Board Facing Tough Child Agency Votes

Commencing its long-awaited repair of the county’s child protective system, the Board of Supervisors moved Tuesday toward adopting policies that would encourage family preservation while bridging the gulf of mistrust that has developed between social workers and some of the people they are paid to help.

Anguished parents, some calling themselves “victims” of the system, said the series of more than 60 recommendations that the supervisors will vote on today fails to go far enough. But county officials said they must implement reform without jeopardizing protections for abused children.

“It’s very clear that what we’re looking for is balance,” Supervisor Susan Golding said. “I think the pendulum has swung one way, perhaps too far, and we’ve got to swing it back so that we find balance and the child is truly protected.”

Though they took no votes after hearing more than 6 1/2 hours of reports and testimony, the supervisors debated significant changes in the system under which children are removed from homes and their cases are adjudicated.

Those included examining the possibility of requiring a judge’s permission to remove a child from a home, even temporarily--a decision that is now initially made by social workers.

Other suggestions were to develop a system for reviewing the performance of attorneys who practice in juvenile courts; change the standards of evidence used in child protective cases, and quickly purge from computers the names of parents charged with allegations of abuse that prove unfounded.

The board also called for special attention to abuse charges that arise from custody disputes between divorcing parents and urged social service officials to begin tape-recording callers who use the system’s abuse hot-line. Social service administrators said the county lacks the power to change evidentiary standards without action by the Legislature, but Assistant Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen suggested that the county may have the authority to implement a system that requires a judge’s permission to remove a child from a home.

After months of complaints from parents who said they have been treated unfairly by the child abuse system, county government was rocked last month by separate, scathing reports from the county grand jury and the county Juvenile Justice Commission.

The grand jury called the child protective system “out of control, with few checks and little balance” and stressed the need for “profound change.” Two weeks later, the Juvenile Justice Commission, in a review of 12 troublesome cases, said that “overzealous, judgmental and punitive” social workers take children from their homes too quickly and reunite them only grudgingly.

The board appeared ready to adopt many of the 58 recommendations forwarded by Chief Administrative Officer Norman Hickey, changes designed to revamp a system that some families contend has unjustifiably torn children from their homes and forced parents to prove their innocence to doubting social workers.

Hickey called for increased training for social workers and foster parents, and a tilt toward a system that is not so quick to take children away from their parents.

But Hickey’s proposal for an outside family advocate to review complaints from parents who claim they have been unfairly treated by the system appeared unlikely to succeed. Instead, the supervisors were leaning toward strengthening the Department of Social Services’ internal ombudsman and allowing the court-appointed Juvenile Justice Commission to look into parent complaints.

The system is facing a backlog of 300 cases in which families claim mistreatment.

Tuesday’s hearing brought out parents and parent advocates who have lodged such allegations, resulting in some emotionally charged moments in the usually staid Board of Supervisors proceedings.

For the most part, speakers adhered to Chairman George Bailey’s admonition not to detail personal cases, but testimony sometimes strayed from the recommendations before the supervisors.

In an angry exchange with Bailey, Bonnie Kibbee, a candidate for the East County supervisorial seat that Bailey will give up this year, charged that the five supervisors and the county staff have for years ignored the pleas of parents enduring “government-sponsored terrorism.”

“Their homes have been entered without warrants. Their children have been strip-searched. Babies have been ripped from the arms of parents . . . and families have been destroyed,” Kibbee said.

Peggy Ramsing of Vista told the board that social workers “have an absolute ability to make judgments about people they’ve never met . . . and with no evidence.”

“Your challenge is to create a system where employees know they are to provide help and service to the public that pays them” instead of the “disdain” that too often characterizes social workers’ attitudes, she said.

Attorneys, a judge, a doctor and representatives of myriad nonprofit social service organizations involved in the child protective system also detailed its strengths and failings. Physician Steven Gabaeft contended that many mistaken charges of abuse result from conclusions offered by examining physicians based on evidence of abuse that “by scientific standards should be considered inconclusive.”

Gabaeft called for legislative changes that would allow small jury trials in some cases, elimination of gag orders on attorneys, rules that would allow more press coverage and tougher standards for proof of abuse.

Juvenile Court Judge Elizabeth Kutzner detailed a system overwhelmed by the number of cases and sheer misery of the conditions in which some children are found, many as a result of neglect and abuse from parents addicted to drugs or alcohol.

The child protective system handles about 7,000 referrals each month, about 240 of which result in referrals for court action.

After describing some of the cases that come before the Juvenile Court’s six judges, Kutzner asked: “Did you get a little overwhelmed? That’s what we deal with.”