Foster Care

Why Doesn’t DCFS Have Numbers for Kids Who Have Died in Foster Care?



On Tuesday morning, the County Board of Supervisors will vote
on a motion introduced by Mark Ridley-Thomas, which calls for the Department of Children and Family Services to fork over a thorough release of data on child fatality trends over the past ten years because, as Ridley Thomas’s office explains, this will allow the Sups—and all the rest of us, for that matter—to “better understand the extent of the problem and to address it with the urgency it deserves.”

““Obtaining all critical information that can inform us of the true scope and severity of this crisis is not only important, it is our duty,” said Ridley-Thomas in a statement.

“The Department of Children and Family Services needs to provide the Board of Supervisors with essential information on children’s deaths in the County. Doing so will help the Department understand, plan and provide better services.”

According to an article that ran over the weekend by Jack Leonard and Garrett Theroff, for the past several weeks, the LA Times has been asking for such data too—but with no luck.

This push for information on foster care fatalities follows closely on a report issued over the summer by Michael Gennaco of the LA County Office of Independent Review, which found that the DCFS—either intentionally, or through a bureaucratic right hand/left hand disconnection within the agency, hid dozens of cases of child deaths from the public.

A 2008 state law, SB 39, requires the disclosure of child deaths that result from abuse or neglect.

In August, DCFS head Trish Ploehn said she agreed “100 percent” with the need for disclosure.

But two months later, that disclosure hasn’t occurred.

The motion would seem to be a no-brainer, yet I’ve heard through the grapevine that the motion may run into opposition in some quarters.

(I’ll update the post based on what occurs in the Tuesday meeting.)


MANY DON’T LIKE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION KNOWN AS CITIZENS UNITED BUT THE STATE OF MONTANA IS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

The Wall Street Journal has the story. Here’s how it opens:

After the Supreme Court freed corporations and unions to pay for advertisements supporting or attacking candidates for federal office, many states concluded that their own restrictions on such electioneering were doomed as well.

Not Montana. Sued by three corporations seeking to influence the Nov. 2 legislative election, Attorney General Steve Bullock is arguing that Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act of 1912 remains constitutional—even though the Supreme Court scotched similar provisions of the 2002 federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known after its sponsors as McCain-Feingold.

A state judge in Helena is expected to rule this week whether to block the law, setting the stage for appeals that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court….

Okay, it’s exactly this sort of thing that I can never explain to the people who’ve never been to the state.

Gotta love big sky country.


WE’VE GOT TOO DAMN MANY PRISONERS HERE, TOTO!

The Kansas state prisons are full to overflowing but,
unlike…say….California, which also has too many prisoners for its own good, Kansas is trying to do something about the problem.

The only problem is, nobody seems entirely sure of the best solution.

The Kansas City Star has done a nice, long article about the choices the state legislature is dealing with.

What is refreshing here is the fact that, although the Kansas lawmakers may not not have a firm grip on the ideal solution, they have actually agreed on the need to find one.

California still ain’t to that starting line.


1 Comment

  • I wonder why Kansas didn’t consider a prevention approach. Although more of a long term solution working with at-risk youths and juvinille offenders would seem more fruitful. You would have a more receptive population.

Leave a Comment