INTRODUCTION

Olivia Gant was only 7 years old when she died. During her short life, it is alleged that her mother subjected her to five years of countless, unnecessary medical treatments and surgeries which ultimately resulted in Olivia’s death in 2017. Her mother has been criminally charged and is pending trial. The allegations are that Olivia was the victim of Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another – a rare psychological disorder in which a caregiver, like Oliva’s mother, create symptoms of illness in their children to get attention. Because caregivers often advocate for unnecessary and dangerous treatments, children can be seriously injured and even die. 

After Oliva died, questions were raised about how her death could have been prevented. The media and an attorney for the family have raised concerns that Children’s Hospital Colorado (CHC), the facility responsible for Olivia’s ongoing care, failed to report suspected child abuse as required by law, thereby delaying a child abuse investigation that might have saved her.[1] It is also alleged that the CHC’s internal child abuse reporting policy is at odds with Colorado law because it recommends hospital staff members who suspect child abuse to first report their concerns to a lead social worker or the hospital’s internal child protection team, before reporting directly to law enforcement, a human service agency or the state’s child abuse hotline.[2]

BACKGROUND

Olivia’s case raises long-standing questions about whether Colorado’s mandatory reporting law is well understood by the thousands of individuals and institutions in Colorado who are required to make child abuse reports and whether the law has been implemented in a way that ensures the state’s children are being protected.

Colorado, like many other states in the country, has had a series of high-profile cases, that raise questions about the effectiveness of mandatory reporting laws. To be clear, many of the headline grabbing cases involve adults, in positions of trust – such as school principals, civic and religious leaders and many others – who deliberately chose not to report child abuse in an attempt to preserve an institution’s reputation or to protect a colleague from scandal.[3] This brief does not address those cases.

Those cases are appropriately addressed by the criminal justice system which is tasked with enforcing penalties for these serious breaches of law.

This brief addresses the thousands of other circumstances where well-meaning citizens – teachers, social workers, nurses, coaches and many others – want to do right by kids but are unclear about how to fulfill their responsibilities to report abuse and neglect.

In the past decade, the Office of Colorado’s Child Protection Ombudsman (CPO) has received dozens of calls from mandatory reporters who are unclear on what Colorado law requires them to do. Callers frequently ask:

• What is the definition of physical and sexual abuse? Does it include bullying? Emotional abuse? Educational neglect? Sexting?
• Child abuse is only committed between a parent and their child, right? Or can child abuse be committed by any adult upon a child?
• Is it child abuse if one kid sexually or physically assaults another kid?
• My agency requires me to report my concerns to my supervisor, is that OK or do I need to call in the report myself?

These calls and many others like them, indicate there is room for improvement regarding how professionals respond to children they believe are suffering from abuse and neglect. The CPO conducted an in-depth analysis of Colorado’s mandatory reporting law. The CPO spoke with numerous mandatory reporters, including school administrators, teachers, school resource officers, law enforcement, county human service agencies and others whose job it is to report child abuse and neglect. Additionally, the CPO reviewed mandatory reporter laws across all 50 states to gain a better understanding of how Colorado’s law compares to other states.

The analysis revealed an inconsistent understanding of the law by mandatory reporters, a fragmented system of trainings and a general lack of support and resources for mandatory reporters to capably do the job asked of them – namely, to report suspected child abuse and neglect.

Colorado has consistently regarded mandatory reporting as an important child abuse prevention tool. This is evidenced by the numerous amendments that have been made to Colorado’s law during the past 55 years to strengthen it. However, public policy efforts have not gone far enough to create an infrastructure that ensures our mandated reporters are able to both identify and report suspected abuse effectively.

COLORADO’S MANDATORY REPORTING LAW

Mandatory reporting laws have been around nearly five decades.

Colorado was the first state in the nation to adopt a mandatory reporting law in 1963. Since that time, the Child Protection Act of 1987 has been amended at least 31 times.[4] The most significant changes over the years have been the addition of specific types of professionals who are required to report suspected child abuse and neglect. None of the statutory amendments have created a cohesive infrastructure to ensure quality reporting.

The idea behind mandatory reporting laws is simple – children do not possess the maturity, physical strength, emotional capacity or resources to protect themselves. As such, they rely upon adults to be their voice, to speak on their behalf, to get them help. There are many dynamics that deter children from reporting abuse: fear that they won’t be believed, fear of getting a caregiver in trouble, fear that the abuse will only get worse if it is reported.

