SLAPPEDSHUT

FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA BEWARE!
HAVE YOUR CHILDREN BEEN PRE-TARGETED FOR A GOVERNMENT BLACK MARKET ADOPTION PLAN? ARE THE RIGHTS GIVEN TO US BY GOD TO BEAR CHILDREN AND RAISE FAMILIES MEANT TO BE TAKEN AT WHIM BY THE GOVERNMENT AS A REVENUE MAKER?

IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN FROM AGE 0 TO 10, YOU MAY BE BEING WATCHED, YOUR CHILDREN MAY ALREADY BE PART OF MANY WHO HAVE BEEN PRE-TARGETED. IF YOUR CHILD IS UNDER 3 OR OVER THREE AND UNDER 6, THEY ARE CONSIDERED PRIME ADOPTABLE AGE.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING STATE AND ASSEMBLY BILLS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PASSED AND STATUTES FROM THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE THAT HAVE BEEN DELETED, THESE WERE FOUND WHILE INVESTIGATING WHY MANY FAMILIES WERE PUT THROUGH THE RINGER AFTER THEIR CHILDREN WERE SNATCHED BY THE STATE AND PUT INTO ADOPTION READY HOMES, THE ACTION REFERRED TO AS CONCURRENT PLANNING, THAT PLACES YOUR CHILDREN INTO HOMES WITH PEOPLE READY WILLING AND ABLE TO ADOPT IF YOU CANT CONFORM TO WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DEMANDS OF YOU.

THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT THEY OFFER A REUNIFICATION SERVICE TO FAMILIES, HOWEVER SINCE THEIR REUNIFICATION SERVICES AND PROCESS HAS BEEN DELETED FROM THE CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, A PERSON CAN SEE WHY THIS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLETE, AND WHY THEIR CHILDREN ARE NEVER RETURNED. WHAT REPLACED THE REUNIFICATION SERVICES ?OUR CHILDREN ARE TURNED INTO REVENUE, AND ARE A BASIS FOR NATIONAL FUNDING AS WELL AS FUNDINGS FOR VARIOUS OTHER INTEGRATED PROGRAMS IN CERTAIN PILOT PROJECT COUNTIES SUCH AS CONTRA COSTA, SOLANO, ALAMEDA AND TWO OTHER INCIPIENT COUNTIES ON STANDBY, WITH ROOM FOR AT LEAST 12 MORE COUNTIES TO SHARE THE WEALTH GENERATED BY THIS ACTIVITY.

YOU MIGHT START WITH THIS LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN TO A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FRIEND OF MINE FROM SAN BERNADINO, (THE NAME HAS BEEN OMITTED FOR PROTECTION OF THEIR IDENTITY) WITHIN THE LETTER IS A CUT AND PASTE ARTICLE THAT I HAD PRINTED ONLINE IN THE CONTRA COSTA TIMES EARLY IN THE YEAR OF 2001. THIS SAME ARTICLE WAS REPRINTED LATER ON, ONLINE UNDER A DIFFERENT TITLE SEVERAL MONTHS LATER.

THE ORIGINAL STATE BILLS STARTING WITH STATE BILL 159 BY SENATOR BILL RAINEY, CAN BE FOUND HERE,

FUNDING FOR CALIFORNIA'S DEPENDENCY SYSTEM

Massachusetts Families for Kids
... that typically involves some level of open adoption. ... of child-centered permanency
planning; —Understanding of the benefits of a concurrent and cooperative ...
http://www.csrox.org/training.html - Cached

Record Display
... 193; welfare reform; family reunification; adopted children; expedited permanency
planning; adoption reform movement; family preservation; concurrent planning; ...
http://basis1.calib.com/BASIS/chdocs/docs/naicweb/DDW?W%3DDE++PH+LIKE+'104'%26M%3D7%26K%3D4117%26R%3DY%26U%3D1 - Cached

CDSS All County Information Notice I-46-98
... to the juvenile court dependency and adoption processes. Some of the major areas
impacted by AB 1544 include concurrent services planning, the establishment of ...
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/getinfo/acin98/I-46-98.pdf - Cached

MARN Pre-Adopt Training
... Your first step is to call your county family services department to ask
about its foster care, concurrent planning and/or adoption programs. ...
http://www.mnadopt.org/Training.htm - Cached

Chapter IV: 1201 Child Placement Services
... The agency shall use a concurrent planning process to develop ... and to attend the Permanency
Planning Action Team ... for the permanent case plan will be adoption. ...
http://info.dhhs.state.nc.us/olm/manuals/dss/csm-10/man/CSs1201xA-06.htm - Cached

Southern New England's 10th Annual Conference on Adoption - ...
... culture as related to child development and adoption will be ... Social Worker, Casey
Family Services 2G Concurrent Permanency Planning The Partners in ...
http://www.adoptionri.org/conference/session1.htm - Cached

CSSR NEWSLETTER
... Under concurrent planning, efforts toward finding a child an alternative perma- nent
home through adoption or guardianship are made at the same time as efforts ...
http://cssr.berkeley.edu/newsletters/NewsletterAugust2001.pdf - Cached

The Programs of Future Families
... Thanks for your understanding. Concurrent Planning Adoption combines
"short-term" reunification foster care with adoption. Families ...
Category: Top/Home/Family/Foster Care/Agencies/Private Agencies
http://www.futurefamilies.org/programs.html - Cached

Adoptionology.com - C
... information about the parties to an adoption, without legal authority and the written
consent of the involved parties to do so. Concurrent Planning: A process ...
http://www.adoptionology.com/c.php - Cached

922 KAR 1:100. Agency adoptions.
... (b) Completion of the Adoptive Placement Agreement. (3) If a foster home or concurrent
planning family placement becomes an ... (4) Adoption assistance shall be ...
http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/922/001/100.htm - Cached

MORE....

FUNDING FOR CALIFORNIA'S DEPENDENCY SYSTEM
Managing and Financing Systems Reform in Child Welfare Services
Fred Wulczyn, Ph.D., Co-Director of the Multi-State Data Archive Project, University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children, delivered the following address on June 12, 1997 to a Public Policy Forum organized by the California Department of Social Services.

There is a funding dilemma in the child welfare system. Public agency management planning and resource allocation needs to put money where it needs to be spent. You get what you pay for, and today we are funding foster care - not child welfare. The federal budget allocates 18% of the child welfare dollars to prevention, and 82% to board and maintenance payments.

Also, the fee for services approach to foster care creates a systemic funding dilemma that punishes providers for doing the work of child welfare. As soon as children are returned home or to the community, payments stop. Dr. Wulczyn recommended instead a "capitated ring". The level of reimbursement for services would be preset for a predefined population and period of time. Within the capitated ring, the provider can spend money on whatever services meet the needs of the population.(153)

Two Important Trends to Note in Funding for Child Welfare Services

First, state funding for child welfare services has not kept up with caseload increases. This means that some children and families do not receive services to remediate the negative effects of maltreatment. The second is the increasing role of federal funding for child welfare services, from 20.7% in 1989 to 61.1% in 1994... (154)

From 1989 to the current year, state spending for Child Welfare Services grew by 55%, adjusted by inflation and state population of zero to fourteen year olds. Mandated child abuse reports, however, have been increasing at a much faster rate than the child population as a whole. Therefore, the amounts budgeted have been falling behind the number of children and families needing services.

STATE FUNDING
State Funding for child protection is allocated to five major accounts. ***NOTE 2, 3 AND 4, NO LONGER EXIST THEREFORE WHERE DOES THE STATE FUNDING FOR THOSE PROGRAMS GO NOW? WHY DO THE COURTS ASK IF PARENTS WERE OFFERED REUNIFICATION SERVICES WHEN 65000.65 OF THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE WHICH WAS THE LAW REGARDING REUNIFICATION SERVICES, HAS BEEN DELETED/REPEALED, AND REPLACED WITH SOMETHING ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT?? (SEE *MORE STATE BILLS) ***THIS NOTE INSERTED HERE BY AUTHOR OF THIS PAGE****

I. State Child Welfare Services (CWS) include:

1. Emergency Response to abuse allegations;

2. Family Maintenance Services to children (and their families); while the children remain with their families;

3. Family Preservation and Support Services are intensive services for families whose children may be removed without them; remain in existing out-of-home placements for longer periods of time, or would be placed in more restrictive out-of-home placement and

4. Family Reunification Services which provides services to children in foster care who are temporarily removed to facilitate possible reunification.

CWS can fund the direct costs of emergency shelter care for a child for up to thirty days after removal from a parent's home.

Family Preservation and Support Services: AB558, Chapter 105 Statutes 0/1988:

In 1988, the California legislature authorized a pilot project which was geared toward avoiding or limiting the out-of-home placement of children who have experienced child abuse or neglect within the family. Beginning in 1994-95, federal funds were made available.

How the State of California Determines Funds for Child Welfare Services

Each year, the state bases funding for county dependency services on estimates of the number of cases that each county will encounter in the next fiscal year, projected from caseload data from that county from the most recent thirty-six month period. This translates into the presumed number of social workers needed to manage those cases.(155)

County Welfare Directors Association Report

In October, 1997, the County Welfare Directors Association voted unanimously to seek support of the legislature and the California Department of Social Services for immediate workload relief for Child Welfare Services (CWS) social workers in California. The Association argues that the State laws and regulatory expectations have grown in magnitude and complexity. The complexity of child abuse cases has also grown without any workload relief. The child welfare system is at a point of near collapse.(156)

CWDA argues that the present state system for establishing county child welfare funding is outdated for two reasons.

1. The worker caseload targets were developed in the 1980's and enhanced in the early 90's and are now unmanageably high, given the changes that have impacted California's counties since the standards were developed. These changes include:

dramatic demographic changes;

the impact of increased abuse of drugs in families;

the growth in the numbers of children living in poverty;

the increasingly litigious environment in the courts, resulting in more court reports and hearings, continuances and appeals (which all involve case workers);

new legislation intensifying mandates, reducing case management timelines and directing outcomes (such as concurrent planning with accelerated timelines);

new workloads created by juvenile court and appellate decisions, such as frequency of social worker/child visits and requirements to transport children long distances to regularly visit incarcerated parents;

increased state and community expectations for services, such as: Family Preservation services, Healthy Start services, domestic violence intervention services, relative searches, and other prevention services; and

the CWS/CMS automated system which has brought benefits, but also has: increased the workload of case-carrying workers, increased county administrative costs.

The workload is assigned as follows:

Emergency Response Assessments 320 children per month
Emergency Response 15.8 children per month

Family Maintenance 35 children per month

Family Reunification 27 children per month

Permanent Placement 54 children per month

California's caseload targets are found to be high, when compared to caseload targets established over the last few years in other states, often as a result of lawsuits attacking the quality of the administration and staffing of a state's child welfare program.

For example :

Alabama now has a court-ordered 24 cases per worker and one investigator for every 13.5 child abuse and neglect reports;

Arkansas was ordered to reduce their caseload from 40 to 25 and now has 15 cases per worker;

Colorado, due to a federal court ruling has a 17 cases per worker caseload;

Massachusetts adopted a Governor's Commission recommendation of 18 cases per worker and is considering lowering it further.(157)

2. Projection of the expected number of cases based on the prior three years does not work because the program is volatile, with sudden changes ranging from:

new laws to new court decisions;
shifts in philosophy in county juvenile courts;
economic downturns; and
exploding substance abuse.
These surges are not funded in a timely manner when funding is based on the past three years.(158)

CWDA notes further that, in some years individual counties have received significantly increased allocations by the State in recognition of sizeable caseload growth (in the previous three-year period). Sometimes, however, the increased allocation has been received too late in the fiscal year to be effectively utilized by the county, or for the county to find the necessary county match, resulting in the total allocation not being used. Other reasons for counties not fully using their allocations are their inability to recruit and hire adequate numbers of social work staff and reluctance of county policy makers to add significant numbers of staff when the CWS funding stream is uncertain from year to year.

