"It takes a village to raise a child." This statement became very popular in the last decade and the implication of that well-known adage is that the harmonious efforts of many can provide a child every thing he or she needs to succeed. However, the utter simplicity of this image fails to recognize the very complex nature of the process. My summer internship with the Office of the Child Advocate taught me that it sometimes takes far more than a village to raise a child.

Perhaps the most valuable experience of the summer was my introduction to the many varied players in the child advocacy arena, and my subsequent awareness of the different avenues through which children's lives are improved and sometimes not improved. The ideal village consists of loving and capable parents, extended family and friends, and family-friendly policy makers. However, often the most important ingredient of loving and capable parents is missing, and the village has to be redefined to include social service providers, foster families, attorneys, judges, lobbyists, more policy makers, governmental officials, and professional and volunteer child advocates. Suddenly, the harmony of a close-knit, unified community is disrupted because of the different perspectives and agendas that the new players bring to the arena.

Of the many meetings I observed this summer, where ideas and strategies for improving the child welfare process were being bandied about, I was most impressed with a particular vision to redefine the scope and responsibilities of government (DFCS and Juvenile Court) to families. For too long the public has considered DFCS and juvenile judicial process to be the first avenue pursued in order to protect children from abuse and neglect. The prevailing thought at this particular meeting of juvenile court judges, state DFCS representatives, commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, and state Office of the Child Advocate representatives was that DFCS and juvenile court cannot be the answer to every problem. While it is necessary to protect children, there may be other more effective and efficient methods of achieving this. For instance, an important question that was asked was "why does the extended family not act to protect the child, rather than just to report suspected or known abuse to child welfare officials?" The answer in many cases seemed to be that the cultural belief is that government is responsible. In my mind, changing this culture of belief is a huge paradigm shift that will be difficult to achieve, but sorely needed.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of my internship was the opportunity to perhaps influence legislative policy for children. The Office of the Child Advocate was interested in tightening up the mandatory reporting statute so that reports are made more expeditiously and cover a wider array of mandated reporters. I researched four areas in need of change: 1) specific timeframe for reporting, 2) written reports in addition to oral, 3) institutional protocol not to relieve mandated reporter of duty to report, and 4) possibly adding clergy and child service organization volunteers as mandated reporters. A survey of other states' statutes revealed similar provisions, and as such, I drafted a legislative proposal to include the changes and presented it to the governor's policy staff.

I also presented research and recommendations regarding the expedient issuance of an order of disposition on a petition for termination of parental rights. Current Georgia law allows the order to be issued up to one year after filing of the petition. The OCA felt that this lengthy timeframe frustrates the goal of permanency for children, and is especially unfair to children who have been in foster care for more than a year, or 15 of the last 22 months. It also stands in direct contradiction to the heading of the Code section which promises expedience. Again, research showed that shortening the timeframe to 90 days would make Georgia's law comparable to many other states' statutes. I am very satisfied to think that policymakers will be reviewing and discussing the research and recommendations that I prepared, and I may see fruition from my efforts in the next legislative assembly.

Finally, I had the opportunity to investigate complaints that had been submitted to the Office of the Child Advocate. One of the responsibilities of the Office of the Child Advocate is to oversee and ensure that reports of suspected abuse and neglect are handled by the county offices according to state policy. As such, investigators will issue a letter of concern to the county DFCS office that is involved if they discover that policy has been violated. The investigative process was complicated; however, I highly value this particular function of the Office of the Child Advocate, and know that the methods of protecting children are being improved with input from investigators.

Whereas a village conjures up images of coziness, intimacy, and personal investment, this expanded village of child advocacy can sometimes seem more like a bureaucracy. However, when missing the most vital ingredient of loving and capable parents, it may be just what is needed to help produce good outcomes for children, and child advocates in Georgia are persevering in achieving this goal.

Kim Saunders

Legal Intern

Office of the Child Advocate