University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School
University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository
Other Publications Faculty Scholarship
2015
Strange Bedfellows: How Child Welfare Agencies Can Bene;t Strange Bedfellows: How Child Welfare Agencies Can Bene;t
from Investing in Multidisciplinary Parent Representation from Investing in Multidisciplinary Parent Representation
Vivek S. Sankaran
University of Michigan Law School
Patricia L. Rideout
Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services
Martha L. Raimon
Center for the Study of Social Policy
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/other/86
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/other
Part of the Family Law Commons, Juvenile Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law
Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Sankaran, Vivek. "Strange Bedfellows: How Child Welfare Agencies Can Bene;t from Investing in
Multidisciplinary Parent Representation." P. L. Rideout and M. L. Raimon, co-authors. Center for the Study
of Social Policy (2015).
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law
School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other Publications by an authorized
administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
mlaw[email protected].
Strange Bedfellows
How Child Welfare
Agencies Can Benefit
from Investing in
Multidisciplinary
Parent Representation
How Child Welfare
Agencies Can Benefit
from Investing in
Multidisciplinary
Parent Representation
* Vivek S. Sankaran is a clinical professor
of law and directs the Child Advocacy Law
Clinic at The University of Michigan Law
School. Patricia L. Rideout is the former
administrator of the Cuyahoga County
Division of Children and Family Services.
Martha L. Raimon is a senior associate at
the Center for the Study of Social Policy.
“
This is the second of a series of articles that
examines the role that advocates for parents
and families can play in furthering the well-
being and safety of children. This article
highlights emerging parent representation
models that expedite the safe reunification
of children already in foster care.
A
fter the child welfare agency removed Maria’s three children and placed
them in foster care, Maria sank into despair. She was confused about why
her children were taken from her. She could not understand the legal
jargon on the paperwork given to her. She did not know why everyone refused
to tell her where her children were and when she could see them next. By the
time of the first court hearing, Maria was angry, upset and frustrated. She wanted
nothing to do with the agency that took her children from her.
Child welfare agencies face a humbling task. Their overarching goal is to ensure
the safety, permanency and well-being of children in their community, but they
Vivek S. Sankaran, Patricia L. Rideout and Martha L. Raimon
*
Effective child welfare leaders are not interested in adversarial
relationships with parents or their attorneys. They are invested
in accomplishing their mission: making sure children, youth and
families get what they need so that every child can grow up in a
safe and stable family.
Patricia L. Rideout, Former Administrator,
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Division of Children and Family Services
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: How Child Welfare Agencies Can Benet from Invesng in Muldisciplinary Parent Representaon
2
face difficult decisions about when a child’s safety is in jeopardy
and placement in foster care may be necessary. Understanding
the severe consequences for the child and his or her family, they
must try, in the first instance, to prevent unnecessary removals
of children from their families. When placement into foster care
is necessary to ensure the safety of the child, they must work
diligently to reunify children with their birth parents. And to
do that, they must juggle a number of difficult tasks, such as
identifying appropriate placements for children, securing services
for parents and arranging visitation.
Yet, to achieve success, agencies must do one thing especially well
in every circumstance—they must effectively engage birth parents in
all aspects of case planning. If parents are not effectively engaged,
agencies will too often fail in their efforts to either reunify
children with their parents or to achieve another permanency goal
for the children.
Effectively engaging with birth parents around this work has
been a particularly elusive goal for child welfare agencies. Birth
parents like Maria are often skeptical and mistrustful of the intent
of the agency to help them get their children home, particularly
when the agency has just removed their children from their care.
Birth parents may be resistant to forming trusting relationships
with caseworkers and may be reluctant to comply with services.
Additionally, birth parents face a host of complicated legal
and socio-emotional needs that require a significant amount
of time to address, which few caseworkers can provide, given
high caseloads, sometimes limited skills and administrative
responsibilities. In many jurisdictions, caseworkers are only
expected to meet with parents once each month. Predictably,
parent engagement remains a strong barrier to child welfare
agencies achieving the outcomes they desire for children.
A new and perhaps surprising tool has emerged to assist child
welfare agencies to better engage parents and achieve improved
outcomes for children—multidisciplinary parent representation.
Legal offices across the country are providing birth parents with
the assistance of a team consisting of a lawyer, social worker and
a parent mentor to help guide them through the complexities of a
child welfare case. Rather than obstructing child welfare agencies
from accomplishing their goals, these multidisciplinary teams
are instead furthering agency goals by reducing unnecessary
removals of children from their homes, achieving greater rates of
reunification and expediting permanency for children – the same
outcomes agencies are required to seek by federal law. Initial data
from these programs demonstrate the dramatic impact that this
type of parent representation can have on outcomes for children.
This article will explore the challenges facing child welfare
agencies in engaging parents, suggest how multidisciplinary
parent representation can assist them in reaching their goals
and encourage child welfare agencies to prioritize strengthening
parent representation in their jurisdictions.
Lack of Parent Engagement Undermines the Ability
of Child Welfare Agencies to Accomplish Their Goals.
U
nlike other types of legal disputes, child welfare
proceedings are unique in two major respects. First, at the
outset of the case, in most instances all parties in a child
welfare case share the same goal: to reunify children with their
families. The Constitution of the United States presumes that the
interests of children are best served when they are safely cared
for by their birth parents.
1
Consistent with this presumption,
both federal and state laws not only mandate that child welfare
agencies keep children in their homes absent evidence that it
would be “contrary to the welfare of the child” but also require
agencies to make “reasonable efforts” both to prevent children
from being removed and if removed, to expedite the child’s return
back home.
2
Agencies’ internal policies also reflect the primacy
of reunification as their chief goal for those children who are
removed from their parents. Thus, in nearly every child welfare
case, all parties are legally obligated to work toward the same
outcome for the child.
Second, child welfare cases are unique because the legal disputes
primarily center on resolving what will happen in the future, as
opposed to adjudicating historical facts. Most other legal disputes
involve a contest over what happened in the past. Did the
defendant rob the bank? Did the company breach the contract?
Did the employer discriminate against the worker? Once the
3
historical facts are settled, the only remaining question is what
the precise punishment or remedy will be for the offense. After
that, the case is concluded. Neither the court, nor the parties, has
an ongoing need to work together within the context of the case.
Child welfare cases are different. In many, the question of what
happened in the past plays a minor role in the case. Parents often
admit that they have neglected or abused their children in some
way, but these admissions do not resolve the case. They simply
mark the beginning of the next phase of the case, which often
lasts months, if not years. And in this phase, the focus is entirely
forward-looking. What should happen in the future? How will
the court and the parties work together to return the child home
safely? What services will be offered? When will the child be
able to return home? Until that happens, how will visitation be
structured and the child’s needs best be met? Given the parties’
shared goal of returning the child to his or her parents, the parties
must work together to ensure that this will happen.
But it is not enough for the professionals to work together.
A crucial requirement for achieving reunification is engaging
parents to remain actively and constructively involved in their
child welfare case and in their children’s lives. Studies have
repeatedly shown that when child welfare agencies are able
to work effectively with birth parents, outcomes improve for
children.
3
Effective engagement involves making parents
meaningful partners in case planning, providing them with a
voice in the decision-making process and sharing with them the
information they need to successfully advocate for themselves
and their children.
4
When this type of engagement occurs, parents
are far more receptive to accepting services from child welfare
and related agencies.
5
Additionally, parents who engage with
child welfare agencies are more likely to feel hopeful, openly
acknowledge problems and become motivated to change.
6
Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
has observed that “[s]uccessfully involving family members in
case planning may be the most critical component for achieving
outcomes in child welfare practice.”
7
Yet, despite the consensus about the importance of engaging
parents, the goal remains elusive. Recent federal child and family
service reviews concluded that every state failed in this area,
finding that agencies only involved parents and children in
roughly 50 percent of cases.
8
The federal reviews also found that
only 19 states met the national standard for reunifying children
with their parents.
9
In only approximately 50 percent of all child
welfare cases do agencies successfully reunify children with their
parents.
10
Child welfare agencies struggle to engage
parents for a number of reasons.
Many caseworkers are
overworked and lack the
experience or the
time to spend with
parents, who
often present
complicated
legal and
emotional
issues
and carry
a deep
history of
trauma.
11
A
caseworker’s
ability to
engage parents
is also impeded
by their conflicting
roles. Caseworkers often
make decisions that result in
the separation of the family. They
then must work to reunify the same family
they helped to separate. Additionally, if the parent fails to make
progress on his or her service plan, then the same caseworker
tasked with reunifying the family may simultaneously seek to
terminate that parent’s rights. Thus, understandably, many parents
find it very difficult to trust caseworkers.
As a result of these and other dynamics, parents often feel
disrespected, excluded from the decision-making process and
“helpless and confused in an overly adversarial system.”
