Colorado task force’s solution to stop children from running from residential treatment: Fence ‘em in & lock ‘em up!

 

When NCCPR released a comprehensive report on Colorado “child welfare” in September 2023, we included a section called “Tapeworm in the System.”  It’s about Colorado’s love affair with the worst form of “care” for children – group homes and institutions.  At the time, we noted that, as of 2021, Colorado was using them at a rate 33% above the national average.  By 2022, use of group homes had fallen, but Colorado was using the worst of the worst, institutions at a rate 40% above the national average.

We wrote this about a “task force” the legislature created, overseen by the state's child welfare "ombudsman," to spend two years

determining “the root causes of why children run away from out-of-home placements” and figure out how to stop them from running.

Allow us to save the state a little money and a lot of time: Children run away from out-of-home placements because they are in out-of-home placements. You stop children from running away from awful places by not putting them in awful places.

Alas, the “task force” did not take us up on this offer.

Ignoring lived experience

They did, however, meet with adults who, as children, had run away from placements.  According to the task force report:

All the panelists … recalled their desire to return to their home of origin and/or parents, regardless of circumstances

They also commissioned a study which found that

Youth stated that they feel disconnected from family, friends and experiences while they are in residential care. They stated a strong desire to remain connected to family and friends and to remain connected to familiar environments or places. This desire to feel connected is often a reason for running away from care.

But these young people were ignored. The task force report says nothing – nothing – about reducing the “need” for residential treatment, shortening time in care or even increasing “connectedness” for the inmates residents.

Instead, recommendations include this:

[M]embers agreed that residential facilities should not resemble jails or prisons and should remain inviting for children or youth. … However, the task force also noted that perimeter security is essential for keeping dangers out. There was unanimous agreement that fencing could be an effective method for preventing children and youth from running away from care.

Presumably, they mean inviting fences – painted in pretty colors perhaps?

If you’re wondering why fencing also might be “needed” to “keep dangers out” – it illustrates another reason why residential treatment is so harmful.  When you bring a lot of troubled, vulnerable children into one institution it becomes a magnet for predators – because predators go where the prey is.

The task force also called for a study of

the use of delayed locks, fencing and alarms. Funding should also be provided for the implementation of these mechanisms, if the study finds their use to be appropriate.

The alarms they have in mind include “motion sensing alarms” for when children leave their rooms at night.  According to the report: “This was also presented as a way to support facilities working with minimal staff.”

The report notes that these recommendations are not meant to apply to family foster homes – not because the idea of fencing a foster home necessarily appalled them, but because of

the diverse needs of children and youth in foster home placements and the large volume of foster homes located throughout the state.

The false premise at the heart of it all

Part of the problem is that the task force started with a fundamentally false premise. The report claims that

Colorado’s state-licensed residential treatment facilities provide critically important services to some of the state’s most high needs children and youth, including those with severe behavioral health needs.

That is not true. 

On the contrary, as a U.S. Senate Committee report points out:

[Residential treatment facilities] are costly, not as effective as community-based behavioral health treatment options, and often harmful to youth in their care.

The report added:

The risk of harm to children in RTFs is endemic to the operating model.

There is much more documentation concerning why residential treatment is worthless, how there are alternatives that are far better and far less costly, and why the usual excuses for using group homes and institutions don’t hold up to scrutiny in the Colorado report excerpt below.

Stacking the deck from the start

The reason the task force ignored all this evidence – and the young people whose time they wasted – is clear when you look at the makeup of the task force; who was on it, and who wasn’t. That, too, is discussed below. Suffice it to say that Colorado’s residential treatment task force was like a task force to study climate change that included no environmentalists but lots of representatives of the fossil fuel industry.

Worst of all, the task force exploited two of the members, parents of two children who died after
running away from such places. Of course, a parent whose child ran from an institution and died would want a fence. But surely even more they would want the kind of help that would have made it unnecessary for their children ever to be institutionalized in the first place.*

And on that score, if anything, NCCPR’s 2023 prediction about the task force was too optimistic. We wrote:

The residential treatment industry will make sure that when the task force issues its report it will include claims that the industry is all for Wraparound and they love foster families and they really, truly want to keep children in their own homes “whenever possible.” They’ll say they just want a “full continuum of care.”

But what stands in the way of a full continuum of care is – the residential treatment industry. 

