PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Testimony by Chas Budnick, Supervising Attorney at Brooklyn Defender Services
2:40:48
ยท
3 min
Chas Budnick, representing Brooklyn Defender Services, testifies about disconnects between foster care policies and on-the-ground practices. He emphasizes the need for case planning that aligns with the law and social science, prioritizing family reunification and maintaining parent-child connections.
- Argues for least restrictive visitation policies and involving parents in children's daily lives even after removal
- Calls for collaborative case planning rather than ultimatum-based approaches
- Emphasizes the importance of proactive planning for reunification from the moment of removal
Chas Budnick
2:40:48
Good afternoon, Chair Stevens.
2:40:49
My name is Chas Budnick.
2:40:51
I work at the Brooklyn Defender Services within Could
Althea Stevens
2:40:54
you just pull your mic down a little bit, please?
2:40:55
Thank you.
Chas Budnick
2:40:55
Thank you.
2:40:56
Within the family defense practice, which represents parents in Article 10 abuse and neglect cases.
2:41:03
And specifically, I work in our Preserving Family Bonds team which focuses on late stage foster care cases and termination of parental rights filings.
2:41:11
And I'm here to talk about some disconnects that the, The chair recognized that there have been some disconnects between what was said about policy today and what's happening on the ground.
2:41:24
We see that case planning lacks alignment with the law.
2:41:27
That the law says that the first obligation, state's first obligation, is to provide parents with the assistance necessary to reunify, and to support kinship and return to parent.
2:41:37
We're not seeing that happen.
2:41:40
And we're seeing that case planning is not aligned with social science, that children need security to feel safe and loved and to know that the world is predictable and at least makes sense, that the person to whom a child is attached is a person that they see meeting their needs, and that parents' opportunities to do that within the system is severely restricted and is not reflective of their capacity or their desire to do so.
2:42:08
That children can be provided with security through stable connections to extended family, friends, neighborhoods, and schools, and that in from the custody context, when there is significant conflict between caregivers, that that becomes a problem that's internalized for children.
2:42:26
And so what we would like to see is that case planning make stays in stays in foster care temporary and brief, that there is an actual move to implement the policy of least restrictive visitation, that if there is a removal, there should be consideration of the duties of parenting that can still be performed such as school pickup and drop off, attendance at curriculars, involvement of parents in their children's medical and mental health and educational needs, and an ongoing voice in how their children are doing and an opportunity and it's an opportunity for agencies and foster parents or resource families to ally with parents in the best for the best needs of children.
2:43:09
We're also asking that case planning become collaborative and not about ultimatums, that agencies are uniquely positioned to make sure that these connections between providers for children and other schools and places that they're encountering are connected to parents, that they have access to that information and that they're sharing that information with resource families.
2:43:32
And we think that this will be something that will promote the best interest of children.
2:43:36
And we're asking that case planning be reactive and proactive, and that from the beginning, removal, there is planning for reunification.
2:43:47
Thank you.
2:43:48
Thank you.
Althea Stevens
2:43:48
And you could submit that so we could also follow-up as well.