Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Database of Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages. The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - December 22, 2017 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 8638
Date: 2010-09-29

Author:Amy D'Andrade

Subject:RE: 15/22 rule

Shari – I did a brief review of reunification time frames across states for a study examining CA’s shortened reunification time frames for parents of children under age 3. In California, Assembly Bill 1524 reduced timeframes for reunification to 6 months for parents of children three years old or younger. (In 1999, timeframes for siblings of children under three were also reduced to six months). As of 2006, Connecticut, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana had limited reunification timeframes for all parents to a period of between 6 and 9 months. Two other states appear to have taken California’s approach, and created age-based distinctions in reunification timeframes: Minnesota limited reunification timeframes for parents of children under 8 to six months, and Colorado limited reunification for parents of children under 6 to only 3 months. I got this info from the CWIG statute summary – they may have updated that, so you should check there. In California it’s my understanding that a TPR hearing in these cases can be set upon the termination of reunification services; there is no requirement to wait 15 months to do so. Amy D'Andrade, M.S.W., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, School of Social Work San Jose State University One Washington Square, WSQ 215H San Jose, CA 95192-0124 t: (408) 924-5830 f: (408) 924-5892 From: bounce-6372394-9019329@list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-6372394-9019329@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of D F MCMAHON Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:30 PM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Subject: 15/22 rule I am aware that at least one state (don't recall which, but have read the statute) requires agencies to allow the full 15 out of 22 consecutive months of out of home placement to elapse before filing TPR petitions unless a court has ruled that reasonable efforts are not required. I am aware--but have not seen the actual statutes--that some states lessen the allowed reunification time in certain circumstances, including the parent having a serious mental illness. I'd like to get some sense of the background to the federal 15/22 rule, and to what extent it was intended by this legislation to not only ensure opportunities for permanency, but also to ensure opportunities for reunification. I would also like to get a sense of practice patterns in terms of what time frames states actually use before initiating TPR prior to the 15/22 time period, and whether states typically seek any kind of court sanction in those cases. This may be a question more of legal practice than anything else, but the 15/22 benchmark had to come from somewhere. Sheri McMahon

Shari – I did a brief review of reunification time frames across states for a study examining CA’s shortened reunification time frames for parents of children under age 3. In California, Assembly Bill 1524 reduced timeframes for reunification to 6 months for parents of children three years old or younger. (In 1999, timeframes for siblings of children under three were also reduced to six months). As of 2006, Connecticut, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana had limited reunification timeframes for all parents to a period of between 6 and 9 months. Two other states appear to have taken California’s approach, and created age-based distinctions in reunification timeframes: Minnesota limited reunification timeframes for parents of children under 8 to six months, and Colorado limited reunification for parents of children under 6 to only 3 months. I got this info from the CWIG statute summary – they may have updated that, so you should check there. In California it’s my understanding that a TPR hearing in these cases can be set upon the termination of reunification services; there is no requirement to wait 15 months to do so. Amy D'Andrade, M.S.W., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, School of Social Work San Jose State University One Washington Square, WSQ 215H San Jose, CA 95192-0124 t: (408) 924-5830 f: (408) 924-5892 From: bounce-6372394-9019329list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-6372394-9019329list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of D F MCMAHON Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:30 PM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Subject: 15/22 rule I am aware that at least one state (don't recall which, but have read the statute) requires agencies to allow the full 15 out of 22 consecutive months of out of home placement to elapse before filing TPR petitions unless a court has ruled that reasonable efforts are not required. I am aware--but have not seen the actual statutes--that some states lessen the allowed reunification time in certain circumstances, including the parent having a serious mental illness. I'd like to get some sense of the background to the federal 15/22 rule, and to what extent it was intended by this legislation to not only ensure opportunities for permanency, but also to ensure opportunities for reunification. I would also like to get a sense of practice patterns in terms of what time frames states actually use before initiating TPR prior to the 15/22 time period, and whether states typically seek any kind of court sanction in those cases. This may be a question more of legal practice than anything else, but the 15/22 benchmark had to come from somewhere. Sheri McMahon