[Senate Hearing 118-613]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-613
FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE COURTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 30, 2023
__________
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
__________
Serial No. J-118-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-958 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota Ranking Member
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey TED CRUZ, Texas
ALEX PADILLA, California JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
JON OSSOFF, Georgia TOM COTTON, Arkansas
PETER WELCH, Vermont JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law
JON OSSOFF, Georgia, Chair
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee,
PETER WELCH, Vermont Ranking Member
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Sara Schaumberg, Democratic Chief Counsel
Josh Divine, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
Ossoff, Hon. Jon................................................. 1
WITNESSES
Altman, Hon. Carolyn............................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Belton, Hon. Wenona.............................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Simms, Hon. Nhan-Ai.............................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 24
FOSTER CHILDREN IN THE COURTS
----------
MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2023
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Atlanta, Georgia.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
Room 041, Georgia State University College of Law, Hon. Jon
Ossoff, Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Ossoff [presiding].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON OSSOFF,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Chair Ossoff. The Subcommittee on Human Rights and The Law
will come to order.
Eight months ago, the Subcommittee opened a bipartisan
inquiry into the safety of children in foster care. Because
protecting America's most vulnerable children from abuse and
neglect is a moral imperative.
We're talking about the most vulnerable children in our
Nation, and the most vulnerable children in the State of
Georgia: orphaned children; children who have faced
unimaginable abuse; children who have been trafficked.
For these children in our State, the Georgia Division of
Family and Children's Services, DFCS, is meant to be a
sanctuary.
For years, watchdogs, oversight bodies, and advocates have
been sounding the alarm about alleged systemic failures at
DFCS, which receives hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal
funding each year, and which is subject to Federal child
welfare standards.
According to the Georgia Office of the Child Advocate, or
OCA, in 2021, DFCS received reports of significant failures
directly from several local child advocacy centers, and from
the statewide organization, Children's Advocacy Centers of
Georgia. OCA characterized these reports as evidence of, quote,
``systemic threats to children who are victims of physical and
sexual abuse.''
The following year, in 2022, OCA issued a report outlining
15 breakdowns within DFCS and described them as, quote,
``systemic.'' OCA reported that in all cases they reviewed to
produce their investigation, quote, ``DFCS failed to take
adequate steps to respond to allegations of physical and sexual
abuse,'' end quote, and that OCA itself encountered those same
systemic failures, quote, ``consistently throughout the State
through OCA's day-to-day investigative work.''
In response to that OCA investigation, Georgia DFCS denied
OCA's findings.
OCA stood by its report. The allegations of widespread
failures that leave Georgia foster children vulnerable to abuse
and neglect, demand investigation.
And Georgia, as a case study informing our Subcommittee's
inquiry, will yield crucial insights about threats to the
health and safety of foster children nationwide.
To date, the Subcommittee has interviewed over 100
witnesses and has reviewed thousands of pages of records. Last
week at our first public hearing, a former foster youth, a
Georgia mother whose child was murdered after being placed with
unfit caregivers, and experts and practitioners in child
welfare law and policy, provided courageous and eye-opening
testimony to the Subcommittee.
At that hearing, we also made public that, according to a
DFCS internal audit from spring of this year, DFCS was failing
in 84 percent of audited cases to, quote, ``make concerted
efforts to assess and address risks and safety concerns to
children in their own homes or in foster care,'' which is a
Federal child protection benchmark.
On Friday, we released a new analysis conducted at the
Subcommittee's request by the National Center for Missing &
Exploited Children, which found that 1,790 children in DFCS
care were reported missing from 2018 to 2022.
This investigation continues today with the second public
hearing, this time focused on Georgia's foster children in the
courts. And today, three experienced judges will testify before
the Subcommittee.
We are grateful for your testimony today, as you are
uniquely qualified to provide authoritative, firsthand
testimony about the operation of Georgia's foster care system.
I will now introduce our witnesses.
First, the Honorable Carolyn Altman. Judge Altman is a
juvenile court judge at Paulding County Juvenile Court in
Dallas, Georgia.
Next, we'll hear from the Honorable Nhan-Ai Simms. Judge
Simms is a juvenile court judge at Gwinnett County Juvenile
Court, Division 1, in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
And we'll hear from the Honorable Wenona Clark Belton.
Judge Belton recently retired as a juvenile court judge at
Fulton County Juvenile Court in Atlanta, Georgia.
Before their opening statements, we will swear in the
witnesses. So if you would all please rise and raise your right
hand.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chair Ossoff. Thank you. Let the record show that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may take your seats.
And now Judge Altman, we will please hear your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN ALTMAN, JUVENILE COURT
JUDGE, PAULDING COUNTY JUVENILE COURT, DALLAS,
GEORGIA
Judge Altman. Thank you and good morning, Senator Ossoff. I
appreciate this opportunity to share about the work and the
people that I care so deeply about.
