50 comments
Chairman Carey:
The Virginia League of Social Services Executives (VLSSE) submits the following comments regarding the draft regulation to implement the Parental Child Safety Placement Program, 22VAC40-705, sections 60 & 200:
Background[1]
Prior to the successful implementation of the Parental Child Safety Placement Program on July 1, 2024, there were many efforts on the part of both VLSSE and the Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) along with numerous other child welfare advocates to incorporate consistent foster care diversion guidance throughout all Commonwealth of Virginia local department of social services (LDSS). Below are major highlights dating back to 2014:
2023
VLSSE worked with VDSS, Eric Reynolds, Children’s Ombudsman for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and then Special Advisor to Governor Youngkin, Janet Kelly, to develop recommendations for a legislative proposal for the 2024 General Assembly Session. VLSSE subsequently provided input to Senator Barbara Favola on what would become Senate Bill 39 which became effective July 1, 2024.
2022
Eric Reynolds, Children’s Ombudsman for the Commonwealth of Virginia, submitted draft legislation for LDSS and LDSS agency attorney feedback.
VLSSE submitted formal legislative recommendations regarding foster care diversion. Major points:
There are three major components to consider when applying court intervention to CPS cases involving voluntary out of home placements.
Any legislation involving court intervention for voluntary out of home placements should be grounded in the components above and should allow for the details of implementation of that process to be outlined in regulations and guidance
2019
On October 31, 2019, a Diversion Input Session was conducted at the Child Welfare Advisory Committee (CWAC) meeting. CWAC is made up of child welfare professionals, including LDSS staff, along with other advocates in the field. CWAC is the primary organization to advise the Director of the Division of Family Services at VDSS on child welfare issues. It helps ensure that all child welfare activities are child-centered, family-focused and community-based.
2016
General Assembly Session –Budget Amendment, Item 343I
-Directed VDSS to conduct a pilot project on data collection and reporting for local departments of social services (LDSS) regarding facilitated care arrangements (i.e., foster care diversion)
Project Intent
-Collect baseline data regarding “diversion cases” (CPS, CPS Ongoing, and Prevention), that will assist in exploring the barriers to achieving safety and stability for children with kin or alternative caregivers.
2014
Kinship Care Legislative Proposal from the Virginia Poverty Law Center submitted to VLSSE for review.
Draft Regulation Comments
Section D.(1)(a)
While VLSSE is not opposed to conducting a criminal inquiry through the current platform provided by VDSS (Accurint), LDSS 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. VLSSE proposes that LDSS 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)
While VLSSE supports referrals for services to address substance use disorders for proposed caregivers involved in the PCSPP, 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:
Overreliance on drug testing: Drug testing (particularly urine and toxicology testing, which often produce inaccurate results16) is overused as a diagnostic indicator or as a measure of safety. The overreliance on testing leads to decisions being made that can have serious, irreversible, and inequitable consequences for families, particularly for Black and Native American mothers who are more likely to be reported to child welfare and health departments at the time of giving birth (“How can the child welfare system support families affected by substance use disorder?”, Casey Family Programs, August 15, 2023).
Instead, VLSSE recommends that proposed caregivers 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. VLSSE recommends D.(2.) be stricken and proposes the following language be added to Section D.(1.)(a.)(iii):
“If the local department’s assessment of the proposed caregiver indicates 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”.
The Code of Virginia does not address potential substance use by a proposed relative or fictive kin caregiver, and, while VLSSE agrees that further evaluation by an LDSS for substance use may be a factor in determining the suitability of a relative or fictive kin placement, this action can be completed using the caregiver assessment referenced in Section D.(1.).
Section D.(3)
VLSSE opposes the language as follows: “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. VLSSE recommends this language be stricken. VLSSE recommends a written assessment of other children in the home be included in the overall proposed caregiver assessment.
Section D.(5)
VLSSE opposes the requirements of D.(5) and recommends 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.
Summary
While VLSSE supports the premise of the PCSPP and supports the implementation of the program, further restrictions upon its use by LDSS working with families and children could lead to underutilization of the program by LDSS, families, and proposed relative caregivers. There could be an increase in the number of children entering foster care rather than being placed with relatives or fictive kin and could also be further situations of LDSS noncompliance with the requirements of the program which will lead to the decline of the safety, permanency, and well-being of children. This program was meant to codify the practice of diversion from foster care and provide relatives and fictive kin with financial support to care for children at risk. VLSSE advocated for guidance and legislation that would support LDSS’ ability to further engage with families by placing children with relatives and fictive kin rather than with stranger foster families and/or in congregate care facilities. The benefits of placement with relatives and fictive kin has, in numerous studies, been documented to provide better outcomes for children and their families and exemplifies a “Kin First” culture in the Commonwealth. The proposed draft regulation, as written, will further hamper LDSS efforts to place children with relatives and fictive kin. The Code of Virginia already sets out how the PCSPP program should be implemented, and the draft regulations put requirements in place that may ultimately undermine the original intent of the legislation.
Sincerely,
Rebecca J. Morgan, M.Ed.
President, VLSSE
Director, Middlesex Department of Social Services
[1] Virginia League of Social Services Executives, Foster Care Diversion Practice in Virginia (2022)
These regulations help kids stay connected to family when they are unable to be with their parents.
These regulations will help protect kids in Virginia. Relatives should be supported as caregivers.
These regulations help children stay with relatives who can better support their emotional needs and out of the foster care system. Supporting the relatives in this process will further support the successful future of the child.
These regulations will help children stay safe with familiar friends and family in what is likely a horrific and life changing moment in their lives. Helping families financially takes a burden off to allow for the children to transition into their new homes with relative easy.
