Acknowledging CPS Efforts and Addressing Concerns

First, I want to extend a heartfelt thank you to CDHS’s Child Welfare team for their dedication to protecting children from harm. Special thanks to Joe Holmar, Director, for the ongoing dialogue; April Jenkins, Child Protection and Prevention Manager, for her professionalism; and Brittany Noble, Referral and Assessment Specialist, for her commitment to collecting the requested data. CPS’s role is incredibly challenging and often underappreciated. Thank you for your hard work!

Julie Grayson, a fellow advocate and COR Board member, and I bring a perspective shaped by lived experiences and interactions with hundreds of parents over the years. Our discussions with Joe Holmar and Yolanda Arredondo, Deputy Director, began last fall and continued with several meetings. We raised concerns about the prevalence of false allegations of child abuse, particularly in contested custody cases. Although CPS acknowledged the problem, they did not share our concerns about the volume of such cases. Nevertheless, CPS agreed to evaluate our concerns through a data collection project.

Brittany Noble suggested a project to add data to our discussion. She proposed submitting a data request to pull 100 random assessments and collect information that might help determine the caller’s intent. This initiative was a step towards addressing our concerns, even though collecting this specific data posed challenges. CPS does not gather data on a caller’s intent, and its practices and processes do not proactively prevent false allegations, partly due to state statutes and partly due to organizational culture and beliefs.

Data Collection and Findings

Our primary goal was to understand the frequency of false allegations in custody-related cases. Unfortunately, the data we sought—such as the percentage of calls potentially related to custody disputes and the level of concern expressed by mandatory reporters—was not available. The collected data on 100 assessments showed: Custody data pull report..

  • 3 calls by parents: 2 were of questionable intent.
  • 7 calls by third parties: 1 was of questionable intent.
  • 90 calls by mandatory reporters: their reports are assumed to be in good faith and no level of concern is documented

Analyzing Publicly Available Data

CPS public reporting tool can be found here. It was a little bit of a learning curve for me to better understand as the reports track different metrics. For what it’s worth, I reference children per assessment and allegations per assessment.

  • Number of Referrals/Assessments counts the number of hotline calls, which turned into assessments.
  • Victims of Abuse or Neglect counts the number of children involved in the assessments.
  • Count of Maltreatment Allegations by Maltreatment counts allegations that were part of the assessments.

For the past 12 months ending in March, CPS hotline received apx 116,500 calls. 72% (84,100) were screened out, and 28% (32,300) were screened in for an assessment.

Victims of Abuse or Neglect. On average, assessments include 1.5 children. 49,000 (# of children in assessments) divided by 32,300 (calls screened in, assessments done) = 1.51 children per assessment. Assuming 1.5 children per assessment:

  • 39% assessments (12,500 assessments, 18,800 kids) were closed,
  • 37% assessments (12,100, 18,200) are referred to some other service, and
  • 20% assessments (6.600, 9,900) have a case opened.

Count of Maltreatment Allegations by Maltreatment Type. On average, there are 1.6 allegations per assessment. 52,300 allegations divided by 32,300 assessments = 1.62.

  • Neglect: 71% (22% substantiated, 78% unsubstantiated)
  • Physical abuse: 18% (10% substantiated, 90% unsubstantiated)
  • Sexual abuse: 6% (20% substantiated, 80% unsubstantiated)
  • Psychological/emotional abuse: 3% (14% substantiated, 86% unsubstantiated)

The Challenge and the Path Forward

The data indicates that a significant number of calls—93%—are either screened out or unsubstantiated, suggesting many reports are not made with genuine concerns. CPS won’t know the percentage of how many calls are made with ill intent to harm the other until it recognizes that parents in a custody battle are motivated to lie about the other and take steps to mitigate the problem. It starts by collecting appropriate data.

CPS must realize that even if it does its job and screens out or closes an assessment or case as unsubstantiated, the allegation is still often used in court. Allegations don’t have to be proven to work; all it has to do is plant a seed of doubt to create bias so that a judge will err on the side of caution. Closing an assessment as unsubstantiated is not enough. CPS must categorize it into good faith, unknown intent, or ill intent to start solving the problem of false allegations being used to harm a child’s well-being of a safe and secure relationship with a falsely accused parent.

CPS must protect children from all forms of abuse: physical, sexual, AND emotional and psychological. CPS has focused on physical and sexual because it’s easier. Easier to see and validate or dismiss. But, emotional and psychological abuse has greater impact on a child’s immediate and long-term well-being. A false allegation of child abuse against a parent is more than just a crime of false reporting; it’s a form of child abuse.

CPS must balance protecting children from physical and sexual abuse with protecting them from emotional and psychological abuse that regularly shows itself by a parent or through a proxy making a false allegation of child abuse.

Conclusion

While the data collection project did not address our concerns, it highlighted the need for CPS to adopt measures that assess the intent behind reports and protect families from the adverse effects of false allegations. Moving forward, CPS must update its policies and practices to preempt and prevent the weaponization of its services in custody disputes.