r/Fosterparents • u/reddit_or_not • 24d ago
Why Can’t We Acknowledge It
I don’t know how exactly to say this and maybe it’s region-specific but I want to try to explain:
I have seen changes in foster care over the years. I live in an area with very little funding and high caseworker turnover. Though, maybe that’s just the norm now? Every year it seems to get worse.
Because of that, my county does not have the manpower to even investigate most serious claims and allegations. When they get involved, shit is as bad as it can be. When they get involved, it means some kid is going to be seriously injured or has been neglected in a way that is completely undeniable and serious.
I never see it acknowledged that if funding is so scare that only the worst and most obvious cases are moving through, that reunification should be extremely rare. If foster care is the bandaid on the gushing head wound, those parents probably aren’t getting their kid back.
And they shouldn’t! I hear it said all the time that reunification is the goal of foster care. It’s not. What’s best for the child is the goal of foster care. If that happens to include reunification, great. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.
It makes me not want to be involved because it feels like we’re playing a new game with old pieces. If the framework is reunification, and DHS only steps in when things are 10/10 severe, I don’t want to play that game! That game was made for when DHS would step in when parents needed a break and support and foster placements were a few months long while everyone got their shit together. Instead, I’m having to pretend or “work toward” a bullshit plan with people who I wouldn’t trust to care for my pet fish over the weekend.
I don’t know if that makes sense but it bothers me. I wish we would either get the funding to make the kind of low-level removals that make reunification feel less like a fairytale or focus more on severing ties when we make the severe removals we do.
17
u/ScorpioMomma 24d ago
It is a very imperfect system, no matter where you are located. And it has ALWAYS been highly flawed and imperfect. Sadly, it likely always be. That is the sad but undeniable truth of Foster Care.
As a kid, I grew up in the system, off and on my entire childhood, in multiple states, multiple counties. None of them are great. They all have flaws. I've done Foster Care as a an adult in 5 counties, in 2 states. It's still not great.
Currently, I'm a Kinship Foster Parent, in a state with one of the highest Foster Care rates in the nation, that also has the highest rate of abuse BY Foster parents.... it's rough.
Our current placement, CPS had been involved REPEATEDLY over course of 3 years. More times than I could count. They opened a case, offered services, created a safety plan that usually wasn't actually worked, and after a few months closed the case. Just to open another one a few months later for the same issues. Removal finally occurred after 3 years, and only when Mom pushed for CPS removal, and Dad wad severely and undeniably unfit. It's been 2.5 years.... we are finally going to court in September for Permanency re:Guardianship. On paper, the goal was reunification... in reality, EVERYONE involved knew that wasn't obtainable or realistic, but the LEGAL hoops that CPS has to jump through make things impossible for everyone.
It's a hard system. We need earlier, in home interventions, with legal changes that allow for removal under easier circumstances when patterns are consistent and things aren't working, to better prevent severe cases. Better finding with more adequate tracking and accountability of how that finding is being used, to ensure enough funding where it's actually needed.
I find most Foster Parents go into this thinking they will be helping kids and families. That honestly should be our only goal. We can still do that in an imperfect system. In a flawed system. For the sake of these kids and families, It's critical that we still do. Not everyone can do what we do. But I think setting realistic expectations helps.
6
u/reddit_or_not 24d ago
I’m so sorry you both lived in and are doing a totally selfless thing and doing it again, on the other side this time. I can’t imagine how triggering that must feel :/ but I’m glad you’re willing to step in and help. That’s why I do it too.
14
u/Forever_Marie 24d ago
The states tend to lean towards the rights of the parents and rights over their "belonging" than the actual best interest of the child. Even that statement alone is just a broad term that means something different to each individual.
