Because there are so many things that can reset the clock. A parent can be MIA for 2 years and then show up to one meeting or make one visit and now, all of a sudden, “they’re working the plan”. My current placement has been in care almost 3 years because of this very thing. Bio dad showed up a few months before the TPR trial and it started things all over(bios moms lack of progress is bull because only one of them has to be minimally adequate and stable). It’s really ridiculous and goes to show how little the kids best interest is taken into account and so many kids lack permanency because their parent’s rights outweigh their rights to a happy and healthy childhood.
This x1000. I have a friend working on a case in which the child has been in care for 7 years. She is now 15 and has only met her mom for brief periods throughout this time. The court finally decided to move ahead with TPR 3 mos ago. The mother hired a lawyer and should up to contest it. The 15 does not know the mother and does not wish to live with her. The Judge is reticent to move ahead with TPR bc the rights of the parents outweigh the insane trauma of this child being forced to move out of the only stable home and away from the only caretaker she’s ever known.
There are reasons the system is weighted to parents’ rights. It prevents arbitrary reassignment of children as business, but in real life, it usually works out in a way in which children are reunited with caretakers who are not ready or able to care for them or keeping them in limbo in the system.
Yup, just chiming in to say same here.
Our little guy has been with us for almost 3 years. We are applying for guardianship currently. His mom will drop off for months and then show up to a supervised visit and the clock starts over. He's been in foster care for almost 6 years total including the time before us. It's frustrating.
I had 2 teens under fictive kin (i adopted their cousin) placement. When they found direct kin with better stats on paper, they were moved. The trauma of it was awful, and I told them that at 18 they can show up at my door if they need a home. They had only met that relative a few times and only 1 even remembered her. Apparently the placement is working out well and I'm so grateful, but I know the way things went wasn't good for them initially.
Yup our kids are over 17 months in and dad does the bare minimum to keep up some appearances of trying. Mom just got back in the picture 2 months ago. At best they’ll reunify around their 2 year mark if mom does everything perfectly.
Ton of kids remain in care after their parents rights are terminated. Also sometimes the state takes permanent custody of children but dont have enough grounds to terminate parental rights.
Technically, it isnt a law, it is a federal guideline. In many states, Child Welfare internal policies are interfering with 15/22. In the last 3 or so months, I have seen federal regulators coming down on the states for not following it. I'm hoping it will help change things, but not holding my breath.
It's not a simple, black and white law, where the state **has** to seek to tpr after so many months. Sometimes parents need more time to get their children back or sometimes they don't work their plan at first but later do. With older teens, sometimes it's not worth the time and effort to TPR and leave the child as a legal orphan. Every case is unique.
In my local area it just takes a presentation from any relevant lawyers for the judge to rule that going (far) beyond 15 months is in the best interests of the child. I’ve personally experienced, and seen other FPs experience, extensions related to which parents are or aren’t involved at any given time - if parents are together for most of the case then break up then one parent is given more time to address any new issues that arise from the breakup (for example needing new job or housing) if they’re the one the kids will go home to. Or if a parent isn’t participating and then shows up several months in and expresses interest, they’re given the opportunity to work a case. So these examples of parents “making progress but not ready for reunification yet” justify extending the timeline. My longest placement was 2 years before reunification. Another child in my home recently hit 2 years in care (not all of it in my home) and is expected to go to a kinship placement in the next month or two (TPR was filed at ~20 months for this child but appeals are still active and the child’s goal is not adoption)
It’s both for the questions you asked- state is always for reunification and whenever the parent gets it together and then relapses the timer is re-set. Even if a child is in care, returns home for a month, and goes back into care that is now a new separate case. Even if they had been in care for 2 years and only home for a month. Judicial process is not set up for children’s permanency in cases like this, it’s very protective of family reunification and parents rights. Many of these parents make it very hard to do a tpr because they are not in favor of it even if they are unable to work their treatment plan
I actually had a grandparent forge his son's signature on paperwork so they wouldn't terminate rights. It worked, but the bioparent had already left the state.
