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.          ...

     In July, the Governor of Minnesota signed a critical piece of legislation requiring courts to appoint lawyers in foster care cases for parents who cannot afford them. Years of tireless advocacy culminated in the enactment, and local leaders predicted it will help reduce Minnesota’s foster care population and address glaring racial inequities in their foster care system.       Certainly, those who worked hard to achieve this legislation should take pride in this accomplishment. But the rest of us in the child welfare system should take a step back and reflect about how we have been complicit in allowing a system to separate children from their parents with affording families a basic modicum of due process. Consider these realities. In Montana, a child welfare agency can take children away from their parents for 20 days before a court must even hold an initial hearing. In Georgia, a lawyer representing a parent in a termination of parental rights ap...

  In 2001, Karen S. Budd wrote a paper titled “Assessing Parenting Competence in Child Protection Cases: A Clinical Practice Model.” In that paper, Budd cites a study of 190 mental health evaluations completed on parents in child welfare cases in a large urban environment. The study identified “numerous substantive limitations in the content and comprehensiveness of assessments.” The evaluations were completed in a single session, used few sources of information other than the parent, rarely included parent-child observation, and often failed to describe the parent’s caregiving qualities, the child’s feelings about the parent’s caregiving ability, or the child’s relationship with the parent. As a result, Budd found that the evaluations fell short of the American Psychological Association’s guidelines for child welfare evaluations.  Although Budd’s paper was published in 2001 we have not made much, if any, progress in implementing meaningful changes to either the content or con...

Over the past year, national groups have called for sweeping child welfare reforms, like repealing the Adoption and Safe Families Act or eradicating mandatory reporting laws. Some have voiced support for abolishing the child welfare system, or at least foster care, replacing it with a new public health approach rooted in supporting families with concrete resources like income, housing and child care. These calls for reform – now being embraced by a diverse and unlikely group of stakeholders – have sparked long overdue conversations. While these conversations about statutory reforms are important and will hopefully result in meaningful change, questions linger in my mind. Can we immediately achieve the outcomes we are seeking by simply changing our underlying values and attitudes towards families? Rather than waiting for sweeping legislation, could an overhaul of the child welfare system begin today? Take, for example, the pioneering work of the recently retired Judge Ernestine Gray, wh...

          Over the course of my legal career, I’ve worked with so many relatives who have struggled to get placement of their kin in foster care due to their poverty. A grandmother who didn’t have money to buy beds. A grandfather whose home wasn’t big enough to meet licensing standards. An aunt who lived out of state and lacked the resources to move. An uncle with criminal history because he couldn’t pay outstanding fees.            All too often, at the first sign that there might be an obstacle to overcome, or a challenge to navigate, the systems take the “easy” approach. It gives up on family and instead subsidizes the placement of children with strangers instead.                My mind flashed back to many of these stories after reading the New York Times’ story recounting the experiences of Ma’Khia Bryant – yet another young Black American shot by the police – in foster ca...

My client already suffered from Crohn’s Disease, which hampered his ability to hold a job and resulted in frequent hospital visits, when tragedy struck. He and his wife lost their 22-year-old daughter, the burden of which was both emotional and financial, as they spend thousands of dollars for her cremation.  As this was happening, he struggled to get his other children to school, as they were only able to attend school 75% of the time, compared to a county-wide attendance rate of 85%. Yet, both children remained on grade level and were not behind. Nevertheless, when Michigan’s child welfare agency investigated a referral about the family due to the school absences, they removed the children from their home, placed them with strangers.  Going in and out of the hospital, my client struggled to participate in services.  A year later, the child welfare agency asked the court to terminate his rights.  The trial court agreed.  But last month, the Michigan Supreme Cou...