I support the proposed regulations in the Parental Child Safety Placement Program that prioritize and support kinship care (with accompanying background checks and supportive services) when a child encounters parental separation and a necessary placement with new caregivers. Separation of children from their parents and the unstable circumstances prompting a separation may be extremely traumatic for children and result in consequences to their emotional, cognitive, and physical health. Placement with stable relatives may help mitigate the trauma by potentially offering familiarity, continuity, and meaningful familial and cultural connection, all of which may promote a sense of stability and safety for the child during a time where stability and safety are critical.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Nina Schroder, MSW, LCSW
I support the proposed regulations in the Parental Child Safety Placement Program that prioritize and support kinship care (with accompanying background checks and supportive services) when a child encounters parental separation and a necessary placement with new caregivers. Placement with stable relatives may help mitigate the trauma by potentially offering familiarity, continuity, and meaningful familial and cultural connection, all of which may promote a sense of stability and safety for the child during a time where stability and safety are critical.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Respectfully,
Jennifer Saval
I support these carefully structured, common sense Parental Child Safety Placement Program regulations. As drafted, these regulations will help achieve the documented advantages of placing at risk children with relatives who are best positioned to provide the critical stability needed to enable these children to thrive.
Families Forward Virginia strongly supports the draft regulation 22VAC40-705, sections 60 & 200, to implement the Parental Child Safety Placement (PCSP) Program as established by Chapters 629 and 662 of the 2024 Acts of Assembly. As a leading organization dedicated to promoting family well-being and the prevention of child abuse and neglect, we recognize the critical importance of this program in ensuring the safety and stability of children during times of family crisis. This program offers an essential framework for protecting children while prioritizing family involvement and kinship care.
By emphasizing kinship care and placing children with trusted relatives or fictive kin/ family friends, the program ensures that children remain connected to their loved ones and their cultural and emotional roots. We commend the program’s focus on keeping children within their family networks, which helps to reduce trauma and promotes stability in their lives.
We also support the opportunity for public input, as this will ensure transparency and community engagement in the program’s implementation. This aligns with our organizational values of collaboration and collective impact, as strong community support is vital to the success of any child welfare initiative.
We believe this program will provide necessary protections and support for Virginia’s most vulnerable children while keeping them connected to their families and communities.
October 3, 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 Prince George 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) 2 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,
Bertha H. Judge Bertha H. Judge, Director, MSA
Prince George Department of Social Services
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
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 Warren 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,
Jon Martz
Jon Martz
Director
Warren County Social Services
465 W. 15th Street
Suite 100
Front Royal, VA 22630
540-635-3430 x 3370
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 Richmond 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,
Vanesa Livingstone
Director, Richmond County DSS
5579 Richmond Road
Warsaw, VA 22572
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 Fluvanna 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,
Kim Mabe
Director
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF CHARLES CITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
10900 COURTHOUSE ROAD
POST OFFICE BOX 98
CHARLES CITY, VIRGINIA 23030
TELEPHONE (804) 652-1708
TELECOPIER (804) 829-2430
BOARD
Mrs. Yvonne W. Bradby, Chairperson
Mrs. Joyce G. Manning, Vice Chairperson
Mr. Byron M. Adkins, Sr.
Mrs. Regina B. Harris
Mrs. Sylvia B. Wynn
October 7, 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 Charles City 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,
Elizabeth B. Holt
Elizabeth B. Holt
Director
October 8, 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 Hopewell 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,
Wanda E. Williams
Director
The Parental Child Safety Placement Program that has been authorized by statute, and is being implemented through the proposed regulations in 22VAC40-705-200, provides for children at serious risk of harm in their homes a vital and needed alternative both to foster care placement and to the informal out-of-home placements of such children that have been made by local social services departments without the supports that the children, their caregivers and their parents need. This is great work. That said, there appear to be a number of key matters that could be addressed in a better way by the proposed regulations (and perhaps by some amendments to relevant Virginia Code sections), and some matters that currently remain unaddressed in the proposed regulations. Here are my observations and recommendations regarding the regulations as currently drafted:
Section A: While this section tracks the language of Virginia Code §63.2-1532, and so is unlikely to be changed unless the Code section is changed, I think it contains incomplete and ultimately misleading language. The section states that these child safety placements occur when 3 conditions exist: (1) there is an active family assessment or CPS investigation in response to a valid CPS report; (2) the safety assessment finds that the child cannot remain safely in the home; and (3) the parent/guardian “is in agreement with the placement arrangement”. Section A adds language not found in the statute that emphasizes that the parent/custodian “must willingly agree to voluntarily place their child” with the caregiver under the Placement Agreement. What is missing from this language is the reality that the parent/custodian is “in agreement” with the placement arrangement only (or primarily) as a less restrictive alternative to foster care placement. While §63.2-1533 states that the Agreement must state that the parents/custodians have a right to refuse to enter into the Agreement, the section does not require that the Agreement explicitly acknowledge the consequence of such refusal: that the child will be placed in foster care. That is the stark reality that limits just how “voluntary” the placement agreement is. The language in the statute and in the regulations fails to capture this stark reality, and I think that is a mistake. More needs to be done to make certain that parents/custodians understand what their rights and obligations are in these situations, and what will happen if they decide to decline to sign a Child Safety Placement Agreement. The CPS workers must also be certain that, when they approach parents/custodians about such an agreed placement, they are certain they have the evidence to support an emergency removal if the parents refuse a “voluntary” placement outside the home.
Section D: I generally agree with the objections raised by the VLSSE, and joined by others commenting on the proposed regulations, that the current language in Section D requires too much in regard to the specifics of the local department’s determination of the appropriateness of the proposed alternative home for the child. I support substituting language that tracks the language proposed by VLSSE, but that language should also include a specific requirement to confirm and review the presence of other children in the proposed caregiver home and the potential impact of those children on the safety of the child being placed there.