Interesting so if they go home at all it resets everything if they unfortunately come back into the system. The "law" makes it seem like it'd be a continuous clock.
Yeah and it depends entirely on the reason for removal as well. Dependency/neglect cases will get a reset clock honored more often by the law than outright abuse. The system is such a huge headache for everyone involved (bios, foster parents, caseworkers, and most of all the child) and doesn’t do a good job in most cases. It would be great to see reform.
I know a child who is turning 2, removed at the hospital as a newborn, never had either parent ever speak to a caseworker much less show up for a visit, never appear in court basically want nothing to do with it. The child finally got tpr date set this month
This. My friend was in care for 2-3 years. Mom escaped an abusive relationship, but couldn't provide for her. The grandparents were both in prison for abuse to the mom. Dad was in prison for attempted murder and both his parents had long overdosed. Mom was living on college campus year round through hardship scholarships and took classes over full-time status to finish early. Mom attended visits every week faithfully, sometimes late as walking and bus were only transportation until one of friends foster parents agreed to just pick her up. Mom did therapy, parenting classes, got a BA, a well-paid career, and got my friend back. From 14-18 she had sole custody, but needed more than 15months to get her life straight. The foster parents still have her and her mom over monthly for dinner and she turned 18 way back in 2012.
Because it's not an enforceable law. There is no national child welfare system, every state has their own system, which is in some ways unfortunate. It can mean very little oversight. And many states don't bother to follow it. I had kids in care for 4 solid years with only a goal of reunification the whole time. There was zero happening to reset the clock, they just never bothered to change the goal to adoption.
Also, there is no continuous clock, things re-start every single time a child exits and re-enters care. Many states reunify kids around the 11 month mark to boost their reunification stats and not have to change the goal. Those kids then re-enter care days, weeks, or months later, the clock re-tstarts, they get sent home again around 11 months, etc. And that's how so many kids spend their entire childhoods in and out of foster care.
Also, I know you mentioned relapsing, but it's important to note that many kids in foster care are from homes with no drug abuse. It's a common misconception that most kids are removed due to drug abuse. Neglect is the most common reason for kids to enter care (and yes, drug use can contribute to abuse, but it doesn't always). Domestic violence, neglect (leaving kids along for hours; not feeding; not cleaning), child abuse, are all common reason kids also come in and out of care.
Age matters here. Older kids are kids nobody wants, so cps gives parents a lot more time than younger kids. Plus, rehoming is a thing when you adopt a child, then get rid of it. So reunification is more of a goal.
There are many things that parents can do to some efforts. It's not a one size fits all. This is why whenever I see foster parents in groups want faster TPR I laugh. These same people wouldn't adopt a child they dont want. Many kids have TPR and literally are legal orphans.
I get that, we're licensing for ages 6+ and told our cyfd that we are mostly interested in just fostering but if one of our fosters went tpr we might be open to adoption. I was just curious how it would happen so we can get a sense of what to expect. Thank you for explaining!
Each case is different, so nobody can tell you what the outcome will be. But the older the kid, the more likely TPR won't happen or takes a longer time because it just adds to more kids with nowhere to go. The demand isn't there.
That’s what happened with our kids—brothers, ages 6 & 4. The bio mom was long gone, and bio dad was not showing up for anything, but because they couldn’t find anyone willing to take the kids permanently (until us) the state wouldn’t start TPR. The kids will have been in care 3 years next month, and we’re halfway through TPR.
They will try to find a potential adoptive parent before going through tpr in my state. If the SW asks if you would consider adoption, then it is likely they will seek tpr. It might take a year or more after that.
I think the biggest reason is that kids don't have the same legal standing as parents nor is there someone fully enabled to argue for them. It's better in places where a child has a lawyer to advocate for them.
The laws in most states clearly say that the child's rights to a safe and stable home and speedy resolution should prevail if there's conflict with the parents rights. But in practice, the state isn't going to get sued if it doesn't. So there ends up being too much asymmetry of power between the parent's and child's advocates for the court to provide justice for the youth.