I've been a juvenile court judge for 5 years, and the 10
years before that, I spent also in juvenile court representing
parents and children and serving as a guardian ad litem. I'm a
certified child welfare law specialist, and I consider myself a
dedicated career professional in child welfare.
People sometimes ask me what it's like to be a judge, and
particularly a juvenile court judge. Even after 5 years I
struggle or hesitate to find the right answer or the best
answer, because it is both an immense privilege and a heavy
burden.
It's a privilege to bear witness to the incredible
transformations we see in children and families, to see their
healing, their restoration, and to get to know young people who
are funny and creative, who are hurting, and are deeply
thoughtful.
It's a privilege to work alongside co-laborers in this
field. Dedicated, caring attorneys, CASA's, DFCS' case
managers, and a host of others. The people are absolutely the
best part of this work.
It's also a heavy burden to know that the decisions I make
will forever change a child's life and alter a family's future.
Because if the information is incomplete, inaccurate, if the
system gets it wrong, if the decision that I've render is
wrong, the consequences are incredibly real.
It was hard to listen to Ms. Aldridge last Wednesday, and
to know that her story isn't an isolated one. Brooklyn's death
is tragic, but worse, it was preventable.
And you probably know by now that statewide, our foster
care population is lower than it was a few years ago. At our
most, we were at 15,000, and we're currently around 11,000. And
sounds like a really good thing to have fewer children in care.
But I'm increasingly concerned that we're missing children
who need to be in care, and the ones who are, may not be
receiving the care, services, and support that they need to
really be successful.
I've seen this trend unfold in three different ways.
The first is an overuse and sometimes misuse of a safety
resource plan. And what will happen is, DFCS' response to an
emergency situation creates a safety plan and it's a short-term
fix. But then they may not circle back, fully address the
problem, and ensure that the child is properly being cared for.
And the biggest danger is that children could go from the
frying pan into the fire. And they could be left with people
who may not be safe. They're not screened, or vetted, or
approved by DFCS. There's no criminal background checks, no
drug screens--certainly no extensive training as a qualified
foster parent.
And at worst, the child could be just as unsafe with the
new caregiver as they were before. This is also problematic
because DFCS will come in and rearrange the family with this
out-of-home placement of the child, and then could, and
sometimes does, administratively close the case.
Which means no services to the parent, no services to the
child, and it leaves that safety resource caregiver without any
help or legal ability to care for this child. And at times, the
caregiver has called DFCS and said, ``I need help taking care
of this child.'' And DFCS may say, ``Your case is closed.
There's nothing we can do.''
And in these situations, there's no court involvement, no
judicial oversight, no attorneys, no due process, and no clear
path for what the parent is supposed to do to get their child
returned, and also how to address the needs of the child.
A second area of concern is our high mental health special
needs children. And these are usually teenagers who have
extreme or elevated emotional, behavioral, mental health needs
that cannot be met in the home. And we have exhausted and
frustrated parents who are at their wit's end. And these
children are highly vulnerable, and they need the most help.
They are often special needs kids and DFCS is actively
resisting these children coming into care. I attended a meeting
in August this year with about 30 other judges and DFCS
leadership. DFCS Commissioner Broce said that DFCS was not set
up to be caregivers for these children, and she asked judges to
consider detaining the children, locking them up in a juvenile
detention center for a few days, so that DFCS could maybe find
a placement for them.
As judges, we do not lock up children, especially special
needs children because we cannot find a place for them.
A third way that I've observed that our foster care
population is decreasing is through an increase in family
preservation cases, and these are instances where custody of
the child is placed directly with a relative rather than with
DFCS.
Now placing a child with a relative is a good thing. But
the problem is, is that the children and the caregivers are not
getting all of the services and benefits that they would be
entitled to, if that child was in the legal custody of DFCS.
The children aren't eligible for IV-E or IV-B Federal
dollars. They're not eligible for health insurance, as our
foster kids are. They're not eligible for daycare. And the
family caring for this child doesn't receive a foster care per
diem, and isn't eligible to receive the ongoing subsidy if that
placement then becomes permanent.
And so rather than giving our children, the families, and
the relatives the best, the services and the benefits that they
would otherwise be eligible for, DFCS will do a minimum and
keep the foster care numbers down. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Judge Altman appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Ossoff. Thank you, Judge Altman, for your opening
testimony. Judge Simms, it's now time for your opening
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. NHAN-AI SIMMS, JUVENILE COURT
JUDGE, GWINNETT COUNTY JUVENILE COURT, DIVISION I,
LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA
Judge Simms. Good morning, Senator Ossoff. Some people are
surprised when I say this, but my foremost ambition as a
juvenile court judge is to work toward making my role
unnecessary.
It's a testament to a deeper, more profound goal: to work
in a child welfare system where the safety and well-being of
our children is paramount, and the need for juvenile court
intervention is minimal.
My name is Nhan-Ai Simms, and I proudly serve as a juvenile
court judge in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Before I continue with
my statement, I want to emphasize that I am here in my personal
capacity. The views I express are my own and do not represent
the views of any other judges, county officials, or any board
commission or council on which I serve.
