A Study of Children Stranded in New York City Foster Care

The A Study of Children Long Stranded in Road New York City Foster Care Home

November 2009 Children’s Rights

November 2009

The A Study of Children Long Stranded in Road New York City Foster Care Home COVER PHOTOS (l-r): Jean-Philippe Daigle, Laura Burlton, and Flickr user bricolage 108 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements...... ix

Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations...... 1 INTRODUCTION...... 2 Summary of Findings...... 5 I. Length of Stay...... 7 II. Casework ...... 7 III. Legal Proceedings in Family Court...... 13 IV. Casework Resources...... 16 V. Court Resources...... 17 Recommendations...... 19

STUDY METHODOLOGY...... 23 I. Methodology ...... 24 II. Limitations ...... 26

One Child’s Story: Darla...... 28

One Child’s Story: Cece...... 29

CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS...... 31 HIGHLIGHTS ...... 32 I. Demographic Information...... 33 II. Reasons Children Entered Foster Care and Court Findings...... 35 III. Current Case Status...... 37

One Child’s Story: Felicia...... 44

CHAPTER 2: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING...... 47 HIGHLIGHTS ...... 48 I. Medical Conditions ...... 49 II. Developmental Disorders ...... 50 III. Mental Health...... 51

One Child’s Story: Max...... 54

CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS...... 57 HIGHLIGHTS ...... 58 I. Placements ...... 59 II. School Transfers...... 63

One Child’s Story: Calvin...... 65

One Child’s Story: Devin...... 67

CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK...... 69 HIGHLIGHTS ...... 70 I. Factors that Affect the Quality of Casework...... 72 II. Developing and Implementing the Case Plan...... 78 III. Reporting to the Court...... 92

One Child’s Story: Margaret...... 96

One Child’s Story: Dora...... 98

| iii | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK...... 101 HIGHLIGHTS ...... 102 I. Establishing the Permanency Goal of Adoption...... 103 II. Surrender of Parental Rights and Open Adoption ...... 104 III. Recruiting, Identifying, and Placing Children in Prospective Adoptive Homes...... 106 IV. Sibling Groups and Adoption ...... 109 V. Preparation for Adoption...... 109

One Child’s Story: Peter...... 112

CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS...... 115 HIGHLIGHTS ...... 116 I. Caseworker Contact with Children...... 118 II. Caseworker Contact with Parents...... 120 III. Caseworker Contact with Resource Parents and Child Care Workers...... 125

One Child’s Story: Latisha...... 129

CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS. . . 131 HIGHLIGHTS ...... 132 I. Parent-Child Visits...... 133 II. Parent Contact with Resource Parents...... 141

One Child’s Story: Rico ...... 145

CHAPTER 8: SERVICES ...... 147 HIGHLIGHTS ...... 148 I. Services for Children...... 149 II. Services for Parents ...... 156

One Child’s Story: Wilsa...... 167

One Child’s Story: Lisa...... 169

CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT ...... 171 HIGHLIGHTS ...... 172 I. Overview of Challenges in Legal Proceedings...... 174 II. Factors that Affect the Quality of Legal and Family Court Practice...... 177 III. Court Proceedings When Children First Enter Foster Care: Article 10 and Voluntary Placements ...... 185 IV. Permanency Hearings...... 191 V. Termination of Parental Rights...... 195 VI. Mediation ...... 211

Appendix A: METHODOLOGY...... 213 I. Sample Selection ...... 215 II. Instrument Design...... 219 III. Case Record Review ...... 220 IV. Interviews ...... 221 V. Focus Groups ...... 222 VI. Data Entry and Analysis...... 223 VII. Study Limitations ...... 224

Appendix B: ASFA ‘COMPELLING’ and ‘OTHER’ REASONS FOR NOT FILING FOR TPR . . . .227

| iv | List of Figures

CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS Figure 1.1: Mean and Median Ages of Children...... 33 Figure 1.2: Ages of Children ...... 34 Figure 1.3: Sex of Children...... 34 Figure 1.4: Race/Ethnicity of Children ...... 34 Figure 1.5: Children’s Borough of Origin ...... 35 Figure 1.6: Allegations and Other Concerns Identified When Child Entered Foster Care ...... 36 Figure 1.7: Types of Findings for Children’s Cases ...... 37 Figure 1.8: Types of Findings as to Mothers and Fathers...... 37 Figure 1.9: Ranges of Length of Stay in Foster Care ...... 38 Figure 1.10: Mean and Median Length of Stay in Foster Care ...... 38 Figure 1.11: Length of Stay in Foster Care ...... 38 Figure 1.12: Permanency Planning Goals of Children in Study Sample ...... 39 Figure 1.13: Proportion of Children in Study Sample with a Goal of Adoption who were Legally Free and Not Legally Free ...... 40 Figure 1.14: Ranges of Length of Time with Current Permanency Goal...... 41 Figure 1.15: Mean and Median Length of Time with Current Permanency Goal...... 41 Figure 1.16: Length of Time with Current Permanency Goal ...... 41 Figure 1.17: Selected Circumstances of Children’s Mothers...... 42 Figure 1.18: Selected Circumstances of Children’s Fathers ...... 43

CHAPTER 2: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING Figure 2.1: Proportion of Children with Documented Chronic Medical Conditions...... 49 Figure 2.2: Most Commonly Documented Chronic Medical Conditions...... 50 Figure 2.3: Proportion of Children with Documented Developmental Disorders ...... 50 Figure 2.4: Most Commonly Documented Developmental Disorders ...... 51 Figure 2.5: Proportion of Children with Documented Mental Health Diagnoses ...... 51 Figure 2.6: Most Commonly Documented Mental Health Diagnoses ...... 52 Figure 2.7: Proportion of Children who Received Psychotropic Medications ...... 53 Figure 2.8: Proportion of Children who Experienced Psychiatric Hospitalizations ...... 53

CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS Figure 3.1: Proportion of Children Placed in Family Settings During Entire One-Year Review Period ...... 59 Figure 3.2: Children’s Placement Settings ...... 60 Figure 3.3: Proportion of Children Whose Most Recent Placement was in His/Her Borough of Origin...... 60 Figure 3.4: Number of Placements Children Experienced During One-Year Review Period ...... 61 Figure 3.5: Number and Type of Placements Children Experienced ...... 62 Figure 3.6: Reasons for Placement Moves...... 62 Figure 3.7: Number of School Transfers Experienced by Children ...... 64

| | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK Figure 4.1: Number of Case Planners Children Experienced During Two-Year Period...... 73 Figure 4.2: Caseloads of Interviewed Caseworkers ...... 74 Figure 4.3: Average Foster Boarding Home Caseworker Caseloads Reported by 14 Agencies ...... 75 Figure 4.4: Caseworker Receipt of Training on Certain Identified Topics ...... 76 Figure 4.5: Availability of Caseworker Resources ...... 77 Figure 4.6: Number of SPR/FTC Meetings Held ...... 79 Figure 4.7: Attendance at SPRs/FTCs ...... 80 Figure 4.8: FASP Quality Ratings ...... 81 Figure 4.9: Efforts to Locate Maternal and Paternal Relatives ...... 87 Figure 4.10: Proportion of Children with Documented Concurrent Goals ...... 88 Figure 4.11: Proportion of Permanency Hearing Reports Provided by Foster Care Agencies to ACS at least 24 Days Before Hearing ...... 93 Figure 4.12: Proportion of Permanency Hearing Reports Provided to JRP Attorney by ACS at least 14 Days Before Hearing ...... 94 Figure 4.13: Permanency Hearing Report Quality Ratings...... 95

CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK Figure 5.1: Length of Time from Foster Care Entry to Establishment of Adoption Goal...... 104 Figure 5.2: Proportion of Cases in which Voluntary/Conditional Surrender was Discussed with Parents...... 105 Figure 5.3: Proportion of Cases in which Open Adoption was Discussed with Parents...... 105 Figure 5.4: Proportion of Children with a Goal of Adoption Placed in Pre-Adoptive Home ...... 107 Figure 5.5: Efforts Made to Recruit Adoptive Homes...... 108 Figure 5.6: Barriers to Timely Adoption...... 110

CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS Figure 6.1: Proportion of Caseworker-Child Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts...... 119 Figure 6.2: Barriers to Caseworker-Child Contact...... 120 Figure 6.3: Proportion of Caseworker-Mother Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts...... 121 Figure 6.4: Barriers to Caseworker-Mother Contact...... 122 Figure 6.5: Proportion of Caseworker-Father Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts...... 123 Figure 6.6: Barriers to Caseworker-Father Contact...... 124 Figure 6.7: Proportion of Caseworker-Caregiver Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts...... 126 Figure 6.8: Barriers to Caseworker Contact with Caregivers...... 127 Figure 6.9: Proportion of Caseworker-Caregiver Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts, by Type of Foster Home Placement...... 128

CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS Figure 7.1: Proportion of Mother-Child Visits Relative to Expected Number of Visits ...... 135 Figure 7.2: Barriers to Mother-Child Visits ...... 136 Figure 7.3: Proportion of Father-Child Visits Relative to Expected Number of Visits ...... 137 Figure 7.4: Barriers to Father-Child Visits ...... 138 Figure 7.5: Level of Supervision Required for Parent-Child Visits ...... 140 Figure 7.6: Proportion of Parent-Resource Parent Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts...... 143

| vi | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES Figure 8.1: Proportion of Children with Identified Service Needs ...... 150 Figure 8.2: Proportion of Children Receiving Needed Services ...... 151 Figure 8.3: Frequency of Barriers to Children’s Receipt of Needed Services ...... 153 Figure 8.4: Proportion of Parents with Identified Service Needs...... 156 Figure 8.5: Proportion of Parents Receiving or Participating in Needed Services...... 157 Figure 8.6: Barriers to Receiving or Participating in Services for Parents of Children with a Goal of Return to Parent...... 159 Figure 8.7: Barriers to Receiving or Participating in Services for Parents of Children with a Goal of Adoption ...... 160

CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT Figure 9.1: Judge and Referee Caseloads ...... 178 Figure 9.2: Number of Children with Article 10 or Voluntary 358A Petitions Filed ...... 178 Figure 9.3: Frequency of Supervision Provided to FCLS Attorneys ...... 180 Figure 9.4: Availability of Resources for FCLS Attorneys...... 181 Figure 9.5: Frequency of Supervision Provided to JRP Attorneys...... 182 Figure 9.6: Availability of Resources for JRP Attorneys...... 183 Figure 9.7: Type of Legal Representation for Parents ...... 183 Figure 9.8: Length of Time from Remand to Fact-Finding Order...... 187 Figure 9.9: Length of Time from Fact-Finding to Disposition ...... 188 Figure 9.10: Length of Time from Remand to Disposition ...... 189 Figure 9.11: Proportion of Children with Timely Permanency Hearings...... 192 Figure 9.12: Number of Permanency Hearings That Were Not Completed Timely ...... 193 Figure 9.13: Reasons Permanency Hearings Were Not Completed Timely...... 194 Figure 9.14: Proportion of Children with a TPR Petition Filed ...... 197 Figure 9.15: TPR Petitions Filed as to Mothers and Fathers ...... 197 Figure 9.16: Length of Time from Foster Care Entry to TPR Petition Filed as to at Least One Parent ...... 198 Figure 9.17: Mean and Median Length of Time from Entry to Filing TPR Petitions ...... 198 Figure 9.18: Length of Time from Adoption Goal Establishment to TPR Petition Filed...... 201 Figure 9.19: Mean and Median Length of Time from Establishing Adoption Goal to Filing TPR Petitions...... 202 Figure 9.20: Length of Time from Establishment of Adoption Goal to TPR Petition Filed ...... 202 Figure 9.21: Length of Time from Foster Care Entry to Date Child Became Legally Free...... 204 Figure 9.22: Length of Time from Establishing Adoption Goal to Date Child Became Legally Free ...... 205 Figure 9.23: Length of Time from Filing of TPR Petition to Date Child Became Legally Free . . . . 206 Figure 9.24: Correlation Between Date Entered Foster Care and Months From Entry to Filing TPR as to at least One Parent ...... 207 Figure 9.25: Correlation Between Date TPR Filed as to at least One Parent and Length of Time from TPR Filing to Legal Freeing ...... 207 Figure 9.26: Correlation Between Date Entered Foster Care and Length of Time from Entry to Legal Freeing ...... 208

| vii | | viii | Acknowledgements

Children’s Rights is pleased to acknowledge the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation as the lead supporter of this project, and we are grateful for the significant support provided by the Ira W. DeCamp Foundation, the Stella & Charles Guttman Foundation, the Edward & Ellen Roche Relief Foundation, the Marion E. Kenworthy-Sarah H. Swift Foundation, the Metzger-Price Fund, and the Marsicano Foundation. As we thank them for their support, we acknowledge that the conclusions and recommendations presented here are those of Children’s Rights and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of these foundations.

The primary authors of this report are Julie Farber, director of policy, Laurie Bensky, senior policy analyst, and Lily Alpert, senior policy analyst.

Children’s Rights commends the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) Commissioner John Mattingly for his willingness to allow an external organization to shine a light on this important issue, and we thank him for the assistance he provided to the project at every step along the way. We also thank the many staff at ACS who worked with us to make this project possible, including Michael Bosnick, Barbara Rubinstein, Lorraine Stephens, Eric Nicklas, Nancy Thomson, Jairo Guzman, and Brenda Perkins. Very special thanks go to Susan Fojas who was extremely helpful in her role as the primary ACS liaison for the study.

Children’s Rights thanks Tamara Steckler, attorney-in-charge of the Juvenile Rights Practice (JRP) of the Legal Aid Society, for JRP’s participation in the project and her assistance in getting the project off the ground and at every turn. Special and many thanks go to Bobette Masson-Churin who served as the primary JRP liaison for the study and worked tirelessly to make it happen.

Children’s Rights thanks the 28 private foster care agencies across the five boroughs and outside New York City that volunteered to open their doors and their case files for this study—despite the burden it created—because of their concerns about permanency outcomes for children and families. We thank the dozens of staff at these agencies who were involved in preparing for and facilitating the review. We also thank one agency in particular that served as our test-site for the study and went above and beyond the call of duty in assisting us. We regret that we cannot acknowledge and thank any of these agencies by name, due to the confidentiality parameters of the study.

Children’s Rights wishes to thank the justices and staff of the New York City Family Court who supported the project, including the Honorable Joseph Lauria, the Honorable Judy Harris Kluger, the Honorable Edwina Richardson-Mendelson, Bruna Dibiase, Virginia Gippetti, Richard Spolzino, and Barbara DeMayo.

Children’s Rights thanks the dozens of parents, resource parents, caseworkers, JRP attorneys for children, attorneys for ACS, attorneys for parents, judges, and referees who participated in the study. Their voices are reflected throughout the report, and provide a critical context for understanding the quantitative findings.

Many others helped in various capacities to make this study happen—by providing their insight into the issues being studied, providing input into the study design, and/or helping arrange various aspects of the project. We thank Jim Purcell at the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies, Mike Arsham and Jessica Wett at the Child Welfare Organizing Project, Theo Liebmann at the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra University School of

| ix | Law, Stephanie Gendell at Citizens’ Committee for Children, Sue Jacobs and Michele Cortese at the Center for the Family Representation, Kara Finck at the Bronx Defenders, Lauren Shapiro at the Brooklyn Family Defense Project, and Jane Schreiber and Harriet Weinberger at the First and Second Departments, respectively, of the State of New York Unified Court System, Appellate Division, Law Guardian Program.

Children’s Rights gives many thanks to Viviane DeMilly, Crystal George-Moses, Sara Munson, Ruth Stern, and Julia Werman, who served as case reviewers and brought their significant child welfare experience and insight to the project.

We thank the Children’s Rights interns who assisted with many different aspects of this project, including Ruchi Shah, Jennifer Samimi, and Michael Hess. Special thanks go to Heather Schmidt and Maria DeMonte who worked very hard on key aspects of the project throughout their year at Children’s Rights. We also thank Children’s Rights paralegals Sara Maeder and Laura Mumm who assisted with final proofreading.

Finally, we thank Chris Iseli, Children’s Rights’ communications director, and Ayumi Yasuda, the graphic designer for this report, for their assistance in creating a final product that draws the kind of attention that this important issue deserves.

We hope that this assessment and our analysis informs the public conversation about barriers to permanency for children in foster care, and that policymakers, administrators, and other key stakeholders in New York City and New York State will take action to implement the report’s recommendations. These issues have remained unaddressed for far too long while too many children continue to grow up with the government as their parent.

Marcia Robinson Lowry Julie Farber Executive Director Director of Policy

| | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Foster care is supposed to be temporary. When children suffer abuse or neglect at home and must be taken into foster care, the child welfare system must work quickly to either safely return them to their parents or find alternative permanent families for them. When the system fails to do so, the human costs to children and families, the immediate monetary costs of keeping children in foster care, and the longer-term costs to society are significant.

In New York City, too many children are growing up in the custody of the state rather than in the care of permanent families.

Although there has been a massive reduction in the number of children in foster care in New York City—from more than 40,000 children in 1997 to just over 16,000 children today—far too many children stay in foster care for many years without returning home to their families, getting adopted, or attaining permanency through legal guardianship.

There are currently more than 4,000 children in New York City who have remained in foster care with a permanency goal of either Return to Parent or Adoption for two years or more. Thousands of children who have been slated for reunification with their parents stay in foster care for many years without going home, and thousands of children with an adoption plan wait for years for a permanent family, and too many never get one. For children who do get adopted, the median time from entry into foster care to adoption is almost five years.

And there are more than 2,600 children who no longer even have a goal of returning home or getting adopted. These children have been given a goal of Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA), which “is a case plan designation for children in out-of-home care for whom there is no goal for placement with a legal, permanent family.” These children are likely to age out of foster care and research has shown that children who age out are more likely than their peers to be unemployed, homeless, and incarcerated as adults.

Children from New York City make up 63% of the children in foster care throughout New York State, and the State has some of the weakest permanency outcomes in the nation. Of the 47 states measured

New York City Administration for Children’s Services. ACS Update June 2009, p. 2. This figure does not include children who are home on trial discharge or AWOL. When children on trial discharge or AWOL are included, the total number of children as of August 2009 was 18,902. Email communication with the Administration for Children’s Services, August 7, 2009.

Data provided to Children’s Rights by the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of selecting the study sample.

New York State Office of Children and Family Services. Children in Care and Custody of LDSS - Quarter Ending 12/31/08. Retrieved May 27, 2009 from http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/reports/QRcare-2008-12.pdf

Data provided to Children’s Rights by the Administration for Children’s Services. August 2009.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. APPLA and LTFC. Retrieved September 15, 2009 from http://www.childwelfare.gov/outofhome/ types/appla_ltfc.cfm

Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Cusick, G. R., Havlicek, J., Perez, A., & Keller, T. (2007). Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 21. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

| | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

by the federal government on the timeliness of children’s return home from foster care, New York comes in 40th. On the timeliness of adoptions, the state ranks 44th.

Acknowledging the severity of the problem, the state legislature passed the “Permanency Law” in De- cember 2005, imposing new requirements on Family Court processes in an effort to quicken the pace of children’s return home or placement with other permanent families. But with the new requirements came no additional resources, no planned evaluation of their impact, and no plans to address significant problems in other parts of the system. And, indeed, available data continue to reflect long lengths of stay in foster care for too many children.

This study sought to identify the barriers that may keep children in foster care and to recommend concrete, viable strategies for overcoming them. We evaluated not only the casework done by the private agencies contracted and supervised by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to provide foster care services, but also the workings of the Family Court, which has an equally important role in moving children out of foster care—and an equally important responsibility to do so as quickly as possible.

Study Partners and Components Children’s Rights conducted this study in partnership with ACS and the Legal Aid Society Juvenile Rights Practice (JRP), with the voluntary participation of 28 private foster care agencies, and with input and support on various aspects of the project from many other organizations and individuals, including the New York City Family Court, the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies (COFCCA), the Child Welfare Organizing Project (CWOP), the Center for Family Representation (CFR), the Bronx Defenders, the Brooklyn Family Defense Project, the Citizens’ Committee for Children, and the First and Second De- partments of the State of New York Unified Court System, Appellate Division, Law Guardian Program.

We examined the case records of 153 children in foster care whose permanency goals were designated as Return to Parent (RTP) or Adoption for two years or more.10 We also conducted interviews and focus groups with dozens of parents, resource parents (a.k.a. foster parents)11, caseworkers, attorneys (for children, parents, and ACS), and Family Court judges and referees to complement and enhance the information available in case records.

The chapters in the full report provide detailed information regarding key case practice and court- related activities and possible barriers to permanency.

• Chapter 1: Demographics, Case Opening, and Current Case Status provides data on the demographic characteristics of children in the sample and the reasons they entered foster care. This chapter also provides important information about the current status of these cases, in terms of children’s length of stay in foster care, their permanency goals, and the length of time they have had these goals. These data provide important context for understanding all of the findings that follow.

New York State Office of Children and Family Services. Statewide Assessment Instrument. Retrieved August 11, 2009 from http:// www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/reports/2008%20Statewide%20Assessment.pdf

N.y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1089(a)(2)–(3) (McKinney 2008).

10 In order to focus on recent practice, most of the data findings pertain to practice during the one-year period from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. This is referred to throughout the report as “the one-year review period.” A limited number of items were based on examination of activities during a two-year period. Some data pertaining to legal activities were based on examination of activities over the entire life of the case. See the full report for details.

11 The shift that has occurred in the nomenclature—using the term resource parents instead of foster parents—reflects the child welfare system’s expectation that the role is not only to serve as caregivers for the children but also as resources for parents who are working to have their children return home. This report uses the term resource parents throughout, although the terms foster mother and foster father are used in the report when referring to specific individuals.

| | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

• Chapter 2: Child Health and Well-Being provides the findings regarding children’s well-being, including the prevalence of medical, developmental, and mental health conditions. • Chapter 3: Placements provides the study findings regarding children’s foster care placements, placement moves, and school moves. • Chapter 4: Casework provides the findings regarding key aspects of casework practice with children and families. • Chapter 5: Adoption Casework provides the findings regarding key aspects of casework practice specific to adoption. • Chapter 6: Caseworker Contacts provides the findings regarding caseworkers’ contacts with children, parents, resource parents, and child care staff. • Chapter 7: Parent-Child Visits and Parent Contact with Resource Parents provides the findings regarding parents’ visits with their children and contacts between parents and resource parents. • Chapter 8: Services provides the findings regarding service provision for children and parents. • Chapter 9: Legal Proceedings in Family Court provides the findings pertaining to the various required legal activities and processes that occur in the Family Court.

This report presents quantitative data regarding the experiences of children and families in the study sample, along with relevant qualitative information collected via the interviews and focus groups. The report describes the key issues that these stakeholders identified, and provides many of their direct quotes. This qualitative information provides critical context for understanding the quantitative data about children’s and families’ experiences in the system.

Equally important, the report includes stories about several of the children and families in the study, describing their experiences in the child welfare system.12 Although every child and family is unique and the nature of casework and court process varies from one to the next, these stories collectively reflect the major barriers to permanency identified through the case record review and in the interviews and focus groups.

It should be noted that this study specifically examined a group of children for whom the system has failed to bring about permanency in a timely fashion, and our findings therefore focus on those failures and the factors that may have contributed to them. This is not to say, however, that nothing in the system ever goes right. By design, this study did not evaluate the cases of children whose families received services that safely prevented them from entering foster care, or who entered foster care and returned home or got adopted quickly. Examining practice in such cases could provide important additional insight into our understanding of barriers to permanency.

In addition, despite the focus on identifying barriers, some important positive findings emerged. For example, the majority of the children whose cases were studied were living with families rather than in facilities (such as residential treatment centers or group homes). The majority of their foster care placements remained stable during the past year. In some cases, agencies and their caseworkers had been diligent in planning for the needs of children and their families and in providing services to them, and court proceedings took place in a timely fashion. But these positive elements did not exist in nearly enough cases, and it was extremely rare to find all or most of them simultaneously in any one.

12 Names, other identifying information, and some non-material details in these stories have been changed to preserve confidentiality.

| | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Historical Context: New York City’s Child Welfare System 2004-2009 The New York City child welfare system has come under enormous pressure in the past four years. Af- ter a series of child deaths in 2005 and 2006, allegations of child abuse or neglect increased dramatically (from 47,640 reports in 2005 to 67,535 reports in 2006) and have remained at 2006 levels ever since.13 With the increase in reports and investigations came a concurrent increase in findings of abuse or neglect. The “indication rate” (the proportion of abuse/neglect allegations that are substantiated by ACS) rose from 35 percent in 2005 to 39 percent in 2006, and has remained at 39 to 40 percent since then.

Many more cases were taken to Family Court for supervision, without removal of the children; court- ordered supervision cases increased from 1,711 in 2005 to 5,017 in 2006. The number of children and families served by preventive agencies grew from 28,740 in 2004 to 31,401 in 2008.

Since 2004, eight foster care programs have been closed because of poor performance, 18 preventive programs had their contracts pulled for the same reason, and 15 poor-performing institutions and group care facilities’ contracts were canceled.

This is the context in which New York City’s Family Court, its parents’ and children’s attorneys, ACS, advocacy groups, and the foster care provider agencies have operated during the past four years. At the same time, however, there is widespread agreement among all the parties that the poor permanency outcomes for the many New York City children who stay in foster care for more than two years call for serious and immediate attention. This report offers clear confirmation of this need.

The sections that follow detail the study’s major findings and offer a number of reform recommendations that policymakers, administrators, and others in the child welfare system should heed. Children’s Rights plans to work with key stakeholders to advocate the implementation of these recommendations so that more children throughout the New York City child welfare system may be reunited with their families or placed with other permanent families.

Summary of Findings

Cutting across all parts of the New York City child welfare system, a lack of urgency, a lack of accountability, and a lack of adequate resources combine to keep many children in foster care for a very long time ..

Every child welfare system must approach its efforts to bring about permanency for the children in its care with a fundamental sense of the urgency of succeeding. And it was evident from the many interviews and focus groups we conducted that there are countless individuals working in all parts of the New York City system who care deeply about what happens to children and families and are working very hard under difficult circumstances to do their jobs. However, by most accounts, people who work in all parts of the system have come to expect long lengths of stay for children in foster care.

13 All data in this Historical Context section were provided to Children’s Rights by the Administration for Children’s Services, September 2009.

| | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

ACS and the foster care agencies too often maintain the status quo in their casework. Reportedly, the parties—including ACS, the foster care agencies, and attorneys for both children and parents—infrequently take aggressive legal action to seek relief from the Court and try to move cases through the system more quickly. And the Court allows these circumstances to continue without ordering otherwise, thereby permitting children and families to remain in the system for years and years.

This lack of urgency is compounded by a lack of accountability throughout the child welfare system. By many accounts, the Court does not use its full power to hold the parties in child welfare cases accountable for moving the cases along—and moving children toward placement in permanent homes—quickly enough, thus allowing children to languish in foster care. At almost every Permanency Hearing held for children in this study, the court ruled that ACS and the foster care agencies it contracts had made “reasonable efforts” to bring about permanency. Its consistency in making these rulings belies not only the long lengths of stay in foster care that all of these children were experiencing, but also other available data, collected in this study, showing that the quality and intensity of the casework and services provided varies considerably from case to case. In addition, by many accounts, the Court rarely imposes sanctions when ACS or the foster care agencies have failed to comply with its orders.

ACS, the foster care agencies, and the Court also give parents repeated opportunities to engage in services aimed at reunifying their families even after years of parents’ inconsistency in participating in these services and visiting with their children. Then, there are further delays—in seeking other permanent families for children, filing petitions for the termination of parental rights (TPR), completing TPR trials, and evaluating the suitability of prospective adoptive homes or relative guardianship arrangements—that hinder the process of attaining permanent families for children.

ACS has overhauled its approach to monitoring the foster care (and preventive services) agencies with its Improved Outcomes for Children (IOC) reform initiative and the Family Court is implementing a Child Protective Initiative (CPI) to improve court practice, but these efforts are still too new to gauge their effectiveness.

Finally, as the data provided throughout the report demonstrate, foster care agencies in the cases reviewed were not engaging families adequately or providing the intensity and coordination of services needed to return children to their families or get them adopted. This appears to be due at least in part to inadequate resources as reflected in high caseloads and turnover among child welfare workers, inadequate training and supervision, a lack of basic infrastructure supports (including such essential needs as cell phones for workers in the field), and an inability to access the high-quality specialized services that children and families need.

Inadequate resources also affect the Court’s ability to do its job, as reflected in the data from this study, which documents large Family Court caseloads and delayed proceedings. The Court’s overcrowded docket has been documented repeatedly over the past decade by various entities.

The following summary of major findings should be read with the following caveat in mind: this study is descriptive of the experiences of the children and families in the study sample, the case practice of ACS and the foster care agencies serving them, and the actions of the Court.14 It does not allow us to establish causality—to definitively conclude that particular characteristics, circumstances, or activities (or lack thereof) caused these children to remain in foster care for extended periods of time. Determining whether the barriers to permanency identified in this report are associateduniquely with long-staying children would require a control group of children who entered and left care quickly. However, we hypothesize that some of the characteristics, circumstances, and activities (or lack thereof) that we have identified may be contributing to children’s long lengths of stay in foster care and failure to achieve permanency.

14 The percentages reported below are based on varying sample sizes depending on the analysis. Please see the full report for details.

| | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

I. leNGTH OF STAY — Children in the study sample remained in foster care for long periods of time without returning home or being adopted.

By design, the study sample included only children who had been in foster care for at least two years. Their lengths of stay ranged from 2 years to nearly 17. The mean (average) length of stay was 5.4 years and the median length of stay was 4.8 years. Children’s lengths of time with their current permanency goals (Return to Parent or Adoption) ranged from 2 to almost 10 years. The mean length of time children remained in foster care with their current permanency goal was 3.6 years and the median was 3.2 years. Nearly one-third of the children slated for reunification had been in foster care for four or more years—and 10 percent had remained in care for six years or more.

II. CASEWORK — The foster care agencies were not engaging families adequately or providing the intensity of contact and quality of services needed to return children to their families or get them adopted in a timely manner.

A. the quality of case planning for many children was poor. Family team meetings did not occur as frequently as they should have and were not regularly attended by parents and others. Many Family Assessment and Service Plans and Permanency Hearing Reports were inadequate, and Permanency Reports were often submitted late or not at all.

Case plans are supposed to be developed at regularly recurring family team meetings15 during which families, their caseworkers, and others are supposed to discuss the families’ circumstances and needs, progress toward their permanency goals, and plans for attaining those goals. While the majority of children in the study sample (69 percent) had two or more documented team meetings as required during the past year, almost one-third had only one meeting or none at all during the entire year. Mothers attended slightly less than half of these meetings, and fathers attended only 17 percent of them. Resource/ adoptive parents were not present at 40 percent of the meetings.

Although the agencies completed two Family Assessment and Services Plans (FASPs) for virtually all children in the study during the year, they frequently submitted Permanency Hearing Reports (PHRs), which summarize case progress for all of the parties and the Family Court, either late or not at all. The agencies submitted PHRs on a timely basis for only 27 percent of the permanency hearings surveyed. The late submission of PHRs frequently caused delays in court proceedings.

Additionally, only about one-third of the FASPs and one-fourth of the PHRs received high ratings for completeness and quality in the case record review. The rest were not sufficiently thorough; few included thoughtful discussion or clinical analysis of the progress made and challenges left to overcome in each case, and many relied heavily on previously written material that had been cut and pasted from earlier documents. Many stakeholders commented that agencies take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to case planning and identified the problem of poor quality FASPs and PHRs as barriers to permanency.

15 These are known in the New York City child welfare system as Service Plan Reviews (SPRs) and Family Team Conferences (FTCs).

| | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

B. there are serious concerns about the quality of engagement with parents and resource parents.

Communication and Respect Parents and others said that communication is a major problem in casework, particularly when children are first taken into foster care. Caseworkers sometimes fail to communicate clearly with parents about what is happening with their children and do not act quickly enough to identify and appropriately engage all relevant family members who need to be a part of case planning and/or services. Casework- ers also do not always adequately inform parents upfront about all of the requirements they will need to meet in order to regain custody of their children—and often come back to them later on to tell them they must complete additional tasks or services to get their children back. Additionally, parents and resource parents alike said that caseworkers do not consistently treat them with respect.

Relationships between Parents and Resource Parents ACS has expressed its commitment to the “Family to Family” model of foster care case practice, which, among other things, emphasizes the role that resource parents can play in supporting efforts to reunify children with their families. While many of the parents and resource parents who participated in focus groups for this study were familiar with Family to Family concepts, they said the foster care agencies did not regularly take steps to facilitate relationships between parents and resource parents—and that they typically had to take their own initiative to reach out to one another.

Additionally, while nearly three-fourths of the caseworkers interviewed said they had received training on how to facilitate these relationships, 27 percent had not received any such training. Contacts between parents and resource parents were rarely documented in the case files of the children in the study sample, and little documentation existed regarding the nature of the relationships between the two.

Casework with Fathers Stakeholders said that the foster care agencies generally do not make sufficient efforts to locate, engage, and provide services to fathers. Various quantitative findings from this study underscore these comments: • In nearly half the cases in the sample involving children who were not legally free for adoption, documentation indicated either that the children’s fathers were unknown (11 percent) or that their whereabouts were unknown (37 percent) for at least some portion of the one-year review period. • Fathers rarely participated in team meetings, contacts with caseworkers, and visits with their children. • The agencies rarely explored the possibility of calling on paternal relatives as supports or potential caregivers.

Casework with Incarcerated Parents Among children in the sample who were not legally free for adoption, 10 percent had a parent who was incarcerated at some point during the one-year review period. Some stakeholders said that the foster care agencies do not make adequate efforts to reach out to incarcerated parents and work with them in planning for their children.

C. Caseworkers did not maintain adequate contact with children, parents, and resource parents.

Caseworkers are required to remain in regular contact with children, parents, and resource parents (and child care staff, when children have been placed in facilities) to ensure children’s safety and well-being, engage families in planning, and assess the strengths and needs of all family members and caregivers in order to move children as quickly as possible out of foster care and into permanent homes. However:

| | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

• Nearly 40 percent of the children in the sample did not receive the expected number of contacts with their caseworkers during the one-year review period. • Only 16 percent of mothers received the expected number of caseworker contacts. • More than half of fathers (54 percent) had no contact with their caseworkers at all.

The most commonly identified barriers to caseworker contacts with parents were parents’ canceling or missing scheduled contacts, caseworkers’ failure to schedule contacts, and parents’ whereabouts being unknown (which was more common for fathers than for mothers).

D. Most children were living in stable family settings, but their resource parents needed more support.

One positive finding is that 89 percent of children in the study sample were living with families (and not in facilities) throughout the review period (including children who were home on trial discharge), and 78 percent had remained in their placements without moving during the past year. However, more than one-fifth of children did not have stable placements, typically because their resource parents requested their removal or the placements were unable to meet the children’s needs.

The reasons for these moves suggest some inadequacies in the support that agencies provided to resource parents, a theme that many stakeholders echoed in interviews and focus groups. Some resource parents said they did not consistently feel respected by their foster care agencies—and did not receive adequate information about the children placed in their homes or adequate training on how to understand their behaviors and meet their needs. Additionally, some stakeholders raised concerns about inconsistency across the foster care agencies in screening, training, monitoring, and supporting resource parents and properly matching children’s needs to resource parents’ skills, expectations, or preferences.

E. While the majority of children’s service needs were met, a substantial minority were not.

Based on case file documentation, the most frequently identified service needs for children, in order of prevalence, were individual therapy (72 percent of children in the sample needed the service), mental health assessment (66 percent), special education services (50 percent), educational assessment (47 percent), other educational services such as tutoring (43 percent), and psychotropic medication (41 percent).

The majority of children identified as needing these services were documented as having received them at least once during the one-year review period. But a substantial minority of children had not, including: • 19 percent of children who needed individual therapy; • 16 percent of children who needed a mental health assessment; • 8 percent of children who needed special education services; • 28 percent of children who needed an educational assessment; • 33 percent of children who needed other education services such as tutoring; and • 11 percent of children who needed psychotropic medication.

The most commonly identified barrier to children receiving services was foster care agencies’ apparent failure to make a referral.

| | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

In addition to these services, the Bridges to Health (B2H) program—which provides services to children in foster care who have serious medical, developmental, or emotional disorders—was identified as needed for 17 percent of the children in the sample. However, only 12 percent of children who needed B2H received it. The most common barriers were caseworkers’ failure to identify the need for the service and make timely referrals, as well as a lack of available slots in the program. According to stakeholders, the B2H referral process required by the state is cumbersome and can also contribute to delays.

F. Substantial numbers of parents did not receive needed services due to both parents’ lack of participation and casework failures.

The parents of the children in the study sample struggled with a multitude of issues, including substance abuse, mental illness, cognitive disability, domestic violence, poverty, and housing insecurity. Their engagement in services and planning varied substantially.

Many stakeholders said that foster care agencies do not adequately tailor service planning to the unique needs of each child and family or coordinate effectively among multiple service providers, and that too many service requirements are “piled on” without consideration of whether the services may be duplicative—not to mention whether it is even logistically possible for parents to attend multiple required programs, possibly while also searching for employment or housing at the same time. Judges and referees expressed frustration that caseworkers focus more on monitoring and reporting on parents’ attendance at services than on evaluating their progress.

A substantial minority of children in the study who were not legally free for adoption had parents with serious mental illnesses (32 percent) and/or cognitive disabilities (17 percent). Some stakeholders said that cases involving parents with mental illness or cognitive disabilities are particularly challenging in terms of obtaining both accurate assessments of and appropriate services for these parents.

Based on case file documentation, the most frequently identified service needs for parents, in order of prevalence, were individual therapy (71 percent of parents), housing assistance (68 percent), mental health assessment (52 percent), income assistance (51 percent), substance abuse services (45 percent), transportation services (45 percent), parenting skills training (44 percent), and family therapy (42 percent). Many parents identified as needing certain services received them. However: • 37 percent of parents did not receive needed individual therapy. • 51 percent of parents did not receive a needed mental health assessment. • 30 percent of parents did not receive needed substance abuse treatment. • 72 percent of parents did not receive needed family therapy. • 56 percent of parents did not receive needed parenting skills education.

For parents of children with a goal of Adoption (who were not legally free), the most frequently identified barriers to receiving needed services were parents’ sporadic participation in the services or their refusal to engage in them. For parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent, barriers included parents’ lack of participation and caseworkers’ failure to identify the need for the service and make timely referrals. Although barriers related to parental engagement may be insurmountable in some cases, they highlight the need for skilled casework that makes every effort to engage parents and to address these issues—or to consider the impact that parents’ lack of participation may have on permanency for their children.

| 10 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

G. Contact between children in foster care and their parents was insufficient- ly frequent due to missed visits by parents, canceled visits by resource parents, casework failures, and parents’ unknown whereabouts.

Research has shown that children who visit more frequently with their parents are more likely to return home to them.16 The frequency of visits between the children in the study sample and their parents was inadequate. Slightly more than one-fifth of children slated for reunification had the expected number of visits with their mothers during the one-year review period—and only five percent had the expected number of visits with their fathers. It should be noted that because caseworkers did not always document the dates when visits occurred, particularly unsupervised visits, these findings likely underestimate the frequency of visits between parents and their children. However, clear and specific documentation of all visits—and all other aspects of casework—is critical to ensuring accurate assessments of children’s progress toward permanency.

For mothers, the most commonly identified barrier to visits with their children was the mothers’ missing or canceling scheduled visits. The next most prevalent barriers were resource parents’ canceling or missing appointments, mothers’ whereabouts being unknown for part or all of the review period, and a lack of documented efforts by caseworkers to schedule the visits in the first place.

For fathers, the most frequently identified barrier to visits was the fathers’ whereabouts being unknown, followed by a lack of documented efforts by caseworkers to schedule visits, and fathers’ missing or canceling appointments.

It is notable that 45 percent of children slated for reunification were still having their parental visits supervised by either agency staff or resource parents, relatives, or friends—even after two or more years in foster care. The fact that supervised visits were still required in these cases after such a long time raises questions about whether the requirement for supervision is actually still necessary and, if it is, whether the longstanding safety concerns identified suggest that the goal of reunification is unrealistic.

H. Alternative permanency options were not adequately explored.

Documentation of a concurrent planning goal—an alternate plan for moving children into permanent homes in case the primary permanency goal designated for them cannot be achieved—existed in the cases of only 30 percent of the children in the sample (51 percent of children designated for reunification and 14 percent slated for adoption).

Although these are poor findings, some cases in which no concurrent planning goal was documented did include evidence of some efforts toward concurrent planning—such as identifying and working with relatives who might be able to serve as caregivers, discussing the possibility of voluntary surrender with parents, and asking resource parents if they would adopt in the event the children in their care could not return home. There was, however, minimal documentation of conversations with parents about the possibility of open adoption.

The long lengths of time that children have remained in foster care with the goal of Return to Parent, combined with the lack of concurrent planning, raise questions about whether these goals are maintained in some cases primarily because no other permanent family has been identified for the child, either through adoption or legal guardianship.

16 Hess, P. (2003). Visiting Between Children in Care and Their Families: A Look at Current Policy. New York, NY: The National Resource Center for Foster Care & Permanency Planning, Hunter School of Social Work. Retrieved August 12, 2009 from http://www.hunter.cuny. edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/visiting_report-10-29-03.pdf

| 11 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

In fact, none of the children in the study sample had a concurrent planning goal of Referral for Legal Guardianship. Typically, this goal would be designated when a relative or other adult in a child’s life is willing to be legally responsible for the child, but reluctant to be involved in an adoption process that requires terminating the parents’ rights.

Beyond the study sample, relative guardianship is rarely used as a permanency option in New York City. Currently, according to ACS, less than two percent of all children in foster care have a primary permanency goal of Discharge to Relative, and not a single child exited foster care to relative guardianship in FY 2008.17 This may be due at least in part to the fact that, unlike many other states, New York State does not currently provide subsidized guardianship arrangements.

I. Although the majority of the children in the sample with a goal of Adop- tion were living in pre-adoptive homes, most had remained in foster care for a long time before their goals were changed to Adoption, and foster care agencies were slow to file petitions to terminate parental rights.

Seventy-seven percent of all children in the sample with a goal of Adoption were living in prospective adoptive homes, although in 19 percent of these cases, the case record indicated that the prospective adoptive parent was wavering in his/her commitment to adopt the child.

Thirty-two percent of the children in the sample with a goal of Adoption had been in foster care for three or more years before their permanency goals were changed to Adoption—and 21 percent had remained in care for four or more years before their goals were changed.

Additionally, the foster care agencies either did not file petitions to terminate parental rights or were extremely slow to do so for most children in the sample.18 Termination of parental rights (TPR) is necessary to legally free children for adoption (unless a parent voluntarily surrenders his or her rights), and federal law requires the filing of TPR petitions when a child has been in foster care for 15 months out of the last 22 months (with provisions for exceptions, known as “compelling reasons”). It is the foster care agencies’ responsibility to file these petitions (although it is also within the Court’s power to order them to do so).

The foster care agencies failed to file TPR petitions for 69 percent of the children in the study sample (who were not already legally free for adoption). For 11 percent of these children, the agencies documented no “compelling reason” why they had not filed for TPR. For an additional 62 percent of children, the documented reason did not appear to meet the letter or spirit of ACS’ policy guidance pertaining to compelling reasons, and reflected a general lack of urgency regarding achieving permanency.

When the agencies did file TPR petitions, they were often very slow to do so, filing within 15 months of children’s entry into foster care in only seven percent of the cases with TPRs on file.19 One-third of the children with TPRs on file had been in foster care for more than three years by the time the agencies actually filed the petition. One-fifth had been in foster care for more than four years before filing.

17 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the Administration for Children’s Services, August 2009.

18 Analyses in this section regarding whether a TPR was filed are based only on children in the study sample who were not legally free because a fixed proportion of children that were legally free as of September 30, 2008 was deliberately selected for inclusion in the study sample. To include these children in this analysis would therefore force a certain proportion of “yes” answers to the question of whether or not TPR petitions were filed. Analyses of the timeliness of TPR filings and TPR proceedings include all children who had TPRs filed.

19 This analysis of the timeliness of TPR filings includes all children in the study sample who had a TPR filed, regardless of whether the children were legally free

| 12 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Another way to measure the timeliness of TPR filing is to examine how long it takes agencies to file the petitions after a child’s goal has been changed to Adoption. This is supposed to occur within 30 days—but among the children in the sample with a TPR on file, the process took more than 30 days for 59 percent and more than three months for 43 percent.

Once a TPR petition is filed, Fact-Finding and Disposition Hearings are held in Family Court, where the judge makes the decision about whether or not to terminate a parent’s rights. Findings pertaining to TPR proceedings are provided in Section III below.

III. legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT — Major delays in Family Court proceedings were pervasive in the cases of the children in the study sample, including hearings related to abuse and neglect investigations, termination of parental rights, and permanency. By many accounts, the Court does not consistently hold parties accountable, which can play a major role in these delays.

A. the length of time between children’s entry into foster care and the Court’s completion of Fact-Finding and Disposition was extremely long for many children.

When a child enters foster care, the Family Court is responsible for determining whether or not he or she has been abused and neglected and, if so, by whom. This process occurs at a Fact-Finding Hearing. If the Court makes a finding of abuse or neglect, then the case moves to a Disposition Hearing at which the judge decides whether the child will go home or remain in foster care. These two hearings are part of what is known as an Article 10 proceeding.

Although there are no specific required timeframes for completing these hearings, they should be completed before the first Permanency Hearing; the “Permanency Law” passed by the New York State legislature in 2005 requires that the first Permanency Hearing be held eight months after a child has been remanded into foster care. Because the purpose of Permanency Hearings is to monitor the child’s safety and well-being, the family’s progress, and efforts to return the child home or what efforts will be undertaken to find another permanent family, it would be premature in most cases for the Court to hold such hearings before it has even decided whether abuse or neglect has occurred.

Fact-Findings and Dispositions in Family Court were substantially delayed for children in the study sample, including children who entered care in recent years. The mean length of time between children’s placement in foster care and completion of the Disposition by the Family Court was 14 months; the median was 11 months. Disposition took more than a year for 44 percent of the children and more than two years for 15 percent.

Given that many children in the sample entered foster care a number of years ago, we examined the timeliness of Dispositions for a sub-sample of children who entered care since the new “Permanency Law” went into effect. For 72 percent of these children, Disposition took more than eight months. We also compared the mean length of time to Disposition for children who entered care prior to the Permanency Law to that of children who entered care after the law was enacted. The difference in time to Disposition between the two groups was not statistically significant. Although this analysis does not

| 13 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

control for other factors that might influence the length of time from remand to disposition, it does suggest that this length of time has not changed substantially since the Permanency Law was enacted.

B. More than half of children experienced delays in their Permanency Hear- ings. The Court made “reasonable efforts” findings at virtually all hearings, calling into question the threshold it uses to make these determinations.

Children are supposed to receive their first Permanency Hearing eight months after being remanded into foster care and then every six months thereafter until they exit foster care. Once a Permanency Hearing is begun, it must be completed within 30 days. The purpose of these hearings is to improve permanency outcomes for children through regularly scheduled judicial reviews of the circumstances of their cases, the appropriateness of their permanency goals, and the efforts made by the agencies to bring about permanency. The Court must also issue orders to expedite permanency, to ensure the safety and well being of children in foster care, and to determine when to discharge them.

For more than half (55 percent) of the children in the sample, at least one Permanency Hearing over a two-year period was not completed within the required 30 days. In order of prevalence, the most common reasons for these delays were that the foster care agencies had not submitted Permanency Hearing Reports (PHRs) on time, that the Court did not have sufficient time for the hearings, that foster care agency caseworkers were not present, that the PHRs did not sufficiently address the issues in the case, and that ACS caseworkers were not present.

At virtually every Permanency Hearing for children in this study—99 percent over a period of two years—the Court ruled that the foster care agencies had made “reasonable efforts” to bring about permanency. This finding belies the long lengths of stay in foster care that these children and families were experiencing, as well as other data collected in this study regarding the varying intensity of service provision, the infrequency of caseworker contacts with children, parents, and resource parents, and the lack of meaningful concurrent planning. Further, it raises questions regarding the standard used to make these determinations.

Virtually all of the stakeholders who participated in interviews and focus groups for this study talked at length about how the number of adjournments and the length of time between adjournments for all types of court hearings (Article 10 proceedings, Permanency Hearings, and termination of parental rights proceedings) contribute to children’s lengthy stays in foster care.

C. termination of parental rights proceedings were extremely delayed for most children.

When a TPR was filed, TPR proceedings and dispositions were extremely slow. For children in the study sample, the mean and median lengths of time between TPR filing and the actual termination of parental rights were 2.4 and 1.9 years, respectively. The mean and median lengths of time between establishing the goal of Adoption and becoming legally free were 2.4 and 2.1 years, respectively.

New York State regulations require that children be freed for adoption within 12 months of the establishment of Adoption as their permanency goal. However, more than three-fourths (77 percent) of children were not legally freed within that period of time.

| 14 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Finally, the mean length of time from entering foster care to becoming legally free for adoption was 5.4 years; the median was 4.8 years. Forty-five percent of children were in foster care for more than five years before becoming legally free.

Given that many children in the study sample entered foster care a number of years ago, analyses were conducted to determine whether the timeliness of TPR processes has changed over time. Although there were still long delays in filing TPR petitions and completing TPR proceedings in many recent cases, there was some improvement seen.

D. A lack of accountability in Family Court proceedings contributes to poor permanency outcomes for children.

All stakeholder groups—parents, resource parents, attorneys, judges, and referees—noted that the Court does not consistently use its full power to hold the parties in child welfare cases accountable for the steps that need to be taken in order to achieve family reunification or the placement of children with other permanent families. Children remain in foster care for years, and the Court gives ACS and the foster care agencies many chances (and multiple hearing adjournments) to present evidence and provide necessary services to parents, even after they have been slow or negligent in doing so. As noted above, the Court virtually always finds that they have made “reasonable efforts” to bring about permanency.

Stakeholders said that when the Court does issue orders, they often lack specificity. For example, the Court will sometimes order a foster care agency to provide a particular service, but will not specify a date by which it must do so—making the order difficult to enforce. Finally, by most accounts, the Court rarely uses its power to impose sanctions, issue warrants, or dismiss cases when ACS or the foster care agencies have not complied with its orders.

Stakeholders also said the Court gives parents repeated opportunities to participate in services toward the goal of family reunification, even after years of parents’ inconsistent involvement in required services and visits with their children.

At the same time, stakeholders acknowledge that the Court’s decision-making is hampered by poor-quality casework by ACS and the foster care agencies. The Court depends on ACS and the foster care agencies to provide appropriate services to children and families and to inform the Court’s decision-making through assessments of children’s progress toward permanency. But judges and referees expressed frustration with the quality of the agencies’ case practice—and the fact that many caseworkers seem to see their role as only documenting parents’ attendance at services rather than providing the Court with clinical assessments of parents’ progress. In addition, judges and referees said that the parties infrequently make applications or motions to the Court for relief to address pressing issues and try to move cases forward.

Finally, some stakeholders expressed frustration that, short of the judicial reappointment process (which happens only every 10 years) and processes for serious ethics violations, there is no viable process for filing complaints when they have concerns about judges’ or referees’ conduct—for example, not spending enough time on the bench, failing to hold mandated hearings, and treating the parties in Court poorly.

| 15 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

IV. CASEWORK RESOURCES — Children in the sample experienced high caseworker turnover. Casework- ers reported large caseloads and a lack of adequate training, resources, and supervision, all of which can negatively affect the quality of their casework.

A. Caseworker turnover among children in the study was high. Most children had many different workers.

The majority of children in the study had multiple caseworkers20 during a two-year period. Less than one-fifth (18 percent) of children in the study sample had one consistent caseworker. Almost one-fourth (23 percent) had two caseworkers, and 51 percent had three or more caseworkers.

B. Caseworker caseloads exceed recommended sizes.

Research has shown that large caseloads negatively affect permanency outcomes for children21—and indeed, many stakeholders in this study identified large caseloads and their effect on virtually every aspect of casework as barriers to permanency.

A study commissioned by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS)22 recommended that foster care caseworkers carry a maximum caseload of 11-12 children, but data collected in this study and other available information indicate that the caseloads of many foster care workers in New York City exceed the recommended standards.23 Only 25 percent of caseworkers interviewed for this study carried caseloads of 12 or fewer children. Twenty-nine percent were carrying caseloads of more than 20 children.

A recent survey conducted by the Council of Families and Child Caring Agencies (COFCCA) found similar results; of 14 foster care agencies responding to the survey, only one reported an average caseload of 11. Every other agency had caseloads averaging 15 or higher and more than one-third reported an average caseload of 20 children or more.24 Average caseload statistics can also mask the full extent of the problem.

C. A substantial proportion of caseworkers interviewed for this study did not receive training prior to receiving a caseload.

Forty-three percent of the caseworkers interviewed for this study said that they had not been trained before they were given responsibility for a caseload of children and families. However, 93 percent said that they had received in-service training during the past year. Reviews of training were mixed, which is not surprising given that there is currently no consistent training provided across the many foster care agencies working with children and families in New York City.

20 The study measured the number of case planners that children had. “Case Planner” is the designated term for the caseworker at the foster care provider agency who is responsible for the coordination of the work with the child and family.

21 Multiple citations as noted in Children’s Rights. (2006). Components of an Effective Child Welfare Workforce to Improve Outcomes for Children and Families: What Does the Research Tell Us? Available at http://www.childrensrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ components_of_effective_child_welfare_workforce_august_2006.pdf

22 Walter R. McDonald and Associates and American Humane Association. (2006). New York State Child Welfare Workload Study. Renseleaer, NY: New York State Office of Children and Family Services, pp. 6-14.

23 ACS does not collect system-wide caseload data.

24 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies, August 11, 2009.

| 16 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

D. Caseworkers’ reviews of the quality of supervision were mixed.

More than two-thirds of caseworkers interviewed reported receiving supervision on a weekly basis. However, seven percent said they received supervision on a biweekly basis and 21 percent said they generally received supervision only monthly. Reviews of supervision were mixed. Some caseworkers noted that their supervisors were well-versed in their cases and helpful; others said their supervisors did not make time for them and did not provide good clinical oversight. The poor quality of the case practice seen in many cases in the study sample also raises serious questions about the quality of supervision.

E. Basic infrastructure supports are lacking.

Caseworkers identified the need for cell phones, laptops, agency vehicles, interpretation services, and more clerical support. Cell phones and laptops were their major priorities, given the expectation that workers should be in the field working with children and families most of the time, and the reality that they spend much of their time in court waiting for hearings to begin.

V. COURT RESOURCES — Judges, referees, and attorneys have large caseloads and lack adequate resources, which can affect the timeliness and quality of legal representation and the Family Court process.

The data clearly indicated that there are major delays in the court system. Underlying these delays are serious resource issues that compromise the operations of the Family Court and permanency outcomes for children and families.

A. Judges’ and referees’ caseloads are too large. The Court’s untenable caseload has been repeatedly documented by various entities, including the Court itself, for almost a decade.

Since 1991, 47 judges have been assigned to the New York City Family Court. Despite the passage of the “Permanency Law” that doubled the number of Permanency Hearings as of 2005—and a considerable increase in the number of abuse and neglect and voluntary placement petitions filed since 2006, resulting in tens of thousands of hearings that must be conducted every year—the number of judges assigned to Family Court has not been increased.

As of May 2009, the 26 judges in the Child Protective Specialty carried an average caseload of 724 children, and the 19.2 referees had an average caseload of 772 children. Eleven judges and seven referees had more than 800 children on their caseloads and three judges and one referee had more than 1,000 children on their caseloads.

Increasing the number of judges requires action by the State Legislature. Bills have been introduced and many groups, including the court system itself, continue to advocate increasing the number of Family Court judges both in New York City and across the state.

| 17 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

B. Juvenile Rights Practice attorneys for children and Family Court Legal Services attorneys carry caseloads that are larger than national standards.

The Juvenile Rights Practice (JRP) of the Legal Aid Society represents most children in foster care in New York City in Family Court.25 The average reported caseload for JRP attorneys system-wide as of July 2009 was 163 children. Caseloads had previously been much higher until the New York State Office of Court Administration issued a new court rule, effective April 2008, limiting these attorneys’ caseloads to 150 children each and providing additional resources toward meeting this goal. However, even this limit exceeds the National Association of Counsel for Children’s recommendation of no more than 100 child clients for attorneys representing children in abuse and neglect cases.

Family Court Legal Services (FCLS) attorneys represent ACS in Court. The average reported caseload for FCLS attorneys system-wide was 70 families as of July 2009. The average caseload of the FCLS staff attorneys who were interviewed for this study was 82 families and the median was 80 families. The American Bar Association’s Standards Drafting Committee recommends a caseload of no more than 60 families for attorneys representing public child welfare agencies.

Many FCLS and JRP attorneys interviewed for this study also identified other resource issues that hinder their work. They said they need additional office space to alleviate overcrowding (with both coworkers and case files), and both additional support staff and critical equipment such as laptops and cell phones.

C. Some parents reported insufficient access to their attorneys.

Parents of children in foster care in New York City are typically represented in Family Court either by court-appointed “18b” attorneys (who are usually solo practitioners) or by “institutional providers,” which are organizations with the infrastructure to provide both legal advocacy and other important supports via parent advocates and social work staff. In 2007, the City contracted the Center for Family Representation, Bronx Defenders, and the Brooklyn Family Defense Project to substantially increase the proportion of parents represented by institutional providers. Most parents of the children in the study sample, both mothers and fathers, were represented by an “18b” court-appointed attorney.

Parents who participated in a focus group for this study reported feeling extremely vulnerable and un- informed when their children were first placed in foster care. In addition, some parents said that their attorneys do not return their phone calls and do not take enough time to meet with them before court. Parents’ attorneys reported that their ability to represent their clients effectively and assist them in getting the services they need is significantly improved when they have access to resources such as social workers and parent advocates.

25 Lawyers for Children also represents many children who have been abused and neglected or placed voluntarily by their parents.

| 18 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Recommendations

Permanency outcomes for children in foster care in New York City are among the poorest in the country. The findings of this study suggest that a number of factors combine to create formidable barriers that keep children from returning home to their families or achieving permanency through adoption or legal guardianship. The following recommendations suggest strategies for overcoming these barriers.

We have not provided recommendations to address every one of the findings presented in this report. Instead, we have focused on the major actions that must be taken in order to effect a meaningful shift in the urgency with which the child welfare system approaches permanency, the quality and timeliness of case practice and court proceedings, the standards used to measure the system’s performance and increase accountability at every level, and the adequacy of the resources deployed throughout the system.

