The heart wrenching scene in the Oscar nominated ’12 Years a
Slave’ where Eliza’s incessant crying over being separated from her children is
met with coldness by the mistress is, unfortunately, an accurate depiction of
how unsympathetic some women continue to be about the separation of poor,
mostly black mothers from their children via the child welfare system.
Just as the feminist movement came under fire during the civil
rights movement because its efforts to secure rights for American women often
neglected to address inequalities faced by women of color; women (mostly poor
and black) whose lives are torn apart by the child welfare system have been
left to their own devices by virtually every significant women’s group in this
country.
A large percentage of the professionals calling the shots
within the child welfare system are women, and many are not only OK with seeing
low income women lose their children based on subjective guidelines, a
significant number actually make many of the flawed decisions that sever
parental ties.
If I had not seen it with my own eyes, I would be hard
pressed to believe that a female dependency judge would disrespectfully
question a woman in open court about her reproductive habits; or rake a woman
whose been battered by an abusive mate across the coals about her ability to
keep her children safe. It takes blaming the victim to a whole new level when
the person blaming the victim is another woman.
The nation’s child welfare system is significantly imbalanced.
Far too many children come into the system when they could remain safely with
their families. And many children whose families are not capable of keeping
them safe are allowed to remain at home for reasons that frequently do not make
sense.
Presumptions about poor, mostly black families drive
decisions to remove children, the majority of whom enter the system due to
poverty-related issues that are lumped under the ambiguous label of “neglect.”
Most of these families are headed by poor, single mothers whose unemployment,
underemployment or dependence on public assistance affects their ability to
consistently meet their families’ needs.
Some of those unmet needs result in mothers - already
stretched unbelievably thin - making survival decisions that some people find
unacceptable enough to place a call to the abuse registry. A call that is
ostensibly intended to help children
and families instead prompts nightmarish experiences with double-standard fueled
hoops through which poor parents must jump in order to regain custody of their
children.
Deciding between going to work OR attending a parenting skills class
is an example of the ludicrous demands often placed on parents who must comply
with the system’s requirements or face having their rights terminated in the
pursuit of “permanency” for their children.
The fight to regain custody of children from the powerful
child welfare system is one that low income families lose frequently. Court
appointed legal representation is often nothing more than a suited body
standing in court; in many cases having met the family for the first time just
before the hearing.
Guardians Ad Litem, the powerful volunteer child advocates
that represent the “best interest” of the children sometimes lose sight of the
fact that children fare better with their families, regardless of the zip code
in which they live. And it is not uncommon, after
a family has complied with the system’s mandates, for them to be informed that
their child’s attachment to his/her foster parents must now be considered when
determining whether their family will be reunified.
In her brilliant, well-researched book, ‘Shattered Bonds: The
Color of Child Welfare,’ University of Pennsylvania professor Dorothy Roberts
spells out how poor black women are far more likely to have their children
taken away than white women, even if the concerns that brought each family to
the system’s attention were the same.
What the child welfare system does to many poor women is a
travesty and it’s beyond time for women’s groups to pay attention. The system’s
dysfunction perpetuates because of its legally sanctioned secrecy and its
ability to hide behind the veil of “confidentiality.” Also, the general public
assumes that when a family becomes involved with the system, it deserves to be
there. That is frequently not the case.
Michelle Hollinger is
the president of The Institute for Authentic Social Work and the author of TheABCs of Authentic Work with Families and 7 Steps to Strengthen Your Family.
Learn more about the Institute at www.authenticsocialwork.org.