When a county fails to use state CWS funding due to lack of match, it can lead to the false impression in Sacramento that the county does not need all the child welfare funding made available to it.(159)

CWDA adds that, tragically, the current method also fails to fund the program adequately for the provision of early intervention and prevention services. Increasingly, it seems that the price of admission a family must pay in order to obtain help with parenting and family functioning is that their child must be abused or a juvenile offender. It is now time for California to consider a stronger commitment to serving families in need of help to properly address the challenges or raising healthy, responsible children.

Finally, CWDA points out that, California requires counties to provide a match in order to access state/federal funding made available to them through the state budget process. If a county does not provide a full match, it loses part of the state and federal funding available. The fiscal distress experienced by counties in the last decade has meant that individual counties have at times been unable to provide the required match. This financial distress has been caused by:

state recession;

declining property values, producing reduced property tax revenue;

shift of county and city revenues by the State of California to the State General Fund; and

voter resistance to county tax and fee increase proposals.(160)

Federal foster care dollars under Title IV-E (see below), however, may only be spent when an eligible child is placed out of home. If a child is left in the home or returned to the home with services to assist the child and the family, the county loses the federal match of 50%. (See also Appendix G: Recommendations of the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA))

II. Aid to Families With Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC)

Payment generally occurs after thirty days. This is the state's largest account in the child protection area. AFDC-FC pays for the board and care costs of a child's placement and related administrative costs of placing children in foster family homes, licenced group homes, and more intensive treatment facilities.

Average Foster Care Payments Per Child/Month.

Foster Family Homes Group Homes SED AAP
1996-97 $586 $2,705 $3,970 $452

SED: seriously emotionally disturbed
AAP: Adoptions Assistance Program

In buying power the per child payments for family foster care declined 7% since 1989-90 and group home payments decreased 9.6%.(161)

The cost of caring for abused and neglected children has risen more sharply than has the number of children in care combined with inflation. This difference is explained in part by the fact that the placement rate of children in more expensive group homes has risen faster than the placement rate in foster(family) homes. (See table in Appendix G)

III. Adoption Assistance Account distributes funds to reimburse counties for subsidies paid to families to facilitate the adoption of "difficult to place" foster children, such as: a member of a sibling group which should remain intact; or by virtue of race, ethnicity, color, language, age, or parental background x will have difficulty being placed without subsidy. The Governor launched the Adoptions Initiative which in 1996-97 and 1998-99 resulted in more adoptions of foster children, necessitating increased funding to cover increased county claims to the State's General Fund.

IV. Office of Child Abuse Prevention is the major budget item dedicated explicitly to child abuse prevention. Existing projects include data collection, research projects, and education programs in local communities and schools.

V. Emergency Preparedness and Injury Control Program (EPIC)

EPIC includes a variety of small programs and activities. Among other things, EPIC conducts control programs for prevention of unintentional and intentional injuries. Injury control program functions include educational and informational activities. EPIC programs especially relevant to children include domestic and community violence prevention. There is a small Childhood Injury Prevention Program (CHIPP) in the MCH branch.(162)

Unintentional and intentional injuries are the leading cause of death among California boys and girls age 1-20. Injury prevention program funding for children is disproportionately low in relation to injuries and death. The state's contribution to the EPIC program is less than three-quarters of a million dollars.

(For more information, see Appendix D: More About funding for California's Dependency System)

COUNTY FUNDING
County Trial Court Funding

Until this year County costs included juvenile court costs for dependency issues. In 1997 the Legislature agreed to assume responsibility for county trial court funding. Thus the State will now appropriate funds each year in the General Fund Budget for the county court operations. The Judicial Council will recommend the amounts for each county, on the advice of the Council's Trial Court Budget Commission. These recommended amounts will be based on standards, minimum service levels, and planning goals for county courts, established by the Judicial Council. The Council supported this change because it was seen as a means of providing consistency among the County Courts. Counties will annually pay to the state an amount equal to their expenditures for the courts and county fine and forfeiture receipts in fiscal year 1994-95. Beginning in 1998-9, the state will provide local governments additional relief of approximately $350 million.(163)

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Programs: Although many children enter the Dependency System because of the drug or alcohol abuse by their parents, only a very small portion of child welfare dollars is spent on drug and alcohol abuse treatment services. The services relied upon by the dependency system for substance abuse treatment are largely community resources. These services are overburdened. County drug and alcohol administrators surveyed by the Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs estimated they would need a 150% increase in funding to provide drug and alcohol services to those eligible people who would seek services if they were available.(164)

This has a significant impact on the county budget, since children remain in out-of-home placement if the substance abuse is not controlled.(165)

See also County Welfare Directors Association Report above for discussion of County matching of funds for caseworkers.

FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS
All child protection programs in California are heavily dependent upon federal funding.

1. Title IV-E Foster Care pays 51.23% of the cost to AFDC-FC of the placement for children from families who are eligible, that is have incomes that qualified them for AFDC funding.

2. Title IV-B covered about 55.5% of the total costs of California's Child Welfare Services in 1996-97 but it is expected to drop back to 52.7% in 1997-98.

3. Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program pays 30% of the costs of adoption and 51.23 % of adoption assistance in California

4. 15% of the costs of Office of Child Abuse Prevention are paid by the Federal Government.(166)

CALIFORNIA'S TITLE IV-E CHILD WELFARE WAIVER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Background

As noted above, Title IV-E foster care funds are based on the number of federally eligible foster children in California and reimburse the state and counties what they pay for foster care. These funds are restricted to the board and care costs of the out-of-home placement and cannot be used for other program services. On the other hand, Title IV-B monies which fund Child Welfare Services are capped and funding for these services have not kept up with the needs of children and families.

California's Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Project was approved by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on August 19, 1997, permitting implementation of three pilot projects serving approximately four thousand foster children in as many as 32 counties or locations over the next five years. Key sections of federal and state statute which currently limit the use of foster care funds will be waived, allowing the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and participating counties to use available dollars with the flexibility needed to test innovative and more effective methods of providing welfare services. The three project components are as follows:

The Extended Voluntary Placement Component will extend federal funding for voluntary placements from the present one-year restriction for a further six to twelve months under specific conditions, with management review and approval. This change will allow children with a good chance for reunification to stay in temporary care for more than a year. It is also expected to reduce court and casework costs. (See also Chapter I: The Juvenile Court, the section on Voluntary Placements)

The Kinship Permanence Component will allow specified adolescent children living in long-term, stable, relative placements to continue receiving a federal foster care payment after guardianship is established and dependency is dismissed, provided specific conditions are met. This is expected to promote permanency and reduce court and case management costs. (See also the Chapter III: California Child Welfare Services, the sub-chapter on Kinship Care)

The Intensive Services Component will permit participating counties to use Title IV-E funds for service costs necessary to reduce out-of-home placements and/or divert children in placement to permanent, family settings. (For more on this see Chapter III: California Child Welfare Services, the sub-chapter on Wraparound Services)

Intent

The waiver is an attempt to provide more flexibility to the counties. It is hoped that the project will promote permanence for children and families, divert some children and families from the juvenile court system, and facilitate the provision of services to children who are in permanent placement in families in the child's community at no additional cost to the federal, state, or county government.(167) The project has been designed to be cost neutral to federal, state and county governments.

BILL NUMBER: SB 159 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE   JANUARY 13, 1998
AMENDED IN SENATE   MAY 23, 1997
AMENDED IN SENATE   MAY 5, 1997
AMENDED IN SENATE   APRIL 7, 1997

INTRODUCED BY Senator Rainey

JANUARY 15, 1997

An act to add Section 16003 to repeal,
add, and repeal Section 16500.65 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, relating to public social services , and
declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately .

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

   SB 159, as amended, Rainey. Children: placement.
   Existing law provides for the placement of a child in foster care
when the child is removed from his or her family home.
   This bill would require the Director of Social Services to
designate up to 3 counties that meet specified requirements as pilot
counties for the implementation of a model for concurrently planning
for family reunification and for placement in an adoptive home. The
bill would require the State Department of Social Services to
allocate specified funds to pilot counties for this purpose.

   Existing law additionally provides for a family reunification and
maintenance pilot program, in three participating counties, which is
intended to preserve the continuity of the family as an alternative
to out-of-home placement for children. Existing law separately
provides for a family preservation and reunification program for
specified children and families, to be administered in Contra Costa
County.
   This bill would delete the existing provisions relating to the
family reunification program in Contra Costa County. The bill would
declare the intent of the Legislature to plan for the reunification
of a child in public foster care with his or her parent or guardian,
while at the same time beginning to plan to free the child for
adoption, in case the reunification eventually proves to be
impossible, known as concurrent planning. The bill would establish
the Concurrent Planning-Foster Care Cost Reduction (CP-FCCR) program,
a concurrent planning pilot program in Contra Costa County and up to
2 additional counties meeting specified criteria, and would describe
criteria for the success of the pilot program.
   This bill would state that it shall remain in effect until January
1, 2004, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute that is enacted before January 1, 2004, deletes or extends
that date.
   This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as
an urgency statute.
   Vote:   majority   2/3 .
Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local
program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
   (a) The Governor proposed an adoption initiative in the 1996-97
State Budget and has provided $7,000,000 to improve the statewide
adoption system by removing barriers that keep children in long-term
foster care and impede public agency productivity.
   (b) Concurrent planning is a method whereby reuniting a child with
his or her family and permanency planning in an adoptive home are
pursued simultaneously in order to speed up the placement of the
child with an adoptive family if returning the child to his or her
birth family is determined not to be possible.
   (c) The success of concurrent planning hinges on the ability of a
county welfare department to find, recruit, and prepare a pool of
families who can provide a foster home while the goal for the child
is reunification with the birth family, and who can also commit to
adopting and raising the child if reunification fails.
   (d) Concurrent planning is consistent with the goals of the
Governor's adoption initiative and should be tested to determine its
value in increasing the number of adoptions.
   (e) Contra Costa County is prepared to implement concurrent
planning and demonstrate how to effectively transform a traditional
child welfare services program into one that will decrease the time
required to place and finalize adoption plans for children.