Gwinnett county sits just outside of Atlanta, and is
celebrated for and often considered one of the most diverse
counties in the entire State. It probably oversees Georgia's
largest school system, which in turn bears the responsibility
for the State's highest number of at-risk children.
On any given day, there are roughly 350 children in foster
care from Gwinnett County. Sadly, we are failing too many of
them.
What I have seen develop in my time on the bench is a
culture of child protection by the numbers. Cases triaged to
boost statistics, and then closed prematurely in misleading
triumph.
It's widely known that DFCS has been under immense pressure
to address what has been a series of public relations crises.
What I have seen is that pressure leading to the neglect or
deliberate avoidance of the most complex and heart-wrenching
cases.
In the end, we have a false sense of confidence in the
effectiveness of our system. But the problems suffered by
children and families still persist.
Imagine a case where a mother overdoses on fentanyl three
times, and each time it was her autistic teenager who
discovered her unconscious. DFCS' own notes indicate a safety
threat and impending danger for the child, but still, the
agency seeks no court intervention--which, if brought to court,
the court would have the authority to order substance abuse
treatment for the parent.
Rather than implementing any services, DFCS is even
considering closing the case.
Now imagine mother fatally overdoses the fourth time. While
the grandparents are literally standing over the body of their
dead daughter, and DFCS having provided no services to the
family the entire time, they recommend that the grandparents
file a private dependency case, conveniently absolving DFCS
from any further involvement at all.
This is not something I have to imagine. This is something
I have received sworn testimony on.
And if that situation is not shocking enough, imagine DFCS'
executive leadership suggests to a roomful of juvenile court
judges that we prolong a child's time in jail, so DFCS can have
more time to find a foster placement.
Again, this is not something I have to imagine, as I, and
many other judges, shockingly heard it with our own ears.
To understand the depth of the crisis, we must first
acknowledge its magnitude. State agencies such as DFCS are
responsible for the care of countless children who are often
victims of abuse, neglect, and instability.
I acknowledge that this is an extremely difficult and
sobering duty. But I also acknowledge that our current system
fails the many dedicated individuals on DFCS' front line, who I
have had the privilege of knowing, who work tirelessly, despite
the overwhelming caseloads, misallocation of resources, and a
culture that seemingly prioritizes metrics over safety,
statistics over children.
With those challenges unfairly placed upon caseworkers,
what I've personally observed in my courtroom is an increasing
gap in service provision, and a rise in inadequate information
presented to the court, including the inability to answer the
most basic of questions, such as, ``Where did DFCS place the
child? ''
On the State level, I see our child serving agencies
creating legislation to circumvent the responsibilities and
shifting blame onto other agencies when confronted with their
own failures to ensure the safety and well-being of our
children.
I am acutely aware that I am critiquing a child welfare
system in which I myself play a vital role. Consequently,
during my tenure on the bench, I have deliberately and
proactively welcomed external scrutiny from both State and
national stakeholders, to evaluate my county's data and
procedures, particularly concerning child welfare.
We've asked critical questions of ourselves. How many
children are entering the foster care system? How long do they
remain there? Are we fully utilizing all community resources
before resorting to foster care placement?
By nurturing open lines of communication and embracing
constructive feedback, my county has, over the last 3 years,
restructured our juvenile court, introduced new programs, and,
most significantly, continues to leverage all available
resources to enhance the training of those who work in child
welfare.
These endeavors have propelled our court toward the goals
of enhancing meaningful court hearings, adopting trauma-
informed practices, and most importantly, has brought together
local stakeholders for collaboration on tangible, measurable
objectives.
It's important to underscore that these practices and
results shouldn't be limited to the judiciary alone. They can
and should be replicated across all child welfare agencies and
stakeholders.
It is imperative that we openly confront the areas of our
system needing improvement. Accountability on all levels should
be the driving force behind the much-needed comprehensive
reform.
I will close this statement the way I started. To render my
role unnecessary, I commit, and urge all of us to commit, to
reshaping the child welfare system, so that our children's
welfare and safety takes priority, and the need for juvenile
court intervention becomes the exception, not the rule.
[The prepared statement of Judge Simms appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Ossoff. Thank you, Judge Simms. Judge Belton, you may
now make your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. WENONA CLARK BELTON, JUVENILE
COURT JUDGE, FULTON COUNTY JUVENILE COURT, AT-
LANTA, GEORGIA
Judge Belton. Good morning.
I am Judge Wenona Clark Belton. I am a retired juvenile
court judge. I retired nearly 3 weeks ago, after having served
for 10 years as a judge for the juvenile court of Fulton
County, Atlanta Judicial Circuit, where, among other things, I
served as the judicial lead for the court improvement
initiative, part of a multi-circuit initiative, which is
coordinated with the State's Court Improvement Program, which
is designed to engage and educate child welfare professionals,
partners, and stakeholders about best practices for more
favorable outcomes.