A missing section between Sections E and F: The proposed Section G describes the required “facilitated meeting” with the family and the finalization of a Parental Child Safety Placement Agreement at that meeting. The proposed Section F provides that this meeting must occur within 5 business days of the child’s placement in the caregiver’s home. VLSSE states in its comments that logistical and staffing issues facing local departments make the 5 business day timeframe unrealistic, and recommends a time frame of 14 calendar days, noting that “[t]he timeline of 14 days is also consistent with other LDSS program requirements for children entering foster care.” The problem for me is that, when children are placed in foster care, the Virginia Code has specific provisions that give the department the authority to make all care decisions for the child, and also requires court hearings within a shorter period of time to determine whether the award temporary legal custody of the child to the department should continue. The proposed regulations make no provision for a temporary agreement that sets out the placement arrangement for the child and who has authority to do what in regard to the child’s care. Since Section G provides for an additional 3 business days for the parties to sign the placement agreement, we are talking about a total of 8 business days - almost 2 weeks of school - at a minimum before there is a formal agreement. That is a long time for the child, the caregivers and the parents to be in limbo. What happens to the schooling of school-age children? Who has the authority to seek and consent to medical care? What if the parents decide to change their minds before the facilitated meeting and go to the school to pick up the child? There need to be provisions for a temporary agreement that will guide - and limit - the parties pending the facilitated meeting. That is especially true if the period of 14 calendar days (plus another 3 days or more for execution of the agreement) recommended by the VLSSE is adopted.
Section G: This section, which addresses the agreement forged in the facilitated meeting, does not address anything about the content of the agreement but instead says only that it must contain what is set out in §63.1-1533 of the Virginia Code. It indicates that a “form” for the Agreement will be developed by DSS and included in the Child and Family Services Manual. It is not clear from the language in Section G what discretion, if any, a local department has to deviate from the form developed for the Manual. That should be specifically addressed.
Subsection A(2) of §63.2-1533 states that the placement agreement must make provisions for the following: “The responsibilities of the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian and the caregiver, including a plan for how the caregiver will access necessary medical treatment, mental health services, and appropriate educational services for the child.” While this requirement is both necessary and appropriate, it appears to assume that the parties can work out on their own such arrangements as school attendance and authorization for medical care. I don’t think this is really possible without additional help from the legislature. For example, since legal custody of the child is not being transferred from the parent/custodian to the caregiver, the child’s legal residence remains the home of the parent/custodian. As a result, the child’s required school district and school for attendance remains the district and school zone in which the parent/custodian resides, and the parent/custodian remains the sole authority to communicate with school officials regarding the child. Title 22.1 needs to be amended to recognize this child placement arrangement and to allow flexibility in regard to the school the child attends and the ability of the caregiver as well as the parent to communicate with school staff regarding the child. Currently, Virginia Code §22.1-3.4 has special provisions allowing flexibility in the enrollment and placement of children who are placed in foster care. It is my opinion that parental child safety placement agreements cannot require similar flexibility from school systems, and most school systems would say that the current law does not give them the authority to allow such flexibility. There should also be exploration of whether amendments to the Virginia Code would make it easier for caregivers under these agreements to seek and obtain medical care for the child placed with them. At a minimum, the regulations and and the Manual should provide for a Power of Attorney document in which the parent/custodian can grant agent authority to the caregivers for the care of the child, with the POA merely citing the Parental Child Safety Placement statute as the basis for this grant of agency without having to include all the specifics of why the child is not in the physical custody of the parent/custodian. I note again that, under the current regulations, there would not even be a placement agreement until the child has been with the caregivers for two weeks or more. That’s unacceptable, and places an unreasonable burden on the caregivers. There needs to be provision for temporary arrangements prior to the facilitated meeting, and there needs to be sufficient statutory authority to enable the caregivers to meet the needs of the child placed in their care.
Subsection B(1) of § 63.2-1533 states that the placement agreement “shall” contain a statement that the child’s parent/custodian is voluntarily consenting to the placement and that such consent is not an admission of abuse or neglect of the child. Again, this voluntariness is in the context of the local department’s communication that, if the parent/custodian does not consent to the caregiver placement, the department will place the child in foster care and file a petition with the local JDR Court alleging child abuse and neglect. That information should also be in the agreement, along with the fact that a hearing on the petition, at which the parents will be entitled to representation by legal counsel, will be held within 7 days of the child’s placement in foster care. (This observation applies equally to the required statement in the agreement that the parent/custodian has the right to refuse to enter into the agreement.)
Subsection B(2) of § 63.2-1533 states that the placement agreement “shall” contain a statement that “the agreement may be terminated by any party, at any time, and for any reason,” and that “upon such termination, the local department may take actions to protect the child, including the removal of the child pursuant to the provisions of this title.” The statute does not require any prior notice by the terminating party to the other parties. What prevents a parent from appearing at the caregiver’s home, or at the child’s school, and announcing that the parent is terminating the agreement and taking physical custody of the child at that moment? The local department is going to have a hard time catching up with the parent in those circumstances, especially if the parent decides to leave town. While the regulations might ultimately provide a prior notice requirement (which they currently don’t provide), which would enable the local department to take protective action before damage is done, there is a serious question whether such a requirement is enforceable, since the statute makes no provision for requiring prior notice before termination.
Subsection K(1)(b): This subsection states that if the local department determines that an in-home services case needs to remain in place in order for the child to safely return home but the parent/custodian declines to accept such services, the department “must seek a protective order or other appropriate court action” to order continued services. It should be noted that the Virginia Code does not authorize a local department to file a petition simply seeking a protective order for the supervised return of a child to parental care. § 16.1-253, which addresses protective orders for children, states that the JDR Court may enter a preliminary protective order “upon the motion of any person…pending there final determination of any matter before the Court.” There has to be a matter before the JDR Court that is within that Court’s statutorily authorized jurisdiction first, and a motion for a protective order can be requested in regard to that “matter”. For a local department, that matter is usually an allegation that a child is an abused or neglected child, and a protective order is requested to ensure the safety of the child pending final hearing. While § 63.2-1506(B)(6) authorizes local departments in family assessment cases to “[p]etition the Court for services deemed necessary,” the Juvenile Code does not give the JDR Court jurisdiction over family assessment matters, and in fact the Juvenile Code makes no mention of or reference to family assessments anywhere; nor does it make any reference to parent child safety placement agreements and requests for orders of child protection following the termination of those agreements. While Virginia Cod § 63.2-1535(B)(2) states that a local department “may” “seek a child protective order or other court action” to require ongoing in-home services, that language has to be read in harmony with the jurisdiction section of the Juvenile Code. Since the JDR Court is solely a creature of statute, its jurisdiction cannot extend beyond what is specifically granted to it in Title 16.1. Consequently, in my opinion, a protective order would have to be sought through a child abuse/neglect petition, which in turn would require that the matter be an “investigation,” not a “family assessment,” by the local department. (Relatedly, Virginia Code § 16.1-241.3 states that the JDR Court can assume jurisdiction over a case of a substance exposed infant and enter an order to protect the child only if the local department alleges in a petition that “an investigation” has been commenced. There is no mention of a family assessment or parental placement agreement.)
