsense is
not stopped, children will continue to be harmed, and child abusers
will continue to escape punishment.
Statement of Jodee Kulp, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota
In 1987 we adopted a toddler with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
(FASD). The brain damage this child was born with will never go away
and she will need a continuum of care throughout her life. She was our
foster child for 10 months before we adopted and we knew we were
committed and loved her unconditionally. Her mother was deceased, she
was a ward of the state. The adoption subsidy our family received has
been used to provide her the best opportunities to a successful and
productive adulthood. In many cases therapies these children need are
not available with insurances so we have used these extra finances to
provide nutritional supplements, neurotherapy, vision therapy and
neurodevelopment therapy. I left a professional position to provide
support and care, we spent five years homeschooling, providing one-to-
one teaching. The investment in this child by our family with the help
of adoptive subsidy paid for by the citizens of the United States has
paid off and we thank each of you. Our daughter qualifies for
developmental disability and yet with hard work and belief in herself
passed our Minnesota Standards exams in writing, reading and math. She
is a public high school senior and will graduate this year. She has one
mainstream class ``Economics'' and is getting a B- with limited
supports, she is on the B honor roll with her transitional classes. We
believe in her ``abilities'' and she advocates as an author and speaker
for others with FASD as she struggles with her own issues. She will
enter her 18th year as a proud American citizen ready to cast her
votes. Thank you USA for your support of our family.
Twin Bridges, Montana 59754
February 5, 2003
Dear Committee Members,
My name is Christine Lambert. I live in Twin Bridges, Montana with
my husband Glenn Brackett. We are the foster/adoptive parents of 4
sibling children, 3 girls and a boy. I would like to tell you about our
family and how the state of Montana and the U.S. Government has helped
to make our children a success story.
In 1994, my husband and I became foster parents to a sibling group
of children from our area. They were ages 3-9 years. We adopted them in
1997.
We receive a monthly subsidy and Medicaid for their medical needs
with our adoption. We could never have adopted without these two
subsidies. We are an example of why, and how successful, these monetary
payments are to adoptive and foster parents. It has made it possible
for ordinary people, of limited income, to adopt children in desperate
need. This was the original intent of the subsidies, and it works.
All of our adopted children had been abused and neglected when they
arrived on our doorstep. Our goal was to stop the pervasive loss in
their lives and to stop the generations of abuse and neglect. To that
end, we are seeing some success. Medicaid benefits pay for the therapy
for all our children, two of which are diagnosed with mental illness.
One hospital stay 2 years ago saved one daughter's life. Upon hitting
puberty, she slipped into mental illness and was bent on destroying
herself. She spent a year out of the home in various facilities, all
paid for by Medicaid. This daughter is now doing remarkably well
because of this help. She is home, back in regular school, and leading
a full exciting life. She is in the PATH program in Helena, Montana
that is paid for, in part, by Medicaid. Because of risky behavior
exhibited by our son, he, too, will enter this program in a few weeks.
Our youngest daughter, who has been violent since she began living with
us, is finally learning to deal with her rage and the outlook for her
recovery, while guarded, at least is now hopeful. We could not afford
to treat one of our children's emotional and mental illnesses on our
own, let alone 3 out of the four, and wonder what would have happened
if we were without Medicaid's mental health benefits.
Our oldest daughter, being in the birth home the longest
experienced the most abuse. She struggled for many years with anger and
resentment. For the first five years she was with us, whenever we would
hug her, she would stiffen her arms at her side and dig her chin into
our shoulders. She had no real friends and lived miserably in the small
world of her siblings. Even with our best efforts, she really never had
a childhood. But, we insisted she continue therapy, all paid for by
Medicaid. About 3 years ago, she made a breakthrough and began to
embrace us. Her life changed completely. She allowed herself to love us
and to be loved in return. Soon, friends began to call, she was on the
honor roll, and she began to have a healthy teen life. Therapy stopped.
In January 2001, she applied for the highly competitive Congress-
Budenstag Scholarship to study abroad her senior year. She is only one
of four Montana students, 300 nationwide, awarded this congressional
scholarship in 2001. She studied in Germany as a youth ambassador of
the U.S. Government, met and charmed Chancellor Schrader, and learned
to speak German fluently. She is now attending college in Kansas and
doing well. We are so very proud of her and you should be, too. This is
exactly why these subsidies are in place, to make a difference in a
child's life.