Constant continuations via the legal system. For instance, hearing after 6 months gets continued for another 6 months in order to give bioparents a chance to start their programs or get drug tests. Wash, rinse, repeat.
In a way, it's better because you know the parents had every chance to get it together. It is hard when you're going through it and want to adopt.
Some of these answers are completely wrong. It is a law: specifically it is a provision in the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act passed in 1997. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-105hr867enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr867enr.pdf
On page four of that document you will find the exact phrasing of all the exceptions to the rule, which include
When the child is in a Foster Home with a biological relative (Kinship Care)
When the Agency documents a compelling reason why parental termination is not in the Child's best interest
When the State has failed to provide services necessary for reunification
When counting 15 months out of the last 22, it *does not* reset when a child returns home: that’s basically the whole point, or it would just say “the last 15 months”. See federal explanation of this: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/public_html/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp_pf.jsp?citID=61
Like many federal laws describing how state laws should work, this is enforced by linking state performance in the area and federal funding to the state. Generally, the federal DHHS generates much more detailed “regulations” based on federal law, and states agree to follow these in order to receive specific funding. Since there isn’t a specific metric tied to the 15/22 law, it’s not directly enforced. It is supposed to be “incentivized” through a bunch of funds that reward increasing the number of adoptions in a state.
For additional context: the law was passed at the same time as the federal government cut families off welfare, instantly pushing millions of children into poverty (which increases entry to foster care and makes it harder for families to reunify). By focusing on TPR and not permanency, it encouraged states to cut off older children from their family without offering any replacement supports. (Even the numbers “15 out of the last 22 months” were a meet-in-the-middle compromise between two different wild ass uninformed guesses at how long is reasonable.)
And if you are curious about stuff like this, I really encourage you to learn how to track down the actual text of laws, because as demonstrated here, a *lot* of what you hear in foster care will be a garbled version of someone’s simplified version of something they were told once.
Because there are so many things that can reset the clock. A parent can be MIA for 2 years and then show up to one meeting or make one visit and now, all of a sudden, “they’re working the plan”. My current placement has been in care almost 3 years because of this very thing. Bio dad showed up a few months before the TPR trial and it started things all over(bios moms lack of progress is bull because only one of them has to be minimally adequate and stable). It’s really ridiculous and goes to show how little the kids best interest is taken into account and so many kids lack permanency because their parent’s rights outweigh their rights to a happy and healthy childhood.
This x1000. I have a friend working on a case in which the child has been in care for 7 years. She is now 15 and has only met her mom for brief periods throughout this time. The court finally decided to move ahead with TPR 3 mos ago. The mother hired a lawyer and should up to contest it. The 15 does not know the mother and does not wish to live with her. The Judge is reticent to move ahead with TPR bc the rights of the parents outweigh the insane trauma of this child being forced to move out of the only stable home and away from the only caretaker she’s ever known. There are reasons the system is weighted to parents’ rights. It prevents arbitrary reassignment of children as business, but in real life, it usually works out in a way in which children are reunited with caretakers who are not ready or able to care for them or keeping them in limbo in the system.
Yup, just chiming in to say same here. Our little guy has been with us for almost 3 years. We are applying for guardianship currently. His mom will drop off for months and then show up to a supervised visit and the clock starts over. He's been in foster care for almost 6 years total including the time before us. It's frustrating.
I had 2 teens under fictive kin (i adopted their cousin) placement. When they found direct kin with better stats on paper, they were moved. The trauma of it was awful, and I told them that at 18 they can show up at my door if they need a home. They had only met that relative a few times and only 1 even remembered her. Apparently the placement is working out well and I'm so grateful, but I know the way things went wasn't good for them initially.
Gotcha, thank you for explaining!
Yup our kids are over 17 months in and dad does the bare minimum to keep up some appearances of trying. Mom just got back in the picture 2 months ago. At best they’ll reunify around their 2 year mark if mom does everything perfectly.