I earned my law degree from the Georgia State University
College of Law and my undergraduate degree from the University
of Maryland, College Park.
I was recently elected to serve additional 3-year term as a
board member of the National Council of the Juvenile and Family
Court Judges, one of the largest and oldest judicial membership
organizations in the Nation, which serves an estimated 30,000
professionals in the juvenile and family justice system, and
provides resources, knowledge, and training to improve the
lives of children and family seeking justice.
I am a child welfare law specialist and have been certified
for over 10 years through the National Association of Counsel
for Children. I also serve as a cabinet member of Get Georgia
Reading. I am a member of the Children in the Courts Committee
of the State Bar of Georgia. I am also a life member of Alpha
Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated, whose motto is, ``Service
to All Mankind.''
I share my affiliations to demonstrate my commitment to
children and families. However, my remarks today are solely
based upon my own experiences, and must not be attributed to
any organization of which I am a member.
Prior to my service on the bench, I was privileged to have
served in a number of roles which prepared me to engage in
child welfare work. I am a former foster parent and began my
service in juvenile court as a CASA volunteer.
Over the last 23 years in Fulton County, I have served as a
judicial staff attorney, represented the Department of Family
and Children's Services, and served as the clerk of juvenile
court.
I have represented indigent children in delinquency matters
as a public defender, and I know better than most, the nature
of the challenges that the child protection agencies face.
Frontline staff who are overwhelmed, underpaid, suffer from
inadequate training and burnout.
My observations are based upon 23 years of experience doing
this work from several different perspectives, and this system
is not working as it currently exists.
The most challenging issues I routinely observed consist of
the following:
Delays in obtaining routine and specialized assessments.
Barriers to identifying appropriate reliable service
providers.
Ensuring appropriate services are provided in the
appropriate platform in person rather than virtual.
Insurance gaps and pitfalls.
Routine denials by insurers for medically prescribed
services and treatments, including dental and basic orthodontic
services.
A lack of appeals of those routine denials.
A lack of appropriate placements, especially for children
who suffer from significant behavioral health challenges.
Lack of creativity, collaboration, without court
intervention through court orders.
Case managers often working in silos, underutilizing, or
simply not being aware of resources like the Atlanta Volunteer
Lawyers Foundation, or the Georgia Justice Project.
Placing the burden on children to participate in services,
and chastising them when they fail, characterizing them as
difficult and uncooperative.
Failure to ensure or provide oversight to enhance
educational success and minimize poor outcomes for children as
they navigate through the system and eventually reach the age
of maturity.
An emphasis on policy, rather than safety and protective
factors.
An inability to address the primary reasons children come
into care: poverty, behavioral health challenges, and substance
abuse.
A lack of specialized case plans when reunification is the
permanency goal.
Decision-making protocols, follow-up, and follow through,
and challenges with complex case assignment.
And the fact that the only tool that judges have in their
toolbox to help ameliorate these challenges is reasonable
efforts.
This list is by no means comprehensive.
A colleague asked me many years ago, ``Why do you care so
much? ''
I care because I watched a 3-year-old child in my care try
to walk across town to return to his mother's home. I care
because when the State and the courts intervene in the most
personal of cases, the children and families deserve our best.
Juvenile Court Judges, whether they acknowledge it or not,
are lawyers for each party, they're social workers, they're
care coordinators, they're mediators, and they're cheerleaders.
The decisions they make have a substantial impact on a
family's life.
I care because I believe you treat others as you want to be
treated. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Judge Belton appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Ossoff. Thank you, Judge Belton, and thank you, all,
for your testimony.
The Senate and the public is grateful that you've taken
time to share with us your expertise, your authoritative
firsthand experience of how this system functions, and fails to
function, properly.
Want to begin my questions please, Judge Altman. You
mentioned that the DFCS director and DHS Commissioner Broce
asked a roomful of about 30 judges, including yourself, to
consider locking up children with special needs because DFCS
lacked adequate placements. Did I understand that correctly?
Judge Altman. Yes.
Chair Ossoff. So just to make sure that we're clear, DFCS
asked judges to consider locking up children with special needs
in juvenile detention centers?
Judge Altman. Yes. And if I can use Mon'a as an example,
and I don't know anything about her story other than what I
heard on Wednesday, it would be an example of where there could
be an altercation at a group home. Two kids get into a fight,
and the placement says, ``Mon'a can't come back.''
And DFCS' response would be, ``We don't have a placement.
Could you please keep her detained? ''
Now, the law is wonderfully clear and instructive about
when we detain children.
And because I'm a statutory person, I will tell you, it's
in [Georgia Code section] 15-11-503. And it specifically says
that children are only to be detained in the most limited
circumstances, and only when there is--and whenever a ``less
restrictive alternative'' is not available.
So any decisions, also--and the statute says this, any
decisions about whether to detain a child should also take into
account the ``Protection of the child's psychological and
physical health'' and to avoid the ``regimentation and
depersonalization of the child.''
