Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Database of Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages. The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - March 6, 2018 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 9180
Date: 2012-06-04

Author:Rose Wentz

Subject:RE: questions regarding parent-child visitation

CA does have a law about child contact after being picked up for placement. Worker must offer a child who is ten years of older phone contact within one hour of detention with parents or attorney. W&I Code 308(b) I have been teaching in CA for 15 years and most workers and supervisors are not aware of this law and many have to be convinced this should occur. I know of no one who tracks this and its impact. The law was passed at the request of youth who have been in care and feel they are unfairly not allowed access to their family. Additionally for this reason and for the safety of children another CA law says. (W&I Code 16001.9(9)) telephone access for children in out-of-home care. Children and youth have the right to confidential phone calls and caregivers need to provide a private space. So I teach workers how to help the child/youth be safe when having contact and not to assume the youth who wants to contact a parent will not. Especially given cell phones and the internet. There are some counties such as Del Norte, CA that give 5 days of visits each week to the infants from the beginning of the case. They feel this has been working well but have not formal evaluation process. I have asked recently if any of the agencies I have worked with are measuring the impact of their visit programs. Only one, Alameda County, is currently doing a more formal evaluation of the Progressive Visit model but I do not think they are measuring the specific item you are looking for. There is no assessment tool I know of that measures when a child can move from supervised to observed and finally to unsupervised visits. In the Progressive Visit Planning Model we have the worker (or therapeutic visit professional) make this assessment based on the specific maltreatment that occurred, the development ability of the child to self-protect, risk/complicating factors such as addiction and most important how the parent is handling the child on current visits. Slowly the parent is given more parenting responsibilities and less supervision to measure the progress without endangering the child. Rose Wentz Rose@WentzTraining.com 206 579-8615 www.wentztraining.com From: bounce-61033067-33319314@list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-61033067-33319314@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of mmany@lsuhsc.edu Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:44 AM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Subject: Re: questions regardign parent-child visitation You should look into the Court Teams model being used in Louisiana, Arkansas, New York, North Carolina and several other states. Its focus is youg children but it stresses frequent visits and the use of Child Parent Psychotherapy at least once weekly within the context of a visit (where visits have been deemed safe.). Look on the Zero to Three website. We have used CPP with children up to age 6. Michele Many, LCSW Zero to Three Court Team clinician LSU Health Sciences Center New Orleans Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ________________________________ From: Sherry Hoang Smith > Sender: bounce-61032906-25525938@list.cornell.edu Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:12:16 -0400 To: Child Maltreatment Researchers > ReplyTo: "Child Maltreatment Researchers" > Subject: Re: questions regardign parent-child visitation Hi Jessica, I'm also interested in this. Could you send any information my way? I've worked with agencies conducting therapeutic visitation but this sounds like what you are asking is immediately after removal. Thank you, Sherry Sherry Smith, PhD On Jun 1, 2012 10:06 AM, "Jessica A Rodriguez-Jenkins" > wrote: Good afternoon, I am currently looking at the use of parent-child visitation and potentials for use of visitation times for parent-child interventions. I have heard that in Utah there is either a pilot project or a policy in place for setting up parent-child visits within 24 hours of removal. I am trying to find out more about this and am interested in whether there has been any evaluation on this practice. I have also heard that there is a practice in California where children and parents would get a phone call within 24 hours and am wondering whether there is any information about the impact of the calls on parents and children. If anyone has any further information about either of these protocols and whether they have been associated with any outcomes it would be very helpful. I am also wondering if anyone has had experience in developing an assessment tool for determining the level of supervision required during visits? A tool to know when it is time to liberalize the visits? Thank you, Jessica ______________________________ Jessica Rodriguez-JenKins, MSW Research Assistant | Predoctoral Instructor Partners for Our Children | University of Washington School of Social Work Box 359476 | Seattle, WA 98195-9476 F: 206-221-3155

CA does have a law about child contact after being picked up for placement. Worker must offer a child who is ten years of older phone contact within one hour of detention with parents or attorney. W&I Code 308(b) I have been teaching in CA for 15 years and most workers and supervisors are not aware of this law and many have to be convinced this should occur. I know of no one who tracks this and its impact. The law was passed at the request of youth who have been in care and feel they are unfairly not allowed access to their family. Additionally for this reason and for the safety of children another CA law says. (W&I Code 16001.9(9)) telephone access for children in out-of-home care. Children and youth have the right to confidential phone calls and caregivers need to provide a private space. So I teach workers how to help the child/youth be safe when having contact and not to assume the youth who wants to contact a parent will not. Especially given cell phones and the internet. There are some counties such as Del Norte, CA that give 5 days of visits each week to the infants from the beginning of the case. They feel this has been working well but have not formal evaluation process. I have asked recently if any of the agencies I have worked with are measuring the impact of their visit programs. Only one, Alameda County, is currently doing a more formal evaluation of the Progressive Visit model but I do not think they are measuring the specific item you are looking for. There is no assessment tool I know of that measures when a child can move from supervised to observed and finally to unsupervised visits. In the Progressive Visit Planning Model we have the worker (or therapeutic visit professional) make this assessment based on the specific maltreatment that occurred, the development ability of the child to self-protect, risk/complicating factors such as addiction and most important how the parent is handling the child on current visits. Slowly the parent is given more parenting responsibilities and less supervision to measure the progress without endangering the child. Rose Wentz RoseWentzTraining.com 206 579-8615 www.wentztraining.com From: bounce-61033067-33319314list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-61033067-33319314list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of mmanylsuhsc.edu Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:44 AM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Subject: Re: questions regardign parent-child visitation You should look into the Court Teams model being used in Louisiana, Arkansas, New York, North Carolina and several other states. Its focus is youg children but it stresses frequent visits and the use of Child Parent Psychotherapy at least once weekly within the context of a visit (where visits have been deemed safe.). Look on the Zero to Three website. We have used CPP with children up to age 6. Michele Many, LCSW Zero to Three Court Team clinician LSU Health Sciences Center New Orleans Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ________________________________ From: Sherry Hoang Smith > Sender: bounce-61032906-25525938list.cornell.edu Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:12:16 -0400 To: Child Maltreatment Researchers > ReplyTo: "Child Maltreatment Researchers" > Subject: Re: questions regardign parent-child visitation Hi Jessica, I'm also interested in this. Could you send any information my way? I've worked with agencies conducting therapeutic visitation but this sounds like what you are asking is immediately after removal. Thank you, Sherry Sherry Smith, PhD On Jun 1, 2012 10:06 AM, "Jessica A Rodriguez-Jenkins" > wrote: Good afternoon, I am currently looking at the use of parent-child visitation and potentials for use of visitation times for parent-child interventions. I have heard that in Utah there is either a pilot project or a policy in place for setting up parent-child visits within 24 hours of removal. I am trying to find out more about this and am interested in whether there has been any evaluation on this practice. I have also heard that there is a practice in California where children and parents would get a phone call within 24 hours and am wondering whether there is any information about the impact of the calls on parents and children. If anyone has any further information about either of these protocols and whether they have been associated with any outcomes it would be very helpful. I am also wondering if anyone has had experience in developing an assessment tool for determining the level of supervision required during visits? A tool to know when it is time to liberalize the visits? Thank you, Jessica ______________________________ Jessica Rodriguez-JenKins, MSW Research Assistant | Predoctoral Instructor Partners for Our Children | University of Washington School of Social Work Box 359476 | Seattle, WA 98195-9476 F: 206-221-3155