by Tom Rose
Last week we discussed the reemerging proposed legislative change from a CHINS program in Wyoming to a FINS program.
In brief, CHINS is the acronym for Child in Need of Supervision which is basically a child whom Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) believes to be uncontrollable by the child's parents. CHINS legislation requires court appearances and due process and if the Court finds that they agree with the DFS position they legally authorize DFS to mandate "services".
FINS stands for Families in Need of Supervision and it would permit the Department of Family Services to mandate services to the whole family with no necessity for a formalized court finding.
If you do not see a significant problem with this second statement, you should probably refresh yourself on what your civil rights are supposed to be when your right to parent your child has been questioned by DFS.
You may wonder, as I did, why this issue of CHINS/FINS continues to come up. The legislative process is supposed to flow through like this:
In another format: How a Bill Becomes a Law
CHINS/FINS pitches have been made multiple times: 2001, 2002, 2013, 2014 (agenda missing but I attended the meeting) and now again in 2015.
The proposal to swap CHINS for FINS has been killed in committee multiple times. It was formerly very thoroughly and articulately opposed by Senator John Shiffer who passed away peacefully in his home on June 9, 2014.
Part of the issue is this: judges and legislators participating in the Wyoming Judiciary Interim Committee process have pointed out that the Wyoming DFS already has the ability to mandate services: the way that our constitution requires, through legal process. The proposed DFS change takes out the checks and balances inherent in our judicial system because social workers would no longer need to go through a formalized court process in order to make decisions like removing a child from a home or mandating family counseling.
Social workers want to make it easier for them to make decisions about whether a family or family member is adhering to their case plan, and they want to be able to do so without going to court.
I would argue that you cannot mandate service, and both CHINS and FINS are centered around mandated "services" such as counseling. The therapist/patient relationship requires a great deal of trust in order to be effective. It is difficult to believe that lasting change can truly be achieved through mandating "services" which depend on the efficacy of a trust-based relationship when one party is being told that if they don't succeed they may be sent to jail, have children removed from their home or in many other ways have their lives destroyed and families torn apart.
This is NOT in any way, shape or form intended to indicate that counseling and other support services are not effective when offered and accepted for the right reasons.
Here is Merriam-Webster's full definition of service:
Definition of SERVICE1 a: the occupation or function of servingservice>
b: employment as a servantservice>
2 a: the work performed by one that servesservice>
c: contribution to the welfare of others
d: disposal for use <I'm entirely at your service>
3 a: a form followed in worship or in a religious ceremony service>
b: a meeting for worship —often used in plural services>
4 : the act of serving: as
a: a helpful act service>
b: useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity —usually used in plural services>
c:serve
5 : a set of articles for a particular use service>
6 a: an administrative division (as of a government or business) service>
b: one of a nation's military forces (as the army or navy)
7 a: a facility supplying some public demand service>service>
b: a facility providing maintenance and repair service>
8 : the materials (as spun yarn, small lines, or canvas) used for serving a rope
9 : the act of bringing a legal writ, process, or summons to notice as prescribed by law
10 : the act of a male animal copulating with a female animal
11 : a branch of a hospital medical staff devoted to a particular specialty service>
Have you seen anywhere in there a definition involving being compelled to do something by force? Doesn't the definition kind-of seem like the opposite?
As a prominent conservative reformer recently commented to me "We equate the word service with getting your hair done the way you want it or having your food order delivered promptly to your table."
Next week we'll look into the fact that during 10-plus-year push for a FINS program in Wyoming, states which have implemented FINS (or programs bearing any other name which have the same general impact, are having egregious problems.
This particular change in juvenile justice is one that Wyoming does not need. If the CHINS program needs fixing let's do it right. We shouldn't have to do it by adopting failing legislation from other states. If we should toss this one out and replace it with something better it's time to write better legislation.
The defeat of this bill needs a new champion.