AN ACT CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS AND OPERATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.

To create a rebuttable presumption in favor of grandparents and other blood relatives in any proceeding prior to a termination of parental rights proceeding involving the care and custody of a child or youth, to protect the privacy of children under the department's care, to require notice to a municipality prior to a change in use of a facility previously operated by the department and to require contracts for the operation of residential facilities to contain certain provisions.

Carolyn Signorelli, Chief Child Protection Attorney, Commission on Child Protection, Office of the Chief Child Protection Attorney submitted written testimony: “I respectfully submit the following testimony in opposition to Raised Bill No. 5908, An Act Concerning Proceedings and Operations of the Department of Children and Families. Specifically p. 7, lines 180 to 187, p. 10, lines 284 to 286 p. 16, lines 480 to 490 and p. 21, lines 662 to 665 of the act, which establish a rebuttable presumption that placement with an intervening grandparent or blood relative is in the best interest of any child who is the subject of an Order of Temporary Custody, a disposition of commitment or Probate Court proceedings. This presumption can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence a burden of proof reserved for the serious legal consequence in child protection matters of a termination of parental rights. This burden unduly prejudices parents who may not agree with such a placement, as well as children who do not desire to be placed with a particular relative and diminishes the rights of these legal parites with respect to relatives who are not legal parties.

“Although on its face the proposal seems like a positive development for children to encourage placement with relatives, it severely departs from a long line of jurisprudence regarding parent's rights and child protection principles which establish that best interest determinations must be based upon an individualized assessment of the needs of children. This bill goes too far in asserting the benefits of blood ties over an above adequate safety, well-being and best interest assessments for children who have been subjected to abuse and neglect in their family settings and who have required the intervention of the state to protect them.

“The policies of the Department promoting the use of relative resources and the laws currently in place requiring notification of child protection proceedings to grandparents and permitting grandparent intervention in Orders of Temporary Custody hearings are sufficient to ensure that appropriate relatives are informed of and participate in juvenile court proceedings involving the protection and custody of children. Moreover, the Standards of Practice for Attorneys Representing Children in Child Protection Matters require children's attorneys to explore potential relative resources on behalf of their child clients. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Committee not act favorably on this bill.”

Department of Children and Families submitted written testimony: “The Department of Children and Families is opposed to H.B. No. 5908 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS AND OPERATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.

“Section 1 of this bill requires any state agency seeking to license or contract with a person or entity to operate a residential program in a facility, institution or home previously licensed by DCF to notify the chief executive officer of the applicable municipality about the change in the operation of the facility and to permit the legislative body of the municipality to approve the change.

“The Department opposes this language and brings to the Committee's attention the existing provision of Section 17a-145 of the General Statutes that sets forth a similar requirement. It reads: "If the population served at any facility, institution or home operated by any person or entity licensed under this section changes after such license is issued, such person or entity shall file a new license application with the commissioner, and the commissioner shall notify the chief executive officer of the municipality in which the facility is located of such new license application, except that no confidential client information may be disclosed." The Department and its providers fully comply with this statute when there is a proposal to change the existing population. The proposed bill, however, would essentially give veto power to a municipality for any change to the facility, including management structure and program modifications that are strictly internal to the facility. Thus, a municipality could use this language to cause the closure of a facility that is otherwise fully in compliance with state and local laws.

“In addition, the language of the proposed bill appears to be driven by the same concerns that often surface when agencies attempt to appropriately open small group homes in neighborhoods so that abused and neglected children and disabled adults can be safely served in their communities and in the least restrictive settings possible. As the Committee may be aware, it was this type of opposition and often misplaced fear of certain populations that resulted in the passage of Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 8-3a in 2005, which forbids municipalities from treating facilities with six or fewer residents any differently than it treats family residences, and which conflicts with the language of this bill.

“As research with special needs children has developed, best practices have evolved which suggest that they are often best served in small community-based settings. The Department is committed to working with communities so they can comfortably co-exist with the child caring facilities in their areas. However, the Department must strongly object to language that permits municipalities to ban any changes in the operation of such facilities within their borders.

