|
 
CALIFORNIA
Cracks in foster care cause trauma
A 14-year-old foster kid dangles below the cracks as I
firmly hold on to his hands, but there is something that pulls him down.
I'd like to think it's a natural element like gravity, but I know better
as I work in a residential treatment center for children at risk. For my
nephew, a Los Angeles County foster youth, the natural element is the
Department of Children and Family Service's inadequate assessment of
what is needed to provide him with a safe, secure and permanent home
while addressing his mental health needs.
My husband and I were formerly his relative
caregivers. Due to the birth of our son, the demands required of our
toddler, as well as our nephew's challenging behaviors that placed our
family's safety at risk, we opted to give him the next best thing — a
foster home that could provide full-time supervision with the support
services available to many foster parents unlike relative caregivers.
What we did not count on was how many removals it would take before he
receives the services required to meet his needs, if that day ever
comes.
In the foster care system, relative caregivers are
given virtually no support. They are sought after by the DCFS to care
for children with whom they have a familial relationship. However, the
Department does not offer financial assistance unless the household from
whom the child was removed was receiving public assistance in the form
of cash aid as well as food stamps. Eligibility for foster care
assistance is only established for children removed from families with
incomes less than half the federal poverty level. According to 2005
Congressional Research Report, half the federal poverty level income is
roughly $8,000 per year for a family of three.
In addition, this foster care assistance is tied to
the Aid to Families with Dependent Children eligibility on July 16,
1996, a date close to when the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
legislation was being debated. An outdated eligibility requirement since
AFDC no longer exists since the overhaul of public assistance in 1996,
the determination to provide financial support for a foster child has
significantly declined, a sentiment echoed in a report entitled, "Ten
Years of Leaving Foster Children Behind: The Long Decline in Federal
Support for Abused and Neglected Children," by Child Welfare League of
America.
In addition, relative caregivers are not given support
services to provide a child with the "extras" that other foster children
have a right to, such as clothing allowances, notices to summer camps,
and access to additional funds for extra curricular activities, among
other things.
An alternative to a child living with a relative
caregiver is to place him directly with a foster family agency whose
staff trains prospective foster parents and then licenses their family
homes. The cost to DCFS just went from $0 to a minimum of $1,500 per
month. In addition, full disclosure of what the child needs is not
provided to either the foster family agency or the new foster parents.
When this occurs, there is no thoughtful plan to provide a safety net
for this child.
If, after numerous removals from foster family homes,
DCFS believes this child is better suited to be placed in a group home,
the cost for this child's care again rises. Thereafter, if the group
home administrators do not want to handle this child's behavior because
the support services are not readily available to them or full
disclosure of the child's needs was not presented to them, then the
child may be placed at a residential treatment center where the costs to
provide a safe place increase dramatically.
Severe emotional trauma is continually experienced by
the child with each removal by DCFS. The irony is that the Department
removes a child for neglect or abuse, but then turns around and
emotionally traumatizes a child with its systemic process that lacks
thoughtfulness, sensitivity and planning. Sound policy does exist to
offer a child a safety plan in his initial placement as well as his
replacement, if necessary. A process called team decision making offers
the child and all individuals with a relationship with this child, which
includes the social worker and a team decision making facilitator, an
opportunity to meet and design a safety plan in the child's best
interest. Theoretically, team decision making meetings would work if
executed effectively.
In my nephew's case, the social worker with intimate
knowledge of the case was not present, nor was his therapist. His
removal from his new foster home within a month of his replacement from
our home is evident that support services were not available to him. In
addition, the foster family was probably not aware of the presenting
challenges, or it could simply be they were not willing to take the
extra effort needed in this child's case.
What I know for certain is that our 14-year-old nephew
is falling through the cracks, and my grip is slipping as he is removed
from one foster home to another. As his self-appointed advocates, my
husband and I will continue to pursue the Department's accountability
for our nephew's needs and best interest.
One of more than 34,000 children in the Los Angeles
County foster care system, my nephew can count on us. But I wonder what
will happen to the other children in foster care who may not have an
advocate's voice, who are left behind to silently walk the foster care
journey, and who will fall through the cracks and never have someone's
hands to hold.
Marisol Barrios-Jordan
1 September 2006
http://www.lacanadaonline.com/articles/2006/08/31/opinion/lco-fostercare0831.txt
home
/
Previous viewpoint |