►
From YouTube: Special Committee on Child Separations 1-29-2021
Description
The Special Committee on Child Separation In Philadelphia of the Council of the City of Philadelphia held a Public Hearing on Friday, January 29, 2021, at 1:00 PM, in a remote manner using Microsoft® Teams to hear testimony on the following items:
190798 Resolution authorizing the establishment of a “Special Committee on Child Separation In Philadelphia” to review child separation in Philadelphia’s child welfare system and develop recommendations to ensure compliance with State Child Protective Services Law to protect children and due process rights of families and prevent the unnecessary break up of families.
A
The
council,
chair
and
participants,
we
are
now
live.
Thank
you
very
much
good
afternoon.
This
is
a
meeting
of
the
special
committee
dealing
with
the
department
of
human
services
and
children.
I
am
going
to
read
a
statement
that
is
required,
so
bear
with
me.
It
is
a
an
important
statement.
I
understand
that
state
law
currently
requires
that
the
following
announcement
be
made
at
the
beginning
of
every
remote
public
hearing
as
follows.
A
I
now
note
that
the
hour
has
come
clark.
Will
you
please
call
the
role
to
take
attendance
members
that
are
in
attendance?
Will
you
please
indicate
that
you
are
present
when
your
name
is
called
also,
please
say
a
few
words
when
responding
so
that
your
image
will
displayed
on
screen
when
you
speak?
I
will
note,
however,
that
I
am
also
already
aware
that
one
of
our
members
judge
paul
panipinto
is
not
available.
We
will
call
his
name
and
also
that
my
co-chair
councilman
cindy
bass
is
traveling
and
has
some
wi-fi
issues.
A
C
D
D
A
E
D
A
A
Thank
you
very
much.
A
forum
of
the
committee
is
present.
Acquirement
is
not
needed
because
this
is
an
investigatory
hearing,
but
I
am
happy
that
we
have
the
partic
participation
that
we
do.
This
is
a
public
hearing
of
the
special
committee
on
child
separation
in
philadelphia
regarding
resolution
number
190798
clerk.
Will
you
please
read
the
title
of
the
resolution.
A
A
By
continuing
to
be
in
the
meeting,
you
are
consenting
to
being
recorded
additionally
prior
to
recognizing
members
for
the
questions
or
comments
they
have
for
witnesses.
I
will
note
for
the
record
at
this
time
that
we
will
use
the
chat
feature
available
in
microsoft
teams
to
allow
members
to
signify
that
they
wish
to
be
recognized
in
order
to
comply
with
the
sunshine
act.
The
chat
feature
must
only
be
used
for
this
purpose.
A
I
want
to
ensure
that
everybody
understands
that
there's
an
icon,
it
says,
show
conversation.
If
you
click
on
that,
you
will
be
able
to
use
the
chat
feature,
which
is
the
texting
feature,
the
written
feature.
If
you
want
to
be
recognized,
if,
if
you
want
to
for
questions
or
other
things
like
that,
I
will
note
that
another
one
of
our
members
robin
cooper
has
just
joined
us.
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
call
her
name.
A
G
I
G
G
A
C
Thank
you
very
much
councilmember
bass,
council
member,
oh
members
of
the
committee,
for
a
number
of
reasons,
many
people
had
to
change
plans
on
short
notice
to
make
this
meeting
possible.
So
the
first
thing
I
want
to
do
is
thank
you
all
for
that.
I
very
much
appreciate
it.
I
also
want
to
thank
council
member,
oh
staff
and
the
staff
of
the
philadelphia
city
council
for
making
this
meeting
possible
just
before
our
witnesses
begin.
C
I
want
to
briefly
take
note
of
some
progress
at
philadelphia
dhs
earlier
this
month.
I
listened
to
the
quarterly
meeting
of
the
child
welfare
oversight
board.
Three
things
happened
that
were
significant
and
I
think,
encouraging.
First
commissioner,
ali
reported
on
entries
into
care
for
fiscal
year
2020..
C
Those
entries
were
down
from
the
year
before,
which
were
down
from
the
year
before
that.
Now,
even
with
these
figures,
philadelphia
remains
an
outlier.
Philadelphia
still
takes
away
children
at
a
rate
above
the
average
for
big
cities
and
double
the
rate
for
new
york
and
chicago,
but
the
trend,
at
least
now,
is
in
the
right
direction.
C
Second,
commissioner,
ali
acknowledged
that
philadelphia
is
an
outlier
and
acknowledged
that
this
is
a
serious
problem
and
third
is
the
simple
fact
that
these
data
were
made
public.
Every
other
big
city
routinely
has
disclosed
for
decades
how
many
children
have
been
taken
away
by
the
child
protective
services
agency
over
the
course
of
the
year.
That
has
not
always
been
the
case
in
philadelphia.
C
A
B
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
everyone.
My
name
is
kara
fink
and
I
am
currently
a
practice,
professor
of
law
at
the
university
of
pennsylvania
law
school,
where
I
also
direct
the
interdisciplinary
interdisciplinary
child
advocacy
clinic,
and
I
want
to
start
off
by
thanking
councilman,
oh
councilwoman
bass,
richard
wexler
and
the
other
members
of
the
special
committee
for
inviting
me
to
speak
today
and
commend
you
on
all
of
the
logistics
and
technology
that
needs
to
happen
to
get
us
all
together
today.
So
thank
you
so
much.
B
In
this
conversation,
really
in
the
experience
that
I've
had,
which
is
having
worked
for
over
a
decade
at
the
bronx
defenders
in
new
york
city,
where
I
created
the
family
defense
practice
and
before
that
serving
youth
who
were
in
foster
care
at
an
organization
called
the
door
also
in
new
york
city
and
now,
as
the
director
of
the
interdisciplinary
child
advocacy
clinic
where
I
represent.
Both
parents
and
young
people
involved
in
the
child
welfare
system.
B
And
I
want
to
give
the
caveat
that,
while
I
am
thrilled
to
speak
about
my
experiences
and
to
share
some
of
my
perspectives,
that
is
by
no
means
a
replacement
for
speaking
to
the
parents
and
youth
who
are
involved
in
this
system
every
day.
And
it
is
critical
that
their
lived.
Experience
is
first
and
foremost
in
all
discussions.
When
it
comes
to
reform
of
this
system
and
for
far
too
long,
that
has
been
an
afterthought
or
a
token,
and
I
am
encouraged
and
thrilled
to
see
that
that
is
not
how
this
committee
is
proceeding.
B
B
I
have
often
recognized
my
own
privilege
and
luxury
of
being
able
to
see
these
cases
at
the
other
end
when
all
of
those
hard
decisions
have
been
made,
and
I
don't
wish
to
in
any
way
discredit
or
diminish
their
role
and
importance
in
thinking
about
reform.
So
with
that
caveat,
I
will
start
with
a
couple
of
premises.
B
So
here's
truth,
number
one
true
is
another
one
that
I
hope
we
can
all
agree
on,
and
I
would
argue
that
this
emerging
science
of
neuroscience
and
psychology
and
development
child
development
has
also
shown
to
be
clear.
Is
that
removal
is
trauma
it
may
be
necessary.
It
may
be
something
we
have
to
do
in
a
very
limited
number
of
cases
to
protect
the
safety
of
a
child,
but
it
is
traumatic
even
when
it
is
necessary.
A
B
No,
no,
no,
that's!
Okay,
but
if
we
think
about
the
premise
that
the
majority
of
cases
neglect,
then
I
think
where
that
leads
us
to
is
how,
as
a
community
as
a
city
council
as
a
city
and
as
a
nation,
we
need
to
start
think
about
how
we
prioritize
thinking
about
poverty
and
families,
because,
as
it
is
currently
structured,
the
child
welfare
system
in
dhs
are
not
meant
to
be
anti-poverty
programs.
B
So
I
want
to
pause
it.
My
proposal,
then,
is
that
there
are
three.
There
are
two
ways
that
we
can
do
this
and
two
ways
that
I
would
urge
the
council
to
think
about,
especially
in
light
of
some
of
the
recent
developments
at
the
federal
level
and
switches
and
funding,
of
which
I
am
no
expert,
and
I
do
not
pretend
in
any
way
to
provide
guidance
to
the
council
on
how
to
utilize
those
funds.
