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: 8651
Date: 2010-10-01

Author:D F MCMAHON

Subject:RE: 15/22 rule

That compromise explanation is helpful, I figured there was a pragmatic explanation but wanted to have a clear sense of that. Sheri McMahon ________________________________ To: child-maltreatment-research-l@list.cornell.edu Subject: Re: 15/22 rule Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:33:06 -0400 From: rmekonnen@aol.com Much of what you are asking lies within the actual text of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, 1996, which you can access at Thomas.gov. You are referring to "aggravated circumstances" which can be defined at each state level differently. If a Judge determines (based on a petition) that aggravated circumstances exist, TPR should/can be expedited without reasonable efforts. In various states the timelines are shorter, depending on the age of the child. Additionally in drafting the legislation, the 15 month rule was basically a compromise between 12 and 18. It was not necessarily based around any particular developmental guidelines. My hunch is that the 22 month guideline was to be able to determine the necessity/preparing the goal change/TPR petition in time for the 6 month review hearing at the 24 month marker. Robin Mekonnen, MSW, PhD Candidate Project Coordinator A Study of Parenting (ASOP) Penn State University, Department of Psychology 111 N. 49th St. KN 3-100 Philadelphia, PA 19139 215.471.2200 x120 fax 215.471.2231 http://sites.google.com/site/azarlabsite/research-projects -----Original Message----- From: D F MCMAHON To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 9:37 am Subject: RE: 15/22 rule I accidentally sent without finishing previous email. In ND there are no stated shorter timeframes for particular subgroups or based on child's age that I can find, but I've reviewed some cases involving parents with substance abuse issues including meth, and in those cases the agency moved much more quickly to TPR than is usually seen--even though the parents had embarked on what proved to be solid recovery. It appears that by moving too precipitously, the agency found itself having difficulties with its legal strategy. In one case, the parent ultimately prevailed--but the legal battle was drawn out. In the other, the agency ultimately prevailed--but because it had a weak case to begin with, an initial TPR ruling was remanded upon judicial review, the initial legal process followed by another review had to occur, and there was actually a fairly strong case for reunification and eventually an appeal--so again, the process was drawn out. Got the feeling that pursuing the course too early made it longer in the end. Sheri McMahon ________________________________ From: NCCPR@aol.com Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:01:00 -0400 Subject: Re: 15/22 rule To: child-maltreatment-research-l@list.cornell.edu Yes, there is such research: --Joseph J. Doyle, Jr. , “Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effect of Foster Care” American Economic Review: In Press, 2007. -- Joseph J. Doyle, Jr., "Child Protection and Adult Crime: Using Investigator Assignment to Estimate Causal Effects of Foster Care," Journal of Political Economy, 2008, vol. 116, no. 4, 2008. My organization has a discussion of these studies, with links to the full studies here: http://bit.ly/9HQJU6 See also Byron Egeland, et. al., “The impact of foster care on development” Development and Psychopathology, (Vol. 18, 2006, pp. 57–76). Richard Wexler Executive Director National Coalition for Child Protection Reform 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) Alexandria VA 22314 703-212-2006 www.nccpr.org In a message dated 9/30/2010 8:35:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ffreeman@deaconesschildren.org writes: I’m waiting to see the part about ensuring reunification occurs whenever possible. It looks like the move is to clear the caseload rather than think about the child. Any research about the outcomes for children removed from their homes, compared to those left in homes under similar circumstances? I am very interested in finding the truth about whether foster care works for children, or if it’s just a theory that never achieved it’s potential. Felicia I. Freeman, President Children First 4708 Dogwood Drive, Everett, WA 98203 P.O. Box 2629, Everett, WA 98213-2629 (425) 259-0146 (425) 293-0333 direct (425) 346-8414 cell www.deaconesschildren.org Transforming lives of children in the Pacific North West by breaking the cycle of Child Abuse and Neglect. Deaconess Children’s Services is a champion of hope and opportunity for children and their families, especially those in greatest need, empowering them to BELIEVE in a life full of possibilities. ________________________________ From: bounce-6375447-13481403@list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-6375447-13481403@list.cornell.edu ] On Behalf Of Meredith Virant Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:36 AM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Subject: Re: 15/22 rule In WA state it can be shorter than 15 months. Generally it depends on the county and the judge or comissioner that you are in front of. I usually tell my clients a time frame of 12-15 months but tell them it could be shorter than that (or potentially longer as well). Our comissioner would even go out of his way at the preliminary hearings to tell parents that even if their attorneys had said 12-15 months it could be shorter if they fail to engage in services. On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:29 PM, D F MCMAHON > wrote: 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 -- Meredith Lauren Virant Attorney at Law

