Linda Spears
Publication Date:
September 1999
Revision Date:
February 2000
Linda Spears authored this document for the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, (800-537-2238); Child Welfare League of America, Inc., (202-638-2952); National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody, (800-527-3223); and Family Violence Prevention Fund, (415-252-8900).
Special thanks to The Ford Foundation for its support of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence , the initiative under which these materials were produced. We also wish to acknowledge the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for their ongoing funding of the NRC and other domestic violence resource centers.
The ideas expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of The Ford Foundation or other founders of the organizations publishing this paper.
These materials may be reprinted or adapted with proper acknowledgment.
I am first and foremost grateful to all who participated in the preparation of this paper for their commitment to the principles of collaboration between domestic violence and child protection. Their skill in working together allowed me to write a paper that reflects these values both in its content and its preparation.
My deepest gratitude is extended to Susan Schechter, of the University of Iowa School of Social Work, for her thoughtful guidance in conceptualizing and completing this work.
I am equally grateful to Jill Davies, of Greater Hartford Legal Assistance, for authoring the case narrative and for her substantive edits to the documents. Their efforts brought greater clarity and utility to the paper. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their contribution of source materials and their review of the many drafts along the way. Their creative energy and technical assistance were invaluable. Chief among them are The Honorable Len Edwards of the Santa Clara County Superior Court; The Honorable Bill Jones of the District Court of Charlotte, NC; Merry Hofford of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; Janet Carter of the Family Violence Prevention Fund; and Lonna Davis and Pamela Whitney of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services.
I would also like to acknowledge the leadership of Anne Menard, at the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, under whose auspices this document was developed.
Finally, I am deeply appreciative for the support of The Ford Foundation, whose continued commitment to ending family violence made this work possible.
Ms. Spears is the Director of Child Protection at the Child Welfare League of America, where she directs both its national child protection reform initiative Protecting America's Children: It's Everybody's Business , and the City/County public child welfare efforts. Prior to joining CWLA in 1992, Linda served as the Director of Field Support with the Massachusetts Department of Social Services. As a member of the department's senior management team, she was responsible for agency-wide services in family preservation, child protection, domestic violence, out-of-home placement, permanency planning, child care, independent living, substance abuse, and housing.
While in Massachusetts, Ms. Spears led an effort to better integrate the expertise of domestic violence advocates with the work of child protection caseworkers. She is a member of the board of directors of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, on the advisory committee of the National Resource Center on Child Maltreatment, and an advisor to the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Child Protection and Custody.
Violence against women and children is centuries old, but only over the past 25 years have communities made significant improvements in their responses to each problem.
In the 1970s, state legislatures created systems to help abused children, and by the 1980s many grassroots women's organizations had set up shelters for battered women. These two response systems were designed with very different mandates, funding, and goals.
As a result, tensions and problems now emerge as service providers, the courts, and communities try to more effectively help those families in which violence against women and children is overlapping and intertwined.
Domestic violence advocates have learned that the concerns of battered women are inextricably linked to the welfare of their children and that the safety decisions of battered women are typically guided by the needs of their children.
As a result, domestic violence organizations have worked hard to address the needs of the children of battered women, including providing a variety of concrete services like children's play and educational groups, support activities, and therapeutic services. Advocates have also broadened the scope of their work to include case-level and systemic advocacy for children.
Over the last ten years, domestic violence advocates have learned that it will take a coordinated effort to effectively protect women and their children. No single organization can do this work by itself. Without collaboration and coordination among agencies, it is the battered women and their children who pay the price: their safety is jeopardized and their needs for security and stability are compromised.
"Building Bridges Between Domestic Violence Organizations and Child Protective Services" was prepared as a new resource for advocates seeking to strengthen efforts to help battered women with abused and neglected children. This paper provides both background information and a framework for collaboration with child protection agencies that will support the work of domestic violence advocates as they try to improve safety for women and their children.
The paper covers the following topics:
Last night Gina's boyfriend Mark came home drunk again. They started arguing about money, and Mark slapped and punched Gina. Seven-year-old Sammy ran into the kitchen and started hitting Mark and yelling, "Stop hurting my Mommy!" Mark picked Sammy up by the seat of his pants and yelled, "Stay out of this, you little bastard, you're just like your father -- a real loser." He then dropped Sammy, who crashed to the floor. Sammy started crying, and Gina yelled at him to get out of the kitchen. Gina and Mark's one-year-old daughter Jessie started crying in the other room. Mark told Gina to just "let her cry, or she'll grow up to be a stupid baby like you."
A neighbor called the child abuse hotline to report that there was fighting in the apartment next door and that she could hear the children crying again and worried that they were being hit.
