2011 New Jersey Children in Court Summit Achieving Brighter Futures for our Youth Their Future is our Future

1. 2011 New Jersey Children in Court Summit Achieving Brighter Futures for our Youth � Their Future is our Future Hyatt Regency Conference Center Princeton, New Jersey May 2nd & 3rd, 2011

2. Comprehensive Examination of Risk to Children in TPR Proceedings 5/02/11-Day 1 Workshop Session A, #10 Matthew B. Johnson, Ph.D. Department of Psychology John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York mjohnson@jjay.cuny.edu Commonly risks to children that become the focus of PRT hearings are risks associatedparental competence such as psychiatric, psychological, substance abuse, social immaturity,social isolation, anger management, parenting skill deficits, etc.� As we know these factorscan present serious risks to children and require assessment with attention to prognosis.However, risks associated with PRT are often unexamined and very relevant to both prongs2 & 4 of the state criteria for PRT.� Some of these risks are separation and loss of relations toparents, siblings, and extended family; risk of languishing as an unadoptable ward of the state;risk of abuse or maltreatment in an adoptive home; risk of being adopted by a family that harbors hostility toward the child's family of origin; risk of maltreatment while in state care...This presentation will identify psychological and other literature that discusses theserisks and illustrate the relevance of these risks with vignettes from cases in NJ. Commonly risks to children that become the focus of PRT hearings are risks associatedparental competence such as psychiatric, psychological, substance abuse, social immaturity,social isolation, anger management, parenting skill deficits, etc.� As we know these factorscan present serious risks to children and require assessment with attention to prognosis.However, risks associated with PRT are often unexamined and very relevant to both prongs2 & 4 of the state criteria for PRT.� Some of these risks are separation and loss of relations toparents, siblings, and extended family; risk of languishing as an unadoptable ward of the state;risk of abuse or maltreatment in an adoptive home; risk of being adopted by a family that harbors hostility toward the child's family of origin; risk of maltreatment while in state care...This presentation will identify psychological and other literature that discusses theserisks and illustrate the relevance of these risks with vignettes from cases in NJ.

3. Risks to Children in PRT Proceedings Commonly identified: Risks associated with parental competence - psychiatric, psychological, substance abuse, social immaturity, social isolation, instability, anger management, parenting skill deficits,� Commonly not identified: Risks associated with child removal and state care - separation and loss of relations to parents, siblings, and extended family; risk of languishing as an unadoptable ward of the state; risk of maltreatment in a foster or adoptive home, or state facility; risk of being adopted by a family that harbors hostility toward the child's family of origin�

4. Why risks associated with PRT are not well articulated? Those adversely effected are poor and stigmatized Social class bias Institutional bias � i.e. adoption incentive payments Differential consequences of decisional errors

5. Perspectives on state intervention in child maltreatment (Melton et al, 2007) �Child savers� (advocates) �State intervention as harmful� �Psychological parent theory� perspective Child savers � low threshold for state intervention, emphasize �child safety�, err in the direction of child �protection� (removal). State intervention as harmful � high threshold for intervention, respect family integrity and autonomy, state often lacks the wisdom or resources to manage family affairs (risk of maltreatment in state care). Psychological parent theory � high threshold for state intervention but if children develop parent like relationships in alternate care these relationships should be granted legal recognition. Melton, G. et al (2007) Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook�. 3rd Edition. Guilford Press: New York, NYChild savers � low threshold for state intervention, emphasize �child safety�, err in the direction of child �protection� (removal). State intervention as harmful � high threshold for intervention, respect family integrity and autonomy, state often lacks the wisdom or resources to manage family affairs (risk of maltreatment in state care). Psychological parent theory � high threshold for state intervention but if children develop parent like relationships in alternate care these relationships should be granted legal recognition. Melton, G. et al (2007) Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook�. 3rd Edition. Guilford Press: New York, NY

6. The Star Ledger, Saturday 11/16/85, pg. 1

7. The Star Ledger, Tuesday 11/19/85, pg. 1

8. State intervention as harmful� As alleged in Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey et al (8/04/99 Children�s Rights Suit) � See NJ Governor�s Blue Ribbon Panel on Child Protection 5/28/02 As suggested in January 2003 Faheem Williams child abuse fatality DYFS prematurely closed the case As reported in 2/12/04 Ryan et al (OCA) Report on the Jackson Family *Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey et al Civil Action No. 99-3678 (SRC)�*Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey et al Civil Action No. 99-3678 (SRC)�

9. Ryan et al (OCA) 2/12/04 Report on the Jackson Family Child yr age lb in 10/03 lb in 2/5/04 BJ 12/91 7 43 48 (12) 45 48 82 54 KJ 1996 7 38 45 (7) 40 48 71 46 TJ 3/95 17m 28 31 (8) 28 38 43 41 MJ 8/95 17m 17 29 (8) 22 37 43 39 [Yr of placement; age; wt; ht; (yrs in home) wt; ht; 4 months post removal wt; ht]

