Read Case Study 5.1 in Chapter 5 of your text. Identify and discuss two to three dysfunctional behaviors that can result from intergenerational abuse. Keeping in mind the need to protect the welfare

"Case Study 5.1 Case Example of the Intergenerational Cycle of Child Abuse Rick grew up in a home marked with domestic violence, which oftentimes extended to the children. Rick’s mother was chronically depressed and often resorted to using alcohol to avoid dealing with her feelings. Rick recalls days and sometimes weeks where she refused to get out of bed, and he was responsible for caring for his younger siblings. His father also had an alcohol problem and would fly into nightly rages where he would physically abuse his mother. When Rick got older, he attempted to intervene and protect his mother, which only resulted in his father physically abusing him. In addition to physical abuse, Rick was also the victim of emotional abuse and neglect. Rick’s father would often call him derogatory names and humiliate him by telling him that he would amount to nothing in life. It seemed as though Rick could do nothing right, and when he was about 12 years old, he promised himself that he would never allow anyone to hurt or humiliate him again. Rick married when he was 21 and was hopeful that his life of being victimized was over. He loved his wife very much and was determined to be the best husband and father he could possibly be. He vowed not to repeat the mistakes of his parents. But deep inside he was plagued with fears that he wasn’t good enough for his wife and that she would eventually leave him. He became increasingly jealous and accused his wife of wanting to leave him. If she tried to convince him otherwise, he accused her of lying. When she became pregnant he was thrilled, but after the baby was born he became upset because his wife seemed to want to spend all her time with the baby, leaving him to fend for himself. One day Rick’s boss called him into his office and pointed out a mistake that Rick made. All Rick could think of was the promise he had made to himself years ago to never allow anyone to hurt or ridicule him again. Even though his boss’s comments would have seemed reasonable to most people, to Rick it was a recreation of the abuse he endured as a child. He lost control of his temper, slammed his fist into the wall, and quit his job. When he got home he told his wife and fully expected her to sympathize with him and support his decision to not tolerate such abuse, but instead she complained that his act was selfish, particularly in light of his responsibilities as a father. Rick completely lost his temper and in a blinding rage accused his wife of betraying him. In the blur that followed, Rick accused her of cheating on him, of caring about the baby more than him, and of even getting pregnant by another man. In the midst of his angry outburst he shoved his wife against the wall. All he could think of was how this woman who he thought was his savior was really his enemy, and at that moment he hated her for allowing him to lower his guard and trust her. All the pain of his childhood, with all the hurt and humiliation, came rushing back, and he began to choke her. When his baby interrupted his rage, he screamed at his son to shut up. When his baby’s crying got louder, he picked him up and shook him violently. The case study about Rick illustrates some of the dynamics at play with the intergenerational transmission of abuse, and why it is so important for caseworkers to understand what may occur in the mind of someone who has endured physical, emotional, and sexual abuse at the hands of parents and other caregivers.

Individuals who have suffered significant childhood abuse often suffer from low frustration tolerance, displaced anger, inability to delay gratification, impulse control problems, problems with emotional regulation, difficulty attaching to others, and an unstable self-identity (Bentovim, 2002, 2004). Issues such as poor parental modeling, lack of understanding about normal child development, and an individual’s level of residual anger and frustration tolerance affect a person’s ability to positively parent their children. Biological Parents and Their Children: Maintaining the Connection A part of any good reunification plan will involve a visitation schedule that supports and encourages the child’s relationship with the biological parents and provides them with applying new parenting techniques that they’ve learned in parenting classes and counseling (Sanchirico & Jablonka, 2000). An effective caseworker will give consistent feedback to the biological parents about their progress toward meeting service plan goals, will balance constructive feedback with encouragement, will protect the parent–child relationship, and will do whatever possible to remove barriers to complying with their service plan, such as finding alternate mental health providers when waiting lists would cause unreasonable delays and resolving conflicts between goals, such as not scheduling visitation during the parents’ working hours when maintaining stable employment is a service plan goal. Working with Foster Children: Common Clinical Issues Foster children obviously come in all “shapes and sizes,” so it is difficult to summarize the issues and experiences of the majority of children in foster care in a page or two. But certain generalizations can be made, particularly with regard to the types of experiences that bring a child into substitute care, as well as the range of short-term and long-term emotional and psychological manifestations many children in foster care may experience. The clinical issues that a caseworker may deal with will vary depending on variables such as the age of the child, the length of time in placement, the reasons for placement, and the plan for permanency (i.e., adoption or family reunification). Younger children are typically easier to place and may display less oppositional behavior than adolescents, who are often placed in group homes. Children who have been sexually abused often manifest emotional problems that require sophisticated handling on the part of the caseworkers, therapists, and foster parents. Sexually abused children may act out sexually with their foster parents as well as other children, which can create an uncomfortable situation, particularly for those who are unfamiliar with such acting out behavior. In addition, most children who have been mistreated in some manner may behave well during the honeymoon period of placement, but then act out once they begin to feel more secure. This phenomenon can lead to disrupted placements if the foster parents are unaware of the dynamics behind this shift in behavior. A recent national survey of approximately 4,000 foster care children, aged 2 through 14, who had been removed from their homes due to maltreatment, revealed that nearly half of these children had clinically significant psychological and/or behavioral problems. Alarmingly though, only about half of these children had received any counseling in the past year. The children who were the most likely to receive mental health services were younger children who had been victims of sexual abuse. African American children were the least likely to receive mental health services, as were children who remained living in their biological homes (Burns et al., 2004). Siu and Hogan (1989) identified five clinical themes experienced by most children in foster care and made recommendations for how child welfare caseworkers should respond. These include issues related to (1) separation; (2) loss, grief, and mourning; (3) identity issues; (4) continuity of family ties; and (5) crisis. Separation Children involved in the child welfare system are contending with either issues related to separation from their biological family members or the threat of separation. Siu and Hogan (1989) recommended that caseworkers be familiar with the psychological dynamics involved in such separations as they relate to each developmental stage. It is important for caseworkers to acknowledge that these children are not just being separated from their biological parents, but are experiencing multiple separations, such as separation from their extended family, perhaps their siblings and their familiar surroundings, including their bedroom, house, neighborhood, and even their family pets. Caseworkers need to confront these separation issues head on with the children, resisting