“Section 2 of this bill requires DCF to include a provision in any contract with a residential provider requiring compliance with any state statute, regulation and local ordinance concerning the safety of residents and noise levels. The Department points out that Section 17a-145-54 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, which outlines the licensing regulations for these programs, already requires that these facilities comply with all state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations relating to building, health, fire protection, safety, sanitation and zoning. The Department regularly monitors all facilities' compliance with this regulation. The proposed language is duplicative and unnecessary.

“Section 3 removes language in the definition of "records" in the DCF confidentiality statutes relating to "activities related to a child while in the care or custody of the department." The Department is unclear why this language is being considered for removal. This language protects the confidentiality rights of our clients, both children and parents, who may be involved with us for reasons other than "child protection," but are nonetheless in our "care and custody." These populations include delinquent children and children with mental health needs who have not been neglected by their parents. The Department objects to removing this language as it is not in the best interests of Connecticut's children and families.

“Section 4 adds a requirement to the DCF confidentiality statute that requires Department employees to report unauthorized disclosure of confidential records by co-workers to the commissioner. While DCF has no objection to this modification, the intent behind the proposal is not entirely clear. Presently, Department employees are expected to maintain the strictest confidentiality, and there are multiple and redundant systems in place designed to prevent and/or identify such breaches. When such breaches do occur, they are swiftly dealt with through discipline of the involved employees. We would also like to draw your attention to HB 5131, An Act Amending the Statutes Concerning the Department of Children and Families, which has been favorably referred to the Human Services Committee from the Select Committee on Children, and suggest that this provision be discussed in the context of those amendments to DCF's confidentiality statute.

“Section 5 includes whistleblower protections for individuals that report unauthorized disclosure of confidential DCF records pursuant to section 4 of this bill. The Department supports this language.

“Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this bill create a rebuttable presumption that custody of a child to a grandparent or other "blood relative" in neglect/abuse proceedings in juvenile court is in the child's best interests. It also requires the Department (or parent) to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that custody to a relative is not in the child's best interests. The Department wholeheartedly supports the concept of placement of children with relatives whenever this is safely possible. In fact, Department policies and procedures require social work staff to diligently search for and assess relatives in every case where an out-of-home removal is necessary. However, the language of this bill as written will present some difficulties and confusion in practical application that will not necessarily be in the best interests of the children and families we serve.

“First, there is no definition of "blood relative" and no provision for non-blood relatives, such as stepparents, who may play a more significant role in a child's life. Additionally, the bill seeks to award "custody" rather than "guardianship" to a relative. Currently, "guardianship" is a well-understood concept in the juvenile court, while "custody" implies a legal relationship far more temporary and fraught with ambiguities, including, but not limited to questions regarding authority to make major decisions for the child. Further, this bill awards intervention in juvenile proceedings to certain parties as a matter of right. This is unnecessary as there are statutes, court rules and case law which clearly set forth the parameters of intervention and are routinely applied by the juvenile courts to accommodate third persons who are interested in providing care for a child who is the subject of a neglect/abuse petition. Finally, the standard of "clear and convincing" evidence set forth in this bill is not currently used in neglect/abuse cases; the proper standard of proof in such cases is "fair preponderance of the evidence."

“In addition to our concerns with the specific terms used in this bill, we must also point out that the language is unclear as to whether the drafters intended for the Department to provide foster care funds or guardianship subsidies when children are placed in the care of a relative under one of the proposed provisions. If that is the intent, the Department cannot support this bill as currently drafted. Numerous federal and state statutes and regulations control the process of licensing and paying foster care dollars to out of home care providers. Unless a relative who is awarded custody under this bill is in full compliance with these laws, the Department cannot financially support the placement which may, in turn, lead to additional difficulties for the family.

“Section 7 applies similar changes to guardianship and termination proceedings in probate court. While the Department is not usually a party in these cases and, therefore, has no position on the proposed language as it relates to those cases, we would like to note that there may be similar difficulties with some of the terms used in this bill.

