"Reasonable efforts" under P.L. 96-272 - Public Law; Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act - response to Viewpoint article

Children Today, May-June, 1989 by Cecilia Sidia

"Reasonable Efforts" Under P.L. 96-272

I find it impossible to disagree with most of the points made by Karen Dorros and Patricia Dorsey. As systems currently function, it is difficult to provide a reasonable resolution to cases such as Johnny's, particularly when the needed skills and resources may not be available. While I cannot agree that the burden of proof should be on the parent, nevertheless it does seem essential that parents should be required to show progress.

Under Public Law 96-272, the Adoption Assistance and Childe Welfare Act, the state is required to have a case plan for each child under its care and to make that plan available to the parents. The case plan should make clear the necessity for continued placement, compliance with the plan and progress made in alleviating the problems that caused the placement, and it should project a likely date when the child is to be returned home. It also requires a case review at least every six months to evaluate such factors as reasonable progress; at this time a change in the case goal, if progress is not satisfactory, could certainly be recommended. In addition, the law recommends that foster parents and others involved in the case, such as the child's therapist, be involved in this case review. If this is not being done, I suggest that concerned individuals approach the head of the social service agency and local child advocacy groups to change local policy in this regard.

However, it is generally agreed that a multiproblem neglect case like Johnny's is one of the most difficult types of cases encountered, requiring many resources and long-term support.

There are some possible solutions. In Johnny's case, the day-to-day risk to the child was not extreme, even though he did have bruises. An intensive, in-home therapy team, which could arrange for housing, maintain Johnny in the intervention program, and provide the mother with in-home behavioral training to enhance her parenting skills, might have been able to resolve not only Johnny's problems but those of the other children, as well. Such a program would also involve the mother with other ongoing, long-term supports in the community.

However, if this intensive effort failed, then I agree that the alternative should be termination of parental rights and a permanent family for Johnny. The current federal law does not preclude quick and decisive action, given that a "reasonable" effort has been made. Neither social service agencies nor judges appear to understand this very well at present. A current report from the Comptroller General of New York City suggests, after a study of boarder babies, that if other appropriate activities--diligent search and services to parents, for example--have been done, then the solution may be in "creating an assumption that rights are terminated after six months of no visits (legal abandonment) or failure to make progress toward bringing the child home (permanent neglect)."(*) This might be a desirable policy: It would reduce waiting by about 12 months.

Under current legal standards in New York, it requires a minimum of 31 months for adoption of an abandoned child and 37 months for a permanent neglect case. This is too long, and we must work more actively to represent children's interests in such situations.

(*)H.J. Goldin, Whatever Happened to the Boarder Babies?, Office of the Comptroller, City of New York, Jan. 1989.

Cecelia Sudia Family Services Specialist Children's Bureau, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Office of Human Development Services, DHHS.