State failing to spur kinship custody - Virginia

4.6% of foster kids stay with relatives in 2010 - lowest in the nation

Virginia ranks last in the nation when it comes to asking relatives to become foster parents, even though promoting such so-called "kinship care" is official state policy.

Only 4.6 percent of kids in foster care were with relatives in 2010, well below the national average of 24 percent, the Virginia Commission on Youth reported to the General Assembly this week.

For one Staunton family, the Simms, who have been trying to win custody of a cousin's infant, the finding is no surprise.

"I really don't know what to say," added Sylvia Simms. Licensed as a day care provider and as a treatment foster parent, she and her husband, Army veteran William Simms, say they've been rebuffed and misled by local social workers in their efforts to care for the infant.

The infant's foster care plan, prepared by the social workers, contradicts findings by the infant's court-appointed guardian ad litem, who had recommended placing the infant with the Simms. The social services department has declined to comment, beyond saying there are two sides to every story and saying the state's policy is to encourage kinship care.

The commission reported "the negative perception held by child welfare workers 'that the apple does not fall far from the tree,'" was one reason why kinship care lagged in Virginia.

In addition, it said, many Virginians object to the idea that people be paid to care for relatives who need foster care.

But the commission also reported caregivers looking after relatives find it is tough to get help with health care, child care, housing and mental health services that children in foster care are supposed to get.

In many cases, such caregivers don't know, or aren't told, they are entitled to welfare, help with health care coverage or for a wide range of other support services intended for children in foster care, the commission said.

It recommended the state Department of Social Services move forward with its previously announced plans to create an assistance program to help people providing foster care to relatives.

It also asked the state Department of Education to ensure school systems understood they could not assume children in foster care with relatives were not local residents and therefore not entitled to free schooling.

The commission also suggested Virginia re-examine its list of crimes that permanently bars people from taking relatives into foster care, noting these can include single instances of misdemeanor drug possession.

Source http://www.newsleader.com/article/20120114/NEWS01/201140323

Number of American Indian children in foster care worries tribal leaders - Minnesota

by Sasha Aslanian

St. Paul, Minn. — Each year about 1,500 American Indian children in Minnesota spend time in foster care or other out-of-home-care, often after allegations of neglect or substance abuse by a parent.

In Minnesota, American Indian children are 14 times more likely to be placed in out-of-home care than white children - the widest such gap in the nation. Officials place 66 percent of the children with relatives or with American Indian foster families.

Even as the total number of Minnesota children in foster care dropped 44 percent in the last decade, the number of American Indian children placed in foster care dropped by only 16 percent.

That worries tribal officials like Erma Vizenor, chairwoman of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe. She said the tribes should be able to determine which of their families need intervention, and what kind.

"When we do not have the decision making and the authority and the control to determine what is best for them, it has become a major concern," Vizenor said.

Aiming to reduce the break-up of Indian families, the White Earth and the Leech Lake band of Ojibwe have taken over responsibility for child welfare on tribal lands. Now the White Earth, Minnesota's largest tribe, is now preparing to care for its children living hundreds of miles away in Hennepin County.

High poverty among American Indian families makes it more difficult to meet a child's basic needs, but that doesn't completely explain why Indian children are much more likely to be removed from their parents' care.

The tribes have questioned whether racial bias is a factor in such decisions, and they've worked with state officials to develop training for county workers to reduce bias in deciding which cases to investigate. The training also seeks to help outsiders understand the traditional role extended families play in raising Indian children.

Dawn Blanchard, the state's ombudsperson for American Indian Families, said removing American Indian children from their homes is "a daily reality."

Blanchard sorts cases into those she can solve over the phone, and those that require an investigation. She reports wide variation in how well counties follow a federal law designed to keep Indian children with other family members, or to at least place them with an Indian foster family.

Blanchard said the most common complaints she handles are disagreements between county social workers and tribes over where children should go.

"The tribe will say we want them to go to Aunt Betty and the county will say, 'we have problems with Aunt Betty. We think that she's not a good person,' " Blanchard said. "Maybe she's too old. 'We've heard' — that's a big one 'we've heard that she's drinking.' Is it substantiated? Do we know for sure if she has a history of drinking or was it 10 or 15 years ago and she's cleaned up her life now?"

Representatives of Minnesota's 11 tribes were so concerned that the needs of their children were not adequately addressed that late last year they sent letters to then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Gov.-elect Mark Dayton requesting immediate action to address the problem.

White Earth tribal officials want to take on responsibility for the tribe's children in Hennepin County, hundreds of miles south of the reservation. White Earth children make up a quarter of Hennepin County's American Indian caseload, or about 2 percent of the county's overall cases.

Margaret Thunder, a program manager for Hennepin County child protection, is enthusiastic about the tribe's effort.

"I think it's a huge deal," said Thunder, a member of the Red Lake band of Ojibwe. "They will have 100-percent say. Not that they don't already have a fair percent."

Tribes do have a seat at the table in child protection cases.

The 1978 federal Indian Child Welfare Act requires tribes be notified and involved in decision-making for their children. Hennepin County, with its large urban Indian population, has a high volume of these cases. The county gets high marks for complying with the act, and that's one of the reasons White Earth officials believe addressing the needs of the tribe's children there is a next logical step.

Transferring such cases to the tribe would give it complete control over American Indian cases such as a recent one heard in juvenile court.

Four children, ages 4, 2, 1 and one month, were placed in emergency foster care following reports that their parents were abusing drugs and neglecting the children. The parents didn't show up for the court hearing. Their father is a member of the White Earth band and their mother is enrolled in the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin.

"Her current address is technically St. Joseph's hospital where the treatment center was," said Mike Hogan, a courtroom monitor for the Minneapolis American Indian Center. "No one's quite sure where she is, even her attorney."

A Ho-Chunk attorney who joined the hearing by speaker phone said the tribe would prepare a list of relatives who could care for the children. White Earth officials agreed to let the mother's tribe take the lead, but they agreed to compile a list of paternal relatives.

A guardian ad litem said the children were doing well under the care of their foster care families.

Hogan's boss, Sheri Riemers, said the embrace of extended families offers the most hopeful outcome for children in such tough situations.

"We do believe when children are removed that their spirit is left behind," said Riemers, program director of Indian Child Welfare for the Minneapolis American Indian Center.

Other tribes around the state and around the country are watching closely.

Erin Sullivan Sutton, assistant commissioner of the state Department of Human Services, said she is not aware of another state transferring public child welfare from a state or county to a tribal system. But there are good reasons to do so, said Sutton, the state's point person on child welfare.

"We're thinking that if services can be provided in a cultural context to Indian families and by tribal agencies that there may be more success," she said.

For state and tribal officials success won't mean eliminating out-of-home placements. There will always be children who need to be removed from unsafe situations, but they hope more tribal involvement will reduce the disparate treatment of American Indian children.

Vizenor said the Hennepin County program could be the beginning of an ambitious venture to expand care for children living off the reservation.

"Without a doubt, I know we will be successful and gradually, we will phase in the metro area and eventually all our children in the state of Minnesota," she said.

White Earth and the state will present a report to the legislature in January. The timeline for the Hennepin County transfer, and the costs, are still to be determined.

Source http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/30/american-indian-children-foster-care/

Report: S.D. skirts law protecting Native American children

By Melanie Eversley, USA TODAY

Thirty-two states are failing to abide by the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law passed by Congress in 1978 to stop thousands of Native American children from being forcibly removed from their families and being sent to boarding schools, where they were abused, or into other abusive conditions, a National Public Radio investigation has found.

The problem is most pronounced in South Dakota, NPR reports.

"Cousins are disappearing, family members are disappearing," Peter Lengkeek, a Crow Creek Tribal Council member, tells NPR. "It's kidnapping. That's how we see it."

About 700 Native American children in South Dakota are removed from their homes, some of them under questionable circumstances, NPR finds. The majority of those placed in foster care are sent to non-native homes or group homes, although the Child Welfare Act requires that Native American children must be placed with their relatives or tribes, except in rare circumstances.

South Dakota state officials say they have to do what's in the best interest of the child.

"We come from a stance of safety," Virgena Wieseler of South Dakota's Department of Social Services tells NPR. "That's our overarching goal with all children. If they can be returned to their parent or returned to a relative and be safe and that safety can be managed, then that's our goal."

Critics say the situation appears to be financially lucrative for foster care providers, one of whom has ties with state officials, NPR reports.

Source http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/10/report-south-dakota-skirts-law-protecting-native-american-children/1

Panel won’t delve deeper into Arizona CPS woes

by Mary K. Reinhart on Oct. 21, 2011

An Arizona legislative committee, apparently satisfied that the state’s child-welfare agency has adequately responded to problems raised by three state audits since 2009, declined to delve deeper Thursday into broader troubles within the system.

Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, co-chair of the committee, said after the hearing that she wanted to see what comes from a child-safety task force before deciding whether to hold additional hearings on Child Protective Services. Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to name members of the task force in the next few days. Brewer wants recommendations from the task force by Dec. 31.

But during public testimony, several people said critical problems within the CPS need urgent attention.

“I think the system is struggling greatly – all aspects of the system,” said Dana Wolfe Naimark, CEO of Children’s Action Alliance. “What we’ve heard today really doesn’t tell you the story of CPS.”

One of the audits, from September 2009, said the agency inconsistently reviewed relatives willing to take temporary custody of children and failed to properly document efforts to place children with relatives. The agency has since implemented specific guidelines for workers to assess the fitness of relatives and is still working on getting staff to better document efforts to find relatives.

About one-third of Arizona’s foster children live with relatives.

Clarence Carter, director of the Department of Economic Security, which oversees CPS, said in response to a question that grandparents and other relatives who take in foster children have access to all the services that unrelated foster families and shelter operators do.

“The fact that a child is placed with a relative doesn’t change the needs of that child,” Carter told Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix.

But Suzanne Schunk, director of family services for Southwest Human Development, told the committee that grandparents and other relatives don’t get the same support as foster parents. They aren’t paid to care for the kids, and they often can’t find services that the children need or can’t afford to pay for them, she said.

Landrum Taylor agreed.

“A lot of times they’re unable to do it, so it just doesn’t happen,” she said.

And Brenda Gloria of Phoenix, who cares for two grandchildren, said CPS caseworkers gave their parents too many chances. She said it was heartbreaking to have the children sent back home year after year, only to be removed and returned to her.

CPS supervisors also are reviewing a backlog of nearly 10,000 inactive abuse and neglect cases and trying out a streamlined investigation process that could shave weeks off the average case, which now takes five to six months to complete.

Source http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/10/21/panel-wont-delve-deeper-into-cps-woes/

Is Kinship Care Good for Kids?

by Tiffany Conway and Rutledge Q. Hutson

March 2, 2007

More than 2.5 million children are being raised by grandparents and other relatives because their parents are unable—for a variety of reasons—to care for them. 1 These relative caregivers are willing to care for the children—but they may require financial help in order to meet the children’s needs. A number of states have utilized subsidized guardianship programs as a way of supporting such families, often called “kinship families.” Such placements help the child to, among other things, maintain family—and oftentimes community—connections. These programs provide subsidies to relatives and, in some cases, other interested, non-relative adults who are caring for and have a close emotional bond with children who are not biologically their own.

Subsidized guardianship is consistent with national policy preferences espoused in both the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997,2 and there is considerable evidence of the value of subsidized guardianship programs. Still, some wonder whether kinship care is a good thing—and how we know this. This fact sheet addresses these often unasked but crucial questions.

Children in kinship care experience greater stability.

􀂾 Children in kinship foster care have been found to experience fewer placement changes than children placed with non-kin foster parents do.3

􀂾 Multiple studies indicate the value of placing siblings together, when safe and appropriate.4 Perhaps equally as important, children in foster care consistently express the desire to be with their siblings. Research has shown that children in foster care are more likely to live with their siblings if they are placed with kin.5

􀂾 Fewer children in kinship care report having changed schools (63 percent) than do children in non-relative foster care (80 percent) or those in group care (93 percent).6

􀂾 Children who reunify with their birth parent(s) after kinship care are less likely to re-enter foster care than those who had been in non-relative foster placements or in group care facilities.7

􀂾 The Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR) are designed to ensure that states are achieving safety, permanency, and child and family well-being. Kinship care bolsters states’ ability to comply with federal requirements by providing children with stability and permanency.8

Children in kinship care report more positive perceptions of their placements and have fewer behavioral problems.

􀂾 Compared to children in non-relative foster care and those in group care, children in kinship care are:

􀀹 More likely to report liking those with whom they live (93 percent vs. 79 percent [non-relative foster care] and 51 percent [group care])

􀀹 More likely to report wanting their current placement to be their permanent home (61 percent vs. 27 percent and 2 percent)9

􀀹 Less likely to report having tried to leave or run away (6 percent vs. 16 percent and 35 percent)10

􀀹 More likely to report that they “always felt loved” (94 percent vs. 82 percent [non-relative foster care])11

􀂾 In terms of scores in physical, cognitive, emotional, and skill-based domains, children in kinship care have scores more like those of children who are able to remain at home following a child abuse and neglect investigation than do children in foster or group care.12

􀂾 Both teachers and caregivers tend to rate children in kinship care as having fewer behavioral problems than do their peers in other out-of-home placement settings.13

Kinship care respects cultural traditions and may reduce racial disparities in a variety of outcomes.

In a number of cultures—including many communities of color—the family and home are understood to include the extended family, and in some cases the community. Kinship care represents an opportunity for states to provide federally required safety and permanency to a greater number of children who come into contact with the child welfare system, while enhancing their well-being by providing them with access to their ethnic, racial, and cultural traditions.14

Kinship caregivers provide stability to children and youth with incarcerated parents.

According to a 2000 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 75 percent of mothers and about 18 percent of fathers incarcerated in state prisons in 1997 reported that their children were being cared for by a grandparent or other relative.15 The incarceration of a parent is often traumatic on a variety of levels for children, and living with family members can provide some measure of stability.

