[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DRG's and Child Welfare
<html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Anna, if you would permit, I would like to use your message to clear up a
common misconception.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The model of casework practice, now called Concurrent Planning, was
developed in Washington State. Many areas of the country had developed
parts of the model prior to the early 1980s, such as foster-adopt
programs. Concurrent Planning brought these casework advances
together. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Concurrent Planning model has never set strict guidelines for
termination of parental rights for any age of children. Rather, the model
urges the adults to look at the system through the eyes of the child and to meet
the child's needs for stability while the grown-ups work out the permanency
issues. Thus, especially if the prognosis for reunification is quite poor,
Concurrent Planning would place the child in a home in which he or she can be
raised in the event reunification is not possible. If parents are not
making progress sufficient to indicate that a safe reunification of the child is
possible, then court action should be initiated to stabilize the child in the
alternate permanent plan which has been developed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The concurrent planning model has never indicated that adoption is the only
alternative to reunification. Adoption should be considered for every
child as it provides the most legally secure permanent plan and offers, in some
states, significant financial assistance through adoption assistance
programs. However, adoption is not appropriate for some children.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>I have very limited knowledge of several Western
states' statutes. Both California and Colorado have enacted legislation
which supports early termination of parental rights for very young
children. In California, the supervising agency requests an end to
reunification services following six months of service delivery if the parents
have failed to make progress to indicate a safe return of the child is possible
within the next six months. A separate hearing is held to determine the
permanency plan. In Colorado, counties have been selected to receive
sufficient funding to provide intensive reunification services. In those
counties, earlier timelines for termination of parental rights apply. Thus, the
statute is not in effect for all of the state. For contacts in those
states, please e-mail me separately. I do not have permission to post
their names and contact information on the net.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Chris Robinson</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:keyguy@msn.com";>keyguy@msn.com</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: Anna K. Hagemeister <<A
href="mailto:ahagemei@che1.che.umn.edu";>ahagemei@che1.che.umn.edu</A>><BR>To:
Child Maltreatment Researchers <<A
href="mailto:CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu";>CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu</A>><BR>Date:
Wednesday, May 12, 1999 1:40 PM<BR>Subject: Re: DRG's and Child
Welfare<BR><BR> </DIV></FONT>On July 1 in Minnesota new Concurrent
Placement Planning legislation <BR>will take effect, and, as I understand it,
will require that children <BR>under the age of 8 years be returned to their
parent(s) or adopted <BR>eg. there be termination of parental rights, with in 6
months of <BR>removal of the children into foster care. The ideas are to
employ <BR>new approaches to begin both the reunification/family preservation
<BR>work and search for a suitable adoptive family or kinship family
<BR>placement and establish permanency ASAP. <BR><BR>I and others in my
<BR>Social Work program see the need to address "foster care drift"
and <BR>premanent placement for children, but we also very concerned about
<BR>the impact of this new legislation on: 1. children of color, 2. women
<BR>with CD issues, 3. women/families in which domestic violence is a
<BR>factor, 4. and women with MI issues. <BR><BR>Any thoughts on
this? Do any other states have a 6 month limit - aka <BR>"fast track
planning?"<BR><BR>Anna Hagemeister <BR><BR><BR>>
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999
10:37:10 EDT<BR>> Reply-to: <A
href="mailto:CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu";>CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu</A><BR>>
From: <A
href="mailto:Tbitlaw@aol.com";>Tbitlaw@aol.com</A><BR>>
To: Child
Maltreatment Researchers <<A
href="mailto:CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu";>CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu</A>><BR>>
Subject: DRG's and Child Welfare<BR><BR>>
Take a look at the new federal legislation that mandates termination of <BR>>
parental rights petitions for children who have been in the system for "15
of <BR>> the last 22 months." Not driven by the needs of the
family, child or time it <BR>> takes to address sometimes many layers of
problems. Yes, there are <BR>> exceptions, but child welfare workers
and prosecutors see this as the <BR>> answer---we must terminate. Often
their goal is to "provide permanency" for <BR>> children---yes we
can make them permanently orphans, especially those <BR>> children who are
not young and adoptable. And accomplish what?<BR>>
<BR>***********************************************<BR>Annelies Hagemeister,
M.A.<BR>Research Assistant, School of Social Work<BR>Graduate Student, SSW and
Family Social Science<BR>University of Minnesota<BR>St. Paul, MN
55108<BR>612-624-8796<BR><A
href="mailto:hage0044@tc.umn.edu";>hage0044@tc.umn.edu</A><BR><BR>The whole is
greater than <BR>the sum of its parts.<BR></BODY></HTML>
</html>