Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / November 2006

First Independent Review of New Jersey Abuse and Neglect Investigations
Reveals Children in DYFS Cus
PRESS RELEASE

Expert concludes "no assurances can be given that any child in DYFS
out-of-home care is safe....Immediate action must be taken to protect these
children."

The first independent review ever conducted of the Institutional Abuse
Investigation Unit (IAIU) of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family
Services (DYFS) reveals routine failures by IAIU to ensure the safety of
children in DYFS out-of-home care. The review was conducted as part of the
class action lawsuit, Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey, filed by
Children's Rights in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

A nationally recognized child welfare expert and a team of researchers
studied a random sample of 129 IAIU investigations of reports of child abuse
and neglect concerning 195 children in out-of-home care between 1999 and
2002. The expert discovered that investigations were routinely delayed,
incomplete, and had inconclusive findings despite clear signs of abuse,
leaving children in homes with individuals known to seriously abuse or
neglect children. The major conclusion of the report states:

As a result of IAIU's systemic deficiencies identified in this review,
children in out-of-home care were and are in DYFS placements known to be
abusive and neglectful, and no assurances can be given that any child in
DYFS out-of-home care is safe. Based on the results of this review,
immediate action must be taken to protect these children.

"It is now a documented fact that no child is safe today in New Jersey
foster care," stated Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of Children's
Rights and a lead attorney in the lawsuit. "This comprehensive report by
experts in child welfare confirms without a doubt that DYFS cannot be
trusted to care for children in its custody."

Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey is a federal civil rights lawsuit filed
in 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by
Children's Rights and the New Jersey law firm of Lowenstein, Sandler,
charging that the state's child welfare system is poorly managed,
overburdened, underfunded and is severely harming the health and safety of
New Jersey's children. Documents obtained through the lawsuit were recently
ordered released to local and national media by Magistrate Judge John J.
Hughes. The documents showed in individual cases how DYFS failed to respond
appropriately to protect plaintiff children who were abused, and sometimes
died, in foster care. The expert report released today is the first in a
series that will report on various aspects of the child welfare system to
provide evidence of system-wide failures in practice and management.

As the case proceeds toward an expected trial this fall, the parties are
also discussing the possibility of settlement under the guidance of a
mediator.

"Whether this case is resolved as a result of settlement negotiation or
after a trial," said Eric Thompson, senior staff attorney at Children's
Rights, "the children of New Jersey need drastic changes in a child welfare
system that has harmed too many of them for far too long."

KEY FINDINGS OF REPORT (Excerpted Verbatim)

Professionally Unreasonable Decision-Making
One of the most dramatic findings from this study relates to the poor
quality of IAIU decision-making. Based on the facts documented in the IAIU
files, the IAIU findings decisions were found to be professionally
unreasonable 25% of the time. The research team found numerous examples of
cases that documented unjustified actions or omissions of the caregiver,
which resulted in substantial harm or risk of harm to children, yet the IAIU
investigation concluded with a finding of "not substantiated." * Such IAIU
case findings are inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable professional
judgment, and put children at serious risk of ongoing harm in out-of-home
care settings that are not closed to further DYFS placements.

For example, one case was unsubstantiated even though a foster mother
admitted striking a child with a belt resulting in a 4 inch linear belt mark
on the child's face. This foster mother had two prior substantiated
incidents of abuse or neglect. There were equally serious examples of
neglect to children that were classified as not substantiated, such as
medically documented serious neglect of hygiene and nutrition that resulted
in developmental delays, low weight, and pain and irritation to the child's
skin.

Specific findings included:

*IAIU only substantiated 12% (15 cases) of alleged maltreatment in DYFS
out-of-home placements, although 33% of the IAIU cases (40 cases) should
have been substantiated if reasonable professional judgment had been
exercised.
*Risk of harm to children was noted by IAIU in 40% of IAIU investigations,
and IAIU actually recommended removal of victims from unsafe placements in
29% (35) of the cases, even though only 12% of all cases were substantiated.
*First-hand observations by DYFS workers of serious abuse and neglect in
out-of-home placements were repeatedly discounted by IAIU.
58% of the cases that were "unsubstantiated" by IAIU should have been
substantiated.
*17% of the cases that were "unfounded" by IAIU should have been
substantiated.
*High Number of Prior Reports of Abuse and Neglect Against Caregivers.

Another alarming finding relates to the number of caregivers for which prior
reports of abuse and neglect were documented. One foster parent had five
prior substantiated abuse and neglect reports. No one who has a prior
substantiated abuse and neglect report should be permitted to be a caretaker
for children in DYFS custody. The decision by DYFS to leave children in
homes with individuals who were known to abuse or neglect children seriously
jeopardizes the safety of children in the care of the state and violates
reasonable professional standards. The number of DYFS caregivers for which
there is such a maltreatment history is shocking.

