article presented here in three parts, but see entire story here
The Department of Child Safety’s enforcement of confidentiality is peppered with exceptions — particularly when the public is paying attention.
Mary Jo Pitzl, Arizona Republic Updated 5:13 p.m. EDT May 6, 2019
When news broke that a Maricopa woman had been accused of starving, pepper-spraying, and otherwise abusing seven adopted children, questions immediately turned to what the Department of Child Safety knew and when the agency knew it.
The case of Machelle Hobson and her foster-children-turned-adopted children drew an unusual amount of attention because some of the alleged abuse was related to the children’s performances for a popular YouTube channel.
But aside from confirming what police had already reported in the case — that child-welfare workers had removed the kids from the home — DCS said it could not comment due to confidentiality laws.
DCS frequently cites those laws and the financial penalty the state could suffer through loss of federal funds: when it requests courts to close proceedings, warns news media against showing the faces of foster children, and refuses to disclose seemingly routine details.
Six days after DCS’ “no comment,” DCS Director Greg McKay appeared to reverse course and issue a public statement that cast blame for the situation onto other agencies, as well as the general public.
In enumerating who had eyes on the children during the time of the alleged abuse, McKay revealed: “The adoptive home was certified and a judge finalized an adoption just weeks before this discovery.” He added that two police agencies were involved with the situation.
It’s one example of how the agency’s enforcement of confidentiality is peppered with exceptions — particularly when the public is paying attention. It also points to a lack of clarity on when children’s privacy rights prevail over the First Amendment right of parents to speak out, and the public’s right to know how their government is operating.
“It seems the department selectively pulls up the confidentiality flag,” said attorney DeeAn Gillespie, who encounters it in her work representing parents in DCS cases.
The secrecy, Gillespie said, fuels suspicion that DCS may be invoking it more to protect itself than the children in the case.
Complaints that DCS uses privacy when it suits them extend to no less than former Attorney General Tom Horne, whose office represented DCS.
“I didn’t realize this when I was AG, but now that I’m on the other side, they habitually try to use that (privacy) unethically,” said Horne, who has represented parents in DCS cases in his private legal practice.
Making exceptions to the rule
The confidentiality laws that cloak much of Arizona’s child-welfare system are intended to protect the privacy of the children and parents at the center of a case. DCS carefully monitors actions by families and the media that might identify children in state custody, by showing their faces, naming relatives or revealing details about a family’s prior involvement with the agency.
But there are numerous situations where such children are identified, including by the agency itself — from social media posts to GoFundMe pleas to police reports that detail the incident that brought the child into state custody.
When Taylor Swift brought her Reputation tour to Phoenix last year, photos of her performing a special concert preview for foster kids and their parents were all over Facebook and Instagram. Children in the widely shared images were identified as being in foster care.
The Republic posted foster parents’ excited social media posts about the event and was not reprimanded for publishing them. The Republic asked Swift’s representatives and DCS if there was any push-back for the publication, but did not receive a response. The posts remain on various social media platforms.
Foster parents can post pictures of the children in their charge as long as they are not identified as foster children, said Kim Vehon, founder of Foster Arizona, a private group that supports children in foster care.
DCS runs a “Children’s Heart Gallery” featuring photos and descriptions of children up for adoption. Foster Arizona posts videos of children needing adoption. AASK, a nonprofit social-services agency, does the same thing, focusing on children with special needs.
DCS did not respond when asked about why it is allowed to publicize images of the children’s faces.
But both Foster Arizona and AASK said the judge presiding over a child’s case must issue an order allowing use of the child’s image and name. Spokesman Clint Williams said AASK was unaware of any such requests, which are submitted by DCS case managers, being denied.
There’s an exception in the law for children who have been abducted from state custody. That’s what allowed DCS last year to issue a news release with photos of a child whose parents apparently took her from her state placement and fled.
In this case, lawmakers determined concerns about the child’s safety trumped her privacy rights.
DCS referred many of The Republic’s questions to the Attorney General’s Office, which represents the agency in legal matters. The AG did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
(continued tomorrow)
