211-10:  Language around prudent parenting/normalcy would be helpful.  Regarding terminology around parents/families – Create greater distinction between fostering and adoption while also recognizing the umbrella term for all approved parents, resource family.  For example:

“Adoptive parent” – The parent of a child in which the parent-child relationship was established by a Court of Law after a finalized adoption order, rather than biology.  Under the adoptive relationship, the child becomes an heir and is entitled to all privileges belonging to the biological child of a parent.

“Foster parenting” means providing 24-hour substitute family care for a child in foster care, including nurturing, room & board, necessities, and supervision for children or youth committed/entrusted to a child-placing agency.

“Resource family” is an umbrella term used in practice to refer to approved families who are fostering, have adopted, are formal kinship caregivers, or who provide respite care.    **Please consider fixing this phrase instead of striking “resource parent,” as it is the field-wide standard and goes hand-in-hand with the philosophies behind dual approval.  While the definition currently in the law reflects inaccurate and dated language from early concurrent planning pilots, the phrase is appropriate to use as it is the field-wide term for those formally approved through DSS/LCPA to provide family foster care.  Updating instead of striking ensures not only consistency with the field at large, it is consistent with the VDSS-supported pre-service curriculum used by a majority of LDSS (PRIDE).  Most states have included this umbrella term, some to greater detail than others.  For example, California's definition is "caregivers who provide out-of-home care for children in foster care. Resource families include individuals, couples and families. They may be related to the child, have a familiar or mentoring relationship with the child, or no previous relationship with the child."  In Maine, "Resource family Includes foster/adoptive parents, foster parents, and relative or kinship caregivers."  (Seems like “formal kinship” would be an important distinction.)

211-20

A:  Regarding “the approved provider shall be allowed to choose to provide only … adoptive care” – this reads as if there is an adoption-only option through foster care, rather than reflecting its roots in dual approval.  One way to reword could be:  A family who is dually-approved has met the requirements for both foster care and adoption.  While some families may choose to foster but not adopt, there is no mechanism in foster care by which a family can adopt but not foster.

F2: consider adding language similar to confidentiality, to ensure that parents are very clear on what constitutes corporal punishment before signing the agreement!

211-40

B:  It may help to clarify “assessment” as the process and “approval” as the product.  “Upon … ensuring the initiation of the assessment process.  If at any point in this process the local department determines that the family cannot meet approval, the application can be denied and process ended without further assessment.”

C:  Consider changing the requirement to 2 in-home interviews to assess compliance with approval standards but also to observe the home environment over time for stability.  Add a requirement that the dates and times of each interview shall be documented.  Reasoning:  We know that 3 visits of 20 minutes each, for example, does not provide enough time for an assessor to collect the needed information and establish a relationship with the family – but it is hard to quantify exactly how long each visit should be.  Having this documentation provides us and agencies with information about what works (and what does not), and creates the start of accountability for adequate interview length to get to know a family for matching children with them after approval.  It also provides needed data for Consultants as they are reviewing files related to the assessment and approval of families.

F4a: consider adding trauma-informed language such as, “Is knowledgeable about the necessary care for children who have experienced abuse, neglect, or trauma.  Is mentally, emotionally, and physically capable of providing such care.”

F4c:  Consider addressing attitudes toward permanency, such as, “Expresses attitudes that demonstrate the ability and willingness to care for a child born to someone else, and support the established permanency goal(s) for the child.”  Recommend removing the language of love to reflect the reality that not all foster parent/child sets experience love, and the commitment to care is unconditional.

F4d: Dual approval doesn’t require parents to have motivations to “foster and adopt,” consider changing language to “motivation to foster, including motivations for fostering with the goal of adoption, if applicable.”

F6:  Outstanding addition!!  Should the language specify anyone who is completing any part of the MFA?  For example, if a CPS worker does an Emergency Approval but a Foster Care worker will be completing the full assessment, does this specify that both the CPS and FC worker should have completed the required training? 

211-50

B3: Consider "The maximum number of children who may be placed including, if applicable, any specifications or limitations regarding age and sex/gender."  Reasoning:  The number isn't just a recommendation, it's a determination of max.  "Sex" is the language used later in the chapter regarding sleep space so it should be included here, but not to the exclusion of gender, which is related but can be different.)

C3g:  strike "orientation" or add "if applicable," as it is not done at all by some agencies and is combined into pre-service training in others

211-60

Update/add competencies, such as:

•   (update) Factors that contribute to child traumatic stress, neglect, emotional maltreatment, physical abuse, and sexual abuse/exploitation and the effects thereof.

•   (add, to support supervision as related to rate structuring) Strategies for providing enhanced supervision to children with high levels of need, as well as documenting behavioral concerns/progress.

•   (add) Prudent parenting practices that both meet children’s needs for “normalcy” while adhering to the child’s safety, permanency, and well-being

•   (update) Reunification as the primary child welfare goal, the process and experience of reunification, and the resource family’s role in supporting this goal.

•   (update)  Importance of visits and other contacts in strengthening relationships between children and their birth families, including siblings, and how to help children manage the visitation experience.

•   (update)  The detrimental impact of multiple placements and placement disruptions on a child's development, functioning, and ability to form healthy relationships.

•   (add) The impact of fostering/adopting, particularly on children who are currently a part of the family (e.g., biological or adopted).

•   (update) Meeting the needs of adolescents in care, supporting independent living skills while providing adequate support and supervision).

•   (add)  De-escalation strategies, avoiding escalation, and conflict management with children, youth, and other adults.

211-65

Do not distinguish competencies among respite-only versus fully-approved families.  They need to know the same things to meet children’s needs and it is common practice among LDSS to train them alongside fully-approved families anyway. 

211-70

D: Would it be useful to clarify “access to a working phone with service at all times”?

J5:  include having an operable CO2 detector  if applicable

211-100

B4:  clarify risk assessment and screening language, for example:  "Obtaining ... new tuberculosis risk assessment, TB screening (skin test), or other tests/assessments in compliance with ... and documenting either no risk for TB or teh absence of TB in its communicable form"