“Again, the Department fully supports the concept of placing children with relatives whenever safely possible and consistent with the child's best interests. We are very willing to work with the Committee members and others who are similarly supportive to develop language that will reflect our mutual goals. To this end, we suggest simply amending the existing statutes to require the Department to give preference to specifically defined relatives or to present a detailed, written reasoning to the court specifying why such placement is not in the best interest of the child. “

Jeanne Milstein, Child Advocate, Office of the Child Advocate submitted written testimony: “It is critical that DCF reach out to relatives as early as possible, help families understand and engage in the process, and nurture positive relationships between adults who are important to the child, including not only blood relatives but also extended family, foster families, coaches and teachers. While DCF continues to struggle in this regard, I am very concerned with creating a presumption, as this bill proposes, that placement with grandparents or other relatives is in the best interest of the child. Decisions about placement of children who have been removed from their homes are complex. Every decision about placement and services must be an individualized decision based upon all of the information available and, most importantly, on a current assessment of the child's strengths and needs and the capacity of potential caregivers. Rather than creating a presumption that any particular type of placement is in the best interest of children, I urge you to continue your work to infuse results based accountability into the infrastructure of DCF.

“I urge you to take the same action with regard to Sections 1 and 2 of Raised Bill No 5908, which would require notice to a municipality prior to a change in use of a facility previously operated by the Department of Children and Families and that contracts for the operation of residential facilities to contain provisions to require providers to comply with any state statute, regulation and local ordinance concerning the safety of residents and noise levels.

“The 'DCF Monitoring and Evaluation' report (“PRIC Report”), issued in December 2007, is critical to our collective understanding of the functioning of the Department of Children and Families. The findings and recommendations are extensive. A number of findings are of significant concern and relevant to Sections 1 and 2 of the bill before you. They are:

● While there are pockets of strength regarding quality assurance, there are also major gaps including ineffective use of findings from internal and external evaluations and no compilation or comparison of results data from all sources. (p. 147)

● Performance-based contracting is ineffective: expectations are not explicit; where expectations are explicit, data is sometimes not submitted by the provider; and there is little accountability and knowledge of whether a provider is meeting contract expectations and rarely consequences when they do not. (p. 160-161)

● DCF monitoring of providers and implementation of contract requirements is haphazard at best, often relying on the interest and time available of the program lead, ranging from conscientious to vacant position. (p. 167)

“The findings and recommendations are consistent with the findings and recommendations in numerous reports issued by the Child Advocate over many years. These findings speak not only to the need for DCF to clearly set out expectations for providers and staff but also the need to the improve DCF's internal quality assurance activities, improve responsiveness to internal and external investigations and evaluations, to develop and implement a meaningful strategic plan, and to integrate the work of the various bureaus.

“As a consolidated children's agency, DCF's mandates are broad and far-reaching. While its mandate to care for and protect children who are abused and neglected is most often highlighted, DCF is equally mandated to serve as the lead mental health and juvenile justice agency for all of Connecticut's children. DCF also is responsible for leadership related to prevention initiatives. I am concerned that Sections 1 and 2, as currently drafted, may have the unintended consequence of hampering DCF's ability to respond to the variety of needs of the children and families it serves without bringing us any closer to results based accountability. It is my hope that any legislation regarding facilities operated by DCF will focus on the quality of care provided to the children.”

Stephen N. Ment, Deputy Director, External Affairs, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch submitted written testimony: “Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the Judicial Branch in opposition, in part, to House Bill 5908, An Act Concerning Proceedings and Operations of the Department of Children and Families. More specifically, the Branch opposes sections that create a rebuttable presumption favoring grandparents and other blood relatives in regards to caring for a child.

“As members of the Committee may be aware, any relative – including grandparents – are regularly investigated very quickly to determine whether their home would be suitable for the children. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) will investigate anyone that the parent asks to be investigated, and often investigates relatives who come forward even if the parents haven't asked.

“It is imperative, however, particularly if the relative seeks foster care benefits or guardianship subsidies from the state, that they meet federal qualifying requirements which are ascertained during the investigation. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what would occur if a number of relatives filed to intervene and seek custody; who would be afforded the presumption in this scenario?

“Under current law, children are frequently placed with suitable relatives very quickly. As this proposal unnecessarily elevates too wide a variety of individuals to a status of presumptive fitness, and would have reimbursement implications for them, we would respectfully request that the Committee not take action on this bill.”