We were wrong. Apparently, the residential treatment industry is so confident that Colorado lawmakers and media will buy anything they sell that they don’t even have to pretend to support alternatives. The word “wraparound” does not appear in the task force report even once.

Two bills

So far, the Colorado Legislature has not gone as far as the Task Force. But there is a bill “sailing through the legislature” to build a fence around a new residential treatment facility scheduled to open in Denver next year. In other words, a plan to make a facility the state doesn’t need in the first place even worse. It requires legislation because under current law you can’t force youth to be institutionalized behind a fence if they haven’t committed a crime.

Another bill, (also "sailing through the legislature) based on another task force recommendation, calls for creation of a standard pre-admission “risk assessment tool” to predict how likely it is that a given child will run. 

And then what?  The task force says a consultant should draw up the tool and determine “how the information obtained from the tools may be used to adjust a treatment plan for the child or youth while they are in out-of-home care.” 

And what, exactly, does that mean? Even more restrictions, more onerous “treatment” for any child the assessment tool thinks might run away?

The report makes no mention of the fact that, in other child welfare contexts, such tools have an ugly history of bias.  According to the report “several members cautioned” that objective criteria are necessary and that the assessment of risk can vary “depending on the professional performing the assessment” but there was no mention here of racial bias – something that might have come up had the task force itself been a bit more diverse.

And, what happens if, despite the assessment tool, and the alarms, and the fencing, children still run away? The task force has an answer: Create a whole new type of institution just for them! Or at least a whole new name: “Short-term stabilization units.”

In short, the Task Force did exactly what we thought it would do: pander to the residential treatment industry at the expense of the children. They’re feeding the tapeworm in the system  Because, remember …

 *-The institutions serve two populations, foster children taken from their own parents by force of law, and children placed voluntarily by desperate parents unable to cope, and who have no other option. 

Getting basic federal data on foster care: Will it come to this?

 

"Psst - hey bud. Ya wanna see an AFCARS report?"

Yesterday (March 13, 2025) was an anniversary of sorts.  It marked the first anniversary of the last time the federal government published something called The AFCARS Report.  

AFCARS stands for Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System. The annual reports are the most important single source for national data about the family policing system.  In addition to the national report, there’s one for every state. The reports tell us things like how many children were taken from their homes over the course of a year, how many children are trapped in foster care on the last day of each federal fiscal year, their race, age and gender, why family police agencies claim they were taken, where they were placed, and where they go when released from the system. 

The advantage of AFCARS, aside from being a one-stop shop, is that states are required to provide the data, and there are specific definitions of what counts as foster care and what counts as an entry into foster care. In contrast, states can define these things any way they want when posting the information on their own websites, if they post the information at all. 

The disadvantage is that the definitions still leave far too much wiggle room.  In particular, they don’t count coerced so-called voluntary placements that are not voluntary at all.  That’s why such placements are called “hidden foster care.” 

Another downside to AFCARS is the time lag. The data are released by federal fiscal year. Most years, they’ve come out one year later.  So, for example, data for the year ending Sept. 30, 2020 were published on Nov. 19, 2021.  

During the last year of the Biden Administration, it got worse.  The data for the year ending Sept. 30, 2022 weren’t released until March 13, 2024.  The federal Administration for Children and Families said this was because the FY 2022 submissions from the states were the first to require many more things to be counted, along with other technical changes.  As a result,  ACF said, they needed to “take additional time to fully assess and evaluate” the data. 

Now, here we are one year and one day later, March 14, 2025, and there’s still no AFCARS report for 2023 – and no indication that one will be coming soon.* The current administration is on a tear hiding information about almost everything, sometimes seemingly just for the heck of it.  And even if no one has targeted the AFCARS Report, it’s not clear if there will be enough federal employees left standing to produce it. 

The child welfare trade journal The Imprint does its own annual survey, and their data typically run six months ahead of the latest AFCARS release (the most recent covers the year ending March 31, 2023). Filling out that survey is, of course, voluntary, but the results are impressively close to AFCARS, suggesting that states are not fudging the figures – or at least not fudging them any more than they do with AFCARS.

But because there’s only so much one can ask the agencies to do voluntarily, the number of data elements is quite limited. 

So the question remains: Have we seen the last of AFCARS, at least for the next few years? Will we be largely blind to trends in foster care, and if so, is that intentional?  Yesterday, we emailed the ACF media office to try to find out. If we hear anything, we’ll update this post. 

