Rethinking Foster Care

            Observing court one day, I heard one of those remarks that should stun anyone within earshot.           Testifying in the case being heard, in which a family separation was on the table, the caseworker remarked, “No, I didn’t make reasonable efforts to reunify because the mother was homeless and was living in a room in a shelter.”           When I heard the worker say that, I geared up for the heated inquiry that I thought would ensue. Why didn’t the worker make any efforts? Couldn’t she have explored whether any services could have kept the baby - who had special medical needs - with her mother at the shelter? Was there any reason to think that services wouldn’t be effective? Did the law excuse her from making these efforts? Without even exploring these efforts, could we possibly say that separating the child from her mother was the only - and best - course of action? My mind was ...

            Our client’s children remained in foster care for months because she was homeless. Each day, she’d wake up, hoping – praying – that a voucher would become available for her to access affordable housing. Despite experiencing a daily dose of disappointment for nearly a year, she remained hopeful. Then, one day, it arrived. The long-awaited voucher finally materialized and my client quickly found a place to live. Her children would be coming back to her soon. Her family would start working on becoming whole again, ending years of tragedy. But as we all know, having a house is different than having a home. A house is simply a place to stay. A home brings with it a sense of belonging. A house meets the physical needs of a family. A home goes beyond that, serving their emotional needs as well. A house provides stability. A home is the first step towards something much greater – a sense of community.          ...