Federal Child Welfare Legislation Summaries

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

Congress enacted the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (Public Law 93-247) in 1974 (amended in 1996), which created the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect and earmarked federal funds for states to establish special programs for child victims of abuse or neglect. This law requires that states:

· Have child abuse and neglect reporting laws;

· Investigate reports of abuse and neglect;

· Educate the public about abuse and neglect;

· Provide a guardian ad litem to every abused or neglected child whose case results in a judicial proceeding; and

· Maintain the confidentiality of child protective services records.

Indian Child Welfare Act (Public Law 95-608)

Enacted in 1978 as a result of congressional hearings in the 1970s that had revealed a pattern of removing Indian children from their homes, undermining Indian families, and threatening tribal survival and Indian culture.

The act mandates that:

· In the voluntary and involuntary foster, pre-adoptive and adoptive placements of Indian children, priority be given to extended family and culturally relevant placements

· It establishes the right of certain entities to appear as parties, including the tribe and the Indian custodian, if one exists

· The law applies to Native American children who are unmarried, under age 18, and are members or who are eligible to be members of a federally recognized Indian tribe.

ICWA takes precedence over MEPA, which is another federal law passed in 1994.

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (Public Law 96-272)

Enacted in 1980 the law is a blueprint for combined efforts of the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government to preserve families and, if necessary, to build new families for children.

The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 requires that states:

· Recruit culturally diverse foster and adoptive families;

· Comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act;

· Establish standards for foster family homes and review the standards periodically;

· Set goals and a plan for the number of children who will be in foster care for more than twenty-four months;

· Provide “reasonable efforts” to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his/her home or to make it possible for the child to return to his/her home;

· Provide a dispositional hearing for every child in foster care within eighteen months of placement and every twelve months thereafter; and

· Have a data collection and reporting system about the children in care.

Multiethnic Placement Act

The Department of Health and Human Services complies with all mandates of the federal Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) of 1994 and the1996 provisions on removal of barriers to Interethnic Adoption.

· The law states any person or government involved in adoption or foster care placements may not "deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or foster parent, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the person or the child involved."

· The law also states that any person or government involved in adoption or foster care placements may not "delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care, on the basis of race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child involved."

ICWA always takes precedence over MEPA in cases where the child’s ethnicity is known to be Native American.

The goals of MEPA are to:

· Decrease the time children wait to be adopted;

· Prevent discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the placement of children and in the selection of foster and adoptive placements; and

· Facilitate the development of a diverse pool of foster and adoptive families.

Adoption and Safe Families Act (Public Law 105-89)

ASFA was passed in 1997 due to Congressional concerns about:

· Whether states were making reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunify families;

· The fact that children were in placements for long periods of time (estimated that 25% of children in foster care were there for an average of 4 years, while another 10% were there for longer than 7 years); and

· The lack of permanency for children.

ASFA embodies three key principles:

· The safety of children is the paramount concern;

· Foster care is a temporary setting and not a place for children to grow up; and

· Permanency planning should begin as soon as the child enters foster care.

Once a child comes into foster care, ASFA:

· Requires child welfare agencies to quickly match parents with services designed to address the problems that led to the child’s placement in care.

· Requires that a decision must be made about whether the child can be safely returned home or move towards an adoptive placement if the child has been in foster care for 15 or more of the last 22 months.

· Mandates that foster parents must be provided notice of and an opportunity to be heard in any review or hearing held with respect to a child in their care.

What does ASFA mean to me as a Foster Parent?

· The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), enacted in 1997, focuses on the safety, permanency and well-being of children.

· ASFA seeks to ensure that the child welfare system respects children’s developmental needs, including the need for a permanent place to call home, and radically changes the time frames for making decisions regarding permanency.

· ASFA requires foster parents, pre-adoptive parents or relatives caring for a child in foster care be notified of and given an opportunity to be heard in any reviews or hearings involving the child.

· ASFA allows for concurrent planning to help speed up permanency for children. Foster parents support children and birth families working toward family reunification—while at the same time—foster parents make a commitment to the child as a “forever family” should reunification not occur.

With concurrent planning, foster parents play a crucial role as:

· Nurturer: Supporting the foster child's attachment to them as well as the child’s connection to, and memory of, her birth parents.

· Permanency Facilitator: Helping achieve the permanency plan—which might be reunification, guardianship, or adoption; and helping foster children visit their birth parents.

· Birth Parent Supporter: Getting to know birth parents and empathizing with their struggles; modeling positive parenting skills; and communicating with birth parents about the child’s day-to-day life.

What does ICWA mean to me as a Foster Parent?

· Maine tribes and the Department of Health and Human Services make every effort to place Native American children in Native American homes. Currently there is a shortage of these homes, which the tribes and DHHS are working hard to address.

· Native American families are always the first choice for Native American children in care. ICWA takes precedence over MEPA.

· Here are some considerations should a Native American child be placed in your home:

· Have an awareness and understanding of the ICWA.

· Support visitation and/or other contact with parents, siblings and other relatives as recommended in the child’s case plan. In Native American culture, the whole tribe is considered extended family.

· Be sensitive to the importance of Native American heritage and culture. Learn about and educate your child in the specifics of their tribe. Participate and encourage children to get involved in cultural activities. Examples of this include reading about tribal customs, traditions and folktales, participating in powwows, or utilizing a CD-ROM for learning the Passamaquoddy language.

· Know and understand the services available through the tribe.

· Involve the child’s ICWA social worker in discussions around the child’s educational, medical needs, and court proceedings. For example, invite him/her to school PET, medical, and court appointments.

· If you have any questions, direct them to your child’s caseworker.