*-People who spend way too much time “refreshing” webpages from the Administration for Children and Families have noticed a pattern: If you change the URL for an existing report for the expected URL for the next one, and if that next one is coming out within a month or so, you’ll get a page that says you’re not authorized to see the document in question.  But if you try that here: https://acf.gov/cb/report/afcars-report-30 by changing "30" to “31” you don’t even get that.

AI images designed with deepai.org

Challenging Handmaid’s Tale jurisprudence in child welfare

Courts in New York, Texas, Arizona and at least 11 other states demand that fathers control the mothers of their children, punish fathers who don’t and, worst of all, deprive children of loving parents who have done them no harm. New York’s highest court is being asked to put a stop to it.

See also the press release about the litigation from Pregnancy Justice

A New York City mother, known in court papers as Ms. W., used drugs during her pregnancy.  When Ms. W. gave birth, the newborn tested positive for methadone – which had been prescribed to Ms. W. to control her addiction.  But New York City’s family police agency, the Administration for Children’s Services, charged her with neglect. 

The agency didn’t stop there. They also charged the father, known in court papers as Mr. B., with neglect – because ACS said, he didn’t do enough to stop Ms. W. from using drugs. The family court (New York’s term for what other states sometimes call “juvenile court,”) agreed.  So did a mid-level appeals court.  

Now Mr. B’s lawyers, The Bronx Defenders, the Family Justice Law Center and the New York University School of Law Family Defense Clinic, are asking New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, to take up the case and overturn the lower courts.  Forty-four organizations and scholars have joined amicus briefs in support of Mr. B.

The Court of Appeals has never heard the issue, even though bad decisions like this are fairly common in New York. To what may be a greater degree than any other state, New York courts have deemed fathers neglectful for failing to stop a pregnant partner’s drug use, or not knowing about a pregnant partner’s drug abuse when they supposedly should have. The neglect finding can lead to anything from constant, onerous surveillance of the family to confiscating newborns at birth and depriving them of the chance to live with either parent.  

Texas and Arizona also do this often. As Pregnancy Justice explains in a comprehensive report on the practice, in those states, a father’s failure to control his pregnant partner has led directly to the child losing the chance to be with either parent forever – it’s grounds for termination of parental rights, though in Texas language on page 750 of this 2022 State Supreme Court decision may have improved things a little. Similar decisions have been handed down in at least 11 other states. 

The problems are legion: 

● For starters, the whole scheme is based on the assumption that using drugs during pregnancy automatically makes you an unfit parent, or that using drugs, period, inherently makes you a danger to your child.  Sometimes that’s true; often it’s not.  Just ask the “cannamoms” of Massachusetts - or the children raised by Betty Ford. 

As Pregnancy Justice explains: 

[K]nowing that someone uses drugs tells us nothing about that person’s ability to parent. That is even more true where the allegation is mere use—not an allegation of excess or the loss of control—or that a person did not stop the other parent from using drugs during pregnancy. 

(Just guessing here, but had Betty Ford been an alcoholic and addicted to prescription opioids while pregnant (which, in fact, she was later in her children’s lives) child protective services probably wouldn’t have taken any children from her husband.) 

● This line of decisions is, in effect, a judge-made backdoor fetal personhood law – something there’s no way the New York State Legislature would enact overtly.  The decisions are based on the concept that the fetus was neglected by the mother, and the father is guilty of neglect for not preventing the mother from neglecting the fetus.  

● Then there’s the whole “Handmaid’s Tale” vibe -- the idea that women are mere vessels for reproduction who are to be under the strict control of men. If anything these decisions go farther – depriving children of their mothers and their fathers if the fathers exercise insufficient control over their partners’ pregnancies. 

In fact, the control the government demands can predate conception.  Mr. B was found neglectful in part because, the lower court said, he was aware his partner was using drugs at the time they were “planning to conceive.” 

● The decisions don’t explain how much control is enough. Is simply providing help sufficient? Apparently not, since Mr. B. repeatedly provided help and support when Ms. W. went into treatment. So what are the men supposed to do? Lock the women up in their homes? Pregnancy Justice cites the father in a California case who said: 

“How am I supposed to force her to stop? I have been supportive and sent her to get help. I don’t own her; she is not a pet. I cannot force her. Even if I was married to her, I could not force her to stop using drugs.” 