B
And
again
I
would
encourage
you
to
look
at
some
of
the
recent
guidance
from
the
administration
for
children,
families
which
recently
actually,
as
of
january
12
2021,
issued
a
memorandum
about
civil
legal
advocacy
to
promote
child
and
family
well-being
and
to
address
the
social
determinants
of
health
and
enhance
community
resilience
and
what
this
is
doing.
And
yes,
you
may
say
well,
of
course,
as
a
lawyer,
I
am
putting
myself
at
the
center
of
this
discussion
and
I
am
asking
you
to
increase
legal
services.
B
But
what
I
really
think
we're
doing
is
looking
at
the
issues
that
bring
folks
and
families
into
contact
with
the
child
welfare
system
in
a
different
manner.
We're
thinking
about
issues
of
housing,
mental
health,
access,
employment,
stability,
domestic
violence,
intimate
partner,
violence
that
all
have
legal
remedies
and
absent
in
early
intervention
to
address
those
issues
as
a
legal
issue
and
not
an
issue
for
the
child
protection
system,
we
are
putting
children
into
foster
care
that
could
have
otherwise
been
prevented.
B
From
doing
so,
I'm
reminded
of
my
colleague
vivek
sankarin
and
chris
church
out
of
the
university
of
south
carolina
and
the
university
of
michigan,
who
did
a
study
of
children
who
were
removed
and
stayed
for
less
than
30
days.
And,
of
course,
when
I
hear
that
my
initial
instinct
is
to
say
why
were
they
removed
at
all?
Why
were
they
put
in
a
different
setting
and
that
trauma,
as
we
talked
about
as
truth
number
one
was
ever
attached
to
these
children,
and
what
could
we
have
done
differently?
B
So
one
of
the
things
when
we
think
about
an
alternative
to
removal
and
we
think
about
re-envisioning,
the
foster
care
system
is
to
look
at
preventive
legal
services
that
actually
attack
that
subset
of
cases,
which
again,
I
will
argue,
are
the
majority
of
cases
that
have
to
do
with
neglect,
because
when
you
go
into
dhs,
they
don't
have
the
capacity
to
give
a
parent
stable
housing.
They
don't
have
the
capacity
to
give
a
parent,
a
job
or
concrete,
tangible
supports
that
are
needed
to
stabilize
and
support
families.
B
B
So
one
is
a
medical
legal
partnership
program
that
we
have
been
doing,
and
also
community
legal
services
with
the
children's
hospital
of
philadelphia,
and
the
goal
is
to
think
about
how
legal
intervention
can
address
the
social
determinants
of
health
and
the
social
determinants
of
health.
For
those
of
you
not
familiar
with,
that
term
is
essentially
all
of
the
facets
of
where
you
live,
and
where
you
go
to
school,
that
impact
your
health.
B
And
you
see
how
that
very
fragile
position
starts
to
crumble.
Apart
and
families
are
not
supported.
The
medical
legal
partnership
model
which
has
been
in
around
the
country
for
about
20
years
and
began
out
of
boston
boston,
children's
dr
barry
zuckerman,
who
piloted
it
there.
The
model
essentially
states
to
integrate
legal
services
into
the
care
team
delivery
at
a
pediatric
clinic
or
a
hospital
or
a
local
federally
qualified
health
center.
B
Whatever
the
case
may
be,
and
to
screen
for
the
variety
of
civil
legal
needs,
such
as
income,
housing,
employment,
legal
status
and
partner,
violence
that
have
an
impact
on
a
family's
stability-
and
I
would
argue,
are
the
precursors
to
what
we
ultimately
see
in
the
child
welfare
system
as
neglect
and
so
having
that
intervention
not
only
placed
at
a
moment
where
there
may
not
be
a
crisis
right
where
the
eviction
notice,
that
notice
hasn't
been
posted
or
the
benefits
haven't
been
completely
turned
off.
Is
the
key
additionally
having
it
be
a
warm
handoff.
B
Caseworkers
struggle
all
the
time
valiantly
to
create
create
relationships
with
their
parents
and
with
the
families
that
are
not
ones
based
on
threats.
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
caseworker
has
the
power
and
the
state
action
to
remove
a
child
from
their
parents.
Care
and
everybody
knows
it
using
the
medical
model
where
there
are
trusted
relationships,
hopefully
with
the
nurses,
the
doctors
with
the
hospital
social
work
staff
to
make
that
warm
handoff
to
a
lawyer
to
address
again
what
those
underlying
issues
may
be.
B
The
other
program
is
thinking
about
whether
or
not
prevent
preventative
legal
services
during
an
investigation
are
helpful,
and
I
would
argue,
based
on
my
experience
in
the
bronx,
that
they
in
fact
are-
and
I
know
that
everyone
will
go,
but
that's
more
lawyers
that
makes
things
more
complicated.
That
makes
things
more
adversarial
and
litigious,
and
my
my
whole
sort
of
career
has
been
to
show
that,
in
fact,
what
lawyers
do
is
martial
information
to
help
the
people
who
have
to
make
the
decision
make
one
that
ultimately,
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
family.
B
And
what
I
mean
by
that
is
is
so
often
we
are
working
at
very
small
pieces
of
data
and
very
sort
of
finite
or
snapshot
pieces
of
information
about
a
family
and
having
a
legal
team
that
the
parent
can
trust
involved
during
an
event.
Investigation
can
be
critical
to
showing
not
only
the
totality
of
the
family's
circumstances
the
history
beyond
that
one
moment
that
may
have
caused
the
report
and,
more
importantly,
to
think
more
broadly
and
expansively
about
how
the
agency
responds.
B
Ultimately,
we
have
an
ad
adversarial
system
and
we
have
due
process
for
parents
because
we
want
to
hold
agencies
accountable.
That
is
not
something
that
I
think
should
go
away.
I
think
holding
government
agencies
accountable
is
important.
I
think
it's
something
again
that
maybe
I'll
add,
as
my
truth
number
three
but
the
role
of
the
attorney
and
the
legal
team.
B
Don't
muck
up
the
process,
they
actually
help
the
process
run
more
smoothly
to
get
to
an
answer
for
how
to
support
and
serve
a
family
that
very
well
may
be
in
need.
The
second
proposal
I
want
to
put
forward
is
one
that
well.
I
know
the
committee
is
also
looking
at
the
front
end
and
how
cases
are
brought
in
and
representation.
Excuse
me
reporting.
B
There
was
always
a
missed
point
of
intervention
in
that
family's
life
when
you
took
the
time
to
find
out
what
had
happened
and
how
they
had
landed
into
family
court,
but
once
you're
in
family
court.
I
want
to
argue
that
parental
representation
is
key
and
having
a
robust
interdisciplinary
parent
representation.
Team
in
family
court
is
key
not
only
to
the
functioning
of
the
family
court,
but
also
to
the
proper
and
accountable
functioning
of
dhs,
and
I
think
this
is
not
again
just
simply
my
opinion.
B
I
think
what
we've
seen
is
that
it's
borne
out
in
the
literature
and
the
studies
which
to
be
fair,
are
new
and
have
just
started,
and
clearly
we
need
to
have
a
more
robust
study
of
this,
but
again
is
also
borne
out
in
the
federal
government
and
their
willingness
to
fund
this
now.
So
what
we
know
from
from
the
administration
for
children
and
families
and
the
children
bureau
is
that
they
have
actually
rethought,
and
here
I
look
to
the
words
of
jerry
milner,
who
was
the
commissioner
for
the
children's
bureau.
B
They
have
rethought
how
you
represent
parents
and
how
important
it
is
to
represent
parents
in
that
process
and
to
do
so
in
a
really
sort
of
robust
defense
and
interdisciplinary
model,
and
what
that
means
in
practice
is
that
every
parent
is
entitled
to
a
lawyer
who
will
investigate
their
case,
who
will
help
them,
navigate
the
decisions
and
a
social
worker
who
will
do
an
individualized
assessment
of
their
needs?
The
supports
and
a
parent
advocate
who
may
be
someone
with
lived
experience
in
the
system
again,
who
will
help
navigate?
B
The
system
down
do
not
mean
that
children
are
going
debt
going
back
to
unsafe
homes.
In
fact,
what
it
means
is
that
decisions
about
permanency,
whether
that
permanency
is
reunification
or
some
other
custodial
arrangement,
happen
more
quickly,
and
that
is
at
research.
That
has
also
been
suggested
out
of
the
seattle
office
of
the
public
defender
there,
where
they
represent
parents
and
thinking
again
more
more
less
traditionally
about
the
role
of
lawyers
in
this
process.
B
And
so
I
propose
these
sort
of
two
examples
of
preventive
legal
services
and
enhanced
parental
representation
as
ways
at
which
we
can
start
to
get
at
this
issue
of
removal
at
two
different
decision
making
points,
and
with
that
I
will
end
and
open
this
up
to
any
questions
that
that
the
members
may
have
and
take
a
drink.
Thank
you.
A
Very
much
professor,
I
think
I
will
let
richard
wesner
begin
the
questioning.
However,
I
just
want
to
note
that
our
committee
member
yolanda
bryant
is
on
the
on
the
in
the
meeting
with
us.
She
had
difficulty
technical
difficulties
signing
in
she
is
with
us.
So
with
that
richard
wexler,
would
you
like
to
begin
the
questioning.
C
C
B
Then
we're
going
to
end
up
using
removal
more
often,
as
opposed
to
understanding
that
an
issue
of
safe
housing
is
not
in
and
of
itself
a
maltreatment
or
a
neglect
issue.
But
if
there's
nowhere
else
for
that
social
worker
or
that
doctor
or
that
nurse
to
turn
to
to
provide
support,
then
yes,
that's
what
inevitably
it
happens.
There's
a
study
out
of,
I
believe,
ohio.
B
It
might
be
wrong
on
that.
That
was
done
with
doctors
about
why
they
fail
to
ask
questions
about
whether
there
are
issues
going
on
in
the
home
and
the
biggest
reason
was
not
a
misunderstanding:
not
a
failure
to
care
about
the
family,
not
a
failure
to
think
that
they
want
to
intervene
or
provide
support,
but
that
they
wouldn't
know
what
to
do
with
the
answer,
and
they
wouldn't
know
what
to
do.
B
C
B
Yeah-
and
I
don't
know
that
I'm
the
best
person
to
speak
to
that-
I
do
think
it
would
be
interesting
for
the
the
committee
to
speak
to
folks
on
the
ground
who
are
sort
of
make
working
in,
for
example,
clinics
in
west
philadelphia,
where
the
vast
majority
of
families
coming
in
our
families,
who
may
for
various
reasons
of
socioeconomic
and
racial
status,
may
be
coming
into
more
contact
with
the
child
welfare
system.
To
think
about
what
are
the
constraints
that
you
feel
and
how
is
this
being
interpreted?
B
C
Well,
I
have
to
tell
you:
I
took
the
mandated
reporter
training
for
pennsylvania
mandated
reporters
to
fight
at
least
one
of
the
courses,
and
I
must
tell
you
it
was
deeply.
It
was
a
deeply
disturbing,
although
not
unexpected
experience,
because
when
you
look
at
that
training,
they
will
tell
you
gut
feeling
or
use.
Your
feelings
are
some
of
the
things
that
are
that
are
in
there
now.
Is
there
anything
in
the
state
law
definition
of
reasonable
cause
to
suspect
that
includes
feelings
or
gut
instinct.
B
No,
not
to
my
knowledge.
No,
I
I
think
you
know
what
I'm
reminded
of
are
two
things
I
think
one
one
is
and,
and
I'm
by
no
means
an
expert
in
this
work,
and
I
would
defer
to
my
my
colleague,
professor
roberts
dorothy
roberts
at
the
law
school
right.
Whenever
we're
dealing
with
gut
instincts,
we
are
more
likely
to
go
into
biases
and
stereotypes
and
preconceptions,
which
you
know.
Obviously,
the
child
welfare
system,
not
only
in
philadelphia
but
nationally,
has
has
struggled
with
forever.
B
I
think
the
other
thing
I
would
go
to
is
there.
There
was
a
famous
case
in
that
really
sort
of
seminally
shifted
the
practice
when
I
was
practicing
in
new
york
called
nicholson,
biscapetta
and
what
they
said
and
what
the
court
of
appeals,
the
highest
court
in
new
york
said,
was
essentially
just
that
richard
right,
you
are
not
supposed
to
be
making
these
decisions
based
on
your
gut.
B
This
is
not
supposed
to
be
a
safer
course
analysis
of
how
you,
whether
or
not
you
remove
a
child
because,
again
to
go
to
truth,
one
the
reality
is,
and
the
court
acknowledged
this
in
in
that
decision.
The
reality
is
is
that
the
removal
will
be
traumatic,
and
so
you
need
to
weigh
whether
that
removal
is
more
traumatic
or
is,
is
not
than
keeping
the
child
in
the
home
with
support
and
is
actually
more
problematic.
B
C
B
I
don't,
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
that
couldn't,
and
I
think
also
if
you
were
to
look
at
some
of
the
some
of
the
other
models
across
the
nation
and
particularly
looking
at
sort
of
differential
response
programs
where
again,
the
response
is
not
to
go
immediately
to
a
report
or
a
removal,
but
to
think
about
services.
I
think
that
could
also
be
certainly
implemented.
C
Okay,
one
last
thing,
and
then
I
will
wrap
up
for
this,
because
I
definitely
want
to
hear
the
other
panel.
I
know
there
are
plenty
of
other
people
want
to
get
in
questions
just
want
to
add
in
terms
of
the
legal
representation
model.
As
you
mentioned,
there
is
the
exhaustive
study
out
of
new
york,
showing
it
reduces
time
in
foster
care
with
no
compromise
of
child
safety.
There
have
been
other
studies
in
other
parts
of
the
country
on
this,
and
the
federal
government
in
eligible
cases
will
now
pick
up
50
of
the
tab.
C
B
The
child
advocates
were
also
able
to
talk
with
attorneys
and
not
be
sort
of
solely
responsible,
and
I
think
ultimately
it
it
shifted
the
practice
to
one
that
protected
the
due
process:
rights
of
parents,
the
rights
of
children
to
have
their
voices
represented
and
for
their
needs
to
be
met
and
for
courts
to
really
hold
not
all
parties
accountable
and
then
make
reasonable,
well-informed
decisions
and
ultimately
move
to
more
quickly
bringing
children
back
into
their
parents.
Care.
C
A
You
thank
you
very
much
richard
wexler.
Thank
you,
professor
fink.
I
will
just
you
know,
let
the
other
committee
members
know
and
and
the
public
as
well,
that
I
did
speak
with
the
head
of
training
of
social
workers
at
children's
hospital
and
the
executive
vice
president,
who
told
me
that
they
train
everyone
in
the
hospital
to
use
their
gut
instincts.
A
So
with
that
information,
I
went
to
the
philadelphia
dhs
commissioner
to
tell
her.
I
think
we
need
to
do
something,
and
she
told
me
that
is
absolutely
the
law
that
people
use
gut
instincts,
which
is
what
led
to
the
hearing,
and
I
will
just
say
to
the
public.
There
is
no
legal
standard
called
gut
instinct
anytime,
someone
uses
a
gut
instinct.
They
are
violating
the
constitution.
A
You
can
use
gut
instincts
to
to
alert
yourself
to
to
build
like
what
you
want.
You
cannot
deny
someone
something
because
you
have
gut
instincts,
there's
no
legal
standard.
I
will
say
the
end
result
has
been
a
very
discriminatory
system
that
punishes
the
poor
and
those
perceived
to
be
weak
and
in
philadelphia
a
just
a
tremendous
violation
of
the
rights
of
african-american
women
and
hispanic
women
and
poor
white
women,
but
overwhelmingly
for
the
same
exact
issue.
A
A
A
It
is
astounding
to
me
that
we
have
to
fight
this,
so
I
will
say
that
that
I
I
really
appreciate
your
insights
and
the
solutions,
your
legal
acumen.
I
I
will
also
say
that
we
have
a
system
that
superficially
seems
to
address
some
of
the
issues
raised.
Professor,
but
many
people
on
our
committee
and
and
and
who
have
complained
reveal
a
system
where
they
don't
actually
have
legal
representation.
A
They
have
the
illusion
of
legal
representation
being
that
their
attorneys
are
paid
so
little
money.
They
have
no
incentive
to
delve
into
these
cases
and
have
a
lot
of
incentives,
not
to
argue
with
the
judges
argue
with
the
with
the
with
dhs
and
the
social
workers,
and
that
to
me
is
you
know
something
where
our
government
continues
to
create
all
kinds
of
categories
of
free
legal
services
that
are
very,
very
poor
legal
services.
