Child Welfare

Implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)
Public Access to Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings
Court Improvement Project (CIP) Reauthorization
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) Reauthorization
Intercountry Adoption Act (P.L. 106-279)
Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act
Children and Family Services Review (CFSR) Audits
IV-E Eligibility Reviews

top 

Child Welfare

Issue:	Public Access to Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings
Impact:	Enforcement of the Children's Bureau's interpretation of the federal confidentiality requirements would jeopardize federal Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and Titles IV-E and IV-B funding in the states that allow public access to child abuse and neglect proceedings.
Summary:	In 1998, a conflict was identified between the growing trend to allow public access to court hearings for child abuse and neglect cases and the federal confidentiality requirements. The Children's Bureau issued a Policy Inquiry Question (ACYF-CB-PIQ-98-01) on June 29, 1998. The PIQ indicated that states allowing public access to such court hearings were in conflict with the federal confidentiality requirements, thereby placing their federal child welfare funding in jeopardy. Sanctions have not been applied to any jurisdiction, but the threat exists. The CCJ Courts, Children, and the Family Committee undertook a survey to determine current practices. A strict reading of the federal confidentiality interpretation would indicate that at least 25 jurisdictions could deemed be out of compliance.
Position:	States should have the discretion to determine their own public policies related to public access to court hearings.
References:	Policy Inquiry Question - ACYF-CB-PIQ-98-01 CCJ Resolution 02-M-20 and COSCA Resolution 01-M-I1 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2002 (H.R. 3839) Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2002 (S. 2298)
Support Materials:	Public Access to Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, NCSC Issue Brief, Vol. 1, No. 1, Issue 2, July 2000

top 

Child Welfare

Issue:	Court Improvement Project (CIP) Reauthorization
Impact:	CIP funding will cease as of September 30, 2001 unless the program is reauthorized.
Summary:	In 1993, Congress created the Court Improvement Project (CIP), a grant program to assist state courts in improving their handling of child abuse and neglect cases. Unlike previous federal grant programs, Congress explicitly recognized the effect of a federal mandate on the state judicial systems and provided for the funds to go directly to the highest court in each state, instead of funneled through a state executive agency. Congress authorized $10 million annually for federal CIP grants to the highest court in each state. Congress required that states use CIP funds in the first year to conduct an assessment, identify problems in case processing, and develop strategies for addressing those identified problems. Subsequent year CIP funds have been used to implement system improvements. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are currently participating in the CIP grant program. CIP funding is a $10M set-aside within the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Program.
Position:	State courts support the reauthorization the CIP program beginning with FY 2002 and increasing the level of funding to assist state courts in implementing the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (P.L. 105-89).
References:	CCJ Resolution 01-M-22 COSCA Resolution 01-M-I Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001 (PL 107-133) Testimony on CIP Program by David Byers, COSCA President (May 10, 2001)
Support Materials:	No additional materials

top 

Child Welfare

Issue:	Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) Reauthorization
Impact:	CAPTA funding will cease as of September 30, 2002 unless the program is reauthorized.
Summary:	CAPTA provides discretionary grant funds to public agencies and non-profit providers and formula grants to states for child abuse prevention and treatment programs. The range of projects that can be funded under CAPTA is quite broad. For example, the discretionary funding can be used for developing kinship care programs, visitation centers for court-ordered supervised visitation between abused children and their parents, visitation centers for the safe exchange of children for visits with non-custodial parents in domestic violence cases, and collaborative efforts to identify cases needing intensive supervision. CAPTA also provides competitive grants to states for programs relating to the investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases. To qualify for these funds, states must establish a state task force to study the investigative, administrative, and the civil and criminal judicial handling of child abuse and neglect cases, particularly child sexual abuse and exploitation cases. The task force must also review the handling of child fatalities where child maltreatment was suspected and cases involving a potential combination of jurisdictions (interstate, state-federal, and state-tribal). Further, the task force is responsible for making policy and training recommendations based on their findings. Judges are one of the mandatory participants on the task forces.
Position:	State courts support reauthorization of these funds.
References:	CCJ Resolution 01-A-17 COSCA Resolution 01-A-3 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2002 (H.R. 3839) Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2002 (S. 2998)
Support Materials:	CAPTA Reauthorization, NCSC Issue Brief, Vol. 2, No. 7, July 2001

