We already know the reasons for child deaths

Rarely would I juts copy an article to put in a blog, but a thoughtful op-ed piece written by Marlene Huff who chairs the Kentucky Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers raises some thoughts that deserve attention. She states:

Eighteen children died as a result of abuse or neglect in fiscal year 2011 compared to 33 deaths the previous year, 29 in fiscal year 2009 and 31 in fiscal year 2008.

Now, the commissioner of the state Department for Community Based Services has resigned during a debate about record reviews of deceased children that may have nothing to contribute to a discussion about the death of children.

Social workers, though not all employees of the department, are graduates of accredited schools of social work and are bound by a social work code of ethics that strictly prohibits the release of client information as well as those associated with the client even after the client has died.

In this case, the social work principle of confidentiality flies directly in the face of the journalistic principle indicating that the public has a right to know all.

The governor's mandate to release the records of those children killed by their caregivers in 2011 would have forced the commissioner, in essence, to act in direct opposition to her professional values and ethics.

  

Social workers (even those appointed to the position of commissioner) who violate the code are to be reported to the State Board of Social Work for review and action leading to a variety of possible negative actions against the violator's license.

Might we find in those record the answers necessary to end all child fatalities suffered at the hand of caregivers?

Sadly, I predict that this will not happen. We may, indeed, find an employee (social worker or not) to blame, a policy that is not consistently enforced or a sharp decline in fiscal resources that needs to be addressed.

    

In fact, I am sure this type of information is contained in the records of those deceased children whose confidentiality social workers are ethically bound to protect.

We, the public, through our resource allocations and decisions about which people among us are worthy and which are not, have a role to play in the death of those children.

We have allowed the department's already-meager budget to be cut to unspeakably low levels, allowed the case loads of social workers to increase to the point that even a supremely talented and educated social worker struggles with the sheer volume of the work, and we have only begun to discuss the needs of vulnerable children after 18 of them have died.

It seems to me that we decided long ago that Kentucky's children were not deserving of the best resources the state could offer.

I can predict the review of those records will lead to findings that are already known to us but left unaddressed.

Children die in Kentucky because of poverty. Social workers work with children and families that, two years ago, were operating on the "just" system — just enough food to get to the first of the month, just enough gas to go to the doctor, just enough coal to get through the winter.

Those same Kentucky families, barely functioning before the economic crisis, collapsed afterwards. Rates of drug and alcohol abuse rose dramatically, jobs were lost, mental-health problems increased, and families became isolated in their poverty and suffering. When families collapse, children suffer.

 

As the deaths of those children are reviewed and their confidentiality is shattered like a fragile vase, we need to take responsibility for our failure of those same children as well as the department. We allow Kentucky's children to live in squalor, deal with hunger as best they can, and be subjected to angry, out-of-control individuals who comprise the only family ever known to them.

We have financially starved the department to the point that it cannot protect the children in Kentucky without some of them being killed. Is this good enough? I think not. I wonder what the department could do for Kentucky's children if it was supported by the public, legislature and the media instead of breaking the confidentiality promised to those children prior to their death?

The reasons for their death, as well as the way to prevent additional deaths, are right in front of us already

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/12/14/1993899/we-already-know-the-reasons-for.html#ixzz1gcCHyQif

Amythz “Amy” Dye - a death with important lessons

This is a case from Kentucky in the United States. The essential history is that she was murdered by her older adoptive brother. At the time of the adoption, the adoptive parents had separated although the father had a prior history of child abuse. He would continue to have a parenting role and would later return to the home.


It appears from a Franklin County Court judgement that there were at least 6 occasions when child protection received reports that Amy was being abused in the home. It appears that the workers did not act largely because the reports suggested that the abuse was being done by a brother as opposed to a parent. The school where Amy attended does not receive in the judgement the credit that is due for its repeated efforts to get child protection attention for this little girl.

While the case in the court addresses a public access for records, the judge also lets us into the case in a way that allows a view of some very important principles of child protection. Proper investigation is an obvious concern, but perhaps the most important lesson here is about the role of a parent when the abuse is being done by a sibling. Some years ago, I had a situation where I could not get child protection to be concerned about sibling abuse. In the case of Amy, the judge sums the issue up very well, stating:

"To be clear. a parent need not personally administer the fatal blow in order to be held responsible for "abuse and neglect" under KRS 620.030, if the parent places the child in danger and neglects to protect the child from on going physical or emotional abuse by a sibling or anyone else.

It is stunning to believe that the Cabinet will refuse to protect a child from repeated acts of physical violence by a sibling when the parent knows and tolerates such abuse and does nothing to prevent it. Yet that is exactly what happened here, even if we accept the Cabinet's factual assertions. This is even more perplexing in light of the fact that the Cabinet itself had substantiated acts of physical abuse that had been inflicted on the siblings prior 10 the placement of Amythz Dye in this home. Even if the parent here did not directly inflict the physical abuse, there can be no question that the failure to protect this child from the repeated attacks by a sibling constitutes child neglect, at a minimum" (p.16)

While this decision does not likely have legal weight beyond the jurisdiction, it is an important statement that should act as a reminder that protection of a child need not be related to the direct action of a parent but also what a parent fails to do.

Perhaps what is also disturbing is that the evidence adduced at the hearing suggests that the parents were emotionally abusing this child. This would be information that could have been established with a proper investigation. This acts as a reminder that abuse rarely occurs in a single form and that abuse occurs in an environment where there is some form of approval. A sibling cannot act in such an abusive way in the absence of tacit or explicit approval from a parent. Certainly in this case, the abuse was significant enough for school personnel to physically see it. 

This is not a case that should lead to some new massive drive to apprehend children in Kentucky. Rather, it is  case where social workers should be reminded that a careful look at all of the information is needed. Like the Canadian case of Jeffrey Baldwin, knowing the past abusive behaviors of caregivers matter. This is also a case where seeing the family systemically would have assisted in protecting Amy.