Copyright 1997 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc. 
                                         
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony

                           October 8, 1997, Wednesday

SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY  

LENGTH: 6022 words  

HEADLINE:  TESTIMONY October 08, 1997 VOICE FOR ADOPTION SENATE 
FINANCE ADOPTION AND SUPPORT OF ABUSED CHILDREN  

BODY: 

    TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO THE  

    COMMITTEE ON FINANCE  

    U.S. SENATE  

    Concerning  

    S-1195, PROMOTION OF ADOPTION, SAFETY AND SUPPORT OF  

    ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN ACT (PASS)  

    October 8, 1997  

    Voice for Adoption (VFA) is pleased to have the opportunity 
to submit testimony for the hearing record on S.1195, the 
Promotion of Adoption, Safety and Support or Abused and Neglected 
Children (PASS) Act, to the Committee on Finance. VFA is a 
coalition of more than thirty-five major national and state 
special needs adoption organizations and includes professionals, 
parents, and advocates committed to securing adoptive families 
for waiting children. Our aim is to ensure permanent, nurturing 
families for our nation's most vulnerable children and to 
strengthen support for families who adopt.  

    We are encouraged that S.1195 is consistent with our own 
goals to ensure permanent placements for vulnerable children.  
Toward that end, we wish to express our appreciation to the 
sponsors of the legislation for their support of the bill. Two 
issues addressed by S.1195 are of primary importance in our 
collective effort to improve national policies on adoption: the 
extension -- the delinking -- of federal Title IV-E adoption 
assistance and Medicaid to all children with special needs, not 
only to those who enter care from AFDC-eligible families; and the 
prohibition against the creation of geographic barriers to the 
adoption of children across state and county lines.  "Delinking" 
Eligibility For Adoption Assistance 

      Voice for Adoption supports legislation, as provided in 
S.1195, to make all special needs children eligible for federal 
adoption assistance, by delinking eligibility for adoption 
assistance from AFDC/poverty status.  

    This important procedural change in current federal law is 
required or many children without permanent homes will never be 
placed in adoptive homes. Of the tens of thousands of children in 
this country waiting in foster care for families who will adopt 
them, it is estimated that 80 percent are children with special 
needs that make them harder to place -- disabled children, older 
children, minority children, or sibling groups.  

    Recent data show that the proportion of legally free children 
who have special needs is increasing. One factor is the growing 
number of children orphaned by AIDS.  

    Equity for Children  

    All special needs children should be given the same 
opportunity to receive a permanent, nurturing family. It is 
inequitable to treat differently children who both have special 
needs but whose original family's economic status is different.  
By delinking adoption assistance and basing eligibility solely on 
a child's special needs status, all children with special needs 
will be available for adoption on an equal footing.  

    It is unreasonable to establish a child's eligibility for 
adoption assistance based upon the economic status of that 
child's parents at the time the child entered care, especially 
since parental rights have been terminated and the child is free 
for adoption. To establish a child's eligibility for adoption 
assistance on whether the child came into care at a point when 
its family was receiving or was eligible for AFDC is to be tied 
to an accident of circumstances which should be moot.  

    Delinking will make all special needs children eligible for 
Medicaid, which is important in some states where health care 
coverage is not extended to children adopted with state 
assistance. In addition, children who are covered by Medicaid now 
can lose that coverage if their adoptive family moves to another 
state. Because of this situation, caseworkers report that 
prospective adoptive families will only take IV-E eligible 
children in order to protect themselves from costly medical 
expenses.  

    In cases of children who are not now eligible for IV-E 
adoption assistance, state subsidies may not always be available.  
In some states, a child must first go through a waiting period to 
be eligible for a state subsidy. Because some children are placed 
soon, without a waiting period, because of dual- 
tracking/concurrent planning, these children are not obliged to 
wait and therefore cannot be made state-eligible.  

    Cost Savings  

    Administrative costs will be saved by delinking adoption 
assistance eligibility since agencies will no longer be required 
to conduct time-consuming, lengthy investigations to establish 
eligibility based on financial situation. Under current law, case 
workers expend unnecessary hours, going through procedural hoops, 
to determine IV-E eligibility for children waiting to be adopted.  
Caseworkers report that without IV-E adoption assistance and 
Medicaid eligibility, families are reluctant to take the risk of 
adopting children who will likely need costly medical care and 
other services. Therefore, children who are ineligible are less 
likely to be placed in permanent homes.  

    Placing a foster child in adoption saves the government an 
average of $40,000 per child. By making all special needs 
children eligible for adoption assistance, children will spend 
less time waiting for adoptive families. A limited pool of 
adoptive parents is available for children with special needs, 
parents for whom adoption assistance can make a difference to 
help with the special services and supports these adopted 
children may require. Even with a full subsidy, adoption is cost 
effective. Still, adoption, even with a full subsidy, is cost 
effective. A 1993 study showed that families who adopted 40,700 
children with federal assistance between 1983 and 1987 saved the 
federal government $1.6 billion in long-range costs.  