Mandatory reporting laws are designed to have adults, who have frequent contact with children, to report suspected abuse and neglect to authorities. While all states have mandatory reporting laws, the details vary from state to state.[5]

Colorado’s mandatory reporting law lists nearly 40 different types of professionals who are required to report suspected child abuse and neglect. The law requires “any person who has reasonable cause to know or suspect that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect” to immediately report such information to a county human service agency, law enforcement agency or to the state child abuse hotline.[6] The law also defines what information must be reported. It is a class three misdemeanor for willfully violating the law and reporters will be provided immunity if they make a child abuse report in good faith.[7] A person cannot be fired for complying with the state’s mandatory reporter law.[8]

At first look, Colorado’s law appears straightforward. However, in application it challenges those who are bound by it as well as those who are required to enforce it.

WHY IS MANDATORY REPORTING SO HARD?

A quick internet search of child abuse reveals thousands of pictures of children who are bruised and battered. This would lead a person to believe the job of a mandatory reporter is obvious, if not easy. How could a reporter not understand what child abuse is? You know it when you see it, right?

Wrong. These stereotypical images, as well as the nuances surrounding child abuse dynamics, impact citizens’ ability to recognize abuse let alone report it. For example, in physical abuse cases, it is not uncommon for abusers to hurt children in places where clothing can hide marks and bruises. Sexual abuse cases, rarely if ever, leave evidence of harm given the broad spectrum of sexual contact that can occur. And in neglect cases, children will frequently deny that they need food, clothing or medical attention. Rather, they adapt to have their needs met — they will surreptitiously steal food and needed articles of clothing or isolate themselves from others to avoid explaining hygiene problems. Studies confirm that children routinely act to protect their abuser, not to expose them. Signs of abuse and neglect are far more likely to be subtle and present in ways that are not immediately obvious, making mandatory reporters’ jobs very difficult.

Complicating matters is that Colorado’s mandatory reporters do not fully understand how to report child abuse or how their report fits into the broader child protection system’s response to children. A 2016 survey conducted by the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) showed that the biggest barriers for reporting child abuse was that many reporters could not identify “next steps” to make a report and were also concerned that they might not have enough information to make a report – confusing their duty to report with the duties of law enforcement and human services agencies whose job it is to assess and investigate whether such abuse has actually occurred.

Misunderstandings around what the law requires, as well as what constitutes child abuse and neglect, help make the case for clearer laws and enhanced training regarding Colorado’s mandatory reporters.

THE CHALLENGES WITH COLORADO’S MANDATORY REPORTING LAW

Mandatory reporter laws require that specifically designated people, those who have relationships with children in the community and professional settings, report child abuse in a timely way to interrupt ongoing abuse and to prevent future abuse from occurring. As such, Colorado’s law needs to reflect these goals. If the goal is to have mandatory reporters identify possible child abuse – then they must receive appropriate training to identify the signs of abuse and neglect. This is critically important to ensure that reporters have the best information possible when making the important decision to report – or not to report. If the goal is to have possible abuse reported in a timely manner – then the law must ensure reporters are educated regarding who is responsible for making a report, as well as how quickly a report must be made.

Colorado law is needlessly vague in many places and could be enhanced to give mandatory reporters greater support.

Ambiguity in the Law

Colorado law does not define what it means to “immediately” make a report of suspected child abuse and neglect. While this term may be seemingly obvious, the CPO has routinely handled cases in which mandatory reporters waited days before making a child abuse report – delaying because of workday constraints or wanting to run a set of facts by a trusted colleague prior to reporting.  Some states define “immediate” as having to make a child abuse report no later than 24 hours,[9] 36 hours[10] or 48 hours[11] once child abuse is suspected. Defining this term would give clarity to mandated reporters and would ensure that children who may be in danger are having their needs met in a timely manner.

Another area of confusion is who is responsible for making the child abuse report. The mandated reporter or the institution for whom they work? Institutional reporting is one of the issues raised in the Olivia Gant case and is one of the most frequently asked questions that the CPO hears. During the past several years, the CPO has received dozens of calls from mandatory reporters in large organizations, including educators, hospital staff and day care centers. They frequently ask whether the law requires them to make a child abuse report directly to designated authorities or whether it is sufficient to notify their supervisor to satisfy their legal reporting responsibility.

