Over the past few weeks, I’ve read a number of PBS and ProPublica articles regarding US child welfare policy. Interestingly, all of them critique signature reforms enacted during the Clinton Administration. Here’s a brief summary of each:
1 in 100 kids lose legal ties to their parents by the time they turn 18. This new bill aims to help.
PBS writes here about Rep. Karen Bass’ 21st Century Children and Families Act, which would overturn the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). That law was itself designed to end “foster care drift” and speed up safe, stable, permanent placement for children either back with their families or in adoption or permanent guardianship settings. Those interviewed regarding the legislation argue that states should be helping families keep their children and reunify with them, and that the time limits imposed by ASFA are needlessly destroying families.
States send kids to foster care and their parents the bill — often one too big to pay
Another PBS story highlights the fact that for the past 40 years, federal law has authorized states to collect child support from parents when their children are in foster care. Although the story rightly dates the genesis of the law back to the Reagan administration, it’s important to note that child support enforcement really grew teeth during the Clinton Administration with the passage of the “Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act.”
A mother needed welfare. Instead, the state used welfare funds to take her son.
Here, ProPublica critiques the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which renamed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children law to “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families” (TANF), turned the program into a block grant, and allowed states to use those funds in broader ways. Arizona and Georgia, for example, rely heavily on the TANF block grant to fund child welfare activities. The article’s suggestion is that instead of using TANF to support this mother financially, the state used those funds on child protective services efforts that resulted in the removal of her child to foster care.
Are these articles reflective of a trend in the US toward a greater focus on parental rights and needs vs. children’s rights and needs? We all know the pendulum swings back and forth in child welfare between the two extremes. It’ll be interesting to see if the current direction continues.
In other news:
Montana’s legislative auditor has published a critique of the state’s child welfare agency suggesting the 115% increase in the foster care population between 2010 and 2019 was due to the agency’s not moving children quickly enough to permanency.
The solution to Texas’ crisis with children and youth being placed in hotels and other unsuitable facilities is to expand mental health services such as therapeutic foster care, according to an expert panel. You can read all the recommendations here.
Indiana may be joining the growing number of states ensuring that children involved in juvenile court dependency proceedings have lawyers.
Following up on my column about child medical tourism, a bill has been introduced in the UK parliament to allow parents the right to take a child abroad for medical treatment.
Here’s a story about Texas’ “Safe Haven” law that allows mothers who simply can’t parent to surrender their newborn child at an appropriate facility. After meeting with Georgia’s Hope Box folks this week, I see a need to reform these laws and make sure these children who are given up can be quickly adopted.
That’s all for today. Your brain is probably full, anyway. Please keep the suggestions and feedback coming!