if you have a CPS case in Arizona, interesting reading...

[tommixx]

Dan Brown, Assistant Majority Research Analyst, Committee on Human Services, stated that S.B. 1430 makes changes to the Child Protective Services’ (CPS) statutes and creates the Family Advocacy Council (FAC) and Family Advocacy Office (FAO) (Attachment 11). The provisions of the bill are:



· Restates the limitation of authority and duty to inform of CPS workers by:

· Eliminating the requirement to provide information outlining parental rights in writing.

· Adding that the person under investigation is not required to allow the CPS worker to enter the dwelling.

· Requiring that the CPS worker make all reasonable efforts to inform the person under investigation of their rights, and of the limitation of authority placed on CPS, before the child is removed from the home.

· Mandating that DES has the burden of proof that the CPS worker informed the person under investigation as he or she was required to.

·

· Requires DES to provide access to CPS information to the FAC and the staff of the FAO if the information is reasonably necessary for the persons to perform their official duties, and restricts the information from being further disclosed.

·

· Changes the composition of Removal Review Team (RRT) to include:

· A CPS worker or the worker’s supervisor.

· Two members of the Foster Care Review Board, at least one of whom is from the local district.



· Mandates that the RRT not meet unless two members of the Foster Care Review Board are present.



· Requires the written notice to a parent of a child taken into temporary custody to include information that a RRT will be meeting to review the removal, and the date and time of that meeting.

· Changes the standard of evidence in a termination adjudication hearing from “clear and convincing” to “beyond a reasonable doubt.”



· Changes the standard of evidence in a dependency adjudication hearing from “a preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence.”



· Creates the Family Advocacy Council (FAC).



· Stipulates that members of the FAC are not eligible to receive compensation, but can be reimbursed for expenses with the exceptions of the members of the House and Senate and the family law judge.



· Specifies members of the FAC serve at the pleasure of those who appointed them.



· Indicates the duties of the FAC are as follows:

· Select a chairperson from its voting membership annually at the first meeting.

· Meet at least four times a year at the call of the chairperson.

· Serve as a resource to families affected by actions taken by CPS.

· Review CPS cases and files on their own motion or on request of any legislator.

· Advocate on behalf of any parent the FAC believes is in need of advocacy.

· Submit an annual report of actions and any recommendations for improvements to the CPS system on or before December 1st to the Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House.



· Allows members of the FAC to excuse themselves from participating in advocacy activities.



· Exempts members of the FAC from criminal or civil liability for good faith actions taken in connection with their responsibilities.



· Creates the FAO.



· Stipulates the duties of the FAO are as follows:

· Offer staff support to the FAC.

· Assist the FAC in conducting research and collecting data relating to the CPS system.

· Provide other necessary services to the FAC.



· Specifies the FAC shall appoint an executive director of the FAO who serves at the pleasure of the FAC.



· Indicates the characteristics and duties of the executive director of the FAO as follows:

· Eligible to receive compensation set by the FAC within the range specified in statute.

· May employ and terminate employees or contract for special services as necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the FAC and FAO.

· Prepare minutes, records, reports, and record all FAC actions.

· Enter into contracts to procure goods and services necessary to carry out the duties, policies, and directions of the FAC and FAO.



· Repeals the FAC and FAO on July 1, 2016.



· Indicates the purpose of the creation of the FAC and FAO is to serve as a resource and advocate for families affected by actions taken by DES related to CPS.



· Delays the effective date to December 31, 2006.



Mr. Yarbrough moved that the Farnsworth 10-line amendment dated 3/28/06 be adopted (Attachment 12).



Mr. Brown explained that the Farnsworth 10-line amendment dated 3/28/06 appropriates $125,000 from the General Fund to the Family Advocacy Council (Attachment 12).



Question was called for on Mr. Yarbrough’s motion that the Farnsworth 10-line amendment dated 3/28/06 be adopted (Attachment 12). The motion carried.



Mr. Yarbrough moved that the Yarbrough 14-line amendment dated 3/29/06 be adopted (Attachment 13).



Mr. Brown explained that the Yarbrough 14-line amendment dated 3/29/06 eliminates the provision restricting the Removal Review Team meeting without two members of the Foster Care Review Board present and instead requires the RRT to consult with an employee of the Family Advocacy Office (Attachment 13). The amendment also removes the family law judge, the court-appointed special advocate and the member of the Foster Care Review Board from the Family Advocacy Council and adds guardian ad litem and public member.



Mr. Barnes queried why the CPS members are being taken off the Board. He wondered whether it is because they have not been showing up. Mr. Yarbrough answered that the Foster Care Review people are volunteers and the requirement to have two of them present is not always feasible. Mr. Barnes asked about problems in the past. Mr. Yarbrough said he is not aware of intentional problems, but he is aware of problems.



