Today is the fourth meeting of the Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children. Before the meeting begins, here is a quick review of what happened at the last meeting, held on Wednesday, November 5. The agenda for this meeting involved workgroup updates, the development of a Vision Statement (meant to be finalized at tomorrow’s task force meeting), a presentation from the Minnesota State Guardian Ad Litem (GALS) Board, and public testimony. The task force also discussed developing specific questions related to the workgroup topics to pose to the public and invite reactions and comments.
GAL Presentation
Guest presenters from the State GAL Board were Hon. Paul Nelson, GAL Board Chair; Alex Miller, Manager, GAL program in the 5th Judicial District (15 counties, Southwestern MN); and Debbie Stofer, Guardian Ad Litem (Hennepin County). The presentation focused on results of a survey that the State GAL Board created in September 2014 to solicit input from the GAL Program on Minnesota’s child protection screening and intake practices, as well as on Family Assessment (FA) referrals. The survey was completed by 156 GAL staff and volunteers, coordinators, managers, and board members from across the state.
Survey Results: Screening
Strengths, concerns, and recommendations for Minnesota’s child protection screening and intake practices were presented. Screening strengths included timeliness, families being screened for domestic violence, and protecting families from false accusations. Screening concerns included:
- state guidelines being applied inconsistently,
- not considering past history in decision-making, and
- racial disparities in screening in versus screening out.
Survey Results: Family Assessment
The survey results pointed to FA’s strength in being a non-punitive practice, providing families who want help and are committed to participating with an alternative to court intervention for less serious cases. Other strengths included a recognition of FA as a strengths-based approach and a less threatening response, both of which might make families more willing to cooperate. Some of the concerns brought up by the presenters surrounding the Family Assessment response were:
- FA is used too often,
- there are not enough services and resources to make FA a successful response—specifically, per the survey, there is a lack of resources across the state, particularly outside the metro area, and, regarding offered services, FA can place a burden on an already struggling family if the identified services are not accompanied by financial or transportation help, and
- agencies need more data to evaluate and refine FA.
The GAL Board also stated that it is important to consider the strengths of FA and acknowledge what works well. There was a lot of discussion about FA and what happens when families refuse services. One thing to keep in mind is that if there is a safety concern, counties do have the option of switching tracks, from FA to Family Investigation (FI). Counties can also switch from FI to FA as well.
Recommendations Based on the Survey Results
The GAL Board emphasized that the were presenting only short-term recommendations, practices that could be implemented in the short-term. The first recommendation was to develop FA oversight committees in each county, where cases could be reviewed regularly (particularly those that were closed due to family refusal of services), and the committee could attempt to discern what could have been done differently and whether it was an issue related to engagement of the family or resource availability.
Other recommendations were to collect additional data in order to measure the impact and outcomes of FA, and to promote best practices while refining current practices. The GAL Board also recommended the use of interagency committees, recognizing that many families who become involved in child protection are also involved in other systems, and data among systems may not always cross from system to system.
The GAL Board also recommended that screening and intake workers have access to past history of maltreatment, including past family assessments, in their consideration of whether to screen in a report of alleged child maltreatment.
One of the presenters recommended that the state do more public service announcements on mandated and voluntary reporting of child maltreatment, so that the public can understand both the importance and the process of reporting. Additionally, this presenter also recommended more public service announcements on recruiting foster families.
Public Testimony
After the GAL Board’s presentation, there was some public testimony. Two members of the community talked about the need for the task force to discuss the prevalence of racial disparities in Minnesota’s child welfare system. They referred to FA in their testimony, stating that when people talk about families being noncompliant or uncooperative, it could be more of an issue of cultural misunderstanding or cultural mismatch.
A child protection supervisor at Olmsted County, Jessie Stratton, talked about the child welfare workforce in Minnesota. She pointed out that child welfare workers are hardworking and that they are doing their best with what they have. Her concern was with resource availability across the state—a lack of resources can hinder work being done by child welfare workers. She also called for a more efficient system, stating that most child welfare workers would like to see processes improved and greater efficiency.
The next step would be to investigate how the role of a Guardian ad Litem contributes or impacts a CPS investigation.
A family court GAL is NOT supposed to be involved in a CPS investigation of child abuse, neglect or mistreatment. They can, however, report CPS findings to the Court.
But what commonly happens is that a GAL will get involved in a CPS investigation, influence the outcome of CPS findings, and even make recommendations. This in turn leads to false findings, and puts a child at risk of further harm. The GAL Board has done very little to acknowledge this problem, and even less to hold its Guardians accountable.
I had an open case with CPS for child abuse, and my GAL personally called CPS and made false reports to close the investigation because she wanted the abuser to win custody. I have an evidence trail a mile long. CPS followed the instructions of the GAL – who is not supposed to be involved – and closed the case. GAL recommends abuser wins sole custody, Judge rubber stamps it. After being placed in the care of an abuser, CPS has been called several more times by various other people, and my child continues to be harmed.
The GAL program should be investigated, in a similar manner to CPS.