By Jason Collum, AFAJ staff writer

July 2003 – When a child is abused or neglected in America, often the only person standing between that child and harm’s way is a social worker. 

Social workers frequently have to walk a fine line between providing protection for children and violating parental rights. More often than not social workers do not violate parental rights, but sometimes it does happen. 

That is what happened in a recent case in Wisconsin. As reported in the June edition of the AFA Journal, AFA Center for Law & Policy (CLP) lawyers won a parental rights case in which social workers, in an unusually brazen manner, violated the rights of parents and a private school in the course of an investigation that, by all indications, was way out of line from the beginning.

It is safe to say what happened at Greendale Baptist Church & Academy is not how most social work investigations are carried out, and most social workers are not like “The Master,” as the social worker leading the charge in this case was called. In fact, what happened in Greendale seems more like a fictional tale than a true story.

Greendale: A series of wrongs
Susan (not her real name) had a tumultuous home life. The 10-year-old had been shuffled from one home to the next in her extended family. As any child in such an unstable situation might do, Susan developed behavioral problems.

Finally in the care of her great-grandparents, Susan was placed in Greendale Baptist Church & Academy for schooling. Her great-grandmother was familiar with the strict instruction and code of behavior at the school. She felt this was the setting Susan needed.

The school’s discipline policy is four marks for misbehavior in a week and students get “the swat.” The swat is a lick with a paddle, administered by the principal, witnessed by another teacher. The child’s parents, who have already agreed in writing to the form of punishment, are also invited to witness.

The first week of school in August all students get a reprieve from the swat. Beginning with the second week, misbehavior marks begin counting. By the middle of the second week, Susan accumulated four marks and got the swat. On Thursday, she got another four marks, again requiring the swat. Her great-grandmother was called, told what was going on, and invited to witness the swat.

After the swat, principal Troy Bond, the teacher, Susan and her great-grandmother all prayed, and Susan hugged her teacher.

Shortly thereafter the great-grandparents decided GBCA wasn’t the right place for Susan. They pulled her from the school. According to the lawsuit that followed, they later told a social worker they were against corporal punishment. When they had placed Susan in the school, however, they told a different story.

Several weeks later a complaint was lodged with social services by a mandatory reporter – someone who is required by law to report any suspected abuse – but no action was taken. In November, the complaint was finally processed, contrary to the department’s rules of rapidly assessing new cases.

Despite the fact the information was then at least three months old, the complaint was given high priority. The complaint was that the school routinely practiced corporal punishment, and the principal, rather than actually just swatting Susan on her bottom, hit her in a manner that left marks four to six inches up her back. 

There were no photos, no complaints at the time of the discipline, and no evidence to back up the complaint.

Spanking was the ‘crime’
The official focus of the investigation was on the principal as a physical abuser, though he was not told that at the time. Social workers speaking with Susan got the name of another boy at the school who had received the swat. They then went to the school to talk to the boy simply because he had been spanked. There had not been any report of abuse by the boy, his parents or anyone else. The social workers were not acting on an official report.

AFA attorneys soon entered the case. “The parents of the little boy we defended said the reason they agreed to the disciplinary policy, which is all up front in the school handbook, was because it was Troy Bond administering the swat,” said Steve Crampton, lead attorney for the CLP. “If you could meet Troy Bond, he’s as gentle a soul as you could find anywhere. 

“They (social workers) went on the word of a 10-year-old and some wild assumptions,” Crampton said. 

The social worker in charge of the investigation, called “The Master” by his supervisors, went to the school and asked to speak to the boy. When the school asked if a coµurt order was necessary, he assured them it was not. They let the social worker speak to the boy. He learned the school did spank, and so did the boy’s parents.

The social worker then opened a case file on that family, the “Doe” family ultimately defended by the CLP. A case file was also opened on the school, and on the parents of six other students who were identified by the boy as also having received the swat. “The mere fact that they signed on to the discipline policy made them criminals in the eyes of the social workers,” Crampton said.

Ultimately, though case files were opened on the six other families, no action was taken on them as no interviews took place.

