“It's the Only System We've Got”

Front-line public “Child Welfare” caseworkers, also known as emergency response or investigative caseworkers, play a significant role in the “Child Welfare” system. Placed in an intermediary role within the system, investigative caseworkers are tasked with making critical decisions while attempting to advocate for families and uphold the system’s policies. To understand the caseworker decision-making processes more in-depth, a qualitative study was conducted with eighteen investigative caseworkers in four different counties. The guiding research question of the current study was: “What impacts the decisionmaking processes in which child protective service workers investigate and substantiate referred cases of child maltreatment?” Findings revealed several nuances and extensive complexities in how workers navigated often contradictory roles within the system. Important emerging themes include caseworkers’ use of surveillance during investigation and multi-institution partnership indecision-making processes. This Comment discusses the ways in which caseworkers react to and navigate ambiguity and parental resistance during investigations, lending an often-overlooked exploration into various nuances within the decision-making apparatus. Understanding nuances in the complex web of decision-making and information-gathering may lead to novel ways of thinking about how the “Child Welfare” system addresses child protection.

Assimilation, Removal, Discipline, and Confinement

A full understanding of the roots of child separation must begin with Native children. This Article demonstrates how modern child welfare, delinquency, and education systems are rooted in the social control of indigenous children. It examines the experiences of Native girls in federal and state systems from the late 1800s to the mid1900s to show that, despite their ostensibly benevolent and separate purposes, these institutions were indistinguishable and interchangeable. They were simply differently styled mechanisms of forced assimilation, removal, discipline, and confinement. As the repeating nature of government intervention into the lives of Native children makes clear, renaming a system does not change its effect. The historical roots of these systems must be acknowledged, and the current systems must be abolished and replaced. To answer the question of what a nonpunitive, non-assimilative system would look like, this Article looks to tribal courts and indigenous justice systems. It points to specific examples of how Native communities have reshaped ideas about caring for and disciplining children, including traditional adoption, kinship care, wellness courts, family group conferencing, and a “best interests” standard that emphasizes the link between individual and collective well-being.

Calculating the Souls of Black Folk

In 1995, there were nearly 50,000 children removed from their families into the New York City Administration for Children’s Services’ (ACS) foster care system.1 The NYC ACS’ forcible transfer of children from a protected group into another group may amount to genocide under Article 2(e) of the Genocide Convention if formal review can demonstrate an “intent to destroy” the group “as such” or at least “in part.” Rather than pursuing a citizen’s tribunal, or truth and reconciliation committee to assess the historic transfer of Black children to other groups during this period by the child welfare system, ACS has focused on collecting data from currently targeted populations in order to “predict who needs prevention” services. This paper examines the Family First Prevention Act’s legislative mandate to calculate the “souls of Black folks” and the geographies of predictive analytics developed to serve this aim. Using an abolitionist lens grounded in the epistemology offered by W. E. B. Du Bois’ Souls of Black Folks, this argument moves beyond the Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAT) framework to propose strategies for dismantling the “new modes of surveillance and social control” manifested in NYC ACS’ preventive turn. I propose a Get Out mathematics drawing from Katherine McKittrick’s proposal to “count it out different” as the fugitive’s alternative to state sanctioned datafication.

Toward Community Control of Child Welfare Funding

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act mandates reporting, investigation,and prosecution of allegedly abusive and neglectful parents. Commonly known as child protective services (CPS), this family policing system uses the government’s police power to disrupt, surveil, control, and destroy hundreds of thousands of Black families based on conditions of poverty framed as neglect. Centering a Black mother’s five-year long ordeal with New York City’s family policing system, we examine the carceral roots of CPS and its destructive impacts on Black families. We call for abolishing the CPS family policing system; diversion of the billions invested in the foster industry to investment in quality-of-life resources de-linked from so-called “child protection”; and monetary reparations for generations of CPS violence against Black families.

