Placement of Children With Relatives

Placement of Children With Relatives


Series: State Statutes
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published: 2010
Current Through July 2010

This brief introduction summarizes how States address this topic in statute. To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search.

In order for States to receive Federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance, Federal law under title IV-E of the Social Security Act requires that they "consider giving preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards."1 Title IV-E further requires States to exercise due diligence to identify and provide notice to all grandparents and other adult relatives of the child (including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents), that the child has been or is being removed from the custody of his or her parents, explains the options the relative has to participate in the care and placement of the child, and describes the requirements to become a foster parent to the child.2

Approximately 41 States and Puerto Rico give preference or priority to relative placements in their statutes.3 In nine States, the statutes specifically require State agencies to make reasonable efforts to identify and locate a child's relative when out-of-home placement is needed.4 Approximately four States, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands do not address the issue of the placement of children for foster care with relatives in their statutes.5 The remaining States use statutory language such as "may consider" placement with relatives.

(Back to Top)

Preference to Relatives

Each State defines "relative" differently, including relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption ranging from the first to the fifth degree. Generally, preference is given to the child's grandparents, followed by aunts, uncles, adult siblings, and cousins. For Indian children, eight States allow members of the child's Tribe to be considered "extended family members" for placement purposes.6

In most States, the placing agency must do an assessment to determine that the relative is "fit and willing" to provide a suitable placement for the child, able to ensure the child's safety, and able to meet the child's needs. Three States require the relative to complete requirements for licensure as a foster parent.7 Illinois and Wisconsin require the relative to be licensed before he or she can receive foster care assistance payments. Approximately 21 States and the District of Columbia require relatives to undergo a criminal background check that may include all adult members of the household.8

(Back to Top)

Financial Support

Approximately 15 States and the District of Columbia have established kinship care or relative caregiver programs to provide relatives with benefits to help offset the cost of caring for a placed child.9 Statutes in 13 States address foster care payments and financial support for kin caregivers.10 In these States, if a relative meets the qualifications for being a foster parent, he or she may receive payments at the full foster care rate and any other benefits available to foster parents, whether in money or services.

(Back to Top)

Adoption by Relatives

In approximately seven States, State agencies must give preference to relatives when making adoptive placements for children in their custody.11 However, in four States, if the child has been placed in foster care with a nonrelative and has been living with the same foster parent for significant period of time when he or she becomes available for adoption, the nonrelative foster parent may be given first preference to adopt.12

In approximately 31 States, when a parent makes a direct placement of the child with a relative, the laws provide for a streamlined adoption process, such as not requiring a preplacement assessment or home study unless specifically ordered by the court.13 In 12 States, the child must have resided with the relative for a period of time or have established a significant relationship with the relative in some other way.14 Approximately 21 States require a criminal records check of the adopting relatives and other adult household members.15

To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search.

(Back to Top)

1 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19) (LexisNexis 2010). Placement refers to the placing of a child in the home of an individual other than a parent or guardian or in a facility other than a youth services center. back
2 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(29) (LexisNexis 2010), as amended by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. back
3 The word approximately is used to stress the fact that States frequently amend their laws. This information is current only through July 2010. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin address preference for relative placements in their statutes. back
4 California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon. back
5 South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. back
6 Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. back
7 Connecticut, Minnesota, and South Carolina. back
8 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. back
9 Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. back
10 Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. back
11 Arkansas, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. back
12 California, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee. back
13 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. back
14 Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Virginia. back
15 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. For more information on the requirements for criminal background checks for foster and adoptive parents, see Information Gateway's Criminal Background Checks for Prospective Foster and Adoptive Parents. back

This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a State's code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures.

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.

Supreme Court Weighs Parental Rights Abuses by Social Workers, Police

Supreme Court Weighs Parental Rights Abuses by Social Workers, Police - Standard Newswire

Contact: Pacific Justice Institute, 916-857-6900

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2011 /Standard Newswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a pair of cases that could restrict the authority of social workers to interview and examine children without their parents' knowledge and consent. Pacific Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the cases in support of parental rights.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, "For years, we have heard from outraged parents whose children have been subjected to invasive questioning and embarrassing physical examinations at school and elsewhere, without the parents' knowledge or consent. These cases are a critical opportunity to restrict unchecked governmental power and reassert parental authority."

The cases arose in Oregon, where a social worker and police officer went to a child's elementary school, pulled her out of class, and interrogated her for more than an hour about alleged abuse by her father. The child later said she only agreed that her father had abused her because the social worker would not accept any other response. The child was later removed from the home by the social worker and subjected to being undressed and invasively examined, and her mother was refused permission to be anywhere near her during the exam.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the social worker and police officer were shielded from liability for the interrogation at school, but that the social worker violated the Constitution by preventing the mother from being near her daughter during the physical examination, and that a jury should decide whether the social worker lied in order to get a court order removing the children from their home.

