Florida announces close to a thousand children missing...

June 4, 2002 5:54 AM

Florida announces close to a thousand children missing... After the Rilya Wilson tragedy, Florida desperately tries to meet and account for all children within the social services child welfare office and comes up with 972 unaccounted for and a lot of ifs, ands, buts, and maybe's...
posted by gloege (17 comments total)

Man do they have a hard time counting down there. Can anyone tell me, is Florida still teaching the NeueMath?

On a serious note, this is just like the FBI losing laptops, the military finding aircraft parts on ebay just much, much worse. Just like any bloated bureaucracy, politicians will position themselves as cutting the red tape, but in the end, the bureaucrats will not have changed. Could someone please think of the children?
posted by plemeljr at 6:48 AM on June 4, 2002

"You just hope and pray that nothing happens, and you do your darnedest to find them," said Larry Pintacuda, of the
Florida Department of Children and Families. Um, the words 'stable-door', 'horse' and 'bolted' in close proximity come to mind. Why not try and keep in touch all the time, instead of when the media notices something is wrong? Responsibility? Those guys prolly couldn't even spell it!
Caseworkers could not visit four other children out of 46,403 children under the agency's jurisdiction because of court orders preventing them from doing so. WTF?!!? Court orders barring looked after children being seen by social workers? What kind of system is that? And is it any better than the life the kids had before? If you cannot answer 'yes', then leave well alone (the principle of non-intervention, as embodied in the UK's 1989 Children Act).
posted by dash_slot- at 6:55 AM on June 4, 2002

As horrible as this is, I'm not surprised by it. I would, however, be surprised if this weren't true in a lot of states. I have a sinking feeling this isn't unique to Florida.

And it's fun to bash government bureaucrats, but it's also important to point out how utterly stretched thin social work is in the United States. Social workers have insane caseloads, and the pay and conditions and burnout rate are such that there's a revolving door. It's absolutely no surprise to me that living breathing children are falling through the cracks when such a system is responsible for their welfare.

People can (and should) be outraged about this - but simply laying it at the feet of bureaucratic mismanagement is going to be a counter-productive response. If people want a more effective social services system, they've got to tell their elected officials to fund it more adequately. And then the elected officials have to demand greater accountability from the bureaucrats as the price of greater resources.
posted by Chanther at 7:05 AM on June 4, 2002

About half of these kids are runaways, or are believed to be with "non-custodial" adults. I would think that the social worker's options are pretty limited in these situations. If someone doesn't want to be found, you're going to have to spend a lot of time and resources tracking them down, and most caseworkers are overworked as it is.

I completely agree that DCF is a bloated bureaucracy. As a FL resident, I've heard plenty of horror stories from foster parents and others with frequent contact with the system. However, the ultimate cause of this mess is the irresponsible behavior of parents and other supposed caregivers.

I would be interested in seeing the "missing in action" numbers for other states.
posted by groundhog at 7:24 AM on June 4, 2002

Looks like Rosie has a post-talk-show career.
posted by Hankins at 8:13 AM on June 4, 2002

I am astounded that the state could just "lose" 1000 kids. That's a lot of kids to be MIA. If 500 of them were runaways, were the foster parents still receiving payments from the state because they didn't report it? If so, they should be prosecuted. What about the ones who have been taken by family members...how did the state not know they were missing? Again, if the foster parents didn't report them gone, then they should be prosecuted.
And the kids who can't be visited by a court order? That's just bloody odd and I'd like to know the logic there.

All in all, it sure seems like the system is failing those whom it can least afford to fail.
posted by dejah420 at 9:36 AM on June 4, 2002

unaccounted for != missing, so gloege's wording was needlessly alarmist, though CNN's "can't find" is almost as much. In fact, it's really annoyingly unharmonized -- the number reported to the police is 155, yet the total of the two categories "taken by non-custodial relative" and "unable to find or interview family" is 135 + 10, or just 145. I suppose you could say the runaways should be counted in that total as well, though it's not clear whether they were classed as such after a police investigation or not.

