2011 New Jersey Children in Court Summit Achieving Brighter Futures for our Youth – Their Future is our Future

Hyatt Regency Conference Center Princeton, New JerseyMay 2nd & 3rd, 2011

Comprehensive Examination of Risk to Children in TPR Proceedings 5/02/11-Day 1 Workshop Session A, #10

Matthew B. Johnson, Ph.D.Department of PsychologyJohn Jay College of Criminal JusticeCity University of New Yorkmjohnson@jjay.cuny.edu

Risks to Children in PRT Proceedings

Commonly identified: Risks associated with parental competence - psychiatric, psychological, substance abuse, social immaturity, social isolation, instability, anger management, parenting skill deficits,…

Commonly not identified: Risks associated with child removal and state care - separation and loss of relations to parents, siblings, and extended family; risk of languishing as an unadoptable ward of the state; risk of maltreatment in a foster or adoptive home, or state facility; risk of being adopted by a family that harbors hostility toward the child's family of origin…

Why risks associated with PRT are not well articulated?

Those adversely effected are poor and stigmatized

Social class bias Institutional bias – i.e. adoption

incentive payments Differential consequences of

decisional errors

Perspectives on state intervention in child maltreatment (Melton et al, 2007)

“Child savers” (advocates)

“State intervention as harmful”

“Psychological parent theory” perspective

The Star Ledger, Saturday 11/16/85, pg. 1

The Star Ledger, Tuesday 11/19/85, pg. 1

State intervention as harmful…

As alleged in Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey et al (8/04/99 Children’s Rights Suit) …

See NJ Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Child Protection 5/28/02

As suggested in January 2003 Faheem Williams child abuse fatality DYFS prematurely closed the case

As reported in 2/12/04 Ryan et al (OCA) Report on the Jackson Family

Ryan et al (OCA) 2/12/04 Report on the Jackson Family

Child yr age lb in 10/03 lb in 2/5/04 BJ 12/91 7 43 48 (12) 45 48 82 54 KJ 1996 7 38 45 (7) 40 48 71 46 TJ 3/95 17m 28 31 (8) 28 38 43 41 MJ 8/95 17m 17 29 (8) 22 37 43 39

[Yr of placement; age; wt; ht; (yrs in home) wt; ht; 4 months post removal wt; ht]

Ryan et al (2004) findings and recommendations

Foster home approval process

Adoption approval process

Adoption subsidy program

Administrative disregard

Case IllustrationRespondent Mo, GB

The several minor children (aged 3-16) of GB were removed by the CPA due to alleged neglect. Reportedly GB left the children in a camp/shelter in her home country. GB’s mother sent GB’s 18 year-old daughter to retrieve the children and reported the case to the CPA. The children were separated in placements and the 3 oldest minor children were eventually placed with grandmother.

GB , continued 1

GB had immigrated to the US at age 15. She had been divorced twice. At the time the children were removed she was unemployed and homeless. She had a history of in-patient psychiatric treatment. There was a history of DV victimization and psychiatric records* indicated she had been assaultive & committed arson. There was also a report (though never substantiated) that a former husband had sexually molested one of her daughters. She was fluent in English and had a GED. 18 months after the removal GB gave birth to another child.

‘OB’, the “medically fragile” child Among the children removed was a 7

year-old male ‘OB’ with FtT and profound disabilities (scoliosis, developmental delays, cranio-facial and internal organ malformations) associated with Partial Trisomy 15, a congenital abnormality. This child had a 13 week hospitalization prior to placement at a state residential facility…

GB, continued 2

2 years after the removal a GC naming all the children was filed. However, the new born was not removed and a number of the younger children were eventually returned to GB’s care. The 3 oldest minor children remained with the grandmother. Also GB restored her self-employment income, obtained an apartment, and married the father of her youngest child. Essentially the state conceded that she had remedied the circumstances that led to the removal of the children. However, the PRT litigation proceeded with regard to the now 9 year-old, “medically fragile” male child .

GB, continued 3

The psychologist retained by the law guardian reported that the child, ‘OB’ was “highly needed and fragile” and required complex medical and education services. According to the psychologist, GB could not insure OB’s safety due to “a pattern of instability in multiple areas suggestive of borderline personality disorder*” and “(the child’s) health and safety could only be insured by not returning to his mother” …

Risks associated with state care

Division of Youth and Family Service

Division of Developmental Disabilities

Law Guardian’s Office