Gina's s situation is all too familiar to domestic violence advocates and child welfare workers. A woman is the victim of physical assaults and verbal abuse. Her children's lives are altered by her situation -- their well being, and often their safety, are compromised by the actions of an abusive partner. Sometimes, before the woman can fully consider the alternatives available to her, she is reported to child protection authorities because neighbors, friends, or service providers are concerned that the risk to her children is too great. Soon, she finds herself meeting with a child protection caseworker whose assessment of her situation could result in the removal of her children.
The actions of the police, child protection workers and others can have a tremendous impact on the immediate and long-term safety of both Gina and her children. However, domestic violence advocates and child protection workers might start from different places of emphasis. For example, advocates considering Gina's s situation might focus on the following questions:
Once advocates and caseworkers answer these questions, each will begin a series of activities to help family members achieve safety. These efforts are likely to help some family members. For example, a battered woman's shelter will provide safety for mother and children in the short term. However, once the shelter period is over, lack of resources may send her back to an abusive partner, placing her and the children at renewed risk.
At the same time, foster care placement -- arranged through the child protective system -- can provide safety for the children, but it may not be needed or desirable if the mother is able to provide for their care. Even if she can't, foster care does nothing to address her safety concerns.
Family preservation workers can also provide a valuable resource to the family, with frequent home visits to provide help and monitor the safety of mother and children, even if the abusive partner returns. But this intervention can be problematic if the family preservation worker does not have strong skills in handling a domestic violence situation.
Finding strategies that help both women and children to be safe is a dilemma that challenges domestic violence advocates and child protection workers every day. Despite mutual interests, those working with battered women and their children find that not all approaches are useful in achieving safety for all victims. Some approaches don't last long enough. On occasion, interventions to help one victim -- giving the mother time to develop a plan -- might actually increase the risk to another group of victims, the children.
When advocates and child protection workers are able to effectively assist women and children, it is likely that they have done so by coordinating safety assessments and interventions for both the mother and child. Together, they have also found ways to better understand how services for battered women and their children work, and how these services can work together. This has meant sharing vital information about the differing laws that guide domestic violence advocates and child protection caseworkers, the values and principles that guide their responses, and the tools and resources that are available in each system.
For advocates, collaboration can mean a significant and positive change in their work on behalf of women and children. Child protection workers are not experts in domestic violence. Typically, they must have general casework skills to deal with a variety of family needs. Only a few workers have training opportunities that would allow them to develop expertise in the dynamics of battering and its impact on children. While most are familiar with local battered women's shelters, they often have limited information about the range of related services and supports that are available through advocates, the courts, and other systems. Domestic violence advocates can change this through collaboration.
Likewise, advocates can be frustrated in their interactions with a child protection system whose powers are substantial and whose rules may often seem arbitrary and subjective. Collaboration can help unravel the complexity of the child protection system to reveal ways in which advocates can work effectively with child protection workers to keep both battered women and their children safe.
While effects on individual children may vary, researchers have concluded that many children who are exposed to violence exhibit at least some symptoms related to this experience. These symptoms might include fearfulness, sleeplessness, withdrawal, anxiety, depression, and externalized problems such as delinquency and aggression.
Research also suggests that these problems are often alleviated when children and their mothers are offered adequate social, emotional, and material support and safety.
Through their work with women like Gina, front-line workers in domestic violence and child protection agencies are increasingly aware that when there is child maltreatment there is often domestic violence. Data from research and from direct practice in shelters and in child protective service programs are supporting their experience.
In one nationwide survey of 6,000 families, researchers found that 50% of men who frequently assault their wives also frequently abuse their children. In a 1991 Boston City Hospital study, researchers reported that 59% of mothers of abused and neglected children had medical records that suggested that their partners had battered them.
Although there is little formal research on domestic violence in child protection caseloads, some data support a link between domestic violence and child abuse and neglect. For example, in a 1990 review of substantiated child protection cases, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services reported that workers noted domestic violence in 30% of the cases. Because the agency did not prepare or require caseworkers to consider domestic violence in the investigation and assessment process, the study was believed to underestimate the actual incidence of domestic violence. In a subsequent study, conducted after implementing policies and training in domestic violence, the Department found that in 48% of records reviewed workers identified domestic violence or cited "protecting an adult from domestic violence" as a goal of service.
As with any case type, domestic violence cases can range from those where child maltreatment is highly unlikely to those in which there is serious or life threatening harm to children. Thus far, several other child protection agencies have documented a disturbing link between domestic violence and fatal child abuse. In 1993, the Oregon Department of Human Resources reported that domestic violence was present in 41% of families experiencing child abuse and neglect resulting in critical injuries or death. The Massachusetts Department of Social Services made a similar finding when a 1994 review of child abuse- and neglect-related fatalities revealed that 43% of mothers identified themselves as victims of domestic violence. In New York City between 1990 and 1993, the public child welfare agency found that 55.6% of the families with child homicides had a documented history of domestic violence in the four years preceding the fatality.
