TESTIMONY OF

                       CAROL LAMB HOPKINS

                           BEFORE THE

  SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                      CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

                          MAY 25, 1995

      I am honored to have been invited here today to testify on the
      Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. By profession, I am a
      teacher and school administrator. In 1991 I was appointed Deputy
      Foreman of the San Diego County Grand Jury.

      Because of a number of constituent complaints forwarded by
      Congressman Duncan Hunter as well as complaints by hundreds of
      citizens, the Grand Jury undertook a review of the juvenile
      dependency system in San Diego County. Hearings were held and
      legal counsel was provided by California Attorney General, Dan
      Lungren. The case of Alicia Wade and her family was the subject
      of six weeks of Grand Jury hearings.

      The grand Jury issued a number of reports. "Families in Crisis",
      "The Case of Alicia W.", "Problems in Foster Care", and "Child
      Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Molest Issues". Those reports have been
      requested by hundreds of government agencies and professionals
      across the country as well as Holland, England, Sweden, Denmark,
      Canada, and other countries. As a result of the expertise acquired,
      I have been invited to testify numerous times before the California
      State Legislature, before the Congressional Subcommittee on
      Childhood, Youth, and Families, and to serve on the advisory boards
      of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform and the San
      Diego Legal Corp.

      I am a member of the San Diego District Attorney's Ad-Hoc Committee
      on Child Abuse.


      HISTORY AND BALANCE

      Twenty years ago the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was
      born. It was the response to witnesses who came before the Congress
      with horrible tales of violence against children, augmented by
      photos of dead and mutilated babies and children. With the best of
      intentions, Congress instituted laws to protect those fragile
      citizens.

      Though many young lives doubtlessly have been saved by the programs
      established by CAPTA, the law has also been responsible for
      unintended consequences -- For one, the emergence of a "child abuse
      industry" more invested in its own perpetuation and growth than the
      protection of children and the preservation of families.

      For example, the "child abuse industry" defined the evidence of
      outright violence brought before the Congress as "child abuse".

      Since then that definition has been expanded to include neglect
      due to poverty, cultural differences in child rearing, lawful
      corporal punishment, failure to protect, truancy, and emotional
      abuse. The American people and the Congress heard "child abuse"
      and imagined the horrors of violence against children, but as the
      definition kept expanding, the face of "child abuse" was expanded
      sufficiently to become the face of every family, at one time or
      another.

      You have heard today from the Wade family about a system gone
      wrong, where every mistake possible seems to have been made. You
      have heard from Richard Wexler that these mistakes were not
      unusual; they happen every day in every city in America. I am not
      suggesting that the Congress of the United States can or should
      address all of these problems and micromanage this huge system from
      Washington. I do suggest that it is possible to give guidance to
      the States which will reduce the number of mistakes, and, in
      particular, the number of mistakes for which there is no redress.

      The Wade story is a dramatic, feel good, tale of justice ultimately
      prevailing, but the "happy" ending experienced by this family is
      far more uncommon than the nightmare they, like thousands of
      others, endured along the way. I could share anecdotal stories
      about the destruction of families, the insensitivity of social
      workers, the collusion of juvenile court judges, which might well
      cause you to decide that the damage done to children and families
      in the name of child protection far outweighs the good.

      Particularly in these troubled fiscal times, the Congress might
      choose to dismantle CAPTA, Title IV, and other related funding
      streams, and there would be many who would applaud.

      Opponents of reform characterize themselves as "child advocates"
      and condemn reforms, and in particular, Family Preservation, as
      "backlash". To the contrary, those who urge reform are true child
      advocates. We acknowledge the reality of child abuse, but also
      recognize the importance of family to a child, and the growing
      distrust of child protection as the public loses faith in its
      mission and in its methods.