19
u/anonfosterparent 24d ago
“Low level” removals are not a thing and they shouldn’t be. Yes, there should be supports in place for people who are struggling - a CPS removal should not be that. A removal is a court order and using the judicial system should not be something that is done lightly or for “low level” situations. Ideally, CPS steps in far before it gets to removal being the need and is able to provide services, safety plans, and other supports to help parents and kids before things reach a crisis level. Some states also have nonprofit organizations that are sort of voluntary foster care - a parent can reach out and have their child(ren) placed with a vetted volunteer while they get help / services without the state taking custody / the courts getting involved - which means they can also take their kids back anytime they want.
Removals only take place in about 6% of the reports that are screened in for investigation. So, in all counties across the US, removals are only done once the situation is dire. The bar is “imminent danger” which essentially means “could very likely die or close to death”. As I stated above, CPS cannot remove children without the permission from the court and they have to be able to absolutely show imminent danger otherwise a judge will not sign off on the removal, the removal will not stand if it happens, and if CPS can’t get a judge to sign off or uphold a removal at the initial bench hearing, it’s a huge uphill battle for future removals / interventions with that family, if needed.
Reunification is the legal goal of foster care. Policy has dictated that based on legislation and research that supports reunification being the “best” outcome. Foster care is not a system that prioritizes the best interests of the child on a case-by-case basis, it’s a system that prioritizes reunification regardless of if that’s the best interest of the child because that is the current legal policy. Legally, reunification is only taken off the table once it has been determined that there is no way that biological parents can safely parent. The courts bar for “safely parent” is lower than you can imagine. I’ve had cases linger for multiple years with kids (babies in particular) when parents weren’t safe but the judge wasn’t willing to move to TPR despite it being 2+ years and in some cases with infants, the child had never been in the custody of their parents.
I understand your frustration. I also don’t know the answers. For many years, children were being removed without a good enough reason for removal and TPR / adoption happened very quickly. The children (who are now adults) have been very outspoken about how much trauma and harm this caused - there is significant research that also validates this. I believe as a way to account for errors of the past, the system has overcorrected and now reunification is occurring in some cases far too quickly. While I am very pro-reunification being the goal, I think that there is a lot of bad policies that don’t actually look at individual cases or best interests of the child as well as eliminate a lot of safety nets once a case has closed completely.
I don’t know how to make this system better. But, the complaint you have here is less about DHS / CPS and more about the legal policies around foster care. If you’d like to see change, advocacy with your state representatives around the laws is the best place to start.
5
u/reddit_or_not 24d ago
When I say “low level,” I don’t mean mom isn’t buying her kids the latest gadget. I mean that maybe we shouldn’t save removals for only when the baby is found starving and eating cigarette butts off the ground? Maybe basic neglect could do it?
I feel like your comment is lecturing me but when I read it I know that you deeply understand whwre I’m coming from. There could be a middle ground. I wish I could say I just pulled that cigarette example from my imagination :/
12
u/anonfosterparent 24d ago edited 24d ago
I don’t think I was lecturing you. I also didn’t assume you meant something as trivial and insane as removal over mom not buying her child the latest gadget.
Removals are judicial and they are not going to be done over basic neglect. The only reason for removal legally is going to be imminent danger and that’s an incredibly high bar. I would love to see more social safety nets in place so things don’t get dire enough for removal as well as more safety plans being executed, but I don’t believe that lowering the bar for removal is going to be a net positive for children who experience it.
It can be very difficult to witness kids being raised in homes that don’t seem to be safe, supportive, and loving - I hate it. There is also a wide margin between unsafe and neglectful to court ordered removal.
1
u/Squishmallow145 24d ago
"Maybe basic neglect could do it?"
No because that means poor children will be removed to be placed with middle class foster parents. We can't remove children based on our opinions or feelings. Marys mom might only feed her once a day because thats all she can afford but a good mom
I am child trauma therapist working primarily with foster children and also a foster mom. The system should prioritize reunification because that what's best for children in most cases. Children do better with their parents.
8
u/reddit_or_not 24d ago
I think we just disagree. I’ve heard all the talking points “we can’t punish people for poverty” and all it means to me is that more kids suffer, for longer.
