The woman called the newspaper because she was upset.
Her daughters, she said, had been abused by their stepmother. But several weeks had elapsed by the time she found out, and a child-protection worker refused to investigate because "too much time has gone by to make a case."I called the Department of Human Services to find out if that was true - and if, indeed, the case had never been opened.
I was told that the Division of Family Services staff will investigate allegations of abuse, even if some time has passed. The woman was misinformed. Or misinformed me. They said they'd look into it.
But they couldn't, by law, comment on the specific case because to do so would violate confidentiality laws.
Big surprise. I've been bumping up against that particular barrier as long as I've covered Human Services.
The law is designed to protect children and keep them from being identified in the media - or anywhere else. It's a laudable goal.
I believe it is also unnecessary in many ways.
People who work for the media are used to keeping identities confidential. At the Deseret News, for instance, we don't identify minors who have committed crimes unless they are certified as adults. We don't publish the names or addresses of rape victims. And we certainly don't have any urge to identify innocent children who have been the victims of abuse, neglect or other traumatic events.
I can't think of a single instance when local reporters have identified children in personal crisis.
It doesn't bother me that I am unable to peruse state reports to learn about the lives of young victims. It does, however, bother me when someone calls with a serious allegation that our child-protection system is malfunctioning and hurting children and I am powerless to find out if the complaint has merit.
I regularly hear horror stories about that very thing. The ones I don't get go to our assignments editor. And I generally am at a loss to know what to say or do. I end up calling officials in Human Services to ask them to please look into it. I never know if the situation gets corrected.
Sometimes, I wonder who precisely is being protected. The child? Or the system?
Utah is in the middle of trying to settle what could be a costly class-action lawsuit alleging abuse of children by the system that is supposed to protect them.
As a state, we must come up with some way to provide independent oversight while protecting the privacy rights of children. Jerri Blair, the attorney who represented the boy known as Gregory K. who divorced his parents in Florida, said that other states have come up with some solutions and compromises.
Generally, the gag is placed on the reporters covering the system, to prevent them from identifying the children, rather than on the system, which tends to shut out a legitimate public right to know how well a very costly publicly funded government agency works.
I don't think that Utah's claim to being a state that loves children is false. I think the general public genuinely has concern and great caring for youths. And I believe they have a right to know whether or not children are being protected and treated well by the state.
Second-guessing would be a problem, I know. The business of stepping in from outside to examine a family's dynamics and possible dysfunctions is very complex and sometimes boils down to making a best guess about what would be best for the child.
I have talked to many Human Service officials - particularly social workers - who are as frustrated as the media sometimes by the confidentiality laws as they now stand.
If someone makes an allegation, they are unable to fight back in any way. They can't even explain that the reporter is only getting part of the story. They can't fill in the blanks that could significantly change the overall tale.
For social workers who are doing the job to the very best of their ability and putting everything they have into protecting children - and I believe that's most of them - it is very frustrating.
It must also be comforting for the minority who make serious mistakes and generally don't do the job well.
I have to ask: Who's watching the system that watches over children?