      According to the opponents of reform, we are merely seeing a
      pendulum swing. A child dies and child protection tightens up.
      Then a Wade case comes along and the pendulum swings the other way
      in an inevitable design. The actual evidence of how the system
      works belies their chosen model; chaos theory is a far better
      image. Children die and families are unjustly destroyed along the
      spectrum of response. To stop this chaos we need a more uniform
      definition of the real problems and remedies. I would like to
      discuss the following remedies:

        * DEVELOPMENT OF TRUE RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS;

        * ENHANCED TRAINING OF PROTECTION WORKERS IN RISK
        ASSESSMENT, INVESTIGATION, AND SERVICES;

        * A CIVIL IMMUNITY STANDARD WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE
        COMPETENCE;

        * A FAMILY CENTERED PHILOSOPHY OF CHILD PROTECTION;

        * EFFECTIVE DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS.

        * DEVELOPMENT OF RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS

      Protection workers need to follow proven risk assessment protocols.
      The weight of responsibility for pulling a child or leaving a child
      in a possibly dangerous situation is often borne by a single
      protection worker responding to a hotline call. That protection
      worker needs to rely on something other than experience and
      subjective evaluation.

      Risk assessment protocols work. Some jurisdictions use them, more
      don't. Even when they are used, they are often homegrown and not
      based on proven results. We need to find the best proven risk
      assessment protocol available in this country. Protection workers
      need to be trained to use that protocol.


      ENHANCED TRAINING OF PROTECTION WORKERS

      Currently there is no uniform screening, training, certification,
      or assessment of protection workers. Workers are given tremendous
      responsibility and awesome power but, for far too many, no training
      whatsoever. Again, there is a definition problem. Protection
      workers may be high school graduates, they may have their B.A. in
      physical education, they may never have taken a single course in
      social work. In too many cases it is only the work they do which
      defines them as "social workers".

      To borrow from my own profession, would we turn over schools to
      untrained, randomly selected adults, call them "teachers", give
      them inadequate resources, keep adding students, make it impossible
      for the parents to complain or hold anyone accountable, and then
      expect learning to occur without fairly frequent disasters?

      Protection workers have an incredibly wide range of
      responsibilities. They are expected to do investigative work with
      the skill of law enforcement, write social study reports with the
      skill of lawyers, have the wisdom of Solomon, provide services with
      the skill of an old time social worker, and teach families living
      skills with the combined talents of a home economics teacher,
      financial planner, and family therapist. And, they must do all
      this with the diplomacy of a U.N. Ambassador. I do not believe
      that any one person combines all of these attributes. We need to
      consider a separation of the duties of protection investigator from
      provider of family services.

      As is true in many professions, there is substantial evidence that
      many social workers are drawn to their chosen field because of life
      experience. Nonetheless, we don't screen for bias or train for its
      elimination. We have no uniform training in risk assessment,
      investigative techniques, child development, how to recognize
      cultural differences in child- rearing practices, and how to
      distinguish between the privations of poverty and those resulting
      from intentional neglect.

      This is not to say there are no training seminars. There are.
      Unfortunately they are unregulated and often uncredentialed.
      National multi- disciplinary "child abuse" conferences and seminars
      have proliferated. Social workers, psychologists, therapists,
      prosecutors, law enforcement officers, medical doctors, and even
      judges are brought together in an ostensible attempt to coordinate
      efforts to combat child abuse and molestation. "Families in
      Crisis" quotes a California appellate judge who traced the genesis
      of the problems in child protection to "conferences which have
      poisoned the stream".

      These conferences and seminars are carnivals for the hucksters of
      the child abuse industry. The latest pet theories, junk science
      and horror stories are trotted out with the patina of scientific
      certainty. Rather than foster an appreciation of objective
      fact-finding and scientifically validated evidence, participants
      are indoctrinated into bizarre belief systems which demand
      abandonment of common sense, offering in its place wild
      speculation and unproven theories about satanic cults, check lists
      of often commonplace behaviors which "indicate" molestation, and
      other equally unproven theories to support allegations of child
      abuse Inevitably, attendees leave these conferences and look for
      cases where they can apply their new-found pseudo- knowledge.
      Tragically, they all too often "find" them.