Subsection K(2): This section tracks the language in Virginia Code § 63.2-1535(C), which states that “[i]f it is determined that the child cannot be safely returned home at the conclusion of the parental child safety placement agreement, the local department shall seek removal of the child from the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian, upon a petition alleging abuse or neglect pursuant to § 16.1-251 or 16.1-252." (I do not understand the opposition of the VLSSE to this language in Subsection K(2), since that language tracks the statute’s language.). Also tracking the language of the statute, Subsection K(2) provides that, if the court “denies removal of the child,” the local department “shall seek a child protective order to provide continued services for the child and the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian to ensure the child's safety and welfare. If the child protective order is granted, the case shall remain open as an In-Home Services case.” Neither the statute nor the regulations specify how the local department must “seek” such a protective order. I suggest that it’s important to have a shared understanding of when and how the protective order is sought in this situation. Unfortunately, the relevant language in the Virginia Code is vague in regard to this. I note the following: (1) § 16.1-252(F) explicitly states “in addition to” entering a preliminary removal order the JDR Court may enter a preliminary protective order pursuant to § 16.1-253 imposing requirements and conditions as authorized in that section for the protection of the child. (2) § 16.1-262(G) states: “The preliminary removal order and any preliminary protective order issued shall remain in full force and effect pending the adjudicatory hearing.” Unfortunately, 16.1-252 does not specifically state that, if the Court denies removal of the child from the home, it may instead enter a preliminary protective order to ensure the child’s safety. Nonetheless, as noted earlier, § 16.1-253 authorizes the JDR Court to enter a preliminary protective order “[u]pon the motion of any person or upon the Court’s own motion …after a hearing, if necessary to protect a child's life, health, safety or normal development pending the final determination of any matter before the court.” My view is that the preliminary removal hearing would be a hearing at which the Court, upon its own motion or the motion of a party, could enter a preliminary protective order after denying removal of the child from the parent/custodian. There should not be a need for additional pleadings. I suspect that there is no consensus on this, and I submit that consensus should be sought and achieved, even if it requires a clarifying code amendment. That will make life a little easier for everyone in managing these cases.
October 3, 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:
On behalf of the Board of the City of Fredericksburg Department of Social Services I would like to submit 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,
Christian Zammas
Christian Zammas
Chair, Fredericksburg City Board of Social Services
C2Adopt supports the efforts by VDSS to increase kinship placement and family decision making. We believe strongly that families are capable of making good choices for their children and can come together to create plans that promote increased safety.
We would also share in the concerns brought forth by Rebecca Morgan and the Virgina League of Social Services Executives as to some possible unintended consequences which could further disenfranchise and disempower families in this process. The over-reliance on drug testing and its well-documented disproportionate impact to children and parents of color is a major concern. It's also important to trust the skills of both social services staff and families in the collaborative process vs. restricting decision making through dictating particulars as to assessment of criminal history and other youth in identified homes.
We are hopeful that there may be adjustments made in a timely fashion allowing for clear policy which allows for the intent of these changes to be fully realized without added barriers.
"These regulations help keep kids safe especially by supporting their families financially and providing for background checks in the caregivers homes.”
I am in support of these common sense regulations. They will help keep kids safe and provide families with the resources they need.
I support these regulations. They will keep kids safe and provide families resources to care for their families.
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:
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
I support the proposed regulations in the Parental Child Safety Placement Program that prioritize and support kinship care (with accompanying background checks and supportive services) when a child encounters parental separation and a necessary placement with new caregivers. Separation of children from their parents and the unstable circumstances prompting a separation may be extremely traumatic for children and result in consequences to their emotional, cognitive, and physical health. Placement with stable relatives may help mitigate the trauma by potentially offering familiarity, continuity, and meaningful familial and cultural connection, all of which may promote a sense of stability and safety for the child during a time where stability and safety are critical.
October 10, 2024
Don Carey, Chair
State Board of Social Services
VDSS/Office of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
5600 Cox Road Glen Allen, VA 23060
Dear Chairman Carey,
The staff of Campbell County Department of Social Services respectfully submits the following comments on the draft regulation for implementing the Parental Child Safety Placement Program (PCSPA) (22VAC40-705, sections 60 & 200). We raise several concerns regarding the current structure of the program, particularly related to timelines, procedures, and the potential unintended consequences for the families and children we serve.
While we support the extension from five to 14 days, which provides a more reasonable timeframe for decision-making, we have significant concerns about the use of Accurint for background checks. In our experience, Accurint often fails to provide comprehensive criminal history information, which compromises the reliability of assessments and raises concerns about making decisions based on incomplete data. Additionally, the complexity of barrier crimes can lead to gaps in understanding among staff, increasing the risk of critical errors in judgment.
We are also concerned that the program's current structure may result in unnecessary foster care placements, particularly in cases where children could remain safely with their families. This approach could increase family separations, which we believe should be avoided whenever possible.
Conflicting guidance on whether to pursue a child protective order or a removal order when a child cannot return home after a PCSPA further complicates the program. While section 22VAC40-705-200(K)(2) specifies that Local Department of Social Services (LDSS) must seek removal, the Virginia Department of Social Services agreement suggests that LDSS can seek a child protective order instead. This inconsistency may lead to varied practices across localities, creating uncertainty in the decision-making process.
Additionally, the five-day timeframe for holding a Family Partnership Meeting (FPM) is insufficient to ensure the participation of all relevant parties, such as noncustodial parents and relatives. Rushing to meet this deadline often results in the exclusion of key individuals. The subsequent transfer to in-home services within this short period is unnecessary and may create duplicative efforts, causing confusion for families.