The Supreme Court is also considering another case this year that seeks to apportion liability between the State of California and the County of Los Angeles for trampling the rights of parents who were initially accused of child abuse by a rebellious teenager but later found to be completely innocent. In that case, the Ninth Circuit harshly criticized California's Child Abuse Central Index. The CACI lists hundreds of thousands of Californians, preventing them from getting jobs, when many of them have never been charged-much less convicted-of child abuse or any other crime.

Dacus noted, "There is no question our society has a problem with child abuse that should be aggressively prosecuted and punished. The problem is that, unlike every other type of crime, parents are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and the government often destroys good families based on unfounded allegations that are never proved. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will restore the balance that is currently missing in this important area of the law."

The amicus brief filed on behalf of Pacific Justice Institute was authored by prominent California parental rights attorneys Dennis Atchley, Donnie Cox, Shawn McMillan, David Beauvais and Paul Leehey.

About The Pacific Justice Institute: Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need. Pacific Justice Institute's strategy is to coordinate and oversee large numbers of concurrent court actions through a network of over 1,000 affiliate attorneys nationwide. And, according to former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, "The Institute fills a critical need for those whose civil liberties are threatened." "Through our dedicated attorneys and supporters, we defend the rights of countless individuals, families and churches... without charge.

DCF Investigator Arrested On Cocaine Charges-Do as I say, not as I do!

DCF Investigator Arrested On Cocaine Charges - County By County News Story - WFTV Orlando

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Officials with the Orange County Sheriff's Office say an investigator for Florida's Department of Children and Families was arrested for possession of cocaine on Saturday.

15 year old Girl from Texas speaks out against Child protection services in Dallas | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty

15 year old Girl from Texas speaks out against Child protection services in Dallas | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsecjAlQhQM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B5Enu3NLqk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gXED76b_A&feature=related

These children traveled to Washington DC on July the 23rd to speak of the abuse they suffered from Texas cps and Dallas CASA workers.

They Talk about Social workers and police showing up in the middle of the night- how their little brother and sisters where ripped out of there arms , and have not seen them in over a year!

This is the America we live in, this is what these children well always rember about Dallas Texas, and the so called help and abuse they suffered because they would not be brainwashed to pressure and interrogation techniques.

KANSAS HEADS UP: Sit In at the State Office Bldg.

KANSAS HEADS UP:

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND A SIT IN AT THE SRS
AT THE DOCKING STATE OFFICE BUILDING ON THE 6TH FLOOR 915 S.W. HARRISON STREET TOPEKA KANSAS. (10TH AND TOPEKA BLVD)


We need all sit in's to be present at 9:00 am Tuesday 29th 2011, bring your own sack lunch and any flyers or posters that will get the attention for your concerns to hand out or show the people for the kansas issue's of children being removed without reintegration.



we are encouraging your support for the many year's of our Legislatures not doing anything to correct the problem. This is just another attempt to do a sit in with the mission to get our message out. We will do this sit in, proclaiming our constitutional rights as parents and grandparents to remind them, that we want all kids returned back to their families, that were wrongfully removed in non abuse cases. Since this is adoption month, this is the best time to come out and do a sit in. We need everyone's help to continue to push for change in our state, join us in this event. Let your voice echo for the many children, without your efforts being in vain from not fighting for them by your actions.



ANY QUESTION ABOUT THIS EVENT PLEASE CONTACT KATHY WINTERS AT 913 782-8642 AND

FRED AND SADIE CARPENTER AT 913 839-1119

ADHD Medication: Can Your Child Go Without? Yes, but my Grandson is worth more to DCYF doped up!

ADHD Medication: Can Your Child Go Without? - US News and World Report

Before my grandson was stolen by Nashua, NH DCYF, he was tested at school. There were no sign's of ADHD. After he tried to hang himself, he was fed drug's for violent behavior. A few moth's later, he was diagnosed with ADHD and fed more drug's.Since he's been ILLEGALLY adopted, God only know's what drug's he's being fed.
Children DON'T need these drug's if parent's know how to parent their children. DCYF doesn't have a clue. They have absolutely no idea how to deal with a child longing for his family and they have no idea what it takes to be a parent. They need to get out of the Child Protection business because they don't even know how to protect a child. All they know is how to DESTROY!!!!!


Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can be a distressing diagnosis, but families have more treatment options than they might realize. Although Ritalin and other stimulant drugs are the most common prescription, ADHD treatments that don't involve medication have a proven track record. And here's a surprise: One of the most beneficial options treats the parents, not the child. For children, skills training programs and ADHD summer camps can help teach techniques to overcome everyday problems that often make life miserable, such as remembering to bring assignments home from school or to listen without interrupting.


How training parents helps the child. Parent skills training has been used for years to improve the behavior of children, and multiple clinical trials have validated its effectiveness. Those same programs improve the behavior of kids with ADHD.