But the statute then says, a ``child shall not be detained:
To punish, to treat, to rehabilitate''--so not to give them a
consequence, or have them learn a lesson. That's not the
purpose of detention.
That a child shall not be detained ``to allow the parent,
guardian, or custodian to avoid a legal responsibility.''
And a child shall not be detained ``due to a lack of a more
appropriate facility.''
And when we were in this meeting, again, this was not
private, it was not overheard in passing, it was in a room of
30-something judges, one of my colleagues brought that up and
said, the law specifically prohibits detaining a child because
of lack of placement.
And then General Counsel Regina Quick says, ``Well, we can
change that.''
These are children many times who have some sort of--
they're not developmentally on target. And I could just
elaborate for a moment.
I call them special needs because I think that's how the
public would understand them, within a special education type
of context.
They have developmental delays.
They might have a sensory processing disorder, could be on
the autism spectrum.
They have language deficits.
They may lack basic vocabulary--so when an adult gives them
an instruction, they literally do not understand it.
They could have had childhood trauma, and that means that
they have--their maturity and their development slowed down
because of the trauma that they experienced. Their brains are
wired differently.
So I could be looking at a 15-year-old boy who is bigger,
taller, stronger than me, and is emotionally and
developmentally an 8-year-old. And if this child is detained or
put in handcuffs, he understands and receives that as an 8-
year-old.
Chair Ossoff. Judge Altman, I--you cited the relevant
statute. A request to lock up children with special needs in a
juvenile detention facility because of a lack of adequate
placements elsewhere, would that be lawful under Georgia law?
Judge Altman. It is not lawful.
Chair Ossoff. And the effect on a young child of detention
in such a facility, you as judges have to weigh the impact on
the child. What is the impact on a child of detention in a
juvenile detention facility? A child with special needs?
Judge Altman. I think they're terrified. I think they're
absolutely terrified.
And even if there is a legal basis, probable cause to
believe that they got into a fight, in any other circumstance
with parents sitting in court, we would say, this child will be
released, these are the conditions, these are the things that
we want you to get started on. And usually, the parent grabs a
child in a big hug, and they are so relieved, and they walk out
because this is scary, and it's frightening.
And for children in care, who don't have that person
saying, ``Please release this child, we have a place for them
to stay,'' they have to spend extra nights in a loud
cinderblock room.
And again, if they have any sort of developmental delay,
sensory processing issues, it's loud, it's clanging, the sounds
rattle, it's scary.
There are a lot bigger, smarter, more violent children who
are in detention centers. And so, for a low-level offense or
because we can't find a placement, these children are then
being exposed to a lot more difficult circumstances. And it
could make it worse because they are terrified.
Chair Ossoff. Did DFCS request for judges to consider
detaining children who were already in juvenile detention? Or
did they also ask judges to consider detaining children with no
history of delinquency?
Judge Altman. I understood the request to be that if a
child in care or a child who may have come to DFCS' attention
through another proceeding that would be eligible for release
otherwise--so there would be a connection to why a child would
possibly be detained.
But the request was to extend their detention when they
don't--when there's not a legal basis for them to remain
detained or to be held.
Chair Ossoff. Without a legal basis for that detention?
Judge Altman. Without an ongoing need for their detention.
Chair Ossoff. You testified that DFCS asked judges to
consider locking up children with special needs for lack of
adequate placements. Where else might DFCS place these
children?
Judge Altman. Foster homes, group homes, I think that's
been one of the challenges DFCS is faced with--hoteling.
It's because these children with elevated behavioral mental
health needs are more difficult to place--their needs are
higher, their needs for supervision are higher.
If we also had a concentrated and intentional expansion of
mental health services, and supporting foster parents, and
identifying, recruiting, training, and supporting qualified
foster parents for teenagers, they wouldn't--there would be no
request for detention.
Chair Ossoff. So in the absence of adequate foster homes
and group homes, this is broadly speaking the same population
of children who might otherwise wind up in hotels or in DFCS
offices?
Judge Altman. Yes.
Chair Ossoff. How did you feel leaving that meeting?
Judge Altman. Discouraged.
DFCS has an incredibly difficult job in finding placement
for children with elevated mental health needs. It's incredibly
difficult.
The answer is, create more placements, address the problem.
The request to detain children doesn't show an understanding of
what these children's needs are, of what child welfare is, of
how bad this is for children.
And it's an inappropriate use of detention facilities.
And I think as--as I have been asked to detain children as
part of my job, and a lot of times I will say no, because it's
not appropriate. Yes, I understand their struggles. Yes, I
understand this. But we do not detain children under these
circumstances. And it's hard to hold that line sometimes.
But when the request is coming from the highest levels of
DFCS' leadership, it's even harder to hold that line--and to
really promote the well-being of children who you already know
are challenged.
And keeping them detained, it's going to worsen their
behaviors, it's going to worsen their outbursts, it's going to
create more hardship for them.
Chair Ossoff. Judge Simms, thank you, as well, for your
testimony today.
