Hon. ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Social Service and the International Community, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MAZZOLI: Thank you for your letter of August 30 inviting me to submit a statement for inclusion in the record of the August 14 hearings on child abuse legislation for the District of Columbia, namely H.R. 15779 and H.R. 15918. I regret being out of the city and on my way to a judicial assignment at the behest of the National Center for State Courts on the day of your hearings. My original interest in the subject of termination of parental rights has a long history based on fourteen years on the bench of the D. C. Juvenile Court. It culminated in my letter to your colleague, Congressman Gilbert Gude, on June 18, 1974. Enclosed is a copy of this letter and of the accompanying judicial opinion which I wrote earlier this year involving the termination of parental rights and adoption of a child. Although I support Titles I and II of H.R. 15779, my particular interest involves Title III. This proposed legislation is the first serious attempt to spell out in statutory language certain judicial steps that must be taken in cases where the termination of parental rights is sought. I am in favor of the principle of Title III of H. R. 15779 which establishes standards for judicial termination of parental rights. However, I believe that Title III needs amendment in certain respects. As presently drafted Section 2322 (g) provides for a hearing to consider termination of parental right in every case of a child adjudicated neglected or abused and also provides for subsequent repeated hearings semi-annually in all such cases. The Annual Juvenile Statistical Report for fiscal year 1973 shows there were 651 such adjudications in that year. S. R. A. records will further indicate that there are now more than 5,000 children being provided for as neglected or abused children by the D. C. Department of Human Resources. The burden of such mandatory semi-annual hearings in all cases will be serious for the Superior Court and ought to be carefully considered before being imposed by legislation. I recommend that the presently proposed Section 2322 (h) be redesignated as subsection (g) with the present subsection (g) following as subsection (h). The new provision (h) would then state, as a preamble. "If a request for termination of parental rights was incorporated in a petition for abuse or neglect as provided for under subsection (g) above, a hearing shall be held." This would avoid the necessity of holding hearings in all cases of abused or neglected children and would limit the judicial process to those cases where termination of parental rights was requested. A vital factor to be considered by a judge in determining whether to terminate parental rights is the prospective placement of the child through adoption or in a foster home. In my 17 years of judicial experience on the Juvenile Court and in the Superior Court often dealing with neglected and abused children. I have found there is a tendency to consider the termination of parental right punitively and in a vacuum, without comparing the child's present situation to his prospective placement if parental rights are terminated. This has frequently been done because of an exaggerated concern for the privacy of adoption proceedings. I seriously believe that a judge should not terminate parental rights of a child without considering whether or not he can or will reasonably be expected to be adopted. Thus I would suggest adding as factor (5) to the proposed Section 2322 (g) the following: "(5) Whether or not the child may reasonably be expected to be adopted into a more adequate family situation if the child's existing parental rights are terminated." Probably the most significant amendment to Title III which I recommend relates to the judicial procedures in subsection (i) designed to insure adoption of the child. Proposed Section 2322(i) is an ex post facto method of requiring the Department of Human Resources or other agency to follow through on its promise to place the child for adoption. All too frequently judges are persuaded to terminate the parental rights of a child, but the hoped-for adoption never materializes. Instead of a provision such as Section 2322(i). I recommend to you that the legislation be redrafted so that the Court may enter an interlocutory decree terminating parental rights on condition that the child be adopted within a given period of time (perhaps six months or one year). I realize that the long history of adoption and the complementary process of termination of parental rights has always dealt with such judicial matters as final and irrevocable. I think this has been unwise and has often created situations in which the child's best interests have been seriously harmed by a well meaning decision to terminate parental rights which did not result in the child being adopted. Since the first action was intended to be coupled with the adoption, I believe it could have and should have been an interlocutory judicial action. Under present procedures there is no responsible way to undo the mischief if the termination of parental rights was effected and the adoption does not come to pass. I believe that the responsible use of interlocutory decrees in such matters has considerable precedent in both legal and social procedures and recommend that you consider redrafting the provision accordingly. In conclusion, I am pleased to see that Congressmen Stark, Stuckey and Fraser in their bill (H.R. 15779) have begun to wrestle with the difficult problems of judicial termination of parental rights and have set forth some beginning standards for its application by judges. Although Title III is included in a bill which deals chiefly with child abuse, it seems clear that the procedures proposed are generally applicable to all cases where children are found to be neglected or abused and need to be removed from their existing family situations. I sincerely hope that you will provide further opportunity for myself and other interested persons in the judicial, legal and social fields to express their views as to what standards of due process should be established for the exercise of the awesomejudicial responsibility of terminating parental rights of a child. Sincerely yours, ORMAN E. KETCHAM. APPENDIX TO TESTIMONY OF AUGUST 14, 1974, SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGARDING H.R. 15779 AND H.R. 15918, SEPTEMBER 16, 1974 Submitted by: Dr. Annette Heiser-Ficker and Mrs. Barbara Steele, MSW, the Child Abuse Team, Children's Hospital National Medical Center. During the oral testimony of August 14, you requested a profile of a family situation in which a child was considered in imminent danger of abuse at