Child Protection’s Parental Preference

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 24 | Issue 3 Child Protection’s Parental Preference Daniel Heimpel Repository Citation Daniel Heimpel, Child Protection’s Parental Preference, 24 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 755 (2016), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol24/iss3/10 Copyright c 2016 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Article 10 CHILD PROTECTION’S PARENTAL PREFERENCE * Dani elHei mpel INTRODUCTION InMarch2015,adozenchi ldwelfareexpert svi sit ed Wil li am & MaryLaw Schooli nVi rginiaforasymposi um provocat i velyt i t led“TheLi beralDil emmain 1 Chi ldWel fareReform. ” I washappyt ohavebeenchosent ojoi nt hegroup,whi chrangedfrom law professorstosoci alworkinstruct orst oajournal i stl i kemyself. Al thoughsomewi l lbl anchatt heti t l eoft heconferenceandfurt herrecoi lfrom t heideassharedint hepagesoft hi ssymposi um i ssue,oneoft heevent ’sorganizers, Wi ll i am & Mary’sJamesDwyer,wasont osomethingveryi mport ant . 2 Li beral -mindedpeopl erulet hefi eldofchi l dwel fare. Thi si sunderst andable. 3 Chi l dmalt reat menti shi ghl ycorrel atedwi thpoverty. Povert yi shighlycorrel at ed 4 wit hrace. Andthest ruct uralracism thatconsignscert ai nAmericanpopul at i onst o hi gherrat esofpovert yand,correspondi ngl y,higherratesofchi l dmalt reat ment , cal l sforasoci aljust icedri venresponsenott ypi cal l yconsi deredt heprovenanceof 5 conservati vei deol ogy. Andsoi twoul dseem t hatal i beralmi ndsetwoul dnat ural l yfast ent ochi l dprot ect i onandservet hei nt erest sofchi l drenwhohavebeen,orareatri skofbei ng,abused. Buti fwearet otakeastrutht heargument swrit t eni nt hi ssymposi um i ssueand whichweresharedduringthe2015symposium,thel iberalmindsetmaybeunwilli ng,duetoi deol ogicalrigi di t yandaholl owedempi ricalfoundati on,tochoosethe bestinterestoft heabusedchi ldovert hei nt erestofanabusi ngparent. * Lect urer,GoldmanSchoolofPubl icPol icy,Uni versit yofCali fornia,Berkel ey. 1 Symposi um,The Liberal Dilemma in Child Welfare Reform,24WM.& MARY BILL RTS.J.595–772(2016). 2 El i zabet hBart hol et ,Thoughts on the Liberal Dilemma in Child Welfare Reform,24WM. & MARY BILL RTS.J.725,725 (2016)[herei naft erBartholet ,Thoughts on the Liberal Dilemma]. 3 See ANDREA J.SEDLAK ET AL. ,U. S.DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS. ,FOURTH NATIONAL INCIDENCE STUDY OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT ( NIS-4):REPORT TO CONGRESS 11–12(2010). 4 See U. S.DEP’T OF EDUC. ,NCES 2015-144,THE CONDITION OF EDUCATION 2015,at 52–54(2015). 5 See JamesG.Dwyer,Diagnosing Liberal Resistance to Needed Child Welfare Reforms,24WM.& MARY BILL RTS.J.595,595(2016)(expl ai ningt hatconservati vest endto “opposespendingonprogramst hatcoul dli ftpeopleoutofpovert yandhel pthem recover from adverseexperi ences”). 755 756 WILLIAM & MARY BILL OF RIGHTS JOURNAL [Vol .24: 755 Inst ead,accordi ngtosomeoft heconferencepart i cipant s,t heli beral swhol ead chi l dwel fareprefert oi nsi stondefendingparent s’ri ght s,eveni fthoseri ght shave 6 beencompromi sedbyparent albehavi ort hatvi ol atest heri ght soft hei rchil dren. This,accordi ngt oconferencepart ici pantDavi dSt oesz,iscompoundedbythe degradednat ureofmodernsoci alworkeducat i on,whi chhas,i npost moderni stfervor, t hrownouti nst it ut i onalknowl edgeandsci encein favorofnarrat i vesoft heop7 pressedandasoftsetof“val ues. ” Devoi dofsci ent ifi cfoundat ion,l iberals,trai nedi