Tuesday, April 05, 2011

REPORT: L.A. COUNTY CHILD ABUSE DEATHS ARE ON DECLINE

By Christina Villacorte, Staff Writer | LA Daily News | http://bit.ly/dMYKnI

2 April 2011 - As many as 41 children in Los Angeles County are believed to have died of abuse or neglect in 2010, even after the county Department of Children and Family Services had investigated their home situation, according to a report just released.

The report was requested after several years of controversy over whether the department's policy of trying to keep children with their families, rather than force them into foster care after an allegation of abuse, was resulting in more deaths.

Overall, the report found a decline in deaths of children whose cases had been brought to the attention of DCFS over the past five years, from 69 in 2006 to

41 in 2009 and in 2010.

DCFS Interim Director Antonia Jimenez said the findings contradicted allegations that the department's attempts since 2008 to reduce the number of children placed into foster homes was leading to more fatalities.

"There is no trend that says whether you keep them at home or you bring them to foster care, the kid's going to be safe," she said. "The data doesn't substantiate any of that."

The report, prepared by the county's chief executive officer at the urging of Supervisors Mark Ridley-Thomas and Michael Antonovich, showed a total of 175 children with "DCFS history" died in 2010.

The DCFS, coroner or law enforcement agencies determined that 28 of those deaths had been caused by abuse or neglect. Another 13 were "reasonably suspected" as such.

Taken together, the deaths by abuse or neglect represent roughly 0.07 percent of population of children with an open DCFS case in 2010, according to the report.

The rest of the fatalities were attributed to other causes, such as illnesses, accidents, suicides and third-party homicides like gang shootings.

Ridley-Thomas added the total number of deaths involving children who had come into contact with the DCFS - 175 - was in line with the annual average since 2000.

"It would be negligent to be satisfied with any total more than zero; but it is also reckless to suggest there are quick fixes," he said.

Jimenez clarified that not all children with "DCFS history" were ever in the department's custody.

"History could mean that we intervene with your family and we gave you services, and we're working with you to figure out some family issues there," she said. "It doesn't necessarily mean that you're in foster care or group care or that we've taken your child away at all."

She said children fall under the category of having DCFS history if they or members of their family were ever the subject of a call to the department's Child Protection Hotline - even if claims of abuse or neglect involving them were later found unjustified.

A child welfare advocate, Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, said the report is significant in terms of what it does not show.

"It has been alleged that somehow the efforts of Los Angeles County to reduce the number of children needlessly taken away from their parents was contributing to child abuse deaths," he said. "The figures released from the county made it absolutely clear that that is not so. They show there is no pattern whatsoever linking the small reductions in care to any change in child abuse fatalities."

Wexler added that needlessly placing children in foster care could lead to more harm than good.

"Taking the child away from everyone loving and familiar is an emotional blow from which some children will never recover, especially if it is compounded by moving that child from foster home to foster home," he said.

Jimenez conceded the benefits of keeping the children "in home," but added: "Safety is above all, and if we can try to keep you safe and you stay with your parents, then we want that, because there is a trauma associated with pulling a child away from their families; however, if it is perceived that this child is not safe by being with that family, it's not open for discussion."

No comments: