I strongly urge a no vote on HB1511. The allocation of fatherhood initiative funds and grants within Health and Human Services has created serious conflicts with child abuse intake and investigation processes. Evidence indicates that federal fatherhood initiative funding has interfered with fair and impartial handling of child abuse reports, placing children at increased risk of harm. Financial incentives tied specifically to fatherhood initiatives are influencing decisions in ways that prioritize funding goals over child safety.
There are documented cases in which fathers with criminal records and substantiated abuse histories have been granted full custody, while mothers are separated from their children without just cause. In these situations, child abuse reports appear to be minimized, overlooked, or inadequately investigated. In effect, money is speaking louder than the evidence of abuse.
The same agency should not be responsible both for receiving gender-specific grant funding and for accepting and investigating child abuse allegations. This creates an inherent conflict of interest. Fathers do not require financial incentives to be fathers; the ability and responsibility to parent should not be determined by grant funding. While fatherless households are a real concern, these grants are now producing unintended consequences—children growing up without their mothers, even when those mothers are fit and protective parents.
Caseworkers have increasingly treated abuse allegations against fathers as though they did not occur, failing to conduct thorough investigations. Notably, when the federal fatherhood initiatives were first introduced, official transcripts from those discussions raised concerns about potential interference with child abuse cases. Those concerns are now materializing.
I am requesting the opportunity to testify and present evidence demonstrating how children’s safety has been compromised due to these financial incentives. Without an equivalent investment in motherhood or gender-neutral parenting supports, abuse allegations involving fathers are not being taken seriously, and mothers are losing custody without due process or just cause. These funding motivations are also influencing court proceedings and custody outcomes, even when abuse allegations are central to the case.
When large sums of money are directed into a system favoring one gender, the result is unjust and potentially dishonest outcomes. Before continuing or expanding this funding, the state must first conduct a thorough investigation into how these initiatives are impacting children and families. A comprehensive program evaluation is necessary—one that examines not only positive outcomes, but also the most severe and harmful consequences, which are occurring far too frequently. Children’s safety must come before funding priorities.
Respectfully,
Erica M. Allen Winslow MD, MPH
Founder & Executive Director
Center for the Rights & Protection of Children, Inc.
https://crpcwatch.org/
I strongly urge a no vote on HB1511. The allocation of fatherhood initiative funds and grants within Health and Human Services has created serious conflicts with child abuse intake and investigation processes. Evidence indicates that federal fatherhood initiative funding has interfered with fair and impartial handling of child abuse reports, placing children at increased risk of harm. Financial incentives tied specifically to fatherhood initiatives are influencing decisions in ways that prioritize funding goals over child safety. There are documented cases in which fathers with criminal records and substantiated abuse histories have been granted full custody, while mothers are separated from their children without just cause. In these situations, child abuse reports appear to be minimized, overlooked, or inadequately investigated. In effect, money is speaking louder than the evidence of abuse. The same agency should not be responsible both for receiving gender-specific grant funding and for accepting and investigating child abuse allegations. This creates an inherent conflict of interest. Fathers do not require financial incentives to be fathers; the ability and responsibility to parent should not be determined by grant funding. While fatherless households are a real concern, these grants are now producing unintended consequences—children growing up without their mothers, even when those mothers are fit and protective parents. Caseworkers have increasingly treated abuse allegations against fathers as though they did not occur, failing to conduct thorough investigations. Notably, when the federal fatherhood initiatives were first introduced, official transcripts from those discussions raised concerns about potential interference with child abuse cases. Those concerns are now materializing. I am requesting the opportunity to testify and present evidence demonstrating how children’s safety has been compromised due to these financial incentives. Without an equivalent investment in motherhood or gender-neutral parenting supports, abuse allegations involving fathers are not being taken seriously, and mothers are losing custody without due process or just cause. These funding motivations are also influencing court proceedings and custody outcomes, even when abuse allegations are central to the case. When large sums of money are directed into a system favoring one gender, the result is unjust and potentially dishonest outcomes. Before continuing or expanding this funding, the state must first conduct a thorough investigation into how these initiatives are impacting children and families. A comprehensive program evaluation is necessary—one that examines not only positive outcomes, but also the most severe and harmful consequences, which are occurring far too frequently. Children’s safety must come before funding priorities. Respectfully, Erica M. Allen Winslow MD, MPH Founder & Executive Director Center for the Rights & Protection of Children, Inc. https://crpcwatch.org/