•••
This letter is in response to the opinion piece by D.J. Tice on state Rep. Jim Nash, R-Waconia, the author of a proposed mandatory reporting bill in the Minnesota Legislature, who suffered abuse at the hands of his father his entire childhood. It broke my heart to read this story (”For this legislator, action targeting child abuse is intensely personal,” April 19). For me, it was my mother, and she preferred a 2x4. I, too, spent many nights praying for someone to come, and no one ever came. Many people knew, but no one said a word. My father stood by and did nothing.
We are left to find our own way out of hell, and once we get out, we find that we are broken, and we will remain broken for however many days we have on this earth. I can’t change Nash’s story or the outcome, but he can change how this plays out for children subjected to this violence now and in the future. It is the best he and I can hope for. I hope his colleagues listen, and take action.
Carol Jones Clark, Woodbury
•••
Minnesota is one of only nine states that gives individual counties control over their child protection services. Currently, there is a legislative task force that is addressing the widespread failures of our system.
The child protection system in the state of Minnesota emphasizes reunification with parents as the preferred permanency arrangement for children. However, reunification isn’t always the best-case scenario. After being sent back home, some don’t survive the reunion, and even more endure brutal beatings, sexual abuse and other forms of maltreatment. In 2021, Minnesota had some of the highest rates of repeat abuse or neglect after the reunification of children. Currently, Minnesota Statute 260C.212, Subdivision 2, is about how “Placement decisions [are] based on the best interest of the child.” Statute 260.012 is the “Duty to ensure placement prevention and family reunification.” These statutes imply that reasonable efforts are made to prevent placement or to eliminate the need for removal and to reunite the child with the child’s family at the earliest possible time. They also imply that Minnesota is to ensure that the child’s best interests are met by requiring an individualized determination of the needs of the child. But what happens when these statutes contradict each other?