Although we are learning more about the connection between domestic violence and child maltreatment, we still know little about how the two interact within the family. There is no evidence, for example, that fatal child abuse is more likely to occur where there is domestic violence. A better understanding of domestic violence will help child protection workers to best target their interventions. Also, if advocates and child protection workers strengthen their knowledge and skills in assessing the risk to children, they will be better able to reduce the number of children and women experiencing serious harm.
The child protection movement began more than 100 years ago and galvanized around a highly publicized New York City case involving a young child, Mary Ellen, who was brutally beaten by her caretakers.
This case led to the creation of the first child protection agency and state statute providing agents to conduct court investigations into child maltreatment. Early activists sought protection for children and punishment for abusers. As the child protection movement evolved, new mechanisms emerged to support this work including:
Each of these events was critical in the development of the nation's child protection system. Nonetheless, much of our modern system has emerged over the last 37 years, beginning in 1962, when Dr. C. Henry Kempe identified the "battered child syndrome." His work resulted in the first broad public awareness of child abuse and neglect.
Since then, both state and federal governments have been proactive in their response creating new legislation to direct child protection efforts. Throughout this period we have seen dramatic increases in the number of children and families served, the array of services, and the scope of legal requirements guiding the system. The key components in our current system are highlighted in the following table.
| Federal Legislative Framework |
|
| Primary Service Mandate |
|
| Secondary Service Goals |
|
| Service Providers |
|
| Support and Authority Used to Assist Victims |
|
| Examples of Services and Tools Used to Respond |
|
| Court Role |
|
While child abuse and neglect laws vary from state to state, they all must comply with the basic requirements established in the following federal statutes:
The principal purpose of a child protection service is to protect children whose parents or caregivers are unable or unwilling to provide for their safety, basic needs, and emotional security. Within this framework, it is understood that children are not able to protect themselves and that those who act on their behalf must be guided by what is in the child's best interests. The following values hold true:
Once the child welfare agency intervenes to protect a child, two key principles guide its work:
At a casework level, this typically means that when it can be done safely, services must be provided to strengthen the parent's ability to provide a safe and permanent home for the child. Whenever safety cannot be assured while the child is at home, placement outside the home is made and services are geared at strengthening the family so that the child may be returned home. When this cannot be accomplished in a reasonable timeframe, the agency must look quickly to other resources, including relatives and adoptive families, to provide a permanent family for the child.
The basis for this approach can be found in both state and federal statutes. At the state level these laws may also provide more specific guidance to caseworkers by outlining timelines for key decisions and criteria for certain agency actions. For example, statutes often prescribe the number of days within which a child abuse investigation must be completed and sometimes detail what contacts or assessments are required in order to complete an investigation. States vary widely with regard to the specificity of their child abuse laws and policies. Advocates seeking to collaborate should become familiar with their state statute, and with related state and local policies.
To best describe how the child protection system operates, let's return to the report filed regarding Gina and her children. Before a visit was made to her home, the child protection agency "screened" the report made by the neighbor to determine how it should be handled. Often this means answering only a few simple questions. First, if the allegation were true as reported, would it constitute abuse or neglect according to the state law? Second, is the report credible? In Gina's case the intake worker "screened in" or accepted the report, believing that it was reliable and that Gina's children may be at risk. Had the worker found otherwise, the report would be "screened-out." At that point, it would typically be closed or referred to another agency for assistance.
Once a case is screened in, the child protection caseworker begins an assessment of the situation. This assessment or investigation typically begins with an interview of the parents and children that is usually conducted in the family home. During this interview, the worker tries to determine what has happened, and whether or not the children are at immediate risk. [See Appendix A for a more a detailed description of the CPS investigation and assessment process.]
After receiving the hotline report, a child protection caseworker met with Gina and her children to begin an assessment. The worker learned that Sammy and Jessie are Gina's only children and that Sammy's father is Gina's ex-husband, who does not live in the area. Gina talked freely about the current incident and said she yelled at Sammy to leave the kitchen so he wouldn't get hurt.
Although Sammy was not hurt this time when Mark dropped him, he and Jessie are afraid of Mark. Mark has never hit them, but Gina is afraid that if she leaves Mark alone with them he might. Gina also told the worker that the one time Mark came home really drunk, she and the kids stayed at a friend's house overnight. Gina also reported that Sammy and Jessie sometimes had difficulty sleeping after an episode of abuse and that she is really worried about them.
A separate interview with Sammy corroborated their mother's account of the incident. The children also stated that they were afraid of Mark and that they worried about their mother. Sammy is upset because his Mother yelled at him to leave the kitchen that night and he didn't know what to do. He went into Jessie's room to try to get her to stop crying. When Mark is in a "bad mood," Sammy says, his mother tells him to stay in his room.
The interview with Mark was very brief. Mark admitted to having a "few too many" but dismissed the rest of the allegations as just the "fantasy world of a busybody neighbor.
In instances like Gina's, the caseworker will also talk with the neighbor to confirm her report and might contact the police to gather information about their history of calls to the home. In addition, the caseworker might contact a daycare center, school, or pediatrician for additional information about the family.
Based on this information, it is the caseworker's responsibility to make several determinations:
State law sets the legal standard against which this is measured. Typically, evidence does not have to "be clear and convincing" but there must be "reasonable cause to believe" that allegations are true. The answer to this question determines whether a case is substantiated (also called "founded").
This assessment of current safety and future risk usually helps a worker to determine what, if any, services will be provided to the family. Cases where the risk is believed to be minimal are usually closed, unless the agency and family agree to services on a voluntary basis. Low to moderate risk cases may receive in-home services designed to support the family, improve parenting, and ultimately lower the risk of future abuse and neglect. Higher risk cases often result in either intense monitoring through in- home services or in the removal of the child from the family to achieve safety.
The worker decides to substantiate a finding against Mark because of the risk created when he gets drunk and violent. The caseworker believes that Gina has not intentionally harmed her children and that she has made efforts to protect them. The worker is concerned about Mark's ongoing violence against Gina and its effects on the children. The worker has agreed not to remove the children on the condition that Mark remains out of the home. At this point the caseworker opens a case for in-home services and begins a more in-depth assessment of the family's service needs.
Once an initial investigation or assessment is completed, the child protection worker is responsible for continuing to gather information about the family and to determine what services are needed.
As the worker spends more time with Gina, he finds out the following: Gina moved to this community two years ago. She and Mark began dating right after she moved. At first, he was very kind to her and to Sammy, helping her get settled and taking Sammy to ball games. He convinced Gina they would "be a family" if she let him move in. As soon as she became pregnant, things got bad. Mark starting drinking more and he would fly into rages, destroying property and attacking Gina. She wanted to ask him to leave, but she quit her job when she became pregnant with Jessie and now relied on Mark for financial support. Mark's parents have also been supportive, and she's worried that if she asks him to leave, she'll lose contact with them. The worker is now also convinced that Gina is severely depressed and may have an alcohol problem.
The worker tells Gina she must get a protective order to assure that Mark can not legally come back to the apartment and that she must get an alcohol and psychological evaluation.
At this point the worker has begun the process of planning services. The service plan will later be written down and signed and will outline the types of resources clients must access and the requirements they must address.
Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings
The caseworker drops by Gina's home to see how she and the kids are doing. Gina, obviously drunk, answers the door. The worker can see that the apartment is in disarray and can hear Jessie crying. She asks to see the children. Gina tells her to go away and to leave her family alone. As the worker heads back to her car to call for help, she sees Mark standing in the back yard.
Gina will no longer talk to the caseworker, so the caseworker decides that the children must be removed from their home in order to be safe. She begins the paperwork to get a court order giving the CPS agency the authority to take Sammy and Jessie out of their home and place them in foster care.
During the initial hearing, however, the judge decides to place Jessie and Sammy with Gina, on the conditions that she comply with the recommendations of the substance abuse evaluation and treatment program and that Mark move out and also attend a substance abuse and batterer intervention program.
Nationwide, only about 15% of children in substantiated abuse and neglect cases are removed from their homes. As a result, the court is not involved with most children who come to the attention of the child protection agency. Nonetheless, the court plays a critical role in certain circumstances. First, court intervention is needed when an investigation and assessment indicate that a child cannot remain at home safely. In these instances, the court's authority is required to take legal custody of the child so that placement and other services may be provided to protect the child. In certain limited circumstances, the child protection agency may place a child out of the home voluntarily with permission of the parent. Policies governing voluntary placements vary across jurisdictions, but even these placements are subject to juvenile court review after six months.
In many jurisdictions, the court may also be involved and allow the children to remain at home with the parent. In these cases the court may oversee the safety of the child and the parents' compliance with the case plan agreement either through an order of supervision or by taking legal custody of the child.
