October 9, 2003

A Letter to the Editor of
Hartford Courant
285 Broad Street
Hartford, CT.

RE: October 9, 2003, Editorial, "Dept. of Children and Failure"

Almost every day of the 27 years and 4 days that I have practiced law in Connecticut, I have had some level of dealing with the Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS) / Department of Children and Families (DCF).

I have dealt with situations involving families and their children – biological, foster, adopted – that are fraught with such horror that, 10, 15, 20, 25 years later, I can recite the names and dates and details as if it were yesterday. I have sat in the dark and cried in despair when the options to protect a child so failed that the child died. I have also seen incredibly kind, tender and thoughtful moments for families and their children. I have seen an occasional miracle. I have met some of the dumbest, meanest, insensitive workers, lawyers and administrators imaginable. I have also met some extraordinary folk who have spent their whole lives trying to make the world better for our children.

The Hartford Courant seems to have forgotten that the "consent decree" grew out of a case captioned Juan F, et al. vs O'Neill. The O’Neill in question was Governor William O’ Neill. Subsequently, the case was re-captioned, Juan F., et al vs. Weicker and, finally, Juan F. vs. Rowland. (Each new governor was substituted for the previous governor named in the suit.)

At the point in time that Governor Rowland became governor, DCF had a 22 year history of very significant problems. One of the problems was that DCF, other than its initial 2 years under Governor Meskill’s aegis, was a low priority. It was underfunded, understaffed and evoked no interest by Governors Grasso, O’Neill or Weicker.

The Juan F suit was brought because there seemed to be no other way to get at the problems. In the beginning it seemed like the answer. As time went on, the terms of the consent decree seemed to become part of the problem. There were in fact times that it felt like the process demanded by the consent decree was more important than the children it was meant to serve. The consent decree did not deal with improving and beefing up the Juvenile Court system, which is an integral part of a proper functioning of a well run child welfare system. The consent decree did not deal with addressing the critical and on going problems with obtaining adequate legal representation for children and their families in the neglect and abuse process. Court appointed attorneys for parents and children continue to be paid sums significantly less than the hourly rates for a good auto mechanic. As a result, the pool of qualified, trained, experienced lawyers who can deal with the extraordinarily difficult issues presented in the child welfare arena is not very deep.

Early in his campaign for governor, John Rowland built bridges to folk who cared about our children and the families enmeshed in the child welfare system. He asked questions, he listened and when he became governor he continued to pay attention. More importantly when he became governor he acted. In those terrible days following the death of "Baby Emily" he did what no governor had ever done to my knowledge. He went to the office of the commissioner of DCF and listened and talked. He continues to visit and listen and talk. He has pushed and prodded. He has made it clear that we have an obligation to Connecticut’s children to make their world better because our children are our future. Any one who has ever observed John Rowland with children outside the glare of the media knows that he is a man who cares deeply about children. I have seen him get down on a child’s level and treat them like they were the most important person in the room. There are many moments of kindness that John Rowland has extended that he has never capitalized on and that he never will capitalize on. The time that Governor Rowland spent in recent weeks on bringing all the interested parties to the table to work out an exit plan from the consent decree is unprecedented, but it is what a good governor should do in these circumstances.

I know the problems of the child welfare system in Connecticut intimately. I have never been as hopeful as I am now. I believe that the stage has been set for a creative, viable reform and restructure of DCF. I believe that at the end of the day we will have the best run, best financed, child welfare system in the country. It will be a system that focuses on what is truly in the best interest of each individual child and their family. Our hope and our future is our children. Our children deserve the brightest and the best. The Hartford Courant could play a positive and significantly helpful role in that future provided it is willing to get past what we "coulda, shoulda, woulda done". The victors in a better child welfare system are not the adults who advocated the reform, but rather the children whose lives will be better.

Barbara J. Ruhe