Kinship care
We need to support voluntary kin caregivers.
There’s an interesting article in the New York Times this week discussing the Biden Administration’s proposal to add billions of dollars to support “kinship care.” An Administration for Children and Families press release contains a few more details. South Carolina, like other states, is also expanding funding for kinship care.
I think most folks can agree that, in the majority of cases, children are better off with kin than with strangers, at least as long as those kin (1) already have a strong relationship with the child; (2) live nearby, so as to avoid disrupting the child’s other connections; and (3) have the capacity to care for the child.
It’s that third criteria that these kinship funding initiatives seek to bolster. But there are questions left unanswered. First is the definition of “kinship care.” Are we talking about children who are actually in the custody of the state but who are placed with kin? Second is the type of support given. The NYT article suggests that the funding will be provided through the Safe and Stable Families Program, which in my experience has primarily been a program to fund agencies providing services to children.
Here’s what kinship caregivers need:
Benefits that will enable them to care for a relative’s child even if that child is not in the formal custody of the child welfare agency. In other words, if a family takes in a relative through a “voluntary kinship placement,” that family should be eligible for benefits.
The benefits need to include subsidized childcare. In my experience, the expense of childcare is the major obstacle to getting relatives to care for their kin who are involved with the agency. Kinship caregivers who are caring for a child in a voluntary placement at the behest of the child welfare agency should automatically qualify for subsidized childcare.
(Remember that here we’re primarily talking about short-term voluntary placements. We also need to consider relatives for longer-term placements, including relatives who may live abroad. H/T to my friend Julie Rosicky at International Social Services).
A dedicated case manager. Too often, if a child is in a “safety resource” or “voluntary kinship” placement, the agency is focused on dealing with the parent’s issues and pays little attention to the kin caregiver’s needs for assistance. Case managers need to be providing these voluntary placements with assistance in transportation, addressing the child’s trauma, ensuring medical care for the child, and the like.
Of course, it’d be best if these voluntary kinship caregivers also received a monthly stipend to help with the costs of raising a “bonus” child.
We’ll see what the federal government comes up with. But until the day when we treat voluntary kinship caregivers as valuable assets in our child protection network, I’m not expecting much.
In other news:
Haaland v. Brackeen, the Supreme Court challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act, is up for oral arguments on November 9. Here are some recent op-eds for and against upholding the law.
The news out of Savannah is that Quinton Simon, the 20-month old toddler missing since October 5, is presumed deceased and that his mother is the prime suspect in his disappearance. Although there are reports that DFCS had an open case on the child, the agency is refusing to release records. If the child is in fact deceased, those records would be available to the press and public.
I’m glad to see that NBC News is highlighting the issue of “children without placement,” or children in foster care who are living in offices or hotels. As Texas Judge Aurora Martinez Jones told reporters, many of these children are in need of significant mental health services. She’s doing her best to forge a coalition of providers to address those needs.
The Today Show recently highlighted Connecticut’s success at reunifying children in foster care with their families.
More articles are out in the AJC series on children’s mental health.
For the fourteenth bazillionth time, people! Absent voluntary and knowing consent, a child protective services search of a parent’s home absent a court order violates the 4th Amendment.