Today’s guest blogger is Libby Onichiri.
Source: Foster Kids in Limbo: The Effects of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children on the Permanency of Children in Foster Care” report to the Annie E. Casey Foundation by Professor Vivek Sankaran of the Child Advocacy Law Clinic at the University Of Michigan Law School.
The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) as it relates to public child welfare is an important tool for ensuring safety, permanency and wellbeing for children with potential caregivers who do not reside in the same state. In his report, Professor Sankaran highlights substantial concerns about the ICPC, particularly in regard to reunification with biological parents.
Approximately forty thousand requests for ICPC services are made each year. Professor Sankaran requested information from all states to gauge how well the ICPC is serving children and families. Data from the twenty-seven states that responded indicated:
- ICPC requests are taking too long to complete. According to federal law, ICPC home studies must be completed within sixty days of the request, a timeline met forty-five percent of the time. There are significantly greater delays in several states for birth parent home studies, resulting in longer stays in foster placement for children.
- Birth parent homes studies are frequently completed based on the criteria used to evaluate foster and adoptive homes. Birth parent home studies are being denied for reasons such as “parent would need to sleep on couch to accommodate children” (Sankaran, 2014, p.6).
- The rates of non-approval for birth parent home studies are significantly higher in several states than home studies of other relative or non-relative caregivers.
- The majority of states do not have an administrative appeals process in place for non-approved ICPC home studies.
- The ICPC contains specific language prohibiting court review of non-approved ICPC home studies.
From a permanency standpoint, extended delays in ICPC home study completion and the sometimes arbitrary nature of non-approvals can create a barrier to timely reunification or adoption. Child wellbeing is at stake when children are kept waiting without a concrete, plausible explanation. Additionally, the issue of honoring birth parents’ constitutional rights is of great concern based on the report’s findings, specifically because birth parents are entitled to a “presumption of fitness absent a judicial finding to the contrary” (Sankaran, p. 10).
Professor Sankaran’s report brings forth important information regarding the functionality of the ICPC, even though his findings are based on data from only twenty-seven states. While not mentioned in the report, it should be noted that there is a new ICPC in the works. The new ICPC addresses many of the concerns raised in the report. It has been legislatively approved in fifteen states (Minnesota included). However, the new ICPC cannot go into effect until all states are in agreement.