House File 8, introduced by Representative Ron Kresha and supported by members from both political parties in the House, implements several recommendations put forth by the Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children (CPS Task Force). Yesterday, at the full meeting of the CPS Task Force, Rep. Kresha indicated that the bill will be read on the House floor today and heard next Wednesday (Jan. 21) in the Health & Human Services Reform committee, where a delete-all amendment will be introduced followed by a “melding” of language from his bill and Senator Kathy Sheran’s bill (SF 4).

Although there are a few differences between HF 8 and SF 4, there is one section in HF 8 that’s not in SF 4 that I’d like to highlight here: the new language found in the public policy statement in Minnesota’s Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act (M.S. 626.556, Subd. 1). Per the CPS Task Force recommendations, the bill inserts language that places a greater emphasis on child safety:

Current Language: “While it is recognized that most parents want to keep their children safe, sometimes circumstances or conditions interfere with their ability to do so. When this occurs, families are best served by interventions that engage their protective capacities and address immediate safety concerns and ongoing risks of child maltreatment. In furtherance of this public policy, it is the intent of the legislature under this section to: (1) strengthen the family…”

Proposed Language: “While it is recognized that most parents want to keep their children safe, sometimes circumstances or conditions interfere with their ability to do so. When this occurs, the health and safety of the children shall be of paramount concern. Intervention and prevention efforts shall address immediate concerns for child safety and the ongoing risk of abuse or neglect and should engage the protective capacities of families. In furtherance of this public policy, it is the intent of the legislature under this section to: (1) protect children and promote child safety; (2) strengthen the family…”

The bill continues striking out and inserting language into the the public policy statement. The reference to Family Assessment (FA) being the preferred response (when appropriate) to reports not alleging substantial child endangerment has been deleted; in its place is the following:

Current Language: “(b) In addition, it is the policy of this state to: … (2) provide for the voluntary reporting of abuse or neglect of children; to require a family assessment, when appropriate, as the preferred response to reports not alleging substantial child endangerment; (3) require an investigation when the report alleges substantial child endangerment …”

Proposed Language: “(b) In addition, it is the policy of this state to: … (2) provide for the voluntary reporting of abuse or neglect of children; (3) require an investigation when the report alleges physical or sexual abuse or neglect of a child; (4) provide a family assessment for those families whose children are determined to be at low risk of abuse or neglect and for whom there are no immediate safety concerns; …”

What constitutes “child safety”?

In each of the CPS Task Force meetings, a number of members have reiterated the CPS Task Force’s opinion that “child safety is of paramount concern,” and that “child safety” needs to be first and foremost the goal of Minnesota’s child protection system. This repeated emphasis on child safety begs the question of what constitutes “child safety.” From what I have been hearing at these meetings, and in the various workgroups, “child safety” appears to pertain to a child’s physical safety; yet there are other aspects of safety as well, including psychological and emotional safety. For example, a child removed from an allegedly abusive or neglectful home may be deemed “safe,” and yet the trauma of the removal may not be addressed in terms of “child safety.” It is vital that the term “child safety” be defined and expanded upon.

Another consideration is the three goals of child welfare—safety, permanency, and well-being. Throughout the discussions of the CPS Task Force, well-being is rarely mentioned. Child well-being is equally as important as child safety, and to have a sole focus on child safety in the public policy statement may result in a gradual diminishment of the importance of child well-being overall as a child welfare goal in Minnesota.

Which reports will require an investigation over a family assessment?

The CPS Task Force’s initial recommendations included a recommendation to expand the definition of “substantial child endangerment” to include research-based vulnerability factors, such as the child’s age. Yet in this bill, the term “substantial child endangerment” is stricken out and replaced with broader terms: “physical or sexual abuse or neglect of a child.” Currently the statutory definition of substantial child endangerment includes: egregious harm; sexual abuse; abandonment; failure to thrive (as diagnosed by a physician) due to parental neglect; murder, manslaughter, and/or assault in the first, second, or third (in the case of murder and assault) degrees; anything involving child sex trafficking; and anything that would automatically constitute an automatic termination of parental rights.

Physical abuse is any intentional physical, mental, or threatened injury inflicted by someone who is responsible for the care of that child; this does not include “reasonable and moderate physical discipline of a child” by a parent/guardian that doesn’t result in an injury. Neglect includes (on a non-accidental basis) failure to meet a child’s basic needs and protect a child when reasonably able to do so, a lack of supervision when it is needed, educational neglect, medical neglect, prenatal exposure to a controlled substance, chronic substance abuse that impacts a child’s basic needs and safety, and emotional harm resulting in an impairment of a child’s emotional functioning.

Because there are only 5 allegations that can be made in a report—physical abuse, sexual abuse, medical neglect, non-medical neglect, and mental injury (p. 9)—and all of these terms can be found in the phrase “physical or sexual abuse

[includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and mental injury] or neglect [includes both types of neglect] of a child,” the proposed bill text implies that all screened in reports would be required to receive a family investigation (FI) over FA, including reports alleging neglect in which the charges are related to lack of access to needed services. With this in mind, it stands to reason that reports assigned to the FA track would be those reports that are currently screened out and referred to the Parent Support Outreach Program, a statewide program whose goal is to help families prevent future child maltreatment.

Staffing and adequacy of resources would need to be reevaluated. Considering yesterday’s presentation at the CPS Task Force meeting by Ralph McQuarter of DHS on child welfare funding both statewide and nationally, which included a graph showing that the amount of funding that goes to FA is only slightly higher than the amount that goes to FI (despite the fact that the number of FA cases is far higher than the number of FI cases), such a change in track assignment could significantly increase county and state costs associated with child protection (as well as costs to law enforcement and the courts, among other systems involved in child protection cases).

Others have noted the ambiguity in the language used regarding when an investigation would be required. It is my understanding that this ambiguity will be addressed at a later date (perhaps this coming Wednesday with the delete-all amendment).