When children die, it's too late

As reported here, a report by the ombudsman charged with monitoring outcomes at the state Children's Administration, says that "[87] ... youngsters known to state child-welfare workers died that year [2004]."

"The grim finding, announced in a report by the ombudsman charged with monitoring outcomes at the state Children's Administration, prompted officials to point out that child fatalities have been higher in previous years and that many of the deaths were because of natural, medical, accidental or undetermined causes."

First of all, the title of this article is beyond ridiculous. "When children die, it's too late." Really?

Then, officials at the Children's Administration say, in effect, "Hey! You can't blame all of the deaths of children in our care on us! And look! There weren't as many child fatalities in 2004, as there were in previous years, so we must be doing something right!"

Maybe we can't blame all of the deaths on the CA, as many children did have medical problems, or were involved in various types of accidents, that resulted in their deaths, but there were far too many deaths that can be directly attributed to the failure of the CA's caseworkers. The fact that officials at the CA want to avoid responsibility for any deaths at all is despicable, but oh so typical of anyone associated with any of our state agencies that are involved in caring for children.

""We deal with the highest-risk children in the state so the fatality rate is going to be higher," said Tom Stokes, child-fatality program manager at the Children's Administration.

But Mary Meinig, ombudsman for the Office of Family and Children, found little comfort in that rationale.

"What we're asking is: 'Are these preventable deaths? Can we be doing more?' " she said. "All these kids were known to the Children's Administration -- or their families were -- so what does that mean?""

It means, Ms. Meinig, that the CA isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing; that Mr. Stokes and his staff have no clue on how to prevent children fatalities, and that he is trying to rationalize that failure.

"Meinig's 108-page report details several troubling statistics: Of the 87 deaths reviewed, 61 percent involved children younger than 2. In 63 percent of all cases, the child's family had been the subject of at least three referrals to state abuse investigators."

So. let me get this right. Sixty three percent of all cases had been referred to state abuse investigators, and yet those cases ended with a child fatality. How were those cases investigated? By a phone call? Did anyone get off their rear ends and actually go visit the homes that were referred to them? Why weren't these at-risk children removed from the environment that put them at risk?

The CA has some serious questions that they must be made to answer, and a serious review of policies and procedures must also be made, if this situation is to be rectified.

Rationalizing about the death of a child is basically saying that nothing could be done to prevent that, and that is an outright fallacy.

Note: There is a link to the report at the bottom of the article, for anyone interested.