· Know whom to contact at each tribe concerning children's services: (Contact information updated October 2003)

Rosella Silliboy

Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians

7 North Road

Presque Isle, ME 04769

(207) 764-1972

rsilliboy@micmac.org

Molly Newell

Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point

P.O. Box 343

Perry, ME 04667

(207) 853-2600

molly@wabanaki.com

Betsy Tannian

Houlton Band of Maliseets

88 Bell Road

Littleton, ME 04730

(207) 866-3103

betsytannian@hotmail.com

Erlene Paul or Janet Lola

Penobscot Nation Human Services

6 River Road

Indian Island, ME 04468

(207) 817-7492

epaul@penobscotnation.org

What Does MEPA mean to me as a Foster or Adoptive Parent?

Some states had policies that discouraged transracial placements or that allowed lengthy searches for same race families before authorizing transracial adoptions. The goal of MEPA is to encourage the recruitment of minority families to be foster or adoptive families, while at the same time, not holding up permanent placement of children solely because they are members of a race or culture different from their foster or adoptive parents.

Here are some considerations should a child of a different race, color or ethnicity be placed in your home:

· Have an understanding and awareness of the MEPA;

· Support visitation and/or other contact with parents, siblings and other relatives as recommend in the child’s case plan;

· Be sensitive to the culture of the child placed in your home. Seek out opportunities to learn and share the information with your child and rest of the family. Structure your household to reflect your foster child’s language, food, clothing, music, art, holiday celebrations and traditions. Become involved in activities and events that honor the child’s heritage.

The ICWA takes precedence over MEPA. Native American families are always the first choice for Native American children in care.

If you have any questions, direct them to your child’s caseworker.

™

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information

National Adoption Information Clearinghouse

How Does the Child Welfare System Work?

What is the child welfare system?

The child welfare system is a group of services designed to promote the well-being of children by ensuring safety, achieving permanency, and strengthening families to successfully care for their children. Most families first become involved with the child welfare system due to a report of suspected child abuse or neglect (sometimes called “child maltreatment”). Child maltreatment is defined by Federal law [1] as serious harm (neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse or neglect) caused to children by parents or primary caregivers, such as extended family members or babysitters. Child maltreatment can also include harm that a caregiver allows to happen (or does not prevent from happening) to a child. In general, child welfare agencies do not intervene in cases of harm to children caused by acquaintances or strangers. These cases are the responsibility of law enforcement. [2]

The child welfare system is not a single entity. Many organizations in each community work together to strengthen families and keep children safe. Public agencies (departments of social services, child and family services, etc.) often contract and collaborate with private child welfare agencies and community-based organizations to provide services to families, such as in-home (“family preservation”) services, foster care, residential treatment, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, parenting skills classes, employment assistance, and financial or housing assistance.

Child welfare systems are complex, and their specific procedures vary widely by State. The purpose of this fact sheet is to give a brief overview of the purposes and functions of child welfare from a national perspective. Child welfare systems typically:

· Receive and investigate reports of possible child abuse and neglect.

· Provide services to families who need assistance in the protection and care of their children.

Arrange for children to live with foster families when they are not safe at home.
Arrange permanent adoptive homes or independent living services for children leaving foster care.

What happens when a report of possible abuse or neglect is made?

Any concerned person can report suspicions of child abuse or neglect. Most reports are made by “mandatory” reporters (persons who are required by State law to report suspicions of child abuse and neglect). In approximately 18 States, any person who suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report. Reports of possible child abuse and neglect are generally received by child protective services (CPS) workers and either “screened in” or “screened out.” [3] A report is screened in if there is sufficient information to suggest an investigation is warranted. A report may be screened out if there is not enough information on which to follow up or if the situation reported does not meet the State’s legal definition of abuse or neglect. [4] In these instances, the worker may refer the person reporting the incident to other community services or law enforcement for additional help.

In the year 2001, a total of 2.7 million referrals involving 5 million children were made to CPS agencies. Approximately 67 percent (1.8 million referrals) were screened in, and 33 percent (870,000 referrals) were screened out. [5]

When a report is “screened in,” what happens next?

CPS workers (often called “investigators”) respond within a particular time period (anywhere from a few hours to a few days) depending on the type of maltreatment alleged, the potential severity of the situation, and requirements under State law. They may speak with the parents and other people in contact with the child (such as doctors, teachers, or childcare providers). They also may speak with the child, alone or in the presence of caregivers, depending on the child’s age and level of risk. Children who are believed to be in immediate danger may be moved to a shelter, foster care placement, or a relative’s home during the investigation and while court proceedings are pending. An investigator’s primary purpose is to determine if abuse or neglect has occurred and if there is a risk of it occurring again.

Some jurisdictions now employ an “alternative response” system. In these jurisdictions, when risk to the children involved is considered to be low, the CPS caseworker may focus on assessing family difficulties and offering needed services, rather than gathering evidence to confirm the occurrence of abuse or neglect.

At the end of an investigation, CPS workers typically make one of two findings—“unsubstantiated” (“unfounded”) or “substantiated” (“founded”). (These terms vary from State to State.) Typically, a finding of “unsubstantiated” means there is insufficient evidence for the worker to conclude that a child was abused or neglected, or what happened does not meet the legal definition of child abuse or neglect. A finding of “substantiated” typically means an incident of child abuse or neglect (as defined by State law) is believed to have occurred. Some States have additional categories, such as “unable to determine,” that suggest there was not enough evidence to either confirm or refute that abuse or neglect occurred.

