Comments on: DC to fire six child-welfare workers in Banita Jacks case

By: Ann

Ann — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:38:31 +0000

I read with great interest the comments posted. I am a social worker and the case loads are extremely high for us. That does not excuse the fact the the children were never seen by the workers in DC. In the State (NC) where I worked the case is not initiated until you have seen all the children and if the case is not initiated within 24 or 72 hours depending upon the safety factor, our agency will pull that record to find out what has happened. If the parent(s) are not cooperative, the next step for us is to seek assistance from the juvenile courts charging the parents with interference in an investigation. To respond to the idea that foster homes are bad, I say on the contrary. It is required for us to locate relatives and/or friends of that family willing to serve as placement resources for the children BEFORE placing them in a foster home. The fathers of the children are notified that there is a case open and diligent efforts are made to locate those absent parents.

By: Marty

Marty — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:33:40 +0000

Mac, arguably there are “at least 3 different men” who are at least partially responsible (through negligence, at best) for the deaths of these kids.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:00:54 +0000

I second the latter part of William’s post – I also know some vicitms of Child “Protective” [SIC] Services.

And then, the foster care system they go into is also AWFUL – I know several couples who have been burned by that: the incentives are ALL WRONG in the foster care system (most agencies have a strong financial interest in keeping the children in their care from being adopted).

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:55:07 +0000

Those upset by the deaths of the children should consider donations to Planned Parenthood. Four children would challenge any family, and in this case there may have been mental illness.

The daughter of friend lost custody of her child to goofy theories of child protection. It was very sad. Ted Frank’s concern about unintended consequences of the firing of the social workers is absolutely correct.

By: T

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:46:45 +0000

These firings may be justified, but I find it hard to believe in less than a week the District has done a thorough job of investigating who was responsible for doing what, what other factors were in play, and what could keep it from happening again.

Firings get a lot of ink and make the public think “something” is being done. It’s great for those who wring their hands and say “someone should do something” but that’s all.

It’s another knee-jerk reaction.

By: markm

markm — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:08:49 +0000

Most allegations of child neglect and abuse are false or exaggerated, and removing a child from any but the worst home is traumatic – and also the available foster homes often aren’t that safe, either. So social workers need to be careful in how they follow up such allegations not to cause more problems. However, this particular case sure sounds like it wouldn’t have been a close call if someone had just bothered to do their job.

OTOH, I don’t know if the school social worker who made the report had a history of crying wolf. I don’t know the child protective caseworkers’ workloads. And I don’t know if they’d repeatedly asked for the police escort they were obviously going to need to get into that house with no response. (The DC police do have a history of failing to respond to violent crimes in progress in a timely manner, if at all.)

By: mojo

mojo — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:14:39 +0000

Sounds like they’re firing from the wrong end of the totem pole to me. Start cutting at the head.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:39:05 +0000

I don’t know DC law, but surely in every jurisdiction in circumstances such as these there is a mechanism for lawfully entering the home and checking on the children, in which case any lawsuit is not going to get far. The possibility of nuisance suits is no more reason not to act in a case like this than it is for the police not to execute search warrants.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:06:07 +0000

As Bill Poser points out, this is not a close case. Child and Family Services had been told that at least one child (and probably others) was being held “as a hostage in the home” but then closed the case without ever even seeing the child, let alone ever coming close to considering removing any children from the home.

I’m not sure what the reference to “hindsight” is supposed to convey. All employee performance evaluations are retrospective. Essentially, Ted seems to be suggesting that he considers it improper to fire an employee for poor performance.

It is certainly possible that more insistence upon employee performance will lead to complaints that they are excessively aggressive. As long as an agency has some standard of performance, then there exists the possibility that it will be called upon to defend its conduct in light of that standard. And if there is no standard of conduct, then any action the agency takes could be attacked as arbitrary. The only solution is, as DLM suggests, to have no agency at all. Perhaps that is what Ted is suggesting to be appropriate, but it’s not clear from this post.

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:07:51 +0000

Yet I think what Ted is saying is that if more aggressive action were taken by D.C. welfare folks, the litigation about THAT would fly fast and furious:

* You violated my civil rights by taking my children

* You committed a tort by breaking in

* Etc.

In defending Major U.S. City, I saw cases like this as often as I saw ones charging that “neglect” by welfare officials caused death and injury. The welfare agency was, as are so many others, damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. Speaking of insanity. The blame for this tragedy doesn’t lie with government, it lies with Banita Jacks, and/or her, ah, now-deceased “spouse.”