Many individuals who contact the CPO state that their employers have policies that require them to bring child abuse concerns to an agency administrator, who will in turn file a report with the appropriate authorities. In these circumstances, it is unclear whether supervisors are substituting their judgement for that of their employees or whether they simply serve as a pass through for the information. Either way, mandatory reporters have expressed that they are fearful that such practices increase the likelihood that their information is inaccurately relayed or not relayed at all, creating unnecessary delays and possible harm to children.

The CPO has confirmed that there are some large organizations that require employees to report concerns of child abuse to supervisors or administrators first. These organizations articulate several benefits of doing so, including avoiding duplicate reports from an organization, ensuring that such reports are substantiated by facts and not personal bias and the desire to provide their employees with support during the reporting process – including assistance with filling out paperwork and providing them time to make a report.

Colorado law currently imposes the duty to report child abuse on individuals who are listed in the statute: doctors, dentists, nurses, teachers and many others. The law does not address how institutions, facilities and other large organizations should report abuse and neglect. There are approximately 32 states with laws that address what is commonly referred to as “institutional reporting.”[12]

Institutional reporting refers to those situations in which the mandated reporter is working as a staff member at an institution, such as a school or hospital, at the time abuse or neglect of a child is suspected. In these circumstances, many institutions have policies for handling reports, which typically require the person who suspects child abuse to notify the head of the institution of the abuse and the need for a report to be made, in lieu of making the report themselves.

The question about whether institutional reporting is desirable or should be permissible is a critically important conversation that needs to take place, if only because there are already many organizations engaged in the practice. For Colorado’s laws to be effective, and for children to be protected, the law must be clear regarding who must make a report so that valuable information does not fall through the cracks and people who fail to report suspected child abuse may be held accountable.

There are other areas of the law that also confuse reporters, including who can commit child abuse, what behaviors constitute child abuse and whether children can commit child abuse on one another. All these questions could be better answered with clearer laws. However, the questions are merely symptomatic of the lack of infrastructure currently in place to support mandatory reporters – namely, a lack of training.

Colorado Lacks a Statewide, Coordinated Infrastructure to Support Mandatory Reporters

In the past five decades, Colorado has grown the list of mandatory reporters from two to nearly 40. What has not kept pace is the corresponding training and infrastructure that is needed to ensure reporters are appropriately informed of their responsibilities.

There is a long-standing national debate as to how effective mandatory reporter laws are in preventing child abuse. In the effort to prevent child abuse and neglect, it is commonly believed that if there are “more eyes and ears” on children, there are more opportunities to detect and investigate reports. However, studies show that more child abuse reports do not necessarily result in a greater number of substantiated child abuse cases and that untrained reporters can contribute to an overabundance of unsubstantiated reports – draining child welfare systems of much needed resources.¹² Additionally, there is a great deal of discussion regarding how mandatory reporter laws disproportionately and unfairly impact disadvantaged families and communities of color. A factor that can only be addressed through cultural competency training.[13]

These studies provide justification for why training mandatory reporters is crucial. Reporters must be able to readily identify the signs of child abuse and neglect, be aware of implicit bias and confidently report their concerns to authorities.

In approximately 2014, the CDHS created an online mandatory reporter training and a public awareness campaign to encourage reporting and training among the public and mandatory reporters. Unfortunately, the training is not required and the public awareness campaign, while successful, was limited in duration.

Mandatory Reporters are Not Informed of Their Legal Obligations

Ultimately, the responsibility for building a strong mandatory reporting infrastructure must lie in a coordinated approach that includes both public and private entities.

Colorado law does not create a statewide notification system that informs new mandatory reporters of their obligations to report suspected child abuse and neglect. As a result, many professionals are unaware of their reporting obligations – particularly if they are not part of a larger community of mandatory reporters such as schoolteachers, physicians and social workers – professionals who work with children every day. Creating a centralized notification system that can track Colorado’s 40 different categories of mandated reporters, who are employed in both the private and government sectors, is not an easy task. However, three states – California, New York and Iowa – have engaged both the government and business communities to educate mandated reporters. Under these states’ laws, any person or institution that employs mandatory reporters, are required to provide a written document that explains to new employees their mandatory reporting responsibilities, as well as the protections they have when they report child abuse and neglect.[14] Such laws provide a more targeted way to educate employees in an ongoing and consistent manner.