The agency will initiate a court action if it determines that the authority of the juvenile court (through a child protection or “dependency” proceeding) is necessary to keep the child safe. To protect the child, the court can issue temporary orders placing the child in shelter care during investigation, ordering services, or ordering certain individuals to have no contact with the child. At an adjudicatory hearing, the court hears evidence and decides whether maltreatment occurred and whether the child should be under the continuing jurisdiction of the court. The court then enters a disposition, either at that hearing or a separate hearing, which may result in the court ordering a parent to comply with services necessary to ameliorate the abuse or neglect. Orders can also contain provisions regarding visitation between the parent and child, agency obligations to provide the parent with services, and services needed by the child.

In 2001, approximately 903,000 children were found to be victims of child abuse or neglect. [6]

What happens in substantiated cases?

If a child has been abused or neglected, the course of action depends on State policy, the severity of the maltreatment, the risk of continued or future maltreatment, the services available to address the family's needs, and whether the child was removed from the home and a court action to protect the child was initiated. The following general options are available:

· No or low risk—The family’s case may be closed with no services if the maltreatment was a one-time incident, there is no or low risk of future incidents, or the services the family needs will not be provided through the child welfare agency, but through other systems.

· Low to moderate risk—Referrals may be made to community-based or voluntary in-home CPS services if the CPS worker believes the family would benefit from these services and the risk to the child would be lessened. This may happen even when no abuse or neglect is found, if the family needs and is willing to participate in services.

· Moderate to high risk—The family may again be offered voluntary in-home CPS services to help ameliorate the risks. If these are refused, the agency may seek intervention by the juvenile dependency court. Once there is a judicial determination that abuse or neglect occurred, juvenile dependency court may require the family to cooperate with in-home CPS services if it is believed that the child can remain safely at home while the family addresses the issues contributing to the risk of future maltreatment. If the child has been seriously harmed or is considered to be at high risk of serious harm, the court may order the child’s removal from the home or affirm the agency’s prior removal of the child. The child may be placed with a relative or in foster care.

In 2001, approximately 275,000 children were removed from their homes as a result of a child abuse investigation or assessment. [7]

What happens to people who abuse children?

People who are found to have abused or neglected a child are generally offered voluntary help or required by a juvenile dependency court to participate in services that will help keep their children safe. In more severe cases or fatalities, police are called upon to investigate and may file charges in criminal court against the perpetrators of child maltreatment. (In many States certain types of abuse, such as sexual abuse and serious physical abuse, are routinely referred to law enforcement.)

Whether or not criminal charges are filed, the perpetrator’s name may be placed on a State child maltreatment registry if abuse or neglect is confirmed. A registry is a central database that collects information about maltreated children and individuals who were found to have abused or neglected those children. These registries are usually confidential, and used for internal child protective purposes only. However, they may be used in background checks for certain professions, such as those working with children, so children will be protected from contact with individuals who may mistreat them.

What happens to children who enter foster care?

Most children in foster care are placed with relatives or foster families, but some may be placed in group homes. While a child is in foster care, he or she attends school and should receive medical care and other services as needed. The child’s family also receives services to support their efforts to reduce the risk of future maltreatment and to help them, in most cases, be reunified with their child. Parents may visit their children on a predetermined basis. Visits also are arranged between siblings, if they cannot be placed together.

Every child in foster care should have a permanency plan that describes where the child will live after he or she leaves foster care. Families typically participate in developing a permanency plan for the child and a service plan for the family. These plans guide the agency’s work. Except in unusual and extreme circumstances, every child’s plan is first focused on reunification with parents. If the efforts toward reunification are not successful, the plan may be changed to another permanent arrangement, such as adoption or transfer of custody to a relative. [8] Occasionally the plan involves a permanent placement with a foster family, usually for older children who have become strongly attached to the family or for whom a suitable adoptive home cannot be found. In addition to a permanency plan, older children should receive transitional or independent living services to assist them in being self-sufficient when they leave foster care between the ages of 18 and 21.

Federal law requires the court to hold a permanency hearing, which determines the permanent plan for the child, within 12 months after the child enters foster care and every 12 months thereafter. Many courts review each case more frequently to ensure that the agency is actively engaged in permanency planning for the child.

In fiscal year 2001, 57 percent of children leaving foster care were returned to their parents. The median length of stay in foster care was 12 months. [9]

Summary

The goal of child welfare is to promote the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families. Even among children who enter foster care, most children will leave the child welfare system safely in the care of their birth family, a relative, or an adoptive home.

For more detailed information about child welfare, please refer to the resources listed below. For more information about the child welfare system in your State or local jurisdiction, contact your local public child welfare agency.

Other Resources

Badeau, S. & Gesiriech, S. (2003). A child’s journey through the child welfare system. Washington, DC: The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. (http://pewfostercare.org/docs/index.php?docID=24)

Goldman, J. & Salus, M. (2003). A coordinated response to child abuse and neglect: The foundation for practice (The User Manual Series). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

McCarthy, J., Marshall, A., Collins, J., Milon, J., Arganza, G., Deserly, K. (2003). Family guide to the child welfare system. Washington, DC: National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health at Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development. (Available Fall 2003).

Rycus, J. & Huges, R. (1998). Field guides to child welfare (Vol. I-IV). Washington, DC: CWLA Press.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. AFCARS report #8. (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publicatons/afcars.htm)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). Child maltreatment 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/publications/cmreports.htm)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Child welfare outcomes 2000: Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cwo.htm)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003). Definitions of child abuse and neglect. 2003 Child Abuse and Neglect State Statute Series: Statues-at-a-Glance. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. (http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/sag/define.cfm)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003). Mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect. 2003 Child Abuse and Neglect State Statute Series: Statutes-at-a-Glance. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information (http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/sag/manda.cfm).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003). Reporting procedures. 2003 Child Abuse and Neglect State Statute Series: Statutes-at-a-Glance. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information (http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/statutesglance.cfm)

Used with permission from

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). How Does the Child Welfare System Work. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/cpswork.cfm)

The Clearinghouses are services of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

™

Maine DHHS Case Flow Continuum

A report of abuse/neglect leads to investigation by Bureau of Child and Family Services (BCFS) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). If abuse/neglect is substantiated, and depending on the seriousness of the situation, the BCFS caseworker files paperwork with the court.

