"Relative strangers": An ethnography of grandmothers raising grandchildren in the Los Angeles County welfare system

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. U M I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note w ill indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “RELATIVE STRANGERS”: AN ETHNOGRAPHY OF GRANDMOTHERS RAISING GRANDCHILDREN IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM by Susan Corban Harris A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (SOCIOLOGY) December 2001 Copyright 2001 Susan Corban Harris Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U M I Number 3065792 UMI’ UM I Microform 3065792 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The G raduate School U niversity Park LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900891695 This dissertation, w ritten b y _____ ^>So.v> QifW iiTr^Lxf r\ U nder th e direction o f ik e . D issertation Com m ittee, and approved b y a il its members, has been presented to a n d accepted b y The Graduate School, in p a rtia l fulfillm ent o f requirem ents for the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY D ean o f Gr aduat e S tu d ies D ate December 1 7 , 2001_____ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE C hai rperson Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION To my biological grandmothers: Catherine Cecaha Corban Theridldson (“Mama T ) (b. 1908) and Lila Mae Williams Harris (1908-1999). To my adoptive grandmothers: The women (and a few mm) who befriended me and ranght me most of what I know about raising grandchildren in “the System." This book is by, about, and especially for them. To the grandchildren Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Somewhere midway m the process of working an this dissertation I began reading acknowledgments m books. I'd never had much interest m reading them in the past and questioned, even, how a private, isolated activity like writing could inspire such public and wide-ranging recognitions of support But now, after having spent nearly four years researching and writing a dissertation, I realize just how important friends, family and colleagues are to the process. Indeed, writing a dissertation can be excruciating at times. Writing acknowledgments, however, offers a small opportunity to reflect on the more gratifying moments and to thank those who offered various forms of support throughout the process. So please indulge me here. First and foremost, the relative caregivers: I am indebted to you for allowing me into your lives and for sharing your important stories with me. You are, as a group, among die most inspiring and dynamic people I have ever come to know. I hope I’ve been true to your accounts and that this book reflects and informs your experiences with *the System.” Thanks toS.F : Your commitment to raising grandchildren and your insight into “the System” gH rm ilatflfl my interest in this topic in the first place and led me to meet other extraordinary women like you. To G B and B.D.C:. I’m especially grateful to you two for keeping me in the loop while I was living in Hawaii and for simply being warm and generous human beings. Special thanks too, to all the relative caregivers at the monthly Region 2 & 6 Kinship Care meetings and to the members (past and present) of the Kinship Council of Los Angeles. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sincere thanks to all of the social workers at Grandma’ s House from 1997-1999, especially to LC ., for your warmth and genuineness, and to AM— without your assistance, I still might be trying to get permission from the DCFS to conduct my research! To the members of my dissertation committee, Amy Binder, Merril Sih/erstein and Judy Stacey: Thank you for your careful readings of my dissertation and thoughtful feedback. Thanks in particular to my Chair, Judy, for offering me just the right combination of support, prodding, questioning, editorial suggestions, and praise— and especially for helping me find my way in the process of writing the “book” I wanted to write. I'm also grateful to the faculty and staff of the USC Sociology Department— particularly Connie Ahrons and Vem Bengtscn— for your on-going support and interest in my work. Fond appreciation for die members of our now nearly defunct dissertation support group and the (overlapping) “girls’ mte” group: Cynthia Cranford, Wendy DeBoer, Shari Dworkm, Michelle Milledge, Holly Pedersen, Line Nyhagen Predelli, and Maria Schmeeckle. This is one wise group o f women I'm grateful to have as friends. We met together throughout grad school over dinner and (especially) drinks. As a group we probably offered one another more commiseration than dissertation support, but 1 am not sure that it is possible to survive grad school without such a group of friends. Thank you. Special thanks to Cynthia Cranford, with whom I shared the good fortune and affliction of living in a new, isolated location while writing the dissertation. I’m grateful to you for your long-distance support and indispensable feedback cn early drafts. 1 am eternally grateful to Wendy DeBoer for your friendship and support. You are the kind of friend everyone— dissertating student or otherwise— should be so fortunate to have. Your brilliant intellect challenges me to expand die limits of my thinking while your highly iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. refined taste for the inane reminds me of life beyond academia And thanks, Wendy, not just for reading tbe dissertation but for really reading the dissertation Gratitude to Jane Mosley, for always providing just the right advice at just the right time. Jane, you are living proof that it is possible to make it through a Ph.D. program and still be a decent human being. You are also a master at crafting helpful mantras and mfltaphnn; A-cignad m h^lp the dissertating <JnHent Among my favorite “Janeisms” regarding the dissertation process: “The best dissertation is a done dissertation.'' “Your dissertation is not the final work you will ever do. ft is simply a means to an end.” “HaIf o f [finishing die dissertation] is just making sure you keep going, even if it feels slowly at tunes. Sort of like m the Wizard o f Oz when they come to the poppy fields and they really want to just quit The key is not to do so— and probably not to smoke opium either!” Thanks to Dick Cone, tbe Executive Directin' of the USC Joint Educational Project and a remarkable person I am so fortunate to know and work with closely. I am especially grateful for meeting you so early in my graduate school career as your constant and uncnnriififial support hgtpaH to sustain my t i M iimitment to finishing m y degree Your pragmatic style helped me to improve the clarity and accessibility of my writing (although I take all responsibility fix those parts that are less dear and less accessible...) and your advice to finish the “exercise” encouraged me to keep my dissertation in perspective. More recently I am happy to work more closely with die rest o f die JEP staff— Tammy Anderson, Brenda Diaz, Tina Kaneazny, Jackie Mitchell, and Jameson Yu— not to mention the extraordinary undergraduate staff-and thankful for all of your enthusiasm and support in the final months of this process. v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I am grateful for the financial assistance I received for my work from tbe John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation, the National Council on Family Relations (Feminism andFamily Studies section), and die mysterious Mrs. Frey. Thanks, too, to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services for the lifetime supply of tote bags. There is no doubt that the love and support from my family sustained me throughout this process. Thanks to my "little brother,” Michael Hams, for helping me through more than one computer crisis, and to my parents, Hugh and Kitty Harris, and parents-in-law, Jim and Judy Myers, for sending along all the newspaper clippings about grandparents raising grandchildren. As with many of the relative caregivers I came to know, I am inspired by my grandparents-in-law, “Tutu" and “Zayde” Schnitzen Your zest for life and passion for grandchildren keeps you young. Thanks, too, to Robert and Judy Scfanitzer, for your local love and support. I must add here that I’m especially grateful to all of my immediate and extended family members for never asking the question, “Shouldn’ t you be done with that paper by now?” Finally, I have been blessed to have the love, support and unlimited patience of my husband, Jeremy Myers, throughout this entire process. We married a month before I started graduate school. Little did I know then that my relationship with you and with USC would require a complicated menage-a-trois of sorts lasting last eight long years. Jeremy, I am thankful, to my core, that you have been willing to put up with this excessively demanding set of relationships, and I am grateful every day for your companionship. I look forward to sharing Life-Beyond-Grad-School with you. I love you. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication......................................................................................................................... “ Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... ui List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................«i Abstract........................................................................................................................ xui ONE— Introduction: from “Stranger Care” to “Relative C are................................................1 “Welcome to My World, Hooey Bunch!” ................................................................ 2 A Brief History of Kinship Care ............................................................................ 5 The Rise of “Public” Kinship Caregiving................................................................ 9 Kinship Caregiving in Los Angeles County .......................................................... 1 1 From “Stranger Care” to “Relative Care” ............................................................ 1 2 Relative Care = “Stranger Care”? .........................................................................1 4 Foster Care = “Family Care”? .............................................................................. 1 5 Fostering Independence in the Dependency System................................................20 An Ethnography of Kinshq) Care.......................................................................... 24 TWO— A Brief History of Child Welfare Policy m the United States..................................29 The Early Roots of Child W elfare........................................................................ 30 Tum-of-the-Century Reforms ..............................................................................3 1 The Rise of the Juvenile Court System.................................................................. 33 Aid to Dependent Children and the Maternal and Child Welfare Program: A “New Deal” for (Some) Mothers and Children ..................................................34 From 1935 to the late 1970s: The Expansion o f Welfare fora “Great Society” . . . 37 The Rediscovery of Child Abuse, the Return to Foster C are..................................39 vii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Child Welfare Policy in the 1980s: Fran Long-term Placement to Prevention, Reunification and Adoption...................................................................... 43 The 1980s and 1990s: “The End of Welfere as We Know h” ................................ 48 Promoting “Safety and Permanency" in the Child Welfare System: The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 ...................................................................... 51 Kmship Care in the Context of the Contemporary Child Welfare System .............. 60 INTERLUDE— “Maxine Easton"...................................................................................... 64 Becoming a “Kinship Caregiver".......................................................................... 65 Getting Guardianship .......................................................................................... 67 Entering “the System".......................................................................................... 68 Life in Two Systems............................................................................................ 7 1 THREE— Living on die Edge of the Dependency System .................................................... 77 “Harriet Jackson” .................................................................................................78 Formalizing the Relationship: The Caregiver Authorization Affidavit.................... 8 1 Probate Court: Petitioning for Legal Guardianship................................................ 83 “Patricia Moore” .................................................................................................. 86 Avoiding the Dependency System ........................................................................ 89 “Welfare" and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services ...96 Avoiding the Welfare System...............................................................................101 “I Was an Unwed Pregnant Grandmother on Welfare!” .................................104 Establishing Legal Authority: An Expensive “Can of W arn s".............................110 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................................118 viii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FOUR— Fear and Loathing m The Los Angeles County Dependency System 123 “Jackie Knight” ............................................................................................... 124 Getting into the System: The Child Abuse Report................................................127 Investigating Allegations of Abuse.......................... 135 Investigating the Home and Placing die Child......................................................138 Going to Court: The Arraignment and Detention Hearmg.................................. 148 De Facto Parents, De Jure Strangers ............................................................... 149 The Adjudication and Jurisdiction Hearing....................................................... 153 The Disposition Hearing ................................................................................. 154 A Sour Disposition ......................................................................................... 156 The Fear of Foster Care................................................................................... 158 Review Hearings............................................................................................. 165 Permanency P lans........................................................................................... 169 Concurrent Planning for Reunification and Adoption: A Solution to the Problem of Long-term Foster C are........................................................................ 1 7 1 “More, Better, and Faster Adoptions” ............................................................. 174 Conclusions........................................................................................................177 INTERLUDE— A Day in Children's C ourt...................................................................... 179 FIVE— “O ff Their Rockers”: Becoming a “Professional” Grandparent.............................. 19 1 An Open House at “Grandma's House” ........................................................... 192 Support from the Department of Children and Family Services: Too Little, Too Late? ..............................................................................................................198 The Hard Work of Social Work..........................................................................200 ix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Bureaucratization of Grandparenthood........................................................206 “Rules and Regulations” for Relative Caregrvers................................................208 Supervised Grandparenthood.............................................................................. 210 Travel Restrictions ............................................................................................216 Getting “Off Their Rockers"' and Other Strategies for “Professional” Grandparents 220 Documenting the Process.................................................................................... 225 The Power of the Pen ........................................................................................ 227 The Chain of Command...................................................................................... 231 Keeping Up Appearances .................................................................................. 233 Conclusions........................................................................................................237 SIX— “Juneteenth” the Disenfranchisement of Relative Caregivers..................................239 “Juneteenth” ..................................................................................................... 240 The “June Vroom’ ............................................................................................249 Professional Privilege ........................................................................................ 260 The Fiscal Politics of Kmship Care ....................................................................262 Tbe Disenfranchisement of Kinship Foster C are..................................................271 Saving Grace......................................................................................................281 Conclusions........................................................................................................283 INTERLUDE— Adoption Days at the DCFS....................................................................287 Preventing Charles Manson................................................................................ 289 The Rise of Kinship Adoption............................................................................ 291 “Adoption Saturday”: “More, Better ami Faster” DCFS Adoptions ....................293 x Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Adoption Day at the Children's C o u rt................................................................ 296 Confidentiality, Revisited................................................................................... 297 “Ruby Miner” ................................................................................................... 301 SEVEN-The Politics of Adoption................................................................................. 306 To Adopt or Not to A dopt?............................................................................... 307 The Adoption Dilemma..................................................................................... 312 Assistance fix * Adoption..................................................................................... 315 The Economic and Legal Politics of Permanency................................................320 Adoption Politics in Black aid White.................................................................. 333 Adoption Politics in Shades of Grey.................................................................... 340 The Politics of “Permanency” ............................................................................344 Conclusions........................................................................................................349 EIGHT-Conclusian Kmship Care And The Politics of Child W elfare............................ 352 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................372 Appendix A : Sample Summary ..................................................................................... 414 Appendix B : Interview Schedules................................................................................... 420 Appendix C: California Caregiver Affidavit....................................................................426 XI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 2-1: Summary of the Child Welfare Provisions of the Soaal Security A c t................48 Table 3-1: Benefits available to relative caregrvers from the Los Angeles C ounty 100 Figuie 4-1: The Dependency Process............................................................................... 129 Table 4-1: Summary of Dependency Review H earings.....................................................169 Table 5-1: Actual and Recommended Workload For Caseworkers by Type of Service . . . 204 Figure 6-1: Key Eligibility Requirements for Title IV-E Federal Foster Care Funds 265 Table 6-1: Funding Policies for Foster Parents and Relative Caregivers in L.A. County . 267 Table 7-1: Legislative Amendments to the Adoption Assistance Program (C A )................320 xii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports that 2.4 milfacn grandparents are responsible for raising their grandchildren While many of these grandparents raise children “informally,” approximately one-third care for foster children formally placed by the child welfare system. In Los Angeles County, California alone, 20,000 foster children reside with grandparents and other kin. The child welfare (or dependency) system increasingly relies upon “kmship caregivers” to permanently care for children removed from their parents' custody as a result of abuse and neglect. Little is known, however, about how child welfare policy and practice affect kinship caregivers This dissertation offers an ethnographic account of die experiences of grandparents raising grandchildren in and an the periphery of the Los Angeles County child welfare system. The study uses qualitative methods to analyze a “snowball sample” of 34 kinship caregivers and 10 child welfare professionals. It also draws upon two years of field work in which I observed meetings for kmship caregivers coordinated by private, non-profit agencies and by Los Angeles County The dissertation sheds light an the problems encountered by grandparents who enter a system designed fix placing foster children in the homes of licensed foster parents. Kinship caregivers, who enter the child welfare system with little knowledge and much trepidation, become frustrated with rules and regulations that disregard their unique status as grandparents. In addition, the child welfare system provides fewer services and limited financial assistance to kinship caregivers who, as a group, are likely to experience problems (such as poverty) that would indicate the need for such support xiii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tbe relatively meager support offered to kinship caregivers, m addition to policies that urge grandparents to adopt their foster-grandchildren, reflect a broader trend within social policy to eliminate all forms of dependency, whether welfare dependency or the long-term care of children in the dependency system. These policies weigh heavily on grandparents raising grandchildren-espeoally poor African American grandparents— who increasingly bear the burden of supporting children. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - O N E - INTRODUCTION: FROM “STRANGER CARE” TO “RELATIVE CARE" Our priority is child safety. Our m ission is a fam ily fo r life fo r each child. -Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services The problem is that the program you re in was designed fo r ” stranger care." not "relative care. " — Marvela King, social worker, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Welcome to My W orld, Honey Bunch!” On a drizzly day in March 1999,1 attended a “Regional Kinship Meeting” in Pasadena, California for “kinship caregivers” raising fester children in the Los Angeles County dependency system.1 Approximately twenty others braved the rain and the oil-slicked freeways that morning to meet other caregivers and to leam more about raising grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and other related children in the foster care system. Also on hand to share information and give advice were several social workers from “Grandma’s House,” an advocacy program fix’ relative caregivers based in the Kinship Division of the Los Angeles County Department o f Children and Family Services (DCFS). While the caregivers exchanged stories and strategies for navigating within “the System,” Angela Valentine, a grandmother raising four granddaughters, leaned over and asked if I would keep an eye on the girls while die went outside to “feed the meter ” Smce the girls were drawing quietly at a table directly behind us, I didn’ t think this wouldn't require much of me. When the youngest of the four saw the door dose behind her grandmother, however, she immediately burst into tears. 1 picked up the child and tried to soothe her, but to no avail; the toddler, who was just shy of two years old, continued to cry She sobbed and hiccuped and then spit up a little bit. She hiccuped again and then spit up a little bit more. As 1 grabbed a diaper from her 1 The “dependency system" refers to the set of programs in place to care for abused and neglected children. In Los Angeles County, the two primary conqxnents of this system are the Department of Children and Family Services and the Juvenile Dependency Court These two agencies are charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the welfare of children, who in many cases, have been taken into protective custody and placed in out-of-home foster care. In this report. I use the terms “dependency system.” “foster care system,” and “child welfare system” interchangeably. 