10. Ryan et al (2004) findings and recommendations Foster home approval process Adoption approval process Adoption subsidy program Administrative disregard Foster home approval process: 1) medical references 2) in person interviews with all household members (�safety assessments� stemming from settlement of Charlie & Nadine H.) 3) income verification 4) lack of casework continuity i.e. staff turnover Adoption approval process: 1) medical reports (prepared by unqualified casework staff who failed to recognize deficient record) 2) in person joint & individual interviews with the entire family Adoption subsidy program: does not require medical reports nor other corroboration of recipient�s certification Administrative disregard: �at least four different DYFS employees evaluated the Jackson household on eight different occasions between 1991-2002. At least two of these employees had their work reviewed and approved by supervisors�.It is highly unlikely that each of those workers independently chose to ignore the requirements�p.27Foster home approval process: 1) medical references 2) in person interviews with all household members (�safety assessments� stemming from settlement of Charlie & Nadine H.) 3) income verification 4) lack of casework continuity i.e. staff turnover Adoption approval process: 1) medical reports (prepared by unqualified casework staff who failed to recognize deficient record) 2) in person joint & individual interviews with the entire family Adoption subsidy program: does not require medical reports nor other corroboration of recipient�s certification Administrative disregard: �at least four different DYFS employees evaluated the Jackson household on eight different occasions between 1991-2002. At least two of these employees had their work reviewed and approved by supervisors�.It is highly unlikely that each of those workers independently chose to ignore the requirements�p.27

11. Case IllustrationRespondent Mo, GB The several minor children (aged 3-16) of GB were removed by the CPA due to alleged neglect. Reportedly GB left the children in a camp/shelter in her home country. GB�s mother sent GB�s 18 year-old daughter to retrieve the children and reported the case to the CPA. The children were separated in placements and the 3 oldest minor children were eventually placed with grandmother. 1/07 the minor children (aged 3-16 years old) of 37 year-old GB were removed from her care by the state CPA. GB also had one (18 year-old) adult child. The children (all US citizens) had been residing a camp/shelter GB�s home country. GB�s mother had arranged for GB�s adult daughter to travel to the home country and bring the children back to the US. The grandmother reported to the CPA that the children had been neglected by GB. Once removed the children were separated in various placements though the three oldest children were eventually placed with the grandmother. � 6/08 GB gave birth to another child (who was not removed) � *Partial Trisomy 15 with multiple congenital abnormalities associated with (two extra chromosomes of one type) scoliosis and associated developmental delays... 1/07 the minor children (aged 3-16 years old) of 37 year-old GB were removed from her care by the state CPA. GB also had one (18 year-old) adult child. The children (all US citizens) had been residing a camp/shelter GB�s home country. GB�s mother had arranged for GB�s adult daughter to travel to the home country and bring the children back to the US. The grandmother reported to the CPA that the children had been neglected by GB. Once removed the children were separated in various placements though the three oldest children were eventually placed with the grandmother. � 6/08 GB gave birth to another child (who was not removed) � *Partial Trisomy 15 with multiple congenital abnormalities associated with (two extra chromosomes of one type) scoliosis and associated developmental delays...

12. GB , continued 1 GB had immigrated to the US at age 15. She had been divorced twice. At the time the children were removed she was unemployed and homeless. She had a history of in-patient psychiatric treatment. There was a history of DV victimization and psychiatric records* indicated she had been assaultive & committed arson. There was also a report (though never substantiated) that a former husband had sexually molested one of her daughters. She was fluent in English and had a GED. 18 months after the removal GB gave birth to another child. * That is she had reported this to a psychiatrist during an inpatient treatment episode � there was not criminal hx associated with the report * That is she had reported this to a psychiatrist during an inpatient treatment episode � there was not criminal hx associated with the report

13. �OB�, the �medically fragile� child Among the children removed was a 7 year-old male �OB� with FtT and profound disabilities (scoliosis, developmental delays, cranio-facial and internal organ malformations) associated with Partial Trisomy 15, a congenital abnormality. This child had a 13 week hospitalization prior to placement at a state residential facility�

14. GB, continued 2 2 years after the removal a GC naming all the children was filed. However, the new born was not removed and a number of the younger children were eventually returned to GB�s care. The 3 oldest minor children remained with the grandmother. Also GB restored her self-employment income, obtained an apartment, and married the father of her youngest child. Essentially the state conceded that she had remedied the circumstances that led to the removal of the children. However, the PRT litigation proceeded with regard to the now 9 year-old, �medically fragile� male child . It was alleged that the mother was unwilling/unable to eliminate harm, provide a stable and safe home, delay in permanent placement will add to harm, failed to maintain contact and plan for the future, despite the state�s reasonable efforts to remediate the situation� It was alleged that the mother was unwilling/unable to eliminate harm, provide a stable and safe home, delay in permanent placement will add to harm, failed to maintain contact and plan for the future, despite the state�s reasonable efforts to remediate the situation�

15. GB, continued 3 The psychologist retained by the law guardian reported that the child, �OB� was �highly needed and fragile� and required complex medical and education services. According to the psychologist, GB could not insure OB�s safety due to �a pattern of instability in multiple areas suggestive of borderline personality disorder*� and �(the child�s) health and safety could only be insured by not returning to his mother� �

16. Risks associated with state care Division of Youth and Family Service Division of Developmental Disabilities Law Guardian�s Office