Family Drug Courts (continued)

   Although the FDC process has many features, that at first glance appear to be comprehensive in nature, it appears that attention to children is relegated to simply finding childcare or temporary placement through child welfare workers. A great deal of emphasis is placed on the parents who abuse substances, particularly AOD treatment, which is critical to stabilizing the family. Children are affected by drug usage in no small number. One recent estimate is that 11% of all US children are living with parents who are in need of AOD treatment (Kinney, 2000, p. 217). And as Kinney (2000) states, regarding a shortcoming of AOD treatment programs, "what cannot be emphasized too strongly is that children must not be "forgotten" or left out of treatment" (p. 310).
   Another problem with the FDC process is that program parents will not necessarily always agree to participate. And even if they do agree, child welfare workers have just fifteen months to establish whether or not parental rights will be terminated (federally mandated by the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act). Simply removing a child from the home (or threatening to do so), offering rewards and incentives, and imposing consequences to the parents, may not fully combat the powers of substance abuse, particularly if addiction is involved. Drug addiction and alcoholism are powerful complexities that can lead users back to their chemicals, even when doing so would appear virtually insane. And while it may seem extreme to suggest that people would lose their children before discontinuing their substance usage "there are many situations which arise out of the phenomenon of craving which cause…[people]…to make the supreme sacrifice rather than continue" (Alcoholics Anonymous, 1976, The doctor's opinion, p. 28).

The Eclectic View

   More than ten years ago LeRoy Pelton (1992) stressed that a new approach to child welfare issues was critical so that the system could be changed. Pelton (1992) states, "the current public child welfare system is inherently dysfunctional. A fundamental restructuring of the system will be necessary before it can accommodate any large-scale expansion" (p. 289). He argued that the system needed to shift its focus from that of placement, and move to prevention.
   "Child welfare agencies [should] be transformed into family preservation agencies" (Pelton, 1992, p. 296) and stripped of all investigative and foster care practices. In essence, no longer would workers pursue child abuse investigations, nor would they perpetuate the placement of children into foster care, but energies and monies would be utilized for supportive services. Ultimately the child welfare system, under the transformed Pelton proposal, would be divided into three main agencies: 1) family preservation and supportive services, 2) child placement and foster care services and 3) abuse and neglect investigations. All three components would operate from similar perspectives, in that providing services (versus investigations and punishment) would be the goal. Pelton stressed the importance of a strengths perspective; in that the child welfare threesome would focus energies on helping families succeed, in part, by providing increased concrete services (p. 294).
   In more recent times, others have also called for "efforts at overall transformation and reform" (Whittaker & Maluccio, 2002, p. 2) for child welfare. Prevention efforts, calculated and judicious placement strategies, child protective services, children and families agencies, an expansive interpretation of family preservation efforts, inclusion of parents in treatment planning, a high degree of value placed upon quality of care - not quantity of care, and in-home supportive services are all presented as ideal in a newer and broader interpretation of a better child welfare system (Whittaker & Maluccio, 2002). The goal is to glean the assets of several existing child welfare areas and programs, combine them, and in the end develop a system that is more effective.
   And while the eclectic suggestion would appear to be ideal, it is easy to propose a new concept even where little or no research exists to support an alternative. Whether the suggestion for the reorganization of child welfare was made eleven years ago, or one year ago, or today's suggestion of an adult welfare system, at issue is what data exists to support the call for reformation. Certainly there exists a great deal of research that dissects existing child welfare programs, and finds faults with a great deal of the system as a whole, but too there is evidence that the current system is doing some things right. And not everyone agrees that the system is failing, or that it needs changing. Suggesting a new and more diverse system, one that pools the benefits of numerous programs under one new structure, is much easier said than done. And no one can underestimate the consequences of making an error in devising a new system; often a child's very life is at stake. Are the unknown possibilities worth the risk?