Werme Tricks – “Our mission is more important than your rights”
November 13, 2005
You might have noticed a theme to this blog if you have read any other posts. I spend a great deal of time attempting to shed some light onto the Division for Children Youth & Families, and its practices. As a part of this attempt, I have been systematically refuting much of the claims made by Attorney Werme and her husband. Eric Werme recently commented on a post and informed me that the Tricks of the Trade page that I often use for material is actually his page, not his wife’s. Mr. Werme is a software engineer. His site explains that most of the information he has learned, he has observed from “state house hearings, etc.” I guess I never realized how much time is spent at the State House discussing DCYF’s practices.
At any rate, the Wermes have some interesting advise for families regarding your rights. They are actually partially correct this time. Individuals do not have to allow DCYF into their home. We usually ask politely, and are generally there to discuss the information received that concerns children. However, parents do not have to let us into their homes, and some do refuse. In those cases, our efforts to discern a child’s safety are somewhat hindered. If children are in public school, RSA 169-C allows us to interview children in schcool without the express permission of a parent. Our general practice is to speak to parents before interviewing children at school. Some parents have a valid concern regarding having their children interviewed at school, and we try to respect that. However, even if a parent refuses to cooperate, our job to assess a child’s safety remains. We will do what limited research we can without a parent’s cooperation. We are allowed to interview children at school, and to speak with school staff regarding any concerns. For families who do not want to invite DCYF into their homes, we also ask if they would be willing to meet with us at our office to discuss the safety concerns for their children. I imagine that the Wermes would say that DCYF is trying to lure a parent into their lair, where they have the home field advantage. This is not the case however. The meetings are generally one-on-one, or two, if both parents attend the meeting. This is an opportunity for the parents to find out what the concerns are, and to discuss these concerns with a worker. Attorneys are welcome to be present at these meetings if a family so chooses.
While the Wermes would have you believe that this is a secret that we do not let families in on, we do in fact provide every family with two pamphlets. The first outlines the assessment process and how it works. The second details a family’s rights – starting with their right to deny DCYF access to their home. Since we provide this information to families, usually during the initial visit, this is clearly not something that we are trying to keep a secret. It is true that for most families, a knock on the door by DCYF is strange and scary. We do however, make every attempt to keep the family aware of the process, what can happen, and what their rights are. The Wermes want everyone to believe that DCYF is set up as an adversarial system. Our priority is to keep children safe. That process almost always starts with helping a family to help themselves.
Nice try. Except that a legislator asked me to find out this past summer if DCYF was passing out the pamphlets. So I forwarded it to a random email consult and asked her if DCYF had ever provided those pamphlets. They hadn’t. And the DCYF CPSW had told her that she was required to permit access to her home. So my web site does serve a purpose. DCYF’s policy and practice tend to diverge in many instances.
And since when is a parent who knows that someone turned them in for revenge is required to cooperate with an investigation into a frivolous complaint?
e.g. one you won’t recall likely – the D.W. complaint. In the middle of his fight with the town of **** over whether or not he was going to use sludge on his Christmas tree farm, there was a report by an “anonymous passer by” who “saw” a child being abused by “an adult male.”. In fact, there was an incident between siblings in the BACK yard. There was no possible way that any random “passer-by” could have seen any incident. There was only one neighbor’s house with a view of the back yard.
And no, the W’s never allowed DCYF into their home or bothered to attend any interview at the office. They waited for the press to find out that D. had in fact been at a Republican fund raiser at the time, well attended by many politicians, and there was no adult male in the home at the time of the “child abuse” incident.. What’s the purpose of the interview in that case?
Anhy idiot can deduce that the incident was in fact as the mother described when the policeman first questioned her – a sibling squabble.
Oh yes – I almost forgot what got me so cranked up that I replied in the first place – the title. I hold my rights in high regard, as well as my ability to discern whether or not my child is really in danger should the day ever come when a social worker leaves a note on the door about her “concerns.” Your concerns do not vacate any of my rights. And I often find that questionable petitions are filed by social workers who are recent college grad without any parenting experience.
And I’ll bet you didn’t even know that NH is one of only two jurisdictions across the US that doesn’t specifically require parental culpability in abuse or neglect in order to file a petition to take the children.
I could go on, but will refrain.
