The Page One article, "Mom wasn't likely to lose custody" (Honolulu Advertiser, Jan. 31, regarding the Cyrus Belt case) may confuse readers about the role of Family Court and lead readers to assume that the courts have somehow been derelict in their duties. This confusion is a disservice to Cyrus' memory and also to the community that relies upon Family Court to protect our children. Therefore, I would like to clarify the situation.

The Department of Human Services did not bring this case to the Family Court. We make no judgments about its actions or inactions. We see no need to second-guess the results of their six separate investigations, despite the tragedy of Cyrus' death.

The community, however, should not be left with the impression that the law that Family Court applies requires actual severe abuse and injuries or that "just" substance abuse is not enough. Our laws allow the Family Court to intervene and to place children in foster care based on, among other factors, threatened harm (even if there are no physical injuries). This is true whether the threat is caused by substance abuse, mental illness or other factors.

According to the article, Child Protective Services investigators were convinced that the mother was no longer guilty of either drug abuse or child neglect; thus they saw no need to refer the case to Family Court.

The article states, however, that "[t]o remove a child, the parents have to be found to severely abuse and neglect the child." The DHS director stated that "(DHS) would have had to show that (the mother's) direct actions would have put the child in harm's way."

These "standards" are not found in the law and not found in Family Court policies.

To suggest that nothing would have been done by Family Court unless the situation rose to the level of "severe abuse and neglect" is both wrong and irresponsible. While termination of parental rights is clearly an option of last resort, removal of a child from a home where there is parental substance abuse leading to child abuse or neglect, is an action Family Court judges, sadly, make on a daily basis.

Family Court judges simply do not permit children to remain in a home with parents who are clearly abusing or neglecting their child, whether or not they are using drugs. The only way Family Court would permit a child to remain in the parent's custody after known parental substance abuse is if there has been demonstrated compliance with a service plan addressing both the parent's substance abuse and the child's safety and well-being.

Parents must demonstrate a clean and sober lifestyle for a period of time (usually three months or more) before Family Court considers a transition toward reunifying children with their parents.

Moreover, when children are reunified with parents who have demonstrated continued sobriety (and thus a "safe home" for their children) the Family Court continues to monitor the family's progress for six months and up to a year before a case is closed.

To suggest that Family Court would not have taken action had it been presented with a petition alleging substance abuse or child abuse or neglect by the custodial parents is patently wrong. To allow this erroneous impression to go uncorrected could cause further harm because people may conclude that reporting potential child abuse or neglect associated with substance abuse serves no purpose, as nothing will be done to protect the child.

This is not the message that Family Court believes should be delivered at this time of great sadness in our community. Family Court simply does not turn a deaf ear to children in need of its attention. In Cyrus' memory, we all must reaffirm our commitment to, and redouble our efforts to protect, our vulnerable children.

Thomas R. Keller is administrative director of the state courts. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.