







Tony Putzier (right) addresses a public meeting about the abuse of his child while Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack listens on Feb. 5, 2000, in Spirit Lake. The hearing concerned the death of 2-year-old Shelby Duis, who died from injuries inflicted over several weeks or months. Outcry over her case was instrumental in changing state Department of Human Services practices.
When little Shelby Duis was found dead at her Spirit Lake home — with massive head injuries, fractured ribs and two broken hands — it sent a shock through the entire state.
Neighbors and day-care workers had warned child protective workers for nearly a year before the 2-year-old’s January 2000 death that the girl was being abused.
Then, later that same year, an Oskaloosa man came forward to say that he’d told officials for months his 23-month-old son was being mistreated by his estranged wife and her boyfriend before the boy was hospitalized with critical brain and spinal injuries.
Iowans demanded to know why the Iowa Department of Human Services didn’t protect these vulnerable children — why child protective workers had allowed them to remain in such dangerous environments.
Then-Gov. Tom Vilsack ordered DHS to adopt a “remove-first” policy — to remove a child from a home even before they’d determined whether reports of abuse were true.
“The watch phrase will be — when there is a doubt, work to take the child out,” he announced.
That philosophy persists today.
But most of Iowa’s removal cases don’t involve physical or sexual abuse; rather, they’re largely “denial of critical care” — a catchall category that can include everything from bad housekeeping to poor supervision.
Cedar Rapids-based therapist Virgil Gooding, a member of the African American Family Preservation and Resource Committee who has worked with DHS for decades, says the agency’s “culture of caution” unfairly places the burden of proof on parents — with often tragic results.
Even as other states have implemented reforms that have dramatically, and safely, reduced the numbers of children placed in foster care while supporting parents’ efforts to provide better home environments, Iowa continues to remove children from their families at an alarming rate.
When you adjust for poverty, only three states remove children from parental custody at rates higher than Iowa, according to Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.
“There are so many ways out there to do better,” he said. “But Iowa hasn’t even tried.”
Wexler’s research shows that Iowa removes children at more than twice the national average when poverty rates are factored in — four times the rate of neighboring Illinois, where reforms have improved child safety while keeping more families intact.
For months, I’ve been talking with Iowans about their experiences with Iowa DHS. A few have agreed to share their stories in the hopes that it will shed light on a child protective system that wields tremendous power and operates largely out of public view.
In the coming weeks, you’ll hear from a dad who lost all rights to his daughter even though he was never accused of abuse. From a mom who couldn’t get her children back for a year, even though two separate DHS-ordered evaluations found that she posed no threat to her kids. From a grandma who divorced her husband and evicted her high-school-aged son in the vain hope of keeping her grandchildren out of the system.
Just a few of the heartbroken Iowans who have seen up close how Iowa’s “remove-first” system sometimes sacrifices families in the name of protecting kids.
Comments: (319) 339-3154;
jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net
“When you adjust for poverty, only three states remove children from parental custody at rates higher than Iowa, according to Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.”
I’m not sure how “adjust for poverty” on parental custody rates. I dont even know what that means. I’m guessing that higher income parents get lawyers and
DHS backs off?
I hope the personal stories on the way look at DHS’s side of the story too.
Brad: Families in poverty are much more likely to become involved with DHS, so controlling for that factor gives a more apples-to-apples comparison between states.
Even without doing so, though, Iowa is sixth worst in the country and removes children at nearly double the national average, according to Wexler’s figures.
And yes, even though DHS is unable to comment on specific cases, I’ll present the agency’s perspective using official documents.
As an activist for low income people and as a low income wage earner myself for 35 years, I have seen much about this issue. With half the nation in poverty, there is a reason there is more involvement with DSHS among people in poverty, often much of it involuntary. One might question why it would have to be childfren should be traumatized for life and a family destroyed out of a desperate need for food, medical assistance and housing assistance, which these needs are growing as well.
The funding mandates from Title IV and the massive cuts in any “discretionary” funding for services assisting the disabled, the elderly, families and individuals in need, is causing fraud, waste and quite a bit of corruption within CPS agencies across the nation. As someone who spent some time in Iowa with family there, let’s face it…Iowa is full of people who hate and blame the poor.
Much of this is because of the ignorant perception among haters of the poor that poverty is a “choice” when in fact poverty is an ensconced institution where the upper classes benefit off the backs of the poor. I can write about that forever but one trip to your nearest Walmart where employee are paid lower than poverty wages, or look at the taxes your poor pay compared to the rich in your state and you’ll get the picture as to how most benefit. While Iowa is actually better than most for the burden of taxation on the poor, take a look here if you look up Iowa:about taxes: http://itepnet.org/state_reports. /whopays.php
CPS is profiting as well off the poor. They actually get money every time they take a kid from a poor person and their workers get bonuses for taking a kid and not returning them home.
Title IV’s mandates say that, “The more kids you take the more money you will make and if you return them home, you will LOSE all present and future funding for all returned children…” I am not making this up, go ask for yourself from the US Ways and Means Committee and they will tell you the same.
CPS uses the poor to make money from their kids and as setting legal precedence in court so when upper classes are falsely accused they have to go into bankruptcy to adequately defend themselves.
Worse, besides the $ billions they receive as mandated from Title IV (out of Social Security), CPS also goes in and takes even more for themselves out of the “discretionary” funding, (TANDF, Childcatre, food styamps and Medicaid) literally “out of the mouths of babes” from badly needed services to (mostly working for a wage) people. As an average depending on the state, CPS will take about 1/3 of this funding as well.
Then they cry they have to cut those services to families. THEN they go in and TAKE those kids for “maltreatment and neglect” instead of helping them. Mr Wexlar below will back me up to say CPS spends literally 1000% more on taking kids than they would for helping the families. And while most states make it illegal to take kids from their parents because of poverty, the CONDITIONS OF POVERTY are direct definitions of “maltreatment and neglect”.
CPS officials well know it is better for the child, the child has a better chance of thriving and these kids would not chance the possibility of the 5-7 X more likely abuse happening in foster care of they stayed in their home with services, even when the parent is chemically dependent. But there is money to made and, “the best interest the child” really means, “the best interest of our bank accounts”.
More to say but this is too long already except poverty is merely used as n excuse, the truth is they are profiting from the taking and selling of low income children by literally “harvesting” them from their low wage families who cannot defend themselves.
Cat in Seattle
And here’s how we do it: NCCPR compares the number of children taken away over the course of a year in each state (each state has to report this to the federal government) to a census bureau estimate of the number of children living in poverty in each state.
Though we believe factoring in poverty is the fairest way to do this comparison, some journalists, (particularly an editorial writer at another Iowa newspaper that shall remain nameless) insist that the comparison should be done only to total child population. So we run the numbers that way as well. The extreme outliers – like Iowa – do badly either way.
We also compare the number of children trapped *in* foster care on any given day using both measures – and again, sadly, Iowa is among the worst.
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
http://www.nccpr.org
Is the objective of the system to protect kids or to be certain that no parent is offended? I hope that the welfare of the child is the primary goal of any system, but the comparison of removal numbers or rates will NOT save a single child’s life or well being. I think the existing objective could probably be described as “very protective” and that’s NOT necessarily a bad thing if you are a child. No system that includes termination of parental care or parental rights will be perfect, but guess what – Kids have a right to be safe!
It does seem like often children are removed “just to be on the safe side.” The problem is that removing a child from their home is not a benign act, it is harmful to the child in itself.
In other words, perpetrating harm on a child “just to be safe” is not a good reason. The harm of removing a child needs to be more seriously considered before acting. The actual harm vs. perceived/actual harm needs to be carefully weighed.