the temptation to avoid them in response to their own separation anxiety. Children often go through different stages when confronted with significant separation, beginning with the preprotest stage, where children accept removal from their home with little protest. But this stage is ultimately followed by the protest stage, where children can respond with outright combative and oppositional behavior or with a more subtle uncooperative attitude. The third stage is marked by despair, where the child often submits to the placement with a sense of brokenness and hopelessness. The final stage involves adjustment to the placement, but involves a sense of detachment to that which the child had been attached—namely, their biological families (Rutter, 1978). Caseworkers can respond to children dealing with separation issues by being honest with them (in an age-appropriate manner) regarding what is happening with their families and by helping to prepare them for the upcoming changes in order to reduce the anxiety associated with anticipating the unknown. Younger children are far more likely to be operating in the “here and now”; thus, it is important for the caseworker to reassure the child that the separation is only temporary (if the goal is family reunification) and that the feelings of sadness and discomfort experienced after being separated will not last forever. Children who have been removed from their homes also need to be reassured that they are not the cause of the family disruption. It is quite common for foster care children to feel responsible for their parents “getting into trouble,” and they may even be tempted to recant their disclosures of abuse in the hope that they can return home. Such children often reason that enduring the abuse is better than having their family torn apart and their parents in trouble. In fact, many abused children have been told for years that if they ever did disclose the abuse that the parents would go to jail and the children would be taken away. Thus, it is important that the caseworker anticipate the possibility of such prior conversations between children and parents and address this by encouraging the children and reassuring them that the current course of action will actually benefit and strengthen the entire family. Loss, Grief, and Mourning Coming alongside children who have experienced a loss and permitting them to grieve involves having a high tolerance for a wide range of emotions. Lee and Whiting (2007) discuss the concept of ambiguous loss with regard to children in foster care. Ambiguous loss is defined as loss that is unclear, undefined, and in many instances, unresolvable. Ambiguous loss in foster care situations can involve losses that are confusing for the child, such as the loss of an abusive parent. Children who are removed from an abusive home and placed in a foster home with caring, nonabusive parents may feel conflicted about the loss of the parent and entry into the child welfare system. Feelings may include confusion, ambivalence, and guilt, for instance. Earlier research studies have found that people who endure ambivalent loss tend to experience similar feelings, such as: “Frozen” (unresolved) grief, including outrage and inability to “move on” Confusion, distress, and ambivalence Uncertainly leading to immobilization Blocked coping processes Experience of helplessness, and therefore, depression, anxiety, and relationship conflicts Response with absolutes, namely, denial of change or loss, denial of facts Rigidity of family roles (maintaining that the lost person will return as before) and outrage at the lost person being excluded Confusion in boundaries and roles (e.g., who the parent figures are) Guilt, if hope has been given up Refusal to talk about the individuals and the situation (Boss, 2004 as cited in Lee & Whiting, 2007, p. 419). With these feelings in mind Lee and Whiting (2007) interviewed 182 foster children, ages two through 10. Children were asked about each of the feelings identified in Boss’ study as typical responses to ambiguous loss. The study showed that virtually all of the children interviewed exhibited these typical feelings, particularly feelings associated with confusion, ambiguity, and outrage about their situation. Several children noted confusion about their future—not knowing when they would see their parent(s) again, or how long they would be in foster care. The children also expressed feelings of uncertainty, guilt, and immobility. Lee and Whiting (2007) recommend using the model of ambiguous loss when working with children in foster care, cautioning against pathologizing their feelings (and the consequential behaviors). In describing the application of this model of loss, Lee and Whiting state: Therapists, case managers, officers of the court, and foster family members need not see these externalizing and internalizing behaviors as pathology, but as active coping strategies appropriate to the children’s circumstances. Attempts to squelch these behaviors in the interest of tranquil foster placements are unrealistic and may exacerbate underlying psychosocial conditions. (p. 426) In referencing therapy goals they continue: The immediate goal is to make understandable those things that are disruptive to the foster placement. The diverse stakeholders, including the children, need to appreciate how unresolved grief leads to ambivalence about and fears of interdependency, relationship testing, and self-fulfilling prophecies of non-lovableness. In short, all invested members must move from deficit detecting to appreciating that many of these otherwise disturbing behaviors are signs of ego strength. (p. 426) Siu and Hogan (1989) also cite the importance of caseworkers understanding the nature of grieving and thereby assisting foster care children to grieve the loss of their families. It is vital for caseworkers to be familiar with the possible expressions of depression among grieving children, which often manifest as irritability and can easily be mistaken for misbehavior. It is also quite common for children to express heartfelt grief for parents who have horribly abused them. Even children who have been sexually abused often express missing their abusive parent. Caseworkers must be careful to allow these children to grieve their parents, despite the fact that the parents have hurt them. Identity Issues Identity is a multifaceted concept referring primarily to one’s self-knowledge, self-appraisal, and self-assessment. Developmental theorist Erik Erikson (1963, 1968, 1975) believed that identity formation involves the integration of numerous and sometimes conflicting childhood identities. Erikson believed that this convergence of identities took place during the adolescent stage of development, when the adolescent developed an internal continuity and consistency that integrated all different aspects of the self, allowing one’s real identity to emerge. Our individual identities are based on several factors, some involving internal traits and some involving external traits. As individuals mature, their basis for identity becomes more internally based. But children, particularly younger children, will typically base their identity more on external, rather than internal attributes. For instance, if someone were to ask you to describe yourself, you might begin by saying that you are a college student (external). You might then share that you are a soccer player (external) and on student counsel (external). But, you might then describe yourself as an extrovert (internal), who is courageous (internal), loyal (internal), and kind (internal). The more internally based one’s identity is, the more resilient a person will be in times of crisis and transition. Children tend to be far more external in their self-identity, and their self-appraisal can be quite fragile, varying dramatically if their external structure is removed. Siu and Hogan (1989) suggested that caseworkers become familiar with the process of identity development and how the removal of children from their family of origin can significantly affect their sense of personal identity. The nature of this impact will depend, of course, on the age of the children and their stage of development, but can also be affected by several other variables. Some of the factors involved in identity formation include one’s gender, ethnic and cultural identity, extracurricular activities, talents, socioeconomic status, and relationships with