Colorado Does Not Require Training for its Mandatory Reporters

In addition to having no notification system, Colorado does not require training for any of its mandatory reporters. Nor does it have a continuing education requirement for professionals who are routinely working with youth and are required to have a license to practice, including doctors or therapists. This means that many mandatory reporters are not receiving the valuable training that is required to appropriately respond to suspected child abuse and neglect – even though Colorado has developed an online child abuse reporter training that is free and easily accessible to the public.[15]

Of Colorado’s mandatory reporters that receive training from organizations, the instruction they receive is not standardized and varies within and across disciplines. For example, the CPO reviewed dozens of school districts’ mandatory reporter trainings. They all have different curricula and approaches to teaching requirements for reporters. This may be a factor as to why mandatory reporters have different understandings of what the law requires.

There are at least 10 states that require mandatory reporters to complete training. The approaches vary widely across the country. For example, Iowa requires all its mandatory reporters take a two-hour training once every three years.[16] Pennsylvania requires all its educators and health-related professionals, who require a state license to practice, complete mandatory reporting training.[17] California takes yet another approach, requiring training for educators, school personnel, day care providers and employers who have five or more employees who are minors.[18] Each of these states provide a standard training that mandatory reporters may easily access, free of charge.

Colorado has various state departments that intersect with mandatory reporters on a regular basis, including CDHS, the Department of Regulatory Affairs (DORA), the Colorado Department of Education and the Department of Public Safety. Each of these departments is responsible for regulating child safety in various contexts. These agencies could develop a coordinated, statewide approach to educating and training mandatory reporters to ensure they are provided with the knowledge and support needed to carry out their legal responsibilities in an informed way.

CONCLUSION

Decades of public policy efforts in Colorado have continued to prioritize mandatory reporting laws as a tool to prevent child abuse and neglect. While the state has invested considerable resources in creating a statewide training, this is not enough to ensure the state’s mandatory reporters can do the job that is asked of them. The law, though well-intentioned, has been poorly executed for years. If Colorado wants its citizens to report suspected child abuse and neglect competently and responsibly, mandatory reporters must be given the tools to do so. To do anything short of this is to risk child safety, overwhelm child welfare services and continue the disparate impact that such laws have on inadequately resourced communities and families of color. If we are going to require citizens to help in the fight against child abuse, then we must educate them and equip them to do the best job possible so that they understand the importance of their role in protecting Colorado children.

[1] Children’s Hospital Colorado has denied these allegations. The hospital’s policy does not prohibit staff from filing reports directly to law enforcement and/or human services agencies.

[2] See “Children’s Hospital Colorado chose not to report caregivers’ abuse suspicions before Olivia Gant died, records show” (Denver Post, June 13, 2021).

[3] See “Colorado Public Schools are paying millions to settle lawsuits when educators fail to report sex abuse of student, but those educators avoid legal consequences” (Denver Post, June 15, 2018)

[4] See C.R.S. § 19-3-301

[5] Child Welfare Information Gateway, Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect, 2019.

[6] See C.R.S. § 19-3-304

[7] See C.R.S. § 19-3-309

[8] See C.R.S. § 19-3-309

[9] Georgia, (GA ST § 19-7-5), Vermont, (VT ST T. 33 § 4913), Iowa (I.C.A. § 232.69).

[10] California (CA Penal § 11166).

[11] Texas (V.T.C.A., Family Code § 261.101), Washington State (West’s RCWA 26.44.030).

[12] Child Welfare Information Gateway, Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect, 2019

[13] Ho, G. W., Gross, D. A., & Bettencourt, A. (2017). Universal Mandatory Reporting Policies and the Odds of Identifying Child Physical Abuse. American Journal of Public Health, 107(5), 709-716.

[14] New York law requires the Office of Children and Family Services to update training to include protocols to reduce implicit bias in the decision to respond to abuse and neglect.

[15] California (CA Penal 11166.5), New York (Ny Soc Serv 413), Iowa (IA ST 232.69).

[16] See IA ST § 232.69

[17] See 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6383

[18] See CA Penal § 11165.7

The post Keeping Kids Safe: We Need To Update Colorado’s Child Abuse Reporting Law appeared first on Child Protection Policy.