The extremism reflected in these decisions can be seen in these examples, cited by Pregnancy Justice: 

From New York: 

“The petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected the subject child. Despite his knowledge that the mother continued to abuse marijuana during her pregnancy, he failed to exercise a minimum degree of care to protect the child.”

From Texas: 

In [one case] the father’s legal bond with his child was terminated even though he did not use drugs or have a history of use, completed recommended services and regular visits, provided diapers and toys for the child, and had a suitable home, but only because he knew the mother used drugs during the pregnancy and “failed” to prevent her from doing so. 

From Arizona:

In one case, the father originally lost his parental rights for failing to stop the mother’s drug use during pregnancy, when he did not know the mother was pregnant, did not have a relationship with her, and did not know he was going to become a father until after the birth. 

In another case, the court, lacking direct evidence of the mother’s substance use, inferred her continued substance use and used that as a basis to find the father had an “inability to discern [her] use” and to terminate the parent-child bond. In other words, the court terminated the father’s rights and created a legal orphan because the father failed to observe something the state could not prove existed. 

In another case, both parents’ rights were terminated based on the mother’s legal medical cannabis use. 

There is one drug for which we are aware of no similar cases: We know of no children ever having their right to be raised by their father terminated because the father did not stop his pregnant partner from smoking cigarettes. But hey, if courts started doing that, it could affect, you know, people like us. 

But the worst harm is that inflicted on children – forced at best to endure needless harassment and surveillance by family police agencies, at worst denied the chance to live with their own loving fathers and instead consigned to the chaos of foster care. 

That brings us to what may be the most perverse part of this whole scheme of judge-made law, something discussed in an amicus brief filed by Children’s Rights and the Columbia Law School Family Defense Clinic. The brief explains how these lower court decisions create incentives that push prospective fathers away from their partners. (The quotes  below omit citations): 

Prospective fathers should be able to be involved during a pregnancy without being legally required to infringe on their partners’ bodily autonomy or fear that their involvement will lead to a charge of neglect. The lower court’s decision punished Mr. B because of his involvement during the mother’s pregnancy, despite Mr. B’s efforts to support Ms. W. in her attempts to become sober. … 

Had Mr. B not been involved and not provided support, he would have been under no burden to take steps to prevent Ms. W’s drug use. Instead, the lower court’s decision—and similar precedents—punishes prospective fathers for their involvement during a pregnancy and thus disincentives fathers from becoming involved during the crucial prenatal stage of development. … 

[U]nder the line of precedents at issue in this case, the more a father is involved with and supportive of his pregnant partner, the more likely it is that a family court will later deem him neglectful and take his baby from him … This creates a perverse incentive: if a father lives with or supports his pregnant partner, he risks being labeled neglectful; if he disengages, he avoids such a finding—even if that disengagement deprives the mother of essential support. 

The New York State Court of Appeals should take this opportunity to reverse this line of decisions.  Courts in Texas, Arizona and at least 11 other states should be reconsidering as well.

NCCPR news and commentary round-up, week ending March 11, 2025

● A lawsuit alleges that a child who wandered out of his mother’s home in West Virginia was placed – for that reason alone -- in foster care.  He wandered out of the foster home and died. I have a blog post about why this tragedy is a failure not only of West Virginia foster care but also of West Virginia journalism, with links to news accounts about the lawsuit from WTAP-TV, The Parkersburg News and Sentinel and WCHS-TV. 

● Acting on recommendations from a task force aiming for less mandated reporting and more mandated supporting, The Imprint reports, California lawmakers have introduced two well-intentioned bills with that intent.  But it’s not clear if either bill will have the intended effect. 

One bill would require counties to set up an alternative response mechanism for what are known in California as “general neglect” cases. The intent appears to be that the response to such reports come from community agencies, not the family police. That’s good, and sets this apart from many other “alternative response” programs, but the language is vague concerning how much involvement the family police still will have. That’s problematic. In New York City, for example, family advocates say the city family police agency’s alternative response can actually be more oppressive than a conventional investigation. 

The second bill would set up a pilot program in Los Angeles to require mandatory reporters to get training in determining when there are better alternatives to a report. But in addition to the training, there also would be an interactive “decision support tool” that Los Angeles County agency would be responsible for creating. 