When cuts are made in any funding, as they are in Montana, we
personally feel it. We have to make decisions on what we can afford,
not what the children really needed. In the case of mental health this
could mean life or death.
We have seen the positive results of your funding adoptions and ask
you not to cut any of these programs. Our story is a shining example
that adoption subsidies and Medicaid is changing the lives of abused
and neglected children.
Sincerely,
Christine Lambert
National Council For Adoption
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
November 6, 2003
Dear Chairman Herger and members of the Subcommittee:
The National Council For Adoption submits this written statement on
the subject of your November 6, 2003 hearing examining the ``recent
failure to protect child safety'' in the highly publicized and horrific
case of the Jackson family in New Jersey.
According to the Census Bureau report, Adopted Children and
Stepchildren: 2000, in the census year there were 2.1 million adopted
children living with their parents in 1.7 million households, 1.6
million of those children under the age of 18. Sadly, there are abusive
adoptive families, just as there are abusive biological families. It is
statistically predictable that in a population of 1.7 million
households there would be some examples of horrendous abuse.
According to reports, the Jackson children in New Jersey were
subjected to inexcusable and hideous treatment. One case of the cruelty
these children suffered is one too many. If proven guilty, the Jacksons
and the officials who oversaw their adoptions should be punished
severely. Unfortunately, child abuse and neglect is a tragic fact of
life in some families, whether adoptive or biological.
However, the National Council For Adoption cautions against leaping
to dramatic new conclusions about adoption, or adoption policy, based
on this aberrant case. Adoption is an extraordinarily successful social
institution in promoting child welfare. It is indisputable that
children adopted out of foster care fare better than those who languish
there. Adopted children score higher than foster children on measures
of family adjustment, emotional and developmental functioning, and
self-esteem. They are more likely to attend college and less likely to
abuse drugs. Adoption into their own family gives children security,
well-being, and love that foster care cannot.
One of the chief reasons adoption has been so successful in meeting
the needs of children is that law and society have respected adoptive
parents as the real parents and treated them essentially the same as
biological parents. NCFA cautions against policies that impose
requirements on adoptive parents that are not expected of biological
parents, such as requiring adoptive parents to provide medical
information and submit their child to post-adoption medical
examinations. Adoptive parents are as attentive to their children's
needs as biological parents. Congress should be very reticent to enact
a policy that treats them differently. Treating them differently
creates a second-class status for adoptive parenting, which would
violate the best interests of the child.
The time to examine adoptive parents' suitability as parents is
prior to adoption. There are policies that Congress can promote to
facilitate the recruitment and preparation of suitable adoptive
parents: (1) flexible funding that allows states to apply their IV-E
dollars to adoptive parent recruitment and preparation programs and to
improved training and oversight of case workers; (2) full funding of
the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program; and (3) promotion of
the Children's Bureau's efforts to develop a national network of
adoption advocacy programs to recruit parents from faith-based
communities.
Some in the media have used the Jackson case to call into question
the highly successful Adoption Incentives program just reauthorized by
Congress in the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003. If ever there was a
federal program worthy of reauthorization it is this program, which was
instrumental in increasing the number of children adopted out of foster
care from 31,000 in 1997, to 51,000 in 2002. Thanks in major part to
these incentives, an additional 90,000 children have been adopted out
of foster care than would otherwise have been. They are now enjoying
the benefits of loving, permanent families. We daresay that these
children do not object to the Adoption Incentives program.
The National Council For Adoption (NCFA) is a research, education,
and advocacy nonprofit whose mission is to promote the well-being of
children, birthparents, and adoptive families, by advocating for the
positive option of adoption. Since its founding in 1980, NCFA has been
a leader in promoting child welfare and adoption policies that promote
adoptions of children out of foster care, present adoption as a
positive option for women with unplanned pregnancies, reduce obstacles
to transracial adoption, make adoption more affordable through the
adoption tax credit, and facilitate intercountry adoptions.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas C. Atwood
President
Statement of Steven D. Cohen, New Jersey Child Welfare Panel, Trenton,
New Jersey
My name is Steven D. Cohen, and I am submitting this testimony on
behalf of the New Jersey Child Welfare Panel, which I chair. As you
know, the Panel is an independent body created by the settlement of
class-action litigation against New Jersey's child welfare system. That
settlement was reached this past June, and the Panel began its work in
July. The panel has five members, who collectively bring to it many
decades of experience in working with troubled child welfare systems
and providing services to children and families. The other four members
are Kathleen Feely, Managing Director of the Casey Strategic Consulting
Group at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, MD; Robert L.
