AES/Sibling Project – Blog Post 3
Editor’s Note: This blog series is written by Associate Professor Lynette Renner, Research Assistant Lindsay Anderson, and Dr. Kristine Piescher (CASCW) at the University of Minnesota School of Social Work. The goal of this three-part series is to provide information and encourage discussion of expanding our understanding of children’s exposure to violence, specifically within the child welfare system. Effective responses to the safety and wellbeing of children can only emerge from a comprehensive assessment of victimization. In the first blog and second blog, we described the prevalence and behavioral effects of children’s exposure to child maltreatment and the lack of definition and guidance of siblings in federal child welfare policies. In this final blog post, we describe Minnesota state policies relating to the child welfare system, with a specific emphasis on exposure to child maltreatment.
Although federal policies provide guidance relating to child welfare services and eligibility, most practice-related decisions are left to the determination and implementation of the states. Minnesota state policies related to child welfare specify the eligibility and process for each step in Child Protective Services (CPS) involvement, from the initial reporting of maltreatment to service provision and permanency planning. Similar to federal policies related to child welfare, within Minnesota state policies there is inconsistent use of and focus upon ‘siblings’ of maltreated youth and their exposure to maltreatment.
Various Definitions of Who Receives Intervention Services Along Case Process
Minn. Stat. 260C, which relates to juvenile safety and placement, defines Family or household members to include “spouses, former spouses, parents and children, persons related by blood, and persons who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past, and persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any time” (Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 17); yet, different terms and target groups are used throughout Minnesota state policies depending upon the stage in the CPS case process.
The maltreated child is the primary focus in both reporting (Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 3) and screening (Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 7) suspected child abuse. The earlier stages of CPS assessment generally focus on the safety of the maltreated child and other family members (Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2 (d) and Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 10e (b)), while investigations focus more specifically on the current safety of a child (Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2 (e)) and determining whether maltreatment occurred. In the later stages of CPS involvement (i.e., CHIPS petitions, foster care placement, temporary removal of parental rights and permanency options) the focus shifts to any minor coming within the jurisdiction of the court (Minn. Stat. § 260C.157, subd.1).
Although the maltreated child is the primary focus in each stage of CPS intervention, the inclusion of additional individuals and to whom the CPS worker direct their efforts are somewhat broadly defined. These broad definitions potentially leave room for differential interpretation and implementation by each county and therefore, which children received interventions at each point along the case process may not be standard across all counties in Minnesota.
Use of the Term ‘Siblings’ in Minnesota State Policies
As highlighted in our first blog post, children who are exposed to the maltreatment of their sibling have exhibited negative behavioral health outcomes that are comparable or even more significant than the target child who experienced physical abuse. Under Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 32, sibling is defined to mean “one of two or more individuals who have one or both parents in common through blood, marriage, or adoption. This includes siblings as defined by the child’s tribal code or custom. Sibling also includes an individual who would have been considered a sibling but for a termination of parental rights of one or both parents, suspension of parental rights under tribal code, or other disruption of parental rights such as the death of a parent.” Defining a sibling is relevant for child welfare policy, yet focusing on siblings becomes a challenge to practice due to the lack of reference to siblings at the earlier stages of case process. In order to truly operate from a family-centered perspective, the needs of siblings exposed to maltreatment must also be specifically assessed and addressed.
In some cases, it may not be until foster care placement, termination of parental rights, and permanency planning that state policies yield specific reference to siblings of the maltreated child. When siblings are included in these later stages of CPS involvement, the primary focus is upon placing siblings together. If siblings cannot be placed together the focus then shifts to maintaining sibling relationships after the maltreated child has been removed from the home by ensuring frequent visitation and contact can be made.
In Minnesota, two specific references to siblings emerge in policies relating to birth match/threatened injury and placement/permanency. When receiving a birth record that identifies a child who is subject to threatened injury (which includes “exposing a child to a person who is responsible for the child’s care “ who represents a “substantial risk of physical or sexual abuse or mental injury” because of the parent’s previous child protection involvement with the identified child’s sibling (Minn. Stat. 626.556, subd2.(p)), the responsible social services agency shall accept the birth match data as a report to conduct a family assessment or investigation to determine whether the child is safe (Minn. Stat. 626.556, subd.2(q)). Also, when a “child is determined to be the sibling of a child who was subjected to egregious harm” (260C.503, subd. 2 (a)(2)), the child’s parent has lost parental rights to another child through an involuntary TPR (260C.503, subd. 2 (a)(4)), the parent has committed sexual abuse against the child or another child of the parent (260C.503, subd. 2 (a)(5)), and/or another child of the parent is the subject of an involuntary TPLPC order (260C.503, subd. 2 (a)(7)), reunification efforts are not needed and a Termination of Parental Rights or Transfer of Permanent and Legal and Physical Custody petition can be filed right away.
Practice guidelines encourage Minnesota workers to assess the danger of each child when considering the removal of any child from the home. Yet, by predominately leaving the inclusion of siblings to latter phases of placement planning, Minnesota policies may fail to acknowledge the potential harm done to siblings who are exposed to child maltreatment by leaving sibling involvement to the varying county-specific practice guidelines. Not focusing policy on siblings at the earliest stages of the case limits the opportunity of child welfare workers to provide targeted early intervention or prevention services to all children in the family.
Promising Practices/ Policies
Researchers have demonstrated that children exposed to child maltreatment are at risk for behavioral, social and academic problems; however, there are limited policies that address intervention services for this group. Yet, one Minnesota State Statute does prove to be a promising practice in the effort to provide services to children other than the youth with substantiated maltreatment. After conducting a family assessment within 45 days of receipt of reported abuse, the local welfare agency shall determine whether services are needed to address the safety of the child “and other family members” (Minn. Stat. 626.556 subd.10e (b)). Under Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 10n, “a child under age three who is involved in a substantiated case of maltreatment shall be referred for screening under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, part C.” This required referral to early intervention services for children who are potentially exposed to maltreatment of a sibling demonstrates two important factors: 1) the recognition that children who are exposed to child maltreatment are at risk for negative outcomes, and 2) the understanding that early intervention efforts are key when working to mitigate the effects of family violence. The authors of this blog series argue that child welfare policies should focus on the well-being of all children and practices should focus on early intervention and prevention services for all members of a family with a specific focus on the siblings of maltreated children.
References
- Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 3
- Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 7
- Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2d
- Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 10e(b)
- Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2e
- Minn. Stat. § 260C.157, subd.1
- Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 10m
- Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd.17
- Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd.32
- Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd.10n