When court intervention is needed, federal and state statutes guide the court in overseeing the protection of children. These oversight responsibilities include assuring that:
The courts also play an integral role in decision-making in child protection. Key steps in the court process include:
Once the court is involved, the number of people involved in the case can increase dramatically. In addition to family members, the child protection caseworker, service providers, and the judge, legal counsel represents each of the parties to the case. This means that one or more attorneys will represent the parents. The child protection agency will also be represented. Finally, the court will assign a guardian-ad-litem (an attorney) and/or a court appointed special advocate for the child. With these participants, and through this process, the case plan, services to family members, and, ultimately, the outcome of the case are decided.
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement plays an integral role in the protection of children from child abuse and neglect. In nearly all jurisdictions, police share responsibility with the child protection agency to receive and respond to reports of child maltreatment. In so doing, they carry two primary roles. First, they are responsible for the immediate protection of the child -- particularly in cases where there is an imminent risk of harm. In many cases, this includes the authority to take protective custody of the child to ensure safety. Second, police are obligated to investigate child abuse and neglect when a crime may have been committed. In many jurisdictions, these investigations only occur when children have been killed or seriously injured as a result of abuse or neglect, when there is sexual abuse of a child, or when there is evidence of other criminal activity by the parent or caretaker.
An additional role for law enforcement is the safety of service providers. In many jurisdictions, police provide protection for caseworkers when they are entering a potentially dangerous situation.
Each of these responsibilities is carried out in coordination with the child protection agency. While many jurisdictions operate informally, in some states, statute or policy requires formal agreements between child welfare and police. Cross reporting of cases between the police and child protection may be mandated to ensure that cases are appropriately investigated and services provided. Jurisdictions may also establish protocols for joint investigations to ensure that the work of the two agencies is coordinated, to minimize the trauma of multiple interviews for children, and to ensure that juvenile and criminal court actions are coordinated.
Several communities across the country have already built collaborations that address domestic violence and child maltreatment collaboratively. Among these are:
Located at Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, this strengths- based and family-centered program was one of the first to make the link between domestic violence and child protection. Offering counseling, support groups, and advocacy to battered women with abused and neglected children, the program successfully promotes safety for mothers and children. In 16-month follow-up with a group of 46 mothers served by advocates, 85% of the women reported they were free from violence, and in only one family had children been placed in foster care.
This practice integration model has brought domestic violence expertise to traditional child protective services through a statewide program in which domestic violence specialists work hand-in-hand with child protection caseworkers. The specialists provide case consultation, direct advocacy, and linkages to community resources for battered women and children served by the child welfare agency. Policy guidance supports decision-making that is responsive to the concerns of battered women beginning with screening and investigation and including risk assessment, family assessment, case planning and service delivery.
This cross-system collaboration between shelter programs and family preservation programs is offered in eleven communities across the state. The program provides intensive services designed to keep children safe and with their mothers. The program has also provided models for cross-training that integrate principles from family- centered practice, child protection, and domestic violence.
These three pioneering programs are among a growing array of models that are serving battered women and their abused and neglected children (see Appendix B for suggestions about building positive collaborations).
In Jacksonville, Florida, and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, child protection and domestic violence programs are working together in community partnership models. In San Diego and Minneapolis, hospital-based programs are in place, and partnerships among police, hospitals, and child protection are developing. In Hawaii, Healthy Start programs are combining early intervention for children with screening and intervention in domestic violence. [For more examples, see Family Violence: Emerging Programs for Battered Mothers and their Children , published in 1998 in Reno, Nevada, by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.]
The following scenario provides one example of how domestic violence advocates and CPS workers could collaboratively respond to families in which there is domestic violence and risk to the children. This particular example, rather than neatly solving the complex issues in such families, shows a process through which advocates and workers provide ongoing resources to the adult victim, while taking actions necessary to protect the children.
When Gina talked with her caseworker about Mark's violence, he told Gina about a collaborative program between the local domestic violence shelter program and CPS. Gina agreed to participate, and the worker called the shelter to let them know that Gina would call that afternoon. When Gina called, an advocate talked with her to get a basic understanding of her situation and needs and then set up a time to meet with Gina the next day. Gina told the advocate that she believes Mark could be a good partner and father to Sammy if he didn't drink. She also admitted that she probably drinks too much and just doesn't seem to have "any energy anymore." The advocate talked with Gina about Sammy and Jessie. She validated Gina's efforts to keep them out of the way, but also tried to make sure that Gina understood how the drinking and the abuse affect them and what actions CPS must take if the kids are in danger. They talked about what Gina thinks will keep her and the kids safe.
After getting Gina's s permission to talk to the worker, the advocate called the worker, and they developed a plan to propose to Gina and to Mark. The proposed plan called for the following: Mark would move out of the apartment, go to a substance abuse/batterer intervention program sponsored by CPS, pay child support, and visit with Jessie while his parents supervised. Gina would attend counseling to address her substance abuse and depression and would bring Sammy to a children's group run by the shelter. After 6 months, CPS would reevaluate the potential danger to Sammy and Jessie. Both parents agreed to this plan.
