Thus, the failure of either G.L. c. 210 Sec. 3 http://www.mass.gov/… or any other portion of the child welfare statute to define “best interests” and what the Department of Social Services is supposed to DO to protect children is what, in fact, puts children at risk. DSS spends more on “lead agencies” to provide another layer of management [13 million] – testimony of Ed Malloy, President of SEIU local 509, DSS Social Workers on 1/26/07 before the House Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, then on social workers. And the DSS has – or claims to have – doctors and clinicians whenever they say “no” to a parent, I assure you.
What is the remedy? Amending G.L. c. 210 Sec. 3 to spell out what DSS is supposed to do, [whether called “reasonable efforts” or “required services”] and specifically require juvenile court judges to determine, with written findings, whether such efforts or services have been provided and such over sight has occurred.
For example, courts in Minnesota are required to determine whether the services provided by the DSS equivalent agency are: 1) relevant to the safety and protection of the child; 2) adequate to meet the needs of the family and the child; 3) culturally appropriate; 4) actually available, and accessible to the family; 5) consistent and timely as in provided without undue barrier and delay; 6) realistic given the circumstances. See Minn. Stat. Ann. §260.012(b). {The Minnesota Statuteshttp://209.85.165.10…(b).&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a]
Our statutes contain a black hole – and children fall in and families are lost. It is time to fix that black hole – and I hope that it will be Chairman Rogers and the House Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect that makes the reapauirs to our outmoded and inadequate statutes regarding child abuse and family preservation.
