STATEMENT OF ANITA WEINBERG, STAFF ATTORNEY, CHIL-
DREN'S RIGHTS PBOJECT, LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION
OF CHICAGO

Ms. WEINBERG. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I am an attorney and a social worker. I am testifying on behalf
of clients of the Children's Right Project of the Legal Assistance
Foundation of Chicago. Our clients include children, parents, and
relatives who are involved in the child welfare and juvenile court
systems because of allegations of neglect and infrequently abuse,
where expert opinions differ. I also represented abused and ne-
glected children while working in the Cook County Public Guard-
ians Office. Before becoming a lawyer, I directed the Resources for
Permanence Project at the Child Welfare League of America. In
that capacity I worked on the Federal Adoption Assistance and
Child Welfare Act of 1980.

With tragedy often comes the opportunity for change. With trag-
edy also comes the risk of implementing simplistic, shortsighted
changes that make the public and politicians feel good, but that do
not improve children's lives. Instead, these changes let us avoid
wrestling with the more difficult issues.

Ever since I worked in the Public Guardian's Office, I must say,
I have envied Mr. Murphy's ability to make complex issues appear
simple. But there is a danger in simplification.

In Illinois, following the tragic death of Joseph Wallace, we are
confronted with the public perception that parents brought to the
juvenile court system have failed their children and are irredeem-
ably harmful. It has been argued "these parents do not deserve the
benefit of the doubt." But what the proponents of this position do
not consider is that maybe the children of these parents deserve
the "benefit of the doubt," so long as their safety can be protected.

Following Joseph Wallace's death, the complex issue of deciding
what we do once we suspect or know a child has been abused,
harmed, or is at risk of harm is being lost. There has been an effort
by some to smooth the way for more children to enter our foster
care system, to make it easier to remove children before reasonable
efforts are made to maintain them at home, and to make it more
difficult for children, once removed, ever to return home. This effort
to separate children fromparents ignores what happens to children
who grow up in foster care, separated from families that are capa-
ble of being helped, or who maybe do not belong in the system at
all. I think Denise Kane eloquently described what happens to chil-
dren in the foster care system. It also ignores that studies are
teaching us that large proportions of homeless adults grew up in
foster care. It ignores, as Ms. Fry said, the fact that Joseph Wal-
lace's mother, like a large percentage of the parents found to have
abused and neglected their children, grew up in the foster care sys-
tem that a vocal minority now wants more children to enter.

It is easy to assert that no child should be abused or neglected.
That is not disputed. Nobody is sitting here and saying that they
should be. But it is not so easy for children to be separated from
their parents and to be refused help when that help could keep

them together and keep them safe. Obviously, if that help cannot
protect them, then the least worse alternative is to place them in
foster care. There is no question about that.

An extraordinarily small percentage of parents set out to harm
their children. An overwhelming percent are accused of neglect, not
abuse. It occurs because the parent is overwhelmed with respon-
sibility, with poverty, lacks support networks, knowledge of how to
parent, how to manage crises and where to turn for help. I know
we are not looking for excuses for why the abuse and neglect oc-
curs, but when thinking about what is best for the child and what
is in a child's best interest, we have to look at what led to the
abuse or neglect and what we can do about it.

Given the facts, as Mr. Murphy has presented them in his anec-
dotes, those cases should never have been referred for placement
prevention, nor should the children ever have been returned home.

Illinois' Family First program was never meant to serve those
families. But limiting funding for the program is not the answer.
We need to figure out why those families were referred. We must
improve the program so the children who are benefiting from it can
continue to do so. We cannot fail to look at the broad range of fami-
lies benefiting from these services -- families whose children would
otherwise be removed because of inadequate housing. Denise Kane
referred to James Norman. Families headed by teenage mothers
are growing up in the foster care system and have not gotten the
services and training they need to become independent adults and
better parents than their parents were. Mothers are victims of do-
mestic violence and who are at risk of losing their children because
they are afraid they lack the financial resources and support net-
work to leave their abusive spouses.

The children of these parents deserve our efforts to save their
families. In Illinois, the problem is not the concept of family preser-
vation, it is the way in which Illinois' Family First program was
implemented.

In response to the public outcry over Joseph Wallace's horrible
death, Illinois is about to add the phrase "best interests" into its
Juvenile Court Act 35 times. But existing Federal and State law
only prevents a child's removal when it is "desirable and possible."
And that is what reasonable efforts refer to.

Had the professionals properly identified the risks to Joseph if he
remained with his mother and adequately presented the known
facts to the court, the court would have been able to make a deci-
sion that protected him. If the term "best interests" is supposed to
protect the health and safety of the child, then our laws already
cover that. Our problem in Illinois is ensuring effective implemen-
tation of the laws, not changing them.

We need to look at how social workers, attorneys, and judges as-
sess risks to children, whether they remain with their families or
enter foster care. We need to identify better ways to ensure fami-
lies who have neglected or abused their children, but who want
help and can be helped, receive the types of services they require
so that they will be able to adequately care for their children.

We need to look at the training of those who are making deci-
sions. We need to examine the ability of the court system to give

the time required to consider the evidence and the recommenda-
tions of the parties to the case and to make decisions.

I would just, in conclusion, urge you to pass the Federal bill. I
think the continuum of services it recognizes as important and the
accountability and monitoring that it also puts into place is critical
to our children.

Testimony listing | Home page