Judge Altman has testified today regarding a meeting where
DFCS' leadership asked judges to keep children in juvenile
detention facilities because they lacked adequate placements.
Were you at this meeting?
Judge Simms. I was. Yes.
Chair Ossoff. How did you feel when you heard this request?
Judge Simms. Frankly, I was heartbroken.
I think, if our child welfare system has gotten to the
point where we want to extend a child's time in detention just
because we can't find a place for them, then something's wrong.
And it's not working. And we need change.
And, you know, it's kind of one of those things when you
hear executive leadership and you hear executive counsel say
it--I was shocked.
Chair Ossoff. Describe for the public--and Judge Altman
provided a powerful description, I think it's important for the
public, who may lack firsthand experience of, or exposure to,
these facilities and these events to understand--describe for
the public, a juvenile detention facility and what it can mean
for a young child with special needs to be locked up in a
juvenile detention facility because the State lacks adequate
other placements, please.
Judge Simms. Sure. I mean, in kind of layman's terms, if
you will, a juvenile detention facility is akin to an adult
jail. Right? It's a secure facility where children are kept.
They are generally required to go to school.
The problem that we're seeing is that when children are in
those facilities, they are not receiving the services that they
need. Counseling, psychological evaluations, issues about
transporting the child to a medical facility that they need or
not, it's cumbersome.
But in particular, with the lack of staffing that we have
at RYDCs--which is what we call the juvenile detention
centers--that has been a problem because the safety of the
children, while they're in those detention centers, is
compromised.
You know, recently, I believe it was Savannah RYDC that had
a riot at their RYDC. I think there were maybe only two people
on staff at the time.
That's just--that's not a place that a child should be,
especially if that child by law should not be there. You're
simply exposing the child to more adverse childhood
experiences, which anytime you think about ACEs, adverse
childhood experiences, the more a child gets, the more likely
they are to not succeed.
So our goal needs to be to reduce those types of
experiences and keeping a child in detention because there's no
other facility, it's just not--that's not the solution.
Chair Ossoff. And Judge Simms, just to be clear, as Judge
Altman testified, and as you just alluded, Georgia law does not
permit the detention of children--and in this case, we're
talking about children with special needs, in some cases,
because of a lack of adequate placements elsewhere, in a
facility, which, as you noted, is akin to a jail. Correct?
Judge Simms. Yes, sir. I mean, the law specifically and
explicitly forbids it.
Chair Ossoff. Judge Simms, you testified about a culture in
the system today. You testified about the public relations
pressure that the agency has been under.
You noted that this has led to the triage of cases, the
avoidance of the most difficult cases, the neglect of the most
difficult cases. And I believe the words you used were, ``in
order to boost statistics.'' Can you describe that culture?
Judge Simms. Sure. I mean, I think an easy example to think
about is the hoteling issue.
I don't think there's anyone in this room, anyone who works
in child welfare, that thinks that reducing hoteling is a bad
thing. It's obviously a worthy goal.
But if the laser focus to do that causes children to remain
in unsafe environments, then we have a problem. And we have to
think to ourselves, ``Okay, maybe we don't have kids in hotels
right now. But is that an accomplishment? Is it okay to be
missing 1,700 children--but at least we don't have kids in
hotels? ''
I don't see that as a true accomplishment. And if that's
what the push is, and we're willing to do whatever it is to get
us to that point, then we really have to look at what we're
trying to accomplish.
What we need to accomplish in juvenile court in these child
welfare cases, is to make sure that the families have the
services they need. The children are safe, first and foremost.
And simply not bringing them into care, and thereby not having
them in foster care, not having them in hotels, that doesn't
accomplish that.
You know, Judge Altman talked about the use of safety
plans. I'm seeing that in my courtroom, too. These are plans,
voluntary agreements, between DFCS and the parents. They have
no court oversight. There is no legal basis for whoever the
child is placed with that agrees to take the child. There's no
court oversight. You know, there's no one looking to make sure
that there is follow through.
And in the case that I described, that was a safety plan
case. It was a case where DFCS decided to keep the child in the
home and have grandparents come and assist when needed. Which,
in and of itself, perfectly makes sense.
But we have a special needs child, an autistic child who is
in the presence of a mother, who has multiple times overdosed
on fentanyl--which is not one of those things where maybe it's
just laying there.
You know, if a kid touches fentanyl, you never know what's
going to happen. It's one of those drugs that I have seen far
too often in my court.
The first time a child touches it, the first time a child
takes it unknowingly, and then they pass. That is not a
situation where a child should be safety planned. Maybe the
first time--maybe.
But there are court resources, once a case comes into
court, that could help a situation like that. For instance, in
our county, we have a Family Treatment Court, which if a case
is brought into court, we go through an intensive program with
the parent, providing them substance abuse treatment, creating
a full kind of one-stop shop for the parents.
And that's what should have happened in that case. But to
be on notice, and know that the mother has overdosed three
times, and that each time it was her autistic teenager that
found her and not bring that to court, not have any court
oversight, not provide the services that are needed, no
autistic ABA services, no drug treatment for mother.