    Stories Of Real Children And Families: Delinking  

    Shelley  

    Shelley was born in 1985 in Texas. She is the fourth of six 
children born to a family with a history of both drug and alcohol 
abuse. The family eventually moved to Ohio. While investigating a 
neglect claim involving an older sister, case workers learned 
that Shelley was being sexually abused by her father. She also 
had cigarette burns inflicted by her mother. Shelley was placed 
in a foster home for a year but was then returned to her parents 
when she was four, remaining with them for six months. The family 
was heavily involved with drugs during this time. The sexual 
abuse resumed and Shelley was raped by her father and by other 
men connected to the family. Shelley then went into another 
foster home. All this took place during the first five years of 
Shelley's life.  

    Shelley spent the next four years in three foster homes.  
Ultimately she was adopted. At the time of this adoption, Shelley 
was eligible for federal adoption assistance. After Shelley 
exhibited many problems -- divisive and manipulative behavior, 
distrust and inability to form real attachments -- the family 
decided they could not satisfactorily care for Shelley, and the 
adoption was terminated. Shelley was placed in another foster 
home and began treatment for her attachment disorder.  

    When she was ten, Shelley's therapist located a single parent 
who was interested in adopting Shelley. This new prospective 
adoptive mother was also a therapist and had a great deal of 
knowledge about treating adopted children with attachment 
disorders. Shelley has been in this foster home for a year and 
the match has proven beneficial to both parties. Shelley is 
slowly learning to trust, is making friends and her school work 
is improving. Shelley wants to be adopted into a permanent 
family.  

    Because of the financial circumstances of the previous 
adoptive family, Shelley is no longer eligible for federal foster 
care or adoption assistance, nor is she eligible to SSI because 
of recent interpretations of the eligibility criteria. If 
adopted, she would no longer be eligible for Medicaid. Shelley 
may never become a member of a permanent adoptive family because 
she is no longer eligible for federal adoption assistance.  

    The Baldwins  

    Three brothers, ages 4, 6 and 8 were removed from their birth 
home because of abuse and neglect, visible from bruises and 
burns. After three years in foster care in two foster homes, the 
brothers were sent to the Baldwins, a new foster home, and told 
that the Baldwins were going to adopt all of them and become a 
family.  

    The children have obviously suffered and exhibit emotional 
scars. Both of the older brothers demand lots of adult attention 
and exhibit high levels of insecurity. There are many other known 
problems that will require treatment. The oldest brother has 
broken teeth that will require orthodontic work. The middle child 
was in a special education program in kindergarten because no one 
could understand his speech. He was later diagnosed with 
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). The youngest boy presents the 
greatest unknowns. He did not speak until age four, was also 
diagnosed with ADD and is currently repeating the first grade.  

    Originally, the Baldwins wanted to adopt one or two children, 
but were glad to welcome three sons with the promise of financial 
assistance. The Baldwins are both teachers with moderate fixed 
incomes. After being placed in the Baldwin's home for an entire 
year, it was revealed that the boys are not eligible for Title 
IV-E federal adoption assistance because the monthly income of 
their birth mother (for who all legal ties with the boys have 
been legally severed) made $79.89 too much the month the boys 
were removed from the home the final time. The most the county 
could offer in state adoption assistance was $50 to $60 per month 
for all three boys.  

    Without federal subsidies, this adoption may not happen. If 
the Baldwins adopted these boys without federal assistance, the 
Baldwins would have to spend $20,000 or more a year for health 
benefits and other costs.  

    Three Siblings  

    The children are currently ages 12, 13 and 15 and have been 
with the Hayes family for the past two years as foster children.  
They came into the foster care system in 1986 because of neglect.  
They have been returned home, replaced in foster care, placed 
with a guardian, adopted, experienced the death of their adoptive 
mother and replaced into a foster home. They have moved at least 
4 times in the last 10 years.  

    The Hayes would very much like to adopt the children. The 
children are not eligible for federal foster care or adoption 
assistance because the income of their lost adoptive home was too 
high to qualify. However, while receiving state-supported foster 
care, the children have also been receiving health care benefits 
under Medicaid. If adopted, they would not be eligible for 
federal adoption subsidy and could lose their Medicaid benefits.  
Michigan does not extend Medicaid coverage to children who 
receive state-only adoption assistance. Mr. Hayes is self- 
employed and therefore family insurance coverage is paid 
completely by him. To add another three persons to the coverage 
is prohibitively costly.  

