Why does the child welfare system always seem to have money to remove children, but not enough to help families stay together?

In this episode of Torn, Sonia Johnson and Classie Colinet speak with Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, about the financial structure behind family policing in the United States.

Drawing from decades of reporting and advocacy, Wexler breaks down how federal funding streams reward foster care, institutionalization, and adoption while limiting direct support for families.

What happens when the system refuses to name race in a system where race shapes everything?

In this episode of Torn, we welcome back Maleeka Jihad (MJ) for a direct and unfiltered conversation about how racial bias operates within the child welfare system—and why avoiding conversations about race allows harm to continue.

From the concept of “best interest” to visitation, diagnoses, and so-called “evidence-based” practices, MJ challenges the idea that these decisions are neutral. Instead, she examines how they are often shaped by bias, opinion, and frameworks that were never designed with Black and Brown families in mind.

This conversation speaks directly to what many advocates experience in their work:

• Decisions made without cultural understanding or relevant expertise
• Policies that exist on paper but are not followed in practice
• Parenting standards that reflect one perspective, not all families
• Systems that rely on opinion rather than research or science

MJ also breaks down how commonly used concepts—like attachment theory and evidence-based services—can be misapplied or weaponized when used without context, particularly for families of color.

If race were centered honestly in child welfare, the system would be forced to reckon with how it defines safety, parenting, and “best interest”—and who those definitions truly serve.

In this episode of Torn, we go beyond policy and take a closer look at what advocates, attorneys, and families are seeing in real time: how hospital practices—particularly drug testing, consent, and reporting—can lead to child welfare involvement.

Joined by nurse scientist Dr. Kelly McGlothen Bell, we examine how decisions made in clinical settings can have immediate and lasting consequences for families. From unclear consent processes to inconsistent testing practices, this conversation highlights how routine care can quickly shift into investigation.

We explore:

• The critical difference between drug screening and drug testing

• How consent is often misunderstood or not fully informed

• Why testing practices can be inconsistent and influenced by bias

• How and when information is shared with child welfare agencies

• The impact these practices have on trust, care-seeking, and maternal health outcomes

This episode also centers what is often overlooked: the importance of bonding, stability, and support in the immediate postpartum period—and how quickly that can be disrupted.

For those working in child welfare and family defense, this conversation reflects a familiar reality: Cases that begin in hospitals, where decisions are made quickly, often without full context, and where the consequences extend far beyond the delivery room.

At its core, this episode asks:
What would it look like to move from surveillance and reporting toward care and support?

🎧 Listen to the full episode to better understand how hospital practices shape system involvement—and what needs to change.

Follow Torn on LinkedIn.

Learn more about Dr. Kelly McGlothen Bell.