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. grandmother's diaper bag - tbe most accessible thing I could find to wipe off her shirt - die poor little girl threw up all over herself me, tbe table, and the floor Before IfiiBy understood what was happening, a swarm of grandmothers surrounded me, equipped with wet paper towels aid diaper wipes. As 1 stood bewildered with a vomit- covered diaper m my hand, the grandmothers worked skillfully and quickly to clean up the child and me. “Reflux,” proclaimed one of the women, as others nodded in agreement with her assessment of die problem. By the time Angela Valentine returned to the meeting roam, a mere five minutes had passed. Minor chaos ensued during this brief period, but thanks to die grandmothers die situation was under control. Angela sighed in exasperation as she searched through her diaper bag for another outfit for her granddaughter. She and I both apologized clumsily for the preventable incident while she re-dressed the little girl in clean clothes. As she gently rocked the now-calm child. Angela peered over at me and whispered, “Welcome to my world, honey bunch!” This dissertation describes an ethnography of kinship care in Los Angeles County, California at the end of the 20* century It tells the stones of grandmothers (and a few grandfathers, aunts, and uncles) who have stepped in to raise grandchildren under very difficult circumstances. Over the course of two years, women like Angela Valentine generously “welcomed me into their worlds” and taught me about some o f tbe day-to-day challenges they face in raising their children’s children 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Many of these challenges relate to the fact that grandparents often raise children with ‘ "special needs.” For many, like Angela’ s granddaughters, these are unique emotional needs resulting from their parents* continual instability and luirrliahility Angela’s granddaughter seemed to respond physically to the sight of her grandmother “leaving her,” as her mother had done many times before Other kmship caregivers describe a range of physiological problems affecting their grandchildren, the result of physical abuse, chronic neglect, prenatal exposure to drugs and alcohol,2 and an assortment of other early traumas. Grandparents indirectly bear the burdens imposed on their grandchildren by their adult children. Many of tbe relative caregivers m my study struggle to help their grandchildren recover from emotional losses and developmental impairments. And many spend countless hours becoming authorities on the particular challenges facing their grandchildren, as well as the resources available to address them. Kmship caregivers face additional challenges, as well These challenges are legal and political. Indeed, grandparents raising grandchildren often struggle as much with helping children to heal and develop as they do with negotiating the various bureaucracies that control access to vital services for the children This dissertation offers an ethnographic account of the experiences o f grandparents raising grandchildren within a set of social institutions that have not quite figured out yet what to do with relative caregivers It describes the ways in which kinship caregivers' lives are - Many children enter the foster care system as a result of parental addiction (Fox, Frasch. & Bemck 2000; D H H S 1999 "Blending Perspectives”; GAO 1998a); a growing number of newborn infants are placed in foster care dhectly from the hospital after testing positive for drugs (see. e.g.. Wulczvn 1994). While the verdict is nil! out on the long-term effects of prenatal exposure to drugs like cocaine (see. e.g. Barth. Brodzinsky & Freundlich 2000; Hawley et al. 199S: Lester. LaGasse & Seifer 1998; Rainey 1998a; Rotzoll 2000)— which is the drug of choice for 51% of all drug-abusing mothers with children in the California child welfare system (GAO 1998a)— many grandchildren have considerable burdens to overcome as a result of their parents’ problems. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. made considerably more complicated (if not necessarily worse) as a result of their ambivalent ties to tbe Los Angeles County child w e lfa re system A Brief History of K asttp Care The Child Welfare League of America defines “kinship care” (or relative care3 ) as “the full-time nurturing and protection of children who must be separated from their parents by relatives, members of their tnbes or dans, godparents, stepparents, or other adults who have a kinship band with a child” (CWLA 1994:2). Kinship care is on the rise in die United States. In 1970, the U.S. Census reported that 2 2 million children under the age of 18, or 3 .2% of all children, lived in homes in which a biological grandparent acted as the head of household (Casper & Bryson 1998). By 1997, more than 3.9 million children, amounting to 5 .5% of all children, lived with their grandparents.4 A recent national survey estimates that 16% of all children will live with a grandparent at some point in their lives (Silverstein, Marenco, & Rice 1998). This is most likely to be a grandmother, since grandmothers are twice as likely as grandfathers to raise a grandchild (Fuller-Thomson. Minkler & Driver 1997). This can be explained in part by the feet that women and grandmothers outlive men and grandfathers (McGoldnck 1989). More importantly, however, given die relatively youthful status of many kmship caregivers,5 women 3 “Kinship care” and “relative care" are general terms and are synonymous in this report “Kinship foster care” and “public (or formal) kinship care" refer specifically to kinship care placements by and within the foster care system. 4 Pebley and Rudkin (1999) daim that part of this increase is simply a reflection of the growing number of children, in general, during this period. Nevertheless, researcheis-and preliminary 2000 Census data— agree that the incidence of “kinship care” (particularly within the child w elfare system) is on the rise. 5 A nationally representative survey found the average age of grandparents raising grandchildren was 59.4 years compared to 62.3 for non-caregiving grandparents (Fnllcr-Thomson. Minkler & Driver 1997). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. are the traditional km-keepers of families and caregivers o f children, thereby making grandmothers the “natural” substitute for grandchildren whose mothers are unable to raise them. For approximately one-thud of all children currently Irving with a grandparent, neither parent is involved, thus leaving the grandparent to act as the primary caregiver for his or her grandchildren (U.S. Census Bureau 2001; AARP 1994). It is this particular group (grandparent-headed families with no co-resident parent) that grew most rapidly in the 1990s (Casper & Bryson 1998) and with whom 1 am most concerned in this report. Kinship care is by no means a new phenomenon, as extended families and Active kin historically have stepped in to care for children orphaned by war, disease or poverty (de Toledo & Edler Brown 199S). Only very recently, however, has child welfare policy emphasized kinship care as an appropriate way to establish safety and stability for abused and neglected children removed from their parents' custody. These policy developments have led to a distinction between tbe newer “public” (or “formal”) kinship care placements arranged through the Department of Children and Family Services, the Dependency Court, and other components of fee fester care system, and the traditional “private” (or “informal”) kinship care arrangements developed independently of the foster care system.6 in this dissertation, 1 ° In general, tbe distinction between “formal” (or “public”) and “informal” (or “private”) kinship care refers to tbe involvement (or lack thereof) of the foster care system in the lives of grandparents raising grandchildren (Wilson A Chjptmgn 1996). “Informal” Idnship care usually refers to those arrangements determined by families, whereby grandparents assume the responsibility for raising their grandchildren, sometimes with legal custody, bat independent of the dependency system. However, the Department of Children and Family Services may play an initial role m arranging informal kinship care placements The DCFS may simply help facilitate the placement of children with grandparents when straggling parents voluntarily agree to this arrangement In some cases, the Department may offer services and supervision to the grandparent-headed family but leave intact the parent's legal custody of her children Another alternative is for the DCFS to facilitate a 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. interested m each o f these groups, although I focus primarily an relative caregivers raising foster-grandchildren in the dependency system. Grandparents frequently have assumed the role of “part-time” or temporary parent, caring for grandchildren in informal arrangements while parent(s) are at work or away from home (Jendrek 1994; Kennedy & Keeney 1987; Stack 1996). This tradition is particularly strong among African American families who have a long history of actively involved grandmothers. Older black women are noted for taking into their homes grandchildren and other kin for extended amounts of time, a practice that reflects both cultural tradition and structural constraints (Brown & Mars 2000; Burton and Dilworth-Anderson 1991; Burton 1992; Chatters, Taylor and Jayakody 1994; Coontz 1992; Collins 1991; de Toledo & Edler Brown 1995; Dihworth-Anderson 1992; Hunter & Taylor 1998; Stack 1974; Stack 1996). Relative caregivers have been a significant resource for parentiess black children who throughout much o f U.S. history were exchided through policy or practice from more formal sources of child caregiving, such as orphanages and early private foster care services (Hegar 1999; Hegar & Scannapieco 1995). Informal extended-kin care historically has been important for poor families as well, since it provides a way to pool limited resources in the face of meager public support (Angel and Tienda 1982; Collins 1991; Jayakody, Chatters and Taylor 1993; Luckey 1994; Stack 1974). "kinship adoption" whereby a grandparent (or another relative) legally adopts a child who would otherwise be placed into the protective custody of the Dependency Court. With involuntary. “formal” placements in the foster care system, the Court nearly always assumes protective legal custody of the children. 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Traditionally, grandparents became the primary caregivers fix' grandchildren orphaned by war, disease, or poverty (de Toledo aid Edler Brown 1995). Today, however, several historically-situated trends have led to the growth of full-time kinship care - both the “public” and “private” varieties. Researchers attribute much of the recent increase to escalating rates of drug abuse and addiction, particularly to “crack” cocaine, which made its appearance in the 1980s, and methampheftwninft more recently (Barth 1994; Chen 1998; Fox, Frasch, & Berrick 2000; GAO 1998a; Minkler & Roe 1993; Pasternak 1998; Schwartz 2001; Wulczyn 1994). Grandparents are frequently the ones left to cope with the physical, emotional and developmental tolls of parental addiction (DHHS Children's Bureau January 2000; Gteeson, et al. 1997; Jendrek 1994; de Toledo & Edler Brown 1995; Minkler & Roe 1993; Minkler, Roe & Price 1992). Closely related to the problem of addiction is the increasing arrest and incarceration rates of women on drug charges. The number of women incarcerated in state prisons has tripled in recent years. The primary reason for this is a marked rise in drug offenses and convictions among women (Beatty 1997; Gaudm & Sutphen 1993; Seymour 1998). This has significance fix the families of women inmates, as estimates suggest that two-thirds or more have minor children, many of whom are placed (informally or formally) m the care of their grandparents while their mothers are imprisoned (Beatty 1997; Hungerfbrd 1996; U.S. Department o f Justice 1999). Disease continues to lead grandparents to assume the parental responsibilities of their ailing children. In addition to the disease of addiction which creates thousands of kinship care households each year, AIDS is another disease reflecting epidemiological shifts and is responsible for many cases of children losing their parents to illness, hi the late 1980s, die 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. New York Times projected that more than 20,000 children in New York City alone would be orphaned by the AIDS epidemic by the mid-1990s (Lambert 1989; see also Lee 1994; Sabol 1994). Another study estimated that by the year 2000, more than 125,000 children nationwide would have lost their parents to AIDS (Joslin & Brouaid, 1995; Lee, 1994). These ca«»s are drawn disproportionately from low income, minority communities where the incidence o f HIV and AIDS is relatively high and access to quality health care is relatively low (“HIV rate highest. ” 1998; Fears 1998; GAO 1997; ham & Kates 2001).7 Illustrating this depressing fact is a statistic listing AIDS as the third leading cause of death among African American women aged 25-44 (Itani & Kates 2001s ). In many o f the cases in which mothers die o f AIDS, grandparents will step in to provide for their orphaned grandchildren (Joslin 2000; Minkler & Roe 1993; Pinson-Millbum et al. 1995). The Rise of “Pubtic” Kinship Caregmng Prior to the 1 980s and early ‘ 90s, child welfare agencies relied primarily on the care provided to foster children by unrelated, licensed foster parents. Today however, approximately one-third of all foster children requiring out-of-home care in the United States are placed with grandparents and other kin (DHHS Children's Bureau 1999; DHHS Children's Bureau January 2000). Several closely related issues have contributed to the grow th o f “public” kinship- foster care placements. One is the combined effect of an increase in the overall population of children requiring out-of-home care and a decrease in the number of licensed foster care 7 For example, in Los Angeles County, the rate of Wade women with AIDS is eight times that of white women and three times that of Latinas (Fears 1998). 8 Joslin & Brouard reported in I99S that AIDS was the leading cause of death among African American women aged 15-44 in New York State. 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. providers. Public awareness campaigns in the 1970s shed tight an the problem of child abuse and neglect, leading to more child abuse reports and interventions by child protective agencies. As a result o f these campaigns, some of the problems identified above (e.g., child neglect) were more likely than before to come to the attention of child protective agencies, leading to more out-of-home placements in the 1980s (Barth 1994). Furthermore, growing numbers of children orphaned by AIDS and addiction required the response of an increasingly overburdened child welfare system (Stemhauer 2001). These demands corresponded with a decline m the number of traditional foster homes, forcing foster care agencies to consider alternative placements for foster children, including the homes of relatives (GAO September 26, 1995). A second issue contributing to the growth o f public kinship care relates to shifting perceptions of what types of foster care placements are in the best interests of abused and neglected children, h the past, child welfare agencies often assumed that abusive parents were themselves the product of multiple generations of abuse - the notion that the "nut doesn’ t fall far from the tree ” As a result, agencies were reluctant to place abused children within what was presumed to be a “dysfunctional” extended family (Ingram 1996; Johnson 1994). More recently, child welfare agencies have looked to grandparents and other relatives as sources of support for foster children and their parents (see, e.g., Meyer & Link 1990). This change in perspective reflects better understandings of the complex causes o f child abuse,9 as well as a growing consensus that maintaining biological family ties when possible is in the best interests of children removed from their parents' custody (Johnson 1994). * For an analysis of the intergeneiatkmal transmission of abuse theory see, for example, Kaufman & Zigler 1989. 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Finally, key legislative changes and court rulings in die past two decades have altered the landscape of child welfare, in 1979, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in M iller v Youahm that state-operated child welfare agencies could not deny federal foster care funds to licensed caregivers simply because they were related to the children m their care, in the following year, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA) - which marked the first time the federal government developed a comprehensive child welfare policy - required states to place foster childrai in the “least restrictive, most family-tike setting” possible, which many foster care agencies interpreted to mean the homes of grandparents and other kin These two events - as well as more recent changes in the law - were central to the growth and support of “public” kinship caregrvmg in the 1980s and ‘90s I will discuss these key developments in kinship care policy in more depth in the following chapter. Kinship Caregiving in Los Angeles County The shift toward die use of unlicensed relative caregivers within the child welfare system is historic and fundamental. These changes are nowhere more dramatic than in California and Los Angeles County, in particular. The California Department o f Social Services oversees the largest child welfare system in the United States, if not the world.1 0 b 1998, there were more than 100,000 children under the supervision of county agencies, with Los Angeles County accounting for approximately half of the state's foster care population (DHHS Children’ s Bureau 1998). 1 0 Foster care populations are particularly fluid, with thousands of children entering and exiting the system each year Furthermore, different state- or county-operated child welfare agencies m easure foster care populations in different ways. These factors m alre it difficult to make clear comparisons to other child welfare agencies across the country 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Los Angdes County, in fact, has more children m foster care placement than most statewide systems do For example, the foster care caseload for the Qlmots State Department of Children and Family Services was 34,418 children in 1999 (down from a high o f50,727 in 1996) (Illinois DCFS), and in Texas, the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services supervised 21,007 children in substitute care in 1997 (Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services 1997). Equally impressive is the number of foster children living with relative caregivers in Los Angeles County. Of the nearly 50,000 children in foster care placement, more than half, or 25.823, live with grandparents and other relatives (DCFS 1999). The high rate of kinship foster care in Los Angeles County is home o f necessity The county must rely on relative caregivers to provide care to “dependents” of the Dependency Court, since there are only 27,624 beds available in licensed group and foster homes to house the total foster care population of 48,613 children (1999 data, DCFS 1999) Fran “Stranger Care" to “Relative Care” A t the Regional Kinship Meeting in Pasadena in the spring of 1999,1 listened to Grandma's House social worker, Marveia King, describe the mission of the foster care system to sane of its newest providers of care. “Do you know what the purpose o f foster care is?” admrf Marveia. a DCFS veteran with more than twenty five years of experience with the Department. “To return the kids to the parents?” replied a woman in a tone more sarcastic than inquiring. 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “No. ft’ s to provide safety and permanency for children,” noted Marveia, emphasizing the most recent goals of an evolving foster care system charged with protecting children front abuse and negiect. Marveia King and Steve Evans-a kinship caregiver and the Chair o f the monthly Regional Kinship Meeting-described the changes in the last decade leading the dependency system to rely increasingly upon relatives to provide safe, stable homes for foster children unable to return to their parents. They explained how pnor to this time, the child welfare system placed foster children exclusively with ca re g iv e rs licensed by the state; grandparents and ocher km raising children did so privately, or independently, of the foster care system. Despite the recent shift in child welfare practice toward kinship care, Marveia noted that the foster care system continues to operate under an outmoded set of policies "Grandmothers in the '50s and '60s didn’ t get help from the foster care system for raising their grandchildren They just did it. But it’ s different now; tones have changed.” the social worker observed. “ There are legislators who believe that it’s family so you should take care of family Weil that’s nice and that’s how ft used to be, bid ft's not that way anymore,” Marveia explained to the group The social worker walked across the room to a chalk board and wrote down die following two equations: Foster care = stranger care Relative care = family care 'The problem,” Marvefa continued, turning back around to face the group, “is that the program you're in was designed for 'stranger care,' not 'relative care.’ ” 1 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Relative Care = “Stranger Care”? Licensed foster parents m California are trained professionals, subject to extensive rules and regulations designed to protect the foster children m thetr care. For example, all adults residing in a foster home must be fingerprinted and obtain a criminal records clearance, and foster parents must notify the Department of Children and Family Services of any changes in residence (or residents) (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8.8 §88019, §87034). Faster homes must conform to health and safety codes regarding, for example, the number of bedrooms, the availability of first aid supplies, and the storage of medicines, cleaning solutions, and other potentially dangerous items (ibid. §88044). Foster parents are further required to document the foster child’ s daily life, including logging all health care visits (DCS form 562), reporting any injuries or unusual incidents (DSS form LIC 624), and meeting regularly with DCFS social workers) to discuss the “case” (Califomia-DSS-Manual-CWS §31-320). In contrast to licensed foster parents, most relative caregivers come to the foster care system simply as grandparents with no trammg and little knowledge of the child welfare system. As a result, relative caregivers have the dual burden of trying to cope with the family crisis that led to the child’s removal from his or her parents(s), while simultaneously responding to the demands of a foreign aid sometimes feared jnsritnfiri The rules and regulations imposed an foster caregivers are meant to protect children in die homes o f “strangers,” but they are often counterintuitive to grandparents who are more concerned about their commitment to their families than they are with their responsibility to the child welfare system Although Los Angeles County currently does not mandate that caregivers become licensed foster parents m order to care for their fbster-gjandchildren, 1 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. grandparents are bound nonetheless by rules that regulate the parenting of Dependency Court “dependents" This becomes a “problem," as Marveia King pot it, when social workers with the Department of Children aid Family Services and judges from the Juvenile Dependency Court expect relative caregivers to abide by these rules, and relative caregivers do not understand them, resist them, or think they don't apply to them as grandparents, in such cases, the child welfare system has the authority to remove Court dependents from relative caregivers who behave more like grandparents than fester parents. In other words, and consistent with die fester care/relative care dichotomy outlined by Marveia King, a potential conflict arises when relative caregivers see themselves as providing “family care” and the foster care system expects them to act in the same way as licensed providers of “stranger care ” Foster Care = “Family Care”? Relative caregivers must contend with the opposite problem, as well. In many ways, the child welfare system treats public kinship caregivers less like professional foster parents and more like private relative caregivers. In so doing, and as noted by Marveia King, die child welfare system operates according to the sentimental yet powerful notion that “family should do A h ' family " The child welfare system provides licensed foster parents with considerable resources to help them care for the abused and neglected children in their homes. Foster parents receive a monddy foster care maintenance payment amounting to several hundred dollars or more1 1 1 1 As of September. 2000. the Department of Children and Family Services pays a basic foster care maintenance payment of $405-5569 per month per child, based on the age of child (CDSS September 12. 2000). Some fester parents also receive supplemental “D“ and "F" rates for the care of children with special emotional or physical needs, respectively. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and foster children are eligible for many services, mchtdmg counseling, tutoring, job training, orthodontics and dental care, scholarships, and transitional bousing, to name just a few Although eligible for many o f these same benefits, public kinship caregivers and the related foster children m their care— m California and elsewhere— receive less supervision, fewer services, and less financial support from the dependency system than do licensed foster parents (Barth et al 1994; Bemck. Barth & Needed 1994; Burnette 1999; Chipungu et al. 1998; Davidson 1997; Dubowitz, Fetgleman, and Zuravin 1993; Dubowrtz et al. 1994; Ehrte, Geen & Clark 2001; Gebel 1996; Iglehart 1994; Meyer and Link 1990; Minkler and Roe 1993; Scannapieco, Hegar and McAlpine 19971 2 ). This is because some benefits are conditional upon the foster care license which most relative caregivers lack. It may also be due to the perception of some social workers, already struggling to manage oversized caseloads, that children living with relatives are “safe” and need less supervision than do children living with strangers. It results, as well, from the simple fact that many relative caregivers lack information about the services available to them from the dependency system and therefore do not seek them out. The disparity in the treatment of relative caregivers and licensed foster parents is also an artifact o f policies that once excluded kinship caregivers from the foster care system, relegating them to the realm of unsupported private “family care.” As DCFS social worker Marveia King explained to the group in Pasadena, traditionally grandparents “ just did it,” meaning they raised their grandchildren without any of the services provided to foster children in the child welfare system. Indeed, no support was available from the child welfare system i: Scannapieco, Hegar & McAlpme found that children in kinship care were more likely to receive treatment for drug or alcohol problems than were children in traditional foster care placements but less likdy to receive other services (1997). 