But here’s the catch: According to the official summary of the bill 

The bill would require the decision support tool to, among other things, make a recommendation on whether or not to report. The bill would, during the time the pilot program is in effect, deem a mandated reporter to have satisfied their reporting duties if the reporter completed the training, used the decision support tool, and complied with the recommended action. [Emphasis added.] 

Caseworkers have been using these sorts of “decision support tools” for years – and there have been widespread concerns about racial bias in those tools – including in Los Angeles. 

● The Imprint also reports on the legislative agenda of family advocates in New York State, which may be more promising. 

● In still another failure for predictive analytics, an experiment in Japan to use AI to point out child abusers has failed dramatically.  The failure was in finding the abusers; the study only looked for what are called false negatives. The researchers didn’t even ask about false positives – that is, wrongly accusing innocent families.  You can read about it in Unseen Japan. Their story is based on this one from the Yomiuri Shimbun (Google Translate works pretty well.)

Child’s death is a failure of West Virginia foster care, but also West Virginia journalism

Here are all the stories I could find in West Virginia on the topic of
the needless removal of children from their homes.

A lawsuit alleges that a child who wandered out of his mother’s home was placed – for that reason -- in foster care.  He wandered out of the foster home and died.

Here’s what allegedly happened to a three-year-old boy in West Virginia known in court papers as PS, according to a lawsuit filed by his mother, as reported by The Parkersburg News and Sentinel, WTAP-TV and WCHS-TV: 

The boy was autistic, nonverbal and had a tendency to wander out of the home on his own. 

In August 2023, he got out of his home when his mother, Shyana Townsend, wasn’t looking. Townsend Townsend, “quickly noticed he was gone and went after him.”  The boy walked a few houses away when his mother came running after him and found him in a park.  But so did a police officer.  That was reason enough for the police to arrest Townsend and charge her with child abuse and neglect.  Ms. Townsend had no prior arrests and had never been accused of abusing or neglecting her child before 

Sadly, that could happen anywhere.  Indeed, a strikingly similar case in Colorado made national news. 

But in West Virginia, the child removal capital of America, where they tear apart families at a rate more than quadruple the national average, even when rates of family poverty are factored in, they didn’t stop with an arrest.  The lawsuit alleges that Ms. Townsend was jailed for seven days and PS was placed in foster care with strangers. 

But PS’s internment lasted far longer than seven days.  He was kept in foster care, month after month after month, while the state family police agency did what these agencies always do. They forced Ms. Townsend to jump through all sorts of hoops. 

The lawsuit says the family police agency knew about PS’s skill at getting out of a home and his tendency to do just that.  Nevertheless, they placed him in a foster home with a backdoor 30 yards from a river.  PS did, in fact, wander from the foster home several times. 

On June 17, 2024, Ms. Townsend saw her son for a supervised visit. The lawsuit alleges that she 

pleaded with [child protective services] to return PS to her home or place him somewhere else because it appeared he was in greater danger with his foster parents than being with her, but CPS continued to refuse to return PS to Shyana or place him in another foster home. 

That evening, while the foster mother was taking out the garbage, the boy left the home again. He drowned in the nearby river. 

So to review: The lawsuit alleges that a child taken because he wandered out of his mother’s home was placed – for that reason -- in foster care.  He wandered out of the foster home and died. 

It could have happened anywhere. In fact, there was a tragically similar case in Kentucky. 

But it’s most likely to happen in West Virginia, the child removal capital of America.  And for that some of the responsibility rests with the state’s journalists.  

As I have documented in detail previously on this blog, year after year, the West Virginia news organizations that specialize in in-depth reporting have oozed contempt for mothers like Shyana Townsend simply because they lost their children to foster care – not by calling them names, but by simply treating them as too subhuman to be included in their stories. 

The basic premise put forth by the family police is never challenged: The parents might not be evil but they sure are sick, sick, sick! Every child needed to be taken, (they didn’t) and the obscene rate of removal is mostly because of drug abuse (it isn’t). One West Virginia news organization repeated that false claim just today – March 11. In fact, if all drug abuse in West Virginia were eradicated and no child ever was taken for that reason, West Virginia’s rate of removal still would be more than double the national average. 

So it seems that in the minds of these journalists, every mother who loses a child to foster care exists somewhere on a continuum from unperson to sick person to monster.  And while they would never use the tabloid term “druggie mom,” that’s the implication. 