Some of these recommendations can be implemented more quickly than others. And, although some can be implemented without a significant infusion of dollars, others require additional funding com- mitments. Certainly, identifying additional funding in the current economic climate is a challenge. But if the State and the City make these investments now, both will realize savings as children begin leaving foster care more quickly and the overall foster care population begins to drop. Savings will also come from having fewer children who exit foster care only to enter other public systems as they experience homelessness, substance addiction, incarceration, and the many other poor adult outcomes that are all too common among children who spend most of their childhoods as wards of the state.

These issues have remained unaddressed for far too long while too many children have continued to grow up with the government as their parent. To change this we must:

; Improve the Family Court Process and Accountability 1. The New York State Office of Court Administration should develop and issue periodic public reports on key measures of the permanency process in the New York City Family Court. These reports should provide data including but not limited to the Family Court’s timeliness in completing abuse and neglect proceedings, Permanency Hearings, and TPR proceedings; the frequency and reasons for adjournments of Court hearings; and the caseloads of judges and referees.

2. The New York City Family Court should use the power that it already has to hold all of the parties in child welfare matters accountable. The Court should use all available tools, including court orders and sanctions, to ensure that the parties are present, prepared, and ready to proceed at hearings, and to ensure that ACS and the foster care agencies provide appropriate services to children and families.

3. The New York State Legislature and the Governor should authorize and fund additional judgeships for the Family Court.

4. The New York State Legislature and the Governor should enact mandated time frames for completing Article 10 and TPR proceedings.

. 5 The New York City Family Court should fully implement time-certain hearings, continuous trials, and court conferencing in order to reduce delays in all court proceedings. These strategies have already been identified as components of the Family Court’s Child Protective Initiative, the progress of which should be closely tracked and monitored.

| 19 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

6. The Criminal Justice Coordinator should explore the further expansion of parent legal representation by organizations that have the capacity to provide social work and parent advocate assistance to parents.

; Improve Foster Care Casework Accountability 7. ACS should develop and issue periodic public reports on key measures of the permanency process as it pertains to the work of ACS and the foster care agencies. These reports should include data regarding but not limited to: • the numbers of children in foster care with each permanency goal, and their ages, races/eth- nicities, lengths of stay in foster care, and lengths of time with their current permanency goal; • the frequency of caseworker contacts with children and parents; • the frequency of visits between children in foster care and their parents; • the participation of families in team meetings; • the status of service provision for children and families; • the timeliness of the filing of termination of parental rights petitions and the existence of “compelling reasons” when petitions are not filed; and • the proportion of children placed in pre-adoptive homes.

ACS, working with the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), should also develop the capacity to report on key workforce measures, including worker educational background and tenure, caseloads, turnover, and other key indicators.

8. ACS and the foster care agencies should immediately address the needs of many children who are at risk of leaving the foster care system without a permanent family. Currently, there are 2,600 children with a goal of Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA); for these children, efforts at reunification, adoption, or guardianship have failed. In addition, there are more than 4,000 children in the system who have had a goal of Return to Parent or Adoption for more than two years. Within the next 18 months, all 6,600 of these children should receive a special, intensive “SWAT team” review in order to identify barriers to permanency and to develop, implement, and monitor plans to achieve permanency for each child through family reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship. ACS and the foster care agencies will need to develop criteria to prioritize the order in which these cases will be reviewed. At the same time that ACS is taking steps to reduce this backlog of children languishing in foster care, it must also develop a mechanism for reviewing the cases of children who newly enter these categories, and take action as appropriate.

9. ACS must implement with rigor and consequences a quality assurance process to ensure that the foster care agencies are doing their part to achieve timely permanency outcomes for children and families. ACS’s “Scorecard” evaluates foster care agencies on various process and outcome measures, and scores agencies on their performance independently and as compared to other agencies’ and citywide performance. It is critical that ACS use this process to determine when agencies need assistance in meeting their goals and when it may be necessary to place agencies on corrective action plans or on probation; and agencies that prove unable to meet expectations must be closed.

| 20 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

; Improve the Child Welfare Workforce and the Quality of Casework with Children and Families 10. The State and the City should provide adequate funding to lower caseloads citywide to 11-12 children per foster care caseworker, as previously recommended by a study commissioned by the Office of Children and Family Services. These caseload levels should be phased in over a period of three to five years.

11. In addition to lowering caseworker caseloads, other steps must be taken to improve supports for the child welfare workforce, reduce caseworker turnover, and improve the quality of casework and service coordination.

A. The State and City should develop and implement a “workforce improvement plan” that addresses the recruitment, retention, training, and supervision of private agency foster care workers citywide. ACS and OCFS should develop this in partnership with COFCCA and the foster care agencies, and provide adequate support to enable the agencies to implement the plan.

B. The State and the City should work together to take full advantage of newly available federal Title IV-E training funds for the training of private agency staff.26 ACS, COFCCA, and the foster care agencies, with support from OCFS, should work together to develop and implement uniform pre-service and in-service training for foster care workers across the City. Specialized training and intensive supervision should be provided to foster care agency staff citywide to address the serious case practice deficiencies identified in this report.

; Improve Supports and Services for Children and Families 12. ACS and the foster care agencies should develop and implement a plan to substantially increase the frequency of visits between children in foster care and their families.

13. Clinical staff positions should be created in the foster care agencies to provide consultation, assessments, and service linkages in cases involving parents with serious mental illness and/or cognitive disabilities.

14. ACS should work with the foster care agencies to ensure that they have sufficient capacity to recruit foster and adoptive homes. ACS should ensure that children for whom reunification, relative guardianship, or adoption by current resource parents is not viable are referred to agencies that have the capacity to recruit adoptive homes for them.

15. The Bridges to Health (B2H) program should be expanded. This important program provides supportive services for children in foster care who have serious medical, developmental, or emotional disorders. Importantly, these services can remain with the child when they exit foster care to reunification, adoption, or other settings. There are currently 720 B2H slots available for children in New York City. However, it has been estimated that several thousand children in the New York City foster care system may be eligible for these critical services, which can stabilize children so that they can return home, or achieve permanency through adoption or legal guardianship.

16. ACS should work with the City’s housing agencies to expand access to housing assistance for families.

26 Federal funds for the training of private agency staff were made available via the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. Previously, federal funds were available only for the training of public agency staff.

| 21 | Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations

17. The State and the City should maintain and increase their commitment to providing high- quality Preventive Services to keep children safe at home and prevent them from entering foster care in the first place. After many years with no mechanism in place for the evaluation of Preventive Services, ACS now has a Preventive “Scorecard,” which must be implemented with rigor to ensure that the City is using its Preventive Services funds on programs that are most effective in ensuring that children are safe and families are receiving the services they need.

; Establish a New Permanency Option 18. The New York State Legislature and the Governor should enact and adequately fund subsidized guardianship. New York is far behind the curve in not having subsidized guardianship as a permanency option for children in foster care. Many other states have subsidized guardianship programs and, recently, federal funds were made available to states for this purpose through the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. Subsidized guardianship is an appropriate option when children who have been abused and neglected cannot return home, adoption is not an option, and ongoing services to the family are no longer needed. It must be carefully implemented to ensure that it is not used in cases in which children could return home if appropriate services were provided, or if they could be adopted.

This program should not be funded through the State’s foster care block grant. Subsidized guardianship is an alternative to adoption, not to foster care. Currently, the non-federal share of adoption subsidies in New York is split 75 percent state / 25 percent city. In order to incentiv- ize adoption over subsidized guardianship, the State should implement a 65 percent state / 35 percent city split, as has been proposed by the Citizens Committee for Children.

| 22 | Study Methodology Study Methodology

STUDY METHODOLOGY

This section briefly describes the study methodology and limitations. A more detailed description is provided in Appendix A.

I. Methodology

A. Study Components

The study included the following components: • A review of the case records27 of a sample of 153 children who had a permanency goal of Re- turn to Parent or Adoption for two years or more as of September 30, 2008.28 The case record review collected data regarding key case practice and legal/court activities. The review focused primarily on the one-year period from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. Some data collection items focused on a two-year period (October 1, 2006 through Septem- ber 30, 2008). Selected items required examination of documents covering the entire span of the child’s spell in foster care. The case record review was conducted by Children’s Rights’ staff and five case reviewers hired on a temporary basis specifically for this project. These reviewers were trained and supervised by Children’s Rights’ staff. All five individuals had 10-20 years of child welfare system experience, the majority of which was in the New York City child welfare system, specifically. Some data regarding legal/court activities were collected from the JRP attorney for each child in the study and from administrative staff in the Family Court Legal Services (FCLS) Division of the Ad- ministration for Children’s Services (ACS) using survey instruments designed by Children’s Rights.

• Interviews with the caseworker, attorney for ACS, and the JRP attorney for the child29 in a subsample of 30 of the 153 children. These interviews focused on collecting information about the individual child/family in the sample as well as general information about the interviewees’ education, training and supervision experiences, and their perceptions about barriers to permanency generally in the child welfare system. Interviews were conducted by Children’s Rights’ staff and the temporary staff noted above.

• Focus groups with parents, resource parents, attorneys for parents, and judges and referees. These focus groups were designed to elicit the participants’ experiences and views regarding barriers to permanency in the child welfare system. The focus groups were facilitated by Children’s Rights’ staff.30 Focus group participants were recruited separately and were not necessarily associated with the 153 cases examined for the case record review.

27 The case records reviewed included the foster care provider agency case files; third-party information from service providers, schools, etc. included in the foster care agency files; and court orders and other legal documents pertaining to the case.

28 There were 153 children in the sample. Seventy-nine children had a goal of Return to Parent and 74 children had a goal of Adop- tion. Among the children with a goal of Adoption, 47 children were legally free for adoption and 27 children were not legally free as of September 30, 2008.

29 Until recently, lawyers in New York State representing children were referred to as law guardians. In the last two years, this term has shifted to “attorney for the child.”

30 The focus groups with parents’ attorneys and Family Court judges and referees were co-facilitated by Children’s Rights’ staff with Theodor Liebmann, Clinical Professor and Associate Director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra University School of Law.

| 24 | Study Methodology

The focus group with parents was organized in collaboration with the Child Welfare Organiz- ing Project (CWOP). The focus group with resource parents was organized in collaboration with Circle of Support, the citywide resource parent group that is organized with ACS’ support. The focus group with parents’ attorneys was organized with the assistance of the three institutional providers of parent representation (Center for Family Representation [CFR], Bronx Defenders, and Brooklyn Family Defense Project) and the First and Second Judicial Departments of the Ap- pellate Division of the New York State Unified Court system that oversee the 18b Panel31 for New York City. The focus group with judges and referees was organized with the assistance of the New York City Family Court and the Honorable Judy Harris Kluger, Chief of Policy and Planning for New York State’s Unified Court System. The case record review instruments and interview and focus group protocols were developed by Children’s Rights with input from ACS, JRP, the New York City Family Court, the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies (COFCCA), CWOP, CFR, and others.

B. Foster Care Agency Participation in Study

Participation in the study by the non-profit foster care provider agencies was voluntary. Twenty-eight of the 33 agencies that were under contract with ACS when the sample was selected in the fall of 2008 agreed to participate in the study.32 The case reviews were conducted onsite at the foster care agencies. Ultimately, due to sampling and case eligibility issues, 26 agencies contributed cases to the sample (See Appendix A: Methodology for details).

The identities of the participating agencies are confidential. No information about which agencies participated is provided in this report, nor were the identities of participating agencies disclosed to ACS.

C. Sample Selection

A key priority of the study was to analyze a sample of children representative of the population of interest—children in foster care in New York City who have had a goal of Return to Parent or Adoption for two years or more. ACS provided Children’s Rights with a list of all children in foster care in New York City who met the criteria for the study as of September 30, 2008. Due to certain practical constraints, drawing a simple random sample from this list was not possible.33 Therefore, we selected the sample using a procedure that allowed us to select children’s cases randomly within each agency while accom- modating certain practical parameters (see Appendix A: Methodology for a detailed description of the sample selection process).

This approach was successful in that it yielded a sample to which participating agencies contributed a proportion of cases similar to the proportion of cases that they contributed to the overall population. In the final sample, some participating agencies contributed slightly higher or lower proportions of cases than their contribution to the population; however, each agency’s contribution was within -5 and +3 percentage points of its actual contribution to the population. In fact, 20 of the participating

31 Court-appointed attorneys representing parents are typically referred to as 18b attorneys. 18b attorneys can represent either parents or children.

32 Agencies providing only short-term foster care, such as maternity programs, were not asked to participate in the study.

33 A simple random sample is one in which all the members of the population from which the sample is being drawn have an equal probability of being selected. Therefore, a simple random sample for this study would have been one in which we took the entire list of children meeting the criteria for the study provided by ACS (a list of approximately 4,000 children) and selected children’s cases from that list completely at random. Due to the range in sizes of the agencies participating in the study, implementing this procedure would have produced a sample to which the smallest agencies were not contributing any cases and the largest agencies were contributing a number that may have been considered too burdensome from a practical perspective. Therefore, we devised an alternative sampling procedure that would distribute the contribution burden while still closely approximating each agency’s actual contribution to the population (i.e., larger agencies would still contribute more cases to the sample than smaller agencies), and enabling all of our participating agencies to contribute cases for the study. See Appendix A: Methodology for a detailed description of the sample selection process.

| 25 | Study Methodology

agencies’ contributions to the sample were within ±2 percentage points of their contribution to the population. For example, if Agency A represented 4% of the cases in the population from which the sample was selected, and it contributed 3% of the cases in the sample, then it contributed one percentage point less to the sample that it did to the population.

II. Limitations

All studies of this nature have limitations. In a case record review such as the one conducted in this study, one can only review what is documented; if circumstances existed or activities happened, but are not documented, they cannot be “counted.” For example, if a caseworker had a contact with a parent, but failed to write it down, this cannot be counted. Thus, it is possible that, to some undeterminable extent, some of the findings in this study reflect a documentation problem, rather than a lack of actual casework. However, it is important to note that all casework should, in fact, be recorded. Children in foster care are in the legal custody of the government and the documented circumstances and activities within a child welfare case play a critical role in informing current and future case practice, legal action, and court decisions pertaining to children’s and families’ lives.

In addition, documents such as progress notes, case plans, and court reports may largely reflect the perspectives of the foster care agency staff who prepare them. However, case records also contain documents prepared by a variety of authors. The case records reviewed in this study included not only information prepared by the foster care agencies, but also copies of court orders, third-party assessments prepared by clinicians, school personnel, and other service providers, and, in some cases, documents prepared by parents, resource parents, and children.

In order to build on the information available in case records and to mitigate some of the limitations noted above, Children’s Rights conducted interviews or focus groups with parents, resource parents, caseworkers, attorneys (for children, parents, and ACS), and Family Court judges and referees. These interviews and focus groups provided critical qualitative and contextual information that amplifies the findings from the case record review.

It should also be noted that, for practical purposes and in order to focus on assessing recent rather than old practice, data collection pertaining to casework focused primarily on a one-year review period ending September 30, 2008. This means that the case record review did not focus on case practice in the early days of these cases, for example, whether initial case plans were developed within 30 days, whether initial family team meetings were held, whether parents and all relatives were immediately identified, located, and engaged, etc. These are in fact critical components of casework and would be worthy of another study examining casework with families of children who very recently entered foster care. However, stakeholders who participated in interviews or focus groups for this study described some problems in initial casework that may contribute to barriers to permanency, and this information is noted in the report.

In addition, as with any case record review, reviewers for this study encountered instances in which information was unavailable or undeterminable from the case records. These data are reported as “unable to determine.” There were also instances in which data were not provided on the survey instrument completed by the JRP Attorney for the child or FCLS administrative staff, and a very limited number of instances in which data were missing on the case record review instrument due to data collection error. Data in these instances are reported as “missing” whenever applicable.

| 26 | Study Methodology

It is also important to note that some analyses presented in the report were conducted on small subsamples, either because only a small group of children experienced the circumstances that the analysis addressed or because data were missing or unable to be determined for a portion of children eligible for the analysis. This caveat should be considered in interpreting the results of such analyses.

Finally, it should be noted that this study is a descriptive study. It provides information describing the children and families in the sample and the occurrence of key case practice and court-related activities. It does not allow us to establish causality, i.e., to definitively determine that certain characteristics, circumstances, or activities (or lack thereof) caused these children to remain in foster care for extended periods of time. In order to determine whether the barriers to permanency identified in this report are associated uniquely with long-staying children, a study would require a control group of children who entered and left care quickly. However, we hypothesize, based on these study findings, that some of the identified characteristics, circumstances, and activities (or lack thereof) may be affecting the trajectories of these children and families in the child welfare system.

| 27 | One Child’s Story: Darla

One Child’s Story: Darla

Child’s Age: 14 Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 10 years Current Permanency Goal: Adoption

Darla is 14 years old and has been in foster care for ten years. Her permanency goal has been Adoption for eight years. She has been legally free for adoption for six years.

Darla entered care at the age of four due to neglect. She is one of eight siblings of a single mother with a history of substance abuse. She was moved through three different foster homes in two years (including one kinship home), and was then committed to a psychiatric hospital at age six due to aggressive behavior. For three years after that, she lived in a residential treatment center (RTC).

Although a prospective adoptive mother for Darla stepped forward, there was a long delay before Darla was placed with her. Nevertheless, Darla reportedly adjusted well to the new home and the foster mother expressed interest in adopting Darla. This was Darla’s first home after spending many of her childhood years in hospitals and RTCs.

The foster care agency and the foster mother began the adoption process, completing most of the paperwork. Darla’s behavior started to improve and she and her foster mother bonded—but she continued to present challenging behaviors, and the foster mother never attended court- ordered training for foster parents of youth requiring therapeutic care. In addition, there was an incident between the foster mother and another child in the home. After this incident, both Darla and that child were removed and the foster home was closed. Darla again entered a psychiatric hospital and was subsequently placed in a residential treatment facility (RTF). Although she was moved into another foster home after that, it was not a certified therapeutic home, as the RTF had recommended and the Court had ordered.

Barriers to Permanency

Since entering care ten years ago, Darla has been placed with four different provider agencies and spent much of that time in institutional and hospital settings. Efforts to reunify were unsuccessful, and were followed by delays in the TPR process. Darla has a history of psychiatric hospitalizations for depression, suicidal behaviors, and psychosis.

More recently, permanency hearings have been adjourned due to various parties’ failure to appear in court. Darla’s current foster care agency does not have a therapeutic foster home program, and Darla still has not been placed with a family trained to address her mental health needs. Her current foster parent enjoys working with teenagers and is responsive to Darla, but will not agree to adopt her.

Current Status

At Darla’s age, she must consent to her own adoption—but she has become ambivalent about the prospect, and her current foster mother is not interested in adopting. Meanwhile, Darla continues to wait for another pre-adoptive placement.

| 28 | One Child’s Story: Cece

One Child’s Story: Cece

Child’s Age: 8 Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 6 years Current Permanency Goal: Return to Parent

Cece is an eight-year-old only child who entered foster care at the age of one when her parents, both of whom have a history of substance abuse, abandoned her in the care of a family friend. Within days, the friend’s home was determined to be unsuitable, and Cece was moved into a foster home where she lived for the first three and a half years of her time in foster care.

Cece’s father has limited cognitive functioning, and her mother has a terminal illness. Both initially promised and failed to enter substance abuse treatment when Cece was first placed in foster care and initially visited Cece only sporadically. But they expressed a strong desire to parent her, and Cece’s attachment to them was apparent. Her permanency goal has remained Return to Parent throughout her time in foster care.

Barriers to Permanency

Multiple issues pertaining to Cece’s parents—their substance abuse, the father’s cognitive disabilities, and the mother’s incarceration and serious illness—have stood in the way of reunification. A court-ordered neuropsychological examination of Cece’s father identified certain limitations, and specialized parenting services were put in place. However, her father did not immediately participate in these programs, and foster care agency staff did not observe progress even after he did. Additionally, after some weekend visits, Cece returned to her foster home hungry because her father had not fed her adequately.

Meanwhile, Cece’s mother’s presence in her life has been erratic, despite her love and concern for Cece. She completed parenting classes, obtained her own housing and began having overnight visits with Cece. Eventually, Cece was released to her mother’s care on a trial discharge. Her father was allowed liberal visits and performed some parenting duties, but was inconsistent in doing so. Cece’s mother eventually relapsed, and Cece returned to foster care. At this point, her mother’s whereabouts became unknown for an extended period.

In the two years since returning to foster care, Cece has remained in the same foster home, where she has thrived. Her foster parents have remained in communication with her parents and have supported weekly visits from her father, but they have expressed concern about her father’s ability to appropriately care for Cece. Cece’s mother’s illness has worsened, and her participation in substance abuse treatment programs, visits with Cece, and appearances in Court have been inconsistent.

At the foster care agency, caseworker turnover may have also negatively affected the case. In the last two years alone, Cece has had four different caseworkers. Permanency Hearing Reports either were submitted late or contained insufficient information. Most of Cece’s case record indicates diligence in working with her mother, but lacks documentation of equal work with her father and lacks any evidence of concurrent planning.

| 29 | One Child’s Story: Cece

Additionally, Cece’s case has been adjourned repeatedly due not only to her mother’s failure to appear in Court, but also to absences on the part of her caseworkers and attorneys and the referee presiding over the case.

Current Status

In July 2008, the Court made it clear that it would not return Cece to her father, and the foster care agency asked her mother to sign a conditional surrender. She refused. Although Cece’s parents are comfortable with her foster parents and her foster parents are willing to agree to an open adoption, a petition to terminate parental rights has not yet been filed and a surrender has not been signed. Cece’s official permanency goal remains Return to Parent, six years after entering foster care.

| 30 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

HIGHLIGHTS: Demographics, Case Opening, and Current Case Status

• The study sample was not dominated by children of one particular age group. The mean and median ages of children were 10.3 and 9.9 years, respectively; 23% of children were ages two to five; 27% were six to nine; 22% were 10 to 13; and 28% were 14 or older. (It should be noted that all children were at least two years of age due to the study criteria that children had to be in foster care for at least two years.)

T• here were more males than females in the study sample. 58% of children in the sample were male and 42% were female.

T• he racial distribution of children in the study sample was similar to that of the overall foster care population in New York City. Almost half (49%) of children in the study were African- American; 27% were Hispanic; 5% were Caucasian; 2% were Asian/Pacific Islander; 7% were both African-American and Hispanic; and 5% were both Caucasian and Hispanic.

• the most common allegations and other concerns identified when children entered foster care were inadequate guardianship/lack of supervision (57%), parental drug/alcohol misuse (54%), parental mental illness (27%), inadequate food/clothing/shelter (25%), physical abuse (21%), and excessive corporal punishment (20%).

T• he Family Court finding for the vast majority of children was neglect. The Family Court ruled that 90% of children had been neglected, 3% had been abused, and 3% had been both abused and neglected.

• children in the study sample had very long lengths of stay in foster care. Lengths of stay ranged from 2 to 17 years. The mean and median lengths of stay were 5.4 and 4.8 years, respectively. (It should be noted that, due to the study criteria, all children had to be in foster care for at least two years.)

• children had their current permanency goals for long lengths of time. The lengths of time children had their current permanency goals ranged from 2 to 9.9 years. The mean and median lengths of time were 3.6 and 3.2 years, respectively. Almost one-fourth of children with a goal of Return to Parent and 40% of children with a goal of Adoption had those goals for more than four years.

• Small proportions of children had parents who were deceased, incarcerated, hospitalized, or in inpatient substance abuse treatment. A substantial minority of children had parents whose whereabouts were documented as unknown for part or all of the one-year review period. Of children who were not legally free during the entire one-year review period, 19% had a mother and 37% had a father whose whereabouts were documented as unknown at some point during the review period.

| 32 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

Section I of this chapter provides basic demographic data on the children in the sample. Section II provides information regarding the documented reasons children entered foster care and Family Court findings pertaining to the occurrence of abuse and neglect. Section III provides information on the current status of the children’s cases; these data provide important context for understanding the findings in the subsequent chapters of the report. Data include children’s lengths of stay in foster care, their current permanency goals and the lengths of time they have had those goals, and information regarding certain parental circumstances that can affect the child welfare system’s ability to engage parents and parents’ ability to participate in case planning and services.

I. demographic Information

A. Children’s Age

The sample for this study was comprised, by design, of children who had a goal of Return to Parent (RTP) or Adoption for two years or more. Thus, by definition, all of the children in the sample were at least two years old. The data regarding the distribution of the children’s ages should be interpreted in that context.

As shown in Figure 1.1, the mean (average) and median ages of the children in the study sample were 10.3 and 9.9 years (as of September 30, 2008). The mean and median ages of these children when they entered foster care were 4.9 and 3.8 years, respectively.

Figure 1.1: Mean and Median Ages of Children, in Years All Children Children with a Goal of Children with a Goal of (N = 153) RTP (n = 79) Adoption (n = 74)

When child As of When child As of When child As of entered Sept. 30, entered Sept. 30, entered Sept. 30, foster care 2008 foster care 2008 foster care 2008

Mean Age 4.9 10.3 6.1 9.8 3.5 10.7 Median Age 3.8 9.9 5.0 9.0 2.6 11.1

As shown in Figure 1.2, the study sample was not dominated by one particular age group. Almost one- fourth (23%) of the children were ages two to five. Slightly more than one-fourth (27%) were ages six to nine. Twenty-two percent were ages 10 to 13 and 28% were age 14 or older.

| 33 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

Figure 1.2: Ages of Children (as of September 30, 2008)

29% 30% 28% 27% 27% 26% 26% 25% 23% 23% 22% 20% 20% 19% 16% 15%

10% 8%

Proportion of Children Proportion 5% 5% 1% 0 2 - 5 years 6 - 9 years 10 - 13 years 14 - 16 years 17 - 18 years Age of Children

All Children (N = 153) Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 79) Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74)

B. Children’s Sex

There were more males than females in the sample and this was most pronounced among the children with a permanency goal of Adoption. As shown in Figure 1.3, 58% of the children in the overall sample were male and 42% were female.

Figure 1.3: Sex of Children

70% 62% 58% 60% 54% 50% 46% 42% 40% 38% 30% 20%

Proportion of Children Proportion 10% 0 All Children Children with a Goal of RTP Children with a Goal of Adoption (N = 153) (n = 79) (n = 74)

Male Female

C. Children’s Race/ Figure 1.4: Race/Ethnicity of Children (N = 153) Ethnicity 2% 3% 2% As shown in Figure 1.4, almost half 5% African American (49%) of the children in the sample 5% Hispanic were African American, 27% were 7% African American & Hispanic Hispanic, 5% were Caucasian, and 2% Caucasian 49% were Asian/Pacific Islander. Seven per- Caucasian & Hispanic UTD cent were both African American and 27% Hispanic and 5% were both Caucasian Asian/Paciﬁc Islander and Hispanic. These proportions were Other similar for children with a goal of Return to Parent and Adoption.

| 34 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

The racial breakdown of the children in the study sample is similar to the racial breakdown of the overall foster care population in New York City. Similar to many child welfare systems across the country, the New York City child welfare system is racially disproportionate to the general population. Afri- can American children comprise 29% of the general New York City child population, yet account for 56% of all children in foster care. Caucasian children are under-represented in the system. Caucasian children comprise 24% of the general population, yet only 4% of children in foster care are Caucasian. Hispanic children make up 34% of the general New York City child population and comprise 29% of all children in foster care.34

D. Borough of Origin Figure 1.5: Children’s Borough of Origin (N = 153)

As shown in Figure 1.5, 31% of children in 2% 4% the sample entered foster care from the Bronx, 30% came from Brooklyn, 18% 15% came from Manhattan, 15% came from Bronx Queens, and 2% came from Staten Island. 31% Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island 18% 30% UTD

II. Reasons Children Entered Foster Care and Court Findings

When allegations of abuse or neglect are made, the Administration for Children’s Services’ (ACS) Child Protective Services (CPS) Division conducts an investigation and decides whether to file a case in the Family Court. Although ACS makes determinations regarding abuse and neglect allegations based on its investigations, it is ultimately the responsibility of the Family Court to make the legal finding regarding whether abuse or neglect has occurred.

This section provides data regarding the abuse and neglect allegations that were made35 and other concerns that were identified when the children in the sample entered foster care, and the Family Court’s findings pertaining to the occurrence of abuse and/or neglect in these cases.

A. Allegations and Other Concerns Identified When Children Entered Foster Care

Data were collected regarding the allegations of child abuse and neglect as well as other issues and concerns that were documented at the time the children in the study sample entered foster care. Most of the children had more than one allegation and/or other concern identified. As shown in Figure 1.6, the allegations and other presenting issues that were most commonly documented when the children entered

34 Source for general New York City population data: U.S. Census Bureau, (2000). Population Division – New York City Department of City Planning. Table PL-3B: Population Under 18 Years by Mutually Exclusive Race and Hispanic Origin, New York City and Boroughs, 1990 and 2000. Retrieved September 4, 2009 from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/pl3b.pdf. Source for foster care population: New York State Office of Children & Family Services. Children in Care and Custody of LDSS – Quarter Ending 12/31/08. Retrieved May 27, 2008 from http://nysccc.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/nycstats.pdf

35 Data were not collected regarding ACS’ investigative findings.

| 35 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

foster care included inadequate guardianship/lack of supervision, parental drug/alcohol misuse, parental mental illness, inadequate food/clothing/shelter, physical abuse, and excessive corporal punishment.

Figure 1.6: Allegations and Other Concerns Identified When Child Entered Foster Care( N = 153) Allegations and Other Concerns Identified Number of Proportion of When Child Entered Foster Care Children Children Inadequate Guardianship/Lack of Supervision 87 57% Parental Drug/Alcohol Misuse 82 54% Parental Mental Illness 41 27% Inadequate Food/Clothing Shelter 38 25% Physical Abuse 32 21% Excessive Corporal Punishment 31 20% Domestic Violence 22 14% Lack of Medical Care 21 14% Educational Neglect 16 10% Sexual Abuse 8 5% Abandonment 6 4% Emotional Neglect 5 3% Malnutrition/Failure to Thrive 3 2% Child’s Behavior 2 1% Other 36 29 19% 36 B. Family Court Findings of Abuse and Neglect

It is the Family Court’s responsibility to determine if a child has been abused or neglected and by whom. This occurs at a Fact-Finding Hearing. In some cases, a parent admits to the Court that he/she abused or neglected their child. In other cases, a trial is held. When a trial is held, the judge makes a decision regarding whether or not the legal standard of proof has been met to find that the child was in fact abused or neglected. If the legal standard is not met regarding any of the allegations in the petition, the petition must be dismissed and the child can return home. If the legal standard of proof is met for at least one allegation, the court makes a finding of abuse and/or neglect, i.e., that abuse or neglect has occurred.

As shown in Figure 1.7, the Family Court found that 90% of children in the sample had been neglected, 3% had been abused, and 3% had been both abused and neglected. For 4% of children, the Fact-Finding was still pending as of September 30, 2008. (This represents a long delay given the fact that all of these children had been in foster care for at least two years. Further details regarding the length of time from a child’s entry into foster care to completion of the Fact-Finding are provided in Chapter 9: Legal Pro- ceedings in Family Court.)

36 An “other” category was provided in which case reviewers could record additional issues that were not on the pre-established list on the data collection instrument. Other issues that reviewers noted included the following: abuse/neglect of a sibling (n = 3), birth parent arrested/incarcerated (n = 4), parental failure to cooperate with services (n = 4), general neglect (n = 6), parental cognitive impairment (n = 3), voluntary placement (n = 2), and other very case-specific issues n( = 7).

| 36 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

Figure 1.7: Types of Findings for Children’s Cases37 Abuse Neglect Abuse and Fact-Finding Pending Neglect as of Sept. 30, 2008 Children’s cases (n = 135) 3% 90% 3% 4%

Figure 1.8 provides the data regarding the parent against whom abuse and neglect findings were made. The majority of findings were made against mothers. However, fathers were more likely to receive a finding of abuse.38

Figure 1.8: Types of Findings as to Mothers and Fathers39 Abuse Neglect Abuse and Fact-Finding Pending as Neglect of Sept. 30, 2008 Mothers (n = 138) 4% 92% 1% 3% Fathers (n = 47) 11% 79% 2% 9%

III. Current Case Status

This section provides data regarding children’s lengths of stay in foster care, their current permanency goals, the lengths of time children have had their current permanency goals, and information regarding selected parental circumstances that can affect the child welfare system’s ability to engage parents and parents’ ability to participate in case planning and services.

A. length of Stay in Foster Care

The primary reason for conducting this study was the already known fact that many children in foster care in New York City experience very long lengths of Children’s lengths stay. As previously noted, in order to be included in the study sample, a child of stay ranged from had to have had a permanency goal of either Return to Parent or Adoption for 2 years to almost . two years or more. Therefore, by design, all of the children in the sample had 17 years .. been in foster care for two years or more. Thus, the length-of-stay data must be interpreted within that context.

The following three figures (Figures 1.9, 1.10, and 1.11) provide the means, medians, and ranges of children’s lengths of stay in foster care, as well as detailed data on the proportions of children remaining in care for particular periods of time. Highlights of the findings presented in these figures include the following:

37 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement. One additional child’s case was excluded because the child was initially remanded and then placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement prior to a Fact-Finding order. Cases were also excluded if the type of Fact-Finding decision regarding at least one parent was missing.

38 Twenty-two of the 153 children whose cases were reviewed for this study had a sibling who was also in the sample (i.e., 11 pair of siblings are in the sample). As such, individual mothers and fathers are sometimes represented twice in the findings. For example, the finding in Figure 1.8 regarding findings made against mothers is based on a sample of 138 children, 14 of whom are siblings. Therefore, although 138 children are represented in this finding, the data represent the experiences of 131 actual mothers. Findings throughout the report pertaining to parents of children in the study sample should be interpreted with this understanding.

39 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement; if the type of Fact-Finding decision was missing; or if the relevant parent was not a respondent on the case. One additional child’s case was excluded because the child was initially remanded and then placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement prior to a Fact-Finding order. Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

| 37 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

• Children’s lengths of stay ranged from 2 years to almost 17 years. • The mean length of stay for all children in the sample was 5.4 years and the median length of stay was 4.8 years. • 42% of children were in foster care for two to four years; 29% for more than four years to six years; 11% for more than six years to eight years; and 19% for more than eight years. • Almost one-third (32%) of children with a goal of Return to Parent had been in foster care for more than four years.

Figure 1.9: Ranges of Length of Stay in Foster Care, in Years (as of September 30, 2008) Shortest Length of Stay Longest Length of Stay Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 79) 2 10 Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74) 2.7 16.6 Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 27) 2.9 16.6 Children with a Goal of Adoption, Legally Free (n = 47) 2.7 14.1

Figure 1.10: Mean and Median Length of Stay in Foster Care (as of September 30, 2008)

8 7.7 7.2 7 6.8 6.2 6.4 6 5.4 5.2 5 4.8 4 3.7

Years 3 3 2 1 0 All Children Children with a Goal of RTP Children with Children with Children with (N = 153) (n = 79) a Goal of Adoption a Goal of Adoption, a Goal of Adoption, (n = 74) Not Legally Free Legally Free (n = 27) (n = 47)

Mean Length of Stay Median Length of Stay

Figure 1.11: Length of Stay in Foster Care (as of September 30, 2008)

80%

70% 68% All Children (N = 153) 60% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 79) Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74) 50% Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 27) 42% 41% Children with a Goal of Adoption, Legally Free (n = 47) 40% 36% 34% 30% 29% 22% 22% Proportion of Children Proportion 20% 19% 19% 19% 14% 15% 14% 15% 11% 11% 9% 8% 9% 8% 9% 10% 6% 7% 7% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0 2 - 4 years 4+ - 6 years 6+ - 8 years 8+ - 10 years 10+ - 12 years More than 12 years

Length of Stay in Foster Care

| 38 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

B. Children’s Current Permanency Goals

As soon as a child enters foster care, assessing and planning for the child’s discharge from foster care must begin. One step that must be taken is that the ACS CPS caseworker40 must establish what is referred to as a permanency goal for the child. The establishment of a child’s permanency goal provides family members, caregivers, and child welfare staff with a specific, common goal to work toward in order to provide the child with a stable, nurturing, and permanent family. In New York City, there are five possible permanency goals: 1) Return to Parent (RTP); 2) Adoption; 3) Referral for Legal Guardianship; 4) Permanent Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative; or 5) Placement in Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA).

Permanency goals for children in foster care should be established when the child first enters care and should be re-evaluated on a regular basis and changed when the goal is no longer the best option for moving the child out of foster care and into a permanent home in a timely way. As noted above, initial permanency goals are typically established by ACS CPS caseworkers and subsequent permanency goals are identified by the foster care provider agency. (In New York City, foster care services are provided by private, non-profit agencies contracted and supervised by ACS.) In addition, Family Court judges and referees are responsible for approving or changing the permanency goals as appropriate.

By design, all of the children in the study sample had a goal of either Return to Parent or Adoption for at least two years as of September 30, 2008, and the intention was to select a sample that would be split 50/50 between the two goals. This breakdown was not selected to reflect the breakdown of permanency goals in the overall foster care population or among all long-stayers, but rather in an effort to produce two subgroups large enough for meaningful within- and between-group data analyses, given an intended total sample of 150 cases.

As shown in Figure 1.12, 52% of children in the sample had a permanency goal of Return to Parent (79 children) and 48% had a goal of Adoption (74 children). Per the sample criteria, all of these children had had these goals established for at least two years as of September 30, 2008.

Figure 1.12: Permanency Planning Goals of Children in Study Sample (N = 153)

Adoption RTP 48% 52%

3 RTP 40 The CPS caseworker is the first caseworker to come in contact with the family, either through an investigation of allegations of abuse or neglect or the request by parents to voluntarily place their child. 3 Adoption

| 39 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

Among the children with a goal of Adoption, the sample Figure 1.13: Proportion of Children included, by design, both children who were legally free for in Study Sample with a Goal of adoption and children who were not legally free as of Sep- Adoption who were Legally Free tember 30, 2008. We purposely selected a sample that would and Not Legally Free (n = 74) include 40 children who were legally free and 35 children who were not legally free, based on information provided by ACS (See Appendix A: Methodology for more information on the sampling method). However, due to cases falling out of the Not study during the case record review (e.g., as a result of not Legally Free meeting the study criteria, a child’s records being sealed due 36% to his or her adoption, etc.; see Appendix A: Methodology for further discussion) and upon finding that some children whom Legally Free the ACS data indicated as not legally free were, in fact, legally 64% free, the ultimate sub-sample sizes of legally free and not legally free children differed slightly from these intended targets. As shown in Figure 1.13, approximately two-thirds of children in the sample with a permanency goal of Adoption were legally free (47 children) and approximately one-third of children were not legally free (27 children) as of September 30, 2008.

D. Length of Time with Current Permanency Goal

As previously noted, by design, all of the children in the study sample had a goal of Return to Parent or Adoption for at least The length of time children had two years. Thus, the data presented here regarding length the goals of Return to Parent and of time with current permanency goal must be interpreted Adoption ranged from two years to within that context. almost ten years .

The following three figures (Figures 1.14, 1.15, and 1.16) provide the means, medians, and ranges of the lengths of time children had their current permanency goal, as well as detailed data on the proportions of children with their permanency goal for particular periods of time. Highlights of the findings presented in these figures include the following: • The lengths of time children had their current permanency goal ranged from 2 years to 9.9 years for all children, from 2 to 9.9 years for children with a goal of Return to Parent, and from 2 to 9.7 years for children with a goal of Adoption. • The mean length of time all children had their current permanency goal was 3.6 years (median = 3.2 years). 6 The mean for children with a goal of Return to Parent was 3.3 years (median=2.8 years). 6 The mean for children with a goal of Adoption was 4 years (median=3.8 years). • 43% of children had their current permanency goal for two to three years; 21% had their goal for more than three years to four years; 16% had their goal for more than four year to five years, and 15% had their goal for more than five years. 6 Almost one-fourth of children with a goal of Return to Parent and 40% of children with a goal of Adoption had those goals for more than four years.

| 40 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

Figure 1.14: Ranges of Length of Time with Current Permanency Goal, in Years (as of September 30, 2008)41 Shortest Length Longest Length of Time with of Time with Current Goal Current Goal Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 78) 2 9.9 Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 68) 2 9.7 Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 25) 2 9.7 Children with a Goal of Adoption, Legally Free (n = 43) 2 9.3

Figure 1.15: Mean and Median Length of Time with Current Permanency Goal, in Years42

5 4.4 4 3.8 4 4 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.3 3 2.8 2.8

Years 2

0 All Children Children with Children with Children with Children with (n = 146) a Goal of RTP a Goal of Adoption a Goal of Adoption, a Goal of Adoption, (n = 78) (n = 70) Not Legally Free Legally Free (n = 26) (n = 44)

Mean Length of Time from PPG Established to 9/30/08 Median Length of Time from PPG Established to 9/30/08

Figure 1.16: Length of Time with Current Permanency Goal43

60% 57% 52% 50% All Children (N = 153) 43% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 79) 40% Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74) 30% Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 27) 30% 28% 28% Children with a Goal of Adoption, Legally Free (n = 47) 23% 23% 21% 20% 19% 15% 16% 15% 13% 11% 10% 11% Proportion of Children Proportion 8% 9% 8% 9% 9% 10% 6% 7% 8% 7% 4% 4% 5% 1% 0 2 - 3 years 3+ - 4 years 4+ - 5 years 5+ - 6 years More than 6 years UTD Length of Time with Current Permanency Goal

41 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if multiple dates were documented for establishment of the permanency goal (this consisted of one child with a goal of Return to Parent and six children with a goal of Adoption. The six children with a goal of Adoption included two not legally free children and four legally free children). These children remained in the study sample because all of the documented dates for establishment of the permanency goal were prior to October 1, 2006, which was one of the sample selection criteria.

42 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if multiple dates were documented for establishment of the permanency goal (this included one child with a goal of Return to Parent and six children with a goal of Adoption. The six children with a goal of Adoption included two not legally free children and four legally free children). These children remained in the study sample because all of the documented dates for establishment of the permanency goal were prior to October 1, 2006, which was one of the sample selection criteria.

43 Children’s cases were noted as “UTD” if multiple dates were documented for establishment of the permanency goal (this included one child with a goal of Return to Parent and six children with a goal of Adoption. The six children with a goal of Adoption included two not legally free children and four legally free children). These children remained in the study sample because all of the documented dates for establishment of the permanency goal were prior to October 1, 2006, which was one of the sample selection criteria.

| 41 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

E. Selected Parental Circumstances During One-Year Review Period

The study collected data regarding certain parental circumstances. These data were collected only for children in the sample who were not legally free for adoption at the beginning of the one-year review period.

Five percent of these children had deceased mothers and 3% had deceased fathers. For five children, both parents were deceased.

Figures 1.17 and 1.18 below provide data regarding certain circumstances that can affect a parent’s involvement in case planning and services. These circumstances are referenced and discussed where applicable in various chapters throughout the report.

The whereabouts of fathers were documented as unknown during part or all of the one-year review period for a substantial minority of children (37%). Mothers’ whereabouts were documented as unknown for 19% of children. Smaller proportions of children had mothers and fathers who were incarcerated, hospitalized for one month or longer, or in in-patient substance abuse treatment for one month or longer.

Figure 1.17: Selected Circumstances of Children’s Mothers44

40% 39%

35% All Children (n = 115) 30% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 79) Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 36) 25%

20% 19%

15%

Proportion of Mothers Proportion 10% 10% 6% 6% 5% 4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0 Unknown Whereabouts Incarcerated part/ Hospitalized Inpatient treatment unknown part/ all of the review period 1 month or longer 1 month or longer all of the review period

44 Out of the total sample of 153 children, there were 37 children who were legally free before the one-year period. These children are excluded from this analysis. There were 116 children who were not legally free before the one-year review period. Sample size (n) in the figure is 115 due to missing data.

| 42 | CHAPTER 1: DEMOGRAPHICS, CASE OPENING, AND CURRENT CASE STATUS

Figure 1.18: Selected Circumstances of Children’s Fathers45

50% 46%

40% 37% 33% 30%

20% 11% 10% 11% 11% 8% 10% 6% Proportion of Fathers Proportion 5% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 0 Unknown* Whereabouts Incarcerated part/ Hospitalized Inpatient treatment unknown part/ all of the review period 1 month or longer 1 month or longer all of the review period

All Children (n = 115 or n = 114 when noted by asterisk) Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 78 or n = 77 when noted by asterisk) Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 37 )

45 Out of the total sample of 153 children, there were 37 children who were legally free before the one-year period. These children are excluded from this analysis. There were 116 children who were not legally free before the one-year review period. Sample sizes (n) in the figure are 115 and 114 due to missing data and instances in which one parent’s parental rights had been terminated but the other parent’s parental rights had not.

| 43 | One Child’s Story: Felicia

One Child’s Story: Felicia

Child’s Age: 11 Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 5 years Current Permanency Goal: Return to Parent

Almost a year before she entered foster care, Felicia told someone at her elementary school that her father hit her. She was five years old at the time.

Felicia’s mother passed away when she was a toddler. Her father suffers from serious mental illness, substance abuse, and a kidney condition that limits his capacity to work. After her mother’s death, Felicia and her brother and sister lived with him and his new wife in a shelter as the family struggled to find suitable housing.

ACS responded to Felicia’s initial allegation of abuse with intensive home-based services, including the Family Preservation Program, bereavement counseling, homemaking services, and parenting-skills training. But Felicia continued to struggle with behavioral issues, and her school referred her several times to a hospital for emergency psychiatric evaluation for attempting to injure herself and threatening to commit suicide. She was diagnosed as “emotionally disturbed,” prescribed several medications, and referred to a Special Education program.

Her father, however, disagreed with this evaluation, and Felicia was placed in a general education class. Shortly thereafter, there were new allegations of corporal punishment and concerns about her father’s substance abuse. Felicia and her siblings were removed from his home and placed in foster care.

Since then, Felicia has been through several foster care placements, including residential care and kinship, non-kinship, and therapeutic foster homes. Throughout her time in foster care, she has been slated for reunification with her father.

Barriers to Permanency

Poverty issues plagued Felicia’s family. Although her father did eventually find housing, his new home was in a different borough far away from the foster care agency, which made it difficult for him to consistently visit his daughters and participate in services. His case plan required several services, including anger management, substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and medication management.

Felicia’s father also had to attend many medical and mental health appointments to treat his illnesses, and though he recognized the importance of all of the required interventions, he struggled to keep up with them. At one point, his Medicaid benefits were terminated. Felicia’s stepmother had physical and mental health issues of her own that limited her capacity to work.

| 44 | One Child’s Story: Felicia

In spite of all this, Felicia’s father worked hard to reunite his family. Felicia’s permanency goal remained Return to Parent, and after four years of foster care, the Court approved a trial discharge for her and her siblings. But it would be several more months before Felicia returned home; in order to give her father time to adjust to the responsibilities of caring for the girls, each of whom had significant special needs, their discharges were staggered and Felicia’s older sisters were returned home first. When Felicia finally joined them, the foster care agency referred her and her family to several intensive case management and social services—but it took several additional months to obtain ACS’s approval, and for family members to obtain spots in the programs.

Problems persisted at Felicia’s home following her trial discharge. Her stepmother gave birth to a baby who tested positive for drug exposure, and she was required to attend a substance abuse program and therapy. Felicia, meanwhile, continued to struggle in school and wet her bed, and the foster care agency was concerned that Felicia’s father was not taking these issues seriously.

Although the foster care agency offered Felicia’s family services to help them confront their many challenges, the services were not well-coordinated. There were several different caseworkers assigned to each of the sisters within the foster care agency alone, not to mention other providers from the school and other services. Felicia herself had three different caseworkers during the last two years.

Additionally, the Family Assessment and Service Plans (FASPs) and Permanency Hearing Reports prepared by the foster care agency were incomplete and did not sufficiently document case progress. Notably, the most recent FASP did not properly identify the newborn baby as a member of the household.

Several hearing adjournments also delayed progress in Felicia’s case; the Court often simply did not have enough time to review and address the large family’s myriad challenges.

Current Status

Felicia has remained home on a trial discharge for more than a year. As the foster care agency and the Court want to be sure that her father can handle the many challenges he faces in caring for his family, the case remains open.

| 45 | | 46 | CHAPTER 2: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING CHAPTER 2: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

HIGHLIGHTS: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

• A substantial minority (40%) of children had a documented medical condition. The most commonly documented condition was asthma.

A• lmost half (46%) of children had a documented developmental disorder. The most common were communication disorders and learning delays.

• 60% of children had a documented mental health diagnosis. The most common diagnosis was attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Other diagnoses included oppositional defiant disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder, and adjustment disorder.

• 37% of children were receiving psychotropic medications.

• 14% of children experienced a psychiatric hospitalization during the one-year review period.

| 48 | CHAPTER 2: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

CHAPTER 2: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

This chapter provides the study findings regarding various measures of the well-being of the children in the study sample during the one-year review period.46 Data were collected regarding the prevalence of documented chronic medical conditions, developmental disorders, mental health diagnoses, receipt of psychiatric medications, and psychiatric hospitalizations.

As described in this chapter, substantial proportions of children in the sample had health and well-being concerns. Children with a goal of Adoption were generally more likely to have documented health and well-being concerns than children with a goal of Return to Parent (RTP). The challenges of meeting the needs of these children are discussed further in Chapter 3: Placements and Chapter 8: Services.

I. Medical Conditions

As shown in Figure 2.1, 40% (n = 61) of all children had at least one documented chronic medical condition.47 These 61 children had a total of 82 documented conditions. Children with a goal of Adoption who were legally free were most likely to have a chronic medical condition.

Figure 2.1: Proportion of Children with Documented Chronic Medical Conditions

49% 50% 42% 40% 40% 38% 30% 30%

20%

10% Proportion of Children Proportion

0 All Children Children with Children with Children with Children with (N = 153) a Goal of RTP a Goal of Adoption a Goal of Adoption, a Goal of Adoption, (n = 79) (n = 74) Not Legally Free Legally Free (n = 27) (n = 47)

As shown in Figure 2.2 below, the condition with which children were most commonly diagnosed was asthma, which was documented for 24% of children. Eczema (5%), enuresis (4%), obesity (3%), encopresis (2%), anemia (1%), and heart murmur (1%) were the next most frequently documented diagnoses.48

46 Data were not collected to determine whether children entered care with these diseases and diagnoses or developed them during their stay in foster care.

47 Sixty-one children had a documented medical condition. Ninety children did not. For two children, this information was unable to be determined.

48 Other documented conditions included allergies, astigmatism, legal blindness, having a cerebral ventricular shunt, dermatitis, febrile seizures, hearing loss, hydrocephalus, hypothyroidism, muscular dystrophy, nephritis, phimosis, poor dentition, seizure disorder, short stature, sleep apnea, undescended testes, viral syndrome, wandering eye, and weight fluctuations.

| 49 | CHAPTER 2: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

Figure 2.2: Most Commonly Documented Chronic Medical Conditions (N = 153)

25% 24%

20%

15%

10% 5% 4% 5% 3% Proportion of Children Proportion 2% 1% 1% 0 Asthma Eczema Enuresis Obesity Encopresis Anemia Cardiac murmur Medical Conditions

II. Developmental Disorders

Forty-six percent of all children (n = 70) had at least one documented developmental disorder or disability (see Figure 2.3).49 A total of 104 conditions were documented among these 70 children.

Figure 2.3: Proportion of Children with Documented Developmental Disorders

60% 52% 49% 50% 46% 42% 40% 36%

30%

20%

Proportion of Children Proportion 10%

Figure 2.4 below shows that the most frequently documented developmental disorders were communication disorders. Twenty-seven percent of children had a documented communication disorder, which are disorders involving difficulties in speech or language, severe enough to be a problem academically, occupationally, or socially.50 Documented communication disorders included expressive language disorder, mixed receptive-expressive language disorder, phonologic disorder, and stuttering.

Learning delays or disorders were documented for 18% of children. Learning disorders are disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities.51

49 Seventy children had a documented developmental disorder/disability. Eighty-two did not. For one child, this information was unable to be determined.

50 American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. pp. 59-68.

51 National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1991). Learning disabilities: Issues on definition.Asha, 33, (Suppl. 5), pp. 18–20. Retrieved September 2, 2009 from http://www.ldonline.org/article/Learning_Disabilities:_Issues_on_Definition

| 50 | CHAPTER 2: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

Figure 2.4: Most Commonly Documented Developmental Disorders (N = 153)

30% 27% 25%

20% 18%

15%

10%

Proportion of Children Proportion 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4%

0 Communication Learning Delay/ Motor Skills Mental Pervasive Unspeciﬁed Borderline Disorder Disorder Disorder Retardation Developmental Developmental Intellectual Disorder Disorder Functioning Developmental Disorder

III. Mental Health

This section provides the study findings regarding the mental health of the children in the study sample. Data were collected on documented mental health diagnoses, receipt of psychotropic medications, and psychiatric hospitalizations.

A. Mental Health Diagnoses

Sixty percent of all children (n = 91) had at least one documented mental health diagnosis (see Figure 2.5).52 These 91 children had 192 documented diagnoses. Children with a goal of Adoption were significantly more likely to have a mental health diagnosis than were children with a goal of Return to Parent.53 Chil- dren with a goal of Adoption who were legally free were most likely to have a mental health diagnosis.

Figure 2.5: Proportion of Children with Documented Mental Health Diagnoses

80% 77% 69% 70% 60% 60% 56% 51% 50% 40% 30% 20% Proportion of Children Proportion 10% 0 All Children Children with Children with Children with Children with (n = 152) a Goal of RTP a Goal of Adoption a Goal of Adoption, a Goal of Adoption, (n = 78) (n = 74) Not Legally Free Legally Free (n = 27) (n = 47)

As shown in Figure 2.6, the most common mental health diagnosis was attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which was documented for one-third of the children in the study sample. The next most common diagnoses were oppositional defiant disorder (13%), post-traumatic stress disorder (13%),

52 n = 152. One child’s case was excluded from this analysis due to missing data.

53 This difference was statistically significant p( = .027).

| 51 | CHAPTER 2: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

depressive disorder54 (13%), and adjustment disorder55 (12%). Other diagnoses included mood disorder (8%), bipolar disorder (6%), anxiety disorder (5%), disruptive behavior disorder (4%), conduct disorder (3%), psychotic disorder (3%), intermittent explosive disorder (3%), impulse control disorder (2%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (2%), and reactive attachment disorder (2%).56

Figure 2.6: Most Commonly Documented Mental Health Diagnoses (n = 152)

35% 33%

30%

25%

20%

15% 13% 13% 13% 12% Proportion of Children Proportion 10% 8% 6% 5% 4% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 0 r r er e er HD der der der der der der der der rd r rd r or o or or o o or AD s s s s so i isorder is i is is i D D D D D D D t Disor r l Di t s e d ic Disord e Disorde iv o lar Di io t iv ro ant en iety Disor v s ss m x nt eﬁ t Mo Stres re D Bipo An ycho l c us Conduct ep j Beha e Co achmen a Ps Explo s t n D e Ad ul io iv At t p tent si pt ve u Im i o r t t-traumati is pp s D O Reac Po Intermit Mental Health Diagnoses

B. Psychiatric Medications

Thirty-seven percent of all children (n = 56) were receiving psychotropic medication during the one- year review period.57 Children with a goal of Adoption were significantly more likely to be taking psychotropic medications than children with a goal of Return to Parent.58 Children with a goal of Adoption who were legally free were most likely to be receiving psychotropic medication.

54 Depressive disorder includes diagnoses of depressive disorder, major depressive disorder, and dysthymic disorder.

55 Adjustment Disorder includes adjustment disorder with depressed mood, with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, with disturbance of conduct, with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.

56 Other diagnoses, each documented for one child, included schizoaffective disorder, affective disorder, personality disorder, psychosis, psychotic process, sexual disorder, sleep disorder and bereavement.

57 Fifty-six children were documented as receiving psychotropic medication. Ninety-five were not. For two children, this information was unable to be determined.

58 This difference was statistically significant p( = .004). Two children’s cases were excluded from this analysis because whether or not they were taking psychotropic medication was unable to be determined (n = 151).

| 52 | CHAPTER 2: CHILD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

Figure 2.7: Proportion of Children who Received Psychotropic Medications

60% 57%

50% 49%

40% 37% 33% 30% 25% 20%

Proportion of Children Proportion 10%

C. Psychiatric Hospitalizations

Fourteen percent of children (n = 21) were psychiatrically hospitalized during the one-year review period. Children with a goal of Adoption who were legally free were most likely to have been psychiatrically hospitalized.

Figure 2.8: Proportion of Children who Experienced Psychiatric Hospitalizations

30% 26% 25%

20% 16% 15% 14% 11% 10%

Proportion of Children Proportion 5% 0% 0 All Children Children with Children with Children with Children with (N = 153) a Goal of RTP a Goal of Adoption a Goal of Adoption, a Goal of Adoption, (n = 79) (n = 74) Not Legally Free Legally Free (n = 27) (n = 47)

| 53 | One Child’s Story: Max

One Child’s Story: Max

Child’s Age: 5 Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 5 years Current Permanency Goal: Adoption

Max, now five, has lived in two different foster homes, the more recent of which has been his home for nearly his entire time in foster care.

Max entered foster care as an infant when both of his parents were arrested after an extremely violent domestic dispute. Both parents are indigent and have a history of homelessness. They also suffer from serious mental illness and have struggled with substance abuse. Max’s mother has been diagnosed with Schizophrenia. She has additional children from a prior relationship who were also placed in foster care; her parental rights were terminated for all of them, and they were eventually adopted.

Max’s goal was initially reunification, but his parents were inconsistent in participating in mental health services and taking their psychotropic medication. They moved in and out of shelters and hospitals and did not consistently visit Max or engage in planning for his return home.

Seventeen months after Max entered foster care, his foster care agency filed a petition to terminate his mother’s parental rights and his permanency goal was changed to Adoption. But questions arose about whether the man identified as Max’s father was in fact his father, significantly confusing and delaying the process of terminating his parental rights.

Four years after Max entered foster care, there was a finding of abandonment against his mother—but his father began visiting him more consistently and expressed a desire to plan for his return to him. By this point, however, Max had not seen him for more than a year. His appearance was extremely disheveled, and Max was frightened by him, reportedly crying, refusing to go with him, and experiencing nightmares after visits.

During the past year, both of Max’s parents have been hospitalized at various times. His mother was reportedly using heroin, and she was incarcerated for a violent incident with Max’s father. Both parents continued to struggle to maintain housing. At one point, Max’s father presented his brother and sister-in-law as a possible placement resource for him, but the couple ultimately decided they were not interested.

Max’s father was conflicted about his relationship with him. It was clear that he loved Max and did not want him to grow up thinking that he had abandoned him. However, he also realized his parental limitations due to his mental illness, and ultimately agreed to surrender his parental rights on the condition that Max’s current foster mother adopt him and he be allowed to continue visiting. The foster mother agreed to this plan, and Max’s father signed the surrender.

Barriers to Permanency

Max’s parents both had serious mental illness and participated inconsistently in planning, services, and visits with Max, and their whereabouts were frequently unknown for long periods of time.

| 54 | One Child’s Story: Max

Max has had six different caseworkers over the past two years, and the agency had trouble obtaining information it needed about Max’s mother’s mental health status from outside providers, further delaying the process of terminating parental rights.