*The Bureau may not remove a child from his/her home absent a court order, nor may the Bureau require parents to participate in services absent a court order. The Bureau seeks court intervention for approximately 15% of the families it works with each year; therefore, 85% of families are working voluntarily with the Bureau to ensure the safety and well-being of their children in their home.

If there is “immediate risk of serious harm”, the caseworker files a Request for a Preliminary Protection Order. The Court may issue a Preliminary Protection Order (PPO) in which the child is immediately removed from the home. DHHS gains temporary custody and presents an appropriate alternative such as kinship placement, or the child is placed with a foster family. A Guardian ad Litem (GAL) or Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) is assigned to represent the child’s best interests in court proceedings.

DHHS may also file a Petition for Jeopardy in addition to or in place of a PPO if there is a “threat of serious harm”. In these situations, children often remain in the home while the family is provided services.

If a Preliminary Protection Order is granted, the Court holds Summary Preliminary Hearing 14 days later. At this hearing the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has only to show probable cause that the child is at risk of abuse/neglect to extend temporary custody. The Department must also present a family service plan including conditions for reunification (Sometimes, in the absence of aggravating factors, a child may stay in the birth home while investigation and preventive services continue until next court review).

Within 120 days, a Jeopardy Hearing is held. This is a comprehensive review of the case. The Department of Health and Human Services is required to justify the need for continued placement. At this hearing, the status of the family service plan and fulfillment of conditions for reunification are reviewed.

Foster parents must be notified by the caseworker in advance, and have the right to be heard at this and all subsequent hearings. They can also apply for intervenor status. If the Court finds that the child continues to be in jeopardy in the birth parent’s home, full custody is awarded to the state. Concurrent planning may be initiated, with an end point of either reunification or termination of parental rights (TPR) leading to a more permanent placement for the child.

The next court action in the case is usually a Judicial Review Hearing held no later than six months after the Jeopardy Hearing. The family service plan and reunification efforts are reviewed. A Judicial Review occurs every six months until the case is closed.

At the Judicial Review, if the jeopardy is resolved (if the issues that necessitated the child’s removal from his/her parents’ home have been satisfactorily addressed), custody is returned to the parent(s), and the child is reunified (with his/her parents).

The law encourages that permanency planning for a child begins as soon as the child enters custody. A permanency hearing must be held no later than 12 months after the child enters custody. When jeopardy is unchanged or increased, and DHHS determines that reunification is not a likely option within a timeframe that meets the needs of the child, the Department must proceed toward another permanency plan for the child.

*Under ASFA, there are only five (5) permissible permanency plans that can be presented to the Family Court judge at the Permanency Hearing: return to parent, adoption, legal guardianship, permanent placement with a fit and willing relative, and "another planned permanent living arrangement" (but ONLY if there is a compelling reason why none of the other ASFA permanency plans is in the child's best interests).

Permanency options when reunification is not possible could include placement with relatives, or the filing of a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights (toward freeing the child for permanency through adoption). If a child has been in custody for 15 of the last 22 months, the Department must file a petition for termination of parental rights with the court unless there are compelling reasons not to. If reunification with the family is imminent, this could be a compelling factor not to pursue TPR even if the child has been in custody longer than 15 of 22 months. Termination of parental rights is one of the most drastic and invasive decisions that any court can make. It can never be taken lightly, or carried out without the strongest of legal safeguards.

If termination is granted, the child is free for adoption, pending appeal. Several options might be explored at this time including kinship adoption, adoption by present foster parents, or identification of other potential adoptive parents. If the foster parents are to adopt, the child remains with them as the adoption process is initiated. Otherwise, at some point, the child will move to a prospective adoptive family for pre-adoption placement.

If adoption is not in the child’s best interest, the child remains in state custody with a cease reunification order and "another planned permanent living arrangement" is listed as the permanency goal. Generally, the state does not wish to create “legal orphans.” Therefore, if an older child does not wish to be adopted, TPR is not pursued.

All youth in care are dismissed from legal custody upon reaching the age of 18. The law in Maine allows for the Department to continue care and support of a youth up to 21 (known as V-9 Agreement, or Voluntary Extended Care Agreement) if and educational, social, or physical need exists and if both the Department and the youth agree about this. The Department does not maintain legal custody or legal responsibility for youth on V-9 agreements. ™

Program Administrators and Supervisors by District

BCFS Staff Expectations for Foster/Adoptive Parents

(From Video: Understanding BCFS Roles and Expectations)

To make an informed decision about choosing to foster.

To work with BCFS in a relationship based on honest communication and mutual respect.

To provide emergency placements when feasible.

To let children share in your family’s interests while being sensitive to and aware of the child’s cultural heritage.

To accept children for who they are and for what they have experienced.

To work closely with birth parents and provide them with information about their child’s progress.

To accept the need for home visits, even when they are problematic.

To respect birth parents’ input around the needs of their child.

To provide a loving family for a child in care while working toward reunification of the child and her birth parents.

To consider adopting children who cannot return home to their parents.

To be involved in BCFS case reviews.

To maintain professional objectivity, even when things get tough.

