● Two weeks ago I posted a blog about double standards concerning educating children online. Wealthy parents who can’t hack it get a pass – and sometimes even plaudits – while poor parents get reported for “educational neglect.” We found out about what happened to poor parents thanks to a story from the online news site The City. Now they have a follow-up, including a demand for answers from New York City’s Public Advocate.
● In Chicago, the Cook County Public Defender has filed a lawsuit to overturn Illinois’ blanket ban on in-person visits between foster children and their parents and siblings. Public Defender Amy Campanelli has an op-ed column about the issue in the Chicago Sun-Times.
● Elizabeth Brico has a story in Talk Poverty on the harm to children when in-person visits are banned – including the longterm harm even after the pandemic is over.
● Stateline has an overview of some of the states that have banned visits.
● Paul DiLorenzo, who for many years ran the consulting operation for Casey Family Programs, has a column in the Chronicle of Social Change called Questioning the Inevitability of a Child Welfare Surge.
● I have a blog post about a “child advocacy center” that discovered that the best way to prevent child abuse is to prevent poverty. Unfortunately, it took a pandemic for them to figure it out.
In other news:
● Prof. Christopher Church of the University of South Carolina School of Law has an excellent 15-minute video overview of how the child welfare system goes wrong and why, including data on wrongful removal:
● Mathangi Swaminathan has a column in the Chronicle of Social Change on the need to expand what can be funded under the Family First Prevention Services Act and how it’s determined what programs quality for funding.
● Prof. Robert Latham, associate director of the Children and Youth Law Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, has a blog post about a good federal appellate court decision on a host of issues, including children’s Fourth Amendment rights during child abuse investigations, the misuse of drug testing, and coercing families into foregoing all due process protections and accepting so-called “safety plans.” The full decision is here.