How one reporter exposed the patchwork system of legal representation for parents in child welfare cases

Missouri has long taken kids into foster care at a rate higher than the national average, and once there, kept them for longer than average, too. 

I’ve covered state government and the safety net in Missouri for the last several years. It’s common to hear legislators and state officials alike talking about the need to reduce the number of kids in foster care, and trying to reduce the time kids spend in limbo before reaching a permanent home.

But I was puzzled that one solution other states have adopted never seemed to come up: Bolstering the legal defense for parents and children. 

Strengthening what’s referred to as family defense has been shown to reduce the amount of time kids spend in foster care, at no cost to their safety. Under President Donald Trump’s first administration, the federal Children’s Bureau allowed states to receive partial reimbursement for the first time for the cost of family defense, but Missouri hadn’t drawn down the funding, unlike most states. 

Some parents accused of child abuse or neglect told me they didn’t have a court-appointed lawyer at all. Others said their court-appointed attorneys were unreachable outside of court and didn’t seem to be advocating for them. One woman I interviewed needed to take on a second job to afford to pay a private attorney, after her court-appointed counsel withdrew and wasn’t replaced.

Without a zealous advocate in complex court proceedings, parents felt completely alone. At stake was something perhaps more important than even their liberty — their family — but unlike in criminal proceedings, there is no federal right to counsel in child welfare cases. And at the root of many of the allegations was poverty disguised as neglect, not abuse. 

It was the Center for Health Journalism’s support through the National Fellowship that allowed me to finally pursue this project. 

I learned through my reporting that in Missouri, counties determine funding and access to parents’ attorneys in child abuse and neglect cases. There is a lack of state oversight when it comes to these issues — neither the state child welfare agency nor the court oversight agency routinely collects information about these appointments. There is no required training or standards of practice for parents’ attorneys. 

The lack of oversight made finding any statewide, county-level data impossible — my first major roadblock. But I learned that that obstacle could itself become an important part of the story.

I needed to go directly to counties to get the information about how they handled appointing family counsel. 

The questions I was asking judicial circuits seemed basic, but I realized no one else was asking them. I asked about the caseloads for parents’ and children’s attorneys and their payment rates, for instance. In some counties, the annual budget for parents’ attorneys was so low as to cover only a few weeks of full-time work — court-appointed lawyers would need to do the rest pro bono. 

In some counties, court-appointed attorneys juggled hundreds of cases, while in others they were capped at a few dozen, creating disparities in access to justice based on where a family lives. And some circuits weren’t able to give me data on caseloads at all. 

I was lucky to have a good relationship with a source in the state judiciary who helped guide me in the right direction of sources and said I could use her name when contacting these county courthouses. Having that trusted connection helped court staff — especially in rural areas, who’ve not dealt with the media before — know that I am a legitimate reporter.

I also observed court in a few counties statewide, to get a sense of the proceedings, and what it is like to navigate them without a zealous attorney. (I’d highly recommend reporters interested in child welfare spend some time observing in court, if you’re in a state that allows it — you’ll come away with tons of story ideas.)

These cases are open to the public by default in Missouri, but some court staff didn’t know that, and told me I wouldn’t be allowed inside. I made sure to bring a printed-out copy of the relevant law (phones aren’t allowed in these courthouses). I spoke at length with an expert beforehand so I could understand what my rights were if I was denied access. 

I was clear with court staff about my motivations for being there: not to write any personal details about families testifying in court but to observe the general legal process. It’s understandable for some to be wary of allowing the media into a sensitive hearing, and it’s up to us to explain not only the law on the books, but that we understand and respect families’ privacy. 

Reporters in states with open child welfare court should be prepared to defend their right to be there: Laws opening courts up for purposes of accountability are only useful insofar as they are enforced. 

There are issues with children’s and parents’ representation in much of the country and I hope others pursue similar projects. Parents accused of abuse and neglect are easy to dismiss out of hand, but as one advocate told me, their civil rights are at stake. They deserve due process under the law just as those in the criminal system do.