Reunification isn’t always right

For children in foster care, permanency planning is critical to a successful exit from foster care. Most recently, with the advent of Alternative Response and other agency policies favoring reunification, services provided by the local Departments of Social Services have been more intensely focused on reunification efforts and services.

This emphasis on reunification services is a positive direction. There are cases, however, where that course is not the best for an individual child. When the parents’ circumstances are not changing, despite the provision of services, and the child is stable in a foster home, adoption is the better course.

A 5-year-old who has been in foster care illustrates this point. Linda, who has a congenital medical condition, was removed from her mother due to medical neglect. Her father had been in and out of incarceration and did not have significant contact with his daughter.

For more than a year before Linda’s removal, her mother received numerous services to assist her in addressing Linda’s medical issues, including services from a Department worker, an in-home nurse, and Linda’s clinical medical team. Even so, Linda’s mother did not provide the medical care Linda required. Linda has been in foster care for the last two years and since that time her medical and all other needs have been met.

The court is required to hold a permanency planning hearing within 11 months after a child is committed to the Department. Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) § 3-823. The court is to determine the permanency plan that is consistent with the best interests of the child. CJP § 3-823(e). In making its determination, the court is, first and foremost, to consider the child’s health and safety, and, then, other factors such as the child’s attachments, the length of time of removal, the potential harm to the child if moved from the foster care placement, and the potential harm in remaining in state custody. Md. Code Ann., Family Law Article § 5-525(f)(1).

For Linda, more than 11 months have passed. In addition to the services provided before Linda’s removal, her mother received services during the two years Linda has been in care. Although her parents had been visiting her weekly, their circumstances had not changed in such a way that would ensure that she receive proper medical care if she were returned. There were no relatives to care for her. Her permanency plan should have been changed to adoption by a non-relative so that her foster parents could adopt her. CJP § 3-823(e)(1)(i)(3).

This would have resulted in the filing of a petition to terminate parental rights within 60 days, allowing her to be free for adoption. CJP § 3-823(g). In situations where the parental circumstances are not appreciably progressing, permanent out-of-the-home placement is appropriate and should be established as soon as possible.

In the 2013 legislative session, Maryland’s General Assembly directed the courts to schedule a review hearing 6 months after the filing of a Child In Need of Assistance Petition, which is prior to the permanency planning review. CJP § 3-816.2.

This legislation, if utilized to its potential, could considerably accelerate permanency for children. The court would have an opportunity to evaluate parental circumstances and could motivate the parents to advance by order or strong recommendation in preparation for the upcoming permanency planning review hearing.

In Linda’s case, no such hearing was held because her case was heard prior to the enactment of this new provision. In addition, at the permanency planning hearing, the parents were given a further chance at reunification. This delayed Linda’s permanency. Linda became confused and anxious because visits with her parents continued yet she was bonding to the foster parents who cared for her daily needs.

Linda’s case is not unique: often, when the facts dictate that the permanency plan should no longer be reunification, the child welfare system’s professionals do not move the case with the urgency required. This is particularly true where, despite the provision of services, there are no improvements to the parental circumstances, such as cases where the parents have untreated or sporadically treated mental health or substance-abuse issues.

Child-welfare professionals often have the best of intentions, hoping that the next offer of services to the parent will result in parental progress. These professionals, however, lose sight of the harm experienced by the child through the ongoing tension between the bond with the biological family and the ever-strengthening bond to the foster parents.

Especially in those cases where adoption might be the best course, professionals working with a child’s case need to recognize when parents are not developing and should, instead, provide intense resources to the child so that the foundation for a timely adoption is in place.

Joan F. Little is the Chief Attorney in Baltimore City’s Child Advocacy Unit at Maryland Legal Aid.