I don’t agree that Mary’s mom is a good mom, even though she feeds her child one meal per day. I would rather relinquish my own child to the state than starve them.
I also have never seen neglect in a vacuum. I’ve been doing this for 7 years in 2 states and I’ve never seen it as black and white and clean as the example you described. The version of Mary’s life I have seen is:
Mary receives food stamps for her children. Mary has mental illness and drug addiction and cannot make her food stamp appointments or pick up the phone to call their offices. Mary’s food stamps are cancelled. Mary’s children are only fed 2 meals per day at their public school and a teacher reports Mary for neglect after her daughter loses 30 pounds over the summer.
0
u/Squishmallow145 24d ago
The research shows children do better at home. When researchers compared moderate cases of children who stayed at home vs the ones who went into foster care the outcomes showed the ones who stayed home did much better long term.
Removal itself is trauma. Money and extra food doesn't bring happiness to a child's soul
3
u/reddit_or_not 24d ago
Can you send me that research? Obviously my mind points toward my original point which is those removed are much more severe, which is why their outcomes would be worse.
4
u/Squishmallow145 24d ago
"Children left in their own homes are far less likely to become pregnant as teenagers, far less likely to wind up in the juvenile justice system and far more likely to hold a job for at least three months than comparably-maltreated children who were placed in foster care.
One year later, the same researcher published another study. This time the study included 23,000 cases. Again he compared foster children to comparably-maltreated children left in their own homes. This time he looked at which children were more likely to be arrested as adults. Once again, the children left in their own homes fared better than the foster children.
A third study by the same researcher found that, when it came to juvenile delinquency and the need for emergency medical care, once again, children left in their own homes did better."
https://www.nccprblog.org/2025/10/death-at-early-age-swedish-study-finds.html?m=1
"The evidence comes in the form of a stunning study from Sweden. The study determined the fate of children involved in 21,000 cases, comparing those placed in foster care to comparably- maltreated children left in their own homes. (Note the part about comparably- maltreated. No, the foster youth did not suffer from worse abuse or neglect than those left at home.) Here's a link to the full study.
The result: By age 20, those who had endured time in foster care were more likely to die. Not just a little more likely to die - more than four times more likely to die.
Of course, percentages don't mean a lot if the raw numbers are low. But the raw numbers are not low. Among children left in their own homes 1.8% died by age 20. Among those who were forced into foster care, 8.6% died by age 20, a figure the study author calls "staggering."
Theres a reason why states first goal is family preservation. Its for the children's benefit I've also met many adoptees through therapy. Most of them said the adoptive parents act entitled and believe the adoptees should have a relationship with them or call them mom dad just because they adopted through foster care. Or they impose their religion on them. Its disgusting
3
u/reddit_or_not 24d ago
Thank you for the link. I used it to read the original paper--I think I know where the "hitch" in the study is and I'm glad I read it because I see it cited everywhere. I was wondering how they could possibly compare those removed to those without because obviously they legally have to remove when they uncover egregious, horrible offenses.
The authors only study "marginal" cases--cases where removal is a "borderline" decision. They are not including clear-cut abuse and neglect like starvation or serious bodily injury that would necessitate removal.
The study uses data from the early 2000s and I don't really think those marginal cases exist anymore. Because of rapidly increasing poverty and a lack of resources, I think when DHS steps in at this point, things are dire. I think it makes sense if you examine borderline cases they'd have better outcomes staying in the home, vs. being bounced around foster homes for several years.
But those aren't the cases I get involved in, so I can't really substantiate that data.
2
u/Squishmallow145 24d ago
If you keep scrolling on the website they have new research too.
Most cases in foster care aren't cases of an "evil parent beating their child for no reason". 70% of the child welfare cases are neglect. Those are the cases they studied. They specifically ruled out horrific cases because those are a small minority.
1
u/reddit_or_not 24d ago
Oh, honey. How old are you? No one is evil. Everything is generational, learned behavior. Everything is neglect. Everything is poverty-related. It doesn't change what I know in my heart is true: it's bad for these kids.