12
They
may refuse to share information with their caseworkers and
typically do not view agencies as partners.
13
Rather, they view
caseworkers as authority figures mandating what they must do
and watching to see if they comply, exactly the sort of dynamic
that undermines the goals of child welfare agencies.
14
So long as
this dynamic remains, child welfare agencies will not achieve the
best outcomes for children.
3
Effective
engagement
involves making
parents meaningful
partners in case
planning, providing
them with a voice in
the decision-making
process and sharing
with them the
information they
need to successfully
advocate for
themselves and
their children.
4
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: How Child Welfare Agencies Can Benet from Invesng in Muldisciplinary Parent Representaon
Inadequate parent
representation
only exacerbates
the struggles faced
by child welfare
agencies to engage
parents.
U
nfortunately, inadequate parent representation only
exacerbates the struggles faced by child welfare agencies
to engage parents.
Consider this reality for Maria, the parent described earlier. Before
her initial shelter care hearing, she is not greeted by an attorney.
Instead, she waits alone outside of the courtroom. When the
clerk calls her case, she remains motionless until the clerk tells
her to come forward. The judge instructs her that the individual
standing beside her is her lawyer. And for the next 10 minutes,
a conversation occurs between the lawyers and the judges,
none of which Maria comprehends. The clerk then announces a
date for the next hearing, and Maria is abruptly hustled out of
the courtroom. Just like that, the court has determined that her
children remain in foster care. She doesn’t know for how long.
She is confused. She is scared. She may not have seen her
daughter for days. And her anger intensifies.
Over the next few weeks, her phone calls to her new attorney go
unanswered, as do her many questions about what is happening
with her daughter. When her caseworker approaches her and asks
her to discuss her case plan and engage in services, Maria shuts
down. Yet, the clock dictating when her parental rights will be
terminated continues to tick at a steady, rapid pace.
This is the reality faced by many parents in the child welfare
system. While most states, but not all, provide parents attorneys in
child welfare cases, they have failed to ensure that parents receive
adequate legal representation.
15
Consequently, parents’ lawyers
are underpaid, overworked and inadequately trained.
16
They carry
high caseloads. They lack access to experts from other disciplines,
like social workers, investigators and parent partners. Rather than
spending their time engaging with their clients or advocating for
them at important agency meetings, they too often move from
hearing to hearing, simply helping to process a case from one
stage to the next.
National child advocacy groups have lamented the inadequacy
of parents’ counsel for many years. For example, a 2005 report by
the American Bar Association described parent representation in
one state as falling “disturbingly short of standards of practice.”
17
Yet, systems have largely failed to respond to this outcry. Although
significant reforms have occurred in some jurisdictions to
strengthen legal representation in criminal matters, parent
representation has received scant attention. But in maintaining
the status quo of inadequate parent representation, systems
are contributing to the isolation and frustration experienced
by parents, further leading to their disengagement with the
system.
Child welfare agencies have recently employed a number
of innovations to improve their ability to engage parents,
including convening team decision-making meetings,
18
employing parent mentors to help parents navigate the
system and connecting birth parents and foster parents to
ensure that parents remain involved in raising their children
even when children are not in their care. But they have yet
to recognize the link between strong parent representation
and parent engagement. The next section discusses how
multidisciplinary parent representation can serve as an
important tool to engage parents and reach common goals.
Inadequate Parent Representation Throughout the
Country Impedes Child Welfare Systems’ Efforts to
Engage Parents.
5
C
onsider this alternate reality for Maria. While waiting
anxiously in the hallway in front of the courtroom prior to
the commencement of her initial shelter care hearing, she
is greeted by three members of her new legal team— an attorney,
a social worker and a parent mentor. Recognizing her anxiety, her
team takes Maria to a private meeting room, where they explain
their role, their undivided loyalty to her and their legal obligation
to keep their communications confidential unless given Maria’s
permission. The team also tells Maria about what will happen
next in the case, what they will be asking for and what they
expect the child welfare agency to request. But most importantly,
the team gives Maria a chance to tell her story and to tell them
exactly what she wants for herself and her child. Maria has never
been given the chance to do this. After the meeting, Maria takes
a deep breath and enters the court hearing feeling less angry
and more willing to listen to and work with everyone on her case.
She feels more willing to engage with the system, knowing that
advocates presenting her perspective are on her side and will
support her. She also knows that she can rely on her team to
advocate for her on an ongoing basis.
Across the country, multidisciplinary parent representation
practices, like the one described above, are emerging and place
parent engagement at the core of their work. These offices
provide parents with the assistance of a team made up of an
attorney, a social worker and a parent mentor to help them
navigate the child welfare system. Each partner plays a crucial
role in helping the parent feel supported and engaged.
The attorney provides quality legal representation to the parent,
both inside and outside the courtroom. He or she meets with
the client, investigates the facts of the case, counsels the client
about the various options and possibilities, advises on what is
likely to happen and then zealously advocates for the parent
based on the client’s goals. The attorney also works with the other
players in the case, such as the caseworkers and the children’s
attorneys, recognizing the need to collaborate around planning
for the child and family, while also understanding that there
may be times where issues need to be aggressively litigated in
the courtroom. Importantly, the attorney, who may be better able
to access current information about the family, investigates the
facts of the case and shares relevant information with both the
agency and the court to ensure that all players have an accurate
understanding about what transpired prior to the filing of the
petition. This stands in stark contrast to the typical practice seen
across the country.
The social worker on the multidisciplinary team is able to connect
with the parent in ways that the agency caseworker cannot
because she, unlike the agency caseworker, has undivided loyalty
to the parent. Thus, she is able to have honest conversations
with the parent about the parent’s strengths and challenges
and can then work with the parent to find resources to address
identified problems. She has more time than the caseworker to
locate effective services in the community and then can work
closely with the client to access them. The social worker also
communicates regularly with the agency caseworker, accompanies
the client to agency meetings and ensures that the client’s voice
is heard.
Finally, the parent mentor, who herself successfully navigated the
child welfare system to reunify with her child, provides emotional
support to the parent so that her energy can be used productively
in service of the legal proceeding. The parent advocate also
discusses ways for the parent to productively engage with the
system and helps to ensure that the legal team—along with the
other players in the system—effectively engage with the parent.
The parent advocate provides a consistent reminder to all the
stakeholders about the need to tailor the intervention to address
the family’s identified needs.
Although this new model of parent representation is just
emerging, initial data demonstrates the dramatic impact it can
have on outcomes for children. For example, the Center for
Family Representation (CFR) in New York City,
19
which represents
parents using multidisciplinary legal teams, prevented the need
for foster care for many children, reduced the length of stay of
other children and reduced the rate of children re-entering the
system. Data tracked since 2007 demonstrate that more than 50
percent of children of CFR clients avoid foster care placement
altogether.
20
Where foster care cannot be avoided, the median
length of placement for children of parents served by CFR is just
Multidisciplinary Legal Representation Can Be an
Effective Tool to Engage Parents.
6
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: How Child Welfare Agencies Can Benet from Invesng in Muldisciplinary Parent Representaon
five months compared with a citywide average of nearly a year.
21
Preliminary data also indicate that children of parents served by
CFR re-entered the foster care system after their case was closed
at a rate of approximately 1 percent, compared with a statewide
foster care re-entry rate of 15 percent.
22
Judges working with
CFR’s multidisciplinary teams noted that because CFR attorneys
knew the facts of their cases better and proposed solutions to
the court, court orders were better tailored to meet the needs of
families.
23
CFR’s services are also cost-effective. They cost approximately
$6,500 per family over the entire life of the case, a sum that is
vastly less expensive than a single year of foster care for a single
child, which can range from $25,000 to $60,000 dollars per year,
depending on a variety of factors including where and in what
kind of setting the agency places the child.
24
Thus, for every child
prevented from entering foster care, or for every child whose length
of stay is reduced by months, the system can save thousands of
dollars. In fact, since 2007, CFR services have saved the foster care
system more than $30 million.
25
The Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD), which also
provides parents with multidisciplinary legal representation, has
achieved similar outcomes.
26
During a three-year pilot period, data
showed that there was an 11 percent increase in the reunification
rate in counties served by OPD.
27
Data also demonstrated that
there was a 104 percent increase in the adoption rate and an 83
percent increase in the guardianship rate in the counties served
by OPD, demonstrating that this new model improves all types of
child welfare outcomes.
28
Researchers found that the increased
reunification rate resulted in children spending one less month in
foster care; the increased adoption and guardianship rates meant
that permanency was accelerated by approximately one year.
29
Commentators observed that, as a result of OPD’s work, “[p]arents
are more willing to engage in services and work with their agency
caseworkers, so there are fewer terminations. When families
cannot reunify, OPD attorneys advise clients about adoption with
contact and guardianship possibilities, and work to negotiate
those outcomes.”
