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
(continued from part 2)
Informing the public
Informed public debate over whether a child-welfare agency is doing enough to protect children or why kids were taken from their homes can boost awareness and educate policy makers, said Martin Guggenheim, a professor at the New York University Law School and co-director of the school’s Family Defense Clinic.
“It’s one thing to protect the families from public attention; it’s another thing to protect the state from public attention,” said Guggenheim.
DCS says it can’t give details on why a given child was taken into state custody. But it does report aggregate data on the reasons for removal, categorizing them as either “abuse” or “neglect.”
But that information only tells so much.
More transparency would help lawmakers understand what policies might address the main causes for children being removed from their homes, whether it’s a lack of child care, food assistance, or drug counseling. Under the current application of confidentiality, the public doesn’t know what drives “neglect” removals.
“Neglect” is a very broad term that DCS does not define further in its reports. There’s no way for the public to know the dominant reasons for neglect, which accounts for 70 percent of the 9,300 removals last year.
Generation Justice, an advocacy group, has been pushing for release of more details on cases where substance abuse is involved in incidents that result in a child’s death or near death.
Its efforts are paying off: Legislation they championed was signed into law in April by Gov. Doug Ducey. It requires DCS to report if a child involved in a near-fatality or fatality report was exposed to alcohol or drugs and whether the report was called in by a mandatory reporter, such as a medical professional or a police officer.
Let the sun shine in?
More sunshine on how the agency and the courts operate would improve the system, said attorney Chris Phillis. She runs the Office of the Public Advocate in Maricopa County, which assigns public defenders to parents. In the past, she’s represented parents herself.
“I think parents would be treated better if more (people) were able to see what’s going on,” Phillis said. “It would help people understand where the system is broken, and how to fix it.”
Former AG Horne agrees.
The laws on privacy, he said, are “written over broadly and interpreted overly broadly” and need a legislative fix.
In his experience, Horne said, DCS doesn’t like to be challenged, and can retaliate — such as seeking court orders to not talk — if it perceives a parent or attorney has disclosed a child’s identity.
I think parents would be treated better if more (people) were able to see what’s going on. It would help people understand where the system is broken, and how to fix it.
“There’s wrongdoing I’d like to talk about, but I can’t,” he said, citing fear of backlash from the agency and its attorneys.
The agency can be quick to ask a court to order parents to not talk about their case or otherwise publicize their situation. But defense attorneys question how much that protects a child.
“I think they’re trying to hold the parents down rather than protect the child,” said attorney Brad TenBrook. He represented a couple whose child was removed.
To help out, relatives set up a GoFundMe page to help cover legal expenses, but DCS got a judge to order it shut down. The page, TenBrook said, referred to the child only by first name and did not name the parents.
“What does the state get from withdrawing information from the GoFundMe page?” he asked. “Other than stopping the parent from paying for an attorney.”
Gillespie, another defense attorney, agreed a lot of the actions she’s seen are aimed at keeping parents from talking about their DCS experiences.
While DCS says parents have a right to tell their story, Gillespie is skeptical.
”I’d like to have that in writing,” she said. She’s had clients who were afraid to speak for fear of backlash.
DCS makes it clear that anything a parent says or writes can be used in court, which has a chilling effect.
(end)
