An Invitation To Remake Child Welfare
A few days before Christmas, the federal government extended
an invitation to state child welfare agencies that has the potential to completely
transform the system.
The invitation did not arrive with great publicity. Nor was
it lengthy. Instead, it was announced in a few ordinary-looking sentences, in a
very ordinary-looking email.
But looks can be deceiving. The change announced by the
federal government could lead to far fewer children being placed in foster care.
It could expedite the reunification of those children in care. It could
increase visitation between children in care and their parents. And it could get
children into permanent homes more quickly, even when they can’t return home.
So what is this change that could bring about these dramatic
results? The federal government
announced that it would permit uncapped, matching federal child welfare funds
under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to support the representation of
parents and children in the child welfare system.
The significance of this change cannot be overstated. For
decades, the federal government has overlooked the fact that a functioning
child welfare system needs effective advocates for parents and children. The United
States Supreme Court, in Lassiter v Department
of Social Services, held that the United States Constitution does not
guarantee parents an absolute right to counsel before their rights are
terminated.
No federal statute requires states to provide attorneys to
parents and children involved in the proceedings. And the federal government has
never required states to provide legal advocacy for families in order to receive
federal child welfare funding. To the contrary, for decades the federal
government explicitly prohibited child welfare funds under Title IV-E from
being used to support legal advocacy for families.
Without federal support, states have struggled to provide
families – the overwhelming majority of whom cannot afford a lawyer – with the
advocacy they need to navigate the foster care system. In some states, a parent
can have their child removed without ever having received the help of a lawyer.
Others are worse, even allowing courts to terminate parental
rights without giving parents an attorney. And in pretty much every state,
lawyers for indigent parents are underpaid, overworked and lack important
supports – like a social worker or investigator – to effectively represent
clients. The reality in most jurisdictions is that families will not receive
the type of legal advocacy that they deserve. But without an infusion of
funding, little hope existed that the situation would change.
Until now.
The new availability of federal funding to support legal
representation for parents and children allows states to remake their child
welfare systems to produce the outcome that all stakeholders want – more
children residing safely with families, increased contact between children and
parents, and expedited legal proceedings. Study after study supports the
conclusion that strong legal advocacy improves the outcomes of the child
welfare system.
But while this opportunity is within our grasp, it will
require significant action by the child welfare community to take advantage of
it. Since federal funding under Title IV-E only flows to child welfare agencies
and only matches state expenditures by that agency, states must now rework
their payment structures for legal representation so that the current state
funds supporting representation are being spent by the agency. Unless the state
agency is the entity spending the money, the state cannot receive matching
federal funds.
Vivek, thank you for taking the time to write all your informative and insightful articles. You are a brilliant Child Advocate and proactive Foster Care Reformer. I wish there were more dedicated, inspiring people like you in the world... (I am following you on Twitter as "Crystal Owl" - only new to it!)
ReplyDelete