Opinion: Child protection has changed little over the years

Having been a protective services investigator (in what is now called the Department of Children and Families) back in 1964 through 1967, I am amazed, yet not surprised, at how little has changed in 38 years. Back then I was the first worker paired with a male minority to investigate allegations of child abuse. My partner's name was Jim, and a more dedicated and compassionate man you'd be hard pressed to find. I recall glaring stares as we rode together to various homes throughout Pinellas County, appeared in court together, and visited battered children at county hospitals. Jim was married with a young son and found it difficult to make ends meet on his meager salary.

Our average caseload was 80 to 110 families and many visits had to be made within 24 hours by law. The turnover was high, just as it is now. In 1968 I relocated to Indianapolis and became a school social worker for a drop-out prevention high school that offered better pay and benefits. My caseload was 175 and because these students had been adjudicated delinquent, I was required to make frequent contacts both at school and at their homes. I was burned out after two years and accepted a position at the Marion County Juvenile Court as a probation/parole officer. This 12-month position paid more, but once again the caseload was overwhelming.

And here we are in 2002, still facing inadequate wages for workers, phenomenal amounts of paperwork and the scorn of politicians and others for not doing the job. Sounds similar to what school system personnel hear frequently! I would love to have our politicians shadow a caseworker or teacher for just one day to get a reality check. I have been a school counselor for 30 years and often have to make a referral to DCF for possible child abuse. How many of you would like to investigate a father accused of strapping his 3-year-old to a tricycle, forcing him to ride around in a circle, and whipping him on his back as he rode around? I have, and it is heart-wrenching.

There are always a few bad apples in the bunch, but the majority of caseworkers deserve our heartfelt appreciation and support. But without the legislators' help, Kathleen Kearney's replacement will not be able to get the job done either, and many children will continue to suffer.
-- Jean Lanier, Seminole

Try a realistic job description

Re: DCF chief quits troubled agency, Aug. 14.

Jeb Bush will have to put an ad in the papers for a new director. If he is bound by truth in advertising, the ad should read like this:

Wanted, agency director. Duties to include the management and direction of an understaffed child welfare agency responsible for the protection of those citizens who cannot protect themselves. Must possess the ability to interface with both overworked, dedicated, competent as well as totally useless, unmotivated, incompetent staff. Must manage the agency on a totally inadequate budget. Must be responsible for the depraved acts of abusive parents. Must be infallible in the accurate prediction of human behavior in assessing risk to children. The successful candidate must be willing to endure endless bashing by the media and politicians.

The article also quotes Sen. Ron Silver, D-North Miami who said, "At least the next person will have a grace period for a certain period of time." I wonder, does the grace period apply to the children too? Will they be spared from neglect, abuse and death?
-- J. Schlosser, Spring Hill

Watching how the system fails

I have been sickened after reading of the mess regarding the Department of Children and Families. It just amazes me how an organization that deals with protecting the most innocent can have so many problems. I have known several people who have had children monitored by DCF and the main problem I have witnessed is that the case goes from caseworker to caseworker to caseworker. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when this happens there is no possible way for the system to work. The caseworker needs to be able to have a personal relationship with the child and family.

I have also witnessed that the primary focus seems to be the paperwork -- a better description would be red tape -- to assure that someone is not getting more help than he or she deserves when the focus should be on the health (both emotional and physical) and safety of the child. Too bad the children aren't protected by a humane society. Maybe then there wouldn't be so many who are abused and eventually die.
-- Terri Kapp, St. Petersburg

Knowing what it feels like

Re: Seeking a DCF solution, editorial, Aug. 15.

I feel truly sorry for former DCF Secretary Kathleen Kearney, as well as for the children the state has failed. I can only imagine how it feels to care deeply for children while dealing with low pay, poor morale and a pass-the-buck attitude (know as privatizing/vouchers).

Well, actually, I can do more than imagine -- I am a public school teacher!
-- Jim Reed, St. Petersburg

The disturbing disposal of babies

Re: Baby found in trash barrel, Aug. 6.

The garbage can shown in the story about the young woman who wrapped her newborn baby in a towel and put her in with the trash reminded me of another garbage can I saw when I was in my early 20s. It was on some pro-life literature, and this trash receptacle had dead babies in it. This was reportedly a picture from the Holocaust and was to show that any killing of babies was horrific. That picture had such an impact on me.

