NCJ Number
163178
Journal
ABA Journal Volume: 82 Dated: (May 1996) Pages: 20-21
Date Published
1996
Length
2 pages
Annotation
This article provides an overview of legislative actions by States to give priority to child safety over the preservation of families in which child abuse has occurred.
Abstract
Since 1980, the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act has required States that receive Federal funds to make "reasonable efforts" both to prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their parents and to facilitate the reunification of foster children with their birth parents. Underlying the family preservation philosophy are two fundamental assumptions: that children do best when brought up by their birth parents, and that parents who have been abusive or neglectful to their children can, with support and the help of social services, learn to become satisfactory caregivers. The premise that family preservation is most often the best policy is coming under attack on a number of fronts, however. Calling for State action, the congressionally created U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect issued an indictment of the Nation's child welfare system last year. Its report urged passage of laws to speed up the termination of parental rights in cases where homes remain dangerous. Some States already have heeded that advice. In Oregon a new law allows judges to terminate parental rights quickly in cases of "extreme conduct" by parents. It is defined as those instances where a parent seriously injures, sexually assaults, starves, or tortures a child, or repeats an act that previously had caused the parent to lose rights to another child under similar circumstances. In January, New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman signed into law a bill that will allow child protection workers to ask a judge to free children for adoption if they have been under State supervision for 6 months and the parents cannot be located. Mark Hardin, child welfare director at the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law, says that improving State laws that specify grounds for terminating parental rights is a good idea, but more reforms are needed. Hardin states that most States do not consistently use current laws regarding child protection. The failing is that legal representation is not sufficiently aggressive or the workers do not understand the law. In some cases, workers do not or cannot obtain relevant records that may be confidential. He suggests that courts reduce delays in handling child-protection cases and permanently remove children from homes once it is clear that their safety is in jeopardy.