Being Sara

Warning: This post is mostly a rant with not much educational value. If you’ve read any of my other posts, or personally know me, then you are aware that I work for DCYF. I was recently speaking with a client who implied that it was my responsibilty to help her. Despite my repeated attempts to explain to this person that my responsibility was to look out for children, not their parents, this individual did not seem to understand. It got me thinking back on several of the families that I have been involved with in the past. I realized that for quite a few families, at least one of the parents implied that it was my responibility to make sure they were safely parenting their children. So, I would like to know when it became my responsibility to clean houses, make sure that children are supervised while their parents go out partying, or pass out high on whatever drug they could get their hands on. When did it become my responsibility to make sure parents have housing and food. Since when did the responsibility for these basic necessities shift from being a parental responsibility to being a governmental responsibility? Of course it is my job to assist families, and to make referrals to community resources, but if parents are unable to follow through with these resources, or are unable to find a place to live or food to eat or figure out how to clean their houses, then they are at fault - I am tired of being blamed for parent’s irresponsibility. We all have to live up to expectations in life, and if we are unable to meet basic expectations, such as keeping our children safe, then we have to face the consequences. Just once I would like someone to say to me “yeah, it was my fault, I made some mistakes and my kid wasn’t safe, I’m sorry.” Some parents realize this throughout the course of a an on-going case, but I don’t handle those cases, so I never hear those statements.

responsibility, child protection, child safety, parental responsibility, expectations, DCYF

Attorney Paula Werme warns parents to watch out for the “neglect charge” on her Tips and Tricks page. What the heck is she talking about? Well, in the State of New Hampshire, our Child Protection Statute, RSA 169-c, allows for two avenues, abuse or neglect. Abuse can be a little more black and white - there are four different types of abuse listed in the current law: Sexual abuse, Intentionally physically injured, Psychologically injured and Physically injured by other than accidental means. I think that sexual abuse and intentional physical abuse are fairly straight forward. psychologically injured is sometimes more difficult to prove, and physically injured by other than accidental means simply means that while you might not have intended to send your son to the hospital when you kicked him with a steel toed boot, he did end up with injuries.

Now that we have an understanding of abuse, lets move on to neglect. Our law states that a child has been neglected if one of three things happen: (1) they have been abandoned, (2) they are “without proper parental care or control… necessary for their physical, mental or emotional health, and when it is established that their health has suffered or is very likely to suffer serious impairment, and this deprivation is not due primarily to lack of financial means” or (3) their parent is “unable to discharge their responsibilities because of incarceration, hospitalization or other physical or mental incapacity”. So what does this mean? Well, it means if the child was abandoned, even for one night, then this law says the parent is at fault. If the child’s health “has suffered or is likely to suffer serious impairment”, then the parent is at fault. Finally, if the parent is in prison, hospitalized, or has some other incapacity, and have not made arrangements for their child, then they are at fault.

So, Attorney Werme warns parents to be aware of the “neglect charge”. For example, DCYF might receive a report stating that a father has sexually abused his 6 year old daughter. DCYF would first look to this girl’s mother to protect her from future abuse. We generally ask that the alleged victim not have contact with the alleged perpetrator until we are able to interview the child (usually the same day, or the following day). If our investigation turns up evidence that this allegation might be true, then we would ask this girl’s mother to continue protecting her daughter. If this mother refused to believe these allegations, if she chose to believe her husband or boyfriend over her daughter, then DCYF would be forced to take action against this mother. Why? Because this mother would have placed her daughter into a situation where she might be sexually abused again. Under New Hampshire State Law, this would cause the little girl to be “without proper parental care and control”.

Do we always file neglect charges against a parent who has not committed any abuse? Most definitely no. We follow the letter of the law - if our laws say that a parent has neglected their child, then we bring this information to Court and allow a Justice to make the decision. If a parent protects their child, (meaning they provide their child with “proper parental care and control”) then we do not file charges against that parent. However, if DCYF is able to prove that there is a potentially dangerous environment for a child, we trust that child’s parent(s) to protect him or her. If they choose not to protect their child, then the law is designed so that DCYF can step in and do the protecting.

child protection, neglect, DCYF, Paula Werme, child abuse, child neglect

Attorney Werme’s second claim on her Tricks of the Trade page is that DCYF “preys” on families with young children who are “struggling to keep up with the costs of raising a family on a small income”. Attorney Werme is half correct. DCYF does receive quite a few referrals to meet lower income families. There could be dozens reasons for this. I suspect that one of the biggest reasons DCYF receives more referrals for lower income families is because lower income families tend to receive assistance from more community resources. For example, an 18 year old mother of three, who is currently living with the youngest child’s father, could be receiving housing assistance, that might include a weekly home inspection, day care assistance, that might include a weekly home visit with the children, health care assistance, that might include a weekly visit from the Visiting Nurses Association, and maybe this young mother accepts assistance from a food pantry or church, and perhaps attends a play group put on by the local community once a week. This mother could have six or eight different professionals in and out of her home every week. This means that there are six to eight more professionals who are mandated by law, and by their jobs to report any of their concerns. Further, all of these professionals work closely with DCYF when they have families in common. They know that a large part of DCYF’s job is to refer families to resources, and sometimes ask the local County to assist a family in paying for a service. This is a sometimes unfortunate by-product of the system that we have created - families who need assistance recieve it, but in doing so, they open their lives to professionals who might have concerns about their children’s safety.

The other unfortunate part of the system is that lower income families tend to cycle. I mean that a mother who gets pregnant at 15, then again at 17, then again at 18, and maybe again at 19 tends to be more likely to produce children who will get pregnant at younger ages. This is a societal problem, nothing that DCYF has created, but something that DCYF does have to deal with on a regular basis. Upper income families tend to have fewer children in this predicament. I am not a sociologist, and I am not going to attempt to explain the reasoning behind this - I am simply speaking to my own professional observations. Younger families do sometimes have more challenges, learing how to grow up themselves while raising children - it doesn’t always work well.

While Attorney Werme would like you to believe that we “prey” on young, lower income families, she is incorrect. First of all, DCYF has no control over who might call in a concern. Second of all, Attorney Werme does not work for DCYF, and cannot know all of the families that we have contact with. In my time with DCYF, I have met families from every income bracket. I have spent time in apartments that are partially paid for with assistance from the State, and I have spent time in multi-million dollar homes. I have interviewed children in public schools, and in private schools. I have talked to kids who cry because they believe that their mommy doesn’t love them, and to kids who cry because their daddy made them clean their room for the week that the maid had off. Just because we see lower income families does not mean that we ignore upper income families. We may have fewer opportunities to really know what goes on in their homes sometimes, but it does not mean that we do not strive to make sure children are safe, whatever their income bracket.

Paula Werme, Werme, low income, DCYF, division for children youth & families, child protection,

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

I 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