Decoupling Seattle Family Law and Divorce Blog

In the first four parts of this five-part series, I have discussed 1) The fight between DSHS and Poca’s foster family; 2) Some vital questions the media is mostly ignoring on this case; 3) Why DSHS and the Courts usually prefer reunification with biological parents; and 4) An attorney’s perspective on dealing with DSHS.

Today, in the fifth and final part of this story, I explain why all the media outcry on this case may not in the end help little girl Poca.

So much of the outcry is focused on the Langleys, the foster parents, as victims – “You can help the Langley’s [sic] by giving to the “Amy Langley fund.”It makes a good story. But notice that no one is rushing to raise funds for additional social work supervision to help Poca transition back to her parents’ care, or to provide money for extra monitoring of her parents’ sobriety.

There’s never much enthusiasm for spending money on the kind  practical help that families struggling on the margins really need:

• Good quality babysitting so parents can go to Narcotics Anonymous meetings;
• Sturdy toys that can withstand the attentions of a child with neurological problems;
• Phones to help the parents stay in touch with doctors and teachers;
• Emergency funds to help maintain cars so that a parent can keep his or her job, pay the rent when the parent missed work due to illness, etc.

Spending money on these kind of pragmatic tools just isn’t as sexy as demonizing substance addicted parents, or uncaring foster parents, or the interfering busy bodies at DSHS, or all of the above.

Repeatedly attacking DSHS just makes creative thinking and flexible solutions more difficult for the agency’s beleaguered social workers. Why? Because many tough decisions about placements and conditions are judgment calls, and by sensationalizing these cases we often negate the ability of a social worker to use good judgment when there are a variety of contrary factors, and instead encourage the social worker to simply make the safest call, regardless of its effect on the child.

I saw this first hand 15 years ago while working at a Community Service organization, with abused children (I’ve changed a few facts for confidentiality purposes): A foster parent I knew pretty well, who I think provided a loving and caring home for all his children, said something really stupid at a DSHS foster parent function about children masturbating.  Almost everyone who knew this parent – including the social workers – was pretty sure that the comment was innocuous, and that the parent had not abused his foster kids in any way.

But within a few days, all 5 children in his care (including one boy I worked with), were removed from his home. Years of the man’s positive foster parenting was completely ignored, all because of one foolish comment (basically repeating an old wive’s tale). The reason was clear: because the comment was made publicly, in front of at least one DSHS employee, doing nothing would create liability for the agency. Moving the kids – even though it was clearly terrible for them – was perceived as the less risky course for the agency.

And the supervisor who made that decision would not have had a lot of time to think it over.  He or she probably had 17 other urgent decisions to make by 5 p.m. that day.  There’s no time for reflection or creative problem solving in that kind of beat-the-clock setting.

For all the criticism of social workers – and there are bad social workers just like there are bad lawyers, car mechanics, bus drivers, and software managers – there are also dedicated social workers, fighting burn out, mediocre wages and a heavy case load, who will gladly give us their cell phone numbers, and talk to us at night or on their days off, just because that’s what it takes to try to help damaged families. Believe me – you probably don’t want their job.

I can’t say that DSHS would have made a better decision without fears of public pressure or lawsuits.  And some lawsuits are clearly justified (I know; I’ve filed them). But what has struck me – then and now – is how these pressures basically pushed well meaning people to do something that they themselves didn’t really think was right. In general, no one wants to do something at work that is likely to create more headaches and more work for themselves days and weeks later. Social workers are no exception.

The kid I worked with all those years ago went to two more foster homes in the next two months, after 3 years  in a stable situation with this guy.The second time was, sadly, due to a bureaucratic error by his DSHS social worker. Just as he was being moved a third time he was put in the back of a police car (though not technically arrested) for throwing a chair at a teacher, just as I was picking him up from his school.  He was eight – and, to me, a really good kid at heart. In those few months I saw him lose so much of the little boy I loved to hang out with once a week. I believe that his ability to trust and to bond with others, which was rough at best, was set back several years.

I haven’t seen this boy in well over a decade, but I think of him sometimes, and wonder if he ever got out of the system, ever got a chance to live a real life, or if, now in his early twenties he is still institutionalized. I’m afraid to find out.

To me, decisions to move kids – whether into or out of foster care – should almost always be done in a measured, thoughtful manner, and rushed only when absolutely necessary. Sometimes it is necessary of course; I’ve filed emergency orders for clients several times myself.

It should be clear that the purpose of this intensive, 7400-word article is not to criticize the Langleys.  From all accounts they have mostly done a wonderful job in trying circumstances taking care of a variety of children that no one else wanted to be responsible for. The fact that so many resources are being spent in a dispute between people who all want to help Poca is beyond sad.

We all know that there are better ways to care for our vulnerable youth, better ways to do all this:

• Ways to keep borderline families from falling apart so their kids can stay home to begin with;
• Ways to help a damaged six year old boy cope with anger and grief without turning to violence against his foster parents;
• Ways to provide more support and supervision to foster parents so they don’t have to take things into their own hands when they can no longer meet the needs of a child in their care;
• Ways to move drug addicted parents through evaluation and treatment more quickly so that it doesn’t take four years to decide if they can be trusted to care for their daughter.

May is National Foster Care Month.  If you want to find out more go to www.fostercaremonth.org.

And if you just want to throw some money at the problems that foster kids face before buying your next latte, you could do worse than donating to Tree House For Kids.  They’re a non-profit dedicated to giving King County foster kids little pieces of the kinds of childhoods all kids deserve.  In one case of ours, they paid for two little girls to have ballet lessons; in another, they paid for a birthday skate party for an 8 year old boy.  It’s sad that those have to be rare treats, but that’s the reality. If you want to put ballet shoes or skates on the feet of a foster kid who wouldn’t get that chance otherwise, go to www.treehouse4kids.org, and click “donate.”

There’s gotta be a better way to help our vulnerable kids.

One small starting point is to focus less on finding villains and more on seeking – and paying for – practical solutions for our vulnerable children.

Written by Christopher Rama Rao, with help from Katy Banahan.