Recently I read a statistic that since 1973, when abortion was legalized, approximately 40-million babies have been killed and disposed of by abortion in the United States. I believe that tragic fact led to Stephanie Smith's tragic trashing of her baby.

In the story on Aug. 6, the reporter writes that Rick Hoover, the man who found the baby still alive in the garbage can, "could barely believe his eyes." My question is how do people in abortion clinics dispose of babies without having the same sort of shock -- that babies and disposing of them just don't go together?

It's no wonder that young people have such a hard time figuring out right from wrong these days. Stephanie Smith disposed of her newborn infant, but she did not follow our society's rules for killing your baby. Rule No. 1: You cannot take your own baby's life; you must have a professional do it. Rule No. 2: The baby must be killed before she is born. Rule No. 3: Babies cannot be disposed of until they are dead, and disposal must take place by a professional.

I have a different killing rule, which is lots easier for young people to grasp: "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). I pray our society will get back to embracing it and stop killing and disposing of babies.
-- Elaine Creasman, Largo

Cope should have resigned

I am a retired attorney who practiced in the 6th Judicial Circuit for 33 years. I appeared before Circuit Judge Charles W. Cope many times as my practice was primarily devoted to family law and domestic violence issues. I had a good working relationship with the judge, and stood behind him at the time of his first "incident," an arrest for DUI while attending a judicial conference in South Florida.

Now, with Judge Cope's return to the bench, I must say that the Family Law Division is the absolute last place he belongs. He has a predisposition toward women, and seems to believe they are best suited for sex and games.

I cannot support the findings of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, if they are indeed "findings" as opposed to simple blind acknowledgments that his brand of conduct is acceptable. All of us make mistakes, and I am the first to acknowledge that. Unfortunately, the "mistakes" Judge Cope has made, at least those we know of, have been while he has been a sitting judge wielding awesome responsibility and power. He is not suited to wield that kind of responsibility; his decisions and actions are flawed to say the least.

The judge has not lived up to the standards of morality and common decency most of us live by, and by which most certainly our judges should live by. He has not atoned for his grievous ways, he displays an arrogance toward law enforcement and the law itself as seen in the latest debacle in which he has been involved.

If by some quirk, he should be convicted of one or more misdemeanors in California, what then? Is that also acceptable? Is this the kind of person we want as an example of the judiciary?

Judge Cope should have been a real man about the entire matter, admitted his peccadilloes and resigned for the good of the system and all the other judges who try their best to do what is required and expected of them. Cope's arrogance prevents that.
-- David F. Kern, Oldsmar

Questioning a judge's judgment

Re: Judge Charles Cope.

I have a huge problem with this judge being back on the bench after this bout with ethics. How unbiased is he going to be if a case comes before him involving an alcohol-related crime, or a case involving home invasion? How can he possibly make the appropriate judgment when he may relate more to the perpetrator than to the victim? It appears his judgment skills are seriously impaired.

I am shocked that the state Judicial Qualifications Commission has concluded that he will be able to put all of this personal negativity behind him and be able to come to the correct conclusions in court cases.

Are these men above the law because they are judges? With all of the negative publicity the courthouse has had recently, I thought maybe those involved would now be held accountable!
-- Sue Simon, St. Pete Beach

Panel needs a closer look

Re: Cope's remorse, editorial, Aug. 12.

Thank you for your recent editorial regarding Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Charles Cope. As a newcomer to Pinellas County, I followed the articles regarding Judge Cope's behavior in California. I completely agree with the editorial that the interpretation of remorse by Judge Cope and the judicial ethics panel is far different from Webster's.

Who makes up this panel? I wonder what the cost of this "investigation" was to the taxpayers as Judge Cope has been on a year-long vacation (paid leave of absence)? Perhaps we need look at the judicial ethics panel, who is on the panel and to whom are they accountable.
-- Paula Pendergast, Oldsmar

Adolf is unappetizing

Re: Hitler's hunger for money, Aug. 10.

Why must readers of St. Petersburg Times be subjected to seeing a very large picture of Adolf Hitler on the front page? It was enough to cancel breakfast -- and cancel St. Petersburg Times.

The article might have been of interest to some, but I think that most people would be appalled at it and wonder why you would print it at all.

The paper could have spared its readers from looking at this man's face so early in the day.

If this article needed to be printed, why not give it a small space on the back page with maybe a stamp-size picture (if any) of Mr. Hitler -- and title the article Hitler: Who cares?
-- Louise Sullivan, Largo

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page