After six weeks of attending classes, Mark stopped going. He also told Gina he wasn's t going to pay child support for a child he only sees once a week. Desperate for money and tired of single parenting, Gina invited Mark to move back in.
The CPS worker was notified about Mark's lack of attendance. The worker called the domestic violence advocate to let her know, and went out to check on Sammy and Jessie. The advocate also contacted Gina to see how she might help.
Successful collaboration requires a shared framework for the response to battered women and their children. Core principles already guide collaborative efforts in communities across the country. The following discussion explains each principle and raises key policy challenges that face advocates and child protection workers as they practice together to keep children and their battered mothers safe.
Every procedure, policy or practice of an integrated response to child maltreatment and domestic violence must ensure that children are protected. For example, services to support a battered mother's s safety and autonomy must not compromise safety for children. Commitment to this principle can provide essential common ground as child protection workers and domestic violence advocates work through the complex issues of building a collaborative response.
Policy challenges raised by Principle 1:
Does a child's s witnessing domestic violence
constitute abuse/neglect?
There is growing consensus that witnessing domestic violence is harmful to children. However, the harm will not be the same for every child, because the level of violence and each child's s experience of the violence are different. Therefore, there is much less agreement about when the harm from witnessing domestic violence is serious enough by itself to constitute possible child abuse and neglect that should be reported to authorities.
While it is clear that situations in which children are physically injured or sexually assaulted during a domestic violence incident should be reported, other situations are less straightforward and require a careful assessment of danger and risk. For most child protection agencies, the threshold for the finding of emotional abuse and even neglect is quite high, and many domestic violence cases, therefore, will be inappropriate for a referral to CPS. Typically, CPS intervention requires independent corroboration that documents that the neglect and emotional harm is significant and is caused by the actions of the parent.
When domestic violence cases fall below the threshold for child protection intervention, community-based services are needed to address the problems that children may experience.
Child protection strategies should include efforts to enhance a battered mother's s safety.
Policy challenges raised by Principle 2:
Should CPS routinely assess for domestic violence at
intake?
Among many child protection workers and domestic violence advocates there is a great deal of concern about whether or not routine child protection service intake assessment for domestic violence should be done. Child protection agencies fear that this assessment will overwhelm the agency with even more new cases. Domestic violence advocates fear that child protection may fail to address, or, even worse, compromise the mother's safety during the intake process. In reality, assessing for domestic violence is already a part of the investigation and risk assessment procedures for many child protection agencies. There is growing consensus that child protection should develop the skills and protocols needed to effectively assess for domestic violence, to determine which cases require child protection intervention and which should be referred to community agencies, and to offer services that promote safety for mother and child.
How do we resolve confidentiality issues in child protection?
Privacy and confidentiality are cornerstones of domestic violence advocacy with battered women. In contrast, child protection agencies are often bound by policies that mean that information contained in safety plans, service plans and case records may be accessible to perpetrators. A batterer may use this information in custody proceedings or to thwart safety plans developed to protect a woman and her children. Confidentiality issues and misunderstandings often hinder collaboration. To avoid unnecessary conflict, advocates and CPS should work together to understand existing policy and look for ways to improve it. Confidentiality policies must balance the CPS's need for information with the battered mother's right to privacy and with advocates' legal/ethical requirements to keep certain information confidential.
By focusing on perpetrator accountability, we open a new range of resources that can protect children -- including restraining orders, prosecution of domestic assaults, and batterer intervention programs. By focusing on perpetrator accountability, we are less likely to blame one victim for harm to another. Batterers must be held accountable for their abuse of women and children, and they must have access to services that eliminate violence and that appropriately and safely support their role as parents.
While most would agree with this principle, in practice the issues become more complicated.
Gina, for example, did not hit Sammy or Jessie, nor was she the one who dropped Sammy. In fact, Gina tried to get Sammy to leave the kitchen and get out of Mark's way. However, Gina is also a parent who is responsible for making decisions about her kids' lives. When Gina decided that Mark could move back in, after he dropped out of the substance abuse/batterer intervention program, she made a decision that could place her kids at risk. Her decision to let Mark move back in was based on her need for financial support. It is important to understand that Gina did not decide, "Yes, I want Mark to move back in so that Sammy and Jessie are at risk," but, rather, "I have to let him back in or else we'll be homeless."
