Other than funding--> staffing..... there needs to be a policy for when a worker says they can't take any more. Right now, the distribution of cases is just "it's your turn, no exceptions." If a worker is going through something or has one case that is super difficult, they're just forced to keep taking more and more cases until they quit. There's no way to give someone a little break while they catch their breath. So everyone just leaves.

I could write a book on this. But right now NH needs fresh ideas. The same people have been promoted up and up and up for decades. They all promote the status quo because it has furthered their careers and they don't want to piss each other off. They have an interest in maintaining things as they are.

Joe Ribsam was supposed to change the system, but he never brought in anyone new. So he just got absorbed into the existing power structure and never changed anything.

Workers need to be paid in a way that reflects their value and experience.

Foster parents need to be fairly reimbursed for their work, and they need adequate support from the agency.

Caseload standards have to be established so that workers aren't criminally overloaded.

It has to be recognized that different offices have different needs. Like, Berlin has to have lower caseloads because they have a huge catchment area and spend half a day driving just to see one kid. But Manchester workers get the most violent cases with the largest numbers of children and the most crimes against children. They need to somehow be supported. And their caseloads have to be reasonable so that they can put the attention and effort into ensuring the safety of the kids.

Staffing is far, far lower than it would need to be for our kids to be safe. And worker turnover is insane, leading to loss of knowledge, leading to kids feeling less safe, foster parents feeling unsupported, greater placement disruptions, and burnout on all sides.

A mom of a newborn manhandled by MPD, her face squashed against the hood of my car while the handcuffed her, as I held the baby they tricked her into handing them. A week later they court found she did no wrong and sent the baby back.

Two workers administered CPR to a stranger who OD'd on the street on their lunch break. Supervisors wouldn't let them take the rest of the day off.

Being accused of being a theif and a murderer every day.

Booze bottles found in the office restroom by some poor burned out worker.

Toddlers telling me what their mommy made them do for the camera.

Supervisors laughing and shrugging when I begged not to be given another case.

The director making a domestic abuser second in command.

Workers lives, marriages, families falling apart.

It's a miracle that MA is as bad as it is with so much funding. One worker actually left DCYF to take a job in DCF.... and then CAME BACK because Manch was actually better than Lowell!

I'm not an expert on family court outside of DCYF involvement. But it's all about making the judge happy. Do anything the judge asks and don't complain. Offer to do things you're not required to do. Treat the judge like a potential employer but don't schmooze too much. Judges love therapy. Get a therapist and have them write a letter. Waitlists for therapy are long right now. Get on every waitlist for every therapist and document when you got on and follow up weekly (and document that, too.) Document EVERYTHING.

Letters from non professionals (as in anyone whos not a therapist or involved in the case-- relatives, employers, pastors) aren't given a lot of weight because they could just be crazy randos.

Demonstrate your insight and parenting skills. If you're not seeing your kid at all, don't talk about how much YOU want to see them; talk about how your kid must feel unloved or unwanted or lonely. Make it all about how you can make your kid's life better. Never, ever show anger.

Do you mean how would someone bring them to justice? And by them do you mean DCYF or workers themselves? And with regard to what specifically?

Reunification is ALWAYS better for a child long term if it's safely possible. Growing up in a mildly traumatic home with your bio family produces a more functional human than being taken from bio family and possibly having less trauma. The trauma of being removed from parents trumps almost every other trauma there is. Many studies prove this.

There are very few cases over my career where it was immediately apparent that a child should be permanently removed forever. These cases usually involved parents sex trafficking their children. There are few real monsters in the world, most people are just hurt. The reunification period allows the agency/ worker to see if a parent is capable.

A year is not long enough for a person to conquer their lifelong demons and be ready to parent. The entire system needs to be changed in order to be best for both parents and kids. Right now, workers rush to reunify in time and give kids to parents who are teetering on the edge of being ok. Then the kids get removed again because the parent wasn't stable enough. It feeds itself.

Classist more than racist. But there are some f'd up views among administration. Someone who's now very high up once stated in a Cultural Competency training that most "dirty homes" are immigrants. Which is extra funny because New Americans have the cleanest homes!

They're too desperate to favor anyone outright. They'll give the kid to whoever can safely take them. They often don't have a choice, like in this most recent fatality: the law dictated that the child had to be given to the "non-offending parent."

Definitely not helicopter parent fanatics. It takes a kid wandering the street alone more than once to get DCYF involved for lack of supervision. If the kid is not actively dying, they'll do anything not to have to remove. The parenting bar is super low, again, because of how our laws are written. They have to be able to prove imminent risk of harm.

I mean I won't share anything against the ethics of the profession, or anything protected by HIPAA