By Karen Ocamb

In the weeks since the apparent murder of 2-year-old Sarah Chavez while in protective custody, many questions have been raised by county officials, attorneys, and the former lesbian foster parents as to how this death could have happened.

Two questions persistently asked by LGBT followers of the case are why was Sarah removed from a loving foster family that wanted to adopt her; and did bias based on sexual orientation, which could remain undiscovered because of confidentiality laws, play any role in the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the Juvenile Court's decision to return Sarah to her relatives, now charged with her murder?

The case has had a chilling effect on some gay couples interested in foster parenting and adopting, but afraid of suffering the heartbreak of having a child inexplicably removed and finding they have no rights or standing to protect or get the child back. Though Gov. Pete Wilson's prohibition against gays fostering and adopting has long since passed, suspicions of bias remain.

However, freelance journalist and foster care system expert Cheryl Romo, who extensively reviewed court documents for her dependency court story for IN, found no reference to sexual orientation nor any indication that private bias may have played a role in the decision to remove or transfer Sarah to her relatives.

Indeed, both DCFS Director Dr. David Sanders and Juvenile Court Presiding Judge Michael Nash expressed surprise when the issue of bias was raised by IN. Neither Sanders nor Nash could talk specifically about the case of Sarah Chavez, but said they are aware of the case and the scrutiny it's receiving.

Noting that Juvenile Court is a "hate-free zone," Nash said that the part-time judicial referee who decided the Chavez case has worked in the system for about 30 years and anti-gay bias is "never an issue that's come up. I haven't heard that issue in reference to any of our judicial officers.

"I've done numerous adoptions and guardianships with same-sex couples or people who are lesbian or gay, and that's just not nor should it be a consideration. The only consideration we should be making, for the most part, is whether people can provide a good home for children," said Nash. "Remember we have a system where we have had thousands and thousands of children in our system over the years because of abuse or neglect and the overwhelming majority of those children come from heterosexual families -- which just proves that heterosexual people don't have a corner on the market when it comes to parenthood."

"I feel that gay and lesbian couples are tremendous foster and adoptive parents and the department makes every effort to support foster and adoptive placements with gay and lesbian couples," said Sanders, adding that DCFS hopes to do better recruitment in the future. He pledged to become directly involved and "take very serious disciplinary action" if there is any indication of discrimination.

Sanders said there are a variety of both state and federal laws that govern the placement of children with the emphasis on keeping the children with their own families. If all "reasonable efforts" have been made but failed, then they look at people the child knows, usually relatives. So, in general, the initial placement decision is "really driven by a preference at both state and local levels to support children being placed with families that they know. But, the first priority is safety."

From his perspective, Sanders said, "I am a very strong believer that when youth are in our care we need to move very quickly to connect them with family that cares for them and demonstrates a concern for them. And that is the critical foundation to all the decisions that need to be made, particularly when you're looking at very young children. Developmentally, it's critical for the stability to be offered as soon as possible. The challenge in that is that it needs to be individualized for each child and it's sometimes difficult to apply broad-based policies to individual child's situation."

But, while that's an "important policy," sometimes it comes into conflict with the relationship the children develop with foster parents. "It's a very, very difficult process. I

think the starting point is -- what is the child's experience and how is that experience communicated by the child and people who are responsible for overseeing the care of that

child need to be able to communicate that experience in court and other settings where decisions will be made."

However, Sanders said that while reunification with the original caregivers is the goal, "it's not a movement to children being with relatives under all circumstances." In addition, relatives must meet the same standards as foster care providers. "I believe those standards are important and it's important for the appropriate credentials to be in place." The court, however, makes the final decision.

Nash noted that he has opened up the court records for investigation by reporters and Sanders said DCFS is conducting an internal review, which is being overseen by the county's Office of Independent Review (OIR). "If it does appear that there has been a neglect of duties on the part of the department, or even where there are clear errors on the part of the department, then we will review it for some kind of personnel action," Nash said.

However, only the OIR review looks at the overall system. "The reality is that we are responsible directly to the Board of Supervisors. That's not true of all of the entities that might be involved in the child protection system, so I don't know what will happen with the OIR and their ability to gather information. We clearly will provide them with information, but I just have no idea how it will work with other systems," said Sanders.

The director is also in favor of making DCFS more transparent. "I came here from a place [Minnesota] where we moved from having the same level of confidentiality [as L.A.], where information was presumed to be confidential and closed in juvenile court to where we were to have it opened. I think that, as a public system, the issue of how information about the system is shared with the public is one that I think needs more debate. It's clearly incumbent upon me to follow the laws the Legislature has laid out. But I think this is an area where you see other states who've pushed to have juvenile court open or child protection matters open more, and my experience in Minnesota was a positive one," Sanders said.

"Why should anyone trust that a system that is not open to the public is not using that as a way to hide behind poor practice or behavior that's unacceptable?" Sanders asked, rhetorically. "Do we want to push legislative change which would allow for some opening of juvenile court? I think that we definitely need to rethink what's been done historically so we don't end up in a situation where the public is demanding answers -- rightfully so -- and there is no way to provide that information. It is one of the reasons why I was so supportive of Office of Independent Review because, while it cannot substitute for a completely open system, it can bring somebody else in who hopefully can provide some information about what they have been able to find -- as they do with the Sheriffs right now ... I would like to do things that would make our operations much more transparent within what we're able to legally do right now and if that includes beginning to challenge more and more what's in place legislatively, then that's something that we need to do."

Another area that bears scrutiny, revealed after photos of Sarah with black eyes were lost, is how DCFS maintains their files. "It's kind of complicated," said Sanders. "There is a state system that all county child protection agencies use and so that system covers a lot of pieces. It doesn't cover everything. Specific example -- adoption is not part of that state system. The court records aren't part of that state system. So there end up being double entries so some information can be pulled off the state system -- others cannot."

Why doesn't DCFS have its own internal computerized system? "Can't do that," Sanders said. "It's prohibited by the state and federal government -- I'm serious. So a county like Los Angeles which has the means to do something like that, can't do it. Literally we can't do it because the federal government provides funding for the computer system that the states develop and the expectation is that all child welfare and child protection information will be entered into that system. So we have done some things, but it's very limited what we're able to do. How bureaucratic does that sound? We could easily develop a Web-based system that would provide all of that information."

Sanders did not say if he would make such a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.