Family Battles State Over Newborn Healthcare Treatment

Pregnant woman holding her belly, sitting comfortably.

Rodney and Temecia Jackson’s fight for parental rights shines a light on allegations of racial bias within the Texas child welfare system.

Key Takeaways

The Jackson family faced the removal of their newborn after choosing to treat jaundice at home, leading to a legal battle with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS).
The Jacksons’ lawsuit highlights a lack of due process in DFPS’s designation procedures and seeks policy reform and accountability.
Amidst racial disparity claims, the case underscores how Black families may face undue scrutiny in child welfare investigations.
The Jacksons argue their inclusion in the abuse registry was unjust, without adequate hearings or evidence, challenging racial biases and procedural inadequacies.

DFPS and Legal Challenges

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) maintains a central registry that tracks child abuse and neglect cases. The registry includes cases that Child Protective Services (CPS) investigates under a “reason to believe” disposition. Once a CPS investigation labels someone as a sustained perpetrator or links them to an ongoing investigation, they appear on the abuse registry, which has significant repercussions on individuals’ lives.

The Jacksons contend their decision was medically guided and safe. They allege the state’s intervention and their subsequent registry listing were without due process. They are now suing DFPS to erase their record, amend policy oversight, and instigate reforms to prevent other families from similar ordeals.

Racial Disparities and CPS

The Jacksons’ experience is emblematic of broader concerns about racial bias in child welfare practices. Studies show that Black families face disproportionate CPS investigations, exacerbating an already vulnerable situation. The Jacksons argue that should never have happened without substantial evidence, advocating for procedural reforms that uphold constitutional rights and rectify racial disparities.

According to Charelle Lett, attorney at ACLU Texas, “The Jackson family’s experience highlights how Black families are often unfairly targeted by a child welfare system that fails to understand or respect their choices. Across Texas, Black and Brown families are disproportionately reported to CPS—even when they’ve done nothing wrong—due to racial stereotypes and deeply ingrained cultural biases. The Jacksons should have never had to go through this. It’s our hope that their story can be a catalyst for change that ensures procedural safeguards for parents unjustly accused of abusing or neglecting their children.”

The trauma of DFPS’s actions extended beyond their newborn’s return. The Jacksons, in particular, remain haunted by the fear of recurrence and seek to hold DFPS accountable. This struggle reflects a critical need for accountability and transparency about child welfare interventions.

Advocating for Change

With the lawsuit, the Jacksons push for alteration in DFPS’s policy framework, demanding due process and racial equality. Their advocacy puts a spotlight on how DFPS policies can disrupt family lives without just cause. They seek to ensure no other family suffers the same treatment, emphasizing procedural safeguards in child welfare cases.

The Jacksons issued this statement: “When our daughter was just seven days old, she was taken from our home under an invalid court order. She should have been safe in our arms. Instead, she was abruptly separated from us, losing the vital bond every newborn needs. We were left fearing for her well-being. She is now a healthy and thriving toddler, but our family is still healing from the nightmare that DFPS caused. We will never get that stolen time back. No parent should ever have to experience the trauma of being torn from their baby. We hope the court’s power to hold DFPS accountable means that no other family has to endure our pain—simply for choosing midwifery.”

The controversy over home treatment of newborn jaundice has become a poignant representation of the challenges faced nationally by families navigating a system presumed to protect children yet plagued with procedural inconsistencies and biases.