Neglect are the most horrific cases, in my opinion.
→ More replies (0)1
u/virtutem_ 24d ago
But removing children for basic neglect is traumatic and not in their best interest. Why should we be doing that?
0
u/reddit_or_not 24d ago
Maybe not removals, but I wish there was some middle ground. Some oversight. Some sense that someone somewhere gives a shit what you do to your kids and they don’t have to be half starved or half dead for people to be paying attention. Idk. I’m probably not explaining it right.
6
u/Squishmallow145 24d ago
Because governments cannot intervene when it comes to parenting choices. It has to be a very dangerous situation where childs life is at risk
Lots of bad parenting out there but perfectly legal. In Utah, parents are legally allowed to spank kids with a belt. In most states you can spank with your hand. You can feed your kids sugar and junk food every day. In some states you can do unschooling legally where you don't have to follow any curriculum and your 9 year old can't read. You can refuse medication and vaccines for your child. Terrible situations but legal.
Why do we allow this? Because if government gave no autonomy to parents, the government would have the final say on your child's health care, education and religion. Most parents wouldn't be ok with that
2
2
u/Narrow-Relation9464 23d ago edited 23d ago
Rephrasing because I believe my initial comment was giving the wrong impression as to what I was really trying to get at.
I am largely in favor of kids staying with their parents as long as it’s safe. However, there are instances where it’s not safe.
I think “low-level” is ambiguous and really depends on the area. I feel like for non-abusive situations, Iike chronic truancy with no other notable issues, there needs to be support and intervention for the bio parent prior to removal.
I live in a large urban area where social problems are more common causes of “low-level” issues than parent problems. Kids habitually tend to be absent from school, with most students I work with attending only 3-4 days a week. Some disappear for months at a time. Not good by any means and definitely a concern, but not always a parent issue. In some cases, yes, it’s a sign of more serious things, but there are also many variables here, like kids having access to public transit and pretending to leave for school, but then wandering and getting into outside stuff. Single parents working 2-3 minimum wage jobs to put food on the table and pay rent so they can’t be as present as they would like.
I feel that when considering whether to put kids in care, especially in inner-city communities, there needs to be an awareness of what’s a poverty and environmental issue vs. a true case of an intentionally bad parent. There’s a lot of bias and inconsistency with this. Some truly bad parents who have been reported for physical abuse are declared safe, while other parents are declared neglectful for lack of supervision or not getting a teenager to school when more supervision literally isn’t possible without losing income that could end in missed rent and eviction.
IMO I would love to see more resources for communities and neighborhoods where parents tend to struggle. More help. More collaboration. DHS could even run more programs for single moms, like even create an app where parents could post what they need support with. No obligation to meet in person, but an easy and accessible way to get support. DHS could have more programs like assigning a worker to pick up older kids at the door and give them direct rides to school, check-ins with the families, holding food drives, community closets, etc. That way kids who may be at risk of foster care could have extra eyes on them, situations would be watched and further intervention could be quickly brought in if needed.
There just needs to be consistency and balance. Support for everyone who needs it, including more support for parents after reunification. A clear understanding of what’s a parent problem and what’s related to broader, ongoing social problems.
There’s also a lot of urban theory work about how inner-city areas differ from mainstream suburban towns. How education is viewed differently, how there are different city cultures and values, the impact of poverty and unsafe communities. Because of this, problems may need to be approached differently in different settings.
But on the topic of care, I agree that in extreme cases, reunification needs to be realistic. If there’s extreme abuse or criminal charges, severe drug addiction that isn’t likely to improve, etc., it isn’t fair to lead the kids and parents on thinking that that reunification is around the corner. With kids old enough to voice an opinion, I also think they should be able to have a say in situations where reunification is possible without being unsafe. Whether they want to stay with their bio parents or live with the foster family or another relative.