nsoci alwork,latchontoa 8 soci aljust i cei deologywhi chispart i all ybl i nd. Whi l et heyseet heparent ageri ght s ofimpoverishedadul tswhomayal sobet hevi ct imsofstruct uralandgenerational raci sm i n st ark rel i ef,t hey st ruggleto di scern how t hei rdefenseofthoseadul t s’ 9 ri ght scanhavel i fet imeconsequencesorbedownri ghtdeadl yforchil dren.Tot he l iberalmi nd,soci aljusti ceforchil drendependsoni mprovi ngt heli vesofparent s.10 AsEl i zabet hBarthol etargues,suchaparent-firsti deol ogyi sbui l tonfaul ty 11 research,andcanhavet erribleconsequencesforchi l dren. Themajori tyoft hepart i cipantsatt heconferencearguedformoreassert i vel y usi ngt hecoerci vepoweroft hestatet oenforceconst rai nt sagai nstparentswhoare 12 knownt obeat hreatt ot hei rchi l dren. But ,ast heydescri bewi t hpreci si on,al t hough l awsexi stt hatl eanfurthert owardt herightsoft hechi ld,t hei ri nt erpret ati onbychi l d 13 welfarepract i ti onersoft enstri pst hoselawsoft hei rchi ld-prot ecti vepower. 6 See, e.g.,DavidSt oesz,How the Li berat iSabotaged Child Welfare,24WM.& MARY BILL RTS.J.603,603–04(2016). 7 See id. at611–12. 8 See id. at612–13. 9 See id. at614. 10 Barthol et,Thoughts on the Liberal Dilemma,supra not e2,at725–26. 11 See id. at726,732(arguingt hatthel iberalresearchbehindt hechi l dwel farereform movement sdoesnotfocusonachi l d’sbesti nt erest s,butrat herdemonst rat est hatt heprograms “aresuccessfulintermst hatwi llpersuadepoli cymakerstoadoptthem”aswellaswhet her t hey“succeedi nkeepi ngmal t reat edchi l drenhomewi t ht heparent s, ”butt hatchi l drensufferi ng from repeatmal treatmentwil lgrow upto“di sproporti onat eunempl oyment,homelessness, andsubst anceabuse”). 12 See, e.g.,infra note13andaccompanyi ngtext . 13 See generally Cassi eSt atut oBevan,The Impact of Liberal Ideology on Child Protection Reform,24WM.& MARY BILL RTS.J.709(2016)(di scussingt helackofi mpl ement at i onandenforcementofchi l dprot ect i onl awsandt hei mpactofl i berali deol ogyonchi l d prot ecti onreform andacti on);RichardJ.Gel les,Why the American Child Welfare System Is Not Child Centered,24WM.& MARY BILL RTS.J.733(2016)(argui ngthatt hefocuson parentsratherthanchi ldrenmakesthechil dwel faresyst em unabletoensurethesafetyand well -beingofchil dren);Andrew J.Wei sberg& FrankE.Vandervort,A Liberal Dilemma: Respecting Autonomy While Also Protecting Inchoate Children from Prenatal Substance Abuse,24WM.& MARY BILL RTS.J.659(2016)(argui ngt hatt hecourt shaverecogni zedt he ri ghtsofchi ldrent oholdt heirmothersli abl eforinjuri esinfl ict edatanyti meafterconcepti on,buttheright sandneedsofchil drenarenotbei ngconsideredwheni tcomest opregnant mot hersusi ngdrugsandal cohol ). 2016] CHILD PROTECTION’S PARENTAL PREFERENCE 757 Thisaversi ontoempl oyi ngexi st ingmandatest oprot ectchi ldreni snotonlyfel t i ni nt erpret at i onoft hel aw butal soi npol i cyreform effort st hat ,i nt henameofsoci al 14 just ice,woul dl eavechi l drenatgreat erri skofharm. Inasmuch,thereisurgency behindthi sconferenceandsymposi um issue. Inaddi t iont oawhol esal edismantl i ngoft heprevai l i ngi deologiesi nchi ldwel fare,t hepart ici pant sofferedsomeoft hei rownsoluti onst orefocusl i beralt hi nking 15 t obet terencompassjust iceforvul nerabl echi l dren. Bei ngareport er,i ti sunsurpri si ngthatI wasassi gnedt herol eofrapport eurand wi l li nt hi sArt icl edomybesttosynthesi zet hemaint hought ssharedatt heconferenceandi nt hepapersI haveread. I wi llst artwi t han (...truncated)