In spite of the numerous benefits associated with kinship care, myths remain.

Myth: “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
In fact, research shows that children living with relatives are no more likely—and are perhaps less likely—than children living with non-kin foster parents to experience abuse or neglect after being removed from their homes. A 1997 study found that non-kin foster parents were twice as likely as licensed kinship foster parents to have a confirmed report of maltreatment.16 Furthermore, Illinois found that children in kinship foster care are at lower risk for maltreatment than are children in either specialized or non-relative foster care.17

Myth: “It’s your moral responsibility.”
Clearly, kinship caregivers agree. They take the responsibility of raising their grandchildren, nieces, and nephews when the children’s parents, for a variety of reasons, cannot. These caregivers lack neither morals nor a sense of responsibility; they do, however, lack resources. They may be living on a fixed income or be retired; whatever the reason, it is highly unlikely that they planned financially for raising a relative’s child.18

􀂾 The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that it costs at least $7,000 per year to raise a child.19

􀂾 The vast majority of children living with relative caregivers are eligible for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) child-only grant. However, 70 percent of relative caregivers do not access TANF or any other public financial assistance.

􀂾 Even when caregivers access TANF child-only grants, this assistance amounts to, on average, just over $4,000 per year—or about 57 percent of the anticipated cost of raising a child.20

Research debunks these old fears about the risk of placing children with kin.

In fact, the research tells us that many children who cannot live with their parents benefit from living with grandparents and other family members. Supporting kinship caregivers in their efforts to address the needs of these children thus provides an opportunity to improve the lives of many children who have already experienced trauma.

1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census American Fact Finder Advanced Query. Calculations by Children’s Defense Fund of the number of children living in relative-headed households without either parent present.
2 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104-193) requires states to consider giving preference to relatives over non-related caregivers when determining a placement for a child, assuming that relative meets all relevant state child protection standards. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89) clearly establishes legal guardianship as an acceptable and appropriate permanency plan.
3 Testa, M. 2001. Kinship care and permanency. Journal of Social Service Research, Vol. 28 (1) pp. 25 – 43.; Chamberlain, P., et al. 2006. Who disrupts from placement in foster and kinship care? Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 30, pp. 409 – 424.
4 Herrick, M. & Piccus, W. 2005. Sibling Connections: The importance of nurturing sibling bonds in the foster care system.
5 Shlonsky, A., Webster, D., & Needell, B. 2003. The ties that bind: A cross-sectional analysis of siblings in foster care. Journal of Social Service Research, Vol. 29 (3) pp. 27 – 52.; Wulczyn, F. & Zimmerman, E. 2005. Sibling placements in longitudinal perspective. Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 27, pp. 741-763.
6 National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) CPS Sample Component Wave 1 Data Analysis Report, April 2005. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, 2005).
7 Courtney, M. & Needell, B. “Outcomes of kinship care: Lessons from California.” In Child welfare research review. Vol. 2. J.D. Berrick, R.P. Barth and N. Gilbert, eds. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, pp. 130 – 149.
8 Outcome P1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations; and, Outcome P2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
9 NSCAW 2005.
10NSCAW 2005.
11 Wilson, L. Satisfaction of 1,100 Children in Out-of-Home Care, Primarily Family Foster Care, in Illinois’ Child Welfare System. Tallahassee, FL: Wilson Resources, 1996.
12 NSCAW 2005.
13 NSCAW 2005.
14Casey Family Programs. Commitment to Kin: Elements of a support and service system for kinship care. 2004; CFSR Outcome S2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
15 Mumola, C. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2000).
16 Zuravin, S.J., et al. “Child Maltreatment in family foster care: Foster home correlates.” In Child welfare research review. Vol. 2 J.D. Berrick, R.P. Barth. And N. Gilbert, eds. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, pp. 189-200.
17 A Child Welfare Research Agenda for the State of Illinois. 1999. Urbana, IL: The Children and Family Research Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
18 Some question whether relatives who cannot afford to care for a child without assistance are appropriate placements. CLASP believes that placements with relatives, like all placements, should be made on a case-by-case basis and that when relatives offer benefits, like greater stability and less trauma, they should be supported in caring for a child.
19 This calculation is based on the cost of raising the younger of two children in a single-parent, two-child household with a before-tax income of less than $41,700. Lino, Mark. 2005. Expenditures on Children by Families, 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1528-2004. Retrieved 12/7/06 from http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2004.pdf
20 Table 42, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families- Active Cases, TANF Families with no adult recipients receiving cash assistance October 2003 – September 2004. Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. Retrieved 12/6/06 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov//programs/ofa/character/FY2004/tab42.htm.

Source: Center for Law and Social Policy • www.clasp.org