Additionally, the questions about Max’s father’s paternity slowed progess for a full two years. Though he verbally agreed to a surrender at one point, his ambivalence and his untreated mental illness kept him from appearing in court and signing the official surrender document for an extended period of time.

Finally, there were many adjournments in this case, as the judge would often postpone hearings if Max’s father was late or did not show up.

Current Status

Max remains in foster care with a foster mother who plans to adopt him. He is well-adjusted and happy in the home, but his foster mother has become frustrated by the many delays in the adoption process. Max has no mental health concerns, but he does have some developmental delays, for which he is receiving services.

| 55 | | 56 | CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS

HIGHLIGHTS: PLACEMENTS

• The vast majority (89%) of children were living in family settings during the entire one-year review period. As of September 30, 2008, 44% of children were placed in non-kinship foster homes; 23% were placed in kinship homes; 10% were placed in therapeutic foster homes; 13% were home on trial discharge; and 7% were placed in a residential treatment center.

• 69% of all children and 78% of children with a goal of Return to Parent were placed in their borough of origin.

• 78% of children remained in one placement during the entire one-year review period. How- ever, the remaining 22% of children moved placements during the year. The most common reason for placement moves was the resource parent’s request to have the child removed.

• 30% of children experienced a school move during the one-year review period. Children who moved placements during the review period were more likely to change schools than children who did not change placements.

| 58 | CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS

CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS

While in foster care, a child should be placed in a safe, stable, and nurturing home. Placements should be selected based on the child’s needs and should be the least restrictive setting that is appropriate to meet those needs.

Section I of this chapter provides the study findings regarding children’s placements and placement moves during the one-year review period. Section II provides the study findings regarding school transfers.

I. Placements

A. Placement Settings

A positive finding, as shown in Figure 3.1, Figure 3.1: Proportion of Children Placed in is that the majority of children (89%) were Family Settings During Entire One-Year Review living in family settings during the entire Period (N = 153) one-year study period. This includes children who were in family foster homes or home on trial discharge. The remaining 11% 11% of children (17 children) spent at least some time during the one-year period in a congregate care facility.

89% Of the 17 children who experienced Family Setting congregate care at any time during the Non-Family Setting one-year study period, 10 had a goal of Adoption and seven had a goal of Return to Parent. As might be expected, these 17 children were older, with a mean age of 15 years, than children in the overall sample, who had a mean age of 10 years.

Figure 3.2 provides the specific placement settings where children were living on September 30, 2008. Overall, 44% of children were placed in non-kinship foster homes and 23% were placed in kinship foster homes. Ten percent were placed in therapeutic foster homes. Seven percent were placed in residential treatment centers.

A substantial minority (13%, 20 children) was home on trial discharge. Notably, four of these children had in fact been on trial discharge for at least the entire one-year review period and five additional children had been trial discharged for more than six months.

| 59 | CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS

Figure 3.2: Children’s Placement Settings (as of September 30, 2008)

All Children (N = 153) 50% 47% 44% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 79) 42% 40% Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74)

30% 30% 25% 23% 20% 17% 13% 10% 9% 11% 10% 10% 7% Proportion of Children Proportion 4% 3% 4% 3% 0% 0 Non-Kinship Kinship Therapeutic Home on RTC Other Foster Home Foster Home Foster Home Trial Discharge

Placement Setting

B. Placement in Borough of Origin

ACS has a longstanding expressed commitment to placing children in foster care close to home—pref- erably in their own neighborhood or at least in their home borough—so that children can maintain contact more easily with their families and communities and remain in their same schools, which potentially reduces trauma to children and increases their chances of returning home.

Figure 3.3 below shows whether the child’s placement as of September 30, 2008 was in the same borough as the one from which he/she entered foster care. Sixty-nine percent of children in non-kinship placements were placed in their boroughs of origin. A greater proportion of children with a permanency goal of Return to Parent (78%) were placed in their home boroughs than children with a goal of Adoption (60%).

Figure 3.3: Proportion of Children Whose Most Recent Placement was in His/Her Borough of Origin59 All Children (N = 153) Children with a Goal of Return to Parent (n = 79) Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74) 80% 78% 70% 69% 60% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Proportion of Children Proportion 10% 0 All Children (n = 84) Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 41) Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 43)

It should be noted that placement in one’s home borough can still mean that a child is living miles away from his/her family and neighborhood, given the size of the boroughs. A better measure of proximity to family is the proportion of children who are placed in their own neighborhoods. However, this information was not easily discernible in the provider agency case files reviewed for this study; thus, these data were not collected.

59 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was home on trial discharge, placed with relatives, or placed in congregate care as of September 30, 2008.

| 60 | CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS

Citywide, in FY 2008, only 11% of children were placed in their “community districts” (akin to neighborhood) when they entered foster care. During the last decade, this proportion has risen only as high as 23% in FY 2004 and has been steadily declining since then.

C. Placement Stability

Placement stability is a key concern for children in foster care. Research has suggested what common sense already tells us—that multiple placement moves negatively affect child well-being and chances for permanency.60

Figure 3.4 provides data regarding the number of placements that children in the study sample experienced during the one-year review period. A positive finding is that 78% percent of children had only one placement during this time. However, more than one-fifth of the sample—34 children—had two or more placements during the one-year period.

Although it is a positive finding that a large majority of children had only one placement during the one-year review period, it should be noted that data were not systematically collected on the number of placements that children experienced prior to the one-year review period. However, having reviewed the historical information in the children’s files, we can say anecdotally that some children in the study sample experienced many more placement moves during their time in care prior to the one-year review period.

Figure 3.4: Number of Placements Children Experienced During One-Year Review Period

80% 78% 80% 76%

70% All Children (N = 153) 60% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 79) Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74) 50%

40%

30%

Proportion of Children Proportion 20% 16% 15% 16% 9% 10% 7% 4% 0 1 2 3+ Number of Placements

As shown in Figure 3.5, the 153 children in the sample experienced a total of 201 placements during the one-year review period.

60 Casey Family Programs. (2007). Why Should the Child Welfare Field Focus on Minimizing Placement Change as Part of Permanency Planning for Children? Retrieved September 3, 2009 from http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/MinimizingPlacements. pdf; Children and Family Research Center. (2004). Multiple Placements in Foster Care: Literature Review of Correlates and Predictors. Retrieved September 3, 2009 from http://www.cfrc.illinois.edu/LRpdfs/PlacementStability.LR.pdf; Rubin, D. M., O’Reilly, A., Luan, X., & Localio, R. (2007). The Impact of Placement Stability on Behavioral Well-being for Children in Foster Care. Pediatrics, 119 (2), pp. 336-344; and Rubin, D. M., Alessandrini, E. A., Feudtner, C., Mandell, D. S., Localio A. R., & Hadley, T. (2004). Mental Health Costs and Placement Stability for Children in Foster Care. Pediatrics, 113 (5), pp. 1336-41.

| 61 | CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS

Figure 3.5: Number and Type of Placements Children Experienced (N = 201 placements)

250 201 200

150 109 100 48 50 25 Number of Placements 12 7 0 Non-Kinship Kinship Therapeutic Homes RTC Other All Placement Foster Homes Foster Homes Types Type of Placements

D. Reasons for Placement Moves

Figure 3.6 provides the reasons for the placement moves that children experienced. As noted above, 34 children in the study sample had two or more placements during the one-year period. These 34 children experienced 86 different placements during this one-year period. The most common reason children moved placements during the one-year review period was because the resource parent requested that the child be removed.

Figure 3.6: Reasons for Placement Moves Reason for Placement Move Number of Children Who Moved Placements at Least Once for this Reason Resource parent request 17 Placement unable to meet child’s needs 6 Maltreatment alleged in foster home 5 Child placed with relative 4 Child request to move/refuse to return to foster home 4 Child moved to a pre-adoptive home 3 Child moved to a higher level of care 3 Child moved to a lower level of care 2 Child placed with siblings 2 Child AWOLed from previous foster home 2 Resource parent allowed biological parent to visit/take child 2 when not permitted Kinship resource parent using drugs 2 Foster home or facility closed 1 Agency wanted child to be closer to school 1 Former agency could not locate a foster home 1 Resource parent relocated 1 Relative of resource parent posed safety risk to child 1 Kinship resource parent health problems 1 Lack of appropriate sleeping arrangements 1

| 62 | CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS

These data regarding the reasons children moved placements speak to some inadequacies in the sup- Support for ports provided to resource parents, which can lead Resource Parents to placement instability. This was in fact a common theme among the stakeholders who participated in “I couldn’t get in touch with my worker interviews and focus groups for this study. Stake- because she was always in court ..I could holders identified a number of challenges that can never reach her ”. contribute to placements not meeting children’s Resource Parent needs and to placement instability, which, in turn, can affect children’s chances of achieving perma- “[The] child was not placed with a family nency, including: sophisticated enough to deal with her • Inconsistency across the foster care agencies problems or informed enough about in resource parent screening, training, moni- her issues ..[The] focus of many foster toring, and support. parents is on being ‘respected’ rather • Resource parents not feeling respected by their than understanding the child, the child’s foster care agencies. background, and/or context ”. JRP Attorney for Children • Resource parents not receiving adequate training to be able to meet the needs of the children “Locating an appropriate placement in placed in their homes, particularly specialized light of behavior issues was the biggest training, e.g., strategies for managing children barrier to permanency for [this child] ”. with sexual acting out behaviors and autism, FCLS Attorney and “real-world” training that utilizes resource parents who “know the ropes” as trainers. “Many foster parents are overwhelmed • Children’s needs not being properly matched quickly ..[Foster parents] need more . to resource parents’ skills, expectations, or training…so they have a better idea of . preferences. the kids they’ll be getting ”. Foster Care Caseworker • Resource parents not receiving adequate information about the children placed in their We need to provide more support to homes, which compromises their ability to “ [foster parents] and [provide] more ther- fully understand children’s behaviors and meet apeutic foster home services for kids ”. their needs. JRP Attorney for Children • Foster care payment rates that are inadequate to cover children’s needs.

II. School Transfers

During the one-year review period, 138 children were school-aged. As shown in Figure 3.7, of these 138 children, 30% experienced at least one school transfer that was not due to a “regular” occurrence, such as graduating from elementary school and moving to middle school. The proportion of children experiencing a school transfer was the same (30%) for children with a goal of Return to Parent and children with a goal of Adoption.

Overall, 26% of children had one school transfer, 2% had two school transfers, and 1% had three or more school transfers during the one-year review period.

| 63 | CHAPTER 3: PLACEMENTS

Children who had more than one foster care placement during the one-year review period (n = 33) were significantly more likely to experience a school transfer (55%) than children who did not change placements (n = 105, 22%).61

Figure 3.7: Number of School Transfers Experienced by Children

30% 30% 30% 30% 27% 26% 25% 25%

20%

15%

Proportion of Children Proportion 10%

5% 3% 2% 1% 0 Any School Transfers One Two

All Children (n = 138) Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 67) Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 71)

61 This difference was statistically significant p( < .001).

| 64 | One Child’s Story: Calvin

One Child’s Story: Calvin

Child’s Age: 18 Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 7 years Current Permanency Goal: Return to Parent

Calvin entered foster care at the age of three with his brothers when their infant sister died in an accident at home due to lack of adequate adult supervision; their mother, who suffers from serious mental illness, was found by the Court to have neglected him.

The children returned home two years later—but their mother continued to struggle with severe depression, and she attempted suicide several times. Occasionally, she sent her children away to relatives—sometimes alone, late at night. Eventually, following new allegations that she was not providing adequate food, clothing, shelter, or care for her children, she left Calvin at a police sta- tion. Calvin again entered foster care and was placed with his paternal aunt, where he displayed aggressive behavior and threw severe temper tantrums to the point of being inconsolable.

For the next several years, Calvin bounced in and out of the homes of his mother and aunt and, twice, a residential treatment center. His mother, after having refused to visit him or plan for his return home, re-engaged in services, and Calvin and his brother returned to her home on a trial discharge—but they re-entered foster care six months later when Calvin, covered in bruises and lacerations, said that his mother had beaten him. He returned to the residential treatment center for several months and then was placed back in the home of his aunt, where he has now resided for the past two years.

Now 18, Calvin is faring well in a special education program. He is involved in recreational activities at school and in the community. Although his behavior has improved significantly over the last two years, his grades have been poor and he has refused therapy, tutoring, and independent living workshops, contending that his family can provide for him. His father has been a consistent presence in his life, and Calvin is close with him, but his father has not planned for Calvin’s discharge from foster care.

While Calvin’s brothers communicate with their mother, Calvin does not have any contact with her. He has refused visits and his mother has said that she does not wish to contact him. During the past year, Calvin’s mother has been living out of state.

The foster care agency has discussed voluntary surrender and open adoption with both parents. They have indicated some willingness, but they have not followed through to sign the surrenders. The foster care agency has not acted to terminate Calvin’s parents’ rights, and his permanency goal remains Return to Parent.

Barriers to Permanency

Calvin’s foster care experience has included many years of the foster care agency working with his parents toward reunification, inconsistent participation by his parents in services and planning, a failed trial discharge, two stays in residential care, and placements in kinship and non-kinship foster homes.

| 65 | One Child’s Story: Calvin

At one point, Calvin’s father said he wanted custody of Calvin but then did not follow through on the necessary steps. Calvin’s father’s sister (Calvin’s aunt) has been willing to adopt Calvin, which has seemed to make Calvin’s father less inclined to push for his own custody of his son.

Calvin’s parents were reluctant to voluntarily surrender their parental rights. At one point, his mother, who was living out of state, said that she would, but then did not return to New York to do so. His father struggled with surrender given his regular involvement in his son’s life.

There has been considerable of turnover of staff in this case. Calvin has had three different caseworkers just in the past two years. The FCLS attorney has also changed. However, the JRP attorney has been consistent.

Hearings have been adjourned due to delayed Permanency Hearing Reports and the absence of the mother, father, or an attorney at Court.

Current Status

Calvin’s goal remains Return to Parent although his concurrent planning goal is Adoption. The agency continues to seek voluntary surrenders from both parents. Calvin is now stable at his aunt’s home and she is willing to adopt him.

| 66 | One Child’s Story: Devin

One Child’s Story: Devin

Child’s Age: 13 Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 13 years Current Permanency Goal: Adoption

Devin is a 13-year-old boy who has been in foster care nearly his entire life. His father and mother are both dead, and after years of moving around to numerous different residential treatment centers, psychiatric hospitals, and foster homes—in at least one of which he suffered physical and sexual abuse—he is now living in a therapeutic foster home with a foster father who plans to adopt him.

Devin entered foster care with his older sister when he was one month old, after he tested positive for drug exposure at birth and his mother failed to enter drug treatment. The children’s father never had a relationship with either of them.

Shortly after they entered foster care, Devin and his sister went home on a brief trial discharge, but ended up returning to foster care. Further efforts to reunify the family failed, and a petition to terminate their mother’s parental rights was filed three years after Devin first entered foster care. Although their mother received a suspended judgment, her rights were ultimately terminated four years later, and she has since died.

Devin has asthma and learning disabilities, and he has been prescribed psychotropic medications for multiple mental health diagnoses. He receives special education services, including weekly individual and group counseling.

During his lengthy time in foster care, Devin has been placed in several foster homes and Resi- dential Treatment Centers—including one in which he spent four years—and in a psychiatric hospital numerous times. After moving into his current therapeutic foster home along with his sister, he has been periodically hospitalized for psychiatric emergencies, but he has consistently returned to his current foster parent and has remained in this placement for two years.

Barriers to Permanency

There have been significant delays in legally freeing Devin for adoption; he was in foster care for three years before his foster care agency filed a petition to terminate his mother’s rights, and another four years before her rights were finally terminated.

While Devin received the services necessary to address his mental health and behavioral needs when placed at the RTC, services were significantly delayed once he moved into his current therapeutic foster home—and additional services are still needed to strengthen the placement, including Bridges to Health and tutoring.

| 67 | One Child’s Story: Devin

Significant turnover among Devin’s caseworkers has resulted in his case being left unattended for lengthy periods of time. He has been assigned at least five different caseworkers during the last two years alone, and at the end of the review period for this study, there was no caseworker assigned to him at all. During the past year, there have been few documented contacts between caseworkers and either Devin or his foster parent, and visits and monitoring in Devin’s current placement have been inadequate overall.

Current Status

Despite the fact that Devin has been matched with a pre-adoptive resource, there have been significant paperwork delays in processing Devin’s adoption. There is no evidence that an adoption subsidy packet is in process, and an adoption petition has not been filed. Adoption remains Devin’s permanency goal—but still a remote prospect at this point.

| 68 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

HIGHLIGHTS: CASEWORK

• family team conferences did not occur as fre- • children in the sample experienced high case- quently as they should have and were not regu- worker turnover and caseworkers reported larly attended by parents and others. high caseloads and a lack of adequate training, 6 69% of children had two or more documented resources, and supervision. team meetings during the past year. However, 6 18% of children had one consistent case planner almost one-third of children had only one meet- during a two-year period. 23% had two case plan- ing or none at all during the entire year. ners and 51% had three or more case planners. 6 Mothers attended slightly less than half of these 6 Only 25% of caseworkers interviewed for this meetings and fathers attended only 17%. Re- study had caseloads of 12 or fewer children. source parents attended 60% of meetings. 29% were carrying caseloads of more than 20 children. This exceeds the 11-12 children • there were serious concerns about the quality maximum standard recommended in a report of Family Assessment Service Plans (FASPs) and commissioned by the New York State Office of Permanency Hearing Reports (PHRs), and many Children & Family Services. PHRs were not submitted timely. 6 43% of caseworkers interviewed for this study did 6 The vast majority of children had two FASPs not receive training prior to receiving a caseload. created during the one-year review period. 6 Caseworkers’ reviews of training and supervision 6 Only 27% of PHRs were submitted by the foster were mixed. care agencies to ACS Family Court Legal Services 6 Caseworkers identified the need for cell phones, (FCLS) on a timely basis. laptops, more clerical support, agency vehicles, 6 Only one-third of FASPs and 27% of the PHRs and interpretation services. received high ratings for completeness and quality. The rest were judged not sufficiently thorough • the case record review and stakeholders who and lacking in thoughtful discussion of the prog- participated in interviews and focus groups ress made and remaining challenges to overcome. identified concerns about the quality of casework, including the following: • alternative permanency options were not 6 Inadequate communication with and lack of adequately explored. respectful treatment of parents and resource 6 Only 30 % of the children in the sample (51% parents. of children with a goal of Return to Parent and 6 “One-size-fits-all” service planning that does not 14% with a goal of Adoption) had a documented reflect families’ unique characteristics, circum- concurrent planning goal. However, in some cases stances, and needs. in which a concurrent plan was not documented, 6 Parents being required to participate in multiple, case records did document some efforts towards potentially duplicative services. concurrent planning—such as searching for rela- 6 Casework reporting that is focused on monitoring tives and asking resource parents if they would attendance at services rather than progress. adopt in the event children could not return home. 6 Lack of adequate attention to facilitating effec- 6 None of the children in the study sample had a tive relationships between parents and resource concurrent planning goal of Legal Guardianship. parents. 6 Ongoing efforts toward reunification when parents have been inconsistent in their participation. 6 Lack of adequate casework with fathers, parents with serious mental illnesses and/or cognitive disabilities, and parents who are incarcerated.

| 70 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

The planning to move a child out of foster care should start the day the child enters care. As soon as a child is removed from his/her family, an assessment must be conducted to determine the permanency plan for the child. Typically, with the exception of extreme circumstances, child welfare agencies attempt to work with families toward the goal of children returning home to their parents. Casework- ers must immediately engage and involve families in this process. Caseworkers are also required to do “concurrent planning” which involves identifying alternative permanency options (a “plan b”), such as placement with relatives or adoption, in case of the possibility that a child is not able to return home.

In New York City, foster care casework is the responsibility of non-profit agencies that contract with and are monitored by ACS. Foster care caseworkers employed and supervised by these private agencies are responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of children and moving them towards permanency in a timely fashion. Foster care caseworkers must perform many different tasks including, but not limited to, the following: • Engaging and working with children and families and others to develop and implement case plans designed to achieve the identified permanency goal; • Conducting assessments and arranging for necessary services for children and families; • Having regular contact with children in order to ensure their safety and well-being; • Ensuring that children’s health, mental health, and educational needs are addressed; • Having regular contact, developing a rapport, and working with parents toward reunification with their children; • Arranging regular visits between children in foster care and their parents; • Identifying and exploring kinship resources who may serve as supports to parents or become placement resources, if necessary; • Facilitating relationships between parents and resource parents; • Providing support to resource and pre-adoptive families; • Helping to identify and recruit adoptive resources for children; • Responding to emergencies; • Preparing court reports summarizing progress toward permanency goals and attending court hearings; and • Entering data and progress notes in the information system CONNECTIONS.

Section I of this chapter provides the study findings regarding key factors that affect the quality of casework, including caseworker turnover, caseloads, education, training, and supervision, as well as other resources. Section II provides the study findings regarding the development and implementation of the case plan and the quality of key casework activities. Section III provides the study findings on the timeliness and quality of foster care agencies’ reports to the Family Court on the status of children and families’ cases.

It should be noted that Chapter 5: Adoption Casework presents additional findings specific to adoption casework practice. Chapter 6: Caseworker Contacts presents findings on caseworker contacts with children, parents, resource parents, and facility staff. Chapter 7: Parent-Child Visits and Parent Contact with Resource Parents and Chapter 8: Services present findings on parent-child visits and service provision.

| 71 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

I. Factors that Affect the Quality of Casework

This section provides the study findings regarding caseworker turnover, caseloads, education, experience, training, supervision, and resources.

A. Caseworker Turnover

Research has suggested that caseworker turnover negatively affects children’s chances at achieving permanen- Perspectives on cy.62 Caseworker turnover has been found to be associ- Caseworker Turnover ated with children experiencing multiple placements, receiving fewer services, staying in foster care longer, and “We went through five different failing to achieve permanency. When cases change hands caseworkers [in three years] ..every from worker to worker, relationships that may have been time I got a new caseworker, she built between the caseworker and the child and family had to get familiar with what was end and new relationships must be built. In addition, on my case ”. important “institutional knowledge” about the child, the Parent family, the case history and progress that has (or has not) been made may get lost, particularly when documenta- “[New] caseworkers have a honey- tion is poor. moon period with parents ..Some- times, they don’t understand the Notably, ACS does not collect system-wide data regarding complexity of the case, which then foster care caseworker turnover. In 2006, the Council of causes delays ”. Family and Child Caring Agencies (COFCCA) reported FCLS Attorney turnover rates of 40% at the foster care agencies.63 “New workers don’t know the case .. In this study, data were collected regarding how many One new worker didn’t know there different Case Planners children had during the two- was an order of protection against . year period between October 1, 2006 and September the mother and set up a visit when 30, 2008. (Note: this is one of a few measures that were she wasn’t supposed to ..The children . taken over a two-year period. Most measures in this need continuity and so do we!” study focused on a one-year period.) Cases can some- Resource Parent times involve multiple caseworkers. “Case Planner” is the designated term for the individual at the foster care “It’s the turnover ..I mean, you can provider agency who is responsible for the coordination go through seven different foster of the work with the child and family. For example, if care workers in one case ..and each there is a sibling group of two children, one in the foster worker is starting over, and doesn’t care program of an agency and the other in the residen- know the case and maybe doesn’t tial treatment program of that same agency or in place- know that the service referral was ment with another agency, the two children would likely made before so they make a call have two different caseworkers. One of those casework- and make a new referral ..It happens ers would be designated as the Case Planner, i.e., the very, very often ”. person with overall responsibility for coordination of all Attorney for Parents work with the family.

62 Multiple citations as provided in Children’s Rights. (2006). Components of an Effective Child Welfare Workforce to Improve Outcomes for Children and Families: What Does the Research Tell Us? Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.childrensrights. org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/components_of_effective_child_welfare_workforce_august_2006.pdf

63 Testimony of James F. Purcell, Chief Executive Officer of the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies, before the New York City Council Committee on General Welfare. January 30, 2006.

| 72 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

The vast majority of children had multiple documented Case Planners. As shown in Figure 4.1, less than one-fifth (18%) of children had one consistent case planner during the two-year period. Almost one- fourth (23%) had two case planners. Thirty-nine percent had three or four case planners. Twelve percent had five or more case planners during the two-year period.

It should be noted that it is possible that some Case Planner changes may not have involved entirely “new” Case Planners, i.e., Case Planners who had no prior involvement whatsoever with the family. If a person had already been a caseworker on a case involving multiple siblings, as noted in the example above, and then became newly designated at the Case Planner, that person potentially brought his/her prior experience with the family to the new role of Case Planner, thus providing the child and family with some continuity. Nonetheless, the extent of Case Planner turnover identified among the children in this study is cause for concern.

Figure 4.1: Number of Case Planners Children Experienced During Two-Year Period (October 1, 2006 – September 30, 2008) (N = 153)

25% 25% 23%

20% 18%

15% 14%

10% 8% 8%

5% 3% Proportion of Children of Children Proportion 1% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UTD Number of Case Planners

It should also be noted that data were not systematically collected in this study regarding the number of case planners children had during their entire time in foster care. However, having generally reviewed the children’s historical files, we can say anecdotally that some children had even more case planner changes during their entire stay in foster care than are reflected in these data, which cover only two years of their foster care experience.

Finally, parents, resource parents, attorneys for children, attorneys for parents, attorneys for ACS, judges, and referees all identified caseworker turnover as a major barrier to permanency. Every time a case gets assigned to a new worker, it takes time for that worker to get up to speed on the case and important information can fall through the cracks.

B. Caseworker Caseloads

Child welfare research has shown what common sense already tells us – high A 2006 study of the child welfare workforce funded caseloads negatively affect permanency by the New York State Office of Children and Family outcomes for children in foster care.64 Services (OCFS) recommended that foster care case- Research has indicated that due to high workers carry a maximum caseload of 11-12 children .. caseloads, caseworkers have less time Only 25% of caseworkers interviewed for this study had to interact with children, families, and caseloads of 12 children or fewer ...

64 Multiple citations as noted in Children’s Rights. (2006). Components of an Effective Child Welfare Workforce to Improve Outcomes for Children and Families: What Does the Research Tell Us? Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.childrensrights.org/wp-content/ uploads/2008/06/components_of_effective_child_welfare_workforce_august_2006.pdf

| 73 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

service providers, prepare accurate and individualized assessments and case plans, provide services, and en- “Sometimes I feel so overwhelmed, . gage in meaningful supervision with their supervisors. I don’t want to pick up the phone ”. Workers with high caseloads do not have the time Foster Care Caseworker or energy to provide timely casework and decision- making, develop meaningful and trusting relation- “Sometimes caseworkers make visits ships with children and families, offer individualized, when they are too tired, too spent, culturally competent, and family-centered services, and they have no mental energy ”. or engage in ongoing training and educational op- Foster Care Caseworker portunities. As a result, workers experience high levels of burnout and may become disillusioned about “Workers need to be more sophisticat- their work and the child welfare system as a whole. ed and resourceful, but their caseloads These challenges can in turn significantly impact case are too high ”. outcomes. High caseloads have also been found to FCLS Attorney contribute to the reentry of children into foster care.

The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) recommends that foster care workers carry caseloads of no more than 12-15 children.65 A 2006 study of the child welfare workforce funded by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) recommended that foster care caseworkers carry a maximum caseload of 11-12 children.66

Notably, ACS does not currently collect system-wide data regarding foster care caseworker caseloads in New York City; however the agency reports that it is currently in the process of developing the capacity to do so.67 However, data collected in this study and other available information suggest that the caseloads of many foster care workers in New York City are larger than recommended standards.

Caseload data were collected from a group of 28 caseworkers who were interviewed for this study.68 As shown in Figure 4.2, only 25% had caseloads of 12 children or fewer.

Figure 4.2: Caseloads of Interviewed Caseworkers Caseload Size (number of children) Proportion of Caseworkers (N = 28) 12 or fewer 25% 13-15 14% 16-20 32% 21 or greater 29%

In addition, data from a 2009 survey conducted by the Council of Families and Child Caring Agencies (COFCCA) of its members clearly show caseloads well above the standards recommended by CWLA and the OCFS study.69 The survey asked member agencies to provide the average caseload for caseworkers in their foster boarding home program. Fourteen agencies responded. As shown in Figure 4.3, one agency reported an average caseload of 11. Every other agency had caseloads averaging 15 or higher.

65 Child Welfare League of America. (1999). Recommended Caseload Standards. Excerpted from CWLA Standards of Excellence for Services to Abused and Neglected Children and Their Families, Revised 1999. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Retrieved June 28, 2009, from http://www.cwla.org/newsevents/news030304cwlacaseload.htm

66 Walter R. McDonald and Associates and American Humane Association. (2006). New York State Child Welfare Workload Study. Rensselaer, NY: New York State Office of Children and Family Services, pp. 6-14.

67 Telephone communication with the Administration for Children’s Services, May 29, 2009.

68 Interviews were conducted with caseworkers during February, March, and April of 2009.

69 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies, August 11, 2009.

| 74 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

More than one-third of agencies had an average caseload of 20 children or more. It should be noted that average caseload statistics can in fact mask the full extent of the problem.

Finally, many stakeholders who participated in interviews and focus groups for this study identified high foster care worker caseloads—and their effect on virtually every aspect of casework (planning, contacts, visits, etc.)—as a barrier to permanency.

Figure 4.3: Average Foster Boarding Home Caseworker Caseloads Reported by 14 Agencies, August 200970

25 25 22 22 20.5 20 19.3 20 18.5 18 18 18 19 Recommended 15 15 15 Caseload 11 Standard is 11 - 12 10

Average Caseload Average 5

0 I B J L A D G H K y y E y F y cy cy ncy n ncy C ncy nc nc n ncy nc ncy nc e e ncy M ncy N e e e ency e e e e e ge ge ge Ag Ag A Ag Ag Ag A A Ag Ag Ag Ag Ag Ag Foster Care Agency

C. Caseworker Education, Experience, Training, Supervision, and Resources

Twenty-eight caseworkers from 25 different agencies were interviewed for this study. Each of these workers was responsible for one of the children in the study sample. Data were collected regarding their educational background and years of experience in child welfare, their receipt of pre-service and in-service training, and their access to resources to help them do their jobs.

1. Education and Experience Sixty-eight percent of caseworkers interviewed had a bachelor’s degree and 29% had an MSW degree. Almost half (46%) had been in their current position for two years or less. Twenty-nine percent had three to five years and one-fourth had six or more years in their current position.

2. Training A concerning finding is that 43% of the caseworkers interviewed said that they had not received training prior to receiving a caseload. However, 93% said that they had received in-service training during the past year.

Also concerning are the high proportions of caseworkers that said they did not receive training on certain key topics such as facilitating parent/resource parent relationships, handling youth ambivalence toward adoption, and broaching the option of open adoption, as shown in Figure 4.4 below.

70 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies, August 11, 2009.

| 75 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

Figure 4.4: Caseworker Receipt of Training on Certain Identified Topics (N = 28, except where otherwise noted)71 Type of Training Received Did Not Receive How to create a high quality FASP/Permanency Report 96% 4% How to facilitate relationships between parents and foster parents 73% 27% (n = 26)71 How to handle youths’ ambivalence toward adoption 64% 36% How to broach the option of open adoption 57% 43%

Caseworkers’ comments on the training they receive were mixed. On my first day [on the job], I had to remove a child ”. Some caseworkers strongly praised “ the quality of the training. Others I don’t feel qualified to talk to children who are ambiva- said that many trainings are boring “ lent about adoption ..That’s clinical ..I can make a referral and repetitive and that more special- to a therapist, but beyond that…” ized trainings should be provided on particular issues such as conflict I would like more training on how to be both under- resolution, serious mental illness, “ standing and firm with parents and foster parents ”. medications, children’s special needs, and handling crises. “The training that we had was excellent ..They told us where to go and who to call for slots for every type . There is in fact no consistent training of service ”. across the foster care agencies; each agency provides its own training. I have gotten great training on helping foster parents According to COFCCA, OCFS of- “ and birth parents work together as a team ”. fers “common core” training, but few agencies use it as it requires many Most training is repetitive or doesn’t apply to the actual days of upfront training and agen- “ specifics of the job ”. cies feel pressured to begin assigning cases to new workers immediately. A parent threatened me ..I didn’t know how to handle it .. OCFS also provides COFCCA with “ I was not trained for a situation like that ”. funding for common core training for approximately 80 to 100 new Foster Care Caseworkers caseworkers per year.72

3. Supervision Sixty-eight percent of caseworkers reported receiving supervision on a weekly basis. However, 7% said they received supervision on a biweekly basis and 21% of caseworkers said they received supervision generally monthly.

Caseworkers were asked how often their supervisor was available for consultation. Sixty-eight percent said that their supervisor was “always” available and 29% said their supervisor was “often” available.

71 Excludes two caseworkers due to missing data.

72 Email communication from the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies, May 21, 2009.

| 76 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

Caseworkers were asked whether the majority of time in supervision “M y supervisor carried my caseload before she got pro- was spent discussing clinical or moted so she really knows these cases, which is helpful ”. administrative issues. Three-fourths said clinical issues; 14% said admin- “[My supervisor] is not familiar with the cases ..I need istrative issues; 11% said the time direction and I may get a general answer [that is] not . was evenly split between clinical and applicable to the case ..I don’t know if he listens ”. administrative issues. “We have supervision in a group because we ‘team’ on About two-thirds of caseworkers cases ..We do need a more clinical component though ”. commented positively on the supervision they received, noting, for “Supervision is all about the families and what more can example, that their supervisor was be done ..Being a good advocate is important to [my familiar with their cases, was respon- supervisor] ”. sive, provided helpful insights, etc. However, the remaining one-third “The new supervisor has been a lifesaver ..The prior super- expressed concerns—for example visor did not provide supervision and talked down . that their supervisor does not listen to workers ”. well, is not familiar with their cases, Foster Care Caseworkers and does not give helpful feedback.

4. Caseworker Resources Caseworkers were asked about the availability of certain resources. Workers identified the need “If we had laptops, we could get work done for cell phones, which would enable them to while sitting in court all day ”. much more easily reach families, resource families, services providers, and others while on the “We need cell phones!” go from agency to court to community. Work- ers also expressed the desire for laptops so they “My agency has a nice family visit room ”. could do work while waiting for court hearings. “[My] agency doesn’t have space to facili- As shown in Figure 4.5, 57% said they never have tate family visits ..Sometimes [we] use the access to an agency cell phone and half said they kitchen or the conference room which is not never have access to an agency laptop. Clerical child-friendly ..It is frustrating, especially for support and agency vehicles were not consistent- parents who are consistent in visiting ”. ly available. Caseworkers also indicated the need for more private space for interviews and family Foster Care Caseworkers visits occurring at the agency.

Figure 4.5: Availability of Caseworker Resources (N = 28 caseworkers) Type of Resource Always Sometimes Never Agency cell phone 36% 7% 57% Agency laptop 39% 7% 50% Agency vehicle 39% 43% 18% Private family visit space 64% 25% 11% Interpretation services 46% 43% 11% Clerical support 64% 32% 4% Adequate workspace 89% 11% 0% Private interview space 68% 32% 0%

| 77 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

Finally, caseworkers identified the need for better access to interpretation services. Documentation in 7% of the case files of the children in the study sample indicated that a language barrier was negatively affecting the case. In these cases, the birth parents and/or foster parents spoke Spanish, Mandarin, or Korean. Issues identified in these cases included caseworkers who did not speak the language, lack of availability of interpreters, lack of parenting skills classes taught in the parent’s language, and inability to properly supervise a visit due to language barriers. Other stakeholders also identified language barriers as a problem, both in terms of caseworkers who did not speak clients’ languages and in terms of a lack of services (e.g., mental health) that are available in languages other than English. (Services issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 8: Services.)

II. Developing and Implementing the Case Plan

As noted above, caseworkers must work with families to develop and implement case plans designed to achieve the identified permanency goal for the child. This includes conducting team meetings with the family to develop the plan, writing a case plan document that clearly spells out relevant tasks and goals, working with families to help them reach those goals, and regularly assessing the degree of progress being made and the implications for achieving permanency for the child.

This section presents the study’s findings regarding key elements of casework including the timeliness of and attendance at family team conferences; the timeliness and quality of written case plans; the existence of concurrent planning goals; efforts to locate relatives; and other general findings about the quality of casework.

A. Service Plan Reviews and Family Team Conferences

Foster care agencies are required to engage families and work with them to develop case plans—known as Family Assessment and Service Plans (FASPs)—for all children in foster care. The FASP is an extremely important document, as it should establish the permanency goal and a concurrent planning goal and provide a summary of the case history and current circumstances; an assessment of the progress that has or has not been made; and a roadmap for moving the child to permanency, including services to be provided and interim goals to be achieved toward the ultimate permanency goal.

The key approach for developing and updating the FASP is to hold family team meetings, known as Service Plan Reviews (SPRs) and Family Team Conferences (FTCs). The purpose of the SPR/FTC is to review and discuss the progress the family has made in meeting the permanency goal for the child; the requirements the parents need to fulfill; the visiting plan; and the services the agency will provide to the family.73 In addition to foster care agency staff, these meetings should include the parents, the child (if appropriate), family-identified support persons, resource parents, and other service providers.

1. Frequency of SPRs/FTCs Foster care agencies are required to conduct SPRs/FTCs every six months (twice per year). The case review collected data regarding the frequency of SPRs and FTCs. A total of 273 SPRs/FTCs were held during the one-year review period for the 153 children in the sample.

73 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. (2003). ACS Parent Handbook, p. 10. Retrieved June 28, 2009, from http:// www.nyc.gov/html/acs/downloads/pdf/parent_handbook.pdf

| 78 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

As shown in Figure 4.6 below, across the entire sample, SPR/FTC meetings were documented at least twice during the one-year period for 69% of children. However, 23% of children had only one meeting during the year and 9% had no documented meetings. Children with a goal of Return to Parent had significantly more documented meetings (mean = 1.94) than children with a goal of Adoption (mean = 1.62).74

Figure 4.6 below provides data regarding the number of SPR/FTC meetings that were held during the one-year review period.

Figure 4.6: Number of SPR/FTC Meetings Held Number of SPR/FTC All Children Children with a Children with a Meetings Held During (N = 153) Goal of RTP Goal of Adoption One-Year Period (n = 79) (n = 74) 0 9% 5% 12% 1 23% 23% 23% 2 54% 51% 57% 3 12% 17% 7% 4 3% 5% 1% Mean 1.78 1.94 1.62 Median 2.00 2.00 2.00

2. Attendance at SPRs/FTCs Given that the purpose of SPRs/FTCs is to engage the family and others in case planning, one proxy for assessing the existence of a “team” at a team meeting is the attendance of key participants. Of course, the simple presence of individuals at a meeting does not ensure that the group is truly functioning as a team, i.e., that all team members are full participants in the process, etc; however, the lack of attendance of key individuals at many meetings certainly suggests that a team approach is not being fully implemented.

As shown in Figure 4.7, overall, the most frequent attendees of SPRs/FTCs were resource parents who were documented as attending 60% of applicable meetings. Mothers and fathers were documented as participating in only 49% and 17% of SPRs/FTCs, respectively. As would be expected, parents were more frequently in attendance when the child’s goal was Return to Parent. Children over the age of ten attended half the time. Very few meetings included a family-identified support person or other service provider. Parents and resource parents were in attendance at the same meeting in only one-third of SPRs/FTCs (data not shown).

“[Years ago]…they would just go and do what they had to do without me even being there ... Today, it’s much better ..They’ll hear what you have to say ..They’ll even let you make sugges- tions ..It still needs work, but it’s better ”. Parent

74 This difference was statistically significant p( = .027).

| 79 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

Figure 4.7: Attendance at SPRs/FTCs75 Participant Proportion of SPR/FTC Meetings Attended by Participant All Children Children with Children with a Goal of RTP a Goal of Adoption Mother 49% (n = 199) 62% (n = 148) 12% (n = 51) Father 17% (n = 184) 21% (n = 133) 6% (n = 51) Child 10 years old or older 50% (n = 153) 49% (n = 77) 51% (n = 76) Resource Parents 60% (n = 239) 60% (n = 124) 61% (n = 115) Family identified support person 8% (n = 271) 13% (n = 151) 3% (n = 120) Other service provider 4% (n = 271) 6% (n = 151) 3% (n = 120)

B. Timeliness of Case Plans

As noted above, a key purpose of the SPR/FTC meeting is to develop a Family Assessment and Service Plan. An initial FASP must be developed within 30 days of a child entering foster care; a comprehensive FASP is then due at 90 days; another FASP is due at six months and then every six months after that. All of the children in the study sample had been in foster care for at least two years and thus should have had two completed FASPs during the one-year review period.

The vast majority (96%) of children in the study sample had two completed FASPs as required during the one-year period; only six out of 153 children had only one FASP during that time period.

C. Quality of Case Plans and Casework with Families

1. Quality of FASPs The FASP is a very important document as it should provide the roadmap and plan for children in foster care and their families. FASPs must identify the permanency goal for the child as well as a concurrent planning goal – a “plan b” if the primary permanency goal cannot be achieved. FASPs are supposed to include an explanation of the need for continued custody of the child; an assessment of the child and family’s circumstances, strengths, and needs; an assessment of the child’s placement setting; an assessment of the progress that has been made toward the case goals and the barriers to progress that have been identified; a description of the services provided during the past six months and the services to be provided during the next six months; and a clear description of the goals and tasks to be accomplished by the family, the foster care agency, and other service providers. The FASP should specify the expected timeframes by which those goals and tasks are to be completed.

Case reviewers for this study were asked to make judgments about the quality of FASPs.76 The quality of 300 FASPs applicable to the 153 children was rated. Case reviewers were instructed to consider whether the FASP was thorough, clear, and specific; whether the FASP reflected case circumstances, progress, and challenges as described elsewhere in the case record (including progress notes, prior FASPs and Permanency Hearing Reports, independent third-party evaluations conducted by other entities, school documentation, resource parent file documentation, court orders, etc.); and whether the FASP reflected

75 The sample sizes (n ) reflect the number of possible SPR/FTC meetings that an individual was applicable to attend. Sample sizes differ because some participants were not always applicable and were excluded. For example, if a child did not have a resource parent (because he/she was placed in a facility), these cases were excluded from the analysis of resource parent attendance; if a parent was deceased/unknown, the relevant parent’s attendance was not applicable.

76 Case reviewers were individuals with 10-20 years of child welfare experience and were trained and supervised by Children’s Rights’ staff. Case reviewer training included exercises in which reviewers read the same cases, completed the data collection instrument, and then discussed their answers, in order to achieve a common threshold across reviewers.

| 80 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

a plan that, if implemented, could in fact move the case effectively and efficiently toward permanency. Case reviewers scored individual components of the FASP as well as the overall FASP using a 1-5 rating scale, with one being the lowest rating and 5 being the highest rating.

As shown in Figure 4.8 below, overall, one-third of FASPs were given the higher ratings of four or five. Reviewers judged these FASPs to be generally thorough and an appropriate reflection of the case circumstances and plans going forward.

However, the majority of FASPs (67%) were rated at a 3 or lower. Only 24% of children had both of their FASPs during the one-year period rated at a 4 or 5 (data not shown in Figure).

The individual sections of the FASP that were most poorly rated were child’s adjustment and functioning, permanency progress/concurrent planning, visiting, and family service plan.

Figure 4.8: FASP Quality Ratings77 Section of FASP Proportion of FASPs With Each Rating (1 = lowest rating, 5 = highest rating) Low Rating High Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Family/Child Assessment (n = 300 FASPs) 1% 7% 42% 32% 17% Appropriateness of Placement (n = 102 FASPs) 4% 10% 35% 47% 4% Child’s Adjustment and Functioning (n = 299 FASPs) 2% 15% 44% 31% 7% Permanency Progress/Concurrent Planning (n = 300 FASPs) 2% 13% 48% 30% 7% Visiting (n = 269 FASPs) 4% 20% 44% 27% 6% Family Service Plan (n = 300 FASPs) 4% 22% 42% 27% 5% Overall FASP Rating (n = 300 FASPs) 1% 14% 52% 30% 3%

A common observation by the case reviewers regarding the poorly rated FASPs was that they were rote and “cookie-cutter,” i.e., they were not individualized, reflecting the unique characteristics and circumstances of each child and family. Case reviewers also saw a lot of “cut and paste,” where the same paragraph would appear over and over in a FASP; often the same paragraphs from a prior FASP would be copied into the next FASP.

Case reviewers noted that the poorly rated FASPs rarely included a thoughtful discussion of progress and challenges and plans for moving forward, but rather included only a rote delivery of basic information with little if any clinical analysis. For example, a FASP might note that a mother completed parenting classes, but have no documentation regarding whether and how the parent benefited from those services and how that progress or lack thereof might relate to achieving the permanency goal. Often, the paragraphs about progress were verbatim repetitions of what was written on the prior FASP, from six months ago, with no discussion of the significance of the lack of change in the status of the case. The quality of the FASPs and other elements of casework described below raise questions about the quality of supervision that caseworkers are receiving.

Comments about the quality of FASPs from stakeholders who participated in interviews and focus groups for this study further underscored these impressions. These stakeholders noted the poor quality

77 The sample sizes ( n) reflect the number of FASPs. Sample sizes differ because some sections of the FASPs were not applicable for all children given the particular circumstances of the case and due to a small number of instances of missing data. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

| 81 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

of the FASP documents as a barrier to permanency, particularly given frequent worker turnover; when workers turn over, the quality of the FASP (and other documentation in the file) becomes even more important because the new worker will be informed (or not) by what is or is not documented.

2. Lack of Individualized Planning Many stakeholders said that case planning is frequently one-size-fits-all and not individualized, i.e., many families are identified as needing the exact same set of services (e.g., parenting education, anger management, and mental health services), and the services that are provided are generic and not necessarily responsive to the particular characteristics, needs, and circumstances of the family. Some stakeholders identified the problem of lack of coordination among multiple service providers, as well as service overload, when parents are sometimes required to attend multiple services that may be overlapping in purpose. (Service provision is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8: Services.) Parents and parents’ attorneys also identified the problem of parents not being told up front about all of the requirements that they will need to meet. These stakeholders talked about circumstances in which parents completed all the requirements they knew about and only then were told they needed to “jump through other hoops” before their children could return home.

“[After two years], I had my apartment ..I finished all my services ..Then, [the caseworker] asked me who else was living in my house ..Throughout this whole time, they were supposed to do house visits, but no one ever showed up at my house ..I said, ‘My fiancé stays with me on occa- sion ’. She [the caseworker] said, ‘Why didn’t you tell us this before?’ I said, ‘You asked me this when I moved in ..from the get-go, I told you that my boyfriend got me this apartment and that he stays with me once in a while ’. She said, ‘Oh my god, now we need to meet him…if he’s going to be part of your household, if he’s going to see your son, then we have to investigate ’. I told her that my boyfriend can get out, that my son [coming home] is more important to me right now ..But she said that as long I’m going to be with him socially in any way, my boyfriend had to do all the services [before my son could come home] ..my boyfriend’s name was on all the papers from the date this case began so it’s not like they didn’t know about him ”. Parent “The foster care agencies give biological parents a lot of chances ..Sometimes, they do it for too long and it’s not workable ”. Resource Parent “The birth mother did everything the agency asked her to do but the agency kept asking the birth mother to do more…small things that shouldn’t have stood in the way of her getting her children returned to her ”. Resource Parent

3. Communication and Respect Stakeholders expressed concern about the ways in which foster care agencies sometimes approach parents and resource parents. Parents and parents’ attorneys said that communication is a major problem, particularly when children are first taken into foster care. Caseworkers fail to communicate clearly with parents about where there children are going to be placed, when parents can visit their children, and what rights parents have, for example, that they are allowed to attend their children’s doctor’s visits. Stakeholders said that parents who quickly get access to a parent advocate and/or an attorney can be more informed about these issues.

| 82 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

An Issue of Respect

“I hit my kids ..I got locked up ..But there’s not one day that goes by that we don’t live with ourselves, blaming ourselves, even if [what happened] was just spur of the moment ..We live with it every single day ..When we wake up in the morning and we go to see our children’s room and the room is empty ..We’re looking at their toys, their toys are untouched ..I cook [too much food] and then I realize that my son is not there ..What am I doing? Who am I cooking this food for? It’s hard ..There’s not one night that I do not fall asleep without crying ..and these agencies and ACS and the system…they want to keep pointing fingers at us ”. Parent “I tell parents, ‘If you can only crawl toward improving things and getting your kids back, then I’m going to crawl on the ground with you until I can help you walk and run towards them and . a healthier life ’”. Foster Care Caseworker “Sometimes I feel like my worker is my enemy rather than my support ”. Resource Parent “A mong my clients, I’ve found that if the caseworker talks to the parent like they have some level of respect for the parent, the kids do better and return home a lot quicker ..The parent seems to be more compliant with the services and the referrals ..I’ve had clients tell me that the caseworker stands down on the street and yells up to the parent’s window telling them to throw down the keys so they can get into the building ..Parents feel like the caseworker is telling all of the neighbors what is going on ”. Attorney for Parents

Attorneys (for parents, children, and ACS), judges, and referees also noted that there are problems with information falling through the cracks, e.g., when CPS workers come to initial court dates unaware of the services that have already been put in place by the foster care agency or the status of the parent’s participation in those services.

Some parents said that some caseworkers can be very judgmental and this negatively affects the relationships between them. When parents do not feel heard and respected, they do not feel that they are a real part of case planning for their children and can become disheartened, which may lead some parents to disengage. Parents also said that foster care agencies do not always take their complaints about the resource parents with whom their children are placed seriously, e.g., when they have concerns about the care their child is receiving.

Going beyond the issue of caseworker respect for parents, some stakeholders expressed the view that there is simply an inherent conflict in the roles that caseworkers play with parents. As one attorney for parents put it, “You have a client who [finally] gets comfortable with [the caseworker], tells them everything, and then clients go to trial and that same caseworker who they trusted, thinking this person is going to try to help them, that same person goes on and testifies against them at trial.” This can of course challenge the degree to which parents feel comfortable revealing sensitive information to their caseworkers.

| 83 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

A few caseworkers and parents identified parent advocates as one strategy that does not “fix” the above dynamic, but which can be helpful nonetheless. Parent advocates are typically local community members; some have had prior personal experience with the child welfare system. Some foster care agencies currently employ parent advocates. The Child Welfare Organizing Project (CWOP), a parent advocacy group, also provides parent advocates.

Parents said that having an advocate by their side—someone who understands the system and is there specifically on the parent’s behalf—is reassuring and helpful. Caseworkers also spoke positively about parent advocates. As one caseworker said, “The parent advocate can say things in a way that I can’t. They can really cut to the chase.” Parent advocates can also assist with caseworkers’ workloads. How- ever, there currently are not enough parent advocates for everyone to have one.

Indeed, the use of parent advocates was not widespread enough during the one-year study period to more systematically assess their utility. It should be noted that the ACS Request for Proposals (RFP) for foster care services that was issued in May 2009 requires foster care agencies to establish parent advocate positions in their residential care programs, but only encourages the establishment of these positions in foster boarding home programs.78 ACS’s rationale for this distinction is that while it “recognizes and supports the value of parent advocates across the system, and [has] seen their success in many foster care programs… parent advocates are encouraged but not explicitly required in family foster care programs. They are a requirement for residential care programs, as a part of the family-focused permanency model that [ACS] is seeking for all residential care programs.”79

In addition to parents not always feeling respected by caseworkers, resource parents also expressed similar concerns. Some resource parents said that they are treated very well by their foster care agency when they are being recruited, but, once they come on board, it is as if “the honeymoon period is over,” and they do not receive the kind of responsiveness from the foster care agency that they previously received. Resource parents also said that they are not always given respect or the opportunity to fully participate at family team conferences and that some caseworkers suggest or imply that they should not attend court hearings. Further discussion of supports provided to resource parents is provided in Chapter 5: Adoption Casework.

4. Relationships between Parents and Resource Parents ACS has had an expressed commitment to the “Family to Family” model of foster care case practice. This model was pioneered by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. In addition to emphasizing the importance of placing children in foster care in their own neighborhoods (neighborhood-based placements are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3: Placements), the model also emphasizes a role for foster parents in which they serve not just as temporary caretakers of the children, but also as resources for parents. The shift that has occurred in the nomenclature—using the term resource parents instead of foster parents—reflects this element of the model. The idea is to move away from the concept of foster parent as “child-saver” and move towards an approach in which the resource parent is fully engaged in working with the family and the foster care agency toward the goal of Return to Parent, when that goal is appropriate.

As highlighted in the bullets below, this study collected a variety of quantitative and qualitative information that reflects upon the degree to which this change in practice has been implemented.

78 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. ACS Request for Proposals, Child Welfare Services Including Community Partnerships, p. 128 of Appendix F. Released May 20, 2009.

79 Email communication from the Administration for Children’s Services, September 30, 2009

| 84 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

• Almost three-fourths of caseworkers that were interviewed for this study80 reported receiving training on facilitating relationships between parents and resource parents. However, 27% said they had not received any such training, as noted previously in this chapter. • Contacts between parents and resource parents were rarely documented in the case files. As described in detail in Chapter 7: Parent-Child Visits and Parent Contact with Resource Parents, only 61% of children had any documented contacts between their parents and their resource parents during the one-year review period. When contact did occur, the frequency was minimal, and there was rarely documentation regarding the nature of the relationship between the parent and the resource parent. • Only one-third of SPRs were jointly attended by both the parent and the resource parent, as previously noted in this chapter. • Stakeholder feedback on this topic included the following: 6 Parents and resource parents who participated in focus groups for this study expressed knowledge of Family to Family concepts and an understanding about the importance of working with one another. 6 Resource parents said that they had received training from their agencies about working with parents. 6 Parents and resource parents said that they typically had to take their own initiative to reach out to one another, i.e., that the foster care agencies did not regularly take steps to facilitate these relationships.

Family to Family

“[At my agency], once a month, they had a group ..The foster moms and biological moms would come together and talk ..It’s better when the child sees that there’s no conflict between the bio mom and the foster mom ..Because then the child won’t be confused ..Like, ‘if I like the foster mom, then my mom won’t like me and vice versa ’. So everything is better ..The bio mom can let the foster mom know the child’s likes and dislikes, and the foster mom can let the bio mom know what’s going on at this time in the child’s life .. Parent “[What about] when you have a foster mother who don’t even want to hear it? My [child’s] foster mother—I’m trying to explain something [to her] about my children, and she don’t want to hear it ”. Parent “The first meeting between parents and foster parents need to be more carefully orchestrated [by the foster care agency] ”. Resource Parent “Working with parents can be very difficult…caseworkers are too inexperienced to help ”. Resource Parent

5. Ongoing Efforts toward Reunification Finally, many stakeholders—caseworkers, attorneys for children and ACS, judges, and referees—commented on the problem of maintaining the goal of Return to Parent for too long in some cases and giving parents “too many chances.” These stakeholders said that ACS, the foster care agencies, JRP, and the Court all play a role in allowing this to happen in that ACS and the foster care agencies do not push hard

80 N = 28 caseworkers.

| 85 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

Ongoing Efforts Toward Reunification

“Cases stall when kids get to age 11 [or] 12 ..People think kids [are] not adoptable, so [they] . leave them in care because [they] think [the] only option is Return to Parent – even if it takes . 5 to 10 years ”. FCLS Attorney “[The] ASFA law [is] great but needs to be enforced more ..[Parents] should be given [the] . opportunity to get things together, but ASFA must be enforced ”. Foster Care Caseworker “The child has been in care so long because [the] judge kept giving the parents many opportunities to get things together ..[There was a] failed trial discharge, the child came back into care [and]…the agency had to continue offering services to the parents ”. Foster Care Caseworker “Legal Aid should be doing more filing in Court to force us to return the kids – they don’t do it – cultural mode of high caseloads and not being aggressive enough with us ”. FCLS Attorney

enough to change the child’s permanency goal, and the Court allows this by maintaining that goal and not ordering that any changes be made. As noted in Chapter 1: Demographics, Case Opening, and Current Case Status, the mean length of stay in foster care for children in the study sample with a goal of Return to Parent was 3.7 years. Almost one-third of children in the sample with a goal of Return to Parent had been in foster care for four or more years. Ten percent had been in foster care for six years or more.

By the same token, some stakeholders also said that there is not always appropriate advocacy by anyone—even including parents’ attorneys—to push for children to return home more quickly. For example, judges and referees said that attorneys for the parties rarely request hearings in between regularly scheduled Permanency Hearings in order to recommend that a child go home sooner, even though they are all permitted to do so.

6. Locating Relatives Another key component of casework is locating relatives. Relatives can potentially provide important support that may help families to successfully care for their children. Relatives can also provide placements for children while they are in foster care. Placement with relatives can have numerous benefits, including reducing the trauma children experience as a result of being removed from their homes and being able to have more frequent contacts with their parents and siblings. Finally, relatives can become permanent placement options for children, either through guardianship or adoption, when they cannot safely return home to their parents.

Caseworkers are responsible for identifying, locating, and assessing relatives as visiting, placement, and/or adoption resources for children in foster care. In fact, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, which became federal law in 2008, now requires states to identify and notify all adult relatives within 30 days of the child’s removal from home, with the exception of cases that involve domestic violence.81

81 Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-351, 122 Stat. 3949 (to be codified at scattered sections of 42, 26 and 31 U.S.C.).

| 86 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

Data were collected in this study regarding whether efforts to locate relatives were documented during the one-year review period. Documentation was “counted” if it referred to efforts made either before or during the one-year review period (e.g., if the documentation from the one-year review period stated that a search was done for relatives two years ago and no relatives were located, that documentation was “counted”). It is possible that efforts made to locate and engage relatives before the one-year review period were not noted in the documentation during the one-year review period and, therefore, the following data may underestimate whether or not this task “ever” took place. However, efforts should in fact be made and re-made on a regular basis to locate and try to engage relatives who may be able to provide support to families and/or serve as placement resources. Relatives’ circumstances can change over time, possibly making them able and willing to care for children when they were previously unable or unwilling to do so.

As shown in Figure 4.9, there was documentation during the one-year period that maternal relatives were explored in only about half of the applicable cases. Paternal relatives were explored in just over of one-third of applicable cases. Neither maternal nor paternal relatives were explored for 44% of children.

Figure 4.9: Efforts to Locate Maternal and Paternal Relatives82

70% 64% 60% 51% 50% 49% 44% 40% 36%

30% 24% 20% Proportion of Children of Children Proportion 10%

0 E orts Made E orts Not Made Were Efforts Made to Locate Relatives?

Maternal Relatives (n = 88) Paternal Relatives (n = 73) Both Maternal & Paternal Relatives (n = 71)

7. Concurrent Planning As noted above, in addition to establishing a permanency goal for each child in foster care, caseworkers must also develop a concurrent or “back-up” plan for each child. Establishing both a permanency goal and a concurrent goal enables the caseworker to focus his/her work with the child and family on achieving the permanency goal and, at the same time, to have an alternate plan in place if the primary permanency goal cannot be achieved. Developing a viable concurrent plan can reduce the length of time a child spends in foster care.

