A selection of The Imprint’s most impactful stories from the past year
When it comes to the process of removing children into foster care, there is the standard practice laid out by the Supreme Court 50 years ago: a hearing is set, a judge decides on the necessity of it. Then there is the emergency path, where systems are allowed to take a child on the spot, sometimes in the middle of the night, leaving parents to pursue judicial review after the fact.
But in at least some states and counties, the emergency exception has become the norm, as Sara Tiano reports in this investigation. In some parts of the country, emergency removals account for 70% to 95% of all entries into foster care.
“There certainly can be emergency circumstances that justify separating a child from their parents without court approval — but that’s the exception,” said Chris Gottlieb, director of the Family Defense Clinic at New York University. When a child is going to be physically hurt, for example, “it’s legal to do it,” she added. “That’s just an incredibly small number of cases.”
Virginia Judge Gayl Carr told Tiano that 90% of her foster care cases originated as emergency removals; and that was a good thing, in her opinion.
“The only cases that ought to be coming to court are those very serious, clear abuse and neglect issues,” Carr said. She added that in many cases, children are removed from parents who have been offered numerous services but failed to remedy concerns.
EVERY DAY, our nonprofit newsroom seeks to inform readers about issues in the child welfare and youth justice systems and to hold the powerful accountable. This work is not possible without the support of community members like you. Donate today!
