Thank you for joining us!

Thanks for your comment. Many people in the general public believe that DCF is saving children from their parents. Interested in your thoughts on how we can better educate the community on the reality. I believe this education will not come from the system but will need to come from us. Once again, thanks for listening!

One of the meanings of indictment is "a thing that serves to illustrate that a system or situation is bad and deserves to be condemned." An indictment is about probable cause, not guilt. Thus, an indictment of a group of people who voted differently in this instance means there is probable cause to believe that it was not a good thing for a majority of women to vote against the best interest of the whole of women. That is not a difficult concept to grasp, and it is why these kinds of conversations need to be had. I applaud Jenny for having it, and hope more women will do the same.

@AdvocatesFamilyJustice that's a daunting question I am unqualified to answer but I'll try. My perspective is quite different i suspect but if it's in any way helpful: i think the solution is likely grassroots information pushes to the general public about what actually happens. I think there's a misconception broadly that dcf is a bunch of child advocates who are just too overworked-- but my observation has been that those truly interested in child welfare get out quickly because the system is not conducive to that end. Most people have no interaction or interest until dcf is knocking on the door for either legitimate reasons or bc someone has weaponized the agency for a multitude of reasons (many which you covered here). The administrative law judges in my state are not even subtle about their deference, even when the agents are caught in lies. It's devastating to watch. The few times I've seen real movement on overt injustices involved strategic releases of real life stories-- faces to names, digestable, no fluff, the story speaks for itself-- with a clear cut and pragmatic explanation of how it got there. An limited example: I launched an anonymous article a few years ago highlighting the draconian oppression of an assault victim in the military. Im not a journalist but i wrote the piece in simple terms, letting the photos speak for themselves. I named names but left out any hint of an agenda other than appealing to basic human decency and the utter horror of revictimizing someone who was nearly murdered. It worked and several grassroots pubs helped me push it out. Even without the help of algorithm we managed to reach millions and thousands of people called their reps. Within 48 hours, the most egregious abuse ceased and within a week, everything changed for the victim and she was able to get the resources she needed. I don't doubt that was an anomaly but i think the concept is the same. Academics and attorneys discussing the horrors in small groups is necessary and will help guide ultimate solutions to these problems but political forces really don't care until "the people" are upset. In the social media era that means stoking a bit of outrage -- but I think it must be tempered with plausible, implementable steps to remedy or we get riots rather than progress towards fixing the system. As far as policy I suppose my question is how do we change the incentives within case management from keeping kids in the system as long as possible toward getting them out of it quickly and actually helping the parents where there's a genuine need? Again, I'm highly underqualified to answer but I do think about this a lot.

@@uwaviator you make some great points. You may not feel qualified based on how the system views people, but it will take people like you to come together to create change. Those who are benefitting from the current system are unlikely to create this change. Thank you for your comment and please keep thinking about ways we can change what's happening to families.

@@anonymouslynonanonymous Agreed! These conversations are so important. Thank you for your comment.

Our argument is not that one person is to blame but rather that we must consider how several institutions work together to disadvantage Black families.