Updates on the Legislative Task Force on Child Protection

The Legislative Task Force on Child Protection met on September 28, 2016, to continue seeking input and monitoring progress of the recommendations set forth by the recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Child Protection.

KSTP reporter Katherine Johnson was there to observe the discussion, and a story aired on the 5pm news that evening.

Several members of the Governor’s Task Force were called on to provide information about the intentions and ongoing support and concern for the implementation process of their recommendations. The four members, Dr. Lisa Hollensteiner, Dr. Mark Hudson, Michelle Zehnder-Fischer, and Rich Gehrman, expressed their interest in continuing their involvement in the ongoing work to incorporate their recommendations into practice. They also acknowledged there is more work to be done to address funding shortages, racial disparities in out-of-home placement and DHS oversight to ensure more consistent practice across the state.

Law Enforcement’s Role in Removing Children from Home

Joshua Lego, a St. Paul Police Department Commander with the Family and Sexual Violence Unit, testified before the task force to describe how investigations are conducted in cooperation with the county attorney’s office and child protection. He said that the department’s use of “immediate protective control,” in which they must remove a child from a home due to imminent danger, is rare. Generally, removals are due to neglect and law enforcement and child protection staff are able to work together at the home to arrange for a placement, with child protection staff most frequently transporting the child to the placement.

Senator Sheran asked whether the Commander believed that child protection staff could intervene and remove a child from a home without law enforcement present, except in those rare imminent danger situations. The concern is that the impression on the child can have lasting consequences for their views of law enforcement in general. Lego responded that he sees the value of having law enforcement in attendance at the time of removal, and that they have dedicated staff and capacity in their unit to respond to cases in which removal of a child from their home is likely. They could consider wearing plain clothes or a softer uniform than the typical police uniform with a belt and weapon.

Senator Rosen observed that they didn’t ask a social worker to weigh in on whether they would prefer to have responsibility for child removals in non-emergency situations. She said that she understands how difficult it is to make the decision to remove children from their homes, and believes it’s important to ensure that officers and workers involved with these cases have access to supportive resources for their own mental health when needed.

The Commander said that he sees their role as a “peace officer” and officers make every effort to engage with the children in a supportive, non-threatening manner. Rarely would a child be transported to a police station upon removal from the home. Only if the child was under arrest would he or she be taken to the station. If they’re removed due to abuse or neglect, they’ll be transported directly to a placement.

Substantial Child Endangerment

Prior to the task force meeting, Senator Sheran convened a meeting with community stakeholders that serve communities of color.  The meeting largely focused on experiences and concerns related to how people of color are treated in the child protection system and to discuss the work being done to add language in statute to clarify substantial child endangerment. Key provisions being proposed to be introduced in the next legislative session include:

  • Adding an “imminent danger” definition to the substantial child endangerment statute, which was previously in Minnesota Rule.
  • Adding a definition of abandonment: “when the child is under the age of three and has been deserted by a parent under circumstances that show an intent not to return to care for the child, unless another person has physical custody of the child pursuant to an order, designation or appointment under chapter 257, 257B, 257C, 518 or 524, or pursuant to a mutual agreement with the parent.”
  • Adding to neglect definition (not substantial child endangerment) to include: “failure by a parent to contact a child on a regular basis with no demonstrated consistent interest in the child’s well-being, when reasonably able to do so, unless another person has physical custody of the child pursuant to an order, designation, or appointment under chapter 257, 257B, 257C, 518 or 524, or pursuant to a mutual agreement with the parent
  • Defining “bruise” to mean “an area of discolored skin caused by a blow or impact that ruptures underlying blood vessels.”
  • Adding provisions to define physical abuse of a child “under the age of six that causes injury to the face, head, back or abdomen; under the age of three that causes bruising to the buttocks, or under the age of one or a nonmobile child that causes injury

Discussion on these proposed changes centered around concerns that the definition of neglect fails to include informal caregiver arrangements, which is especially common in families of color. DHS staff said that they can create guidance around the use of “regular basis” in the neglect definition (see above). The hope is that this will allow for cultural considerations and create consistency across agencies when considering whether a parent has made efforts to maintain a relationship with a child who is being cared for by a family member or friend temporarily due to the parent’s inability to provide adequate care during that time.

DHS Implementation of Governor’s Task Force Recommendations

Jim Koppel, Assistant Commissioner, Children and Family Services, DHS, provided an update on the work DHS is doing to implement recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force. He clarified that the screening guidelines that they rolled out in January is guidance, and not statute, so counties do not necessarily have to follow it. An updated version of the screening guidance is being finalized now to send to counties shortly.

Koppel continued that we need to build a system that is balanced, so that cases aren’t unnecessarily screened in, but perhaps invest more in the state prevention program – Parent Support Outreach Program in order to provide support to families that have need for services but do not require intervention.

DHS would like to establish a clear practice standard for county child protection agencies, and serve more as an active supervisor, acknowledging that there are inconsistencies in practice, and that counties could benefit from additional support and guidance. DHS welcomes a system created by the legislature, said Koppel, to provide independent oversight of DHS and serve as a feedback loop for practice issues.

Senator Hayden asked about which states have an ombudsman for child protection. In Minnesota, the Office of the Ombudsperson for Families has four ombudspersons that work with four different communities of color. As independent government officials, they advocate for families and ensure that government and government regulated agencies have fair, reasonable, and appropriate practices. The four ombudspersons collaborate with the Indian Affairs Council, the Chicano-Latino Affairs Council, the Council on Black Minnesotans, and the Council on Asian-Pacific Minnesotans.

Senator Mullery asked whether there were general guidelines for minimum services available to families. It’s acknowledged that services exist to support families in the child protection system needing guidance. Of particular need across the state is additional trauma-informed services, but also many other types of services to meet the various needs of families. Mullery wondered whether there was a disconnect between what families need versus what is available to them, and if their needs for services aren’t being met, how are we helping those families and children while they are under the guidance of the child protection system.

Several people also gave public testimony detailing challenges they’ve personally faced while involved with child protection agencies in Minnesota.