The examples below do not mean that lying is rampant in child welfare systems. But they illustrate a pervasive tolerance of whatever lying does exist.
There was an extraordinary moment in a courtroom in Houston
in October. A child protective services
caseworker was asked about apparent inconsistencies in things he had said at a
previous hearing on the same case. He
responded by asserting his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. He did it
repeatedly.
Then the supervisor on the case testified. She did not take
the Fifth. But, as Keri Blakinger of the
Houston Chronicle reports, she
“drew incredulous looks in the courtroom when she so frequently claimed that
she didn’t know, couldn’t answer or didn’t understand the question that [a
lawyer] eventually asked if she had any knowledge that made her qualified
to make decisions.”
Judge Mike Schneider ultimately ruled that the children in
this case should not have been taken away.
Indeed, the removal may have jeopardized one child’s heath. Judge Schneider actually ordered the Texas
child protective services agency to stay away from the family. And he ordered
the agency to pay $127,000 to cover the family’s legal fees and other costs.
Judge Schneider branded the agency’s behavior “dishonest” and
possibly “malicious.” He
ruled the agency “abused the legal process” by deliberately filing
pleadings that included “misstatements of fact” and “material omissions.”
“It can be inferred from the context of [the caseworker’s]
testimony,” the judge wrote, “that he invoked his Fifth Amendment [rights] …to
avoid admitting to perjury.” He ordered
the child welfare agency to provide training to all staff “regarding the
truthfulness owed to the court and the penalties for perjury.”
Yes, that’s right. A
judge found that CPS workers actually need to be trained to know they’re not
supposed to lie in court. And he’s not
the only judge who’s felt the need to point that out.
Other examples
It would be bad enough were this the only such case. In fact, it’s another example of a culture of
lying that permeates the child welfare system.
● In Connecticut alone, between 2004 and 2007, two different
judges blasted that state’s child welfare agency for misleading them in
court. One
judge called a caseworker’s reports “disingenuous,” “misleading” and
“intellectually dishonest.” In another
case the
judge ruled that a caseworker deliberately distorted the facts of a case in
order to persuade a court to remove a child. The judge found that the worker
sought to “manipulate the facts” and “mislead the court.” Much as her
counterpart in Texas would do years later, she urged the child welfare agency
to explain to caseworkers the penalties for perjury.
● In 2016, a caseworker in California actually claimed what
amounted to a constitutional right
to lie. The worker didn’t admit to
lying – though a jury said she did – but when she was sued she argued she was entitled
to immunity because she didn’t know that lying to a court was a violation of
the family’s constitutional rights.
Sure, there’s a California statute that says immunity does not apply to
child welfare workers who, acting with malice, commit perjury and fabricate
evidence. And well, yes, the caseworker might
have known it was immoral and unethical but, hey, her lawyer argued, that
doesn’t mean she knew it was also unconstitutional.
Fortunately, the
courts did not buy this. But what does it say about child welfare that a
federal court actually had to explain to caseworkers that “There are no
circumstances in a dependency preceding that would permit government officials
to bear false witness against a parent.”
This tolerance, or worse, of lying, goes far beyond
individual workers.
The Connecticut caseworkers were not sanctioned. The worker in the California case actually
was promoted. At one point she was training other caseworkers. And that law that denies immunity to lying
caseworkers actually was opposed by the California County Welfare Directors
Association and the California chapter of the National Association of Social
Workers.
In Texas, the child protective services agency did not penalize the caseworker who took the Fifth or the supervisor whose testimony
sounded so much like Sergeant Shultz
in Hogan’s Heroes.
The agency
declared: “Our actions in this case were appropriate.” They've appealed the financial sanction imposed by the judge.
And then, attorneys for the parents allege, it got
worse. They say an investigator for the County
Sheriff’s office contacted them to tell them that “at least ten CPS workers up
and down the foodchain” called to pressure
him into bringing criminal charges against the parents. Both the CPS agency
and the sheriff’s office deny it.
It’s not just the caseworkers
The culture of lying in child welfare goes beyond child
protective services agencies.
A judge in Snohomish County, Washington concluded
that the county’s Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program engaged in “the
blatant withholding and destruction of evidence and … rampant continuing lying
…” The judge continued:
This was not just a lot of lying. It was lying with no concern that you were lying. It was lying with ‘I don’t care if I get caught.’ It was lying again and again and again after getting caught. It was lying under circumstances where it could be absolutely proven you were lying.
But what about judges themselves?
In order for the costs of a foster care placement to be
eligible for partial federal reimbursement, a judge must check a box on a form certifying
that the child protective services agency made “reasonable efforts” to keep the
family together. In Michigan, 40
percent of judges surveyed admitted to lying about this – they checked the
“reasonable efforts” box even when they didn’t believe the agency had made
“reasonable efforts.” And that’s just
the percentage who will admit it in a survey.
All of this is before we reach the common claims that may
not quite be lies, but are blatant misrepresentations, such as assertions about
the
rate of abuse in foster care and due
process. (There is way more of the
former and way less of the latter than people in the system claim.)
A hothouse for lying
Is child welfare’s culture of lying worse than that in other
professions? I don’t know. I certainly
hope so – it would be depressing indeed to think that all professions
functioned this way. What I do know is
that a typical child welfare system is a hothouse for lying – the conditions
are perfect.
For starters, almost everything is secret. Almost all the records are secret and in most
states, so are the court hearings. (Texas is an exception; if not for that we
might never have known about the case in Houston, and certainly wouldn’t have
gotten such vivid accounts of what went on the courtroom.)
The secrecy promotes a “veto
of silence” that prevents this kind of lying from being exposed. For most of the public and the media any
parent whose child is taken away is presumed to be a “child abuser” –
regardless of the facts of the case. So
who is going to believe a “child abuser”
over a caseworker, much less a CASA or a judge?
The very fact that CPS workers’ mission is so vital breeds
an ends-justify-the-means mentality at best and a dangerous hubris at worst. More than 25 years ago, a Florida caseworker
allegedly told families “I have the power of God.” The attitude boils down to: We’re saving lives here, so what’s wrong with
a little lying? (Plenty, it turns out,
as those cases in Connecticut, Texas and California make clear. In all of those cases it was the children who
suffered because of the lying.)
None of this means that lying is rampant in child welfare
systems (though no family who has been
But there is a pervasive tolerance of whatever lying does exist.
That can change, but only if we demand transparency from
child welfare systems. That means a strong rebuttable presumption that all
court hearings and most records are
open. But it also means we need to
question our own preconceived notions about everyone in the system, and
everyone caught up in it.