Given Gina and her children's need for financial support, she had little other choice but to let him move back in. The key to keeping Gina safe is to look beyond the decision she made to fully understand why that was her decision. As CPS and other agencies make efforts to help Gina and her children meet their financial needs, Gina's responsibility is to accept and work with those who are trying to help her. (In Gina's case, financial independence through employment may take awhile, and she may need temporary support from the government along with opportunities to address her substance abuse and depression.)
At the same time, Mark needs to be mandated back to substance abuse treatment and batterer intervention programs. If Mark is once again living with the children and, as a result, the children are in danger, child protection and the courts may have no choice but to remove them from Gina's care.
Understanding the basis for battered mothers' decision-making about their lives and the lives of their children will provide the information necessary to effectively safety plan with them. Understanding a battered mother's decision-making also points out that strategies to protect children that hold mothers like Gina liable for "failure to protect" -- either in juvenile or criminal courts -- will be counterproductive. For example, arresting Gina for getting access to Mark's financial support would not make Jessie or Sammy safe, nor would it change her decision, as she believed she had no other choice. Such strategies will actually decrease a woman's options (thereby increasing her danger and her partner's control) and may subject children to unnecessarily being taken from their homes and families.
Policy challenges raised by Principle 3:
Decision-making in Child Protection
A decision to substantiate or confirm a report of abuse and neglect is typically made in the context of several key questions: (1) Did the reported incident occur? (2) Is the child at continued risk of harm? (3) Who is responsible for the maltreatment? and (4) Who can protect the child?
The last few questions pose some unique challenges in cases involving domestic violence.
When child protection workers substantiate maltreatment, they must typically identify what type of abuse occurred (e.g., physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, or emotional maltreatment) and how the parent is responsible for the harm.Often a substantiated neglect decision is based on the mother's "failure to protect," when the actual harm to the child is the result of actions by the father or the mother's partner. Neglect allegations due to failure to protect may also be the basis for the petition for juvenile court involvement. In cases of domestic violence, basing substantiation decisions or petition allegations on neglect due to failure to protect can mean that the ultimate cause of the risk, the abuser, is not being addressed.
Collaborators have worked to achieve mother/child safety without making "failure- to-protect" allegations. Typically, these efforts have been successful when service to the family integrates safety interventions for both victims. We must further consider how a system of case decision-making and substantiation can better reflect the real source of harm to the child. New categories for case findings exist in a few states, including New Jersey and North Dakota, that allow a family to be considered "in need of services" when there is no need for placement. This finding does not require that a parent be blamed for maltreatment but acknowledges that services are needed to protect the child. As these new frameworks evolve, they may help us to resolve this concern.
Typically, this would be done through the criminal legal system process, as many juvenile courts do not have the same authority to criminally punish. In addition, when batterers are not the parent, they are usually not a party to the child protection legal case and therefore the juvenile court has no authority over them. New strategies for connecting criminal and juvenile proceedings may be one solution to this dilemma. However, criminal court involvement may raise other legal and safety issues for battered mothers and their children. For example, a criminal proceeding may delay the juvenile proceeding and result in an escalation in the batterer's s violence, or it may lessen the likelihood that he will agree to voluntary interventions. In additional, criminal court actions will not guarantee that the battered mother or her child will be safe.
Batterers intervention services should also be integrated in the CPS response. Given the legal framework guiding child protection, workers typically have a responsibility to work with fathers who may also be batterers. These services are typically intended to strengthen the father's ability to parent and provide safe visitation with children. We must consider how to provide workers with a framework for deciding what services to provide to these men and what criteria to use for determining when and how these fathers should be part of their children's lives.
Sometimes battered women abuse or neglect their children. Reluctance to discuss these concerns has limited our ability to fully consider how to address the safety needs of women and children in these cases.
We are also learning that domestic violence, depression, and substance abuse are interrelated. For children living in these situations, the risk of abuse and neglect is elevated. We must thoughtfully consider how these circumstances place children at risk and work with child protection agencies to develop guidance for properly identifying and appropriately helping these families. In each of these circumstances, safety planning for battered mothers and children will need different yet coordinated strategies.
The policy dilemmas will not be resolved overnight. They will require that we embrace a shared agenda of safety for battered women and for their abused and neglected children. They will require that we turn this shared agenda into real work and shared policy, program, and practice strategies that support our shared goals. This practice paper is intended to offer information and ideas that will help begin this process. The answers to the many questions it raises can be provided in local communities only through concerted and collaborative efforts. In each locale, collaboration efforts can move us from these problems to new solutions meeting the safety needs of women and children.
Learning to work collaboratively is rarely easy. If they are to succeed, front-line domestic violence advocates and child protection workers will need assistance from others in the community, including administrators, public officials, and policy makers who can commit resources to promote more effective collaboration on behalf of children, adult victims, and batterers. The material in Appendix B -- Preparing to Work Together -- is offered as a beginning guide for bringing potential collaborators together.