In New York City, all children in foster care must have a concurrent goal, regardless of their permanency goal. This study collected data regarding concurrent planning goals that were documented on FASPs and/or Permanency Hearing Reports.

As shown in Figure 4.10, only 30% of all children, 51% of children with a goal of Return to Parent, and 14% of children with a goal of Adoption had a documented concurrent planning goal.

82 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was placed with relatives or home on trial discharge as of September 30, 2008; if the child had a mother or father who was unknown as of September 30, 2008; or if data were missing regarding search for relatives. Three additional cases were excluded due to unique case circumstances.

| 87 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

Figure 4.10: Proportion of Children with Documented Concurrent Goals83 Documented Concurrent Goal All children (n = 132) Children with a Children with a Primary Goal of Primary Goal of RTP (n = 59) Adoption (n = 73) Adoption 23 17% 23 39% — — Return to Parent 6 5% — — 6 8% Guardianship 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Placement with a Fit & Willing Relative 2 2% 1 2% 1 1% APPLA 9 7% 6 10% 3 4% Other concurrent plan 2 2% 1 2% 1 1% No concurrent plan documented 92 70% 29 49% 63 86%

Although these are very poor findings, some cases did include documentation ofefforts towards concurrent planning. Of the 29 children with a goal of Return to Parent who had no documented concurrent plan, there was documentation in 43% of those cases that the caseworker discussed the possibility of voluntary/conditional surrender with at least one parent;84 and there was documentation in 63% of cases that the child’s foster parent was asked to adopt in the event reunification was unsuccessful.85

The long lengths of time that children have had the goal of Return to Parent combined with the lack of concurrent planning raise questions regarding whether these goals are sometimes being maintained primarily because no other permanent family has been identified for the child, either through adoption or legal guardianship.

Concurrent Goal of APPLA As shown in Figure 4.10 above, placement in Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) was the concurrent planning goal for 7% of children. When a child is discharged to APPLA, this usually means that they are “aging out” of foster care without a permanent and/or legal home or family and must provide for themselves without the financial and emotional support of a permanent family. In New York State, youth can be discharged to APPLA at the age of 18 or they can consent to remain in foster care until the age of 21 if they are in school, in a vocational training program, or are unable to live independently and then “age out.” The federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act that was passed in 2008 made federal funding available to states to support the costs of caring for youth ages 18-20 in foster care. Previously, no federal funds were provided to states for the care of these older youth. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that many children who “age out” of foster care experience poor outcomes including homelessness, unemployment, and incarceration.86

Concurrent Goal of Legal Guardianship It is important to note that none of the children in the study sample had a concurrent planning goal of Referral for Legal Guardianship.

83 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was home on trial discharge as of September 30, 2008 or if data were missing regarding documented concurrent plans. Total proportions exceed 100% because two children each had two documented concurrent plans.

84 n = 28. One child’s case was excluded from this analysis due to missing data.

85 n = 27. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were placed in a congregate care facility as of September 30, 2008.

86 Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Cusick, G. R., Havlicek, J. Perez, A., & Keller, T. (2007). Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 21. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

| 88 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

Typically, a legal guardianship goal would be used when a relative or other adult in the child’s life is willing to be “The kids were young and doing legally responsible for the child, but the potential guardian well with [the paternal grand- is reluctant to be involved in an adoption process because mother] ..The mother passed that process requires terminating the parents’ rights. For away in 2007 so we started work- example, a child’s maternal aunt may be willing to provide ing with the dad ..He was very care for a child but be hesitant to adopt because that would involved with the kids but didn’t require the termination of her own sister’s parental rights. seem ready to take them on his own ..There was no rush to make With a legal guardianship, parental rights can remain intact any final decisions so we didn’t and do not have to be terminated or surrendered. In addi- move too quickly towards either tion, the process of transferring legal guardianship of a child TPR or discharge to parent ”. can be much faster than the numerous processes involved in JRP Attorney for Children terminating parental rights and finalizing an adoption.

System-wide, relative guardianship is rarely used as a permanency option. In fact, less than 2% of children in the entire New York City foster care system have a primary permanency goal of Discharge to Relative,87 and not a single child exited foster care to relative guardianship in FY 2008.88

This may be due at least in part to the fact that, unlike many other states,89 New York State does not currently provide subsidized guardianship arrangements. Adoption subsidies90 are available in New York, but no such subsidies are provided to legal guardians. As a result, many children who could potentially be discharged from foster care to a subsidized guardianship arrangement may instead remain in foster care. Many potential legal guardians need financial assistance to care for the child and, currently, the only type of assistance available is an adoption subsidy, and, as noted above, some potential guardians are not interested in adopting.

Recently, the federal government made federal funds available to states for subsidized kinship guardianship through the passage of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. The Act provides federal funding for a portion of the cost of subsidized kinship guardianship to some relative foster parents who want to care for children permanently through means other than adoption.91 Previously, states and localities that provided financial assistance to legal guardians had to do so with state or local funds only, or through a time-limited federal demonstration project.

In order to take advantage of these newly available federal funds, New York State would need to opt into this program, and this means the State and/or local districts will need to pay for a part of the costs. Further, given that the new federal funds are available only for children who meet certain criteria, subsidized guardianship for non-federally eligible children would be borne solely by New York State and/or the local districts.

87 Data on children’s (primary) permanency goals provided to Children’s Rights by the Administration for Children’s Services for all children in foster care in August 2009.

88 Email communication from the Administration for Children’s Services, June 15, 2009.

89 Prior to the passage of the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, 37 states and the District of Columbia already had subsidized guardianship programs. Since the passage of the law, it is expected that even more states will begin to offer this option as well.

90 In New York State, adoption subsidies are provided to adoptive parents of children with special needs.

91 Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-351, 122 Stat. 3949 (to be codified at scattered sections of 42, 26 and 31 U.S.C.). To qualify for federal funds the child must have met the criteria for federal funding while in foster care and must have resided in the relative’s home for at least six consecutive months, and returning home or adoption must be ruled out as appropriate permanency goals.

| 89 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

8. Casework with Fathers Many stakeholders who participated in interviews and focus groups for this study identified lack of participa- “The mother has to literally be dead or tion by fathers and lack of adequate casework with fa- literally high on the street before ACS thers as barriers to permanency. Stakeholders said that will come in and work with the father ”. efforts to locate, engage, and provide services to fathers Attorney for Parents are insufficient. Various quantitative findings from this study underscore these comments:

• In almost half of the cases in the sample in which the child was not legally free, case file documentation indicated that the father was either unknown (11%) or his whereabouts were unknown (37%). (Chapter 1: Demographics, Case Opening, and Current Case Status provides additional detail on these findings.) The case record review did not collect data specifically on the frequency or adequacy of efforts to locate fathers; however, various stakeholder groups, including the judges and referees, commented that such efforts are often inadequate. • Fathers participated in only 17% of applicable SPRs/FTCs, as previously noted in this chapter. • Documentation of caseworker contacts with fathers was infrequent. More than half of fathers (54%) had no documented contact with their caseworkers during the one-year review period. The most frequently identified barrier to contacts was a lack of documented efforts made by the caseworker to schedule contact (with no rationale as to why not scheduling contact would be appropriate) (42%), followed by the father’s whereabouts being unknown during part or all of the review period (37%). (Chapter 6: Caseworker Contacts provides additional detail regarding caseworker contacts with fathers.) • Documentation of visits between children in foster care and their fathers was very infrequent. Only 4% of children had the expected number of visits with their fathers documented. More than half of children with a goal of Return to Parent (57%) and more than two-thirds of children with a goal of Adoption who were not legally free (68%) did not have any visits with their fathers during the one-year review period. The most frequently identified barrier was the father’s whereabouts being unknown during the review period (40%), followed by a lack of documented efforts made by the caseworker to schedule father-child visits (with no rationale as to why not scheduling visits would be appropriate) (26%) and the father canceling or missing scheduled visits (21%). (Chapter 7: Parent- Child Visits and Parent Contact with Resource Parents provides additional detail regarding father- child visits.) • Paternal relatives were explored as supports/placement resources in only approximately one-third of applicable cases, as previously noted in this chapter.

In addition to lack of casework with fathers, necessary legal steps—such as establishing paternity and filing a petition to terminate parental rights—are reportedly sometimes particularly delayed, which can then cause further delays in achieving permanency for children. Finally, some stakeholders said that the Family Court also does not focus sufficiently on fathers. These issues are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9: Legal Proceedings in Family Court.

9. Casework with Parents with Serious Mental Illness and/or Cognitive Disability A substantial minority of children in the study had parents who had a serious mental illness and/or a cognitive disability.92 Stakeholders who participated in interviews and focus groups for this study said that cases involving parents with mental illness and/or cognitive disability are particularly challenging, in terms of obtaining both accurate assessments of and appropriate services for these parents, such as specially targeted parenting skills programs, supportive housing programs, and other services.

92 Data were collected regarding documented serious mental illness and cognitive disability among the parents of children in the sample who were not legally free. These data were not collected for children who were legally free.

| 90 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

Among the children in the sample who were not legally free for adoption (106 children), 32% (34 children including 22 with a goal of Return to Parent and 12 with a goal of Adoption) had documentation in their case records that one or both parents had a serious mental illness, typically schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, major depression and/or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Among the children in the sample who were not legally free for adoption, 17% (18 children including 14 with a goal of Return to Parent and 4 with a goal of Adoption) had case record documentation that one or both parents had a cognitive disability, from a mild disability to moderate mental retardation.

This study methodology did not lend itself to the collection of detailed data regarding the severity of parents’ mental illnesses and cognitive disabilities, clinical assessments of the degree to which these conditions may have affected their ability to parent, or clinical assessments of the degree to which services could improve these parents’ conditions and capacities to care for their children. Although parental mental illness represents a risk factor for children,93 the presence of a serious mental illness in and of itself does not automatically disqualify someone from parenting. Depending on its severity and other factors, a cognitive disability also does not immediately disqualify someone from parenting.

In terms of mental illness, experts say that a critical factor is whether parents with serious mental illness have “insight” into their illness,94 i.e., do they recognize that they have a mental illness? Do they understand how their illness, when untreated, may affect their ability to parent? Are they willing to receive treatment for their illness? Do they consistently take their medication and/or participate in therapy as applicable to their particular illness? Also key is the existence of other protective factors, such as the presence of extended family.95

This study also did not systematically collect detailed data regarding the level of parents’ insight into their mental illness and their compliance with recommended treatment regimens, but, anecdotally, we can say that it varied. Documentation in some cases indicated that parents acknowledged their illness and were actively participating in treatment, while in other cases parents refused to acknowledge their illness and refused treatment. Also, parents’ insight (or lack thereof) or participation (or lack thereof) in treatment was sometimes changeable over time.

Some stakeholders expressed concern that some parents are having their parental rights terminated solely and inappropriately due to their mental illness and cognitive disability. This issue is discussed in Chapter 9: Legal Proceedings in Family Court.

Finally, it should be noted that even when parental mental illness or cognitive disability is a factor in a child welfare case, it may not be the defining issue. Assessments must consider a variety of factors, including but not limited to the particular conditions and parents’ responsiveness to assistance and/or treatment, as well as other risk factors and circumstances. However, cases involving parents with cognitive disabilities and/or serious mental illness can create an additional layer of complexity and require both skilled individuals who can make qualified assessments and appropriate recommendations to foster care agencies and the Court, and specialized services to meet families’ needs.

93 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2008). Facts for Families: Children of Parents with Mental Illness. Retrieved August 9, 2009 from http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_of_parents_with_mental_illness

94 Mullick, M., Miller, L. J., & Jacobsen, T. (2001). Insight Into Mental Illness and Child Maltreatment Risk Among Mothers With Major Psychiatric Disorders. Psychiatric Services, 52, pp. 488 - 492.

95 Mental Health America. Factsheet: When a Parent Has a Mental Illness: From Risk to Resiliency--Protective Factors for Children. Retrieved August 9, 2009 from http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/go/information/get-info/strengthening-families/when-a-parent- has-a-mental-illness-from-risk-to-resiliency-protective-factors-for-children

| 91 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

10. Casework with Incarcerated Parents Among children in the sample who were not legally free for adoption (106 children), 10% percent (11 children) had a parent who was incarcerated at some point during the one-year review period.96

In addition to the fact that only a small group of cases in the sample involved an incarcerated parent, the study did not collect information on the length or location of or the reason for these parents’ incarceration; thus, meaningful analyses regarding case practice in this subset of cases, as specifically related to the parents’ incarceration, is not possible.

However, parents’ attorneys identified concerns generally about a lack of adequate efforts to work with incarcerated parents in the system. These stakeholders identified concerns regarding the foster care agencies’ lack of adequate outreach and engagement of incarcerated parents in planning for their children. In addition, parents’ attorneys’ noted some basic bureaucratic issues that hinder parents’ participation; for example, when correctional facilities do not receive adequate notice, they may refuse to produce inmates for foster care-related court hearings. Cases involving incarcerated parents can create an additional layer of complexity that the system needs to address in terms of the need for specialized casework and court practice.

Some advocates in the child welfare community have also expressed concerns about the possible hasty termination of parental rights of incarcerated parents. This issue is discussed in Chapter 9: Legal Pro- ceedings in Family Court.

III. Reporting to the Court

In addition to developing and implementing case plans, caseworkers must also summarize the status of the case in reports to the Family Court which are called Permanency Hearing Reports (PHRs). The requirement for these reports was established with the passage of the so-called “Permanency Law” in New York State in December 2005. The format of the report was developed through a joint project of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), the New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA), and ACS. The report format was effective when the law went into effect.97

Permanency Hearing Reports must be submitted timely by the foster care agencies to ACS before a scheduled Permanency Hearing. ACS is then responsible to distribute the reports timely to all of the parties in the case prior to the Permanency Hearing in Family Court. Permanency Hearings are supposed to occur every six months and PHRs are supposed to be updated for each Permanency Hearing. (Perma- nency Hearing Reports are discussed in this chapter because they are a casework responsibility. Further discussion of Permanency Hearings is provided in Chapter 9: Legal Proceedings in Family Court.)

1. Timeliness of Permanency Hearing Reports Permanency Hearing Reports must be provided by the foster care agency to the ACS attorney, known as the Family Court Legal Services (FCLS) attorney, at least 24 days before the Permanency Hearing. This provides the FCLS attorney with the opportunity to review the report and, if needed, request that the caseworker make revisions and/or additions and then resubmit the report to the FCLS attorney for final approval.

96 Data were collected regarding documentation of parents’ incarceration among the parents of children in the sample who were not legally free. These data were not collected for children who were legally free. Three children had incarcerated mothers. Seven children had incarcerated fathers. One child had both of his/her parents’ incarcerated.

97 Email communication with the Administration for Children’s Services, August 6, 2009.

| 92 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

Data were provided to Children’s Rights from the FCLS Many stakeholders—parents, parents’ Division of ACS regarding the timely receipt of Per- attorneys, attorneys for ACS, JRP attor- manency Hearing Reports for the children in the study neys for children, judges, and referees— sample during the two year period from October 1, 2006 talked about the significant problem through September 30, 2008. (Note that most measures that Permanency Hearing Reports are in this study focus on the one year period from October not provided timely by the foster care 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. This and a few agencies ..when the reports are pro- other data items in the study focus on a two-year period.) vided on the day of the hearing, there may not be adequate time or privacy to As shown in Figure 4.11, ACS received almost half of the review them ..this may compromise the Permanency Hearing Reports for children in the study proceedings if they go forward or delay sample late and a quarter of reports were not received at them if a hearing has to be adjourned ... all prior to the hearing.

Figure 4.11: Proportion of Permanency Hearing Reports Provided by Foster Care Agencies to ACS at least 24 Days Before Hearing (n = 506 PHRs)98 Once the ACS attorney accepts the report, ACS must then send the report to the parties, including the parents, the parents’ attorneys, the 25% 27% attorney for the child, and the resource parents 14 days prior to the Permanency Hearing.

Received timely The study collected data regarding whether and 48% Received late when JRP attorneys for the children in the study Not received sample received Permanency Hearing Reports for hearings scheduled during the two-year period from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2008.99

As shown in Figure 4.12, 79% of Permanency Hearing Reports were not received timely by the “[Because we don’t receive reports timely], JRP attorney for the child—this includes reports we’re often having really un-private dif- received late or not received at all. This means ficult conversations in the courthouse that that, in most cases, the JRP attorney for the reaffirm our clients’ negative experience children—and most likely all of the other par- with the entire system as being disrespect- ties—did not have the required amount of time ful to them ..Permanency Reports, which to review the report prior to the hearing. are required to be provided in advance, are not ..Parents are faced with a really difficult In situations in which the report is received on choice, to go forward without having prior the day of the hearing, attorneys and clients may notice of the report or an adjournment, end up conferring about highly private matters in which could cost months of delay ”. the halls and lobbies of the courthouse. Attorney for Parents

98 Permanency Hearing Report receipt dates were provided by ACS FCLS regarding 506 scheduled Permanency Hearings during the two year period from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2008.

99 The analysis reflected in Figure 4.11, regarding whether ACS/FCLS received the report timely was based on data provided by FCLS for 506 Permanency Hearings. Hearings for which this information was not provided by FLCS are excluded from this Figure. As reflected in Figure 4.12, JRP attorneys provided information regarding whether they received the report timely for only 270 Permanency Hearings. Also, FCLS provided information stating only whether the report was provided timely, provided not timely, or not provided, whereas JRP provided actual dates of receipt of the report; thus, Figure 4.12 provides more detailed data pertaining to the timeframe for receipt.

| 93 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

These data are underscored by various stakeholders who participated in focus groups and interviews for this study and who uniformly reported that Permanency Hearing Reports are frequently submitted late or not at all and that this can be cause for delay.

Figure 4.12: Proportion of Permanency Hearing Reports Provided to JRP Attorney by ACS at least 14 Days Before Hearing (n = 270 hearings)100

8% 4% 17% 13% 30 days or more before the scheduled hearing 14 - 29 days before the scheduled hearing 1 - 13 days before the scheduled hearing On the day of the scheduled hearing After the hearing was scheduled 21% No report received 37%

The lack of timely reports is a serious problem with significant consequences. Hearings may be going forward without benefit of a truly comprehensive review of the reports, which is unacceptable given the gravity of the matters at hand. Or, scheduling problems result when hearings take longer, because more questions must be asked since the parties and the judge/referee have not had ample time to review the report. Or, hearings get adjourned until the reports can be produced, causing further delays. In fact, the lack of a timely Permanency Hearing Report was identified as a cause for delay in one-third of Permanency Hearings that were not completed within 30 days for children in this study. See Chapter 9: Legal Proceedings in Family Court for further discussion of court-related delays.

2. Quality of Permanency Hearing Reports As in the evaluation of children’s FASPs, case reviewers were asked to make judgments about the quality “The first worker [on this case] did of Permanency Hearing Reports. Case reviewers were more thorough reports ..The current instructed to consider whether the PHR was thorough, worker sometimes does a thorough clear, and specific, and whether the PHR reflected case report and sometimes does not ..I circumstances, progress, and challenges as described always get the reports on the day of elsewhere in the case record (including progress the hearing ”. notes, prior FASPs and Permanency Hearing Reports, JRP Attorney for Children independent evaluations conducted by other entities, school documentation, resource parent file documen- “It’s a pretty good report, but there are tation, court orders, etc.). As shown in Figure 4.13, case some one-liners ..It could use more reviewers scored individual sections and the overall detail ..for example, the report says PHR using a 1-5 rating scale, with one being the lowest [the child] is visiting with his siblings rating and 5 being the highest rating. but doesn’t say anything about how the visits are going ..It’s important to Overall, more than one fourth of PHRs were given the have this information, particularly if higher ratings of four or five, indicating that reviewers there is any staff turnover ”. judged these to be high quality reports reflecting the FCLS Attorney circumstances of the case and plans for moving forward.

100 Permanency Hearing Report receipt dates were provided by JRP attorneys regarding 270 scheduled Permanency Hearings during the two year period from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2008, which comprised only approximately half of the hearings that occurred during this time. Hearings for which this information was not provided by the JRP attorney are excluded from this Figure.

| 94 | CHAPTER 4: CASEWORK

However, the majority of PHRs (73%) were rated at a 3 or lower. Case reviewer comments about the quality of the poorly-rated PHRs were very similar to their comments about FASPs with regard to the rote and cookie-cutter nature of reports, which included a lot of “cut and paste” and failed to adequately describe the case status, progress, and prospects to the court. Stakeholders who participated in interviews and focus groups for this study underscored these same concerns.

Judges and referees in particular complained about the issue of caseworkers reporting only on parents’ attendance at services and not providing any clinical judgment about whether or not progress has been made. Although judges and referees make the final decisions in these cases, they want and need to be able to depend on the foster care caseworkers to make “social work judgments” and to inform the court of those judgments so that they can be taken into consideration.

In addition, many stakeholders, including caseworkers, attorneys, and judges and referees, commented that the structure of the Permanency Hearing Report may encourage rote reporting. Some said that other court reports that are sometimes done by caseworkers in between Permanency Hearings, or ad- dendums to PHRs, tend to be more helpful documents because they have no pre-determined structure and the worker can write about what is important rather than fitting text into many narrowly defined sub-sections of the PHR.

Figure 4.13: Permanency Hearing Report Quality Ratings101 Section of PHR Proportion of PHRs With Each Rating (1 = lowest rating, 5 = highest rating) Low Rating High Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Permanency Planning (n = 275 PHRs) 2% 17% 41% 34% 5% Reasonable Efforts to Finalize Permanency (n = 275 PHRs) 3% 20% 40% 33% 4% Child’s Freeing for Adoption and/or Other Placements 3% 17% 40% 35% 5% (n = 265 PHRs) Parent Status and Services Provided (n = 196 PHRs) 7% 19% 41% 30% 4% Visiting (n = 235 PHRs) 6% 25% 40% 23% 7% Services Provided to the Child (n = 274 PHRs) 2% 28% 42% 23% 4% Child Health and Well Being (n = 275 PHRs) 4% 20% 47% 27% 3% Child Education (n = 271 PHRs) 3% 23% 49% 22% 4% Overall PHR Rating (n = 270 PHRs) < 1% 19% 53% 24% 3%

101 The sample sizes (n ) reflect the number of PHRs. Sample sizes differ because some sections of the PHRs were not applicable for all children given the particular circumstances of the case and due to a small number of instances of missing data. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

| 95 | One Child’s Story: Margaret

One Child’s Story: Margaret

Child’s Age: 15 years old Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 3 years Current Permanency Goal: Return to Parent

Margaret, 15, shares a strong bond with her mother and an occasionally strong desire to be reunited. But the two also share a very volatile relationship, and both struggle with mental health and behavioral issues that have kept them apart during Margaret’s most recent placement in foster care, which has lasted three years.

Margaret is the only child of a single mother who has a long history of struggles with alcoholism, drug abuse, and serious mental illness. Margaret has frequently taken on the role of the parent, having to take care of her mother. She has been placed in foster care twice—most recently at the age of 12 due to excessive corporal punishment. While Margaret’s maternal aunt has been involved in her care and is a strong presence in her life, neither she nor other family members were able to serve as placement resources for her. Margaret has no contact with her father.

After re-entering foster care, Margaret was hospitalized briefly due to depression and suicidal ideation and then placed in residential care for almost a year. Margaret reportedly liked residential care and didn’t want to leave, but in an effort to secure a family for her, she was referred to therapeutic foster care.

Margaret has lived in five different foster homes over the past year and had three different caseworkers during the past two years. Foster parents describe her as oppositional and defiant; she does not obey the rules and has run away on numerous occasions, ultimately resulting in the disruption of her placements. Margaret does not like anyone telling her what to do. She also struggles with her peer relationships, but is not willing to consistently attend counseling.

Due to her multiple placement moves and her truancy, Margaret has missed quite a bit of school and, while she gets by in some of her classes, she is at risk of not graduating. She participates in group tutoring in reading, but it is reportedly not meeting her needs—and though she has informed her current caseworker, there is no documentation showing that the caseworker has referred her for an educational assessment or individual help.

Margaret’s mother entered a residential drug treatment center and has worked hard to get clean. She became drug-free, secured a job at a restaurant, completed all required services, and was allowed to visit Margaret unsupervised overnight at Margaret’s aunt’s home. At that point, Margaret was eager to return home to her.

But a trial discharge to her mother ended when they got into a physical altercation, and her mother relapsed around the same time. Margaret returned to foster care and currently lives in a foster home. In spite of the strength of her attachment to her mother, Margaret wavers back and forth in her desire to return home.

| 96 | One Child’s Story: Margaret

Barriers to Permanency

Margaret’s mother’s drug relapse and difficulty obtaining housing—and the foster care agency’s failure to adequately address the mental health needs and relationship issues of both mother and daughter—have delayed Margaret’s return home.

A recent psychological assessment diagnosed Margaret with oppositional defiant disorder, personality disorder, and depression, but the most recent psychiatric assessment on file dates back more than two years, and Margaret is not receiving treatment.

Additionally, despite the longstanding and ongoing conflicts between Margaret and her mother— and recommendations from the Court and the psychologist for family therapy—Margaret’s foster care agency was slow to make this much-needed referral.

Margaret’s mother did finally obtain housing, but, since her relapse, was required to finish her drug treatment program before reunification could be considered. There are differing views about Margaret’s current foster home. While this is the longest she has ever stayed in one placement, the foster mother reportedly does not require her to go to school and does not show up at family team conferences, and there are conflicting reports regarding whether she supports the plan to return Margaret home.

Current Status

During the past year, Margaret’s mother has again turned her life around. She is drug-free and participating in services, and she has been very involved in planning for her daughter’s return home. Her relationship with Margaret has improved, and they are now engaged in family therapy, and working toward another trial discharge.

| 97 | One Child’s Story: Dora

One Child’s Story: Dora

Child’s Age: 14 Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 6 years Current Permanency Goal: Adoption

Dora, 14, and her two siblings have been in foster care for six years. She has been placed four times in three foster homes, spending the majority of her time in foster care in one home where she was placed on two different occasions.

Dora entered foster care due to physical violence by her stepfather and neglect by her mother. The mother’s long history with Dora’s stepfather included many incidents of domestic violence to which the children were exposed, and Dora’s brothers also suffered physical abuse. There was an initial removal order, and the children were paroled to their mother with the stipulation that she participate in services. But the children were returned to foster care when Dora’s stepfather came back into the home.

Dora’s mother had difficulty maintaining a stable income and became homeless for several periods—and largely inaccessible to case workers from the foster care agency. She did not regularly attend visits with her children, completed only some required services, and was deemed “resis- tant” by the foster care agency. In the meantime, her relationship with Dora’s stepfather ended and his whereabouts became unknown.

Fifteen months after Dora entered foster care, the foster care agency moved to terminate Dora’s mother’s rights and free Dora for adoption. Her mother was granted a suspended judgment a little more than a year later, but died of a stroke shortly thereafter.

In the meantime, Dora’s sister aged out of care and became a mother herself. She and her boyfriend tried to become an adoptive resource for Dora, but this did not work out due to housing issues.

In her teenage years and still grieving over the death of her mother, Dora began experiencing fric- tion with her foster mother of three years, who described Dora as having an attitude. Family therapy—intended to preserve the placement and the foster mother’s planned adoption of Dora—was recommended, but it never materialized, and the foster mother ultimately asked the agency to remove Dora from her home. Dora was reportedly happy to move into a new foster home, where she was reunited with one of her half-sisters. Her new foster parent plans to adopt both children.

Barriers to Permanency

Dora’s mother’s poverty, homelessness, and difficulties meeting the requirements of the case plan were barriers in the initial years of the case. Because of the bond between Dora and her mother, the Court allowed more time and directed the foster care agency to identify various services that might assist her mother in achieving the goal of reunification. When her mother died, Dora had been slated for reunification with her for almost four years.

| 98 | One Child’s Story: Dora

The ambivalence of Dora’s second most recent foster mother about adopting Dora—and her ultimate request to have Dora removed—affected Dora’s timeline to permanency and raised the question of whether the placement could have been preserved if more support and services had been provided. And while Dora’s removal from this foster home led to her reunification with one of her half-sisters, that also delayed Dora’s progress toward permanency; their cases were bundled together in court, and the TPR to free this half-sister for adoption was delayed due to difficulty in locating the half-sister’s father (Dora’s stepfather).

Further delays resulted when the agency was unable to locate a birth certificate for Dora (although the agency recently filed an affidavit allowing the adoption to move forward without one). And her case may also have been affected by significant caseworker turnover—with five different caseworkers assigned to it in just the past two years—and several court adjournments.

Current Status

Six years after entering foster care, Dora is living in a pre-adoptive home with one of her half- sisters. This seems to be a good and stable placement for her. Their adoption is expected to proceed, but the adoption home study has still not been completed and the adoption subsidy has not yet been determined.

| 99 | | 100 | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

HIGHLIGHTS: ADOPTION CASEWORK

• most children with a goal of Adoption had been • the most commonly documented barrier to in foster care for a long time before their perma- adoption (excluding delays related to terminating nency goals were changed to Adoption. parental rights, which are discussed in Chapter 9: 6 The mean length of time between a child Legal Proceedings in Family Court) was resource entering foster care and having his or her goal parent ambivalence regarding adoption. The next changed to Adoption was 3.1 years; the median most prevalent barriers were adoption subsidy was 2.3 years. issues and adoption placement disruptions. 6 32% of children with a goal of Adoption had been in foster care for three or more years before their • Stakeholders who participated in interviews permanency goals were changed to Adoption; and focus groups expressed concerns about 21% had been in care for four or more years the following: before their goals were changed. 6 The difficulty of finding adoptive homes for sibling groups. • the majority of the children in the sample with 6 Lack of adequate support for resource parents a goal of Adoption were living in “pre-adoptive who are committed to or considering adoption. homes.” 6 The timely completion of adoption paperwork, 6 77% of children with a goal of Adoption were including adoption subsidies and adoptive home living in prospective adoptive homes, although, in studies. 19% of these cases, the case record indicated that the prospective adoptive parent was wavering in Note: Data pertaining to Termination of Parental Rights his or her commitment to adopt the child. filings and processes are provided in Chapter 9: Legal 6 The most frequently documented adoptive home Proceedings in Family Court. recruitment efforts were agency staff speaking with children regarding adults in their lives and contacting relatives.

• Many of the foster care caseworkers and JRP attorneys interviewed for this study reported that they would like more training regarding how to speak with clients about adoption, including open adoption. Conversations between caseworkers and parents regarding voluntary/conditional surrender were documented for 40% of mothers and 30% of fathers. There was no casework documentation of a discussion about open adoption with most parents.

| 102 | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

The permanency goal for most children when they enter foster care is Return to Parent. However, for some children, efforts to reunify are unsuccessful or inappropriate and other permanent options, such as adoption, must be explored.

This chapter provides the study findings regarding casework tasks that must be completed in order to achieve the goal of Adoption, including establishing the goal, discussing options with parents regarding voluntarily surrendering their parental rights, identifying and placing children in prospective adoptive homes, and preparing to finalize adoptions.102 It should be noted that the study findings regarding termination of parental rights (TPR) processes, including the filing of TPR petitions (which is the responsibility of the foster care agency), are presented in Chapter 9: Legal Proceedings in Family Court.

Section I presents the study findings regarding how long children had been in foster care when their permanency goal became Adoption. Section II provides the study findings regarding voluntary surrender of parental rights and open adoption. Section III presents the study findings pertaining to recruiting, identifying, and placing children in prospective adoptive homes. Section IV provides the study findings pertaining to sibling groups and adoption. Section V presents the study findings regarding the tasks involved in preparing to finalize adoptions.

I. eStablishing the Permanency Goal of Adoption

The decision to change a child’s permanency goal to Adoption is typically made by the foster care provider agency and approved by the Court after a period of time during which efforts to reunify have been unsuccessful. For many children in the study sample, long periods of time passed before children’s goals were changed to Adoption. As shown in Figure 5.1, nearly a third of children (32%) were in foster care for more than three years and 21% of children were in foster care for more than four years before their permanency goal was changed to Adoption. The lengths of time it took to establish a goal of Adoption ranged from 5 months to 10.1 years. The mean length of time was 3.1 years; the median was 2.3 years.103

Only 22% of children in the study sample with a permanency goal of Adoption had that goal established within 15 months of placement.104 The 15 month mark (for children who have been in foster care continuously during that period of time), is the outer point by which the federal government, through the Adoption and Safe Families Act,105 requires that a petition to terminate parental rights be filed (with provisions for exceptions, known as “compelling reasons”). (Termination of parental rights and compelling reasons are discussed in detail in Chapter 9: Legal Proceedings in Family Court.) Typically, the child’s goal is changed to Adoption and then a termination petition is filed.

102 This study did not collect data regarding finalized adoptions. The purpose of this study was to examine barriers to permanency for children still in foster care. In any case, once a child is adopted the case record must be sealed and, therefore, could not be reviewed for the purposes of this study.

103 n = 68. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if multiple dates for establishment of the Adoption permanency goal were documented. These children’s cases remained in the study sample because the multiple dates documented were all prior to October 1, 2006, which was one of the sample selection criteria.

104 n = 74.

105 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.). ASFA requires that a TPR petition is filed when children have been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months, unless compelling reasons are documented.

| 103 | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

These long lengths of time spent in foster care before changing children’s goals to Adoption are the beginning of what is a very long adoption process for many children in New York City. Figure 5.1 provides more detail regarding the lengths of time from foster care entry to establishment of the Adoption goal for children in the sample.

Figure 5.1: Length of Time from Foster Care Entry to Establishment of Adoption Goal (n = 74)106

25% 22% 20% 20% 18% 16% 15% 11% 10% 8% 5% 5% Proportion of Children Proportion 0 15 months 15+ - 24 24+ - 36 36+ - 48 48+ -60 60+ months UTD or less months months months months Length of Time

II. Surrender of Parental Rights and Open Adoption

When the plan for the child is to be adopted, parents have the option to voluntarily surrender their parental rights. This is an extremely difficult decision for a parent to make and caseworkers need to be trained to engage parents in these sensitive discussions. As part of this process, caseworkers must also provide parents with all of the necessary information the parent needs, including information regarding “open adoption,” in order for the parent to make a well informed decision.

An open adoption can allow ongoing contact between the birth parents and the child. In New York State, the parents, the person(s) designated to adopt the child (if someone has been designated to adopt), the provider agency and the attorney for the child can enter into a written agreement that provides for ongoing contact between the birth parents and the child. It is then up to the Court to approve the surrender and the contact agreement.107

A. Voluntary/Conditional Surrender

The study collected data regarding whether there were documented discussions with parents regarding the possibility of voluntary/conditional surrender and open adoption. Figure 5.2 provides the study findings regarding documented discussions of voluntary/conditional surrender with parents. As shown in Figure 5.2 below, overall, conversations about voluntary/conditional surrender were documented for 40% of mothers and 30% of fathers. Voluntary surrender was most often discussed with mothers of children who had a goal of Adoption (57%).

106 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child had a permanency goal of Return to Parent. Children’s cases are noted as “UTD” if multiple dates were documented for establishment of the Adoption permanency goal. These children’s cases remained in the study sample because all of the dates documented for each of these children’s cases were prior to October 1, 2006, which was one of the sample selection criteria. Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

107 N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384 (McKinney 2008).

| 104 | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

Figure 5.2: Proportion of Cases in which Voluntary/Conditional Surrender was Discussed with Parents108

60% 57%

50% 40% 40% 34% 33% 30% 30% 29%

20%

Proportion of Children Proportion 10%

0 Mothers of Mothers of Mothers of Fathers of Fathers of Fathers of All Children Children with Children with All Children Children with Children with (n = 80) RTP Goal Adoption Goal (n = 50) RTP Goal Adoption Goal (n = 59) (n = 21) (n = 35) (n = 15)

B. Open Adoption

Conditional surrenders are sometimes done to facilitate an open adoption. A parent may agree to surrender his/her rights on the con- “Once [the father] dition that he/she can continue contact with his/her child. For those agreed to surrender parents where a conversation about voluntary/conditional surrender with [the] condition for was documented (as shown in Figure 5.2 above), the study collected an open adoption the data regarding whether conversations specifically about open adop- agency moved forward tion were documented. As shown in Figure 5.3 below, there was no on the mother’s TPR ”. documentation of a discussion about open adoption with most FCLS Attorney parents. Interestingly, when discussed, open adoption was discussed more often with fathers than with mothers.

Figure 5.3: Proportion of Cases in which Open Adoption was Discussed with Parents109

60% 60%

50%

40% 33% 33% 30% 20% 20% 13% Proportion of Children Proportion 10% 0% 0 Mothers of Mothers of Mothers of Fathers of Fathers of Fathers of All Children Children with Children with All Children Children with Children with (n = 32) RTP Goal Adoption Goal (n = 15) RTP Goal Adoption Goal (n = 20) (n = 12) (n = 10) (n = 5)

108 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was on trial discharge; if the relevant parent’s rights had been terminated as of September 30, 2008; or if the relevant parent was unknown, whereabouts unknown or deceased for the entire one-year review period.

109 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was on trial discharge; if the relevant parent’s rights had been terminated as of September 30, 2008; if the relevant parent was unknown, whereabouts unknown or deceased for the entire one-year review period; or if the caseworker did not discuss a voluntary/conditional surrender with the relevant parent. Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

| 105 | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

Many of the foster care caseworkers and JRP attorneys “I don’t feel qualified to talk to . interviewed for this study reported that they would like kids who are ambivalent about more training regarding how to speak with clients about adoption ..That’s clinical ..I can adoption, including open adoption. Caseworkers must make a referral to a therapist, but counsel parents, resource parents, and children regarding beyond that…” these issues, yet many noted that they are not comfortable Foster Care Caseworker doing so (more detail regarding caseworker training and level of comfort discussing open adoption and children’s “[I had] some training on youth’s ambivalence regarding adoption is provided in Chapter 4: ambivalence to adopt but it was Casework). Many JRP attorneys for children also reported too theoretical ..[The] training some discomfort discussing adoption and open adoption wasn’t provided by practitioners with their clients (more detail regarding JRP attorney train- who could really relate to the real ing and level of comfort discussing these topics is provided issues in the cases ”. in Chapter 9: Legal Proceedings in Family Court). These are JRP Attorney for Children critical conversations that need to take place in some cases and training and supervision need to address these issues.

III. recruiting, Identifying, and Placing Children in Prospective Adoptive Homes

A. Placement in Prospective Adoptive Homes

Data were collected regarding whether the resource parents for children in the study sample were asked if they would consider adopting the child. This question is relevant regardless of the child’s goal. For a child with a goal of Adoption, the child’s resource parent(s) will often be the child’s adoptive resource. For all children, including children with a goal of Return to Parent, a concurrent plan (a “plan b”) must be established.

Concurrent planning requires that alternative permanency options, including adoption, be identified, in the event that the child is not able to return home. (More detail regarding concurrent plans is provided in Chapter 4: Casework.)

For the 120 children in the study sample who were living in a foster home on September 30, 2008, 89% of their resource parents were asked if they would adopt the child.110 Clearly, this is one aspect of case practice that is frequently undertaken and documented.

Among the children with a goal of Adoption, data were collected regarding whether they were placed “Cases stall when kids get to age 11 [or] 12 .. with resource parents who planned to adopt them. People think kids [are] not adoptable, so Of the 74 children with a permanency goal of Adop- [they] leave them in care because [they] tion, 77% (57) were placed with resource parents who think [the] only option is Return to Parent said they were planning to adopt (85% of children – even if it takes 5 to 10 years ”. with a goal of Adoption who were not legally free FCLS Attorney and 72% of children who were legally free).

110 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was placed in a Residential Treatment Center; if the child was placed in a group home; or if the child was home on trial discharge on September 30, 2008. One child’s case was excluded due to missing data and another child was excluded because she only resided in a foster home for less than a month as of September 30, 2008. One case involved a child that was living in an Agency Operated Boarding Home and the house parents agreed to adopt the child. This child’s case is included in the analysis.

| 106 | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

Figure 5.4: Proportion of Children with a Goal of Adoption Placed in Pre-Adoptive Home

100% 85% 77% 80% 72%

60%

40%

Proportion of Children Proportion 20%

0 Children with Children with Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74) a Goal of Adoption, a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 27) Legally Free (n = 47)

Almost half (49%) of the 57 children placed in prospective adoptive homes were placed in these homes prior to having their permanency goal changed to Adoption. In other words, these children were placed in these homes during the time their goal was Return to Parent. Thirty-two percent of children moved to their current prospective adoptive placement after their goal became Adoption.111 For these children, the mean and median lengths of time from the date the permanency goal of Adoption was established to the date of their placement in the prospective adoptive homes were 2.2 and 2.3 years, respectively.112

However, of the 57 children placed in a pre-adoptive The Need to Support Resource Parents home, there was documentation in the case file “Sometimes I feel like my worker is my enemy rather than . in 19% of these cases that my support ”. the prospective adoptive Resource Parent parent(s) were wavering in their commitment to adopt “Kinship care is a mess ..Kinship providers need more support ”. the child. For example, the Resource Parent resource parent of one of the children in the study “Training is given by individuals who don’t have experience ... sample reported to her Trainings aren’t provided by foster parents who might under- caseworker that she was stand what we go through ”. unsure if she could handle Resource Parent the challenges that were arising due to the child’s be- “[We] need to recruit better foster parents and provide more havioral and mental health support to them ”. problems. If the necessary JRP Attorney for Children assessments and supports are not put in place, some of “Sometimes foster parents [are] not willing to adopt, especially these prospective adoptive when older kids are AWOLing or acting out ”. placements may not in fact FCLS Attorney lead to adoption.

111 Whether the child was placed in the prospective adoptive home prior to or after their goal became Adoption was unable to be determined for 19% of the 57 children.

112 n = 18. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child’s permanency goal was Return to Parent, if the child was not placed in a prospective adoptive home as of September 30, 2008, or if the child was placed in the prospective adoptive home prior to or after their goal became Adoption was unable to be determined.

| 107 | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

As noted above, the ambivalence that some resource parents feel regarding adoption may be related not only to the challenges that arise when caring for children with special needs (details regarding the mental health, medical, and developmental conditions of the children in the study sample are provided in Chapter 2: Child Health and Well-Being) but also to a lack of support from their caseworkers and foster care provider agencies. Many stakeholders, particularly resource parents and attorneys who participated in focus groups and interviews for this study, stated that many resource parents do not receive the support that they need in order to feel confident about their ability to meet the needs of the children they are caring for and whom they may be considering adopting. There is also simply more opportunity for ambivalence to emerge when legal and other bureaucratic processes drag out for years and years.

B. Visiting with Prospective Adoptive Parents

There were 17 children with a permanency goal of Adoption who were not placed in a prospective adoptive home as of September 30, 2008. Of these 17 children, two (12%) were visiting with a prospective adoptive parent at that time. No prospective adoptive home had been identified for the remaining 15 children, six of whom were living in a congregate care facility. The remaining nine children were placed in foster homes. The resource parents of four of these nine children were considering adopting the children; however, the other five children’s resource parents had been asked if they would consider adoption, but had declined.

C. recruiting Adoptive Homes

Data were collected regarding recruitment efforts for 16 children with the goal of Adoption who were not placed in prospective adoptive homes as of September 30, 2008.113 The most frequently documented recruitment efforts were speaking with the child regarding adults in their life and contacting relatives. Figure 5.5 provides data regarding documented efforts to recruit adoptive homes for these 16 children.

Figure 5.5: Efforts Made to Recruit Adoptive Homes (n = 16)114

Efforts to Recruit Adoptive Homes

Adoption Stang/Conference 25% Development of recruitment plan 0% Child speciﬁc community recruitment 6% Discussion with child re: adults in child's life 56% Contacting relatives 50% Feature child on Wednesday's Child 13% Feature child in Matching Conference 0% Feature child in Heart Gallery 6% Internet listing 13% Photo listing 19% Referral to adoption recruitment agency 13% Register child with NYS Adoption Service 6% Other 44% None 13%

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Proportion of Children

113 Data were missing regarding one child who was not placed in a prospective adoptive home as of September 30, 2008.

114 Data were missing regarding one child who was not placed in a prospective adoptive home as of September 30, 2008. Proportions do not total 100% because it is possible for more than one recruitment effort to be identified per child.

| 108 | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

“Other” recruitment efforts were made in 44% of cases (n = 7), including featuring the child in an ACS Family Album; featuring the child at an adoption fair; exploring other resource parents within the foster care agency as a potential resource for the child; contacting a prior resource parent; arranging for the child to attend a “meet and greet” with prospective adoptive resource parents; and exploring a friend of the family.

IV. Sibling Groups and Adoption

Almost half (49%) of the children with a goal of “The plan was adoption by some of the [siblings’] foster parents and Adoption were part of a [there was] no plan for the [other] children in the sibling group ”. sibling group for whom JRP Attorney for Children the plan was to be adopt- 115 ed together. Stakehold- “Finding one foster parent to adopt three [children] with special ers who participated in needs is difficult ”. interviews for this study Foster Care Caseworker noted the often difficult task of finding adoptive homes for sibling groups.

V. Preparation for Adoption

Data were also collected regarding a variety of other casework tasks and issues that, if not addressed and/or completed timely, can delay the adoption process. As shown in Figure 5.6 below, the most commonly documented barrier was resource parent ambivalence regarding adoption, followed by adoption subsidy issues and adoption placement disruptions.

The “other” barriers noted in Figure 5.6 were case specific and included situations including the following: the case was transferred from one agency to another; delays in the Interstate Compact116 process; the foster parent died; a custody petition was filed by a relative; and the child’s serious mental health issues.

In order to determine whether or not a barrier existed during the one-year review period regarding many of the tasks in the figure below, there needed to be documentation in the case record indicating that a task was not undertaken or was delayed for some reason. Without this type of documentation, it was not possible to determine if some of these barriers existed. It is possible, therefore, that some of these data findings are under-represented.

115 Data were not collected regarding whether these children and their siblings were placed together in prospective adoptive homes as of September 30, 2008.

116 According to the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) “established a uniform law to provide an orderly procedure for the placement of children between jurisdictions.” There are numerous procedures that must be followed in order to determine whether or not the proposed placement in another state will meet the child’s needs and provide a safe environment for the child. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, New York State Adoption Services. Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/adopt/adopt_faq.asp

| 109 | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

Figure 5.6: Barriers to Timely Adoption (n = 74)117

Type of Barrier

NY Statewide Central Register clearance delays 3%

Adoptive home study issues 9%

Adoption subsidy issues 11%

Other paperwork delays (excludes delays ﬁling TPR petitions) 7%

Diligent search for parents not completed 1%

Surrender-related delays 7%

Resource parent's ambivalence regarding adoption 18%

Child's ambivalence regarding adoption 7%

Prospective adoptive placement disrupted 11%

Other 20%

0 5% 10% 15% 20%

Proportion of Children

It is important to note that the barrier findings in Figure 5.6 above, as with most of the other study findings, were based on the case record documentation from the one-year review period. As a result, the finding that the prospective adoptive placement disrupted in 11% of cases does not account for prospective adoptive placement disruptions that occurred prior to the one-year review period. However, case reviewers did read the entire case records that were provided for the study. Anecdotally, we can say that instances of prospective adoptive placement disruptions were seen in the earlier case records, which certainly impacted the trajectory of children’s cases and have serious implications for the emotional well-being of the children involved.

In addition to the study findings included in Figure 5.6 above, data were also collected regarding two potential barriers that are relevant only for the 47 legally free children. The Adoption Placement Agree- ment should be signed by the prospective adoptive parent and the child should be registered with the New York State Adoption Service118 within 10 days of legally freeing the child. The timely signing of the Adoption Placement Agreement was a barrier in 17% of cases and the timely registration of children with the New York State Adoption Service was a barrier in 4% of cases involving children who were legally free.

117 The New York Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment screens reports of child abuse and maltreatment, for- wards screened-in reports to local social services districts and maintains the database of perpetrators. All foster parents and prospective adoptive parents must be run through the database and “cleared” (i.e., have no history of confirmed child abuse or maltreatment). New York State Office of Children & Family Services. Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http://www.ocfs.state. ny.us/main/prevention/faqs.asp#after_report and New York State Office of Children & Family Services. Requirements to Become a Foster Parent. Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/fostercare/requirements.asp. A diligent search is defined as “The attempt to locate a missing mother, legal or alleged father, legal guardian, or responsible relative of a child placed in foster care. The purpose is to locate and involve missing parents in the planning process and to satisfy the court that adequate efforts were made to locate the parents and help the court decide how to handle notifying the parents about an upcoming court proceeding.” Welfare Research, Inc. New York State Foster Parent Manual, January 2007, p. 75. Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/ publications/Pub5011%20NYS%20Foster%20Parent%20Manual.pdf. Proportions do not total 100% because it is possible for more than one recruitment effort to be identified per child.

118 The New York State Adoption Service administers the child photolisting process, provides information and referral assistance on adoption and foster care to parents and professionals, reviews adoption subsidy requests, and provides adoption technical assistance, among other responsibilities. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, Division of Development & Prevention Services, New York State Adoption Service. About New York State Adoption Service. Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/adopt/ services.asp

| 110 | CHAPTER 5: ADOPTION CASEWORK

Many stakeholders spoke about these barriers to adoption, including delays due to child and resource parent ambivalence, recruiting adoptive families for siblings groups, and adoption paperwork.

It is important to note that Figure 5.6 does not include barriers regarding the filing of TPR petitions or the length of time it took TPR cases to move through the Family Court system, which were substantial. Detailed findings regarding TPR processes are provided in Chapter 9: Legal Proceedings in Family Court.

Barriers to Adoption

“The child is ambivalent about adoption… the child was with a [resource parent] who was moving towards adopting but [there was an] incident… so [I] decided the foster parent was not prepared to meet [the child’s] needs ..I haven’t spoken with my supervisor yet about what to do about this case ..We don’t have an adoptive resource and I have emergencies in my other cases that come first ..The caseloads are too high ”. Foster Care Caseworker “Agencies don’t begin the work that is necessary to complete an adoption until the TPR is done ”. Family Court Judge “It took three years to adopt a child even though the child’s parents and relatives were not in the picture ..[I don’t] understand why it took so long ”. Resource Parent “[The case is] no closer to adoption today than [the] case was three years ago ”. JRP Attorney for Children

| 111 | One Child’s Story: Peter

One Child’s Story: Peter

Child’s Age: 7 years old Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 21⁄2 years Current Permanency Goal: Return to Parent

Peter is a seven-year-old boy who entered foster care at the age of four with his older brother and younger sister following allegations that their mother provided inadequate shelter and guardianship. Peter’s mother has been diagnosed with depression and mental retardation. His father was incarcerated after he violently assaulted their mother. The couple reunited following his incarceration, but later separated, and orders of protection have been issued requiring the father to stay away from the mother.

Peter and his brother and sister all have special needs. Peter requires constant supervision and intervention due to his moderate mental retardation, significant mental health issues, and developmental delays. Now in the second grade, his current educational setting appears to be meeting his special needs, and his foster mother has been a diligent educational and therapeutic advocate on his behalf. But delays in referring Peter and his family members for badly needed services have left Peter in foster care for two and a half years.

In their first six months in care, Peter and his sister were placed together in three different foster homes. They have remained in the third foster home and their foster mother is willing to adopt them should they be freed for adoption.

Barriers to Permanency

Although Peter’s father participated in parenting classes, the caseworker failed to identify other critical services—including substance abuse treatment and family therapy—to help the father manage the children’s many special needs. Peter’s mother has not completed most of the services offered to her.

There have been significant delays in referring Peter to the Bridges to Health program, completing needed educational assessments, and securing the necessary consents for surgery to treat a “lazy eye.” There was no documentation of concurrent planning in this case; all planning has been geared toward the goal of family reunification.

There was also no documentation indicating that the foster care agency sought a sexual abuse evaluation for Peter’s brother—despite documentation stating that he victimized Peter and his sister in the past—and there was no documentation of support provided to Peter’s foster mother to help her effectively manage the children’s special needs.

The vast majority of information about this case was gleaned from the third-party documents (i.e., documents not prepared by the foster agency) included in the case record because the foster care agency progress notes, Family Assessment and Service Plans, and Permanency Hear- ing Reports included very little information. The validity of the foster care agency documentation that did exist was questionable; several visits were summarized and, for example, one paragraph had simply been cut and pasted over and over again. The documentation also gave short shrift to significant issues and crises by reducing them to one-line progress notes with no further explanation or follow-up.

| 112 | One Child’s Story: Peter

The foster care agency has not moved toward terminating the rights of Peter’s parents. His mother is represented by a strong legal advocate and the Court has continued to order services toward the goal of reunification.

Current Status

Peter’s mother is currently homeless and continues to refuse the counseling and medication required by her case plan. Peter’s father was incarcerated again, and though he filed for custody of all three children following his release, he subsequently became homeless again and stopped attending visits with his children. Peter’s permanency goal remains Return to Parent, pending his father obtaining housing and resuming visits.

| 113 | | 114 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

HIGHLIGHTS: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

• although a majority of children received the ex- • most fathers (of children not legally free for pected number of contacts with their caseworkers adoption) did not receive the expected number of during the one-year review period, many children contacts with their caseworkers and fathers were did not. less likely than mothers to have contact with their 6 39% of children did not receive the expected caseworkers. number of caseworker contacts. 6 94% of fathers did not receive the expected num- 6 More than half (54%) of children experienced at ber of caseworker contacts; 54% did not have least two consecutive months without being seen any documented caseworker contacts during the by their caseworker. one-year review period. 6 Children with a goal of Adoption were less likely 6 The most frequently documented barriers to to receive the expected number of caseworker caseworker-father contact was a lack of docu- contacts than children with a goal of Return to mented caseworker efforts to schedule contact Parent. with the father, followed by the father’s where- 6 The most frequently identified barriers to case- abouts being unknown and the father canceling/ worker-child contact were a lack of documented missing scheduled contacts. caseworker efforts to schedule contact with the child and the child’s resource parent canceling/ • caseworkers were less likely to have contacts with missing a scheduled contact. parents of children with a goal of Adoption than with parents of children with a goal of Return to • most mothers (of children in the sample who Parent. were not legally free for adoption) did not receive the expected number of contacts with their case- • approximately half of resource parents received workers. the expected number of caseworker contacts. 6 84% of mothers did not receive the expected Non-kinship resource parents were more likely number of caseworker contacts; 11% did not have to receive the expected number of caseworker any caseworker contacts during the one-year contacts than kinship resource parents. review period. 6 Children living in kinship foster homes were less 6 The most frequently identified barriers to case- likely than children living in non-kinship homes worker-mother contact was the mother cancel- to have resource parents who received the ing/missing a scheduled contact, followed by a expected number of caseworker contacts during lack of documented caseworker efforts to sched- the one-year review period. Half of non-kinship ule contact with the mother and the mother’s resource parents received the expected number whereabouts being unknown. of caseworker contacts, compared to only 30% of kinship resource parents. 6 In fact, resource parents voiced the concern that kinship resource parents receive less support from caseworkers than non-kinship resource parents.

| 116 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

Foster care caseworkers are required to have regular face-to-face contact with children in foster care, parents, and resource parents or child care workers (depending on whether children are placed in foster homes or congregate care facilities). The primary purpose of these contacts is to ensure the safety and well-being of the children, to engage families in planning for their children, to assess the strengths and needs of all family members and caregivers, and to address the needs of all family members and caregivers in order to move children out of foster care and into permanent homes.

This study collected data regarding the number of documented contacts during the one-year review period between caseworkers and children in foster care, caseworkers and parents, caseworkers and resource parents, and caseworkers and child care workers (when children were placed in congregate care facilities). Data were also collected regarding the barriers to having contact during the one-year review period. Contacts made by foster care agency staff—including the caseworker, case planner (if different from the caseworker), case associate, socio-therapist, or supervisor—were “counted” if they were documented in the case record.

Typically, the documentation of contacts in the case record were brief and contained physical descriptions of the home and the child (e.g., “child was appropriately dressed for the weather”), whether or not safety concerns were identified, and brief excerpts of conversations that focused on concrete concerns (e.g., whether or not the child was eating and sleeping well or whether the parent was or was not attending a particular service). However, the documentation often lacked detail regarding the purpose of the contacts, the discussions that were held, and the observations and assessments of the caseworker. Documentation regarding discussions of the issues and concerns that were keeping the child in foster care and whether or not progress was being made was rarely seen.

The findings regarding the frequency of contacts are reported as a proportion of the number of contacts expected over the one-year period, given the ACS standard for each type of contact.119 For example, ACS policy requires monthly contact between caseworkers and children in foster care.120 A child who had 10 “applicable months” during the one-year period would be expected to have 10 contacts with her caseworker during that time (10 months x 1 contact per month = 10 expected contacts). Therefore, if the caseworker had 10 contacts with this child, the caseworker completed 100% of his or her expected contacts (10 = 100% of 10 expected contacts). If, however, the caseworker had only five contacts with this child during those 10 months, the caseworker had only 50%, or half, of the expected contacts with this child (5 = 50% of 10 expected contacts).

When interpreting the data, it is important to bear in mind that just because a caseworker met or exceeded the expected number of contacts during the one-year review period, does not necessarily mean that the caseworker met the ACS policy requirement for contacts. As noted above, ACS policy requires monthly caseworker contact with the child. Using the example above, the child who had ten applicable months and 10 contacts with his or her caseworker in those ten months had the total number of expected contacts over those ten months. However, if those 10 contacts took place during six of the ten

119 Analysis of the data took into account the fact that, during the one-year review period, there were sometimes circumstances in individual cases that made face-to-face contact not applicable in certain months. These circumstances included, for example, the death of a parent or a child’s absence due to a vacation with his or her foster family or attendance at sleep-away camp.

120 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. NYC ACS Best Practice Standards, Minimum Casework Contact Requirements (Effective April 2000). ACS policy requires more frequent contact during a child’s first three months of placement; however, none of the children in the study sample had been in foster care for less than three months at the start of the one-year review period. ACS policy also requires that a certain number of caseworker-child contacts take place in the child’s placement location. In this study, data were not collected regarding the location of contacts.

| 117 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

months, and the caseworker had no contact with the child during the remaining four months, then this did not meet the ACS requirement that caseworkers have monthly contact with children in foster care.

The number of contacts is reported as a proportion of the number of expected contacts due to challenges in accurately describing patterns of contact over an entire year. Case reviewers for this study recorded the date of each documented visit; however, within each case record, one consistent pattern across the entire year was rarely discernable. For example, during the course of the one-year review period, a caseworker may have had two contacts with the child in each of the first four months, then four months with no contacts, then four months with one contact in each month. Although this caseworker had 12 contacts with this child, to call such a pattern “at least monthly” disregards the four months during which there was no contact. To call such a pattern “sporadically” fails to acknowledge the frequency of contacts at the start and the end of the review period. As such, describing the number of contacts out of the total expected contacts during the period is the most descriptive level of detail reportable for these findings.

