Saturday, October 26, 2013
Today I Am A Horse.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Criticism of LA Times' Series on Foster Care; the Agency Leadership and the Federal Funding Scheme
The nature of the reporting came under fire from several critics, including Daniel Hempel of Fostering Media Connections, Celeste Fremon of the Blog WitnessLA, and Richard Wexler of the National Coalition of Child Protection Reform. Times' Assistant Managing Editor, David Lauter's response to that criticism appeared on the Times' Readers' Representative web page, and Lauter's response generated additional criticism as well as several reader comments.
One reader's comment began with "I don't know what this fuss is about...", which I took personally. Thinking about these cases in the abstract is so far removed from the visceral, real-life experince of being a cast member in the actual drama.
As a result, I posted the following comment on the Blog, which you can find at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/readers/2010/11/times-responds-to-criticism-of-foster-care-coverage.html.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Response to my letter to Bill Clinton
Since the entire point of my letter was completely missed, I think perhaps I'll write again. I must admit, however, that I'm pretty disappointed in the lack of a quality response. The reply letter offers no evidence that my letter was read by anyone with even a thimblefull of critical thinking skills.
It's sad.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
It's time to plan for action. Collective action.
Today I sent out an email bulletin to all of the members of the cause, asking them what individual actions they have taken or thought about taking in order to change things for the better. I realize, of course, that some of those who have joined the cause are just now newly involved in "the system" and may only be thinking about how to get their children back home and how to end their involvement in it.
Nonetheless, I think that it is important for all of us, those whose involvement is in the past and those presently in the system, to put on our thinking caps and come up with a collective plan of action. Commitment to such a plan can only help to move us all from a position of powerlessness into one of strength.
I have asked for ideas and have proposed one myself. Now I must pause and be patient, await responses and then figure out how to respond to them. In the meantime, I shall continue to formulate my own ideas, which presently range from how to provide better and more comprehensive investigation, how to enhance real due process in dependency court, how to increase the availability of in-home, wrap-around services to keep children from being needlessly removed from their own homes, and how to make the entire process more transparent and honest.
The research and papers published on the NCCPR website are among the most helpful I can imagine. So as a first collective action, I have proposed that every member of Getting Child Protection Right contribute one dollar or whatever they can afford to that organization on the day that we grow to 400 members, and I plan to propose that we do the same each time we acquire 100 new members, thus increasing our contribution by $100 each time we hit that milestone in growth.
I know that we can do more, but this is a start.
Friday, May 28, 2010
What hath the Adoption and Safe Families Act wrought? A Letter to Bill Clinton.
c/o William J. Clinton Foundation
55 West 125th Street
New York, NY 10027
May 27, 2010
Dear President Clinton:
I am the father of two sons, Rudy, 21, and Jonah, 19, both college students. My wife, Jacqui, and I have been married for almost 24 years. She has secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, and I am her primary caregiver.
I write to you today on behalf of other families, though; families who currently are and who in the future will be adversely affected by the policies launched with the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).
In April 1999, our local Child Protective Services agency removed Rudy and Jonah from our home on groundless suspicions. After ten months of dependency court hearings and prompt compliance with every aspect of the case plan imposed upon us, we were reunited on a “trial visit” basis. After another eight months, the dependency court case was finally dismissed.
The emotional stress of that nearly two-year experience accelerated the progression of Jacqui’s MS, and her disability increased considerably. My own stresses cost me a job.
But none of that is my reason for writing you today. Instead, I want to tell you that, building on the policy foundation established by ASFA, South Carolina has passed a new law, the signing ceremony for which took place on Tuesday last. Under that law, holding children in foster care for just six months will become grounds to terminate parental rights forever. After 18 months, the new law requires termination of parental rights, no ifs, ands or buts.
Because of the instrumental role you played with ASFA, it is very important that you know what is happening now. The policy of financial incentives from the Federal government to the states birthed by the passage of ASFA has become a malignancy, one threatening the well-being of American families.
Please read the May 27, 2010, entry on the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform’s (NCCPR) Blog http://www.nccpr.blogspot.com/ . I beseech you to use the power of your foundation to help reverse the harmful policies resulting from ASFA.
I am more than happy to discuss this idea with you, and I have no doubt that Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the NCCPR would be as well.
I also hope that you also read the new report of the Annie E. Casey Foundation on the reforms made in the Maine Child Protective Services bureaucracy. That report can be found at http://www.aecf.org/.
Thank you for reading this. I hope that you will use the resources of your Foundation to remedy the harm done by a law that was supposed to help, not harm, families and children.
