Blog

Predictive Analytics – Highlighting the line of Danger for A Child In Need

 

Capture

The New York Times  By  Dan Hurley

The article summaries a phenomenal effort to use all information available when making life-changing decisions for kids in need.   The full article or highlights are below.

“The [team] linked many dozens of data points — just about everything known to the county about each family before an allegation arrived — to predict how the children would fare afterward. What they found was startling and disturbing: 48 percent of the lowest-risk families were being screened in, while 27 percent of the highest-risk families were being screened out. Of the 18 calls to C.Y.F. between 2010 and 2014 in which a child was later killed or gravely injured as a result of parental maltreatment, eight cases, or 44 percent, had been screened out as not worth investigation.

According to Rachel Berger, a pediatrician who directs the child-abuse research center at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and who led research for the federal Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, the problem is not one of finding a needle in a haystack but of finding the right needle in a pile of needles. “All of these children are living in chaos,’ she told me. ‘How does C.Y.F. pick out which ones are most in danger when they all have risk factors? You can’t believe the amount of subjectivity that goes into child-protection decisions. That’s why I love predictive analytics.

It’s finally bringing some objectivity and science to decisions that can be so unbelievably life-changing.'”

  Read Full Article 

Increasing both prevention and treatment will lead to a net cost reduction in spending of approximately 5.2 billion dollars

Capture

Researchers at Rand Corp modeled the complex child welfare system and found “that combining expanded prevention and treatment in the form of support for kinship care leads to a net cost reduction in the range of 3 to 7 percent of total spending (or approxi mately $5.2 billion to $10.5 billion saved against the current baseline of $155.9 billion) for a cohort of children born over a five-year period.

Increases in prevention lead to decreases in mal-treatment and improvements in young adult outcomes but do not affect the experiences of children who enter the system and result in small additional costs. Increases in treatment lead to improvements in system experience and outcomes and reduce lifetime costs but do not reduce maltreatment. It is only when increases to prevention and treatment are implemented together that all of the policy objectives are achieved. It is not necessarily unexpected that this approach would generate reductions in maltreatment, improvements in system experience, and improvements in outcomes. ”

 

Read the Full Report Here:  Jeanne S. Ringel et. al., Improving Child Welfare Balancing Investments in Treatment and Prevention (Rand Corp 2017)

Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Severe Familial Violence

 

Capture 2

Board Member Leslie Jones and Initial Founding Group Member Randi King met with Rep. Ted Poe, the founder of the victim’s caucus.  They discussed strengthening criminal justice system responses to severe child abuse defined as child torture, and the difficulties of data sharing across state CPS systems.

Leslie Craig Jones, JD, is dedicated to providing children in abusive situations with a voice and a safe environment within which to flourish. As an adult survivor of child abuse, she is well aware of the difficulties abused children have in seeking protection and being heard. To this end, Mrs. Jones prepared and implemented a high school level program for classroom use that identified child abuse issues important to the specific students attending the class. These issues were reviewed by both the teacher and Mrs. Jones, separately, and addressed by Mrs. Jones in a one hour question and answer session. In keeping with her legal training, Mrs. Jones also sought and obtained changes to Washington State law that protect students from predatory and inappropriate behavior by adults employed by school districts statewide.  Her awareness efforts at district administrative levels lead to the adoption of a teacher in-service training program and Title IX Sexual Harassment Manual for staff and instructors. Mrs. Jones graduated from Texas A&M University in 1978 with a Bachelor of Arts in History, Cum Laude; The University of Houston College of Law in 1981 with a Doctor of Jurisprudence; and, most recently, a Certificate in Nonprofit Management from The Bush School of Government and Public Service in 2011, serving as the Class Speaker. While her professional background is in the banking industry, Mrs. Jones’ greatest joy is in her family: her husband of 37 years and their two daughters. She is passionate about improving resources for abuse survivors, along with raising awareness and encouraging those who have been injured by abuse to persevere, there is healing.