This chapter describes the findings as well as the ACS policies regarding the minimum frequency with which each type of casework contact should occur.

Section I presents the study findings regarding caseworker contact with children. Section II provides the study findings regarding caseworker contact with parents. Section III presents the study findings regarding caseworker contact with resource parents and child care workers.

I. Caseworker Contact with Children

The purpose of caseworkers having regular contact with children is to ensure children’s safety and well- being, to assess children’s strengths and needs, and to ensure that all of the children’s needs are being met. These tasks are accomplished through observation and discussions with children regarding issues related to, for example, the children’s safety, health, and well-being (as appropriate based on the child’s age and development). All of this needs to be done with a focus on developing and implementing the permanency plan for each child.

A. Frequency of Caseworker-Child Contact

ACS policy, as noted above, requires a minimum of monthly contact between caseworkers and children in foster care.121 Figure 6.1 below provides the proportion of expected contacts that caseworkers had with children, relative to the standard of one contact per month.

Sixty-one percent of all children in the study sample received all (100%) or more of their expected number of caseworker contacts during the one-year review period. Children with a goal of Return to Parent (RTP) were more likely to receive the expected number of contacts with their caseworker than children with a goal of Adoption. Seventy-two percent of children with a goal of Return to Parent and 49% of children with a goal of Adoption received the expected number of caseworker contacts. How- ever, 26% of all children received only three-quarters or fewer of the expected number of contacts with their caseworkers.

121 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. NYC ACS Best Practice Standards, Minimum Casework Contact Requirements (Effective April 2000). ACS policy requires more frequent contact during a child’s first three months of placement; however, none of the children in the study sample had been in foster care for less than three months at the start of the one-year review period. ACS policy also requires that a certain number of caseworker-child contacts take place in the child’s placement location. In this study, data were not collected regarding the location of contacts. In addition, more frequent contact is required for children in Therapeutic Foster Care; however, in these analyses, the general ACS requirement of monthly contact was used as the standard for children in all types of placements. ACS policy allows telephone or mail contact with children 18 years old or older who are attending an educational or vocational program 50 miles or more outside of New York City. In this study, telephone and mail contact were “counted” as was email contact.

| 118 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

Figure 6.1: Proportion of Caseworker-Child Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts122

80% All Children (N = 153) 72% 70% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 79) 61% 60% Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74) Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 27) 53% 50% 49% Children with a Goal of Adoption, Legally Free (n = 47) 41% 40%

30% 22%22%21% 22% Proportion of Children Proportion 20% 15% 16% 16% 11% 13% 13% 9% 10% 11% 10% 7% 3%3% 3% 4% 4% 0% 0 more than zero to 1/4 more than 1/4 to 1/2 more than 1/2 to 3/4 more than 3/4 up to, 100% or more of of expected of expected number of expected number but not including, expected number number of contacts of contacts of contacts 100% of expected of contacts number of contacts Proportion of Expected Caseworker-Child Contacts Documented

In addition to the number of caseworker contacts each child had, data were also collected regarding the number of months during the one-year review period during which the caseworker had no contact with the child. Eighty-six percent of children experienced at least one month without any documented contact with their caseworker. More than half of children (54%) experienced at least two consecutive months without being seen by their caseworkers.

B. Barriers to Caseworker-Child Contact

Figure 6.2 shows the frequencies with which specific barriers to contacts were identified. The most common barrier was a lack of documented efforts made by the caseworker to schedule contact with the child (with no rationale documented as to why scheduling contact would not be appropriate) (69%). The second most common barrier was the resource parent or child care worker canceling or missing a scheduled contact between the caseworker and the child (22%).

122 Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding.

| 119 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

Figure 6.2: Barriers to Caseworker-Child Contact123 124 125 Proportion of Children All Children Children Children with a Goal of Adoption Barrier to (N = 153) with a Goal All Children Children Children Caseworker-Child of RTP with a Goal Not Legally Legally Contact (n = 79) of Adoption Free for Free for (n = 74) Adoption Adoption (n = 27) (n = 47) Lack of documented efforts made 69% 67% 70% 70% 70% by the caseworker to schedule contact Resource parent/child care worker 22% 18% 26% 33% 21% canceled/missed scheduled contact Child canceled/missed scheduled 8% 11% 4% 0% 6% contact Child incarcerated, hospitalized, 7% 4% 9% 0% 15% or in an inpatient treatment program during part or all of the review period Caseworker canceled/missed 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% scheduled contact Child AWOL/missing for part of 4% 5% 3% 0% 4% the review period Child refused to have contact 2% 3% 1% 0% 2% Resource parent/child care worker 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% refused to facilitate contact Unable to determine barrier124 1% 0% 3% 0% 4% No barrier125 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%

Regarding caseworker contacts with children, resource parents who par- “Home visits are workable, [I] see kids every month ”. ticipated in focus groups for this study Foster Care Caseworker reported that caseworkers often do not “get to know” the children, speak with “Caseworkers [have]… high caseloads [and they] children enough, or really know what can’t [always] meet with kids ”. the children need. JRP Attorney for Children

II. Caseworker Contact with Parents

The purpose of caseworkers having regular contact with the parents of children in foster care is to develop a working relationship with the parents, engage them in planning for their children, continually assess the parents’ strengths and needs, provide services and casework counseling on an ongoing basis,

123 Proportions may exceed 100% as it was possible to identify more than one barrier per child’s case.

124 “Unable to determine barrier” was selected when the barrier could not be determined based on the case documentation. This definition applies to this figure and subsequent figures showing barriers to caseworker contacts.

125 “No barrier” was selected when case reviewers determined that no barrier was present. This definition applies to this figure and subsequent figures showing barriers to caseworker contacts.

| 120 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

and continually assess progress and the possibility of children returning home safely. All of this needs to Proportion of Children be done with a focus on developing and implementing the permanency plan for each child that includes an assessment of future risk if the child were to be reunited with his or her family. All Children Children Children with a Goal of Adoption Barrier to (N = 153) with a Goal All Children Children Children 126 Caseworker-Child of RTP ACS policy requires that caseworkers have contact with parents twice per month. This standard was with a Goal Not Legally Legally Contact (n = 79) used as the basis for assessing performance on caseworker contacts with parents. of Adoption Free for Free for (n = 74) Adoption Adoption (n = 27) (n = 47) A. Frequency of Caseworker-Mother Contact Lack of documented efforts made 69% 67% 70% 70% 70% Figure 6.3 provides the proportion of documented contacts between caseworkers and mothers dur- by the caseworker to schedule ing the one-year review period relative to the expected number of contacts, given the ACS minimum contact standard of two contacts per month. Resource parent/child care worker 22% 18% 26% 33% 21% canceled/missed scheduled contact Only 16% of mothers had all (100%) or more of the expected number of contacts with their casework- Child canceled/missed scheduled 8% 11% 4% 0% 6% ers. In addition, more than one-third of mothers (36%) had one-quarter or fewer of the expected num- contact ber of contacts, including 11% who had no contact with their caseworkers. Child incarcerated, hospitalized, 7% 4% 9% 0% 15% or in an inpatient treatment Figure 6.3: Proportion of Caseworker-Mother Contacts Relative to Expected Number of program during part or all of the Contacts127 review period Caseworker canceled/missed 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% All Children, Not Legally Free (n = 101) scheduled contact 50% 48% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 78) Child AWOL/missing for part of 4% 5% 3% 0% 4% Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 23) the review period 40% 30% Child refused to have contact 2% 3% 1% 0% 2% 30% 25% Resource parent/child care worker 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 22% 21% 20% 18% 17% 17% 17% 17% 18% refused to facilitate contact 15% 16% 11% 124 10% Unable to determine barrier 1% 0% 3% 0% 4% of Children Proportion 5% 4% 0% 0% No barrier125 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 0 zero contacts more than more than more than more than 3/4 100% or more of zero to 1/4 of 1/4 to 1/2 of 1/2 to 3/4 of up to, but not expected number expected number expected number expected number including, 100% of contacts of contacts of contacts of contacts of expected number of contacts Proportion of Expected Caseworker-Mother Contacts Documented

126 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. NYC ACS Best Practice Standards, Minimum Casework Contact Requirements (Effective April 2000). The ACS minimum requirement that caseworkers have contact with parents twice per month applies only to cases with a “History of CPS Indication.” In cases with no history of CPS indication, caseworker-parent contacts are required twice per month for the first three months and once per month thereafter. In this study, data were not collected regarding whether or not cases involved a history of CPS indication; however, 148 children in the sample were placed in foster care pursuant to a court remand order. It is possible that the five remaining children in the study sample that were placed voluntarily by their parent(s) did not have a history of CPS indication. It is also possible that some or all of the five voluntary cases did involve a history of CPS indication. Regard- ing caseworker-mother contact, two of these five voluntary cases had more than 100% of the expected number of contacts and three had less than one-quarter of the expected number of contacts based on a 12 contacts per year analysis. Regarding caseworker-father contact, one of these cases had three-quarters of the expected number of caseworker-father contacts, one case had one-quarter of the expected number, and two cases had zero contacts based on a 12 contacts per year analysis. (One child’s case was excluded from this analysis because the father was unknown.) These five cases are included in Figure 6.3 regarding mothers and Figure 6.5 regarding fathers, using the twenty four times per year standard.

127 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free for adoption; if the mother’s parental rights had been terminated as of September 30, 2008; or if the mother was deceased or deported during the entire review period.

| 121 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

In addition to the number of caseworker-mother contacts during the one-year review period, data were also collected regarding the number of months during which the caseworker had no contact with the child’s mother. Ninety-one percent of mothers had at least one month without contact with their caseworker and 41% of mothers had no contact with their caseworker documented in more than half of their applicable months.128

B. Barriers to Caseworker-Mother Contact

Figure 6.4 shows the frequency with which specific barriers to contacts between caseworkers and mothers were identified. The most common identified barriers were the mother canceling or missing a scheduled contact (60%), followed by a lack of documented efforts made by the caseworker to schedule contact (with no rationale documented as to why scheduling contact would not be appropriate) (53%).

Figure 6.4: Barriers to Caseworker-Mother Contact129 Proportion of Children All Children, Children with a Children with a Barrier to Caseworker-Mother Contact Not Legally Free Goal of RTP Goal of Adoption, (n = 101) (n = 78) Not Legally Free (n = 23) Mother canceled/missed scheduled contact 60% 60% 61% Lack of documented efforts made by the 53% 54% 52% caseworker to schedule contact Mother’s whereabouts were unknown for part 20% 10% 52% or all of the review period Mother refused contact with caseworker 15% 13% 22% Mother incarcerated, hospitalized, or in 7% 3% 22% other inpatient treatment for part or all of the review period Caseworker canceled/missed scheduled contact 3% 4% 0% No barrier 5% 6% 0%

C. Frequency of Caseworker-Father Contact

Figure 6.5 provides the proportion of contacts between caseworkers and fathers documented during the one-year review period relative to the expected number of contacts, given the ACS standard of two contacts per month. Documented contacts with fathers were extremely infrequent, and less frequent than contacts with mothers. More than half of fathers (54%) had no documented contact with their caseworkers and another third (32%) had more than zero but less than half the number of expected contacts.

128 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free for adoption; if the mother’s parental rights had been terminated as of September 30, 2008; or if the mother was deceased or deported during the entire review period.

129 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was legally free for adoption; if the mother’s parental rights had been terminated as of September 30, 2008; or if the mother was deceased or deported during the entire review period. Proportions may exceed 100% as it was possible to identify more than one barrier per child’s case.

| 122 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

Figure 6.5: Proportion of Caseworker-Father Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts130

80%

70% 67% All Children, Not Legally Free (n = 87) 60% 54% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 66) 50% 50% Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 21)

40%

30%

Proportion of Children Proportion 20% 19% 17% 17% 15% 17% 10% 10% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% 3% 0% 0% 0 zero contacts more than more than more than more than 3/4 100% or more of zero to 1/4 of 1/4 to 1/2 of 1/2 to 3/4 of up to, but not expected number expected number expected number expected number including, 100% of contacts of contacts of contacts of contacts of expected number of contacts Proportion of Expected Caseworker-Father Contacts Documented

In addition to the number of caseworker contacts with fathers, data were also collected regarding the number of months during the one-year review period in which there were no caseworker-father contacts. Ninety-five percent of fathers had at least one month during which they had no contact with their caseworker and 75% of fathers had no contact with their caseworker in more than half of their applicable months.131

D. Barriers to Caseworker-Father Contact

Figure 6.6 provides the frequency with which specific barriers to contacts were identified. The most frequently identified barrier was a lack of documented efforts made by the caseworker to schedule contact (with no rationale documented as to why scheduling contact would not be appropriate) (42%), followed by the father’s whereabouts being unknown during part or all of the review period (37%), which was more common in cases involving children with a goal of Adoption than in cases involving children with a goal of Return to Parent.

130 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free for adoption; if their father’s parental rights had been terminated as of September 30, 2008; or if their father was unknown, deceased, or deported during the entire review period.

131 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free for adoption; if their father’s parental rights had been terminated as of September 30, 2008; or if their father was unknown, deceased, or deported during the entire review period.

| 123 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

Figure 6.6: Barriers to Caseworker-Father Contact132 Proportion of Children All Children, Children with a Children with a Barrier to Caseworker-Father Contact Not Legally Free Goal of RTP Goal of Adoption, (n = 87) (n = 66) Not Legally Free (n = 21) Lack of documented efforts made by the 42% 48% 24% caseworker to schedule contact Father’s whereabouts were unknown for part or all 37% 34% 48% of the review period Father canceled/missed scheduled contact 20% 22% 14% Father refused contact with caseworker 16% 12% 29% Father incarcerated, hospitalized, or in other inpa- 15% 11% 29% tient treatment for part or all of the review period Unable to determine barrier 1% 2% 0% No barrier 1% 2% 0%

E. Comparison of Caseworker Contact with Mothers to Caseworker Contact with Fathers

Although most parents did not have the expected number of contacts with their caseworkers, as shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.5 above, overall, caseworkers had contact with mothers more frequently than they did with fathers. For example, as shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.5, 16% of mothers and 6% of fathers met or exceeded the expected number of caseworker contacts during the review period. The lack of engagement and involvement of fathers is evident in the frequency of caseworker-father contacts and in the finding that one of the most common barriers to caseworker-father contact was fathers’ whereabouts being unknown during the review period. These results are concordant with our findings throughout the study that fathers were less engaged by caseworkers and less involved in case planning than were mothers (more detail regarding casework with mothers and fathers is provided in Chapter 4: Casework).

F. Comparison of Caseworker Contact with Parents of Children with a Goal of Return to Parent and Parents of Children with a Goal of Adoption

ACS policy for contacts with parents applies to all cases in which children are not legally free for adoption. However, the data indicate that caseworker contact with parents is more frequent when the goal is Return to Parent than when the goal is Adoption (and the child is not legally free). In addition to the barrier data provided in Figures 6.4 and 6.6 above, this finding may reflect that some parents of children whose goal is Adoption were less engaged and less involved in the casework process before the child’s goal was changed to Adoption, which may have contributed to the decision to change the goal.

132 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free for adoption; if their father’s parental rights had been terminated as of September 30, 2008; or if their father was unknown, deceased, or deported during the entire review period. Proportions may exceed 100% as it was possible to identify more than one barrier per child’s case.

| 124 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

Stakeholders identified infrequent caseworker contacts with parents “Throughout this whole time they were supposed to do as a barrier to permanency. Ad- house visits; no one ever showed up to my house ..Never .. ditionally, some parents stated that They came to my house once when my son was coming they do not see their caseworkers over for a weekend ..That’s when they started coming over as often as they would like to and the house, and checking the closets, checking my cabinets ”. some caseworkers stated they do Parent not have the time or the energy to provide the type of face-to-face “I do late [or] weekend visits if needed ”. casework counseling that they Foster Care Caseworker should. These contacts are critical in order to develop and execute a “Sometimes caseworkers make visits when they are too plan for solving problems, ad- tired, too spent, and they have no mental energy ”. dressing concerns, and achieving Foster Care Caseworker permanency for children.

III. Caseworker Contact with Resource Parents and Child Care Workers

The purpose of caseworkers having regular contacts with resource parents and child care workers (for children placed in congregate care facilities) is to ensure that the child is safe in his or her placement and to discuss the child’s adjustment, functioning, and needs in all aspects of the child’s life, including in the home, in school (when applicable), and in the community. The caseworker should also engage resource parents and child care workers in working towards achieving permanency for the child, regardless of the child’s permanency goal. Caseworkers should engage resource parents in supporting parents toward the goal of reunification and assessing their own ability and willingness to become a permanent home for the child if returning home is not possible.

A. Frequency of Caseworker-Resource Parent/Child Care Worker Contact

ACS policy requires a minimum of monthly contact between caseworkers and resource parents/child care workers.133 Performance on caseworker-resource parent/child care worker contacts was assessed against this standard.

Caseworker contacts with resource parents and child care workers (if the child was placed in a congregate care facility) were analyzed for all children in the sample except those who were home on trial discharge during the entire review period. Figure 6.7 provides the proportion of expected contacts made by the caseworker with the resource parent or child care worker (hereafter referred to as “caseworker- caregiver contact”) during the one-year review period.

Just less than half of caregivers (49%) had all (100%) or more of the expected number of contacts with their caseworkers. Fifty-four percent of caregivers of children with a goal of Return to Parent and 43% of caregivers of children with a goal of Adoption had the expected number of caseworker contacts.

133 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. NYC ACS Best Practice Standards, Minimum Casework Contact Requirements (Effective April 2000). ACS policy requires more frequent contact during a child’s first three months of placement; however, none of the children in the study sample had been in foster care for less than three months at the start of the one-year review period.

| 125 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

Figure 6.7: Proportion of Caseworker-Caregiver Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts134

All Children (n = 146) Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 72) 60% Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74) 54% 49% 50% Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 27) 47% 43% Children with a Goal of Adoption, Legally Free (n = 47) 40% 37%

30% 25% 26% 23% 22% 23% 20% 21% 20% 19% 19% 14%

Proportion of Children Proportion 8% 10% 6% 6% 7% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0 zero contacts more than more than more than more than 3/4 100% or more of zero to 1/4 of 1/4 to 1/2 of 1/2 to 3/4 of up to, but not expected number expected number expected number expected number including, 100% of of contacts of contacts of contacts of contacts expected number of contacts Proportion of Expected Caseworker-Caregiver Contacts Documented

In addition to the number of caseworker-caregiver contacts, data were collected regarding the number of months during the one-year review period during which caseworkers had no contact with caregivers. Eighty-six percent of children experienced at least one month during which their caseworkers had no contact with their resource parent or child care worker, and 16% of children had no caseworker-caregiver contact in more than half of their applicable months.135

B. Barriers to Caseworker-Caregiver Contact

Figure 6.8 provides the frequency with which specific barriers were identified. The most frequently identified barrier was a lack of documented efforts made by the caseworker to schedule contact (with no rationale documented as to why scheduling contact would not be appropriate) (65%), followed by the resource parent or child care worker canceling or missing a scheduled contact (23%).

134 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were on trial discharge for the entire review period (includes two children who were on trial discharge starting the first week of the review period) or if data were missing regarding caseworker-caregiver contacts.

135 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were on trial discharge for the entire review period (includes two children who were on trial discharge starting the first week of the review period) or if data were missing regarding caseworker-caregiver contacts.

| 126 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

Figure 6.8: Barriers to Caseworker Contact with Caregivers136

Proportion of Children All Children Children Children with a goal of Adoption Barrier to (n = 146) with a Goal All Children Children Children Caseworker-Caregiver of RTP with a Goal Not Legally Legally Contact (n = 72) of Adoption Free for Free for (n = 74) Adoption Adoption (n = 27) (n = 47) Lack of documented efforts made by 65% 65% 65% 67% 64% the caseworker to schedule contact Resource parent/child care worker 23% 18% 27% 30% 26% canceled/missed scheduled contact Resource parent/child care worker 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% refused to have contact Caseworker canceled/missed 3% 1% 4% 4% 4% scheduled contact Unable to determine barrier 3% 3% 4% 0% 6% No barrier 17% 18% 16% 15% 17%

C. Comparison of Contact by Type of Caregiver

Resource parents who participated in focus groups for this study said they believed that kinship resource families receive less support from caseworkers than non-kinship resource families. These stakeholders reported that because the relationships between kinship resource parents and parents can be very complicated and can “turn into a big family war,” if anything, more support should be provided to kinship caregivers, not less.

As a possible indicator of whether or not kinship families receive less support, we compared the frequency of caseworker contacts with kinship resource parents to the frequency of caseworker contacts with non-kinship resource parents.137 As shown in Figure 6.9 below, kinship caregivers were, in fact, less likely than non-kinship caregivers to receive the expected number of contacts with their caseworker during the review period.

136 Proportions may exceed 100% as it was possible to identify more than one barrier per child’s case.

137 Data were analyzed regarding the proportion of expected caseworker-caregiver contacts documented for children who were only in a kinship foster home(s) or only in a non-kinship home(s) during the entire review period.

| 127 | CHAPTER 6: CASEWORKER CONTACTS

Figure 6.9: Proportion of Caseworker-Caregiver Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts, by Type of Foster Home Placement138

Children only in kinship foster home(s) the entire review period (n = 33) 50% 50% Children only in non-kinship foster home(s) 40% the entire review period (n = 48) 30% 30% 29% 27% 24%

20% 15% 10% 10% 6% Proportion of Children Proportion 3% 0% 2% 2% 0 zero contacts more than more than more than more than 3/4 100% or more of zero to 1/4 of 1/4 to 1/2 of 1/2 to 3/4 of up to, but not expected number expected number expected number expected number including, 100% of of contacts of contacts of contacts of contacts expected number of contacts Proportion of Expected Caseworker-Caregiver Contacts Documented

138 Cases involving children placed in congregate care facilities were excluded from this analysis because only nine children in the study sample were living in this type of placement during the entire review period.

| 128 | One Child’s Story: Latisha

One Child’s Story: Latisha

Child’s Age: 13 Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 11 years Current Permanency Goal: Adoption

Latisha, now 13, entered foster care at the age of two due to inadequate guardianship and supervision by her mother, who has a history of drug abuse and incarceration. After spending 10 years in the care of her mother’s cousin, the placement suddenly disrupted.

Latisha is the fourth of five siblings. All of her siblings have different fathers, and her own father’s whereabouts are unknown. Her mother has mental health problems and a long history of ACS cases involving inadequate guardianship, domestic violence, and excessive corporal punishment.

After Latisha entered foster care, her mother failed to maintain regular contact with her, did not enter drug treatment or participate in random drug testing, and did not participate in parenting skills classes, mental health evaluations, or other required services. Nevertheless, Latisha’s permanency goal was not changed from Return to Parent to Adoption for nine years. It took two additional years after that for Latisha to become legally free for adoption.

Since she entered foster care, Latisha has acted out at home and in school. She has frequently run away for long periods of time, and it is suspected that during some of her disappearances, she has been with her mother. In spite of the many years she has spent not living with her mother, Latisha maintains a strong connection to her and is not comfortable with being free for adoption.

Latisha’s ten-year stay in kinship care reportedly ended because of tensions between Latisha and other children in the home, and between her mother and her mother’s cousin, who was caring for her. The time since then has been hard on Latisha. She was shuffled between many different foster homes—including five in the past year alone. She was removed from one foster home by court order because of overcrowding. She ran away from others, and still others were unable to handle her increasingly difficult behavior. During one of her absences from her foster home, Latisha was assaulted.

Finally, six months ago, Latisha was placed in a new, therapeutic foster home, and this placement seems to be working well. Her current foster mother reportedly loves Latisha, is very patient with her, and has gotten Latisha involved in several community activities and hobbies. Latisha’s behavior has improved dramatically. She has matured and is attending therapy. And though she struggles in school, she has completed summer classes and caught up enough to be integrated into her regular grade level.

Latisha’s attorney has requested a mentor for her on several occasions, but it appears to be difficult to find a mentoring program that serves the community in which she lives. She is enrolled in the Bridges to Health waiver program.

| 129 | One Child’s Story: Latisha

Barriers to Permanency

Latisha spent a very long time in kinship care with her mother’s cousin before that placement disrupted, and though reunification efforts were unsuccessful, her permanency goal remained Return to Parent and no progress was made toward legal guardianship or open adoption.

Although Latisha’s foster care agency explored the possibility of placing Latisha with several family members and friends that Latisha had identified following her removal from the kinship care home, these efforts proved unsuccessful, either because Latisha changed her mind or because the resources were unavailable. Additionally, some of the resources lived out of state, requiring the arrangement of an interstate compact. All of these efforts took time and contributed to the ongoing lack of a stable placement for Latisha.

Additionally, despite their volatile relationship, Latisha did not want to alienate her mother. She resisted forming bonds with other families, as well as efforts to secure another family for her.

Current Status

Latisha’s stay at her current foster home has been her longest since leaving her mother’s cousin’s home. She is legally free to be adopted and she appears to be thriving, but her case record is unclear as to whether an adoption is in progress.

| 130 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

HIGHLIGHTS: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

• most children did not have the expected number • More than half (52%) of children with a goal of of visits with their mothers during the one-year Return to Parent were having unsupervised day or review period. overnight visits with their parents. However, 45% 6 83% of children (who were not legally free for of children with this goal were still, after more adoption) did not have the expected number of than two years in foster care, required to have visits with their mothers; 20% had no document- parent-child visits supervised by an agency staff ed visits with their mothers. person, resource parent, relative, or friend. This 6 The most frequently identified barrier to mother- finding raises questions about whether the require- child visits was the mother canceling/missing ment for supervision is actually still necessary in scheduled visits, followed by a lack of document- these cases and, if it is, whether the identified ed caseworker efforts to schedule visits, mothers’ longstanding safety concerns suggest that the goal whereabouts being unknown, and the resource of reunification is unrealistic. parent canceling/missing a scheduled visit. • contact between parents and resource parents is • children visited with their fathers less frequently not frequently documented. than they visited with their mothers. 6 39% of children had no documentation of par- 6 96% of children (who were not legally free) did ent-resource parent contact. When contacts were not have the expected number of visits with their documented, they were infrequent. fathers; 60% had no documented visits with their 6 Children with a goal of Return to Parent had fathers. more documented parent-resource parent con- 6 The most frequently documented barrier to tacts than children with a goal of Adoption. father-child visits was fathers’ whereabouts being unknown, followed by a lack of documented • Parents and resource parents acknowledged the caseworker efforts to schedule visits, and the importance of strong parent-resource parent col- father canceling/missing scheduled visits. laboration, and said that caseworkers needed to do more to facilitate these relationships. • children with a goal of Return to Parent were more likely than children with a goal of Adoption to visit with their parents.

• T he above findings regarding parent-child visits likely underestimate, to some degree, the number of visits that occurred during the one year-review period. More than two-thirds of children for whom parent-child visits were analyzed had case documentation that suggested more visits were occurring, but these were general notations without specific dates documented, and thus could not be included in the analysis of parent-child visits.

| 132 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

Section I of this chapter provides the study findings pertaining to visits between children in foster care and their parents. Section II provides the study findings pertaining to contacts between parents and resource parents.

I. Parent-Child Visits

Research has shown that children who visit more frequently with their parents are more likely to achieve reunification.139 Not only do visits provide the opportunity for families to maintain relationships and reduce the impact of separation, visits can also provide a safe place to improve relationships and prepare family members to once again live together. In addition, for children with a permanency goal of Adoption, parent-child visits can provide the opportunity for parents to take responsibility for the circumstances that make reunification impossible and to support the child as he/she transitions to an adoptive family. Finally, in some cases, parents will continue to have contact with the child after the child is adopted (referred to as “open adoption,” which is discussed in detail in Chapter 5: Adoption Casework), and maintaining regular and positive contact prior to the adoption can better prepare all family members for that transition.

Visiting plans should be developed in collaboration with the family and in accordance with any court orders regarding the frequency of visits and/or the level of supervision. These plans must ensure the safety and well-being of the child and should include the frequency, location, and type of supervision to be provided. The foster care provider agency is responsible for identifying the level of supervision necessary to ensure the child’s safety and well-being while at the same time giving the family the opportunity to spend time together under the most natural and unrestricted circumstances. Once it is established, the foster care provider agency is responsible for ensuring that the visiting plan is followed. In addition, visiting plans should be reviewed regularly and revised to reflect changes in case circumstances.

Data were collected in this study regarding the frequency of and the barriers to face-to-face contacts between parents and their children. This study was not designed to collect data regarding the quality of visits (e.g., rating the quality of visits). However, the documentation in the case records regarding parent-child visits and contacts between parents and resource parents, which are discussed later in this chapter, rarely described in detail what transpired during visits, what the caseworkers’ assessments were of the interaction between the participants, or how the quality of the interactions was affecting the permanency plan for the child. Typically, the documentation included a brief description of who attended, what activities the participants engaged in during visits, and any major concerns that arose. Documentation regarding the quality of the interactions, particularly positive interactions, and whether or not the family relationships were improving was rarely seen.

The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) sets child welfare policy and practice requirements at the state level, in accordance with statutory requirements. OCFS regulations

139 Hess, P. (2003). Visiting Between Children in Care and Their Families: A Look at Current Policy. New York, NY: The National Resource Center for Foster Care & Permanency Planning, Hunter School of Social Work. Retrieved August 12, 2009 from http://www. hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/visiting_report-10-29-03.pdf

| 133 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

require bi-weekly visits between parents and their children when the child’s permanency goal is Return to Parent.140 The “I think that visiting, and prob- Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) sets policy and lems that parents experience practice requirements at the local level in New York City. around visiting, is probably the Notably, ACS’ parent-child visiting guidelines requires the number one reason that children minimum frequency of visits established by OCFS but states linger in care as long as they that “it is expected and recommended that more frequent do ..The 2000 [ACS] visiting contact be arranged and facilitated. Whenever possible and guidelines were really great, and in the best interests of the child, it is recommended that vis- they just simply are not being its occur on a weekly basis…”141 In addition, the ACS policy implemented in the way that regarding parent-child visits applies not only to children with they should be ”. a goal of Return to Parent but also to children with a goal of Attorney for Parents Adoption who are not legally free.142

One hundred and six of the children in the study sample were not legally free for adoption as of September 30, 2008. Additionally, some parents were not applicable for visits (i.e., deceased parents, unknown parents, etc.). The analyses below are based on cases in which visiting was applicable.

Data were collected regarding the number of documented mother-child and father-child visits during the one-year review period.143 Findings regarding frequency of parent-child visits are reported as a proportion of the number of visits expected over the one-year period, based on the expectation of two parent-child visits each month. For example, a child who had 10 applicable months would be expected to have 20 visits during that time (10 months x 2 visits per month = 20 expected visits). Therefore, if this child had 20 visits, she had 100% of her expected visits (20 = 100% of 20 expected visits). If, however, this same child had only five visits during those ten months, she had only 25%, or one-quarter, of her expected visits (5 = 25% of 20 expected visits).

When interpreting the data, it is important to bear in mind that just because a child met or exceeded the expected number of visits over the one-year review period, does not necessarily mean that the child had two visits per month, as required by policy. Using the example above, the child who had 10 applicable months and 20 visits in those 10 months had the total number of expected visits over those 10 months. However, if those 20 visits took place during six of the 10 months, and the child had no visits during the remaining four months, then this did not meet the OCFS and ACS minimum requirement that children should visit with their parents twice each month (or, of course, weekly, as recommended by ACS).

Performance on visits is reported as a proportion of the number of expected visits due to challenges in accurately describing visiting patterns over an entire year. Case reviewers recorded the date of each documented visit; however, within each case record, one consistent pattern across the entire year was rarely discernable. For example, over the course of the one-year review period, a child may have had four visits in each of the first four months, then four months with no visits at all, and then four months with two visits in each. Although this child had 24 visits, to call such a pattern “at least twice per month” disregards the three months during which there were no visits. To call such a pattern “sporadically” fails

140 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. Commissioner’s Memorandum. Implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, Part III: ACS Best Practice Guidelines for Family Visiting Arrangements for Children in Foster Care, December 19, 2000.

141 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. Commissioner’s Memorandum. Implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, Part III: ACS Best Practice Guidelines for Family Visiting Arrangements for Children in Foster Care, December 19, 2000.

142 Email communication from the Administration for Children’s Services, November 5, 2008.

143 Data analysis of these visits took into account the fact that, during the one-year review period, there were sometimes circumstances that made parent-child contact not applicable in certain months. These included, for example, the death of a parent, a court order prohibiting visits between a parent and child, a child’s absence due to a vacation with his or her foster family or attendance at sleep away camp, or a child becoming legally free during the one-year review period.

| 134 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

to acknowledge the more frequent visiting at the start and end of the review period. As such, describing the number of visits out of the total expected visits is the most descriptive level of detail reportable for these findings.

Finally, a parent-child visit was “counted” only if the specific date the visit occurred was documented in the case record. In fact, the case records of 68% of children for whom parent-child visits were analyzed contained evidence of additional parent-child visits that were not specifically documented by date.144 For example, in these cases, documentation in progress notes, Family Assessments and Service Plans (FASPs)145 and/or Permanency Hearing Reports146 contained general statements such as, “Child has been having weekend visits with her parents since July,” or “Mother has liberal visits in the community,” with no indication of whether specific visits on specific dates actually occurred, nor any documentation in the case record regarding the quality of the visits that did occur or any issues that may have arisen during the visits. Therefore, the data presented here on the frequency of visits likely underestimate, to some extent, their actual occurrence.

A. Frequency of Mother-Child Visits

Figure 7.1 provides the proportion of documented mother-child visits relative to the number of expected visits during the one-year review period. As shown, almost one-quarter of children had more than three- quarters of expected visits. However, 83% of children had less than the expected number of visits with mothers. Eleven percent of children with a goal of Return to Parent and 53% of children with a goal of Adoption (who were not legally free) had no visits with their mothers during the one-year review period.

Figure 7.1: Proportion of Mother-Child Visits Relative to Expected Number of Visits147

60% 53% All Children, Not Legally Free (n = 92) 50% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 73) Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 19) 40% 32% 30% 24% 25% 22% 22% 20% 21% 20% 17% 14% 11% 12% Proportion of Children Proportion 10% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0 zero visits more than more than more than more than 3/4 up to, 100% or more zero to 1/4 1/4 to 1/2 of 1/2 to 3/4 of but not including, of expected of expected expected number expected number 100% of expected number of visits number of visits of visits of visits number of visits

Proportion of Expected Mother-Child Visits Documented

144 n = 92. Children were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free on September 30, 2008; if parent-child visiting was not applicable for the child; or if data were missing for the child.

145 FASPs are written case assessments and case plans that must be prepared at regular intervals in every case. More detail regarding FASPs is provided in Chapter 4: Casework.

146 Permanency Hearing Reports are written case assessments and plans that must be submitted to the Court prior to each Perma- nency Hearing. More detail regarding Permanency Hearing Reports is provided in Chapter 4: Casework. More detail regarding Perma- nency Hearings is provided in Chapter 9: Legal Proceedings in Family Court.

147 Children were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free or their mother’s parental rights had been terminated as of September 30, 2008; if their mother was deceased or deported during the entire review period; if a court order prohibited the mother from visiting during the entire review period; or if the child was on trial discharge for the entire review period (includes two children who were on trial discharge starting in the first week of the review period). Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding.

| 135 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

In addition to the number of mother-child visits over the one-year review period, data were also collected regarding the number of months during which a child had no visits with his or her mother. Eighty-nine percent of children experienced at least one month without seeing their mothers and 54% of children had no visits with their mothers in more than half of their applicable months.148

B. Barriers to Mother-Child Visits

Figure 7.2 shows the frequencies with which specific barriers to mother-child visits were identified.149 The mother missing or canceling a scheduled visit was identified as a barrier for nearly half of the children (45%). The next most prevalent barriers were: the resource parent missing or canceling a scheduled visit (14%); the mother’s whereabouts being unknown for part or all of the review period (14%); and a lack of documented efforts made by the caseworker to schedule mother-child visits (with no rationale documented as to why scheduling visits would not be appropriate) (14%).

Figure 7.2: Barriers to Mother-Child Visits150 Proportion of Children All Children, Children with Children with Not Legally a Goal of a Goal of Barrier to Mother-Child Visits Free RTP Adoption, (n = 92) (n = 73) Not Legally Free (n = 19) Mother canceled/missed scheduled visit 45% 42% 53% Lack of documented efforts made by the caseworker to 14% 12% 21% schedule visits Mother’s whereabouts were unknown during part or all of 14% 8% 37% the review period Resource parent canceled/missed scheduled visit 14% 12% 21% Mother incarcerated, hospitalized, or in an inpatient 11% 7% 26% treatment program during part or all of the review period Mother refused to visit 10% 10% 11% Child refused to visit 8% 8% 5% Lack of geographic proximity between mother and child 8% 8% 5% Child canceled/missed scheduled visit 4% 4% 5% Child incarcerated, hospitalized, or in an inpatient treat- 4% 5% 0% ment program during part or all of the review period Child AWOL/missing for part of the review period 2% 3% 0% Unable to determine barrier 5% 7% 0% No barrier 15% 18% 5%

148 Children were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free or their mother’s parental rights had been terminated as of September 30, 2008; if their mother was deceased or deported during the entire review period; if a court order prohibited the mother from visiting during the entire review period; or if the child was on trial discharge for the entire review period (includes two children who were on trial discharge starting in the first week of the review period). Data was missing for one child with a goal of Return to Parent. Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding.

149 Note that in some cases the barrier could not be determined based on the case documentation (noted as “Unable to determine barrier” on Figure 7.2 and all subsequent barrier figures). Additionally, the “no barrier” data findings in the figure below and all subsequent barrier figures reflect that case reviewers determined that no barrier was present.

150 Proportions may exceed 100% as it was possible to identify more than one barrier per child’s case.

| 136 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

C. Frequency of Father-Child Visits

Figure 7.3 provides the proportion of documented father-child visits that children had during the one- year review period relative to the number of expected visits. Visits between children and fathers were very infrequent. As shown, only 4% of children had the expected number of visits with their fathers. Additionally, more than half of children with a goal of Return to Parent (57%) and more than two-thirds of children with a goal of Adoption (68%) did not have any visits with their fathers during the one-year review period.

Figure 7.3: Proportion of Father-Child Visits Relative to Expected Number of Visits151

80%

70% 68% 60% 60% 57% All Children, Not Legally Free (n = 80)

50% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 61) Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 19) 40%

30% 20% 20% 21% Proportion of Children Proportion 20%

9% 10% 10% 5% 5% 7% 5% 5% 3% 4% 0% 2% 0% 0 zero visits more than more than more than more than 3/4 up to, 100% or more zero to 1/4 1/4 to 1/2 1/2 to 3/4 but not including, of expected of expected of expected of expected 100% of expected number of visits number of visits number of visits number of visits number of visits

Proportion of Expected Father-Child Visits Documented

In addition to the number of father-child visits over the one-year review period, data were also collected regarding the number of months during which a child had no visits with his or her father. Ninety- four percent of children analyzed had at least one month during which there were no father-child visits and 81% of children had no visits with their fathers in more than half of their applicable months.152

D. Barriers to Father-Child Visits

Figure 7.4 provides the frequencies with which specific barriers to father-child visits were identified. The most frequently identified barrier was the father’s whereabouts being unknown during the review period (40%), followed by a lack of documented efforts made by the caseworker to schedule father- child visits (with no rationale documented as to why scheduling visits would not be appropriate) (26%) and the father canceling or missing scheduled visits (21%).

151 Children were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free as of September 30, 2008; if their father was unknown, deceased, or deported during the entire review period; if a court order prohibited the father from visiting during the entire review period; if the child was on trial discharge for the entire review period (includes one child who was on trial discharge starting in the first week of the review period); or if data on father-child visits were missing. Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding.

152 Children were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free as of September 30, 2008; if their father was unknown, deceased, or deported during the entire review period; if a court order prohibited the father from visiting during the entire review period; if the child was on trial discharge for the entire review period (includes one child who was on trial discharge starting in the first week of the review period); or if data on father-child visits were missing. Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding.

| 137 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

Figure 7.4: Barriers to Father-Child Visits153 Proportion of Children All Children, Children with Children with a Barrier to Father-Child Visits Not Legally a Goal of RTP Goal of Adoption, Free (n = 61) Not Legally Free (n = 80) (n = 19) Father’s whereabouts were unknown during part or all 40% 36% 53% of the review period Lack of documented efforts made by the caseworker to 26% 30% 16% schedule visits Father canceled/missed scheduled visit 21% 23% 16% Father incarcerated, hospitalized, or in an inpatient treat- 11% 8% 21% ment program during part or all of the review period Father refused to visit 10% 7% 21% Resource parent canceled/missed scheduled visit 8% 10% 0% Child refused to visit 5% 5% 5% Lack of geographic proximity between father and child 5% 7% 0% Child canceled/missed scheduled visit 1% 0% 5% Child AWOL/missing for part of the review period 1% 2% 0% Resource parent refused to facilitate visit 1% 2% 0% No barrier 6% 8% 0%

Parents who participated in a focus group for this study discussed barriers to visits, “He went to… another foster mother… and it was fine including resource parents who do not at first ..and then, out of nowhere, he would miss bring their children to all of their sched- visits… [The foster mother] wouldn’t show up and uled visits and foster care agencies that the agency felt nothing was wrong with that ”. do not do enough to make sure that they Parent see their children as often as they should.

E. Comparison of Parent-Child Visits for Children with a Goal of Return to Parent Versus Children with a Goal of Adoption

Overall, children with a goal of Adoption (who were not legally free) had fewer visits with parents than did children with a goal of Return to Parent. In other words, despite the fact that the ACS visiting policy applies to all children not legally free for adoption—regardless of the child’s permanency goal—children with the permanency goals of Return to Parent and Adoption were not having visits with the same frequency. This finding may reflect that some parents of children whose goal is Adoption were less engaged and visited with their children less frequently before the child’s goal was changed to Adoption, which contributed to the decision to change the goal. This finding may also reflect missed opportunities on the part of the foster care agency to engage parents and facilitate visits prior to changing the goal.

F. Comparison of Mother-Child and Father-Child Visits

Although most children did not have the expected number of visits with either parent, as shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.3 above, children overall visited more frequently with their mothers than they did with their fathers. For example, as shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.3, 17% of children met or exceeded the expected

153 Proportions may exceed 100% as it was possible to identify more than one barrier per child.

| 138 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

number of mother-child visits and 4% of children met or exceeded the expected number of father-child visits during the review period. The lack of engagement and involvement of fathers is evident in the frequency of father-child visits and in the finding that one of the most common barriers to father-child contact was fathers’ whereabouts being unknown during the review period. These results are concordant with our findings throughout the study that fathers were less engaged by caseworkers and less involved in case planning than were mothers (more detail regarding case practice with mothers and fathers is provided in Chapter 4: Casework).

G. Supervision of Parent-Child Visits

In addition to the number of visits a child has with his or her parents, “There’s a lot of resistance about unsupervised visits prior the type of visits and the quality of to Fact-Finding or provision of services ..That’s really not the visits is also critical in order to what the standard should be…it is incredibly hard to main- maintain and improve the relation- tain a meaningful parent-child relationship in an ACS or an ship between the child and the agency-visiting realm, once or even twice a week, if they’re parents. lucky, over a very long period of time ..Whereas when visiting really progresses, in a way that it should, the kids come OCFS and ACS visiting policies home…I just think it’s the primary obstacle or the primary are based on the widely accepted reason why kids stay in care as long as they do .. premise that visits should occur in Attorney for Parents the least restrictive, most natural settings possible. For example, “I believe in trying to use agency resources to get families visits may take place at the foster visiting outside the office ”. care provider agency, at the foster Foster Care Caseworker home, in the parents’ home, or in the community, depending on the “[The child] wants to return to his mother who now seems case circumstances. The settings to be cooperating ..She’s gotten training in how to care for in which visits take place should be special needs children and when she gets suitable housing, child and family friendly. Both the overnight visits are to begin ”. setting and the level of supervision JRP Attorney for Children provided should offer the family the opportunity to interact naturally.

In order to ensure that the level of supervision and the location of visits are appropriate to protect the child, maintain the parent-child bond, and enhance the parent-child relationship, thorough safety and risk assessments must be completed. As per ACS policy, “the lowest level of supervision which safeguards the well-being of the child should always be chosen in order to allow the parent to resume/ assume the maximum amount of parenting responsibility possible.”154 Typically, when a child initially enters foster care visits are supervised by the caseworker. ACS policy specifies the following reasons for determining that parent-child visits must be supervised: 1. “To ensure the safety of the child;” 2. “To avoid undue influence on the child’s potential testimony;” 3. “To permit an appropriate assessment of the case situation so that planning decisions can be made;” 4. “To teach and model new parenting behaviors for parents and provide immediate feedback to parents regarding appropriate responses to children’s behaviors;” and 5. “To comply with court orders requiring supervised visiting.”155

154 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. Commissioner’s Memorandum. Implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, Part III: ACS Best Practice Guidelines for Family Visiting Arrangements for Children in Foster Care, December 19, 2000.

155 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. Commissioner’s Memorandum. Implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, Part III: ACS Best Practice Guidelines for Family Visiting Arrangements for Children in Foster Care, December 19, 2000.

| 139 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

Over time, the visiting plan should be adjusted to reflect progress made and should be developed with the participation of the family (in accordance with any court orders regarding the frequency of visits and/or the level of supervision). For children with a permanency goal of Return to Parent, this typically means that visits should be progressing “from being supervised to unsupervised, increasing in length, and supporting more responsibility on the part of the parents…”156 Common sense tells us that maintaining and enhancing the parent-child relationship in a highly controlled and supervised environment over long periods of time, regardless of the frequency of the visits, can be extremely difficult.

Figure 7.5 provides the documented level of supervision permitted for parent-child visits as of the last day of the one-year review period. As shown in the figure, 52% of children with a permanency goal of Return to Parent were having either unsupervised day visits or overnight/weekend visits with their parent(s). However, 45% of children with a Return to Parent goal were still—after two or more years in foster care—having their visits with their parents supervised by either agency staff or resource parents, relatives, or friends. This finding raises questions about whether the requirement for supervision is actually still necessary in these cases and, if it is, whether the identified longstanding safety concerns suggest that the goal of Return to Parent is unrealistic.

Figure 7.5: Level of Supervision Required for Parent-Child Visits as of September 30, 2008157 All Children, Children with Children with a Least Restrictive Visiting Not Legally Free a Goal of RTP Goal of Adoption, Environment Permitted (n = 82) (n = 58) Not Legally Free (n = 24) No visits permitted 6% 0% 21% Supervised by agency staff 27% 24% 33% Supervised by resource parent, relative, or friend 21% 21% 21% Unsupervised day visits 15% 19% 4% Overnight/weekend visits 23% 33% 0% Unable to determine 9% 3% 21%

Many of the stakeholders who participated in focus groups and interviews for this study expressed concerns about the way that visiting plans are established and the frequency and quality of visits. Some stakeholders noted that visits are sometimes granted as a reward and denied as a punishment rather than being based on what is appropriate to ensure the safety and well-being of the children involved.

Stakeholders also identified examples of visiting plans that do not ensure the safety or well-being of children. A JRP attorney who participated in an interview for this study reported that “[The mother] would not visit [the child] for months and months. When she did, she would become angry and blame him for the fact that her children were taken away.” In this case, the level and/or the quality of supervision that was being provided may not have been sufficient to protect this child from emotional harm. Resource parents who participated in focus groups also commented on this issue, reporting that caseworkers do not always supervise visits as closely as they should and that caseworkers do not always listen when resource parents report concerns about what is taking place during visits that the resource parents supervise.

156 New York State Office of Children and Family Services. Informational Letter, Family Visiting for Children in Out-of-Home Care: A Practice Paper. June 8, 2004.

157 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free or on trial discharge on September 30, 2008; if there was a court order prohibiting parent-child visits; or if no visit plan was in place due to circumstances such as a parent who was not involved in case planning. Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding.

| 140 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

Regarding the ability of visits to enhance parent-child relationships, numerous stakeholders noted the lack of adequate and family-friendly visiting spaces, and that uncomfortable visiting settings detract from a family’s ability to maintain and build on their relationships.

“[The] agency doesn’t have space to facilitate family visit space ..Sometimes [we] use [the] kitchen or conference room [which is] not child-friendly ..[It] can be frustrating to have to fix . the situation especially for… parents who are consistent in visiting… [to have] to mediate [the] situation, children running around, parents complaining ”. Foster Care Caseworker “[The] system is not supposed to be punishing parents but caseworker recommendations [are] often punitive in nature which is not fair ..[I’m concerned about the] safety of [the] child but the caseworker can sometimes be punitive especially [regarding] visitation restrictions ..[The] focus should be on reunification; parents can get discouraged and not follow through and [the] child languishes in care ”. FCLS Attorney

II. Parent Contact with Resource Parents

For many years, ACS has had an expressed commitment to the “Family to Family” model of foster care case practice, which was pioneered by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. In addition to emphasizing the importance of placing children in foster care in their own neighborhoods (neighborhood-based placements are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3: Placements), the model also emphasizes a role for foster parents in which they serve not just as temporary caretakers of the children, but also as resources for parents. The shift that has occurred in the nomenclature—using the term resource parents instead of foster parents—reflects this element of the model. The idea is to move away from the concept of foster parent as “child-saver” and move towards an approach in which the resource parent is fully engaged in working with the family and the foster care agency.

This study collected a variety of quantitative and qualitative information that reflects upon the degree to which this change in practice has been implemented and more detail is provided in Chapter 4: Case- work. The focus in this chapter is on contact between parents and resource parents, apart from contact that may occur during case conferences, which is also discussed in Chapter 4: Casework.

It is important to note that, although ACS has expressed a commitment to “Family to Family,” ACS does not have a policy regarding how frequently parents and resource parents should have contact nor does ACS currently collect data regarding how often these contacts occur.

Parents and resource parents who participated in focus groups for this study were aware of “Family to Family” concepts and had an understanding of the importance of working with one another. Resource parents reported that they had received training from their agencies about working with parents. However, both parents and resource parents stated that they typically had to take it upon themselves to reach out to one another, i.e., that the foster care agencies did not regularly take steps to facilitate these relationships.

| 141 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

A. Frequency of Parent-Resource Parent Contacts

Parent-resource parent contacts were collected for children with a goal of Return to Parent and children with a goal of Adoption who were not legally free for adoption as of September 30, 2008.158 Find- ings are reported as a proportion of the number of contacts expected over the one-year period. Because there is no ACS policy on the required number of parent-resource parent contacts per month, the proportion reported below is based on a minimal expectation of one contact per month. For example, a child who had 10 applicable months would be expected to have 10 documented parent-resource parent contacts during that time (10 months x 1 contact per month = 10 contacts). Therefore, if the child’s case record contained 10 documented contacts, her parent(s) and resource parent(s) had 100% of the expected number of contacts (10 = 100% of 10 expected contacts). If, however, this same child’s case record contained documentation of only five contacts during those 10 months, this means that her parent(s) and resource parent(s) had only half of the expected number of contacts (5 visits = 50% of 10 expected visits).

Data on parent-resource parent contacts were analyzed for 93 children.159 The overall finding is that contact between parents and resource parents was not documented frequently. Moreover, because of the way in which parent-child visits were documented, the findings described below may, in fact, undercount the frequency with which parents and resource parents interacted. Often, progress notes stated that resource parents dropped children off for parent-child visits and returned to retrieve them but did not specify whether the parents and resource parents saw each other or engaged in conversation, let alone describe the nature of the interaction and the relationship between the two. It is also possible, particularly in the case of parents who were not required to visit at the agency, that parents and resource parents were having other contacts in the community that were not documented in the case record or assessed by the caseworker.

Figure 7.6 provides the proportion of documented parent-resource parent contacts per child relative to the number of expected contacts. For almost one-fifth of children with a goal of Return to Par- ent (19%), the number of parent-resource parent contacts met or exceeded the number of expected contacts established for this analysis. Children with a permanency goal of Adoption had fewer documented parent-resource parent contacts than children with a goal of Return to Parent. In fact, in the cases involving children with a goal of Adoption, more than two-thirds contained no documentation of parent-resource parent contact. In the cases involving children with a goal of Return to Parent, 28% of cases contained no documentation of parent-resource parent contact.

158 As in the analyses of parent-child visits above, analyses pertaining to parent-resource parent contact take into account the fact that, for some children, there were months during the one-year review period in which this type of contact was not applicable. For example, children who were residing in a congregate care facility or were home on trial discharge for part of the review period did not have a resource parent during those months.

159 Children were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free as of September 30, 2008; if both of the child’s parents were either unknown, deceased, or deported during the entire review period; if the child was on trial discharge for the entire review period (includes two children who were on trial discharge starting in the first week of the review period); or if the child was placed in a congregate care facility for the entire review period.

| 142 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

Figure 7.6: Proportion of Parent-Resource Parent Contacts Relative to Expected Number of Contacts160

80%

70% 68% All Children, Not Legally Free (n = 93) 60% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 68) Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 25) 50%

40% 39%

30% 28% 25% 25% 24%

Proportion of Children Proportion 19% 20% 12% 13% 14% 10% 8% 9% 6% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0 zero contacts more than more than more than more than 100% or more of zero to 1/4 of 1/4 to 1/2 of 1/2 to 3/4 of 3/4 up to, but expected number expected number expected number expected number not including, of contacts of contacts of contacts of contacts 100% of expected number of contacts

Proportion of Expected Parent-Resource Parent Contacts Documented

Data were also collected regarding the number of months during which there was no parent-resource parent contact. Ninety-three percent of children had at least one month during which there was no documented parent-resource parent contact, and 76% of children had no parent-resource parent contact in more than half of their applicable months.161

Facilitating the type of relationships between parents and resource parents that are needed for “Family To Family” practice is either rarely occurring or rarely documented. Few contacts between parents and resource parents are documented, and written descriptions of the relationship between the parent and the resource parent were extremely rare.

Parents and resource parents who participated in focus groups for this study spoke about both the need for contact with each other and the quality of casework that is currently being done to facilitate these relationships. Parents and resource parents discussed the importance of developing a positive relationship and working together on behalf of children in foster care, and the need for more support from their caseworkers and foster care agencies.

160 Children were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free as of September 30, 2008; if both of the child’s parents were either unknown, deceased, or deported during the entire review period; if the child was on trial discharge for the entire review period (includes two children who were on trial discharge starting in the first week of the review period); or if the child was placed in a congregate care facility for the entire review period. Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding.

161 Children were excluded from this analysis if they were legally free as of September 30, 2008; if both of the child’s parents were either unknown, deceased, or deported during the entire review period; if the child was on trial discharge for the entire review period (includes two children who were on trial discharge starting in the first week of the review period); or if the child was placed in a congregate care facility for the entire review period. Proportions may not total 100% due to rounding.

| 143 | CHAPTER 7: PARENT-CHILD VISITS AND PARENT CONTACT WITH RESOURCE PARENTS

Supporting Relationships between Parents and Resource Parents

“The foster parents’ role is to help the parent learn to do better, with the help of the agency ..It’s very difficult without the support of the agency ”. Resource Parent “It’s better when the child sees that there’s no conflict between… the bio mom and the foster mom .. Because then the child won’t be confused ..Like, ‘if I like the foster mom, then my mom won’t like me, and vice versa ’…. [Also,] the bio mom can let the foster mom know the child’s likes and dislikes and the foster mom can let the bio mom know what’s going on at this time in the child’s life ”. Parent “The first meeting between parents and foster parents needs to be more carefully orchestrated .. Foster parents have to take their own initiative to reach out to biological parents ..It is not always facilitated or supported by the agency ”. Resource Parent “I begged for a parent-to-parent ..They would not allow me to [have one] ..I just tell her, “Okay, [my child] might eat macaroni and cheese ..He goes to bed at eight o’clock ”. They just kept the baby away from me ...I don’t know [the foster mother] ..That scared me ..This lady cares for my [child] ... I think I can help her better care for [my child], especially because [my child] has special needs ”. Parent “They think kinship is ok because it’s family, but it’s worse ...Kin need more support because the family relationships are so very complicated ”. Resource Parent

| 144 | One Child’s Story: Rico

One Child’s Story: Rico

Child’s Age: 14 years old Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 7 years Current Permanency Goal: Adoption

Rico, age 14, and his three siblings were removed from their parents’ home due to severe abuse and neglect. His father, who abused drugs, was incarcerated after physically and sexually assault- ing Rico’s mother and sister. All of the children struggle with mental health issues, and his siblings have significant developmental disabilities.

Rico was placed with his maternal grandmother. Services were offered to his mother, however she did not follow through with them and did not visit her children regularly.

Rico’s grandmother initially expressed her willingness to adopt him, but began struggling with his difficult behavior as he got older. His foster care agency assigned a socio-therapist to try to help stabilize the placement, but, after much wavering, his grandmother asked that he be removed from her home. Another relative out of state was identified and an ICPC was initiated.

Barriers to Permanency

It took four years before Rico’s permanency goal was changed to Adoption and a petition to terminate his parents’ rights was filed. The termination process took two more years to complete after that—and then was appealed by Rico’s mother.

Although some supports were provided to Rico’s grandmother to help her manage his behavior, neither family therapy nor parent training focused on caring for teenagers were among them. And though Rico was in therapy, there was no documentation that the foster care agency spoke to the therapist regarding his progress and possible strategies for preserving his placement with his grandmother.

Once his grandmother had finally told the agency that she would not adopt him, staff delayed discussing this with Rico, but he ultimately figured out what was happening and his behavior further deteriorated.