      By way of contrast, California has one of the best standardized law
      enforcement training programs in the country. Peace Officers
      Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) trains, and then certifies,
      police officers, sheriff's deputies, highway patrol, and all other
      law enforcement, statewide. I would strongly urge an end to all
      federal grants providing monies for child abuse conferences and
      advocacy groups. Instead, matching funds should be made available
      to each state to provide standardized training and certification
      for child protection workers.


      ESTABLISHMENT OF A UNIFORM CIVIL IMMUNITY STANDARD
      TO PROMOTE ACCOUNTABILITY

      It is essential to have a uniform qualified immunity standard for
      protective workers equal to that enjoyed by Federal law
      enforcement. Many states have interpreted CAPTA to mean that social
      workers and indeed everyone else involved in the protection of
      children should have absolute immunity from civil liability.
      Absolute immunity fosters irresponsibility -- not only in
      individual protective workers, but in the agencies which employ
      them. Without the risk of civil accountability there is no impetus
      for training and oversight.

      Social worker unions fight any change in the immunity standard as
      do their employing agencies.3 Opponents to this reform claim that
      it will have a "chilling" effect and that protective workers will
      leave abused children in their homes rather than pull them because
      of fear of being sued. Nonsense. Law enforcement officers execute
      search warrants, make arrests, and even use deadly force while
      protected only by qualified immunity. I would argue that the
      "chilling effect" to law enforcement is that they must be trained,
      supervised, and disciplined so that they think and act reasonably
      performing these tasks. Do we want less from child protection
      workers?

      Counties argue against qualified immunity for fear that it will
      unleash a barrage of lawsuits. Their fear only proves the case for
      qualified immunity . In an environment of absolute immunity there
      have been horrific abuses justifying huge awards. But, would those
      abuses still occur if workers were properly trained, supervised,
      and disciplined? I say, "no". But with an absolute immunity
      standard there is no incentive to provide the type of training we
      find essential and willingly fund for law enforcement. Instead ,
      we reward, and even encourage, incompetence, and malicious abuse
      of power by child protection workers.


      FAMILY-CENTERED PHILOSOPHY OF CHILD PROTECTION

      As if common sense were not enough, we now have reams of research
      which clearly tell us that the clearest indicator to predict a
      child's future is the strength of the child's family. We know that
      while there are good foster care homes, foster care should be a
      remedy of last resort.

      We also know that Family Preservation programs on the Homebuilders
      model work. Homebuilders provides a clear blueprint for successful
      intervention in a family's life with proven positive outcomes for
      children and their families. Again, this is not the time for
      homegrown family preservation plans when we know that Homebuilders
      is both economically sound and proven itself to be safe for
      children and effective for families. It is essential that we not
      allow family to be re-defined. Families come in all shapes and
      sizes. It is as important to help preserve the family of the
      single mother trying to raise her six children in the project as it
      is to preserve the picture perfect, two parent, 2.5 children family
      in suburbia.

      Philosophically, we need to embrace a family practice model which
      builds on the strengths of families instead of searching for
      weaknesses. There will be cases where Family Preservation is not
      possible, but we need to recognize that every time we preserve a
      family we have enhanced the child's hope for the future.

      California's Little Hoover Commission reported the estimate that up
      to 70% of the children in foster care in California should never
      have been removed from their families.4 What does this mean in
      real numbers? In February of 1995, there were 90,296 children in
      foster care in California alone. The average removed child will
      spend 25 months in placement. Figuring foster care costs of at
      least $400 per month, the foster care cost to the State of
      California alone, for the 63,207 children who should not be there
      is $303, 394,500 per year.5 Projected nationally that is three
      billion dollars!

      Moreover, a very large percentage of these children will never go
      home. As adults, when we are in trouble, we turn to our families.
      These children have no families to turn to. Just like welfare
      dependents who look to the State for financial support, these
      children, throughout their lives, will turn to the State for family
      services. The cost of foster care is only the beginning
      installment if they become welfare recipients! The reforms to
      CAPTA must be only the beginning. The Congress must cap foster
      care dollars and stop providing the incentive to use foster care
      instead of providing services which may insure the survival of the
      family.

      Sadly, we also need to accept the tragic but true reality -- there
      will always be little children who die of child abuse. Even in the
      very best program child protection can not catch them all.


