1 Visitation & Incarcerated Parents Workgroup Report to the Pennsylvania State Children’s Roundtable Children’s Roundtable May 27, 2011 Harrisburg, PA

2 How We Got Started Last year:   Part of Fatherhood Engagement   Preliminary Report to SRT in May 2010 recommended expansion/new workgroup

3 How We Got Started   Visitation—issues not limited to dads   Purpose:   Identify & develop best practices   Make recommendations about frequency, quality, who visits, supervision & location of visits

4 How We Got Started   Incarcerated Parents— issues apply to moms as well   Purpose:   Identify & develop best practices,   Develop protocol for engagement

5 How We Got Started   Make recommendations about visitation & engagement in:   Case Planning   Delivery of Services   Court Process

6 Visitation Is a Right—Not a Privilege! Importance of Visitation   Eases Trauma of Separation   Helps to Preserve or Develop Bond   Frequent, Meaningful, Quality Visitation=Predictor of Reunification!!

7 Visitation Is a Right—Not a Privilege! Importance of Visitation   Provides Opportunity for Ongoing Assessment   Provides Parents w/ opportunity to learn, improve, develop & practice parenting

8 Visitation Is a Right—Not a Privilege! Importance of Visitation   Eases Parents’ Concerns About the care the children are receiving   Visitation honors the existing bond, while providing a safe environment   Communicates that family is important

9 Who Should Visit?   Parents   Siblings (Act 115)   Grandparents   Aunts & Uncles   Mentors   Others   Parents whose rights have been terminated (Act 101)

10 The Importance of Fathers Barriers   No prior involvement   Focus of agency & court on mothers

11 The Importance of Fathers Barriers   Mothers are resistant   Fathers do not respond to traditional outreach

12 The Importance of Fathers   It is in the child’s best interest (in most cases) to have regular contact with father   Use other forms of contact, in addition to visits

13 The Importance of Fathers   Use FGDM to involve fathers   Think outside of the box to ensure visits with fathers are meaningful!

14 Frequency, Duration & Intensity of Visits Infants & Toddlers   First Visit—within 72 hours of removal   Minimum of 3 visits per week   Daily visits for new-borns & infants, if possible

15 Frequency, Duration & Intensity of Visits Infants & Toddlers   Kinship caregivers, if possible   Foster home close to the parents

16 Frequency, Duration & Intensity of Visits Children Ages 5 to 12   First Visit—within 72 hours of removal   Consider child’s activities— Decrease frequency & increase duration

17 Frequency, Duration & Intensity of Visits Children Ages 5 to 12   Collateral Activities   Discourage child’s discretion   Minimum of once per week

18 Frequency, Duration & Intensity of Visits Children Ages 13 to 17   First Visit—within 72 hours of removal   Consider child’s independence and wishes

19 Frequency, Duration & Intensity of Visits Children Ages 13 to 17   Discourage child’s discretion   At least once per week   Let the visit end naturally

20 Frequency, Duration & Intensity of Visits Children Ages 18 to 21 Visits at their discretion

21 Frequency, Duration & Intensity of Visits Other Considerations   Safety is primary consideration   Reunification—move quickly from supervised to unsupervised to overnight to extended

22 Frequency, Duration & Intensity of Visits Other Considerations   Other meaningful contact (calls, letters, school activities, etc.)   Large sibling groups— consider separating

23 Frequency, Duration & Intensity of Visits Other Considerations   Sibling visits should occur at least twice per month   Visitation plan should address visits with others.

24 Role of the Court Judicial Oversight is Key!!   Shelter Hearing—If visits have not occurred, court should order   If agency recommends supervised visits, court should ask WHY?

25 Role of the Court   In deciding WHERE child is placed—consider HOW it will impact on ability to visit   Judge should state on the record visitation plan and expectations

26 Role of the Court Court order should set forth:   Supervision (& reasons)   Frequency & duration   Location   Whether a Report is required

27 Role of the Court Court order should set forth:   Who will transport   Assistance to parents   Sibling visits   Visits with others

28 Role of the Court   Judge should also order other contacts   If visitation plan has not been followed, judge should ask WHY and consider “no reasonable efforts”, if appropriate

29 Role of the Court   At every hearing, the judge should examine the plan and change, if appropriate   If visits are observed or therapeutic, judge should ask about changes or improvements

30 Role of the Court   Judge should always ask the child about the visits   Never withhold visitation as punishment: Visitation is a Right—Not a Privilege!

31 Supervision & Oversight   Supervision—reason related to physical, mental, or emotional safety   Oversight—specific, documented reason needed   Supervision should NOT be the “default” position

32 Supervision & Oversight   If supervised, there should be a plan to move to unsupervised when goal is reunification   Visits should never occur at the discretion of the agency

33 Supervision & Oversight Unsupervised visits—preferred Entirely Supervised—Sight & Sound   Documented safety concerns   Physical, sexual, emotional abuse   Pressure to recant testimony   Risk to abscond

34 Supervision & Oversight   Visitation Supervisors should be trained   If safety concerns can be addressed without constant supervision, consider a less restrictive level—example: change location

35 Supervision & Oversight Therapeutic Visits   Facilitated by a licensed therapist   Appropriate where parent/child have strained relationship, child is witness to or victim of abuse, where parent lacks understanding of child’s mental, emotional, physical & social development

36 Supervision & Oversight Structured Visits   Helps parents develop parenting skills   Facilitator should be neutral trained person   Facilitator provides feedback & intervention & assists in developing visitation plan

37 Supervision & Oversight Monitored & Observed Visits   Needed if court wants a report   Appropriate to ensure that there are no safety concerns— is parent under the influence or sober

38 Supervision & Oversight Who Should Supervise?   Anyone—consider the reasons for the supervision   Parent & child should be comfortable with the supervisor   Same person should supervise each time   Same person should transport

39 Supervision & Oversight Training for Supervisors   Intervention techniques   Understanding the normal reactions & behaviors of children & parents before, during & after visits   Proper Parenting techniques

40 Supervision & Oversight   Redirection techniques   Family dynamics   Communication skills   Cultural competency & awareness   Proper feedback

41 Supervision & Oversight Evaluation & Assessment   Visitation supervisor should testify in court   Agencies should develop an evaluation tool   Feedback should be given immediately & should include STRENGTHS as well as areas for improvement

42 Supervision & Oversight Special Concerns/Circumstances   Domestic Abuse   Sexual Abuse   Children in Group Homes   Parent or Child with Special Needs

43 Location of Visits Location, Location, Location— Does it Matter?   Parents’ Home   Community   Foster Home   Visitation Center   Agency Visiting Room   Other Contacts

44 Quality of Visitation   Preparation for Visitation— What’s the plan?   Feedback and Debriefing   Visit Coaching

45 Goodbye/Moving On Visits   Held after TPR   Not just another visit   Helps provide a sense of closure   Parent accepts responsibility and reassures that TPR is not child’s fault   Preparation is essential   Trained facilitator is essential

46 Goodbye/Moving On Visits   Location is important   Not appropriate in all cases— consider   Dangerous/disruptive behavior of a parent at prior visits   No contact orders   Refusal of parent to participate in planning of the visits   Child’s therapist says no   Refusal of child or parent to participate

47 Best Practices Model Programs  Visit Coaching  Bridging the Gap  Visitation Houses (Indiana, Washington, Westmoreland)  Visit Hosting

48 Best Practices Model Programs  Arsenal Therapeutic Visitation Program (Allegheny)  Project PACT Rapid Reunification (Beaver)

49 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Case Planning Protocol for Agency   CW should meet w/parent   CW should ask about relative caregivers   Attempt to ascertain release date so that case plan includes discharge plan

50 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Case Planning Protocol for Agency   CW should explain court process to parent and provide info on representation   If the FSP was made prior to incarceration, it should be amended to include goals for the incarcerated parent   CW should notify the parent of all meeting and hearings

51 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Case Planning Protocol for Agency   CW should determine whether assessments were made and what steps parent has taken to comply with treatment recommendations   CW should assess availability of services in the facility

52 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Case Planning Best Practices for the Agency  FGDM  FGDM should be used to engage in case planning  Videoconferencing  Videoconferencing (for FSP & PPM meetings, family conferences,etc.)   CW should contact the social worker in the jail or prison

53 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Case Planning Protocol for the Parent Attorney   Meet w/client— videoconferencing, teleconferencing & letters can help   Ask client about relative caregivers   Explain ASFA

54 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Case Planning Protocol for the Parent Attorney   Stress importance of working on FSP goals during incarceration   Maintain contact w/client on regular basis   Speak w/jail social worker   Assist parent in collecting documentation of participation in programs

55 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Case Planning Role of Judge or Master   Judicial Oversight is Key!   “Set the tone”—Expectation is that CW meet w/incarcerated parent (IP) & IP is included in the FSP   Judge should ask the CW if IP has been included in the FSP