Johnson, M.D., Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics
at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark,
NJ; Judith Meltzer, Deputy Director of the Center for the Study of
Social Policy in Washington, D.C.; and Beatriz Otero, Executive
Director of the Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center in
Washington, D.C.
I would like to begin my testimony by describing the function
assigned to the Panel by the settlement agreement. We have two primary
tasks. The first of these is to provide technical assistance to New
Jersey's child welfare leadership--to make available to them the
knowledge gained through many years of work in states across the
country, and to connect them with experts who can provide concrete
assistance with the reform effort. Our second role involves oversight
and monitoring--and, most critically, the responsibility to make
judgments about the adequacy of New Jersey's progress towards critical
improvement goals. In carrying out these functions, the Panel is
responsible to the Federal District Court which authorized the
settlement agreement.
Let me explain our oversight responsibilities in greater detail.
The lawsuit settlement recognized that, while some actions could be
taken immediately to address critical deficiencies in New Jersey's
child welfare system, many more would require a far longer time
horizon. Changing troubled child welfare systems is a long-term
proposition, and all too often we have seen efforts at quick fixes
produce only greater cynicism and a sense of defeat as fundamental
problems continue. The settlement therefore required New Jersey to
develop a comprehensive reform plan, due in January 2004. That plan
must address the underlying principles and the specific requirements
set out in that agreement. The panel is then charged with the
responsibility of approving or disapproving the plan. If it approves,
the Panel will also set legally enforceable standards and timeframes
for implementation. New Jersey's leaders will be responsible for
implementing the plan, and the Panel will issue public reports every
six months on the State's progress and on any further actions it
believes necessary. If the Panel disapproves the plan, the parties
return to court and go directly to the remedy phase of the lawsuit, and
the judge will order the relief he believes necessary.
I said earlier that there were some actions that could begin
immediately, without waiting for the larger plan. The most important of
these, as most of America knows by now, was an immediate review of the
safety of some 12,000 children in out-of-home care. (Some of these
reviews were completed even before the Panel was formed. Because some
children left care and others entered during the four-month review
period, the actual number of reviews conducted was closer to 14,000.)
The failure of at least one of these reviews to identify appalling
problems that should have been apparent has shocked the nation. Most
immediately, it has led to plans, recently approved by the Panel, to
re-do approximately 5,000 reviews, and to have this work done by social
workers who do not work for State government.
This subcommittee has taken up the question of what changes in
public policy and financing would best prevent a terrible case like
this from happening again. In framing the Panel's response to that
question, let me begin with two reminders.
First, New Jersey is not unique. Tragic lapses in the functioning
of child welfare systems have occurred in states and counties across
the country. Child welfare and child protection are immensely difficult
public functions and they are in need of strengthening throughout the
United States.
Second, it did not take this horror to demonstrate that New
Jersey's child welfare system has been for a significant period of time
very badly broken. That issue was already clear from the Federal
lawsuit, and Governor McGreevey acknowledged it in public on the day he
announced the lawsuit settlement. The question that has been before the
Panel for the last four months--what must New Jersey do to re-make this
system so it keeps children safe and produces better outcomes for kids
and families?--is the same question that we face today. The answers the
Panel would give to that question are the same today as they were when
we began our work.
Let me mention some of the major elements of those answers, without
attempting to be comprehensive. We know that the work to be done in New
Jersey must include the development of, at least, the following
resources and standards:
practice standards that identify what workers and
supervisors must do to investigate allegations of child abuse and
neglect, better assess the needs of children and families, and assist
children and families in getting the help they need;
enough additional staff to substantially lower caseloads,
so workers can devote enough time to each child and family to make a
difference;
far more extensive training, which concentrates on
building the skills workers need to do their jobs rather than the forms
they have to fill out;
the recruitment of hundreds and perhaps thousands of
additional dedicated foster and adoptive parents, drawn primarily from
the communities from which most children come into foster care, so
those children can remain near home and continue to attend the same
school, and so the State can make placement decisions based on a
child's need rather than a desperate search to find any available bed;
much stronger supports for foster and adoptive parents,
along with quality post-adoption services;
enough additional financial resources to create far more
services that work with families before they reach the breaking point,
so more children can remain at home safely, without the trauma of
removal from parents, and at far less cost than that of foster care;
enough additional financial resources to develop far more
treatment services for children in foster care and their families,
particularly in mental health and substance abuse;
far greater involvement of community partners, including
neighborhood-based organizations, service providers, and faith
communities, because no child welfare system can accomplish its goals
on its own; and
a vastly improved management information system that will
allow supervisors and managers to track cases, intervene when there are
problems, and track progress against the goals of the reform effort.