West Virginians have to rely on other sources, such as Human Rights Watch, and NBC News and ProPublica, to find out the parts of the story their local reporters ignore. And that makes it easy for the state family police agency to keep taking their children at the highest rate in America. 

And to the reporters and editors at The Parkersburg News and Sentinel, WTAP-TV, and WCHS-TV, who at least covered Ms. Townsend’s lawsuit: Please do what no one else has done so far: Take the next step and dig into how many other West Virginia parents like Shyana Townsend are out there, and how many other children are suffering as a result.

NCCPR news and commentary round-up, week ending March 4, 2025

● “They literally took her off my breast in the hallway with her screaming at the court hearing,” says Kristen Clark-Hassell, of the day her newborn was taken.  

It’s bad enough that Clark-Hassell had her daughter and other children taken by Georgia’s family police agency for reasons that sure sound like the confusion of poverty with neglect. It’s worse that she was subjected to constant drug testing even though there was no allegation of drug abuse. Worse still, The Current reports, when test results conflicted, the family police ignored the ones where results came out negative and relied on positive results from a company with a questionable track record for accuracy.    

They kept using the company even when they knew about the questions.  And, according to the story, the agency 

failed to notify the thousands of parents whose tests may have been faulty, nor sought to learn how tests processed by the company impacted custody decisions about their children. 

● Family police agencies are only supposed to take away a child on the spot in an emergency. Even rushing to a judge without giving the family a chance to defend itself is supposed to be reserved for emergencies.  But guess who decides if it’s an “emergency.” That’s why it’s so important that, at the very least, a full-scale hearing be held within days of children being torn, from their parents and thrown into foster care. But as the Boston Globe reports in this story, with comment from NCCPR, that often doesn’t happen either.  

● I doubt I will ever again agree with the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.  But in his recent State of the Judiciary address, he got the part about termination of children’s rights to their parents right. You can find his remarks, and a video link, in this NCCPR Blog post. 

● The Chief Justice also praised new Texas laws curbing the power of the state’s family police agency.  As KSAT-TV reports, contrary to the fearmongering when the laws were passed, the evidence shows child safety continues to improve. 

● When I saw The Imprint had published an op-ed by a former foster parent and former member of the board of the local “child advocacy center” – this wasn’t what I was expecting. 

● Last week’s round-up noted progress toward making a state version of the Indian Child Welfare Act permanent in Montana. But KUER Public Radio reports there’s been no such progress in Utah.

Texas’ Chief Justice: “When the State goes to court to take somebody’s children, it’s not opening up a collaborative therapy session.”

Texas Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock

This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Texas Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock. There's a good chance it may never happen again.  But there are data to back up his words. 

Blacklock ended his State of the Judiciary Address with some remarkable comments about the new Texas laws curbing the power of the family police. And he called for limits on terminating children’s rights to their parents – a more accurate term than termination of parental rights. 

You can watch what he said here.   

Here’s the text of that portion of his remarks: 

Using the coercive power of the State to take children from their God-given parents—to destroy a family—should never be our first instinct. It should ALWAYS be our very last resort. I want to thank the Legislature for requiring DFPS to keep more families together. Senator Kolkhorst, Representative Dutton, and others have been leaders on this, and I urge you to continue those efforts this Session. 

One suggestion is to repeal what we call subsection (O)—it’s section 161.001(b)(1)(O) of the Family Code, and it allows a parent’s rights to be terminated forever if the parent fails to check every box on a long list of things the state wants them to do to get their child back. The thing is—there’s another provision that allows termination of rights if the parent endangers the child. So, the State only needs to use subsection (O) if it can’t prove that the parent has endangered the child. But if the State can’t prove that, then why on earth would we destroy that family? 

Termination of parental rights is the civil death penalty. When the State goes to court to take somebody’s children, it’s not opening up a collaborative therapy session. It’s initiating adversarial litigation of the highest stakes imaginable. We need to do more to ensure that desperate parents in these cases have vigorous representation, and we need to make sure the Family Code doesn’t stack the deck against the parent before the case starts. Repealing subsection (O) would be a good start. Representative Dutton has a bill that would do this, and I commend his bill to your consideration. 

As I said, his remarks are bolstered by data.  As KSAT-TV reported in this story and in this one, the latest state data show that in state fiscal year 2024 child abuse deaths in Texas continued to decline.  And reabuse of children left in their own homes remains lower than before the new laws were passed.