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. because until very recently, if a child was in foster care this meant she or he, by definition, was placed with an im T w btari foster parent or in an institution. Beginning in 1968, "private'’ relative caregivers could apply for financial support from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a federal income assistance program for poor families that provides relatively meager support when compared to that provided to abused, neglected (and mostly poor) children placed in foster care.1 3 While a growing number of grandparents today raise grandchildren within the foster care system, child welfare agencies in the majority of grates (including California1 '1 ) refer “public" kinship caregivers to the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (i.e., “welfare") for financial support (Boots and Geen 1999; Leos-Urbel, Bess and Geen 1999). TANF, however, like its predecessor AFDC, offers considerably less financial support to relative caregivers than the foster care maintenance payment provides to licensed foster parents.1 3 Yet the relatively limited support provided to kinship caregivers has a greater potential to negatively impact this group Especially when compared to licensed foster parents, kinship caregivers tend to be older (Barth et al. 1994; Bemck, Barth and Needell The Federal government funds only those foster children who meet certain lo w income requirements States fill in the gap for foster children who do not qualify for federal funding and who are placed with licensed foster parents. 1 4 Arranriing tn a n»pnrt f i n t i m a C*lifnrwia Slate aHvicnry fm rn n iW iy r»n th f implpmmtation of SB 19 0 1 and A B 2779. an estimated 43% of foster children living in kinship care receive TANF. rather than foster care maiim-mmne payments (author unknown, circa 1999). 1 5 As of October 2000. the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program, administered through the Los Angeles Comm Department of Public Social Services, provides “non-needy" relative caregivers with S319 per month to care for one child. Unlike foster care maintenance payments, however, the TANF rate is not a per-child rate: for every additional child in the "assistance unit" the DPSS provides additional fending on a declining scale. Congress dismantled the AFDC program in 1996. replacing it with the state block grant program. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1994; DHHS Children’s Bureau 1999b; Gebel 1996; Le Prohn 1994), smgle (Barth et al. 1994; Bemck, Barth and Needell 1994; Burnette 1999; Chipungu et al. 1998; DHHS Children's Bureau 1999b; Pecora, Le Probn and Nasutil999; Scannapieco, Hegar and McAlpine 1997; Le Prohn 1994), less educated (Barth et al. 1994; Bemck, Barth and Needell 1994; Chipungu et al. 1998; DHHS Children’s Bureau 1999b; Gebel 1996; Le Prohn 1994), in poorer health (Barth et al. 1994; Berrick, Barth and Needell 1994; DHHS Children’ s Bureau 1999b; Marx and Solomon 2000), and with fewer financial resources (Barth et al. 1994; Berrick, Barth and Needell 1994; Burnette 1999; Chipungu et al. 1998; DHHS Children's Bureau 1999b; Gebel 1996; Le Prohn 1994; Minkler and Row 1993; Pecora, Le Prohn and Nasud 1999; Thornton 1991).1 6 These findings suggest that kinship care families are likely to need the very services from die child welfare system that they are less likely (than foster parents) to receive. The comparably limited support provided to kinship caregivers in the child welfare system reflects, in part, the system's lingering conflation of “relative care” with “family care.” Thus, as more and more relative caregivers are raising foster children, the foster care system is beginning to operate more like the U.S. “family care” system - that is, the welfare system, which historically has offered relatively modest support to families in need. This leads to problems when grandparents leam about and struggle to access die services more readily available to foster children in “stranger care.” ft invokes anger and frustration when relative caregivers feel they are not recognized for the services they provide to the child welfare system and are treated differently than their licensed professional caregrving peers (i.e., foster 1 0 For an overview of the literature on kinship caregivers, see for example. Needell and Gilbert 1997 and Scannapieco 1999. 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. parents) (Davidson 1997; Minkler and Roe 1993). I will explore these issues further in Chapter Six. “Part of the problem,” explained Marvda King to the group of relative caregivers in Pasadena, “is that six years ago, we started educating you, but we didn't educate die [Department of Children and Family Services] staff. And that has caused a problem'cause you know what's available and the social worker doesn't, and you start worrying. Which isn’ t the way it should be because we should be partners.'' Marveia leaned over as she spoke to give a one-armed hug to a woman whose facial expression conveyed these worries. “So instead of partnering we’re worrying,” laughed Marveia, as the woman nodded and smiled. “God gave us life, forgiveness, and the wisdom to change. And I’m not going to preach, but we need to evaluate what needs to change— 'cause things have already changed,” Marveia continued, “h order to get what you need, you're gonna have to come to these meetings You're gonna have to make sacrifices. You're gonna have to get on the phone. You’re gonna have to get to know each other Because she may have had this experience and you can learn from her. And she can learn from your experiences. That way, we can be victorious.” “If you have any problems, you can call me,” offered relative caregiver Steve Evans, whose experiences in the foster care system, as an adoptive parent, and as a peer educator provided a wealth of knowledge upon which other relative caregivers could draw. “Problems with what?” asked a woman in the group. 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “With ‘ the System,' with the lads. Whatever you need," Steve answered "All our problems are with 'the System!' The kids are fine!" asserted another woman. "Amen!” sang a snail chorus of relative caregivers in response. One of the women in the group began to describe a problem she was having with the social worker assigned to her grandson’ s case. She said the social worker waited her to adopt her grandson out of the foster care system and that if she didn’ t, she might lose the child to another family that was willing to adopt. "She threatens me," contended the woman, who appeared confused and fearful about the situation. "I think [getting out of the foster care system] is great because we don’ t need to be in everybody's lives," responded Marveia King, speaking on behalf of the Los Angeles County DCFS. The social worker also noted, however, that whether or not a grandparent should adopt is the fanuty s, not the dependency system s, decision to make. Fostering Independence in the Dependency System In order to understand the movement away from “stranger care" and toward “relative care” within fee child welfare system, it is important to note two additional and related changes in policy. First, in response to concerns about the skyrocketing number of children in foster care, child welfare policy began to emphasize family preservation and reunification. One of die primary goals of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA), for example, was to ensure that state child welfare agencies make "reasonable 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. efforts... to prevent the removal of a child from his or her home aid to make it possible for a child to return home” (P.L. 96-272 bill summary).1 7 Secondly, federal foster care legislation passed in the 1980s and ‘90s establish a dear mandate for state-operated child welfare agencies to find permanent— and preferably adoptrve- -homes for foster children who cannot be reunified with their parents '* This is intended to cut the rapidly growing costs associated with long-term foster care, as well as to eliminate the problem of foster care “drift” that is. the large number of foster children who remain in foster care for years, drifting from one foster care placement to the next. This recent emphasis on fondly preservation, reunification and adoption in child welfare policy is based an the belief that whenever possible, it is best for children to be raised by their own biological parents. When not possible, including in the case of severe and on going neglect and abuse, the next best option is to promptly locate an alternative, legally permanent fa m ily for a child. The least preferred option is to keep children in the presumably insecure state of long-term foster care. 1 7 During the 1990s. the Federal government refined its stance on reunification b y emphasizing the paramount importance of protecting children 's safety For example, in regulations issued in 19%. the Department of Health arid Human Services wrote that fondly preservation “does NOT mean that the family must stay together or be preserved' mufcr »n n mmwanrw" (Pnmmittnr on W ays and Means. 2000. October 6) In adcfidon. the Adoption and Safe Families act of 1997 further clarified the “reasonable efforts” requirement of the AACWA by outlining specific circumstances under which states were under no obligation to offer reunification services to an abusive parent (P.L. 105-89). '* In 1 980. the AACWA expanded the definition of child welfare services to include “placing children in suitable adoptive homes where restoration to the biological fondly is not possible or appropriate” (P L. 96-272). The Act also required states to provide subsidies to adoptive parents to encourage the adoption of foster children with “special needs” (P L. 96-272 Summary 1980). The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) placed an even greater emphaq< on seeking “permanency” for children and offered financial incentives to states to “quickly m ove children out iff the foster care system into adoptive families” (CDSS Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997: P.L. 105-89). I wifi describe these changes in child welfare policy in the following chapter. 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Economic concerns are fundamental to any policy agenda, but in the case of kinship care, cost-cutting measures are complicated by particular political goals. The child welfare policies emphasizing rapid family reunification and adoption, fix’ example, serve to transfer the costs of caring for foster children— an estimated $6000 per child in 1997 (Boots and Geen 1999)— back to families: to biological parents m the former case and to adoptive relative caregivers in the latter, in so doing, these policies promote a particular set of values regarding family responsibility and “independence” that are characteristic of the historical period. Indeed, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which was designed to foster children's independence from the dependency system through adoption, developed at the same time as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, the monumental welfare reform bill that imposed similar time limits and sought an end to poor families' dependence on income assistance programs. Together, these reforms can be understood as a general assault an family “dependency,” whether this takes the form of promoting work over welfare dependence in the case of poor parents an AFDC and TANF, or promoting adoption over long-term foster care in the case of relative caregivers in the dependency system. Viewed together, the policy reforms of the late 1990s represent yet another way in which the child welfare system has begun to de-emphasize “stranger care” in favor of a different sort of “kinship” or “family care.” hi this case, the kinship ties promoted by the child welfare system are those pre-established through biological parenthood (maintained through family preservation or re-established through family reunification) ex created through newly-formed legal ties (created by the adoption of children into a new “permanent” home). In each case, the goal is to move children as quickly as possible out of the dependency system and into a secure (physically and legally) family environment. In the interim and explicitly 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. temporary’ period of foster care placement, “ public” relative caregivers offer a best-of-both- wortds policy solution by allowing foster children removed foam their parents' custody to be cared for by grandmothers and other km— km who hopefully will become the legally permanent caregivers should reunification efforts foil. Many relative caregivers are eager to flee the foster care system via adoption or any other means, leaving behind the hassles that come with raising a child in a highly regulated, bureaucratic and powerful institution designed for “stranger care.” In feet, many private relative caregivers are so intent upon remaining independent of “die System” that they seek alternatives, such as establishing legal guardianship, that allow diem to avoid die foster care system in the first place. The experiences of such “private” relative caregivers teetering on the edge of the dependency system are the subject of Chapter Three. While adopting a foster child out of the dependency system brings freedom and independence-two qualities highly valued in American culture— it also brings financial responsibilities and burdens. These burdens are often difficult for kinship caregivers to bear since as a group they tend to be poor— at least when compared to non-kin foster parents. Although the government provides adoptive foster parents, including relative caregivers, with tax credits and “Adoption Assistance Program” payments to help reduce the financial burdens associated with parenthood, many of the additional services provided to foster children are no longer available once “public” kinship caregivers become “private” adoptive parents. Thus, the emphasis on adoption in child welfare policy is influenced not only by what many experts (and some relative caregivers) believe is best for foster children, but also on a set of ideological principles that suggest that “family should do for family ” Although the promotion of adoption is meant to reduce the number o f children in foster care overall, the 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. grandchildren of poorer relative caregivers may be more likely to remain m the dependency system if caregivers feel they have no choice but to remain “dependent” so that their grandchildren have access to services. Thus, this policy may inadvertently create a stratified system of “public" and “private" kinship care, whereby the poor are stuck in the former system and the better-off escape to tbe latter via adoption. As a result, the foster care system, which already has disproportionate representation from low-mcome and minority families, may become even more poor and more black I will explore these issues in more depth in Chapter Seven. An Ethnogra phy of Kinship Care This dissertation is about the transition from “stranger care” to “relative care” within the Los Angeles County child welfare system in the late 1990s. ft is about die experiences of a group caught up in the middle of this historic transformation: grandparents and other relatives who out a sense of familial responsibility agree to raise their children's children and end up taking on die additional burdens imposed by “the System” in die process, h is a story about the strategies of a particularly activist group of relative caregivers to avoid, endure, avail, and m some cases transform the child welfare system m order to meet the needs of their grandchildren. This is also a book about the evolving set of laws and policies that intact grandparents raising grandchildren— especially in California. I analyze the foster care system's growing reliance on kinship care to provide temporary ami (increasingly) permanent care to children removed from their parents' custody as a result o f abuse and neglect. I also consider the ways in which family and public assistance policies (i.e., “welfare”) impact relative caregivers in and out of die child welfare system. 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. By weaving together these themes in an ethnographic account of kinship care, I attempt to attach human faces the enormously complex set of policies designed to regulate and support the parenting of neglected, abused— and poor— children in Los Angeles County. My interest in this subject developed out of my experiences as a marriage and family therapist-tn-trammg at a clinic that serves mostly low-mcome families in south-central Los Angeles. Through my work at die clinic, I came to know several grandparent-headed families. The grandparents often described how parenting grandchildren was fundamentally different from parenting their own children— not only because of the complexity of the familial relationships involved, but also because of their newfound ties to * 1 1 1 6 System.” Unlike most of the other parents with whom I worked, the grandparents described how their lives had become centered around going to the Dependency Court, meeting with social workers, conferring with attorneys, working with teachers, attending conferences, and filling out paperwork— all in the name of providing basic care for their grandchildren In contrast to their experiences parenting their own children, they spent their days as kinship caregivers responding to insnrunons that hold the key to meeting their grandchildren's needs (Harris and Pedersen 1996). The grandparents were often overwhelmed by the enormous scope of their obligations— to their grandchildren and to “ the System.” They were exhausted from the process of developing the specialized expertise often required for raising “speoal-needs children," not to mention the daily challenges of raising children who are not one's own. After I officially began my research m 1997,1 spent two years attending public meetings for relative caregivers coordinated by private, non-profit agencies and by the Los Angeles County dependency system. At these meetings, like the one in Pasadena I describe 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. through this chapter, I met hundreds of relative caregivers and doaens of social workers and attorneys who sought and shared strategies for negotiating "the System.” Many of the women and men I met agreed to talk with me about the details of bow they came to be raising their grandchildren and their experiences in and outside of the child welfare system (see Appendix A). All in all, I conducted 34 interviews with varying levels of formality with relative caregivers Twenty-one interviews were taped and transcribed (the sound quality was too poor to fully transcribe two additional interviews); the rest I recorded in field notes. As is often the case in ethnographic research, many of these unrecorded interviews took place after meetings, on the telephone; in a restaurant, in a park, or in other locations that made tape- recording inconvenient or impossible. in addition to those I interviewed, I met and became familiar with the experiences of 24 more relative caregivers who were regular participants in the meetings I observed. Many of these caregivers told me their stories in improm ptu mini-interviews that took place during DCFS conferences or following Regional Kinship Meetings. Others shared the derails of their experiences with me in a series of conversations that developed over many months. The stories of these remarkable women and men are the heart and soul of this dissertation. I drew my mitral sample from participants at a meetmg sponsored by the Pasadena Senior Center for relative caregivers in the fell of 1997. From this sample, I met many “private” relative caregivers and a few “ public” ones, the latter of whom told me about the monthly Regional Kinship Meetings and DCFS conferences which I began to attend with regularity These meetings formed the basis of my fold research and the grandparents I met therein make up approximately 80% of the 58 caregivers I consider a part of my “sample.”'9 1 9 I count married and cohabitaling couples as individuals in this tally. 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I drew the remaining 20% of my sample through snowball sampling and by attending meetings at non-profit organisations for “private” relative caregivers outside of the foster care system. During the course of my research, I met and developed collegial relationships with a number of social workers and attorneys affiliated with the Los Angeles County dependency system. I conducted interviews with ten such professionals, four of which were tape-recorded and transcribed. In addition, my research afforded me the opportunity to meet many others with an interest in kinship care and die child welfare system, including lawyers, social workers, judges, policy makers, and other researchers. I benefited enormously from these informal conversations (and a few formal presentations), learning more about the system of kinship foster care from the perspective of those who study, reform, or work within it. Their varied perspectives are woven into this book, as well. When I began my research, the literature on kinship care was limited. Most articles published on the subject described the demographic characteristics and service needs of grandparents raising grandchildren; many focused, as well, an determining the potential consequences o f “off-time” parenting and “nan-normative” grandparental roles for the physical and mental health of kinship care families (Scannapieco 1999).2 0 A second group of articles explored the developing set of policies regarding kinship care. These articles 3 1 See. for example. Bell and Garner 19%; Brown-Slandridge and Floyd 2000; Burnette 19%; Burnette 1997; Burton 1992; Burton 19%; Burton and Devries 1992; Burton et al. 1995; Chalfie 1995; Crumbley and Little 1997; Davidson 1997; Emick and Hayslip 19%; Fuller-Thomson. Minkler and Driver 1997; Giarrussoet al. 19%; Hayslipt. Shore. Henderson and Lambert 1998; Jendrek 1993; Jendrek 1994; Jones and Kennedy 19%; Joslin and Brouard 1995; Karp 19%; Kelly. Yorker and Whitley 1997; Kennedy and Keeney 1987.1988; Kornhaber 19%; Minkler and Roe 1993; Minkler and Roe 19%; Minkler, Roe and Price 1992; Minkler. Roe and Robertson-Beckley 1994; Pinson-Millbum et al. 19%; Shore and Hayslip 1994; Strawbridge et al. 1997; Strom and Strom 1993; de Toledo and Brown 1995; Vanfi and Buchholz 1994. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. discussed the rationales underlying this new development in child welfare policy, as well as the promising and problematic implications of using kinship care as a means o f accomplishing particular child welfare goals.:i While these two literatures overlapped, die former focused primarily on describing the unique challenges associated with raising grandchildren while the latter offered a mostly abstract analysis of the impact of kinship care as a child welfare strategy From my initial conversations with relative caregivers and child welfare professionals, it quickly became evident to me that grandparents raising grandchildren struggle as much with trying to cope with “unplanned parenthood” at an unexpected time in their lives as they do with dealing with a foster care system that is not entirely accommodating to relative caregivers What seemed to be missing from these two literatures was a bridge linking the two-one that described how the child welfare system itse lf creates new challenges for relative caregivers which in turn, impacts the ability of the child welfare system to achieve its ultimate goal: to provide safety and permanency for children. This dissertation elaborates this link. 2 1 See. for example. Barth et al. 1994: Berrick 1997: Berrick and Barth 1994: Berrick. Barth and Needell 1994: Berrick, Needell and Barth 1995; Child Welfare League of America 1994; Danzy and Jackson 1997; Dubowitz 1994; Dubowitz et aL 1994; Dubowitz. Fdgehnan andZuravin 1993: Gaudin and Sutpben 1993; Gebel 1996; Gleeson 1995; Gleeson 1996; Gleeson and Craig 1994: Hegar and Scannapieco 1995; Hornby. Zeller and Kanaker 1996; Iglehart 1994; Iglehart 1997: Ingram 19%; LeProhn 1994; Link 1996; Magruder 1994; Scannapieco. Hegar and McAlpine 1997: Testa et al. 19%; Thornton 1991. 