Judge James J. Lawlor, Probate Court Administrator submitted written testimony: “I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of RB 5908 AAC the Proceedings and Operations of the Department of Children and Families as it pertains to the Probate Courts. My testimony concerns only sections 7 and 8. I make no comment as to the remaining provisions of the bill.

“This bill creates a rebuttable presumption that grandparents and other blood relatives are the preferred people with whom to place a child in the context of a proceeding for removal of parent as guardian. Our courts have long recognized that whenever possible, a child should be placed with those who are closest to the child, as opposed to placement in a foster home with strangers. Children face the trauma of losing their parents and, if the setting is appropriate, family members and other close relations can ease this transition.

“Currently the Probate Courts employ a de facto presumption similar to that proposed in the bill. Proceedings of this type in the Probate Courts are typically commenced by family members. This is in contrast to similar proceedings in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, which are generally instituted by the Department of Children and Families. Thus family members are involved throughout the proceedings. In those cases in which the child is required to be placed with someone other than the parents, our courts always look first to the family. The Probate Courts have no system of foster care for placement of the child. As a last resort, if no other suitable custodian or guardian can be found, the courts may award custody to DCF, which would, in turn, place the child in foster care. Such incidents are rare in the Probate Courts.

“We generally support the concept presented in sections 7 and 8 of the bill, reflecting as it does the current practice in the Probate Courts. We would, however, recommend some changes in the language used. Our suggestions are attached hereto.

“Section 7 proposes to amend §45a-607, concerning temporary custody. This section deals with the custody of the child during the period that an application for removal is pending in the court. As written, section 7 would create a presumption that the best interests of the child require placement with a relative that has been granted intervenor status. Clear and convincing evidence would be required to overcome that presumption. However, it must be recalled that temporary custody is acted upon early in the proceedings, prior to any removal of the parents. We do not believe that it is appropriate, before evidence is taken and before findings are made relative the fitness of the parents, to establish such a strong presumption that the child should be placed elsewhere. Accordingly, we believe that the presumption should be removed from section 7.

“Section 45a-614 permits an application for removal of parent as guardian to be filed by “any adult relative of the minor, including those by blood or marriage.” The experience in our courts has been that individuals related by marriage are often closely involved in the life of the child and function as much as family members as those related by blood. We would urge that sections 7 and 8 be amended to correspond to existing §45a-614, and include relatives by blood or marriage.

Terry Edelstein, President/CEO, Connecticut Community Providers Association submitted written testimony: “The Department of Children and Families contracts with community providers for a full array of services in order to meet the varied needs of Connecticut's children and families. Included in this spectrum of services are levels of care in which the children live in a provider operated facilities such as safe homes, various types of group homes and residential treatment facilities. Some of the children in these facilities and homes have complex behavioral health needs, while others are simply in need of a safe place to live. Regardless of the classification of any of these children, the fact remains that these are children who are best served in community-based settings close to their homes.

“Section 1 of H.B. 5908 would be extremely problematic for the system of DCF funded residential care. The provision that the legislative body of a municipality must approve any change in operation, feeds into the prejudice and discrimination against these children that builds in many communities prior to their experience with such facilities. Community providers and DCF often have to fight long difficult battles against such “not in my backyard” mentalities. The only loser in these battles are the children who may have to be diverted to alternative, less appropriate levels of care while they wait to see if the facility, designed to be their home is able to open.

“Section 2 of H.B. 5908 requires that DCF licensed residential facilities comply with “state statute, regulation and local” safety and noise ordinances. We do this as part of our mission to provide the best possible care for the children we serve, but also to be good neighbors in our communities. Complying with state and local ordinances doesn't need to be further legislated.

“We urge this committee to reject the language in Section 1 of H.B. 5908 as a barrier to meeting the needs of Connecticut's most vulnerable children and to also reject Section 2 of the bill as being unnecessary.”

Carolyn Signorelli, Chief Child Protection Attorney, Commission on Child Protection, Office of the Chief Child Protection Attorney

Stephen N. Ment, Deputy Director, External Affairs, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch

Bill No.:	HB-5908
Title:	AN ACT CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS AND OPERATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.
Vote Date:	3/18/2008
Vote Action:	Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date:	3/11/2008
File No.: