Protecting Abused, Neglected Children

This letter is in response to your Sept. 14 editorial on my SB 243.

SB 243 is the result of numerous interim hearings conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Children and Youth, of which I am chairman, and several years of study by a task force composed of experts in child abuse issues and juvenile court law. SB 243 is designed to ensure that abused and neglected children and their families are properly protected and served by the child welfare service system and the courts.

However, both the editorial and Lois Timnick’s earlier article (Part I, Aug. 30) represent that the bill will likely result in excluding abused and neglected children from protection. The editorial equates the definition of “serious physical harm” with “severe physical abuse.” In lay terms, there is not much difference between the words. However, in dependency law the two terms serve entirely different purposes, and the failure of the editorial staff to understand this difference has led to a gross misrepresentation of SB 243.

Under current law, children under the age of 3 who are the victims of “severe physical abuse,” which is narrowly defined and limited to grievous abuses, and who have been removed from the custody of their parents, are placed on a “fast track;” instead of attempting to reunify them with their parents, such children are placed immediately for adoption. In creating this separate category, the Legislature reasoned that young children who are the victims of very serious abuse are entitled to a speedy removal to a permanent, adoptive family while they are still young enough to form new bonds. SB 243 does not change this policy, but extends the age limit upward to age 5, thereby offering additional protection to young children.

However, “severe physical abuse” is not the only category available to social workers and judges in determining whether a child should be removed from the home and made a dependent. SB 243 proposes categories detailing serious physical harm (general physical abuse), general neglect, medical neglect, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, abandonment and destitution, cruelty, abuse of siblings and others. To imply that the only other alternative available to social workers and judges is the fact that a parent has been convicted of causing the death of another child is seriously misleading.

Timnick’s article lists a number of examples of children that critics claim would be excluded from protection under the definitions proposed by SB 243. However, a reasonable reading of SB 243 would demonstrate that all of the cases cited are clearly included.

Rather than eliminating children from protections, SB 243 offers additional protections by defining more clearly the jurisdictional grounds for declaring an abused or neglected child a dependent of the court. I believe the proposed revisions clarify areas of uncertainty and enhance the court’s ability to assist at-risk families. Indeed, this goal is explicitly stated in SB 243’s intent language.

Finally, both the editorial and Timnick’s article maintain that SB 243 has been “little noticed” and has “slipped through” the Legislature. In fact, SB 243 was debated at some length in Senate fiscal and policy committees and when I presented it on the Senate floor. On the Assembly side, the bill was heard in two policy committees on three separate occasions; one hearing lasted almost four hours. On the Assembly floor, the bill was described as “the most debated bill of the year.”

Having taken the time to debate and understand the bill, the Legislature passed SB 243 unanimously. Moreover, SB 243 is widely supported by juvenile court judges, attorneys who represent children and parents, the attorney general, the PTA, law enforcement organizations, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the National Assn. of Social Workers and others.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Children and Youth for more than 10 years, I have a long history of authoring and supporting legislation designed to assist and protect at-risk children in California. SB 243 is designed to further this effort.

SEN. ROBERT PRESLEY

D-Riverside

Sacramento