In Maine, more and more families are, literally, defense-less

The Maine State Capitol

Things keep getting worse in Maine, a state that once was on the verge of having a model “child welfare” system. Dreadful decisions by two governors and vile grandstanding from one current and one former public official plunged the state into foster-care panic.  So it should come as no surprise that more and more families are literally defense-less. 

The Maine Monitor has an excellent story about this.  The monitor reports that many parents wait weeks or months for a defense attorney even to be assigned – dramatically prolonging children’s time in foster care.  In one case, no lawyer was assigned for 281 days.  From the story: 

Parents who wish to maintain custody of their children are fighting against a system that a recent federal audit found failed to follow its own rules when investigating allegations of child abuse or neglect. 

A capable attorney can help identify those missteps, put pressure on the department and use those errors to argue on behalf of parents in court. Attorneys can also connect clients to services that can help move them toward reunification with their children. 

But a lack of attorneys makes that kind of zealous representation less likely, which in turn results in more families separated and more cost to the state. 

And if there’s no family defender keeping the pressure on, judges sure aren’t going to do it.  Again, from the story: 

One recent decision from the Maine Supreme Court shows how even repeated failures by the department can have little impact on the outcomes of cases. 

On October 3, the high court published a memorandum decision in an appeal of a termination of parental rights out of Portland. The memo notes that the lower court was right to terminate the parental rights of the mother despite the fact that the judge in the case ordered the department to file a rehabilitation and reunification plan “seven times during the pendency of the case and never did so.” 

The story tells us how many families get no representation at all for weeks or months.  Given the shortage of lawyers, one can bet that few families get the kind of high-quality representation that can truly ease the suffering of their children by reducing their time trapped in foster care.  

The state is taking the first steps toward building such a system – but it will take three years for it to reach even half the families who need it. [UPDATE, JAN, 6: This afternoon the Portland Press Herald published its own very good story about this effort and why it's so important.]

The story notes that even the state’s child welfare “ombudsman” mentions in her latest report that she is concerned about the shortage of defense attorneys. Of course, she does not mention her own role in creating the shortage by fomenting foster-care panic.

GUEST BLOG: Foster care in Maine: More on one state’s transformation

UPDATE, JAN 28: The Associated Press also has an excellent story on the Maine reforms.


In a previous post to this Blog concerning the enormous progress in the state of Maine, I wrote that: “An independent office of child welfare ombudsman was created, under the auspices of a leading state child advocacy group, the Maine Children’s Alliance.”

The ombudsman has asked me to share with you his perspective on the changes.  Here’s his comment:

Dear NCCPR,

Thank you for voicing your concern for the well-being of children in Maine who are involved in the child welfare system in the recent NCCPR blog “Foster Care in America: The Day Child Welfare Changed? (Part Two).” We appreciate that you recognize the work that the Maine Children’s Alliance’s ombudsman program has done to help improve the system.

Since 2003, the Maine Child Welfare Services Ombudsman Program has worked closely with the

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), reviewing department decisions when callers raise concerns and providing recommendations on ways the department can streamline and improve practices. We are always looking for better situations for children and families, and more cost-savings and efficiency within the system to re-invest in community support and early intervention.

As you have noted, it is in the best interest of a child to keep him/her in the home and with the family whenever possible and safe to do so. Caseworkers now emphasize this goal as they work closely with families, ensuring they receive the supports and services necessary to keep the child safe and the family intact. Reducing the rate of children who are placed in state care or custody has been a significant achievement of our program. In December 2004, there were 2,590 Maine children in DHHS state care or custody. In December 2009, the number in care or custody dropped to 1,650. During this time period, Maine saw a 38.3 percent decrease in the rate of children in DHHS care or custody.

Kinship Care placements enable children to live with people they know and trust, creating a sense of stability and continuity. Over the last six years, Kinship Care has become a preferred placement practice of DHHS. The steady increase in Kinship Care placement is a notably positive trend. In 2004, of the 831 initial placements of children into state care or custody, 146 (17.6%) were Kinship Care. In 2009, of the 777 initial placements of children into state care or custody, 302 (38.9%) were Kinship Care. Not only is Kinship Care placement less disruptive to the child, it is also less costly to the system. There has been a dramatic decline in Residential Care costs for children in state custody from 2004 to 2010, with the state share of residential care costs declining by 86 percent.

For more information about the Ombudsman Program, I encourage you to visit the Maine Children’s Alliance website at www.mekids.org.

Dean Crocker

President/CEO and Ombudsman

Maine Children’s Alliance

Covering foster care at the LA Times: The “readers’ representative” sets the fairness bar very low

            According to the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO), back when it was considered one of America’s great regional dailies, the Louisville Courier Journal was the first to name an ombudsman – someone to respond to reader complaints about the newspaper, both privately to the staff and by writing a column assessing how well the newspaper was doing its job. 

            Any institution that constantly demands that everyone else be held “accountable” should have a truly independent ombudsman.  Very few news organizations do - it took the Jayson Blair scandal to push The New York Times into creating such a position - and fewer still have anyone in the job worthy of the name.  The Courier Journal itself does not appear to have one anymore.