I think that it is important to note that this is my personal blog. I can speak about general DCYF practice, and some policy in general, and to some extent, the Laconia District Office practice. I cannot however, tell you exactly what every CPSW in the State of NH does. Give that, I can tell you that I personally always hand out the family rights and the assessment process brochures.
I would like to point out that I did edit Attorney Werme’s comment. While I appreciate her comments, and I find this sort of dicussion valuable, I do not feel comfortable posting family’s names here. Attorney Werme likely has permission from the family to discuss their case, but I don’t know that for certain. In her comment, I removed the family names, and the name of the town involved. In regards to the D.W. complaint, you are correct – I do not know the specifics of that assessment, as that town is not in the Laconia catchment area. It sounds as though that family was entirely within their rights. While you advocate not cooperating with DCYF, that family also could have gone the other way, cooperated with the Division, and likely ended up with the same result. I cannot belive that anyone can believe that there is absolutely no child abuse or neglect in the State of NH. Given that there are at least a few children who are not safe, parents consistently tell me that there is no problem, that their children are safe. So parents can continue to tell me that their children are safe, and I will continue to search for information that either corroborates or refutes their statements.
I’m not really certain what a college degree has to do with how DCYF determines abuse or neglect. Further, the workers that visit homes do not have any control over the homes that they visit – this is determined first by Central Intake, where calls for concern are received. Then a supervisor in the district office assigns assessments to workers. The workers visit homes, collect information and then collaberate with supervisors and co-workers to determine the best course of action. Decisions are never made lightly, and are not made by any one individual. It does not matter how much or how little experience any individual worker has, because the decision is not theirs alone. I do not belived that I ever advocated vacating any parent’s rights. I do recall saying that I cannot simply take anyone’s word for it that their child is safe – if I were hurting a child, I definitely wouldn’t admit it, especially to a DCYF worker. Which is why I listen to parents, try to work with them, and try to find information that either supports their statements, or conclusively find information that refutes it.
Opening my mouth in the middle of an exchange puts me at risk of sounding stupid. However, I’d like to add that many debates see the exception turned into the rule. As Administrator said, one person cannot vouch for another’s behavior. If some workers are remiss in their duties, this should not count against DCYF in general. If one cop takes a bribe, the police force need not be disbanded. Paula Werme should study a larger cross-section before reaching conclusions.
Unfortunately, no attorney in this field has any more than his or her own experience by which to gauge DCYF’s compliance with the law. It’s not as though they permit outsiders to audit their compliance. I got close a couple of years ago – was asked to be on the Governer’s efficiency commission. Within 10 minutes of showing up at DCYF headquarters for a preliminary talk with the dept heads, someone had called the commissioner – who personally asked the governor to take me off the list of folks allowed to audit. I wonder why? Because I knew what I was looking for?
Hallo!!!!
just wanted to pop by and give you a wave *waves*
also, you are gunna be a fab mom, whenever the time comes
and then our crocheting can advance into baby blankets!! (though they don’t have to have fringe like yours)
lordy I am funny hehe
Maybe you ought to take a trip to the State House to see just how many times DCYF practices come up for discussion. Why would anyone want to let DCYF into their home? So DCYF could talk to their children? We teach our children not to talk to strangers so why would we want to invite them in to our personal space? Sounds to me like a good enough reason to not let DCYF into your home. Whether you like it or not, DCYF will get to your children anyhow by going through the school system without you knowing it because our law permits them to do so. That is all the time DCYF needs to create an imminent danger for your child. Let me ask you this: Would you want to be a small child being interrogated by a total stranger? I would probably be petrified that if I said the wrong thing to DCYF, I would never see my parents again. What other option is there? Meet in the DCYF office where they know where their [guns and knives] are? Did I mention the room with the camera? Who do you get to have present if you cannot afford an attorney? Maybe you can invite a well established Senator or the press? NOT!!! That has already been attempted. DCYF is an adversarial system because just about every home they enter will eventually turn into a private combat zone. More people should listen to the Werme’s. They are the ones trying to expose all the secrets really being kept by DCYF. The proof is in the Werme’s. DCYF’s idea of keeping children safe is the Nashua Children’s Home or Rumford Home in Concord, and of course their best friend CASA. Where does a parent fit in all of that?