 

Randi King , JD currently serves as the Chief Prosecutor of the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office Family Law Division. She has prosecuted Child Protective Services cases, juvenile crime, and domestic violence protective orders since 1995. She assists in felony criminal prosecutions in cases in which Child Protective Services is involved. Randi has participated in CASA of Southeast Texas new volunteer training for 18 years and it energized her every time. She serves on the Garth House Child Advocacy Center Board of Directors, Executive Board as Secretary (2 terms), Vice-President, and President (2 terms), and Professional Standards Committee; Jefferson County Child Fatality Review Team, Foster Care Task Force, Adoption Day Committee and Juvenile Board Citizens’ Advisory Council; the Texas Children’s Justice Act Task Force, and has been vice president of Beaumont Community Partners for Children. She organized the county’s Baby Moses law publicity program and regularly makes presentations to community groups and child abuse professionals. Ms. King is honored to have received the 2001 Southeast Texas CASA Child Advocate of the Year Award and the 2006 Texas CASA Lone Star Proud for Kids Award.

A Statutory Tool to Address Severe Familial Violence: Domestic Violence, Torture, and Mass Shootings

 

Capture
Law enforcement officials investigate the scene of a shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas.
Eric Gay/AP

 

Devin P. Kelly a 26-year-old Texan opened fire at a Sunday Service at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs.  Kelly killed at least 26 people their ages range from 18 months to 77 years old.  Law enforcement describes the incident as a “domestic situation” targeting his mother-in-law.  In the Southerland Springs shooting, 12 of the victims were also children.

Most mass shootings in the U.S. are related to domestic or family violence. In at least 54 percent of mass shootings from 1999-2017, the perpetrator shot a current or former intimate partner or family member. More than 40 percent of the victims were children. Most of these cases ended with the perpetrators killing themselves.[1]

Not until 1984, when the landmark case Thurman v. The City of Torrington[2] recognized that police had a legal responsibility to respond to and protect victims of domestic violence,[3] did the criminal justice system begin to prosecute domestic violence.  Prosecuting domestic violence is difficult. Evidence suggests that 80–85% of battered women will dispute that abuse occurred at some point.[4] A victim who telephones the police in immediate fear for her life will likely later recant her statement due to control and manipulation tactics used by the abuser.[5]

The current statutes used to prosecute domestic violence further complicate these cases.  Codified state laws only address family violence by a single transaction or instance – i.e., a single instance of strangulation, a single instance of assault, or battery.[6]  However, intimate partner violence is not limited to a single act of assault or battery, but instead is a coercive pattern of one partner’s physical violence, intimidation, and control of the other partner that often leads to homicide.[7]

In 2009, after graduating high school in New Braunfels, Kelly enlisted in the U.S. Air Force.  In April of 2011, he married Tessa Kelley.  According to the General Court Marshall Order, Kelly on or about June 24, 2011 and April 27, 2012 hit his wife, strangled, kicked her least once, threatened her with a loaded gun numerous times, and struck his two-year-old stepson with enough force to cause a skull fracture.

Military prosecutors charged Kelly with five counts of assault under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 128.[8]  Rather than go forward with the trial, he pled guilty to two out of the five counts.   The Court’s sentenced reduced Kelly’s rank to E-1, provided a bad-conduct discharge usually reserved for misdemeanors and confinement for 12 months.[9]  The Court sentenced Kelly for two abusive acts which most likely was only two of hundreds in the course of the relationship.

From what we know about domestic violence, it is a coercive pattern of one partner’s physical violence, intimidation, and control of the other partner that often leads to homicide. Two states: California and Michigan have laws that address the arch of intense violence in the most heinous of domestic violence relationships.[10]

Both state laws do not address a single instance of physical assault but instead, focus on the “cruel or extreme pain and suffering” caused by the perpetrator.  The Michigan law was passed after the California law and improves upon it.  The Michigan torture law states, “ A person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme physical or mental pain and suffering, inflicts great bodily injury or severe mental pain or suffering upon another person within his or her custody or physical control[11] commits torture and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years.”

If Kelly had been prosecuted under the Michigan Torture, the likelihood is high he still would be in jail and not have committed mass murder.  In cases where domestic violence against a family member is the canary in the coal mine, prosecutors should have the charging tools to prevent future violence against family members and the public at large.   Only California and Michigan have laws that criminalize the torture of adults.   Legislators should provide prosecutors the tools to address domestic violence as the serious problem and potentially not only protect the lives of family members, but also the public at large.

