Privacy and Child Welfare System

In response to your May 21-23 series on group homes: While other students wished for bikes and money, a girl in my wife’s second-grade class wrote only, “I wish I had a real mom and dad and a real whole family.” Over time, our love for this foster child grew and we decided to inquire about adoption. After weeks of phone tag we were told that she was not up for adoption and never would be--the “plan” was to keep her in foster care until she was 18.

Later, we learned that privacy laws kept us from knowing the real plan: reunification with her aunt. Without prompting, the girl repeatedly told my wife through her tears that she was afraid of her aunt because she “used to beat up my mom.” My wife felt compelled, both legally and morally, to stay involved as the disturbing stories continued. We joined the girl’s foster family agency in an effort to keep her in her healthy foster family of two years. Though this agency and my wife spent countless hours with her, all power lies in the county, and the decision to move her was made by a county social worker who had known her for only a few weeks.

When a teacher’s justified concern is treated as intrusion, something is very wrong. Other government agencies stand up to public scrutiny. As it is now, excessive confidentiality laws serve only to cover up the mistakes of social workers and judges. How many children are shuffled unnecessarily among truly unfit homes? Currently, we have no right to know.

ERIC HENDRICKSON

Diamond Bar