Current Status

Rico is still living with his grandmother. The termination of his mother’s parental rights remains on appeal and the ICPC to move him to another relative’s home out of state is still pending.

| 145 | | 146 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

HIGHLIGHTS: SERVICES

• the most common services needed by children 6 For each of these services (except transporta- were those related to mental health and education. tion), between 21% and 72% of parents needing 6 The most frequently identified service needs for the service did not receive them. children were mental health assessment, individ- 6 For parents of children with a goal of Return to ual therapy, psychotropic medication, educational Parent, the most common barriers pertained to assessment, special education services, and other parent lack of participation as well as casework- educational services such as tutoring. ers’ apparent failure to identify the need for the 6 For each of these services (except other educa- service, caseworkers’ failure to make a referral, tional services), children with a goal of Adoption or a delay in making the referral. For parents of were more likely to need the service than children children with a goal of Adoption (who were not with a goal of Return to Parent. legally free), the most frequently identified barriers to service participation were parents’ lack of • although the majority of children’s service needs participation. were met, a substantial minority were not. 6 For each service listed above, between 8% and • Stakeholders who participated in interviews 33% of children needing the service did not and focus groups expressed concerns about receive it. the following: 6 The most common barrier to children’s receipt 6 Lack of individualized service planning for par- of services was caseworkers’ apparent failure to ents. Many parents are given the same menu make the referral. of services (therapy, parenting skills, anger management, etc.). • Bridges to Health (B2H) was identified as a need 6 Service overload. Too many services are “piled for 17% of children in the sample. However, only on” without consideration of whether the 12% of children needing B2H received it. The services may be duplicative, let alone practical, most common barriers to children’s receipt of B2H given all of the parent’s responsibilities. were caseworkers’ apparent failure to identify the 6 Monitoring attendance versus progress. Case- need for the service, caseworkers’ failure to make workers focus more on evaluating parents’ atten- a referral/delay in referral, and a lack of available dance than on assessing their progress, making program slots. it difficult for judges and referees to assess the appropriateness of and progress toward the • the most common services needed by parents permanency plan. pertained to mental health, housing, income assis- 6 Lack of high quality and accessible mental health tance, substance abuse, and transportation. Large services for children and parents. proportions of parents’ service needs were not met. 6 Lack of adequate assessments of and services for 6 The most frequently identified service needs for parents with cognitive disabilities. parents were mental health assessment, individu- 6 Parents’ difficulty in securing housing as a barrier al therapy, housing assistance, income assistance, to permanency. substance abuse treatment, and transportation 6 Parents’ lack of insurance and undocumented services. immigrant status as barriers to their receipt of services.

| 148 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

When a child enters foster care, assessments of both the child and his or her parents must be conducted in order to establish a service plan that meets their specific needs. Services for parents and children should address the concerns at home that resulted in the child’s placement in foster care, the child’s trauma resulting from his or her experience of abuse and neglect and removal from home, and concerns that may arise during the child’s stay in foster care. Once the family’s service needs are identified, accessible, high quality services tailored to children’s and parents’ individual circumstances should be provided without delay.

The lack of an individualized case plan with appropriately targeted services (further detail regarding case planning is provided in Chapter 4: Casework), delay in service provision, failure to adequately coordinate services, and failure to appropriately assess progress can extend the length of time that children remain in foster care.

This chapter describes the study findings regarding the provision of services to children and parents of children in the sample who were not legally free. These data were collected regarding service provision during the one-year review period. Section I presents the study findings regarding service provision for children. Section II provides the study findings regarding service provision for parents.

I. Services for Children

Data were collected regarding services children needed and received, and barriers to receipt of those services during the one-year review period (October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008).162

A service was defined as “needed” if the case record indicated that the child or parent needed the service during the review period. Documentation of these needs was found in various components of the case record including third party (i.e., someone other than the foster care agency) clinical evaluations of children and parents, caseworker progress notes, service referrals, case conference documentation, and FASPs and Permanency Hearing Reports describing family members’ progress with respect to the programs outlined in their service plans. In some cases, when there was no explicit documentation stating that an assessment or a service was being considered or implemented but the reviewer judged, given the case circumstances, that it was necessary, the reviewer recorded that as needed as well.

A service was counted as “received” if the case record documented that the person received the service at least once during the review period. The case record review also collected data regarding barriers to children and parents receiving or participating in needed services during the review period. It is possible that the data regarding barriers underestimate the degree to which some barriers actually existed. Barriers to service participation could be “counted” only if they were indicated in the case record. Therefore, if it was not the practice of caseworkers to document certain barriers to services (e.g., “This child is currently on a waitlist for individual therapy.”), those barriers could not be captured.

Sections A, B, and C provide the study findings regarding the services that children needed, the services that children received, and the barriers to service delivery. Section D provides highlights and discussion of key findings regarding service provision for children.

162 The study did not collect data regarding individuals’ service needs prior to October 1, 2007 (i.e., services completed or no longer needed or problems resolved prior to the review period). Therefore, the findings in this chapter do not account for child or parent service needs during the child’s entire spell in foster care; rather, they represent the issues that, as of the start of the one-year review period, still needed attention.

| 149 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

A. Children’s Service Needs

Figure 8.1 shows the frequency of identified service needs for all children in the sample.163 The most common service needs were individual therapy (72% of children in the sample needed the service), mental health assessment (66%), Special Education services (50%), educational assessment (47%), other educational services (43%), and psychotropic medication (41%). With the exception of other educational services, children with a goal of Adoption were more likely to be documented as needing these services than children with a goal of Return to Parent (RTP).

Figure 8.1: Proportion of Children with Identified Service Needs164

Services 7% Early Intervention 12% 1% 47% Educational Assessment 44% 51% 50% Special Education 41% 59% 43% Other Educational Services 44% 43% 3% Vocational/GED Program 3% 4% 32% Medical Care 32% 32% 66% Mental Health Assessment 62% 70% 41% Psychotropic Medication 29% 53% 72% Individual Therapy 68% 77% 17% Bridges to Health 11% 23% 27% Independent Living Services 28% 27% 15% Family Planning 16% 14% 19% Mentoring 14% All Children (N = 153) 24% 3% Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 79) Substance Abuse Services 3% 4% Children with a Goal of Adoption (n = 74) 25% Recreational Program 23% 27% 14% Transportation Services 15% 12% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Proportion of Children

163 It should be noted that some services are relevant only for children in certain age groups (i.e., Early Intervention is a service only for children under the age of three; Independent Living services are only required for children ages 14 and older; etc.). This factor contributes to smaller proportions of children needing these services. Services on this list whose definitions are not self-explanatory were defined as follows: “Medical care” referred to care for a specific medical condition, not including routine checkups. “Recreation program” referred to standard recreational activities such as athletic programs, arts programs, after-school activity programs, Boy/Girl scouts, etc., as well as therapeutic recreation programs specifically designed for children with special needs. A recreation program was identified as a service need only if the case record indicated that the child had a particular mental health, socialization, or other special need that would warrant referral for such a program. “Other education services” referred to services to enhance a child’s learning experience, such as tutoring and homework assistance.

164 Proportions are based on either the total sample of 153 children, the 79 children with a goal of Return to Parent, or the 74 children with a goal of Adoption, except for a small number of instances in which children had missing data regarding whether or not they needed a certain type of service. For the following services, n = 152: Special Education (78 RTP, 74 Adoption); other educational services (78 RTP, 74 Adoption); medical care (79 RTP, 73 Adoption); mental health assessment (78 RTP, 74 Adoption); and individual therapy (78 RTP, 74 Adoption). For two of the services, n = 151: Early Intervention (77 RTP, 74 Adoption) and educational assessment (78 RTP, 73 Adoption).

| 150 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

B. Children’s Receipt of Services

Figure 8.2 considers the number of children who needed each service and provides the proportion of those children who received the service. The following services were documented as received by at least 75% of children who needed them: Early Intervention, Special Education services, medical care, mental health assessment, psychotropic medication, individual therapy, and transportation services. Although these services were the most likely to be received, substantial proportions of children needing these services did not receive them during the review period (e.g., nearly 20% of children needing individual therapy did not receive it during the review period).

Children were least likely to receive Bridges to Health (12% of children who needed the service received it), vocational/GED program (20%), mentoring services (21%), and substance abuse services (20%).

Figure 8.2: Proportion of Children Receiving Needed Services165

Services

80% Early Intervention 89% (n All=10; n RTP=9; n Adoption=1) 0%

Educational Assessment 72% 65% (n All=71; n RTP=34; n Adoption=37) 78%

Special Education 92% 88% (n All=76; n RTP=32; n Adoption=44) 95%

Other Educational Services 67% 65% (n All=66; n RTP=34; n Adoption=32) 69%

Vocational/GED Program 20% 50% (n All=5; n RTP=2; n Adoption=3) 0% Medical Care 96% 92% (n All=48; n RTP=25; n Adoption=23) 100%

Mental Health Assessment 84% 79% (n All=100; n RTP=48; n Adoption=52) 88%

Psychotropic Medication 89% 83% (n All=62; n RTP=23; n Adoption=39) 92%

Individual Therapy 81% 72% (n All=110; n RTP=53; n Adoption=57) 89%

Bridges to Health 12% 11% (n All=26; n RTP=9; n Adoption=17) 12%

Independent Living Services 62% 59% (n All=42; n RTP=22; n Adoption=20) 65%

Family Planning 70% 62% (n All=23; n RTP=13; n Adoption=10) 80%

Mentoring 21% 18% (n All=29; n RTP=11; n Adoption=18) 22% All Children Substance Abuse Services 20% 0% Children with a Goal of RTP (n All=5; n RTP=2; n Adoption=3) 33% Children with a Goal of Adoption Recreational Program 66% 67% (n All=38; n RTP=18; n Adoption=20) 65%

Transportation Services 95% 100% (n All=21; n RTP=12; n Adoption=9) 89% 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Proportion of Children

165 Sample sizes ( n) differ for each service because different numbers of children needed each type of service. Underneath each service label in Figure 8.2, the number of children needing the service (i.e., the number out of which the percentage is taken) is provided for all children in the analysis, followed by subsample sizes for children in the analysis with a goal of Return to Parent or Adoption. Note that for some services, children were documented as needing the services in very small numbers; findings based on these small subsamples should be interpreted with caution.

| 151 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

C. Barriers to Children’s Receipt of Services Figure 8.3 considers the total number of children needing each service and provides the frequency with which various barriers to receiving that service were identified. A positive finding is that, in many cases, children received the services they needed without experiencing barriers.

For each of the following, more than 75% of children needing the service received it without barrier: Early Intervention, Special Education services, medical care, mental health assessment, psychotropic medication, and transportation services. However, in many instances, even when a child did ultimately receive a needed service during the review period, that child experienced barriers to receiving that service.

In Figure 8.3, the shaded boxes highlight the most frequently identified barrier to children’s receipt of each service. For example, for eight of the services listed below (educational assessment, other educational services, vocational/GED program, mental health assessment, individual therapy, Bridges to Health, mentoring, and recreational program), the most frequently identified barrier to receiving the service was a lack of documentation that the caseworker had made a referral.

The outlined boxes highlight the service for which each barrier was most commonly a problem. For example, of all the services, the caseworker not identifying the need for the service was most often documented as a barrier to children receiving substance abuse services.

| 152 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

Figure 8.3: Frequency of Barriers to Children’s Receipt of Needed Services166 Barriers to Participation in Service

Service Needed sporadic the service ( n ) community cooperative Child refused Other barrier need for service Delay in referral Resource parent not parent Resource Service did not exist in Number of children needing of children Number Child’s participation was Child’s caseworker made referral caseworker Lack of documentation that Caseworker did not identify Caseworker Unable to determine barrier determine to Unable Service without barrier received Service in community existed but no slots available/Waitlist but no slots Parent refused service refused child to Parent

Early 10 80% 10% 10% Intervention Educational As- 70 61% 10% 10% 7% 3% 4% 4% 1% sessment Special 76 86% 3% 3% 1% 3% 7% 1% Education Other Educa- 66 55% 6% 20% 5% 8% 3% 3% 6% 2% tional Services Vocational/ 5 20% 20% 60% 20% GED Program Medical Care 48 85% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% Mental Health 99 80% 2% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% Assessment Psychotropic 62 76% 3% 3% 5% 3% 2% 2% 6% Medication Individual 109 60% 1% 9% 7% 6% 9% 3% 6% 1% 5% 2% Therapy Bridges to 26 12% 19% 23% 15% 12% 4% 19% 4% Health Independent Living 41 51% 2% 2% 22% 10% 2% 7% Services Family 23 61% 4% 4% 17% 4% 9% Planning Mentoring 29 14% 21% 34% 3% 3% 3% 3% 7% 3% 3% Substance Abuse 5 20% 40% 40% 20% Services Recreational 37 62% 8% 19% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Program Transportation 21 95% 5% Services

166 Percentages represent the proportion of children who needed the service for whom the barrier (or no barrier) was identified. Per- centages in each row may exceed 100% as it was possible to identify more than one barrier per service per child.

| 153 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

D. Highlights and Discussion of Key Findings

Stakeholders expressed concerns regarding the length of time it can take to obtain the necessary assessments and services for children. Parents and resource parents in particular commented that they sometimes feel that caseworkers do not listen to or value their input regarding children’s needs. Resource parents reported that caseworkers sometimes do not refer children to services in a timely way, and that they must advocate strenuously to secure the services children need.

Caseworker caseloads can also affect service provision. Caseworkers who were interviewed for this study spoke about the size of their caseloads and the prevalence of children with special needs. Several caseworkers interviewed said that their ability to manage their caseloads depends not only on how many cases they are carrying, but also on the needs of the children involved in those cases. The more complex a child’s needs, the more time a caseworker must devote to that child’s case, sometimes at the expense of other cases. For example, one caseworker said, “One of my cases involves six developmen- tally delayed children. A case like that should be shared with two workers.”

Services for Children

“I constantly kept telling [the agency to take my son] to be evaluated ..They [said], ‘Oh, there’s nothing wrong with him ’. And I’m like, ‘So you’re going to tell me, all these letters I got from teachers, all the things I’m telling you that he does, that it’s my imagination?’ . . ..I was trying to get him help, from the agency, caseworkers, everybody, even my lawyer ..I was like, ‘Can you tell the judge to send my son to an evaluation? Because… everybody thinks it’s just bad behavior but he can’t control himself ..It’s not his fault ’. Being [in] different environments, different families—that all affects these kids ..[But my son] was acting out, and they felt that it was nothing ”. Parent “You have to fight for every service ..It’s up to you as the foster parent to go and get it ”. Resource Parent “Kids are not getting permanency fast enough because [they’re] not getting assessments fast enough about their needs ”. FCLS Attorney “There’s a real issue with the quality of the services ..[With] my more complicated cases, [the problem] is… we can’t, for two years, get to the bottom of what’s going on in a case and then it takes another two years to get the very specialized services in place . . ..I had a case where, finally, [the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities] stepped in and [now] this kid’s getting what he needs, [but] it’s been two years and you can’t get to reunification until you actually understand what’s going on ”. Family Court Judge/Referee

1. Educational Assessment and Special Education Many of the children in the study sample were documented as needing education-related services. In fact, 47% of children needed an educational assessment and 50% needed Special Education services. Most of these children received these services. As shown in Figure 8.2, 72% of children needing an educational assessment and 92% of children needing Special Education services received these services during the review period. However, as shown in Figure 8.3, barriers were evident for 39% of children who needed an educational assessment, and most of the barriers were related to caseworkers not identifying the need, and caseworkers not making or delaying the referral. Most of the children who needed Special Education services received these services without barrier (86%).

| 154 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

2. Mental Health Assessment, Individual Therapy, and Psychotropic Medication Eighty-four percent of children needing a mental health assessment, 81% of children needing individual therapy, and 89% of children needing psychotropic medication were documented as receiving those services during the review period.

However, barriers to receiving these services were also evident. For example, 20% of children needing a mental health assessment, 40% of children needing individual therapy, and 24% of children needing psychotropic medication experienced a barrier to receiving these services, including caseworkers not making the referral or delaying making the referral. Regarding individual therapy, children’s refusal to participate and waitlists for the service were also a barrier in some cases.

Caseworkers and attorneys reported that there are not enough mental health services available for children. They stated that children often spend months on waitlists for mental health evaluations and therapeutic services, and that these delays can contribute to extended stays in foster care. Other stakeholders, however, raised the concern that caseworkers do not always know what sort of services actually exist for children, and that workers need to be informed not only about the services that are available from community providers, but also about programs addressing highly specialized needs provided by state agencies such as the Office of Mental Health (OMH) and the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD).

3. Bridges to Health Bridges to Health (B2H) is a program run by the New York State Office of Children and Family Ser- vices (OCFS) under a federal Medicaid waiver to provide wraparound services to children in foster care who have serious medical, developmental, or emotional disorders. This program recognizes that many children in foster care have these kinds of needs and require special attention. It is also driven in part by the concern that many children in foster care lose their Medicaid coverage (and, as a result, lose necessary services) once they exit the system. As such, B2H is designed so that a package of services is provided to the child while he or she in foster care and then remains with the child once he or she returns home or achieves permanency through adoption or guardianship. Another strength of the program is that, whereas many therapeutic interventions for children target only the child’s particular needs, B2H provides services to children as well as to their families in order to ensure that caregivers have the support they need to care for children with these serious disorders.167

B2H was identified as a need for 26 children in the sample, but only three (12%) of those children received the service during the review period. As Figure 8.3 shows, B2H was the service for which barriers were most often documented; only 12% of children received this service without a barrier. The most commonly identified barriers to receiving B2H were related to caseworker activities (i.e., caseworker did not identify need for the service, caseworker did not make referral, and delay in referral). However, B2H was also the service for which a waitlist was most often documented, which is not surprising based on the size of the program. Currently, there is funding for 720 slots in New York City; however, it is estimated that several thousand foster children in New York City may meet the criteria for this service.168 In addition, stakeholders said that the referral process and the process for approval of B2H by the State are cumbersome and should be streamlined.

167 Testimony of Gladys Carrión, Esq. Commissioner New York State Office of Children & Family Services on Agency Priorities and Budget Request, October 25, 2007. Retrieved September 4, 2009 from http://www.budget.state.ny.us/pubs/press/2007/ publicHearings/OCFS.pdf and New York State Office of Children & Family Services. (2007). Bridges to Health Helps Keep Disabled Foster Children in Community. Retrieved September 4, 2009 from http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/bridgestohealth/default.asp

168 Email communication with the Administration for Children’s Services, September 10, 2009 and McCormack, L. (2009). Trauma Treatment for Foster Kids Gets Reprieve. City Limits Weekly, 672. Retrieved August 24, 2009 from http://www.citylimits.org/content/ articles/viewprintable.cfm?article_id=3690

| 155 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

II. Services for Parents

This section presents the study findings Figure 8.4: Proportion of Parents with Identified pertaining to services for parents. ACS Service Needs, by Child’s Permanency Goal169 and the foster care agencies are required to provide services to all parents until Services 30% children are legally free, even when the Anger Management services 31% child’s goal has been changed to Adop- 28% 13% tion. Thus, this section presents data on Child Care 17% service provision to parents of children 0% 17% with a goal of Return to Parent and par- Domestic Violence Services 14% 28% ents of children with a goal of Adoption 19% (who were not legally free). Financial Management Services 21% 16%

17% Sections A, B, and C provide the study Homemaking Services 20% 6% findings regarding the services that par- 68% ents needed, the services they received, Housing Services 68% 66% and the barriers to service delivery (the 51% methodology regarding data collection Income Assistance 56% 34% described in the section on Services for 7% Children is also applicable here). Section Intensive Case Management 9% 0% D provides highlights and discussion of 15% Medical Care 15% key findings regarding service provision 16% for parents. 52% Mental Health Assessment 50% 56%

A. Parents’ Service Needs 71% Individual Therapy 64% 91%

Figure 8.4 provides the proportion 42% of parents who needed each service. Family Therapy 50% 13% Parents were most likely to need hous- 26% Psychotropic Medication 21% ing services, income assistance, mental 41% health assessments, individual therapy, 44% Parenting Skills Training 42% substance abuse services, and transporta- 50% tion services. Parents of children with a 27% Preventive Services 35% goal of Adoption were more likely than 3% parents of children with a goal of Return 45% Substance Abuse Services 41% to Parent to be documented as need- 59% ing domestic violence services, mental 45% Transportation Services 49% health assessments, individual therapy, 31% psychotropic medication, parenting skills 29% Vocational/GED services 32% training, and substance abuse services. 19%

These findings may reflect issues that 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% had previously gone unresolved and thus Proportion of Parents influenced the decision to change the All Parents of Children, Not Legally Free (n = 139) child’s goal to Adoption and/or missed Parents of Children with a Goal of RTP (n = 107) opportunities on the part of the foster Parents of Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free (n = 32) care agency to engage parents prior to changing the goal.

169 A parent was excluded from these analyses if his or her child was legally free for adoption as of September 30, 2008; if the parent was unknown, deceased, deported, or had his or her parental rights terminated during the entire review period; or if the parent had not been assessed for services due to that parent not being involved in service planning/having no contact with the agency, or due to the parent’s whereabouts being unknown.

| 156 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

B. Parents’ Receipt of or Participation in Services

Figure 8.5 considers the number Figure 8.5: Proportion of Parents Receiving or Participating in of parents who needed each Needed Services, by Child’s Permanency Goal170 service and reports the propor- Services tion of parents who received the 43% Anger Management services service. The following services 52% (n All=42, n RTP=33, n Adoption=9) 11% were documented as received Child Care 28% by at least 75% of parents who (n RTP=18)

needed them: housing services, 33% Domestic Violence Services 40% income assistance, medical care, (n All=24, n RTP=15, n Adoption=9) 22%

and transportation services. 30% Financial Management Services 27% However, many parents’ service (n All=27, n RTP=22, n Adoption=5) 40% needs were not met. For ex- Homemaking Services 39% 38% ample, less than 50% of parents (n All=23, n RTP=21, n Adoption=2) 50% needing the following services Housing Services 77% 85% received or participated in them: (n All=94, n RTP=73, n Adoption=21) 48% anger management services, 79% Income Assistance 78% domestic violence services, (n All=71, n RTP=60, n Adoption=11) 82%

financial management services, Intensive Case Management 50% homemaking services, intensive (n RTP=10)

case management, mental health Medical Care 76% 81% assessment, family therapy, and (n All=21, n RTP=16, n Adoption=5) 60%

parenting skills training. Mental Health Assessment 49% 54% (n All=72, n RTP=54, n Adoption=18) 33% For nine of the services—anger 63% Individual Therapy 77% management services, domes- (n All=98, n RTP=69, n Adoption=29) 31% tic violence services, housing Family Therapy 28% 30% services, medical care, mental (n All=58, n RTP=54, n Adoption=4) health assessment, individual Psychotropic Medication 67% 74% therapy, psychotropic medica- (n All=36, n RTP=23, n Adoption=13) 54% tion, parenting skills training, Parenting Skills Training 44% 53% (n All=61, n RTP=45, n Adoption=16) and substance abuse servic- 19% Preventive Services 74% es—parents of children with a 73% goal of Adoption were less likely (n All=38, n RTP=37, n Adoption=1) 100% Substance Abuse Services 70% to receive or participate in the 80% service during the review period (n All=63, n RTP=44, n Adoption=19) 47% Transportation Services 98% than parents of children with a 98% (n All=61*, n RTP=52, n Adoption=9*) goal of Return to Parent. 100% Vocational/GED services 63% 59% (n All=40, n RTP=34, n Adoption=6) 83% 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Proportion of Parents

All Parents of Children, Not Legally Free Parents of Children with a Goal of RTP Parents of Children with a Goal of Adoption, Not Legally Free

170 Sample sizes (n) differ for each service because, for each permanency goal, different numbers of parents needed each type of service. Underneath each service label in Figure 8.5, the number of parents needing the service (i.e., the number out of which the percentage is taken) is provided for parents whose children had a goal of Return to Parent and parents whose children had a goal of Adoption. One child with a goal of Adoption had missing data regarding whether or not a parent received transportation services. Therefore, although in Figure 8.4, 10 parents of children with a goal of Adoption are identified as needing transportation services, the proportion of these parents receiving transportation services is calculated out of nine. Note that for several of the services, parents of children with a goal of Adoption needed the services in very small numbers; findings based on these small subsamples should be interpreted with caution.

| 157 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

C. Barriers to Parents’ Receipt of Services

Figures 8.6 and 8.7 provide, for parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent and parents of children with a goal of Adoption, respectively, the frequency with which barriers to service participation were identified. The shaded boxes highlight the most frequently cited barrier to parents’ participation in each service. For example, the most frequently identified barrier for mental health assessments of parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent was that the caseworker did not identify the need for the service (shown in Figure 8.6).

The outlined boxes highlight the service for which each barrier was most commonly a problem. For example, of all the services needed by parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent, delay in referral was most often documented as a barrier to receipt of child care (shown in Figure 8.6).

As shown in Figure 8.7, for parents of children with a goal of Adoption, identified barriers to receiving or participating in services pertained almost exclusively to parents’ refusal to participate or sporadic participation. Again, these participation issues may have contributed to the decision to change children’s goals to Adoption, but they may also be reflections of missed opportunities on the part of the foster care agency to engage parents prior to changing the goal.

As shown in Figure 8.6, parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent experienced more of a variety of barriers to receiving or participating in services. For example, a substantial majority of parents encountered barriers to receiving family therapy (89%), child care (83%), financial management services (82%), and homemaking services (81%). The most common barriers to receiving these services, with the exception of family therapy, were related to caseworker activities (i.e., caseworker not identifying the need for service; lack of documentation that the caseworker made the referral; or delay in referral).

For parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent, barriers to receiving medical care, individual therapy, family therapy, psychotropic medication, parenting skills training, and substance abuse services most frequently pertained to parents’ refusal to participate or sporadic participation.

| 158 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

Figure 8.6: Barriers to Receiving or Participating in Services for Parents of Children with a Goal of Return to Parent171

Barriers to Receipt of or Participation in Service

Service Needed the service sporadic community Other barrier Parent refused Parent need for service Delay in referral primary language Service did not exist in Number of parents needing of parents Number caseworker made referral caseworker Parent’s participation was Parent’s Lack of documentation that Service without barrier received Caseworker did not identify Caseworker Unable to determine barrier determine to Unable Service in community existed but no slots available/ Waitlist available/ but no slots Service not available in parent’s Service not available in parent’s Anger Management 33 36% 27% 6% 3% 15% 12% 3% 3% services Child Care 18 17% 6% 11% 33% 6% 33% 11% Domestic Violence 15 33% 13% 13% 7% 13% 7% 7% 13% Services Financial Manage- 22 18% 41% 27% 9% 5% ment Services Homemaking 21 19% 14% 10% 29% 19% 19% Services Housing Services 73 55% 1% 7% 4% 11% 12% 3% 18% Income Assistance 60 62% 13% 2% 3% 12% 5% 5% Intensive Case 10 40% 40% 10% 10% 10% Management Medical Care 15* 67% 7% 13% 13% Mental Health 53* 34% 17% 6% 8% 15% 15% 2% 4% 6% Assessment Individual Therapy 68* 38% 10% 4% 3% 15% 34% 1% 6% 1% Family Therapy 53* 11% 15% 11% 17% 11% 19% 9% 17% 2% Psychotropic 23 48% 4% 22% 17% 9% 4% Medication Parenting Skills 45 29% 11% 13% 4% 13% 18% 2% 11% 4% Training Preventive Services 37 65% 8% 5% 11% 3% 3% 5% 3% Substance Abuse 44 55% 5% 2% 9% 20% 2% 2% 9% 5% Services Transportation 52 92% 2% 4% 4% Services Vocational/GED 34 44% 12% 9% 3% 12% 9% 12% services

171 Percentages represent the proportion of parents needing the service for whom the barrier (or no barrier) was identified. For four of the service needs (medical care, mental health assessment, individual therapy, and family therapy) data were missing in some instances regarding whether or not a parent experienced barriers to receiving the service. Therefore, the subsample sizes marked with an asterisk are lower than the number of parents identified as needing the service in Figure 8.4. Percentages in each row may exceed 100% as it was possible to identify more than one barrier per service per parent.

| 159 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

Figure 8.7: Barriers to Receiving or Participating in Services for Parents of Children with a Goal of Adoption172 Barriers to Receipt of or Participation in Service

Service Needed service sporadic community Other barrier Parent refused Parent need for service Delay in referral primary language Service did not exist in caseworker made referral caseworker Parent’s participation was Parent’s Number of parents needing the of parents Number Service without barrier received Lack of documentation that Caseworker did not identify Caseworker Unable to determine barrier determine to Unable Service in community existed but no slots available/ Waitlist available/ but no slots Service not available in parent’s Service not available in parent’s

Anger Management 9 11% 78% 11% services Child Care ------Domestic Violence 9 11% 89% Services Financial Manage- 5 20% 20% 40% 20% ment Services Homemaking 2 50% 50% Services Housing Services 21 29% 14% 33% 5% 5% 19% Income Assistance 11 73% 9% 9% 9% Intensive Case ------Management Medical Care 5 60% 40% Mental Health As- 18 33% 6% 6% 33% 11% 17% sessment Individual Therapy 29 14% 3% 48% 17% 3% 7% 14% 17% Family Therapy 4 0% 25% 75% 25% 25% Psychotropic Medi- 12* 25% 17% 50% 17% cation Parenting Skills 16 13% 19% 44% 13% 6% 6% Training Preventive Services 1 100% Substance Abuse 19 21% 16% 37% 37% 5% 5% Services Transportation 9* 100% Services Vocational/GED 6 50% 17% 33% services

172 Percentages represent the proportion of parents needing the service for whom the barrier (or no barrier) was identified. For one service, psychotropic medication, data were missing in one instance regarding whether or not a parent experienced barriers to receiving the service. Therefore, the subsample size marked with an asterisk is lower than the number of parents identified as needing the service in Figure 8.4. The proportion of parents experiencing barriers to transportation services is taken out of nine children in light of the missing data described in the footnote to Figure 8.5. Percentages in each row may exceed 100% as it was possible to identify more than one barrier per service per parent. Note that for several of the services, parents of children with a goal of Adoption needed the services in very small numbers; findings based on these small subsamples should be interpreted with caution.

| 160 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

D. highlights and Discussion of Key Findings

The highlights discussed below focus on parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent. However, it should be noted that ACS policy requires foster care agencies to work with all parents of children who are not legally free for adoption, and data provided in the previous sections describe findings for parents of children with goals of both Return to Parent and Adoption.

1. Poverty Research has shown that many families involved in the child welfare system are living in poverty;173 this is illustrated in the study findings regarding the high need for housing-related services and income assistance, as shown in Figure 8.4.

Housing Sixty-eight percent of parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent were documented as needing housing services, and “If I knew I was going to get 85% received them. Housing assistance may have included, for [the housing subsidy] it example, assistance in locating housing, obtaining a housing would be easier for me to subsidy to assist with rent, or obtaining necessary repairs to get my apartment ”. parents’ current homes. Stakeholders cited housing as a barrier Parent to returning children home to their parents.

Income Assistance Fifty-six percent of parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent were documented as needing income assistance (e.g., entitlements such as TANF, SSI, and food stamps), and 78% received it. These parents needed assistance with applying for and/or addressing issues that arose regarding their receipt of these benefits.

2. Mental Health Assessments and Therapy Parents of children in the study had a wide range of mental health needs, from a basic need for counseling to the need for treatment of serious mental illnesses. In fact, of children not legally free for adoption (106 children), 32% had a parent diagnosed with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. As described in Figure 8.4, 21% of parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent and 41% of parents of children with a goal of Adoption were identified as needing psychotropic medication.

Mental Health Assessments Only 54% of parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent who were documented as needing a mental health assessment during the one-year review period received one, and the most commonly identified barrier to participation was that the caseworker did not identify the need for the service (17%). The second most frequently identified barriers were parents’ refusal to participate and parents’ sporadic participation (both 15%).

Parents who participated in a focus group for this study raised concerns about undergoing mental health assessments; some said that such assessments, especially when implemented by the court, were a “trap.” They felt that a diagnosis emerging from an assessment could be used against them as evidence of an inability to parent and that, in some cases, parental strengths are assessed as being liabilities, such as appropriate anger being identified as a safety concern.

173 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1996). Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, Retrieved September 8, 2009 from http://www. childwelfare.gov/pubs/statsinfo/nis3.cfm

| 161 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

Caseworkers and attorneys stated that it is not uncommon for it to take months to schedule a parent’s mental health evaluation. Other stakeholders expressed concerns about the quality of evaluations that are conducted to make determinations about these parents’ ability to parent.

Individual Therapy Only 77% of parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent who were documented as needing individual therapy received it during the review period, with parents’ sporadic participation and refusal to attend identified as the most common barriers. A variety of factors may be at play here, including, as noted above, the ability of caseworkers to engage and motivate parents to participate in this particular service.

Many stakeholders commented on a lack of mental health services available for parents, noting that appropriate services are sometimes not available in parents’ communities and that, when services do exist, parents may find themselves on lengthy waitlists. Although the findings in Figure 8.6 above do not show sizable proportions of parents who were put on waiting lists, this may be due to workers not documenting when service slots are unavailable.

Interviewees and focus group participants also spoke about the varied and often poor quality of mental health services. Attorneys for parents noted that their clients have little or no choice regarding which service providers they use. They noted that parents sometimes have to see interns who have limited experience and who are replaced at the end of their internships, which contributes to discontinuity and decreased parent motivation to attend. Some interviewees and focus group participants recommended establishing therapeutic services “in-house” at agencies. They felt that this would not only make therapy more available to parents, but that it would facilitate communication between caseworkers and clinicians—an area that nearly all groups of stakeholders identified as needing improvement.

Family Therapy As Figure 8.6 depicts, family therapy was the service least likely to be received without a barrier, and was the service for which parents were most frequently waitlisted. Only 30% of parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent who were documented as needing family therapy during the review period received it, with parents’ sporadic participation cited as the main barrier. Casework- related barriers were also apparent with regard to family therapy; these included caseworkers not identifying the need for this service, not making the referral, and not making timely referrals.

Interviewees and focus participants also raised the issue of lengthy waitlists for family therapy. This service can be critical for families preparing for reunification. Several of the cases in the study sample involved contentious parent-child relationships, particularly in cases of teenagers, and disrupted trial discharges that perhaps could have been avoided with the right type of family therapy. Family therapy is also often essential for families preparing for adoption and may help to prevent the disruption of pre-adoptive placements.

3. Parenting Skills and Anger Management Only 53% of parents of children with a goal of Return to Parent who were documented as needing parenting skills training received it, with parents’ sporadic participation as the most commonly identified barrier. Parents’ refusal to participate, caseworkers’ apparent failure to identify the need for the service, and caseworkers’ failure to make the referral were also issues. Parenting and anger management training were identified by stakeholders as generic, one-size-fits-all services that are attached to a parent’s service plan along with counseling, with little thought as to whether or not the parent actually needs all of these services or whether they might be duplicative. Some stakeholders also suggested that parenting and anger management issues should be able to be addressed by one competent therapist rather than by three separate required services.

| 162 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

4. Substance Abuse Services Eighty percent of parents of children with a “[Then I was told] ‘You have to do a drug pro- goal of Return to Parent who needed sub- gram ’. And I thought [the agency] should have stance abuse services received these ser- been more forceful, like, telling me the deadlines .. vices at least once during the review period. This, I feel, would work more for people because, Parents’ sporadic participation was the most me being an addict at the time—[I thought] commonly documented barrier. Substance ‘Well, whenever I get it done, I’ll get it done ’. I abuse recovery can often include cycles of re- wanted my baby, don’t get me wrong, I wanted lapse followed by periods of sobriety. As with my baby ..But I wanted to get high, too ..So [in the other types of services discussed above, the beginning, I thought,] ‘I’m going to go to the providing these services is critical, but equally program, and I’m going to go to get clean ’. But I important is the caseworker’s task of assessing [was] getting the money they [were] giving me parents’ progress, which, for these parents, for car fare and using it to go get high ..So that should include regular reassessments of their [wasn’t] helping me or my baby ”. commitment to treatment and their ability to Parent maintain sobriety over time.

5. Engagement and Involvement of Fathers The lack of father engagement/involvement is reflected in all of the casework and court processes covered in this report, and is similarly reflected in the findings pertaining to service provision. Fathers of children in this sample were more likely than mothers to be unknown, and fathers’ whereabouts were more likely to be unknown than mothers’. In addition, as discussed earlier in this report, fathers had less frequent contact with their caseworkers, had less frequent visits with their children, and attended fewer case conferences. Caseworkers must make every effort to identify, locate, and engage fathers; however, when fathers remain unknown, missing, or unengaged, these circumstances lead to a decreased ability to assess and refer fathers for services. This is reflected in the fact that the service needs of 99 mothers but only 40 fathers were documented in the cases reviewed for this study and included in these analyses.

Findings from the case records reviewed also showed that, with the exception of a few types of services, fathers were less likely to receive or participate in services than mothers. In addition, fathers were more likely than mothers to experience barriers to service delivery (44% of services to mothers were received without barrier as opposed to 33% of services to fathers), particularly casework related barriers such as the caseworker not identifying the need for the service or the caseworker not making a referral for the service (data not shown).

Comments from attorneys for parents and from judges and referees reinforced these findings. In addition to describing “The mother has to literally be inadequate efforts to search for and engage fathers, they noted dead or literally high on the that services for fathers are often unavailable. Parents’ attorneys street before ACS will come specifically spoke about the inadequacies of batterer programs, in and work with the father ”. stating that, because Medicaid does not typically cover such Attorney for Parents interventions, fathers are forced to pay for the service themselves and, as a result, do not attend.

6. Individualized Service Planning and Service Overload Many stakeholders described a widespread lack of individualized service planning for parents, noting that service planning is frequently “one-size-fits-all” and not targeted to children and families’ unique needs and circumstances. These stakeholders said that parents are given the same menu of services (typically anger management, parenting skills, and therapy, as mentioned above) regardless of their particular needs, and that there is little incentive for the individual caseworker to think creatively about what services would suit a parent best.

| 163 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

Stakeholders also noted that sometimes parents are “I think now we’re faced with the… not told up front about all of their service require- quality of the initial assessments ..It’s ments, and that caseworkers or the court will some- my sense that we’re still using this times decide after the fact that a service that a parent off-the-rack, everybody gets anger- completed was not the most appropriate, and then management, parenting skills, counsel- require that parent to participate in another program. ing, domestic violence… and what’s the Parents end up becoming frustrated and disheartened evidence that any of those work? Or at being required to participate in programs that feel are these just hoops that, if the parent largely disconnected from their personal circum- is together enough to get through the stances. One mother explained that each time she hoops they get their kids back [as op- completed a service, her caseworker required her to posed to a service that] really addresses do another. Then, after her son had been in foster care the presenting problem ”. for two years and she had completed all of her man- Family Court Judge/Referee dated services, the caseworker inquired for the first time about the mother’s fiancé and only at that point “A child comes into care for one reason .. made clear that he too would be required to partici- Services are put in place… [then] many pate in services before the child could return home. more issues unveil themselves ..Then more services are needed ..The agency Parents and attorneys for parents also raised the issue asks much of these parents ..Workers of “service overload,” stating that, in some cases, too have to work around parents’ schedules many services are “piled on” without consideration of because parents need to work, as well ”. whether the services may be duplicative, let alone of Foster Care Caseworker the practical considerations of requiring parents to attend multiple programs. For example, having to simul- “[My caseworker] said, ‘Oh, why don’t taneously attend multiple programs at different loca- you go into counseling because, you tions to separately address substance abuse, parenting know, you seem a little, you know, un- skills, anger management, and mental health issues, focused ’. That was like her main word .. on top of maintaining or looking for employment, She kept saying “unfocused ”. But it was securing housing, visiting with children, and attending because, you know, everything was be- court hearings, can make it extremely difficult for a ing thrown at me from left and right ”. parent to succeed. Stakeholders also stated that foster Parent care agencies do not always coordinate effectively when multiple service providers are involved.

7. Availability and Quality of Services Stakeholders reported a lack of available, high-quality services, particularly mental health services. As one “I think the system has improved, not FCLS attorney stated: “If more services were available, dramatically, but it has improved in the it would help settle cases faster and prevent long ad- sense that now ACS is working with journments.” Several attorneys noted that the lack of other organizations, especially commu- mental health services leads to delays in mental health nity organizations, to help these parents assessments and the implementation of therapeutic get involved in services immediately at interventions. In addition, stakeholders noted that the [planning] conferences ”. it can be difficult to obtain copies of evaluations and Parent reports, especially from mental health providers.

A number of interviewees and focus group participants raised the problem of the lack of adequate assessments and targeted services for parents with cognitive disabilities. Parents’ attorneys, in particular, discussed the lack of availability of parenting skills programs, supportive housing, and other services geared specifically towards parents with cognitive disabilities. In addition, they described that sometimes, a parent with cognitive limitations is offered services despite the fact that ACS and the foster care agency do not believe that any measure of service delivery can equip that parent to care for his or

| 164 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

her child. Among children in the study who were not legally free for adoption, 17% had a parent who was diagnosed with a cognitive disability.

8. Lack of Centralized Service Database Another identified issue was caseworkers not consistently knowing what services for parents are out there to begin with and making inappropriate referrals to programs that have certain criteria that caseworkers are not aware of, thus causing delays. One judge/referee recommended establishing a centralized database that caseworkers could consult that would contain information on the nature of each program, as well as other information such as which insurance policies it honored and the languages in which the program was offered. Several stakeholders noted that bilingual services for parents are difficult to find and that certain programs are not culturally appropriate for some families.

9. Health Insurance Stakeholders noted lack of health insurance as a barrier to service delivery for some parents. Service provision can be delayed when parents are uninsured or local providers do not take parents’ insurance. Sometimes, parents who are eligible for Medicaid are not enrolled, and service delivery is delayed while parents are in the process of getting registered. Stakeholders also identified parents’ undocumented immigrant status as a barrier to services. Being undocumented (which often walks hand in hand with lacking health insurance), can make parents ineligible for many services.

10. Parent Follow-Through Several of the stakeholder groups attributed children’s lack of permanency in part to parents’ failure to follow through with services. For example, caseworkers, FCLS attorneys, and resource parents all raised the issue of parents “not doing what they need to do” in order to get their children back or not “owning” the reasons for their children’s placement in foster care. However, some stakeholders also recognized that engaging and motivating parents to examine their behavior, take responsibility for their actions, and fully commit to making changes is a critical aspect of casework and is not the parent’s responsibility alone.

At the same time, stakeholders also described cases of parents getting “too many chances” from the Court to comply with their service plans or doing “just enough” to keep the foster care agency and the Court from moving toward TPR. It is important to note, however, that ACS, the foster care agency, and the Court can change the permanency goal if adequate services have been provided yet the parent has not fully participated.

11. Attendance versus Progress Judges and referees in particular spoke at length about how casework “…and then you have the caseworker that says, ‘Well practice and documentation are we have the certificate for anger management and we too focused on monitoring parents’ have the certificate for parenting skills ’. But… [as judges attendance at programs rather than and referees, we] don’t get this overall flavor of how actually monitoring their progress the parent is now progressing… There’s no real sense of toward identified goals. Judges and the caseworker trying to get the family back together referees said that a parent’s certifi- again ..They’re not doing it ..all they’re doing is monitoring cate of program completion is often the services rather than actually providing the services the only information that is provided which would [provide] a better indicator for everyone to to the Court and that caseworkers see whether or not the parents have rehabilitated and relatively rarely provide clinical judg- whether or not the real goal should be Return to Parent ”. ments in their reports to the Court Family Court Judge/Referee about whether or not progress has

| 165 | CHAPTER 8: SERVICES

been made. Although judges and referees make the final decisions in these cases, they want and need to be able to depend on the foster care caseworkers to make “social work judgments” and to inform the Court of those judgments so that they can be taken into consideration.

12. Enforcing Court Orders Attorneys for parents raised concerns regarding the Court’s failure to enforce court orders for services. Several described the scenario in which a judge orders that services be provided to parents in order to facilitate the goal of returning the child home, but either ACS or the foster care agency fails to provide the service and yet, no penalty is enforced by the Court. Attorneys expressed frustration that, in these cases, ACS and the foster care agency are not penalized for failing to comply with the order, and in the meantime, parents wait for services while their children remain in foster care. As such, parents and their attorneys stated that court orders to provide parents with services do not have “teeth.”

| 166 | One Child’s Story: Wilsa

One Child’s Story: Wilsa

Child’s Age: 6 Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 41⁄2 years Current Permanency Goal: Return to Parent

Wilsa is a six-year old child who has been bounced back and forth between her parents and a foster home for four and a half years.

Her father suffers from alcoholism and has relapsed several times. Her mother has mild mental retardation. Their family has a long history with the foster care system that dates back to before Wilsa was born, and Wilsa has four siblings, three of whom are also in foster care. None of them live together in the same foster home.

Wilsa entered foster care at the age of one and a half due to neglect and domestic violence issues. Among other concerning incidents, her father had threatened one of her siblings with a knife. After more than a year of Wilsa being in foster care, her mother had completed required services and moved into her own apartment, and Wilsa was returned home on a trial discharge. Her father came back into the picture, and the case remained open due to the continuing concerns of the foster care agency. After three years at home, Wilsa was again removed and placed in her previous foster home due to neglect. She has lived there ever since but maintains a strong attachment to her parents.

Wilsa’s foster mother has provided good care and stated that she is willing to adopt her.

Barriers to Permanency

It has been ten years since the family’s older children came into care for the first time; they have been removed from the home a total of three times since the case inception. Wilsa’s parents have participated inconsistently in services and visits. However, the foster care agency and the Court have not changed the goal to Adoption.

Throughout the case, Wilsa’s parents have begun but then not followed up on services. Her father graduated from a substance abuse program several years ago as ordered by the Court, but he refused to continue with mandated aftercare services. Although her parents completed the services needed for trial discharge of the children in the past, they were not able to maintain a safe environment for their children. The children were neglected as the father relapsed, refused all help offered to him by the caseworker to find a job, and refused to complete a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. His behaviors appeared to get worse as the possibility of reunification got closer. For example, he has disrupted Court proceedings, had outbursts during visits, and continued to drink.

The Court has repeatedly given more time to the parents, despite continuing concerns, in recog- nition of the family’s complex issues and needs and the strong bonds between the children and their parents.

| 167 | One Child’s Story: Wilsa

At the foster care agency, efforts have been made to find and refer the family for needed services, and Wilsa has had one consistent caseworker for the past several years. However, there has been limited if any outreach to relatives—either as potential placement options or as possible supports for the family—and there has been no discussion of voluntary surrender or open adoption. Moreover, during Wilsa’s most recent trial discharge, agency staff made only sporadic visits to see the family. In a recent Service Plan Review summary, there is little mention of Wilsa, although the summary discusses her older siblings and their behavioral problems. Finally, this case has had multiple different referees assigned.

Current Status

Wilsa remains in foster care with a permanency goal of Return to Parent. Her foster mother has a good relationship with Wilsa’s parents and she is willing to adopt. Efforts to work with the parents continue.

| 168 | One Child’s Story: Lisa

One Child’s Story: Lisa

Child’s Age: 11 Length of Time in Current Foster Care Spell: 31⁄2 years Current Permanency Goal: Adoption

Lisa is an 11-year-old girl whose mother has a long history of drug abuse and arrests on drug charges. Lisa and her siblings were severely neglected in their home—frequently left home alone, in the care of strangers, and without food. Her mother sent her on drug runs and exposed her to adults using drugs and having sex. She suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a family friend and corporal punishment by her mother.

Lisa was removed from her home at the age of eight and placed in a kinship home with her paternal grandmother when her mother gave birth to another child who tested positive for exposure to illegal drugs. Her foster care agency documented repeated efforts to contact and work with her parents, but her mother refused to enter drug treatment and continued to test positive at the drug screenings she did attend, and both parents’ whereabouts are frequently documented as unknown. They have also failed to participate in services or planning for their children’s discharge from foster care, and—aside from a few visits more than two years ago—have not visited their children.

The foster care agency in this case has generally moved quickly in arranging for necessary psychiatric/psychological assessments, mental health services, play therapy, and tutoring for Lisa. Lisa’s caseworker also raised the possibility of voluntary surrender with Lisa’s parents, although the attempt was unsuccessful. Petitions to terminate the rights of both parents were filed two years after Lisa entered foster care, and Lisa’s grandmother is ready to adopt her—but it took fully 18 months from filing the TPR for her father’s rights to be terminated, and the process has still not been finalized for Lisa’s mother.

Barriers to Permanency

Lisa’s parents did not engage in case planning and services to reunify with her. Then, there were delays in the process to terminate their parental rights. In addition, many Court hearings have been adjourned due to various parties’ absence or lack of readiness to proceed.

Current Status

Lisa is happy and stable in her placement with her paternal grandmother. She visits regularly with her siblings and is doing well in school. An adoption has not yet been scheduled in Court, but is expected once Lisa’s mother’s parental rights are terminated.

| 169 | | 170 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

HIGHLIGHTS: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

• the Court’s untenable caseload has been repeat- 6 New York State regulations require that action be edly documented by various entities, including the taken to legally free children within 30 days of Court itself, for almost a decade, yet the number the establishment of an Adoption goal. However, of judges has not been increased since 1991. As of 59% of children did not have a TPR filed against May 2009, the 26 judges in the Family Court Child either parent within 30 days. Protective Specialty had an average caseload of 6 The mean length of time from establishment of 724 children and the 19.2 referees had an average the Adoption goal to becoming legally free for caseload of 772 children. Eleven judges and seven adoption was 2.4 years; the median was 2.1 years. referees had more than 800 children on their case- New York State regulations require that chil- loads and three judges and one referee had more dren “must be freed within 12 months after the than 1000 children on their caseloads. establishment of the permanency planning goal of adoption,” however, 77% of children were not • the length of time between children’s entry into legally free within that period of time. foster care and the Court’s completion of Fact-Find- 6 The mean and median lengths of time from ing and Disposition was extremely long for many filing the first TPR petition to the date the child children. The mean length of time from remand to became legally free were 2.4 and 1.9 years, disposition was 14 months; the median was 11 months. respectively. In addition, for more than a third of children who were legally free (34%), this process • more than half of children experienced delayed took more than two years to complete. Permanency Hearings. Fifty-five percent of children 6 The mean length of time from the date children had one or more Permanency Hearings that were entered foster care until they became legally free not completed within 30 days as required (during a was 5.4 years; the median was 4.8 years. two year period). Almost half (48%) of the delayed 6 Given that many children in the study sample en- hearings were not completed timely because the tered foster care a number of years ago, analyses Permanency Hearing Reports were not submitted were conducted to determine if the timeliness of timely by the foster care agencies, 20% because the TPR processes has changed over time. Although Permanency Hearing Report did not sufficiently ad- many of the more recent cases still had long dress the issues, 26% due to insufficient court time, delays in filing TPR petitions and completing TPR and 24% because the provider agency caseworker proceedings, there has been some improvement was not present. over time.

• “Reasonable efforts” findings were made at virtu- • Stakeholders who participated in interviews and fo- ally all Permanency Hearings, calling into question cus groups expressed concerns about the following: the threshold used to make these determinations. 6 The negative impact of large judge and referee caseloads on permanency outcomes for children. • termination of parental rights proceedings were 6 The Court’s failure to impose sanctions when its extremely delayed for most children. orders are not followed by ACS and the foster 6 69% of children in the sample (who were not care agencies. already legally free) did not have TPR petitions 6 The Court giving parents repeated opportunities filed on their behalf. In many cases, the docu- over long periods of time to participate in services. mented “compelling reasons” not to file did not 6 Poor quality casework, including the lack of appear to meet the letter or spirit of ACS’ policy assessments of progress, which can hamper the guidance, and, in some cases, no reason was Court’s ability to make timely decisions. documented. 6 The failure of the parties to take aggressive legal 6 The mean and median lengths of time from entry action to seek relief from the Court and try to into foster care to filing the TPR petition regard- move cases through the system more quickly. ing at least one parent were 3.2 and 2.5 years, respectively.

| 172 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

The Family Court plays an extremely important role in the permanency process for children in foster care. Based on the information that the parties in child walfare cases should provide, judges and referees must make critical decisions throughout a child and family’s experience in the child welfare system, including determining the need for the child’s removal from home; determining whether or not the parent(s) abused or neglected the child; regularly reviewing the status of children in foster care; ordering the services that are needed to address the concerns that brought and are keeping the child in foster care; and ensuring that each child achieves permanency either by safely returning home or through another means such as adoption or legal guardianship.

In New York City, each of the five counties has a separate Family Court, which is responsible for over- seeing the cases of children in foster care, as well as many other types of cases, including custody and visitation, juvenile delinquency, and domestic violence cases.174

In December 2005, in an effort to improve permanency outcomes for children in foster care, the so-called “Permanency Law” was enacted in New York State. These new and revised laws include the requirement that two Permanency Hearings be held per year for each child in foster care (previously, only one hearing per year was held). The first Permanency Hearing must be held eight months after the court determines that the child must be removed from home and placed in foster care, and subsequent Permanency Hearings must be held every six months. The purpose of Permanency Hearings is to monitor a child’s safety and well-being, the family’s progress, and the efforts being made to either safely return the child home or find another permanent home for the child. The Court may also approve a child’s discharge from foster care during a Permanency Hearing. In addition, the new law gives the Court continuing jurisdiction over children’s cases until they are concluded. However, the law was passed with no additional resources and these additional hearings have been added to already overcrowded Family Court calendars.

This chapter provides the study findings pertaining to the operations and processes of the Family Court. Data were collected in this study regarding key Family Court processes for children in the study sample and their parents. Information about court issues was also gathered from interviews and focus groups conducted with parents, foster parents, attorneys (for children, parents, and the Administration for Children’s Services [ACS]), and judges and referees.

Section I provides a general overview of challenges in the legal proceedings in Family Court pertaining to children in foster care.

Section II presents the study findings regarding factors that affect the quality of legal and Family Court practice, including caseloads and other resource and support issues for judges, referees, and the attorneys who represent children, parents, and ACS in the Family Court.

Section III presents the study findings regarding the type of legal authority for children’s placement in foster care, the timeliness of the Fact-Finding and Disposition processes, and court review of voluntary placements.

174 This report concerns only child protection and foster care-related matters.

| 173 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Section IV provides the study findings regarding Permanency Hearings, including court determinations regarding whether or not reasonable efforts to achieve permanency have been made, timeliness of Permanency Hearings, and reasons these hearings were not completed timely.

Section V provides the study findings regarding the timeliness of termination of parental rights (TPR) processes and other related issues.175

Section VI provides the study findings regarding cases referred for mediation.

I. Overview of Challenges in Legal Proceedings

In 2000, the Special Child Welfare Advisory Panel, established as part of the Marisol v. Giuliani class- action lawsuit settlement, reported that New York City Family Courts were “characterized by crowded dockets, long adjournments and not enough attorneys to represent parents and children. With rare exceptions, hearings lack sufficient docket time for a true examination of the issues. A family that becomes the subject of an abuse or neglect proceeding in these courts can expect to return to court repeatedly and to remain involved in litigation for many months, and sometimes for years.”176

In 2002, the Citizens Committee for Children released a report that found that the shortage of resources for the Family Court and attorneys representing all of the parties was preventing compliance with the timelines required by the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and leading to delays in achieving permanency for children in foster care.177

In 2005, the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies (COFCCA) released the results of a study it conducted of caseworker time spent in court.178 Data were collected from seven foster care agencies regarding the time caseworkers spent in court pertaining to 610 Family Court visits. Workers spent approximately 1700 hours in Family Court for these 610 visits; only 300 of these hours (17.6%) were spent in actual hearings. Workers waited an average of 2.3 hours for hearings. In 16% of cases, workers waited more than four hours; in 13% of cases, workers waited for more than six hours. Almost 28% of cases were adjourned or rescheduled. The average hearing lasted 32 minutes.

In 2007, the Honorable Judith Kaye’s State of the Judiciary report said that the Family Court is “des- perately short of judicial resources” and called upon the legislature to add 39 more Family Court judges statewide.179 Also in 2007, the New York City Bar Association’s Council on Children issued a report calling the Permanency Law an unfunded mandate whose goals cannot be reached without additional resources.180 In that same year, Children’s Rights issued a report that identified the same problems in the Family Court.181

175 It should be noted that this study did not collect data regarding finalizing adoptions. The purpose of this study was to examine possible barriers to permanency for children who are still in foster care. Further, once a child is adopted, the case record is sealed.

176 Special Child Welfare Advisory Panel. (2000). Advisory Report on Front Line and Supervisory Practice. New York, NY: Special Child Welfare Advisory Panel, p. 44.

177 Citizens’ Committee for Children. (2002). The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and the Family Court. New York, NY: Citizens’ Committee for Children.

178 Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies. (2005). Time at Family Court. New York, NY: COFCCA

179 Kaye, J. (2008). The State of the Judiciary 2008, A Court System for the 21st Century. Albany, NY: New York State Unified Court System.

180 New York City Bar Association’s Council on Children. (2007). The Permanency Law of 2005: An Unfunded Mandate—Critical Resource Needs for New York City’s Children and Families. New York, NY: New York City Bar Association’s Council on Children.

181 Children’s Rights. (2007). At the Crossroads: Better Infrastructure, Too Few Results—A Decade of Child Welfare Reform in New York

| 174 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

In the fall of 2008, planning began for a new court improvement effort known as the New York City Child Protective Initiative. According to the New York City Family Court, the initiative began to roll out various pieces in July 2009. The initiative is now overseen by the newly appointed Administrative Judge of the New York City Family Court, the Honorable Edwina Richardson-Mendelson. The initiative’s stated goals are: • “Earlier permanency for children 6 Faster time to disposition 6 Fact-finding completed well before permanency hearing 6 Faster resolution of termination of parental rights proceedings • Every appearance meaningful • Fewer and shorter adjournments • Everyone appearing on time, prepared to go forward • Continuous trials • Expanded participation of children and youth in permanency hearings.”182

Some stakeholders who participated in interviews or focus groups for this study acknowledged that some incremental improvements have been made in the Family Court in recent years. In addition, some advocates have said that the recent “shake-up” in judicial assignments announced during the summer of 2009 by Judge Richardson-Mendelson, was a positive sign of changes to come.

However, in the meantime, the quantitative data regarding the timeliness of key court processes and voluminous stakeholder feedback collected for this study yielded the same concerning findings as have been previously identified, including congested court calendars, long waits outside courtrooms before cases are called, and frequent and long adjournments.

Virtually all stakeholders indicated that Family Court caseloads are the major factor underlying many of the identified problems in Family Court. (Resource issues are described in Section II of this chapter.) Judges and referees themselves are extremely concerned about their caseloads, related court delays, and their effect on children’s and families’ lives. As one judge put it,

“I said ‘I’m sorry, I can’t hear your case today,’ which I have to tell you, is the worst part of my job. I feel nauseous every time I have to tell [parents] that.”

However, in addition to resource issues, many stakeholders—parents, foster parents, attorneys, and judges and referees themselves—noted that the Court does not consistently use its full power to hold the parties in child welfare cases accountable for timely permanency outcomes for children and families. Children remain in foster care for years and the Court gives ACS and the foster care agencies repeated chances, and multiple hearing adjournments, to present evidence and/or provide necessary services to parents, even after they have been negligent in doing so. Stakeholders said that when the Court does issue orders, they often lack specificity, e.g., instead of ordering that X service must be provided by Y date, the order does not specify a date, which makes the order harder to enforce. Finally, by most accounts, the Court does not frequently or consistently use its power to impose sanctions when ACS and/or the foster care agencies have not complied with its orders.

City. New York, NY: Children’s Rights. Available at http://www.childrensrights.org/policy-projects/new-york-city/

182 New York City Child Protective Proceedings: Shared Action Goals and Steps (undated). Provided to Children’s Rights by the New York City Family Court, August 2009.

| 175 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Indeed, as described in detail in Section IV of this chapter, the Court virtually always makes “reasonable efforts” findings, meaning that ACS and the foster care agencies have made reasonable efforts to achieve permanency for children in foster care. Reasonable efforts findings are required in order to receive federal funding for individual children in foster care. “No reasonable efforts” findings were made in only 1% of the hundreds of permanency hearings held for children in this study sample. This belies the long lengths of stay in foster care that these children and families were experiencing, as well as other data collected in this study regarding the varying intensity of service provision and the infrequency of caseworker contacts with children, parents, and resource parents.

