'Fathers Should Be Involved in the Child Protection Process'

CA Judge: 'Fathers Should Be Involved in the Child Protection Process'

February 10th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
It's too bad I don't have room to show you all of the article written by retired judge Leonard Edwards of California. He's writing in the Winter, 2009 edition of The Bench, which is the official publication of the California Judges Association. His article is entitled "Engaging Fathers in the Child Custody Process," but his topic is not divorce, he's writing about child protection hearings in juvenile court. That's where CPS presents cases of child neglect and maltreatment and judges decide whether to remove a child from its parent and place him/her in some form of protective custody like foster care. His remarks are telling.

For example, he says that "Non-custodial fathers infrequently appear in child-protection proceedings." Now why would that be? "Some fathers cannot be found; others do not want to participate; some mothers do not want the father to know of the proceedings, and social workers sometimes are ambivalent about engaging the father." So extreme is the antipathy of courts, laws and court personnel for fathers that Edwards says that juvenile courts are simply referred to as "Mothers' Courts."

Still, Edwards says that "from a judicial perspective and from a child's perspective, fathers should be involved in the child protection process." He points out that fathers are not alone in what they offer children; they offer their extended families as well. Paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews all come as part of the paternal package. And that extended family can provide a child financial, social and emotional resources that a mother and her family may lack.

"If courts are truly going to serve the best interests of children, fathers and their families need to be identified and engaged early in the proceedings. Judges...can greatly influence whether a father will participate in child protection proceedings."

How judges can better involve fathers is the nut of what Edwards wants to say. He lists 16 things judges can do, including,

I. Identify all possible fathers;

II. Question the mother under oath about the father's identity; (Notice the "under oath" part. Edwards is telling judges not to accept easy answers or false ones.)

III. Locate the father.

V. Order the social worker to personally serve all potential fathers with notice of the proceedings.

VII. Insist that caseworkers use good faith efforts to identify, locate and support the father throughout the child protection process.

IX. When a potential father comes to court, let him know that the court is pleased that he has appeared because he is an important person in the child's life.

X. Order that paternity testing be completed as soon as possible at state expense.

XI. Appoint counsel for the father at state expense immediately.

XII. Order visitation between the father and the child. Make it clear to the father and all participants in the court process that the father will be considered for placement.

Edwards concludes by saying,

Children need to know who their fathers are. They need to know who all of their relatives are, not just those on the mother's side of the family. Children will fare better in life when they are connected with their entire family.

I've written before about the study by the Urban Institute that shows that child protective agencies prefer foster care to father care. When agencies are considering taking a child from its mother, very often they ignore the most obvious choice for placement - the father. That study found that in over half of the cases in which the father's identity was known, CPS workers made no effort to contact him.

Judge Edwards' entire article shows the truth of the Urban Institute study. He's clearly trying to inculcate some very basic concepts into his readership. And he's clearly aware that mothers, caseworkers, social workers, etc. prefer to bypass fathers altogether.

In addition to all of the positive aspects of placing children with their fathers that Edwards mentions, he neglects at least one. Placing children with their fathers is cheaper for the state than placing them in foster care or some other form of protective custody. At a time when states find their budgets squeezed more than usual, that's a consideration no one should overlook.

Judges everywhere, not just in California, should read Judge Edwards' article and take it to heart.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm and is filed under Fathers' Rights/Noncustodial parents' rights, Child Protective Services/Child Welfare System
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4572