Please comment about the new Guardian ad Litem model in the current statute. I understand their lawyers now visit kids (that is not in the statute) but are also advocates in court- but have no client. Lawyer as witness and advocate sounds like a mess.
I'm in wait-and-see mode on this one. The legislative changes mostly codified the GAL Office's existing policies. I've also heard that their attorneys are visiting kids directly now, and I'm not opposed to that as long as they're clearly explaining who they are and the nature of the relationship. Attorneys have to contact unrepresented parties all the time, and I agree it does create lawyer-as-witness problems if the meetings go sideways but that is rare or no more common than having to report in court something opposing counsel told you. They should probably have a potential fact witness observe the meetings in contentious cases or else the attorneys could find themselves conflicted off.
If the child already has an attorney, I think they need to follow the rules on contacting a represented party. That shouldn't be a problem if the goal is to get to know the child. Why would they need to do that meeting in secret if they don't have attorney-client privilege and will have to disclose everything said anyway? Most children's lawyers would happily arrange the meeting if it will help the child.
This doesn't seem hard to me. I'm very worried that some young GAL attorney is going to get bad guidance from their supervisor and wind up with a bar complaint. If they do, the GAL Office better step up and defend them.
Agreed, and I know that there’s a trust issue involved with many of these families, and the children. They often see anyone in authority as someone to be wary about. Trauma is certainly a factor. Removals , even for those who have been abused, it still traumatic. There’s a bond often, even if it’s not a healthy one. I have seen this first hand.
What is the most needed change in the foster care system that would yield the strongest benefits for the children? Yes, I realize that’s a huge multi layered question.
It's a good question, but let's add the option of changing the systems that are adjacent to foster care as well.
First, some background. The states spend about $30 billion per year on foster care services, and most of that goes to pay for caregiver subsidies and salaries. Most cases involve parental substance misuse, mental disabilities, and domestic violence. The behavioral health services are largely paid for out of the significantly larger Medicaid and community mental health budgets, but foster kids and their families can get priority, eliminating a lot of the red tape that states have created to prevent access for others.
Next, the rate at which states remove kids from their homes swings widely over different administrations, suggesting that foster care is a political response as much as a behavioral health intervention. Almost all of the families who lose their children are also experiencing poverty, which suggests that financial resources matter (but nobody can agree on how). And the removal of children from their families is traumatic for most kids, even if the homes themselves were chaotic or high risk.
Foster care is the forced relocation of kids into alternative placements and most of the $30 billion is spent on the placements not the kids or their families. The debate is whether that money could be better spent to keep more kids at home or with relatives with intensive in-home supports, or if expanding the existing behavioral health systems will have more impact on child wellbeing than expanding the percentage of kids who are put into foster care. This is the policy position taken in the FFPSA, which permitted states to get federal reimbursement to provide services without removing kids. Lots of states, including Florida, are implementing that option and significantly reducing their foster care populations.
There's constantly some study looking at whether expanding Medicaid, child tax credits, paid parental leave, or some other pro-family policy reduces the removal rates, and the answer is almost always a guarded "yes, it seems that it does." So, my answer is let's keep implementing pro-family policies that shrink the system down until we can't reasonably do that anymore.
Please comment about the new Guardian ad Litem model in the current statute. I understand their lawyers now visit kids (that is not in the statute) but are also advocates in court- but have no client. Lawyer as witness and advocate sounds like a mess.
I'm in wait-and-see mode on this one. The legislative changes mostly codified the GAL Office's existing policies. I've also heard that their attorneys are visiting kids directly now, and I'm not opposed to that as long as they're clearly explaining who they are and the nature of the relationship. Attorneys have to contact unrepresented parties all the time, and I agree it does create lawyer-as-witness problems if the meetings go sideways but that is rare or no more common than having to report in court something opposing counsel told you. They should probably have a potential fact witness observe the meetings in contentious cases or else the attorneys could find themselves conflicted off.
If the child already has an attorney, I think they need to follow the rules on contacting a represented party. That shouldn't be a problem if the goal is to get to know the child. Why would they need to do that meeting in secret if they don't have attorney-client privilege and will have to disclose everything said anyway? Most children's lawyers would happily arrange the meeting if it will help the child.
This doesn't seem hard to me. I'm very worried that some young GAL attorney is going to get bad guidance from their supervisor and wind up with a bar complaint. If they do, the GAL Office better step up and defend them.
Agreed, and I know that there’s a trust issue involved with many of these families, and the children. They often see anyone in authority as someone to be wary about. Trauma is certainly a factor. Removals , even for those who have been abused, it still traumatic. There’s a bond often, even if it’s not a healthy one. I have seen this first hand.
What is the most needed change in the foster care system that would yield the strongest benefits for the children? Yes, I realize that’s a huge multi layered question.
It's a good question, but let's add the option of changing the systems that are adjacent to foster care as well.
First, some background. The states spend about $30 billion per year on foster care services, and most of that goes to pay for caregiver subsidies and salaries. Most cases involve parental substance misuse, mental disabilities, and domestic violence. The behavioral health services are largely paid for out of the significantly larger Medicaid and community mental health budgets, but foster kids and their families can get priority, eliminating a lot of the red tape that states have created to prevent access for others.
Next, the rate at which states remove kids from their homes swings widely over different administrations, suggesting that foster care is a political response as much as a behavioral health intervention. Almost all of the families who lose their children are also experiencing poverty, which suggests that financial resources matter (but nobody can agree on how). And the removal of children from their families is traumatic for most kids, even if the homes themselves were chaotic or high risk.
Foster care is the forced relocation of kids into alternative placements and most of the $30 billion is spent on the placements not the kids or their families. The debate is whether that money could be better spent to keep more kids at home or with relatives with intensive in-home supports, or if expanding the existing behavioral health systems will have more impact on child wellbeing than expanding the percentage of kids who are put into foster care. This is the policy position taken in the FFPSA, which permitted states to get federal reimbursement to provide services without removing kids. Lots of states, including Florida, are implementing that option and significantly reducing their foster care populations.
There's constantly some study looking at whether expanding Medicaid, child tax credits, paid parental leave, or some other pro-family policy reduces the removal rates, and the answer is almost always a guarded "yes, it seems that it does." So, my answer is let's keep implementing pro-family policies that shrink the system down until we can't reasonably do that anymore.