which point emergency removal of the child from that family should be considered. In response may I refer you to the attached "Guidelines for Early Recognition of Neglecting, Battering Families" and to the book by Kempe and Helfer, Helping the Battered Child and His Family. Most relevant chapters in the book are 1, 4, 5, 15, 16 and 17. We find the observations noted in the "Guidelines" and in the book generally helpful and valid in our assessments of families. We would however caution against isolating one or two observations as sufficient evidence of a dangerous environment for a child; observations must be considered in the context of all information known about that child and that family. Please note Chapter 1 of the book for a discussion of criteria for safe return of a child to its family. With regard to even earlier prediction of children at risk for abuse and/or neglect there has been some interesting work. Included in this is the Predictive Questionnaire also reported in Helping the Battered Child. . . . Appendix A. Looking to the issue of termination of parental rights, which is given appropriate attention in H.R. 15779 and H.R. 15918, I would make several points. It is very proper that an eventual law address this issue in order to prevent the children we 'save' from remaining in the limbo of temporary foster care until adulthood. A court review to consider termination of parental rights should be held within 6 months of removal from the parents' custody regardless of the age of the child. Such review should carefully consider the individual situation. A common consideration should be whether the parents show some capacity to change the family environment through services appropriately and genuinely made available to them. A time period of such change can however, only be determinated individually with respect given to the child's age and developmental needs. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to present our views on this long awaited legislation. GUIDELINES FOR EARLY RECOGNITION OF NEGLECTING, BATTERING FAMILIES EXTRACTED FROM: "TOWARD PREVENTION OF CHILD ABUSE" (By: Marion G. Morris, Robert W. Gould, Patricia J. Matthews) (CHILDREN, March-April 1964)-Information Bulletin, M.C.D.S.S., February 1974. Guidelines for Early Recognition of Neglecting, Battering Families I. Contrasting attitudes and reactions between nurturing, protective parents and battering parents upon admission of their child to a hospital for treatment of injuries. A. Typical reactions and attitudes of protective parents to children's injuries: 1. Are voluble and spontaneous in reporting details of child's illness or injury. 2. Show concern about the treatment. 3. Show concern about the degree of damage. 4. Show concern about the possibility of residual damage. 5. Exhibit a sense of guilt. The younger the child, the more guilt the parents feel for not protecting him. Guilt and remorse are felt even when the parents have had no part in the child's injury. 6. Ask many questions regarding the prognosis of the child's condition. 7. Have difficulty on detaching from child on admission. 8. Attempt restitution through frequent visiting, toys and other gifts, in apology to the child. 9. Ask questions about discharge date. 10. Ask questions regarding follow-up care. 11. Identify with the child's feelings, both physical and emotional, when he is injured. 12. Are positively related to the child. B. Typical reactions and attitudes of neglecting, battering parents to children's injuries: 1. Do not volunteer information about the child's illness or injury. 2. Are evasive or contradict themselves regarding the circumstances under which the child's condition occurred. 3. Show irritation at being asked about the development of the child's symp、 toms. 4. Critical of the child and angry with him for being injured. 5. Give no indications of feeling guilt or remorse regarding the child's condi· tion. 6. Show no concern about the injury. 7. Show no concern about the treatment. 8. Show no concern about the prognosis. 9. Often disappear from the hospital during examination or shortly after the child is admitted. 10. Tend not to visit the child in the hospital. 11. Seldom touch the child or look at the child. 12. Do not involve themselves in the child's care in the hospital. 13. Do not inquire about the discharge date. 14. Ask to have child home only when interrogation has frightened them. 15. Do not ask about follow-up care. 16. Shows concern not about the child but about what will happen to themselves and others involved in the child's illness or injury. 17. Maintain that the child has injured himself. 18. Act as though the child's injuries are an assault on them. 19. Fail to respond to the child or respond inappropriately. 20. Give no indication of having any perception of how a child could feel. physically or emotionally. 21. Constantly criticize the child. 22. Never mention any good quality in the child. 23. Show no conception of the rights of others. 24. Are preoccupied with themselves and the concrete things in life. 25. Are often neglectful of their own physican health. 26. Exhibit violent feelings and behavior and in interviewing reveal that this was a pattern in their original family. 27. Reveal in the interviewing that they are concerned about having been abandoned and punished by their own parents and are longing for a mother. 28. Show overwhelming feelings that they and their children are worthless. C. Typical forms of behavior of well-nurtured children in a hospital: 1. Cling to parents when they are brought in. 2. Turn to their parents for assurance. 3. Turn to their parents for comfort during and after the examination and treatment. 4. Constantly show by words and action that they want their parents and want to go home. 5. Are reassured by their parents' visits. Children in this group do not have the total situation under inspection at all times for safety's sake. They find safety in their parents. D. Typical forms of behavior of neglected and battered children in the hospital: 1. Cry hopelessly under treatment and examination. 2. Cry very little in general. 3. Do not look to parents for assurance. 4. Show no real expectation of being comforted. 5. Are wary of physical contact initiated by parents or anyone else. 6. Are apprehensive when other children cry and watch them with curiosity. 7. Become apprehensive when adults approach some other crying child. 8. Seem less afraid than other children when admitted to the wards and settle in quickly. 9. Seem to seek safety in sizing up the situation rather than in their parents. 10. Are constantly on the alert for danger. 11. Are constantly asking in words and through their actions what will happen next. 12. Are constantly in search of something: food, favors, things, services. 13. Ask, "When am I going home?" or announce, "I'm not going home," rather than crying "I want to go home." 14. Assume a flat "poker face" when discharge, home is mentioned or taking place. In general, cared for children turn to their parents for safety in life. Neglected and battered children endure life as if they are alone in a dangerous world with no real hope of safety. II. Sample questions designed to evaluate margins of safety for child under parental care and probability of recurrence of neglect and/or abuse: 1. What is a parent's own estimate of current life needs as they are filled or threatened by children's need for care? 2. Did this parent have positive role connections with society before his parenthood? 3. What are this parent's feeling about his own childhood? 4. What are this parent's feelings about his own parents? 5. Has this parent ever identified with the nurturing parent role? 6. How strong is this parent's motivation to be connected to society by a social role? which role? as an adult "child," a worker, a parent? 7. How does this parent respond to a child's everyday needs? as natural and acceptable? as simple interference? as assaultive and oppressive? 8. Does this parent attribute irrational degrees of motivation, responsibility and judgment to an infant or a young child? 9. Do these parents expect a child to protect them instead of their protecting him? 10. Does this parent admit any responsibility in the child's neglect and abuse? 11. Is this child held completely responsible for the neglect and abuse? DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request of July 10, for a report on H.R. 15779 and related measures, a bill "To establish an agency for the prevention of child abuse in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.” This bill would authorize the establishment of a Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse to coordinate efforts of all public and private resources in the District of Columbia to protect the health, safety and welfare of the child concerned, to prevent further abuse, and, whenever possible, to preserve the existing family unit. The Director of the Center is directed to establish and maintain a supportive program for families, to establish and maintain training and information programs for professionals and the public, and to file an annual report. The Center staff must include at least one full-time multidisciplinary team of experts and an Office of General Counsel. Persons may come to the Center voluntarily for treatment or counselling in matters related to child abuse or neglect. The Center is to maintain a confidential registry of alleged child abuse or neglect and cooperate with State and local agencies in the development of regional and national registers. H.R. 15779 also provides for a fair hearing to guarantee a person's right to have a record amended, sealed or expunged. The bill further requires that medical personnel, school officials, teachers, social service workers and day care center workers must report suspected abuse of a child under 18 years of age to the police or the Director. However, any person may report suspected abuse. The special police unit must be notified of all reports; the unit then must promptly investigate and report its findings back to the Center. There is a standard immunity from liability clause, a waiver of the privileges of confidentiality between husband and wife and between professional persons (except lawyer-client) and a criminal penalty for failure to report. Also, the bill defines numerous terms including "neglected child" and "abused child." Its final provisions are amendments to the judicial procedure concerning child custody. H.R. 15779 has as its objective the achievement of a coordinated and cooperative effort of all resources, public and private, in the District of Columbia. However, by authorizing a separate Center, it raises the question of whether the District would continue to meet the requirement of a single State agency for eligibility for funds under title IV-A of the Social Security Act. We believe that the sections of the bill providing for an annual report by the Center Director and the provision of training and information programs are commendable. It is also noteworthy in providing for self-referrals. As for the amendments to the judicial procedure concerning child custody, these provisions are foresighted and progressive. The bill mandates the assignment of a guardian ad litem for the child. However, it is our opinion that it would be preferable to require the assignment of a lawyer to represent the interests of the child. The provisions in the bill for expungement, sealing, and amendment of material in the register are unclear and seem disconnected. Also, the provision granting access to the registry information by any person identified in the report excludes any provision for withholding certain identifying information about persons cooperating in the investigation. This omission is potentially dangerous. With respect to reporting suspected incidence of abuse and neglect, the bill permits reporting either to the police or the Director. Consideration should be given to requiring that reports be made to one agency to avoid fragmentation of responsibility. Also, the provision permitting reporting by outsiders is limited to abuse and should also include neglect. We feel that the non-criminal nature of child abuse and neglect should be emphasized and, therefore, that social workers rather than police should make all preliminary investigations. Particularly in neglect cases, police investigations do not seem appropriate. The responsibility of determining the causes of abuse and neglect, determining the stability of the family, and the quality of home environment and relationship of the child to parents or persons responsible for care is that of the social worker rather than the police. Consideration should be given to deleting the requirement of a judicial decision by the Family Division of the Superior Court in the waiving of the privilege of confidentiality since, in most States, this is automatic. While there is a criminal penalty provided in the bill for failure to report, a civil liability should also be considered. The definition of persons required to report should be expanded to include law enforcement, police and peace officers. Similarly, the definitions should include the age of a child, with consideration given to conforming this bill with the provision of P.L. 93-247 by setting the age at 18 years. If, in the definition of the category of persons alleged to have neglected children, it is the intent to reach paramours and others regularly in the child's household, the definition needs to be broadened. Care must be taken, however, that such a broadened |