How Does the Child Protection Matrix Get Established by Congress?

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

In 1997, Congress passed, during the Clinton administration, the Adoption and Safe Families Act. – AFSA. It was intended to result – and it did result – in many American children passing out of the Foster-care system and into adoptive homes. (The legislation refers to “loving homes” but does not list criteria for judging the lovingness of the home.)

In 2003, the House Ways and Means Committee decided to review SAFA, as it costs the federal government money each year. Among other costs is the fact that the feds pay the state $4,000 for each child adopted out, or $6,000 if the child is categorized as special needs. (Note: the term “special needs” is not limited to disabilities – it has no particular definition.)

Thus in 2003 we find the House Ways and Means Committee holding a hearing.  You may expect that at a congressional hearing, persons who are well placed to offer advice will be invited as witnesses, or will themselves ask permission to give testimony. (Today Gumshoe would so ask!)

In the 2003 case, Congress announced that only invited experts would speak. And who might these be? They were the members of the Department of Health and Human Services, the HHS, the ones who administer the funding.

So let us begin with a premise that Congress, for some reason, wants the AFSA program to continue, and HHS wants to continue administering it. In that case all that would be needed to be communicated at the hearing is a lot of cheerleading for the program, no criticism of it, and no “outside voice,” such as that of the citizenry.

Granted, the CPS – Child Protection Service is not quite the same as the adoption program, but you will see here how the whole thing works.

It works by having a lock on its own reality, no matter how greatly this reality may deviate from the social norm. Of course in time it may become the social norm, with everyone obediently using the new language.

Matrix

That is known as living in a matrix. I am not referring to the woo-woo kind of matrix, or the movie by that name. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the noun matrix (plural: matrices) as “something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form.” The usage example given in that dictionary is: “an atmosphere of understanding and friendliness that is the matrix of peace.”

The matrix I am identifying is an atmosphere of acceptance that the government should place your kid in a home that is not your home. Whilst reading the transcript of the 2003 congressional hearing I was struck by the uniformity of thought. You may imagine that when a legislature reviews a program that came about from its law there will be a sort of re-evaluating of the original matter. But the chatter that I will display below is nothing like that.

Federalism

In Australia, the six states are allowed, under the  Constitution’s section 51, to “refer” their powers to the Commonwealth Parliament. i.e., “Canberra.” In the US there is not only no provision for referring, it is highly forbidden by the balance-of-powers mandate. When the Framers of the Constitution got together in 1787 they wanted to give to a national authority only those areas of legislating that could not practically be done by states.

Thus the Constitution’s Article I, section 8 gives the federal legislature its mission: it can address 18 topics all of which have to do with a nation, not a state.  For example, Congress can raise an army and can regulate immigration. It can also sort out the power-relations among the states to keep all 50 of them – sorry, all 13 of them – somewhat equal.  (There had been concern at the Convention that the biggest state, New York, would elbow its way into special privileges and powers.)

The idea of the federal legislature enacting laws that had to do with the family did not even get a mention; it was so anathema to the theme of the Republic that I believe no one thought to argue against it. The “matrix” of the day precluded it. Really, folks’ brains at that time were as unaware of governmental fiddling with personal matters as they were of motorcars.

Socialism, Bismarck, etc.

The first leader to organize a welfare state, with government paying money for the upkeep of needy citizens, was Otto von Bismarck in Germany in 1880.  Russia came up with the Marxist program of Communism in 1917, and the US, under the tutelage of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, brought in the Social Security Act of 1833 and the New Deal.

FDR’s plans, like that of the Bolsheviks and probably of Bismarck, were not “local.” They were part of a grand plan to reduce the status of the individual to a sort of atom. Such a statement by me can’t be argued here — please accept it tentatively. It’s the premise from which I

claim to explain the absolutely odd fact that we now have nationwide socialism in the US. The government knows your every move, your every medication, and now the mother-baby interaction.

States Rights

There is not the tiniest justification in the US Constitution for a “Adoption and Safe Families Act.” It should be thrown out by the US Supreme Court (whose job it is to guard the Constitution). It could also be thrown out by any or all of the 50 states.

So why do the states suffer this encroachment on their power?  I think it is because the 50 governors are under control. They do not get elected on talent or on an urge to protect their people.  They are adjuncts to the national power group (which probably helps them get elected.)

Granted it can be argued that the real drive of the Child Protection System is “federal funding.”  The Congress wrongly offers bribes to states to give up sovereignty. “Do what we want and your state will receive funds.”  The governor can then explain to critics at home that he can’t refuse those funds as the state is desperate for them.

As an aside I might mention that, among the citizenry, it should be members of the Republican party who would  stick up eagerly for states’ rights and state sovereignty, but the parties, too, have become controlled at a national level.

The Hearing in 2003

I will now present an extremely abridged version of the transcript from the April 8, 2003 hearing in which the House Ways and Means Committee “rethought” its law, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997).

Please note that although the following text is an abridgement, all the pieces that ended up on the cutting room floor are virtually identical to what you see here.  The persons on both side of the table kept saying exactly the same thing. In a nutshell they said “This program is a smashing success.”

In line with my foregoing flap about states rights, let me call your attention to something about the HHS. Namely, no such entity as a “Department of Health and Human Services” should exist in the US government. (Nor should a Department of Education and a few others.)