56 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Case Planning Role of Judge or Master   Court order should set forth expectations for CW and for the IP   Court should order IP to contact the CW w/I 72 hours of release

57 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Case Planning Role of Judge or Master   Permit CWs & lawyers to use court videoconferencing equipment & space to facilitate meetings & conferences

58 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Delivery of Services   Incarceration does not relieve duty to make reasonable efforts or offer reasonable services   Most institutions offer some services   Agency should assess services

59 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Court Process   Participation in court hearings is critical   Participation should be “rule rather than the exception”   Parent attorney should insist that IP attends hearing   Videoconferencing and teleconferencing will help

60 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Court Process   Appearances in court provide an opportunity for child to have contact w/IP and for the court to observe the interaction   Appearances in court enable judge to engage the parent and to encourage the parent to participate in case planning & FSP goals

61 Incarcerated Parents Engagement In Court Process Protocol for the Court   Automatic appointment of counsel   Order appearance of IP at every hearing (in person by video or phone)   State on record the expectations for the IP

62 Incarcerated Parents Visitation Importance of Visitation and Contact Between Children & IPs  2003 Pgh. Child Guidance Foundation Focus Groups   Most children desire to maintain relationships w/IPs   Most IPs desire to maintain contact w/ their children

63 Incarcerated Parents Visitation  2003 Pgh. Child Guidance Foundation Focus Groups   Contact visits are best   Need appropriate space to visit   Children need preparation to visit

64 Incarcerated Parents Visitation  Barriers   Prisons not supportive   Some allow visits only for moms   Distance, staff resources, etc.   Lack of videoconferencing   Some county prison do not allow visits

65 Incarcerated Parents Visitation  Barriers   Some judges/masters will not order   CWs do not recommend   Lack of preparation for child & IP   Lack of structure   Problems w/supervision

66 Incarcerated Parents Visitation Recommendations   If child had contact w/IP prior to incarceration, contact should continue   Contact visits are preferred   Virtual visits (video and Skype) should be used to increase frequency of contact

67 Incarcerated Parents Visitation Recommendations   CWs & attorneys should encourage other contacts (letters, cards, etc.)   CW should meet w/IP to prepare for the visit   GAL, CASA, therapist should meet w/child to prepare for visit   Child should be de-briefed after

68 Incarcerated Parents Visitation Role of the Judge or Master   Judicial Oversight is Key!   In deciding whether to order contact visits consider:   Type of contact prior to incarceration & adjudication   Child’s needs & wishes

69 Incarcerated Parents Visitation   In deciding whether to order contact visits consider:   Age & special needs   Distance   Visitation Schedule at the jail or prison   Wishes of the IP

70 Incarcerated Parents Visitation   Court order should set forth:   Whether contact visits should take place   Whether visits should be supervised   Type of supervision or observation   Court should order same person to transport

71 Incarcerated Parents Visitation   Court should order additional contacts   Consider whether siblings should visit together   If parent is on work release, the court should order visits to occur outside of the jail or prison (if permitted)

72 Incarcerated Parents Best Practices   Families Outside Program—FSWPA   Mother’s Voice   Telephone Cards   Designated persons in agency to coordinate visits   Designated person in court to coordinate videoconferencing   Special visitation & waiting rooms

73 Final Recommendations Next Steps Visitation   Approve creation of Visitation Guide   Approve Best Practice Recommendations   Explore effects of Act 101   Develop hearing/bench cards

74 Final Recommendations Next Steps Visitation   Approve creation & distribution of handbooks for   Parents   Children   Youth   Foster Parents

75 Final Recommendations Next Steps Visitation   Work w/ PA Child Welfare Training Program to develop training:   Visitation Supervisors (engaging parents & foster parents & how to supervise)   Foster Care Agencies (visitation is a part of foster care)   Court, attorneys, agency, etc. (Understanding reactions of children & parents re visits)

76 Final Recommendations Next Steps Incarcerated Parents   Approve recommendations & protocol for engagement in case planning, services & court process   Approve recommendation for visitation   Encourage Roundtables to invite Warden and work w/ community partners

77 Final Recommendations Next Steps Incarcerated Parents   Work w/PA Council of Wardens, CCAP, AOPC & PCSTJ:   Compatibility for videoconferencing   Protocol for videoconferencing   Survey local county jails about visitation practices

78 Visitation & Incarcerated Parents Workgroup Thank you!!