SEC. 2. Section 16003 is added to the Welfare and Institutions
Code, to read:
   16003. (a) The director shall designate up to three counties
pursuant to subdivision (e) as pilot counties for the
SEC. 2. Section 16500.65 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is   ***THIS IS WHAT WAS DELETED THE REUNIFICATION SERVICES NO LONGER
repealed.                                                                                           <=== EXIST, AND WAIT TILL YOU SEE WHAT IT WAS REPLACED WITH.
   16500.65. (a) In addition to the three programs authorized under
Section 16500.5, Contra Costa County may implement a family
preservation and reunification program. The program shall be
administered in accordance with Section 16500.5, including, but not
limited to, the funding mechanism set forth in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b) of Section 16500.5, and shall be subject to all of
the provisions of that section.
   (b) The family preservation program authorized by this section may
serve all of the following:
   (1) Families receiving those services pursuant to Sections 300,
330, 361, and 364.
   (2) Children who have been adjudged wards of the court pursuant to
Sections 601 and 602.
   (3) Families of children subject to Sections 726 and 727.
   (c) The county probation department may, through an interagency
agreement with the county welfare department, refer cases to the
county welfare department for the direct provision of services under
this subdivision.
   (d) The county shall ensure that the proportion of funds used for
family preservation services for families and children needing those
services pursuant to Sections 300, 330, 361, and 364 shall be no less
than the proportion of those children in the county's foster care
program.
   (e) Any private funds made available to the county for family
preservation services shall be applied to the AFDC-FC advance through
the end of the 1990-91 fiscal year.
   (f) The project authorized by this subdivision shall be deemed
successful if the following criteria have been met:
   (1) At least 75 percent of the children who are not placed in
out-of-home care and who receive project services remain in their
home for at least six months after the termination of family
preservation services.
   (2) Two years after the termination of family preservation
services, the average length of out-of-home stay of children selected
to receive services under this section who, at the time of
selection, are in out-of-home care, is 50 percent less than the
average length of stay in out-of-home care for children in
out-of-home care who do not receive demonstration project services
pursuant to this section.
   (3) Two years after project services are terminated, at least 60
percent of the children who were returned home with project services
remain at home.
   (g) (1) The participating county shall submit, to the department
and to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, a preliminary
report upon the conclusion of the demonstration project, and a final
report six months after the conclusion of the project.
   (2) The participating county shall, in the reports required by
paragraph (1), demonstrate the extent the project met the criteria
for determining the success of the project specified in subdivision
(f).
   (h) A dependent minor or ward of the court removed from the home
pursuant to Section 726 may also be returned to his or her home with
appropriate interagency family preservation services as provided in
subdivision (c) of Section 16500.5.
SEC. 3. Section 16500.65 is added to the Welfare and Institutions
Code, to read:
   16500.65. (a) The director shall designate Contra Costa County           <=== THIS REPLACED THE REUNIFICATION SERVICES PROGRAM
and up to two additional counties as pilot counties for the
implementation of a concurrent planning model that will demonstrate
the most effective means of increasing the number of adoptions and of
decreasing the time required to finalize adoptions.
   (b) By January 1, 1998, the department shall identify unexpended
funds from the previous two fiscal years appropriated for the
Governor's adoption initiative, as incorporated in Item 5180-001-0001
of the Budget Act of 1996 (Chapter 162, Stats. 1996), and other
unexpended funds appropriated for county expenditures in the adoption
and child welfare services programs.
   (c) The department shall allocate to each pilot county an amount
not to exceed four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) per year
for two years from unexpended funds as described pursuant to
subdivision (b) for the purpose of implementing concurrent planning
in the county pursuant to subdivision (a).
   (d) Each pilot county shall provide a report to the department by
January 1, 2000, describing program implementation and outcomes for
use as a guideline for other counties.
   (e)
   (b) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to maximize the
opportunity for children in public foster care, who are unable to
return to the care of their parent or guardian, to have a stable and
permanent home. It is further the intent of the Legislature to
provide that stable and permanent home at the earliest possible
opportunity, once it is clear that a child cannot return to the care
of his or her parent or guardian. The Legislature believes that
these goals can be accomplished, in part, by planning for the
reunification of a child with his or her parent or guardian, while at
the same time beginning to plan to free the child for adoption, in
case the reunification eventually proves to be impossible. This
concept of simultaneous planning for reunification and adoption is
know as concurrent planning.
   (2) The Legislature finds that maintaining abused and neglected
children in foster care grows increasingly costly each year, and that
adequate funding for family services which might either return these
children to their homes, or place them in an adoptive home is not as
readily available as funding for foster care placement. Existing
child welfare services funding is insufficient to fund the extent of
concurrent planning activity that will result in more immediate
permanency.
   (3) Accordingly, it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting
this section to establish a new system of flexible financing to fund
concurrent planning activity, and to evaluate this new reimbursement
as an efficient, economical, and effective mechanism for reducing the
length of time a child must remain in a foster home before either
being reunited with his or her family or placed in an adoptive home.
This program shall be known as the Concurrent Planning-Foster Care
Cost Reduction (CP-FCCR) program.
   (c) Any of the participating pilot counties may claim, on an
annual basis, a portion of the state's share, and to the extent
permitted, the federal share, of that county's AFDC-FC estimated
expenditures for purposes of this chapter. The amount of funds
advanced against future AFDC-FC shall be calculated as part of a
county and state plan that documents the CP-FCCR Strategy and project
duration. The plan shall address how amounts advanced would be
offset in future years by concurrent planning outcomes.
   (d) The CP-FCCR program authorized by this section shall be deemed
successful if any of the following criteria are met:
   (1) The average length of time between the detention hearing held
pursuant to Section 361 and the date of placement for adoption or the
date the court dismisses jurisdiction is reduced for families
receiving concurrent planning services, as compared to the period of
time for placement of children for adoption in the participating
pilot county during the 1996-97 fiscal year.
   (2) The average length of time between the detention hearing held
pursuant to Section 361 and the date of reunification is reduced as
compared to the period of time for reunification in the participating
pilot county during the 1996-97 fiscal year.
   (3) The average cost of foster care for children receiving
concurrent planning services between the date of the detention
hearing held pursuant to Section 361 and the date of placement for
adoption or the date the court dismisses jurisdiction is reduced as
compared with the cost in the participating pilot county during the
1996-97 fiscal year.
   (4) The number of children placed for adoption in the
participating pilot county during the demonstration project will
increase compared with the number of children placed for adoption in
the 1996-97 fiscal year.
   (e) AFDC-FC savings achieved pursuant to subdivision (d) shall
offset AFDC-FC advances claimed in subdivision (c) in order for a
CP-FCCR pilot program to be effective.
   (f) (1) Notwithstanding Section 7550.5 of the Government Code, the
participating pilot county shall submit, to the department and to
the appropriate committees of the Legislature, a preliminary report
upon the conclusion of the pilot program, and a final report six
months after the conclusion of the pilot program.
   (2) The participating pilot county shall, in the reports required
by paragraph (1), demonstrate the extent the pilot program met the
criteria for determining the success of the project specified in
subdivision (d).
   (g) A county is eligible to be designated as a pilot county
pursuant to subdivision (a) if it has taken substantial action and is
prepared to implement concurrent planning, as demonstrated by the
fulfillment of all of the following requirements by March 1, 1998.
   (1) The county is able to provide the appropriate match for the
allocated state and federal dollars.
   (2) The county has formed a staff work group that includes
representation from all child welfare services areas to identify
implementation issues.
   (3) The county has drafted a work plan for the pilot project that
outlines strategies for the recruitment of caregivers, changes in the
case management system, assessment guidelines for children, and
actions to facilitate the judicial process.
   (4) The county has received the support of local juvenile courts
and the board of supervisors for the county's concurrent planning
program.
   (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2004, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2004, deletes or extends
that date.
SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the
meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate
effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
   In order to provide the widest range of services to distressed
children and families as soon as possible, and to rapidly initiate
services to provide children with a stable and permanent home, it is
necessary that this act take effect immediately.

BILL NUMBER: AB 390 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Scott

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

An act to amend Sections 16118, 16119, 16120.05, and 16121.05 of
the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to human services, and
making an appropriation therefor.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

   AB 390, as introduced, Scott. Adoption assistance.
   Existing law provides for the payment, by the State Department of
Social Services and counties, of cash assistance to eligible families
that adopt eligible children, and bases the amount of the payment on
the needs of the child and the resources of the family to meet those
needs.
   Existing law specifies what county shall be responsible for
determining a child's eligibility under the Adoption Assistance
Program and for providing financial aid.
   This bill would revise the responsibility of counties with respect
to children relinquished for adoption prior to a determination of
eligibility to make the county in which the relinquishing parent
resides responsible for the eligibility determination and for
providing financial aid.
   This bill would revise the adoptive program eligibility standards
and would revise the basis for determining the negotiated amount of
the adoption assistance cash benefits. The bill would also revise
references to renewal of the adoption assistance agreement to refer
instead to a reassessment of the child's needs.
   Existing law requires the department to determine when an adoption
assistance overpayment has been made to an adoptive family when a
child has not received services for which the adoption assistance
benefits were authorized and to recover overpayment of adoption
assistance benefits.
   This bill would recast that requirement to specify that the
adoption overpayments would result if the adoptive parents are no
longer legally responsible for the support of the child or the child
is no longer receiving support from the adoptive parents.
   By increasing the responsibilities of counties, this bill would
result in a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund
to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide
and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed
$1,000,000.
   This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 16118 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
amended to read:
   16118. (a) The department shall establish and administer the
program to be carried out by the department or the county pursuant to
this chapter. The department shall adopt any regulations necessary
to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
   (b) The department shall keep any records necessary to evaluate
the program's effectiveness in encouraging and promoting the adoption
of children eligible for the Adoption Assistance Program.
   (c) The department or the county responsible for providing
financial aid in the amount determined in Section 16120 shall have
responsibility for certifying that the child meets the eligibility
criteria and for determining the amount of financial assistance
needed by the child and the adopting family.
   (d) The department shall actively seek and make maximum use of
federal funds that may be available for the purposes of this chapter.
All gifts or grants received from private sources for the purpose
of this chapter shall be used to offset public costs incurred under
the program established by this chapter.
   (e) For purposes of this chapter, the county responsible for
determining the child's Adoption Assistance Program eligibility
status and for providing financial aid in the amount determined in
Sections 16120 and 16120.1 shall be the county that at the time of
the adoptive placement would otherwise be responsible for making a
payment pursuant to Section 11450 under the Aid to Families
with Dependent Children   CalWORKs program or
Section 11461 under the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children-Foster Care program if the child were not adopted.
When the child has been voluntarily relinquished for adoption prior
to a determination of eligibility for such a payment, the responsible
county shall be the county in which the relinquishing parent
resides.   The responsible county for all other eligible
children shall be the county where the child is physically residing
prior to placement with the adoptive family. The responsible county
shall certify eligibility on a form prescribed by the department.
SEC. 2. Section 16119 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
amended to read:
   16119. (a) At the time application for adoption of a child who is
potentially eligible for Adoption Assistance Program benefits is
made, the department or the licensed adoption agency, whichever is
appropriate, shall provide the prospective adoptive family with
information, in writing, on the availability of Adoption Assistance
Program benefits, with an explanation of the difference between these
benefits and foster care payments. The department or the licensed
adoption agency shall also provide the prospective adoptive family
with information, in writing, on the availability of reimbursement
for the nonrecurring expenses incurred in the adoption of the
Adoption Assistance Program eligible child.   The department or
licensed adoption agency shall also provide the prospective adoptive
family with information on the availability of mental health services
through the Medi-Cal program or other programs.
   (b) The department or the county, whichever is responsible for
determining the child's eligibility for the Adoption Assistance
Program, shall assess the needs of the child and the
resources circumstances of the family to
meet those needs, including the family's financial status relative
to available statewide median income data .
   (c) The amount of an adoption assistance cash benefit, if any,
shall be a negotiated amount based upon the needs of the child and
the ability of the family to meet the child's needs
circumstances of the family . There shall be no
means test used to determine an adoptive family's eligibility for
the Adoption Assistance Program.   The statewide median
income data shall be used as a guideline to assist agencies and
adoptive families in negotiating the amount of the Adoption
Assistance Program benefit to be awarded to families to meet a child'
s needs for which other resources are unavailable. In all instances,
actual living expenses, including any unusual expenses, shall be
considered in evaluating the amount of benefit needed by the family
to meet the child's needs.   In those instances where an
otherwise eligible child does not require a cash benefit, Medi-Cal
eligibility may be established for the child, as needed.
   (d) In applying the statewide median income guideline,
agencies shall be guided by the following assumptions:
   (1) Families with income below the statewide median income may
qualify for an amount up to the state approved basic foster care rate
plus any state approved specialized care increment for which the
child would be eligible if in foster care.
   (2) Families with income above the statewide median income shall
be considered to be able to meet the normal child rearing expenses
encompassed in the state approved basic foster family home care rate,
but may qualify to receive benefits in an amount up to the state
approved specialized care increments the child would be eligible to
receive if in foster care.
   (e) The department or the licensed adoption agency shall
inform the prospective adoptive family regarding the county
responsible for providing financial aid to the adoptive family in an
amount determined pursuant to Sections 16120 and 16120.1.
   (e) The department or the licensed adoption agency shall inform
the prospective adoptive family that the adoptive parents will
continue to receive benefits in the agreed upon amount unless one of
the following occurs:
   (1) The department determines that the adoptive parents are no
longer legally responsible for the support of the child.
   (2) The department determines that the child is no longer
receiving support from the adoptive family.
   (3) The adoption assistance payment exceeds the amount that the
child would have been eligible for in a licensed foster home.
   (4) The adoptive parents demonstrate a need for an increased
payment.
   (5) The adoptive parents voluntarily reduce or terminate payments.

SEC. 3. Section 16120.05 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
amended to read:
   16120.05. The adoption assistance agreement shall, at a minimum,
specify the amount and duration of assistance. The date for
renewal of the agreement   reassessment of the child's
needs shall be set at the time of the initial negotiation of
the adoption assistance agreement, and shall, thereafter be set at
each subsequent renewal   reassessment .
The interval between any renewals shall
reassessments may not exceed two years.   The renewal
period shall be based on the specific qualifying condition of the
child, and if applicable, documented by a licensed competent
professional, operating within the scope of his or her profession, as
to the diagnosis and prognosis of the child. Adoption Assistance
Program payment levels shall be considered only after a full
documentation of the costs to be incurred because of a child's
qualifying condition, as well as an assessment of the adoptive family'
s resources to pay for identified needs of the child. An assessment
of the availability of other community resources shall also be
considered to pay or provide for identified costs. Adoption
Assistance Program payments shall only be available to meet otherwise
unmet needs when community or parental resources are not available
for these purposes.
   The adoption assistance agreement shall also specify the
responsibility of the adopting family for reporting changes in
circumstances that might negatively affect their ability to
provide for the identified needs of the child .
SEC. 4. Section 16121.05 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
amended to read:
   16121.05. (a) The adoptive parents shall report changes
in the family's or child's circumstances, including, but not limited
to, financial status, to the department or county responsible for
determining the child's eligibility for the Adoption Assistance
Program and for providing financial aid. Failure to report these
changes to the department or the county responsible for determining
the child's Adoption Assistance Program eligibility status and for
providing financial aid may result in current and future reduction of
Adoption Assistance Program payments to recover past overpayments.
A finding that an overpayment has occurred may also result in
circumstances where the child has not received the services for which
benefits were authorized. The department may recover any
overpayments, and shall develop regulations that establish the means
to recoup them, including an appropriate notice of action and appeal
rights.    The department may recover any overpayments
of financial assistance under the Adoption Assistance Program, and
shall develop regulations that establish the means to recoup them,
including an appropriate notice of action and appeal rights, when the
department determines either of the following applies:
   (1) The adoptive parents are no longer legally responsible for the
support of the child.
   (2) The child is no longer receiving support from the adoptive
family.
   (b) Children on whose behalf an adoption assistance agreement had
been executed prior to October 1, 1992, shall continue to receive
adoption assistance in accordance with the terms of that agreement.
   (c) Payment shall begin on or after the effective date of an
adoption assistance agreement, or a deferred adoption assistance
agreement, or a final decree of adoption, provided the adoption
assistance agreement has been signed by all required parties prior to
or at the time the adoption decree is issued by the court.
   (d) Children on whose behalf an aid for adoption of children
agreement had been executed prior to October 1, 1982, shall continue
to receive aid for adoption of children benefits in accordance with
the terms of that agreement. This aid for adoption of children
agreement may be renewed, provided total benefits do not exceed five
years. Prior to the end of the five-year period, if there is a
continuing need related to a chronic health condition of the child
that necessitated the initial financial assistance, the time period
for which it may be given shall be determined by the department or
the agency, but shall not extend past the time that the child reaches
18 years of age. Prior to the expiration of the extension period,
if there is a continuing need, a parent may petition the department
or the designated licensed adoption agency for a new period of
termination. The department or the agency shall make its
determination regarding the financial ability of the parents to meet
the continuing medical needs of the child's health condition at the
time of adoption, taking into consideration community resources.
SEC. 5. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains
costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and
school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for
reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000),
reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.

BILL NUMBER: SB 159 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE   JANUARY 13, 1998
AMENDED IN SENATE   MAY 23, 1997
AMENDED IN SENATE   MAY 5, 1997
AMENDED IN SENATE   APRIL 7, 1997

INTRODUCED BY Senator Rainey

JANUARY 15, 1997

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SEC. 2. Section 16003 is added to the Welfare and Institutions
Code, to read:
   16003. (a) The director shall designate up to three counties
pursuant to subdivision (e) as pilot counties
SEC. 2. Section 16500.65 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
repealed.**** IT "USED" TO READ AS FOLLOWS...
   16500.65. (a) In addition to the three programs authorized under
Section 16500.5, Contra Costa County may implement a family
preservation and reunification program. The program shall be
administered in accordance with Section 16500.5, including, but not
limited to, the funding mechanism set forth in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b) of Section 16500.5, and shall be subject to all of
the provisions of that section.
   (b) The family preservation program authorized by this section may
serve all of the following:
   (1) Families receiving those services pursuant to Sections 300,
330, 361, and 364.
   (2) Children who have been adjudged wards of the court pursuant to
Sections 601 and 602.
   (3) Families of children subject to Sections 726 and 727.
   (c) The county probation department may, through an interagency
agreement with the county welfare department, refer cases to the
county welfare department for the direct provision of services under
this subdivision.
   (d) The county shall ensure that the proportion of funds used for
family preservation services for families and children needing those
services pursuant to Sections 300, 330, 361, and 364 shall be no less
than the proportion of those children in the county's foster care
program.
   (e) Any private funds made available to the county for family
preservation services shall be applied to the AFDC-FC advance through
the end of the 1990-91 fiscal year.
   (f) The project authorized by this subdivision shall be deemed
successful if the following criteria have been met:
   (1) At least 75 percent of the children who are not placed in
out-of-home care and who receive project services remain in their
home for at least six months after the termination of family
preservation services.
   (2) Two years after the termination of family preservation
services, the average length of out-of-home stay of children selected
to receive services under this section who, at the time of
selection, are in out-of-home care, is 50 percent less than the
average length of stay in out-of-home care for children in
out-of-home care who do not receive demonstration project services
pursuant to this section.
   (3) Two years after project services are terminated, at least 60
percent of the children who were returned home with project services
remain at home.
   (g) (1) The participating county shall submit, to the department
and to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, a preliminary
report upon the conclusion of the demonstration project, and a final
report six months after the conclusion of the project.
   (2) The participating county shall, in the reports required by
paragraph (1), demonstrate the extent the project met the criteria
for determining the success of the project specified in subdivision
(f).
   (h) A dependent minor or ward of the court removed from the home
pursuant to Section 726 may also be returned to his or her home with
appropriate interagency family preservation services as provided in
subdivision (c) of Section 16500.5. ***<---this was DELETED FROM
THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, AND REPLACED WITH THE FOLLOWING!!!
SEC. 3. Section 16500.65 is added to the Welfare and Institutions
Code, to read:
   16500.65. (a) The director shall designate Contra Costa County
and up to two additional counties as pilot counties for the
implementation of a concurrent planning model that will demonstrate
the most effective means of increasing the number of adoptions and of
decreasing the time required to finalize adoptions.
   (b) By January 1, 1998, the department shall identify unexpended
funds from the previous two fiscal years appropriated for the
Governor's adoption initiative, as incorporated in Item 5180-001-0001
of the Budget Act of 1996 (Chapter 162, Stats. 1996), and other
unexpended funds appropriated for county expenditures in the adoption
and child welfare services programs.
   (c) The department shall allocate to each pilot county an amount
not to exceed four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) per year
for two years from unexpended funds as described pursuant to
subdivision (b) for the purpose of implementing concurrent planning
in the county pursuant to subdivision (a).
   (d) Each pilot county shall provide a report to the department by
January 1, 2000, describing program implementation and outcomes for
use as a guideline for other counties.
   (e)
   (b) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to maximize the
opportunity for children in public foster care, who are unable to
return to the care of their parent or guardian, to have a stable and
permanent home. It is further the intent of the Legislature to
provide that stable and permanent home at the earliest possible
opportunity, once it is clear that a child cannot return to the care
of his or her parent or guardian. The Legislature believes that
these goals can be accomplished, in part, by planning for the
reunification of a child with his or her parent or guardian, while at
the same time beginning to plan to free the child for adoption, in
case the reunification eventually proves to be impossible. This
concept of simultaneous planning for reunification and adoption is
know as concurrent planning.
   (2) The Legislature finds that maintaining abused and neglected
children in foster care grows increasingly costly each year, and that
adequate funding for family services which might either return these
children to their homes, or place them in an adoptive home is not as
readily available as funding for foster care placement. Existing
child welfare services funding is insufficient to fund the extent of
concurrent planning activity that will result in more immediate
permanency.
   (3) Accordingly, it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting
this section to establish a new system of flexible financing to fund
concurrent planning activity, and to evaluate this new reimbursement
as an efficient, economical, and effective mechanism for reducing the
length of time a child must remain in a foster home before either
being reunited with his or her family or placed in an adoptive home.
This program shall be known as the Concurrent Planning-Foster Care
Cost Reduction (CP-FCCR) program.
   (c) Any of the participating pilot counties may claim, on an
annual basis, a portion of the state's share, and to the extent
permitted, the federal share, of that county's AFDC-FC estimated
expenditures for purposes of this chapter. The amount of funds
advanced against future AFDC-FC shall be calculated as part of a
county and state plan that documents the CP-FCCR Strategy and project
duration. The plan shall address how amounts advanced would be
offset in future years by concurrent planning outcomes.
   (d) The CP-FCCR program authorized by this section shall be deemed
successful if any of the following criteria are met:
   (1) The average length of time between the detention hearing held
pursuant to Section 361 and the date of placement for adoption or the
date the court dismisses jurisdiction is reduced for families
receiving concurrent planning services, as compared to the period of
time for placement of children for adoption in the participating
pilot county during the 1996-97 fiscal year.
   (2) The average length of time between the detention hearing held
pursuant to Section 361 and the date of reunification is reduced as
compared to the period of time for reunification in the participating
pilot county during the 1996-97 fiscal year.
   (3) The average cost of foster care for children receiving
concurrent planning services between the date of the detention
hearing held pursuant to Section 361 and the date of placement for
adoption or the date the court dismisses jurisdiction is reduced as
compared with the cost in the participating pilot county during the
1996-97 fiscal year.
   (4) The number of children placed for adoption in the
participating pilot county during the demonstration project will
increase compared with the number of children placed for adoption in
the 1996-97 fiscal year.
   (e) AFDC-FC savings achieved pursuant to subdivision (d) shall
offset AFDC-FC advances claimed in subdivision (c) in order for a
CP-FCCR pilot program to be effective.
   (f) (1) Notwithstanding Section 7550.5 of the Government Code, the
participating pilot county shall submit, to the department and to
the appropriate committees of the Legislature, a preliminary report
upon the conclusion of the pilot program, and a final report six
months after the conclusion of the pilot program.
   (2) The participating pilot county shall, in the reports required
by paragraph (1), demonstrate the extent the pilot program met the
criteria for determining the success of the project specified in
subdivision (d).
   (g) A county is eligible to be designated as a pilot county
pursuant to subdivision (a) if it has taken substantial action and is
prepared to implement concurrent planning, as demonstrated by the
fulfillment of all of the following requirements by March 1, 1998.
   (1) The county is able to provide the appropriate match for the
allocated state and federal dollars.
   (2) The county has formed a staff work group that includes
representation from all child welfare services areas to identify
implementation issues.
   (3) The county has drafted a work plan for the pilot project that
outlines strategies for the recruitment of caregivers, changes in the
case management system, assessment guidelines for children, and
actions to facilitate the judicial process.
   (4) The county has received the support of local juvenile courts
and the board of supervisors for the county's concurrent planning
program.
   (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2004, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2004, deletes or extends
that date.
SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the
meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate
effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
   In order to provide the widest range of services to distressed
children and familes as soon as possible, and to rapidly initiate
services to provide children with a stable and permanent home, it is
necessary that this act take effect immediately.

BILL NUMBER: AB 763 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Bates

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

An act to add Section 17205 to the Revenue and Taxation Code,
relating to taxation, to take effect immediately, tax levy.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 763, as introduced, Bates. Income taxes: deduction: adoption.

   The Personal Income Tax Law provides an exclusion from income and
a credit against taxes for certain adoption costs.
   This bill would, in lieu of that exclusion and credit, allow a
deduction for specified adoption costs.
   This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 17205 is added to the Revenue and Taxation
Code, to read:
17205. (a) There shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal
to all costs paid or incurred during the taxable year by a taxpayer
for the adoption of any minor child. Costs eligible for the
deduction shall include, but are not limited to, any medical fees and
expenses paid or incurred by the mother, surrogate parenting
arrangement costs, travel expenses, legal fees, and adoption agency
fees.
(b) The deduction allowed by this section shall be in lieu of any
deduction or credit otherwise allowed by this part for those costs
for which a deduction is allowed by this section.
SEC. 2. This act provides for a tax levy within the meaning of
Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.

THOUGH THESE ARE CUT AND PASTE, COMMENTS ARE INJECTED ***INDICATES WEBMASTERS COMMENTS, THE LINKS TO THE ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS WITHOUT COMMENTARY CAN BE FOUND AT CALIFORNIAS LEGISLATION SITE. SEARCH STATE BILLS BY BILL RAINEY, OR FOR BILLS HAVING TO DO WITH CONCURRENT ADOPTION PLANNING, THE ORIGINAL BILL I BELIEVE CAME OUT IN 1997 AND LATEST UPGRADE WAS IN APRIL OF 2003.
              SENATE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
                     COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
            Senator Diane E. Watson, Chairperson
BILL NO:       SB 159
AUTHOR:        Rainey
AMENDED:       April 7, 1997 in Senate
HEARING DATE: April 23, 1997
FISCAL:        Appropriations

CONSULTANT:
Dektar

SUBJECT

Concurrent Placement: Pilot Project

SUMMARY

This bill designates Contra Costa County as a pilot county
for a concurrent placement model for foster children.

ABSTRACT

Current law requires counties to investigate cases of child
abuse and neglect and the juvenile court to place children
in foster care if complaints are substantiated. Family
reunification programs provide support services to the
family while the child is in foster care. Foster
placements are required to be made in the least restrictive
setting available, with priority given in decreasing order
to placing children with relatives, licensed foster homes,
and group homes for children with intensive treatment
needs. After certain statutory timelines for sufficient
progress to be made by the parents have passed, a child may
have a permanency plan established.

Current law establishes two types of adoptions --
independent and agency. Agency adoptions require that
people who wish to adopt through an agency be approved
through a home study process prior to the child being
placed in their home.

This bill:

States legislative findings and declarations regarding the
Governor's Adoptions Initiative and concurrent planning,
the relation of concurrent planning to adoptive parent
recruitment, and Contra Costa County's readiness to
implement the model.

Requires the Director of the State Department of Social
Services (SDSS) to designate Contra Costa County as a
pilot county to implement a concurrent planning model to
increase the number of adoptions in a decreased time.
Requires SDSS to identify no more than $750,000 per year
for two years in unexpended funds from the Adoptions
Initiative and other unexpended funds from the adoptions
and child welfare services programs for the pilot
project. Specifies that Contra Costa County will provide
a report by January 2000 on program implementation and
outcomes.

FISCAL IMPACT

Specifies that $750,000 annually for two years of
appropriated but unexpended child welfare services,
adoptions, or Adoptions Initiative funds be designated for
this purpose.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

The foster care population is growing at a rate of 6.2% a
year, since more children enter foster care each year
than leave it, due primarily to an increase in children
who stay in foster care long term instead of reunifying
with their parents or being adopted.

In June 1995, there were over 92,000 children in foster
care in California, but the adoption rate of these
children was 4%, and it varies widely from county to
county. In 1994, approximately 17,000 children entered
permanency planning, but in the following year there were
only 3,025 children placed for adoption by public
agencies.

Children in foster care now represent over 80% of the
children placed by California adoption agencies.

Research has indicated that adopted children fare much
better according to many outcome measures than their
counterparts reared in institutional or foster care
settings, and adoption obviously facilitates children 's
life-long stability.

Although current law requires that parents be advised, when
a child is initially removed from their care, that their
parental rights may be terminated if the child is not
returned to them within 18 months, legal and child welfare
professionals are wary of proposing any contingency plan to
be implemented in the event reunification fails. As a
result, no permanent plan is considered until the 18 month
reunification period has passed. Then the adoption process
for a child is delayed, becoming overly lengthy and too
often requiring the child to change placements to an
adoptive home. The delayed process often results in
children passing critical adoption related age barriers
before adoption planning on their behalf can be done.

The Governor and Legislature approved an Adoptions
Initiative last year. This included funding for 184
additional county adoptions workers and 7 state staff to
restructure adoptions related policies. An Adoptions
Policy Council was also created to assure community input
in policy reform.

One focus of the Adoptions Initiative is developing a
concurrent planning model. Concurrent planning is the
process of "immediate, simultaneous, and continuous
assessment and case plan development that provides a
continuum of options to achieve early family based
permanency for every child removed from his family." It
allows for a long term contingency plan to be developed
during the reunification period, to avoid delays in
obtaining legal permanency.

In practice many counties perform aspects of concurrent
planning. Most do not use formal alternative case plans,
but more than half report that they place children in
foster homes where they think there is a likelihood the
child could be adopted if freed for adoption.

Other Adoptions Initiative efforts to expedite permanency
include: creating a formal foster-adopt policy where
adoption is the goal of placements, and birth rights have
not been terminated; open adoptions; and a kinship
adoptions process.

Prior Related Legislation: AB 1524 (Granlund) shortened
the timeframe for court ordered services for children
removed from their homes after the age of three from
eighteen months to twelve months; for children removed from
their homes prior to the age of three, the time frame was
reduced from twelve months to six months. The timeframes
are extendible if the court finds that reunification is a
viable possibility.

AB 2629 (Caldera) changed law to specify that a child's
placement in a foster home with a foster parent who is
willing to adopt the minor isn't evidence that reasonable
services have not been provided for purposes of
reunification.

Comments and Questions

Contra Costa County has had a year long planning process
with the unions and the social services department on
concurrent planning, and initiated some changes in this
area with their own resources, such as social worker
teams -- one of whom focuses on the child's court
involvement and one who focuses on the services case
plan. They have specific targets of children they hope
to place through concurrent planning, whether back home
with their families or into adoption.

Concurrent planning has the potential to expedite
permanency for children, saving the state foster care
placement funds and facilitating stable homes for foster
youth. The average cost of foster care is $14,660 per
year per child. In contrast, yearly adoptions subsidies
for those who need financial assistance is an average of
$5,300, and 17% of adopted foster children receive no
adoption cash subsidy.

According to Contra Costa County, new funds would be used
to train adoptions, court, and child welfare services
staff in the new model, and to facilitate a two tiered
home study system. Because the goal of concurrent
placement is permanence, which may come either as
reunification or adoption, the case plan must address
both. The resources provided by this bill would also enable an early,
aggressive search for absent parents and other extended family members, better
access to services for family reunification cases, as
well as early identification of alternative permanent
families.

This bill does not change statutory timelines for family
reunification or adoption, it only adds an infusion of
resources to expedite progress both ways.

POSITIONS

Support: Contra Costa County (sponsor)

Oppose: None Received

-- END --

STILL MORE...
CREATIVE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS SERVING SUBSTANCE INVOLVED FAMILIES IN A HOME-BASED, OUTCOMES-ORIENTED PROJECT

Poland, JL., McIntosh, J, Miller, JS

Organization: Savio, Denver Department of Human Services, Denver Department of Human Services

Email Address: [email protected]

Address: 325 King St., Denver, CO 80219, USA

Phone: 303-922-5576 ex. 429 - Fax: 303-727-8364

Abstract: As agencies across the country implement expedited timeframes mandated in the Adoption and Safe Families Act, they are particularly challenged in achieving timely permanency for children placed in out-of-home care due to parental substance abuse. The Savio Direct Link Program is an innovative and effective collaboration between a public child welfare agency and private providers to deliver expedited, comprehensive services to families referred due to substance abuse. The Savio Direct Link Model uses Family Group Conferencing, Family Treatment Support Meetings and Joint Service Management as a way to improve outcomes for families. In four years of operation, 94% of the children served by the Direct Link Program have achieved permanency with their own parents or kin. 91% of the children who were unable to remain with or return to the care of their parents in the past three years were in their permanent home within twelve months of out-of-home placement. This interactive seminar will describe how principles of family preservation and expedited permanency planning can successfully coexist using this service model. Learning objectives: * How Family Group Conferencing and Family Treatment Support meetings provide needed support to substance involved families; * Vital interventions to engage substance involved families; * Importance of outcome based practice; * Concurrent planning with substance involved families; and, * Value of Joint Service Management as the best practice model.

MORE, MORE, MORE...
Reunification???

Q: Based on national averages, DSS' 11% rate of putting families back together says they are a failure at what they are supposed to be doing.

A: First, it should be noted that the judge in each case determines whether reunification occurs. Still, the statistic cited above is incorrect. From July 1996 to the present, the reunification rate for Mecklenburg County is 25%. This is lower than the state average of 36% but consistent with the only other county in North Carolina, Wake County, that is close to the size of Mecklenburg. Wake County's has a 27% reunification rate during this same time.

While such comparisons are useful on one level, to fully measure reunification, like comparisons must be made. For example, for what reasons were petitions filed in other counties? Were the circumstances more or less severe than in Mecklenburg County? What were the allegations made regarding child abuse, neglect and/or dependency in these other counties that might have necessitated removal. More or less cases may have been petitioned on dependency rather than abuse or neglect. The types of cases often have a strong correlation to the rate of reunification. Cases dealing with dependency often have higher reunification rates than those where there were allegations of abuse or neglect. Finally, reunification only can occur when a judge makes this determination, not the DSS agency.

Q: Please explain the numbers behind the survey in the Charlotte Observer where Mecklenburg County has and keeps more children in DSS custody than other counties of comparable size and in the surrounding area.

A: Please see the answer to the above question.

Q: Is it normal procedure for DSS or the court system to inform parents that they are going to seek to remove their parental rights in one year. If so, how does this work with "our first goal is to reunify the family"?

A: Parents are informed and continuously reminded by social workers, their attorney, and presiding judge that they have up to one year to correct the problems that led to the removal of the child. Services will be offered to help them correct the problem. If they fail to demonstrate satisfactory progress related to their case plan, or refuse to cooperate, the judge will look at an alternative permanent plan for the child, including removal of parental rights and ultimately adoption. Concurrent planning is utilized in every case to minimize the time that a child remains in foster care. This means that separate plans are developed for the different rulings that could be made by a judge. State law requires DSS to seek a permanent safe home. Reasonable efforts to reunite the family are required even though the initial goal is reunification. A parent's lack of cooperation and compliance in addressing case plan goals may result in the court changing the goal to another permanent plan.

Q: If a church were to take over the Stratton's case, would the children be returned?

State law prohibits the County from revealing information concerning any particular child protective case, so the answer to this question will be general in nature.

A church or any other community entity is not sanctioned by statute to "take over" a child protective service case, but churches and other community organizations often offer support to families in many ways. Such support could be helpful to the family in meeting the obligations of the case plan approved by the court.

Q: Why is DSS allowed to add on more and more demands of the parents, when no further charges have been brought against the parents?