Finally, this paper reflects the learning from a number of groundbreaking collaborations across the country that link domestic violence and child abuse/neglect interventions. We know that these efforts are just the beginning. More needs to be done to forge new ways for domestic violence advocates to approach and work with child protection caseworkers, juvenile courts, child welfare attorneys, foster families, treatment providers and others. Through these future collaborations we will learn much more about what works for women and children and for those who work on their behalf.
| Steps in Casework Process | Key Tasks | Key Questions | Key Decisions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intake/ Screening |
Gathering & analyzing information about:
|
Is the report credible? Does the report meet statutory & agency guidelines for abuse & neglect? |
Should the report be accepted for investigation or assessment? What is the urgency of the report & the timeline for response? |
| Initial Assessment/Investigation |
Interviewing the child, adult caretakers, alleged perpetrator, & family members Gathering information from schools, medical personnel, other service providers Participating in multi-disciplinary teams bringing special expertise to the table Documenting their findings Seeking court authorization for emergency placement Preparing court petition |
Is the child currently safe? Is the child at risk of maltreatment in the future? What intervention is needed to ensure safety? If the child's safety cannot be assured at home, what type & level of care is needed? Does the family have other emergency needs? Should ongoing services be offered? |
Is maltreatment substantiated? Should the case be opened for services? Is placement needed to ensure safety? Is court action needed to achieve safety? |
| Comprehensive Family Assessment |
Review of initial decisions Gathering additional information Conducting additional child & family interviews Seeking evaluations Talking with other service providers |
What are causes, nature & extent of risk? What are effects of maltreatment or risk factors? What are the individual & family strengths? |
What must change to reduce or eliminate risk of harm? What must happen for effects of maltreatment to be addressed? |
| Case Planning |
Involving the family in developing the plan Finalizing the plan Preparing a written case plan or agreement & obtaining parents' signatures Filing the plan with the court |
What risk factors must be addressed? Are goals reasonable & achievable? Who will do what & when? How progress will measured & evaluated? |
What are service goals? What changes are needed to reduce risk & meet treatment needs? What services will be used to achieve goals & changes? How will progress be evaluated? |
| Evaluating Family Progress |
Reviewing the case plan Collecting information from service providers Talking with the child and family Evaluating changes in conditions, behaviors & family dynamics Documenting evaluation and related decisions |
Is the family participating in service? Is progress being made toward achieving the goals? |
Does the child remain safe? Are the child's permanency needs being met? Is the goal still viable, or is a new goal indicated? Are additional services needed? |
| Case Closure |
Reviewing progress Meeting with the family Preparing court reports Establishing a timetable for closure Referring family for community service Providing for follow-up as required |
Is there a continued need for service? Do all parties agree that closure is appropriate? Has the goal been achieved? |
Does the child remain safe? Are the child's permanency needs being met? Can case be closed? What services might be needed to assist the family following closure? |
Many of the existing collaborations have evolved through a combination of approaches. Outlined below are some strategies that build on these experiences and some basic community organizing approaches. Although the goal is to build collaborations that help battered women and their children, each community may start with different strategies and achieve separate ends.
Each community will need to engage in a process that will help it determine what it wants to achieve. In some locales, this will mean establishing a broad vision for a community-wide and comprehensive system of services to children and families that includes everything from prevention, early intervention, and supportive services, to treatment and civil and criminal court interventions. In others, the vision will be more focused on specific protocols for collaborations between advocates and caseworkers.
Efforts to collaborate are often preceded by some driving force that prompts action. This might be a key individual, an agency, group, or an institution that cares about the issue and is in a position to act on its concerns. It may also be found in an event that galvanizes a community to act. Often high-profile cases prompt both community and political action that can bring potential collaborators together. Collaborations may begin when there is general agreement that a common problem exists . In Massachusetts, for example, dialogue began because people in both domestic violence and child protection agreed that improvements were needed -- even though they had not yet found common ground about what was needed. Finally, collaboration may begin when information generated from agency data or research sheds new light on the scope and nature of family violence.
The following key steps are representative of some of the approaches that may be helpful in creating an effective collaboration.
This will typically include the following tasks:
This document was not developed by Violence Against Women Online Resources. The document's author or sponsoring organization granted VAWOR permission for placement on this site. Points of view in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This web site is a cooperative project of Office on Violence Against Women and Minnesota Center Against Violence & Abuse at the University of Minnesota and is supported by grant number 2004-WT-AX-K075 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Additional information about this site can be obtained by reading Email us for more information and assistance.
©Copyright 1998-2005 Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse (MINCAVA)
File Last Modified on: 46