others. Children are often unaware of how they are affected by things such as their socioeconomic status, but it affects them nonetheless. One’s positive identity is dependent on an affirming reciprocal exchange between the various aspects of identity and one’s environment. Consider this reciprocity as a mirror reflecting back either a positive or negative image of how one is perceived and valued by others. Essentially, the positive or negative nature of one’s identity is based at least in part on how these various aspects of one’s self are valued by others. Individuals who are extremely talented musically may only perceive this talent as a positive part of their identity if their family and community perceive musical talent as valuable. Children who are intelligent but are raised in families that value athletic prowess may not perceive their intellectual ability as a positive and valuable trait. Children who are removed from their home for maltreatment and are placed in a new environment will struggle with identity issues because despite being in a more positive environment, they are no longer the youngest sibling, no longer the owner of a small dog, no longer the funniest student in the class, and no longer the best bike rider in the neighborhood. Now they are foster children, different and set apart, perhaps living in a home much nicer than their own, leaving their feelings somewhat deficient and “less than”; they are no longer funny because they know no one in class, and they are not the youngest kids because they are only foster children in new homes. Because so much of children’s identities reside outside the self and are dependent on external validation and encouragement, an effective caseworker must understand the various dynamics of identity development, understanding how removing children from their homes, even abusive homes, can undermine children’s identity development. Any acting out behavior on the part of the child should be viewed through this lens of identity disruption, and the caseworker can then respond by providing comfort and encouragement to the child during this transition. Children who have only received praise for their ability to play good basketball are going to struggle immensely with their identity if placed in homes that value academic performance or musical ability. A caseworker can assist these children in recognizing that their worth is internal and should not be based solely on the approval and affirmation of others. Human Systems Understanding and Mastery of Human Systems: Theories of human development Critical Thinking Question: Removing a child from his biological parents can contribute to difficulties in the child’s identity development. On the other hand, abuse, neglect, and maltreatment can also erode a child’s development of a strong, internally focused sense of identity. How might these effects be exacerbated by placement with a foster or adoptive family, which is significantly different (in terms of ethnicity, religious beliefs, or socioeconomic status) from the child’s family of origin? Continuity of Family Ties Picture yourself in a boat moored to a dock on the shore of a large lake. Being anchored here provides you with a connection to the mainland and a sense of security, without fearing becoming adrift at sea. But what if you need to get to the other side of the lake? You would have to pull up your anchor and drift across the water, and it wouldn’t be until you reached the other side and safely anchored yourself against that shore that you would feel secure and stable again. Many significant life transitions are like this time adrift at sea—caught between two shores, where continuity and stability are temporarily lost. Children who have been removed from their biological homes will undoubtedly lose their sense of continuity with their biological families and will feel adrift at sea during the time period when they have not yet established new bonds with their foster family. Siu and Hogan (1989) strongly recommend that caseworkers consider the importance of continuity and stability when considering where to place a child. Ready access to the biological family and even close friends should always be a priority in placement decisions, and although this can become challenging, particularly in low-income areas where there may be a limited number of available foster families, consideration should still be given to a placement that will facilitate ongoing parental involvement. At times siblings must be placed in separate foster homes, and consideration to continuity issues needs to be extended to this situation as well. Far too often, siblings in foster families do not visit with each other regularly because of the geographic constraints placed on foster families, who are often responsible for providing transportation. Caseworkers may find themselves in double-bind situations, though, where they must make difficult choices regarding keeping siblings together by placing them in a foster home that is a significant distance away from a parent who does not have transportation, or placing the children in different foster homes that are closer to their biological parents, but precludes family visitation due to the difficulty in coordinating visits among various foster families. Caseworkers must rely on their clinical skills in deciding on the right course of action and should then recognize and acknowledge how this interruption of family continuity and stability will affect the children, particularly early in the placement. Far too often the foster care system, with all its complications, does not do an effective job of fostering a relationship between children in placement and their biological families, because if children do not have ready access to their biological families, they will most likely search for continuity and connectedness with their foster families, which, although necessary and important, can pose a risk to the continuing bond with their biological parents. Research has clearly shown that children who visit their biological parents more frequently have a stronger bond with them and have fewer behavioral problems, are less apt to take psychiatric medication, such as antidepressant medication, and are less likely to be developmentally delayed, which underscores the importance of strengthening the attachment between foster children and their biological parents through regular and consistent visitation (McWey & Mullis, 2004). Restricting visitation for any reason other than the safety of the child will have a negative effect on this attachment and might even be subsequently used against the biological parents when it comes time to make reunification plans. Crisis Removing children from their biological homes and placing them into foster care constitutes a crisis. Siu and Hogan (1989) referred to this crisis as a critical transition, which throws an already fragile family into complete disequilibrium. In fact, most child welfare experts put foster care placement in the category of a catastrophic crisis. Crises are not always bad though, and a popular contention among mental health experts discussed in Chapter 4 is that a crisis provides the best opportunity for personal growth and authentic change. Ordinary coping skills are typically not going to be enough to help a child deal with the trauma associated with being placed in foster care. But an effective and seasoned caseworker can help a child develop more effective coping skills that can help them respond to the multiple crises of being removed from their home and placed with strangers. Working with Foster Parents Foster care can refer to many placement settings, including kinship care, an emergency shelter, a residential treatment center, a group home, or even an independent living situation (with older adolescents), but most frequently foster care involves placing a child with a licensed foster family (two-parent or single-parent family). Every state has certain guidelines and standards that prospective foster parents must meet to qualify to become licensed (Barth, 2001). Licensure typically requires that families participate in up to 10 training sessions focusing on topics such as the developmental needs of at-risk children, issues related to child sexual abuse, appropriate disciplining techniques for at-risk children, ways that foster parents can support the relationship between the foster children and their biological parents, and ways to manage the stress of