Critical as they are, none of these actions will guarantee that a
horror like that of the children in Collingswood will never happen
again. I am confident, however, that they will make it far less
likely--and I am confident that, without this long-term and
comprehensive system reform, no other action, however well-intentioned,
will have lasting benefits.
Because of these beliefs, I will end my testimony by turning to
issues on which I believe that this Subcommittee can make a real
difference. Child welfare work is inherently very difficult. We ask
ordinary men and women, working under conditions of great uncertainty,
to make decisions with life-and-death consequences. This is something
that no action by this subcommittee or any other government entity can
change; it is an integral part of the work.
The Subcommittee, can, however, play an important role in solving
two other critical problems. First, we must address the unacceptable
conditions under which most of America's child welfare workers do their
jobs. Across the country, these workers are far too often poorly
trained; far too often poorly supervised and supported as they make
critical decisions; usually asked to manage caseloads that are far too
large for even an expert and highly-organized worker to handle;
generally paid too little to attract and retain a high-quality
workforce; and all too rarely provided with access to the resources
they need to meet the needs of the children and families they are asked
to help. In New Jersey, the Federal court settlement will make it
possible to begin to remedy these fundamental problems. The Congress
has an urgent obligation to ensure that they are addressed nationwide.
Second, we must address the quite understandable demoralization of
the child welfare workforce and of many thousands of dedicated foster
and adoptive parents. Child welfare professionals go into unknown
situations in the middle of the night to investigate allegations of
child abuse and neglect, and labor to reunify children safely with
their families or to find them loving adoptive homes. Foster and
adoptive parents perform the difficult and essential service of raising
other people's children--even kids with serious handicaps and very
challenging behavior. Both groups deserve the public's respect and
support, not the easy condemnation and guilt by association that's all
too common when there is a tragedy in foster care. But for too many of
these individuals, the dreadful story that led to today's hearing is
just the latest installment in a long history of having their
contributions ignored by the public most of the time, and being held up
to scorn and ridicule when something terrible happens and child welfare
makes another brief appearance at the top of the evening news.
Without enough good workers and enough good foster and adoptive
parents, you can't have a good child welfare system. It's that simple.
I urge this Committee to re-dedicate itself to the task of ensuring
that Federal policy adequately funds the State-level activities that
recruit, support, and train these individuals, and that Federal
oversight appropriately monitors State activities in these critical
areas. Thank you.
Statement of Anna Marie O'Loughlin, Bloomingdale, New Jersey
It has been very upsetting for me to read articles like the New
York Times 10/30/02 ``Cash Incentives for Adoptions Seen as Risk to
Some Children'' lately where the state is questioned about giving
adoption subsidies.
My husband and I adopted four children through the Division of
Youth and Family Services since 1991 and they all came with Medicaid
and subsidies. All of our children are considered special needs. I
would like to share some stories with you about our first child, and
then you tell me that subsidies are not important.
My first child was adopted in 1991. He was 2\1/2\ when he came to
live with us. He was born failure to thrive with multiple handicaps.
The largest one being born with drug and alcohol withdrawals. When he
was evaluated at the Hackensack Medical Center, the Neurologist stated
that he has Chronic Brain Damage.
My husband and I both worked and so the first three years we used
his subsidy money toward the expense of a good day care that could meet
the needs of a child who had learning disabilities. We had to hold him
back from school an extra year because he was not ready to start at the
age of five.
He had to have eye surgery before he started first grade so that he
was not made fun of his entire life because in order for him to stop
his eyes from shaking and focus, he had to tilt his head to his
shoulder. The subsidies and Medicaid helped my son to look like other
children. It is cute looking at a toddler tilting his head when he
looks at you, but not so cute when he is school aged. He would have
been tormented. Even with the surgery he will never have 20/20 vision
and glasses will only correct 15% of his damaged vision. The first six
years he had to have regular visits to an eye specialist. The doctors
said that they don't know the long-term effects for him, as their
prediction was that he would get worse and might possibly not be able
to drive at some point in his life.
