Fern5827
November 16th 03, 01:48 PM
Which is part of the reason the Congress will be holding hearings about greater
accountability to the over 7B they give to the states under ASFA adoption
programs.
FWD aa:
Subject: Adoption subsidies at center of storm
From: (LilMtnCbn)
Date: 11/13/2003 10:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: >
http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-1/106871807345880.xml
Adoption subsidies at center of storm
Thursday, November 13, 2003
By TRACEY L. REGAN
Staff Writer
New Jersey child welfare officials are facing ever-sharper questions about the
use of adoption subsidies, as a storm of controversy swirls around charges that
four adopted boys were starved by an out-of-work Collingswood couple receiving
$28,000 a year in state and federal aid to support the children.
More than 80 percent of parents who adopt through the state's child welfare
system receive a monthly stipend that averages more than $500 per child and
continues until the child reaches adulthood.
Under current rules, parents who receive adoption subsidies must show proof
once a year that they are still raising the child, but they are not otherwise
required to account for their expenses.
Some state and federal officials are calling for more oversight of adoptive
families who receive subsidies, while advocates for children remain leery about
intruding upon parents who provide permanent homes for children who have
bounced around in foster care.
New Jersey officials were called to Washington last week to testify about the
Jackson family case before the congressional subcommittee that oversees the
disbursement of billions in federal aid each year for adoption expenses, among
other child welfare programs.
Raymond and Vanessa Jackson are accused of starving their four adopted sons.
"Sadly, in this case, these funds were not put to the good purpose Congress
intended," U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., chairman of the House Ways and
Means subcommittee on human resources, said at the hearing.
"These taxpayer dollars were not used to better the lives of children in need
of a good home. Instead, it appears, these funds subsidized appalling
neglect."-- -- --
A prominent New Jersey legislator has already said she will seek legislation if
necessary to require parents who receive adoption subsidies to show proof that
the children receive a yearly medical exam.
"If it can't be done administratively, I will (introduce) the legislation,"
said Assemblywoman Mary Previte, D-Haddonfield, chairwoman of the Family, Women
and Children's Services Committee. "I can't imagine that honorable adoptive
parents would object."
Any family that adopts what is broadly defined as a "special needs" child,
regardless of income, is eligible for a subsidy. Those children also receive
Medicaid insurance.
In her testimony before Congress last week, Carla Katz, president of a
Communications Workers of America local that represents New Jersey child-care
workers, said, "It seems clear - (the state Division of Youth and Family
Services) should be following up on adoptions."
But some child welfare advocates caution that the state should not risk what
they call dramatic progress in finding permanent homes for thousands of foster
children by imposing intrusive measures for checking up on them once they are
adopted. They say it would alienate would-be parents and smudge the line
between the temporary care of foster homes and the permanence of adoption.
They describe the Jackson boys' situation as an anomaly, in noting that many
would-be parents are not even aware of the subsidies, though the children they
are adopting are often in need of significant care for emotional and physical
problems.
Other adoptive parents bridled at the suggestion that they view the adoptions
as a source of income.
"Most of the families I've spoken to, there is a need for more money, but the
families are often hesitant to renegotiate settlements," said Irene Lando, who
has adopted three children through DYFS and advises other would-be parents on
their eligibility for subsidies.
"A lot of families are eking it out and don't want to ask for more because they
don't want DYFS hovering."
Lando said she recently advised a woman whose adopted daughter has cerebral
palsy and needed a wheelchair and a van with a lift. Families are not saying,
"My daughter needs designer clothes," Lando said.-- -- --
New Jersey child welfare officials say they are planning no significant policy
changes in the near future, based on the Collingswood case.
"These are not snap decisions," said Ralph Siegel, spokesman for DYFS. "We
don't want to make massive policy changes that affect thousands of families
according to the specific and incomplete information we have about one case."
Adoption subsidies were established by Congress more than two decades ago to
encourage families to reach out to children described as having "special needs"
or being "hard to place," including those over 10 years old, according to New
Jersey's rules. The subsidies are supposed to cover monthly board and a
clothing allowance.
Parents said the impression that families are living off the subsidies is
skewed, although some said they were forced periodically to stop working when
it was clear a troubled child needed more attention.
"I quit because my older one was in crisis, and I didn't want him to end up in
jail," said one adoptive mother, who is now back at work.-- -- --
Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, said she also has mixed feelings
about increasing state involvement with adoptive families.
"If you adopt, that child is yours," said Weinberg, co-chairwoman of the
Assembly Family, Women and Children's Services Committee. "How can the state
get involved with people's personal lives. What if the parents say I want them
to see pediatrician A and the state says to see pediatrician B.
"With my biological children, no one oversaw how much I spent on food or care,"
she noted.
Weinberg added, however, that she hopes to see substantial reform of the
state's educational guidelines, which allow parents to homeschool children
without ever reporting on their progress.
"This is a disaster. There is no oversight," she said.
While calling for better scrutiny of families prior to adoptions, child
advocates say they are concerned that the Collingswood case could prompt a
backlash that would set back the state's zealous efforts to find homes for
children. The rate of adoptions has more than doubled in the past five years.
"It would be tragic if the mishandling of this one case led to the dismantling
of programs that have allowed hundreds of these children in foster care to be
adopted," said Cecile Zalkind, director of the Association for Children of New
Jersey.
-------------------------
DESCRIPTORS; CHILD PROTECTIVE, CPS, KINSHIP CARE, FOSTER CARE, HOUSE WAYS AND
MEANS COMMITTEE, PUBLIC KINSHIP CARE, GRANDPARENTS, FAMILY LAW, SOCIAL WORK,
ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT, DHHS, GA, GAO, FEDERAL FUNDS,CONGRESS,
IMMUNITY, STARVATION, OVERSIGHT
accountability to the over 7B they give to the states under ASFA adoption
programs.
FWD aa:
Subject: Adoption subsidies at center of storm
From: (LilMtnCbn)
Date: 11/13/2003 10:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: >
http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-1/106871807345880.xml
Adoption subsidies at center of storm
Thursday, November 13, 2003
By TRACEY L. REGAN
Staff Writer
New Jersey child welfare officials are facing ever-sharper questions about the
use of adoption subsidies, as a storm of controversy swirls around charges that
four adopted boys were starved by an out-of-work Collingswood couple receiving
$28,000 a year in state and federal aid to support the children.
More than 80 percent of parents who adopt through the state's child welfare
system receive a monthly stipend that averages more than $500 per child and
continues until the child reaches adulthood.
Under current rules, parents who receive adoption subsidies must show proof
once a year that they are still raising the child, but they are not otherwise
required to account for their expenses.
Some state and federal officials are calling for more oversight of adoptive
families who receive subsidies, while advocates for children remain leery about
intruding upon parents who provide permanent homes for children who have
bounced around in foster care.
New Jersey officials were called to Washington last week to testify about the
Jackson family case before the congressional subcommittee that oversees the
disbursement of billions in federal aid each year for adoption expenses, among
other child welfare programs.
Raymond and Vanessa Jackson are accused of starving their four adopted sons.
"Sadly, in this case, these funds were not put to the good purpose Congress
intended," U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., chairman of the House Ways and
Means subcommittee on human resources, said at the hearing.
"These taxpayer dollars were not used to better the lives of children in need
of a good home. Instead, it appears, these funds subsidized appalling
neglect."-- -- --
A prominent New Jersey legislator has already said she will seek legislation if
necessary to require parents who receive adoption subsidies to show proof that
the children receive a yearly medical exam.
"If it can't be done administratively, I will (introduce) the legislation,"
said Assemblywoman Mary Previte, D-Haddonfield, chairwoman of the Family, Women
and Children's Services Committee. "I can't imagine that honorable adoptive
parents would object."
Any family that adopts what is broadly defined as a "special needs" child,
regardless of income, is eligible for a subsidy. Those children also receive
Medicaid insurance.
In her testimony before Congress last week, Carla Katz, president of a
Communications Workers of America local that represents New Jersey child-care
workers, said, "It seems clear - (the state Division of Youth and Family
Services) should be following up on adoptions."
But some child welfare advocates caution that the state should not risk what
they call dramatic progress in finding permanent homes for thousands of foster
children by imposing intrusive measures for checking up on them once they are
adopted. They say it would alienate would-be parents and smudge the line
between the temporary care of foster homes and the permanence of adoption.
They describe the Jackson boys' situation as an anomaly, in noting that many
would-be parents are not even aware of the subsidies, though the children they
are adopting are often in need of significant care for emotional and physical
problems.
Other adoptive parents bridled at the suggestion that they view the adoptions
as a source of income.
"Most of the families I've spoken to, there is a need for more money, but the
families are often hesitant to renegotiate settlements," said Irene Lando, who
has adopted three children through DYFS and advises other would-be parents on
their eligibility for subsidies.
"A lot of families are eking it out and don't want to ask for more because they
don't want DYFS hovering."
Lando said she recently advised a woman whose adopted daughter has cerebral
palsy and needed a wheelchair and a van with a lift. Families are not saying,
"My daughter needs designer clothes," Lando said.-- -- --
New Jersey child welfare officials say they are planning no significant policy
changes in the near future, based on the Collingswood case.
"These are not snap decisions," said Ralph Siegel, spokesman for DYFS. "We
don't want to make massive policy changes that affect thousands of families
according to the specific and incomplete information we have about one case."
Adoption subsidies were established by Congress more than two decades ago to
encourage families to reach out to children described as having "special needs"
or being "hard to place," including those over 10 years old, according to New
Jersey's rules. The subsidies are supposed to cover monthly board and a
clothing allowance.
Parents said the impression that families are living off the subsidies is
skewed, although some said they were forced periodically to stop working when
it was clear a troubled child needed more attention.
"I quit because my older one was in crisis, and I didn't want him to end up in
jail," said one adoptive mother, who is now back at work.-- -- --
Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, said she also has mixed feelings
about increasing state involvement with adoptive families.
"If you adopt, that child is yours," said Weinberg, co-chairwoman of the
Assembly Family, Women and Children's Services Committee. "How can the state
get involved with people's personal lives. What if the parents say I want them
to see pediatrician A and the state says to see pediatrician B.
"With my biological children, no one oversaw how much I spent on food or care,"
she noted.
Weinberg added, however, that she hopes to see substantial reform of the
state's educational guidelines, which allow parents to homeschool children
without ever reporting on their progress.
"This is a disaster. There is no oversight," she said.
While calling for better scrutiny of families prior to adoptions, child
advocates say they are concerned that the Collingswood case could prompt a
backlash that would set back the state's zealous efforts to find homes for
children. The rate of adoptions has more than doubled in the past five years.
"It would be tragic if the mishandling of this one case led to the dismantling
of programs that have allowed hundreds of these children in foster care to be
adopted," said Cecile Zalkind, director of the Association for Children of New
Jersey.
-------------------------
DESCRIPTORS; CHILD PROTECTIVE, CPS, KINSHIP CARE, FOSTER CARE, HOUSE WAYS AND
MEANS COMMITTEE, PUBLIC KINSHIP CARE, GRANDPARENTS, FAMILY LAW, SOCIAL WORK,
ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT, DHHS, GA, GAO, FEDERAL FUNDS,CONGRESS,
IMMUNITY, STARVATION, OVERSIGHT