top 

Child Welfare

Issue:	Intercountry Adoption Act (P.L. 106-279)
Impact:	The Intercountry Adoption Act (P.L. 106-279) preempts some state adoption laws.
Summary:	The legislation was enacted by the 106th Congress to implement the May 29, 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. Forty countries have already adopted the convention, which promotes the designation of a central authority in each country to supervise international adoptions and prevent abuses such as kidnapping, coercion of birth mothers, and exorbitant adoption-processing fees. The designated authority in each country would establish procedures to ensure that adoption agencies meet competency, ethical, and financial standards. The law designates the State Department as the central U.S. authority. As the central authority, the State Department will oversee international adoptions and accredit adoption agencies in this country that arrange international adoptions. The law prohibits state courts from finalizing adoptions for children covered by the Convention unless the Secretary of State has issued a certificate to the adoptive U.S. citizen parents recognizing the legal effect, for purposes of emigration and adoption, of a Convention adoption. Before issuing a certificate, the Secretary must have received appropriate documentation and verified that the requirements of the Convention and this Act have been met with respect to adoption. Regarding adoptions for children emigrating from the U.S., State courts are also prohibited from entering an order declaring such adoption to be final or granting custody for adoption, unless the court: (1) has received and verified that the Convention requirements have been met and (2) has determined that the adoptive placement is in the child's best interests.
Position:	No formal position
References:	Intercountry Adoption Act (P.L. 106-279) Final Draft of Hague Regulations for P.L. 106-279 (www.hagueregs.org).
Support Materials:	Intercountry Adoption Act (P.L. 106-279), NCSC Issue Brief, Vol. 2, No. 8, July 2001

top 

Child Welfare

Issue:	Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act
Impact:	A national standard for child testimony would be established. Child witnesses in certain circumstances could be provided an alternative means for giving testimony in criminal and non-criminal cases.
Summary:	The model legislation, Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act, would allow judges to provide child witnesses an alternative means for giving testimony in criminal proceedings where there is "clear and convincing evidence" that the child could be traumatized or be unable to communicate in an open courtroom. In non-criminal cases, the standard would be lowered to a "preponderance of evidence". The judge can also give consideration to the nature of the proceeding, age and maturity of the child, the relationship of the child to the parties in proceeding, the nature and degree of the child's emotional trauma in providing testimony and any other relevant factors. Section 2 of the model legislation broadly defines "alternative method" including, but not limited to, audio-visual recording and closed circuit television. The drafters wanted a broad definition that could also include technology yet to be developed. "Child witness" is defined in the model legislation as "an individual under the age of 13 who is competent to testify and is called to testify in the proceeding". Section 3 of the model legislation clarifies that the Act does not preclude the use of other recognized state procedures for taking the testimony of a child by an alternative method. Other sections of the Act also address hearings to determine whether to allow testimony by alternative methods, factors for determining whether to permit alternative methods, the order regarding testimony by alternative methods, and the right of each party to examine the child witness.
Position:	No formal position
References:	Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucwtbama/2002final.htm
Support Materials:	No additional materials

top 

Child Welfare

Issue:	Children and Family Services Review (CFSR) Audits
Impact:	State court operations may be impacted by the findings of the state reviews.
Summary:	States are being assessed for substantial conformity to Title IV-B ad IV-E of the Social Security Act in the areas of child safety, permanency, family and child well-being, and 7 systemic factors - statewide information system, case review system, quality assurance system, staff training, array of services, agency responsiveness, and foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention. The reviews have 3 phases - 1. statewide data gathering and assessment, 2. on-site reviews, and 3. program improvement plans (PIPs) for any identified deficiencies. In the assessment phase, state data is compared to national standards. The on-site review phase includes a review of 50 case records, interviews with children and families, and interviews with community stakeholders, including judges and court personnel. In the third phase, PIPs are developed and implemented to address any areas of nonconformity. All stakeholders, including the judicial branch should be actively involved in all three phases of these reviews. To-date, no state has achieved full conformity. States reviewed thus far have all developed or are developing PIPs. One year after a state's PIP is been approved by the Children's Bureau, the Children's Bureau will conduct a follow-up review to verify results. If the state is still not in conformity, financial penalties can be assessed to the state.
Position:	No formal position
References:	Children's Bureau's Schedule of State Reviews (FY 01 - FY 04) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/index.htm#cfsr Children's' Bureau's Final CFSR Reports and Executive Summaries http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/index.htm#cfsr
Support Materials:	No additional materials

top 

Child Welfare

Issue:	IV-E Eligibility Reviews
Impact:	State court operations may be impacted by the findings of the state reviews.
Summary:	States are audited to determine whether children in foster care meet the statutory eligibility requirements for foster care maintenance payments as defined in Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. The statutory federal requirements include the following; A court order confirming the need to remove the child from the home, A court order confirming the State agency made reasonable efforts to preserve the family and finalizing the permanency plan, Criminal background checks on foster and adoptive parents, and State responsibility for placement and the care of the child. A disallowance is taken for all cases that do not meet the Federal requirements. If a state exceeds a 10 percent error rate, it is considered to be out of compliance with the Federal foster care program requirements. States not in compliance must develop a Program Improvement Plan (PIP) and a second review is conducted within 1 year. If the state is still out of compliance after the second review, the state's financial penalty is increased.
Position:	No formal position
References:	Children's Bureau's Schedule of IV-E Eligibility Reviews (FY 00 - FY 04) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/index.htm#cfsr Children's' Bureau's Final IV-E Eligibility Reports http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/index.htm#cfsr
Support Materials:	Highlights of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P. L. 105-89)

top