In May 2021, The Colorado Sun and 9News did a three-part series on the seriousness of the situation in Colorado. The series highlighted a broken system – a revolving door of youth who run away, return and run away again. The series also explored staff concerns at not being able to stop youth, and the risk to youth themselves once they hit the streets – including the potential for physical and sexual abuse, human trafficking, and in some instances even death. In fact, a story published in The Colorado Sun on Friday highlights a new concern regarding possible inequities in how we attempt to locate youth who run away from residential facilities.

All of these stories demonstrate the same persistent and urgent problem: Youth who run away from state care are in danger and demand our collective attention now.

The conversation around the issue and corresponding solutions is often infused with an air of resignation and inevitability. We hear the same explanations over and over:

• “Well, these are children with extraordinary behavioral health needs — they are going to run.”
• “The law prohibits facility staff from restraining kids, so we have to let them run.“

Still others say, as if dispositive of the issue, “Kids have rights, these are homes not jails. You cannot prevent them from walking away.”

Missing from the entire discussion is data – data about who runs, how many children run each year, how long a child is gone, what a child experienced while missing and most importantly why the child ran in the first place.

When a child runs they may be running from something. Maybe they’re running from harm in their current placement or inadequate care. Or, they may be running toward something like family, friends and community connection. Either way, we should be learning from our children what the root cause is of their behavior – we might actually learn something about how well our child protection system works, or how it is not working, as the case may be.

While Colorado has some limited regulations that require caseworkers to determine the factors that lead a child to run and what they experienced while on the run, there is no public access to this information. It is unclear if this information is being consistently gathered, where this documentation is kept, whether it has ever been analyzed and what the information tells us about why kids run. If state regulations are being followed, then we may already possess the information we need to keep our kids safe.

The Office of Colorado’s Child Protection Ombudsman has started the process of gathering stakeholders to discuss how we can use data to better protect and serve children who run from residential facilities.

As a child protection community our response cannot be one of resignation. We need to be proactive and dig deeper. We need to explore strategies for interrupting chronic runaway behavior, and we need to start by asking our kids one simple but important question: Why?

The post Understanding Why Children Run from Residential Treatment Centers Will Help Us Ensure Their Safety appeared first on Child Protection Policy.

One of the areas in need of our immediate attention is Colorado’s “Protections for Youth in Foster Care” law. This law was originally designed to provide foster youth with a variety of rights, including the right to live in safe housing, access appropriate health care and to have opportunities for normal childhood experiences. And, while these laws were originally written to empower youth so they may advocate for themselves, foster youth are often not educated about these rights — let alone provided a standard way to vocalize concerns when their safety and well-being is in jeopardy. 

I published an issue brief detailing the deficiencies of the Colorado law that provides protections to youth in foster care and how critically important it is for us to re-invigorate this law so these protections may be of real benefit to the foster youth who must rely upon them. Click here to read the full brief.

https://coloradocpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CPO-Issue-Brief-Protections-Foster-Youth-FINAL-May27-2021.pdf

The post Strengthening Colorado’s Foster Youth Protection Laws appeared first on Child Protection Policy.

For the past year, parents and family members complained that a judge in Arapahoe County was biased against them because they were Black. I know this because they complained to my office – the Office of Colorado’s Child Protection Ombudsman.

I would learn in time that the judge in question was entrusted with overseeing the county’s child abuse and neglect docket. Cases that require a judge to make life altering decisions for children and families – including decisions such as whether to remove a child from their parents’ care, determining whether a child should be placed in foster care or with a trusted family member, and whether to terminate a parent’s relationship with their child altogether. Decisions that can be unfairly tainted by racial stereotypes and bias.

The families that came to us expressed concerns that the judge favored white caregivers over Black ones and stated that they did not believe the judge appreciated the importance of ensuring Black children remain connected to their culture. Unfortunately, due to constraints in state law, our office has no legal authority to help these families in court proceedings.

Then the headlines appeared. On April 16th, 2021, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline censured Judge Natalie Chase for repeatedly using racial slurs and making insensitive comments to various Black employees and other professionals regarding police brutality and systemic racism. The judge admitted making the comments and resigned.

The story would go viral. And while dozens of news outlets decried the behavior of the judge, none of the articles addressed the fact that the judge’s behavior confirms what researchers, lawyers and communities of color have known for decades and that is – that racial bias permeates every aspect of the nation’s child protection system. Data shows that children of color are removed from their families by child welfare agencies at a far higher rate than their white counterparts, are more likely to languish in foster care, less likely to be reunified with their families, more likely to be placed in group care, and will age out of the foster care system in greater numbers than their white counterparts.