30
Thus, even when reunification may not be
possible, multidisciplinary parent representation allows and
supports parents to be fully engaged in planning for other options
for their children.
31
The initial data suggest that multidisciplinary parent
representation can dramatically improve parent engagement,
supporting parents to be partners in the child welfare system’s
efforts to help children, and in doing so, improve outcomes
for children. More research must be done to demonstrate
the effectiveness of these multidisciplinary models, but the
unfortunate reality is that this type of legal representation is rare.
Instead, the inadequate parent representation that is prevalent
often serves as a major impediment to engaging families, and
therefore undermines the goals of child welfare agencies.
This is precisely why child welfare agencies must take the lead
in creating awareness and advocating for a better system of
representation for parents. Child welfare leaders are keenly
aware that even children who need to be separated from parents
suffer and that agencies must work diligently to reunify children
safely with their parents. And child welfare leaders are aware
of the research on poor outcomes of children in foster care,
especially those children who age out of the system without ever
having achieved permanency, and thus they want to see parents
succeed. In short, good child welfare leaders are not interested
in adversarial relationships with parents and their attorneys,
but instead are interested in ensuring that children—and their
parents—get the assistance they need.
Good child
welfare leaders
are not interested
in adversarial
relationships with
parents and their
attorneys, but
instead are interested
in ensuring that
children—and their
parents—get the
assistance they need.
7
A Call to Action
A
t its best, parent representation can be an effective tool
in helping to ensure that all voices are heard in the court
process and that parents work in partnership with the
child welfare system to jointly plan for the well-being and safety
of their children. At its worst, ineffective parent representation can
lead to the further isolation parents experience and can impede
the innovative efforts being made by agencies. In short, child
welfare agencies must seize this opportunity to assist families by
supporting and investing in this needed service.
What does it mean for agencies to invest in parent
representation? At a minimum, agencies must begin to speak out
about the importance of parent representation and how effective
parent representation promotes many of the same outcomes
sought by agencies, including successful permanency for children.
When parent representation offices are advocating for increased
funding, child welfare agencies should be allies in their efforts,
explaining to legislative bodies how effective advocacy for
parents is not tangential to ensuring children’s safety and
well-being, but is, in fact, crucial to a well-functioning
child welfare system.
Nationwide, there are models of child welfare agencies
advocating for quality representation for parents. For
example:
• In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the child welfare
agency provides direct funding for the representation
of parents.
• In the District of Columbia, the Child and Family Services
Agency has used Title IV-E waiver funds to support legal
advocacy for parents prior to the filing of the petition.
• In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, the child welfare agency initiated
a campaign to strengthen parent legal representation
and the Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to fund a present
representation pilot, expected to start in the spring of 2016.
These efforts reflect but a few of the ways in which child
welfare agencies can take the lead to address this important
issue.
Think back to Maria’s story and how the quality of legal
representation can affect the trajectory of Maria’s case. And think
about whether child welfare systems will be able to achieve
the best outcomes possible if parents like Maria do not receive
adequate legal representation, and therefore, do not fully engage
with the system. That is the question before us. And that is the
call to action child welfare agencies must answer.
At a minimum,
agencies must begin
to speak out about the
importance of parent
representation and
how effective parent
representation
promotes many of
the same outcomes
sought by agencies,
including successful
permanency for
children
8
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: How Child Welfare Agencies Can Benet from Invesng in Muldisciplinary Parent Representaon
Endnotes
1. See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-754; 102 S. Ct. 1388; 71 L. Ed. 2d. 599 (1982).
2. See 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15); 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2)(A)(ii).
3. Rice, K. & Girvin, H. (2014). Engaging families, building relationships: Strategies for working across systems from a social
exchange perspective. Advances in Social Work, 15(2), 306–317; Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows. (June 2011).
Child Welfare Information Gateway; Cheng, T.C. (2010). Factors associated with reunification: A longitudinal analysis of long
term foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(10), 1311–1316.
4. Rice & Girvin (2014); Gladstone, J. et al. (2012). Looking at engagement and outcome from the perspectives of child
protection workers and parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 112–118; Family Reunification: What the Evidence
Shows. (June 2011).
5. Cheng (2010).
6. Gladstone et al. (2012).
7. Engaging Families in Case Planning. (September 2012). Child Welfare Information Gateway.
8. Ibid.
9. Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows. (June 2011).
10. Ibid.
11. The Family Engagement Inventory: A Brief Cross-Disciplinary Synthesis. (August 2014). Child Welfare Information Gateway.
12. Darlington, Y., Healy, K. & Feeney, J. (2010). Challenges in implementing participatory practice in child protection: A
contingency approach, Children and Youth Services Review, 32(7)1020–1027.
13. Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows. (June 2011).
14. Darlington et al. (2010).
15. For an overview of the ways in which states are inadequately providing parent representation, see Sankaran, V. (2011). No
harm, no foul? Why harmless error analysis should not be used to review wrongful denials of counsel to parents in child
welfare cases. South Carolina Law Review, 63(1), 13–41.
16. See, e.g., Minnesota Judicial Branch. (November 2008) Report of Children’s Justice Initiative Parent Legal Representation
Workgroup to Minnesota Judicial Council, available at http://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2009/other/090151.pdf (noting
that “[t]here is no statewide funding and no standards of practice for attorneys representing parents.”); Outley, A. (2004).
Representation for Children and Parents in Dependency Proceedings, available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_
report_detail.aspx?id=49014 (noting that almost three-fourths of court-improvement specialists believed that attorneys
for parents were not adequately compensated); Giving overmatched parents a chance [Opinion]. (June 17, 1996). New
York Times, A14, available at http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/17/opinion/giving-overmatched-parents-a-chance.html
(observing that “parents are generally stuck with harried court-appointed lawyers who are juggling many cases, and who
often show up unprepared and late for hearings.”); Appellate Division First Department Committee on Representation
of the Poor. (2001). Crisis in the Legal Representation of the Poor, available at http://www.courts.state.ny.us/press/old_
keep/1ad-rep-poor.shtml (writing that “[a]s a result of shamefully low rates of compensation of assigned counsel, lack of
resources, support and respect, inadequate funding of institutional providers, combined with ever-increasing caseloads,
New York’s poor are too often not being afforded the ‘meaningful and effective’ representation to which they are entitled.”).
9
17. Michigan Court Improvement Reassessment. (2005). Muskie School of Public Service & ABA Center on Children and the Law,
available at http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/Publications/cf/MI_CourtImprovementProgramReassessment.pdf. The report
further noted that parents reported that “their attorneys do not return phone calls or provide parents with their phone
numbers, do not explain what is going on in their cases, do not give parents a chance to tell their side of the story at
court hearings, and make deals without consulting them. Parents describe talking to their attorneys for only a few minutes
before their hearings.”
18. The Annie E. Casey Foundation has played a pivotal role in spreading team decision-making across the country. See The
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2002). Involving the Family and Community in Child Welfare Decisions, available at http://www.
aecf.org/resources/team-decisionmaking-involving-the-family-and-community-in-child-welfare-dec/, for more information
about this work.
19. More information about the Center for Family Representation is available at http://www.cfrny.org.
20. See Center for Family Representation. Our Results, available at http://www.cfrny.org/about-us/our-results/.
21. Center for Family Representation. Our Results.
22. Thornton, E. & Gwinn, B. (2012). High-quality legal representation for parents in child welfare cases results in improved
outcomes for families and potential cost savings. Family Law Quarterly, 46(1), 139–154.
23. Thornton & Gwinn (2012).
24. Thornton & Gwinn (2012).
25. Center for Family Representation. Our Results.
26. More information about the Parent Representation Program at OPD can be found at http://www.opd.wa.gov/index.php/
program/parents-representation.
27. Thornton & Gwinn (2012). p. 147.
28. Thornton & Gwinn (2012). p. 147.
29. Thornton & Gwinn (2012). p. 147.
30. Thornton & Gwinn (2012). p. 148.
31. In Part I of this Series, the article detailed outcomes of several multidisciplinary efforts, including the Detroit Center for
Family Advocacy, which provides multidisciplinary parent representation prior to the filing of a petition. Not one of the
112 children served by the Center during its three year prevention pilot period entered foster care. For more information
about this prevention model, see Sankaran, V. S. & Raimon, M. L. (2014). Case Closed: Addressing Unmet Legal Needs &
Stabilizing Families. Center for the Study of Social Policy, available at http://www.cssp.org/reform/child-welfare/Preventive-
Legal-Representation.pdf.
1575 Eye Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
50 Broadway
Suite 1504
New York, NY 10004
1000 North Alameda Street
Suite 102
Los Angeles, CA 90012
