Chairman Carey:

The City of Alexandria Department of Community and Human Services (DCHS) 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

DCHS proposes that the number of business days to conduct the facilitated meeting be increased from five business days to at least 14 calendar days.  DCHS proposes this for four main reasons:

1. The purpose of the facilitated meeting (a Family Partnership Meeting (FPM)) is to allow family members an opportunity to develop solutions with LDSS representatives to find the best path forward in a crisis situation.  FPMs work best when there is enough time to identify and prepare family members for the meeting.  Rushing this process will limit the identification of family members, their understanding of the issues that brought the family to the LDSS attention, and their preparation for the difficult discussion and questions that will arise in the meeting. 
2. The proposed 5-day timeframe keeps the family in “crisis mode,” without time to reflect on what has happened and come to the meeting in a mindset and emotional state to engage in solutions.  This is not an emergency removal FPM with a court date in five days, the safety plan and relative placement gives the family and LDSS staff time to hold a non-crisis FPM where better decisions can be made, and a fuller understanding of the PCSPP can be achieved.
3. Additional time allows the CPS Investigation/Family Assessment to potentially learn new information that may negate the need for the out-of-home placement to even continue.  These relative placements are often made when allegations are supported, but all needed information and facts are still not known.   While an FPM is being planned and prepared over a longer period, forensic interviews, witness accounts, and medical examination and testing results may change the direction of the case entirely.   
4. 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.  Mandating removal may not be in the best interests of the child and family at the conclusion of the Parental Child Safety Placement Agreement when no official permanency can be established.  Older youth who are close to 18 years of age may not need foster care placement as they near adulthood while safely residing in the home of a relative caregiver.  Forcing them to move to a stranger’s home would be disruptive, potentially traumatic, and break the family, peer, and community bonds that young people need to successfully manage early adulthood.

Additionally, relative caregivers who have an undocumented status are not eligible for kinship foster care, leaving them only with the option of filing for custody if it is best for them to continue caring for the child.  These and other relative caregivers may have valid reasons for not wanting to petition a court for custody of a child, but can still provide safe and nurturing care in collaboration with the parent(s) and LDSS through a child protective order while longer-term permanency options and planning continue to be developed.  The least restrictive means of a child protective order needs to be a primary option that can be taken by the LDSS instead of a secondary action after a removal is denied.    

Sincerely,

Barbara Paulson, LCSW, LICSW (she, her, hers)

Director, Center for Children and Families

City of Alexandria, Virginia

Department of Community and Human Services