When we talk about racial bias in the child protection system – we frequently look at the actions of law enforcement officers and human service case workers. And while it is critically important to review these systems, it should not be the end of our inquiry. Multiple professionals touch the lives of children and families every day, including mandatory reporters, case workers, medical professionals, lawyers, and yes, judges. Their actions should all be reviewed to ensure decision making is not based on racial bias.

The truth is racial bias is hard to ferret out. That is until someone’s conduct becomes so brazen that it becomes public knowledge, as was the case here. And then what? We become concerned, even outraged but to what end? The judge made tens of thousands of legal decisions that impacted children and families’ lives. The truth is the majority of these families will never learn of the judge’s censure let alone whether her conduct impacted their cases. Rather they will bear the weight of her decision making for the rest of their lives, never knowing if the outcome of their case was based upon fairness or some other inappropriate criteria.

Sadly, there is little recourse for the families and children who appeared in front of the judge. There is no legal mechanism that allows for a broad sweeping review of all the judge’s cases to ensure the decisions she made were objective and not biased. This despite the fact that the judge admitted to the judicial discipline commission that she violated judicial ethics by “manifesting bias” and “prejudice” based on race and that her conduct “undermined confidence in the impartiality” of the justice system. The only cases that might be reviewed will be those where a family or child learns of the judge’s misconduct and has the resources to get an attorney to challenge the outcome of their case. In other words, very few of this judge’s caseload will be scrutinized for judicial bias.

This seems like a patently unfair outcome – a system acknowledges harm but then places the burden on children and families to show that their case was impacted by the judge’s actions.

In the end, no one should be satisfied with the outcome of this situation. To be clear, racism in the child protection system is not over because a single judge is censured and choose to resign under pressure. Rather than being satisfied with ourselves, believing incorrectly that we have eradicated the problem, maybe we should be asking some much deeper questions such as: What would it take to create an anti-racist justice system? What will it take to prevent the tragic miscarriage of justice that took place here? Most importantly, how could this same judicial system also provide true justice and actual remedies for some of our most vulnerable citizens? These are the questions that should demand all of our attention now.

The post Colorado judge’s censure confirms racial bias in our child protection system appeared first on Child Protection Policy.

The post Check on the Children: A Message from Children’s Ombudsman in the Time of COVID-19 appeared first on Child Protection Policy.

The post Avoiding the gulf: How “social distancing” has the potential to separate families more than six feet appeared first on Child Protection Policy.

The post An Open Letter to Child Protection and Human Services Staff Everywhere appeared first on Child Protection Policy.

In Colorado, there are no laws requiring the more than 200 municipalities in the state to share arrest or conviction records. What this means for children is that a police officer in Southern Colorado, who is determining whether a child will be safe in their own home, may not know that the family has an extensive history of domestic violence in another county. In essence, those entrusted with protecting our children are not guaranteed access to important criminal justice information when making decisions about our children’s safety.

Colorado’s child protection community includes a myriad of stakeholders, including police officers, prosecutors, educators, medical professionals, child protection workers, victim’s advocates, legal professionals and judges. Each of these professionals plays an integral role in protecting our communities’ children.

The job is difficult. A professional is required to enter a family’s life in a time of crisis, assess whether a child is safe and, when necessary, take steps to provide the child with a protective environment and the family with necessary resources. Decisions like these require that child serving professionals have access to caretakers’ relevant social and criminal justice information. But what happens when professionals cannot obtain complete information about families? Quite simply, they are required to make decisions without it. As a result, they risk not only their own safety, but the safety of a child.

Such is the case in Colorado. There are gaps in Colorado’s criminal justice records systems that leave child protection professionals ill equipped for the job we expect them to do.  Poor coordination among court information systems and lack of legal guidance are the main culprits.

In Colorado, there are approximately 215 municipal courts. When people think about municipal court offenses they typically think about noise ordinance violations and speeding tickets. However, violations can also be significant and include offenses such as harassment, assault, domestic violence, resisting arrest, interference, disturbing the peace and wrongs to minors – behaviors that may have a direct, adverse impact on a child’s safety. Currently, there is no centralized database for the records generated by municipal courts. Nor is there a standard practice for reporting or releasing such records to other agencies that need them. As a result, child protection professionals are frequently required to make decisions based upon information provided by families at the center of the problem. In other instances, professionals may get criminal justice records as a result of ad hoc agreements between municipal courts and local agencies. The safety of our children requires more.

