Don't Call it a Comeback: The Promotion of Rehabilitation and Reunification of Families Affected by Poverty‐Related Neglect

• Published date: 01 October 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12535
• Author: Tamara Louis‐Jacques
• Date: 01 October 2020

DON’T CALL IT A COMEBACK: THE PROMOTION OF

REHABILITATION AND REUNIFICATION OF FAMILIES AFFECTED

BY POVERTY-RELATED NEGLECT

Tamara Louis-Jacques

While Child Protective Services may provide some services to remedy the underlying issues of child neglect allegations,

these efforts are often bare minimum and inadequately implemented in order to effectuate the goals of family reunification.

This Note proposes an amendment to the Family Court Act in order to promote compliance of local child welfare agencies’

obligation to reunify the family unit. The amendment will mandate that agencies show, by clear and convincing evidence, that

the child protective services agency has made active efforts to reunify the family.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Child Neglect is the most common reason for child removals.

Approximately sixty seven percent of Child Neglect cases are poverty-related.

There are over 443,000 children in foster care in the United States.

The U.S. federal government spends up to $5 million annually on foster care placement.

Children with history of foster care placement are four times as likely than other children to attempt suicide.

Keywords: Child Neglect; Foster Care; Family Reunification; Family Separation; Racial Disparities; Termination of Paren-

tal Rights; Child Removal; Child Welfare.

I. INTRODUCTION

Heather Cantamessa, a mother of two young girls, had her children taken from her tenyears ago, while

she was struggling with addiction.

1

Her two daughters were removed and placed into foster care, where

she was only allowed to visit twice a week, and only twohours at a time.

2

Ms. Cantamessa would visit with

her daughters in a small room, supervised by a visitation monitor who sat behind the police-interrogation

window.

3

Her daughters were confused, angry, and did not understand why they could not come home

with their mother.

4

Towards the end of the visits, Ms. Cantamessa’s youngest child would scream and cry

for her mother, yelling her name.

5

In turn, Ms. Cantamessa would cry and panic.

6

The caseworker told her

that if she did not “make the goodbyes better,”they would cancel her visits altogether.

7

Within the following six months, Ms. Cantemessa completed a treatment program that helped

her to achieve sobriety.

8

The caseworker, however, urged Ms. Cantamessa to stop seeing her daugh-

ters because she felt the visits caused her daughters to “regress.”

9

Ms. Cantemessa did not want to

cause her daughters any further harm, so she agreed.

10

She was not allowed to see her daughters

again for over a year.

11

By the time she was finally allowed to see her children, her older daughter

had been diagnosed with reactive-attachment

12

disorder.

13

Her younger daughter shared similar

trauma; she even refused to hug her mother out of fear of becoming attached again.

14

Ms. Bernadette Charles was a mother of four, living in the East Flatbush neighborhood of

Brooklyn, New York.

15

Although she felt fortunate to be able to afford the rent money for her fam-

ily, they experienced problem after problem with the apartment she was renting.

16

At first,

Ms. Charles kept quiet, because she felt grateful to even have a place for her children to live.

17

Correspondence: tamarakristine@gmail.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 4, October 2020 1087–1100, doi: 10.1111/fcre.12535

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts