ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, February 18, 1996 TAG: 9602190057
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LESLIE TAYLOR STAFF WRITER
TWO PIECES OF LEGISLATION would clearly define when social services become involved with cases of possible abuse.
When the General Assembly created a system more than 20 years ago to investigate claims of child abuse and neglect, it included a way for social workers to monitor complaints where mistreatment was suspected but couldn't be proved.
It did so through a category of complaint called "reason to suspect," which gave social workers a means of reaching families who needed help controlling their anger, being good parents, or simply keeping a clean house.
After coming under attack for years as being unconstitutional, the category was struck down last year by the Virginia Court of Appeals, which ordered the department to purge from state files the names of more than 3,000 people suspected of abusing or neglecting children.
Social workers and child advocates have since feared what might happen to those people and any children in their care.
Legislation is before the General Assembly this session that could address those fears.
A bill introduced by Sen. Joseph Gartlan, D-Fairfax, would lower the standard of proof required for "founded" child-abuse and neglect cases - those with evidence that abuse had occurred - from "clear and convincing" to "preponderance of evidence." With the lower standard, more cases could be deemed founded, meaning more families would get help, meaning fewer children would be at risk, bill supporters argue.
Other legislation would revamp Child Protective Services, creating a clear structure where complaints of criminal child abuse and neglect would be separated from those where people only need instruction in basic parenting skills.
Both bills "would help us be seen more in a helping manner rather than an accusing manner," said Judy Brown, supervisor of Roanoke Department of Social Services' Child Protective Services unit. "More and more, people refer to us as a 'gestapo,' an 'ogre.'''
Only Virginia and Georgia have such a high standard of proof in child-abuse cases.
Lowering the standard "may help to get some families some help that right now we can't do anything with," Brown said.
When the "reason to suspect" category was dropped, social workers no longer could step into cases where abuse or neglect was suspected but where "clear and convincing" evidence was lacking. Those cases have been deemed "unfounded" and wiped from the files, even though social worker intervention may have been needed.
"We get criticized because we have such a low incidence of founded cases," said Corinne Gott, superintendent of Roanoke Department of Social Services. "But like O.J., we can't say 'guilty' unless it's clear and convincing, beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Founded child-abuse and neglect cases in Roanoke dropped from 15 percent to 7 percent of cases after the "reason to suspect" category was eliminated, Gott said.
That percentage would likely rise with a lower standard of proof, said Philip Jones, chairman of a state Board of Social Services committee that has been reviewing Child Protective Services for the past year.
"It would be easier for social workers to have a founded complaint," he said.
Gott agreed. But lowering the standard of proof has its downside, she said. The change could burden already overburdened resources, she said.
"You'll have more cases, and you'll have these cases open longer," she said. "Therefore, you'll need additional staff to accommodate them."
Lowering the standard of proof also has its critics, those who argue that Child Protective Services is rife with false allegations and brushes past the notion that the accused have rights, too.
"They say they're reducing the standard of proof," said Barbara Bryan, an advocate for the rights of the falsely accused. "Proof of what? An opinion, a feeling, a belief, maybe hearsay? Maybe something coming from a malicious phone call?"
"This is the fairyland they're living in," said Bryan, a Roanoke resident who serves as communication director for the Toledo, Ohio-based National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center. "They may change a million words on paper and may pass beaucoup bills that do absolutely nothing for children. I keep thinking 'What is going to wake these people up?'
"Until intentional criminal abuse and neglect is sent down the same chute that any other horrendous crime is, there's going to be this sort of confusion."
Two bills propose to establish a pilot "multiple response" Child Protective Services system.
The proposal would allow social service departments, after reviewing a complaint of child abuse or neglect, to determine how to intervene - with an investigation, a "family assessment" or referral for services, even though the report may not meet the definition of abuse or neglect.
A "family assessment" is a method of helping families address problems or issues that may affect the safety of a child but don't need to be labeled abusive.
"It's a wonderful idea," Brown said. "I think it will help to give Child Protective Services more of a favorable view, in that we are there to help in situations where children have been put at risk, where parents lack skills, make poor judgments, without having to label those parents as child abusers.
"Yet we will still have the ability to follow the intentional severe abuse of children."
The standard-of-proof bill passed the Senate on a unanimous vote, and has been referred to the House Courts of Justice Committee.
A House bill on the "multiple response" Child Protective Services passed and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Rehabilitation and Social Services. A companion bill in the Senate passed and was referred to the Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee in the House.
"Whether the legislation passes or not, we can [make the changes] by regulations," Jones said of the state Board of Social Services. "We probably would look at that closely."
Bryan has proposed a constitutional review of laws that govern Child Protective Services.
"I am fully satisfied that even a cursory one would dismiss virtually all of the law underlying Child Protective Services," she said. "The laws would not pass constitutional muster. What happens is people are labeled as criminals. They are blindfolded and their feet put in concrete and told 'OK, prove to me you didn't do it.'
"I just see more things that don't work to save children and do seem to hurt families."
Brown said "until people see that the real reason for Child Protective Services law is to protect our children and families, you're always going to have people saying that there's not enough protection of their rights."
LENGTH: Long : 122 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1996by CNB