Changes in child protective legislation are for the best

Frontiersman editorial board

Proposed changes in state legislation could open a window to the operation of the Office of Children's Services, and officially the agency seems eager to comply. Current legislation was initially intended to protect the identity of families, and especially children, involved in OCS cases. The idea is that the situation itself is traumatic enough without the added stress of stigmatization that could come with publicity.

One potential danger with the concept of secrecy is that it limits the amount of public and government oversight of the agency's activities. Some people have accused OCS of hiding problems behind the protective veil of non-disclosure. Ironically, because OCS has been so guarded about releasing information, it's impossible to determine if that charge is true. That does little to improve public perception of the agency.

Another change for OCS could come in the form of more stringent requirements for approving foster parents. Currently, foster parents are not subject to the same strict requirements applied to potential adoptive parents. The new standards would apply the same strict standards to both. Again, there is a fear that tightening the requirements could result in fewer foster homes.

It's true that both changes will create some challenges and conflict. The improvements should be worth it. Even though secrecy does protect some families and children from embarrassment and ridicule, it could also contribute to dangerous situations for some foster children, and could also prevent the public from grasping the scope of the problems in the system. While no agency wants to be subject to intense scrutiny, the end result for OCS -- once the public is completely informed of the challenges -- could actually be better funding and staffing. Either way, children who are in state care will likely receive more benefit from more visibility and openness.

Whether stricter requirements will result in fewer foster homes or not is actually a moot point. If the intention is to protect abused or neglected children, the goal should be to provide healthy fosters homes. What benefit is there really in removing children from a bad situation in their own home only to place them into another bad situation in an unfamiliar home? The standards must be based upon our value of the children, not only upon statistics.

More openness and higher standards for foster parents are both steps in the right direction.