A: In cases where DSS removes a child, an initial case plan is developed to reunite the family. The plan is developed jointly with the parents and others and is adopted by the court. Generally the plan will identify issues that need to be addressed for reunification to occur. This may require a parent to complete a number of things depending on what the issues are that caused removal. Quite often some type of assessment/evaluation to address parenting style or ability etc. will be required, but then, at the conclusion of the assessment, the parent will be required to follow the recommendations of the case evaluator. The recommendations must be followed to address the issue(s) that cause removal. It is similar to a doctor's visit where an examination (assessment) reveals there is a problem. The doctor makes recommendations to treat the problem. If the patient doesn't follow the recommendations, the problem persists and may get worse. In DSS cases, a parent is required to comply with completing the assessment/evaluation and following the evaluator's recommendations, if any. All parties can and do make additional recommendations as issues develop throughout the case. The court decides which recommendations it will or will not adopt. To a large extent, the parent's behavior dictates what changes the judge makes in the in the plan. Case assessment is an ongoing process because circumstances within a family may change. As changes occur, case plans must be updated.

LEGAL HELP
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SIGN ANY PAPERS
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SIGN ANY PAPERS about any of your children so that they can live with you, even if you are in foster care.

This is true no matter how old you are. Every parent and every child have the right to live together UNLESS

A JUDGE HAS DECIDED the parent is not able to care for the child and that it is in the child's best interest not to live with the parent(s) temporarily (called "approving a voluntary placement" or "remanding a child" whose parent(s) or caretaker(s) are accused of neglect and/or abuse, or "placing a child" after "finding neglect and/or abuse"); OR
A JUDGE HAS taken away all of the parent's rights forever (called "termination of parental rights"); OR
A JUDGE HAS made an order that the child(ren) permanently live apart from their parent(s) without terminating the parent(s)' rights (certain "guardianships" or "custody" arrangements); OR
SOMETIMES a parent's rights are lost by being in jail.
Your caseworker may tell you that you "have to sign" the papers (called a "Voluntary Placement Agreement") for your children to stay with you. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Your worker might tell you it is the best thing to do, but you have to decide for yourself.

A VOLUNTARY PLACEMENT AGREEMENT IS A LEGAL CONTRACT

It Is Very Important That You Understand A Voluntary Placement Agreement Is A Legal Contract. It Is Also Very Important To Realize That In Certain Cases A Judge Can, Or Must, Make Changes To That Contract; see p. : When A Judge Can Change A Voluntary Placement Agreement.

When you sign the Voluntary Placement Agreement you give up many rights. For example, the agency may not let you visit your child as much as you want, or let you say where your child will live.

BE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH everything in the Voluntary Placement Agreement BEFORE you sign it. There is a form for the Voluntary Placement Agreement, but you can add or change things on the form. For example, you can write in where your child will live, how often and where you can visit with your child, and when your child can come home; see p. : Your Right To Make Changes In The Agreement. The form is available in English and Spanish.

YOUR RIGHT TO A LAWYER

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO TALK WITH A LAWYER BEFORE you sign a Voluntary Placement Agreement. YOU ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO A LAWYER IF THE AGENCY STARTS A CASE AGAINST YOU because you did not sign the Voluntary Placement Agreement. You should get your own lawyer, one who does not work for the agency; (see the next section: How To Find A Lawyer). If you can't find a lawyer on your own the judge will give ("appoint") you one (if you cannot afford one yourself) because you are now in court.

HOW TO FIND A LAWYER

Maybe you had your own lawyer when you went into foster care. Try to call that lawyer or his/her boss, if you still have the name and number.

If you can't reach that person, or don't want to use the same lawyer, call The Legal Aid Society in the borough where you live (you can get the number from the phone book or call information at 411; you can also ask your school counselor to help you find the number). You can also call Legal Services for New York (212-431-7200) to find out which legal services office covers your zip code, or call a Bar Association Referral service

(212-626-7383 for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York [Manhattan] or 718-293-5600 for the Bronx Bar Association). You might have to pay the lawyer if you get him/her through the Bar Association.

YOUR RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE AGREEMENT

If you decide to sign the agreement you have the right to add or change things in writing ("terms of the agreement") to make clear what you want to happen BEFORE YOU SIGN the agreement. You might want to write that your children will always stay in the same placement you are in, and that the children will come out of foster care at the same time that you do. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT your child(ren) can be placed in a separate foster home from where you live UNLESS you wrote a specific statement into the agreement that they will live with you, and come out of foster care at the same time that you do.

If you want to add to, or change, the agreement it is best to talk to a lawyer first. This way the agreement will legally say what you want.

YOUR FAMILY'S RIGHT TO GET PREVENTIVE SERVICES

Even if you don't sign the Voluntary Placement Agreement YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN HAVE A RIGHT TO GET SERVICES from the Administration for Children's Services (ACS, also known as BCW or CWA) so your family can stay together (called "preventive services") UNLESS, in a previous case you (not your parents) had, a judge ordered that you cannot get these services. The law says that, as long as the judge did not order something else, the agency worker has to try everything reasonable to keep you and your children together, as long as this plan is safe and healthy for your children.

Your caseworker IS SUPPOSED TO HELP YOU:

get welfare ("public assistance") or SSI, or some other money to support you and your children;
find a place where you can all live together;
get someone to help you at home (maybe a homemaker or visiting nurse) if you need this help;
sign up for a school or job training AND make plans for your children so you can really go to school;
sign up the children for school if they are going to be six years old this year;
sign up the younger children in day care, Head Start or kindergarten even if you are not in school or at work;
give you carfare, or other transportation, so you can keep other important appointments for you and the children (like going to the doctor);
sign up for classes about what children do at different ages and how to take care of them at each age;
and many other services.
If ACS takes you to court to approve the Voluntary Placement Agreement or on a neglect and/or abuse case, you can ask the judge to tell ("order") your caseworker that she MUST give you the preventive services you need to keep your children with you.

No matter what the judge orders about preventive services (see p. ), you must also look for services on your own if you want to reunite your family. EVEN IF THE AGENCY IS NOT HELPING YOU WITH SERVICES AND PLANNING, IF YOU GET SERVICES ON YOUR OWN THIS COULD HELP YOU GET YOUR CHILDREN HOME AND CAN HELP YOUR CASE IF YOU HAVE TO RETURN TO COURT. Just finding the right services is not enough, however. You must keep your appointments and sincerely cooperate with the program. You may even be required to complete the program before the agency agrees to return your children. You must also take your children to services if you are told that is your responsibility. (It is also your right.)

COURT APPROVAL OF A VOLUNTARY PLACEMENT AGREEMENT

If your child is probably going to be in foster care more than 30 days, ACS must ask a judge to approve the Voluntary Placement Agreement that you signed.

WHEN A JUDGE CAN CHANGE A VOLUNTARY PLACEMENT AGREEMENT

IN SOME CASES, HOWEVER, when the judge approves the

Voluntary Placement Agreement, s/he may, or must, change the agreement.

In certain cases where the parent was found to have abused a child in the past, or had another serious problem regarding one of his/her child(ren), the judge can decide ACS and/or the foster care agency do NOT have to give or find you and/or your children preventive services (meaning you are not entitled to "reasonable efforts" from the agency). If the judge makes this decision, s/he makes an order "TERMINATING REASONABLE EFFORTS." This order has VERY SERIOUS consequences; see p. : "A Permanency Hearing." The judge can also order ACS or the agency to start a case to terminate your parental rights right away.

The judge may make these orders if:

your parental rights to any of your other children have been permanently terminated without your consent; OR

you have been convicted of murder or manslaughter of any of your other children; OR
you have been convicted of assault, serious sexual abuse, or any facilitation, attempt, or conspiracy to kill, seriously injure or sexually abuse any of your children (or children you regularly live with and take care of - called being "legally responsible forr" those children); OR
a Family Court judge found (or might find) that there are "aggravated circumstances" in your case. "Aggravated circumstances" exist if a Family Court judge has found (or might find) that you have "repeatedly abused" or "severely abused" the children.
"REPEATED ABUSE" can be found if:
ACS is accusing you of abusing your children, or children you regularly live with and take care of; AND
you already have a court finding of abuse against you which is less than 5 years old; AND
ACS and/or the foster care agency gave your family services to help the family stay, or get back together, but these did not work or a judge previously said the agencies did not have to provide such services.
"SEVERE ABUSE" can be found if:
a Family Court judge decides you meant to ("intentionally"), or were so reckless that you caused (or could have caused) the child(ren) very serious physical injury (for example, the child(ren) had broken bones, or serious burns, or other serious injury, or could have been killed). Allowing the child(ren) to be (or to possibly be) so badly hurt, intentionally or recklessly, is called "evincing a depraved indifference to human life"; OR
the Family Court judge finds you seriously sexually abused the child(ren). The abuse must be serious enough that, if it were a criminal case, you could be found guilty of a serious crime of sexual abuse (called "felony sexual abuse"); OR
that you knew about, and let such sexual abuse occur; AND
ACS and/or the foster care agency gave your family services to help the family stay, or get back together, but these did not work or a judge previously said the agencies did not have to provide such services.
Even if any of these things have happened, the judge can still order ACS and/or a foster care agency to make reasonable efforts to help you and/or your children. The judge might make this order if giving such help would be in the children's best interests, AND would not harm their health and safety, AND it is predicted that your family can be reunited very soon (usually between six months and one year).

PERMANENCY HEARINGS AFTER THE JUDGE MAKES AN ORDER TERMINATING REASONABLE EFFORTS

If the judge decides you are not entitled to reasonable efforts another hearing MUST be scheduled within 30 days of that decision. This hearing is called a "permanency hearing." ACS can also (but does not have to) start a separate case against you to permanently terminate all your parental rights to your child(ren), if it has a legal basis for such a case (severe or repeated abuse are examples).

Since the children are in foster care and the agencies no longer have to give you and the children services, the judge must decide at this hearing what the permanent outcome for each of your children should be (called a "permanency goal" or "permanency plan" for the child). Different children in the same family can have different permanency goals because each child may have different needs and wants. The judge must choose a permanency plan s/he thinks can really be accomplished.

The judge can decide the child(ren) should be:

returned home to you or to his/her other parent; OR
freed for adoption even without your consent. To do this the judge has to order that a separate case for each child (called a "termination of parental rights case") be started against you to terminate all your parental rights permanently to each of your child(ren); OR
sent to live permanently with a legal guardian (who could be a relative, friend, or foster care stranger) and have decisions made for them by that guardian; OR
placed permanently (maybe in a foster care situation) with a relative who would make most decisions regarding the child(ren); OR
put in another permanent living arrangement (such as an institution for severely mentally ill people or a supervised living arrangement for mentally retarded young people) but only if the other choices listed above are not possible.
The child(ren)'s other parent and relatives who were legally allowed to intervene (become part of the case) can fully participate in the permanency hearing. So can foster parents and/or pre-adoptive parents who have had the child(ren) living with them for at least one year. Foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and/or relatives who have been caring for the children for less than one year (even if they are not the children's foster parents) can attend permanency hearings but they can only give the judge information about the children, the parents and the case.

THE LAW NOW SHORTENS THE TIME CHILDREN CAN SPEND IN FOSTER CARE AND REQUIRES "CONCURRENT PLANNING"

The court can now take away all your rights to your children permanently if they have been in foster care for 15 months in a row, or for 15 months out of the last 22 months. This is true even though you voluntarily placed your child just temporarily, and even though you never agreed (consented) to give up all your rights to your children.

The court papers ("petition") to approve the Voluntary Placement Agreement (or to start a case of neglect or abuse against you) must have a written warning on it telling you this. This warning should also be on any order which puts or continues your child(ren) in foster care.

The 15 months starts being counted either 60 days after the children have been taken out of your home or when the judge approves the voluntary placement, whichever happens first.

That is why it is so important for you to find services and to cooperate with any services the judge wants you to attend, the agencies and you agree you need, and/or you find. This may help reunite your family as quickly as possible.

