Religion, The State, and Child Welfare
....and other Saturday reads in child welfare news
A few things have had me thinking this past week or two about the role of faith-based organizations in the work of public child welfare agencies. First, I had the chance to attend a gathering of Christian child welfare leaders and advocates to discuss the role of churches in child welfare. Second, I was talking with a colleague about how her faith-based foster care organization goes about doing its work, with a focus on serving all children because her faith requires it without regard to the child’s faith or lack thereof. And finally, I was reviewing a situation out of Oregon in which a Christian mother was denied the ability to serve as a foster/adoptive parent to any child based on her concerns that she might not be able to “affirm” a child with a gender identity different from the child’s birth sex.
Many years ago, I thought churches and other houses of worship would be great places to recruit foster families. After all, it’s part of the ethic of the major religions to serve the poor, the orphan, and the widow — in other words, the most vulnerable in our society. For the longest time, efforts to recruit foster homes among the faithful weren’t incredibly productive. But over the past 15 years, I’ve seen a major shift. Congregations that once shied away from the topic of child abuse embraced the fight against human trafficking, opening their eyes to the abuse that children suffer. Faith-based organizations realized that while faith-motivated families might not be ready to jump into the “deep end” of child welfare by becoming foster parents, they’d readily volunteer to help a family with a specific need, to host an event at church for children in care, or to volunteer to provide meals and babysitting for foster parents. More and more, houses of worship are developing “foster care ministries” leading more families and individuals to service.
At the same time, churches and other faith-based organizations are learning the “language” of child welfare. Whereas much of their work began with a desire to address the need to “rescue” children from “bad” parents, I’m seeing more and more awareness of the need to care for the parents as well as the children. Faith-based organizations are increasingly understanding that the parents of children involved with the child welfare system are not “bad people.” Rather, they’re people who have themselves suffered trauma, abuse, addiction, and sometimes just misfortune. Like the children, the parents are good people who need support. At the recent gathering I attended, there was as much focus (if not more) on how to keep families together and support reunification as there was on foster care and adoption.
All of these considerations lead me to the problem that the Oregon case presents. In many public child welfare systems, I’ve observed a hesitancy to engage with faith-based organizations. There’s a bureaucratic suspicion that if faith motivates an individual or family to serve vulnerable children, it’s out of a desire to “convert” or “evangelize” them. Some of this suspicion, perhaps, comes out of the language that faith-based organizations have often used to recruit volunteers in this area — e.g., “rescuing” and “redeeming” children. Some of it probably also results from the historical fear of mixing religion and state. (Although, in my experience in the Southeast, I’d say 90% of child welfare system professionals are also people of faith. But as Dr. King said, groups lack morals that individuals possess).
In Oregon, a Christian who felt a religious call to foster and adopt was barred from serving as a foster parent because she wouldn’t feel comfortable affirming the pronouns of a foster child with a different gender identity or taking that child to a pride event. As a result, the Oregon Department of Human Services decided she couldn’t be a foster parent to any child, even one who shared her religious beliefs. Legal issues aside, the case demonstrates the sad disconnect between the public child welfare system and those individuals motivated by faith who want to serve. Do faith-based organizations need to better understand the purpose of the child welfare system and its focus on keeping families together and reuniting them safely? Yes, and in my experience, they are making that effort and are making progress. Public child welfare agencies, likewise, need to understand that those Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other believers who step up to the plate to serve are often motivated by a sincere desire to help vulnerable children and their families. They need government to collaborate. Our child welfare agencies need to meet them where they are.
In the news, there’s quite a bit to cover this week! Let’s get started.
ProPublica does a deep dive into the disconnect between child welfare agencies and housing assistance agencies that too often results in children coming into care due to a lack of adequate housing as well as delays in family reunification for the same reason. Although there are vouchers available that might keep these families together or help reunite them more quickly, the sad fact is that the bureaucracy is hard to navigate. A new HUD program is trying to improve housing access for youth aging out of care.
This article from Colorado addresses concerns that child protection case managers who falsify records — for example, records that they’ve checked on a child in danger — aren’t being held accountable. While they’re looking into that, they might want to ask what’s going on in their system that might be prompting workers to lie. Are they overloaded? Are their concerns about their caseloads being ignored? Do they feel as if the procedures they’re required to follow are stupid and should be ignored? If you’ve got a problem with case managers falsifying records on a regular basis, you’ve probably got much deeper problems with your child welfare system.
Following up on an earlier story, a judge has found several Lackawanna County, PA case managers immune from criminal liability in connection with the failure to remove a child from care who later died.
In Georgia, our Fostering Success Act tax credit is making a difference for youth aging out of foster care.
In a move I don’t understand, it seems Minnesota is moving away from using volunteer guardians ad litem (e.g., CASAs) in child welfare cases. "Why would you take away a resource from children that has worked so well and that there's a national movement about?”, asked one volunteer leader. Good question.
Speaking of Minnesota, in the wake of child protection failures the state is considering whether to move to a state-run child welfare system, as opposed to its current county-run system. Here’s my thoughts.
Recommendations from an Oregon expert on resolving that state’s problem with properly caring for children in foster care with severe emotional disturbances:
Put one or two children in apartments or houses staffed by the state.
Increase rates for foster parents and relatives who are taking care of children.
Provide in-home training tailored for each child’s needs and a respite caregiver to give families a break one weekend a month.
Provide therapeutic homes that have staff who help with the child’s needs, a therapist and services to help in the home and school.
Offer trauma treatment for children with an experienced therapist. The current system requires children to wait months, and the therapist is often a trainee who doesn’t see them long-term.
I found this article interesting. It’s a reminder that prescribed child welfare services are often based on what’s available, not on what the family actually needs.
Maine has a new child protection leader.
Alabama’s law prohibiting hormones and surgery as a treatment for gender dysphoria in children is back in effect following the 11th Circuit’s reversal of a lower court’s order striking the ban.
Texas’ child protection system, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Judge Janis Jack, continues to struggle. All Jack’s lawyers and all the Jack’s federal monitors haven’t been able to put it back together again. Meanwhile, the State spent $260 million in the past three years placing children with significant behavioral and mental health needs.
Speaking of Texas, it sounds as if they need more facilities equipped to address the needs of children with complex behavioral issues, as this Methodist Children’s Home in Waco is doing.