Case Studies of Families Involved with Welfare and Child Welfare

127the child welfare agency was helpful, especially given that she was subject to the familycap and therefore received no TANF benefits for her youngest child. An increasedincome was a necessity, and SSI was a viable and meaningful alternative. To expectFrancesca to succeed as both a recovering addict and a parent of two children, given her(pre-SSI) cash income of $505 per month, seems unrealistic. Attempting legal means ofemployment, however (as suggested in her child welfare case plan), seems even moreunrealistic. What kinds of supports might have been provided through the welfaredepartment, or the child welfare agency, that might have helped to prevent the children’sreentry into foster care?The exact nature of the events that led to the children’s removal in May, 2001,remains unclear. They are difficult to assess based only on Francesca’s frank insistencethat she did nothing to harm her children, that she had not relapsed into drug use, and thatshe is in fact a victim of a misguided CPS intervention. By Francesca’s own admission,however, she had spent time with people who were actively using drugs. She realized theriskiness of these associations, but felt trapped by her current need for regular visits to themethadone clinic, and her need for contact with friends. Perhaps the dilemmas faced byFrancesca, including the effects of her precarious economic situation, are bestexemplified by her decision to accept a ride home from the methadone clinic from peoplewho she knew to be actively using drugs. This decision saved her the expense of a busride and a significant amount of time, and offered her a chance for social interaction withother familiar adults, but it also may have contributed to a negative outcome forFrancesca and her children.