October 4, 2024

Don Carey, Chair

State Board of Social Services

VDSS/Office of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
5600 Cox Road
Glen Allen, VA 23060

Chairman Carey:

The Carroll County Department of Social Services submits the following comments regarding the draft regulation to implement the Parental Child Safety Placement Program, 22VAC40-705, sections 60 & 200: 

Section D.(1)(a)

Child welfare staff are not trained to assess which criminal convictions are “barrier crimes”.  LDSS staff are also not trained to assess criminal convictions outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia that could potentially be “barrier crimes” as per the Code of Virginia.  LDSS should be required to document any prior criminal history of a proposed caregiver and document a full assessment with the proposed caregiver about the circumstances of any criminal history as part of the overall caregiver assessment. 

Section D.(2)

A regulatory requirement directing LDSS to conduct drug screenings for proposed caregivers could lead to a disproportionate number of relatives or fictive kin being eliminated as placement options for children.  Instead, proposed caregivers should be screened for potential substance use disorders through the Permanency Assessment Tool rather than the proposed “reason to believe” criteria that may be challenging for staff to assess.  It is recommended that D.(2.) be stricken and the following language be added to Section D.(1.)(a.)(iii):  

“If the local department’s assessment of the proposed caregiver indicated that a substance use disorder requires further assessment, the local department will provide necessary referrals for treatment to include a substance use assessment and/or screening for substance use.  This action will be documented in the child welfare case management system”. 

Section D.(3)

The language as follows is opposed: “including the assessment of safety risks posed by other children living in the home”.  While LDSS may assess the characteristics of other children living in the home, LDSS has no way to assess potential safety risks posed by “other children” as juvenile criminal records and medical, school, or other assessments would not necessarily be available to an LDSS. 

Section D.(5)

Replace the requirements of D.(5) with the following language:

“The identification of a criminal conviction or founded child protective services disposition requires further assessment, including a discussion with the individual about the circumstances surrounding the crime/founded disposition, time frame of the crime, current status (probation, parole, etc.), and the individual's explanation of the crime/conviction/founded disposition. This information must be documented in the case record. A supervisory approval review of the placement by the supervisor, Director, or Director's designee is required before the child may be placed into the home of the proposed caregiver with a criminal conviction or founded disposition.  Documentation of the supervisory approval review must be entered in the case record.  The Department will periodically review placements of children that require supervisory approval reviews.”  

Section F

VLSSE proposes that the number of business days to conduct the facilitated meeting be increased from five business days to 14 calendar days.  Given that logistical factors such as holidays, weekends, availability of facilitators for the meetings, and availability of relatives to attend due to other commitments, such as employment, may impact the ability of LDSS to conduct the meeting, this additional number of days gives the LDSS and the family additional time to plan attendance and participation in the facilitated meeting.  The timeline of 14 days is also consistent with other LDSS program requirements for children entering foster care.

Section K.(2)

Section § 63.2-1533(g.) of the Code of Virginia states: “(iii) the local department should seek a child protective order or other court action”.  Section K.(2.) requires an LDSS to seek “removal”.  The language in Section K.(2.) should be aligned with the Code rather than specifying a removal petition as a child protective order is the least restrictive option. 

Sincerely,

Teresa Isom

Teresa Isom

Director