            The best way to do this is the method used by the Times and, for much longer, The Washington Post.  They hire someone from outside the paper for a fixed term, typically two years.  That way the ombudsman doesn’t have to worry about being fired for being too hard on the paper – he or she’s already been fired.

            The best of the ombudsmen, among those whose work I’ve read, was Geneva Overholser, when she was at the Post.  One of the few items entirely unrelated to child welfare on the bulletin board here at NCCPR World Headquarters is her 1996 critique of the Post, the Times and the Los Angeles Times over how all three mishandled a major media controversy of the day.  (It’s available in the Post’s paid archive.)

            But ombudsmen like Overholser are very rare.  People naturally hire in their own image.  So editors tend to hire ombudsmen who think pretty much like the editors – and then tell them, in effect, “go ahead, criticize my work.”

            But at least when they call the job ombudsman (or, in the case of the Times, Public Editor) one sometimes sees serious criticism of the news organization’s performance.  When the job is labeled “readers’ representative” or something similar, it generally seems to be held by a longtime employee of the paper whose job is to write columns like “Buyouts, layoffs, will make your Daily Bugle even better!” (If anyone knows of an exception to this rule, I’d be glad to hear about it.)

            So I wasn’t really expecting much when I submitted my own complaint about Los Angeles Times child welfare coverage to their “readers’ representative,” Deirdre Edgar.

            Just before all hell broke loose concerning Times child welfare coverage (meaning, before I knew that there are questions about things like the accuracy of quotes) I complained about one specific item: how Garrett Therolf, the embattled reporter for the beleaguered Times, had misrepresented an evaluation of the Los Angeles County child welfare waiver.

             My e-mail read in part:

   As is described in detail in my organization’s child welfare Blog today, in three separate stories, Garrett has suggested that an independent evaluation of Los Angeles County’s child welfare “waiver” concludes that the waiver caused an alleged increase in reabuse of children known to the Department of Children and Family Services.

            Not only does the evaluation report say nothing of the kind, in three separate places – p.2, p.11 and p.137 - the report specifically warns readers against drawing any such conclusions.

            To which the readers’ repesentative replied in an e-mail:

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think the articles make the conclusion that you believe they do, and therefore no correction is warranted. You even couch your words in your e-mail and in your post – saying the articles “suggest” or “imply” that the waiver led to the increase in child deaths. But the articles don’t say that. However, the Oct. 19 article does directly quote Charlie Ferguson, one of the researchers, who says the data show “an area of concern.”

            So apparently, it’s o.k. to mention the alleged increase in three separate stories about the waiver, and quote the author of the study as saying it’s “an area of concern” but leave out the fact that any increase in child abuse for any reason always is “an area of concern.”  And, apparently, it’s o.k. to leave out the same author’s three specific warnings that there is no evidence of cause and effect.  All of this is fine with the readers’ representative, just as long as the reporter doesn’t use the exact words “the waiver caused the increase.”

            The readers’ representative continues:

That same article also quotes an advocate for abused and neglected children who questions a link between the waiver and the increase in deaths. That’s clearly giving voice to both sides of the issue.

             Actually, the article doesn’t do that.  The readers’ representative is talking about these two paragraphs:

Carole Shauffer, executive director of the San Francisco-based Youth Law Center and one of the state's leading advocates for abused or neglected children, said she was hesitant to connect the waiver with the rise in child fatalities because she worried that too little information is available.

"What analysis has been done by the department?" she asked. "Have they really looked at this? Have they looked at the experience level of the social workers who handled these cases? If they are ignoring this type of analysis, they are foolish."

            One of the few things Therolf has gotten right in all this is that Carole Shauffer is, indeed, “one of the state's leading advocates for abused or neglected children” and her comment reflects this.  But she is not psychic.  She could not be expected to definitively comment on a waiver evaluation she hadn’t read.  She had to depend on whatever Therolf told her about the evaluation.

            And why in the world would even the view of one of the state’s best child advocates be a substitute, as opposed to a supplement, to the views, in full and in context, of the evaluation author himself?

            So the readers representative’s version of  “both sides” is  “yes” and “we don’t know.”  The side that says no, there is no relationship  is entirely absent.  So is the side that says newer data call into question whether there has been such an increase.  So is the side that points out that, even with the alleged increase, the rate of reabuse is lower than it was in 2002, well before the waiver.  So is the side that could have presented more likely explanations for any increase, if there is one, etc. etc.  And, of course, there is no mention of the fact that the evaluation itself says there is no evidence of cause and effect.

           In other words, it’s the Fox News version of “fair and balanced.”

           I followed up by asking the readers’ representative if she also had no problems with the questions about accuracy raised in Daniel Heimpel’s column for The Huffington Post.  She did not reply.  Perhaps she was too busy working on things like her Nov. 29 column.  The one headlined: “Readers respond to demise of Bridge column.”