To call BCFS before problems get out of hand.

To seek out and participate in trainings.

To accept the need for the investigative process when abuse allegations are made against foster parents.

To minimize allegations by establishing clear boundaries, expectations and rules in your household—especially around privacy issues—on the first day a child enters your home.

To maintain a sense of humor.

™

Children Leaving BCFS Care

Outcomes

Year	2000	2001	2002	2003

Custody Returned to Parent	327	438	353	419
Custody to a Relative	60	102	46	61
Child Adopted	298	214	244	237
Child 18 and Left DHHS/BCFS Care	49	113	75	95
Voluntary Extended Care Goal Reached (Age 18+)	41	65	38	47
Voluntary Extended Care Goal Not Reached (Department Terminated)	37	82	83	73
Voluntary Extended Care Goal Not Reached (Young Adult Withdrew)	19	33	26	18
Death of Child	0	4	2	4
Child Emancipated	2	4	1	4
Custody to Another Agency	3	7	13	9
Custody to Indian Tribe/Nation	4	2	1	3
Custody to Maine Adoption Agency	0	0	1	2
Custody to Another State	0	1	0	1
Custody Non-Relative	4	6	3	3
Total Leaving BCFS Care	844	1071	866	975

™

Confidentiality Guidelines^[10]

Support Groups: In order to obtain support/assistance from others to carry out responsibilities of day-to-day parenting, it is appropriate for foster parents who are participating in foster parent support groups or foster parent seminars to share relevant background information of children in discussing behavioral issues, frustrations, etc. The focus should not be on specifics of the child’s background or birth family except as it directly relates to understanding the issues being discussed.

The principles of confidentiality should be stated at the beginning of each session. Participants must agree that information discussed during the meeting will not be discussed outside the meeting. Participants in support groups come together to give and receive support. Sharing information outside the group is not supportive. It violates confidentiality requirements of the law, and violates the child’s, the birth family’s, or the foster family’s right to privacy and confidentiality.

Violation of confidentiality regarding information about a foster child or their birth family is a violation of licensing rules and state law and will most likely result in the removal of your foster home license.

Any training: It is appropriate to share only de-identified and/or general information when participating in training. Information regarding the child’s background and birth family is extremely sensitive and must be treated as such when talking with other foster parents, trainers, and others who are not directly involved with the child.

Other foster parents or relatives: Sharing of confidential information about foster children or birth families or reasons why the child is in foster care with other foster parents and/or relatives who have no need to know is a violation of confidentiality.

Sharing of the long term plan for the child with other foster family members or friends could be appropriate when the plan is clear and only if it is decided between the caseworker and the foster parents that sharing would not violate the child’s rights to confidentiality and would benefit the child. You should not discuss specific placement of a child or attempt to arrange placement of a child on your own.

It is appropriate, when seeking assistance from or support of other foster parents, to discuss behavioral issues. This information is sensitive and should not be shared with third parties.

Respite providers: The caseworker should be consulted about and/or responsible for sharing information with the respite provider.

When making placements, it is the Department’s policy to be open and honest about the child’s needs, behaviors, etc. The extent of information shared for a temporary or respite placement may vary, depending on the length of time, frequency of respites, status of the provider, and based on a need to know. However, in all instances, critical information relative to the safety of the child and others will be shared.

Planning or treatment team: When cleared with the DHHS caseworker, it is appropriate for foster parents to share major life occurrences, e.g. termination of parental rights; adoption; and visitation details with other service providers, teachers, doctors, respite providers, etc., as members of the team in order to benefit the child. Often, these occurrences have impact on the child’s behavior and the team members can assist the child in coping.

It is not appropriate for this information to be shared with non-team members, i.e., friends, other foster parents, visitors, or relatives.

If you have any questions regarding the appropriateness of sharing information, discuss this with the child’s caseworker.

Termination of parental rights: After adoption has become the goal and termination of parental rights has occurred, sharing of the general plan is appropriate only on a need to know basis as approved with the caseworker.

Disagreements: If the foster parent disagrees with a caseworker’s request to maintain confidentiality (for example: an adoptive family has been selected and the caseworker asks the foster parent not to share this information with the child yet), discussion with the caseworker, and possibly, caseworker’s supervisor needs to occur. The final decision rests with the Department. The Department of Health and Human Services has final say on all decisions relating to the foster placement. Be mindful that your responsibility lies with maintaining confidentiality and a breach of this confidence may result in suspension or revocation of your license.

AIDS and HIV: Disclosure of information relative to AIDS and HIV test results is strictly protected by law. Information of this nature should not be shared. It is your caseworker’s responsibility to share this information if necessary. As a foster parent, you have a right to this information since HIV or AIDS would directly affect the medical care of the foster child in your home.

Previous caretakers: Inquiries that come from previous caretakers should be referred to the child’s caseworker. General statements such as, “the child is doing well” or “he has been adopted” or “she was moved to another foster home” are one way to avoid disclosing confidential information.

Foster parents: Sharing of specific information with foster parents who are members of a support team approved by the Department is appropriate to get assistance/support from them. The same guidelines apply for foster parent support groups and/or seminars. Again, when sharing in such situations, use first names or initials to de-identify your foster child.

Media: If foster parents are requested to allow children in their homes to be shown or identified in the media, the foster parent must consult the DHHS caseworker. The Department has developed criteria for determining when and under what circumstances this may occur.

Usually foster children may be included in photos for class pictures, sports teams, school activities, and group organizations as long as they are not identified as foster children. If you are in doubt, talk with the caseworker. ™

Mark and Jane and Crystal

Mark and Jane attended an informational meeting and filled out an application to become foster parents. After the completion of their home study, fire inspection, water test, and the Fundamentals of Foster and Adoptive Parenting training, they received their foster home license. They were filled with anticipation and uncertainty about their new role and how it would affect their birth children, Amber and Jordan.

Early one morning they received a phone call from a licensing worker making preliminary inquiries about a possible placement. The call was to check on both their availability and whether or not their home would be appropriate for the child needing placement. The licensing worker shared some of the reasons why the child was being placed in substitute care and asked the family to think about some of the special considerations related to this child. Unfortunately the worker did not have a lot of information, as this was an emergency placement. The worker reminded them that in such cases a child might not be toilet trained or they might plan on such behaviors as bedwetting. Jane called Mark at work right away and then told the worker they would agree to the placement.

While this discussion was taking place the child protective worker, Mary, was in court prevailing upon a judge to give the Department of Health and Human Services immediate custody. Mary had filed an emergency petition with the court seeking a preliminary protection order or PPO. The judge immediately considered the petition. The worker’s petition set forth facts that Crystal, a two and one-half year old girl, had been subjected to domestic violence by her parents, Anthony and Candi. Anthony and Candi had been heard shouting and fighting a number of times. Police had responded to the latest calls from neighbors and found that the parents were clearly intoxicated and unable to effectively care for the child. This time Candi had a split lip; Crystal was crying and had a large bruise on her face and red marks from a handprint on her legs. Anthony admitted that he accidentally hit Crystal when he tried to hit Candi. Candi had shouted that Anthony frequently hit her and Crystal when he was angry.

The police had placed Anthony under arrest for domestic violence and had called the Department of Health and Human Services. The worker’s petition also contained copies of police reports from past visits to the home demonstrating that both Anthony and Candi had been engaged in domestic violence. The petition also said that Anthony had a prior conviction for assault and had failed to complete the counseling requirements of his probation.

At the time of Anthony’s arrest, the apartment was littered with beer bottles, cigarette butts and trash. The only food in the house was a package of tortilla chips and some salsa. During prior police visits, Crystal had been in the care of Candi’s grandmother, who had raised Candi, and so did not come to the immediate attention of the Department. Mary explained to the judge that the grandmother was no longer able to care for Crystal due to the grandmother’s recent illness. As there were no family members or friends that were available or appropriate to care for Crystal, and with the sworn petition of the child protective worker, the judge awarded immediate temporary custody to the Department. The worker went to the apartment to pick up Crystal where the police had waited for nearly four hours with Candi and Crystal. As she left with the worker, Crystal screamed for her mother who had passed out on the couch. She carried a plastic grocery bag with a pair of pajamas that were too small, a battered stuffed toy, and a tattered, pink blanket.

Crystal arrived at Mark and Jane’s home at 9:30 AM after their girls had gone to school. Mark cleared his appointment calendar and came home shortly after lunch. Jane’s first priority was to make the transition as smooth as possible for Crystal. Jane was given a purchase order for clothing for Crystal, and a temporary medical card to cover the required physical evaluation and dental exam. Jane and Mark signed a placement/boarding agreement with DHHS and were told that the summary hearing on the preliminary protection order (PPO) would be held within 14 days.

Mary explained that the petition she had filed that morning was heard by the judge on an emergency basis, and that the judge did not have an opportunity to speak with Anthony or Candi or their attorneys. At the PPO hearing, any of the following things could happen:

The parents could agree that there was probable cause to find jeopardy and waive the hearing;

The court could consider the limited arguments of the attorneys and the guardian ad litem and determine whether or not the state satisfied its burden of proof;

If the parents agreed to waive the probable cause hearing or the judge found that the state showed probable cause that Crystal was a child at immediate risk of serious harm, Crystal would stay with Mark and Jane;

If the judge found that the state failed to meet its burden of proof, Crystal would return home until the full hearing on the issue of Jeopardy was heard within another 90 days;

DHHS would also develop a permanency plan for Crystal as mandated for concurrent planning.

Jane and Mark were told that they would play no part or only a very small part in the PPO hearing but that their testimony would be necessary at the hearing on Jeopardy. Then they would be asked to relate their observations during visits, disclosures made by Crystal, and her adjustments to the placement.

At the summary hearing, the judge found that Crystal was at immediate risk of serious harm and ordered her to remain in DHHS custody until the hearing on Jeopardy. Because of Crystal’s age, the judge ordered that the birth parents have two supervised, one-hour visits with Crystal each week, provided they were sober and non-violent when they visited with her. Because of the birth parent’s past history with violence, the visits would initially be held at the DHHS office.

A Family Service Plan provided by the Department set forth conditions to be met by Anthony and Candi before reunification could occur:

Both parents were to undergo psychological evaluations and comply with all recommendations resulting from those evaluations;

Both were to participate in weekly agency-approved groups for perpetrators and victims of domestic violence;

B oth parents were to work with a parent educator for two hours each week;

Both would pay the state $200 per month for the support of Crystal;

Both were to participate in an agency-approved substance abuse evaluation;

Anthony was to satisfy all of the conditions set forth in the criminal matter;

Candi was ordered to develop a safety plan for herself and Crystal with the help of DHHS.

Over the next three months, Mark and Jane worked to help Crystal adjust to their new family. They kept her appointments, reported to DHHS after visits, and helped their birth children to adjust to changes within the family.

Anthony and Candi required much prompting to follow through with the required psychological evaluations. Three months later at the Jeopardy hearing, the judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Crystal was in jeopardy. He determined that she had been physically abused by her father, and that both of her parents abused substances which resulted in her lack of supervision and emotional abuse and neglect. The Department was awarded the full custody of Crystal, and a judicial review hearing was set for 120 days later.