    Ineligibility for federal adoption assistance and Medicaid 
often prevents a foster home from turning into a permanent 
adoptive home for children.  

    Tommy  

    The birth mother of Tommy, born in 1992, is in the Navy, 
working and not eligible for AFDC. As a single parent receiving 
no child support, she struggled to care for her son who was 
diagnosed with autism and pervasive developmental delays. Tommy 
requires speech therapy, physical therapy and occupational 
therapy. She struggled to find appropriate child care. Finally, 
she made an adoption plan and relinquished him to Catholic 
Charities in November of 1996. 

    The search to find appropriate parents for Tommy was 
nationwide and took several months beginning in April 1996. A 
family was found in Michigan. They came to San Diego to meet the 
birth mother and Tommy in November, 1996, and took Tommy back to 
Michigan. He has been in foster care with the Michigan family 
since that time. In May, 1997 the family was ready to move 
towards finalizing the adoption. Catholic Charities applied for 
the federal adoption assistance program before moving toward 
finalizing the adoption. Unfortunately, Tommy is not linked to 
federal eligibility criteria.  

    In order for the federal adoption subsidy to be approved, 
Tommy must have medical coverage. He currently has Medicaid in 
Michigan and Medi-Cal in California, but this coverage is linked 
to his foster care status and he will lose the coverage if his 
adoption is finalized. Catholic Charities thus applied for SSI.  
The adoption is now on hold because the county will not approve 
adoption assistance without medical coverage and the SSI process 
can take up to 6 months or longer.  

    Meanwhile, the birth mother has been served with notice to 
appear in court to pay child support for all the money paid by 
the county for Tommy's foster care. The court documents report 
that unless the adoption is finalized she is responsible and the 
adoption cannot be finalized until Tommy has medical coverage.  
Delinking adoption assistance would have allowed Tommy to become 
eligible for adoption assistance without the attendant 
administrative delays and financial blockades.  

    Geographic Barriers to Adoption  

    An important issue addressed by S.1195 is the elimination of 
barriers to the placement of children in interstate and inter- 
county adoptions. Our objective is to place waiting children with 
appropriate families. The removal of the geographic barriers to 
adoption means that a state, or a county, cannot discriminate 
against a placement simply because it would occur in another 
jurisdiction.  

    From the county level to the state level, and regionally, 
there is a resistance to place children outside of one's 
immediate jurisdiction. States and counties hang on to families 
in their jurisdictions, in case a child comes into care needing a 
home, while children are waiting in other jurisdictions for 
families to be found. Voice for Adoption supports provisions in 
S.1195 which prohibit a state from refusing to place a child 
because of a geographic barrier imposed by the agency.  

    Adoption specialists report that agencies placing children 
for adoption often fear out-of-state adoptions because of a lack 
of trust that children will be properly cared for in another 
state, or county. County and state agencies sometimes force 
prospective adoptive families to agree not to look outside the 
jurisdiction for one year after a home study has been completed, 
in order to save themselves and if the family does look elsewhere 
they are penalized by having to pay the costs of the home study.  
A new initiative in Ohio, called ADOPT OHIO, attempts to 
eliminate geographic barriers to adoption between counties in the 
state. ADOPT OHIO requires uniform home studies throughout the 
state which raises the comfort level of caseworkers in placing 
children across county lines. 

    Adoption exchanges, which register children who are waiting 
to be adopted, report that many states refuse to register 
children for homes might be found. The success of these adoption 
exchanges suggests that greater usage would result in more 
successful placements of children if agencies were willing to 
place children across state lines. Statistics from The Adoption 
Exchange in Denver, Colorado show the preponderance of 
individuals from various states who use adoption registries. Of 
those responding to the information available from The Adoption 
Exchange, 63% are people who do not live in the same state as the 
child. Of those individuals, 64% have completed home studies and 
are ready for placement, yet only a small percentage of those 64% 
ready families actually get to adopt.  

    The Ocean State Adoption Resource Exchange (OSARE) in 
Pawtucket, Rhode Island notes that a small state must enter into 
interstate placements, but that there is a reluctance to make 
interstate adoptions, regardless of the fact that children can be 
placed in either Connecticut or Massachusetts and still maintain 
whatever relationships in Rhode Island might be necessary for the 
child's well being. Only 3 Rhode Island children were placed out 
of state in 1996. Last year, 90 waiting RI children were 
registered with OSARE. The state child welfare agency registered 
only 55 families as potential homes for these children. OSARE 
registered an additional I 1 0 out-of-state families who were 
waiting to adopt. Despite this 2 to I ratio of out-of-state to 
in-state families, only 35 in-state adoptions and only 3 out-of- 
state adoptions occurred. According to OSARE, while 55 Rhode 
Island children remained in foster care, the state said "no" to 
107 out-of-state families.  

