Family Reunification

Jamie L. Russell HDFS 397A May 30, 2012

History and Context

• • • • • • •

Increased awareness of child abuse and interventions.

Reporting laws were put into effect which led to increase of children in foster care.

1980- Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act established to keep families together.

– Made it difficult to keep children safe because of the emphasis on preserving families.

1994- Funding made available for adoption /foster care analysis and reporting systems.

1997- Adoption and Safe Families Act revised the 1980 act to make safety of children a top priority.

March 2000- Child and Family Services State Reviews required to assess domains of safety, permanency, and family and child well-being.

Family reunification today.

– Goals are to preserve families while keeping child safety a top priority.

(Courtney, Needell, & Wulczyn, 2004; Myers, 2010)

Federal Requirements

• • •

Federal law requires states to demonstrate that reasonable efforts are made to:

– Provide services that prevent children from being removed from their homes.

– Make it possible for families to reunited in the event that children are placed in out-of-home care.

In the event that reunification is not in the child’s best interest:

– Many states are responsible for finding safe, permanent placements for children if the court determines parent(s) unfit.

Reasonable efforts are not required when:

– The child is exposed to aggravated circumstances.

– The parent commits murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent or a felony assault that results in serious bodily injury to a child of the parent.

– The parent aids, abets, attempts, conspires, or solicits murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent.

– The parent’s rights to the child’s sibling are terminated involuntarily.

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009 & 2011)

Family Reunification in Pennsylvania

•

What are reasonable efforts?

– Efforts that assist children and their parents.

– Services that prevent future maltreatment.

•

Reasonable efforts are required:

– To prevent or eliminate the need for protective custody.

– To make reunification possible.

– To make permanency plans final.

•

Reasonable efforts are not required:

– When the court has determined that aggravated circumstances exist and no new or additional efforts are required.

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009)

Family Reunification in Pennsylvania

•

What does Pennsylvania consider an aggravated circumstance?

– When the child is in custody of the county agency; the identity of the parent is unknown; and the parent does not claim the child within 3 months or has failed to maintain contact for a period of 6 months.

– When the child or another child of the parent has been the victim of a serious physical abuse, sexual violence, or aggravated physical neglect by the parent.

– When the parent has been convicted of any of the following crimes in which the victim was a child: criminal homicide, aggravated assault, rape, statutory sexual assault, indecent assault, or the attempt to commit any of these crimes.

– When the parent’s parental rights to another child have been terminated involuntarily.

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009)

How Does Pennsylvania Compare?

•

Additional grounds for not making reasonable efforts in other states:

– The Parent: • Abandons a child (28 states and PR) • Abandons an infant (9 states) • Is convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent. (12 states) • Previously had a child removed for abuse or neglect. (9 states and PR) • Fails to comply with the reunification plan. (6 states and PR) • Has been incarcerated for a duration of the child’s age and no other relative is suitable to care for the child. (7 states) • Has a mental illness that makes it impossible to resume care of the child within a reasonable amount of time. (6 states and PR) • Chronically abuses drugs or alcohol and has failed or refused treatment. (7 states and PR) • Lacks interest in reunifying with the child. (2 states and PR) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009)

How Does Pennsylvania Compare?

•

Other grounds in 1 or 2 other states:

– A newborn tests positive for alcohol or controlled substances. (Florida) – A putative father fails to establish paternity. (Montana and Nevada) – The Parent: • Withholds medical treatment or food from the child. (Ohio) • Allows the child to be present where an illegal laboratory is operated. (Utah) • Is convicted of being a sexually violent predator. (Washington) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009)

• • • • • •

Children Birth Parents Friends and Relatives Foster Parents Adoptive Parents Social Workers

Stakeholders

• • • • •

Teachers and Child Care Providers Politicians Tax Payers Communities Etc.

Un intended Consequences

•

Focus is on parental rights rather than best practices intended for typical, healthy development for children.

•

Family reunification slows down the process of removing children who are in danger of maltreatment.

•

Once children are reunified there is a chance that they may be re-victimized.

•

In some cases, reunification policies lengthen the time it takes for children to acquire permanency and may increase the likelihood of placement instability.

(Akin, 2011; Courtney, Needell, & Wulczyn, 2004)

Successful Reunification

• • • •

Concrete services

– Food, transportation, housing, and utilities.

Substance abuse treatment

– Intensive case management.

• Eliminating barriers to recovery – Tailoring programs for women with children • Employment, education, family and children services.

– Strong social support

Home-based services

– Intensive casework services, parenting and life skills education, family-focused treatment, access to community resources.

Post-reunification services

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011)

Making Changes in Policy

•

Early permanency and stability need to be added to the list of priorities for protecting children.

– Re-evaluate the time-limits on reunification efforts.

– Add family assessments for temporary placements.

•

Social workers making decisions to reunify children should have specialized training and educational requirements, as well as greater experience.

– Provide special guidelines when dealing with families with multiple risk factors.

– Limit the number of cases that case workers are given to avoid burnout and adequate service delivery.

•

Post-reunification services should be required as part of the reunification plan.

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011)

Barriers Affecting Possible Change

•

Every case is different and needs to be evaluated on an individual basis.

•

Funding for planning, activities, and placement.

•

Low-pay and high turnover in the field of Social Work.

•

Parental rights are difficult to terminate.

•

Rehabilitation takes time.

(Akin, 2011; Courtney, Needell, & Wulczyn, 2004; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011)

Discussion

• • • •

How much time should a parent be given to rehabilitate issues such as, substance abuse and mental health? What if there is a combination of risk factors?

Should there be a limit to the number of attempts to reunify families after subsequent abuse?

Who should be responsible for tracking post-reunification services? Why?

– Courts? Social workers? Family?

What would you like to see added or taken away from Pennsylvania's list of factors in which reasonable efforts are not required to remove a child from their home?

– Will these changes: • Have a balance between child safety and parental rights?

• Create higher turnover/burnout for social workers?

• Be cost-effective?

References

Akin, B. A. (2011). Predictors of foster care exits to permanency: A competing risks analysis of reunification, guardianship, and adoption.

Children and Youth Services Review, 33

, 999 1011.

Courtney, M. E., Needell, B., & Wulczyn, F. (2004). Unintended consequences of the push for accountability: the case of national child welfare performance standards.

Children and Youth Services Review, 26

, 1141 – 1154.

Myers, J. E. (2010).

The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment

CA: Sage Publications.

(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011, June 27).

Child Welfare Information Gateway

. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from Family Reunification: What the evidence shows: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification/family_reunification.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009, November 17).

Child Welfare Information Gateway

. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from Reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify families and achieve permanency for children: Summary of state laws: http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/reunifyall.pdf