Three years ago he contracted perpetual hives. He spent over a year
with hives some days from head to toe before he was diagnosed correctly
by the fourth doctor we took him to. There were days the school wanted
to send him home because it was painful for them to look at him, not
because he couldn't function. Thanks to a good allergist, it is under
control.
Our son is ADHD with learning disabilities and will never be able
to be age appropriate in his school work. He has very low self esteem
in school and always says that he is in the retard classes. He has
however been blessed with the ability to play sports well and become a
good skier. He is mandated to have regular physicals to play in school
and town sports. He must have blood work done to be sure his ADHD
medication is working for him. He has had stages of counseling through
the years to help with some of the issues that have come up. He has
gotten himself in trouble because of some bad choices that he made
because of his impulsivity due to his ADHD. A lawyer is very expensive
in court.
So if we choose to use his subsidy one month toward paying for a
season's pass to ski or to be on the town football team because that is
where he gets his self esteem I want to see anyone argue that it wasn't
used for a good cause. His subsidies go toward many things including
the co-pay for a good family doctor that doesn't take Medicaid as well
as his monthly medications.
My son has to live every day knowing that he has handicaps that
most people will not accept because they cannot see them. Subsidies are
important to families with children who have special needs. It gives
them an additional support to do everything possible to make their
child a success despite their physical and emotional handicaps.
Statement of the Honorable Bill Frenzel, Pew Commission on Children in
Foster Care
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Frenzel,
Chairman of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. I commend
you for calling this hearing. The tragic situation in New Jersey is
illustrative of problems facing child welfare systems across the
country. For this reason, I urge the Subcommittee, and Congress as a
whole, to look beyond New Jersey for national approaches to improving
outcomes for children who have experienced abuse and neglect.
Americans were sickened by the recent news from New Jersey that
four boys adopted from foster care were discovered apparently starving
in their parents' home. Subsequent reports that the parents were
receiving publicly-funded adoption subsidies led some to question
whether unfit adults were adopting children to collect public dollars--
and whether states were recklessly promoting adoptions from foster care
to earn a federal adoption bonus.
Every year, thousands of families adopt children from foster care
and provide them with a loving, permanent home. Clearly, something went
horribly wrong in the New Jersey case. But we won't fix the problem by
playing the blame game or limiting our questions to adoption policies.
The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care shares Congress'
desire to protect children from abuse and neglect, and place them with
safe, permanent families. To do so, we as a nation need to address the
overlooked policy question from the New Jersey tragedy: how to ensure
that child welfare systems--the public agencies and courts charged with
protecting abused and neglected children--have the necessary tools to
meet the nation's goals of safety, permanency, and well-being for these
children.
The Pew Commission is asking just that question. This blue-ribbon
panel is crafting recommendations to improve federal financing of
foster care, adoption, and other child welfare services, and to improve
court oversight of children in state custody.
Today, decisions by state agencies and judges are heavily
influenced by which services the federal government will pay for--and
which ones it won't pay for. Federal dollars flow easily to pay for
foster care for poor children. But they are much less available for
services to help families stay safely together, reunify safely after a
period in foster care, or establish safe, nurturing adoptive homes. As
a result, the average foster child spends three years in foster care,
in three different foster homes. Many have longer stays and even more
placements. While foster care is necessary to protect some children
from serious harm, lengthy stays in multiple foster care placements is
a cruel form of protection that has lasting negative effects on
children.
The damage to children stemming from these perverse financial
incentives is compounded by challenges facing the courts. Judges decide
whether to place or keep children in foster care, send them home, or
terminate parental rights so that a child is available for adoption.
Yet crowded dockets and limited court resources often allow judges only
fleeting inquiries into children's needs and circumstances before they
must render a decision. Additionally, most courts lack the management
tools to analyze and address sources of delay in their caseloads or
track special needs among the children they oversee. The results are
continuances and postponements that may needlessly prolong a child's
stay in foster care.
Caseworkers, judges, administrators, and advocates have told the
Commission that the combination of greater flexibility and greater
accountability would strengthen the ability of child welfare agencies
and courts to serve children better. Expanding state options for using
federal funding would enable courts and agencies to provide children
and families with supports and services tailored to their specific
needs. For some children in foster care, adoption will be the route to
a loving, permanent family. For others, it will be reunification with
their birth families or a permanent home with a legal guardian.
Accountability helps ensure that states use their flexibility well.
