As a guardian ad litem (GAL) and domestic relations mediator in New Mexico, I am attuned to issues related to the safety and adequate care of children. The emerging conceptual model today is to assess threats of child abuse and weigh those threats against the “protective capacities” in the family, to determine whether or not a child is or can be made “safe” in a given home environment. If the child is or cannot be made safe, the State must assume custody. This blog reviews the new safety threat/protective capacity model or analysis.
As an initial matter, it is helpful to review the definitions. A child is “safe,” despite vulnerabilities inherent to age and development, when there are no threats of danger within the family or when the parents possess sufficient protective capacity to manage any threats.
A child is “unsafe” when threats of danger exist within the family, the children are vulnerable to such threats, and the parents have insufficient protective capacities to manage or control the threats.
A “threat of danger” is a specific family situation or behavior, emotion, motive, perception or capacity of a family member. Such threats can arise in circumstances such as the following:
- no adult is meeting basic and essential parenting duties and responsibilities;
- lack of sufficient basic resources, such as food and shelter;
- failure to meet child’s exceptional physical or emotional needs;
- lack of adequate parenting skills;
- violent and/or dangerous behavior of parents;
- dangerous lack of impulse control of parents;
- parents’ perceptions of child are extremely negative;
- threats or intent of, or actual serious harm;
- rejection of Child Protection Services’ interventions, denial of access;
- dangerous living arrangements;
- child is profoundly fearful of home situation; or
- parents cannot or do not adequately explain child’s injuries or threatening family conditions.
A child is “vulnerable” when he or she lacks the capacity to self-protect. This can arise from a variety of factors, including but not limited to:
- young age;
- susceptibility to harm due to size, mobility or social/emotional state;
- developmental disabilities;
- isolation;
- inability to anticipate and judge the presence of danger;
- conscious or unwitting provocations of threats;
- poor physical health or capacity;
- emotional vulnerability;
- the impact of prior maltreatment;
- feelings toward the parent, such as attachment, fear, insecurity or security; and
- the ability to articulate problems and danger.
Protective capacities of parents and family fall into three (3) categories:
1. Cognitive protective capacities. Refers to knowledge, understanding and perception contributing to protective vigilance; although related to some extent to intellectual capacity, parents with low intellectual functioning can still protect their children. Rather, this has more to do with a parent’s recognition that he or she is responsible for the child, and recognition of cues or alerts that danger is pending. Can be demonstrated when parent:
a. articulates a plan to protect the child;
b. is aligned with the child;
c. has adequate knowledge to fulfill care-giving responsibilities and tasks;
d. is reality oriented, perceives reality accurately;
e. has accurate perceptions of the child;
f. understands his/her protective role; and
g. is self-aware as a caregiver.
2. Behavioral protective capacities. Refers to actions, activities and performance that result in protective vigilance; can be demonstrated when the parent:
a. is physically able
b. has a history of protecting others;
c. acts to correct problems or challenges;
d. demonstrates impulse control;
e. demonstrates adequate skill to fulfill care-giving responsibilities;
f. possesses adequate energy;
g. sets aside his/her needs in favor of a child;
h. is adaptive and assertive; and
i. uses resources necessary to meet the child’s basic needs.
3. Emotional protective capacities. Refers to feelings, attitudes and identification with the child and motivation resulting in protective vigilance; is influenced by the parent/child attachment bond, and the parent’s own emotional strength. Can be demonstrated when the parent:
a. is able to meet own emotional needs;
b. is emotionally able to intervene to protect the child;
c. realizes the child cannot produce gratification and self-esteem for the parent;
d. is tolerant as a parent;
e. displays concern for the child and the child’s experience and is intent on emotionally protecting the child;
f. has a strong bond with the child, knows a parent’s first priority is well-being of the child; and
g. expresses love, empathy and sensitivity toward the child, experiences
Next, this information is put together by the child protective worker to make a SAFETY DECISION.
- The first step is determining if there is a threat.
o If no threat exists OR if protective action was taken to terminate the threat, the child is safe and no further action is taken.
- If a threat still exists, a determination is made as to vulnerability.
o If the child is not vulnerable to threats, the child is safe and no further action is taken.
- If a threat still exists AND the child is vulnerable, a decision is required as to sufficiency of protective capacities to manage the threats.
o If there are sufficient protective capacities, the child is safe and no further action is taken.
o If there are insufficient protective capacities, the child is UNSAFE and further action must be taken.
There are five (5) general categories of action or services available to control threats of danger.
1. Actions or services to control or manage threatening behavior. These can include in-home health care; supervision and monitoring; stress reduction; medical treatment; substance abuse intervention or detoxification; emergency mental health care.
2. Actions or services that will manage crises. These are intended to alleviate a crisis and solve problems than can fuel threats of danger; includes crisis intervention; counseling; or resource acquisition, such as financial help, or help with basic parenting tasks.
3. Actions or services providing social support. These can be especially helpful to your or inexperienced parents, and include a friendly visitor, basic parenting assistance/teaching; homemaker services; home management; supervision and monitoring; social support; and in-home babysitting.
4. Actions or services that can briefly separate parent and child. This can range from one hour babysitting, to weekend/week long respite, to extended foster care.
5. Actions or services to provide resources. Can include resource acquisition,; transportation services; employment assistance; or housing assistance.
Child Protective Services is required to make reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of children from their home. In determining whether reasonable efforts in this regard were taken, the courts will look to what should have been actually was done to control threats, and whether the action taken was the least intrusive approach that was needed to keep the child safe. A common effort is the provision of in-home services, and in-home safety plans. However, an in-home safety plan may not be appropriate if the parents tend to disappear, are unwilling to cooperate, or if the household is unpredictable.
If you are interested in child-related mediation or GAL (guardian ad litem) services, please contact Pilar Vaile, P.C. at (505) 247-0802, or info@pilarvailepc.com.
Source:
Unidentified/uncredited “Benchmark” handout materials from the Second Judicial District,