Requiring a full caregiver assessment during on-call situations, especially at night, presents significant challenges. Logistically, many resources, such as support staff and necessary databases, may be unavailable, making timely assessments difficult. The safety risks associated with nighttime home visits further complicate this, alongside potential staffing shortages that can lead to rushed or incomplete evaluations. The pressure of tight time constraints may force workers to make quick decisions about a child's safety, often resulting in unnecessary removals. Additionally, conducting assessments during odd hours can heighten family stress and disrupt dynamics, potentially eroding trust in the system. The legal and ethical implications of rushed assessments also raise concerns about caregivers' rights to due process. A more flexible approach to off-hour assessments is needed to balance thoroughness with child safety.
We are particularly concerned that the 90-day timeframe for substance use cases is unrealistic. Substance use recovery is often a long process, frequently involving relapses, and the compressed timeline risks setting parents up for failure. This could result in premature foster care placements or placement with relatives or fictive kin. We recommend that protective orders be pursued in substance use cases where concerns cannot be resolved within the 90-day timeframe or with an extension.
Lastly, if the PCSPA is not a viable option that a child cannot safely return home within the 90 days (or with an extension), we suggest allowing agencies to pursue protective orders or court action rather than limiting the alternative to removal.
We value your commitment to ensuring the safety and well-being of children, as well as your ongoing support for Local Departments of Social Services.
With kind regards, I am
Truly yours
Lisa C. Linthicum
Director
Timothy D. Heck
Assistant Director
We at VKB have been strong advocates and supporters of this legislation since its inception and believe the subsequent Regulations have given thoughtful consideration of how this will translate into practice. While we acknowledge that this is a first step and there are many more steps to go, these measures will begin to move the needle towards a “kin first” culture we know ultimately yields better outcomes for kids and families.
With the well being of children being of the utmost importance, I support the proposal. The removal of a child from their biological family is a traumatic event, so placing a child with a trusted family member can reduce potential trauma that would come with being placed into the foster care system.
October 11, 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 Bedford 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,
Tomi W. Turner
Tomi W. Turner
Assistant Director II
Family Services
Given that children impacted by these regulations have already experienced some
level of disruption to their lives, it seems most intuitive to make their future situations and transitions as seamless as possible. Placement in family/friend/kinship care sets them up for future success and those caregivers deserve the full support of the state.
With the well being of children being of the utmost importance, I support the proposal. The removal of a child from their biological family is a traumatic event, so placing a child with a trusted family member or other trusted person in their lives can reduce potential trauma that would come with being placed into the foster care system.
In Virginia, ensuring that children in crisis can remain in kinship care or with close family friends is crucial for their emotional and psychological well-being. This approach helps maintain familial bonds, provides a sense of stability, and fosters a supportive environment, which can mitigate the trauma often associated with entering the foster care system. Kinship care allows children to stay connected to their cultural roots and community, promoting a smoother transition during difficult times. Prioritizing these options not only benefits the children but also strengthens family ties, reduces the burden on the foster care system, and can lead to better long-term outcomes for vulnerable youth.
Oct 11, 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 Virginia Alliance for Social Work Practitioners 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
VASWP 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,
April L. White, MS
President, Virginia Alliance of Social Work Practitioners
October 11, 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 Hanover 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,
Daricka Jones
Director
Hanover County Department of Social Services
October 11, 2024
Don Carey, Chair
State Board of Social Services
VDSS/Office of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
5600 Cox Road
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Dear Chairman Carey:
The Mathews 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,
Tiffany R. Gordon, MSW
Director
Mathews Department of Social Services
"C:\Users\qjf76947\Documents\UNIT SPECIFIC INFORMATION\FAMILY SERVICES\PCSPA\Amelia DSS Public Comment PCSPA.htm"
Chairman Carey:
The Amelia Department of Social Services (ADSS) 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
ADSS agrees with the VLSSE proposal 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.
ADSS supports the premise of the PCSPA and agrees with the VLSSE comments and summary included in this letter. We agree further restrictions upon its use by LDSS working with families and children could lead to underutilization of the program by LDSS, families, and proposed relative caregivers. There could be an increase in the number of children entering foster care rather than being placed with relatives or fictive kin and could also be create situations of LDSS noncompliance with the requirements of the program which will lead to the decline of the safety, permanency, and well-being of children. This program was meant to codify the practice of diversion from foster care and provide relatives and fictive kin with financial support to care for children at risk. VLSSE advocated for guidance and legislation that would support LDSS’ ability to further engage with families by placing children with relatives and fictive kin rather than with stranger foster families and/or in congregate care facilities. The benefits of placement with relatives and fictive kin have, in numerous studies, been documented to provide better outcomes for children and their families and exemplifies a “Kin First” culture in the Commonwealth. The proposed draft regulation, as written, will further hamper LDSS efforts to place children with relatives and fictive kin. The Code of Virginia already sets out how the PCSPA program should be implemented, and the draft regulations put requirements in place that may ultimately undermine the original intent of the legislation.
Additionally, after discussion with ADSS Family Services, using Accurint for background checks basically searches public information that has been collected and placed in one location. Our staff can find more accurate criminal history information related to convictions using a universal search on the court website. Also, the education stability piece of this does not seem to be addressed and is extremely important. VDSS should work to create a cooperative agreement with the VDOE surrounding this issue. Schools’ outside of the child’s home school (if they are staying with family in another locality) do not have to enroll these children. VDSS and VDOE should create a MOU that if a child was placed with a relative as part of an agreement (safety plan) with DSS, that school district must enroll the child.
Sincerely,
Audra D. Morris
Audra D. Morris, Director
Amelia County Department of Social Services
I support these regulations that place at risk children with relatives, who can best care for them.
On behalf of the Culpeper Department of Social Services, I am submitting the following comments regarding the draft regulation to implement the Parental Child Safety Placement Program, 22VVAC40-705, sections 60 and 200.