Public agencies and courts should have clear, measurable goals for
which they should be held accountable, so that taxpayers can assess how
effectively public officials are protecting the children in their care.
As this Subcommittee knows, there are any number of ways to achieve
greater flexibility and accountability. The Pew Commission is
consulting widely, listening carefully, deliberating thoughtfully. We
are particularly grateful for the input we have received from members
of this Subcommittee and other members of Congress. We are also
fortunate that child welfare legislation has a history of bipartisan
support in Congress, and we are determined to give Congress a set of
recommendations that continue that tradition.
Let me close by sharing some advice we received two months ago from
an extraordinary young man who was adopted from foster care.
Luis is 19 years old. He had been neglected by his birth mother,
abused by her boyfriend, then ignored by the state that placed him in
foster care. Thankfully, a loving family adopted him as a teenager.
Luis got right to the point. ``Everybody deserves a family,'' he
told us. ``You have a right to be happy. You have a right not to be
hit. You have a right to nourishment. You have a right to love and to
be loved.''
A parent's love can't be bought with money or ordered by a court.
Even a perfect child protective system cannot be guaranteed to be
foolproof. But with a better financing structure, stronger court
practices, and greater accountability all around, our child welfare
system can do a better job of getting children the loving families they
deserve. On behalf of the Pew Commission, I look forward to working
with the Subcommittee, and Congress as a whole, to reach this goal.
Statement of Cheryl B. Sokoloski, LaPorte, Colorado
I understand that you will hold a hearing tomorrow, November 6,
about the tragic New Jersey child abuse case. All of us who have
adopted special-needs children from the nation's foster care system
shudder when these cases arise, both because of the children's
suffering and because of the bad light they cast on foster and adoptive
families.
In recent years, a couple of very positive developments have
occurred in the child welfare system, relative to adoptions out of that
system. First is Expedited Permanency Planning, which helps to keep
children out of foster care ``drift'' by mandating that young children
be placed in permanent homes quickly. The second is the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families program, which seeks to strengthen families so that
their children aren't removed and also provides services for families
who adopt these emotionally damaged children when efforts with the
birth families are exhausted. I sincerely hope that both of these
positive directions will be maintained and will not be derailed because
of the New Jersey case.
Both of the above programs require a financial investment from the
nation, but this is much less costly than treating adult problems
later: crime, drug use, welfare.
There is another investment that has also been called into
question: the use of subsidies for adoptions from the foster care
system. Unfortunately, most of the public is unaware of the extra costs
associated with raising special-needs children, whether these are
medical costs, costs of extra help with learning, or regular therapy.
In our case, we actually turned down a subsidy offered when we adopted
an 8-year-old boy who had been severely abused and neglected. Later,
after spending thousands of dollars on much-needed therapy, we were
sorry we made that decision.
The recent New York Times article called for post-adoption
evaluation of families, and I think this is a good idea, provided it
can be done legally once an adoption is finalized.
This nation does not question the value of birth families, even
though some birth parents are woefully inadequate, even abusive (of
course, that's why these children need foster and adoptive parents to
begin with!). Most of the foster and special-needs adoptive parents I
know are truly extraordinary people, raising children with difficult
behaviors who present challenge after challenge to their parents. They
have remarkable patience and a huge reserve of unconditional love.
Please consider this majority group when you discuss the tragic
case in New Jersey, and don't penalize a system that has shown good
improvement of late.
Statement of Kay Upton, Hodgenville, Kentucky
We are adoptive parents of 13 years. Two of our adopted children
have Sacral Agenisis, affecting their central nervous system. One of
those two children also has severe depression, attention deficit,
compulsive disorder, and shows signs of fetal alcohol affect. He has
never been able to handle public school and has been homeschooled for
10 years (age 16). The sister to this son, has severe depression. The
third child we have, was born without a thyroid. This causes her to
have severe mood swings. She has in the past tried to harm the other
children. We placed these children on our medical insurance which
became primary insurance and used most of it on the children. My
husband was a factory worker for 27 years and just recently lost his
job due to the factory closing. He never made over $31,000 per year. We
took in these children for better or worse and love them very much. The
subsidy we get on them has been God sent. Please think about what you
are doing when you meet to discuss adoption subsidy. Every time a child
is abused, the public cries out and wants revenge. That revenge will
ultimately filter down and hurt children. I want to know where these
people are when children need homes? Are they adopting? If so let them
speak out, if not let them get involved so that they will know what
they are crying out about!