The only services I recall that were put in place, if you
call it a service is, they wanted to drug screen. That mother
didn't drug screen.
And then they wanted to close the case. And then mother
overdoses fourth time and ends up passing. That was a
preventable type case where we could, at least, had it come to
court, provided some services--but we rely on DFCS to bring
those cases to court. They are the petitioner.
You know, you mentioned the OCA report. You'll notice that
there was a rise in law enforcement and medical emergency
removals. A big part of that is because DFCS has been refusing
to remove those children that need to come into care.
There is an option for law enforcement and medical
professionals to do that. But ultimately, even if they do that,
it's DFCS that must file the case to proceed in court. And if
they choose not to, that's in their discretion.
Chair Ossoff. Why would DFCS be going to these lengths to
avoid having to provide care for children who need it most?
Judge Simms. Again, as I mentioned, I wholeheartedly
acknowledge that what DFCS has to do and what their
responsibility is, is difficult.
And if caseworker turnover is high, they don't have
individuals to provide these services. I suppose a simple
solution would be to not bring children into care, so that they
don't have to provide these services.
But the law is what it is. DFCS is the agency responsible
for taking care of these types of cases. DJJ is responsible for
dealing with delinquent children, children who commit or
alleged to commit what we would call crimes in the adult world.
DBHDD has their services that they provide. DFCS--this is their
responsibility. Until that changes, they have to fulfill that
duty.
Chair Ossoff. Thank you, Judge Simms.
Judge Belton, thank you, as well, for your testimony today.
You mentioned that you've worked in child welfare for 23
years, as a judge, as an attorney for DFCS, and as a public
defender for children.
The Subcommittee has heard from child welfare advocates,
attorneys, and experts that Georgia's foster care system is now
failing more than ever before. Do you agree with this
assessment?
Judge Belton. Based upon what I saw in my courtroom, I do
agree. I agree wholeheartedly.
Chair Ossoff. You mentioned that you've witnessed delays in
the State's foster care system with obtaining appropriate and
adequate healthcare for children. Correct?
Judge Belton. Correct.
Chair Ossoff. Can you describe how that unfolded in your
courtroom? Or provide us with some examples?
Judge Belton. And so what I would see on a regular basis,
when children come into care, they're supposed to receive
routine assessments. A Babies Can't Wait assessment, a
developmental assessment, a trauma assessment.
And often those initial assessments, which are really
important at the onset of a case, would be delayed--for
whatever reason: ``We couldn't get a hold of the provider.''
``The foster parent had a conflict.''
And so routinely we'd see delays in the children receiving
those assessments. Once the assessments were finally completed,
then there were delays or barriers in identifying appropriate
service providers.
And quite frankly, there are not a lot of service providers
in this State--or in, especially in this jurisdiction, who
specialize in child and adolescent behavioral health services.
I asked a child psychiatrist, ``Why--why is there such a
lack of specialists for children to deal with behavioral health
challenges? '' And she said, ``Quite frankly, there's no real
money in it.''
And so the department has had a difficult time identifying
appropriate service providers that provide the appropriate
treatment. Not dumbed-down adult therapeutic services, but
services that are appropriate for the child's developmental
needs, for the fact that the child has already been traumatized
by being removed from the home, nine times out of 10.
The trauma that the child has endured by being placed with
children that they met--with caregivers that they may or may
not be familiar with, multiple placements, transfer from school
to school, children that suffer from not only behavioral health
challenges, but educational challenges, as well.
And so just a routine lack of receiving the appropriate
services, and like I said before, in the appropriate platform.
Now, everybody wants to provide services virtually. It is
difficult enough to provide therapeutic services for an adult
virtually. But when you try to engage a child who has been
traumatized with therapeutic services on a computer, I, quite
frankly, don't understand how you can do that.
And so the department expects children to engage with
therapeutic service providers on a virtual platform. Where is
the connection? Where is the rapport? And so these children are
placed in front of a computer, and the expectation is that they
will engage in the services, they will respond appropriately.
They don't. Most of them don't. Most of them don't want to
talk to an adult about what has happened to them. They, quite
frankly, don't want to do it.
And so then they are chastised and they're characterized.
They were routinely characterized as being uncooperative, and
refuse to engage in services.
Chair Ossoff. I wanted to dig in a little bit more on that
point, I thought it was one of the most interesting and
insightful points you made in your opening statement, with
respect to how the burden is on the kids to participate in
these services. But then they're chastised when they fail. What
does that mean?
Judge Belton. That means, when you--I would receive reports
in, during review hearings. The statute provides that there are
routine regular review hearings for children that are in care.
And during a lot of those review hearings, the report from
the department was, Child X refused to engage in services, they
didn't want to talk to the provider, they shut down, and they
are characterized as being uncooperative.
And then they're described as being involuntarily
discharged from services. They didn't volunteer to be in those
services. They didn't ask to be put in foster care and shoved
into a therapeutic platform.