A violation of rights
A judge found the social workers violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the school because they should have obtained a court order or search warrant to question the student. The social workers admitted the situation was not an emergency. 

“It’s hard to even make an argument for an emergency when you’ve got information four months old,” Crampton said. 

Indeed, that kind of delay is in direct conflict with the normal course for investigations. “Cases should be followed up on immediately,” said Ryk Scott, a family support specialist with  Arizona Baptist Children’s Services in Glendale. “In a case of child abuse, it’s usually as soon as possible.”

When a report of abuse is made to social services, investigations generally take a common track.

“Normally, child protective services will send someone in to make an initial assessment of the situation,” Scott said. “People go in and meet with the family, tour the home, meet with the children. They will question the family members separately and see if there is any lack of consistency in the stories. Usually a nurse will also be present to check for bruises if they deem it necessary.”

With regard to the little boy, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated that taking a child from his class for an interrogation with social workers is itself a seizure under the language of the Fourth Amendment. “That’s significant because it’s a fairly minor intrusion as contrasted with someone being thrown in jail,” Crampton said. “The routine practice in public schools is that public schools are completely cooperative in a child abuse investigation, and social workers never encounter a principal who says ‘No, you can’t come in here.’”

For the school, “the justices ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies in the context of social workers investigating child abuse allegations at a private school just as much as it applies to someone’s private residence,” Crampton said. “It’s really not a new interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. [It] is a pulling back on agencies that think they are the law.”

The effect this ruling has on investigations in other states is yet to be seen, but it could lead to some reform and clarification in law regarding social services.

The social workers, in this case, acted upon a Wisconsin state statute, according to Crampton, that said social workers could interview anyone, children in particular, at any place other than his or her own home, anytime the social worker feels it is necessary. “They get to define what is necessary,” Crampton said. “We anticipate that kind of language, or something close to it, is present [in other state codes] because [states] aren’t very original and tend to copy each other.” 

Not indicative of all social workers
This story would be remiss if it didn’t point out that the Greendale case is not representative of how most social workers do their jobs. While there have been news reports in recent years of children slipping through the cracks, many social workers are honest, hard-working individuals. If anything, mistakes might be made by well-meaning social workers because of the workload, or caseload, they carry.

“Being that you need to make contact on a weekly basis, supervise visitations, assessments, etc., a heavy caseload can be 10 to 12 cases per social worker,” Scott said. “Many times, we have more than that.”

The records AFA Journal found on some states’ social services divisions made it very apparent how understaffed and overworked some departments are.

An Association of Children of New Jersey analysis found that 16% of that state’s caseworkers juggle between 35 and 50 cases, and 12% carry between 50 and 75 cases.

In Mississippi, a February 2003 newspaper report showed there were an average of 128 cases per social worker in the Harrison County (Gulfport/Biloxi) Department of Human Services office. 

For each of these cases, when needed, social workers are expected to provide community referral services in helping people get food, clothing, and shelter. They also often have to teach parenting skills and assist with teenagers who have had children out of wedlock and have no parenting skills. They also help people find jobs, or income assistance, and seek out health services for their clients, covering a wide range of issues from physical health to mental health.

Parents rights’ vs. intervention
The Greendale case was not one of an emergency report of abuse. It does, though, raise an interesting question. It has been alleged the school and the parents were targeted because they spanked their children. If simple spanking were the litmus test, many parents would be guilty of abuse.

Where, then, is the line drawn between what is a parent’s right to discipline and what constitutes abuse? While some parents feel a swat is necessary occasionally to correct a child, others don’t believe that’s right. Clearly, though, discipline is not the same as abuse. Generally speaking, abuse is action that leads to harmful or dangerous physical and/or mental injury.

“That really depends on the state and the situation,” Scott said. “In some states, a judge might say a little swat never hurt a child, but in others, psychologists might say any type of corporal punishment is abusive and doesn’t prove anything except that you are stronger than the child. It’s hard to draw a line. The Bible says, ‘spare the rod, spoil the child.’ Where do you draw the line? I don’t know. It’s situation by situation.”