Of those caregivers for whom a search of prior reports of abuse and neglect
was documented (only 68% of the caregivers), 25% had prior reports of abuse
and neglect (26 caregivers). This is an exceptionally high number for a
group of caregivers who are entrusted to provide adequate care and
protection to children in the care and custody of the state.

The 26 caregivers with prior reports of abuse and neglect had a total of 45
prior reports, 21 (47%) of which were substantiated.
Only 2 IAIU investigations (1.6%) included a current criminal records check
on the caregivers suspected of abuse and neglect.

Failure to Consider Other Historical Information and Interview All Witnesses

IAIU was routinely noted to conduct overly legalistic and narrow
investigations, frequently failing to adequately collect, integrate and
critically analyze the available information with anything approaching
reasonable professional judgment. As a result, risk to children in
out-of-home care was not adequately assessed, leaving all children in
out-of-home care at risk of dangerous DYFS placements.

This review is inconsistent with the exercise of professional judgment and
further leads to inadequate decision-making, putting children at risk of
being placed or left in unsafe out-of-home care settings. For example,

*44% of IAIU reports failed to consider any historical information regarding
the caregiver(s), placement, alleged victim(s), or other children in the
placement as part of the investigation.
*12% of the IAIU investigations failed to include interviews of some or all
of the identified witnesses.
*5% of the IAIU files failed to contain any documentation that the
investigation had even been initiated.
*Untimeliness of Investigations

Finally, investigations must be prompt to immediately assure child safety
and to capture evidence before it evaporates or is compromised. Findings
also need to be promptly reached and communicated to relevant parties so
that corrective actions necessary to protect children will be taken. DYFS
policy and professional standards require that IAIU conduct a face-to-face
interview of the alleged child victim within designated response times, and
that the IAIU report be completed within 60 days. The routine delays found
put children at high risk of being placed or left in unsafe out-of-home care
settings.

30% of the investigations document that the IAIU investigator failed to
attempt to contact the alleged child victim within the IAIU designated
response time for face-to-face contact with the child (i.e., immediate, 24
hours, 72 hours, or 10 days).

50% of the IAIU investigations were not completed within the required 60
days. The days between receipt of the referral by IAIU and completion of the
findings report ranged from 5 days to 965 days (over 2.5 years).

Recommendations

Immediately Reevaluate All Placement Settings With Prior Reports Of Child
Abuse And Neglect To Ensure Child Safety.

Halt Practice Of Using Waivers To Keep Children In Foster Homes With Prior
Substantiated Abuse Or Neglect Reports.

Overhaul Procedures And Guidance For Determining Findings Of Alleged Child
Abuse And Neglect.

Identify And Remove Barriers To Responding To Reports Within Designated
Response Times.

Use A Safety Evaluation Instrument To Assess Safety Of Children In
Out-Of-Home Care Settings.

Implement Intensive Training For Investigators.

Ensure Adequate Supervisory Oversight.

Develop Teams To Improve Coordination.

This report has been supplied to defendants in Charlie and Nadine H. v.
McGreevey. Plaintiffs plan to present evidence based on this report at
trial.

Definitions:

Substantiated.
When the available information as evaluated by the Division representative,
indicates that a child is an abused or neglected child as defined in
N.J.A.C. 10:133-1.3 because the child as been harmed or placed at risk of
harm by a parent, caregiver, temporary caregiver or institutional caregiver.
(N.J.A.C. 10:129A-3.3(a)).

Not substantiated.
When the available information, as evaluated by the Division representative,
provides some indication that a child was harmed or placed at risk of harm,
but does not indicate that the child is an abused or neglected child as
defined in N.J.A.C. 10:133-1.3. (N.J.A.C. 10:129A-3.3(a)).

Unfounded.
When i. there is no evidence of conduct that would pose risk to the child;
ii. there is no evidence that a parent, caregiver, temporary caregiver, or
institutional caregiver or child was involved; or iii. the available
information indicates that the actions of the parent, caregiver, temporary
caregiver, or institutional caregiver were necessary and reasonable and the
incident was an accident. (N.J.A.C. 10:129A-3.3(a)).

Children's Rights works throughout the United States in partnership with
national and local experts, advocates and government officials to document
the needs of children in the care of child welfare systems. Children's
Rights helps develop realistic solutions and, where necessary, uses the
power of litigation to ensure that reform takes place.