Pruebas de hipótesis

298 _{See supra notes 213-218 and accompanying text; Weisz & McCormick, supra note 18, at 210–}

11.

299 _{Katz, supra note 202, at 1105-09.}

300 _{Weisz & McCormick, supra note 18, at 197–98, 212; Duques, supra note 6, at 96–98.} 301 _{Weisz & McCormick, supra note 18, at 200; Zalenski, supra note 221, at 27 (“[C]hildren in}

foster care after a [dependency] proceeding have access to a greater range of services than children in minor guardianships.”). In this respect, parents, caregivers, and children who are not in the child protection system can miss out on the “impressive array of safeguards and services” available through the public child welfare system. Weisz & McCormick, supra note 18, at 192 (internal quotation omitted). WILLIAMS, supra note 198, at 282; Smith, supra note 23, at 70–71 (discussing how families with less several crises that could be best served by in-home services are less likely to get them).

320 CONNECTICUT PUBLIC INTEREST LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 18.2

likely to have “fewer material resources.”302 _{More than half of such relative}

caregivers are grandmothers.303 _{As of 2010, the average age of a caregiver}

grandparent was 55, with one-third over the age of 60304 _{and many in poor}

health.305 _{The presence of grandchildren in the household may limit the}

family’s housing options or result in overcrowding.306 _{And the reason for a}

grandparent being in a caregiving role may be that the child’s parent—their own son or daughter—is incarcerated or suffering from substance use or mental illness, any of which presents its own set of challenges for the family. In important individual respects and in terms of the households in which they live, there are many similarities between children in private kinship care and those in the child welfare system.307 _{In both, a child may have been born}

drug-affected or experienced significant trauma or instability before coming into the relative’s care.308 _{In both, the family is likely to have limited material}

resources and to face serious emotional and practical challenges. Families that address crises outside of the child welfare system have the same significant needs as those involved in the system. What they do not have are the same significant services and supports.

3. Policy Implications of Ideologically and Culturally Shaped Perceptions of Families’ Relation to the Child Welfare System

This Article focuses on the legal and practical implications of using minor guardianships for private child protection. Policies and practices governing guardianship are shaped, however, by broader contemporary views of private kinship caregiving, and there are significant ideological dimensions to those perceptions, often involving matters of race and class. I discuss these dimensions only briefly here because, in the absence of formal data, my observations about them and about their effects on policies and

note 165, at 282 (noting research findings that 20% of families with grandparent caregivers live in poverty as compared with 8.7% of all families). Studies demonstrate that household in which a grandparent is caring for a child, without a parent present, are more likely to be living in poverty with government benefits as a primary or sole source of support. Meara, supra note 167, at 130 (citing AARP, GRANDFACTS:NATIONAL FACT SHEET FOR GRANDPARENTS AND OTHER RELATIVES RAISING CHILDREN (2015)).

303 _{Berrick & Hernandez, supra note 7, at 30; Duques, supra note 6, at 90.} 304 _{Cox, supra note 165, at 282; Meara, supra note 167, at 130.}

305 _{Cox, supra note 165, at 283 (noting research findings that custodial grandparents are at increased}

risk of heart disease and chronic health conditions).

306 _{Id. at 291–92.}

307 _{Goodman et al., supra note 7, at 289; Duques, supra note 6, at 90; CFSFINAL REPORT, supra}

note 196, at 48-51.

308 _{Cox, supra note 165, at 284; Gupta-Kagan, supra note 166, at 59. Goodman et al., supra note 7,}

at 296–97 (study comparing grandmothers engaged in public versus informal kinship care in Los Angeles County, California and finding that there are often similar reasons for children to end up in a relative’s care). GA.OFFICE OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE, supra note 220. Such history can present additional challenges for the relative caregiver. Cynthia Andrews Scarcella et al., Identifying and Addressing the Needs of Children in Grandparent Care, B-55 NEW FEDERALISM 1–4 (2003) (9-13% of children living with grandparents or other relatives “exhibit high levels of behavioral or emotional problems”).

2019] KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY 321

practices can sometimes drift close to the realm of speculation. While the questions raised here can be best explored by social scientists with expertise in these trends (and some have already done so), they require some consideration in connection with the concerns of this Article.

Comparison of public-versus-private approaches to protecting the children of parents in crisis is complex. Part of that complexity arises from the often sharply different ways the alternatives are perceived. Involvement by public agencies in the family in the U.S. today tends to be viewed in distinctly negative ways by those who consider themselves conservative. This tendency, which has been evident since the public child welfare system was first developed more than a century ago,309 _{reflects the “small}

government” orientation of conservatives, including many of those in positions of authority with regard to child welfare, whether through election to public office or other avenues of political influence. Former President Ronald Reagan, a hero of this orientation, once famously quipped at a news conference: “I think you all know that I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”310 _{Although he was referring on that occasion to trade and}

tax policies and their impact on farmers, the quip reflects a more general conviction that government assistance is a sign of failed policy. Not surprisingly, Reagan’s words and sentiment are often invoked by those seeking to limit social services to children and families through public agencies.311

Those who view government involvement in ways that align with this perspective and who—in courts and legislatures as elsewhere—see placing a child in state custody as inherently undesirable, are among the key proponents of kinship diversion practices and of minor guardianship.312 _A

Vermont probate judge praised minor guardianship as a way for a family to “step up and take custody of the child.”313 _{An analysis of the debate over}

kinship diversion conducted by the Annie E. Casey Foundation concluded that people’s view of whether or not the practice was beneficial depended on how they generally saw the role of government versus the family in addressing a problem.314 _{Another way that those suspicious of the welfare}