State reduces child welfare funding further

Adrienne Packer

Friday, Oct. 4, 2002 | 11:03 a.m.

Child welfare advocates' hopes were heightened when an itemized list of the governor's budget reductions omitted significant cuts to a child welfare program already crippled by a lack of funding.

But State Budget Director Perry Comeaux said Thursday the omission was a mistake.

"It didn't end up on the list just by accident," Comeaux said. "We took it off one list and it never made it on the other list."

The child welfare budget was cut by $5 million and Clark County's share of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Family (TANF) fund was slashed to $3.6 million -- a 75 percent reduction.

Reducing the child welfare budget from $12 million temporarily stalls the transfer of the state's welfare responsibilities -- adoption and foster care -- to the county. Clark County oversees Child Protective Services and Child Haven.

Perhaps more important, however, it cuts into a program designed to provide services to 327 severely emotionally disturbed children in the state's care who receive no counseling or medication.

The program doesn't address the hundreds of mentally ill children who are under-served.

"When the itemized list came out, we were hoping against hope that abused children would be spared cuts," said Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, who served on the legislative committee that recommended the funding.

"We are cutting treatment dollars for abused children who are diagnosed as in need of treatment and in our care. What a horrible thing to not provide that treatment."

The budget reductions' effect on severely emotionally disturbed children fuels questions about whether the state can face litigation for depriving those foster children treatment.

No law specifically addresses whether the state is obligated to provide medical treatment to foster children, but the Supreme Court has ruled that states are required to provide medical care to prisoners.

The Supreme Court ruling says it is only "just" for the state to provide treatment because prisoners are deprived the freedom to care for themselves.

Buckley said the same considerations should be made for foster children.

"I think we have a legal obligation to provide treatment if they're in our care," Buckley said. "I think we have a legal and moral commitment and I believe most legislators on that (child welfare) committee would agree with that."

However, according to legal experts, no law specifically addresses the issue.

States have been sued for failing to take abused children from their home, but courts have yet to recognize the affirmative rights of children in the state's custody, according to research performed by Andrew Kynaston, a law clerk for Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle.

Annette Appell, associate professor of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Boyd School of Law, said she believes that as long as state officials can prove they are providing the best care with the funding available, they are protected.

"There is a real problem with sufficient service to children in this category," Appell said. "I haven't been anecdotally impressed with the care they're receiving. It's not because the state is bad or doesn't like children; it just doesn't have the resources and it's hurting the kids."