And so--and then when you see the child--because the
children are in the court room. Most of the children are in the
courtroom. They're entitled to be in court during their
hearings.
And so when you see the demeanor of the child, when an
adult has just characterized them as being a failure in
therapeutic--you know, for their refusal, or lack of
participation in therapeutic services, it just, it hurts your
heart.
Chair Ossoff. You mentioned in your opening testimony,
Judge Belton, that the reasonable efforts standard is one of
the tools that judges have to protect children. Can you explain
to the public what this means? How it functions? And why it's
important, please?
Judge Belton. And so reasonable efforts, quite frankly,
boils down to money. Like it was mentioned, the department
receives Federal funding. And so the statute provides that the
department must make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate
the need for removal, eliminate the need for the child to
remain in foster care, and to make efforts to have the child--
to facilitate whatever the permanency plan is, and most of the
time, where appropriate, is reunification.
And so just say you go through a review hearing, a
permanency hearing, whatever type of review hearing and at the
end of that hearing, the judge is required to make a finding on
whether or not the department made reasonable efforts to
prevent or and even eliminate the need for removal, to have the
child successfully return home, or whatever the ultimate
permanency plan goal is.
And if the judge does not make that finding, holds--finds
the department failed to make reasonable efforts, it affects
their--it affects the funding.
And so if they don't get a reasonable efforts finding, that
has an impact on the money that they receive--my understanding
from the Federal Government, and they have to kick in money on
their own.
They are given an opportunity, they have a certain amount
of time to come back to court to obtain--to fix whatever they
did not do to get a finding of no reasonable efforts. They have
an opportunity to come back to court once they've received a no
reasonable efforts finding, to respond and fix whatever they
didn't fix.
Chair Ossoff. Judge Simms or Judge Altman, would you like
to add anything to the public's understanding of how these no
reasonable efforts findings function--their utility, their
value, their role?
Judge Simms. I mean, it does. It comes down to money.
And it's interesting you ask it because I'm probably one of
the judges most well known for making no reasonable efforts
findings. Because to me, it's simple. If the efforts aren't
being made, there are no reasonable efforts.
You know, you come into my courtroom, and I've had cases
where, because of the high caseworker turnover, they don't even
have a caseworker. They don't have anybody in the courtroom
able to tell me what's going on. And so, of course, I have to
find no reasonable efforts. You literally haven't told me
anything about the case.
And it, you know, I think culturally, in juvenile court,
perhaps it has not been utilized much in the past. I'm like
Judge Altman, kind of a statute nerd. And to me, the law is
clear--if they're not making the effort--to make that no
reasonable effort finding.
I'm not there to worry about money and funding. I'm there
to worry about the safety of the children, the services
provided to the families.
So to me, no reasonable efforts, and making that finding
that reasonable efforts have not been made, is pretty simple
and straightforward to me.
Chair Ossoff. Thank you. Judge Altman.
Judge Altman. I do agree with both of my colleagues.
There is--as judges, we can give direction. The way that
our child welfare system works in terms of accountability, is
that no reasonable efforts finding.
So what is the department doing to exit this child out of
foster care back to their home safely? Or to a different
permanency plan?
And what efforts are reasonable depends on the particular
family, their needs, the child, the circumstances.
As Judge Simms pointed out, if you have a brand new case
manager, it is not the failing of the individual case manager.
It's not the failing of an individual person that the services
aren't there, that the placements aren't there.
But as an agency, as a system, we should be promoting
practices and policies that sustain the workers, that give us
adequate placements.
And a finding of no reasonable efforts is not against one
particular person, because they're supposed to be able to tag
off to somebody else or say, I need some help, or I need to
find a qualified service provider.
But if we don't, as a system, recruit, train, develop,
promote these things, then that's where we end up with children
in care with inadequate services, inadequate placements--
because it's the child welfare system that is supposed to be
doing these things.
And the individual case managers are feeling the stress and
the strain of the impossible task that they're given, rather
than going, ``Please, community, help us take care of our kids
and families.''
Chair Ossoff. Well, I want to thank the three of you for
your service to the State, for working so hard under such
difficult circumstances, hearing every day in your courtrooms,
such heartbreaking and heart-wrenching stories.
And, I think, as was acknowledged in the testimony we heard
today, the caseworkers on the front line who are doing this
work, under resourced, in many cases under trained, the
overwhelming majority, it is my impression, are working hard to
try to do right by some of the most vulnerable kids in our
State.
Your testimony today has helped to shine a light on the
urgency of reform and accountability in this system to protect
the most vulnerable children in our State from serious threats
to their lives, their physical and mental health, their safety,
and their future prospects.
So on behalf of the Subcommittee, and the Senate, I extend
my gratitude and appreciation to you for your careers of
service, and for your testimony today.
The hearing record will remain open for 1 week for
statements to be submitted into the record. Questions for the
record may be submitted by Senators by 5 p.m. on Monday,
November 6th. And the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]