For the Protection of Children : Youngsters’ safety must come first even as Child Protective Services is reformed

The grand jury’s scathing report on the San Diego County child protective system gives credence to parents’ worst fears.

What parent has not worried that a doctor might misinterpret accidental bruises or a broken bone? The thought of having a child taken away can make even sane parents think twice before going to the doctor. And a doctor’s precautionary questions are enough to terrify even parents who understand that the doctor is looking after the child’s welfare.

To have a grand jury conclude that in too many cases Child Protective Services has trouble distinguishing between abuse/neglect and poverty, unfounded allegations, professional “suspicions” or cultural differences should concern every parent and every San Diegan.

Such fundamental weaknesses undermine both of the important functions of Child Protective Services: to protect children and to help families stay together. The grand jury is correct in calling for prompt reform.

The grand jury recommended changes in all parts of the system, from social workers through Juvenile Court. But it also pointed out that most of the front-line problems rest with relatively few social workers. And it acknowledged their tremendous task:

“Social workers are exposed on a daily basis to the problems of society which most of us can safely ignore. They see severe child abuse, poverty, the effects of drug abuse and multi-generational dysfunction. They are aware of how thin the resources are for these families, and yet most social workers do their best to make the system work.”

It’s important to remember that this overburdened system had to sort out 84,000 hot line calls last year, to determine which needed immediate action, which were unsubstantiated, and which needed something in between.

Yes, social workers make mistakes and remove children from their homes when some less traumatic action might be better.

But social workers also occasionally miss real abuse. And this type of error can, and does, contribute to injury or death. Even one such case could make a social worker more likely to remove a child the next time there is a close judgment call.

The grand jury makes several sound recommendations and made a commendable effort to keep them fiscally practical.

Most are directed at adding or improving checks and balances in a system that operates with a high degree of confidentiality that makes review very difficult. The recommendation that an outside ombudsman be named with the authority to examine court records and documents is a sound one.

So, too, is the recommendation that an independent team conduct initial investigations, rather than one social worker, since most complaints involve investigations. Many of the procedural recommendations also seem reasonable.

Others, such as the establishment of a new Department of Family Services, need more study.

In its zeal to reform, however, the Board of Supervisors should be careful not to overreact. It should remember not just the cases when children were erroneously taken away from their parents, but also the times when leaving a child in the home resulted in continued violence.