adding new members to their family. In addition, individuals who will be foster parenting children of a different ethnicity will undergo training focusing on transcultural parenting issues. Foster parents provide an invaluable service by accepting troubled children into their homes and providing love, nurturing, and security, even though they know the children may be in their homes for only a short time. In addition to good training, foster parents benefit from caseworkers who are consistently supportive and available to them, particularly during high stress times when foster children are acting out. Foster placement will be far less likely to fail if the foster parents feel sufficiently well prepared and supported by their caseworker. Because the majority of foster children return to their biological parents, foster parents must be supported in their role in the reunification process. The success of a reunification plan depends largely on the cooperation of the foster parents. A foster parent who eagerly facilitates visitation and the sharing of vital information with the biological parents will help protect and maintain the continuity between the foster children and their biological parents. The caseworker plays a pivotal role in providing support and assistance to foster parents. A foster parent who feels unsupported will be far more likely to either purposely or inadvertently undermine the relationship between the foster child and the biological parents. Much of the time this action comes in the form of advocacy for the child. Unfortunately, though, this advocacy, as well meaning as it may be, has the potential of disrupting the necessary process of reunification. Thus, although it is certainly understandable that the process of emotional bonding with the foster child makes foster parents vulnerable to advocating for the best interest of their foster children, foster parents who take it upon themselves to protect their foster child by discouraging the relationship with the biological parents in any way are violating their designated roles, and their effectiveness as foster parents will most likely be seriously compromised. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) documentary entitled Failure to Protect: The Taking of Logan Marr documents the removal of five-year-old Logan and her baby sister, Baily, from their young biological mother, Christie Marr. The documentary reveals how Maine’s child welfare system, the Department of Human Services (DHS), removed Logan from her mother’s care on the presumption that the child might be abused at some future time based on some dynamics in the home. After years of jumping through hoops and getting Logan back, Christie had another child, but ultimately lost both of her girls after marrying someone whom DHS did not approve. Regardless of Christie’s compliance with her parenting plan, the caseworker placed her girls with another DHS worker who was also a licensed foster parent. The foster mother wanted to adopt the Marr girls and actively hindered the relationship between the girls and their mother. In this situation, as well as many others, the foster mother was responsible for providing transportation for visitation, as well as for keeping Christie comprised of major events in the girls’ lives. Thus, she had tremendous power to limit visitation if she so desired or to be begrudging with vital information about the girls. Logan ultimately died in this foster mother’s care, and her death led to an uproar over the treatment of Christie, the apparent “cozy” relationship between the foster mother and the DHS caseworker, as well as the caseworker’s refusal to investigate Logan’s earlier complaints that her foster mother had abused her. This tragic case illustrates how vital it is for foster parents to be well trained and sufficiently supported by their caseworker. An effective caseworker will be able to sense when a foster parent is either burning out or overstepping appropriate boundaries and will respond with support and limit setting as necessary. Reunification The decision of whether or when to reunify foster children with their biological parents is based on many factors, including the biological parents’ success in meeting their service plan goals. Even if these goals are sufficiently met, the timing of reunification may depend on minimizing disruptions in the child’s life, such as switching schools in the middle of the school year. If reunification is the plan from the beginning of placement, then the caseworker should be planning for this event from the initial stages of the case. Problems arise when issues such as court postponements, additional service plan goals, changes in caseworker assignments, and other factors lead to delays in reunification. A judge may deem it perfectly reasonable to postpone a reunification hearing so that a child can complete the final four months of school without disruption, but such a decision can be devastating for the biological parents who have worked diligently to reach all service plan goals and go to court expecting to leave with their biological child, only to be told they must wait an additional four months to avoid their child changing schools in the middle of the school year. The potential for a biological parent to give up attempting to regain custody and to relapse into unhealthy behaviors out of discouragement and frustration is great, and caseworkers must be sensitive to the possibility of such frustrations leading to despair or relapse. Therefore, even though reunification with biological parents is associated with several changes in the child’s life, many of which may be negative in nature (Lau, Litrownik, Newton, & Landsverk, 2003), an effective caseworker will begin preparing the child for these transitions from the beginning of placement in foster care. Simply verbalizing what is going to happen, telling the child what to expect in the future, and giving such children a voice in expressing their fears and frustrations, even if they do not have decision-making power, will go a long way in minimizing the negative effect of reunification, particularly for children who have been in placement for a significant amount of time. Reunification is not just stressful for the child, it is stressful for the biological parents as well, and many biological parents are the most vulnerable to stress-related relapse in the weeks following reunification. The combination of increased stress and the acting out of the child due to yet another transition can create a potentially volatile situation where negative behavior patterns resurface. Any good reunification plan involves ongoing monitoring and provision of in-home services to prevent any such problems during the reunification transition. These services can be provided by the county child welfare office directly or by a contracted agency-based practice that specializes in providing services such as in-home case management and support. With good support services, many reunifications go quite smoothly, and in time the children and parents settle in to a regular routine where healthier communication patterns and positive parenting styles will lead to a positive response from the children. Family Preservation Because the number of children placed in substitute care rose consistently since the 1980s, particularly in most urban communities, there has been an increasing focus on early intervention and prevention programs since the early 1990s. Family preservation programs are designed to reduce the need for out-of-home placement by intervening in a family process before the dynamics deteriorate to the point of requiring the removal of the children. These programs are comprised of a variety of short-term, intensive services designed to immediately reduce stress and teach important skills that will reduce the likelihood of out-of-home placement. Services can include family counseling, parenting training, assistance with household budgeting, stress management, child development, respite care for caregivers, and in some cases, cash assistance (Child Welfare League of America, n.d.). Although there has been some controversy surrounding the success of these programs in reducing foster care placements, the federal government remains committed to early intervention programs, and many counties report that approximately 80 percent of families who have participated in family preservation programs remained intact in the year following the suspension of services (Child Welfare League of America, n.d.). Relevant to any discussion on family preservation is the importance of human rights as they relate to children, particularly those who are living in environments that are fragile, thus increasing the already vulnerable nature of dependence. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), adopted in 1989 and enacted in 1990, is considered by most in child welfare to be one of the most significant international treaties establishing and enforcing human rights for all children. Every country in the world has signed and ratified the UNCRC except the United States and Somalia, both of which have signed but not ratified the treaty. The UNCRC consists of 41 articles setting forth basic rights of children (as well as the means for ensuring the enforcement of these rights) based upon the “best interest of the child” principle, which places the needs of children, particularly in decisions relating to their care, as a primary concern above all other interests. The ultimate goal of the UNCRC is to protect the survival, health, education, and development of children securing their well-being (UNCRC, 1989). The ultimate goal of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is to protect the survival, health, education, and development of children and to secure their well-being. The UNCRC guarantees children the most basic rights, including the right to live, to develop in a healthy manner (including the right to play and enjoy a wide range of child-appropriate activities), to have a legal name and identity that is registered with the government (such as a birth certificate), to reside with parents (as long as this is in the child’s best interest), to have access to appropriate healthcare, to have an education, and to have an adequate standard of living free from profound poverty. Several articles also guarantee a child’s freedom of expression including having a voice in choices that affect them (as is deemed developmentally appropriate), appropriate freedom of expression, privacy, and access to information, with indigenous children even having the right to practice their own cultural traditions. Children are guaranteed the right to protection, including protection from violence, child labor, exposure to the drug trade, drug abuse, sexual exploitation, abduction, trafficking, excessive detention, and punishment. Relevant to the discussion on family preservation, several articles of the UNCRC set forth the rights of children who for whatever reason cannot reside with their families, including the right to be cared for in a manner that respects their religion, ethnic group, and cultural traditions, and the right to have all aspects of the UNCRC applied to them regardless of their residential or family status (UNCRC, 1989). Clearly, the international community recognizes the value of the biological family unit and supports all governmental efforts designed to support families maintain their bonds, particularly with their children. Such support can be in the form of “family-friendly” policies, financial and case management support for kinship care (increased since the passage of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008), as well as other measures that focus on prevention and preservation rather than solely intervention. Minority Populations and Multicultural Considerations Children of color are overrepresented in the foster care system, comprising nearly 60 percent of all placements in the year 2004. This is nearly twice their representation in the general population. Of all children requiring child welfare intervention, the majority of African American children requiring care are placed in foster care, whereas the majority of Caucasian children receive in-home services (Child Welfare League of America, 2002). In addition, African American children remain in foster care far longer and are reunited with their families far less often. This overrepresentation of children of color in the foster care system, particularly African American children, is fueled by other long-standing factors such as social oppression, negative social conditions, racial discrimination, and economic injustice. For instance, African American children were initially excluded from the child welfare system, but are now the most overrepresented of all racial groups (Smith & Devore, 2004). Some reasons for this overrepresentation relate to complex social issues such as institutionalized racism, intergenerational poverty, and culturally based drug abuse. But other possible causes include racism within the child welfare system. Types of racial discrimination include: Racial bias in referring families for family preservation programs versus out-of-home placement. Certain special populations, including African American families, are not consistently targeted for family preservation programs. Reasons for this include caseworker bias based on the belief that the needs of the African American community may be too great to be appropriately handled by this program (Denby & Curtis, 2003). Racial partiality in assessing parent–child attachment leading to delays in returning children to their biological parents. A 2003 study of approximately 250 black and white children in foster care placement found that racial partiality existed in assessing the parent–child attachment when the caseworker was of a different race than the biological parent. Although this result was reciprocal (i.e., black caseworkers showed partiality to black families and white caseworkers show partiality to white families), the effect of this trend has particular relevance to the African American community because the majority of caseworkers are Caucasian, and African American children are disproportionately represented among children in foster care. The results of this study revealed that Caucasian caseworkers might have erred when they concluded that African American mothers were poorly attached to their children because of the caseworker’s lack of understanding of cultural differences between Caucasian and African American customs (Surbeck, 2003). Caseworkers who are poorly trained in cultural competencies. For a caseworker to accurately assess many of the factors necessary in determining whether out-of-home placement is warranted, such as the level of violence in the home, the ability of parents to protect their children, or the level of parental remorse, a caseworker must be aware of commonly held negative stereotypes of various racial groups. It is unacceptable for a member of the majority culture to claim not to hold any negative stereotypes, and it is only through the honest admission of overt and subtle negative biases toward other cultures that a caseworker can begin to work effectively with a variety of ethnic groups. Placing Children of Color in Caucasian Homes Considerable controversy exists surrounding the placement of children of color in Caucasian homes. Many advocacy organizations do not support this practice, whereas others claim that it is not in the best interest of children to experience placement delays simply because there are no foster families available that are the same race as the child. From a “micro” perspective, this latter argument makes sense. If an African American child is in desperate need of a long-term foster home, how much sense would it make to have a policy in place that prevents placement in a suitable home only because the foster family is Caucasian? After all, all children deserve loving homes, and the color of their skin should not keep them from being placed in one. Right? Yet, from a “macro” perspective, a different viewpoint is revealed. Consider the equity of a majority culture systematically destroying an entire race, as the United States has done to the African American population during the slavery and post–Civil War era or to the Native American population during colonial times and the era of early occupation of the United States. How do you think these racial groups would perceive this same majority culture then rushing in to “rescue” the children who were maltreated in great part because of this cultural genocide and the resultant social breakdown? Advocates of placing children of color in homes of the same race cite such cultural genocide in their arguments. Alternatives to transracial placement include the development of kinship care programs, where members of a child’s extended family act as foster parents, often