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. -T W O - A BRIEF HISTORY OF CHILD WELFARE POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES The purpose o f legislation fo r aid to dependent children has been to prevent the disruption o f families on the ground o f poverty alone and to enable the mother to stay at home and devote herself to housekeeping and the care o f her children, releasing her from the inadequacies o f the old type ofpoor reliefand the uncertainties ofprivate chanty. — Social Security Board (1937) Each fam ily unit has the right and responsibility to provide fo r its own economic security by fu ll participation in the work force to the extent possible. Each fam ily has the right and responsibility to provide sufficient support and protection o f its children, to raise them according to its values and to provide every opportunity fo r educational and social progress. — California Welfare and Institutions Code, §1120S (circa 1997) 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The modem, government-administered child welfare system protecting children from abuse and neglect has its roots in poverty-relief programs. Over time two distinct, though overlapping, support systems developed-one to care for abused children and the other to support poor children. In this chapter, I will describe the development of both divisions o f the child welfare system-a system that has as its purpose the support of abused, neglected and poor children. In the process, I will demonstrate how kinship care, as the most important recent development in child welfare policy and practice, reestablishes die link between two systems. The Early Roots of Child Welfare Under the Elizabethan Poor Laws, transferred from England to the colonial United States, many children who could not be cared for by their families due to neglect, abandonment or, in most cases, poverty were “placed out.” This practice involved sending children from poor inner cities to rural “foster families” who put older children to work on farms in exchange for room and board (Garrison 1987). Over the course of the 1 9 t h century, orphanages and almshouses emerged as an alternative placement option for poor, parentless children Private, Christian charitable organizations, such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, led many of these early efforts to provide for needy children, acting as quasi-govemmental entities with the authority to remove children from parents incapable of providing care (DHHS Children's Bureau 1999). Each type of placement was usually permanent; once their children were put to work in the service of a foster family or warehoused in the poor house, parents had little recourse to re-establish custody (Garrison 1987). 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Turn-of-the-Century Reforms Around the turn of die 20* century, perceptions of the needs of children and the role of government m providing for families underwent dramatic changes. No longer were children seen as miniature adults who should be compelled to make economic contributions to society. Compulsory education laws and restrictions on child labor stemmed from new understandings of childhood as a unique developmental stage, physiologically and psychologically distinct from adulthood, and characterized as an economically worthless but sentimentally “priceless” phase of life (Zelizer 1985; Aries 1962; Lindenmeyer 1999) ~ These changes took place with a corresponding shift m family structure and sentiment: the dawning of the age of the “nuclear” family By the end of the Victorian era, perceptions of the “ideal” family had transformed from an extended-kin grouping organized primarily around instrumental concerns, into a loving, married couple raising its own biological children (Gillis 1996). Consistent with these changing perspectives, massive institutions were no longer considered appropriate or adequate for providing the individualized care required of growing children. Nor were the early “foster families,” who essentially boarded children as indentured servants, seen as nurturing caregivers who could be trusted to give children the love and affection they deserved (Zelizer 1985). Beginning in the late 19* century, groups of child r Vrviana Zelizer (1985) notes that this transformation occurred earlier for the middle and upper classes, compared to the working class, which continued to depend on the economic contributions of children; Philippe Aries, who was one of the first historians to write about changing perception*; o f children over time <ngge g s that the -discovery" n f rhildhood nonared among the upper class elite as early as the 1 6 * and 17* centuries (1962). Regardless of the timing of these earlier changes. Zelizer argues that perceptions of children as sentimentally “priceless" yet economically valueless were m ore or less universal in the United States by the 1930s. 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. welfare reformers, known as “child savers” and “matemalists,”3 advanced family preservation as die policy of choice for dependent children. Drawing upon a rhetorical strategy that emphasised the sanctity of the mother-child bond, these activists campaigned for programs that would help ensure that children could stay at home with their mothers (Katz 1996). The principles underlying early child welfare policy are evident in the following resolution, an outcome of the first White House Conference an the Care of Dependent Children in 1909: “Home life is the highest and finest product of civilization..Children should not be deprived o fk except for urgent and compelling reasons. Children of parents of worthy character, suffering from temporary misfortune, and children of reasonably efficient and deserving mothers who are without support of the normal breadwinner, should as a rule be kept with their parents, such aid being given as may be necessary to maintain suitable hones for the rearing of the children...Except in unusual circumstances, the home should not be broken up for reasons of poverty, but only fix’ considerations of inefficiency or immorality” (quoted in Pehon 1989). The efforts of child welfare reformers prompted state and local governments to develop “mothers' pension” programs for widowed or abandoned mothers (Gordan 1994; Katz 1996). According to historian Linda Gordon, mothers' pension programs “authorized assistance to 'deserving' poor single mothers with children to defray the costs of raising children in their own hones and to deter child labor and the institutionalization of fatherless children” (1994:37). Mothers' pension programs were typically imderfimded and underutilized, and they served as much as a mechanism fix social control as a means fix social support (ibid. ; Social Security Board 1937). Nevertheless, they were significant in that they represented an 3 Feminist historians refer (retrospectively ) to these re fonua s as “natemalists.” in part because the policies they promoted were created b y and for women and mothers. The literature on maternalism is much more complex than this brief statement conveys, but it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to discuss these issues here. 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. initial commitment by the government to provide aid to needy families In so doing, they further marked an important shift away from out-of-home placement toward financial assistance as the most appropriate way to help poor children and families (Gamson 1987). The Rise of the JuvenOe Court System Another major development m the early American child welfare system was the creation ofthe juvenile court system. At the end of the 19* century, the first juvenile courts in the country opened to hear cases of paternal neglect and juvenile delinquency— and frequently to administer die newly established mothers' pension programs (Gordon 1994; Peiton I989).:4 These specialized courts meant to correct the problem of prosecuting delinquent children according to adult standards, and emphasized reform, rather than restitution, as the appropriate way to rehabilitate abusive parents and wayward youth (Edwards 1992). The creation of a separate juvenile court system further acknowledged the recent “discovery" of the unique developmental status of children, as well as growing concern about child abuse and neglect Indeed, the desire to protect children from abuse was central to reformers' campaigns to support needy mothers and children, since parental neglect is correlated with poverty. However, by establishing a unified juvenile court that addressed the concerns of both “dependent” and “delinquent” children, the early child welfare system supported the conflation o f poverty and criminality (Katz 1996; Peiton 1989). According to this particular cultural logic: if poverty - neglect, and neglect = delinquency, then poverty = delinquency. :i The first juvenile court opened in Cooke County. Illinois in 1899 (Stein 1998; League of Women Voters of California 1998). The Los Angeles County Superior Court began hearing juvenile dependency and delinquency cases in 1905 (Los Angeles County Superior Court “Historical Perspectives on the Court”). 33 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The juvenile court system further established the growing authority of the state as parens patnae to intervene on behalf o f abused and deimquent-and poor— children. In fact, juvenile court judges assumed far greater discretion than then- peers m adult courts, resulting in a less formal judicial process that eliminated standard protections for parents and children. “By dispensing with customary rules of evidence, the right to jury trials, and restraints on judicial behavior," historian Michael Katz writes, “[the juvenile courts] suspended the civil rights of children and their parents" (1996:127). This lack of formality in the juvenile courts was not intended to undermine the judicial process, but was rather a reflection of the "touching and naive" belief of reformers that all parties in juvenile court proceedings shared equal and unbiased concern for protecting the best interests of children (ibid. , see also Stein 1998). Good intentions notwithstanding, the result was die institutionalization of a system that granted sovereignty to the state while restricting the rights of parents and children who faced the juvenile court. And the stakes were high for such families, since the potential outcome o f juvenile court hearings could be the permanent removal of "dependent" and "delinquent" children from the custody of parents deemed unfit (Peiton 1989) Aid to Dependent Children and the Maternal and Child Welfare Program: A “New O e a T * for (Some) Mothers and Children The early child welfare system in the United States consisted primarily of an evolving juvenile court system and sporadic, locally-funded public assistance programs for mothers and children. In the 1930s, following the onset ofthe “Great Depression," the F. D. Roosevelt Administration proposed a series federally-funded programs designed to relieve die deprivation and despair suffered by many Americans, and to quell growing civil unrest due to 34 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the public's frustration with the prior lack of governmental support (Katz 1996; Piven and Cloward [1971] 1993). A major part of FDR's “New Deal” to improve economic conditions in the country was the Social Security Act (SSA) of 1935. While the “social insurance” provisions-namely the old-age benefits and unemployment compensation— were the most widely noted (and funded2 5 ) components ofthe Act, it included several programs to support poor and dependent children as well, in fact. Titles IV and V ofthe SSA, which supplied states with grants to provide Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) and support Maternal and Child Welfare programs respectively, could be described as the first federally-funded, national-in-scope child welfare program in U.S. history.2 6 Finding its roots in the earlier mothers' pensions programs. Aid to Dependent Children was designed with widowed mothers in mind, for whom policy makers considered dependency to be unavoidable.2 7 A 1937 document summarizing the policy recommendations of the Committee on Economic Security (CES)— the group appointed by the President to develop a national program of social insurance— indicates the original intent of die ADC provisions in Title IV of the Social Security Act: 2 5 For example, the total yearly allocation for Titles IV (Aid to Dependent Children) and V (Maternal and Child Welfare) of the SSA was approximately S30 million, compared to $49 million for unemployment benefits, alone, beginning in 1936. What are commonly know as “Social Security" benefits (i.e.. the old age provisions of the SSA) didn't begin until 1940 (Social Security Act of 1935: Social Security Board 1937). 2 6 However, the federal share of the state-administered A D C benefit was only 33% in the earliest years of the program (Ways and Means Committee 1998; Social Security Act of 1935). -1 Sec. for example, the “Social Security in America" report published 1937 for the Committee on Economic Security by the Social Security Board: “These families of widows would be given primary consideration in broad plans for survivors' insurance or insnranre for widows and orphans Whether or not such plans are developed and adopted, many families deprived of a male bead will require public support if their home life is to be maintained on a basis necessary for the rearing of children'' (Social Security Board 1937:239). 35 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The purpose of legislation fin- aid to dependent children has been to prevent the disruption of families on the ground of poverty alone and to enable the mother to stay at home and devote herself to housekeeping and the care of her children, releasing her from the inadequacies ofthe old type of poor relief and the uncertainties of private charity. The assurance of a definite amount of aid, not subject to change from week to week or month to month unless conditions m the family change, is one of the chief advantages of this form of assistance. The enactment of laws for aid to dependent children was evidence of public recognition of the fact that long-time care must be provided for those children whose fathers are dead, are incapacitated, or have deserted their families; that security at home is an essential part of a program for such care; and that this security can be provided for this whole group of children only by public provision for care in their own homes (Social Security Board 1937:233). Title V ofthe Social Security Act provided relatively small grants to states for the support and development maternal and child welfare programs. The section of Title V that described provisions for “child welfare services” was vaguely defined, noting only that these funds should be used for "T he protection and care of homeless, dependent, and neglected children, and children in danger of becoming delinquent” [Social Security Act §521(a)]. In addition to their other purposes and goals, Titles IV and V ofthe Social Security Act jointly acknowledged fin * die first time a responsibility of the U.S. government to provide steady support to poor children when they lacked parents-pamculariy fathers-to provide for them. This marked a fundamental shift away from the Federal government's former exclusive reliance on the good works of private charitable organizations and local governments to provide for families in need. As the Committee an Economic Security observed, The program recommended would attempt to make universally available throughout die United States certain minimum measures of public protection, without which any private effort or any purely local effort is bound to be uneven and most inadequate in the places and areas w here children are in the greatest need (Social Security Board 1937). However, the Social Security Act developed two distinct sub-divisions within its set of social welfare programs One was a system of social insurance, which provided benefits to all those 36 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. who qualified on the basis o f disability, age or unemployment. The other was a public program with nligihility rW rnrnirevt K y finanrial nawH The C O n m iitm ent On the part of the Federal government to provide “minimum measures of public protection" to needy children and families can be contrasted to a more dominant “anti-welfare” sentiment in New Deal measures that emphasized work relief programs over direct relief subsidies (Piven and Cloward [1971] 1993). Aid to Dependent Children, fell in this latter and less noble category In addition, die needs of certain groups were deemed more worthy of support than others Groups of workers-namely, African American agricultural workers and domestic servants— were excluded from the social insurance provisions ofthe Social Security Act and relegated to the public assistance programs (Quadagno 1994; Jansson 2001). Furthermore, the lack of input from die Federal government an the specific components of the state- operated ADC and child welfare programs gave states the power to develop narrowly defined eligibility requirements that excluded large groups of people from receiving benefits. For example, even though the Federal government defined a “dependent child” as “a child under the age of sixteen who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent” (Social Security Act of 1935), in practice, ADC benefits woe limited primarily to white children with widowed mothers (Piven and Cloward [1971] 1993; Quadagno 1994). Thus, the early federal child welfare system established a racialized system of support that distinguished die “worthy” from the “unworthy” poor. From 1935 to the late 1970s: The Expansion o f Welfare for a “Great Society” In the first few years following the passage of the Social Security Act, less than 1% ofthe population (or 2 1% of all families with children) received Aid to Dependent Children 37 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. benefits, even though Roosevelt introduced the program during the midst o f the Great Depression. By 1960, the proportion of families receiving ADC benefits had risen negligibly, to 3 1 % . By 1970 however, welfare roils swelled to more than 12 million people (Quadagno 1994) and by 1980, 1 1 5% of all families with children were enrolled in the program (Committee on Ways and Means 1998). As these numbers suggest. Aid to Dependent Children and its later incarnation. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), expanded over the years, both in terms of its size and its scope. The “Green Book,” a biennial publication describing die programs under the jurisdiction of the House Ways and Means Committee, notes the changes m the official goals of the program: Federal law gave three purposes of AFDC: to encourage the care of needy children in their own homes (original 1935 purpose), to strengthen family life (added in 1956), and to promote family sdf-siqiport (1956) [1998:401]. Consistent with these later goals of promoting family stability, ADC added provisions in 1950 for a “caretaker grant” to provide direct assistance to needy mothers, m addition to that provided to children. A decade later, ADC expanded states' options for eligibility to include an unemployed parent in 1961 and the married partner of that unemployed parent in the following year 2 * In 1968, federal policy allowed for the support of any caregiver considered to be an “essential person” in a child's life, thereby extending the limits ofthe (recently renamed) Aid to Families with Dependent Children program beyond the biological family unit 3 Such coverage was initially an opbon for stales, and many routincfy denied coverage to all 2-parent households, regardless of ciicum stances (Sidel 1992). H ow ever, in 1984. the federal government required states to provide aid to the second parent, and in 1990. it mandated states to cover “families of unemployed parents” (W ays and Means Committee 1998). 38 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Committee an Ways and Means 1998).3 The grass-roots efforts and civil disobedience campaigns of welfare rights organizations m the mid-1960s bolstered these expanded policies by obtaining court rulings to strike down some of the more restrictive eligibility requirements maintained by some child welfare agencies (Piven and Cloward [1971] 1993) * Part ofthe increase in the numbers of AFDC recipients in the 1960s and ‘70s therefore, can be traced to an increase in the scope the program and a loosening of eligibility requirements. Yet the program^ growth is consistent with an overall expansion of the federal public welfare system during the same period. Shortly after Lyndon Johnson assumed die Presidency in 1963, he appointed himself the chief architect of a “Great Society” while simultaneously declaring “war” on poverty and racism. During his administration, Johnson lobbied successfully for the Economic Opportunity, Civil Rights, and Food Stamp Acts of 1964 and the major amendments to the Social Security Act in 1965— including those establishing the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and die poor, respectively. Many of these programs provided supplemental links to the AFDC program, thereby increasing the worth of the program to recipients (Jansson 2001). These legislative and political measures expanded support to a broader base of children and families m need. The Rediscovery of Chfld Abase, the Return to Foster Cave As the 1960s and "70s saw the rapid expansion of AFDC and other social welfare programs, so too did the number of children supervised by child welfare systems in out-of- 2 9 These modifications established the initial basis fora system of financial support for -kinship caregivers," an important point I will address later in this chapter. 3 0 For example, child welfare agencies often used "suitable home" and other biased criteria to exclude unwed African American mothers from the program. 39 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. home care begm to rise The number of children boused m private, charitable orphanages and almshouses plummeted during the first half of the 20* Century, from approximately 750,000 children in 1920, to an estimated 60,000 by the mid-1950s.3 1 h contrast to this trend however, the number of children in nore-supervised foster care systems rose gradually over the same period of time. The initial growth of the public foster care system can be traced to the creation of die Juvenile Dependency Court at the turn ofthe century. The population of court “dependents” grew m step with the developing court system— at least until the 1940s and ‘50s. when it is believed that Aid to Dependent Children reduced the number of cases of parental neglect and accounted for a brief dip m the foster care population (Peiton 1989). In the 1960s and ‘70s, however, the foster child population began to grow again and at a striking pace. In a period of just 1 5 years, the number of foster children in the United States more than doubled to approximately 500,000 children in 1977 (Peiton 1989). Part of this increase can be explained by a renewed national interest in the prevention of child abuse and in the protection of children at risk. In the mid-1960s, every star* in the U.S. developed child abuse reporting procedures and in 1974, Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (P L 93-247). This legislation estahlisherl the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect to investigate the causes and extent of child maltreatment and provided funding for programs aimed at preventing or treating child abuse (P.L. 93-247; Committee on Ways and Means 1998). 3 i PeJton (1989) and others (see. e.g.. Ways and Means Committee 1998) note the difficulty of obtaining reliable data regarding institutionalized children— including those in state-supervised systems-prior to 1970. Nevertheless. Pdton's research suggests that these statistics are reasonable estimates of the number of children placed in out-af-home care. 40 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pnor to these efforts, fewer than 100,000 reports of child maltreatment were made m the United States each year. The rate increased slowly but steadily until die mid-1970s, when in the two years fbOowing the passage of CAPTA (1975-1976), the number of child abuse reports more than doubled, from approximately 300,000 to 700,000 reports (Committee on Ways and Means 1998) 3 : The rise in die number of children m foster care in the late 1960s and 70s roughly corresponds to this increase in the number of child abuse reports made during the same period. Child welfare policy and funding strategies contributed to the growing foster care population, as well. In 1961, Congress amended the Social Security Act to provide funding for poor children m foster care placement through Aid to [Families with] Dependent Children (Committee on Ways and Means 1998). Under this provision, the Federal government provided states with unlimited reimbursement of foster care expenses for children whose families of origin met the low income requirements of AFDC. Comparably limited federal funding was available for prevention and reunification services through the Child Welfare Services Program (the renamed Maternal and Child Welfare program). Furthermore, states could use Child Welfare Services funds— supposedly earmarked for prevention and 5 : Surges in child abuse reports often follow periods of increased public awareness about child maltreatment, and do not necessarily indicate an actual increase in abuse. For example, the day after the Los Angeles Times published an article documenting the lives of drug addicts and their neglected children, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services received a 20% increase in the number of calls to its child abuse hotline (Nazario 1997). Child abuse statistics are farther complicated by two opposing factors. First, researchers believe that m any child abuse incidents go unreporied. For example, a recent national survey conducted by the Children's Institute International reports that only one-third of those who said they had observed child abuse actually reported it (Children's Institute International 1999). On the other hand, a majority of the reports investigated by child protective agencies are unverified. For example, in 1996. only 31% of all child abuse reports in the United States were substantiated or indicated (i.e.. found to fit the legal definition of abuse, or perceived to be at risk though not within the legal parameters of abuse, respectively) (Committee on Ways and Means 1998). 