Section D. (1)(a) - Child welfare staff are not trained to assess which criminal convictions are "barrier crimes". Local staff are no trained to assess criminal convictions outside 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 the proposed caregiver and document the full assessment 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, caregivers should be screened for potential substance use disorders rather than the proposed "reason to believe" criteria. It is recommended that D.(2) be stricken and the following language be added to Section D. (1) (a)(iii): "If a 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 proposed: "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, medical, school records or other assessments would not be available to LDSS.
Section D. (5) - Replace the requirements 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 and the individuals explanation of the crime/conviction/founded disposition. This information must be documented in the case record. A supervsory approval review of the placement by the supervisor, Director, or Director's designee is required before the child may be place into the home of the proposed caregiver with a criminal conviction or founded disposition. Documentation of the supervisory approval review must be entered into the case record. The Department will periodically review placements of children that require supervisory approval reviews."
Section F. - VLSSE proposes and we agree, that the number of business days to conduct the facilitated meeting be increased from five business days to 14 calendar days. We concur with VLSSE reasons for this change.
Section K - 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.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
The Charlottesville Department of Social Services (CDSS) 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)
While CDSS is not opposed to conducting a criminal inquiry through the current platform provided by VDSS (Accurint), LDSS staff are not trained to assess criminal convictions outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia that could potentially be “barrier crimes” as per the Code of Virginia. CDSS proposes that LDSS 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)
While CDSS supports referrals for services to address substance use disorders for proposed caregivers involved in the PCSPP, 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, CDSS recommends that proposed caregivers 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. CDSS recommends D.(2.) be stricken and proposes the following language be added to Section D.(1.)(a.)(iii):
“If the local department’s assessment of the proposed caregiver indicates 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”.
The Code of Virginia does not address potential substance use by a proposed relative or fictive kin caregiver, and, while CDSS agrees that further evaluation by an LDSS for substance use may be a factor in determining the suitability of a relative or fictive kin placement, this action can be completed using the caregiver assessment referenced in Section D.(1.).
Section D.(3)
CDSS opposes the language as follows: “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. CDSS recommends this language be stricken. CDSS recommends a written assessment of other children in the home be included in the overall proposed caregiver assessment.
Section D.(5)
CDSS opposes the requirements of D.(5) and recommends 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
CDSS 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.-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.
Summary
While CDSS supports the premise of the PCSPP and supports the implementation of the program, further restrictions upon its use by LDSS working with families and children could lead to underutilization of the program by LDSS, families, and proposed relative caregivers. There could be an increase in the number of children entering foster care rather than being placed with relatives or fictive kin and could also be further situations of LDSS noncompliance with the requirements of the program which will lead to the decline of the safety, permanency, and well-being of children. This program was meant to codify the practice of diversion from foster care and provide relatives and fictive kin with financial support to care for children at risk. The idea behind the legislation was to help support LDSS’ ability to further engage with families by placing children with relatives and fictive kin rather than with stranger foster families and/or in congregate care facilities. The benefits of placement with relatives and fictive kin has, in numerous studies, been documented to provide better outcomes for children and their families and exemplifies a “Kin First” culture in the Commonwealth. The proposed draft regulation, as written, will further hamper LDSS efforts to place children with relatives and fictive kin. The Code of Virginia already sets out how the PCSPP program should be implemented, and the draft regulations put requirements in place that may ultimately undermine the original intent of the legislation.
Strongly in favor of the proposed Parental Child Safety Placement Program, it is a crucial first step to provide more stability for children and minimize potential trauma
These regulations provide much needed financial support as well as background checks to keep children safe during this vulnerable time. It helps alleviate some of the burden, and I support these common sense regulations.
These regulations help protect vulnerable kids by requiring background checks for adults in the caregiver's house.
These regulations help kids stay connected to family when they can't live with their parents. Maintaining these connections and having consistency in their lives is imperative for a child's mental health and indicative to a successful future.
Dear Reviewers
I support these common sense regulations that place at risk children with relatives, who can best care for them.
These kinship care regulations will help provide stability and safety for vulnerable children. I fully support them.
These are important regulations which will help kids stay with relatives, who can best support them, and provide them with the love and care they deserve.
Financial support for kinship families helps alleviate some of the burden. I support these common sense regulations.
Thank you.
October 11, 2024
Don Carey, Chair
State Board of Social Services
Office of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
5600 Cox Road
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Chairman Carey:
The Fairfax County Department of Social Services submits the following comments regarding the draft regulations for implementation of the Parental Child Safety Placement Program (PCSPP).
The Department is supportive of the Program which aims to offer jurisdictions expanded options for parental choice related to safe options for children and families involved with child protective services. However, there are changes needed to the PCSPP to ensure parents have a reasonable opportunity to address identified safety concerns, and to strengthen permanence and stability for children and youth impacted by these placements while minimizing the potential for negative impact to Title IV-E funding
Inadeguuate Time to Meet Complex Safety Challenges
While many parents can address safety concerns in 90 or 180 days, there are some challenges that parents face including substance us or mental health disorders and homelessness, which often cannot be ameliorated within that timeframe. Consideration should be given for the impact this timeframe has on parents facing these difficult challenges and the time needed to properly address them in a way that promotes child and family safety. In practice, many kin caregivers are willing and/or are able to continue caring for the child beyond the 90 or 180 days when parents are making reasonable efforts to address these and other complex safety challenges.
Current Removal Language Caused Disruption to Safe Placement
The proposed timeline does not align with VA Code 16.1-252. That section requires that the LDSS must prove (i) an imminent threat to life or health to remove a child from a caregiver and (ii) that reasonable efforts have been made to prevent removal and there are no alternatives less drastic than removal. When the PCSPP expires, there is no imminent threat to the child's life or health because they are not living with the person that caused them harm. The current language in the PCSPP provides that the child must be removed from a safe placement with a kin caregiver if the child cannot be safely returned home after 180 days.
Under VA Code 16.1-252 (E)(2), the issuance of a preliminary order is included as one of the alternatives less drastic than removal and supports safety and continuity in placement for the child.
Potential for Negative Title IV-E Implications
The 180-day timeframe negatively impacts the child's eligibility for IV-E funding if removed. Eligibility is based on the removal home--the home in which the child has been residing for the immediate previous six months. Therefore, the home of the safety resource would be the removal home thereby impacting eligibility. Additionally, the child would face removal even though the child's safety and well-being needs are being met.