Family's lawsuit challenges run-away child protection law

Family's lawsuit challenges run-away child protection law

Please click on the link above to read the decision's in this case.
Mueller v. Auker

Parents' right to make medical decisions at stake in lawsuit

Corissa Mueller and her daughter Taige
CIR's case on behalf of Eric and Corissa Mueller is one of the most important civil liberties cases now pending and the only one concerned with child protection law.
In recent years, the body of law protecting the institution of marriage and family has yielded to efforts by the government to regulate and recreate these institutions. On the one hand, judges busy themselves re-writing the laws of marriage to accommodate a broad array of individual partnerings. Yet on the other hand state child protection laws routinely sanction the removal children from traditional families for even slight deviations from current fashions in education, child rearing, and medical treatment.
CIR’s effort to restore principle to this area of the law continues to focus on its representation of the Mueller family in their efforts to hold child protection officials and police officers accountable for the unconstitutional seizure of their infant child Taige. In August 2002, a few weeks after birth, she came down with a temperature. As a newborn child is especially vulnerable to infection, her mother, Corissa Mueller, was advised to take her to nearby St. Luke's Medical Center.
Corissa—who has a degree in chemical engineering—discussed Taige's treatment with the physician, including the risks and benefits of treating her for meningitis. Thinking Taige was suffering the aftereffects of the family's recent bout with the flu,


"THE RIGHT TO FAMILY ASSOCIATION INCLUDES THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO MAKE IMPORTANT MEDICAL DECISIONS FOR THEIR CHILDREN, AND OF CHILDREN TO HAVE THOSE DECISIONS MADE BY THEIR PARENTS RATHER THAN BY THE STATE"

WALLIS V. SPENCER, 202 F.3D 1125 (9TH CIR. 1999)


she asked to defer a spinal tap until other, less invasive (and less risky) treatments had been tried. The doctor agreed.
Unbeknownst to Corissa, though, the concerns she voiced about the risks of a spinal tap triggered a call to Child Protective Services (CPS), which then spiraled into the forcible seizure of Taige. The police officers restrained Corissa (one on each arm) and took her down the hall while the doctor performed the spinal tap. This happened despite the fact that, by then, Taige’s temperature had returned to normal.

Read what happened next....

The problem: no limits to child protective services
Though child protective services is supposed to protect chidren against neglect and abuse, it is not well situated to settle differences of opinion between a conscientious mother and an aggressive doctor. Corissa Mueller's "neglect" in this case consisted in nothing more than discussing Taige's treatment step by step and insisting on approving each procedure only when
needed.
A child protective services system that countenances the seizure of a child to preempt further discussion about the risks of an invasive medical procedure no longer serves the interests of the children it was designed to protect.
At the root of the problem is the fact that the Idaho child protection law—and the laws of many other states—immunizes doctors, police and CPS workers from negligently applying the requirements of the CPS law. As a result, city and state officials and even private doctors know there is no penalty for assume custody of a child, even over a parent's reasonable efforts to direct medical treatment.

Restoring limits and accountability to the system
In late August 2004, CIR filed suit in federal court in Boise, asserting that the Muellers possess a fundamental constitutional right to raise their children without unreasonable intrusion from state authorities.
CIR’s case hinges on the principle that the federal Constitution
provides a fundamental guarantee of parental rights—including the
right to make important medical decisions and the right to be informed of their children’s status and whereabouts.
On February 26, 2007, Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed with CIR that the federal Constitution does not permit state officials to assume custody of a minor child over a difficult medical decision:
[A] DIFFICULT CHOICE -- A CHOICE THAT POSES RISKS EITHER WAY -- SHOULD NEVER TRIGGER INTERVENTION BY THE STATE. WITH NO SAFE ALTERNATIVE, THE STATE...LOSES ALL CLAIM TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD.
In addition, Winmill ruled that police officer Dale Rogers is liable in his personal capacity for failing to call Eric Mueller (who was at home with the couple's other two children) to inform him of the state's intention to assume custody fo Taige. Officer Rogers appealed his liability to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard argument on this question on September 15, 2008. You can read CIR's brief on this issue here.
Following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, the

Von and Taige Mueller
case will be remanded to the district court for a trial to settle various factual disputes about what happened that night in the emergency room.
The Mueller case could spell out the federal constitutional limits on the authority of state officials to interfere with family decisions about medical, educational or other difficult issues. State officials no longer could presume a child to be in imminent danger solely to settle a disagreement over a complex decision.

Read the decisions:
Decision by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding Detective Rogers shielded by doctrine of qualified immunity
Opinion denying in part and granting in part parties motions to reconsider an'd clarify earlier opinion (June 7, 2007)
Opinion granting in part plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment(February 26, 2007)
Opinion denying defendants' motion to dismiss (April 14, 2006)
Opinion denying defendants' motion to dismiss (April 13, 2005)

Read the amended complaint (October 13, 2004)

Read press releases:
CIR press release (October 30, 2006)
CIR press release (April 18, 2006)
CIR press release (August 10, 2005)
CIR press release (September 29, 2004)

Read Idaho Statesman article about the case

Learn more about CIR's history, mission and other groundbreaking CIR cases.

Help CIR protect the family: donate to the cause!