The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS) is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against parents, including foster parents and other caregivers, as well as children with disabilities. The findings, released today, come after a comprehensive investigation by the DOJ into the practices of the state agency responsible for child welfare.
The DOJ’s investigation revealed that the DCS consistently failed to provide necessary accommodations and effective communication for individuals with disabilities, particularly those with hearing, vision, and cognitive impairments. The agency’s failure to ensure access to services and programs for these families has led to significant barriers, hindering their ability to navigate the child welfare system.
Reported in the findings, “In one case, a couple served as emergency foster parents for a child who is deaf. One
foster parent is deaf and communicates primarily through American Sign Language (ASL). The other foster parent is hearing and fluent in ASL. When the child was placed with the foster parents, the child’s
disability affected her expressive communication—the child was only starting to learn basic ASL
and had no way to share her thoughts, ideas, and feelings with others. The child needed a
Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI)6 to communicate. From the start of the couple’s time as foster
parents, they asked DCS for interpreters for the foster parent, who is deaf, and for the child. The
DCS Case Manager never brought an ASL interpreter or CDI to any home visits, claiming that
the visits would only be fifteen minutes and they would only need to talk to the hearing foster
parent. Yet during the visits, the DCS Case Manager wanted information from both foster
parents, which forced the foster parent who is hearing to interpret for her partner. Similarly, the
only way the DCS Case Manager could communicate with the child was through the hearing
foster parent. Had the child wanted to share any safety or other concerns about the foster
parents, the child could not have done so because DCS never provided the child an interpreter
during these visits.”
Key Findings
The investigation uncovered several instances where DCS failed to comply with ADA requirements, including:
- Failure to Provide Effective Communication: DCS did not ensure that parents or children with hearing disabilities had access to necessary auxiliary aids and services. For example, the agency did not provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters for deaf or hard-of-hearing parents or children, even during critical moments such as meetings regarding child removal.
- Lack of Reasonable Accommodations: DCS did not make necessary accommodations for parents with intellectual or developmental disabilities, even when such accommodations could have helped address concerns. For instance, parents with disabilities were not provided with simple tools like a digital thermometer with color-coded alerts to help them safely manage tasks like testing bathwater temperatures or preparing bottles for their children.
- Unequal Participation in DCS Services: The investigation also found that DCS discriminated against parents with disabilities by assuming, based on stereotypes, that they could not safely care for their children. In one case, a mother with autism and ADHD was delayed in being reunited with her child, with DCS raising concerns based on generalized assumptions about her ability to parent, rather than evaluating her specific capabilities or actions. DOJ Response
Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, emphasized the importance of ensuring equal treatment under the ADA for parents and children with disabilities. “Under the ADA, parents and children with disabilities are entitled to fair and equal treatment by child welfare agencies,” Clarke stated. “Discriminatory actions by child welfare agencies can have devastating and permanent consequences for families. The Civil Rights Division is committed to ensuring that unlawful discrimination does not interfere with a parent’s opportunity to stay with or be reunited with their child.”
U.S. Attorney Gary M. Restaino for the District of Arizona also voiced strong support for addressing these issues. “Parents and children with disabilities deserve to be treated with dignity,” Restaino said. “Our office will continue to work with the Civil Rights Division to ensure that the Department of Child Safety makes meaningful accommodations and that families receive the support they need for better outcomes.”
For another mother, DCS did not provide an ASL interpreter during an investigation and
instead tried unsuccessfully to use a hospital’s VRI to communicate. The VRI kept freezing, and
the VRI interpreter was not certified to interpret the legal discussion the investigator tried having
with the mother. The meeting differed from meetings the investigator would have with parents
who are not deaf because DCS removed this mother’s children without ever communicating with
her in a way that she could understand. When DCS later removed the children a second time,
DCS again did not provide an in-person ASL interpreter. Instead, the DCS case manager tried to
communicate with the mother by standing at the front door and calling the mother to talk through
VRS, even though the mother asked for an in-person ASL interpreter. This is an inappropriate
and ineffective way to use VRS, which is meant to give people with hearing disabilities access to
telephone services. VRS cannot be effectively used in place of in-person interpreters or VRI
because VRS is not designed to provide interpretation services when people are in the same
room, where they would not use a telephone to communicate. In addition, VRS interpreters are
not certified to interpret legal information. For this reason, VRS is not an effective substitute for
VRI or in-person interpreters when DCS employees communicate important legal information to
parents who are deaf or hard of hearing. Because the children being removed in this situation are
also deaf, the lack of an in-person interpreter also meant the case manager could not explain the
removal to the children.
Required Actions
In response to the findings, the DOJ issued a letter to the Arizona DCS outlining the necessary steps to rectify the violations and ensure compliance with the ADA. Among the key requirements are:
- Provision of Effective Communication: DCS must provide ASL interpreters and other auxiliary aids for parents and children with hearing disabilities.
- Reasonable Accommodations for Parents: The agency must offer reasonable accommodations for parents with disabilities to ensure they can safely care for their children. This could include providing accessible tools for tasks like preparing bottles and checking water temperatures.
- Elimination of Discriminatory Assumptions: DCS must discontinue relying on stereotypes and generalizations when making determinations about the safety of children in the care of parents with disabilities. The agency is required to assess individual cases based on actual needs and abilities rather than unsupported assumptions. Broader Implications
The DOJ’s investigation into the Arizona DCS is a reminder of the broader systemic challenges faced by individuals with disabilities, particularly when interacting with state-run agencies that play a key role in child welfare. The findings highlight the importance of ensuring that the rights of parents and children with disabilities are fully protected and that discrimination, whether intentional or not, is not allowed to obstruct family reunification or the safety and well-being of children.
With more than four million parents with disabilities in the U.S., the issue of accessibility in child welfare programs is a significant concern. The DOJ’s actions signal a commitment to enforcing the ADA and ensuring that all families—regardless of disability—have equal access to services and opportunities.
As Arizona DCS works to address these violations, the department will be under scrutiny to implement the necessary changes and provide families with disabilities the support and accommodations they are legally entitled to.
