|
The dramatic events surrounding the Texas raid and seizure of 400-plus children points out just how deeply divided the citizens of America - including Utah - are about child protection. Despite sincere efforts, Utahns still have not figured out what we, as a society, want from our child protection system. The events in Texas should cause all Utahns to examine their expectations of child protection agencies and the system that surrounds them. On what basis should the government step in to protect children from abuse and neglect?
In Utah, child protection has been calibrated by two major influences - 1) the massive, still pending 1993 class action suit brought by the National Center for Youth Law claiming that Utah children were not being protected enough and 2) the concerted efforts of parental rights groups in the past five years to scale back Utah's child welfare laws and limit intervention in families.
The Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) tries to respond to those two contrasting expectations.
Protecting children from abuse and neglect is everyone's business, but where do Utahns want the balance struck?
As a result of the class action lawsuit, Utah's system has been managed by a federal court consent decree for a decade. That court action strikes the balance on the side of the child - that is, with all other things being equal, and a reasonable possibility of harm to a child, the federal court would have DCFS remove that child from the home.
On the other hand, in the wake of the Parker Jensen medical neglect case and other high profile controversies, the Utah legislature has passed laws in every recent session limiting the authority of child protection caseworkers to remove children. Utah parental rights advocates believe that the government should be extremely cautious about interfering in the parent-child relationship. They state that, with all other things being equal, and if there is a reasonable possibility of harm to a child, the parent's rights should still be paramount.
The result is a whipsaw approach. If Utah's DCFS leaves a child in a home where the mother is using meth, but there is no proven harm to a child (yet), the community complains that DCFS does not do enough. If Utah's DCFS removes a child because a sibling was sexually abused, but there is no proven harm to her sister (yet), the community complains that DCFS has gone too far.
At the present time, the legislative process has moved our laws toward a very limited degree of protection.
Yet in the wake of the Texas polygamy raid, Utah's letters to the editor and radio talk shows were filled with citizens praising the broad removal of polygamist's children from their mothers, despite what were, due process and civil rights violations. Utah authorities have been criticized nationally for not doing enough to stop polygamy related child abuse.
In Utah we designed our system to start with an allegation of abuse and neglect, and then analyze how the parents' lifestyle decisions may play into that, not the other way around. Before becoming involved with any family, our law requires an identifiable victim, an alleged perpetrator, and evidence. Even then, Utah laws are written such that a parent's illegal choices - whether they be polygamy, drug use, or stealing cable tv services - are not the focus of the inquiry. Is this the balance Utahns want?
Of all the systems operated by government, those involved in child protection are some of the most responsive to public opinion. In Utah, it is up to you to tell your government where you want the boundaries to be. |