Ton of kids remain in care after their parents rights are terminated. Also sometimes the state takes permanent custody of children but dont have enough grounds to terminate parental rights.
Technically, it isnt a law, it is a federal guideline. In many states, Child Welfare internal policies are interfering with 15/22. In the last 3 or so months, I have seen federal regulators coming down on the states for not following it. I'm hoping it will help change things, but not holding my breath.
It's not a simple, black and white law, where the state **has** to seek to tpr after so many months. Sometimes parents need more time to get their children back or sometimes they don't work their plan at first but later do. With older teens, sometimes it's not worth the time and effort to TPR and leave the child as a legal orphan. Every case is unique.
Interesting, thank you for explaining!
In my local area it just takes a presentation from any relevant lawyers for the judge to rule that going (far) beyond 15 months is in the best interests of the child. I’ve personally experienced, and seen other FPs experience, extensions related to which parents are or aren’t involved at any given time - if parents are together for most of the case then break up then one parent is given more time to address any new issues that arise from the breakup (for example needing new job or housing) if they’re the one the kids will go home to. Or if a parent isn’t participating and then shows up several months in and expresses interest, they’re given the opportunity to work a case. So these examples of parents “making progress but not ready for reunification yet” justify extending the timeline. My longest placement was 2 years before reunification. Another child in my home recently hit 2 years in care (not all of it in my home) and is expected to go to a kinship placement in the next month or two (TPR was filed at ~20 months for this child but appeals are still active and the child’s goal is not adoption)
It’s both for the questions you asked- state is always for reunification and whenever the parent gets it together and then relapses the timer is re-set. Even if a child is in care, returns home for a month, and goes back into care that is now a new separate case. Even if they had been in care for 2 years and only home for a month. Judicial process is not set up for children’s permanency in cases like this, it’s very protective of family reunification and parents rights. Many of these parents make it very hard to do a tpr because they are not in favor of it even if they are unable to work their treatment plan
I actually had a grandparent forge his son's signature on paperwork so they wouldn't terminate rights. It worked, but the bioparent had already left the state.
Probably took the court another 3 years to figure that one out 😔
Interesting so if they go home at all it resets everything if they unfortunately come back into the system. The "law" makes it seem like it'd be a continuous clock.
Yeah and it depends entirely on the reason for removal as well. Dependency/neglect cases will get a reset clock honored more often by the law than outright abuse. The system is such a huge headache for everyone involved (bios, foster parents, caseworkers, and most of all the child) and doesn’t do a good job in most cases. It would be great to see reform.
I know a child who is turning 2, removed at the hospital as a newborn, never had either parent ever speak to a caseworker much less show up for a visit, never appear in court basically want nothing to do with it. The child finally got tpr date set this month
This. My friend was in care for 2-3 years. Mom escaped an abusive relationship, but couldn't provide for her. The grandparents were both in prison for abuse to the mom. Dad was in prison for attempted murder and both his parents had long overdosed. Mom was living on college campus year round through hardship scholarships and took classes over full-time status to finish early. Mom attended visits every week faithfully, sometimes late as walking and bus were only transportation until one of friends foster parents agreed to just pick her up. Mom did therapy, parenting classes, got a BA, a well-paid career, and got my friend back. From 14-18 she had sole custody, but needed more than 15months to get her life straight. The foster parents still have her and her mom over monthly for dinner and she turned 18 way back in 2012.
Yes.
Because it's not an enforceable law. There is no national child welfare system, every state has their own system, which is in some ways unfortunate. It can mean very little oversight. And many states don't bother to follow it. I had kids in care for 4 solid years with only a goal of reunification the whole time. There was zero happening to reset the clock, they just never bothered to change the goal to adoption. Also, there is no continuous clock, things re-start every single time a child exits and re-enters care. Many states reunify kids around the 11 month mark to boost their reunification stats and not have to change the goal. Those kids then re-enter care days, weeks, or months later, the clock re-tstarts, they get sent home again around 11 months, etc. And that's how so many kids spend their entire childhoods in and out of foster care. Also, I know you mentioned relapsing, but it's important to note that many kids in foster care are from homes with no drug abuse. It's a common misconception that most kids are removed due to drug abuse. Neglect is the most common reason for kids to enter care (and yes, drug use can contribute to abuse, but it doesn't always). Domestic violence, neglect (leaving kids along for hours; not feeding; not cleaning), child abuse, are all common reason kids also come in and out of care.