The Family Service Plan remained in effect. The Department also indicated to the judge that the concurrent permanent plan for Crystal, if reunification efforts were not successful, would be the Termination of Parental Rights and adoption in a suitable home.

During the next 120 days, Mark and Jane occasionally supervised visits between Crystal and her parents at DHHS. Mary visited their home once to introduce the new children’s services caseworker, Carl, who would take over Crystal’s case. Mark and Jane met with Carl to discuss their concerns about how Crystal’s behaviors were inappropriately independent, unpredictable and destructive, and included night terrors, and difficulty sleeping after visits. Although Crystal was almost fully toilet trained, she had accidents and bedwetting after visits. Mark and Jane sought training to help them deal with Crystal’s behaviors, which included counseling to help everyone in the family with Crystal’s adjustments into the family. Throughout this transition, family members felt discouraged, frustrated, confused, a sense of helplessness, and anger towards the birth parents. There were also many moments of joy with Crystal, one of which was her birthday party when she turned three.

During the next six months, the parents repeatedly missed visits without prior notification. On one occasion they had to be asked to leave because they arrived arguing and smelling of alcohol. They did not follow through with the recommendations from the evaluations, and the police further reported incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse.

The Department decided that the rehabilitation and reunification efforts needed to be discontinued, and the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) filed a motion seeking permission from the court to cease reunification efforts. At the next judicial review, the AAG would seek Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) and free Crystal for adoption.

Carl discussed with Mark, Jane, and the family the possibility of their adopting Crystal if she should become available. They agreed.

The Guardian ad Litem (GAL) filed a report shortly before the hearing that supported the position of the Department, which was to TPR the birth parents and free Crystal for adoption. Anthony and Candi contested the state’s motion and evidence. Testimony was heard from Mark and Jane and the psychologist who had worked with Candi and Anthony. Mary and Carl both testified on behalf of Crystal. The court decided by clear and convincing evidence that Termination of Parental Rights was in Crystal’s best interest; that the parents were unable to protect Crystal from jeopardy, and that those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time that was reasonably calculated to meet Crystal’s needs.

Anthony and Candi did not appeal the decision within the 30-day limit for appeals. Crystal’s case was transferred to the adoption unit where Pat, the adoption worker, took over management of the case. Pat worked closely with Mark and Jane and hired an attorney to assist them with the adoption paperwork. Mark, Jane, Amber, Jordan, and Crystal went to the probate court with extended family members and close friends to finalize the adoption and later celebrated with a party at home. It had taken 15 months from the time Crystal entered foster care to the finalization of the adoption with Mark and Jane. ™

Carlos’ Story

Crystal is now in the second grade and doing well. She has made great progress in school this past year and will soon no longer require special education services. With the help of her psychologist, Mrs. Adams, Crystal has been able to sort through some confusion and anger. Mrs. Adams helped Crystal understand her unique history and her place as part of Mark and Jane's family. Crystal, Mark, Jane and Mrs. Adams have ended the sessions for now. Mark and Jane have decided to accept another foster child. They have just had a visit from the Licensing Worker in order to renew their license. The worker interviewed them about their compliance as foster parents with the licensing rules including:

1. Arrangements for Supervision of Foster Children

2. Child Management

3. Safety and Sanitation

4. Shelter Requirements

5. Health Standards

6. Recreation and Social Activities

7. Clothing Requirements

Within a week, a caseworker phones.

Four-year-old Carlos had witnessed his father, Enrique’s, suicide attempt by hanging the day before. There was also evidence of physical abuse by his mother Pam. At 5 P.M., after the Judge had issued a Preliminary Protection Order, Carlos was hospitalized for observation by the medical staff and psychologist, and for fluids, since he had been left alone and appeared somewhat dehydrated.

Talking later with hospital staff when they arrived to meet Carlos and take him home, Mark and Jane learned that Carlos had poor coordination, was not toilet-trained, and had limited language skills in both English and Spanish, both of which were spoken in his home.

At the initial PPO hearing the parents agreed to a finding of probable cause without contest. Enrique was still in an inpatient facility and had met with his attorney only once. Pam decided she did not want to attempt a court appearance and agreed after meeting with her court-appointed attorney.

At the jeopardy hearing ninety days later, the Court granted custody to the Department, finding that Carlos was a child in jeopardy. The court further ordered:

1. Enrique and Pam would have one hour supervised visits at the Department of Health and Human Services;

2. Enrique, Pam and Carlos would undergo comprehensive psychological evaluations and Enrique and Pam would comply with all recommendations arising from those evaluations;

3. Carlos would have a developmental assessment and occupational and physical therapy evaluation if ordered by his pediatrician;

4. Individual and couples counseling for the parents;

5. Substance abuse evaluations for both parents and compliance with any recommendations arising from the evaluation;

6. Parent education classes for both parents.

Enrique and Pam complied with the court order for the next six months. At the six-month judicial review, they agreed to Carlos remaining in custody. Supervised visitation was increased to four hours twice weekly for one month. If the Department documented that supervised visitation was successful, the Department would begin permitting additional, unsupervised visits in Enrique and Pam’s home.

Carlos began unsupervised visits in the parents’ home. Then Enrique left the home and sued for divorce, breaking off all contact with Carlos. Carlos continued to visit Pam, but complained to Jane that his mother "spanked him hard." The social worker confronted Pam, reminding her that, because Carlos was in the custody of the Department, Pam would need to use alternative discipline appropriate to Carlos’ age and developmental abilities. Pam's out-of-control behavior increased, causing Carlos anxiety before visits and increased out of control behavior problems when he returned to Mark and Jane’s home. The Department decided that visits would need to be supervised, two hours twice weekly. Pam began to miss visitations without prior notice, and became involved with another man. She began to skip appointments with therapists and failed to comply with the family service plan.

