Reforming DHS

Toward the end of two legislative investigations into the state Department of Human Services and its responsiveness to parents, Karen Westburg, director of the DHS’ Bureau of Child and Family Services, released a general accounting of the last 40 cases her bureau had seen. The cases are a fitting reminder of how essential the work is and how carefully lawmakers must fashion reform.

There is the case of the teen-age boy, neglected by his alcoholic mother, assaulted by her boyfriend and who in turn was suspected of abusing young children. And the suicidal 10-year-old girl whom neither parent would take into their respective homes – she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of the abuse and neglect she had received. And the prematurely born infant whose parents failed to follow through on needed medical care for their baby; the couple had lost three children to the state previously because of physical neglect. And the two young girls with speech and cognitive delays who were threatened with physical and sexual abuse by their father, who had earlier served prison time for multiple rape and sodomy of a 12-year-old girl. And the 14-year-old boy who had been neglected by not being fed or housed adequately and who had been beaten by his parents, abused and humiliated by his mother and forced to witness drunken brawls of the adults in his family. And on and on.

These were some of the children DHS took away and placed in foster care during the last few months and in virtually every case count on at least one parent to argue that DHS should not have. That things looked a lot worse than they were; that they just needed one more chance. Certainly DHS isn’t perfect. Its case workers make mistakes or are short-tempered or too quick to reach a damning conclusion. They have physically and emotionally draining jobs and need, as one of the legislative reports concludes, more support from within the department, just as the department needs oversight from the Legislature. But when lawmakers next month debate what that oversight should look like, they need to keep in mind Ms. Westburg’s case examples. Logan Marr allegedly died at the hands of a foster care provider; Maine children die or come near death regularly at the hands of their parents.

Fortunately, many of the recommendations by the committees are positive responses to the public testimony taken from around the state last summer. There are calls for more data on placing children with relatives, reports on the number of times parental rights are terminated and greater access to child-welfare information for legislators. Respecting the privacy rights of DHS clients is crucial to these reforms, so lawmakers will have to be careful about what information they demand – committee members have asked the Attorney General’s Office to look into the issue. But there is another responsibility lawmakers may not have fully recognized.

If legislators do end up receiving more information about DHS cases, the public will correctly expect them to step in where there is a problem and to accept the blame when they fail to do so. Conversely, DHS workers should expect legislators to speak out forcefully when public charges against the department prove baseless and disgruntled parents are, in fact, wrong.

For elected, term-limited officials this is a large and demanding burden, one, as committee members are aware, that includes life-and-death decisions. Lawmakers could plausibly claim in the past that they lacked information about child-protection problems in Maine. Should these reforms go through, they will have lost much of that cover.