Conclusion
We support the intent of the PCSPP but seek changes to the proposed regulation to remove unintended negative consequences on parents, children and foster care funding reimbursements.
Sincerely,
Michael Becketts, Director
Fairfax County Department of Family Services
11 October 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 City of Petersburg 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,
William D’Aiuto
Director, City of Petersburg Department of Social Services
The kinship program is a highly important program, allowing children to safely stay in the care of their own family members. It financially supports families to then help alleviate some of the burden placed on them. I fully support this program.
10/11/2024
The Hon. Don Carey, Chair
VDSS Office of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
5600 Cox Road
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Dear Chairman Carey:
I am writing on behalf of the Center for Family Advocacy at the Virginia Poverty Law Center (VPLC). Virginia Poverty Law Center uses advocacy, education, and litigation to break down systemic barriers that keep low-income Virginians in the cycle of poverty. We have advocated for services, supports, and protections for families in the situations that the proposed regulations seek to address for many years.
As documented in the comments of the VLSSE, VPLC has long been involved in the numerous attempts to address issues of child safety, family preservation, and support for kinship caregivers, and to increase Virginia’s use of kin foster parents, ensure extended family and kin are brought into cases early, and ensure due process for parents.
VPLC has supported the legislative initiatives to create and expand KinGAP, as well as the Relative Maintenance Payment for kin caregivers, knowing how important these are to the wellbeing of children. We also have been critical of the practice of “kinship diversion,” also known as “hidden foster care,” which has in practice often allowed local departments to abdicate their responsibility to provide what is known, under both federal and Virginia law, as “reasonable efforts” to prevent a child entering care, and to bring the child back home to the parent in a reasonable time.
We also note that low-income and African-American families are over-represented in Virginia’s child welfare system, which tends to over-scrutinize such families and that Virginia’s rate of reunification and permanency for children tends to be low overall. We ask that any regulations implemented by the Virginia Department of Social Services are designed to keep these concerns in front of mind and to push local departments to develop policies to address these in the communities they serve.
VPLC is concerned that the “Parental Child Safety Placement Program” does not properly address these issues, and will not ensure that families are preserved, that parents' rights are protected, that child-wellbeing is improved, and that families are reunified timely. We hope to be proven wrong, and have viewed the proposed regulations in that light.
Accordingly, the Center for Family Advocacy at VPLC submits the following comments regarding the draft regulations 22VAC40-705, sections 60 & 200:
Section A
Nowhere in the proposed regulation are the provisions of Va Code § 63.2-1533 (B)(3) addressed. The regulations do not require the local departments to comply with the statute, nor give guidance on how to effectuate this provision.
Va Code § 63.2-1533 (B)(3) states “A parental child safety placement agreement shall contain the following... A statement that the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian and the caregiver may seek legal counsel prior to entering into the agreement.”
Because putting such a statement in the agreement—which, by the time it has been written has, presumably, already been negotiated between the agency and the parent—will not aid the family in timely finding such legal counsel, and could delay the process (since most families coming to the attention of a local department do not have a retained attorney on speed dial), VPLC proposes this be addressed in both Section A, as a preliminary matter, and in Section G, to ensure the family has the option of having an attorney review the agreement before signing.
VPLC therefore recommends that the following paragraph be added to Section A:
“At the outset of an investigation that may lead to the entry of an agreement leading to change of living arrangement for the child, the local department must provide the following statement to the child’s parent, guardian or legal custodian:
“You may seek legal advice or counsel prior to entering into this agreement or signing any documents or plans. If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal help from your local Legal Aid office. You may search for your nearest office here: https://www.valegalaid.org/, or call 1-866-LEGLAID.
"If your local Legal Aid Office cannot help you or you are not eligible for their services, there are some other legal resources available.
· Virginia Lawyer Referral Service (VLRS) is not free, but an initial 30-minute consultation is only $35. Contact the VLRS at https://vlrs.community.lawyer/ or (800) 552-7977.
· Virginia Free Legal Answers allows financially-eligible persons to submit legal questions online for an attorney to answer, at https://virginia.freelegalanswers.org
· If the reason CPS is asking you to enter into this agreement is because you are a victim of domestic violence, you may be able to get legal help from the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance: https://vsdvalliance.org/get-help-ayuda/legal-services/, or (800) 838-8238.
· Guardians over age 60 may seek help through the Senior Legal Helpline, at 844-802-5910.”
Section C
We recommend adding an additional qualification to the list:
"Willing to support the relationship and contact between the child and parent, and the parent’s efforts to remedy the issues within 90 days"
Section D(2)
We agree with comments from the Virginia League of Social Services Executives (VLSSE) on the subject of substance use disorder screening in Section D(2). We share the concern expressed by VLSSE and the analysis from Casey Family Programs on the potential harm and lack of usefulness of drug testing and the disparate impacts of such. Black families, particularly, are over-represented in Virginia’s child welfare system. Assessments for treatment and safety can get people the help they need to be a supportive and safe environment for children and prevent over-reactive actions that can prevent family cohesion and safe placements (and which have already led to federal litigation). We support the VLSSE’s recommendations regarding Section D(2).
Section D(4):
We recognize that kinship placement may ameliorate, but does not eliminate, the harm to a child of separation from their parent. We cite this statement from Casey Family Programs:
The trauma of family separation is profound and can itself lead to or compound behavioral health challenges. Therefore, to address behavioral health, child protection agencies must first acknowledge the damaging effects of out-of-home placement and do everything in their power to keep children safe within their families. (Casey Family Programs, “How can child protection agencies partner to address behavioral health?” August 2024).
Accordingly, we recommend that Section D(4) be rewritten as follows:
“A written determination that the placement is in the child’s best interest, that the concern the placement seeks to address is not outweighed by the trauma of separation, and does not pose a threat to the child’s safety or well-being. This determination must be made and documented before separating the family and placing the child in the home.”
Section F
We are concerned that Section F provides for local departments to “schedule a facilitated meeting with the family within five business days of the child's placement in the caregiver's home...”
Ideally, such a meeting should take place before the change in the child’s living arrangements. As stated in the Family and Child Services Manual of the Virginia Department of Social Services, such a facilitated meeting, known as a Family Partnership Meeting or FPM, should be held “At the point that a critical case decision must be made: potential child removal; potential child placement change (placement disruption or change in foster care goal); or reunification.” (VDSS Family and Child Services Manual, Section 2, Page 52 (July 2024).)
The purpose of the meeting, as described in proposed Section F, is to “discuss all potential options for the child, family, and caregiver. The local department must discuss the benefits, requirements, advantages, and disadvantages of the following options at the facilitated meeting: (i) the child’s entry into foster care and the potential for the caregiver to become an approved kinship foster parent; and (ii) financial assistance that may be available to the caregiver if the child remains with the caregiver under the Parental Child Safety Placement Program, including the process for accessing such financial assistance.”
All of these issues would be best addressed before a change in the child’s living arrangements is made. All would impact the child, the child’s parent, and the relative caretaker -- and whether or not the parent and caretaker would agree to such placement of the child.
Further, the continuing responsibility of the local department to provide reasonable efforts to prevent separation of the family and to return the child home must be part of this discussion from the beginning of the case.
Finally, a child aged 12 or over in foster care has a right under Virginia law to be involved in the decision-making process that impacts his or her life. This right should attach to this process as well.
VPLC therefore recommends that Section F be revised to read:
F. The local department must schedule a facilitated meeting with the parent or guardian and relative caregiver—and the child, if age 12 or older—preferably before such change in living arrangements, but in no case later than within five business days of the child's placement in the caregiver's home to discuss all potential options for the child, family, and caregiver.
If the parent or guardian, child, or relative caregiver is deaf, hard of hearing, or not proficient in English, an interpreter must be provided at this meeting, and any documents provided must be translated into the appropriate language.
If the facilitated meeting cannot be scheduled prior to the change in living arrangements, the local department must discuss with the parent or guardian and relative caregiver, prior to such change, the benefits, requirements, advantages, and disadvantages of the available options, including (i) the child’s entry into foster care and the potential for the caregiver to become an approved kinship foster parent; and (ii) financial assistance that may be available to the caregiver if the child remains with the caregiver under the Parental Child Safety Placement Program, including the process for accessing such financial assistance.
The issues that must be discussed at the facilitated meeting include these, a specific plan for the parent or guardian child, and caregiver, including a detailed plan for how the local department will provide reasonable efforts to reunify the parent(s) and child, and any other issues the family, including the parent, child, and/or relative caregiver may raise. If they so wish, the parent(s), child, and/or kinship caregiver may have an advocate or support person may be present at the meeting.
Section G.
The provisions of Parental Child Safety Placement Program are intended to be voluntary on behalf of the parent, but Section G as written does not provide for this voluntariness. Nor does it address the right of the parent to consult with legal counsel before entering into the agreement, as provided for Va Code § 63.2-1533 (B)(3). VPLC therefore recommends the following revisions to Section G:
“If it is determined at the facilitated meeting that the family is willing to participate in the Parental Child Safety Placement Program, the parent, guardian, or legal custodian must enter into a Parental Child Safety Placement Agreement as designated by the Department in the Child and Family Services Manual with the local department within three business days of the facilitated meeting. The Parental Child Safety Placement Agreement must:
(i) be in writing and contain the terms outlined in § 63.2-1533 of the Code of Virginia;
(ii) be written with the input of the child’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian, and translated into their preferred language if not proficient in English;
(ii) be provided to the child’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian for review prior to signing, including, at the parent or guardian’s option, and as provided for in Va Code § 63.2-1533 (B)(3), an attorney for the parent or guardian;
(iii) include the signatures of the child’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian, the caregiver, and the local department; and
(iv) be scanned into the child welfare information system.
Section J.
Because the agreement is voluntary, any extension of the Parental Child Safety Placement Agreement must be voluntary as well.
Therefore, VPLC recommends the following change to the first sentence of Section J:
The Parental Child Safety Placement Agreement may be extended once, if the parent or guardian so agrees, for no longer than 90 calendar days and the reasons for such extension must be documented.
Section K
As written, Section K seems to unnecessarily burden both the family and the local department, and again, does not include a child age 12 or over in planning. VPLC therefore recommends the following amendments to Section K1, and eliminating Section K2:
If is determined that the child can be safely returned home, the local department must hold a facilitated meeting to develop a safety plan with the child's parent, guardian or legal custodian, the child if age 12 or over, and the caregiver to plan for the safe return of the child to the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian or to another legal custodian.
If it is determined that a safety plan, and/or continued services are required for the child to safely return home, the local department must document the need for them, what they are, and how long they will remain in place. If the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian, agrees, the local department will document the In-Home Services case for continued services and the date on which the case will be closed.
b. If the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian does not agree to the In-Home Services case remaining open for continued services, or if it is determined the child cannot be returned home safely, the local department may seek a child protective order or other appropriate court action.
c. Any and all case decisions, continued services, safety plans, or court orders must be documented in the child welfare information system.
Section K2
VPLC believes the above recommendations for Section K1 obviate the need for Section K2, and therefore recommends this section be deleted.
We appreciate your consideration of these recommendations.
Sincerely,
Valerie L’Herrou, Esq.
Deputy Director, Center for Family Advocacy
Virginia Poverty Law Center
We have long been involved with caring for at risk kids, providing emergency family care in support of DSS, becoming foster parents when asked by DSS, supporting and cheering on Va Kids Belong in their efforts to find "forever families" for kids in the foster care system, and being directly involved with the Virginia Community College System's Great Expectations program to ensure that outstanding kids aging out of Foster Care get the kind of special financial and familial family love needed to enable them to continue their education and careers to become successful and outstanding citizens of the state and the world. We believe these regulations will help keep Virginia kids safe, especially by supporting them staying with family members who can best support them and provide the love and care they deserve, and by providing them with financial support.
I support these common sense regulations that place at risk children with relatives, who can best care for them.