41 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reunification— to provide foster care maintenance payments to foster children who didn't qualify for AFDC. As a result, states applied 75% of these monies for foster care, rather than for alternative services that might prevent the need for placement (Allen, et al. 1983). This combination of loosely defined policies and funding priorities made it easy for state child welfare agencies to remove children from unsafe homes and to support them in foster care with federal dollars, but drfficuk to return them or to find an ahematrve permanent placement for them. States had a financial incentive to place children in foster care indefinitely, rather than finding other options that would come at greater expense to their state-operated child welfare systems (Allen et al. 1983; Stem 1998; Wukzyn 1998). In sum, growing concerns about abused and neglected children converged with this particular set of economic policies, resulting in juvenile dependency courts taking a record number of children into the protective custody of the state. Newly established public child welfare agencies” struggled to manage the rapidly growing foster care population. Individualized case-planning for foster children was rare. Even worse, record-keeping procedures were lacking and many states did not even know how many children were in court- ordered, out-of-home placement As a result, hundreds of children were literally “lost m the system” (Stem 1998) while many others freed an entire childhood of bouncing from placement to placement until they reached maturity and “aged out” of fetfw care. The length of tinv» a child spent in foster care increased steadily and by the late 1970s, one-third of all children in 3 3 Public child welfare agencies emerged in the 1930s and ‘ 40s to administer the child welfare provisions of the Social Security Act However, in the 1970s, they split into two separate agencies— one providmg child protective services (i.e.. foster care), and the other distributing public assistance (i.e.. AFDC) (Peiton 1989). 42 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. foster care had been so for four years; nearly 20% were in placement for more than six years (Stein 1998; Peiton 1989, citing Shyne and Shoreder 1978). Ironically, the national spotlight an child abuse and the eagerness to protect children from neglect contributed to an unmanageable child welfare system most notable for its own neglect Child Welfare Policy in the 1980s: From Long-term Placement to Prevention, Reunification and Adoption The sharp rise in the foster care population in the 1960s and "70s and the administrative problems of child welfare agencies were cause for concern for many policy makers. Of particular concern was the belief that many children were removed from their homes unnecessarily when preventative measures and alternative services could have eliminated the need for removal. Still others questioned whether intervention was truly in the “best interests” of children m most cases. Beginning in the mid-1970s, a counter-movement developed within the child welfare field that favored limited intervention and family preservation over the placement of children in foster care (Moorehead 1996).3 4 Advocates of limited-or even non-intervention drew upon psychoanalytic theories that emphasize die primacy ofthe mother-child bond, as well as upon the cultural and legal tradition within the United States that upholds the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit (Garrison 1987). According to the perspective, the 3 4 See. for example. Goldstein. Freud and Solnh's Beyond die Best Interests o f die Child [1973] (1979). Before the Best Interests o f the Child (1979). and In the Best Interests o f the Child (1986). and Wald's “Stale intervention on behalf of neglected' children: A search for realistic standards” (1975). Moorehead (1996) provides a critical overview of these publications and the debates within child welfare regarding intervention. See also Schuerman (1997) for a m ore recent argument in support of minimal intervention. 43 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. placement of children in foster care stood to violate a parent's rights while also undermining a child's attachment to his or her primary caregiver. Even the investigation o f suspected abuse could potentially disrupt a child's psychological development Therefore, advocates ofthe so- called “least detrimental alternative” argued for government intervention only in the most serious of cases, including the death ofthe parent, child abandonment or severe physical or sexual abuse (Schuerman 1997). The minimal intervention perspective drew many supporters and shaped efforts to reform the child welfare system (Moorehead 1996). A bipartisan group of cosponsors in the House of Representatives integrated key elements of the perspective into the Adoption Assistance and Quid Welfare Act of 1980, a landmark bill that signaled, remarkably, die first real effort by the federal gov ernment to establish specific guidelines for state-operated child welfare agencies. The AACWA emphasized the importance of preserving and maintaining family ties by making the placement of children in foster care the alternative of last resort. When child welfare agencies opted for this alternative, the federal guidelines required diem to demonstrate how foster placement care served the best interests ofthe child.3 5 The broader goals of the Act, as indicated by its official title as introduced, included the following: ...to amend the Social Security Act to make needed improvements in the child welfare and social services programs, to strengthen and improve the program of Federal support for foster care of needy and dependent children, to Supporters of non-interference might argue that the A A CW A did not go for enough with (or accurately interpret) the minimal intervention perspective. John Schuerman argues, for example: “In child welfare practice in the United States, nonintrusivcncss is taken as a central principle, but it is a stretched principle” (1997:2). As noted above, ahhnngh the A A C W A emphasizes family preservation and reunification as strategies to maintain parent-child bonds, non-interventionists argue that these very efforts to “preserve” and “reunify” families are themselves interv entions which m ay undermine the psychological development of children 44 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. establish a program of Federal support to encourage adoptions of children with special needs, and for other purposes (P L. 96-272). In order to qualify for federal foster care funding, the AACWA required states to develop child welfare systems with the following protective measures: • child welfare agencies had to make “reasonable efforts" to prevent the placement of children in foster care. placements of children m foster care had to be voluntary or court-ordered and found to be in the “best interests" ofthe child • placements had to be in the least restrictive, most family-like facility available and in close proximity to the parent’s home child welfare agencies were required to develop case plans for each child in placement that outlined the specific provisions for care, the requirements for reunification, and the efforts of the agency to facilitate reunification • a judicial review o f case plans and the need for continued placement o f the child had to occur at least once every six months These protective measures attempted to move away from a system that had allowed children to remain in foster care indefinitely. In its place, The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act i ntended to build a child welfare system that would maintain and improve existing family relationships when possible, and quickly establish new, permanent families for children when not. To further strengthen these goals, the AACWA created a new Title IV-E and amended Title IV-B of the Social Security Act,3 6 significantly altering the priorities fix' federal funding and oversight o f state-operated child welfare systems (see Table 2-1) Title IV-E established a separate division for the Foster Care Program (formerly under Title IV-B) and 3 6 The foster care provisions of the Aid to Dependent Children program under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act were transferred to Title IV-B in 1967. and redirected again to the newly established Title IV-E under the AACWA of 1980 (Committee on Ways and Means 1998). 45 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. instituted die Adoption Assistance Program3 7 (Allen et al. 1983; Committee on Ways and Means 1998). Table 2-1: Summary o f the Child Welfare Provisions of the Social Security Act Title ferpoK Title IV-A Aid to [Families with| Dependent Children Program: Federal matching entitlement program providing financial aid to dnkbcn and families meeting income and other eligibility requirements REPEALED by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 and replaced with state block grants for Temporary Assistance to Needy Faatifies (TANF). Title IV-B Child Welfare Services Program1 Federal matching for programs for children focusing on abase prevention, fondly reunification services, adoption and/or long-term foster care. No eligibility requirements, but cap on amount of funding states may use to pay for day care, foster care maintenance or adoption assistance expenses Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program: (fk_a. Family Preservation Program) Federal matching for programs emphasizing family reunification, adoptive and other permanent placements, abuse prevention, fondly preservation, post-rennificatton services, respite care and parenting skills training Title IV-E Foster Care Program: Federal matching for the placement and maintenance of foster children meeting income eligibility and other requirements: matched funding for training child welfare workers. Independent Living Program: Federal funding for programs to assist income-eligible foster children who leave the dependency system. Adoption Assistance Program: Federal matching for Adoption Assistance Program maintenance payments and nonrecurring adoption expenses related to the adoption of foster children with “special needs" who also meet income eiig M litv m pnrem enK Fnw fc a k n available fa r planm x-nt trainings and m tv f arfim m O ratiw related iO adn f*‘ 0* * The federal Foster Care Program maintained its earlier structure as an entitlement program for poor families, reimbursing states for foster care maintenance payments (called AFDC-FC) provided for the care of foster children meeting income-based eligibility 3 7 Prior to AACWA. most states had adoption assistance programs, but no federal funding was available to support them (Cole 1983). 46 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. requirements.3 8 The Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) offered unlimited matching grants to states to provide moodily payments and other services to adoptive parents o f eligible foster children with “special needs.”3 9 The Title IV-B Child Welfare Services Program continued to allocate funds for child abuse prevention and family reunification. It supported the efforts of child welfare agencies to prevent the need for removing children from the home and, if removal was deemed necessary, it provided funding for case management aimed at reuniting children and parents regardless of their incomes. Another important change instituted by the AACW A was the reversal of policies that previously offered unlimited, flexible funding for foster care. States no longer were allowed to use federal Child Welfare Services monies for foster care maintenance payments for children ineligible under Title IV-E. Furthermore, die AACWA redirected funding by allowing states to use excess Title IV-E funds to pay for services under Title IV-B. These changes m funding patterns reordered the priorities of the child welfare system to emphasize a h u se prevnnfm n and ra p id ram ific atio n truer riw» n n fw if-h tiw plaram w it ntf ch ild ren in long term foster care The AACWA marked a return to earlier child welfare objectives, affirmed through the original Social Security Act, that sought to have children raised by then own biological 3 8 According to the law. AFDC-FC payments could be made to children who “received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (part A of Title IV) during the month in which court proceedings were initiated or was eligible to receive AFDC in that month or within six moths pnor to this time" (P i. 96-272). 3 9 The definition of a “special needs" child varies from sate to state, but the AACWA provides the following guidelines for applying the term to a child who: “(1) cannot or should not be returned to his or her parent's home; (2) has a special condition making it reasonable to conclude that such child cannot be placed with adoptive parents without providing adoption assistance; and (3) has not been able to be placed without assistance” (Pi-. 96-272). 47 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. families However, recognizing that this cannot always occur for all foster children, the federal legislation established mechanisms to support the creation of new, adoptive families Furthermore, the Act's emphasis on fading for foster children the "least restrictive, most family-like setting available” laid the foundation for “kinship care” as standard child welfare policy and practice. The 1980s and 1990s: “The End of Welfare as We Know It” "Everybody hates welfare Conservatives deplore the notion of dependency, liberals lament stigmatizing the pom-, and millions o f taxpayers bridle at the idea that somebody is getting a free ride” (Morganthau 1993). So began an article published in Newsweek in December 1993, capturing the public's widespread dissatisfaction with the AFDC program. Growing anti-welfare sentiment propelled fundamental changes to public assistance programs in the 1980s and '90s. As noted above, for the first few decades of its existence, A[F]DC was a small program benefittmg mostly white widows and their dependent children. In the 1960s and ‘70s however, welfare rolls expanded dramatically, as did the demographic profile of recipients. As more African Americans became eligible for support, the racism inherent in earlier exclusionary child welfare policies translated into stereotypes of African Americans as "lazy” and unworthy of support4 0 Furthermore, as a growing number of women from all races and 4 0 Sociologist Martin Gilens (1999) claims that it is not racism, per se. that contributes to whites' antipathy- toward welfare in the 1990s. Instead. Gilens argues that white Americans dislike social welfare programs that they believe encourage dependency rather than helping people help themselves. As a result white Americans tend to support programs, such as public housing, which th ey perceive as helping African Am ericans become sdf-snfficient. while they appose programs-like welfare— that presumably keep black recipients dependent Nevertheless. Gilens'finding that whites believe that African Americans are lazy and lack a work ethic dearly demonstrates that racial stereotypes are fundamental to perceptions of welfare as a "handout” fra the undeserving African American who is perceived to be unwilling to work to support his or her family. 48 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. classes left full-time homemakmg to enter the paid workforce, public support diminished for single mothers perceived to be unwilling to work to support their families (Gilens 1999). Concerns about the increasing costs of a program perceived to encourage dependency, discourage employment and undermine family values4 1 led to significant reductions in the size and scope of AFDC during the Reag?n/Bush Administration.4 2 After Reagan left office however, welfare enrollment began to rise again, fa a period of just five years, the number of families receiving AFDC grew from 3,771.000 in 1989 to an all-time high of 5,046,000 in 1994 (Committee on Ways and Means 1998). Opposition to welfare was not the exclusive domain of political conservatives, however. “Moderate Democrat” Bill Clinton campaigned strategically for the Presidency in 1993 by promising to “end welfare as we know it.” Two years into office, President Clinton kept this promise by signing into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRA) (P L 104-193) The PRA fundamentally changed the nature of welfare by repealing the 61-year old program Aid to Families with Dependent Children and ending the entitlement of poor children and families to public assistance. In place of AFDC, Congress created the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program which provides states with block grants and wide discretion to assist poor families as they see fit The Federal government requires primarily that states limit recipients 4 1 See. for example. Charles Murray's highly influential and controversial book. Losing Ground. 4: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1 9 8 1 (OBRA). far example. ingiosed significant budget cuts on many poverty relief programs, including AFDC. In the year following the passage OBRA. the number erf welfare recipients decreased by 729.000 people (Committee on W ays and Means 1998): the overall AFDC program shrunk by more than 17% during the Reagan Administration (Jansson 2001). 49 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to a lifetime maximum of five years of assistance and impose work requirements after two years of funding; states may set their own eligibility standards and benefit levels. Despite the relaxed regulations impnmrf on states regarding the implementation of TANF, the ideological goals ofthe Federal legislation are dear. The purpose of Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, Block Grants to States fix’ Temporary Assistance fix’ Needy Families, is to: (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end die dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families [Social Security Act, §401(a)], The legislation establishing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program mentioned nothing about the economic disadvantage, poverty levels or basic needs ofthe families it would serve (Danziger, 1998). Instead, the bill emphasized the “temporary” nature of the assistance and promoted a particular set of American family values, such as marriage, nuclear family formation, and independence b the meantime, the PRA released the government from any ultimate responsibility to provide for needy families, transferring this responsibility to states and to families themselves. b California, the state legislature emphasized these issues even more dearly. The introduction to the leg islatio n establishing the CalWORKS program (California’s T A N F program) states: The l i-gislaftire finds and declares th at the family unit is o f fimdamantal importance to society in nurturing its members, passing an values, averting potential social problems, and providing the secure structure m which Hrirens live out their lives Each family unit has the right and responsibility to provide for its own economic security by full participation m die work force to the extent possible. Each family has the right and responsibility to provide 50 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sufficient support aid protection of its children, to raise them according to its values and to provide every opportunity for educational and social progress. . . . Every county shall grant aid to any child eligible therefor, m any amount needed, not to exceed the amount specified in Section 11450, and shall administer this chapter in such a manner as to achieve the greatest possible reduction of dependency and to promote the rehabilitation of recipients. At the time of application the county department shall discuss parental responsibility with the applicant. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 1120S; 11207). Welfare reform marked a dramatic departure from the original Aid to Dependent Children program, which established the responsibility and unique capacity of the federal government to provide support to dependent children. Rather than “long-time care... provided for those children whose fathers are dead, are incapacitated, or have deserted their families," children in the early 21° century can count on the state primarily to “rehabilitate” their dependent parents. In this sense, the PRA built an another cultural tradition in the United States— also strongly featured in the Social Security Act of 1935— that supports anti-poverty government programs that encourage employment and self-sufficiency over those that provide cash assistance (Gilens 2000). Promoting “Safety and Permanency" in the Ch3d Welfare System: The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 19S0 provided the first set of extensive Federal guidelines for child welfare policy and practice. However, child welfare agencies and policy analysts criticized the Act for its ambiguity regarding the removal of children from parents accused of abuse With its requirements that states make “reasonable efforts” to prevent foster care placement and place children in foster care only when it serves their “best interests”-and by not defining what these terms meant-many believed that the law 51 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. led child protective agencies to err an the side family preservation, leaving many children in unsafe conditions. Furthermore, despite die emphases placed on prevention and reunification, die AACWA did little to reduce the number of children m long-term foster care. In fact, half a million children, or nearly 7% of all children in the United States, resided in out-of-home foster care in the mid-1990s (Committee an Ways and Means 1998). This is nearly double the number of children who were m foster care m 1981, the year after the AACWA passed (ibid.). The median length of time a child spent in placement remained high as well, at 22 months in 1994 (DHHS, VCIS Survey). Thus the problems with the foster care system proved to be intractable, not easily resolved by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. Children who needed the protection of child welfare agencies often remained in the custody o f abusive parents, while others entered the foster care system never to return home again. With no end m sight to the continued growth of the foster care population, policy makers sought new ways to reform the child welfare system. Adoption was one promising and popular solution. In 1996, President Clinton launched what became known as the “Adoption 2002” campaign to double the number of foster children— from 27,000 to 54,000— who are adopted or permanently placed out of the child welfare system by 2002 (DHHS, 1997). fa a White House press release announcing the proclamation o f November 1996 as National Adoption Month,4 3 Clinton summarized some of the problems associated with long-term foster care and offered the “commonsense solution" of adoption: 4 3 President Clinton proclaimed the month of November to be “National Adoption Month" each year of his Presidency (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, http://adoptmonth.calib.ccHn/abouLhtm). 52 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thousands of American children have never known what it is like to belong to a family— to grow up with the comfort and security that most o f us take for granted. They are children whose parents, for a variety of reasons, are unable or unwilling to care for them. Instead, these children often find themselves drifting from home to home in foster care. They live every day without mothers or fathers to guide them, nurture them, and tell them that they are special. Adoption is a commo nsense solution that places children in permanent homes with parents who will offer them love and security. . . . Our Nation has no greater responsibility than to ensure that every child has the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential. We can help meet that challenge by identifying a permanent, loving fondly for every child waiting in the foster care system (The White House 1996b). A few weeks later, Clinton issued an Executive Memorandum directing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to determine “steps to increase adoptions and alternate permanent placement” for children in long-term foster care (The White House 1996a). In both announcements Clinton underscored the problem of the significant delays m achieving permanency for foster children in “safe and stable bome(s),” which be defined as “returning home, adoption, legal guardianship, or another permanent placement” (ibid.). Among the latter three, adoption was the clearly preferred option, since it provides children with the greatest legal security. But because adoptive families often have faced second-class status in relation to biological families (Bartholet 1999; March and Miall 2000; Wegar 2000), a central strategy o f the Adoption 2002 campaign was to increase the legitimacy of adoption4 4 ; the White House press releases employed a rhetorical strategy that fostered the 4 4 The December 19% initiative directed various U.S. Departments to increase public awareness about the benefits of adoption and to develop financial incentives for adoption (The White House. 1996a). 53 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. perception o f adoptive families as “real” families, just as capable of helping children achieve their “God-given potential” as families connected by blood ties.4 5 1 b 1997, the Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), the first major federal child welfare legislation since the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act o f 19S0 and the centerpiece o f the Adoption 2002 campaign (P.L. 105-89). The Act's primary goals were to increase the number of children adopted out of foster care4 6 and to ensure children's safety m and outside of the child welfare system Specifically, ASFA sought to: • Provide financial incentives to states to significantly increase the number of adoptions of children out of the fester care system • Clarify the “reasonable efforts” and safety requirements fix foster care placements, mostly by identifying a number of “aggravated circumstances” (e.g., abandonment, torture, sexual abuse) in which child welfare agencies are not required to provide reunification services to parents before placing a child m an adoptive or pre-adoptrve home (P L. 105-89 §101) • Reduce the amount of time allowed fix all parents in the dependency system to rehabilitate themselves before the state can file a petition to terminate parental rights Authorize child welfare agencies to plan concurrently for reunification and an alternative permanent placement via adoption or legal guardianship The Adoption and Safe Families Act meant to correct these ineffective policies that inadvertently put up roadblocks to establishing safety and permanency for children The Act 4 5 These rhetorical strategies may be seen at the local level as well (see. e.g.. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services Fall 1999; Los Angeles County DCFS A doptions Division n.d). Law professors. Susan Frclich Appleton and Dorothy Roberts, take this argument a step further by suggesting that the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 reverses the traditional pecking order of idealized biological and adoptive families by characterizing the former as potentially unsafe and impetuous and the latter as safe and intentio nal (Appleton 1999; R oberts 1 9 9 9 ). Indeed, adoptive parents m a y be seen as raising the standard for “firmly values” b y providing loving alternatives to inadequate biological parents who must be permanently separated from their children (Appleton 1999). 4 6 In b e t the bill passed the House as “Adoption Promotions Act” before the nam e was changed to the Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89). 54 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. intended to make it easier for child welfare agencies to place children perceived to b e at risk and it condensed the process for establishing permanency for children once placed. ASFA cut by one-third the amount o f time Dependency Courts have to determ ine the most appropriate "permanent placement" for a foster child (from 18 months to 12 months) and required Dependency Courts to begm the process of terminating parental rights after 18 m onths in most cases.4 7 The Act further allowed child welfare agencies to search for m adoptive family even while attempting to reunify biological families, a practice many agencies previously avoided due to the perceived conflict between these two goals 4 * The Federal government also offered adoption incentive payments of S4000-S6000 to state child welfare agencies for every adopted foster child over and above a predetermined baseline (P.L. 105-89). The purpose of ASFA was to establish a more child-centered approach that would better ensure children's safety while establishing safe and permanent adoptive placements for children who are otherwise likely to remain in foster care (Kroll Winter 1998). These reforms also reflect an economic strategy on the part ofthe federal government to cut the soaring costs associated with foster care. Between 1990 and 1995, total federal expenditures an child welfare services more than doubled, from $1.9 billion to $3.9 billion; by 2005, the federal child welfare budget is expected to a reach staggering 9.2 billion dollars (Committee on Ways and Means 2000). By accelerating the process of moving children out of the foster care 4 7 As 1 note in the following section, children placed in kinship care may be an exception to this rule. 4 8 Section 101(aXF) of P L. 105-89 states the following; • ‘Reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardianship may be made concurrently with reasonable efforts [to preserve and reunify families).~ California developed its own concurrent pbmrnng initiative in 1996. 55 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. system into reunified or adaptive families, the child welfare system can curb expenditures related to maintaining children in long-term foster care. The Adoption 2002 initiative and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 further signal a growing impatience with patents who initially mistreat their children and then fail to redeem themselves m order to reclaim their parental status (Cahn 1999) These recent child welfare reforms represent a departure from the traditional belief that wayward parents deserve every possible chance to reunify with their children. Indeed, these changes grant the juvenile court system even greater authority as parens patriae to determine the futures of families who enter the dependency system. As states sort through the implementation issues for ASFA,4 9 many policy analysts have begun to express concerns about the ability of the dependency system to achieve the goals laid out by the Act. Many note the need for integrated public-private partnerships whereby child welfare agencies collaborate with professional volunteers (e.g., pro bono attorneys),5 0 non-profit agencies, churches, schools, and others in order to meet die wide- ranging needs of children and parents— especially given the compressed time frame imposed by ASFA5 1 (APHSA 2001; Cahouetl998; Petrus 1998; Roe 2000) 4 9 In January 2000. the Department of Health and Human Services issued a Final Rule regarding the implementation of the 1997 ASFA (DHHS-ACF January 25.2000). I will describe some of the important implications of the Final Rule for relative caregivers in Chapter Six. 5 0 In the “Adoption Days" interlude later in this dissertation. I describe one such volunteer program, the Sara Berman Adoption Saturday project, coordinated by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, the pro bono law firm Public Counsel, the corporate law firm Gibson. Dunn & Crutcher, and the non-profit agency The Alliance for Children's Rights. 5 1 President George W . Bush's plan to expand the “Charitable Choice" provisions of the 1996 welfare reform legislation is another recent variation on this theme. These provisions, authored by former Senator and current Attorney General John Ashcroft, allow faith-based organizations to administer federally-funded social welfare programs. 56 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Otbers questions anse regarding tbe feasibility of policies that require parents to overcome within 18 months the senous, long-term problems that led them to tbe child welfare system m the first place (O’F T y im 1999) As noted m the Introduction, the majority of child welfare cases resulting in foster care placement invohre a drug- or alcohol abusing parent (Gaudin 1993; DHHS 1999 “Blending Perspectives”; GAO September 1998a; GAO October 28, 1997); ofthese parents, nearly two-thirds have struggled with addiction fix more than 1 0 years (GAO September 1998a; California data). In California, more than 65% of all dependency case plans require a parent to successfully complete a treatment program for drug or alcohol abuse in order to regain custody o f his or her children (ib id .)5 2 Yet substance-abusing parents attempting to become drug-free within 1 8 months may have difficulty doing so ” The problems associated with recovery time are compounded by the fact that rehabilitation programs— especially in-patient programs— are in limited supply (GAO September 1998a). Waiting lists are common and smaller communities may be particularly deficient in a wide range of services. Furthermore, a typical lack of coordination between treatment programs and the child welfare system creates further barriers to success (APHSA 2001; DHHS 1999 “Blending Perspectives; GAO July 1997; O’Flyrm 1999; Walker, Zangrillo and Smith 1994). Although ASFA ordered the DHHS to prepare a report 5 : However, recovery from addiction is a gradual process, one that does not fit neatly into a policy-imposed time limit Indeed, a government-funded report on substance-abusing parents with children m the dependency system for at least one year found that only 13% of mothers were c u rre n tly in nr had mccesrfhlly completed treatment Forty percent had dropped out of rehab and another 40% never entered treatment. Relapse was the most common reason cited for failure in treatment (GAO September 1998a). Even over the long-term, research suggests that the prospects of recovery are bleak for at least one-third of all addicts. 5 3 Incarcerated mothers— the majority of whom are women of color and imprisoned for drug-related offenses (Prison Activist Resource Center n.d_; Sncfl 1994)-are particularly likely to have difficulty working within the time limits imposed by ASFA. especially if their jail sentences extend beyond 18 months (Bernstein 2000). 57 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. an substance abuse and the services available to treat it (see DHHS 1999 “Blending Perspectives”), and while the Act supported a limited number of demonstration projects to address “the impact of parental substance abase open the placement of children,” it provides no Title IV-E foster care funding for rehabilitation services (P.L. 105-89 Title Q L , Title IV §405).'4 This combination of factors are likely to result m dramatic increases in the number of foster children permanently removed from their parents. Another disturbing aspect of this problem is the possibility that African Americans will be disproportionately affected by the tune limits imposed by ASFA Nationwide, 36% of the children in foster care are white and 42% are African American (DHHS Children's Bureau January 2000). This is in contrast to the proportion of these racial groups in the general papulation; 75% of the U.S. population is white while only 12% is black (U.S. Census Bureau Census 2000 Redistnctmg Data 2001)/' hi California, the foster care population is nearly evenly divided among white, African American and Latino children. However, die overall population of children in California is 41% white, 7% African American, and 40% Latino (DHHS Children's Bureau 1998, Child w elfare outcomes 1998: Annual Report). u M ary O'Fh nn (1999) notes that the DHHS report and the demonstration projects in ASFA were a compromise. Earlier versions of the bill included foster cart funding for substance abuse treatment but these provisions were not in the final bill. The DHHS report “Blending Perspectives” recommended the expansion of treatment services for substance abusing patents in the child welfare system, most notably by encouraging States and local governments to access funding available through various existing Federal programs (DHHS April 1999). The Children's Health Act of 2000 (Pi.. 106-310) authorizes additional spending and increases flexibility for funding substance abuse treatment services. 5 5 A potential problem with these flgures is that they compare the child population in foster care nationwide with the overall population in the United States. The following figures compare child populations in California. 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thus, African Americans are over-represented and white children are under-represented in foster care '0 Furthermore, black mothers with substance abuse problems are more likely than their white counterparts to become involved with the child welfare system (DHHS 1999 " ‘ Blending Perspectives”) Although alcoholism most frequently affects families,'7 cocame (specifically crack cocaine) was the drug of choice for the majority o f mothers with children in the California child welfare system5 * (ibid., GAO September 1998a) Since African Americans have higher rates of crack cocaine use compared to other racial and ethnic groups— especially during pregnancy (DHHS 1999 "Blending Perspectives’ ’)— this suggests that they are the group most likely to be targeted by child welfare intervention, since interventions increasingly involve die removal of newborns who test positive for drugs (Committee on Ways and Means 1998). As a result, African Americans with children in die dependency system may lose their parental rights more often than other racial and ethnic groups * As these numbers suggest, latino children are under-represented in care an a statewide lev el as well According to initial Census 2000 reports. Latino children make up 57.5% of the total population of children in Los Angeles County while the foster care population is 39% Latino (DCFS. 2001 “Child welfare services - CY2000": U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Redistricting Data. 2001). Thus. Latino children also appear to be under-represented in the county. '7 According to a review of the literature on drug use during pregnancy, an estimated 2-3% of all infants are exposed to cocaine en utero while nearly 75% are exposed to afaihnl (Gomby and Shiono 1991). Similarly, a study using a nationally representative sample of women found that more than one-fifth of pregnant women had consumed alcohol within one month of the survey while only 2.3% claimed to have used an illegal drugs of any kind (SAMHSA 1997). However, fully one-third of drug-abusing parents with children m the child welfare system use alcohol as weft (DHHS 1999 “Blending Perspectives”). * * A General Accounting Office survey of social workers in California and Illinois found that 35% of mothers in the California child welfare system abased cnrdt cocaine. Six percent used the powder form and another 30% used an unspecified form of cocaine (September 1998a) 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Finally, parental substance abuse is closely correlated with poverty, inadequate housing and other serious problems (Walker, Zangrillo and Smith 1994). Without addressing these fundamental problems that lead families to the child welfare system, the Adoption and Safe Families Act may fail to achieve its goals while creating a new set of problems to address. Kinship Care in the Context of the Contemporary CMd Welfare System The U.S. child welfare system, broadly defined here to include both the family assistance and foster care wings, reformed itself many times over the course of the 20t h century. During the Progressive Eta of the early 1900s, foflowmg fundamental changes m the perception of childhood, local programs designed to protect poor and neglected children offered modest financial assistance to widowed mothers to prevent the breakup of families The juvenile court system developed around the same tune to safeguard dependent children within a system that recognized the unique status and needs of youth. In the meantime however, the broad powers enjoyed by juvenile court judges contributed to a system that undermined parents’ control over the destinies of their families, even as court policies advanced family preservation. The New Deal established at the federal level a social welfare program to support poor families Buildmg c m the “mothers’ pension” programs of the 191 O s and ‘20s, Aid to Dependent Children dispensed monthly subsidies primarily to white widowed mothers in order to keep families intact. The Social Security Act of 1935 further provided die foundation for a distinct program for children who, for reasons of poverty, neglect aid abuse, were separated from their parents. 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The welfare and foster care populations expanded significantly over the latter half of the 20* century, prompting questions about the fundamental proposes of these programs As growing numbers of children entered long-term foster care placement m die 1960s and 70s, reformers devised strategies to prevent family disruption and increase ramification rates. When these strategies foiled to achieve the intended effect, reformers m the mid-1990s offered a new plan— the Adoption and Safe Families Act-that sped up the process of terminating parental rights and placed foster children into adoptive homes. While the goal of maintaining biological family ties remains important, ASFA underscored the broader objectives of moving children out of the foster care system as swiftly as possible. During the same period, widespread antipathy toward the growing Aid to Families with Dependent Children program led to the dismantling of welfare and the end of the entitlement to public support. In the place of AFDC, Congress created the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program which emphasizes job training while offering time- limited financial aid. Over the course of the last century, child welfare policy has moved back mid forth across multiple contmua: from intervention to non-intervention, from family preservation and reunification to the curtailing or termination of parental rights, from long-term foster care to foe rapid placement of children in permanent adoptive homes, and from die federal government claiming responsibility for supporting families to the delegation o f that responsibility to the states and to private entities (O'Laughlin 1998). Held constant over this period, however, are policies that have an unequal impact across racial groups and social classes. 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Also bubbling right underneath the surface, although becoming more apparent in the past two decades, is the tendency to question whether high rates of poverty and child abuse are the iatrogenic effect o f the very programs designed to serve poor and abused children: in other words, a growing belief that foster care and welfare are “the problem.” As a result, we see a burgeoning effort to limit these programs as an ostensible “solution” to the problem. Indeed, policy makers, program administrators, legislators and the media all herald reduced welfare rolls and foster care populations as the ultimate indicators of “success.'"5 9 The practice of kinship care (both the public and private varieties) has expanded during this historic period of programmatic contraction and devolution. As the child welfare system emphasizes time-limited support for poor and abused children and the rapid restoration or transfer of responsibility from the government to permanent, self-reliant families, more and more relatives are stepping in to raise their grandchildren, nieces and nephews (DeParle 1999). Contemporary child welfare policies stand to ur^iact relative caregivers m a way that previous measures never did. In feet, the sweeping reforms of die late 1990s both contribute to and rely upon the growth of kinship care. Set within the context of contemporary child welfare policy, kinship care represents an attempt to promote “personal responsibility” while scaling back the federal government’s obligation to provide for needy families. Less cynically, kinship care and adoption also represent best practice approaches to serving the “best interests” of abused and neglected children who cannot reside with their parents. The issues surrounding kinship care are exceptionally complex, however Without attending to these complexities and making an w See. for example. Clinton 19%; DeParle 1999; Lesber 1997; “ Orangewood trend good” 2000. 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. effort to provide adequate support to relative caregivers, the child welfare system risks making an already vulnerable population even more so. 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - INTERLUDE - “MAXINE EASTON” 60 Still, fo r me. it s still- it s still a strain. Because now / m dealing with two types o f situations. You know. I ve got a ll three siblings. Even though they re all brothers and sisters, and / m doing the same thing fo r both types [o f situations], you know. Even though they 're still coming from the same abusive, neglectful situation. But because one came in through the front door and the other ones came in the back door, they don't get the same privileges. - Maxine Easton, relative caregiver 0 0 This interlude describes the experiences of"Maxine Easton.” one of the relative caregivers in my study I have written this chapter with Maxine as narrator, drawing much of the material verbatim from m y interviews with her. H ow ever, because Maxine— like most people— told her story over time in a meandering and repetitive manner. I have done m y best to cohere, condense and clarify her story in a w ay that remains true to the spirit in which it was originally conveyed I adopted this writing style because I wanted to capture the flavor and richness of experience, as well as the tone, personality and character of particular individuals. None of the material herein is “fictional" in the regular sense of this wotd. bat I have altered some of the details and a O of the names in order to maintain confidentiality 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. You had better believe that 1 have a lot to say about raising grandchildren in “ the System. " 1 have considerable experience, the result o f raising three grandchildren in two different parts o f “ the System. " First o f all. you must understand that I am associated with the dependency court and the Department o f Children and Family Services only because o f the youngest grandchild in my possession. That granddaughter was physically given to me by a social worker, whereas the child's brothers, the older two. well. I personally took them out ofan abandonment situation I mean, they were abandoned by their addicted mother and my only daughter. Laura. I got guardianship o f those two through the probate court, but the dependency court has custody o f my granddaughter. To this day. I'm not sure i f 1 should’ ve or could ve done things differently with the boys. But at the time, my main concern was to get the kids out o f a bad situation before something went really wrong. Becoming a u Kinship Caregiver" But let me back up and explain a few things to you that are important fo r you to know. When I got the boys. I was responding to a call from some guy out in San Bernardino who said he knew Laura and who said “ These kids are here and I can t do anything with them. " Well. I d heard all kinds o f stories about what happens to children in that type o f situation so I became like a woman possessed! This was some serious business and nothing was going to stop me from getting those kids. I raced out to San Bernardino, to this place where Laura had basically abandoned the children. The boys— two and fo u r at the time— were there, scared and upset, but doing as well as can be hoped fo r under the circumstances. I went into the house to retrieve some o f their personal belongings and it was so awful. The gas man was there shutting o ff the gas: 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the water and power had already been cut. The place was such a mess and smelled so bad there were holes in the wall and this disgusting mattress. And die toilet. Oh god. the toilet. I don’ t even have to tell you how awfid that was. I was so shocked, because we never lived like this. My daughter and I had never, ever lived like this. 1 took the children bade to my home in Los Angeles and began to do my research I found out that my daughter was on welfare and so the children had MediCal. This was good, because while I wasn 't hurting financially— I was still working a t a goodjob at the time— it would ve been difficult fa r me to cover the costs o f the children s medical insurance because they didn t qualify under my policy. But Laura continued to collect welfare fa r the two children that I was raising. When I found out about that. I thought, this is crazy! She s not going to get something for nothing' So 1 called the Department ofPublic Social Services and had the welfare stopped. And would you believe I had to fight them to do it? The welfare agent was like. "Are you sure you want to do this? " And I said "What are you talking about, "are you sure I want to do this9' This is wrong! Excuse me? " But then the agent finally wised up and decided to assist me. She told me about a program that could help me with the kids. It was called a “ non-needy caretaker ” program or some such thing and it was through die Department o f Public Social Services. It was fo r those who didn " t qualify fa r welfare themselves, but who were taking responsibility fo r raising other people s kids. It wasn " t much money, but it helped with some things, like buying food Because those boys. I mean, their appetites were, whew! I would put them to bed and they d wake up two inches taller the next morning. So I appliedfor this "non-needy " money for the children. I f it were ju st fo r me. o f course. I wouldn t have bothered S ' 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Getting Guardianship Next on the agenda was to find out everything I could about legal guardianship. Because this was some serious business and / wanted the children to have some stability. / got on the phone and called a lot o f numbers andfinally got a hold o fa n attorney who said. "Well, fo r 15 grand I can do this and that, and that and this fo r you. " I asked the attorney a lot o f questions, listened carefully and took notes, and said “ Ok / can do that myself. I don't need a lawyer. " And so I thanked the attorney fo r fas time and said “ Thanks, but no thanks'" I took it upon m yself to type up andfile my own guardianship papers. I paid a clerk several hundred dollars to get on some probate Judge s calendar to hold a temporary guardianship hearing. I found out where a ll three parents were— one mother and two fathers, since the two boys have two different fathers— and had them served O f course. I was required to do this by law. as parents do have the right to come to court and protest or do whatever they want to do. Well this ruffled die feathers o f one o f the fathers, a id he decided he would try to get custody o f his boy. He showed up to the temporary guardianship hearing with this slick lawyer, thinking he could intimidate me. But I m not easily intimidated, especially when it comes to my grandchildren. I get all fired up when it comes to them! But back to the hearing, and to make a long story short, the Judge said “ No. We have to do an investigation. " They investigated me and they spoke to the children. This was Just fine with me because I had nothing to hide. But when they tried to investigate the father, he wouldn t let them into his house. And so when the next court hearing was held, that fool 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. didn't even show up. And since my daughter didn’ t contest the guardianship, the Judge approved my petition. Entering “ the System” Now it was a totally different situation when I got my granddaughter, the youngest o f my daughter s three children. I didn't even know that this baby war bom until I got a call from some old neighbors who told me as much. Without my knowing it. Laura moved back to LA . because she was down to no place to stay in San Bernardino. She had moved so many times and burned so many bridges with people who took her in. that / had long since stopped trying to keep up with where she was living. The only bridge Laura hadn t burned by then was with some friends who used to live down the street from us. These people let Laura move in with them since they d known her growing up and since she had this newborn baby with her. I wanted to take the baby in m yself since I didn t think my daughter was capable o f being a good mother. But Laura refused, so I compromised by insisting that she take the baby to see the doctor. I even offered to drive. The first time we went, though, we had to go by emergency because the baby had what looked like a really bad diaper rash a ll over her body. 1 was shocked when the doctor told us the baby had syphilis and that she probably got it from Laura. I thought, nobody gets syphilis nowadays. I was livid furious with my daughter fo r being so irresponsible. I tried to talk to the doctor on the side, without letting Laura know, to see what he could do fo r the child To see i f he would report Laura to Child Protective Services since she clearly wasn t taking care o f the baby. But the doctor said he couldn t report someone Just fo r having a baby. So 1 decided to leave it alone— fo r a little while, at least. 