      ENHANCED DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS

      Critics of reform talk about all of the protections in the current
      juvenile dependency system. They just are not there. I have been
      witness to the routine of juvenile court judges sitting in closed
      courtrooms rubberstamping decisions made by protection workers.
      Most Americans, and even most attorneys, are unaware that accused
      parents have no right to a trial by jury even if their parental
      rights are terminated, or that rank hearsay is admissable to
      withold children from their families for days, weeks, months,
      years, forever; that the burden of proof is the same or less than
      that required to forfeit the family car. I have witnessed
      egregious perjury, and abuse of power which would offend any
      American's sense of justice.

      Even able defense attorneys are rendered ineffective because of the
      confidentiality which enshrouds all of the proceedings. Families
      are thrust into closed courtrooms where all the rules favor the
      efforts to destroy the family unit. Families are terminated
      entirely in swift, secret, hardly intelligible proceedings.
      Confidentiality is used as sword and shield. Families are told
      that confidentiality is to protect them and their children. More
      often it is used to protect child protection services from the
      public scrutiny which would come in these cases.

      When the Grand Jury began the closed hearings on the Wade case, the
      Presiding Judge scolded the parents' willingness to cooperate with
      the Grand Jury and to speak with the press. She also severely
      criticized the jury's motives for seeking to investigate. She tried
      to appoint a legal guardian for Alicia in order to inhibit Grand
      Jury inquiry and to prohibit the Wades from communicating with the
      media. It may not be coincidental that she was the Presiding Judge
      of Juvenile Court several years earlier!

      Hearsay in juvenile court is the standard currency of proof. Second
      and third-hand hearsay is accepted, even when the material is
      without any corroboration. I have seen children removed from
      families, again, days, months, years, forever, based purely on
      unsubstantiated hearsay or on a social worker's edited version of
      a child's or a parent's statement. Protection workers have
      desperately resisted recommendations of audio recording of child
      interviews.

      To assure adequate due process protection: A bipartisan commission
      must be established to study and report on the feasibility of
      optional jury trials, and model rules of evidence and procedure
      designed to insure that children are protected and that both
      dependency and criminal cases involving abuse produce truthful
      findings, thereby protecting innocent family members.


      SOCIETY RECOGNITION

      Physicians live by the ethic, "First, do no harm". I would suggest
      that citizens have the right to believe that those who intervene in
      their lives in the name of government should live by the same
      creed. Recent events have exposed a core of angry citizens who
      feel alienated from their government. While no one condones their
      actions or even their rhetoric, it is instructive to look at the
      response of the bureaucracies to families crying out for assistance
      when they become caught up in the insensitive system we now
      operate.

      As sad as the Wade case is, as terrible the mistakes, the one
      absolutely intolerable finding by my Grand Jury was the response of
      the bureaucrats who are paid to serve us. The Grand Jury
      subpoenaed every document, military, state, and county which had
      any relevance to the Wade case. In those files we found dozens of
      letters from Wade family members. These were letters painstakingly
      written, full of passion and hope that someone would pay attention.
      Instead, each letter was answered with a form letter response. No
      one, not one person, not one government official, took the time to
      actually look at this case. For all of their protests of serving
      the "best interests of the child", no one cared about "THE CHILD",
      Alicia.

      When we took testimony from these individuals, we heard every
      possible excuse. No one ever said, "I guess we made a mistake.
      We're sorry." Instead we heard speculation about how Jim could
      still have been involved in the attack on Alicia, how the Wades
      brought it all on themselves, and how their lawyers caused the
      problems. And, most amazing, after my term on the Jury was
      concluded, the juvenile court judge who had presided over this
      travesty, seriously speculated to me that Dad's defense attorney
      had somehow planted the actual perpetrator's semen on the clothing
      held by the police.


