Other Views

Saturday, September 20, 1997

---

System must do better job
of protecting abused kids

Sometimes 'preserving' the family
is the worst solution

By Jan M. Young

TO the several skilled, professional social workers who are frustrated and humiliated by inept colleagues and a misguided human services system, I share my appreciation for their service to children.

And then there's precious Reubyne Bentipo Jr., the 4-year-old boy who has been in a coma since Aug. 31 with brain swelling resulting from hard blows to his body allegedly inflicted by his mother.

Reubyne's traumatized life may finally raise public consciousness and bring about reform. To avoid further casualties, it is imperative that our state human services director welcome the investigative efforts of state Rep. Dennis Arakaki and Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland.

Child Protective Services (CPS), despite its name, is concerned with preserving the status quo and protecting the rights of adults and families instead of children.

During the Waihee administration, the Family Preservation Program expanded. The theory behind family preservation was that with brief but intensive counseling and social services, the family would rehabilitate and thereby be preserved.

Proponents cited financial savings. The estimated cost of family preservation is about $4,000 per year while foster care is around $9,000 per year, per child.

Consider this: At least 25 percent of abused children have psychiatric problems, including chronic anxiety, depression and sometimes neurological damage.

Abused children often don't perform well in school. Subsequently, they drop out or are pushed out as social misfits, delinquents or substance abusers.

What is reported as a "savings" may instead become a huge loss in human potential. Add costs for psychiatrists, doctors and prisons.

Family preservation philosophy drew criticism in New York in 1993 (Star-Bulletin, Aug. 10, 1993). Sociologist Peter H. Rossi stated that it is unrealistic to expect a brief program to remedy the damage done by extreme poverty running across several generations compounded by violence, alcohol and drug abuse.

And, according to National Institute on Aging research, a person's personality is pretty much molded by the age of 30. Therefore, changing an adult's abusive behavior takes extraordinary, heroic efforts.

It takes about 21 days and genuine motivation to establish a simple new habit like adding exercise as a routine to one's life. Therefore, compelling a complex family system to rehabilitate, establish new behaviors, and change the head and heart of the family unit with just a brief and perhaps unwelcome intervention is an insult to common sense.

Through the following examples, it is my hope that the issues and problems in the Department of Human Services become personal. As you read, please envision a vulnerable Hawaii child reaching for help:

A young child's older sister was removed from the home due to sexual abuse. The 6 year old reported no abuse, so she remained in the home with the perpetrator. Social workers stipulated that the young child was never to be alone with the perpetrator. A home visit revealed that the child shared her bed with the perpetrator and his wife. The child was subsequently removed from the home and placed with relatives, only to be returned by a judge who supported family preservation.

Problems frequently arise due to the lack of skilled, sensitive social workers. A girl reported her father exposed himself to her. During the initial interview, the 7 year old shyly nodded her head once, confirming the allegation. When repeatedly and intrusively questioned, the girl hung her head in silence. The dubious social worker was then shown art drawn by the child, graphically depicting male genitalia. A case was opened. The child's father refused to meet with the social worker so she simply reported the allegations on the phone and ended the report with a warning. The next day, the girl reluctantly shared she got "lickings" and was told never to talk about the family again or she would be sent away to live with mean people.

In another case, a worker told a child abused by an alcoholic uncle that she would talk to the uncle and that it would never happen again. She also promised to find the boy's absent mother, assuring him that she had ways to do that. The worker asked the child if he would be happy to be with his mother, even if she was living on the beach. In essence, to an already traumatized child, the worker made false promises and added to his apprehensions by suggesting that his mother might be homeless. A week later, the worker had not contacted the uncle and made no attempt to contact the mother.

This same worker was assigned to a kindergarten child whose mother was a heroin addict. The mother reclaimed the child from grandparents and made promises to go to treatment. When the child was absent for several days, the social worker was notified. She replied attendance problems are a school issue. I suggested lack of attendance as well as a disconnected phone may indicate noncompliance regarding the mother's drug treatment. The worker stated she believed the mom was compliant and, therefore, didn't follow up. Eventually, distant relatives intervened, appalled by the child's neglect.

I am troubled by a philosophy that protects families before children; by a lack of skilled, sensitive social workers; and by judges who vote their ideology above the individual needs of the child.

Finally, I have concerns about the Guardian Ad Litem program.

With few exceptions, guardians -- who are charged with being the voice of children -- are superficial in their investigation, and naive about issues like addiction, domestic violence and community nuances. They also advocate for the status quo, protecting the family instead of the child. So who speaks for our children?

Doesn't each child have a right to a healthy, safe, loving environment where individual potential can bloom? Isn't each family obligated to provide that? Isn't a good home -- family of origin, foster or adoptive -- the most cost-effective solution to problems in schools and correctional institutions? Isn't it the duty of the DHS to honor Reubyne with an honest self-examination?

---

Jan M. Young has 15 years experience
counseling children and adults at Hawaii schools, Castle Medical Center
and in drug and substance abuse assistance programs. She is now
a counselor at Blanche Pope Elementary School in Waimanalo.