made possible through financial assistance. The National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) cites the long-standing tradition of informal kinship care within the African American community extending back to the Middle Ages and solidified during the slavery era, when many African Americans acted in the informal capacity of parents for children whose biological parents were sold and sent away. Such cultural traditions can serve as a precursor for federally funded programs that promote kinship care foster programs, which respect cultural identity and tradition (NABSW, 2003). Recent studies support the concerns expressed by the NABSW and others about the difficulties faced by even the most well-meaning white adoptive parents to appropriately and accurately teach their black adopted children lessons about race in a culturally appropriate manner. A recent study by Smith, Juarez, and Jacobson (2011) found that the majority of adoptive families of black adoptees were white, middle to upper-class families from primarily white communities, and despite their attempts to teach their children about matters of race and instill in them a sense of cultural pride, most of the black adoptees were often left to struggle with racial discrimination and racial enculturation on their own. The primary reason for this dynamic was that their white adoptive families more often than not experienced race quite differently than their black adopted children, viewing racial dynamics through a white Eurocentric lens (Smith, Juarez & Jacobson, 2011). In their study on the attempts of white parents to teach their black adopted children about race and racism in America, Smith, Juarez, and Jacobson (2011) state: As members of U.S. society’s dominant mainstream, White adoptive parents are positioned to transmit collective understandings, interpretations, knowledge, and memories about Whiteness, not Blackness. They are well positioned to teach lessons about race that reflect and give privilege to the interests, values, experiences, and perspectives of Whites. (p. 1198) Their study revealed that while a majority of white transracial adoptive parents cited the importance of their children developing a sense of pride in their cultural heritage, they framed “cultural pride” as an individual process, not a collective one. Since the majority of transracial families interviewed in the study lived in primarily white communities, their black children did not participate or engage in communities of color; thus, any development of cultural pride was done in collective isolation. Most of the white parents in this study taught their children about African American culture, including the nature of race relations in America, through books, films, and cultural events, such as attending black camps. For instance, several white adoptive parents shared that they taught their black adoptive children about overcoming racism through the telling of stories of famous black individuals who became successful despite racial barriers through personal fortitude and a lot of hard work. Yet Smith, Juarez, and Jacobson (2011) point out how this type of racial framing illustrates Western notions of individualism, rather than community efforts more reflective of African American culture and history, and did not teach black adoptees about racial inequality involved in “structural relations within society that enable the hard work of some to pay off more than that of (racialized) others” (p. 1214). This study revealed just how committed the white adoptive parents who were interviewed were in their attempts to appropriately validate their black adoptive children’s racial heritage and culture pride, but they did so in ways that were distinctly white. For instance, the white adoptive parents taught their black children to: Affirm and feel positively about racial differences, Subvert personal needs and responses to racial discrimination to help Whites learn about race and racism, and Develop a thick skin to deflect the consequences of race-based discrimination in a way that avoids conflict and does not disrupt harmony with Whites. (pp. 1221–1222) Framing racial and cultural dynamics in such a White Eurocentric individualist way contradicted sharply with how most African American parents handled matters of race with their children. Although the white parents in this study clearly loved their black adopted children and appeared very committed to addressing matters of race, with regard to cultural pride and dealing with racial prejudice, by presuming that racism was the result of white ignorance that could be overcome only through education and hard work, the white parents were inadvertently drawing from historic white cultural narratives of racial inequality, not black ones, which are far more likely to emphasize the purposeful agenda of racial oppression and inequality within American society, and the collective struggle of African Americans to fight against it. Although Smith, Juarez, and Jacobson (2011) do not specifically advocate against transracial adoption, they do caution white parents to be very careful about the ways in which they choose to teach lessons about race to their adopted children, in order to avoid even the inadvertent inculcation of white racist framing of the black experience in America. They suggest doing this through the reframing of race and racial issues through the experiences of the black community, and not through the lens of White America. Whether this is possible, is difficult to say, but further research on ways in which race lessons can be taught to black adoptees will inform this growing area of research, particularly if informed by black adoptees themselves. Native Americans and the U.S. Child Welfare System The British colonization of North America involved an organized and methodical campaign to decimate the Native American population through invasion, trickery (such as trading land for alcohol), and ultimately the forced relocation of all Native Americans onto government-designated reservations, where the assimilation into the majority culture became a primary goal of the U.S. government (Brown, 2001). The few Native Americans who survived this genocide were broken physically, emotionally, and spiritually, suffering from alcoholism, rampant unemployment, and debilitating depression. Student body assembled on the Carlisle Indian School Grounds. Buyenlarge/Archive Photos/Getty Images In the early part of the 19th century the U.S. government assumed full responsibility for educating Native American children. It is estimated that from the early 1800s through the early part of the 20th century, virtually all Native American children were forcibly removed from their homes on the reservations and placed in Indian boarding schools, where they were not allowed to speak in their native tongues, practice their cultural religion, or wear their traditional dress. During school breaks many of these children were placed as servants in Caucasian homes rather than being allowed to return home for visits. The result of this forced assimilation amounted to cultural genocide where an entire generation of Native Americans was institutionalized, deprived of a relationship with their biological families, and robbed of their cultural heritage. This ongoing campaign to assimilate the Native Americans into European American culture became even more aggressive between 1950 and 1970, when social workers with governmental backing removed thousands of Native American children from their homes on the reservations for alleged maltreatment, placing them in adoptive Caucasian homes. In reality, many of the problems on the reservations were the product of years of governmental oppression resulting in extreme poverty and other commonly associated social ills, and the U.S. government response to this was to tear Native American families apart rather than intervene with mental health services. Old Sun Residential School. Library of Congress Between 1941 and 1978, approximately 70 percent of all Native American children were removed from their homes and placed either in orphanages or with Caucasian families, many of whom later adopted them (Marr, C. 2002). In truth, few of these children were removed from their homes due to maltreatment as it is currently defined. Rather, approximately 99 percent of these children were removed because social workers believed that the children were victims of social deprivation due to the extreme poverty common on most Indian reservations (U.S. Senate, 1974). The result of this government action has been nothing short of devastating. Native Americans have one of the highest suicide rates in the nation, with Native American youth, particularly those who have spent time in U.S. boarding schools, having on average five to six times the rate of suicide compared to the non-Native American population. When these children graduated from high school, they were adults without a culture—no longer feeling comfortable on the reservation after years of being negatively indoctrinated against their cultural heritage, yet not being accepted by the white population either. The response of many of these individuals was to turn to alcohol in an attempt to drown out the pain. In 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (Pub. L. No. 95-608) was passed, which prevented the unjustified removal of Native American children from their homes. The act specifies that if removal is necessary, then the children must be placed in a home that reflects their culture and preserves tribal tradition. Tribal approval must be obtained prior to placement, even when the placement is a result of a voluntary adoption proceeding (Kreisher, 2002). This act has for the most part successfully stemmed the tide of mass removal of thousands of Native American children from their homes on the reservations, but unfortunately many caseworkers still do not understand the reason why such a bill was passed in the first place, or why it is necessary, and mistakenly believe that this act hampers placing needy children in loving homes. Gaining a fuller understanding of the history between people of color and the U.S. child welfare system will make it easier to understand why some minority groups may not trust human service professionals in issues regarding allegations of abuse. The social worker might not be aware of the long-standing negative history between government child welfare agencies and a particular racial group, but members of that particular group are most likely aware of this history. It is vital that human service professionals develop cultural competencies, regardless of whether they are actively working with ethnic minority populations. It is only through a comprehensive understanding of the history of child welfare policies and abuses of power that the U.S. child welfare system will truly achieve its goal of respecting the autonomy and dignity of all people, regardless of race, gender, age, nationality, and sexual orientation. Concluding Thoughts on Child Protective Services Human service professionals who work with troubled families have the opportunity to effect change that positively affects not only the present families, but all future generations within that family system as well. CPS caseworkers often experience high caseloads and can feel overwhelmed and burned out in the face of such immensely complicated dynamics commonly involved in child welfare cases. An increased focus on family preservation programs and other early intervention programs offer the best opportunity for reducing out-of-home placements, but these programs must be offered to all potentially appropriate families without bias. This can occur through sufficient federal and state funding of child welfare programs and the effective recruitment and training of human service professionals willing to work with a variety of families, from various cultures dealing with a wide range of life challenges. Chapter 5 Practice Test The following questions will test your knowledge of the content found within this chapter. Prior to the Civil War, the common belief about children was that they needed dedicated play time in order to develop psychosocially to be treated with harsh discipline or they would fall victim to laziness and vice to be in school at least six hours a day to be treated with tenderness and understanding Prior to the Industrial Revolution, orphans were often forced to live on the streets sold into apprenticeships that were sometimes no better than slavery sent to almshouses to work alongside adults All of the above One significant difference between child welfare programs of 100 years ago and those of today is that alcohol was the chief cause of child removal 100 years ago and today it is drug abuse the majority of children in substitute care today are not orphans but are victims of child maltreatment caring for orphaned and abused children has slowly transitioned from institutionalized care to primarily substitute family care, or foster care over the past 100 years Both B and C The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974 was established to ensure that children of maltreatment are reported to the appropriate authorities parental rights are terminated on a timely basis Both A and C None of the above Children of color are not just disproportionately represented in the foster care system in the United States, but far fewer children of color are reunited with their families far more children of color are placed into institutionalized care far more children of color are emancipated prior to their 17th birthday far fewer of these children receive regular visitation with their biological parent(s) In 1978 the Indian Child Welfare Act (PL 95-608) was passed, which prevented the unjustified removal of Native American children from their homes required that Native American children be placed in Native American homes required tribal approval prior to adoptive placement, even when the placement was a result of a voluntary adoption proceeding All of the above Explore some of the psychological dynamics experienced by many biological children removed from their biological homes and placed into nonrelative foster care, and some ways human service professionals can assist foster care children with this transition. Explore the advantages of family preservation programs, including ways in which human service professionals can ensure that all families can benefit from this program equitably. References Addams, J. (1912). Twenty Years at Hull House; with autobiographical notes. Kindle Edition. Alderman, C.L. (1975). Colonists for Sale: The Story of Indentured Servants in America, New York: Macmillan, 1975. Austin, M. J., D’Andrade, A., Lemon, K., Benton, A., Chow, B., & Reyes, C. (2005). Risk and safety assessment in child welfare: Instrument comparisons. University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare (BASSC), 2, 1–16. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://cssr.berkeley.edu/bassc/public/risk_summ.pdf Barth, R. P. (2001). Policy implications of foster family characteristics. Family Relations, 50(1), 16–19. Bellingham, B. (1984). Little wanderers: A socio-historical study of the nineteenth century origins of child fostering and adoption reform, based on early records of the New York Children’s Aid Society. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. (Available from University Microfilm Incorporated (UMI), Ann Arbor, MI.) Belzberg, E. (Director). (2001). The forgotten children underground [Docudrama]. Childhope International. Bender, T. (1975). Toward an urban vision: Ideas and institutions in Nineteenth century America. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1975. Bentovim, A. (2002). Preventing sexually abused young people from becoming batterers, and treating the victimization experiences of young people who offend sexually. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(6–7), 661–678. Bentovim, A. (2004). Working with abusing families: General issues and a systemic perspective. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 15(1–2), 119–135. Bourg, W., Broderick, R., & Flagor, R. (1999). A child interviewer’s guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Brace, C. L. (1967). The dangerous classes of New York and twenty years work among them. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith. Brown, D. (2001). Bury my heart at wounded knee: An Indian history of the American west. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Burns, B. J., Phillips, S. D., Wagner, H. R., Barth, R. P., Kolko, D. J., Campbell, Y., et al. (2004). Mental health need and access to mental health services by youths involved with child welfare: A national survey. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(8), 960–970. CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320) Retrieved September 9, 2012 from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3817/text Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infant mortality and low birth weight among black and white infants—United States, 1980–2000. MMWR, July 2002; 51:589–592. Child Welfare League of America. (n.d.). Family preservation and permanency planning: About this area of focus. Retrieved March 2, 2004, from http://www.cwla.org/programs/familypractice/fampractabout.htm Child Welfare League of America. (2002). Minorities as majority: Disproportionality in child welfare and juvenile justice. Children’s Voice. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0211minorities.htm Child Welfare League of America. (2005). A comparison of approaches to risk assessment in child protection and brief summary of issues identified from research on assessment in related fields. Retrieved online January 1, 2012, at http://www.childwelfare.gov/responding/iia/safety_risk/ Condran, G. A., & Cheney, R. A. (1982). Mortality trends in Philadelphia: Age and cause-specific death rates 1870–1930. Demography, 19(1), 97–123. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, 44th Session, November 20, A/RESZ (1989). Denby, R. W., & Curtis, C. M. (2003). Why special populations are not the target of family preservation services: A case for program reform. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 30(2), 149–173. DePanfilis, D., & Scannapieco, M. (1994). Assessing the safety of children at risk of maltreatment: Decision-making models. Child Welfare, 73(3), 229–246. Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., & Brown, J. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741–753. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. London: Faber & Faber. Erikson, E. H. (1975). Life history and the historical moment. New York: Norton. First Nations Orphan Association. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2006, from http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fnoa Flango, V., & Flango, C. (1994). The flow of adoption information from the States. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-351, 122 Stat. 3949 (2008). Gauthier, Y., Fortin, G., & Jéliu, G. (2004). Clinical application of attachment theory in permanency planning for children in foster care: The importance of continuity of care. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25(4), 379–396. Goldman, J., & Salus, M. (2003). A coordinated response to child abuse and neglect: The foundation for practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Hewitt, S. K. (1999). Assessing allegations of sexual abuse in preschool children: Understanding small voices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Holt, M. (1992). The Orphan Trains: Placing out in America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Katz, M. B. (1996). In the shadow of the poorhouse: A social history of welfare in America. New York: Basic Books. Kopel, S., Charlton, T., & Well, S. J. (2003). Investigation laws and practices in child protective services. Child Welfare, 82(6), 661–684. Kreisher, K. (2002, March). Coming home: The lingering effects of the Indian adoption project. Children’s Voice. Child Welfare League of America. Retrieved July 10, 2004, from http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0203indianadopt.htm Lau, A. S., Litrownik, A. J., Newton, R. R., & Landsverk, J. (2003). Going home: The complex effects of reunification on internalizing problems among children in foster care. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(4), 345–358. Lee, R. E., & Whiting, J. B. (2007). Foster children’s expressions of ambiguous loss. American Journal of Family Therapy, 35:417–428. Marr, C. (2002). Assimilation through education: Indian boarding schools in the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Libraries Digital Collections Retrieved February 22, 2002, from http://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/marr/marr.html McWey, L., & Mullis, A. K. (2004). Improving the lives of children in foster care: The impact of supervised visitation. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 53(3), 293–300. National Association of Black Social Workers. (2003). Kinship care. Retrieved October 23, 2005, from http://www.nabsw.org/mserver/KimshipCare.aspx?menuContext=760 National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect. (2005). Definition of child abuse and neglect state statutes. Series 2005. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families. Retrieved May 30, 2004, from http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm Newcomb, M., Locke, D., & Thomas F. (2001). Intergenerational cycle of maltreatment: A popular concept obscured by methodological limitations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(9), 1219–1240. Patrick, M., Sheets, E., & Trickel, E. (1990). We are a part of history: The Orphan Trains. Virginia Beach, VA: The Donning Co. Pears, K. C., & Capaldi, D. M. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of abuse: A two-generational prospective study of an at-risk sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(11), 1439–1461. Peterson, C., & Biggs, M. (1997). Interviewing children about trauma: Problems with “specific” questions. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10(2), 279–290. Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (1998). Assessing the accuracy of young children’s reports: Lessons from the investigation of child sexual abuse. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 7(1), 1–26. Roberts, D. (2002). Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. New York: Basic Civitas Books. Rutter, B. (1978). The parents’ guide to foster family care. New York: Child Family League of America. Sanchirico, A., & Jablonka, K. (2000). Keeping foster children connected to their biological parents: The impact of foster parent training and support. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17(3), 185–203. Schultz, C.B. (1985). Children and childhood in Eighteenth Century. In Joseph M. Hawes and N. Ray Hiner (eds) American Childhood: A Research Guide and Historical Handbook. Westport: CT: Greenwood Press, 70, 79–80. Shughart, W. F., & Chappell, W. F. (1999). Fostering the demand for adoptions: An empirical analysis of the impact of orphanages and foster care on adoptions in the U.S. In R. D. McKenzie (Ed.), Rethinking orphanages for the 21st century (pp. 151–171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. Siu, S., & Hogan, P. T. (1989). Common clinical themes in child welfare. Social Work, 34(4), 229–345. Smith, C. J., & Devore, W. (2004). African American children in the child welfare and kinship system: From exclusion to over inclusion. Children & Youth Services Review, 26(5), 427–446. Smith, D. T., Juarez, B. G., & Jacobson, C. K. (2011). White on Black: Can White parents teach Black adoptive children how to understand and cope with racism? Journal of Black Studies, 42(8), 1195–1230. doi:10.1177/0021934711404237 Spake, A. (1994, November). The little boy who didn’t have to die. McCall’s, p. 142. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Orbach, Y. (2001). Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children’s responses to free-recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 997–1005. Surbeck, B. C. (2003). An investigation of racial partiality in child welfare assessments of attachment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73(1), 13–23. Trattner, W. (1998). From poor law to welfare state (6th ed.). New York: Free Press. United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF] (2007, November 27). UNICEF’s position on inter-country adoption [Press Release]. Available online at: http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41918.html. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2008). The AFCARS report. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report14.htm Intercountry Adoption: Country Information. (2011). U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Consular Affairs. Retrieved from http://adoption.state.gov/country_information.php. U.S. Senate. (1974). Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 99th Cong., 2nd Session (testimony of William Byler). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Von Hartz, J. (1978). New York street kids. New York: Dover. Warren, A. (1995). Orphan Train rider: One boy’s true story. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co."