The Office’s interpretation:

Although DOMA limits the definition of “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of federal law, the Social Security Act does not condition eligibility for CIB [child's insurance benefits] on the existence of a marriage or on the federal rights of a spouse in the circumstances of this case; rather, eligibility turns upon the State’s recognition of a parent-child relationship, and specifically, the right to inherit as a child under state law. A child’s inheritance rights under state law may be independent of the existence of a marriage or spousal relationship, and that is indeed the case in Vermont. Accordingly, we conclude that nothing in DOMA would prevent the non-biological child of a partner in a Vermont civil union from receiving CIB under the Social Security Act.

The Office of Legal Counsel’s Opinion

Additional information at law.com

The system is stretched so thin that many involved say they are having trouble making thoughtful matches between foster parents and their charges. Some child-welfare experts are worried they may soon be unable to recruit enough qualified foster parents, while others say the city has moved too slowly in putting support systems in place to help these older children flourish in private homes.

“It’s a good direction, but the problem is that we’re implementing the plan before the infrastructures are all in place,” said Bill Baccaglini, executive director of the New York Foundling, one of the largest of about three dozen private foster care agencies that contract with the city to find and monitor homes. “We run the risk of burning out our foster parents and losing them.”

The city is especially trying to find private homes for teenagers; however, it can be a challenge to find a sufficient number of foster parents willing to adopt teenagers.

Mr. Mattingly said the key is to place teenagers in private homes immediately on being removed from their families, because otherwise they often languish forgotten in institutions. “The basic experience we have in the field, and research supports this, is that if you work at it, you can place teens at the very get-go in foster families,” Mr. Mattingly said. “Those foster families sometimes will need additional supports, not always, and the young people will do better and achieve permanency more quickly if placed at the outset with a family.”

But the challenges of placing teenagers only grow more complicated as the numbers dwindle, since those left behind tend to have more physical, behavioral, emotional, psychological or learning problems. Some were badly abused and further traumatized by bouncing from foster home to foster home.

“Good, solid, healthy teens have issues in the best of families,” said Mr. Gutheil, of Episcopal Social Services. “But these are not run-of-the-mill, ‘I’m in a bad mood today’ adolescents. These are kids who have gone through some pretty rugged times. The notion that an adult is somehow going to take control of their lives is very difficult for them.”

To address these issues, the Administration for Children’s Services has created nearly 1,000 so-called therapeutic foster homes, which come with extra counseling services, as well as crisis-management support and more training for parents. The city has also relaxed its rules regarding kinship placement, allowing a godparent, coach or family friend to take in a child.

And foster care agencies have begun to tailor their recruiting pitches at churches and street fairs to play up the benefits of fostering a teenager, including the freedom from diaper changes and sleep deprivation. Among the most effective tools has been including a panel of teenagers who need homes in the 10-week training of prospective parents: Mr. Mattingly said that while perhaps 7 percent start out willing to take in teenagers, by the end, 25 percent raise their hands.

Source: Foderaro, Lisa, “As Teenagers Leave Group Homes, a Challenge Placing Those Who Remain” (June 8, 2008). N.Y. Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/nyregion/08foster.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Adoption of children from foster care (other than Native Americans) is subject to the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (MEPA), which: 1) prohibits the delay or denial of a child’s foster or adoptive placement solely on the basis of race, color, or national origin; and 2) requires that state agencies make diligent efforts to recruit foster and adoptive parents who represent the racial and ethnic backgrounds of children in foster care. In 1996, MEPA was amended by the Removal of Barriers to Interethnic Adoption Provisions (IEP), which deleted the word “solely” from MEPA’s prohibition against delaying or denying an adoptive placement on the basis of race. IEP prohibits agencies receiving federal funding from considering race in decisions on foster or adoptive placements, except in exceptional circumstances. Noncompliance is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, subject to a large fine; individuals claiming discrimination under the Act may file suits in U.S. district courts.

The report concludes that while “MEPA-IEP has not resulted in equity in achieving permanency for African American children awaiting adoption” the “interpretations of MEPA-IEP that have served as the basis for its enforcement run counter to widely accepted best practices in adoption.” Two incidents are cited as contributing to a chilling effect in social workers making any reference to race. “In 2003, social workers in Ohio were accused of discriminating against a white couple by requiring them to prepare a plan to address the child’s cultural needs and to evaluate the racial demographics of their neighborhood. The state paid $1.8 million in fines.” and “In 2005, a social service agency in South Carolina was fined $107,000 after workers used a database to match children to prospective adoptive parents, which the federal government said overemphasized race.”

The report comes as the current federal law and polices governing consideration of race in adoption are being examined by the United States Commission on Civil Rights. It seems certain to add to the often heated debate among social workers and the public about the proper role of race in adoption, which has gone on since white couples began adopting minority children in larger numbers in the 1970s.

Christine M. Calpin, associate commissioner at the Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, had not seen the report, but she said the law had helped minority children in foster care find permanent homes.

“I have not seen any research which suggests that federal law has not been beneficial to minority children,” Ms. Calpin said. “We have seen what happens when race is allowed to be a consideration. Children are waiting longer in foster care to be adopted.”

• Date: Thursday, March 13, 2008
• CLE/CEU Credits: 6.25 CLE’s and 6.25 SW CEU’s, pending approval
• Online Registration: Click here to register

The Fourth Annual Wells Conference on Adoption Law will focus on issues related to child’s rights in the adoption process. Panel topics and esteemed speakers include:

• Varying Perspectives on Determining a Child’s Best Interests - A Cacophony of Voices Representing the Child’s Interest
  Barbara Glesner Fines, Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
• Permanency Decisions: Balancing Best Interests and Biology
  Solangel Maldonado, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University Law School
• Children’s Welfare Interests Against the Desires and Supposed Rights of Adults to Raise Their Offspring
  James Dwyer, Professor of Law, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William & Mary
• Competing Claims: When do parents stop speaking for their children?
  Catherine J. Ross, Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
• An International Survey of Children’s Rights, Non-citizen Rights, and Native American Issues
  Achieving Permanency for American Indian Children: Lessons from Tribal Traditions
  
  Barbara Ann Atwood, Professor of Law, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
• International/Intercultural Adoption Issues – Protecting the Rights of Parents and Children through the Legislative Process
  
  Jini L. Roby, J.D., Associate Professor, School of Social Work, Brigham Young University
• Discussions on the Anna Mae He Case, Representing Children, and Common Red Flag Issues Encountered through the International Adoption Process.
  
  Susan Stockham, J.D., Partner, The Law Offices of Susan Stockham, P.A., and Robert D. Tuke, J.D., Partner, Trauger & Tuke

Capital University Law School is home to the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy. In light of the Law School’s strong focus and dedication to adoption law, the Capital University Law Review initiated the Wells Conference on Adoption Law in 2005, and, due to its success, is proud to host the fourth conference on Thursday, March 13, 2008, in Columbus, Ohio.

For questions, contact:

Michael Dillard
Wells Conference Coordinator
Capital University Law Review
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215-3200
Phone: (614) 236-6789
Fax: 614-236-6956
mdillard@law.capital.edu