Opening Statement of The Honorable Benjamin Cardin, a Representative in Congress from Maryland

[Warning: you will be bored to death.  Bolding added to help revive you]:

The 1997 Act was designed to ensure the safety of children who come into contact with the child welfare system and to expedite permanency for children living in foster care. The legislation amended the existing Federal child welfare law to require that a child’s health and safety be of ‘‘paramount’’ concern in any efforts made by the State to preserve or reunify the child’s family. The legislation also included a provision to ensure that necessary legal procedures occur expeditiously, so that children who cannot return home may be placed for adoption or another arrangement quickly. Finally, the 1997 legislation also created the Adoption Incentives program that rewards to States that increase their numbers of adoptions from foster care…

The 1997 Act was followed up two years later with the Foster Care Independence Act, another bipartisan product from this Committee. The legislation increased funding for services for youths who were ‘‘aging out’’ of foster care and expanded State flexibility to design programs to improve the transition of older foster children from State custody to independent living….

Mr. CAMP. If I might, just for a second, this legislation, which former Member Barbara Kennelly and I worked very hard on—I agree with much of what the Chairman and Mr. Cardin have said, that it was really brought about when we saw that the way the Social Security Act was being implemented did not really protect children and families. So, we came up with this legislation to do that.I am looking forward to your testimony, Dr. Horn, about the recommendations that you might have to enhance the Act….

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WADE F. HORN, PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Dr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you and this Committee to discuss the implementation of ASFA.

As many of you know, I’m a clinical child psychologist, and I have devoted my professional career to improving the well-being of children. I have a longstanding interest in child welfare policy and practice, and like all of you, I am committed to improving the delivery of child welfare services throughout the country.

The passage of ASFA represented a landmark in child welfare reform, and while there is evidence of positive change resulting from ASFA, there also are clear indications that the goals of ASFA remain elusive for far too many children and families. Therefore, it is important that we continue to work together to seek improvements in Federal child welfare programs.

The ASFA was significant for several reasons. The Act clearly stated that the goals of the child welfare system were safety, permanency, and well-being, and it removed any ambiguity that safety of children is the paramount concern that must guide all child welfare services. Advancing these goals, ASFA provided numerous tools to States and the Federal Government to bring about systemic reforms regarding safety, permanency, adoption promotion, improved services, and accountability.

Since the passage of ASFA, the Administration for Children and Families has worked diligently to fully implement these reforms. We have worked with the States to bring their laws and policies into compliance with ASFA….

One of the strengths of this legislation is its emphasis on tracking results for children and families. As required by ASFA, HHS consulted with State officials, advocates, researchers, and other experts, and developed a set of national child welfare outcome measures to track State performance.

We also have continued to work with States to improve information systems and increase the quantity and quality of data that States collect and report. We have, for example, made significant investments in the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS) resulting in 29 States with comprehensive operational systems. [It] shows some positive trends and results, most notably in the area of adoption. The number of children adopted from foster care grew from 31,000 in 1997 to 50,000 in 2001.

Finally, our new system for monitoring child welfare services, the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), is the cornerstone of our efforts to review State performance and ensure compliance with key provisions of the law…. It also is our means to partner with the States in identifying areas that need improvement….

Finally, I would like to briefly mention another proposal we have put forward to strengthen the child welfare system, a new State child welfare program option that would give States the opportunity to receive their Title IV–E foster care funds as a flexible, fixed allotment that can be used to support a range of child welfare services. We believe that this option will … relieve States of unnecessary administrative burdens.

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Ms. ASHBY. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me …

My testimony will address four issues: changes in outcomes and characteristics of children in foster care from ASFA’s enactment through fiscal year 2000; States’ implementation of ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions; States’ use of ASFA’s adoption-related funds; and practices States use to address barriers to achieving permanency for children in foster care….

Tidbits

Dear Reader, there is no point in continuing to print this repetitive stuff.  In the remaining text I did find a few interesting bits, namely:

“For children who have been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months, the law required States to initiate proceedings to terminate parental rights, except in specified circumstances…”

“States we visited have implemented several of these practices to overcome barriers to interjurisdictional adoptions. In Oregon, the state child welfare agency works with neighboring states in the Northwest Adoption Exchange to recruit adoptive parents for children with special needs. In Texas, the state contracts with private agencies to place foster care children with out-of-state adoptive families. In

Illinois, the state works with a private agency in Mississippi to conduct home studies because families in Mississippi adopt many Illinois children.”

How the Matrix Is Formed

At GumshoeNews we have been using many approaches to find out why so many Protective parents have had their child removed. At times we have fallen into the habit of saying “There are so many pedophiles out there, and criminal rackets, that this must be what causes the prevalence of governmental child-stealing. It’s human nature.”

Yet we know that it’s also human nature for people to look out for kids – surely that is a well-known instinct – and we know that reasonableness is also a human urge. But the chatter at the hearings is not reasonable.  It’s not what the citizen thinks would occur there. All 435 Representatives must by now have received pleas from constituents as to the horrible things that are done by CPS. Yet no word of it is spoken on Capitol Hill. Lip service is paid, such as in frequent mention of “good outcomes” but this excludes any emotion.

I hypothesize that there is a ruling matrix. Mr Cardin, Mr Camp, Mr Wade, and Ms Ashby are the four persons we heard from. Somehow their brains have gotten into an entrainment – I can’t think of the exact word for it. When asked to comment on the law, the ASFA, they automatically talk in that formulaic manner.

I envision them living in a matrix. In it, they can be utterly impervious to the logic of children suffering by removal from the parents. “State compliance” is a greater goal – and it is not even a proper goal, as I have said, it is unconstitutional. But the matrix makes it seem OK.

Allow me, in a later article, to show that there is also a matrix in the judiciary. And what could be more frightening than that!