It's
the
illusion
of
legal
services.
To
me,
it's
a
big
problem.
A
So
with
that
I
will
just
say
if
anyone
else
on
the
committee
has
a
question
for
professor
fink.
Please
send
me
a
note
in
the
chat
or,
if
you
don't,
if
you're
having
trouble
just
speak
up
and
say
you
have
a
question,
I
will
give
it
a
few
seconds
and
and
then
move
on
to
our
second
panel,
seeing
none.
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
introduce
our
second
panel.
A
K
J
J
We
feel
it's
time
to
take
the
money,
that's
being
used
to
remove
children
and
pay
it
directly
to
the
mothers
for
the
work
that
we're
doing,
for
caring
for
children,
struggling
mothers
and
children
need
to
be
helped,
not
blamed
and
punished
by
family
separation.
And
I'm
going
to
explain
to
you
too.
If
this
sounds,
you
know
idealistic
or
whatever,
as
we
go
down
and
that's
why
pat's
going
to
go
last
because
she's
going
to
actually
really
go
into
some
detail
on
some
measures
and
and
legislation,
that's
even
being
put
into
place
right
now.
J
That
will
do
this
anyhow,
but
I'm
going
to
continue
to
kind
of
lay
it
out.
So,
as
we
know,
poverty
is
tearing
our
families
apart
in
philadelphia
and
it,
and
it's
way
worse,
for
black
brown,
indigenous
and
other
mothers
of
color
and
those
of
us
with
disabilities
whose
income
is
driven
down
and
who
are
targeted
because
of
racism,
ableism
and
other
discrimination
as
survivors
of
domestic
violence.
J
J
This
is
a
gigantic
piece
of
the
problem,
which
I
think
doesn't
get
noted
enough.
We
think
doesn't
get
noted
enough,
as
we
see
see,
come
through
our
grassroots
organization,
so
many
mothers
who
have
their
children
taken
because
of
this
issue,
and
it's
also
the
reason
why
we
are
are
demanding.
I'm
sorry.
I
have
a
noisy
bird
holly.
J
So,
as
pat
carolyn
and
I
speak
to
you
today,
you
will
hear
our
frustration
over
some
of
this.
I
think,
because
we've
been
here
before
saying
this
so
many
times
over
and
over
again
for
years
and
and
with
many
others
who
are
among
us
here
in
this
hearing
today,
as
well
as
the
mothers
that
are
standing
and
speaking
outside
of
family
court
presently
demanding
justice
for
themselves
and
their
children
and
those
that
are
here
that
are
working
to
guarantee
housing.
J
You
know,
there's
also
no
question,
as
has
been
brought
up
here,
that
the
child
welfare
system,
you
know,
has
an
underlying
white
supremacy,
which
is
formed
historically
from
the
separating
of
families
of
black
brown,
indigenous
and
other
people
of
color
and
capitalizing
off
of
their
bodies.
As
dorothy
roberts
wrote
in
her
introduction
to
shadow
bonds,
the
color
of
america's
child
welfare
system
is
the
reason
americans
have
tolerated
its
destructiveness.
J
J
We
call
for
the
money
child
welfare
spends
to
go
directly
to
the
mothers
and
other
primary
caregivers
for
the
work
of
raising
children.
The
covet
pandemic
has
shown
a
light
that
caregivers,
including
unwaged,
are
essential
workers.
The
whole
society
depends
on
our
caring
work,
yet
we
get
the
least
in
relief
stimulus
or
ongoing
financial
supports.
J
We
support
expanded,
fully
refundable
child
tax
credits
as
part
of
this
biden,
coveted
relief
package,
which
means
that
fully
refundable,
if
people
don't
know,
means
that
it's
not
it's
not
dependent
on
your
income,
you
don't
even
have
to
make
any
income.
You
still
are
going
to
get
this
money
and
the
money
again.
We're
very
concerned
must
go
directly
to
the
mothers
or
primary
care
givers
and
also
must
not
get
deducted
for
past
debts
or
reduce
other
assistance.
J
J
J
This
care
income
would
pay
people
like
mothers
for
the
work
that
they
do.
Yeah
for
caring,
for
you
know
a
wide
range
of
on-wage
caregiving
that
we
do
and,
and
the
last
thing
is,
we
support
the
poor
people's
moral
justice,
jubilee
platform
to
which
we
contributed,
and
it
calls
to
quote
prohibit
the
use
of
any
funds
allocated
toward
welfare
spending
to
go
towards
family
separation
or
child
removal.
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
I'm
just
going
to
give
a
note
that,
because
we
are
televised,
we
have
some
limitations
on
us.
It
is
my
job
to
make
sure
that
we
move
along
within
our
you
know,
time
period,
you're
doing
fine
and
we
will
not
ask
questions
until
aft.
This
entire
panel
has
testified,
but
just
keep
in
mind
that
we
do
have
a
limitation
on
time
and
we
will
have
additional
a
testimony.
I
can
see
from
four
maybe
five
other
people
who
are
making
public
comment.
K
Hi
everybody,
my
name
is
carolyn
hill.
I
had
experience
with
dhs
back
in
2011
when
they
put
two
nieces
of
mine
in
my
home
and
then
removed
them
2012
a
week
before
easter
in
2012
of
april,
and
for
no
reason
they
removed
the
kids.
They
didn't
even
tell
me
why.
What
did
I
do
wrong
or
anything
they
just
told
me
to
be
the
court.
K
So
in
the
process
of
me
being
the
court,
I
had
no
lawyer
and
nowhere
to
get
a
lawyer
from
I
went
to
the
news,
philadelphia
newspaper
and
it
was
they
sent
me
to
crossroads.
They
gave
me
the
number
to
crossroads
women's
center,
which
I
called
them
and
they
decided
to
help
they
not
decide.
They
did
help
me
with
my
case
me
having
you
know,
protesting
in
front
of
dhs
and
fighting
my
case
because
dhs
had
told
me.
I
wasn't
able
to
get
a
lawyer,
so
I
had
to
find
my
own
lawyer.
K
K
They
said
I
didn't
have.
That
was
the
only
thing
that
was
true,
but
all
the
rest
of
the
they
said
I
was
being
engaged
and
all
that
there
was
a
pack
of
was
lies
which
I
couldn't
speak
on
to
this
judge.
So
knowing
when
they
said,
I
was
being
evicted,
I
figured
yeah,
they
gonna
take
the
kids
because
I'm
being
evicted,
which
I
was
not
being
evicted
what
they
had
did
they
went
to
I'm
on
section
8.
They
went
to
section
8
section
8
needed
me
to
get
a
birth
certificate
in
social
security.
K
What
I
told
what
oh,
instead
of
her,
giving
me
that
she
goes
to
section
8
section
8
tells
her.
If
I
don't
turn
these
papers
in
that
I
will
be
evicted,
but
they
never
gave
me
the
papers,
they
removed
the
kids
and
then
from
there
I
went
to
court
with
no
ju,
no
lawyer
didn't
come
to
find
out
at
the
end
of
the
whole
court.
I
went
all
the
way
up
to
the
superior
court
with
this
and
and
dhs
give
us
back.
K
Our
children
organization
help
me
out
with
everything
paperwork,
delivering
the
mail
making
sure
they
get
their
packages
and
everything
then
at
the
end
they
said
I
was
able
to
get
a
lawyer,
but
I
had
got
a
pro
bowl.
It
took
me
a
year
to
get
a
pro
bono
lawyer
who
I
had
got
and
and
then
they
still
railroaded
me
because
they
brought
up
stuff
that
they
already
knew
in
in
in
my
history.
K
Before
they
even
gave
me
the
kill,
then
they
sat
there
and
said
I
had
a
child
abuse
and
I
asked
them:
where
is
this
child
abuse
record
at
go?
Get
it
bring
it
to
court?
They
didn't
do
that.
They
gave
me
evaluation,
trying
to
say
that
I
wasn't
fit
enough
to
take
hit
achieve
the
lady
did
evaluation.
For
one
day
told
me
I
was
on
the
fourth
grade.
K
K
You
know,
then,
when
I
find
out
that
the
reason
why
they
didn't
ever
give
me
the
kids
back
is
because
I
went
and
seek
the
help
from
dhs
giving
back
to
our
children
organization,
and
they
didn't
like
that
now,
the
people
that
they
gave
the
kids
to
or
they
owned
a
house
and
stuff.