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The following months were really rough. I worried all the time about that baby. / found out from the people who took Laura in— die old neighbors— that Laura was leaving die baby with them a lot o f the time. She would come in late at night or early in the morning and just want to sleep a ll day. And they said she used to spank the baby— a six-month-old baby.'-with a hanger on the bottom o f die feet. She wasn t feeding the baby enough either. This became evident to me one day when I took the baby to another child's birthday party. The baby, who was about 21 months at that time, showed no interest in playing with the other children and Just started eating up a ll the food on the table. I mean, oh. wow. That was so hard to see. I made up my mind that day that I ju st couldn i stand by and watch my granddaughter be abused I was going to get that child— no matter what Laura had to say about it. The day / got my granddaughter, and the day the dependency system got involved was around the baby s 2 n d birthday. I had arranged to give the baby a birthday party a few days after she turned two. Ifixed up the backyard and made a ton o f food and invited a bunch o f hds to attend. The day o f the party, while I was helping die grandchildren to get dressed and ready. Laura came over and said she wanted to take the baby. I said "No. We re grving her a party today, remember? " I said Laura could take her. but only after the party was over. But Laura said she wanted the baby. "Now' ” I was beginning to get angry but tried to stay calm. But when Laura started cussing and ranting and raving and fussing she crossed the line. She Just messed up big time. You know that old line. "I brought you into this world and I can take you out? ” Well that's about where I was. Laura s lucky, really, because the main reason I didn t take her out, was because the children were there and the guests were beginning to arrive. 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Laura eventually left, without the baby, but said she d be back. In the meantime, she said she was goingto call the police. I said "Fine!" and decided it was time to get Child Protective Services involved as well. So I called the child abuse hotline and explained what was going on. as well as what had already gone on. and they told me. “ Do not release the child " They said they would send someone over in the next few hours to investigate. When the cops arrived / told them what the hotline worker had said and I called Laura to tell her. as well. Well. Laura showed up about the same time as the social worker from the Department o f Children and Fam ily Services. The birthday party was over, the children were at their great-grandmothers s house, and I was ready to rumble. But I didn t have to say or do anything because Laura s deranged ways took care o f everything fo r me. I ju st sat back and watched as Laura, her eyes as red as a fire engine and her veins popping out her neck, screamed "mft. this' “ and “ g .d that! ” She threw a f i t right there in front o f the policemen and the social worker! The cops assessed the situation and tried to get Laura to calm down while I talked to the social worker. The worker said she was considering an "emergency placement ” but that she needed to conduct an investigation first. So I invited her into the house, showed her around, and gave her all the numbers and names o f the people who conducted the investigation during the guardianship proceedings fo r my grandsons. I told the social worker she could contact these investigators and ask them whatever she needed to know. The worker made a few calls, d id whatever sin needed to do, and that was that. The social worker gave me my granddaughter and gave Laura some instructions telling her what she would have to do to get her daughter back 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Life in Two Systems Not too long after my granddaughter officially came to live with m e. I began to receive these little notices from the Department o f Children and Family Services about " regional kinship " meetings fo r grandparents raising gnmdkids. I decided to go one morning to size up the meeting and see what it was a ll about, because this was a whole n e w - world to me. I was surprised to fin d there were so many other relatives raising children in the dependency system. 1 mean, there were probably 60 or 70 grandmothers and other Ian at this meeting. I went back each month because the meetings were informative and they had some really dynamic speakers to come and present. And I really, really appreciated the networking that went on there. From these meetings 1 learned about a lot o f programs available for children. But then I also found out that all these services and programs didn t necessarily pertain to my particular situation. 1 began to see how things were different fo r my granddaughter, compared to my grandsons: I came to understand that “ the System ” is really made up o f two separate sub-systems. One is set up by the dependency court and managed by the Department o f Children and Family Services (DCFS), while the other is arranged through the probate court and the Department o f Public Social Services (DPSS). And my granddaughter was in the DCFS system, while my grandsons were stuck in the DPSS One o f the biggest clues o f these differences was when I got the first "Youakim ” check fo r my foster-granddaughter from the Department o f Children and Family Services. It came a few months after the worker placed the baby with me and it was almost as much as the welfare money I was getting from the D PSSfor the other two grandhds combined It s a 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. good thing, too. because I had to quit my job after the baby came. I had to give it up because I couldn't get any child care. You know. I couldn't get this and couldn't afford that. My bank account was just about dried up and a ll my savings were tied up in a retirement fund. Being that I was only 40-something, I knew I ’ d be heavily penalized i f I started making withdrawals. So I was like, this is crazy! I can't do a ll tins. So I had to stop working. It was a good thing then, when the YouaJam money starting coming in because / w ay just barely getting by. There were other differences between the two departments, too. A t one o f the kinship meetings fo r example, one o f the grandmothers made an announcement about a summer camp program put on by the county that only cost $25 per child. I called to see about signing up the boys; o f course, the baby was too young to participate. Well, the person on the phone wanted the boys' DCFS case number and I kept telling her they didn t have a case number. Well, to make a long story short. I worked it out so the boys could go. But 1 had to pay $45 instead o f $25. because technically, they were not a part o f the right system. Even though I was getting the DPSS money fo r them, since they were not a part o f DCFS, they weren't supposed to be able to go. But because I had one child in the dependency system, they said they d make an exception and let the other two go fo r $20 more. A ll in all. it has been better to deal with the Department o f Children and Family Services, compared to the Department ofPublic Social Services, i f only because there are so many more resources available through the DCFS. Not that they 're always so easy to get. mind you. So many o f the other grandmothers I met at the kinship meetings talked about how their DCFS social workers don t know what they ’ re doing. Even my super fantastic 7 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. social worker told me she didn i know anything about “ Grandma s House "— the Department o f Children and Family Services program fo r relative caregivers. But at least she is open and honest with me. And she always asks me to tell her whenever I hear about any new programs or services at the kinship meetings. I do. and the worker always makes sure that the grandkids-or at least my granddaughter— get signed up fo r whatever is going on. And so I can respect that, because / know the worker is too busy Just trying to do her jo b to be able to keep up with a ll the bazillion changes taking place in the child welfare system. Sometimes, though. I think I ju st got lucky. From the stones I hear the other grandmothers tell it s a wonder I have my granddaughter at all. I ve heard stories about grandmothers losing their grandchildren to "the System " I've heard people tell about having to defend themselves in court against accusations made by their social workers. And I ve heard that some grandmothers don i even get the Youakim check They have to go to the DPSS like I did fo r my grandsons— even though their kids are in the DCFS. There are a lot o f rules, too. A lot o f thingy I can and can't do with my granddaughter that area t even an issue with the boys. Leaving town, fo r example. I f I wanted to drive with the kids up to see my sister in Oakland technically I would need to get permission from die DCFS to take my granddaughter out o f the county, whereas with the boys it s totally up to my discretion. It s hard to keep track o f a ll the rules, too. especially when they don t seem to have anything to do with "safety ” and "permanency "fo r children, which is what the Department says it's all about. And then there s the whole adoption issue, where the Department o f Children and Family Services adoption workers are calling me and pushing me to adopt my granddaughter— which doesn t make a whole lot o f sense when I ’ m already related to the 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. child. They try to make it sound like they ' 1 1 take her away i f I don’ t agree to adoption, but from going to the kinship meetings. I know they can t do that. I realize, though, that i f I'm going take a child into my home from the county. I have to take all the B .S that comes with the D.C.F.S. And i f they have to come to my house fo r a visitation every month, that's ju st fine. Because while there are some hassles, the Department o f Children and Family Services provides something valuable, too— like child care, which has allowed me to take on a little part time work so I can make my mortgage. And when my granddaughter gets older she 'II be able to take advantage o f all the enrichment programs fo r foster children offered by the DCFS At this point. I have no need fo r "special needs ” training or other special services, although my granddaughter does show some signs o f ADHD. I don't see it as a problem— yet— but then again, she might need the services in the future. I know I d have a hard time putting food on the table i f I had to pay out o f my own pocket fo r counseling and tutoring and other programs fo r my granddaughter. So in many ways, having her in the DCFS really is a blessing In any case, the Department o f Children and Family Services is surely better than what I ve seen from the Department o f Public Social Services. Dealing with them has been like watching a horror show. I mean, when I quit working to take care o f the kids. I went from being a "non-needy caretaker ” to pretty much being a "needy ” one. so I tried to fin d out what kind o f additional assistance was available to me from the DPSS. I would call and one worker would tell me one thing while another would tell me something else. And yet another worker would ju st hang up on me. They even argued with each other on the phone: "Well I don't know why she sent you down here!" "You should be down there!" "Your case is over here!" "Well why are you standing there?” And then sometimes I would get 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. someone on the phone who would ju st be reed honest and say. “ Hey. I've only been here a week. I'm clueless as to what s going on. " Oh. they've given me the run around, run around! You know. I used to work m customer service myself— but in the private sector— and this isn r anything I m used to. I surely didn t need a metal detector or a guard to stand watch at my work But when you have to deal with eligibility workers who think they 're all that and a bag o f chips, acting like it s their own money or something they 're giving out. it s no wonder they have the security. People go plum dee crazy a t the DPSS. because it's the only thing that seems to get any action. You knov. this is ju st something that I'm not used to. But I figure i f it s a performance they want, it s a performance they 1 1 get. At least with the DCFS, they usually don t talk at you any old land o f way. In fact, at the kinship meetings and conferences they usually let us know how much they appreciate what we re doing fo r our families Lately. I ve been trying to see about getting my grandsons into the Department o f Children and Family Services. But I've been getting the run around there, too. They re like. “Well you shouldn t have taken the kids. You should’ ve let the county pick 'em up. " What? Let the county take 'em to some place they don't even know? They'd been traumatized enough. Another problem with this idea is that the boys were in San Bernardino County at the time, while I was in Los Angeles County. So even though they usually look fo r the grandmother to place the kids, they could’ ve taken the boys and put them in a foster home somewhere way out in San Ber du. because i t ’ s a completely different system out there. And fo r what? I was ready and available to take them in L A .. 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. / even talked to one o f those DCFS Supervisors who comes to the kinship meetings. I explained my situation to him. By this time I realized that I had two types o f situations and I wanted to know i f it were possible to get the three siblingy under the same department. After all. I m doing the same thing fo r all o f them They ’ re still coming from the same abusive, neglectful situation. But because one came in through the front door and the other ones came in the back door, they don t get the same privileges. Well, the supervisor wrote down a lot o f notes and he said he d look into things and call me back That was several months ago and even though I've tried to call him he s never bothered to contact me or return any o f my calls. I m not asking fo r much— I really ju st want an answer. I mean. I ju st want to know, yes I can or no I can t. H eck at this point. I d even settle fo r a good lie. as long as it sounds reasonable and makes some logical sense to me. But in the meantime. I m ju st taking care o f kids as best as I can. And I m still waiting by that phone. 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - THREE - LIVING ON THE EDGE OF THE DEPENDENCY SYSTEM "I won t give [my grandchildren] aver to the court. They could decide to put the children up fo r adoption on any whim. I won t do it. It s my blood. M y fam ily. It's a risk I Just won t take. " - Carina) Guno, relative caregiver (quoted in KeUerman 1994) There ain 7 no other way. I have to raise these babies else the service people will take 'em away. This is my family. Family has to take care o f family else we won 7 be no more. — Samuel Jenkins, relative caregiver (quoted in Stack and Burton 1994) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Harriet Jackson”6 1 I am a grandmother raising five special needs grandchildren. I began my duty more than two decades ago. It was then that my daughter. Eleanor, who was ju st a teenager at the time, found herself pregnant. I tried to see to it that she would be sheltered from the stigma that weighs so heavily on so many teen mothers - especially those in die Afro-American community. I took Eleanor to St. Mary s M inistry, a maternity home fo r adolescent girls, and told no one about the pregnancy— not even my own husband. My husband found out eventually, o f course. Curious about Eleanor s absence and my trips out to “ run errands " (when I was really visiting Eleanor), he pressed me to tell him the truth. And so I did While he was upset to learn what was going on with his daughter, he understood that I was just protecting her as the mother o f a teenage daughter who was pregnant. After the baby was bom. Eleanor and her new infant moved back home with us. It wasn t but a few months before I saw signs that my daughter had a bigger problem It began with the telephone calls. Eleanor 0 1 In mam of the remaining chapters. I include brief portraits of relative caregivers that describe particular aspects e rf their experiences raising grandchildren. In some of these sketches— like m tie Maxine Easton interlude— the relative caregiver "speaks” in the first person. In others. I am the narrator I made decisions about voice based on whether or not I had a taped and transcribed interview. When I did. 1 felt more confident about condensing stories from verbatim text and allowing a caregrver to “speak for herself” When I thought a relative caregiver had a compelling story but m y information about that story was limited to m y field notes. 1 compiled these and retold the story in my own words, since the source (field notes) already contained at least one layer of interpretation. Regardless of the narrator, however, each portrait describes a single caregiver and contains many direct quotes and specific langnage designed to communicate not only the theme of the story but also something about the unique circumstances of the caregiver. 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. would leave the house with Thomas and her friends would call a few hours later, asking me. "Couldyou come and get your grandchild? " A t first. 1 thought that Eleanor was ju st immature, lacking the experience to know how to care fo r her baby, not realizing she could be reported to Child Protective Services fo r leaving her son with ju st anybody. But there were other changes taking place. Eleanor began to take on a nasty, disrespectful attitude when she d always been sweet. And there were stretches where she would disappear fo r days— even weeks— leaving me to care for Thomas. By the time the baby was a year o ld Eleanor had turned into someone I barely knew. After watching this on-going decline. I came to terms with the truth o f my daughter s addiction to crack cocaine. Eleanor got so deep into the drugs that I fin a lly realized I could no longer help or protect her. I prayed about the situation and came to the conclusion that 1 would have to exchange a child fo r a child. This decision was made a ll the more difficult because o f my husband's recent passing but I knew I had little choice but to bear the responsibility fo r raising my daughter s son. We went down to the courthouse and Eleanor signed over some papers so that 1 became the legal guardian o f my grandson. We needed to do this so that I had the right to raise him, but 1 arranged it this way through the probate court so that Thomas' records wouldn t show that it was a ll because o f the drugs. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There were moments when Eleanor seemed to appreciate my efforts. But the downward spiral ofaddiction seemed to get the best o f her— and it certainly brought out the worst. Eleanor started coming in, in the middle o f the night, half-wild cussing at me and accusing me o f "stealing ” Thomas. 1 finally had to put my fo o t down. And so I said to Eleanor: "You have to leave. I will raise your son. but I will not allow you to continue to live in my home. " And that s when the nightmare began. * * * * * Harriet Jackson has been raising grandchildren for more than 20 years. H er story illustrates the very difficult circumstances surrounding the initial decision to do so. For Harriet and many other relative caregivers, the decision to “exchange a child for a child” is prompted by the symbolic death of one's daughter or son, a parent whose vitality is lost to addiction. This decision is an emotional one, as it often marks the loss of a child w ho is not yet dead— a child, indeed, whose phantom-self continues to haunt the family long after the child-grandchild “exchange” is made. Yet the decision to raise a grandchild is a legal one, as well “Parental rights” are among the most highly valued and protected legal rights afforded to families in the United States. Such rights generally grant parents the ability to rear children free from interference from the government (Guggenheim, Lowe and Curtis 1996; Sussman and Guggenheim 19S0). Without such rights, caregivers are more vulnerable to interv ention from governmental agencies endowed with the right to protect parentless children. Furthermore, same social services and benefits are available only to caregivers who bear the legal responsibility for die 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. children m their care As a result, relative caregivers raising their grandchildren informally— that is, outside of the child welfare system and without official legal sanction— often confront the need to establish a more formal legal relationship. When it became clear to Harriet Jackscxi, for example, that she would be the one to raise her grandson to adulthood, she decided to establish legal guardianship in order to obtain these “rights." Relative caregivers seeking formal ties may choose from several types of ensmdiai arrangements with varying degrees of accessibility and authority. These range from a simple signed caregiver affidavit to legal guardianship to adoption; caregivers may seek formal placement of die child through the dependency system, as well This chapter explores the reasons why grandparents raising grandchildren informally seek such legal protection from the Courts— and why grandparents often prefer options, such as legal guardianship, that allow them to avoid the much-feared dependency system. In the process, I will consider the extent to which socioeconomic status controls access to “ parental rights” established outside of the dependency system, as well as the ways in which stigma and powerlessness influences the custodial decision-making of relative caregivers Formafizmg the Relationship: The Caregiver Authorization Affidavit “Informal" relative caregivers often run into bureaucratic hurdles stemming from their lack of legal authority, such as the inability to enroll a child m school or to obtain non- emergency medical treatment for the child (Aldous 1998; Czapanskiy 1994; DHHS Children’s Bureau 1999; Flint and Perez-Porter 1997; Karp 1996). Virginia (“Gmny") Rose and her husband, who live in South Los Angeles County, ran into the latter problem while caring for their 8-year-old grandson, Vincent Ginny explains: [Vincent], well for instance, when he was quite small, he fo il and split his eye open. We took him to Emergency and they absolutely would not look at him. 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Would not look at him! And finally, um, after, I don't know, it seemed forever, but it was probably mi hour or so, they got a hold of his doctor Because it was a weekend, and the doctor had a consent form in his office, you know, saying that it was okay for us to have [Vincent] treated. Once they beard that from his doctor, you know, they stitched him up. The emergency room doctors ultimately agreed to treat Vincent because his pediatrician had permission from the mother that allowed the Roses to seek medical care for the child. But some hospitals— as well as some schools and other institutions— might not accept such a document unless it is certified by a Notary Public. And, unfortunately, the same problems that prevent parents from taking care of their children, such as addiction or abandonment, often preclude them from taking this necessary step to transfer authority to the grandparent. This can lead to serious problems for grandparents raising grandchildren who must go to school and occasionally need to see the doctor. Luckily, in this instance, the Roses were able to get by with their daughter’s informal consent and their pediatrician's authorization. in response to this problem, in 1994 the California state legislature revised sections of the family and education codes (§6550-6552 and §48204, respectively) to create a “caregiver authorization affidavit’ ' that gives caregivers the abilky to seek school enrollment and/or medical care for children residing full-time in their home (Goidoftas and Brown 1997)6 2 The affidavit is a simple, one-page form (see Appendix C) that requires the caregiver merely to identify herself and the child she is raising. This step alone is enough to authorize school enrollment mid school-related medical care, including any immunizations or medical exams required by the school. The second part of the form grants “qualified relatives,” including 6 2 Other states have adopted similar measures, referred to as “consent legislation." although they are usually less broad in scope than the California law. Another option in som e states (including California) is “standby guardianship,'' typically used by families who anticipate the death of a parent (Karp 1996). 