FAMILY COURT REQUIRES SAFE ENVIRONMENT

The Page One article, "Mom wasn't likely to lose custody" (Honolulu
Advertiser, Jan. 31, regarding the Cyrus Belt case) may confuse
readers about the role of Family Court and lead readers to assume that
the courts have somehow been derelict in their duties. This confusion
is a disservice to Cyrus' memory and also to the community that relies
upon Family Court to protect our children. Therefore, I would like to
clarify the situation.

The Department of Human Services did not bring this case to the Family
Court. We make no judgments about its actions or inactions. We see no
need to second-guess the results of their six separate investigations,
despite the tragedy of Cyrus' death.

The community, however, should not be left with the impression that
the law that Family Court applies requires actual severe abuse and
injuries or that "just" substance abuse is not enough. Our laws allow
the Family Court to intervene and to place children in foster care
based on, among other factors, threatened harm (even if there are no
physical injuries). This is true whether the threat is caused by
substance abuse, mental illness or other factors.

According to the article, Child Protective Services investigators were
convinced that the mother was no longer guilty of either drug abuse or
child neglect; thus they saw no need to refer the case to Family Court.

The article states, however, that "[t]o remove a child, the parents
have to be found to severely abuse and neglect the child." The DHS
director stated that "(DHS) would have had to show that (the mother's)
direct actions would have put the child in harm's way."

These "standards" are not found in the law and not found in Family
Court policies.

To suggest that nothing would have been done by Family Court unless
the situation rose to the level of "severe abuse and neglect" is both
wrong and irresponsible. While termination of parental rights is
clearly an option of last resort, removal of a child from a home where
there is parental substance abuse leading to child abuse or neglect,
is an action Family Court judges, sadly, make on a daily basis.

Family Court judges simply do not permit children to remain in a home
with parents who are clearly abusing or neglecting their child,
whether or not they are using drugs. The only way Family Court would
permit a child to remain in the parent's custody after known parental
substance abuse is if there has been demonstrated compliance with a
service plan addressing both the parent's substance abuse and the
child's safety and well-being.

Parents must demonstrate a clean and sober lifestyle for a period of
time (usually three months or more) before Family Court considers a
transition toward reunifying children with their parents.

Moreover, when children are reunified with parents who have
demonstrated continued sobriety (and thus a "safe home" for their
children) the Family Court continues to monitor the family's progress
for six months and up to a year before a case is closed.

To suggest that Family Court would not have taken action had it been
presented with a petition alleging substance abuse or child abuse or
neglect by the custodial parents is patently wrong. To allow this
erroneous impression to go uncorrected could cause further harm
because people may conclude that reporting potential child abuse or
neglect associated with substance abuse serves no purpose, as nothing
will be done to protect the child.

This is not the message that Family Court believes should be delivered
at this time of great sadness in our community. Family Court simply
does not turn a deaf ear to children in need of its attention. In
Cyrus' memory, we all must reaffirm our commitment to, and redouble
our efforts to protect, our vulnerable children.

Thomas R. Keller is administrative director of the state courts. He
wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.