‘Secret courts and secret decisions’: Calls for transparency in Maine’s child welfare system

Former State Senator Calls for Transparency in Maine’s Child Welfare System

On a gray morning last week, former state Sen. Bill Diamond stood at a rally in front of the State House and implored Maine’s government to do more to prevent child abuse – and be transparent about its efforts.

The Need for Transparency

A nearby sign attached to a stone column listed the names of eight Maine children on blue sneakers: eight children who have died in the past three decades, and whose names have become synonymous with the state’s child welfare system, including Maddox Williams, Marissa Kennedy, and Logan Marr.

Diamond was describing a horrific addition to that list. Ten-year-old Braxtyn Smith died at a Bangor hospital in February. Police said the boy’s death followed months of physical abuse by his mother, father, and grandmother, who have all been charged with depraved indifference murder.

Diamond wanted to know if Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the state’s child protective system, had ever made contact with the boy, who was homeschooled, or his family. The department has refused to say, citing confidentiality laws.

“There are good reasons for confidentiality,” Diamond said. “But in terms of transparency, it’s appeared over the years that they’ve used that as a reason not to talk at all. I think there are openings there where they could talk and they could help the situation.”

Others at the rally agreed. A social worker called for the department to stop “operating behind closed doors.” A school superintendent implored the state to “open up the system so we know what we’re working with.” A foster mom said it is “crucial for the Iron Curtain to be pulled back so we can get the transparency needed to reform policies that continue to fail our children.”

The Balance Between Confidentiality and Transparency

All child welfare systems face a tension between protecting the confidentiality of vulnerable parents and children, and the need to inform the public about how the system operates, particularly in high-profile cases of abuse or neglect.

The debate over how to balance those two interests is an old one, but critics in Maine and elsewhere have argued that more transparency is needed to ensure that confidentiality rules are protecting children and their families, not shielding child welfare agencies from public scrutiny.

Like many such agencies across the country, Maine’s beleaguered office suffers from high staff vacancies and turnover, leaving its caseworkers overburdened. Efforts in the Legislature this year to create a standalone child welfare office failed, as the debate continues about how to address concerns that the system is not adequately protecting children.

Maine’s Child Maltreatment Rate and Removal of Children from Families

Maine’s rate of child maltreatment is more than double the national average and the fourth-highest in the country, according to the most recent federal data. Homicides and deaths of children involved with the child welfare system rose from seven in 2007, when the state began tracking this, to a high of 34 in 2021, before declining to 23 last year.

At the same time, Maine is one of just a handful of states that increased the rate of removing children from their families between 2018 and 2022.

The Need for More Information

The public knows almost nothing about most of these cases – often only hearing about them if there is a death and the case enters the criminal justice system.

The department says it is bound by federal confidentiality rules and would lose funding if it violated them. Advocates like Diamond say the department’s interpretation of the rules is overly broad and self-serving.

Lawmakers tasked with oversight bemoan the department’s power as they face off with the attorney general’s office over access to department records.

Meanwhile, state law keeps child protection court proceedings – and the department’s contested actions – out of public view.

The Complications of Confidentiality Laws

The complications are illustrated by a case currently before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. It involves DHHS’s refusal to respond to a subpoena from the Legislature’s government oversight committee demanding case files related to four children who died in 2021.

DHHS supplied the records to the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPEGA), the independent office that performs investigations on behalf of the Government Oversight Committee. But the department refused to turn the records over to the committee.

Representing the department, the attorney general’s office argued doing so would violate federal law and risk “losing funding critical to the administration of its Maine Child Welfare Services program.”

A district court ruled in favor of DHHS, but Maine’s top court took up the case on appeal. It heard oral arguments in December and has yet to issue a ruling.

Both sides have argued that the federal laws in question vindicate their position.

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act strikes a balance between “the families’ right to privacy, and the right of children to be free from abuse and neglect,” the attorney general’s office said. The state is only allowed to share records with government entities that need the information to “protect children from child abuse and neglect.”

The attorney general’s office said OPEGA is one such entity, because it would use the information to suggest improvements to the child welfare system. The committee, it argued, is too removed from protecting children to have a legitimate need for the records.

Attorneys representing the committee contended that federal laws don’t say the records can’t be shared, only that the state needs to have a system to ensure confidentiality outside “legitimate state purposes.” They argued the committee has a “legitimate state purpose” in seeing the records to “examine the efficacy of services provided by the department.”

The conflict over the records may stem in part from the federal government’s lack of clarity around its disclosure laws. Researchers at the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law criticized the Administration for Children and Families for not instituting “formal, binding regulatory instructions” around disclosure.

Sen. Jeff Timberlake, R-Androscoggin, sits on the government oversight committee. It’s the committee’s job to oversee the department, which requires being able to see those records, Timberlake said. He claimed refusing to turn them over wasn’t about protecting kids, but “protecting DHHS and its employees.”

The Need for Open Court Proceedings

While records are generally confidential, a number of states have opened child welfare court proceedings, meaning observers – including journalists and policymakers – can observe the system in action.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 4: Quality Education
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The article discusses the issue of child abuse and the need for transparency in Maine’s child welfare system. These issues are connected to several SDGs, including SDG 1 (No Poverty) as child abuse can be linked to poverty, SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) as child abuse can have severe physical and mental health consequences, SDG 4 (Quality Education) as the article mentions homeschooling and the need for education reforms, SDG 5 (Gender Equality) as child abuse can disproportionately affect girls, SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) as the child welfare system’s failures can perpetuate inequalities, and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) as the article highlights the need for transparency and accountability in the child welfare system.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
• Target 3.2: By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births.
• Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
• Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.
• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

Based on the article’s content, the specific targets that can be identified include ensuring social protection systems for the poor and vulnerable (Target 1.3), reducing preventable deaths of children (Target 3.2), providing equitable and quality education (Target 4.1), eliminating violence against women and girls (Target 5.2), promoting social inclusion (Target 10.2), and developing transparent institutions (Target 16.6).

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, there are indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets. These include:

• Child maltreatment rate: This indicator can measure progress towards Target 3.2 (reducing preventable deaths of children) and Target 10.2 (promoting social inclusion).
• Rate of removing children from families: This indicator can measure progress towards Target 10.2 (promoting social inclusion).
• Transparency and accountability in the child welfare system: This indicator can measure progress towards Target 16.6 (developing transparent institutions).

These indicators can provide insights into the effectiveness of social protection systems, the reduction of child maltreatment, the improvement of education outcomes, the elimination of violence against women and girls, the promotion of social inclusion, and the transparency and accountability of institutions.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Copyright: Dive into this article, curated with care by SDG Investors Inc. Our advanced AI technology searches through vast amounts of data to spotlight how we are all moving forward with the Sustainable Development Goals. While we own the rights to this content, we invite you to share it to help spread knowledge and spark action on the SDGs.

Fuente: pressherald.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.