Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Illinois Republican delegation launches another broadside against Pritzker
Next Post: SoS will open seven drive-throughs next week for vehicle registration stickers
Posted in:
* Cook County Public Defender Amy P. Campanelli writing in the Sun-Times last week…
Whenever a crisis hits, it is the most vulnerable among us that are hit the hardest. This is happening now to poor families involved with the Department of Children and Family Services.
Since March, when the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, children who were taken from their parents by DCFS have not been allowed to have supervised visits with each other or their siblings. In a blanket order, DCFS banned all supervised visits between children, parents, and siblings.
Banning supervised visits significantly harms the bond between parent and child and sets vulnerable families up for failure. […]
Many parents have very young children who cannot communicate via phone or video conferencing, and because of this ban they are deprived of the opportunity to see, touch and hold their young children. Even mothers who breastfeed their infant children are prevented from doing so. […]
Supervised visits can be done in a safe way, like all the other acceptable activities permitted during the shelter-in-place order. If we can safely prepare and distribute food, we can safely allow parents and their children to visit one another.
* Campanelli’s office has filed a lawsuit…
On March 25, DCFS suspended in-person supervised visits between parents and children in foster care because of COVID-19. The policy says phone and video conferencing can be replacements while the state is under a stay-at-home order.
Wednesday’s complaint takes a different view, including that of a clinical psychologist who warns that video and audio calls fail for children under three years old, because children that age depend on physical proximity. Mothers in the legal complaint say the lack of contact with their children is creating emotional harm.
Aaron Goldstein is chief of the civil division of the Cook County Public Defender’s office, which represents parents trying to reunite with children removed from their custody. He said even when the governor lifts the stay-at-home-order, problems remain in a system overwhelmingly poor and black.
“That means we will have had close to two months of no visits for a lot of families, and then how does that play into their case going forward?” Goldstein said. “So even if [the stay-at-home order] ends on May 31, it doesn’t end for our clients, as their case continues and potentially has some serious, serious negative impacts on reunification of bringing these families back together, which in theory is the goal of this system.”
* Sun-Times…
DCFS spokesman Jassen Strokosch said the agency and its partner were finding “creative ways” for supervised visits with the aid of technology, and that judges in some counties were making allowances to facilitate in-person visits.
“We understand people’s frustration, but we want to do what’s in the best interest of children,” he said. “That includes taking into consideration parents’ needs and in maintaining a relationship and also keeping everyone safe.”
Cook County Judge Patricia Martin, who presides over Child Protective courts, said judges still are hearing “emergency” cases. While she has sympathy for parents and children in her court, Martin is trying to adhere to guidelines from DCFS and the Centers for Disease Control by limiting in-person contact, including the number of court hearings she allows. The court, she said, is looking to broaden the list of issues eligible for emergency hearings as soon as this week.
* From yesterday’s hearing…
On Thursday, her office argued before Judge Caroline Kate Moreland for an emergency motion declaring the DCFS policy “unlawful.”
“Maintaining a parental relationship with one’s child is a fundamental human interest,” argued Assistant Public Defender Aaron Goldstein, adding these visits could be conducted safely with masks, social distancing and temperature screenings to protect against COVID-19. […]
But attorneys representing DCFS and the Cook County public guardian argued the case should be dismissed, claiming the suit has no merit and accusing the public defender of “forum shopping” as there’s already a prior pending case in juvenile court raising the same issues.
“The notion that DCFS is defying court orders is frankly fundamentally wrong,” Assistant Attorney General Barbara Greenspan said during Thursday’s hearing. The balance the DCFS had struck between safety and visitation ability is the “appropriate one,” she said.
…Adding… Believe it or not, the Cook County Public Guardian sided with DCFS. From his brief…
The world is in the midst of a global pandemic the likes of which has not occurred for over a century. The DCFS policy at issue requires that caseworkers identify alternative ways to allow parent/child contact during this crisis, and specifically mentions videoconferencing, telephones, etc, to continue meaningful contact during the public health crisis. The children agree with plaintiffs that the electronic visitation in the absence of in-person contact is not ideal. However, it cannot be said that the DCFS policy is patently unreasonable under the circumstances. The policy strikes a balance between the health and safety of the children, the plaintiffs, the involved caseworkers, the childrens’ caregivers and the public, and is consistent with the Governor’s emergency stay-at-home order.
* Related…
* ‘A sustained surge’: Child welfare advocates warn of looming post-pandemic crisis
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 15, 20 @ 10:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Illinois Republican delegation launches another broadside against Pritzker
Next Post: SoS will open seven drive-throughs next week for vehicle registration stickers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Denying supervised visits will harm the children and set back any plan to return children to their homes. If the goal is family reunion then this policy will thwart it. Hurt children and cost more in the long run
Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, May 15, 20 @ 10:58 am
The public defender is on the right side of this one. Parents with custody arrangements have figured out how to properly work through the stay at home order and still have access to their kids. Every child in DCFS who has access to their parents deserve an opportunity continue that relationship and have access to see them. I cannot imagine the stress this must be causing those kids, many of whom might think their parents abandoned them or they did something to warrant the parent leaving them (again). I also can’t imagine the stress on the parent.
Comment by curiosity Friday, May 15, 20 @ 11:00 am
Been out of the child welfare fight for years now, but how does the chancery division have jurisdiction when there are already pending cases in juvenile division? Seems like the PD’s complaint is that the juvenile court isn’t hearing their motion, but that should be taken up there, not by starting a parallel case.
Comment by Former DCFS Friday, May 15, 20 @ 11:45 am
The other side of the coin is that many foster parents will just give their notice and then DCFS will have an even larger problem on their hands.
We don’t want the kids we’re fostering to become viral vectors into our households, especially when we have no idea how responsible the birth parents have been with social distancing, hand washing, etc.
“Many parents have very young children who cannot communicate via phone or video conferencing, and because of this ban they are deprived of the opportunity to see, touch and hold their young children”
followed by
“adding these visits could be conducted safely with masks, social distancing and temperature screenings”
So calls are bad because they can’t touch and hold the kids, but then they’re going to practice proper social distancing? How does that work?
Besides, younger kids who can’t do calls aren’t going to leave their masks on anyhow. And temperature checks are great if you’re not an asymptomatic carrier.
Comment by Stuff Happens Friday, May 15, 20 @ 11:48 am
Setting aside the merits of the case, does the PD have standing to bring this suit? The public guardian most certainly does and they’re with DCFS. Very strange.
Comment by Roman Friday, May 15, 20 @ 12:08 pm
@Roman -
The PDs office represents the parents. so, yes, they absolutely have standing.
Comment by JoanP Friday, May 15, 20 @ 12:36 pm