    Stories Of Real Children And Families: Geographic Barriers  

    Allison, Beth, Jimmy and Jarod  

    Allison, Beth, Jimmy and Jarod, siblings aged six, eight, ten 
and eleven, were freed for adoption in October 1996. Because the 
siblings had a close relationship with each other, their 
caseworker hoped to find a family that could adopt all four 
children. An adoption agency was able to send the caseworker home 
studies of four out-of-state families who were interested in 
adopting all four children. However, the state child welfare 
agency pressured the worker to select in-state families for the 
children. Over a period of six months, no appropriate in-state 
families could be located to adopt all four children. Thus, the 
sibling group was split. Jimmy and Jarod were placed with one 
family and another family has. been identified for Allison and 
Beth. Had the state not pressured the worker to locate only in- 
state families, the children could have remained together.  

    David  

    David, a nine year old boy with significant emotional special 
needs, was registered with an adoption agency in Rhode Island in 
December 1995. After an extensive search for a family, an 
appropriate out-of-state family was identified in September 1996. 
Therefore, David's worker requested permission in October from 
the state child welfare administration to make an out-of- state 
placement. Permission was denied in November due to cost to the 
agency for placement and post-placement services.  

    The worker proceeded to document all that she had done to 
recruit in-state families, in an effort to prove that there were 
no appropriate resources in Rhode Island. In December, the worker 
finally received permission to proceed with placement of David 
out of state. When she contacted the out-of-state agency, she 
learned that the family had been placed with another child and 
therefore was no longer available. An additional four months 
passed before another, less ideal family was found for David.  

    Two-year old Twins  

    A potentially adoptive, bi-racial family from Indiana is 
encountering unnecessary and burdensome delays in attempts to 
adopt two-year old, bi-racial, AIDS-exposed twins from Ohio. The 
twins, whose birth mother is a prostitute, were crack and alcohol 
addicted at birth. The prospective parents made two six-hour 
trips to Ohio (one over a three day weekend) and clearly bonded 
with the twins. Many in-state adoptions move to finalization 
after a single visit, a supervisor from the county agency in Ohio 
has questioned the commitment of this Indiana family, and is 
forcing them to return for yet another visit. This supervisor has 
acknowledged that she has no other family identified and that the 
Indiana family is a proper family but insists that the family 
return to Ohio and told the family that placement will take 
longer. These children were matched back in April 1997. Normal 
placement time is 1 to 1.5 months in Ohio and this process has 
been going on for 6 months.  

    Michael and Antoine  

    Michael and Antoine, African-American brothers aged four and 
six, were freed for adoption in March 1996. Their worker could 
not find a family in-state to meet the needs of the boys and 
therefore expanded her search geographically. In February 1997, 
she found a match for the boys out-of-state. She requested 
permission from the state child welfare agency to proceed with 
the placement and because of paperwork and administrative delays, 
permission was not given until July 1997. As of September 1997, 
the caseworker still did not receive approval from the family's 
state. After seven months of waiting, the family withdrew their 
application in late September for unknown reasons. The search for 
a family for the boys has begun again. They have now been waiting 
nineteen months for an adoptive family.  

    Funding for Services  

    Voice for Adoption supports provisions in S. 1195 which would 
direct reinvestment of the state subsidy savings to child welfare 
services. The per child adoption bonus proposed in the 
legislation will also increase the availability of funding for 
services, including post-adoption services. Changing time-tables 
is important, but without service money, the impact of procedural 
reform is slight. While we regret the elimination of provisions 
in the earlier Senate bill, S.511, which would have allowed Title 
IV-E foster care funds to be used for up to one year to pay for 
services, we believe that the provision for funding of child 
welfare services in S. 1195 is essential.  

    Post-adoption services are essential for many families 
adopting special needs children. Families who adopt children who 
have been neglected, physically, emotionally, and sexually abused 
continue to need support following adoption. These are children 
who come with problems, the consequences of which do not go away 
with adoption. 

    Adoptive parents need a range of services. These may include 
respite from parenting very challenging children, and continued 
educational workshops as different issues surface in the years 
following adoption, as well as specialized medical and mental 
health services for their children. All need to be obtainable.  
The availability of post-adoptive services can mean the 
difference between a child remaining with an adoptive family or 
going back into another, more costly foster care placement.  

    Without support for services, our policies will focus 
myopically on timetables and procedures and continue to hamper 
the development of the services communities need to protect 
children and support families. We stand ready to work with 
Congress on overcoming barriers to ensure that children receive 
the families they need.  

    For further information, please contact  

    Tom Birch, Legislative Counsel  

    Voice for Adoption  

    202-347-3666