Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Adoption highlights concerns
By JONATHAN CLAYBORNE, News Editor
Two Beaufort County commissioners recently fielded a complaint about an adoption case, leading to a meeting with the director of the county Department of Social Services and a warning about potential legal consequences.
According to a memorandum from DSS head Jim Harriett, commissioners Hood Richardson and Stan Deatherage assembled with Harriett to discuss the case. The meeting was arranged by County Manager Paul Spruill.
Spruill later said it’s not uncommon for commissioners to meet with county officials to discuss their constituents’ feelings about services.
The meeting may have underscored tension between Deatherage and Richardson and DSS staff, whom the pair have criticized heavily in the past.
During an interview Monday night, the two commissioners said they were acting in response to a constituent’s complaint about the amount of time it was taking to process an adoption case. The meeting apparently took place in private.
“I advised Commissioners Deatherage and Richardson that I would look into the matter but would not be able to respond to them as to whether the agency even had an adoption case open,” Harriett wrote in a Dec. 30, 2005, memo to commissioners’ Chairman Jay McRoy, whom Harriett said is the appropriate recipient of commissioners’ information requests.
“I explained to Commissioners Richardson and Deatherage that all matters related to adoptions was confidential and sealed,” Harriett continued, citing a state statute backing up his claim.
Harriett first directed the commissioners to N.C. General Statute Chapter 48, Article 1-100, which reads that the General Assembly feels it’s in the public’s interest to “promote the integrity and finality of adoptions, to encourage prompt, conclusive disposition” of cases and “provide for the needs and protect the interests of all parties to an adoption, particularly adopted minors.”
“I can not acquiesce in or permit any disclosure of information, should I have any information,” Harriett followed up. “If the issue were to be brought before the public that disclosure would be illegal. A disclosure of confidential information would be illegal disclosure by the commissioners, if they were to be successful in acquiring and publicizing such information.”
Requests and concerns aired by the two commissioners led Harriett to release 93 pages of documentation, many with front-and-back printing. The documents spell out some of the various responsibilities of DSS but do not directly address individual cases.
Richardson declined to talk specifically about the case. He did argue he could speak about the matter if the parties involved granted a release allowing him to talk about it publicly.
Harriett couldn’t be reached for additional comment Wednesday.
During Monday’s interview, Richardson said he and Deatherage did not intend to intervene in the adoption issue and that their goal was to point out what they see as inefficiency in DSS operations.
“The reason Stan and I got involved in this was not because we were pushing adoptions or anything like that,” he said, “but because we discovered that there were employees in the Social Services Department that were not doing their job. Adoptions were being held up because some very simple things were not being done that are required to be done.”
Richardson said the case had been in progress for months, but it was finished quickly after he and Deatherage pointed out what they saw as flaws in the way it was being handled.
“My purpose in getting involved in this involves efficiencies within the department,” he said. “It’s not to delve into the cases within the department. But when we hear about cases where things are not moving as they should and the public is complaining, the reason those are county employees is so the county commissioners can provide some supervision.”
In the Dec. 30 memo, Harriett explained that “the adoptions and foster care unit had been short a worker and work should be backed up.”
“For the benefit of the Commissioners,” he wrote, “I would like to add that the workers in this unit are responsible for training foster parents, licensing foster homes, monitoring foster homes, arranging placements for children coming into custody, ongoing needs of children in the custody of the agency, adoption studies, and ongoing adoptions assistance.”
Yet, Harriett agreed that “the lapse of time (Richardson and Deatherage) quoted in filling a home study would have been excessive.” He wrote that the two commissioners replied they felt DSS was “unresponsive both to them and their constituency,” a statement Richardson said was erroneous.
“I explained to them that the agency operates within the strict confines of federal and state law,” Harriett wrote.
Richardson said there is no liability issue unless he talks about a case in public.
“It’s a political question when employees are not doing their job,” he said. “We’re not delving into the specifics of anybody’s adoption. Don’t want to.”