Local or municipal courts have existed since Colorado became a state in 1876. Historically, they were designed so that citizens from every part of the state could access the court system without having to travel hundreds of miles. Additionally, it allowed local communities to address local concerns in a more effective and efficient manner. As such, municipal courts are not part of the state judicial branch and their records are not part of the Colorado state courts database. In order to access information about a person’s municipal court charges or convictions, one would have to call approximately 215 municipal courts where the person could have committed a crime. If cases do exist, there is no standard process or rules governing the release of records. Callers may be denied access to records because of various interpretations of confidentiality requirements. While municipal courts may choose to submit their records to the Colorado Crime Information Center, which is the criminal justice system information system kept by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, they are not required to do so.

This issue has been a problem for decades. This past year, the Office of Colorado’s Child Protection Ombudsman convened a stakeholder group of over three dozen stakeholders, including municipal court judges, to create a system that allows for access to these critical criminal justice records. This group will address the legal and technological barriers that prevent the seamless flow of this information among child protection professionals and will provide policy recommendations to the Colorado General Assembly for needed improvements.

The bottom line is this – our child protection professionals need access to municipal court records so that they can appropriately respond, assess and ensure child safety. We would never ask a doctor to diagnose a patient without a full examination and medical history. Likewise, child protection professionals need access to full information about families before they can make responsible decisions. Indeed, a child’s well-being depends upon it.

The post Blind Spots: Information Gaps Prevent Effective Child Protection appeared first on Child Protection Policy.

In February, the Chicago Tribune published a letter to the editor entitled, “Death of state welfare worker reminds us to thank those who risk their lives for children,” (February 12, 2018). The letter described the death of Pamela Sue Knight, a 59-year-old child protective services investigator. Knight was brutally beaten as she attempted to take protective custody of a 2-year-old child who was believed to be a victim of abuse and neglect. Knight was beaten by the boy’s father. She was taken to the hospital and died four months later. The boy’s father has been charged with Knight’s murder.

The letter was deeply concerning. First, Knight’s death was brutal – the details of the assault and her resulting death suggest that she endured significant suffering in the last days and months of her life. Secondly, Knight was a state child protection worker who died while protecting a child. Typically, we read of police officers and firefighters who are injured or die in the line of duty.  But child protection workers? The letter stood out to me because I have never read any news coverage or articles that reflected upon the risks that child protection workers face while carrying out their duties and responsibilities. Sadly, as I researched further, I found several national stories where child protection workers were killed while protecting a child.

So, what are the risks faced by Colorado child protection workers? One of the primary responsibilities of child protection workers is to go into a citizen’s home to assess child and family safety. Workers often encounter families who are trying to make positive changes in their lives but they also encounter those who pose a safety risk. It is not uncommon to encounter people with extensive criminal or mental health histories, as well as the dangers associated with domestic violence and substance abuse.  The presence of any one of these factors can create safety risks for professionals entering the home.  There is one inescapable conclusion here: child safety and the safety of child protection workers are intertwined.  The risks that affect children in a home may also pose a risk to professionals who enter that same home. So, how do we protect child protection professionals as they work to protect our children?

In Colorado, a child protection worker’s safety is often impacted by a number of factors, including the geographic region of the county human services agency. Generally, urban human service departments have more resources – allowing workers to secure the assistance of a colleague or even law enforcement if needed. In rural counties, human services agencies are typically small, often employing just a handful of child protection professionals. These agencies are separated from urban centers by mountain ranges and vast plains often placing both the worker and the family hundreds of miles from much needed services, including mental health, drug treatment and child visitation centers. Public transportation is non-existent. The result is that child protection workers in rural areas are required to wear many hats. They do home visits, counsel family members, write treatment plans, de-escalate tense situations and remove children from unsafe homes. They even drive family members, sometimes 200 miles in a day, to necessary appointments and return them home again. These workers are often alone. They are without the backup and services provided in more densely populated areas. However, regardless of where one is employed, there are risks. Colorado has no standard safety training for its child protection workers.

In 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that nearly 1,100 social workers, including private and governmental were injured as a result of violence. Among the 490 state social workers injured, nearly one third worked with children and families. While the research suggests that violence against child protection workers is statistically low, all would agree that one incident of violence is one too many. An older survey conducted by a national social work association indicated that 50 to 88 percent of all social workers experienced some sort of violence in their career.