If ACS or the foster care agency asks you to do certain things you do not agree with, so you can get the children home, talk with your lawyer to see how that would affect your case. If s/he will not or cannot help you because s/he is no longer representing you, follow the information in "How To Find A Lawyer" on page to try to find another lawyer.

To terminate your rights to some or all of your children, however, a separate court case to permanently terminate all your parental rights has to be filed with the court for each child. If you permanently lose your parental rights your child(ren) can be adopted without your consent and you may never be able to see or hear from them again.

In order for children to get out of foster care quickly ACS and foster care agencies can make plans to return children to their parent(s) AND make another permanent plan for where the children will live AT THE SAME TIME. This is called "concurrent planning." That way, if the children cannot return home they will quickly have someone else ready to adopt them or permanently care for them. (Previously, agencies were not legally allowed to make other plans for the child(ren) until they were sure the child(ren) would not be returning home.) However, usually the main plan of ACS and the foster care agencies still must be to return the child(ren) to their parent(s) UNLESS one of the items listed on p. and/or on p. has happened in your case.

Copies of these handbooks can downloaded from this site, requested on our online order form or ordered by writing to:

BRONX LEGAL SERVICES
Attn: Emily Robinson
579 Courtlandt Avenue
BRONX, NY

ON A FINAL NOTE, THEY DELETED THE REUNIFICATIONS SERVICES TO BEGIN WITH, SO WHAT SERVICES ARE THEY OFFERING? THEY ARENT. THEY DONT EXIST. ITS ALL A SMOKESCREEN TO MAKE YOU THINK YOU WILL GET YOUR CHILDREN RETURNED TO YOU.

THIS IS THE MOST VILE ACT TOWARDS FAMILIES THAT HAS EVER BEEN CREATED BY OUR GOVERNMENT.

When SB159 passed in California, (the Senator who ran with the bill was also the ex-past Sheriff of Contra Costa County, which btw, was one that was selected to be part of the "pilot project".
The following is from an Article I wrote for the forums in the Local Paper, spanning Contra Costa County.

BayArea.com The Contra Costa Times

IS THERE AN ATTORNEY OUT THERE, PRO BONO THAT CARES?
Michelle Tidmore - 04:01am Apr 29, 2001 PDT (SECOND PRINTING)

Your front room and Adoption Clinic, protect your Children SB 159 was a bill introduced by Senator Bill Rainey, targeting children mostly from poorer familys to be taken with any excuse and put into adoption proceedings, the financing from the state and other grants is incredible, very few have had their children returned. This is a cut and paste from the bill, that placed Contra Costa County as a pilot for their project, it should also be noted, Senator Rainey was once the Sheriff for Contra Costa County.
"Contra Costa County has had a year long planning process with the unions and the social services department on concurrent planning, and initiated some changes in this area with their own resources, such as social worker teams -- one of whom focuses on the child's court involvement and one who focuses on the services case plan. They have specific targets of children they hope to place through concurrent planning, whether back home with their families or into adoption."
"Specifies that $750,000 annually for two years of appropriated but unexpended child welfare services, adoptions, or Adoptions Initiative funds be designated for this purpose."
*"This bill would delete the existing provisions relating to the family reunification program in Contra Costa County. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to plan for the reunification of a child in public foster care with his or her parent or guardian,while at the same time beginning to plan to free the child for adoption,"
*THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) The Governor proposed an adoption initiative in the 1996-97 State Budget and has provided $7,000,000 to improve the statewide adoption system by removing barriers that keep children in long-term foster care and impede public agency productivity."
*As can be seen thus far an amount of $7,750,000.00 dogtagged besides the amount of 187 jobs relating to adoption jobs and 7 new state jobs.
*The bottom line is folks, that your mistakes are at the discretion of the welfare worker or cps worker, these courts run on innuendo and rumor, no criminal convictions, nor solid proof needed to wrest your children away. The populace as a whole that makes under 20,000 a year be WARY. The involvement stretches from the lowliest of the CPS workers to the Judicial persons in Superior Courts in Contra Costa County, this pilot project will continue until the year 2004 unless something is done about it. Since reunification services have been deleted, you can be assured you will not receive the services the law used to provide. This is a revenue kicker and a kick in the teeth, a way to wrest our children from us and never return. The harm done to the family is substantial, to the children aberrant and unforgivable. It is the worse type of abuse, mental emotional and abandonment issues not to mention the sheer torture of the siblings, parents and children not knowing what their future holds at the hands of the local government. "(e) Contra Costa County is prepared to implement concurrent planning and demonstrate how to effectively transform a traditional child welfare services program into one that will decrease the time required to place and finalize adoption plans for children." "SEC. 3. Section 16500.65 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read: §16500.65. (a) The director shall designate Contra Costa County and up to two additional counties as pilot counties for the implementation of a concurrent planning model that will demonstrate the most effective means of increasing the number of adoptions and of decreasing the time required to finalize adoptions."

*While the following was deleted or repealed SEC. 2. Section 16500.65 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is repealed. § 16500.65. (a) In addition to the three programs authorized under Section 16500.5, Contra Costa County may implement'a family preservation and reunification program. The program shall be administered in accordance with Section 16500.5, including, but not limited to, the funding mechanism set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 16500.5, and shall be subject to all of the provisions of that section. (b) The family preservation program authorized by this section may serve all of the following: (1) Families receiving those services pursuant to Sections 300, 330, 361, and 364. (2) Children who have been adjudged wards of the court pursuant to Sections 601 and 602. (3) Families of children subject to Sections 726 and 727. (c) The county probation department may, through an interagency agreement with the county welfare department, refer cases to the county welfare department for the direct provision of services under this subdivision. (d) The county shall ensure that the proportion of funds used for family preservation services for families and children needing those services pursuant to Sections 300, 330, 361, and 364 shall be no less than the proportion of those children in the county's foster care program. (e) Any private funds made available to the county for family preservation services shall be applied to the AFDC-FC advance through the end of the 1990-91 fiscal year. (f) The project authorized by this subdivision shall be deemed successful if the following criteria have been met: (1) At least 75 percent of the children who are not placed in out-of-home care and who receive project services remain in their home for at least six months after the termination of family preservation services. (2) Two years after the termination of family preservation services, the average length of out-of-home stay of children selected to receive services under this section who, at the time of selection, are in out-of-home care, is 50 percent less than the average length of stay in out-of-home care for children in out-of-home care who do not receive demonstration project services pursuant to this section. (h) A dependent minor or ward of the court removed from the home pursuant to Section 726 may also be returned to his or her home with appropriate interagency family preservation services as provided in subdivision (c) of Section 16500.5."

**THE ABOVE HAS BEEN REPEALED, IT HAS BEEN DELETED and replaced with a plan that turns your children into revenue, adopting them out of your livingroom. As stated early in this missive, they have TARGETED certain children for this, back to the bill, " (c) Any of the participating pilot counties may claim, on an annual basis, a portion of the state's share, and to the extent permitted, the federal share, of that county's AFDC-FC estimated expenditures for purposes of this chapter. The amount of funds advanced against future AFDC-FC shall be calculated as part of a county and state plan that documents the CP-FCCR Strategy and project duration" "(4) The number of children placed for adoption in the participating pilot county during the demonstration project will increase compared with the number of children placed for adoption in the 1996-97 fiscal year." "(f) (1) Notwithstanding Section 7550.5 of the Government Code, the participating pilot county shall submit, to the department and to the appropriate committees of the Legislature, a preliminary report upon the conclusion of the pilot program, and a final report six months after the conclusion of the pilot program." THIS PILOT PROJECT EXTENDS INTO 2004 THIS REIGN OF TERROR INTO OUR LIVES IS NOT ONLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, MOST PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS TO HIRE A PRIVATE ATTORNEY TO FIGHT THIS. THE INVOLVEMENT IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS IMMENSE, AS CAN BE SEEN HERE... "(2) The county has formed a staff work group that includes representation from all child welfare services areas to identify implementation issues. (3) The county has drafted a work plan for the pilot project that outlines strategies for the recruitment of caregivers, changes in the case management system, assessment guidelines for children, and actions to facilitate the judicial process." "(4) The county has received the support of local juvenile courts and the board of supervisors for the county's concurrent planning program. (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2004, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2004, deletes or extends that date."

****TELL ME HOW THIS NEXT PART WOULD PERTAIN TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS, EVEN AFTER IT HAS STOPPED? " The failure of the parent to respond to previous services, the fact that the child was abused while the parent was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, a past history of violent behavior, or testimony by a competent professional that the parent's behavior is unlikely to be changed by services are among the factors indicating that reunification services are unlikely to be successful. The fact that a parent or guardian is no longer living with an individual who severely abused the child may be considered in deciding that reunification services are likely to be successful, provided that the court shall consider any pattern of behavior on the part of the parent that has exposed the child to repeated abuse." " Reunification services are subject to the 12-month limitation imposed in subdivision (a). Services may include, but shall not be limited to, all of the following: (A) Maintaining contact between the parent and child through collect telephone calls. (B) Transportation services, where appropriate. (C) Visitation services, where appropriate. (D) Reasonable services to extended family members or foster parents providing care for the child if the services are not detrimental to the child."
*****WHO IS IT THAT DETERMINES WHAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR CHILD? ITS NOT A COURT, IT RESTS UPON A CPS WORKERS WORD, A WELFARE WORKERS WORD, OR THE WORD OF THE MANY PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, IN THEIR EYES, MANDATED TO REPORT ANY SUGGESTION OF MENTAL, PHYSICAL, OR EMOTIONAL ABUSE, THIS INCLUDES REPREMANDING YOUR CHILD, AND CORRECTING YOUR CHILD IN PUBLIC. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ALTERCATIONS WITH POLICE OR WITH OTHER SAME AGED CHILDREN.
****All I know is, that I have had contact with 17 families in the past year, fighting to regain custody of their children, taken without viable reason, and placed into adoption. No matter how much time they spent trying to please the county, it was to no avail, they were doomed to fail, I want to know why and how to stop this outrageous behavior of our own local government. THEY MUST HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL TO REGAIN THEIR CHILDREN, AND THERE IS NO PRO BONO IN CONTRA COSTA THAT DELVES INTO JUVENILE COURT. WHAT WERE YOUR REASONS FOR BECOMING AN ATTORNEY? CAN YOU FIND IT IN YOUR HEART TO HELP ONE FAMILY, OR MAYBE ROTATE WITH OTHERS TO HELP MORE THAN ONE?
**The most recent updates Ive found are BILL NUMBER: AB 538 THIS INFORMATION BROUGHT TO YOU BY LEGAL EAGLES LAW RESEARCH

By the way, these families who had their children taken, very few of them had an association with drugs or alcohol. Some had years prior, been in programs, however remained clean and sober. There were no arrests of the parents made, however there were Agencies that came into their home, stated they heard RUMOR, and took their kids. One case in particular, a woman had 7 kids, and after her husband died, found herself unable to make her rent. She and her kids were tossed out on the streets. To save her own children, she placed them with relatives that could care for them while she tried to provide a place for them. Her sister in law, (who happens to be a process server) volunteered to care for her baby, (she had been pregnant at the time of her husbands death). Forged her signature to guardianship papers, then proceeded to call cps to have them collect the rest of this gals children from the other relatives homes, stating they had been molested, and that their mother was doing drugs living on the streets. So CPS got involved, even though the gal had found a job, and was renting a room trying to get enough together and asking for help from the state, the state refused to help her because her children were not living with her, indeed, because CPS had already taken the children from the relatives homes and had them placed into homes with "Adoption Ready Familys", they returned her oldest son to live with the grandmother. (He was not "prime adoptable age", as were the majority of the rest of her children.
When I went to the county recorders office to take a look at what was in the court records regarding this, I had them make copies of everything in the file. I found it most interesting after scanning the signatures, that over 10 points in the letters on The gals name and her sister in laws signature, matched up. Then even further to find out that on one of the dates that her sister in law did bring her son to visit her, was the very same date her sister in law had gone in for an ex-parte order for guardianship of the gals son, using the forged documents nominating her as the guardian. I had found out this info in November of 2000. I brought the matter to the attention of the court, in an affidavit I had to fax in because I did not have the time literally to get the documents before court convened the next morning.
I accompanied the gal to court, the Judge did see the affidavit, and knew I was working in co-operation with the Contra Costa County Bar Associations Legal Education and Advocacy Project, at the request of the CC Bar Association. At the time, I was one of the ONLY people in East CC county, that did ANYTHING to help the indigent whatsoever. NOTHING WAS DONE BY THE COURTS ABOUT THIS. The gal hasn't been able to even visit with her son to this DAY.