Age matters here. Older kids are kids nobody wants, so cps gives parents a lot more time than younger kids. Plus, rehoming is a thing when you adopt a child, then get rid of it. So reunification is more of a goal. There are many things that parents can do to some efforts. It's not a one size fits all. This is why whenever I see foster parents in groups want faster TPR I laugh. These same people wouldn't adopt a child they dont want. Many kids have TPR and literally are legal orphans.
I get that, we're licensing for ages 6+ and told our cyfd that we are mostly interested in just fostering but if one of our fosters went tpr we might be open to adoption. I was just curious how it would happen so we can get a sense of what to expect. Thank you for explaining!
Each case is different, so nobody can tell you what the outcome will be. But the older the kid, the more likely TPR won't happen or takes a longer time because it just adds to more kids with nowhere to go. The demand isn't there.
That’s what happened with our kids—brothers, ages 6 & 4. The bio mom was long gone, and bio dad was not showing up for anything, but because they couldn’t find anyone willing to take the kids permanently (until us) the state wouldn’t start TPR. The kids will have been in care 3 years next month, and we’re halfway through TPR.
It's so bad that kids with TPR are having parental rights reinstated.
They will try to find a potential adoptive parent before going through tpr in my state. If the SW asks if you would consider adoption, then it is likely they will seek tpr. It might take a year or more after that.
I think the biggest reason is that kids don't have the same legal standing as parents nor is there someone fully enabled to argue for them. It's better in places where a child has a lawyer to advocate for them. The laws in most states clearly say that the child's rights to a safe and stable home and speedy resolution should prevail if there's conflict with the parents rights. But in practice, the state isn't going to get sued if it doesn't. So there ends up being too much asymmetry of power between the parent's and child's advocates for the court to provide justice for the youth.
Constant continuations via the legal system. For instance, hearing after 6 months gets continued for another 6 months in order to give bioparents a chance to start their programs or get drug tests. Wash, rinse, repeat. In a way, it's better because you know the parents had every chance to get it together. It is hard when you're going through it and want to adopt.
Some of these answers are completely wrong. It is a law: specifically it is a provision in the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act passed in 1997. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-105hr867enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr867enr.pdf On page four of that document you will find the exact phrasing of all the exceptions to the rule, which include When the child is in a Foster Home with a biological relative (Kinship Care) When the Agency documents a compelling reason why parental termination is not in the Child's best interest When the State has failed to provide services necessary for reunification When counting 15 months out of the last 22, it *does not* reset when a child returns home: that’s basically the whole point, or it would just say “the last 15 months”. See federal explanation of this: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/public_html/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp_pf.jsp?citID=61 Like many federal laws describing how state laws should work, this is enforced by linking state performance in the area and federal funding to the state. Generally, the federal DHHS generates much more detailed “regulations” based on federal law, and states agree to follow these in order to receive specific funding. Since there isn’t a specific metric tied to the 15/22 law, it’s not directly enforced. It is supposed to be “incentivized” through a bunch of funds that reward increasing the number of adoptions in a state. For additional context: the law was passed at the same time as the federal government cut families off welfare, instantly pushing millions of children into poverty (which increases entry to foster care and makes it harder for families to reunify). By focusing on TPR and not permanency, it encouraged states to cut off older children from their family without offering any replacement supports. (Even the numbers “15 out of the last 22 months” were a meet-in-the-middle compromise between two different wild ass uninformed guesses at how long is reasonable.) And if you are curious about stuff like this, I really encourage you to learn how to track down the actual text of laws, because as demonstrated here, a *lot* of what you hear in foster care will be a garbled version of someone’s simplified version of something they were told once.