Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) are presented as one of the strongest safeguards in child welfare cases.

They are described as neutral.

Independent.

Focused solely on the best interest of the child.

In theory, CASA exists to provide courts with an unbiased view that protects children when systems fall short.

In practice, that promise often breaks down.

What CASA Is Supposed to Do

CASA volunteers are intended to:

• Independently observe a child’s placement
• Verify information provided by agencies
• Speak directly with caregivers, parents, and children
• Report concerns honestly to the court.

They are not meant to replace investigation.

They are meant to strengthen accountability.

The Reality Many Families Experience

For many parents and children, CASA involvement looks very different.

Oversight becomes limited.

Information is filtered.

Recommendations rely heavily on agency narratives.

Instead of independent verification, CASA reports often mirror:

• CPS summaries
• Caseworker impressions
• Existing court assumptions

When this happens, oversight stops being independent and becomes reinforcing.

When Visits Don’t Happen — Or Don’t Matter

One of the most common failures involves visitation and placement monitoring.

In many cases:

• CASA visits are infrequent
• Concerns raised by parents are not independently verified
• Missed visits or limited contact go undocumented
• Placement issues are minimized or delayed

Yet reports still state that the child is “doing well.”

Without consistent observation, those conclusions are not oversight — they are assumptions.

Why This Matters So Much

CASA carries enormous influence.

Judges rely on CASA recommendations.

Attorneys reference CASA reports.

Agencies use CASA support to justify decisions.

When CASA fails to independently investigate, the system loses one of its few checks and balances.

And children lose protection.

Parents Are Rarely Treated as Reliable Sources

When parents raise concerns about placement safety, medical care, or access, those concerns are often dismissed as:

• Emotional
• Biased
• Self-interested

Yet CASA is supposed to listen to all parties — not just agencies.

When parental concerns are ignored instead of examined, oversight becomes selective.

Oversight Without Accountability Isn’t Oversight

CASA volunteers are often overworked, undertrained for complex cases, or limited by access restrictions.

But intent does not replace impact.

When:

• Allegations are not followed up
• Records are not reviewed
• Inconsistencies are not questioned

The result is not protection — it is silence.

What Real Oversight Would Require

Effective oversight means:

• Regular, documented placement visits
• Independent verification of agency claims
• Meaningful attention to parental concerns
• Willingness to report problems — even when uncomfortable

Oversight should challenge power, not reinforce it.

Why This Must Be Said

CASA was created to protect children — not to legitimize failures.

When oversight fails quietly, harm continues quietly.

Children deserve advocates who ask hard questions.

Courts deserve accurate information.

And families deserve a system that does more than check boxes.

Accountability is not hostility.

Transparency is not conflict.

And oversight that cannot withstand scrutiny is not oversight at all.

Author: Alexis Landrum