Senator Karen Johnson, sponsor, advised that hearings were begun in June, 2005 because so many families had problems with CPS regarding removal of children. Because of that, it was felt that legislation was needed to address some of the issues that these families had encountered in their dealings with CPS. Testimony clearly disclosed the need for an independent advocacy entity that is not associated with DES or CPS to help parents and grandparents who experience problems with CPS. She maintained that raising the standard of proof will provide accountability to the entire CPS system. She advised there are 10,000 children in foster care, yet only eight percent of the reports were substantiated, and that clearly shows the need to raise the levels of proof. That the mere word of a caseworker is the only actual proof needed to remove a child from the home and place the child in foster care is alarming to her. She said evidence was heard in the hearings of some caseworkers misrepresenting information and making false reports to show a parent negatively before the court, rather than conduct actual investigations and report the facts supported by evidence. She pointed out that the majority of caseworkers are wonderful dedicated workers; however, there are a few “bad apples” who cause a lot of problems, and it appears that CPS is not taking the proper disciplinary action against these people. She stated that raising the standard proof to the same level that the federal government mandates on the Indian communities is what this legislation attempts to do. It will not affect the risk of harm to children in their homes but could remove the risk of harm to children who are sometimes placed in certain foster homes or group homes. She related that once a child is removed from the home, there is no way to reverse that decision or any way to take away the damage done to the child who is wrongfully removed. She advised there have been over 47 notices of claims filed over the past year and plans to file lawsuits against the State for wrongdoing by CPS in over 100 other cases. She provided information to Members (Attachment 14).



Mr. Gallardo asked about the potential of putting children at risk if the parents could not be located since they have to be notified. Senator Johnson responded that is one of the issues that was discussed. An honest effort must be made to contact the parents; however, if that is not possible, CPS can proceed if they cannot locate the parents.



Mr. Gallardo queried whether this bill compromises any kind of investigation between law enforcement and Child Protective Services. Senator Johnson understands this proposal will not affect that joint operation.



Mr. Yarbrough asked whether the clear and convincing evidence standard is the same standard that the federal government applies under the Indian Child Welfare Act. Ms. Johnson replied in the affirmative.



Mr. Paton asked whether there is a point system for removal of a child by CPS. Senator Johnson said she is not aware of that.



Mr. Downing questioned the training of the members of the proposed oversight committee. Senator Johnson said they will go through Foster Care Review training. She hopes they will all have expertise in these issues.



Mr. Downing raised the liability issue. He noted these individuals will have access to confidential information. Senator Johnson advised they would have to sign confidentiality agreements. Mr. Downing asked whether any of these people would have a State attorney represent them if they get sued for revealing information.



Jerry Landau, Legislative Liaison, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Arizona Supreme Court, said he did not focus on that issue. The Court’s focus was on responsibilities placed on court volunteers and judges. He opined that since these are State-created councils and boards, a member of the Attorney General’s Office may be assigned to them. He said that information can be secured.



Chairman Farnsworth resumed the Chair at 9:40 a.m.



Robin Scoins, Director, Arizona Family Rights Advocacy Institute, testified in support of
S.B. 1430. She said the intent of this legislation is to have all families treated fairly. The Indian families are given a higher standard and are protected by federal law. She advised that many of the children taken from their homes are considered to be neglected because of poverty. She stated that poverty is not neglect and removing the child will not help the family situation to improve. This legislation asks for an actual basis for removing a child from his home, such as imminent proof of danger. A handout was distributed on the Institute’s recommendations regarding CPS issues (Attachment 15).



Mr. Downing asked whether there is any proof that the primary cause for removal is based on poverty. Ms. Scoins replied that of all the cases CPS reports, 80 percent are due to neglect, and those neglect cases are often blamed on poverty. People who are poor and live in poor conditions are termed “negligent.”



Amanda Tuitavuki, representing herself, spoke in opposition to S.B. 1430. She believes this legislation will have unintended consequences that could be very significant. She said the bill will increase the burden of proof for termination of parental rights. It adds additional layers of bureaucracy for CPS workers. The CPS system is currently overloaded and this bill will affect caseworkers’ availability and dedication to serve the children that are being threatened by abuse and neglect. She urged Members to vote against this bill.



Mr. Miranda queried whether it would help to provide more resources to CPS. Ms. Tuitavuki declared that she does not think this bill is the solution to the problems.



Michelle Marro, representing herself, stated support of S.B. 1430. She advised that no reasonable effort was made to reunite her son with his family. She related that she was never offered any services by CPS. She said she thinks if services had been provided in the beginning of her case, things would not have gotten so bad. She revealed that she cannot see or talk to her son because he is now living in Massachusetts. He lives with a family that has a lot of stress because the family has additional children.



Amy Love, Legislative Intern, Arizona Judicial Council, stated the Council is neutral on this bill with the amendment. The Council had concerns because of the utilization of volunteers as well as conflicts with the Advisory Council members. She noted that the amendment addresses the issues. The other area of concern relates to the two Foster Care Review members having to be present. It is not always possible for some of the people who are volunteers to take off from work, especially on short notice.