I started making a stink, like I said, I had 17 cases similar to this within a year. The amount of money the local justices and those involved in this nefarious scheme is OBSCENE.We are talking to date an excess of over 90 million dollars.

Government can create neither wealth nor liberty, but it has an unparalleled ability to create work for itself. Nothing illustrates this fact better than the welfare state's effect upon the family. Allan Carlson of the Rockford Institute has written, "The rise of the welfare state can be written as the steady transfer of the dependency function from the family to the state; from persons tied by blood, marriage or adoption to persons tied to public employees." Carlson has pointed out that what he calls "the collapse of family structure" in America began in earnest in 1965 -- about the same time that the "Great Society" welfare state was inaugurated.

However, by the time the Great Society began, Social Security -- arguably the most disruptive social program ever devised -- was well entrenched. By making the state the broker of social insurance, Social Security has disrupted the bonds between generations and sewn discord between them. As family therapist Michael Bettinger observes, "in the 'old' days, before Social Security, people had to rely on others more than they do today .... If people did not build and maintain relationships with family and friends, they might find themselves in need of help, but there would be no one there to help them. People could not easily write off their families after a minor dispute." However, "Most of this changed with introduction of Social Security." According to Bettinger, Social Security has abetted family disruption: "As a family therapist, I have seen too many individuals cut off from their families for the slimmest of reasons .... They know when they get old or ill, Social Security will take care of them. They believe they do not need each other."

The tax burden created, in large measure, by Social Security and various welfare state "entitlement" programs has been sorely felt by families. In 1950, a family of four paid about two percent of its adjusted gross income in federal income tax; in 1993, a similar family paid about 24 percent. Between 1946 and 1993, the standard deduction for children increased from $600 to $2,500; however, to keep pace with inflation, that deduction should have been at least $7,800. Accordingly, every family with a combined household income of less than $32,000 should have been relieved entirely of payroll or income taxes.

The state's appropriation of family functions creates a feedback loop. "Entitlement" programs consume tax dollars from families; the increased tax burden forces both parents into the work force; parental absence cultivates new social problems -- resulting in a new "need" for entitlement programs. In this fashion, families become knitted to the government in a state of enervating dependency.

The readiness of "child protection" authorities to pounce upon "abusive" parents was recently illustrated by an incident in Woodstock, Georgia. A grocery store employee saw 35-year-old Lynn Kivi discipline her nine-year-old son after the youngster misbehaved. The employee called the police, who quickly arrived and asked the boy if his mother had ever hit him before. The child guilelessly replied, "I get smacked when I am bad." Mrs. Kivi also admitted to police that she had struck the child. The police slapped handcuffs on the mother and took her to jail. At the time of this writing, Mrs. Kivi is free on $22,050 ball, but she faces a charge of "cruelty to children" -- and a possible prison term of 20 years -- for the "crime" of disciplining her own child. But the only cruelty inflicted upon the boy resulted from the state's seizure of his mother. Since his mother's arrest, the child has been tormented by nightmares in which he is permanently separated from his parents.

Phillip Jenkins of the Administration of Justice Department at Pennsylvania State University points out that "child abuse cases have served as a massive bridgehead for the notion of the 'objective expert,' the neutral professional who is seeking to protect the child and the community in the face of all the obstacles posed by outmoded legalism." The infiltration of such "experts" into the lives of families is a dominant objective of federal educational and social policies.

In order to determine which newborn children are "at-risk" and thus qualify for home visitations, observes The Parent Trainers, state-based "Healthy Family" groups must "gain access to medical records of women who are pregnant or have just given birth. To complete this phase, HFA programs employ ?Family Assessment Workers? (FAWs) who will screen and assess mothers to determine their risk status." In some cases, an FAW "is designated as a temporary, volunteer employee of the hospital (when she is on hospital grounds) to allow her access to medical records. In other cases, a member of the hospital staff may agree to do the initial record screen and then make referrals to the FAW. Or, the FAW may not have access to medical records, but may be allowed to enter hospital rooms and administer ?verbal screens? by asking postpartum mothers directly to answer the questions on the 15-point initial screen."

The questions in the initial screening deal with the mother?s marital status and history, education, socio-economic status, family background, and the like. A "positive score on any two" of the items, notes a PCAA document, will result in a referral for an "in-person interview" involving the "Kempe Family Stress Checklist" (FSC) ten open-ended, invasive questions presented to both parents. The FSC is supposedly designed to determine a parent?s propensity toward child abuse. On each question the parent receives a score from 0 (no risk) to 10 (highest risk). According to Hawaii?s Healthy Start training manual (a model for state-level programs nation-wide), "a total score of 25 or above for either parent places a family in the high risk category, eligible for Healthy Start home visitor services." However, as The Parent Trainers points out, "A score of 25 is fairly standard. In other words, if either parent is classified as a ?moderate? risk on any five of the ten issues listed above, that parent would be considered a high risk and in need of home visitation services."

Among typical FSC questions can be found inquiries regarding "harsh punishment"; PCAA literature emphasizes that spanking is considered a form of abuse. Having been "suspected of abuse" is another risk factor for a parent, as is being "in the midst of multiple crises or stresses," having "unrealistic expectations of the child?s behavior," or perceiving a child?s behavior as "difficult or provocative." Clearly the FSC is designed to define most if not all parents as placing their children "at risk." This is to be expected, given that the objective of "Healthy Start" and its offspring is a universal system based on voluntary enrollment if possible, but employing coercion if necessary.

The FAWs charged with conducting "screenings" and arranging for home visitations are generally volunteers who may have had only a few days of training. No specialized academic background is required to become a FAW; a high school diploma or its equivalent is sufficient. (One PCAA survey found that one-quarter of all FAWs had no college training.) FAWs are encouraged to lure parents into visitation programs by offering bottles, breast pumps, or other helpful gifts to parents as a pretext for a post-hospital visit. "Comments made at a recent HFA national conference indicate ?creative outreach? may also include sending flowers to the reluctant mother on Mother?s Day, or even sending flowers to the mother of the mother, if it appears she is the source of resistance," observes The Parent Trainers. "It may also include taking the reluctant mother out to the beauty parlor if this may gain her confidence and make her feel obligated to participate in the program."

To illustrate the success of such tactics, an Arizona program reported that "90 percent of mothers offered the program accept HFA services." Furthermore, PCAA urges FAWs to make "persistent outreach efforts" for several months, if necessary, until reluctant families "have explicitly indicated that they do not want the service." Recalcitrant parents, according to PCAA, are "often at greatest risk and, therefore, are in greatest need of the service." Should Kempe's vision of compulsory home visitation to protect children be consummated, it stands to reason that rebellious parents would be the first to have their children taken from them as the case of Janet Adolf?s family in Salt Lake City would seem to illustrate.

The bill, AB 3345,(1994)would allocate federal grant money for the creation of "neonatal and early childhood home-based prevention services for families at risk of child abuse and neglect."

The problem with this concept, according to Roy M. Hanson of the California Child and Family Protection Association, is that "There is no legal statutory definition of 'at risk.' Use of the term 'at risk' amounts to a blank check for intervention in the home by the therapeutic state." As a result, observes Hanson, "You can be a good and innocent mother of several children with no history of abuse or crime and still be considered at risk of being an abuser under this program."

The assumption that all families are "at risk" of child abuse is confirmed by Barbara F. Meltz of the Boston Globe. Summarizing the perspectives of "the large network of professionals who deal with child abuse," Meltz urges that parents should enroll in "parent education" courses before the birth of their child. Notes Meltz, "these programs help only parents who can be identified as being at risk. The truth, experts say, is that anyone is capable of hurting their child." This would seem to simplify the task of identifying "at risk" parents: apparently all parents are "at risk."

The Goals 2000 Act represents a profound enrichment of the idea that parents are little more than administrative agents of the state. According to a summary of the act, "every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children." When read with sobriety, this is an implicit claim that it is the state -- not the parents -- which has primary responsibility for the "social, emotional, and academic growth of children"; through the program, the state will condescend to permit parents a larger role, but that role must be compatible with the state's designs. To help dictate those designs to parents, Title IV of Goals 2000 will create "Parent Information and Resource Centers" which will "help provide parents with knowledge and skills needed to participate effectively in their child's education."

Under Goals 2000, parents will have to create the proper environment of "readiness to learn" as that environment is defined by a National Education Goals Panel. As an Education Department backgrounder points out, "Experts differ on just what constitutes 'readiness,' so communities need to consider what aspects are most important to them and then design a strategy that fits their needs." Once again, the locus of control would be removed from the home and assigned to "experts" who would act in the name of "community needs."

This has brought about a government need to "Redefine Family".

Perhaps the most effective means to collectivize the family is to hasten its destruction through social re-definition. Every successful society has been predicated upon the conventional "nuclear" family, which is organized around a man and a woman who are joined in legal wedlock. However, powerful interests seek to institutionalize "alternative" models of the family.

The UN's International Year of the Family (IYF) is, among other disreputable things, a campaign to redefine the family. According to an IYF profile published in the March 1994 UN Chronicle, "... the nuclear family itself is changing. Non-traditional family types are becoming more common, such as cohabitation, same-gender relationships, [and] single-parent families...." Michael Stewart, the Utah official who presides over the IYF-linked "Patron Cities" program, observes that IYF materials avoid a standard definition of the family because "that definition is changing."

On April 15th, the Cleveland-based Federation for Community Planning held an IYF-related conference entitled "Families: Redefining, Reinforcing and Revitalizing." According to the event's prospectus, "We [the event's planning committee] began by discussing 'the family.' We came to realize, though, that no one 'family' structure typifies today's society. Rather, today's families come in a vast array of shapes, sizes and forms. As a result, the [Federation] recognizes the definition prepared by Family Service America: 'A family consists of two people, whether living together or apart, related by blood, marriage, or commitment to care for one another.'" By this definition, a "family" might consist of nearly any imaginable combination of people. An even more radical definition comes from a booklet prepared by the Utah Center for Families in Education: "Let's be clear about the meaning of 'family.' It means a child and an adult responsible for that child's upbringing." Under this formula, a "same-sex couple" given custody of a child would be considered a "family," as would a dyad composed of a child and his state-appointed custodian.

In a speech given at the University of Chicago on November 15, 1991, Donna Shalala -- who now presides over the Department of Health and Human Services, an agency which dwarfs the Pentagon -- predicted the society that would greet "Renata," a fictional four-year-old kindergarten student, in 2004: "Renata doesn't know any moms who don't work, but she knows lots of moms who are single. She knows some children who only live with their duds, and children who have two duds, or live with their mothers and their grandmothers. In her school books, there are lots of different kinds of friends and families...."

After school, Renata would not go home, but rather to a publicly funded day care center where she and her fellow inmates would be further weaned from "patriarchal" culture by playing gender-neutral games. According to Shalala, Renata is a true World Citizen -- she "will think of herself as part of the world -- not just her town or the United States."
Shalala told her audience that the world she envisioned would not come into existence by accident, but rather "because we made it our top priority in our communities and in Congress."

Americans devoted to the traditional family -- and the liberties it represents -- had best become aggressive in the defense of their priorities, before they feel the brunt of what has happened in this pilot project county.
************************

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws