Reality Check 101

            Civil power is instinctively self-serving.  Whatever is given to it or taken by it, it loathes to surrender.  Indeed, government normally does not voluntarily give up its gains.  Every splinter of its superstructure and every diamond accent in its beautiful façade fights for its own survival, no matter how valuable or useless its existence may be.  Without the guidance and restraints of divine truth, it can be unbelievably arrogant.  It directs people’s lives with the sincere belief that its judgments are sure and true, and that those under its authority lack either the know-how or the will to order their own affairs.  Men and women caught up in this alluring environment come to believe that they are indispensable to “the people”.           

        The danger of unjustified or misguided intrusion is probably no more pronounced anywhere than it is in families whom the state has determined to be in some form of crisis.  The value to society of rescuing abused, neglected and exploited children and youth is immense.  Much of the time the state’s assessments are accurate and their interventions necessary.    To its credit, Michigan has designed various policies and legal statutes in an effort to manage cases responsibly.  The Family Independence Agency (FIA) and Children’s Protective Services (CPS) have uniform performance standards for their personnel. Caseworker accountability is provided through such mechanisms as a “Structured Decision Making” system, case reviews by supervisors, case reviews by “experts”, selected case reviews by the Office of Children’s Ombudsman or the Office of the Family Advocate.  Some counties have launched a team decision approach (“Family to Family”) which involves parents – before children are removed from the home.  In addition to all this, the law requires that any evidence used must meet legal standards of “relevance” and “preponderance” (having more weight than opposing evidence).  Ultimately, the courts, individual judges, make the most potent decisions. 

            From the federal side, in 2003, President Bush signed a vastly improved reauthorization of CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) authored by Congressman Pete Hoekstra.  Under the improved reauthorization, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, funding was made available for several state-level reforms.  CAPTA provides for improved training ofCPSpersonnel and other servicing individuals plus education for the public.  Two other provisions are especially important.  The first requires caseworkers in participating states to advise anyone subject to investigation of the allegations against them at the time of the initial contact.  The other provision requires the establishment of citizen review panels as a way to provide public outreach and comment.

            Such a system would appear to be almost flawless.  But even in such an impressive framework of self-regulation wrongs happen.  Some would say that the trouble normally begins with a lack of agency and/or worker accountability.  And, at some levels, accountability is definitively weak.  But abuses are still occurring under the intricate system described above.  Something deeper is flawed.

            The deeper flaw has to do with definitions.  In the social services, definitions are derived from widely held convictions within the profession; worldviews if you will.  If the state embraces a view of the world as a godless accident, the values that drive its services to families will boil down to power; either power of a godless majority which decides definitions for the minority or the power of an insensitive godless legislative minority which decides definitions for the majority.  If, on the other hand, the state recognizes the world and its families as divinely created treasures, social definitions will rest on higher truths which both it and its clients can understand and apply.

            If all this seems to be theoretical and complicated, think again.  Presently, in Kent,Ottawa and Allegan counties,Michigan’s social services system, in conjunction with individual judges, has removed children from their homes based on allegations alone.  In other cases children were given to the historically abusive parent.  All these actions, right or wrong, have been based on THEIR DEFINITIONS of harm or threatened harm to a child’s health or welfare (MCL722.622(f)), physical or mental maltreatment  (MCL722.622(f)), “[reasonable] discipline”(MCL750.136(b)) and “[reasonable] force”(MCL750.136(b)).  Which definitions of harm, health, welfare, maltreatment, discipline and force best nourish and protect families; the godless or the godly?