ILNews

Meth use linked to increase in CHINS

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Leslie Dunn, Indiana state director for GAL/CASA, said the number of Child in Need of Services cases over time remains stable, but she’s seen some remarkable variations in cases per-county from year to year. In Vanderburgh County, for example, new CHINS cases jumped from 448 in 2008 to 818 in 2010. People who are watching these numbers with concern cite several possible reasons for these variations.

Scott Wylie, plan administrator for the Volunteer Lawyer Program of Southwestern Indiana, said that he noticed during that same time period, the number of methamphetamine labs found in Vanderburgh County increased significantly. Indiana State Police show that in 2008, law enforcement seized 47 clandestine meth labs in the county. Last year, that number climbed to 95. While one might draw the conclusion that an increase in meth labs is directly tied to an increase in reported CHINS cases, data alone cannot reveal the complex reasons numbers are increasing in some counties, while dropping in others.

Wylie recalled that in 2008, 3-year-old Kalab Lay died after being returned to his parents’ Evansville home.

“There was a large amount of criticism in the Southwestern part of the state that the system had failed the young person by returning him to drug-addicted parents who ended up killing him and significantly injuring his sister,” he said.

Wylie said that perhaps the increasing number of CHINS cases in the Evansville area was a reaction to that incident, with nervous caseworkers reacting more strongly to allegations of abuse. In Marion County, that’s exactly what happened following the death of 3-year-old TaJanay Bailey in 2007.

After TaJanay

In November 2007, 3-year-old TaJanay Bailey died. She was just a few months old when the Indiana Department of Child Services first removed her from her mother’s care, and during her short life, she shifted back and forth between foster care and her mother’s home, where she sustained the injuries that caused her death.

Public outcry over TaJanay’s death made DCS caseworkers skittish about leaving neglected children in their homes.

“They began to remove kids right and left because they didn’t want to be on the front page of the paper,” said Dave Judkins, deputy director of field operations for the DCS. “We watched as that kind of played out in the press, the impact it had on our workers when they went out and dealt with these families.”

But, Judkins said, removing children from their homes can be terribly traumatic.

“The easiest thing to do to stay out of the paper would be to just remove kids, but you can’t do that; it’s just not right,” he said.

In the past few years, Judkins said, the DCS has begun to shift its approach to keeping children in homes whenever possible. About 80 percent of CHINS cases result from neglect, he said, with physical or sexual abuse accounting for a minority of the cases.

“I would tell you that I don’t think kids being raised in the system is a good thing,” Judkins said. “Kids should be raised in families, and preferably in their own families.”

Changing methods

In 2005, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels created DCS as a cabinet-level organization, reporting directly to his office. Before then, the Division of Family and Children – under the umbrella of the Family and Social Services Administration – oversaw child welfare issues. Along with the restructuring in 2005 came a renewed focus on creating uniformity in how child abuse and neglect is reported and processed. As part of that goal, in 2010 the DCS launched the new toll-free Indiana Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline.

Prior to the creation of the hotline, Judkins said, Indiana had 392 phone numbers for reporting child abuse. And after 4:30 p.m., when DCS workers went home for the day, incoming calls would roll over to local law enforcement. Little uniformity existed in how calls were handled.

“It was really that way every day at 4:30. And then on weekends, we frankly didn’t answer the phones either,” he said. “Two-thirds of the time, they weren’t going to get DCS; they would get probably a law enforcement agency or a contractual agency.”

Judkins said he’s uncertain about the accuracy of reported abuse and neglect calls prior to 2010. He also said that screen-outs – calls that are determined to not be about abuse or neglect – should have been noted in the system, but knowing that those calls would be purged in 30 days anyway, overworked operators may have neglected to log them.

Now, all hotline calls are answered in Marion County, 24 hours a day, every day of the week. And operators there apply the same criteria in evaluating reports across all counties. Dunn said that the slow drive toward uniformity could be causing the fluctuation in CHINS numbers from county to county.

“DCS has implemented a lot of new procedures and policies, and I think that those policies and the hotline have had different effects in different counties, depending on what their prior practice was,” she said. “So if you had a county that screened-out a lot to begin with, or tried to work with families before they filed a CHINS to begin with, and now, with the new hotline being centralized and new people answering it …. they may be more inclined to file a case because of the policies.” As a result, some counties’ numbers are going up.MethFeverChart.gif

When DCS rolled-out the new hotline, it also launched an advertising campaign to ensure people knew how to report abuse and neglect.

Substance abuse

Although the change in the way DCS handles reports of abuse and neglect may account for some of the unpredictable changes in new CHINS numbers, child welfare advocates say that substance abuse increases the odds that children will be neglected at home – particularly if the parents are abusing methamphetamine.

“I don’t think there’s any question that there’s neglect at a greater rate when parents are on a drug like that and are not able to give their attention to their kids,” Dunn said.
 

crawford-niki-mug.jpg Crawford

First Sgt. Niki Crawford, commander of the Indiana State Police Meth Suppression Section, said police are finding more meth labs in Indiana than ever before – and not just because they’ve become more adept at detecting them. Through June 30, 2011, police seized 741 clandestine meth labs, compared to 672 in the same timeframe last year. And in the first six months of this year, police identified 181 children living in meth homes. In all of 2010, 282 children were living in meth lab homes.

“Probably the number one issue is neglect,” Crawford said. “These children are simply neglected. They’re having to get themselves up and get ready for school, they have to make their own meals.”

A more grim side effect of meth use, Crawford said, is that it causes sexual arousal combined with poor judgment and erratic behavior, which often leads to sexual abuse in homes where meth is being used and manufactured.

Judkins said children would not necessarily be removed from homes where parents have abused drugs, but if the children are in danger or if the parents are taken to jail, DCS will remove the child.

Judkins, who lives in northeastern Indiana, said, “I think up there, every time you read the paper, it’s people getting arrested for meth use, meth labs, precursors – it’s cheap, it’s easy. I don’t know that we can do a lot about the meth issues; we’re in a reactive mode, and we get called after there’s a problem.”

The National Association of Children of Alcoholics reports that 79.6 percent of welfare professionals say drug and alcohol abuse contributes to at least half of all cases of child maltreatment.•

__________

In the next issue of Indiana Lawyer, read about how DCS efforts are reuniting broken families and exceeding national benchmarks for child permanency.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  2. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  3. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  4. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  5. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

ADVERTISEMENT