      REDRESS

      Finally, in the name of justice I must address the tragic end
      result of the passionate zealotry fostered by the "child abuse
      industry", packaged at its advocacy conferences, and fanned into
      hysteria in communities across the country. We have seen the
      costliest and perhaps most unjust trials in our nation's history.
      They are known by their names --

      McMartin, Little Rascals, Kelly Michaels, Fells Acres, Country
      Walk, Bobby Finje, Akiki, and on and on--the Child Care/Satanic
      Ritual Abuse Trials of the past decade have brought shame to
      America as we re-create the tragedy of the Salem Witch Trials.

      But if American history has repeated itself in a dishonorable way,
      perhaps it can repeat itself honorably as well: four years after
      the Salem Witch Trials, the colonial legislative body of
      Massachusetts adopted a resolution calling for a day of repentance
      and fasting in memory of the victims.7

      If the Massachusetts of 300 years ago can admit its mistakes and
      regret the damage done to individuals, then surely we can at least
      start to address our own situation, in which our legal system has
      arguably inflicted far greater damage than that of our colonial
      forebears. A California appellate justice told the Grand Jury he
      had no doubt that there were hundereds of innocent men who had been
      unjustly convicted.

      Innocent individuals have been imprisoned for years,8 children have
      been traumatized by the creation in their young minds of horrible
      events which never occurred, and once happy and whole families have
      been destroyed. Our institutions have also been battered by the
      loss of public confidence in prosecutors and courts whose moral
      authority has been depleted. Public resources have been drained,
      due to the astronomical costs of these trials and the subsequent
      civil damage awards to the innocent as these convictions are
      overturned one by one by one.

      This body can not individually address these false abuse
      prosecutions, children forever lost to a parent through false
      allegations of molest or abuse during custody disputes, or the
      rending of families by the now recognized phenomena of False Memory
      Syndrome. The Congress CAN establish a bipartisan commission to
      study and report on guidelines to remedy cases where convictions or
      the destruction of families was based on now discredited expert
      testimony or on the testimony of children or adults who have been
      contaminated by coercive questioning or therapy.

      Further, January 14, 1997 marks the 300th anniversary of the
      Massachusetts Day of Repentance. I would call for that day to be
      a national day of contrition for the injustices which we have
      perpetrated and remembrance for the victims of that injustice.


      CONCLUSION

      There are currently serious endemic problems within the system
      which inevitably lead to results contrary to the best interests of
      children and families. To quote from "Families in Crisis":
      The Jury asked almost every professional who testified what
      they would do to improve the condition of the Juvenile
      Dependency System if they had the power. While there were
      many different views, surprisingly there was an almost
      unanimous consensus among attorneys, therapists, physicians,
      judges, law enforcement, social workers, and clients that
      there needs to be a more effective accountability link between
      prescribed standards and practice and between mandated
      intervention services and appropriations. Therefore, there is
      a demand for a more effective system of checks and balances.
      Those checks and balances must include the following:
      * Absolute immunity for child abuse reporters and workers
      must be reduced to the qualified, good faith immunity
      extended to law enforcement;

      * Interviews and interrogations of children and witnesses
      must be tape recorded at a minimum, videotaping is
      preferable;

      * Mandated reporters must be required to report their
      assessment of the truth of reported abuse;

      * Training must be made available to all mandated reporters
      which includes the importance of reporting real abuse,
      the effects on families of false allegations and
      information on developmentally appropriate behaviors and
      relevant scientific research;

      * A bipartisan commission must be established to study and
      report on the feasibility of optional jury trials, and
      model rules of evidence and procedure designed to insure
      that children are protected and that both dependency and
      criminal cases involving abuse produce truthful findings,
      thereby protecting innocent parents and accused.

      * States must adopt model rules of evidence and procedure
      to receive federal funding;

      * A bipartisan commission must be established to study and
      report on guidelines to remedy cases where convictions or
      child removals have been based on expert testimony which
      has subsequently been discredited or on the testimony of
      children or adults who have been contaminated by coercive
      questioning or therapy.
      It is time to bring common sense to our justice system and to
      recognize that the protection of children is almost always
      synonymous with the protection of families. We can not allow the
      protection of family to be the rhetorical claim of any one
      political agenda or segment of the system. I strongly believe the
      protection of the family is essential to the protection of our
      society and essential to the survival of a healthy democracy.