Home visits key to preventing child abuse

An article appeared earlier this month on the My San Antonio page.

Home visits key to preventing child abuse

While you would think this should fall under the “Dah” column you must first realize this is not part of the regular CPS program. This program falls under “Prevention and Early Intervention.” A program that was supposed to have moved out from under CPS to alongside when the “Flexible Response System of Service Delivery” philosophy was introduced way back in 1997. Something that NEVER happened.

You see, while Texas’ CPS system appears to be one of the best among the states; that is only on paper. DFPS is not operated the way their handbook indicates it was designed. The combination of huge turnovers in personnel and the lack of accountability has resulted in thousands of Texas children being over protected while thousands more are unprotected. The agency has lost and continues to lack a solid knowledge base of what it actually takes to protect children. The only way that will be corrected will be get them back into the handbook and relearn the basics. They must stop using the unwritten “Best Case Practices” their inexperienced supervisors are throwing at them. Our new caseworkers are not being properly trained and our Texas children are paying for it.

For example, let’s look at Investigations. The system was designed around their conducting “Intake Assessments” not actual investigations. After the initial contact, staffing with “Safety Services” is to take place the next day and no later than 5 days into the case. Then it is supposed to be a coordinated team effort between the FBSS and Investigations to determine the overall safety of the family, where FBSS insures the home is safe while Investigations takes care of things outside the home. Investigations is supposed to be wrapped up no later than 60 days then they are to move on to another case. This is the reason Investigation caseloads are spiraling out of control.

Look at the Tamryn Klapheke case out of Abilene in August 2012. The investigator closed the case after 11 months with no indication that FBSS was ever involved. While it is part of a FBSS caseworker’s job to check on a child at least once every 30 days, it is not the job of investigations. This child was not checked on over that extended period of time and it cost her life. Had the investigator followed the handbook, Tamryn may have been still alive today.

While the program in this article sounds good, it is currently only offered in the following counties: Cherokee County, Dallas County, Ector County, Gregg County, Nueces County, Potter County, and the lower Rio Grande Valley including Hidalgo and Willacy counties. So it is not readily available to all Texas families.

Then you have to deal with the fear factor. Texas families do not trust CPS. Very few are going to be willing to participate in programs that are a child process of CPS. Family services MUST be made CPS’ sibling. Let’s start using the system the way it was designed and not the way caseworkers want it to work. TEXAS WAKE UP.

Overall Disposition: Reason-to-believe

Over the week-end I was thinking about CPS and the manner in which they determine RTB. I was thinking about the 211 Texas children who died violent deaths in 2012. Of those 114 had prior CPS involvement. CPS failed 54% of these children.

I was thinking about burden of proof and how before 1999, Texas used the old  "some credible evidence." Which in most states is enough to  "substantiate", even if there is more evidence of innocence. But in 1999, Texas adopted "Preponderance of the Evidence" which must meet the 51/49% Rule.

At 54%, the PoE shows that for the allegation that CPS failed to protect 114 children should be RTB. Thus using §700.511(b)(1), the Overall Disposition is Reason-to-believe. No matter how much showing otherwise, using their standards. CPS overall, failed. RTB for all.

This is what they do with families. They come out for some BS allegation, but find some little something to get a RTB, which then automatically creates an overall disposition of RTB. This is how they pin bad allegations on  families.

Sadly, after 14 years, many investigators appear to be still using the old standard. As a result many children are put needlessly into the CPS system. In Texas it is roughly 39,000 children per year. 

 Which resulted in the following rule.

RULE §700.511

(a) Allegation dispositions. An allegation disposition is the finding made in the investigation about each individual allegation of abuse/neglect which was identified at intake or during the investigation.

  (1) Reason-to-believe. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, staff conclude that abuse or neglect has occurred.

  (2) Ruled-out. Staff determine, based on available information, that it is reasonable to conclude that the abuse or neglect has not occurred.

  (3) Unable to complete. Staff could not draw a conclusion whether alleged abuse or neglect occurred, because the family:

    (A) could not be located to begin the investigation or moved and could not be located to finish the investigation; or

    (B) was unwilling to cooperate with the investigation.

  (4) Unable-to-determine. Staff conclude that none of the dispositions specified in paragraphs (1) - (3) of this subsection is appropriate.

  (5) Administrative closure. Information received after a case was assigned for investigation reveals that continued Child Protective Services intervention is unwarranted as outlined in §700.507 of this title (relating to Investigation Interviews).

(b) Overall disposition. The overall investigation disposition is the summary finding about the abuse or neglect that was investigated. The overall disposition is derived from the individual allegation dispositions in the following manner:

  (1) Reason-to-believe. If any allegation disposition is "reason-to-believe," the overall case disposition is "reason-to-believe."

  (2) Ruled out. If all allegation dispositions are "ruled out," the overall case disposition is "ruled out."

  (3) Unable to complete. If any allegation disposition is "unable to complete" and no allegation disposition is "reason-to-believe" or "unable to determine," the overall investigation disposition is "unable to complete."

  (4) Unable to determine. If any allegation disposition is "unable to determine" and no allegation disposition is "reason to believe," the overall case disposition is "unable to determine."

  (5) Administrative closure. Decisions with regard to administrative closure are made at the case level as specified in §700.507 of this title (relating to Investigation Interviews). Therefore, all allegations must be disposed of by indicating that administrative closure has been selected. If any one allegation meets criteria for allegation dispositions as specified in paragraphs (1) - (4) of this subsection, a case is not eligible for administrative closure.