Very truly yours,
Steven H Hirsch
*********************************
Update: July 27, 2010
Today I received the following letter of reply from Bill Clinton:
*********************************************************************************
"July 22, 2010
Dear Steven:
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Our children are the future, and protecting them is our most profound responsibility. The goal of the Adoption and Safe Families Act was to give every child the opportunity to grow up in a healthy and safe environment, with the potential to become strong, successful adults. Throughout my Administration, we tried to increase the number of adoptions from the foster care system by eliminating race and ethicity barriers, breaking down geographic barriers by using the Internet, and ensuring health coverage for adopted children with special needs.
I'm glad you share my belief in the importrance of advocating for children's safety. It's vital that we talk about the issues that are important to us, so I encourage you to continue to share your views.
Sincerely,
/s/ Bill Clinton"
*********************************************************************************
So, since the entire point of my letter was missed, shall I take the time to write once more?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Es su CASA mi CASA? I don't think so; at least it wasn't in our case.
As a parent who, to this day, still feels very victimized by my family's experience ten years ago in what I can only describe as the meatgrinder of the Child Protective Services - Dependency Court system in Orange County, California, I initially bristled at reading that information. Not because my friend did anything to intentionally hurt me, because he certainly did not. I am sure that he is just trying to do something positive for the world and for children.
My reaction is partly frustration that I still do not know what more I can do other than drumming up support for a wonderfully effective organization, The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, http://www.nccpr.org/ , through my own Facebook Cause, "Getting Child Protection Right". And it's also partly frustration and, yes, resentment, that despite the presence of a CASA volunteer in our courtroom, no one from CASA ever spoke to me or to my wife. I wish they had.
Looking at the phrase above, "helping a family to regenerate and become parents", presupposes that a family has stopped being a family and parents have stopped being parents. But how does that happen? In our case, it happened because no one in the system bothered to investigate us in any depth prior to taking action to separate parents from children. It happened becuase there is no CASA that is there for parents. Oh, of course there is an attorney, but our attorney (or, in our case, attorneys, plural, because of a potential legal conflict of interest between my wife and myself, despite no REAL conflict) were not able to get the court to really see how unbelievably we parents were being mistreated by the system until a hearing that took place some nine months from the time our boys were taken into custody. NINE MONTHS. Do you know what effect nine months of nights away from our kids did to the course of my wife's multiple sclerosis?
I feel the pain of parents who write to me through "Getting Child Protection Right". Their pain is my pain. No doubt they could use a CASA, too.
I think I'll share this blog entry with my friend. I think he'll understand.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Happy Birthday to Holly, and A Loving Tribute to the memory of Dr. Stanley van den Noort, M.D.
Happy Birthday, Holly.
* * *
http://sciencedude.freedomblogging.com/2009/09/18/legendary-uci-researcher-van-den-noort-dies/57369/
Stan was my wife’s neurologist for almost twenty years, and since I took her to almost all of her visits with him, we became good friends and allies in managing her battle against the chronic progressive nature of MS. He treated her through the remission that accompanied her second pregnancy and the nursing of our baby and watched our two little sons grow up, as we usually brought them to his office at UCI.
One afternoon In 1999, the OC Department of Child Protective Services took our boys from their elementary school in Irvine to Orangewood Children’s Home on allegations of abuse against me and failure to protect against my wife
Three days later, after a CPS in-home investigation and evaluation, which included full disclosure of my wife’s MS and my spousal caregiving and parenting role, we reported for a hearing before an OC pro tem dependency court commissioner after CPS formally agreed in writing that our sons could return home. Our attorney told us that such agreements were rare and only given in those cases where CPS regarded parents highly and judged them as low risk.
At that hearing, after objection to the agreement by an attorney from the contracted law firm representing the children, the pro tem commissioner imposed an additional requirement by court order: “Father not to be sole caregiver of the minor.” (sic)
That order was neither discussed nor debated in open court and no one raised the issue of my wife’s MS and my caregiving role.
That judicial indifference to the presence of the disease of MS in a family and lack of discussion by any of the attorneys present created a situation that made it impossible for us to comply with the court order. There were times when my wife had to lie down for a nap when I was the only other adult at home with the children. I clearly explained that to social workers who visited our home, whose response was that we were therefore in violation of the court order and would consequently lose the children.
I explained the situation to our attorney and implored him to seek a modification of the court order, because MS prevented us from being able to comply. He told me that he attempted to do so, but failed.
The inevitable happened. CPS took our boys away again and this time placed them in a “sibling assessment facility”.
During this time, Stan, who had known our family for some ten years, went so far as to write a letter to the dependency court on our behalf. He knew what kind of parents we were and he was unfailingly supportive. It was incredible to him and to us how lack of awareness of the disease and its effect on a family could be so ignored by officialdom.
My wife’s MS definitely worsened under the stress caused by the emotional pain of having our boys taken away. Stan did what he could to help us. He was a wonderful physician and a great friend. Our boys finally were allowed to come home ten and one half months later and the court finally dismissed the dependency case in December, 2000.
Through relapses, remissions and exacerbations, Stan was always there. He got my wife into a late-stage clinical trial for Copaxone after her body rejected beta interferon, and she remains on that injectable medication today. That may be the reason she is not in a wheelchair full-time after some thirty years of living with MS.
Stan was a wonderful clinician and researcher, a great professor and dedicated dean. But to us, he was a beloved healer and friend, advocate and ally, and rock of support. We have missed him for the two years since his brain injury, and now we will miss him forever.
May his memory be a blessing to all who knew and loved him, and may our story be of comfort to his family, especially his beloved wife, June.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Getting Child Protection Right
When we were in the meatgrinder of the CPS system, I really wanted someone to help us get out of it, and naturally I went to the Internet for information. But now, with the benefit of the passage of time, I know that the real solution to how we, as a society, handle issues of child abuse and neglect must come on the policy level that will influence state legislators to take the action necessary to make the reforms that children and families so need and deserve.
Here in California, where state finances are in turmoil, this could be an opportunity for reform ideas to take root. If there could be a non-governmental alternative to addressing cases of child abuse/neglect, one involving extended families, friends and support communities, what a different experience children and families in crisis would have.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
So What's a Father to Do?
I am wondering whether there are any serious academic studies of dependency court cases. Given that these cases are confidential, any studies would no doubt have to de-identify the parties involved. The first thing it would be interesting to know is just what percent of petitions filed against parents by the state are contested by the parents, and what percent are not. When we had our very first hearing, I wanted to contest the allegations of the petition. I was certain that if my wife and I had the opportunity to explain our side of things, someone in a position of authority would certainly listen to reason, realize that the whole matter was a huge mistake and dismiss it at once.
Boy, was I naive.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Child Protection Reform
A helpful website was created by Suzanne Shell. After reading it, I purchased a copy of her book, Profane Justice. Although my belief system differs from Suzanne's, I found her practical approach to be very helpful guidance. I was very impressed with her efforts to train family advocates and to proactively let people know what they needed to know in order to protect themselves from systemic abuses.
One thing that most impacted my family's situation was the administrative law flavor of dependency cases. Neither fish nor fowl, dependency court was different from both criminal court and civil court, where, presumably, rules of evidence apply and hearsay can only be admitted under certain exceptions to the exclusionary rule. In dependency court, social workers were free to include whatever they wanted to in their reports, without regard to hearsay. Not only were inaccuracies and untruths included, many of their written statements were highly objectionable from a legal standpoint. Nonetheless, those reports were admitted wholesale into evidence. I found that the court typically accepted whatever the Department of Social Services said as truth, without question. Thus, once accused in the allegations of a filed petition, parents were treated as guilty until they could prove themselves innocent.
Consequently, the first things I recommend are that the burden of proof be shifted and the standard for proof be changed. These cases should require the state to prove guilt, and to do so by virtue of the standard of, at a minimum, clear and convincing evidence. This is NOT just a preponderance of the evidence, but clear and convincing evidence.
Next, the mandated reporter provision in the law regarding the reporting of suspected cases of child abuse and/or neglect needs to be eliminated. Allowing teachers, coaches, etc. no discretion to make a reasoned assessment before reporting cases to CPS is one of the things that caused us to end up in the meat grinder. It was all so needless. Once the ball started rolling, though, there was no way to stop it.
In our case, the injury that lead to our boys being taken away was a black-and-blue mark left behind after an accidental bump on our younger son's forehead. And even more ridiculously, on that particular morning, we had costumed our son as Thomas Alva Edison, for he was to present a book report on a biography of the inventor.
My wife fashioned a costume that came close to the depiction of Edison on the cover of the book, and I went so far as to put gel in his hair and part it right down the middle, as in the style worn by Edison. When I did so, it uncovered that black-and-blue mark on his forehead that had otherwise been hidden by the straight hair bangs that normally fell down to his eyebrows.
Now, I ask: would I -- or would anyone -- have done such a thing if they had any inkling that they might be accused of child abuse?
For all of you out there who either are parents or were once a child yourself (and I hope that covers everyone!), I must ask whether you or your child ever bumped your head by accident. Let me see a show of hands, please. O.K, looks like about half of you, if not slightly more. So if a child has a bump on his head, should teachers be mandated to report that to CPS or should they be allowed the discretion to try to find out what happened?
I am convinced that had we been given the opportunity to meet with the mandated reporter, she would have realized that what was suspected child abuse was clearly the result of our son having accidentally bumped his head, an incident that his parents had absolutely nothing to do with. In fact, our son did not even remember at first how he did it. Only later did he recall the details of what had happened. It was entirely innocent and accidental, and no one else was involved.
That was just the tip of the iceberg for us. So many other things could have been done to prevent the case from going forward if only some reasonable efforts had been made to do a thorough investigation of our family. I'll go into that topic in a subsequent post.
Monday, March 31, 2008
In Memory of Gary Proctor, Esq.
My wife and I met Gary Proctor in April, 1999, shortly after our two boys, then 10 1/2 and 8 years of age, were taken into custody by Orange County Child Protective Services. My wife is disabled as a result of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis; I’m her primary caregiver.
We'd been asking for a joint therapy session with the kids and their assigned therapist -- one of the last remaining hurdles for us to clear in our case plan -- but that had not yet been scheduled. The one positive development thus far had been a recent formal ruling by our Referee (the acting judge in dependency court). He had ordered the DSS to liberalize visitation rules, as they had been so very restrictive for so long.
I was in the process of exchanging insurance information with the other drivers when my cell phone rang. The voice on the other end introduced herself as a supervisory social worker. I did not recognize her name as we had never met before. She explained that she was calling to inform me that as the result of something that had transpired during the boys' therapy session (she would be no more specific than that), she had to cancel our scheduled visit with the boys for Thanksgiving, and informed me further that as a result of what had taken place in therapy, the DSS was going to seek a reversal of the Referee's recent order for liberalization of visitation rules!!!
That news hit me much harder than the car behind me in line had done. I couldn't imagine what possibly might have taken place in the boys' therapy session that would lead to this. When I asked her what had happened, she told me that she really couldn't discuss that with me at the present time, but that this action on her part was necessary. I really could not believe that something like this was happening, and as the thought crossed my mind of having to call Jacqui and tell her this, I did everything I could to plead with her to not take that action until after Thanksgiving except get down on my knees in the middle of Fairview Blvd. But my plea fell to the asphalt and shattered in fragments.
I imagined myself as a little mouse being toyed with by a big, powerful cat, and I dreaded calling my wife with this news, but I did. When we went to bed that night, the room was filled with even worse heartache than we had felt the first night the boys had been taken away, if that was even possible.
What, in heaven’s name, could have happened in that therapist’s office?
The following week, I got a hint. The new caseworker told me that it had something to do with the words “Wet Willy”.
Wet Willy? What was she talking about? I was completely clueless.
The first call I made was to my attorney. I left him a pretty strange message asking whether he had ever heard about something called "Wet Willy".
When he got back to his office he returned my call, but said he was sorry and really couldn’t help me; he didn’t know what it meant either. But there were a number of people milling around where he was, so he called out, “Does anyone here know what ‘Wet Willy’ means?”
I heard some noise in the background, as some younger people in his office called out to him and then demonstrated for him one meaning of the words. Turns out that a "Wet Willy" is a child’s prank, where one child wets a finger with saliva and then sticks it in the ear of an unsuspecting victim, wiggling it around to inflict a most unpleasant sensation.
O.K., so now I knew what “Wet Willy” meant. But I still couldn’t understand how such a thing could have caused the DSS to cancel our Thanksgiving visit and want to restrict us once more to supervised visitation.
It was not until we finally had our first meeting with the boys' therapist that we got the whole story. During a session in her office, our sons had been playing with marbles on a carpeted floor when one of them said to the other, “That looks like ‘Wet Willy’!” The therapist asked them what “Wet Willy” was. Our older son replied, “Oh, you wouldn’t understand.”
Although she didn’t push it any further to find out what exactly they were talking about, she assumed that it was something sexual!!! Since a “Willy” can be a euphemism for male genitalia, then, of course, a “Wet Willy” must be… oh, my God.
We sat there incredulous, speechless. Now I realized why our Thanksgiving visit had been canceled. The allegations against us were about to take a very ugly turn for the worse.
When we next saw
"These people are being hyper-vigilant with you. We have to see if we can make the Referee see that."
At our next visit with the boys, an unsupervised one, I asked them if they could tell us what "Wet Willy" means. Rudy gave me funny look, then they looked at each other and both started to laugh. "What was so funny?" I asked.
Without my offering a word of explanation, they already knew exactly the reason for my question.
It seemed that during one session in the therapist's office, our younger son, who had recently turned 9, was playing with some marbles on the carpeted floor. At one point, his older brother noticed something and said, “Hey, that looks like Wet Willy!”
I asked what they had said to the therapist when she asked what "Wet Willy" was, and our elder son said that he had told her, “You wouldn’t understand.”
Then he said to us, “You know that little kid in the drop of water? The one on clothes and stuff?” That’s Wet Willy.”
What he was referring to was a corporate logo. It's a stylized cartoon caricature of a little boy inside of a drop of water, and it's used on a line of skateboards and children's active wear owned by a company called Worldwide Industries. That was the “Wet Willy” that got in the way of our Thanksgiving plans -- an image composed out of a certain configuration of marbles on the rug of the therapist's office. A good name for this story would be: How Wet Willy Stole Thanksgiving.
True to form, the DSS filed a motion with the court to reverse the previous order liberalizing visitation.
Gary then took some time to make a brief statement about what had transpired in this case. He listed every single item on the DSS' case plan and the dates that we had completed them, the private psychological evaluation that we had voluntarily undergone and paid for out of our own pockets, and then summarized the scrutiny we had been subjected to by the DSS as nothing other than unjustified and arbitrary hyper-vigilance.
From that time on, the boys remained home with us. Finally, in December of 2000, the case was dismissed by the court and the DSS got to consider our family one of its “success stories”. The department case plan had been fulfilled, the family was reunited on a trial basis after ten and one-half months of separation, and now would remain reunited.
For my wife and me, it had been ten and one-half months of emotional agony, financial strain (I’d had to resign from a job under the stress I was experiencing) and my wife's stress definitely affected her MS, as several of her symptoms worsened during that time. We were a family that should never have been put through such a traumatic experience in the first place.
The dark cloud of this experience had one lustrous silver lining. Incredibly wonderful and selfless friends in our own community, one family that has known us since our eldest’s first birthday party and another that has known us almost as long volunteered to be first and second in line to be foster parents for our boys. Our sons were moved to the first family's home after two months in a "sibling assessment facility", and they remained there until they were allowed to come home. Although we were not allowed to see or have a telephone call with our boys without a monitor being present, and although we had to remain at arm's length from our friends who were serving as foster parents, when our boys moved to our friends' home for foster care, they also returned to their neighborhood school and their circle of friends. That was a blessing. A major blessing. And we are forever grateful to these wonderful people.
I am absolutely certain that without
I had not been in touch with
I’m sure there are countless stories of families like mine that
To his wife, daughter and son I wish much healing.
My family and I will be forever grateful for what

Here's what it's about for me: in April of 1999, my wife and I had our two sons taken from their elementary school one afternoon. They were first placed into a group home and then into foster care. It never should have happened.
I very much appreciate the incisiveness of the criticism -- much deserved -- leveled by Mssrs. Heimpel and Wexler against the Times' reporting in the recent series of articles by Mr. Therolf. Celeste Fremon is correct when she identifies the straw man arguments constructed by David Lauter in his response. I hope that Mr. Lauter will get past them, make his way into a more forthright self-examination of the Times' reportage and continue this very important conversation.
The underlying fuss, beyond the reportage, is about a curious system of financial incentive/disincentive, imposed upon counties by federal policy that reimburses counties ONLY for the costs of out-of-home placement of children, even though other alternatives may be more effective, less costly and most importantly, less damaging and traumatic for children and families.
Presently Los Angeles County, along with Alameda County and the State of Florida, have been granted waivers from compliance with that federal policy, and are able to use federal reimbursement dollars in the best interests of child welfare. That waiver is making a very positive difference in Florida outcomes, and under the right child welfare agency leadership, it can do the same in Los Angeles County.
Though we were lucky in the foster care department (incredibly supportive family friends volunteered and were approved to act as our sons' foster parents, although we were not allowed contact with them absent a monitor for many months), our children, my wife, who has multiple sclerosis and whose condition worsened considerably under the stress of the separation, and I endured much emotional trauma. Our family nightmare, which took place in Orange and not LA County, ended when we were reunited ten and one-half months after that horrible day in April, 2009.
Our lives were forever changed -- and not in a good way -- because of an institutional bias toward removing children from their homes that prevails in most places in this country under the current child welfare funding scheme. Far too many families experience similar treatment. THAT's what the fuss is all about.
Yes, child abuse and neglect are real. And yes, child protective services are a necessary thing. However, they need not be the necessary evil which they far too often are. If we are going to provide those services, let's fund them in ways that eliminate institutional bias, give children what is best for their welfare, help deserving families that need help, and improve outcomes, both social and fiscal. Let's get child protection right. * * * * * *