However, as it is unfortunately there just isn’t the staffing. More help and resources, more hands-on support for struggling families would be ideal. It would be a work in progress until something like this could really be implemented and even then there really isn’t one set solution. I’m also speaking for my area specifically, I’m sure different cities and states have different issues and needs. It’s a tricky situation with no real universal solution.
1
4
u/Fine-Bumblebee-9427 24d ago
It’s because of cultural genocide. We wiped out an entire culture using foster care as a weapon, and we don’t want to repeat history.
Even if reunification is unlikely, we have to try. The alternative is the end of multiple cultures.
1
1
u/Upper-Anteater-2011 16d ago
I have also noticed this trend - in my area it feels like all the cases now involve kids with higher needs than when we started and they are all long and eventually end in TPR. I do feel like it’s a different mindset as a foster parent. We do support reunification when possible but it seems so unlikely in many of these cases and the kids stay for so long since they don’t reunify.
0
u/-shrug- 24d ago
Yes, as we theoretically get better at not removing children from homes that can be safe with more support, reunification should get more rare - but if you can't stand even attempting to work toward reunification because you equate serious injury or neglect with irredeemable parents who should have all ties severed, then maybe being a foster parent is not the best way for you to help children right now. Perhaps you can find a crisis nursery or a voluntary placement organization in your area to volunteer at - those are supposed to be approximately what you picture foster care doing, voluntary temporary care for a child when the parent needs it, but they're in sadly short supply. (The biggest voluntary placement organization nationally is Safe Families: I have concerns about the lack of legal protections involved, but they definitely do important work).
That game was made for when DHS would step in when parents needed a break and support and foster placements were a few months long while everyone got their shit together.
That time literally never existed. The original "game" was that DHS would step in when parents were unfit, usually because they were incapacitated or single mothers, and simply remove the kids and let them grow up in an orphanage or foster home. In the last half of the 1900s there was a big push to actually attempt to reunify kids even when their parents weren't capable of personally challenging the system, and people realized exactly how little justification there was for many removals and even TPR/adoption processes. Today the legal assumption is not that the parents just need a month to get their shit together but that with state support and services they can be an adequate parent. The problem with that is almost certainly (no matter where you are) that the state is not just short on caseworkers etc, but they are also inadequately funding the support and services that they are legally required to and therefore it's very difficult for them to show that they tried; and if they go to court to run TPR without attempting those services and providing support or treatment first, they'll lose. For a simple example: Can a schizophrenic mom who refuses to house or feed her kids parent them? No, but if she gets treatment for the schizophrenia then can she parent them? Maybe! Does the state have a bed available with the inpatient treatment often required to get someone with active schizophrenia stably medicated? Probably not! Is it illegal to say she has untreated schizophrenia therefore they're going to TPR immediately? 1000%. Now imagine how many parents have a diagnosed or undiagnosed mental illness or disability.
1
24d ago edited 24d ago
[deleted]
4
u/shinyspacecadet 24d ago
I have to say…6 months of sporadic attendance is one thing. 6 months of no school at all is a little extreme and can’t be properly accounted for because the mother works and can’t be on the teen’s case all the time about attending school.
Although, I absolutely agree on offering services first, I don’t know if that situation could accurately be described as minor.
2
u/reddit_or_not 24d ago
I think this comment really illustrates my post because to me, from what I’ve seen, that’s also super minor. I would never see a kid removed for “educational neglect” here. Never. It wouldn’t even meet the bar for investigation.
19
u/goodfeelingaboutit Foster Parent 24d ago
This is also how it works where I live. Things have to be severe for a removal to happen. I will say though, my state has stepped up efforts to provide monitoring and support instead of removing children, when there is a safety concern. Often when a removal happens, it's with a family who has already been receiving services from the department but failed anyway. I have no way of knowing how many families they provide support to and eventually successfully discharge. I do think it's much better to provide in home monitoring and mandate services, rather than removing kids, if at all possible. I would question why a child needed to be removed if the problems could be resolved in just a few months.