That compromise explanation is helpful, I figured there was a pragmatic explanation but wanted to have a clear sense of that. Sheri McMahon ________________________________ To: child-maltreatment-research-llist.cornell.edu Subject: Re: 15/22 rule Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:33:06 -0400 From: rmekonnenaol.com Much of what you are asking lies within the actual text of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, 1996, which you can access at Thomas.gov. You are referring to "aggravated circumstances" which can be defined at each state level differently. If a Judge determines (based on a petition) that aggravated circumstances exist, TPR should/can be expedited without reasonable efforts. In various states the timelines are shorter, depending on the age of the child. Additionally in drafting the legislation, the 15 month rule was basically a compromise between 12 and 18. It was not necessarily based around any particular developmental guidelines. My hunch is that the 22 month guideline was to be able to determine the necessity/preparing the goal change/TPR petition in time for the 6 month review hearing at the 24 month marker. Robin Mekonnen, MSW, PhD Candidate Project Coordinator A Study of Parenting (ASOP) Penn State University, Department of Psychology 111 N. 49th St. KN 3-100 Philadelphia, PA 19139 215.471.2200 x120 fax 215.471.2231 http://sites.google.com/site/azarlabsite/research-projects -----Original Message----- From: D F MCMAHON To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 9:37 am Subject: RE: 15/22 rule I accidentally sent without finishing previous email. In ND there are no stated shorter timeframes for particular subgroups or based on child's age that I can find, but I've reviewed some cases involving parents with substance abuse issues including meth, and in those cases the agency moved much more quickly to TPR than is usually seen--even though the parents had embarked on what proved to be solid recovery. It appears that by moving too precipitously, the agency found itself having difficulties with its legal strategy. In one case, the parent ultimately prevailed--but the legal battle was drawn out. In the other, the agency ultimately prevailed--but because it had a weak case to begin with, an initial TPR ruling was remanded upon judicial review, the initial legal process followed by another review had to occur, and there was actually a fairly strong case for reunification and eventually an appeal--so again, the process was drawn out. Got the feeling that pursuing the course too early made it longer in the end. Sheri McMahon ________________________________ From: NCCPRaol.com Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:01:00 -0400 Subject: Re: 15/22 rule To: child-maltreatment-research-llist.cornell.edu Yes, there is such research: --Joseph J. Doyle, Jr. , “Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effect of Foster Care” American Economic Review: In Press, 2007. -- Joseph J. Doyle, Jr., "Child Protection and Adult Crime: Using Investigator Assignment to Estimate Causal Effects of Foster Care," Journal of Political Economy, 2008, vol. 116, no. 4, 2008. My organization has a discussion of these studies, with links to the full studies here: http://bit.ly/9HQJU6 See also Byron Egeland, et. al., “The impact of foster care on development” Development and Psychopathology, (Vol. 18, 2006, pp. 57–76). Richard Wexler Executive Director National Coalition for Child Protection Reform 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) Alexandria VA 22314 703-212-2006 www.nccpr.org In a message dated 9/30/2010 8:35:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ffreemandeaconesschildren.org writes: I’m waiting to see the part about ensuring reunification occurs whenever possible. It looks like the move is to clear the caseload rather than think about the child. Any research about the outcomes for children removed from their homes, compared to those left in homes under similar circumstances? I am very interested in finding the truth about whether foster care works for children, or if it’s just a theory that never achieved it’s potential. Felicia I. Freeman, President Children First 4708 Dogwood Drive, Everett, WA 98203 P.O. Box 2629, Everett, WA 98213-2629 (425) 259-0146 (425) 293-0333 direct (425) 346-8414 cell www.deaconesschildren.org Transforming lives of children in the Pacific North West by breaking the cycle of Child Abuse and Neglect. Deaconess Children’s Services is a champion of hope and opportunity for children and their families, especially those in greatest need, empowering them to BELIEVE in a life full of possibilities. ________________________________ From: bounce-6375447-13481403list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-6375447-13481403list.cornell.edu ] On Behalf Of Meredith Virant Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:36 AM To: Child Maltreatment Researchers Subject: Re: 15/22 rule In WA state it can be shorter than 15 months. Generally it depends on the county and the judge or comissioner that you are in front of. I usually tell my clients a time frame of 12-15 months but tell them it could be shorter than that (or potentially longer as well). Our comissioner would even go out of his way at the preliminary hearings to tell parents that even if their attorneys had said 12-15 months it could be shorter if they fail to engage in services. On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:29 PM, D F MCMAHON > wrote: 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 -- Meredith Lauren Virant Attorney at Law