Informal fixes leave parents few options

Several readers called to talk this week about their frustrations with the state child protection system.

They'd read Wednesday's column about the state Department of Human Services' cases of allowing noncustodial parents to hand kids over to foster care.

I know of at least two recent incidents where state child protective services workers placed children in foster care based on voluntary agreements signed by people with no legal or physical custody of the children.

One of the people I heard from this week was Tiffany Brown of Monroe, the noncustodial mom in this most recent case. She told me the child protective workers who handled her case knew the children's father had legal and physical custody when she signed the papers.

Brown says she's got her own reasons for being angry with DHS - missed appointments, bureaucratic delays and a pattern of poor communication.

“I completely agree the DHS system is flawed,” she told me. The people are amazing, she said, “But the whole system is so messed up; you can fall through it so easily and there's no one to stop it.”

There are some safeguards built in when the state formally tries to remove a child from an unsafe home environment.

When that happens, the state files a petition, both parents are notified and given the right to legal representation. Allegations of abuse or neglect are written and submitted to the court, where a judge makes a decision at a formal hearing.

Not so with administrative tools like safety plans and voluntary removals, which can be signed by one parent - giving the non-consenting parent no rights, no notice and no way to challenge the plan if it bars them from contacting their child.

By using those administrative agreements, DHS saves all that hassle of petitioning the court. Whether that's a motivating factor still is a mystery to me - DHS leaders have declined to comment when I've called to get their side of the story.

What I do know is that it can be a terrifying and frustrating ordeal for parents who find themselves on the wrong side of that administrative fix, without the legal safeguards built into formal removal.

Iowa City attorney Natalie Cronk told me she's worried these administrative tools are increasingly being used to strong-arm parents into voluntarily removing children from their home. She thinks she's seen at least 50 cases in the past five years in which parents signed an open-ended safety plan voluntarily removing a child from their home.

If you know about any cases like these, I want to hear about them.

Comments: (319) 339-3154;

jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net