In 2009, there were federal efforts to address the safety of social workers. The Terri Zenner Social Worker Safety Act would have awarded grants to states to provide safety measures to social workers in the form of equipment, self-defense, training and education to identify risks and de-escalate dangerous situations. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass and financial resources to provide consistent and ongoing support in this area remains severely lacking at both the state and national levels.

Colorado has also begun to tackle some of the challenges encountered by child protection workers. In 2017, the Workforce Resiliency Task Force was created to address issues such as secondary trauma, vicarious trauma, burnout and compassion fatigue. The final report made recommendations to human service agencies on how to support the mental health of child protection workers but it did not address the physical safety of these same workers. Both of these components need to be considered together if we want to be effective in addressing the complete well-being of our child welfare workers.

Simply put – child protection workers are often exposed to the same risks and dangers as other first responders but without the same training and support. Training on de-escalation, non-violent forms of self-defense and crisis management could go a long way to protecting our child protection professionals.

Deaths like Pamela Sue Knight’s and others like her are preventable. We need to learn from these tragedies and act. After all, our children’s lives depend upon these professionals and their ability to do their jobs safely.

The post Protecting Our Children Means Protecting our Social Workers appeared first on Child Protection Policy.

Printed in the Denver Post: December 31, 2017

The Denver Post recently published a shortened version of an Associate Press article about a mother from Lakewood, Colorado, who was indicted by a federal grand jury on misdemeanor child abuse charges. (Denver Post, Lakewood Mom Assaulted Son on Flight to Salt Lake City, complaint says. December 12, 2017)

According to the AP story, the mother continually hit, shoved, shook, kicked and verbally abused her 8-year-old son on a five-and-a half hour Jet Blue Airline flight from Boston to Salt Lake City. According to witnesses on the plane the boy was pinned against the window crying and pleading for his mother to stop. The mother tightly covered the boy’s face to stifle his cries. Three passengers reported the incidents to the flight crew. The airline allowed the child to remain with his mother throughout the duration of the flight. The mother was subsequently arrested and charged with child abuse.

The AP’s story was quickly picked up by media outlets around the country, including some of our own local outlets. The headlines repeatedly read, “Child Abuse on Planes Can Create ‘Gray Area’ for Airlines.”

The AP article began with the following paragraph: “Flight Crews can restrain passengers or even divert flights when violent behavior erupts in midair, but when the situation involves a parent potentially abusing a child, the decisions are not clear cut.” The story went on to cite a “travel industry analyst” who stated, “This is certainly a very unpleasant situation, but it is one that is full of, if you will, gray areas, as opposed to a black-and-white situation. (Emphasis added.)” The article then went on to compare the child abuse situation to another Jet Blue flight on that same date that was immediately diverted because an adult passenger was reportedly biting and hitting another adult passenger. Apparently, the conclusion to be drawn by the reader is that child abuse somehow presents unique circumstances that do not warrant the same immediate response as adult-on-adult violence.

The incident is concerning. Based on the facts presented, it appears the flight crew treated ongoing acts of child abuse with less urgency than it did in a violent situation involving two adults. The question is why.

The expert’s comments that the child abuse incident was “unpleasant,” as well as the lack of decisive action by the airline, represent a fundamental misunderstanding about the dynamics of intra-family violence and the impact of child abuse on its victim. The situation serves to perpetuate century-old stereotypes that parents have the right to abuse their children and that children are required to endure such violence simply because of the family relationship. These antiquated notions have no place in our society and serve to compromise child safety and sanction abusive behaviors.

State and federal child abuse laws are clear. It is a crime to physically or emotionally cause harm to your child. Clearly federal authorities and a grand jury understood this as was evidenced by the child abuse indictment they issued against the Lakewood mother.

So, let’s set the record straight. Child abuse on planes does not create a “gray area.” Child abuse is child abuse – whether it occurs in a home, a park, a local bus or in this case, on an airplane. The fear, anguish and pain experienced by the child is the same. When adults see a child being repeatedly hit, kicked, threatened and crying in pain over a prolonged period of time, that child deserves immediate protection. Period. The airline’s employees had a duty to protect this child the same as it would any adult passenger. It is not complicated and it certainly is not “gray.”

The post Child Abuse On Planes is not a Grey Area appeared first on Child Protection Policy.