When it comes to child welfare cases, there’s one phrase that gets tossed around frequently—but rarely scrutinized: reasonable efforts.
On paper, it’s a legal standard designed to protect families. Agencies are required to make reasonable efforts to avoid removing children from their homes. If removal is necessary, they’re required to help parents regain custody through reunification services.
But as we heard in our conversation with longtime attorney and advocate Dwight Miller on Torn: The Mirage of Reasonable Efforts this phrase often becomes a catch-all excuse for minimal—sometimes performative—action.
Let’s take a closer look.
What Are Reasonable Efforts?
According to federal and state law, child welfare agencies must take reasonable steps to:
- Prevent the removal of a child from their home;
- Support reunification efforts if the child is removed.
Sounds simple enough, right?
Yet as Miller explains, there’s no clear legal definition in New Jersey—and that ambiguity is by design. “Any effort, no matter how minuscule, will be put before the court, and the court will say it’s reasonable,” he explains.
What counts as reasonable? A phone call to a service provider. A waiting list for rehab. An email to a parenting class coordinator. These baseline actions, whether effective or not, are regularly accepted by courts as fulfilling the agency’s duty.
The Disconnect Between Services and Goals
Here’s the real issue: services are often prescribed in a cookie-cutter fashion, with little connection to the actual challenges families face.
As Miller notes, “They’ll say a person needs family therapy, but they won’t explain why. What issue are we trying to resolve? What’s the goal?” Without intentional planning tied to the core purpose—preserving or reunifying families—services become a checklist, not a support system.
And when a parent doesn’t complete the service—sometimes because it was never properly arranged—they’re labeled uncooperative or resistant.
A System Built on Unequal Standards
The burden of proving readiness for reunification doesn’t fall equally.
Miller has seen firsthand how Black families are held to higher standards. He recalls a case where a family was nearly separated solely due to poverty and crowded housing conditions—three boys in one room, three girls in another. A familiar setup, if you think back to the Brady Bunch. Yet because this was a Black family, the arrangement was seen as inadequate.
Meanwhile, similar challenges among white families are often met with flexibility: in-home monitoring, additional time, or leniency. “The hurdles for Black families are at least twice as high,” says Miller.
The Power Imbalance
One of the most sobering truths? In the child welfare system, the plaintiff (the agency) holds nearly all the power.
- The agency controls access to services.
- The agency controls the reports submitted to court.
- The agency can withhold favorable evidence, while defense attorneys scramble to prove their client’s readiness.
“It’s like a lawsuit where the plaintiff gets to monitor the defendant and use that monitoring against them in court,” says Miller. “That would never fly in any other legal context.”
The Alternative: Active Efforts
There’s another legal standard called “active efforts”, required under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) for Native American children. It demands culturally appropriate, proactive, and documented efforts to support families.
So why don’t we apply this same model to Black families—especially considering the long history of state-sanctioned family separation?
Miller makes the case that post-traumatic slave syndrome, and the generational distrust it creates, must be acknowledged. From cultural misunderstandings (like a caseworker misinterpreting a South Asian family’s request to remove shoes before entering the home) to systemic biases, families of color are often misunderstood and mistreated.
“We have our own healing systems—our own traditions. But the system doesn’t recognize them,” he says.
What Needs to Change?
Miller proposes a few key reforms:
- Third-party service coordination: Remove reunification services from agency control to reduce bias and conflict of interest.
- Equal accountability: Judges must hold agencies to the same standard as parents—missed deadlines, failed follow-ups, and vague plans should carry weight.
- Cultural competence training: Every worker needs to understand the communities they serve.
- A codified definition of reasonable efforts: The ambiguity must end. Real standards need to be measurable and enforceable.
Tips for Parents and Advocates
To wrap the episode, Miller shared three powerful tips for families and defenders:
Document all needs early: Families should tell their attorney exactly what they need—housing help, therapy, job support. Attorneys should follow up with written notice to the agency and court.
Don’t be afraid to advocate: Lawyers must be ready to “shake up the court” when needed. “Sometimes, being agreeable isn’t enough to protect your client,” says Miller.
Always present a united front: Even if disagreements happen behind the scenes, attorneys must defend their clients publicly with unwavering support.
Final Thoughts
The phrase “reasonable efforts” should be a safeguard for families—not a loophole for agencies. When it becomes a low bar instead of a meaningful mandate, children and parents pay the price.
It’s time to raise the standard—and reclaim the narrative.
Let’s keep fighting for families, for fairness, and for a system that truly works in service of reunification.