By.  A. Ann Ratnayake, JD/BBA


[1] Everytown for Gun Safety, Mass Shootings In The United States 1999-2017, 3 (2017), https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Analysis_of_Mass_Shooting_062117.pdf; See also J. Reid Melo Ph.D et al., A Comparative Analysis of North American Adolescent and Adult Mass Murderers, 22 J. Behav. Sci. Law, 291, 296  (2004), http://drreidmeloy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2004_AComparativeAna.pdf

         [2]   Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F. Supp. 1521 (D. Conn. 1984).

         [3]   Id. at 1528.

         [4]   Tom Lininger, Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford, 91 Va. L. Rev. 747, 768 (2005).

         [5]   Id.

         [6]   Eg. 21 OK Stat § 21-644 (2014)

         [7]   Shannan Catalano, et al., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Female Victims of Violence 2 (2009) (“In 2007 intimate partners committed 14% of all homicides in the U.S. The total estimated number of intimate partner homicide victims in 2007 was 2,340, including 1,640 females and 700 males.”); Tim Donaldson & Karen Olson, “Classic Abusive Relationships” and the Inference of Witness Tampering in Family Violence Cases After Giles v. California, 36 Lincoln L. Rev. 45, 81 (2008) (citing Joan B. Kelly & Michael P. Johnson, Differentiation Among Types of Intimate Partner Violence: Research Update and Implications for Interventions, 46 Fam Ct. Rev. 476, 478 (2008); see also Amy Holtzworth-Munroe & Gregory L. Stuart, Typologies of Male Batterers: Three Subtypes and the Differences Among Them, 116 Psychol. Bull. 476, 477–94 (1994)).

[8] Dep’t  Air Force Headquarters: Davis Monthan-Airforce Base Arizona, General Court-Marshall Order No. 10 Jan. 14, 2013, https://twitter.com/JimDalrympleII/status/927705380678918144

[9] U.S. v.  Devin P. Kelly, ACM 38263 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. filed Dec.3, 2013),  https://www.scribd.com/document/363693392/Court-document-showing-Sutherland-Springs-shooting-suspect-had-bad-conduct-discharge#from_embed

[10] Cal. Penal Code § 206 (2016); Torture; Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 750.85 (2016). Torture; felony; penalty; definitions; element of crime; other laws.

[11] See People v. Studier, No. 317351, slip op. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17117557453317897301&q=%22forcible+restriction%22++and+threat&hl=en&as_sdt=20006&as_vis=1 (The Court found a victim of Domestic Violence afraid to leave the premises due to death threats made by the perpetrator to be forcibly restrained).

[12] Torture; Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 750.85 (2016). Torture; felony; penalty; definitions; element of crime; other laws.

Ohio v. Clark: Protecting Children Against Childhood Sexual Abuse

 

Capture

Published in conjunction as a chapter in the American Bar Association’s State of Criminal Justice 2017 Book,  NCCASP’s chapter (chapter 15) explores how the U.S. Supreme Court  Case of Ohio v. Clark can swing the pendulum back towards justice for victims of childhood sexual abuse.

Download Here 

“In the least, Ohio v. Clark overrules the reasoning in Bordeaux and the similar line of cases where the statements of a very young child was found to have been testimonial statements. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to address the question of whether statements made by young children during forensic interviews are testimonial, the reasoning in Clark was similar to Arroyo and suggests such statements may be nontestimonial.”

Entire Volume Available Here

 

Necessity to Address Child Torture Report

REPORT PICTURE

DOWNLOAD

If a child survives the worst forms of child abuse (Child Torture) many state laws do not adequately address the level of severity inhumanity the child has faced if the child survives.  If the child dies, the enhanced penalties for torture exist in most states for homicide statutes.

Based on the compiled sample cases, the physicians defined child torture in the medical context as: (1) the perpetrator subjecting the child to at least two physical assaults… which would cause prolonged physical pain, emotional distress, bodily injury or death, AND (2) at least two elements of psychological abuse such as isolation, intimidation, emotional/physical maltreatment terrorizing, spurning, or deprivation inflicted by the child’s caretaker.[1]

The publication analyzes laws across the states and suggests a model code section to address the issue.

 

[1] Barbara L. Knox et. al., Child Torture as a Form of Child Abuse, 7 J. Child Adolescent Trauma, 37, 46 (2014) (Table 4: Definition).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.