I
was
in
low
income
housing
on
disability,
but
the
ones
that
they
gave
the
kids
to
right
now.
Today
they
are
even
they
not
even
together,
they
was
married.
K
They
set
up
in
the
courts
held
hands
in
their
judges,
and
the
lawyers
knew
that
they
were
just
out
for
the
money.
That's
how
I
put
it
because
right
now
today,
they
ain't
been
together,
they
married,
but
they
never
been
together,
since
they
got
some
kids
that
adopted
them.
I
haven't
seen
my
nieces
since
2013.
K
and
how
I
feel
that
was
it
was
wrong.
The
way
dhs
did
me
because
I
called
myself
doing
number
favor.
They
asked
me
to
take
the
kids.
I
said
yes,
then,
once
then
one
of
the
child
advocates
came
out
to
see
the
kids
and
said.
Oh,
this
is
the
happiest.
I
ever
seen
this
little
girl
and
then
turn
around
and
remove
her
from
my
home,
so
she
was
so
happy.
Why
would
you
remove
her?
K
This
is
to
terrorize
and
put
all
this
here
anger
in
these
kids,
so
that
they
can
medicate
these
kids,
and
this
is
the
first
thing
they
do.
You
put
them
in
a
home
that
they
love
so
well.
They
remove
them.
They
remove
them
from
a
good
home
and
put
them
in
a
bad
home,
and
just
say
the
child
got
problems.
K
No,
the
child
know
where
they
wanted
to
be
at
they.
They
they
loved.
It
me
they
didn't
want
to
leave
me.
They
didn't
even
know
the
family,
remember
that
they
went
with
the
family
member,
getting
no
gun,
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
I'm
still
looking
to
see
my
nieces
that
I
haven't
seen
they
like
live.
They
tended
11
now,
but
it's
the
way
that
they
did
how
they
did
it.
They
didn't
even
give
me
a
reason
for
taking
the
kids
they
came
in
my
home.
K
They
said
I
didn't
have
toys
for
the
kids.
I
had
toys
for
those
kids,
but
did
they
just
look
at
your
house
if
it
ain't
clean,
they're
gonna
remove
your
kitten.
So
I
made
sure
the
house
was
clean
when
they
came
and
the
toys
they
had
all
the
toys
they
wanted.
They
had
everything.
I
did
not
neglect
near
one
of
those
children.
I
was
good
to
my
nieces.
They
loved
me
and
everything
they
was.
One
of
them
was
put
in
two
different
foster
homes.
K
K
It
was
it
just
the
way
they
got
in
court
is
just
lodged
on
me,
whereas,
though
I
couldn't
speak
for
myself,
then
they
did
it
all
up
at
the
superior
court.
Talking
about,
I
smacked
my
oldest
granddaughter
punched
in
the
eye.
Did
all
of
that.
You
got
a
child
abuse
record,
I
said:
where
is
it
show
it
to
me?
They
couldn't
show
it
to
me.
The
three
lawyers
got
together.
I
was
supposed
to
have
witnesses
comes
to
court.
They
stopped
all
the
witnesses
from
coming
to
court.
A
A
K
I
have
friends
I
have
friends
in
here.
I
have
a
friend,
that's
friend
with
my
daughter.
She
has
seven
kids,
she
went
to
vhs
for
help
and
they
took
all
her
kids
and
separated
them
now.
She
out
here,
you
know,
like
mine,
lost
whatever
cuz.
She
can't
get
a
kid
back.
You
don't
know
how
to
fight
to
get
the
kids
back,
and
then
you
got
a
lot
of
out
here.
Don't
want
to
let
they
want
help,
but
they
scared
it
because
dhs
will
take
your
children,
they
will
take.
K
I
mean
they
coming
to
you
for
help.
Why
would
you
take
them
instead
of
helping
them?
If
they
need
housing
get
them
a
house
they
used
to
do
that.
They
don't
do
it.
No
more,
they
tell
you,
they
gonna
get
you
a
house,
but
they
don't.
They
have
you
thinking.
They're
gonna
help
you
all
kinds
of
ways
and
the
whole
time
they're
planning
on
keeping
your
kids
and
giving
them
to
somebody
else.
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
miss
hill.
I
just
want
to
explain
to
everybody
that
at
our
first
hearing
we
had
58,
mostly
mothers,
give
public
testimony
until
we
had
to
stop
the
hearing,
because
the
stenographer
could
not
continue
physically.
With
that
length
of
you
know,
hearings,
we
picked
it
up
at
another
time.
We
have
heard
literally
hundreds
of
testimony
like
yours
from
all
different
types
of
people.
A
E
I
raised
my
son
on
a
very
low
income
and
I
had
some
fears
myself
and
my
son
is
now
29
he's
black
and
I
thought
well.
If
I
had
also
been
black
and
maybe
I
would
have
lost
him
as
well,
so
it
was
always
a
fear.
I
had
because
I
knew
a
little
bit
about
the
system
and
what
could
be
happened
to
me
and
I
was
very
glad
to
hear
about
kara
fink's
program,
but
I
agree
with
what
what
celine
was
saying.
E
Is
that,
of
course,
and
and
carolyn
as
well,
is
that
we
also
need
cash
and
that
so
I
wanted
to
to
raise
up
the
issue
of
the
city
poverty
action
plan,
which
I
think
would
be
really
good
to
I
mean
it
seems
like
there's
two
different
streams:
what
about
the
city
this
program?
This
partnership
is
taking
place
so
that
we
can,
for
example,
help
implement
things
on
their
state
wide
agenda.
State
city-state
agenda,
which
is,
for
example,
increasing
tanf
benefits
is
the
temporary
assistance
for
needy
families
that
have
not
been
increased.
E
You
know
really,
disgracefully
since
1990
and
according
to
the
the
poverty
plan
tanf
currently
serves
as
the
primary
income
for
almost
50
000
adults
and
mothers
that
you
should
save
mostly
and
children
in
philadelphia
at
403
dollars
a
month
for
a
family
of
three
religious
current
benefits
levels.
In
addition,
we
should
be
demanding
an
end
to
work
requirements
and
time
limits,
as
coretta
scott
king
said,
with
some
of
the
cuts
and
changes
being
proposed.
You
know
earlier
on.
E
So
we
want
those
work
requirements
and
time
limits
to
end
and
that
we
should
have
the
money
on
the
basis
of
our
of
the
work
we
do.
The
invaluable
work
and
essential
work
we
do
is
is
mothers
and
caregivers,
and
we
see
what
fred
scott
king
says
reflected
today
and
the
foster
carried
a
prison
pipeline,
and
we
see
in
dhs
as
we're
seeing
too
much
in
in
our
society
in
other
ways
as
well.
E
The
the
disregard
of
the
value,
the
the
critical
nature
of
the
bonding
between
mothers
and
children
of
the
primary
caregiver
and
children,
and
how
how
that
impacts,
children,
the
rest
of
their
lives,
and
I
wanted
to
also
flag
up
that.
The
state
partnership
agenda
always
also
calls
for
restoring
the
general
assistance
which
is
or
the
ga
program
which
actually
I
was
on-
with
higher
monthly
stipends
over
a
longer
period
of
time.
So
that
is
a
lifeline
not
only
for
people.
E
A
Thank
you
very
much.
There
may
be
questions,
but
what
I'm
going
to
do,
as
I
try
to
to
manage
the
time
here
of
such
important
testimony,
I'm
going
to
at
this
time
ask
the
clerk
and
and
the
the
and
our
technical
people
to
allow
public
comment,
because
I
think
this
all
ties
in
and
then
we
will
open
it
up
for
questions.
F
My
name
is
kaisha
lam
and
I'm
gonna
start
now.
I
took
my
four-month-old
to
children's
hospital
in
philadelphia
on
january
4th
because
he
fell
off
the
bed
six
days.
Prior
to
that
I
took
him
when
I
realized
his
arm
wasn't
moving
like
it
normally
does.
When
I
got
to
the
hospital
doctors
looked
at
his
arm
and
from
what
they
could
see,
there
was
no
bruises,
it
didn't
look
broke
or
anything
they
gave.
F
F
However,
his
arm
could
have
been
broken
from
the
story
that
I
told
them.
They
then
informed
me
they
had
to
involve
dhs
because
my
son's
fracture
fractured
femur
didn't
go
with
the
story
that
I
had
told
them
about
him
falling
off
the
bed
they
suspected
abuse
or
neglect.