According to a memorandum from DSS head Jim Harriett, commissioners Hood Richardson and Stan Deatherage assembled with Harriett to discuss the case. The meeting was arranged by County Manager Paul Spruill.
Spruill later said it’s not uncommon for commissioners to meet with county officials to discuss their constituents’ feelings about services.
The meeting may have underscored tension between Deatherage and Richardson and DSS staff, whom the pair have criticized heavily in the past.
During an interview Monday night, the two commissioners said they were acting in response to a constituent’s complaint about the amount of time it was taking to process an adoption case. The meeting apparently took place in private.
“I advised Commissioners Deatherage and Richardson that I would look into the matter but would not be able to respond to them as to whether the agency even had an adoption case open,” Harriett wrote in a Dec. 30, 2005, memo to commissioners’ Chairman Jay McRoy, whom Harriett said is the appropriate recipient of commissioners’ information requests.
“I explained to Commissioners Richardson and Deatherage that all matters related to adoptions was confidential and sealed,” Harriett continued, citing a state statute backing up his claim.
Harriett first directed the commissioners to N.C. General Statute Chapter 48, Article 1-100, which reads that the General Assembly feels it’s in the public’s interest to “promote the integrity and finality of adoptions, to encourage prompt, conclusive disposition” of cases and “provide for the needs and protect the interests of all parties to an adoption, particularly adopted minors.”
“I can not acquiesce in or permit any disclosure of information, should I have any information,” Harriett followed up. “If the issue were to be brought before the public that disclosure would be illegal. A disclosure of confidential information would be illegal disclosure by the commissioners, if they were to be successful in acquiring and publicizing such information.”
Requests and concerns aired by the two commissioners led Harriett to release 93 pages of documentation, many with front-and-back printing. The documents spell out some of the various responsibilities of DSS but do not directly address individual cases.
Richardson declined to talk specifically about the case. He did argue he could speak about the matter if the parties involved granted a release allowing him to talk about it publicly.
Harriett couldn’t be reached for additional comment Wednesday.
During Monday’s interview, Richardson said he and Deatherage did not intend to intervene in the adoption issue and that their goal was to point out what they see as inefficiency in DSS operations.
“The reason Stan and I got involved in this was not because we were pushing adoptions or anything like that,” he said, “but because we discovered that there were employees in the Social Services Department that were not doing their job. Adoptions were being held up because some very simple things were not being done that are required to be done.”
Richardson said the case had been in progress for months, but it was finished quickly after he and Deatherage pointed out what they saw as flaws in the way it was being handled.
“My purpose in getting involved in this involves efficiencies within the department,” he said. “It’s not to delve into the cases within the department. But when we hear about cases where things are not moving as they should and the public is complaining, the reason those are county employees is so the county commissioners can provide some supervision.”
In the Dec. 30 memo, Harriett explained that “the adoptions and foster care unit had been short a worker and work should be backed up.”
“For the benefit of the Commissioners,” he wrote, “I would like to add that the workers in this unit are responsible for training foster parents, licensing foster homes, monitoring foster homes, arranging placements for children coming into custody, ongoing needs of children in the custody of the agency, adoption studies, and ongoing adoptions assistance.”
Yet, Harriett agreed that “the lapse of time (Richardson and Deatherage) quoted in filling a home study would have been excessive.” He wrote that the two commissioners replied they felt DSS was “unresponsive both to them and their constituency,” a statement Richardson said was erroneous.
“I explained to them that the agency operates within the strict confines of federal and state law,” Harriett wrote.
Richardson said there is no liability issue unless he talks about a case in public.
“It’s a political question when employees are not doing their job,” he said. “We’re not delving into the specifics of anybody’s adoption. Don’t want to.”
 |
 |
|
| Board OKs plat for proposed Pamlico Shores project | Martin’s ‘angel’ is honored |
