Fragile Families. Naomi Glenn-Levin Rodriguez

      The cases recounted below, and throughout this book, involve institutions, families, and legal systems that span both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Although both Tijuana and San Diego have well-established child welfare support systems, they are each structured differently and emphasize different sorts of programs. The child welfare system in San Diego County provides support services to families with children who have experienced, or have been alleged to have experienced, abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Children typically enter the system through a call to the child abuse hotline, often made by a concerned neighbor, teacher, medical authority, or anonymous third party. A child abuse hotline call prompts an investigation by a county social worker, which may lead to the provision of family maintenance services, such as parenting classes, therapy, or regular social worker visits. Alternatively, in cases where the child is determined to be in “imminent danger,” the social worker may remove the child from the home, making the state the child’s temporary legal parent. In these cases the child typically resides in a foster home or in the care of an agency-approved relative while the parent pursues a “case plan,” designed by the social worker, that may involve drug treatment programs, anger management counseling, or separation from an abusive partner, among other possible requirements. Eventually, the social worker makes a recommendation to the court about whether the child should return to the parent’s custody or be placed in a guardianship arrangement or an adoptive home. A dependency court judge makes a final ruling.

      In Mexico, child welfare services are provided by Desarrollo Integral de la Familia (commonly referred to as “el DIF”), a system that provides a variety of support services including nutrition programs, legal services, a temporary shelter for children, and a network of private orphanages, many of which are run by religious organizations and supported by U.S. donors, volunteers, and staff. Although the vast majority of Tijuana orphanages are privately run, they are certified and overseen by the DIF Tijuana agency. Children are placed in orphanages and out for adoption by DIF social workers. Although DIF social workers do visit private orphanages, because there are only a small number of DIF Tijuana social workers—eight during the time of my research for the entire city—their oversight of the daily care and medical needs of the children is infrequent at best. As one orphanage director, Carlota, told me, “El DIF es como el Papá, y nosotros como mamá” (The DIF is like the father and we [the orphanage] are like the mother).¹⁴ Carlota, who had grown up herself in the very orphanage she was directing, went on to explain that the orphanage provides the daily care, keeping the DIF informed and asking for permission for issues regarding schooling, placement, or medical treatment. She clarified, though, that unlike a traditional “papá,” when a child needs expensive surgery or school fees the orphanage goes to donors rather than to the DIF for funding.

      Because concerns in Mexico about child abuse or neglect must be made by a public “denuncio,” as opposed to the option of making an anonymous call as in the U.S. child welfare system, many observers of child maltreatment are understandably hesitant to involve themselves. For this reason, many children are put under DIF’s protective custody by the extended family when concerns about abuse or ongoing parental drug use become too extreme to ignore. It is also quite common for family members simply to provide care for children without involving the state agency in any way. Abandoned children, or children living on the street, are often brought to orphanage shelters by concerned neighbors. Although DIF offers parenting classes and reunification plans for parents, orphanage directors reported to me that reunification was a rare occurrence in Tijuana. Many children were regularly visited by their parents but did not return to their custody. Instead, they completed their youth and their schooling within the orphanage system, leaving at age fourteen of their own accord, often to live with extended family members with whom they had stayed in touch, once they were old enough to contribute to maintaining the household through their labor.

      The child welfare systems in both Tijuana and San Diego took shape through extensive public-private partnerships. In Tijuana, this took the form of privately funded orphanages, often run by U.S. church groups and staffed by a mixture of local Tijuana residents and U.S. volunteers. In San Diego, it took the form of nonprofit foster family agencies (FFAs). FFAs recruited and trained foster parents, and supervised the placement of foster children, through a subcontracting relationship with the county-run child welfare system. As in the Tijuana system, the public system in San Diego retained exclusive control over the initial intervention and removal of children, the selection of a placement option, and the court process associated with decisions about reunifying families, terminating parental rights, and pursuing adoptions for children.¹⁵ Foster family agencies took on some of the county’s workload by providing and overseeing additional foster homes, but they did not replace the work of the county social workers or reduce the number of children on a county worker’s caseload. Furthermore, while the subcontracting relationship was monitored through a formal contract process, the financial relationship was complicated. Nonprofit FFAs, like Tijuana orphanages, received no funding from the county system for the services they provided. Although each foster family received monthly government funds for the provision of food, clothing, and other incidentals for their foster child, none of this money went to the agency itself.¹⁶ Recruitment and training of families, program maintenance, building rental, and staff salaries were all underwritten by private donors or grant funding.