This really isn't that shocking as such. Moving out of jurisdiction used to be the way one moved on from one's mistakes in many ways, in what they call "simpler times". The kids being monitored are not wearing ankle bracelets. The monitoring is not always of the variety "make sure the parents haven't killed them yet". The placement of each individual child is presumably with the family members or foster parents who are best able to care for them at the time. If the home situation is considered dangerous, those few cases would be the ones to watch over like a hawk, but there's nothing in this accounting to tell us how many of those unaccounted kids might be in that category.

The court order business would probably be cases where a guardian ad litem or some formal public advocate has oversight, because the family is suing the agency over its decision.
posted by dhartung at 9:48 AM on June 4, 2002

I think the problem here is alarming. Unaccounted for means the people responsible for these children's wellbeing have no actual clue as to where they are...

I tell you what, think of it this way.

You are a parent and the school calls to tell you your child is unaccountable. Now you tell me about needless alarm...

*snorts in disgust*
posted by gloege at 10:21 AM on June 4, 2002

Down to the banana republic (icans)
Down to the tropical son (of a Bush)
Go the hordes of missing children (and eligible voters)
Looking to have some fun (damental rights)

Some of them are running from parents
Leaving no forward address
Some fo the are runninng for Governor (or state house, Ms. Harris)
Some are running from the I (gnorant) R (acist) S (umbitches)

- Apologies to Jimmy Buffett :)
posted by nofundy at 10:24 AM on June 4, 2002

Late at night you will find them,
In the cheap hotels and alleys,
Hustling 12-year old girls and boys,
Prostitutes beneath the stars.

Spending thier twenties and tens,
On a rock of crack or meth,
Sighing "Give me a fix, I want to be high,
I want to escape this life."

First you learn to take a beating,
Never cry out aloud,
You know he shouldn't do it,
'Cause he should be a father to you.

Exploited and missing children,
Feeling so goddamn alone,
Telling themselves that running away
Is better than staying at home.
Down to the streets and alleys,
Things aren't as free as they seem,
They've fallen through the cracks of life,
And now they can't be seen.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:07 PM on June 4, 2002

You're good fff.
posted by nofundy at 1:09 PM on June 4, 2002

Thx. You, too.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:40 PM on June 4, 2002

Right, gloege. Because a state agency that checks up on a kid a couple of times a year is exactly the same as a school with restricted public access where they spend 6 hours a day 180 days of the year under the direct supervision of an adult.

And a camel is like a bicycle.
posted by dhartung at 5:53 PM on June 4, 2002

Unaccounted for means the people responsible for these children's wellbeing have no actual clue as to where they are...

Again, while I agree that DCF dropped the ball, it's the parents that are truly responsible for these children.
posted by groundhog at 6:47 PM on June 4, 2002

If people want a more effective social services system, they've got to tell their elected officials to fund it more adequately.

Hear, hear. Also, what dhartung said.
posted by y2karl at 8:39 PM on June 4, 2002

"Right, gloege. Because a state agency that checks up on a kid a couple of times a year is exactly the same as a school with restricted public access where they spend 6 hours a day 180 days of the year under the direct supervision of an adult."

I did not say that actually. If you will READ carefully you will note I was simply defining "unaccountable" for some meathead who refuses to use dictionary.com.

BTW - a school does NOT have restricted public access. Nice try though. Shall we say we are comparing apples and oranges here - two state run child support systems with public access. Hmmm...

*rolls eyes*
posted by gloege at 6:02 AM on June 5, 2002

Again, while I agree that DCF dropped the ball, it's the parents that are truly responsible for these children.

I would like to point out that in the majority of these cases, DCF would not be involved at all if the parents were "truly responsible." People don't call child welfare officials because they think mom and dad are doing great! Also, some of these kids are in the custody of at least one parent. Some of these kids have parents who are no longer allowed to be responsible for them (maybe that's why some of them were in foster care, eh?).

Yes I know there are frivolous/fraudulent cases, yes I know there are parents cleared by the system. That's why I specifically said "in the majority of cases."
posted by ilsa at 1:45 PM on June 5, 2002