Excellent point of view. I wish there were more comments like this. I must say this is one of the betters sites I have come across –Regard, Nick
Wow this is a nice site. :0) I like the comments even though I don’t 100% agree with all of them. I am a grad student at the University of Sacred Heart in Connecticut. If you don’t mind I will use your blog as a example for my semester project that I am doing on the internet and ecommerce. If you reject the thought send me a quick email
-Corey
Hi Corey, I’m happy to be used in projects, though I’m having trouble seeing how this blog fits into an internet and ecommerce project, as there really isn’t much commerce at all on this site… at any rate, good luck with the project.
Sara
I don’tknow if anyone will se this , since it seems to be that the last posting was 2 years ago, but I had a question, did you know that every single ,mark ,bruise scratch and rash, that is visible on a child by any “do-gooder , nosey person”, will most likely be called in to DCYF .Especially if your child is white. I have had it happen to me over and over , I wanted to know where the line is , for this sort of BS. I have personally been through several investigations where MANY of the things the Werme’s warn about HAVE happend , the “tricks” for social workers to impose their OPINIONS ,, they use the word “concerns”( means the same thing though} have been used against me . I have to be so defensive ,tough and hateful, and fight off all sorts of bs “concerns” over and over , all of which by the way were unfounded. I am soo annoyed , by the power the state gives to social workers , I can not afford an attorney , not that in my many cases one was needed , but battling alone , is very stressful and hard. It seems to me that every parent is reguarded basically as guilty until they can prove they’re not. You know there are a majority of INNOCENT parents out there , what about them? does anyone at all care how it feels to be falsely accused , and what that does to the whole family , including the children, who SEE the parents all stressed out over a bs investigation. no harm done right ? the kids have no emotional trauma at all being questioned by strangers and seeing their parents all upset , and IT IS upsetting. It also occurs to me in todays brainwashed society of backstabbers that turn someone in , in total secret, in the shadows , without one spec of proof whatsoever , and God forbid if anyone these days ever stopped to think for one minute before they turn someone in , “what if I am wrong”. no matter it’s okay to turn some families life upside down .Oh and make sure we are all tollerant of people from other cultures and their beliefs ,do not concern yourselves with the MANY african cultures that still in NH to this day whoop their kids with sticks,, don’t turn them in. or the Bosnians ,, any Muslim families , or hispanic , especially puerto rican, or any other group that does NOT understand english or OUR ways here in this country. However the next time you see a poor little white kid with a half inch bruise under the eye , make sure to get right on the phone , as obligated.
Hi Kelly, I do see every comment that is posted on my blog. I stopped working for DCYF a few years ago – not because I don’t believe in the importance in child protection, but because the management of the system is broken. However, I have since had a child of my own, and although my opinions haven’t changed, I do have a new perspective to add. I have a son who is now a year and a half old. He has bruises all the time – mostly on his shins, and sometimes on his spine. Every time we visit the doctor I worry that maybe these bruises will look strange or concerning, but they don’t. In fact, at our last visit, the doctor told me that they like to see bruises in these areas because it means that the child is active and healthy. This week my son has a bruise over his right eye – he tried to climb into his pack ‘n play the other day and fell, landing on a hard toy. Again, no one is concerned, no one has ever called DCYF. So although I know nothing about your particular case, I do know that it is possible to have a child with bruises, and not have DCYF involved in your life.
I agree that it is upsetting to families to be investigated, and you are right – about 2/3 to 3/4 of all cases are unfounded. The theory is that by casting a wider net, DCYF may spend more time investigating unfounded cases, but that way the won’t miss the one case that is founded. They would rather inconvenience some families and find that one abused or neglected child. And I agree with that philosophy. It is hard on your family, but you are all safe and together. I’d rather DCYF inconvenience you and find the smaller percentage of abused and neglected kids instead of leaving you alone, and not seeing some other child who is indeed being abused or neglected.
Yes, vindictive people can falsely accuse you. They can even do it anonymously. I can tell you that anonymous calls from neighbors do not carry the same weight that calls from professional third parties do. I would also wonder who it is that dislikes you so much to go through all of the effort to make a false accusation? Was this false accusation provoked by something you said or did? I think back to my child, and my friends and neighbors – none of whom would ever dream of calling DCYF. How is it that my situation is so different from yours? How did I manage to surround myself with people who are not vindictive or mean? Is there anything you can change in your situation to make the false accusations stop?
Please remember that no one who gets into the child protection business does it to get rich. They aren’t looking for glory or fame. They have an honest desire to help children. They are often good people who work very hard for very little money, and find themselves yelled at, cursed at, and threatened on a daily basis.