Herschella Horton, Chief, Legislative Services, Department of Economic Security (DES), testified in opposition to S.B. 1430. She stated that this bill compromises a child’s safety. It mandates that CPS give parents notice of removal and their rights. Sometimes, parents cannot be found and that can put children at risk. She said she does not see a definition of reasonable efforts or reasonable rights in the bill. She related that if a child is in danger and the caseworker cannot find the parents, efforts are made to remove the danger and not the child; however, the danger cannot always be removed and when it cannot, the child must be removed. She pointed out that parents can abscond with the child if the parents are notified ahead of time. Another concern with notifying the parents ahead of time is that the parents could coach the child. She noted that children continue to love their parents even though they are abused. The bill requires CPS to notify parents at the time of removal when a review will occur, but caseworkers do not know when that review will be scheduled. She maintained that this proposal will leave a child in an unsafe environment.



Mr. Paton asked what a safety assessment is. Ms. Horton replied it is a written tool that CPS uses so there is consistency in gauging how safe it is to leave the child in the home. She can provide a copy of the safety assessment. Mr. Paton queried whether there is a point system in using that safety assessment. Ms. Horton replied in the negative.



Mr. Paton questioned the kinds of factors that go into establishing the safety assessment.



Janice Michens, Program Administrator, Child Protective Services (CPS), testified that there are a number of factors that CPS looks at in terms of the prior history of abuse or neglect with the family, substance abuse issues and how those might impact the safety of the child, injuries the child has, ability of the parent to provide a protective environment, etc. CPS also looks at whether there are strengths in the family that will mitigate some of those factors.



Mr. Paton queried whether there is scoring when the safety assessment is made. Ms. Michens answered there are a number of safety factors CPS looks at. If one of those safety factors is identified as unsafe, CPS has to develop a safety plan. In developing that plan, CPS looks at what needs to be in place to safely allow that child to remain at home. Mr. Paton asked whether poverty could be one of those factors. Ms. Michens related that a number of families that get reported to CPS are low income; however, that is not one of the factors. She said neglect is a factor and it has to be shown that neglect caused a substantial risk to the child.



In reply to Mr. Miranda, Ms. Michens related that the Family Advocacy Office has one full-time person staffing that office who is extremely busy. If additional responsibilities are added, an additional staff person will probably be needed. The office receives over 200 calls a month.



Mr. Miranda questioned the rationale for raising the burden of proof for removal. Ms. Michens explained that the rationale for the Indian Child Welfare Act was because there was a history of Native American children being removed from their homes without the tribe or a relative having the opportunity to participate in getting the child back.



Mr. Gallardo asked how this proposal would compromise the joint CPS/law enforcement investigation. Ms. Michens said she believes it will compromise an investigation.



Mr. Gallardo noted that under this bill CPS or law enforcement would not be able to do anything until the parent is notified. Ms. Michens pointed out the bill contains no definition of reasonable effort. The bill requires that parents be notified before an investigation, giving parents the opportunity to coach the child.



Madelyn Leeds, representing herself, expressed support of S.B. 1430. She advised that when CPS goes to a home, parents or grandparents are not given any information. She said her granddaughter was taken from the home last year because of abandonment and neglect. She was placed in foster care where she received a fracture to her skull. CPS investigated and put the child back with the foster family even though she had gotten hurt while in that foster home. She maintained that the bill is vital to the safety of children. She is asking that all children be treated according to the standard set for Native American children. Under federal law, there has to be proof. She is asking that all children be on the same level playing field. She urged Members to vote for this bill.



Debra Brimhall, representing herself, testified in support of S.B. 1430. She said the main challenge here is integrity, and currently there is an integrity problem with the CPS system. CPS workers have the power to do whatever they want. She advised that money is not the solution. Money has been increased by the Legislature over the years, yet there has not been increased protection and safety for children.



Beth Rosenberg, Children’s Action Alliance, testified against S.B. 1430. Even with the large number of reports that come into CPS every year, there are few complaints. She said she has concerns about notifying parents prior to removal of a child because there are no exceptions in the bill as to when that should happen. Current law is a reasonable way to go. Another concern is raising the standard of proof. She advised that the Supreme Court has established that clear and convincing evidence is the standard of proof for termination of parental rights, and that is the standard of proof in all the states in the country. If the standard is raised, it will prolong the time children spend in foster care. She related there are a number of oversight bodies that review what CPS does, as well as a number of avenues open to parents in terms of what happens to children in care. She asked Members to oppose this legislation.



Question was called for on Mr. Yarbrough’s motion that the Yarbrough 14-line amendment dated 3/29/06 be adopted (Attachment 13). The motion carried.



Vice-Chairman Barto moved that S.B. 1430 as amended do pass.



Persons in support of S.B. 1430 who did not speak:



Walt Plunkett, representing self

Tracey Plunkett, representing self

Brad Kennedy, representing self

Susan Marrow, representing self

Bob Hanks, representing self



Persons in opposition to S.B. 1430 who did not speak:



Christine Scarpati, CEO, Child Crisis Center, East Valley

Chris Aamodt, representing self

Timothy Schmaltz, Coordinator, Protecting Arizona’s Family Coalition

Gabe Zimmerman, representing self

Tierney Popp, representing self

Jana Bertucci, representing self

Steve Twist, representing self

Dale Wiebusch, Director of Systems Advocacy, Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence



Question was called for on Mr. Yarbrough’s motion that S.B. 1430 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-2-0-1 (Attachment 16).