Stakeholders also said that the Court gives parents repeated opportunities to participate in services toward the goal of family reunification, even after years of parents’ inconsistent involvement in services and visits with their children. This practice may be reflected in the long lengths of time many children spend with unachieved Return to Parent (RTP) goals. As described in Chapter 1: Demographics, Case Opening, and Current Case Status, almost one-fifth of children in the study sample (who were not already legally free for adoption) had mothers and 37% of children had fathers whose whereabouts were unknown for part or all of the one-year review period. A common documented barrier to caseworker contacts with parents and parents’ visits with their children was parents missing or canceling scheduled appointments or their whereabouts being unknown.

At the same time, stakeholders acknowledge that the Court’s decision making can be hampered by poor quality casework by ACS and the foster care agencies. The Court depends on ACS and the foster care agencies to provide appropriate services to children and families and to make assessments about progress toward permanency in order to inform the Court’s decision making. Judges and referees who participated in a focus group for this study expressed frustration with the quality of case practice and the fact that many caseworkers seem to see their role as only documenting parents’ attendance at services rather than providing their clinical assessment of parents’ progress to the Court, so that informed decisions can be made about permanency. As one judge and one ACS Family Court Legal Services attorney said,

“We’re supposed to be a court and we take evidence and we hear witnesses and we’re supposed to rule. …If we were just doing that…we might actually do what we’re supposed to be doing. The problem is that we’re in the position of having to be social workers as well. So that takes time and energy and attention to a case…that we shouldn’t be giving to cases…To do both, it’s just impossible and it takes up so much, that’s what takes up my time.” Family Court Judge

“The competency of the workers and oversight by their supervisors is often problematic and causes delays. Because of the poor supervisory oversight, the courts are monitoring more closely. There is a lack of trust by the courts that agencies are following up appropriately on cases.” FCLS Attorney

Thus, judges and referees may sometimes be maintaining Return to Parent goals for long periods of time due to their assessments that casework services provided to parents have been inadequate (although, as noted above, judges and referees rarely make “no reasonable efforts” findings).

In addition, judges and referees said that the parties infrequently make applications or motions to the Court for relief to address pressing issues.

Finally, some stakeholders expressed frustration that, short of the judicial reappointment process (which happens only every ten years) and processes for serious ethics violations, there is no viable com- plaint process for litigants when they have concerns about judges’ or referees’ conduct, for example, not spending enough time on the bench, failing to hold mandated hearings, and treating litigants poorly.

| 176 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Family Court

“There’s no teeth behind court orders ..and so we get the Court to actually direct ACS to provide a service [but ACS does not comply with the order] ..They don’t sanction [ACS]… it’s impossible to get them to sanction… More accountability for not doing things… in a reasonable amount of time, and [for] following court orders… would speed things up ”. Attorney for Parents “[The] agency wouldn’t do IQ testing; [the] court ordered it, [the] agency took a long time to . set it up ”. JRP Attorney for Children “Workers come to court and say we can’t do XYZ unless we are court-ordered to do it ..for example, they will say we need a court order to put preventive services in a home or to provide a homemaker ..Someone at ACS is sending the message that costs have to be contained; therefore workers say they need to be court-ordered to provide the service so the agency/ACS has a ‘defense’ for ordering services ”. FCLS Attorney

II. Factors that Affect the Quality of Legal and Family Court Practice

This section provides the study findings, and system-wide data where available, regarding caseloads and other resource issues for judges and referees and the attorneys who represent parties in foster care cases in Family Court.

A. Judge and Referee Caseloads

The caseloads of judges and referees in Family Court are a key factor in the Court’s ability to carry out its obligations and move cases to permanency in a timely way. Family Court has been overburdened for many years. Since 1991, 47 judges have been assigned to New York City Family Court. Despite longstanding caseload concerns, the statutory doubling of the number of Permanency Hearings that went into effect in 2005, and a considerable increase in the number of abuse and neglect and voluntary placement petitions filed since 2006, the number of judges assigned to Family Court has not been increased. Additionally, only 26 of the 47 judges are assigned to the Child Protective Specialty of the New York City Family Court.

As of May 2009, the 26 judges in the Child Protective Specialty had an average caseload of 724 children and the 19.2 referees had an average caseload of 772 children. As shown in Figure 9.1, eleven judges and seven referees had more than 800 children on their caseloads and three judges and one referee had more than 1000 children on their caseloads.183 As noted above, many of the judges, referees, caseworkers, and attorneys who participated in focus groups and interviews for this study reported that the judges and referees have far too many cases, which leads to frequent and lengthy adjournments and contributes to delayed permanency for many children and families.

183 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the New York City Family Court, July 2, 2009.

| 177 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Increasing the number of judges requires action by the State Legislature. Indeed, there has been intense, although unsuccessful, advocacy during the last few years for more judges. Bills have been introduced and many groups, including the court system itself, continue to advocate for increasing the number of Family Court judges both in New York City and across the state.

Figure 9.1: Judge and Referee Caseloads as of May 19, 2009, by Number of Children184

8 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 4.5 4 4 4 3.7 3 3 2 1

Number of Judges/Referees of Number 1 0 400 or less 401 - 599 600 - 799 800 - 999 More than 1000 Number of Children on Caseload

Judges (n = 26) Referees (n = 19.2)

For a snapshot of the child protective caseload trends in New York City Family Court, Figure 9.2 provides the number of Article 10 (abuse and neglect petitions) and Voluntary Placement petitions filed from FY 1999 through FY 2008.

Figure 9.2: Number of Children with Article 10 or Voluntary 358A Petitions Filed, by Fiscal Year185

15,000 12,991 12,700 12,698 11,777 12,000 11,068 11,353 9,234 8,806 9,000 7,246 5,502 6,000 Number of Children 3,000 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Fiscal Year

184 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the New York City Family Court, July 2, 2009.

185 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. ACS June 2000 Update (2000). New York, NY: Office of Management and Research, p. 3 (Data for FYs 1999 and 2000). ACS Update Annual Report 2005, Five Year Trend (2007), p. 2 (Data for FYs 2001 – 2006). ACS Update June 2008 (2008), p. 3 (Data for FYs 2007 and 2008). Each petition represents a single child.

| 178 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Impact of the Family Court Caseload

“[There is] not enough court time for the case to proceed quickly ”...... JRP Attorney for Children “So maybe you have a teacher, maybe you have a caseworker, they testify, it takes two hours ... The respondent testifies, it takes another hour or two ..a.half a day or a day for [the] case…. instead it takes me two years to get that testimony ”. .. . . Family Court Judge “Case adjournments during [the] adoption process prolong [the] length [of time children spend] in [the foster care] system ”...... Foster Care Caseworker “I couldn’t get in touch with my worker because she was always in court ..The agencies need to have someone separate to go to court, my worker is always in court and I could never reach her!” Resource Parent “Parents give up ..They give up ..They get tired ..They come to court, they sit there all day [just to hear the judge] say—this case is being adjourned ”...... Attorney for Parents “My suggestion is to prioritize the types of cases ..Now obviously I’m talking about the placement cases ..But I think that helping the judges handle everything, including the supervision of cases that involve educational neglect, the dirty home cases, mental illness cases ..Those cases occupy a substantial part of the judge’s time ..So if there’s any way to prioritize and make the non-kinship, domestic violence, the drug cases, the excessive corporal punishment, the sexual abuse, the physical abuse cases [a priority] ..If the judges can reallocate their trial time or their calendars to accommodate those and… maybe… offload the supervision cases ”. Family Court Judge

B. legal Representation of the Parties in Family Court

The following sections provide the study findings regarding resource issues pertaining to Family Court Legal Services (FCLS) attorneys, JRP Attorneys, and parents’ attorneys.186

1. Family Court Legal Services Attorneys As noted above, FCLS represents ACS and, by extension, the foster care provider agencies, on cases involving abuse and neglect allegations, voluntary placements, and Permanency Hearings. Children’s Rights interviewed FCLS attorneys who were representing ACS in a sub-sample of the cases included in this study.187 a. FCLS Attorney Caseloads and Turnover According to ACS, the average caseload for FCLS attorneys system-wide is 70 families.188 The average caseload for the staff attorneys interviewed for this study was 82 families and the median was

186 Most data and other information in this section come from interviews that were conducted with FCLS attorneys and JRP attorneys and a focus group that was conducted with parents’ attorneys. Certain individual pieces of information that were collected from interviewees were not collected from focus group participants. Thus the sections do not provide exactly the same information.

187 Interviewees included 17 staff attorneys and eight attorneys who were supervisors (but were representing ACS in cases involving children in the study sample). Three FCLS attorneys were each interviewed twice because, by chance, they were assigned to the cases of two children whose cases were selected for interviews. In the analyses of attorney caseload, experience, training, supervision, and access to resources, these attorneys’ responses were included only once (see Appendix A: Methodology for details).

188 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the Administration for Children’s Services, June 18, 2009.

| 179 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

80 families.189 It should be noted that average caseload statistics can mask the full extent of high caseloads. Indeed, five out of 17 (almost 30%) of the staff attorneys interviewed reported having 100 or more families on their caseload.

The American Bar Association’s Standards Drafting Committee recommends a caseload of no more than 60 families for attorneys representing public child welfare agencies.190

Attorney turnover can lead to gaps in knowledge and court delays as newly assigned attorneys must take time to familiarize themselves with cases, interview clients and witnesses, and speak with professionals and family members. ACS reported a 21% turnover rate for FCLS attorneys in FY 2008.191 b. FCLS Attorneys’ Experience and Training Thirty-six percent of the FCLS attorneys interviewed for this study had been an FCLS attorney for two years or less. Twenty-eight percent had more than 10 years of experience. The range of experience was six months to 23 years.192

All of the FCLS attorneys reported that they received in-service training during the last year. Reviews of the training were mixed. Although some FCLS attorneys found the trainings helpful, others noted that some of the trainings were not useful and did not focus enough on issues related to their daily practice. c. FCLS Attorneys’ Experience with Supervision As shown in Figure 9.3, almost half (48%) of FCLS attorneys said they received formal supervision193 weekly or bi-weekly; 12% reported receiving formal supervision less than monthly; and 18% reported that they did not receive formal supervision. Sixty-five percent of FCLS attorneys reported that their supervisors are “always” available for consultation. An additional 35% of FCLS attorneys reported that their supervisors are “usually” available. Most FCLS attorneys (88%) reported that the majority of time in supervision was spent discussing legal and/or clinical issues, as opposed to administrative issues.

Figure 9.3: Frequency of Supervision Provided to FCLS Attorneys (n = 17 attorneys)194

25% 24% 24% 24%

20% 18%

15% 12% 10%

Proportion of FCLS Attorneys of FCLS Proportion 0 Generally weekly Generally bi-weekly Generally monthly Generally No formal less than monthly supervision Frequency of Formal Supervision

189 n = 17. FCLS attorney supervisors who were interviewed for this study were excluded from this analysis. Supervising attorneys typically have smaller caseloads than staff attorneys in order to carry out their supervisory functions.

190 American Bar Association. (2004). Standards of Practice for Lawyers Representing Child Welfare Agencies, p. 20. Retrieved Sep- tember 9, 2009 from http://www.abanet.org/child/agency-standards.pdf

191 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the Administration for Children’s Services, June 18, 2009.

192 N = 25.

193 For the purpose of this study, “formal supervision” is defined as regularly scheduled, face-to-face meetings between the attorney and their supervisor.

194 FCLS attorney supervisors who were interviewed for this study were excluded from this analysis. Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

| 180 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

d. Resources for FCLS Attorneys The availability of resources—support staff, adequate office space, and technology—can have a big impact on the ability of attorneys to fulfill their obligations. Many FCLS attorneys interviewed for this study reported the need for additional office space—noting many of their offices are crowded with coworkers and case files—as well as the need for additional support staff and laptops. FCLS attorneys also reported the need for additional paralegal support.

Figure 9.4 below summarizes the key resource issues identified by FCLS attorneys. It is notable that 88% said they never have access to a laptop; 40% said they “sometimes” or “never” have access to interpretation services; and 32% said they “sometimes” or “never” have access to private interview space.

Figure 9.4: Availability of Resources for FCLS Attorneys (N = 25, unless otherwise noted)195 Always Sometimes Never Adequate workspace 84% 8% 8% Private interview space 68% 24% 8% ACS laptop 8% 4% 88% ACS cell phone 96% 0% 4% ACS wireless device 96% 0% 4% Interpretation services (n = 17) 58% 29% 11% Clerical support 80% 20% 0%

2. JRP Attorneys for Children The Legal Aid Society Juvenile Rights Practice (JRP) represents the majority of children in foster care.196 Children’s Rights interviewed a group of JRP attorneys who were representing a sub-sample of the children in the study.197 a. JRP Attorney Caseloads and Turnover According to JRP, the average caseload for JRP attorneys for children is 163 children.198 The New York State Office of Court Administration issued a new court rule effective April 2008 setting the maximum caseload of attorneys for children at 150.199 The National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC) recommends caseloads of no more than 100 clients for attorneys representing children in abuse and neglect cases.200 The reported turnover rate for JRP attorneys was 12% from June 1, 2008 to June 1, 2009.201

195 Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

196 Lawyers for Children also represents many children that have been abused and neglected or placed voluntarily in foster care by their parents. However, by design, all of the children in the study sample were represented by JRP.

197 Interviewees included 20 staff attorneys and three attorneys who were supervisors (but were representing children in the study sample). Three JRP attorneys were each interviewed twice because, by chance, they represented two children whose cases were selected for interviews. In the analyses of attorney experience, training, supervision, and access to resources, these attorneys’ responses are included only once (see Appendix A: Methodology for details).

198 Data provided to Children’s Rights by The Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Practice, June 12, 2009.

199 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22, § 127.5 (2009). The maximum caseload may be adjusted based on factors such as the level of activity required at different phases of a proceeding, the representation of multiple children in a case, and the availability and use of support staff.

200 Katner, D., McCarthy, P., Jr., Rollin, M., & Ventrell, M. (2001). NACC Recommendations for Representation of Children in Abuse and Neglect Cases. Denver, CO: National Association of Counsel for Children, p. 7.

201 Data provided to Children’s Rights by The Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Practice, July 31, 2009.

| 181 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

b. JRP Attorneys’ Experience and Training Seventeen percent of the 23 JRP attorneys interviewed had been a JRP attorney for two years or less. Fifty-seven percent had more than 10 years of experience. The range of experience was 1 to 33 years.

Virtually all (96%) JRP attorneys interviewed reported that they did receive in-service training; however, 30% of JRP attorneys stated that they did not receive training on how to approach youth’s ambivalence or hostility toward adoption or to counsel youth on open adoption.202 c. JRP Attorneys Experience with Supervision As shown in Figure 9.5 below, only 15% of JRP attorneys said they received formal supervision weekly or bi-weekly. However, the vast majority (95%) of JRP attorneys reported that their supervisors are “always” (50%) or “usually” (45%) available for consultation and indicated that supervision occurs on an as-needed basis. All (100%) of the JRP attorneys interviewed said that the majority of time in supervision was spent discussing legal and/or clinical issues, as opposed to administrative issues.

Figure 9.5: Frequency of Supervision Provided to JRP Attorneys (n = 20 attorneys)203

80% 70%

60%

40%

20% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0 Proportion of JRP Attorneys Proportion Generally weekly Generally bi-weekly Generally monthly Generally less than No formal supervision monthly Frequency of Formal Supervision

d. Resources for JRP Attorneys Similar to FCLS attorneys, JRP attorneys interviewed for this study reported the need for additional office space—noting many of their offices are crowded with coworkers and case files—as well as the need for additional support staff. JRP attorneys reported the need for additional paralegal support and frequently stated that they need hand-held wireless devices or cell phones and additional social workers and clerical support.

Figure 9.6 below summarizes the key resource issues identified by JRP attorneys. It is notable that 87% of JRP attorneys said they “never” have access to a handheld wireless device; 78% said they “never” have access to a cell phone; 52% said they “sometimes” or “never” have access to private interview space; 39% said they “sometimes” or “never” have access to adequate workspace; and 37% said they “sometimes” or “never” have access to interpretation services.

202 N = 23.

203 JRP attorney supervisors who were interviewed for this study were excluded from this analysis.

| 182 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Figure 9.6: Availability of Resources for JRP Attorneys (N = 23, unless otherwise noted)204 Always Sometimes Never Adequate workspace 61% 35% 4% Private interview space 48% 48% 4% JRP cell phone 9% 13% 78% JRP wireless device 13% 0% 87% Interpretation services (n = 22) 64% 32% 5% Clerical support 57% 44% 0%

3. Attorneys for Parents a. Type of Representation Parents who cannot afford to hire an attorney can be represented by an attorney who is assigned by the court.205 These court-appointed private attorneys—referred to as “assigned counsel” or “18b attorneys”—are typically solo practitioners and may also be assigned to represent children in Family Court. These attorneys must make an application in court in order to enlist the assistance of social workers and other professionals when needed.

Parents can also be represented by institutional providers, which are legal services organizations and university law clinics. In Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, the institutional providers include the Center for Family Representation in Manhattan, Bronx Defenders, and the Brooklyn Family Defense Project—who have the largest contracts with the City to represent parents involved with the child welfare system. Institutional providers can offer training, supervision, and oversight of their attorneys as well as provide in-house support staff that may include social workers, paralegals, and parent advocates. Finally, a parent can hire a private attorney or may choose to represent him or herself.

As shown in Figure 9.7, most parents in this study were represented by assigned counsel (18b attorneys). (This was expected given that the large contracts with the three main institutional providers were implemented only two years ago, and the study sample criteria that all children were in foster care for at least two years as of September 30, 2008.)

Figure 9.7: Type of Legal Representation for Parents206

100% 90% 79% 80% Mothers (n = 93) Fathers (n = 56)

60%

40%

18% 20% Proportion of Parents of Proportion 5% 0% 3% 4% 1% 0 18b Attorney Institutional Provider Attorney Private Attorney Not Represented by an Attorney

Type of Representation

204 Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

205 N.Y. County Law §§ 722-722f (McKinney 2004).

206 Parents were excluded from this analysis if they were not a respondent on the case, unknown, whereabouts unknown (in some but not all circumstances), deported, or deceased or if the child was legally free as of September 30, 2008. Data were missing for four children as to their mothers and nine children as to their fathers. Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

| 183 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Some parents who participated in focus groups for this study said that their attorneys do not return their phone calls and do not have or take enough time to meet with them before court. Parents’ attorneys themselves identified the serious problem of not receiving the Permanency Hearing Report in time to review it with their clients prior to a hearing. (This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4: Casework.)

It should be noted that Children’s Rights attempted to obtain various pieces of system-wide data regarding parent representation from the Family Court, the office of Assigned Counsel, and the Law Guardian Programs of the First and Second Judicial Departments, Appellate Division, State of New York Unified Court System, including the proportion of parents represented by court-appointed attorneys versus institutional providers, caseload data, and data reflecting the frequency with which social workers are utilized by 18b attorneys. Unfortunately, these data are incomplete or not currently available. b. Parents’ Attorneys’ Caseloads Children’s Rights requested law guardian/assigned “[My attorney] doesn’t return my phone calls .. counsel caseload data from the First and Second I call her, I left voice mails, she ain’t got no Judicial Departments’ law guardian programs. time to speak to me ..Before and after court, The First Department covers the Bronx and she don’t speak to me ”. Manhattan and the Second Department covers Parent Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. Caseload data were received for Brooklyn, Queens, and “[My attorney] will meet with me before Manhattan. In 2008, attorneys serving on the law court, but that’s not good ..Because I’m the guardian/assigned counsel panels in these three type of person—I need a plan ”. boroughs had an average of 67 “cases.” Parent

It should be noted that these data likely undercount the number of clients these attorneys are carrying for two reasons. First, the 67 “cases” includes include both “law guardian” cases, which may include individual children as well as sibling groups, and “assigned counsel” clients, which refer to individual adult clients.207 Second, these attorneys are in private practice and may also represent clients who are not assigned by the Court and are not included in the caseload data. Caseloads of the three institutional providers range from 75-85 parents.208

The American Bar Association’s Standards Drafting Committee recommends “a caseload of no more than 50-100 cases depending on what the attorney can handle competently.... The type of practice the attorney has, e.g., whether the attorney is part of a multidisciplinary representation team, also has an impact on the appropriate caseload size.”209 c. Resources for Parents’ Attorneys Parents’ attorneys—including both 18b attorneys and attorneys from each of the three institutional providers—who participated in the focus group for this study reported that when they have access to resources such as social workers and parent advocates, this can make a considerable difference in their ability to represent their clients and assist their clients in getting the services that they need. Parents who participated in a focus group for this study made similar comments.

As noted above, institutional providers do provide in-house support staff. 18b attorneys can obtain an order from the Court to engage the assistance of a social worker. However, no data are available regarding the frequency with which such requests are made and granted.

207 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the State of New York UnifiedC ourt System, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Depart- ment, Law Guardian Program, July 2009.

208 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the Center for Family Representation, the Brooklyn Family Defense Project, and the Bronx Defenders, August - September 2009.

209 American Bar Association. (2006). Standards of Practice for Attorneys Representing Parents in Abuse and Neglect Cases, p. 32. Retrieved September 9, 2009 from http://www.abanet.org/child/clp/Parentstds.pdf

| 184 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Legal Representation of the Parties in Family Court

“The father and me, we are the only two people that have been on the case from the beginning .. There’s new [caseworkers], multiple ACS lawyers, multiple law guardians [attorneys for the children], he’s had different lawyers…for a variety of reasons…everybody’s different except for him and me ”. Family Court Judge

“We lose attorneys every two months because of the workload and stress ”. FCLS Attorney “There are too many cases and not enough social work support ”. JRP Attorney for Children “[The] physical space is a disaster, [it’s like] a sardine can ..[We are] cramped…three to an office [with] no private space ”. JRP Attorney for Children “Communication with the law guardian and [FCLS] attorney [is a concern] ..[There’s] not enough opportunity to communicate before court dates ..Need to factor this time in ”. Foster Care Caseworker “I get a social worker [through a court order]…I tell the ACS attorneys who my social worker is .. I give them the [contact] information [for] my social worker ..In Brooklyn we have some really good social workers so a lot of them would come to court just for the conferences, and then that way they get to meet the caseworker, or the ACS worker . . ..[and] they get invited to [agency conferences] ... 18b Attorney for Parents

III. Court Proceedings When Children First Enter Foster Care: Article 10 and Voluntary Placements

Although ACS can take a child into foster care on an emergency basis and obtain court approval within hours thereafter, all placements of children in foster care must be authorized by the Family Court. This section provides the study findings regarding various court proceedings that are required when children are remanded under Article 10 of the Family Court Act or placed voluntarily, including the length of time it takes to move cases from remand to Fact-Finding, Fact-Finding to Disposition, and remand to Disposition, and the timeliness of ACS’ request for court approval of voluntary placements.

A. Type of Legal Authority for Placement

Children can enter foster care as a result of one of two types of legal authority, either as the result of a court remand or of a voluntary placement. In order for a child to be placed as the result of a court remand, ACS must file a petition that states the allegations of abuse and/or neglect and request a child be remanded. A hearing is held and the Court must determine whether a remand is necessary to ensure the safety of the child. A voluntary placement occurs when a parent requests or agrees to voluntarily place their child and then signs a Voluntary Placement Agreement.

| 185 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Ninety-seven percent of the children in the study sample were remanded and 3% were placed voluntarily by their parents.210

1. Children Who Enter Foster Care Via Court Remand Prior to and following the remand of a child there are many hearings that may be held. Prior to obtaining a remand order, a 1027 hearing is held to address issues related to the removal of a child from his/her home. This hearing must be held within a day when it is either required or requested (depending on the case circumstances).211 When the remand is granted by the Court, the parents (or another person that is legally responsible for the child) or the attorney for the child can request an emergency hearing—referred to as a 1028 hearing—in order to ask for the child’s return home prior to the disposition of the case. This hearing must be held within three days of the request, which is typically made within a few days of the child’s removal from his or her home.212

At the Fact-Finding Hearing, the Court is responsible for determining whether or not a child has been abused or neglected and by whom. In some cases, parents admit to the Court that they abused or neglected their child; in other cases a trial is held. When a trial is held, the judge then makes a decision regarding whether or not the legal standard of proof has been met to find that the child was in fact abused or neglected. If the legal standard is not met regarding any of the allegations in the petition, the petition must be dismissed and the child can return home. If the legal standard of proof is met for at least one allegation, the court makes a finding of abuse and/or neglect, i.e., that abuse or neglect has occurred. (The study findings regarding the types of Fact-Finding decisions that were made are provided in Chapter 1: Demographics, Case Opening, and Current Case Status.)

If the Court makes a finding, the case then moves to the Disposition Hearing. At this stage, the judge makes the decision regarding whether a child will go home or remain in foster care. If the judge determines that the child must remain in foster care, the judge will enter an order placing the child in care and enter additional orders, which may include orders regarding the permanency goal, service provision, and visit schedules between children and their parents.

Regardless of whether or not the Fact-Finding and/or Disposition Hearings have been completed, by law, the initial Permanency Hearing must begin eight months from the date the child was remanded. It is critical that the Fact-Finding and the Disposition (when applicable) are completed prior to the first Permanency Hearing because, as noted above, the purpose of Permanency Hearings is to monitor a child’s safety and well-being, the family’s progress, and the efforts being made to either safely return the child home or find another permanent home for the child. It is premature, in most cases, for the Court to be making decisions about the appropriate permanency plan for the child before the Court has even decided whether abuse or neglect has occurred, or made a determination at the Disposition Hearing regarding whether the child can return home, or made the necessary orders regarding needed services.

It is important to note that, as stated above, the only hearings that are required by statute to be held within a specific period of time are 1027 hearings, 1028 hearings, and ermanencyP Hearings. New York State law does not establish time frames within which Fact-Finding, Disposition, or Termination of Parental Rights Hearings must be held. The law states only that “the court shall give priority to proceedings …involving abuse or in which a child has been removed from home before a final order of disposition. Any adjournment granted in the course of such a proceeding should be for as short a time

210 One child was initially remanded and later placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement. This child is included here in the remand data.

211 N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1027 (McKinney 2008).

212 N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1028 (McKinney 2008).

| 186 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

as is practicable.213” Given judges’ caseloads and congested calendars, as discussed above, adjournments are typically for many months ahead and are a critical factor in delaying permanency for children in New York City.

The next sections provide data regarding the time frame from a child’s remand into foster care to the completion of the Fact-Finding, the time frame from the Fact-Finding to the Disposition, and the overall time frame from remand to Disposition. a. Time Frame from Remand of Child into Foster Care to Completion of Fact-Finding The study collected data regarding how long it took from the remand of the child into foster care to the completion of the Fact-Finding. The mean and median lengths of time from remand to the Fact- Finding order were 10.6 and 7.9 months, respectively. The lengths of time ranged from less than three months to more than three years.214 Figure 9.8 provides additional detail regarding the length of time from remand to the Fact-Finding order. As shown, one-third (32%) of children’s cases took more than a year from remand to the completion of the Fact-Finding.

Figure 9.8: Length of Time from Remand to Fact-Finding Order (n = 132)215

25% 21% 20% 17% 15% 15% 14%

9% 10% 8% 6% 6% 5% 4% Proportion of Children Proportion

0 less than 3+ - 6 6+ - 8 8+ - 12 12+ - 18 18+ - 24 More than Fact-Finding UTD 3 months months months months months months 24 months not completed as of 9/30/08 Length of Time

For 47% of all children in the study sample, the Fact-Find- ing orders were entered more than eight months after the “We’ve got cases that are being set children were remanded. This eight month point is an for trial in January 2010 and the important demarcation because, as noted above, the first case just got filed [in the spring of Permanency Hearing must be held eight months after a 2009] ”. child is remanded (Permanency Hearings are discussed in Attorney for Parents detail later in this chapter).

213 N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1049 (McKinney 2008).

214 n = 119. For children with one applicable parent, the length is the difference between the date of the remand and the date of the Fact-Finding order. For children with two applicable parents, the length is the difference between the date of remand and the later date of the Fact-Finding orders (if the orders as to each parent did not occur on the same date). Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement; if the Fact-Finding preceded the remand; if data were missing as to whether or not the Fact-Finding was completed; if the date of the remand and/or the Fact-Finding order was unable to be determined; or if the Fact-Finding decision was still pending as of September 30, 2008. One additional child’s case was excluded because the child was initially remanded and then placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement prior to a Fact-Find- ing order.

215 For children with one applicable parent, the length is the difference between the date of the remand and the date of the Fact-Find- ing order. For children with two applicable parents, the length is the difference between the date of remand and the later date of the Fact-Finding orders (if the orders as to each parent did not occur on the same date). Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was placed Pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement; if the Fact-Finding preceded the remand; or if data were missing as to whether or not the Fact-Finding was completed. One additional child’s case was excluded because the child was initially remanded and then placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement prior to a Fact-Finding order.

| 187 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

It should be noted that many of the children in this sample entered foster care before the Permanency Law was implemented. Thus, we analyzed the time from remand to Fact-Finding specifically for the sub-sample of 32 children (24%) who were remanded after Dec. 21, 2005.216 In fact, for 58% of these children, the Fact-Finding was entered or still pending more than eight months after the children were remanded. In these cases, Permanency Hearings should have begun and may in fact have been completed prior to the Court even determining whether abuse or neglect had occurred. b. Time Frame from Fact-Finding to Disposition The mean and median lengths of time from Fact-Finding to Disposition were 4.3 and 2 months, respectively. The range was the same day to 6.2 years.217 Figure 9.9 provides the lengths of time from Fact-Finding to Disposition for children in the study sample. For more than half of the children in the study sample (57%), the length of time from Fact-Finding to Disposition was less than three months. However, for 19% of children the length of time was more than six months.

Figure 9.9: Length of Time from Fact-Finding to Disposition (n = 127)218

60% 57%

50%

40%

30%

20% 19%

Proportion of Children Proportion 10% 10% 9% 5% 1% 0 less than 3 months 3+ - 6 months 6+ - 12 months more than Disposition UTD 12 months not completed as of 9/30/08 Length of Time

216 n = 132. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were remanded prior to Dec. 21, 2005; if they were placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement; or if data regarding whether the Fact-Finding was completed as to all applicable parents was unable to be determined. The analysis also excludes one child who was initially remanded after Dec. 21, 2005 and then placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement prior to a Fact-Finding order.

217 n = 120. For children with one applicable parent, the length is the difference between the date of the Fact-Finding order and the date of the Disposition order. For children with two applicable parents, the length is the difference between the date of the first Fact- Finding order and the later date of the Disposition orders (if the orders as to each parent were not made on the same date). Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement; if the Fact-Finding preceded the remand; if the date of the Fact-Finding and/or Disposition order was missing; if the date of the Fact-Finding and/or Disposition was unable to be determined; if the Fact-Finding and/or Disposition decision was still pending as of September 30, 2008; or if data were missing as to whether the Fact-Finding and/or Disposition was completed. Regarding the longest length of time finding of 6.2 years, it should be noted that the second longest length of time was 1.6 years. Thus, this one case appears to be an outlier.

218 For children with one applicable parent, the length is the difference between the date of the Fact-Finding order and the date of the Disposition order. For children with two applicable parents, the length is the difference between the date of the first Fact-Finding order and the later Disposition order (if the orders as to each parent were not made on the same date). Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was placed Pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement; if the Fact-Finding preceded the remand; if the Fact-Finding was not yet completed; or if data were missing as to whether the Fact-Finding and/or Disposition was completed. One additional child’s case was excluded from this analysis because the child was initially remanded and then placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement prior to a Fact-Finding decision. Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

| 188 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

c. Time Frame from Remand to Disposition The mean length of time from remand to Disposition was 14 months; the median was 11 months. The range was .2 months to 6.2 years.219 Figure 9.10 provides detail regarding the length of time from remand to Disposition for the children in the study sample.

Figure 9.10: Length of Time from Remand to Disposition (n = 127)220

35% 32% 30%

25% 22% 21% 20%

15%

10% 8% 9% Proportion of Children Proportion 5% 5% 2% 1% 0 Less than 8+ - 12 12+ - 18 18+ - 24 24+ - 36 36+ months Disposition UTD 8 months months months months months not completed as of 9/30/08 Length of Time

As noted above, since December 2005, the Court is responsible for holding the first Permanency Hear- ing when the child has been remanded for eight months (Permanency Hearings are discussed in detail later in this chapter). As shown in Figure 9.10 above, just less than one-third of children’s cases (32%) moved from remand to Disposition in less than eight months.

Because many of the children in the study sample entered foster care before the “Permanency Law” was implemented, we analyzed the time from remand to Disposition specifically for the sub-sample of 31 children (24%) who were remanded after December 21, 2005 and had a Disposition that was either completed or pending as of September 30, 2008.221 In fact, 72% of these children had Dispositions that took more than eight months. In these cases, Permanency Hearings should have begun and may in fact have been completed prior to entering the Disposition order.

In addition to analyzing the proportion of children who entered foster care after the “Permanency Law” was enacted in order to determine what proportion of these cases should have had a Permanency

219 n = 123. For children with one applicable parent, the length is the difference between the date of the remand and the date of the Disposition order. For children with two applicable parents, the length is the difference between the date of the remand and the later date of the Disposition orders (if the orders as to each parent were not made on the same date). Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement; if the date of the remand and/or Disposition was unable to be determined; if the Fact-Finding and/or the Disposition was still pending as of September 30, 2008; if the Fact-Finding preceded the remand; or if data were missing as to whether or not the Fact-Finding and/or Disposition was completed. One additional child’s case was excluded from this analysis because the child was initially remanded and then placed pursuant to a Voluntary Place- ment Agreement prior to a Fact-Finding decision.

220 For children with one applicable parent, the length is the difference between the date of the remand and the date of the Disposi- tion. For children with two applicable parents, the length is the difference between the date of remand and the later date of Disposition (if the Disposition as to each parent did not occur on the same date). Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child was placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement; if the Fact-Finding had not yet been completed; if the Fact-Finding preceded the remand; or if data were missing as to whether or not the Fact-Finding and/or Disposition was completed. One additional child’s case was excluded from this analysis because the child was initially remanded and then placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement prior to a Fact-Finding decision.

221 n = 127. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the Fact-Finding was still pending as of September 30, 2008; if they were placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement; or if data regarding whether the Disposition was completed as to all applicable parents was unable to be determined. The analysis also excludes one child who was initially remanded after Dec. 21, 2005 and then placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement prior to a Fact-Finding order.

| 189 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Hearing prior to the Disposition of the case, we also analyzed whether the length of time from remand to Disposition has changed over time and particularly since the passage of Permanency Law. In order to assess change over time, we compared the mean length of time from remand to Disposition for children who were remanded prior to the Permanency Law (n = 92; mean = 14.5 months) to children who were remanded after the Permanency Law (n = 31; mean = 13.4 months).222 The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. Although this analysis does not control for other factors that might influence length of time from remand to Disposition, it does suggest that the length of time from remand to Disposition has not changed significantly since the Permanency Law was enacted.

As shown in the findings above, the length of time it takes for cases to proceed from remand to Dispo- sition, whether children were remanded more recently or less recently, is, in many cases, an unaccept- ably slow process. In fact, each step of the way—from remand to Fact-Finding and from Fact-Finding to Disposition—too many children remain in foster care for many months or even years while each stage of the court process is completed.

Stakeholders, including attorneys for parents and judges, reported that, in some cases, many months after the child has been remanded, the parents will request a 1028 hearing, which is typically held a few days after a child is remanded. In these cases, the parents are asking the Court to consider returning their child(ren) to their care at a 1028 hearing because many months may have gone by, and the case is not moving forward in court. The parents may have completed the required services yet the Fact-Find- ing and/or Disposition Hearings have not yet occurred, so the parents request a 1028 hearing because, as noted above, these hearings must be held within three days of the request.

Virtually all of the stakeholders who participated in focus groups and interviews for this study talked at length about the number of adjournments and the length of time between adjournments for all types of court hearings (abuse and neglect, termination of parental rights, permanency) as being a critical concern. As seen in the findings above, abuse and neglect court decisions (as well as termination of parental rights court decisions, which are discussed in detail later in this chapter) can take a long time to complete while the children remain separated from their families and without a permanent home.

There are many reasons why Family Court cases are adjourned. For example, an attorney, a caseworker, or a parent may not be present; a witness may not be available; a party may not be ready to proceed; or the Court may not have sufficient time to complete the hearing on a given day. Each adjournment further delays the process and extends the child’s stay in foster care. (This study did not collect quantitative data on the reasons for adjournments in Article 10 proceedings. Data were collected regarding reasons Permanency Hearings were not completed in a timely fashion; these data are provided in Sec- tion IV of this chapter.)

Another reason for adjournments noted by some stakeholders pertained to incarcerated parents sometimes not being brought to Family Court by their correctional facilities when their cases are scheduled to be heard. This is a multi-systemic issue that involves Family Court, which must complete the necessary paperwork to have the parent brought to Family Court, as well as the criminal justice system, which must process the paperwork and transport the parent. Regarding one case, a stakeholder noted that “Since the beginning, hearings got adjourned because the father was incarcerated. His facility required two weeks notice to produce the father at a hearing. Sometimes the facility would say they hadn’t received proper notice. Sometimes the father didn’t want to come to the hearing but didn’t communicate that to his attorney.”

222 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement; if the Disposi- tion was pending as of September 30, 2008; or if the date of remand and/or Disposition was missing. The analysis also excludes one child who was initially remanded and then placed pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement prior to a Fact-Finding order.

| 190 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Family Court Adjournments

“Whether it’s Permanency Hearings or any other type of matter…the calendars are being pushed out forever and that is not helping permanency ”. Family Court Judge/Referee “How can you have a court date six months apart?… [My attorney went] on vacation and ACS went on vacation… The judge went on vacation… While all of this is going on, the time frame for AFSA is going on ”. Parent “The mother is represented by a very strong advocate and there is always more litigation on this case than court time ”. JRP Attorney for Children

2. Voluntary Placements When a parent voluntarily places his/her child in foster care and the plan is for the child to remain in placement for more than 30 days, ACS must file a petition and a hearing must be held. During this hearing the Court reviews the Voluntary Placement Agreement signed by the parent and ensures that the parent’s decision to place the child was in fact voluntary, that efforts were initially made to prevent the child’s removal from home, and that ongoing efforts are being made to return the child home.

Six children in the study sample were placed on a voluntary basis. ACS filed the petition as required within 30 days for only one of these six children.

IV. Permanency Hearings

As noted above, in 2005, a new “Permanency Law” was passed in New York State. These new and revised statutes include the requirement that Permanency Hearings be held eight months after the Court orders that a child be removed from his or her home and every six months thereafter for the duration of the child’s stay in foster care.223 The purpose of these hearings is to improve permanency outcomes for children through regularly scheduled judicial reviews of the case circumstances, the appropriateness of the permanency goals, and the efforts made to achieve permanency. The Court must also issue orders to expedite permanency and ensure the safety and well-being of children in foster care, as well as to determine when to discharge children from foster care.

The following sections present the study findings regarding various issues pertaining to Permanency Hearings, including “reasonable efforts” findings, timeliness of Permanency Hearings, and reasons that untimely hearings were adjourned.

The study collected data regarding the Permanency Hearings that were held for the children in the study sample during the two-year period from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2008. (Note, this is a two-year period. The majority of other measures in the study cover a one-year period.) More than 500 Permanency Hearings were held during this time period pertaining to the children in the study sample.

223 N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1089(a)(2)–(3) (McKinney 2008).

| 191 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

A. Reasonable Efforts to Achieve Permanency

After reviewing all of the evidence presented at each Permanency Hearing, the judge or referee must determine whether the foster care agency, and by extension ACS, made what are referred to as “reasonable efforts to achieve permanency” for each child. Making “reasonable efforts” entails providing casework and other services needed to either reunite a child with his or her family or to develop and finalize another permanency plan, such as adoption, if the child cannot safely return home. Making reasonable efforts is both a federal and New York State requirement, and affects the receipt of federal funding.

Data were collected for 463 of these hearings regarding whether the Court had determined that reasonable efforts to achieve permanency had been made by the foster care agency. The Court determined in all but six of these Permanency Hearings that reasonable efforts to achieve permanency had been made. Given that all of the children in the study sample had been in foster care for at least two years, and that many had been in care much longer, and given the quality of casework found in these cases (as described elsewhere in this report), the fact that in nearly all of the hearings the Court found that reasonable efforts to achieve permanency had been made raises questions regarding the threshold used to make these determinations, and the relevance of such findings.

As noted above, stakeholders said that the Court does not frequently or consistently use its power to hold ACS and the foster care agencies accountable through the use of court orders, sanctions, etc. These data may provide another example of this issue.

B. Timeliness of Permanency Hearings

New York State law requires that each Permanency Hearing be completed within 30 days of the date the hearing was scheduled to begin (commonly referred to as the Permanency Hearing Date Certain).224 During the two-year period from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2008, more than half (55%) of the children in the study sample had one or more Permanency Hearings that were not completed within 30 days as required. Delays in completing Permanency Hearings result in delayed court reviews and court orders and can have considerable impact on the length of time it takes for children to achieve permanency.

Figure 9.11: Proportion of Children with Timely Permanency Hearings During a Two-Year Period, by Child (n = 147)225

55% 45% All Permanency Hearings Completed Timely One or More Permanency Hearings Not Completed Timely

As noted above, 55% (81) of the children in the study sample had one or more Permanency Hearings that were not completed within 30 days, as required. Figure 9.12 provides the number of Permanency Hearings that were not completed within 30 days for these 81 children.

224 N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1089(a)(2) (McKinney 2008).

225 n = 147. One child had no Permanency Hearings during the two-year period, and data were missing for five children.

| 192 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Figure 9.12: Number of Permanency Hearings That Were Not Completed Timely, by Child (n = 81)

50% 48% 40% 40%

30%

20% 11% 10% Proportion of Children Proportion 1% 0 1 2 3 4 Number of Hearings Not Completed Timely

C. Reasons Permanency Hearings Not Completed Timely

The figure above reflects a total of 134 hearings that were not completed timely. Figure 9.13 below provides the reasons, according to the JRP attorney for the child, that 91 of these Permanency Hearings were not completed within 30 days. (Data were not provided for the remaining 43 hearings.)

Almost half (48%) of the hearings were not completed within 30 days because the Permanency Hearing Reports, which are prepared and submitted by the provider agency caseworker (Permanency Hearing Reports are discussed in detail in Chapter 4: Casework) were not submitted to the parties timely, and 20% of hearings were not completed timely because the Permanency Report did not sufficiently address the issues in the case.

Insufficient court time was noted as a reason for not completing the hearing timely for 26% of delayed Permanency Hearings. Twenty-four percent of hearings were not completed timely because the provider agency caseworker was not present, and 20% were not completed timely because the ACS caseworker was not present. (In some cases both a provider agency caseworker and an ACS caseworker are assigned to the case.)

It should be noted that data regarding the reasons Permanency Hearings were not completed timely were provided by the JRP attorneys for the children; therefore it is possible that the data may not fully reflect instances in which Permanency Hearings were delayed because the JRP attorney was not present.

| 193 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Figure 9.13: Reasons Permanency Hearings Were Not Completed Timely (n = 91 hearings)226

Reasons Permanency Hearings Not Completed Timely

Required notices not sent timely 22%

Permanency Hearing Report not submitted timely 48%

Permanency Hearing Report not su cient 20%

New attorney assigned 5%

New judge/referee assigned 3%

Judge/Referee not available 13%

Insu cient court time 26%

Respondent parent's attorney not present 18%

FCLS attorney not present 4%

JRP attorney not present 2%

Foster care caseworker not present 24%

ACS caseworker not present 20%

Respondent not present 9%

Witness not present 3%

Child not present 2%

Other court-related issues 16%

Attorney for child requested adjournment to interview child 3% Other 20%

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Proportion of Hearings

In addition to the data collected from the JRP attorneys, other stakeholders who participated in focus groups and interviews for this study reported many of the same reasons for Permanency Hearings not being completed timely, including caseworkers and/or attorneys not being present, the lack of Perma- nency Hearing Reports and/or late Permanency Hearing Reports, and crowded court calendars.

It is also important to bear in mind that, between Permanency Hearings, a party—the parent through their attorney, the foster care agency through the FCLS attorney, or the JRP attorney for the child, for example—can file a motion requesting that a case be put on the court’s calendar to address a pressing issue, such as an application to return the child home before the next Permanency Hearing. Judges and referees who participated in a focus group for this study reported that these applications are rare and that it seems that foster care provider agencies are reluctant to affirmatively ask the court to send children home, regardless of the circumstances. Judges and referees noted that these requests are a primary function of the caseworker and the provider agency, yet, in practice, these requests are few and far between. It is their impression that foster care provider agencies do not want to risk being responsible for a bad outcome. Other stakeholders, particularly parents and parents’ attorneys, reported that in some cases attorneys for children are reluctant to support recommendations to return children home, and judges and referees are reluctant to return children home. When considered all together, these concerns can lead to a stalemate for children and their families. These are complex decisions, but are ones that, based on comprehensive assessments and professional judgment, must be made.

226 Hearings were excluded from this analysis if the JRP attorneys for the children were not able to determine the reason(s) hearings were not completed timely, or if data were missing. Proportions do not total 100% because more than one reason for not completing a Permanency Hearing within 30 days could be selected.

| 194 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Permanency Hearings

“When you go to court in front of the judge, ACS goes to the judge with that Permanency Report ..The judge reads it and it goes to trial ..What [can] I do? I read [the Permanency Report], because by law you’re supposed to get the Permanency Report too, so you can review it ..I review the Permanency Hearing Report [and] 70% of the information is wrong ..Seventy percent of it is misconstrued ..She did this, she did this, she didn’t do this—it’s misconstrued information .. And all the judge knows is what [they] give him ”. Parent “There is such a discrepancy between the Permanency Report and the case record sometimes and it’s too late when you get [to] the TPR to find out… what’s going on ..If there’s cases I’m . dissatisfied with, I make them produce the case record…I want to know what’s been going on ”. Family Court Judge “A lot of times caseworkers don’t show up at all in court ”. Attorney for Parents “Sometimes there are too many issues going on in a case and not enough court time to discuss them all ..Coordination of schedules with judges, lawyers, workers can be difficult ”. FCLS Attorney “Even Permanency Reports, which are now required to be provided in advance, are not ..and parents are often faced with a really difficult choice, to go forward, without having prior notice of that report or an adjournment, which could cost months of delay ..So I think reports and for the parents, any advocacy that we could provide, it’s such an important piece ..Because our clients, really, very often have a completely different perspective on what’s written in that report ”. Attorney for Parents “Cases just don’t move along quick enough ..Reports are delayed [and] caseworkers don’t come to Court ”. JRP Attorney for Children

V. termination of Parental Rights

In order for a child to be legally free for adoption, parental rights must be surrendered or terminated. The process for terminating parental rights involves multiple casework practices and legal procedures that must be completed in order to free a child for adoption. From establishing the Adoption goal to the signing of the court order that ultimately frees a child for adoption, the process can take anywhere from a few months to many years to complete. The following sections present data on various legal practices regarding parental rights, including voluntary surrenders and termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions, as well as the study findings regarding the process of moving TPR cases through the court system.227

227 It is important to note that, by design, none of the children in the study sample had been adopted. The purpose of this study was to examine the circumstances of children who were still in care. In any case, once a child is adopted, the case record is sealed and unavailable for review.

| 195 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

It should be noted that, although ACS’ FCLS attorneys represent ACS and, by extension, the foster care provider agencies in abuse and neglect cases, Voluntary Placement cases, and Permanency Hearings, the provider agencies in New York City must employ attorneys or hire private attorneys to handle Voluntary Surrender and TPR cases. These attorneys’ responsibilities include preparing and filing Vol- untary Surrenders and TPR petitions, and representing the provider agencies throughout the TPR and adoption process.

A. Voluntary Surrender of Parental Rights

In some cases, parents make the difficult decision to voluntarily surrender their parental rights. Dur- ing the one-year review period, surrenders were signed by two children’s mothers and another child’s father.228 Two of these children became legally free as the result of the surrenders, which were signed when they had been in foster care for 6.7 and 8.8 years. For the third child, the mother had signed a surrender after the child had been in foster care for 4.6 years; however, the father did not sign a surrender, and the TPR case against him continued. This child was not yet legally free at the end of the review period. More detail regarding casework practice in relation to the surrender of parental rights is provided in Chapter 5: Adoption Casework.

B. Beginning the TPR Process

One of the requirements of the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which was signed into law in 1997, is that a petition to terminate parental rights (TPR) be filed on behalf of children who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, except when there are “compelling” reasons, as discussed in Section 2 below.229 It is important to bear in mind that foster care agencies are responsible for filing these petitions, but judges have the authority to order that these petitions be filed.

1. Filing TPR Petitions All of the children in the study sample had been in foster care for more than 15 of the most recent 22 months. In fact, by design, all of the children had been in foster care for at least two years. However, as shown in Figure 9.14, 69% of children in the sample who were not legally free did not have TPR petitions filed as of the last day of the review period.230 Figure 9.14 also provides these data broken down by permanency goal. All of the children in the sample with a goal of Adoption had a TPR petition filed on their behalf, although most were very delayed, as described below. Eight percent of children with a goal of Return to Parent had TPR petitions filed.

228 n = 116. Thirty-seven children became legally free prior to the review period. Data were not collected regarding whether any of the parents of these 37 children signed a surrender.

229 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.).

230 Analyses regarding whether a TPR petition was filed are based only on children in the study sample who were not legally free because a fixed proportion of children that were legally free as of September 30, 2008 was deliberately selected for inclusion in the study sample. To include these children in these analyses would therefore force a certain proportion of ‘yes” answers to the question of whether or not TPR petitions were filed. Analyses of the timeliness of TPR filings andT PR proceedings include all children who had TPRs filed, regardless of whether the children were legally free.

| 196 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Figure 9.14: Proportion of Children with a TPR Petition Filed231

100% 100% 92%

80% 69% 60%

40% 31%

20% Proportion of Children Proportion 8% 0% 0 All Children, Not Legally Free Children with a Goal of RTP Children with a Goal of Adoption, (n = 106) (n = 79) Not Legally Free (n = 27) TPR Filed TPR Not Filed

Considering each parent separately, TPR petitions were not filed for 69% of mothers and 70% of fathers.232 Data regarding the proportion of mothers and fathers against whom a TPR petition was filed are provided in Figure 9.15, for all children and by goal. As shown in this figure, TPR petitions were filed against 100% of mothers of children with a goal of Adoption (although most were delayed, as discussed below) and 8% of mothers of children with a goal of Return to Parent, and the findings are similar for fathers.

Figure 9.15: TPR Petitions Filed as to Mothers and Fathers233

100% 100% 92% 92% 91% 80% 69% 70% 60%

40% 31% 30% 20% 8% 8% 9%

Proportion of Children Proportion 0% 0 All Children Children with a Children with a All Children Children with a Children with a as to Mother Goal of RTP Goal of Adoption as to Father Goal of RTP Goal of Adoption (n = 102) as to Mother as to Mother (n = 88) as to Father as to Father (n = 76) (n = 26) (n = 65) (n = 23)

TPR Filed TPR Not Filed

In addition to collecting whether a TPR petition was filed, data were collected regarding when, during the course of the case, they were filed. For children that had a TPR petition filed on their behalf, we analyzed the length of time from the child’s entry into foster care to the filing of the TPR petition as to at least one parent, which is the first step in the TPR legal process. As shown in Figure 9.16, of those

231 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the children were already legally free as of September 30, 2008, or if the relevant parent was unknown or deceased. Legally free children were excluded because a fixed proportion of children who were legally free as of Sept, 30, 2008 was deliberately selected for inclusion in the study sample. (More detail regarding sample selection is provided in Appendix A.) To include these children in this analysis would therefore force a certain proportion of “yes” answers to the question of whether or not TPR petitions were filed as to their parents.

232 Mothers: n = 102; fathers: n = 88. Children’s cases were excluded from these analyses if the children were legally free as of September 30, 2008 or if the relevant parent was unknown or deceased.

233 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the children were already legally free as of September 30, 2008 or if the relevant parent was unknown or deceased. Data were missing regarding four fathers.

| 197 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

children with a TPR petition filed as to at least one parent, only 7% had the petition filed within 15 months of entering foster care.234

The mean and median lengths of time from children’s entry into foster care to the filing of the TPR petition as to at least one parent were 3.2 and 2.5 years, respectively. The lengths of time ranged from seven months to 13.3 years.235 Figure 9.16 provides detail regarding the length of time from foster care entry to the filing of the TPR petition as to at least one parent of children in the study sample. (Because only six children with a goal of Return to Parent had a TPR filed, Figure 9.16 does not break down the length of time from entry to filing by goal.)236 One-third of children were in foster care for three years or more before a TPR petition was filed and one-fifth were in foster care for four or more years before a petition was filed.

Figure 9.16: Length of Time from Foster Care Entry to TPR Petition Filed as to at Least One Parent (n = 75)237 25% 25% 24%

20%

15% 13% 13% 11% 10% 7% 7% 5% Proportion of Children Proportion

0 Less than 15 - 24 24+ - 36 36+ - 48 48+ - 60 More than UTD 15 months months months months months 60 months Length of Time

Figure 9.16 above reflects when a TPR was filed for any parent. Regarding mothers specifically, the lengths of time from the child’s entry into foster care to the filing of TPR petitions ranged from 7 months to 13.3 years. Regarding fathers, the lengths of time from the child’s entry into foster care to the filing of TPR petitions ranged from 14 months to 13.3 years.238 Figure 9.17 provides the mean and median lengths of time from entry to the filing of TPR petitions as to mothers and fathers. As shown, there was practically no difference in the mean or median lengths of time from foster care entry to filing TPR petitions against mothers and fathers.

Figure 9.17: Mean and Median Length of Time from Entry to Filing TPR Petitions, by Parent, in Years239 Mean Median Mothers (n = 64) 3.3 2.5 Fathers (n = 44) 3.4 2.5

234 n = 67. TPR petitions were filed as to at least one parent of 75 children in the sample. However, the date the TPR petition was filed as to either parent was unable to be determined regarding eight of these children.

235 n = 67. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the date the TPR petition was filed as to either parent was unable to be determined; or if both parents were unknown and/or deceased; or if no TPR petition was filed as to either of the child’s parents.

236 Including the lengths of time from entry to TPR filing for the six children with a goal of Return to Parent does not meaningfully change the overall breakdown depicted in Figure 9.16. One child had a TPR filed less than 15 months after entering care, four children had a TPR filed between 24 and 36 months after entering care, and one child had a TPR filed between 36 and 48 months after entering care.

237 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if no TPR was filed as to either parent, or if both parents were unknown or deceased.

238 Mothers: n = 64; fathers: n = 44. Children’s cases were excluded from these analyses if a parent was deceased or unknown or if the date the TPR petition was filed was unable to be determined. Legally free children are included in this analysis and all subsequent “length of time” analyses because, unlike the data findings above regarding whether or not TPR petitions were filed, the length of time it took to file TPR petitions was not one of the sample selection criteria.

239 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if a parent was deceased or unknown or if the date the TPR petition was filed was unable to be determined. | 198 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

2. Compelling Reasons Not to File TPR Petitions When a TPR petition is not filed for a child who has been in foster care more than 15 out of 22 months, foster care agencies are required to document a “compelling reason” for not doing so. According to federal law (ASFA), exceptions to the TPR filing requirement include general circumstances in which: 1) the child is being cared for by a relative; 2) filing a TPR petition would not be in the child’s best interests; or 3) the family has not been provided with the services “necessary for the safe return of the child to the child’s home.”240 New York State law requires a case by case determination regarding whether a TPR petition should be filed and provides the following list of circumstances that may excuse the local social services district from filing a TPR: 1) the child is being cared for by a relative; 2) filing a TPR petition is not in the child’s best interest due to a “compelling reason;” or 3) the agency has not provided the parents with the services needed to ensure the safety of the child if the child were to return home. The law also identifies certain possible compelling reasons not to file a TPR petition, including situations in which the child is 14 years of age or older and will not consent to be adopted, there are insufficient grounds for filing a TPR petition, and the child has a permanency goal other than adoption. Compel- ling reasons must be based on the specific case circumstances and must consider the best interest of the child, as noted above.241

In order to provide further guidance to the foster care agencies, ACS issued a policy guidance bulletin that identified various case circumstances that “may constitute a compelling reason not to file a TPR for a particular child.”242 Similar to New York State law, this policy guidance states that the decision regarding whether or not to file a TPR petition must be based on the individual, child-specific“ ” case circumstances “in accordance with the child’s best interests.” The policy bulletin identified circumstances including the following: 1) a child over 14 years old who has been counseled but does not want to be adopted; 2) a child for whom a family setting will not currently meet his or her needs; 3) a child who has regular contact with his or her parent(s) and maintaining this contact and relationship benefits the child; 4) a child for whom the best and most likely permanency option is “something other than adoption” (such as legal guardianship by a relative); and 5) “at least one parent is actively being considered as a discharge resource for the child, and it is anticipated that such discharge is likely to occur within six months.” (See Appendix B for the full policy guidance on this issue.)

This study collected the documented reasons for not filing TPR petitions as identified in the case records and compared them to the ACS policy guidance. Of the 71 children for whom a TPR petition was not filed as to either parent, 8% had case records that clearly documented at least one of the compelling reasons identified by ACS.243 For these children (n = 6) the following reasons were noted: 1) for four children, the parent(s) was actively being considered as a discharge resource for the child and it was anticipated that such discharge was likely to occur within six months; 2) one child was 14 years old or older and did not want to be adopted; and 3) for one child, two compelling reasons were documented—the parent made regular contact with the child and maintaining their contact and relationship benefited the child, and the child was 14 years old or older and did not want to be adopted.

For an additional 19% of children, the reason documented was that the child was home on trial discharge or that the plan was to trial discharge the child.

For 11% of children, the agencies documented no compelling reason why they had not filed for TPR.

240 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.).

241 N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b (McKinney 2007).

242 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. ACS Bulletin 05-1, Connections Build 18 Procedures: Case Management. Issued August 23, 2005.

243 Data were missing for 2 of the 73 children for which a TPR petition was not filed as to either parent.

| 199 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

For the remaining 62% of children other reasons were documented that did not appear to meet the letter or spirit of ACS’ policy guidance. Examples of these other reasons included: • documentation noting that the parent was “planning” for the child to return home, but providing no estimate of when final discharge might occur; • documentation noting that the parent had “completed services,” but providing no indication of when the child might return home; and • documentation simply noting that the child’s goal was Return to Parent, with no further explanation.

The above three examples do not appear to meet the letter or spirit of ACS’ policy guidance, which suggests that a compelling reason not to file a TPR petition and to maintain a Return to Parent goal should include the likely time frame by when the child can return home and that this should be within approximately six months (see Appendix B). These examples noted above all focused on continuing efforts to return children home, but did not include any likely time frame for achieving that goal.

