Archive for September, 2005

h1

Werme Tricks - Secret Proceedings

September 2, 2005

scales of justice
Attorney Werme claims that “case proceedings are secret”. She is correct, they are. In fact, any information about a family involved with DCYF is confidential. If you were to call me up and ask about the Jones family, I would be required to tell you that I cannot confirm or deny involvement with any family. I will listen to your concerns, and probably suggest that you call Central Intake if you would like to report your concerns. We do this to protect a family’s privacy. Most families find it embarassing to be involved with DCYF. So, we do not release any of that information to the general public. We will not even discuss their cases with family members, unless given permission (usually in writing) by the family. The secrecy surrounding DCYF’s involvement with a family is not designed to keep families less informed in case of future involvement with DCYF, as Attorney Werme would have you think. I am happy to discuss practice or policy with anyone - right down to the “first contact” as Attorney Werme calls it, to Court proceedings. I can discuss these issues in generalities, but I cannot give case specifics to anyone. In fact, anyone with questions such as these is welcome to call their local DCYF office and ask a social worker. Each office generally has someone known as a “Cover Worker” in the office from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday. This worker is available to answer questions over the phone or in person, whether they are actually involved with DCYF, or if they simply have questions. You can find the phone numbers for the local offices here

Paula Werme, Werme, secret proceedings, DCYF, Division for Children, Youth & Families, DCYF Court, child protection

h1

Misconceptions

September 2, 2005

HeadachI work for The Division for Children, Youth & Families for the State of New Hampshire (generally known as DCYF). I’m not saying that DCYF is a perfectly run agency, or that every decision made within the agency is absolutely correct. I think that every organization has faults, and room to grow. What really irritates me are people like Paula Werme who perpetuate needless hate and discontent. Attorney Werme may have a great deal of dislike for DCYF, and she is certainly entitled to her opinions. I disapprove of Attorney’s Werme’s methods because she attempts to whip parents into a panic for no reason. If she wants to make my job more difficult, that is fine. But there is no reason to upset parents before someone even knocks on their door. So, I’ve decided to start a series of posts debunking Attorney Werme’s statements written on her “Tricks of the Trade” page. So, feel free to check out her site, but please be aware that her statements are extremely biases and written intentionally to cause panic.

Paula Werme, Attorney Werme, Werme, DCYF, DCYF tricks, understanding DCYF

h1

Smack the What?

September 2, 2005

One of my co-workers recently suggested that I check out Smack the Penguin which is similar to the old favorite Spank the Monkey. Both games are simple tests of hand-eye-coordination that can be horribly addictive - have fun!
entertainment,games,penguin,penguins

h1

Poor Faith Reports

September 2, 2005

Protecting FamiliesIn the State of New Hampshire, we have a law that says that every citizen of the state is required to report any concerns they have for a child’s safety in good faith. That is the rule in its entirety. It seems pretty simple, and works fairly well. When a person does have concerns, they call 1-800-894-5533 and report those concerns. The system is designed to “catch” as many reports as possible by allowing callers to remain anonymous or request that their name not be release to the family. Most families that I work with find this to be hugely frustrating, as they almost always want to know who reported them. I usually explain to them that if they were worried about their neighbor’s kid, they might not want the neighbor to know they had called, for fear of retailiation. We at DCYF don’t want to miss any reports because people are afraid to call us, so we make it easy for reporters. In my opinion, we make it too easy.

child protection, poor faith, DCYF, central intake, reporting child abuse

How is it too easy? Well, say for example that I’m irritated with you, my neighbor, because you leave your bassett hound outside all night long, howling at the moon. I sleep terribly for a week, and nothing I do seems to fix it. I’ve tried speaking with you, but you simply pacify me, and then let your dog out the next night. I’ve tried calling the police, but the same thing happens, you bring the dog in for the night, but then let him out again the next night. Finally, I’m so frustrated, that I decide to get back at you some other way. Instead of throwing rocks at your house, or dumping garbage on your lawn, I decide to call DCYF and report that I’ve seen you hit your kid, or that your kid told my kid that her Daddy liked to play a secret game in bed. I could let my imagination run wild. If I didn’t leave my name, then there would be no way for DCYF to find out who had called.

The general policy in cases of sexual abuse where an alleged abuser has access to a child is to ask the alleged abuser to leave the home until we have had time to interview the child and either verify or disprove the information we received. This means that sometimes parents, spouses or significant others are asked to leave their home for 1-2 days, based simply on information received in a report. As a DCYF worker, I am trained to value the potential safety of a child over the slight discomfort of an adult who may have to sleep on a relative’s couch for an evening. We generally respond to these kinds of referrals immediately, and try to collect information quickly, so that if the allegation is bogus, then the family can get on with their lives as quickly as possible.

As a citizen of New Hampshire, and not a DCYF worker, the way that this reporting law is written makes me nervous. If just any anonymous person can make a completely bogus report, which results in someone looking closely at my life and the way I would parent children makes me pretty uncomfortable. We are told that the legislature is “working” on something to speak to reports that are not made in good faith. In the mean time, resources are wasted on reports that are made as retaliation instead of an honest report of concern. We find parents who are angry about their custody arrangements do this more often that we would like. Unfortunately, a parent could call in six reports in five months, and we would have to investigate each and every allegation. Once a referral is sent to a district office for investigation, there is no backing down - we have to follow through with our investigation, no matter how valid or invalid the report may be.

I say that with a House of Representatives that has 424 members (the largest ratio of representatives to citizens in the world), they ought to be able to find some time to come up with a solution to this problem. I’m not saying that there is a simple, clear cut solution, but there has to be a way that the collective elected leaders of this State can come up with a way to find a balance between reporter’s desire for privacy, and a family’s right to privacy.