Who are You?

Do you believe that system should always permit children to remain at home or be returned to the biological family?

Certainly not! some parents are sadistic, cruel, or perverted. Some parents are so wrapped up in their own needs and desires they tragically neglect their children. Some, so addicted to drugs and alcohol they cannot care for their children, and they refuse assistance. Some do not love their children and see them as an annoyance. Yet, we believe such parents are in the minority of the children who are in the care of the state.

Isn't Foster Care the right solution,when there is a question that the child may be abused, or if living in a questionable environment?

A recent Casey Family Programs Study interviewed 659 individuals, between the ages of 20 and 33, that had spent at least one year in foster care. The study found that one third of this alumni had incomes at or below the federal poverty level, one third had no health insurance, twenty five percent had been homeless.

Emotionally, 20% as opposed to 10% of the generaal population suffered a major depressive episode, 17% as opposed to 9% had a social phobia, 15% as opposed to 4% suffered panic a disorder, 8% as opposed to 1% were drug dependant, and perhaps most shocking of all, a full 25% as opposed to 4% of general population suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, almost twice that suffered by US war veterans.

Although it may be argued that these children were victims of abuse within their biological family and such problems could be expected, these children were removed from homess to "fix" that problem

The greatest majority of foster parents are good and loving people, attempting to fill the gap when a child is removed from their own home. We beleive that many foster parents treat their foster children as they do their own. Although this may seem praiseworthy, it is not suitable.

Their own are living in their own home. Their own do not cry at night wondering what will become of them. Their own are not in a strange and dissimilar environment that may be totally foreign from all they know. Their own can speak to their family any time they desire. Their own will attend the same school, have the same friends, siblings, relatives, etc. etc. etc.

We object to cramming 6 to 10 children in a home to include foster parents own children. We object to immediately placing children in an adoptive foster home, as a conflict of interest may occur. We wholeheartedly object to placing children in foster care when family members are available, while 'family first' is mandated by state law.

If indeed systemic problems exist, what do you see as the solution?

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Many intensive family preservation programs are in place throughout our nation. Homebuilders in Washington and Michigan. Families First in many locations. The Alabama system of care enforced by court decree. Family to Family developed by the Anne E. Casey Foundation. Community Partnerships for Child Protection in Washington, Iowa, and other locations The Family Care Court was once available to families in trouble in Anchorage, but funds have not been reissued.

Implementing such programs is expensive and often upsetting to the established system. Detractors state these programs do not work, and endanger children. Yet, in places where these programs are affirmed and truly embraced, positive results have been impressive.

The Anne E. Casey Foundation and the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, as well as other organizations have a wealth of information that could be tailored and used to fit the needs of State Protective System, no matter the location. The Armed Forces solution to child and spouse abuse should also be studied.

The PEW Commission recently released a study and a DVD outlining a system of greater judicial input into the removal and decisions in regard to Children in the care of the state, that could greatly benefit the judges who must make decisions.

Do you see financial incentives for the state to assume custody of children, retain custody, adn subsequently adopt these children to other families

We do see financial incentives to the state's assumption of custody. The Federal government provides up to 75% of cost of ward of the state, but only when the child is placed in foster care.

Children whose family would qualify undere the old Aid to Dependent Children formula are classed for a more lucrative type funding. The state also receives four to ten thousand dollars for each child adopted from the system over a predetermined federally mandated quota.

Ninty three percent of adoptive parents in Alaska receive a monthly subsidy per child when adopted from the system, until the child's 18th birthday. Depending upon circumstances of each individual child, this subsidy can range between $350 and $1200 monthly. The same is not true when children are placed with relatives under a guardianship agreement. The state does not receive their alotment as they do for adoption, and the relative is not eligible for the monthly subsidy as is the adoptive parent. Depending upon income and circumstances the guardian may be eligible under the child assistance program, yet the amount does not compare to the adoption subsidy for the adoptive parents.

We also object to the adoptive family receiving the permanent fund dividends that the state has held in trust during the full term of state care.

Especially disturbing is the question of whether OCS is in the business of adoption or foster care. Upon legislative attempt to initially avoid placing in adoptive homes, the department responded that if such legislation were enacted they would not be able to find enough foster homes for the children in their care.

Often families find themselves alone and afraid when children are placed in care. Both parent and child suffer shock, grief, despair and feel no one is listening or cares

Appointed attorneys from the Public Defenders Office, other state agency, or on contract are often overwhelmed with perhaps, a hundred cases annually of all types and descriptions. The same is true of case workers and Guardian Ad Litems. What may appear as lack of caring, may actually be lack of time. In some cases however, these individuals may view their workload as "Second verse the same as the first.....", etc.

We advise family members on action to take to bring the child home, and recommend available services. We encourage children to speak out in regard to their needs and desires. We listen to their concerns and attempt to point them in the right direction for their future. We speak to state officials and legislators in attempt to bring needed change to the system. We DO NOT have any special inroad to the system that will prevail over decisions made by the case workers and we CANNOT change decisions made by the court.

email contact