Of course, for children with a goal of Return to Parent for extended periods of time, the main concern is not simply whether a TPR has been filed or not (as TPR is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself), but rather how and when permanency is going to be achieved. As noted above, the decision regarding whether or not to file a TPR petition must be made on a case by case basis. Return to Parent goals should be meaningfully reevaluated regularly, as maintaining the goal of Return to Parent with no end in sight can result in children remaining in foster care for years and years. Many children in the study sample with a goal of Return to Parent had that goal for a very long time—the mean length of time children had a Return to Parent goal was 3.3 years and 24% of children had this goal for more than four years, and, as noted above, only 8% of children in the study sample with a goal of Return to Parent had a TPR petition filed on their behalf.

Termination of Parental Rights

“Agencies delay TPR even when it seems clear that parents can’t care for their children ”. Resource Parent “But it came out, I guess, on the removal of the new baby and we… had all the evidence… and all the reports saying they could care for children and then it came out that basically the law guardian and the powers that be at the foster care agency and I think ACS, thought they were incapable ...So… TPR should have been filed all the way back then and we could have been working on fighting that from the beginning ”. Attorney for Parents “Courts are reluctant to push TPR forward just to comply with letter of the law ”. FCLS Attorney “Maybe the court has overextended itself in this case allowing the mother so many chances ”. JRP Attorney for Children “[The] ASFA law [is] great but needs to be enforced more ..[Parents] should be given [the] . opportunity to get things together but ASFA must be enforced ”. Foster Care Caseworker “The child has been in care so long because [the] judge kept giving the parents many opportunities to get things together ..[There was a] failed trial discharge, the child came back into care [and]… the agency had to continue offering services to the parents ”. Foster Care Caseworker

| 200 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Training for caseworkers and supervisors on what constitutes a compelling reason is needed so that appropriate and timely decisions can be made regarding when to file TPR petitions. In addition, judges and referees play an important role in determining when TPR petitions should be filed and can order that these petitions be filed within a specific period of time, regardless of the child’s goal.

Many stakeholders who participated in focus groups and interviews for this study commented that, in some cases, the permanency goal remains Return to Parent longer than it should, noting that foster care provider agencies do not request that the goal be changed as soon as they should, and that judges and referees give parents too many chances over long periods of time, while the children remain in foster care for years.

3. Time Frame from Establishing the Adoption Goal to Filing TPR Petitions The following section provides the study findings regarding the length of time it took to move from establishing the goal of Adoption to filing TPR petitions. The data are presented in two ways. First, the data are presented for the children in the study sample in order to illustrate the experiences of children. Second, the data are presented with regard to mothers and fathers in order to show whether there are differences in this practice pertaining to mothers and fathers.

We analyzed the data regarding the length of time from establishment of the Adoption goal to the filing of the TPR petition as to at least one of the child’s parents. Among children who had a TPR filed as to at least one parent, the foster care agencies took more than three months from goal change to filing a TPR petition for 43% of children. Figure 9.18 provides the lengths of time for all children in the study sample who had a TPR petition filed as to at least one of their parents.

Figure 9.18: Length of Time from Adoption Goal Establishment to TPR Petition Filed, by Child (n = 69)244

30% 26% 25%

20% 17% 16% 16% 15% 10% 10% 7%

Proportion of Children Proportion 4% 5% 3%

0 TPR ﬁled less than 1+ - 3 3+ - 6 6+ - 12 12+ - 24 More than UTD before goal 30 days months months months months 24 months changed Length of Time

New York State regulations require that an action be taken to legally free children within 30 days of the establishment of the Adoption goal.245 However, 59% of children did not have a TPR filed for either parent (or one parent when only one parent was applicable) within 30 days.

244 For children with one applicable parent, the length is the difference between the date the child’s permanency goal became Adop- tion and the date the TPR petition was filed as to that parent. For children with two applicable parents, the length is the difference between the date the child’s permanency goal became Adoption and the date of the filing of the earliest TPR petition (if the TPR petitions as to each parent did not occur on the same date). Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child had a permanency goal of Return to Parent during the review period or if the child had a permanency goal of Adoption but a TPR petition had not yet been filed as to either parent as of September 30, 2008. Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

245 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 18, § 430.12(e) (2009).

| 201 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

The lengths of time from establishing the permanency goal of Adoption to filing a TPR petition ranged from the same day to 6.5 years for both mothers and fathers. Figure 9.19 shows the mean and median length of time for each parent. As shown in Figure 9.19, the mean lengths of time are considerably larger than the median lengths of time, because the sample contains a few children who experienced very long lengths of time from goal change to the filing of TPR petitions. For example, three children had the TPR petition filed against their mother more than three years after their goal had been changed to Adoption.

Figure 9.19: Mean and Median Length of Time from Establishing Adoption Goal to Filing TPR Petitions, by Parent, in Months246 Mean Median Mothers (n = 44) 8.5 4 Fathers (n = 28) 9.1 3.8

Figure 9.20 provides more detail regarding the lengths of time from the establishment of the Adoption goal to the filing of TPR petitions. As shown in the figure, for 16% of mothers and 21% of fathers, the TPR petitions were filed before the child’s permanency goal was changed to Adoption.

Figure 9.20: Length of Time from Establishment of Adoption Goal to TPR Petition Filed, by Parent247

30% 27% 26% Mothers (n = 63) Fathers (n = 43) 25% 21% 20% 17% 16% 15% 14% 14% 14% 10% 10% 8% 9% 9% Proportion of Children Proportion 5% 5% 5% 3% 2% 0 TPR ﬁled within 30 days 1+ - 3 3+ - 6 6+ - 12 12+ - 24 More than UTD before goal months months months months 24 months changed Length of Time

As noted above, New York State regulations require that “an action to legally free the child must be initiated within 30 days of the establishment of the permanency planning goal of adoption.” As shown in Figure 9.20 above, a petition was not filed within that time frame for 62% of mothers and 56% of fathers.

Many stakeholders identified the initial stages of the TPR process as the point in time when fathers are sometimes first considered in both casework and legal practice. Prior to this point in many cases, little attention or effort is dedicated to engaging and working with fathers (for more detail regarding case practice with fathers see Chapter 4: Casework, Chapter 6: Caseworker Contacts, and Chapter 8: Services). When the time comes to terminate parental rights, petitions must be filed as to both legal parents. At this late stage, caseworkers must identify and search for fathers, if they have not previously done this as they should have, and this can be very difficult and time consuming.

246 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child had a permanency goal of Return to Parent; if the child’s permanency goal was changed to Adoption after the TPR petition was filed; or if the date the Adoption permanency goal was established and/or the date the TPR petition was filed was unable to be determined.

247 Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the child had a permanency goal of Return to Parent during the review period or if the child had a permanency goal of Adoption but a TPR petition had not yet been filed as to their mother and/or father.

| 202 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

In Termination of Parental Rights cases, the law differentiates between so-called “consent fathers” —whose rights must be terminat- “[There are] a lot of fathers ed or who must consent for a child to be adopted, and those who that nobody ever talks need only be notified of the termination proceeding and afforded to, nobody ever does an opportunity to be heard at the Disposition Hearing—so-called anything with, until the “notice only fathers.” For example, for a child born out-of-wedlock, TPR is filed and then they if a father is named on the child’s birth certificate but has never [say]—Oh, you know what, presented himself as the father (e.g., never supported the child or notify the father ”. has no relationship with the child), the Court may determine that Attorney for Parents he does not need to be named as a respondent in the termination case and that he is entitled only to be notified of the proceedings.

Some stakeholders, including attorneys for parents, noted that fathers are sometimes treated as “notice only” when they should in fact be named on the termination petition. For example, in one case reviewed for this study, the Court ordered the agency to file a petition to terminate the father’s rights, rather than treating the father as a “notice only father,” which was the foster care agency’s intention. This is an example of many findings in this report regarding failing to or delaying working with fathers.

4. TPR Fact-Finding and Disposition The following sections present the study findings regarding possible outcomes and interim actions that the parties can recommend and the court can take at both the Fact-Finding and Disposition stage of TPR processes, including withdrawing and dismissing petitions, suspending the judgment (i.e., Disposition) and the process of legally freeing children. These actions and outcomes can ultimately lead to permanency but, depending on how they are handled, can also create delays in achieving permanency.

A. tPR Withdrawn or Dismissed

A TPR petition may be withdrawn or dismissed for many reasons, including a change in case circumstances such as the death of a parent, insufficient evidence to support a TPR finding, or the decision by a parent to surrender their parental rights. In the study sample, the TPR petition had been withdrawn or dismissed for the mothers and/or the fathers of 9% of the children who were not legally free.248

B. Suspended Judgment

Once the judge has made the TPR Fact-Finding determination that one or more of the allegations (referred to as a “cause of action” in TPR petitions) in the TPR petition have been proven, the case then moves to the Disposition stage during which the judge must decide whether to terminate parental rights or provide the parent(s) with another opportunity to do what is necessary to have their child return home, which is referred to as a “suspended judgment.” A suspended judgment typically includes specific tasks, such as services or parent/child visits, that the parent(s) must complete with the assistance of the foster care agency (referred to as “terms and conditions”).

When a suspended judgment is granted, the parent is given up to one year to fulfill the specific orders of the Court. If the parent does not fulfill the orders of the Court, the Court may either extend the suspended judgment period for up to one additional year or move to free the child for adoption.249 Although a successful suspended judgment outcome, which results in the child’s return home, can be a positive outcome, the period of suspended judgment lengthens a child’s stay in foster care, both for children who return home and, most importantly, for those who cannot return home.

248 n = 106.

249 N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act. § 633 (McKinney 2009).

| 203 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

A suspended judgment was ordered as to the mothers and/or the fathers of 6% of the children who were not legally free.250 When the initial suspended judgment period ended, the mother of one child and the father of another child were granted extensions of the suspended judgments.

C. Legally Freeing Children

Once the Court has determined that at least one cause of action has been proven and that a suspended judgment is either not appropriate or that the conditions of a suspended judgment were not met by the parent(s), the Court can then legally free the child for adoption. This is the last step in the TPR process. Once a child is legally free and all of the necessary arrangements and paperwork have been completed, the child can then be adopted (details regarding casework practice related to adoption are provided in Chapter 5: Adoption Casework).

There were 47 children in the sample who had a goal of Adoption and were legally free. The following sections provide the study findings regarding various time frames related to freeing these children for adoption. Data are provided regarding the length of time from foster care entry to freeing, establishing the goal of Adoption to freeing, and the length of time from filing the TPR petition to freeing. It is important to note that although these 47 children were legally free, the process of finalizing the adoptions of these children had not yet been completed. Freeing children for adoption and completing adoptions are separate legal processes.251 Indeed, for some of these children, an adoptive family still needed to be identified and licensed. More detail regarding issues related to completing the adoption process is presented in Chapter 5: Adoption Casework.

1. Entry to Freeing The mean length of time from the date children entered foster care until they became legally free was 5.4 years and the median was 4.8 years. The range was 1.5 years to 13.3 years.252

For almost half of children (45%) who were legally free, more than five years passed from the day they entered foster care until they became legally free. Figure 9.21 provides detail regarding the length of time from foster care entry to the date children became legally free.

Figure 9.21: Length of Time from Foster Care Entry to Date Child Became Legally Free (n = 47)253

30% 30%

25% 23%

20% 15% 15% 11% 10% 9% 9%

Proportion of Children Proportion 5% 4%

0 1 - 2 years 2+ - 3 years 3+ - 4 years 4+ - 5 years 5+ - 6 years More than 6 years UTD

Length of Time

250 n = 106.

251 No data are presented in this report regarding adoption finalization because, by design, none of the children in the study sample were adopted. The purpose of this study was to examine barriers to permanency for children still in foster care. Further, when children are adopted, case files are sealed and unavailable for study.

252 n = 43. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the date the child became legally free was unable to be determined.

253 Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

| 204 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

2. Establishing Adoption Goal to Legal Freeing The mean length of time from establishment of the Adoption goal to legal freeing was 2.4 years and the median was 2.1 years. More than a quarter (26%) of the legally free children in the sample became legally free after more than three years with a goal of Adoption. The longest length of time from establishing the Adoption goal to freeing was 4.6 years.254 Figure 9.22 provides the lengths of time from establishing the permanency goal of Adoption to becoming legally free for adoption.

Figure 9.22: Length of Time from Establishing Adoption Goal to Date Child Became Legally Free (n = 47)

35% 32% 30% 25% 19% 20% 17% 17% 15% 10% 9% 6%

Proportion of Children Proportion 5% 0 1 year or less 1+ - 2 years 2+ - 3 years 3+ - 4 years 4+ - 5 years UTD Length of Time

New York State regulations require that children “must be freed within 12 months after the establishment of the permanency planning goal of adoption.”255 As shown in the figure above, 77% of children in the study sample were not legally free within that period of time. The responsibility for not meeting this requirement can lie with the foster care provider agency and/or court, depending on the case circumstances.

3. Filing TPR Petitions to Legal Freeing For the 47 legally free children in the sample, the mean and median lengths of time from filing the first TPR petition as to “Monitoring of [foster care] either parent to the date the child became legally free was 2.4 agency adoption practice is and 1.9 years, respectively. The lengths of time ranged from 2 needed ..[There is] no system in months to more than 8 years.256 In addition, for more than a place to monitor [the] agency’s third of the children who were legally free (34%), this process follow-up once a TPR is filed ”. took more than two years to complete. Figure 9.23 provides the JRP Attorney for Children lengths of time from filing the TPR petition to legal freeing for the children in the study sample.

254 n = 39. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the date the permanency goal or the date the child became legally free were unable to be determined.

255 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 18, § 430.12(e) (2009).

256 For children with one applicable parent, the length is the difference between the date the TPR petition was filed as to that parent and the date the child became legally free. For children with two applicable parents, the length is the difference between date of the filing of the earliest TPR petition and the date the child became legally free. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if the date the first TPR petition was filed as to at least one parent and/or the date the child became legally free was unable to be determined.

| 205 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Figure 9.23: Length of Time from Filing of TPR Petition to Date Child Became Legally Free (n = 47)257

25% 21% 20% 19% 19% 15% 15% 11% 10% 6% 5% 4% 4% Proportion of Children Proportion 0 less than 6 - 12 12+ - 18 18+ - 24 24+ - 36 36+ - 48 48+ months UTD 6 months months months months months months Length of Time

D. TPR Appeals Data were collected regarding the frequency of TPR appeals. Of all children with a goal of Adoption (74 children), 15% had a TPR on appeal.

E. Has the TPR Process Improved Over Time?

Many of the children in the study sample entered foster care many years ago, which raises an important question—has the TPR process improved over time? In order to address this question, we examined three of the data indicators discussed above—length of time from foster care entry to filing TPR petitions, length of time from filing TPR petitions to legal freeing, and length of time from foster care entry to legal freeing—to determine if these time frames have gotten shorter over the years. As discussed below and shown in Figures 9.24, 9.25, and 9.26, we found that the TPR process has improved over time. However, the process of filing TPR petitions and ultimately freeing children for adoption still takes many months or years to complete, which is also evident in Figures 9.24, 9.25, and 9.26 below, and does not happen at all for some children, even though the law requires it.258

First, we examined the relationship between the date the child entered foster care and the length of time from entry to filing of the first TPR as to either parent (see Figure 9.24). Children who entered foster care more recently were significantly more likely to experience a shorter length of time between entry and the filing of the first TPR petition than children who entered foster care less recently.259 Although this analysis does not control for other factors that might influence length of time from entry to TPR filing, it does suggest that timeliness of TPR filing has improved over time.

257 Proportions do not total 100% due to rounding.

258 Because the data collection period ended on September 30, 2008, children entering foster care most recently (or children with TPRs filed most recently, depending on the analysis) are less likely to be included in these analyses, as they are less likely to have achieved the milestones in question, simply because they have had less time to achieve the milestones in question (i.e., TPR filing or becoming legally free).

259 This correlation was statistically significant p( < .001).

| 206 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Figure 9.24: Correlation Between Date Entered Foster Care and Months From Entry to Filing TPR as to at least One Parent260

180

160

140

120

100

20 Months from Date Entered Foster Care to Date TPR Filed TPR Date to Care Foster Entered Date Months from 0 2 3 5 7 0 3 4 6 9 94 /9 96 1/9 98 99 0 1/01 02 0 0 0 07 1/1/9 1/1/ 1/1/ 1/1 1/1/ 1/ 1/1/ 1/1/ 1/1/ 1/ 1/1/ 1/1/ 1/1/ 1/1/05 1/1/ 1/1/

Date Entered Foster Care

Second, we examined the relationship between the date the first TPR petition as to either parent was filed and the length of time it took from the filing of the first TPR petition to legally freeing the child (see Figure 9.25). Children for whom TPR petitions were filed more recently were significantly more likely to experience a shorter length of time between TPR filing and freeing than children for whom TPR petitions were filed less recently.261 Although this analysis does not control for other factors that might influence length of time from TPR filing to freeing, it does suggest that the length of time from TPR filing to freeing has gotten shorter over the years.

Figure 9.25: Correlation Between Date TPR Filed as to at least One Parent and Length of Time from TPR Filing to Legal Freeing262

120

100

40 to Legal Freeing Legal to

Months from Date TPR Filed Date Months from 20

0 1/1/98 1/1/99 1/1/00 1/1/01 1/1/02 1/1/03 1/1/04 1/1/05 1/1/06 1/1/07 1/1/08 1/1/09

Date TPR Filed as to at least One Parent

260 n = 67. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they did not have a TPR filed as to at least one parent or if the date the TPR petition was filed as to either parent was unable to be determined.

261 This correlation was statistically significant p( < .001).

262 n = 37. Children’s cases are excluded from this analysis if they were not legally free or if the date the TPR petition was filed and/or the date the child became legally free was unable to be determined.

| 207 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

Finally, we examined the relationship between the date the child entered foster care and the length of time from entry to freeing (see Figure 9.26). Children who entered foster care more recently were significantly more likely to experience a shorter length of time between entry and freeing than children who entered foster care less recently.263 Although this analysis does not control for other factors that might influence length of time from entry to freeing, it does suggest that the length of time from entry to freeing has gotten shorter over the years.

Figure 9.26: Correlation Between Date Entered Foster Care and Length of Time from Entry to Legal Freeing264

180

160

140

120

100

20 Months from Date Entered Foster Care to Legal Freeing Legal to Care Foster Entered Date Months from 0 1/1/94 1/1/95 1/1/96 1/1/97 1/1/98 1/1/99 1/1/00 1/1/01 1/1/02 1/1/03 1/1/04 1/1/05 1/1/06 1/1/07

Date Entered Foster Care

Although the timing of filing TPR petitions and freeing children for adoption remain extremely delayed and problematic, these three correlations indicate that there has been some improvement in the timeliness of these processes over time.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, many factors affect how long it takes to complete the freeing process. For example, foster care agencies frequently do not file TPR petitions within 30 days of establishing the Adoption goal, as required, and adjournments frequently delay the TPR process, as they delay Article 10 Fact-Finding and Disposition Hearings.

Stakeholders reported that the TPR process is often delayed “Adoption needs to be pushed more—maybe a judge that does due to issues with serving peti- only adoption is needed ..adoption cases should have a strict tions. When a TPR petition time frame from the time of… freeing ”. is filed, the parents must be Foster Care Caseworker “served,” meaning a copy of the petition must be person- “The one family—one judge thing is nice on paper but if you’re ally delivered to the parents. going to take six years, it’s not helpful… I think you need an . According to stakeholders, the all-purpose part . . ..and [a] 1028 part [and]… trial parts ”. process of serving petitions Family Court Judge

263 This correlation was statistically significant p( < .001).

264 n = 43. Children’s cases were excluded from this analysis if they were not legally free or if the date they became legally free was unable to be determined.

| 208 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

is often delayed for weeks or even months. Additionally, efforts (referred to as “diligent efforts”) must be made to locate and serve parents whose whereabouts are unknown. Because years may have passed without any contact between the caseworker and the missing parent (frequently the father) or any efforts on the part of caseworker to locate the parent, this process can also take a considerable amount of time. These issues along with other issues discussed in this chapter, can impact how long it takes to move from filing a TPR petition to freeing a child.

E. Termination of Parental Rights with Specific Populations

1. Termination Proceedings and Parents with Serious Mental Illness and/or Cognitive Disabilities As noted in Chapter 4: Casework, a substantial minority of children in the study had parents who had a serious mental illness and/or cognitive disabilities.265 In addition to concerns about casework with and services for these families (described in Chapter 4: Casework), some stakeholders who participated in interviews and focus groups expressed concern that parents with serious mental illness and/or cognitive disabilities may have their parental rights terminated solely and inappropriately based on these conditions.

Of the 34 children whose mothers had a documented serious mental illness, 38% had a TPR filed against the mother and 62% did not. Of the 18 children whose mothers had a documented cognitive disability, 28% had a TPR filed against the mother and 72% did not. The difference between the frequency of TPR filing in cases involving a seriously mentally ill or cognitively disabled mother versus cases with mothers who did not have those conditions was not statistically significant.266 However, these analyses should be viewed with caution because they are based on relatively small sub-samples of mothers who have these conditions.

It should be noted that data were not collected regarding whether parents’ mental illness or mental retardation were in fact grounds for these particular TPR filings. In other words, it is possible that mental illness or mental retardation were not stated grounds in these TPR filings. In fact, as a general matter, TPR petitions that include mental health and mental retardation allegations are relatively rare system- wide. Data from the New York City Family Court indicate that 7.7% of the 4,718 TPR petitions filed from 2006 to 2008 included a mental health or mental retardation allegation.267

Finally, it should also be noted that even when parental mental illness or cognitive disability is a factor in a child welfare case, it may not be the defining issue. Assessments regarding whether parents with cognitive disabilities and/or serious mental illness can parent must consider a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the particular conditions and parents’ responsiveness to assistance and/or treatment. Other risk factors and circumstances that may be related or unrelated to the parents’ cognitive disability or mental health condition, including the abuse and neglect that lead to the children entering foster care in the first place must also be considered. However, cases involving parents with cognitive disabilities and/or serious mental illness can create an additional layer of complexity and require skilled individuals who can make qualified assessments and appropriate recommendations to foster care agencies and the Court.

265 Data were collected regarding documented serious mental illness and cognitive delay among the parents of children in the sample who were not legally free. These data were not collected for children who were legally free.

266 Data provided in this section are based on analyses of TPR filings among children in the sample who were not legally free.

267 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the New York City Family Court, August 2009.

| 209 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

2. Termination Proceedings and Incarcerated Parents Among children in the sample who were not legally free for adoption (106 children), 10% percent (11 children) had a parent who was incarcerated at some point during the one-year review period.268 The 11 children included three children whose mothers were incarcerated, seven children whose father was incarcerated, and one child whose mother and father were incarcerated. TPRs were filed against two of the mothers and three of the fathers. No TPRs were filed against the other two mothers and the other five fathers.

In addition to the fact that only a small group of cases in the sample involved an incarcerated parent, the study did not collect information on the length or location of or the reason for these parents’ incarceration. Thus, meaningful analyses regarding case practice in this subset of cases, as specifically related to the parents’ incarceration, is not possible.

However, parents’ attorneys expressed concerns about a lack of adequate efforts to work with incarcerated parents generally in the system. These stakeholders identified concerns regarding the foster care agencies’ lack of adequate outreach and engagement of incarcerated parents in planning for their children. In addition, parents’ attorneys’ noted some basic bureaucratic issues that hinder parents’ participation in court proceedings. For example, when correctional facilities do not receive adequate notice about a hearing, they may not produce inmates for foster care-related court hearings.

Some advocates in the child welfare community have also expressed concerns about the possible hasty termination of parental rights of incarcerated parents, noting that ASFA timelines require the filing of a TPR petition when a child has been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months, yet, for example, the median prison sentence for women in New York is more than three years.269 Based on these concerns, legislation has been introduced in New York State that identifies a parent’s incarceration or participation in a residential substance abuse program as possible compelling reasons not to file a TPR petition within this time frame. The justification for the bill states that “New York lawalmost always requires social services agencies to begin proceedings to terminate parental rights when a child has been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months [emphasis added].”270

However, according to the most recent system-wide data available from ACS, at least among the general population (not specifically incarcerated parents), termination of parental rights petitions are rarely filed at 15/22 (and this comports with the findings from this study). Of 7,210 children who entered care between September 1, 2006 and August 31, 2007 and hit their 22nd month during FY 2009, only 17.3% had a TPR petition filed.271 However, these data pertain to the general foster care population (and also do not consider the existence of “compelling reasons” not to file). Data specific to TPR filings pertaining to incarcerated parents is necessary in order to fully explore this issue.

268 Data were collected regarding documentation of parents’ incarceration among the parents of children in the sample who were not legally free. These data were not collected for children who were legally free.

269 Assembly bill A05462, retrieved October 7, 2009 from http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A05462

270 Assembly bill A05462, retrieved October 7, 2009 from http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A05462

271 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the Administration for Children’s Services, August 24, 2009.

| 210 | CHAPTER 9: Legal Proceedings in FAMILY COURT

VI. Mediation

Some stakeholders suggested that attorneys should make more of an effort to meet to discuss the possibility of settling more cases, which could result in the legal process moving more quickly while providing families with the services they need through agreement rather than court orders. Although this may take more time up front, in the long run it could save everyone—caseworkers, attorneys, judges and referees, and children and families—the time it takes to litigate cases. Mediation is one option for reducing the length of time involved in litigating cases.

Mediation is a process that brings the parties, caseworkers, and attorneys together outside of the courtroom in order to facilitate com- “Too much energy is munication and resolve conflicts. In four of the five counties in New put into litigation ..[We] York City, the Family Court mediation process can be used to address need more mediation a variety of issues that can prolong court proceedings and delay perma- [and] collaboration ”. nency for children, including determining the most appropriate perma- FCLS Attorney nency goal for a child, improving communication between a parent and a caseworker or developing a visit plan that works for the family, the “To some extent, the child, and the resource parent.272 Mediation sessions are led by a trained adversary system is in facilitator and the process is set up to be confidential and non-adver- and of itself a barrier . sarial. An attorney can request that the judge or referee refer a case to to permanency ”. the mediation program or a judge or referee can initiate the referral Family Court Judge on his or her own. Currently, mediation serves only approximately 250 families per year,273 which, of course, represents a tiny fraction of the approximately 17,000 children that are in foster care on any given day.

Of the 153 children in the study sample, six of the children’s cases (4%) had been referred for mediation. These cases involved four children with a permanency goal of Return to Parent and two children with a permanency goal of Adoption (who were not legally free). Data were collected regarding the length of time from referral to beginning the mediation process, the length of time to complete the mediation process, and whether or not mediation resulted in an agreement between the parties; however, these sub-samples are too small to report.

272 As of the writing of this report, mediation was not available in Staten Island.

273 Data provided to Children’s Rights by the New York City Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Coordinator, June 24, 2009.

| 211 | | 212 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

| 214 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

This Appendix describes in detail the methods and procedures employed in this study. It includes preparations undertaken to implement the study, sample selection, instrument design, data collection and analysis procedures, and study limitations.

This study was designed and executed by Children’s Rights. Children’s Rights is a national organization that uses legal action and policy analysis and advocacy to reform child welfare systems. The Policy Department includes three staff, director Julie Farber, MSW, and senior policy analysts Laurie Bensky, MSW, and Lily Alpert, PhD. All aspects of this project were overseen by these three staff.

Children’s Rights worked with the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Legal Aid Society Juvenile Rights Practice (JRP) to develop the study and also sought input from many other organizations and individuals. Children’s Rights executed agreements with ACS and JRP that specified the parameters and confidentiality requirements of the study.

Participation by the private foster care agencies in the study was voluntary. Twenty-nine agencies origi- nally agreed to participate.274 Children’s Rights promised the foster care agencies confidentiality; as such, no information about which agencies participated in the study is provided in this report, nor were the identities of participating agencies disclosed to ACS.

I. Sample Selection

A. Inclusion Criteria

The study focused on children in foster care who have not returned home or been adopted in a timely fashion. In order to be eligible for inclusion in the study, a child needed to, as of September 30, 2008: • Have had a permanency goal of Return to Parent for at least two years or a permanency goal of Adoption for at least two years. • Have entered foster care pursuant to an abuse or neglect petition. Children who entered foster care pursuant to a “Persons in Need of Supervision” (PINS) or delinquency petition were not included. (If the child acquired a PINS or delinquency case while in foster care, the child could still be included in the sample.) • Be represented by a JRP attorney for children. As part of our collaboration with JRP in this study, JRP attorneys were responsible for providing some of the basic legal information pertaining to the child’s case. • Be placed in New York State. Children placed out of state were excluded from the study for practical purposes.

ACS provided Children’s Rights with a list of all children in foster care in New York City who met all of these criteria, with the exception of the JRP representation, as ACS did not have the capacity to provide this information. This criterion was checked through another process, which is described in Section D below. The ACS list contained the names of 4,694 children along with the following pieces of basic information:

274 Ultimately, due to sampling and case eligibility issues, the final sample included cases from 26 agencies. See Section E for further explanation.

| 215 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

• Child Identification Number (CIN): A unique identifier assigned to children in foster care. • Case number: A unique identifier assigned to families. • Child’s date of birth. • Child’s sex. • Child’s race/ethnicity. • Date the child entered his or her present foster care spell. • Name of the private foster care provider agency managing the child’s case. • Child’s permanency planning goal as of September 30, 2008 (i.e., Return to Parent or Adoption). • Date on which the child’s permanency goal (as of September 30, 2008) was established. • Whether or not the child was legally free for adoption as of September 30, 2008.

B. Separation of Participating Agencies and Data Checking

As noted above, 29 of the 33 ACS-contracted foster care agencies initially agreed to participate in the study. These 29 agencies accounted for 4,339 of the names on the population list, which were sectioned off to create the sampling frame (i.e., the list from which the sample was drawn). The sampling frame was reviewed and cleaned: • 48 names were removed because the child’s data raised a question as to whether the child met the study criteria. • 251 names were removed because they were duplicates of children already on the list.

These deletions resulted in a final sampling frame of 4,040 children whose cases were managed by the 29 participating foster care agencies.

C. Sampling Procedures

The study was designed to review a sample of 150 children’s cases. The intention was to produce a final sample that included 75 children with a goal of Return to Parent and 75 children with a goal of Adop- tion. Among the 75 children with a goal of Adoption, we planned to include 35 who were not legally free and 40 who were legally free.

A key priority of the study was to analyze a sample of children representative of the population of interest—children in foster care in New York City who have had a goal of Return to Parent or Adoption for two years or more. As such, we strove to select a random sample of children meeting these criteria while still meeting our target subsample sizes of 75 children with a goal of Return to Parent, 35 children with a goal of Adoption who were not legally free, and 40 children with a goal of Adoption who were legally free. To achieve these targets, while still selecting children randomly, we needed to draw three separate samples. Thus, the sampling frame (henceforth referred to as the “population”) was divided into three parts: children with a goal of Return to Parent, children with a goal of Adoption who were not legally free, and children with a goal of Adoption who were legally free.

To maximize the representativeness of the sample, we began by drawing a simple random sample from each of the three lists. A simple random sample is one in which all the members of the population from which the sample is being drawn have an equal probability of being selected. To draw simple random samples from each of the three groups described above, the “Return to Parent,” “Adoption not legally free,” and “Adoption legally free” population lists were imported to the statistical software package, SPSS 17.0, and the software was used to select the appropriate number of children from each group.

| 216 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

Due to the range in sizes of the agencies participating in the study, this procedure resulted in a sample to which the smallest agencies did not contribute any cases and the largest agencies contributed a number that may have been considered too burdensome, given the time and resources agencies would need to expend to participate in the project. In other words, although individual children in the population had an equal probability of being selected, varying agency size meant that all agencies did not have an equal probability of being selected.

Therefore, we devised an alternative sampling procedure that allowed us to consider three equally important goals: (1) permitting the majority of participating agencies to contribute cases to the sample, (2) distributing the contribution burden so that participation in the study would not be overly burdensome for some agencies, and (3) drawing a sample in which each agency’s contribution of cases still closely ap- proximated its actual contribution to the population (i.e., a sample to which larger agencies would still contribute more cases than smaller agencies).

Within each of the three population lists (e.g., Return to Parent, Adoption not legally free, and Adop- tion legally free), agencies were categorized into “tiers” (i.e., very small, small, medium, etc.) based on how many children they contributed to that particular population list. Agencies in each tier contributed a different number of children to each subsample (e.g., Return to Parent, Adoption not legally free, and Adoption legally free) in order to create a total list of 470 children reflecting the target proportions described in Section C above.275 Children were selected randomly within each agency.

This sampling approach was successful, as it yielded a sample to which participating agencies contributed a proportion of cases similar to the proportion of cases that they contributed to the overall population. In the final sample, some participating agencies contributed slightly higher or lower proportions of cases than their contribution to the population; however, each agency’s contribution was within -5 and +3 percentage points of its actual contribution to the population. In fact, 20 of the participating agencies’ contributions to the sample were within ±2 percentage points of their contribution to the population. For example, if Agency A represented 4% of the cases in the population from which the sample was selected, and it contributed 3% of the cases in the sample, then it contributed one percentage point less to the sample that it did to the population.

D. Confirmation by JRP and Agency Liaisons

The list of 470 children was sent to JRP so that it could, for each child, (1) confirm that the child was, in fact, represented by a JRP attorney as of September 30, 2008, (2) confirm that the child met the criteria for the study (i.e., that the data provided by ACS regarding the child’s permanency goal, foster care entry date, etc. were accurate), and (3) confirm that, since September 30, 2008, the child had not been adopted (children’s foster care case records are sealed upon their adoption; we would not have been permitted to read these records, and thus, we were not able to include adopted children in the study).

After completing the verification process with JRP, case lists were sent to each agency for an extra layer of verification. Some additional children were disqualified in this process. When there were discrepan- cies between information provided by JRP and the agencies, cases were excluded.

275 In order to ensure that the final sample included at least 180 children (150 main sample cases and 30 identified as backup cases), we intentionally oversampled during the selection process. Oversampling allowed us to accommodate the possibility that some of the children sampled would not be represented by a JRP attorney and that others might ultimately not meet the study criteria. See Section E for details regarding ineligible cases.

| 217 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

Of the 470 children selected for confirmation by JRP and the agencies, 204 were ultimately determined eligible for the study and 266 were ineligible as shown in the table below:

Eligibility of Children Sent to JRP/Agencies for Confirmation Number of Children Ineligible for Sample JRP did not represent the child 192 Child did not meet the study criteria 61 Unique circumstances 13 Eligible for Sample 204 Total 470

E. Pr ocedures for Selecting Main Cases, Backup Cases, Interviews, and Backup Interviews

1. Main Cases and Backup Cases From the list of 204 eligible children, 150 were randomly selected to be in the “main sample.” The remaining 54 were identified as backup cases—cases to be read in the event that a main sample case was ultimately unable to be reviewed. Indeed, during the case record review, additional children were disqualified from the study, either because, upon reading the case record, the reviewer found documentation that the child did not meet the study criteria; upon arrival at the agency, we were informed the child had been adopted; or the child could not be included due to other unique circumstances.

When a main case was disqualified from the sample, a backup case from the same category (Return to Parent, Adoption not legally free, or Adoption legally free) from that agency was substituted. If such a backup was not available at the same agency, the appropriate type of backup case was selected from an agency where we had not yet conducted a review. Modifications to this process were made as necessary to accommodate practical scheduling limitations.

The final sample comprised 153 children (79 Return to Parent, 27 Adoption not legally free, 47 Adop- tion legally free). These final subsamples differed slightly from the intended targets of 75, 35, and 40 for three main reasons: • During the case record review, we learned that some children whom we initially understood (from ACS, JRP attorneys, or agency liaisons) to be not legally free for adoption as of September 30, 2008, were, in fact, legally free by that date. These children still met the study’s inclusion criteria, but shifted from the “not legally free” subsample to the “legally free” subsample. • When a main case was disqualified from the sample, a backup case that matched the subsample group of the disqualified case was not always available. In these cases, any available backup case was substituted so that the total sample size would not fall under 150. • Toward the beginning of the case record review, we had more time onsite at the agencies than expected and were able to read additional backup cases. This is why there are 153 children in the study as opposed to 150.

The cases of the 153 children in the final sample were managed by 26 participating agencies. Despite the sampling procedures described above, which attempted to include every volunteering agency, one agency was ultimately not sampled, due to its very small size. A second small agency contributed only one case to the sample, but this case was ultimately deemed ineligible upon review. A third agency withdrew from the study after initially agreeing to participate, but before the review began onsite at that agency.

| 218 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

2. Interview Cases and Backup Interview Cases Before beginning the case record review, the cases of 30 children were selected to be “interview cases.” These would be the subset of cases in which reviewers would, in addition to reading the child’s case records, conduct interviews with the child’s caseworker, JRP attorney, and FCLS attorney assigned to the case. Fifteen children with a goal of Return to Parent and 15 children with a goal of Adoption were identified by selecting one main case at random from each agency (two cases were selected from two of the largest agencies). Similar backup procedures as those described above were used to select substitute interview cases when necessary.

II. Instrument Design

The study employed the following instruments: • Case record review instrument: This was a 35-page instrument that reviewers, supervised by Children’s Rights staff, used to record data from the child’s case record. The instrument collected information on the numerous topics described in the report, including those related to case planning, casework contacts and visits, service provision, placement, and legal activities. • JRP data collection instrument: This was a 10-page instrument that each child’s JRP attorney completed in order to provide legal information pertaining to that child’s foster care case. JRP attorneys used this instrument to provide information about key legal activities and timeframes. JRP attorneys were trained on how to complete this instrument by Children’s Rights staff and also received a written manual with specific instructions regarding how to answer every question. In addition to completing this data collection instrument, JRP also provided Children’s Rights with copies of legal documents pertaining to the child’s case (e.g., petitions, court orders, etc.). The completed JRP data collection instrument and the related legal files were provided to Children’s Rights prior to the onsite case record review. These documents were used by the case reviewers as sources of data alongside the case records provided by the agencies. • FCLS data collection instrument: This was a 4-page instrument that FCLS administrative personnel completed in order to provide data from ACS’ Legal Tracking System (LTS) pertaining to FCLS attorneys’ receipt of Permanency Hearing Reports and individuals invited to and attending Permanency Hearings, for each child in the sample.276 FCLS staff received a written manual with specific instructions regarding how to answer every question. This instrument was completed prior to the onsite case review and utilized by the case reviewers in the course of that review. • Interview protocols for caseworker, JRP attorney, and FCLS attorney interviews: These were 13- to 15-page documents containing interview guidelines, short answer questions, and open ended questions aimed at collecting information regarding interviewees’ professional background and experiences working in the child welfare system, specific information regarding the case of the child in the sample to which the interviewee was assigned, and general perspectives on barriers to permanency for children in foster care. • Protocols for focus groups with parents, resource parents, attorneys for parents, and Family Court judges/referees: These were guidelines for conducting the focus group discussions that outlined topics to be covered, questions to be posed, and prompts for keeping the sessions focused on the pre-identified topics. The focus groups were designed to elicit the participants’ experiences and views regarding barriers to permanency in the child welfare system.

276 Because we were obligated to keep the identities of participating agencies confidential from ACS, Children’s Rights sent FCLS a number of “filler” cases, drawn at random from the list of nonparticipating agencies, in addition to the cases comprising the actual sample. In this way, all ACS-contracted foster care agencies would be represented in the list delivered to FCLS, and FCLS would not be able to determine which agencies were and were not part of the study. Completed FCLS data collection forms for the “filler” cases were destroyed as soon as we received them.

| 219 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

All instruments were created by Children’s Rights. Their development was informed by examination of case review tools used in multiple jurisdictions across the U.S., including New York City. In addition, ACS, JRP, the New York City Family Court, the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies (COFCCA), the Child Welfare Organizing Project (CWOP), Center for Family Representation (CFR), and others provided input during the development process that helped shape the final versions.

Manuals were created for the case record review instrument, JRP data collection instrument, and FCLS data collection instrument. These documents contained instructions for completing the instruments as well as detailed explanations of the purpose of each item, definitions of terms used in the items, and descriptions of when a certain item might not be applicable for a child in the sample.

The case record review instrument was pre-tested by Children’s Rights staff over a period of four days on several cases at one of the participating agencies that graciously agreed to be the test site. The instrument was revised as necessary based on the testing experience.

III. Case Record Review

A. Case Record Reviewers and Training

Children’s Rights hired five individuals as temporary staff to serve as case record reviewers for the study. All five hired reviewers had 10-20 years of child welfare system experience, the majority of which was spent specifically in the New York City child welfare system.

Children’s Rights provided the case reviewers with a five-day intensive training prior to beginning the study. During the training, Children’s Rights staff instructed reviewers regarding how to use the case record review instrument and all three of the interview protocols. In addition, all reviewers received a copy of the written manual with detailed instructions for completing the instrument.

As part of the training, all reviewers applied the case review instrument to test cases. These test cases were provided to Children’s Rights with ACS’ permission by one of the participating agencies for the purpose of the training. Answers to every question on the instrument pertaining to the test cases were discussed in order to ensure that reviewers properly understood all questions on the case review instrument and to achieve a common understanding of how to use the instrument’s subjective rating scales.

B. Preparation for Onsite Case Record Review

All children’s case records were read onsite at the participating agencies. Most agencies that participated had multiple sites, not only in New York City, but also in neighboring counties of Long Island and upstate New York. In total, the team reviewed 153 cases at 50 sites during the period from February 2, 2009 through April 22, 2009.

The onsite case record review was scheduled with each agency approximately one month in advance. All agencies were told to provide the following: • Hard copy files from the child’s entire current foster care spell, including all progress notes, case plans/FASPs, Service Plan Review (SPR) summaries, Permanency Hearing Reports, legal documents, educational, medical, psychological, and psychiatric information, etc. • Resource parent files (if applicable) for placements the child had in 2007 and 2008. • Private space large enough for the number of reviewers coming to the site.

| 220 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

C. Implementation of Case Record Review

Depending on the number of cases to be read, Children’s Rights spent between one and five days onsite at each agency. Reviewers read all case information that was provided as well as the instruments and documents regarding each child that were provided by JRP and FCLS.

Agencies provided case records in various states of organization. When the research team found that some requested documentation was missing, we asked agency staff to provide the information.

A member of the Children’s Rights Policy Department staff supervised each onsite review. Because all staff and reviewers were not always at the same location at the same time, telephone and email communication were utilized as necessary to reconcile emerging questions regarding how to complete the instrument given particular case circumstances.

Quality control procedures were employed during the case review, including: • Children’s Rights staff checked instruments for completion and accuracy, and discussed identified issues with case reviewers. • Reviewers cross-checked each others’ cases. • Children’s Rights staff provided constant supervision and guidance to reviewers during the course of the review, as questions arose regarding how to record information given particular case circumstances.

IV. Interviews

As described above, case record reviewers conducted interviews with the child’s caseworker, JRP attorney, and FCLS attorney assigned to the case in a subset of 30 sample cases. The same reviewer who completed the case record review for a child conducted the interviews for that child’s case. The interviews focused on collecting information about the individual child and family in the sample as well as general information about the interviewees’ education, training and supervision experiences, and perceptions about barriers to permanency generally in the child welfare system.

In some cases, interviews with all three stakeholders—caseworkers, JRP attorneys, and FCLS attorneys—were not possible. In total, interviews were conducted with 28 caseworkers, 26 JRP attorneys, and 28 FCLS attorneys. Three JRP attorneys and three FCLS attorneys were interviewed twice because, by chance, they were assigned to the cases of two children in the sample. As such, the 26 JRP interviews were conducted with 23 attorneys and the 28 FCLS interviews were conducted with 25 attorneys. When attorneys were interviewed a second time, the second interview covered only questions particular to the child’s case (i.e., attorneys were not asked a second time about their experience, training, access to resources, etc., or about their perspective on systemic barriers to permanency).

Interviews with caseworkers were typically conducted in person while onsite at the agency for the case record review. Interviews with JRP and FCLS attorneys were conducted via telephone. Participation in the interviews was voluntary and all interviewees provided written consent to participate.

| 221 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

V. Focus Groups

Focus groups with parents, resource parents, attorneys for parents, and Family Court judges and referees were conducted between April 27, 2009 and May 13, 2009. These focus groups were designed to elicit the participants’ experiences and views regarding barriers to permanency in the child welfare system. All focus groups were facilitated by Children’s Rights staff. Participation in the focus groups was voluntary and all individuals provided written consent to participate.

A. Focus Group with Parents

The focus group with parents was organized in collaboration with the Child Welfare Organizing Project (CWOP), a “parent/professional partnership dedicated to public child welfare reform in New York City through increased, meaningful parent involvement in service and policy planning.”277

CWOP staff recruited participants from the organization’s pool of “parent organizers” and from among its support group attendees. To be consistent with the study’s inclusion criteria for children, parents were recruited for the focus group if they currently had a child in foster care who had a goal of Return to Parent for two years or longer or, if prior to being returned home, the child had a goal of Return to Parent for two years or longer. Six mothers attended the meeting. Three had children currently in foster care and three had children who had formerly been in foster care and had been returned to their mothers’ care. The mothers were from Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. Several additional parents had been recruited by CWOP for the focus group, but did not end up attending for unknown reasons.

The focus group was facilitated by Children’s Rights staff and lasted for just under two hours. Notes were taken during the session and the conversation was also recorded. Parents who participated were given a $10 stipend to cover the cost of transportation and refreshments were provided.

B. Focus Group with Resource Parents

The focus group with resource parents was planned in collaboration with ACS’ Circle of Support. Circle of Support’s mission is to “promote a positive environment for foster/resource, adoptive, and kinship parents by increasing the level of community support through networking, building partnerships, and information sharing.”278

Circle of Support staff recruited participants citywide. The focus group was conducted at a regularly planned citywide Circle of Support meeting at an ACS office in Brooklyn. Due to the high number of resource parents in attendance, the group was split into two for the purpose of the focus group. A total of 23 resource parents representing all five boroughs participated in the two focus groups.

The focus groups were facilitated by Children’s Rights staff and lasted approximately one hour each. Notes were taken during the sessions. Unfortunately, due to a technological malfunction, neither session was tape recorded. Resource parents who participated were given a $10 stipend to cover the cost of transportation and refreshments were provided.

277 Child Welfare Organizing Project. Introduction. Retrieved September 15, 2009 from www.cwop.org

278 New York City Administration for Children’s Services. Circle of Support. Retrieved September 15, 2009 from http://www.nyc.gov/ html/acs/html/support_families/circle_mission.shtml

| 222 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

C. Focus Group with Attorneys for Parents

The focus group with attorneys for parents was organized with the assistance of the three institutional providers of parent representation—Center for Family Representation (CFR), Bronx Defenders, and Brooklyn Family Defense Project—and the First and Second Judicial Departments of the Appellate Division of the New York State Unified Court system that oversee the 18b Panel for New York City.279 Thirteen attorneys participated in the focus group. An additional attorney was expected but did not attend. The group was comprised of attorneys from all of the institutional providers listed above, and 18b attorneys from all boroughs with the exception of Staten Island were present.

This focus group was held at Children’s Rights’ offices in Manhattan. It was facilitated by Children’s Rights staff and Theodor Liebmann, Clinical Professor, Associate Director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra University School of Law.

The focus group lasted for just under two hours. Notes were taken during the session and the conversation was also recorded. Refreshments were provided.

D. Focus Group with Family Court Judges and Referees

The focus group with Family Court judges and referees was organized with the assistance of the New York City Family Court and the Honorable Judy Harris Kluger, Chief of Policy and Planning for New York State’s Unified Court System. The focus group was held at the Manhattan Family Courthouse. Four judges and four referees representing all of the boroughs except Staten Island participated in the session. It was facilitated by Children’s Rights staff and Theodor Liebmann, Clinical Professor, Associ- ate Director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra University School of Law.

The focus group lasted for approximately 90 minutes. Notes were taken during the session and the conversation was also recorded. Refreshments were provided.

VI. Data Entry and Analysis

A. Quantitative Data Entry and Analysis

Quantitative data (i.e., information collected using the a priori established questions on the case record review instrument, the JRP data collection instrument, and the FCLS data collection instrument) were entered into a database created using Microsoft Access software. A comprehensive data entry manual and codebook were created to accompany the database that detailed the instructions for data entry, coding schemes, etc. One member of the Children’s Rights staff and two Policy Department interns (who had been involved in the creation of the data collection instruments and the database) entered the data from the hard copy instruments into the Access database over a period of approximately one month. Twenty percent of the 153 cases underwent a complete quality checking procedure, which involved teams of two people comparing each answer on the hard copy data collection instruments with the data entered into the database. A small number of errors were detected and corrected as necessary. Additional data checking throughout the database occurred as the analyses were conducted.

279 Court-appointed attorneys representing parents are typically referred to as 18b attorneys. 18b attorneys can represent parents or children.

| 223 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

There were a number of instances in which data were not provided on the survey instrument completed by the JRP Attorney for the child or FCLS administrative staff, and a very limited number of instances in which data were missing on the case record review instrument due to the research team’s data collection error. In these instances, a code designated for “missing” data was entered into the database. Data described in the report as “missing” reflect these circumstances.

Once data for all 153 children were entered into the Access database, the database was imported to SPSS 17.0. All quantitative data analyses were run using this software.

Separate SPSS databases were created to enter and analyze data recorded on the short-answer questions in the caseworker, JRP attorney, and FCLS attorney interview protocols.

A note on data analysis with respect to siblings: Twenty-two of the 153 children whose cases were reviewed for this study had a sibling who was also in the sample (i.e., 11 pair of siblings are in the sample). As such, individual mothers and fathers are sometimes represented twice in the findings. For example, Chapter 1: Demographics, Case Opening, and Current Case Status describes one analysis regarding findings of abuse or neglect made against mothers. The analysis is based on a sample of 138 children, 14 of whom are siblings. As such, although 138 children are represented in this finding, the data represent the experiences of 131 actual mothers. Analyses throughout the report pertaining to parents of children in the study sample should be interpreted with this understanding.

B. Qualitative Data Entry and Analysis

1. Case Record Review Instrument Narratives and Interview Summaries After completing a case record review instrument, reviewers were required to write a one-page nar- rative, briefly describing the history of the child’s case and identifying the factors that appeared to be barriers to permanency for the child in question. For interview cases, reviewers were required to write a longer summary, incorporating material gleaned from the case record review as well as information obtained from the interviews with the caseworker, JRP attorney, and FCLS attorney assigned to the case.

These narratives were used to identify common themes among the cases reviewed in the study. Thir- teen narratives are provided in the report as examples of cases that reflect barriers to permanency commonly identified in this study. The narratives included in the report were altered to protect the identities of children, parents, and all other individuals associated with each case. Names were changed as well as certain non-material case details.

2. Focus Group Transcripts and Interview Notes All notes taken during the focus groups were summarized and collated into an outline organized by topic. The three focus groups that were tape recorded were transcribed. Interviewee responses to open ended interview questions were typed and collated by question. These documents were then assessed to identify themes.

VII. Study Limitations

All research projects have limitations. As such, certain caveats should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study.

| 224 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

A. Event Documentation as a Data Source

In a study that uses case record documentation as the source of information regarding whether events did or did not occur, only items that are documented can be “counted.” If circumstances in a child/ family’s case existed or activities happened that are not documented in the case record, they cannot be “counted.” For example, if a caseworker had a contact with a parent, but failed to write it down, a reviewer cannot recognize it. Thus, it is possible that, to some undeterminable extent, some of the findings in this study reflect a documentation problem rather than a lack of actual casework. Nonetheless, it should be noted that all foster care casework should be recorded. Children in foster care are in the legal custody of the government and the documented circumstances and activities within a child welfare case play a critical role in informing current and future case practice, legal action, and court decisions pertaining to children’s and families’ lives.

B. Risk of Bias

Documents such as progress notes, case plans, and court reports may largely reflect the perspectives of the foster care agency staff who prepare them. However, case records also contain documents prepared by a variety of authors; the case records reviewed in this study included not only information prepared by the foster care agencies, but also copies of court orders, third-party assessments prepared by clinicians, school personnel, and other service providers, and sometimes contained documents prepared by parents, resource parents, and children. The interviews and focus groups with various stakeholders described above were conducted in order to build on the information available in case records and to mitigate some of the potential bias in case record documentation.

C. Focus on a One-Year Review Period

As noted throughout the report, for practical purposes and in order to focus on assessing recent rather than old practice, the primary focus of data collection pertaining to casework was the period from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008. This means that the case record review did not focus on case practice in the early days of these cases, for example, whether initial case plans were developed within 30 days, whether initial family team meetings were held, whether parents and all relatives were immediately identified, located, and engaged, etc. These early activities are critical components of casework and would be worthy of another study examining casework with families of children that very recently entered foster care.

D. Sample Size

As noted above, given practical and resource constraints, the study was designed to review a sample of 150 children’s cases. One should use the same measure of caution in extrapolating this study’s findings to the population as one would use in extrapolating the findings of any research project that assesses a sample of a large population.

One should also note that some analyses in this study were conducted on small sub-samples, either because only a small group of children experienced the circumstances that the analysis addressed or because data were missing or unable to be determined for a portion of children eligible for the analysis. This caveat should be considered in interpreting the results of such analyses.

| 225 | Appendix A: METHODOLOGY

E. Lack of a Comparison Group

This is a descriptive study. It provides information describing the children and families in the sample and the occurrence of key case practice and court-related activities. It does not allow us to establish causality, i.e., to definitively determine that certain characteristics, circumstances, or activities (or lack thereof) caused these children to remain in foster care for extended periods of time. In order to determine whether the barriers to permanency identified in this report are associateduniquely with long- staying children, a study would require a control group of children who entered and left care quickly. However, we hypothesize, based on these study findings, that some of the identified characteristics, circumstances, and activities (or lack thereof) may be affecting the trajectories of these children and families in the child welfare system.

| 226 | Appendix B ASFA ‘Compelling’ and ‘other’ reasons for not filing for TPR Appendix B: ASFA ‘Compelling’ and ‘other’ reasons for not filing for TPR

| 228 | Appendix B: ASFA ‘Compelling’ and ‘other’ reasons for not filing for TPR

Appendix B: ASFA ‘COMPELLING’ and 280 ‘OTHER’ REASONS FOR NOT FILING FOR TPR276

The following is a copy of the HELP window for “Specify and explain the compelling or other reason for not filing a petition to terminate parental rights.”

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The decision to file a termination of parental rights (TPR) petition or not to file a TPR petition must be evaluated on a child-specific basis and be made in accordance with the child’s best interests. It is not acceptable to claim a compelling reason simply by virtue of his or her membership in a broad class of children (i.e., JD/PINS, Indian children). Chapter 145 of the Laws of 2000 codified preexisting policy on this matter. It specifically added reference to the requirement of a case-by-case determination and eliminated any perceived class of persons to whom the compelling reason standard would apply. For a more thorough discussion of this topic refer to 98 OCFS INF-3 and 00 OCFS INF-5.

The following case circumstances may constitute a compelling reason not to file a TPR for a particular child. These should not be considered an automatic justification not to file, nor is this list necessarily all-inclusive. In all cases, a case-by-case determination that filing a petition to terminate parental rights would not be in the best interests of the child must be made. They are:

• The child is 14 years old or older and does not want to be adopted. This is despite meaningful adoption counseling about benefits of adoption and child’s awareness of possibility (if appropriate) for continued contact with members of the child’s birth family.

• A family setting will not currently meet the child’s needs because of the child’s severe emotional, behavioral or psychiatric problems. The agency has demonstrated that it has put in place services to address the problems that prevent the child from functioning in a family setting.

• At least one parent is actively being considered as a discharge resource for the child, and it is anticipated that such discharge is likely to occur within six months. The parent is making substantial progress in correcting the conditions that led to placement or in overcoming any barriers that currently impede a safe discharge or an incarcerated parent is scheduled to be released within the next few months and it is likely that the parent will be able to safely care for the child within a reasonable time following the release.

• The child is in placement with a sibling(s) and the sibling(s) is not being freed for adoption. There is a justifiable reason for not freeing the sibling for adoption, including the circumstances in this list, or the sibling has not been in foster care for 15 of the past 22 months.

• The parent makes regular contact with the child and maintaining their contact with the child and maintaining their relationship benefits the child. The child is younger than fourteen years of age and ongoing regular and meaningful visitation takes place, the child substantially benefits from such contact, and the parent is unable or not ready to safely care for the child.

280 This Appendix is a reproduced Administration for Children’s Services document that was provided to Children’s Rights by the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of this study. New York City Administration for Children’s Services. ACS Bulletin 05-1, Connections Build 18 Procedures: Case Management, Appendix E, August 23, 2005.

| 229 | Appendix B: ASFA ‘Compelling’ and ‘other’ reasons for not filing for TPR

• The child is in foster care for a child-related problem at least in part, and there would be little or no benefit to the child in ending the child’s relationship with the child’s parent(s). The child has a disability that can only be managed with intensive assistance in a specialized setting and the child’s birth parents or other family member(s) continue to be meaningfully involved in the child’s life.

• The parent’s death is imminent. It is anticipated that the parent will expire in the very near future, and child’s goal is adoption and the parent’s death would free the child for adoption.

• There are insufficient legal grounds for a TPR. That determination must be based on a consultation with the agency’s attorney.

• The child’s best/most likely permanency option is something other than adoption. There is willingness and capability for a relative or other resource person to become the child’s legal guardian or legal custodian, for such person to provide a permanent home for the child but unwillingness or inability to adopt the child.

• The child was placed into foster care pursuant to article three or seven of the family court act, and a review of the specific facts and circumstances of the child’s placement demonstrate that the appropriate permanency goal for the child is either return to his or her parents or guardian, or discharge to independent living.

• The child is the subject of a pending disposition under article ten of the family court act, (except where such child is already in the custody of the commissioner of social services as a result of a proceeding other than the pending article ten proceeding) and review of the specific facts and circumstances of the child’s placement demonstrates that the appropriate permanency goal for the child is return to his or her parent or guardian.

Other statutorily authorized reasons not to file a petition to terminate parental rights include:

• The child is being cared for by a relative. There are extenuating circumstances ruling out adoption. In regard to a relative placement, the agency has the discretion to file a petition to terminate parental rights where a child is cared for by a relative when it is in the best interests of the child.

• The family has not been provided with the services necessary for the safe return of the child unless such services are not legally required. Not legally required may include a court finding of “aggravated circumstance” thereby not requiring “reasonable efforts.” The necessary services must have been documented in the service plan and must still be necessary to safely discharge the child.

The latter two items of “other statutorily authorized reasons” is an all inclusive list.

For the purpose of CONNECTIONS documentation, only one – the primary – “compelling”or “other” reason needs to be documented. Whenever a compelling reason is cited for not filing a termination of parental rights petition, all FASPs that are due subsequent to that documentation must include specific tasks and responsibilities required to address the “compelling reason.”

| 230 | www.childrensrights.org