On
my
end,
dhs
told
me
that
I
was
guilty
until
proven
innocent
and
my
invested
my
dhs
investigator.
Her
name
is
latoya.
Mclease.
F
F
They
brought
my
other
son
up
to
the
hospital.
They
did
an
excavator
on
him
as
well.
His
x-ray
was
fine.
They
said
they
would
have
to
take
another
x-ray
three
weeks
from
january
4th
to
see
if
my
son's
femur
looked
any
different
and
dhs
was
supposed
to
get
my
babies
to
go
with
my
brother,
dhs
dean.
Just
said
he
had
too
many
children.
He
has
five
children
he's
also
certified
foster
parent,
so
they
went
with
their
grandma
and
when
dhs.
F
Dhs
is
now
saying
that
there
is
a
case
of
domestic
violence,
and
that
is
why
my
children
cannot
be
brought
back
home
but
on
all
legal
documents,
they're
stating
that
this
is
a
possible
neglect
and
abuse
case.
None
of
this
has
been
mentioned
and
asked
them.
Are
they
allowed
to
keep
information
from
myself
and
a
child's
father
and
not
tell
us
what
we're
truly
under
investigation,
for
they
told
us?
Yes,
they're
allowed
to
do
that.
F
There's
been
no
mention
of
domestic
violence
until
january
22nd,
the
same
date
that
the
medical
records
came
back
in
my
small
table.
Those
were
my
also
dhs
talked
to
my
younger
siblings,
which
I
currently
have
custody
of
14
and
12
years
old
and
they're
still
at
home.
With
me.
They
talked
to
them
and
they
asked
them
things
like
what
they
come
for
at
home.
Was
there
any
abuse,
and
things
like
that
and
my
sisters
told
me
that
they
told
them
what's
going
on
here
and
they
told
them
no,
my
other
siblings.
F
She
also
told
me
that
the
dhs
worker
asked
her.
Does
she
like
staying
at
my
brother's
house
better
than
mine,
because
I
do
have
a
smaller
home,
but
everything
in
my
home
is
provided
big
food.
Everything
in
my
homes
provided,
but
dhs
should
not
be
trying
to
corrupt
the
children
to
say
that
they
want
to
stay
somewhere
else,
just
because
it's
simply
bigger
than
that.
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
I
will
note
for
the
record
that
I
have.
I
have
a
copy
of
the
medical
records
which
were
reviewed
by
another
doctor,
both
pediatricians,
who
are
have
expertise
in
child
abuse,
and
it
says
there's
no
evidence
of
child
abuse
consistent
with
falling
off
the
bed
again.
This
is
a
case
of
speculation,
pure
conjecture.
A
A
I
I
All
right,
I
don't
know
where
to
start
here,
I'm
I
thank
you
for
everybody's
time.
Well,
I
everybody
knows
my
story
already
and
only
thing
I
can
give
or
testify
right
now
is
a
complete
update
of
what
dhs
and
kula
is
presently
doing.
In
my
case,
we,
my
15
year
old
daughter,
is
now
in
plc
and
because
she's
in
plc
lot
will
she
became
a
plc
in
march
of
last
before
october,
hit
and
during
the
time
she
was
being
covered,
her
foster
mom.
I
Started
neglecting
my
daughter's
health,
my
daughters
developed
a
severe
form
of
ivf
and
it
got
to
the
point
where
she
was
hospitalized
for
about
two
months
and
while
she
was
hospitalized,
I
contacted
parent
nothing.
Apparently
the
school
worker
was
able
to
contact
her
and
the
reason
why
we
did
plc
is
so.
The
crew
workers
wouldn't
be
able
to
harass
or
contact
us
for
our
family
any
longer,
and
she
was
still
contacting
the
foster
mom.
I
K
I
Still
contacting
the
foster
mom
and
she
wasn't
supposed
to
have
any
more
contact
with
them.
That's
why
we
originally
did
the
plc
and
judge
fernandez
is
the
one
that
made
the
suggestion.
We
do
plc
to
get
crew
out
of
our
case
and
vhs,
and
because
I
I
was
told
that,
because
I
agreed
to
do
plc
that
now
it
left
the
door
open
for
my
rights
to
be
terminated.
To
my
two
boys,
that
is
now
seven
and
three
years
old
and
my
daughter
thinks
it's
her
fault
and
because
she
wanted
to
do
the
plc.
I
I
And
they
falsified
reports
from
the
whole
case.
I
have
an
investigation
report
which
is
completely
falsified
and
it's
it's
in
my
it's
in
my
charts
and
my
records
and
I
don't
understand
how
they
can
do
this
to
a
child
and
it's
not
just
a
child
that
suffers.
It's
like
the
whole
system
that
fails
the
child
and
somehow
people
need
to
see
this
and
understand
that
it.
D
A
A
L
Okay,
great,
my
name
is
jennifer
bennett,
I'm
going
to
give
a
little
brief
personal
story,
but
I
also
just
have
some
actual
concrete
recommendations
for
things
with
the
philadelphia
dhs
system.
So
my
personal
story
is
that
in
2013
I
tried
to
help
another
woman
who
lost
her
child
for
being
homeless,
get
her
child
back
by
allowing
them
to
come
and
reside
in
my
home.
L
I
went
into
labor
on
january
23rd,
thankfully,
on
a
friday
and
due
to
me,
hiding
my
pregnancy
and
not
going
to
prenatal
care,
the
hospital
was
required
to
call
dhs
a
worker
unrelated
to
my
case,
came
out
and
approved
my
home
and
proved
that
the
dhs
was
working
lying
the
whole
time
they
got
mad.
They
sent
out
two
supervisors
and
a
public
health
nurse
to
try
to
get
somebody
to
say
that
their
reports
had
been
true
all
along.
L
I
did
get
to
keep
my
daughter
and
get
my
son
back
after
that,
but
that
was
almost
two
years
separated
from
my
child
and
trauma
that
cannot
really
be
lived
down
by
either.
One
of
us
and
dhs
has
also
been
used
multiple
times
to
retaliate
against
me
for
my
protest
activity
in
the
city
of
philadelphia
regarding
the
photo
of
the
housing
authority,
but
I
really
wanted
to
just
focus
on
some
of
the
real
issues
with
the
dhs
system
itself.
L
One
of
the
biggest
issues
is
that
dhs
makes
it
available
as
a
tool
to
be
used
as
revenge.
So
you
can
just
get
mad
at
a
person
and
you
can
just
call
dhs
on
them
and
and
that's
the
thing
that's
thrown
around
in
the
neighborhoods
like.
Oh,
she
wants
to
play
with
me
I'll
call
dhs
on
her,
but
according
to
4906.1
of
the
pennsylvania
crime
codes,
false
and
malicious
child
abuse
reports
are
a
misdemeanor
of
the
third
degree
and
they
need
to
be
treated
as
such.
We
need
a
task
force.
L
We
need
to
enact
a
policy
of
confidential,
not
anonymous,
reporting
where
people
need
to
identify
themselves
with
contact
information
so
that,
if
reports
are
determined
to
be
malicious,
they
can
be
investigated
and
prosecuted,
because
how
else
will
things
like
that?
Stop
it's
just
the
same
as
gun,
violence
or
anything
else.
L
So
under
the
law,
I
am
permitted
to
deny
a
social
worker
access
to
my
home
and
that
social
worker
should
file
a
motion
to
compel
cooperation
where
they
have
to
show
the
probable
cause
exist
to
ope
to
enter
my
home.
If
I
don't
let
a
social
worker
into
my
home,
they
should
not
create
a
personal
beef
with
me
and
start
going
to
great
lengths
to
have
my
children
removed.
It
is
my
right
as
an
american
citizen,
to
ask
you
to
put
in
this
motion
and
present
this
evidence.
L
It
does
not
mean
that
I
am
coming
after
you
you're
hearing
your
official
capacity,
not
your
personal
capacity,
and
it
does
not
mean
that
I
have
something
to
hide.
It
just
means
that
I'm
standing
up
for
my
rights
and
that
I
am
protecting
myself
in
my
family
as
well
as
when
you
are
recording
dhs
social
workers.
That
does
not
mean
that
you
have
a
personal
vendetta
with
them.
L
It
means
that
you're
protecting
yourself
and
your
family
in
the
general
public
just
from
government
abuses,
but
a
lot
of
these
social
workers
take
these
things
personally,
just
like
people
are
trained
at
the
hospitals
to
go
on
gut
instinct.
A
lot
of
these
social
workers
are
going
on
gut
instinct
on
how
they're
going
to
treat
people's
families
and
they
don't
understand
the
law.
So
they
don't
understand
that
you
have
a
right
to
deny
them
access
to
your
home.
L
They
don't
know
your
child,
they
don't
know
you
the
first
time
they
encounter
your
case
is
in
a
courtroom.
So
how
can
they
make
recommendations?
You
know
on
what
what
should
happen
with
you
and
your
family?
So
I
think
that
that
also
needs
to
change,
and
maybe
the
age
limits
for
how
old
children
have
to
be
to
come
and
testify
and
say
their
own
part
in
court
right
now
they
have
to
be
14..
L
A
G
I
still
remember
today,
april
15,
2016
five
years,
almost
five
years
ago,
my
niece
was
removed
from
her
her
mother's
home,
and
currently
she
is
an
orphan
dhs-
has
terminated
the
parental
rights
of
my
niece
and
we're
just
waiting
for
our
day
in
court.
We
filed
our
paperwork
for
adoption
and
in
2019,
and
I
understand
that
covet
is
now
in
existence,
but
it
does
not
stop
dhs
from
holding
court
hearings
for
cases
that
they
choose
to
hear
wednesday.
I
was
just
at
family
court
with
another
family.
G
Another
family
who
was
called
into
court
and
all
we
keep
hearing
is
oh
they're.
Backed
up
my
thing
is
what
happened
to
the
process
of
a
speedy
trial?
My
niece
deserves
permanency
and
I'm
just
not
understanding
how
dhs
can
just
not
follow
the
law
and
pick
and
choose
which
court
cases
to
hear
and
which
ones
not
to
right
now.
The
other
law
that
they're
not
following
is
sibling
separate
separation.
G
G
There's
transcripts,
there's
evidence
and
there's
nothing
done
about
the
social
workers
who
enter
the
courtrooms
and
lie
under
oath
evidence
is
not
required
for
dhs
to
take
your
children
and
then
dhs
also
does
not
explore
family
members.
In
fact,
in
my
family
case
they
told
us
family
friend
was
equal
to
blood
relative
right.
Now
I
heard
earlier
that
kimberly
ali
is
admitting
to
some
wrongs
of
dhs
right
right
about
now.
We
just
want
her
to
write
some
of
these
wrongs
and
return
some
of
these
children
that
they
have
wrongfully
taken.
G
A
A
We
are
making
recommendations
to
try
to
be
a
part
of
the
solution
to
what
we
all
see
as
problems,
but
a
lot
of
this
will
have
to
happen
in
harrisburg,
I'm
happy
to
say
that
it
all.
It
has
already
happened
at
the
federal
level,
which
was
talked
about
today,
the
changing
of
incentives
and
funding
now
to
keep
families
together
as
opposed
to
separate
them,
but
that
doesn't
mean
it
happens
right
away.
A
C
Yes,
just
a
couple,
because
several
very
interesting
points
I
think
were
made
during
the
witnesses
testimony
first
just
two
points
I
do
want
to
make.
There
was
a
lot
of
mention
of
what
I
like
to
call
is
my
favorite,
the
transformative
power
of
cash
and
just
today,
another
study
was
released
this
one
from
university
of
washington
researchers
showing
that
you
raise
the
earned
income
tax
credit
by
ten
percent.
You
cut
what
authorities
call
child
neglect
by
nine
percent.
There
has
been
study
after
study
after
study
showing
this.
C
C
The
changes
I
mentioned
at
the
outset
are
very
small,
but
they
never
would
have
happened
without
you
without
council
members,
oh
and
bass,
and
to
some
extent,
without
simply
the
formation
of
this
committee.
So
you
are
having
an
impact.
My
questions
twice.
This
came
up,
interestingly
among
the
witnesses,
and
that
is
the
issue
of
handling
domestic
violence
cases.
C
That
doesn't
mean
it
doesn't
still
happen,
but
it
happens
less
and
the
reason
for
that
was
the
overwhelming
evidence
on
how
harmful
that
is
to
children,
it's
even
more
harmful
to
take
children
in
that
way
than
under
other
circumstances.
So
my
question,
ms
cayman,
is:
how
often
are
you
seeing
cases
like
that
in
philadelphia.
J
I
don't
know
how
we
got
on
the
conversation.
I
guess
I
told
her.
I
worked
with
every
mother's
working
mother's
network
and
and
some
of
the
stuff
that
I
I
do
with
give
us
back.
I
did
with
give
us
back
our
children
and
anyway
she
said
the
majority
of
this
was
in
boston.
The
majority
of
the
children
she
was
separating
from
the
mothers
was
because
of
domestic
violence,
and
you
know
she
was
a
retired
judge.
J
Yes,
so
we
actually,
I
mean
we
must
I
I
would
say
you
know
pat
may
have
a
better
handle
on
it,
but
I'd
say
you
know,
maybe
close
to
three
quarters
of
the
calls
we
get
in
have
some
you
know
have
that
a
pat,
maybe
pat,
are
you
still
on
pat,
maybe
has
a
better
figure.
You
know
we
need
to
look
at
this,
and-
and
this
is
a
problem
too,
like
I
said
this
judge-
I
said
well,
you
know,
are
you
did
you
ever
do
anything
about
it?
Is
there
did
that?
J
You
know,
and
she
said
she
felt
really
bad
about
it,
but
just
like
sort
of
went
on
with
it
right
so
yeah
I
mean,
I
think
we
have
to
ask
for
these
figures.
If
they're
not
coming
out.
That's
one
thing
that
the
commission
can
do
and
I
believe
there's
also
isn't
there
a
study
right
now
somewhere,
you
might
know
about
it
richard,
but
I
think
there's
a
study
that
that
somebody
is
doing
to
put
some
of
this
together.
C
C
Okay,
so
in
other
words
we
so
now
people
are
put
in
a
position
where,
if
they
do
get
prenatal
care,
they
may
be
afraid
that
the
friend,
if
they
admit
to
something
like
yes,
I
do
smoke
pot
in
order
to
make
it
easier
to
keep
food
down,
for
example,
or
maybe
I
did
have
an
opiate
problem,
and
now
I
am
taking
a
prescribed
medication
for
it.
If
they
go
to
a
prenatal
care
provider,
they
have
to
be
afraid
that
he's
going
to
turn
them
in.
If
they
don't
go
to
a
prenatal
care
provider.
C
L
C
Well,
one
of
the
areas
I
think
we're
gonna
have
to
take
a
close
look
at
is
the
whole
intersection
of
the
failed
response
to
child
abuse
and
allegations
of
substance
abuse.
So
thank
you
last
question,
because
this
also
came
up
twice.
I've
heard
references
to
gag
orders
to
the
fact
that
there
is
no
accountability
in
the
courtroom
in
40,
43
of
america's
foster
children
live
in
states
where
these
court
hearings
are
open
because
they
include
some
of
the
largest
states,
new
york,
minnesota,
florida,
texas
and
so
on.
Professor
fink.
C
Well,
what
I,
what
I
can
say
is
that
there
have
been
a
number
of
lawyers
who
represent
not
only
parents
but
children
in
new
york
and
elsewhere,
who
have
become
converts
to
the
idea
of
open
court
hearings
by
the
way.
The
first
time
I
went
and
sat
in
on
a
juvenile
court
hearing
that
was
open.
It
was
at
the
invitation
of
justice
max
bear
when
he
was
a
judge
of
the
juvenile
court
in
pittsburgh.
A
The
issue
was
that
she
was
a
bad
mother
for
being
the
victim
of
domestic
violence
and
exposing
her
children
to
the
biological
father,
who
was
a
bad
person,
and
so
that's
her
fault,
regardless
of
what
she
was
trying
to
do,
regardless
that
he
never
hurt
any
of
the
any
child
did
none
of
that
regardless
it
was
between
him
and
her,
the
children
were
removed
and
she
was
to
blame
anyway.
I
just
found
that
to
be
mind-boggling.
A
Let
me
ask
other
committee
members:
does
anyone
else
have
any
questions
or
comments?
You
can
say
so
or
use
the
chat
feature
to.
Let
me
know
I
will
finally
ask
because
I've
been
getting
text
messages
from
our
co-chair
councilwoman,
cindy
bass.
If
she
is
on
the
call,
if
she
would
like
to
make
a
closing
statement.
I
D
Been
trying
to
tamper,
my
outrage
just
a
little
bit
while
I've,
while
I've
been
in
motion,
but
I
have
to
say
you
know
just
some
of
the
the
well
not
just
some.
All
of
the
instances
are
really
just
quite
unacceptable,
and
it
makes
me
wonder
if
any
of
these
were
white
women
from
chestnut
hill.
Would
we
even
be
having
this
conversation,
and
I
think
that
we
all
know
the
answer
to
that?
The
answer
is
no.
D
We
wouldn't
there's
a
level
of
respect
that
will
be
given
there's
a
lot
of
level
of
deference,
there's
a
level
of
assumption.
Let's
give
them
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
that
would
be
provided
to
some
women
versus
other
women,
even
when
those
same
women
may
be
in
involved
in
relationships
that
involve
domestic
abuse.
So
I
think
that
culturally,
you
know,
we've
got
a
lot
of
work
to
do.
There's
a
lot
of
work
to
be
done
to
try
to
right
these
wrongs.
D
I
agree
with
the
speaker
who
said
that
you
know
we
need
our
kids
back.
That's
how
you
fix
this
situation
as
the
mother
of
an
11
year
old.
I
could
only
imagine
the
horror,
the
pain,
the
depression
that
I
would
go
through
if
somebody
remove
my
child
from
my
care,
I
just
cannot
even
fathom
what
that
would
put
me
through
and
at
the
same
time,
recognizing
that
poverty
is
a
big
part
of
what
brings
dhs
into
a
family
purview.
D
Let
me
just
correct
that
if
we
could
have
a
fund
for
the
caregiver
of
a
child
who
is
you
know,
dhs
is
possibly
thinking
about
removing
from
a
home
or
possibly
terminating
rights,
putting
resources,
financial
resources,
ensuring
housing,
ensuring
a
quality
standard
of
life.
That
could
go
a
long
way
in
fixing
this
problem,
and
I
think
it's
something
that
we
ought
to
be
looking
at.
I
think
it's
something
that's
where
it's
long
past
time
that
we
have
these
conversations.
D
You
know
one
of
the
good
things
about
the
presidential
election
is
that
there
was,
for
the
first
time
ever
the
conversation
around
a
minimum,
a
minimum
basic
income,
and
so
I
think
that
if
we
were
able
to
put
some
resources
behind
these
moms
and
behind
these
caregivers
is
going
to
go
a
long
way.
And
so
I
look
forward
to
working
with
you,
councilman
and
all
the
other
moms.
All
of
the
speakers
who
are
here
today
and
all
of
the
information
that
was
provided
and
one
last
thing
was.
D
You
know,
I
know
that
jennifer
benetech,
I
know
I'm
pronouncing
your
name
wrong.
Forgive
me
jennifer,
you
know
jennifer
and
I
we've
had
our
share
of
ups
and
downs.
You
know
and
and
she's
been
a
very
vocal
critic
of
the
system
and
she
certainly
is
entitled
to
her
opinion
and
she's,
certainly
entitled
to
tell
her
story
and
to
make
it
be
known
that
she's
not
going
to
be
rolled
over
by
the
system.
D
So
I
appreciate
that
and
I
appreciate
her
story
like
I
said
we
don't
always
agree,
but
I
think
that
she
has
every
right
to
put
her
story
out
there
and
put
folks
on
notice
that
certain
behaviors
are
absolutely
unacceptable
and
will
not
be
tolerated
and
she
will
bring
them
to
light,
as
we
will
all
work
to
do
so.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
am
humbled
and
honored
to
be
at
this
hearing
today
and
look
forward
to
working
with
everyone.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
and
thank
you
for
joining
us
despite
the
techno
technology
challenges
and
for
your
work
early
on
supporting
this
issue
and-
and
I
do
believe,
as
has
been
pointed
out
by
richard
webster
and
others-
we
are
picking
up,
we
are
getting
traction.
We
are
moving
forward.
I
will
note
that
our
commission
member
yolanda
bryant
would
want
to
say
something
followed
by
a
a
a
short
statement
by
keisha
lam
kaisha
lam,
so
yolanda
bryant,
could
you
can
you
join
us.
B
H
Hi,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
the
guest
speakers,
for
you
know
their
story.
You
know
telling
your
story.
I
too
was
a
victim
of
vhs.
You
know
my
two
grandchildren
three
and
still
fight
in
the
system.
You
know-
and
I
understand
everything
that
they're
going
through
and
the
pain
that
also
comes
along
with
it.
Our
constitutional
rights
definitely
is
brick
or
broken.
All
it's
like
nothing.
H
Even
when
jennifer
carolyn
hill
testified
how
she
took
good
care
of
you
know
her
grand
her
nieces
and
how
they
still
decide
to
just
come
inside
and
just
remove
her
nieces.
You
know
with
no
justifiable
rights,
I
understood
and
felt
everything
that
she
was
saying
and
and
even
with
jennifer
and
keisha,
and
you
know
listening
to
vanessa
larry.
H
You
know
what's
happening,
you
know
with
other
families
and
just
use
their
gut
feelings
and
just
to
place
and
make
everyone
the
same,
because
everyone
is
not
the
same.
There
are
some
families
that
that
do
need
help
more
than
others,
but,
like
the
other
speaker
speaker,
said
earlier,
you
help
the
families
help
them.
You
know
it's
many
ways
that
you
can
help
them
and
even
the
funding
will
help
a
lot.
If
you
see
a
child,
you
go
into
a
home,
they
don't
have
beds,
they
don't
have
food,
just
you
know
help
them
out.
H
You
don't
have
to
remove
the
child
from
their
home
and
a
lot
of
things
that
they
do
do,
and
I
can
say
for
sure,
because
I
was
victim
of
it,
how
they
lie
and,
and
they
use
poetry
and
at
any
cost
they
will
go
to
make
sure
these
children
is
removed
without
court
orders,
and
this
has
to
be
a
change.
It
has
to
be
a
change,
and
I
just
wanted
to
thank
the
rest
of
the
committee.
You
know
people
for
doing
this
hearing
today.
H
You
know
it's
last
minute
hearing,
but
it's
a
good
hearing
and
it
needs
to
be
told
because
there's
a
lot
of
things
that's
happening
in
the
dhs
and
to
many
families,
that's
suffering
that
need
to
be
told
to
the
public
that
don't
will
never
understand.
What's
going
on,
you
know
unless
we
continue
to
aware
them
of
what's
happening.
H
A
F
Thank
you.
I
just
neglected
to
mention
a
few
things.
This
isn't
just
affecting
me
or
my
child's
father
like
this,
is
also
affecting
my
whole
family,
like
my
sister
she's,
an
honorable
student,
her
teacher
called
me
on
january
13th,
letting
me
know
that
she
had
logged
out
of
class
early
and
that
she
didn't
finish
a
test,
and
he
stated
that
this
was
on
january
7th
and
I
told
y'all
to
date
that
everything
happened.
This
is
all
after
my
children
was
placed
and
taken
out
of
our
home
like
this
is
affecting
us
emotionally.
F
F
A
A
I
would
never
imagine
and
and
the
mere
fact
and
and
there's
so
much
to
it
as
our
commissioners
and
witnesses
know.
The
mere
fact
that
you
even
speak
publicly
about
this
is
creates
great
anxiety
of
retribution
from
the
system,
and
that
has
been
recorded,
and
that
has
been
said-
and
we
do
know
that
happens,
I'm
happy
to
say
that
it
doesn't
always
happen.
I
don't
think
it
happens
in
most
cases,
but
the
the
fact
that
happens.
A
A
A
It
is
a
huge
problem
affecting
communities
in
our
city
in
ways
that
we
will
one
day
fully
understand
and
we
need
to
really
deal
with
this.
I
thank
everyone
on
this
committee.
It's
not
easy
to
be
on
this
committee.
This
work
is
very
difficult
and
people
need
a
solution.
Yesterday,
some
of
the
people
it's
too
late
for
a
solution,
and
I
appreciate
their
participation
for
those
that
are
still
fighting.
I
hope
we
can
come
up
with
something
as
soon
as
possible
with
that,
I'm
going
to
end
this
hearing.
Thank
you
very
much.