PERSPECTIVE ON CHILD WELFARE : Don’t Ax Family Reunification : The deaths of dependent children are tragic, but shouldn’t cause the dismantling of a program that works.

One year ago, I exchanged a legislator’s voting button for a judicial robe. As a member of the Assembly, I worked to reform and rebuild the Los Angeles County juvenile dependency system. Now, as a judge, I decide the fate of minors who are dependents of that system.

Responding to troubling news reports about dependent children’s deaths, legislators and county supervisors have proposed reforms. Their interest is welcome. But much more needs to be done to better protect the 60,000 abused, neglected and abandoned children for whom the dependency system and all society are responsible.

I am shocked by the seriousness and the volume of the cases I hear. On average, every day, I decide 35 cases affecting the lives of about 75 children who have been abused, neglected or abandoned. Sixteen other judicial officers handle a similar daily docket in Children’s Court. These cases involve parents who leave infants with strangers, fathers who brutalize their sons and sexually molest their daughters, mothers who give birth to drug-addicted babies and other unthinkable acts. While the death of a dependent child commands press coverage, as it should, it is the unrelenting volume of destroyed childhoods and damaged lives that most threatens to undermine civilized society.

The common thread linking most of these cases is drug abuse. Cocaine, crack and PCP are the sole or dominant factor in 80% or more of the cases I hear. Approximately one-fourth of the children are drug babies, exposed to dangerous drugs in utero. Even if not born addicted, these babies are scarred for life by the damage those drugs cause in developing fetuses. The moral consequences are obvious and awful. So are the financial burdens society bears, as it must, to help these unfortunate and wholly innocent children.

All is not hopeless. Services that support family reunification, such as drug treatment and sobriety maintenance programs and parenting classes, do work for some addicted parents, especially when reinforced by the threat of losing their children if they cannot overcome their addiction. Nothing is more rewarding for me than returning children to sober and responsible parents so that they have a chance for a normal family. That is why proposals in Washington and Sacramento to reduce funding for drug treatment and other reunification services may be counterproductive.

However, most drug-addicted parents do not break their habits quickly, leaving their children in need of an alternative permanent living arrangement. Recognizing this reality, and in an understandable effort to protect children from being abused again, legislators have proposed bills to limit drastically family reunification services. Some critics suggest capping family reunification services at six months in all cases. Proposals for change should be considered carefully. Selective, targeted reform may produce better outcomes than wholesale change. For example, the Legislature might decide to allow or require judges to terminate parental rights when a mother gives birth to a second or third drug baby. Currently, these drug mothers are entitled to at least 12 months and up to 18 months of taxpayer-supported reunification services.

There are other situations in which the Legislature might consider prohibiting or severely limiting family reunification services: for example where a parent has inflicted severe physical abuse on a young child; where a parent has committed an act of cruelty against any child; or where the parents’ whereabouts are unknown for an extended time.

Still, the Legislature should beware of overreacting to cases of premature family reunification that have resulted in tragedy. Just a few years ago, amid reports of children dying in foster care, many advocates pressed for alternatives, including a preference for family reunification.

Public policy should be made rationally, not just in response to headlines. There is no absolutely certain safe placement for a dependent child. And judges do not have crystal balls. Moreover, there simply are not enough good family placements. Until more people adopt or serve as guardians and foster parents, an across-the-board shortening of family reunification services would force many minors into less desirable group homes or orphanages.

The guiding principle in formulating public policy should be the same as what judges must follow in deciding individual cases: the best interests of the minor. Determination of those interests must be made in the real world of limited resources and possibilities, where all choices are imperfect and present risks. Thoughtful legislative reform will enable the mostly decent people of goodwill who operate, litigate in and judge the juvenile dependency system to better protect the most needy children.