Shortly before the next scheduled judicial review, Pam's attorney notified the Department that Pam agreed to have her parental rights terminated. Despite formal notice, Enrique did not appear at the hearing. Parental rights were terminated. Mark and Jane, for the past six months, had wrestled with a very difficult decision. Would they adopt Carlos if parental rights were terminated? After many discussions between themselves and with Crystal, Amber and Jordan, they decided that they would not adopt Carlos, as they wished to continue to provide temporary care.

Enrique did not appeal the termination of his parental rights and Carlos’ case was transferred to the adoption unit for pre-adoptive placement work with Carlos and subsequent adoptive placement.

Crystal is now nine; Carlos is six. For the past four months Mark and Jane have worked as partners with Carlos’ caseworker, Matt. During the review of the case plan, Matt has listened carefully to their reports on visits to the doctor and therapist. He supported them in meetings with Carlos’ special education teacher and supported the decision to have Carlos repeat kindergarten. In addition, Matt helped Mark and Jane find a Hispanic respite provider for Carlos so that he could stay connected to his Hispanic heritage. Somehow Matt helped them find a way to laugh as they completed endless forms for reports or reimbursements. At his last visit, Matt offered a lot of good ideas to make the adoption process easier for Carlos.

The new adoption caseworker, Cindy, is very supportive and has met often with Carlos to prepare him for the move to an adoptive placement.

Mark, Jane and Cindy have worked with Carlos on a life book, which includes photos, school papers and souvenirs. They have worked closely with Mrs. Adams, the psychologist, to help both Carlos and Crystal learn their life story, and to help them understand their past and look forward to the future.

In January, Betty and Bill Green are identified as Carlos’ adoptive parents and Cindy works with them too.

Betty and Bill have completed adoptive/foster parent training, their home study and have been waiting two years for a child that might blend well with their family. Cindy has shared Carlos’ history and current needs. The Greens have met with Mrs. Adams, Carlos’ teacher, and Mark and Jane. They are anxious to meet Carlos.

In March, Cindy takes an album that Betty and Bill have prepared for Carlos. It includes pictures of family members, their home, and the school and church that Carlos will attend.

About a week later, Cindy takes the Greens to Mark and Jane’s home to meet Carlos. They brought Carlos a stuffed bear, as he loves stuffed animals, and also brought small gifts for Crystal, Amber and Jordan. Mark and Jane had earlier made arrangements that the three older children would go with a family friend once they had a chance to meet the Greens so that Carlos would not have so many distractions as he got to visit with the Greens. Carlos proudly showed the Greens his life book and he and Cindy go over the life book and Carlos’ life story with the Greens. Everyone seems comfortable and Carlos goes out for an ice cream with the Greens.

A few days later, on Saturday, Carlos goes to see his new home and visits with the family. He takes some of his stuffed animals to leave on his new bed.

Over the next several months, Carlos visited frequently with the Greens. They planned outings to the park to have picnics and play, and also spent time at home just doing routine weekend activities, like grocery shopping, lawn mowing, and car washing. The Greens helped Carlos learn to ride a two-wheeler with training wheels and began short bike trips on those weekends. Overnight visits and phone calls continued over those months. Jane and Betty frequently consulted with each other about Carlos' progress, and Carlos began to ask to call Betty and Bill more and more frequently. At last, the decision was made that Carlos would move at the end of the school year.

Carlos ended his kindergarten year on a high note. After a family weekend with Mark and Jane and the three children, he helped to pack his things and prepare to move to Betty and Bill’s. A “going away” celebration was held at Mark and Jane’s. The next day, they drove Carlos to his new home with the rest of his things. Carlos had been bringing things with him at each visit, to leave in his new room. Betty and Bill planned a “welcome home” celebration with Carlos and Mark and Jane and their children, who shared a wonderful barbecued dinner before saying goodbye to Carlos. Carlos officially moved in on June 18^th, about four months after meeting the Greens.

Over the next several months, the two families remain in touch. Mark and Jane are a great support to the Greens and Carlos in their adjustment as a family. The Greens had a large group of extended family and friends who were supportive. In addition, they had friends from their church that could help Carlos stay connected to his Hispanic heritage and language.

Six months after the placement, Cindy and the Greens, working together, decide it is time to proceed with legalization. The Greens contacted their lawyer, and the adoption was finalized by March, just about nine months after Carlos moved in with the Greens. ™

[1] Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106). Each State has its own laws that define abuse and neglect for purposes of stating the reporting obligations of individuals and describing required State/local child protective services agency interventions. For State-by-State information about civil laws related to child abuse and neglect, visit the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect information Web site at http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes.

[2] While some States authorize child protective services agencies to respond to all reports of alleged child maltreatment, other States authorize law enforcement to respond to certain types of maltreatment, such as sexual or physical abuse.

[3] See Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect and Reporting Procedures, available from the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information Statutes-at-a-Glance Series (http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/statutesglance.cfm).

[4] See Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect, available from the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information Statutes-at-a-Glance Series (http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/statutesglance.cfm).

[5] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Child Maltreatment 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

[6] Child Maltreatment 2001.

[7] Child Maltreatment 2001.

[8] Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), while reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families are still required to seek termination of the parent-child relationship when a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. This requirement does not apply (at the State’s option) if a child

[9] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). The AFCARS Report (Preliminary FY 2001 estimates as of March 2003).

^[10] Source: Foster Parent Handbook