Breaking The Cycle Of Intergenerational Child Maltreatment: A Case For Active Efforts For Dependent Minor Parents And Their Children In State Custody

• Author: Eliza M. Hirst,Annika L. Jones
• Published date: 01 September 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12061
• Date: 01 September 2016

Breaking The Cycle Of Intergenerational Child

Maltreatment: A Case For Active Efforts For

Dependent Minor Parents And Their Children In

State Custody

By Eliza M. Hirst, and Annika L. Jones

ABSTRACT

Dependent minor parents placed in foster care with their children often face sig-

nificant hurdles. These parents are responsible to make caregiving decisions for their

children, while they themselves fall under the caregiving responsibility of the state

child welfare system. As such, dependent minor parents live in a “twilight zone” –

they hold full parental rights, but limited rights as teenagers. For a number of rea-

sons, the children of minor parents in foster care often come into state custody.

When two generations are in foster care at the same time, states must balance

the safety and best interests of the children with the rights of minor parents to

care for their own children. Currently, the state child welfare system is only

required to provide “reasonable efforts” to reunify parents with children when

they have been removed from their care for abuse, neglect, or dependency. How-

ever, dependent minor parents in state custody often require more supportive ser-

vices in order to successfully reunify with their children than in a typical child

welfare case. This article places the circumstance just described in the context of

dependent minor parents’ constitutionally protected rights, and advocates for a

higher standard which would require states to provide “active efforts” to protect

and preserve these young families.

Key words: Dependent minor parent, teen parenting, intergenerational child maltreatment,

reasonable efforts, active efforts, reunification, due process protection, Adoption and Safe Families

Act.

Eliza M. Hirst,Esq., CWLS, is a Deputy Child Advocate with the Delaware Office of the Child

Advocate. She is a nationally certified Child Welfare Law Specialist through the National Association of

Counsel for Children. J.D. University of Texas (2003), licensed in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York.

Annika L. Jones,M.S.W., is a third-year student at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She

received a Masters in Social Work from the University of Utah. Upon graduation, she will serve as a law

clerk to the Honorable Robert J. Shelby of the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 67, No. 3

©2016 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

45

INTRODUCTION

Zadie M.

1

entered state custody at age 16; the state alleged that Zadie had been

sexually abused by her older brother and physically and emotionally abuse by her father.

The family court deemed her a “dependent child” because her father failed to provide nec-

essary care.

2

At the time she entered state custody, Zadie had a 20-month-old son, Sam,

whom she raised since his birth. Zadie was a sophomore in a vocational technical high

school, and made arrangements for Sam to attend day care while she attended school. By

all accounts, Zadie was an appropriate mother who met all of Sam’s needs. However, Zadie

routinely ran away from home prior to entering state custody, unsurprising given her abu-

sive and conflict-ridden home environment. Whenever she ran away, Zadie would either

take Sam with her or arrange for another caregiver to watch him during her absence.

Upon the court’s finding that Zadie was a dependent child, the state’s Division of

Family Services (DFS) placed Zadie in a foster home that agreed to take both Zadie and

Sam, with the understanding that Zadie was responsible for Sam’s well-being and would

make all caregiving decisions. Zadie retained legal and physical custody over Sam, while

DFS exercised custody and control over Zadie. However, Zadie was removed from that

home after only one month because she routinely broke curfew–sometimes taking Sam

with her and sometimes not. The state then placed Zadie in a second foster home, along

with Sam. Zadie again began breaking curfew at the new home, leaving her son with the

new foster family. Zadie’s social worker and attorney Guardian ad litem assured Zadie

that Sam would not be removed from her care if she complied with her curfew, followed

her foster parents’ rules, and started attending school. Instead, Zadie ran away for two

nights, leaving Sam in the foster home, and stopped attending school altogether. When

Zadie returned to the foster home, she had a boyfriend in tow, and a fight broke out.

Zadie was charged with conspiracy and assault (which were later adjudicated). As a

result, Zadie was placed on juvenile probation.

Following the altercation, DFS filed an emergency petition and assumed legal cus-

tody of Sam based on its position that Zadie’s behavior and continued elopement posed a

safety risk to Sam.

3

While Sam remained with the foster family, Zadie was removed from

that home. She then ran away from her next placement. When she finally surfaced, she

was placed in a string of foster placements and detention facilities due to her run away

behaviors and violations of probation.

Following the Family Court’s decision to place Sam in state custody, DFS created a

case plan to reunify Zadie with her son. Under this case plan, Zadie was required to work

with a parent aide, engage in mental health therapy, attend visits with Sam, attend

school regularly, and comply with all legal requirements of her juvenile probation (based

on her assault and conspiracy adjudications). Zadie also remained a dependent youth in

care, and DFS continued to manage the case plan it had created for Zadie’s reunification

with her father. Elements of this case plan overlapped with her other case plan and

1

Names have been changed to protect confidentiality.

2

10 Del. C. §901 (8)(2015).

3

DSCYF v. ZM & VB& Unknown Father, CN: (Del Fam.) 15-02339, 15-08978, May 21, 2015.

46 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL