| Family's should be permitted a court hearing (within 24 hours) under all circumstances if a child protection agency forces/coerces anyone to leave their home or otherwise deprive them of rights to their children. Parents should have a right to address the court and see if there are alternatives, i.e. such as a neighbor or family member agreeing to do daily checks and the child protection agency doing unannounced checks on child as well. Or to show that child is visible to community lowering the safety risk. It should not be considered "voluntarily left home" if told to leave or we will take your children. |
| Florida State Statute 39.301 requires that a
child protective investigator inform any subject upon commencement of an
investigation of the following:
1. The names of the investigators and identifying credentials from the department. 2. The purpose of the investigation. 3. The right to obtain his or her own attorney and ways that the information provided by the subject may be used. 4. The possible outcomes and services of the department's response shall be explained to the parent or legal custodian. 5. The right of the parent or legal custodian to be involved to the fullest extent possible in determining the nature of the allegation and the nature of any identified problem. The above information should be required to be provided in a procedural/rights pamphlet to involved parties and should additionally include the following:
|
| Veil of Immunity should be lifted. Child
Protection Investigators and Child Protection Team Doctor's should not
be immune from liability. Where are the checks and balances to ensure
a fair and impartial assessment is made.
Florida State Statute 39.011 Immunity from liability states: (1) In no case shall employees or agents of the department or a social service agency acting in good faith be liable for damages as a result of failing to provide services agreed to under the case plan unless the failure to provide such services occurs as a result of bad faith or malicious purpose or occurs in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property. (2) The inability or failure of the department or of a social service agency or the employees or agents of the social service agency to provide the services agreed to under the case plan shall not render the state or the social service agency liable for damages unless such failure to provide services occurs in a manner exhibiting wanton or willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property. (3) A member or agent of a citizen review panel acting in good faith is not liable for damages as a result of any review or recommendation with regard to a dependency matter unless such member or agent exhibits wanton and willful disregard of human rights or safety, or property. |
| There should be an independent review board, similar to a police department’s internal affairs to ensure adherence to established regulations and policies. |
| Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.071 deals with testimony presented through “Use of Communication Equipment”. The rule states all parties have to agree to permit testimony through video or telephonic conference when an expert witness is unable to travel. This leaves open the ability of the Child Protection Agency to block testimony with no other reason other than it could be detrimental to their case. |
| The burden of proof should be changed from preponderance of the evidence (51% certainty) to a higher standard such as clear and convincing. |
| The accused parent should not have to pay an expert witness fee to a Child Protection Team Doctor to appear for deposition in an attempt to prepare for court. This should be compensated as part of their normal duties. |
| The accused parent should not have to pay expert witness fees to compel a doctor to testify, who medically treated child and also should only be appropriately compensated as part of their job. If parent is required to pay these fees there should be a cap on amount parent can be billed. It is reasonable for a parent to be required to pay fees associated with a separate expert whom they independently hire to review the records. But it appears unreasonable for a parent to have to pay an unusually high witness fees to a doctor needed to testify on their behalf due to treatment provided. |
| Arraignment and Adjudicatory Hearings should be conducted sooner if circumstances show it is necessary for the well-being and best interest of child. Currently it is only if the child is sheltered. The Child Protection System does not appear to take into consideration the impact on the family and their ability to adapt in determining the best interest of the child. Should have to look at how decision is going to impact and if solutions can be made. |
| Families going through a dependency hearing should be afforded all the rights to due process as afforded in a criminal proceeding. |
| If a child abuse investigation leads to no criminal charges or a finding of not guilty and a dismissal in juvenile court for dependency, the report should not still be able to be closed out by the Child Protection System as verified abuse. Currently, even if criminal charges aren’t filed and a civil dependency case is dismissed, the Child Protection System can still label a suspect as a confirmed child abuser. |
| The family should be automatically notified of the outcome of investigation and provided a copy of the completed report. Most people would assume their name had been cleared if they had been cleared in a criminal and civil proceeding and may not find out differently until months maybe years later when it may effect an employment opportunity or adoption proceeding. By the time you become aware of the labeling it diminishes your chances of fighting the label through an administrative hearing due to not contesting the finding in a timely manner. |
| The Child Protection System should be required to provide written verification of an approved home study/background check which allows a child to be supervised or reside with alternate adults during a dependency hearing. This avoids the potential possibility of a different employee being unaware that a home was approved and inappropriately removing the child or claiming the parents violated the conditions of placement. If a home or person was not approved they should also be notified in writing of the denial and purpose. |
| The Child Protection System should have to show probable cause for each child or a direct correlation and show that they are in imminent danger before prohibiting at a minimum supervised parental contact. |
| The Child Protection Investigators should have more training on investigative procedures and laws. |
| Each Child Protection System's policies and procedures should be on-line and easily accessible for public review. An alleged abuser should be provided the internet address to review the policies or informed on how to obtain a copy of the procedures. |
| The legal statutes and/or the Child Protection System's policies should be more specific in describing what information stemming from a child abuse investigation is confidential and subject to criminal penalties if knowingly released to a third party. It should list whether all documents and their contents, verbal communications, court documents, correspondence with the inspecting general's office regarding a complaint of investigation, etc. are all protected information. The only area specifically stated by statute is that the reporter initiating the alleged abuse complaint through the abuse registry is to remain confidential. All information that is legally provided to an alleged abusive parent should be able to be disseminated to a third party. If the alleged abuser is a third party then the court should consider their right to privacy. |
| Law enforcement should maintain all investigative aspects of an alleged child abuse/neglect report. The Child Protection System should only be able to assess child safety and provide services. If law enforcement closes their investigation as unfounded, the Child Protection System should not be able to verify findings of abuse. This indicates a separate assessment and finding such as establishing guilt and can have strong repercussions to the family. |