Ending the Family Death Penalty and Building a World We Deserve

U.S. history is rooted in the rationalization of family separation to benefit white supremacy, capitalism and mainstream U.S. values. Because of this dark history, the U.S. history has become the world’s leader of legal destruction of families through termination of parental rights. It is the only country in the world that routinely pays people to adopt children whose parents, often women, very much want to be their parent. The Adoption and Safe Families Act, enacted in 1997, wildly changed the legal landscape of the family regulation system. At that time 47% of the children in the system were Black, and the drug war had been targeting Black men for low level offenses, and labeling Black mothers as “crack moms”. The result was an extreme attack on Black families, for which we have yet to recover. Abolition teaches us to unroot oppressive structures, disrupt and dismantle them while simultaneously supporting a praxis of imagination, healing, and building. In this paper, we encourage people not only to work to repeal ASFA, but to interrogate the imagination which entrenched the legitimacy of ASFA. Part I centers the discussion in our imaginations—the world we want to build, and the demands we are making. Part II moves into a discussion about the counter imagination, the ideas and mythology that created ASFA—the legal framework. In this section, we isolate ASFA as a target for abolition and organizing. Part III moves into a practical discussion about ethical ways to mobilize around ASFA. This section is intended to invite the reader to learn, and question, together. It invites questions, thinking, and problem solving in lieu of providing a recommendation.

The White Supremacy Hydra

Fundamentally, the so-called “child welfare system”—more appropriately named, the family regulation system—is a policing system rooted in white supremacist ideologies and techniques. From its earliest iteration, the family regulation system has functioned to pathologize, control, and punish the families entrapped in its web, most especially Black families. Nevertheless, among many, the myth persists that the family regulation system is one of child protection and family support. This is especially true when discussing the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018, which—for the first time since the establishment of the modern family regulation system—opens up federal funding streams previously reserved for the removal of children to the foster system to provide prevention services for families in which children have not yet been removed to the foster system. While the Act is a course change in federal family regulation policy, this Article traces how it leaves undisturbed the pathology, control, and punishment central to the policies that preceded it.

Reimagining Schools' Role Outside the Family Regulation System

The United States’ family regulation system often begins with well-intentioned professionals making child protection hotline calls, jeopardizing their own ability to work with families and subjecting the families to surveillance. By the system’s own standards, most of this surveillance leads to no meaningful action. Nowhere is this reality more present than in schools. Educational personnel serve as the leading driver of child maltreatment allegations, yet decades worth of data reveal educator reports of maltreatment are the least likely to be screenedin and the least likely to be substantiated or confirmed. In other words, education personnel— whether motivated by genuine concern, which may nevertheless be informed by implicit biases towards low-income families and families of color; fear of liability; or the desire to access services they believe families cannot acquire elsewhere— overwhelm our child welfare system with unnecessary allegations of maltreatment. This reality has fundamentally transformed the relationship between families and schools. Carrying the heavy burden of mandated reporting laws, public schools disproportionately refer Black and low-income families to the family regulation system, abdicating schools’ opportunity to serve these same families in the communities in which they reside. Rather than serving as the great equalizer, public schools increasingly contribute to the carceral state’s regulation of families. This Article argues that schools must shift their role away from the reporting and surveillance of these families, and instead directly provide and arrange for services for families. This change begins with sharply limiting or repealing mandatory reporting obligations (permitting voluntary reports in severe cases)—but that is only the start. Schools are well-positioned to create new pathways to the supports and services from which most families reported to the family regulation system might actually benefit. Schools are already a primary source of food for impoverished children, and can help ensure low-income families access all the public benefits to which they are entitled. Schools can largely refer children and families to the same services that the family regulation system can—such as mental health services and substance abuse treatment—but without that system’s coercive authority and its associated problems. Where some services are tied to the family regulation system’s involvement, then law should permit schools to refer families directly. Schools know which families need legal services to defend their housing, access benefits, obtain orders of protection—or any of the myriad of other supports that poverty lawyers can provide. This shift would tie schools to the families and communities that they serve and benefit those families and communities far more than the surveillance and policing they experience under the current family regulation system.

Keynote

This piece is a written version of Professor Dorothy Roberts' keynote speech at the Columbia Journal of Race and Law's 11th annual symposium, titled Strengthened Bonds: Abolishing the Child Welfare System and Re-Envisioning Child Well-Being.

Editor's Note

This piece is the editor's note for the Columbia Journal of Race and Law's 11th annual symposium issue, titled Strengthened Bonds: Abolishing the Child Welfare System and Re-Envisioning Child Well-Being.

How Racial Politics Led Directly to the Enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997

This Article is part of a celebration of the magnificent work of Dorothy Roberts who, more than any other scholar, has brilliantly demonstrated both the highly destructive qualities of the United States’ family regulation system and its relationship to the country’s legacy of slavery. The most vicious feature of the current family regulation system is the almost routine destruction of families resulting from an overly zealous enforcement of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, through which the federal government pays states to permanently banish parents from their children and legally sever the parent-child relationship when children have remained in foster care for fifteen months. This Article tells some of the racialized history that led to the enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.