82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. grandparents, the authority to seek medical treatment for the child beyond that which is required by the school. The caregiver authorization affidavit must be renewed yearly and does not require a parent's signature, although the caregiver must swear that she has that parent's permission to care for the child, or that the parent is unable to be located to give his or her permission. The caregiver authorization affidavit provides an easy, legal solution to some of the problems faced by caregivers needing to enroll children in school.6 3 h is an especially effective tool for grandparents who cannot count on die parent to prepare a notarized affidavit giving consent for the provision of medical care. However, even if a grandparent gets her grandchild enrolled in school, for example, other issues may arise— such as signatures on permission slips or the need for an Individualized Education Plan6 4 — that require greater legal authority and/or permission from the parent There are times, as well, when a parent is not simply unable to give this permission to a grandparent but is unwilling to do so. Furthermore, an affidavit does not transfer custody of the child to the grandparent who may need this specific legal status to put a grandchild an the family health insurance plan, for example. In cases such as these, grandparents may have to turn to the courts to get the legal authority to care for their grandchildren as they see fit Probate Court: Petitioning for Legal Guardian ship If a grandparent is concerned about the well-being of a grandchild living with his or her parent, or if a grandparent already raising a grandchild needs m ane legal authority than 6 3 Goldoftas and Brown (1997) note that some school districts may require additional proof from relative caregivers, including, in som e cases, written confirmation from the parent. 6 4 Parents and teachers meet to establish an Indrvidpalizcd Fdn cafion Program (or Plan) (IEP) for disabled children eligible far special education programs (Siegel 1999). 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that which is provided by a caregiver authorization affidavit, then she or he can petition the court for guardianship of die child. The Judicial Council of California defines a legal guardian as “an adnlt to whom the court has given anthority and responsibility for providing care of a child or care of a child’ s assets, or both” (Judicial Council o f California 1995). Unlike the caregiver authorization affidavit, guardianship suspends the rights of the parents) and gives a grandparent legal custody of a child, thereby conferring to the grandparent- guardian the right to make decisions about the child's life.6 5 In order to get a guardianship in Los Angeles, a grandparent must file a petition (or formal request) with the probate court, the division of the Los Angeles County superior court that hears most guardianship matters. The grandparent must notify the parents of die petition, as well as certain other relatives (including the child, if over the age of 12) at least 1 5 days before the guardianship bearing (ibid.) in addition, the grandparent must send copies of the notice and the petition to a clerk at the juvenile dependency court who will screen the petition to identify any prior connection to the dependency system on the part of the potential guardian, as well as any current involvement on the part of the child6 6 (Department of Children and Family Services, Probate Guardianship Clerk, Dependency Court, personal communication, June 23, 2000). Before granting a guardianship, the probate court will 6 5 A legal guardian assum es most of the rights and responsibilities inherent to parenthood. However, financial responsibility for the child remains with the biological parent (Judicial Council of California 1995). as does the right to change a child’s name (Magruder 1998) or religion (DCFS 1996). In addition, the court m ay include certain provisions in the guardianship papers that limit som e of the rights of the guardian. 0 6 If the screening determines that the child is already involved in Dependency Court proceedings (i.e.. if the child is already in protective custody because of abase or neglect), then the grandparent cannot seek guardianship through probate court since the jurisdiction of the dependency court supersedes that of all other courts (Los Angeles County Superior Court, local rule 17.0(b)). The screening of the potential guardian is in order to identify any history of child abuse. 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conduct an investigation of the potential guardian and file a report with the judge This report will consider the individual social histories o f the guardian and the child, as well as the history of their relationship to one another [Probate Code §1513(a)]. If die parent consents to the grandparent’ s petition for guardianship, the court is likely to grant the petition 6 7 This is what happened when Harriet Jackson, a grandmother now raising her daughter's five children, went to probate court with her daughter to get guardianship of her first grandchild in a brief uncantested hearing. If the parent opposes the grandparent’s petition, however, the court must find that it is detrimental to the child to remain in the parent's custody in order to grant the guardianship (Family Code §3041). Providing guidance for making this finding, the law states the following: The legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of this state to assure that the health, safety, and welfare of children shall be the court’s primary concern in determining the best interest of children when making any orders regarding the physical or legal custody or visitation of children The Legislature further folds and declares that the perpetration of child abuse or domestic violence in a household where a child resides is detrimental to the child [Family Code §3020(a)]. When appointing a guardianship to someone other than the parent, the judge must determine that the guardianship is necessary for protecting the safety and well-bemg of the child. The grandparent may petition for temporary guardianship at the same time she or he files for permanent guardianship. If the grandparent can prove that it is in the best interests of the child, the court may award temporary custody to the grandparent for 30 days, or until the 6 7 That is, assuming the investigative report doesn't turn up anything negative in the grandparent's history (e.g., a criminal record), and if there are no other findings that w ould contraindicate granting the guardianship (e g., a pending adoption of the child in family court). 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. permanent guardianship hearing is held. As with permanent guardianship, the court must establish “good cause" for granting a temporary guardianship [Probate Code §2250(b)] * * * * * This legal discussion of caregiver affidavits and guardianship reveals die unempowered position from which relative caregivers seek the right to parent. Whereas biological parents have a “natural" right to raise aid make decisions for a child— and to seek support from a variety of institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals) in the process of doing so— relative caregivers must obtain permission for parenting from the courts, die parents or both. Even when a parent is incapacitated by addiction, mental illness, or another problem that prevents them from parenting, a grandparent may not simply take over. This is because parental rights, as one of the most sacred and protected of all rights, must be legally transferred and cannot be claimed informally. Yet for someone other than a biological mother or father, obtaining the permission to parent is not a free and easy process since it requires access to specialized information and, in some cases, expert legal training. Furthermore, m situations m which a grandparent seeks the right to raise a child living with a parent in unsafe conditions, the child welfare system might intercept the child first, since the government may intervene in cases of child abuse and neglect When this happens, the child welfare system may decide to place the child with a grandparent in “kinship care." Even if this happens, however, the dependency court acquires the right to parent— not the grandparent— a thought that frightens many relative caregivers. “Patricia Moore” Rachel Moore is a drug addict. It used to be hard fo r me to say those words about my own daughter, but that s what she is. Rachel has 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. used drugs since she wias 13 years old There were times. like when she was pregnant, when she seemed to be doing okay. Then and when her baby. Toby, was bom— she was living at home with us a t that time— it seemed like she was really trying to be a good mom. But Rachel had an increasingly difficult time with the pressures as Toby got bigger, as he grew up and he wasn t a docile little baby anymore. She started, she would go out with friends and would leave Toby at home. We wouldn t know where she was or how long she would be gone and we found that we were taking care o f Toby the majority o f the time. Rachel eventually moved out and she took Toby with her. Her pattern was to want Toby fo r awhile and then when he got too active and the stress got to be too much, she d start using drugy again. Methamphetamine were her drug o f choice. I would get telephone calls at work and I d have to stop and think. 'Who is this? ' because Rachel was almost indecipherable. She d be crying hysterically and she d be saying. 7 can t handle it. Come and get him ' So I would. Toby was always dirty when 1 picked him up from my daughter s house, and he wasn't getting a proper diet there. Rachel didn 't bother to try to make appealing things fo r him to eat. She Just gave him bottles all the time. And one time Toby had a huge bum on his forearm and Rachel said she didn t know how he got it. So these are the things that scared us and led us to take the initial steps fo r guardianship. We hired a lawyer and fille d out the forms and documented Rachel s behavior. We wanted to avoid Child Protective 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Services and the Department o f Children and Family Services ifat all possible because we didn t want to see Rachel arrested or see Toby put into a fo ster home. We d id n 't know exactly how the dependency system worked, and we d heard other grandparents raising grandchildren describe their frustrations with the Department o f Children and Family Services. So we tried to work around it and arrange it so that Rachel had Toby as little as possible. In the meantime, we prepared to file fo r guardianship. The straw that broke the camel s back and die reason we finally went to court was kind o f a fluke. We would usually keep Toby Monday through Friday, and Rachel would have him over the weekend But I went to drop him o ff on a Thursday one week A stranger answered the door and said that Rachel was sleeping and that he would go get her. When Rachel fin a lly came to the door, she couldn t hardly stand or walk or talk And so that s when my husband and I made the decision that we couldn t leave Toby with Rachel. We Just couldn t leave our two-year-old grandson with her anymore. W e went to Probate Court the next day to file the guardianship papers and the judge set up a temporary guardianship hearing early the following week M y husband served Rachel with the court papers and she got really mad Which is understandable. I t ’ s clear that she basically loves Toby, but she s been entrapped by drug use fo r so many years. She loves her sort, but the drugs stop her from knowing how to take care o f him. 8 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The hearing was very unpleasant. When Rachel came into court, she was so angry. She was interrupting the judge and the attorney and getting more and more angry when she saw that things weren t going her way. It was a very difficult situation far everyone. My husband said the hardest thing about being in court is that you have to say bad things about people you love. They re true, they 're true things, but. it's still very, very painful. Drug addiction is a monster and our family has suffered tremendously because o f Rachel s addiction. It s not easy, either, to stand before a judge and talk about your fam ily s personal problems. After he got done testifying about our daughter, my husband ju st sat down and cried Avoiding the Dependency System Grandparents like Patricia Moore and her husband often decide to seek guardianship when they see their adult child failing as a parent— both to protect the grandchild as well as to avoid having the dependency system take protective custody of the child. If the grandparent can establish guardianship through probate court, this may aliminan* the need for the dependency system to intervene later on, an behalf of the abased or neglected child Avoiding the dependency system was an important part of Patricia Moore's decision to seek guardianship of her grandson, Toby. After she and her husband received tenporary guardianship, however, die court referred the case to the Department o f Children and Family Services (DCFS) to investigate the allegations of abuse made agam <tf Rachel. The probate court is required to do so in cases involving potential abuse in order to see if die case falls 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. under the jurisdiction of the dependency court which handles child abuse cases ' * * Patricia explains what happened; So they [the investigative social workers from the Department of Children and Family Services] inspected her house. They inspected my house We talked to the social worker The social worker tells me, “Oh, a lot of drug-addicted patents raise children. I went to [Rachel's] house and it was dean. Her head seems screwed on right. If you didn't have a court order giving you temporary guardianship, I'd place [Toby] with her. I don't see any reason why Toby shouldn't be with her I've seen a lot worse scenarios." So, that’s scary to me. You know, if I were to call— and I d id try to call CPS [Child Protective Services, a.k.a. DCFS] once, and I waited for an hour on the phone. You know, I waited for an hour and I wasn't able to get through and so I just, I didn't pursue it. And then I was afraid of him being put in a foster home, and I couldn't bear him being away in a strange situation where he would be frightened or unfamiliar. It’s just, I dkki’ t want to see him be put through that. The social worker said, “Well, maybe you have to wait for something bad to happen to him [in order for DCFS to place foe child with foe Moores].” And I told her, “You better hope it’s not fatal right0 ” So if for some reason we don't get permanent guardianship, if something happens, we’re going to monitor [Rachel] very carefully, and do surprise visits, and if we fold anything that’s endangering [Toby], we win call CPS. If that's how we have to go through it, then that's what we’ ll do We’ll do whatever we need to do, because it only takes one moment and he won’ t have another chance. She’s had lots of chances to give herself, but he doesn’ t He depends on big people to watch him. The court order establishing temporary guardianship allowed the Moores to keep Toby in their custody. Had the Moores reported Rachel for abuse by calling Child Protective Services directly without getting temporary guardianship first, and foe social worker determined that 6 8 The section of the Probate Code regarding guardianships mawfatrt the following; "If the investigation finds that any party to the pmpnw vi n iBiHjam hip alU yc th» minor’* parent is unfit as defined by Section 300 of the welfare and institutions code, the case shall be referred to the county agency designated to investigate potential dependencies. Guardianship proceedings shall not be completed until the investigation required by sections 328 and 329 of the welfare and institutions code is completed and a report is provided to the court in wtuch the guardianship proceeding is pending" [Probate Code §15i3(4Xc)]. 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rachel's home was “safe," the Moores would have been forced to return Toby to his mother, since a lawful parent has the right to make decisions about where his or her child shall live. Temporary guardianship protected the Moore’s control over Toby— at least until the permanent guardianship hearing, which usually takes place several weeks after a guardianship petition is filed (Judicial Council of California January 1,1995). it is important to com ment as well on the discrepant outcomes of the social worker's investigation and the temporary guardianship hearing. Although substance abuse plays a role m an estimated 50-90% of all cases o f child abuse and neglect (Gaudm 1993; National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse 1998; Rogers and McMillin 2000; Wang and Daro n.d), it is not necessarily grounds for the dependency system to detain a child According to the California Welfare and Institutions Code— the set of statutes guiding dependency proceedings— investigative social workers must determine either that a child has been abused or that she or he is at significant risk of abuse before the dependency system can intervene. While drug use is a known risk factor for child abuse,6 9 and while a social worker is not required to “prove” drug abuse, social workers rely an available evidence7 0 during an investigation and have some discretion in determining whether a caregiver’s presumed drug use poses a “high,” “moderate,” or “low” risk of child abuse (Tabbert, Sullivan and Whittaker 1994). Since die particular social worker conducting the investigation apparently saw little evidence of any problems caused by Rachel’s drug use and determined that Toby was at low risk of abuse, 0 9 According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance A buse at Columbia University, “children whose parents abuse drugs and alcohol are almost three times (2.7) likelier to be physically or sexually assaulted and more than four times (4.2) likelier to be neglected than children of parents who are not substance abusers” (1998). 1 0 This may include hearsay evidence (WIC §355). See also note 1 3 , below . 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. then there would be little justification for that social worker to remove the child from Rachel's care. On the other hand, regarding the appointment of a guardian m probate court, California law mandates that “ the court is to be guided by what appears to be in the best interest of the proposed ward, taking into account the proposed guardian's . . . concern for and interest in the welfare of the proposed ward” [Probate Code §1514(eXl)]- Furthermore, in determining the best interests of the child m custody matters, the court shall consider, among other issues,7 1 “die habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either parent” [Family Code §3011(d)]. Unlike the dependency system, which must document the risk of abuse before removing a child from the parent's custody, the probate court is guided by the more ambiguous standard of the child's “best interests”7 2 in granting a guardianship petition, even though both courts' actions have the same effect of transferring custody-to a legal guardian 7 1 The California Family Code mandates that the court shall consider the following issues in determining custody (including adoption and legal guardianship): the health, safety, and welfare of the child: an y history of abuse by one parent or any other person seeking custody. the nature and amount of contact with both parents; and the habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either parent (§3011 ) . 7 1 The standard of the “ best interests of the chfldT is. of course, considered by the Dependency Court, as w elL However, it is specifically and primarily used as a guide for visitation and placement issues after the decision is made to remove the child from his or her parent's custody. [See. e.g.. sections 361.3. 362.8 and 366(c) of the W IC. which state: “In any ease in which a child is removed from the physical custody of his or her parents. .. in determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, the County social worker and court shall consider, but shall not be limited to. consideration of all the following factors: (1) the best interest of the child, y w ai physical psychological educational m aH irai or emotional needs” (361.3); “Before a child is placed with a nonrelative extended family m ember, the following requiremen ts ww be met...The Court shall determine that placement of the child with this nonrelative extended fam ily member is in the best interests of the child” (§362.8); “If the child has been placed out of state, each review described in subdivision (a) and any reviews conducted pursuant to Sections 366.3 and 16503 shall also address whether the out-of-state ptocrment c o nfinnrs to be the most appropriate placement selection and in the best interests of the child" (§366c).[ 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in probate court proceedings, and to the dependency court in dependency proceedings. Ifa particular probate judge determines that a parent's drug use is oat in the “best interests” of the child— independent from whether the drug use poses a significant risk o f child abuse as defined by die Welfare and Institutions Code (which guides the practice of dependency court judges)-that probate judge can award guardianship to the concerned petitioner Thus, compared to the dependency system, the rules guiding the probate court in guardianship matters appear to give substantially more discretion to the judge in determining what custodial arrangement is in die “best interests” of a child.7 3 The Moore’s account of their daughter’s addiction was apparently enough to persuade the probate court judge that it was in Toby's best interests to live with his grandparents. It did not meet the criteria for child abuse, however, at least as interpreted by the investigative social worker who would have left Toby in the custody of his mother The Moore's experience demonstrates the extent to which such vital decisions are often determined by the particular vantage point of an individual social worker or judge It also suggests that at least in some cases, only most serious and blatant instances of abuse will result in the child welfare system removing a child from the home.7 4 7 3 As Patricia Moore's account dearly demonstrates, D C FS social workers do have considerable discretion in determining what behavior constitutes abuse or neglect severe enough to remove a child from the hone. But the * 1)6 81 interest" «»««*«» < for graining g m rfa inhip in pmbate court allows for mare discretion on the part of the judge, when compared to the more dearly defined "risk of abuse” standard used b y a social worker to remove a child in a dependency investigation. However, in probate court, the burden of proof tailc on the petitioning grandparent to provide evidence of maltreatment that makes guardianship in the “ best interests” of the child, whereas in dependency court a “preponderance of evidence”-which indudes hearsay evidence of abuse (W 1C §355)— is the standard for removing a child from a parent's custody. Thus, one could argue that the Probate Court has the stricter standard, as it idies on direct (as opposed to hearsay) evidence. 7 4 Of the 30.529 reports of abuse made in Los Angeles County between April-June 2000. only' 7.458 or 24% were substantiated, or found to warrant enough concern to open a case with the Department of Children and Family Services. Statewide, investigative social workers substantiated only 28% of all referrals (California D P S S . RDD 2000). These statistics most be interpreted carefully , however, as it is impossible to know — or is at least subject to de bate— how m any 9 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Obtaining temporary guardianship through the probate court enabled die Moores to avoid the dependency system in two ways. First, temporary guardianship allowed the Moore's to keep Toby in their custody-even though DCFS was called in to investigate the case^-because Rachel’s rights as a parent already were suspended (temporarily) Second, in this case, the social worker from the Department of Children and Family Services was reluctant to remove Toby from his mother's care. By establishing guardianship of Toby, the Moores avoided having to resort to— or rely an— the dependency system to intervene an Toby's behalf. In order to safeguard Toby from what they saw as a potentially dangerous situation and avoid involvement with the dependency system, the Moores needed the legal protection provided by temporary guardianship.* Avoiding the dependency system was also im portant to Winifred Dietz, Lynette Jacobsen, Dee Dee Davis and other members o f a support group for grandparents raising grandchildren. One night when I observed the group, Lynette Jacobson, a newcomer, described her predicament She had been helping her son raise her two-year-old grandson, Jesse, until her son went to jail for charges related to drug abuse. The baby's young mother, who still lived at home with her own parents, initially agreed to take care of Jesse. But she changed her mind after only one week and asked Lynette to take Jesse back. unsubstantiated reports “deservedT to be confirmed It is noteworthy to further point out that the vast majority of substantiated reports do not result in a child being removed from the home. 7 5 H ad the social worker determined that the Moore's home was unsafe, DCFS could have removed Toby from their care, even though they had temporary guardianship. Again. DCFS may remove a child from a caregiver with legal authority over that child when and if it determines that the child has a substantial risk of being abused 7 6 H ow ever, in the permanent guardianship hearing the judge will consider the report from DCFS, which could lead him or her to return Toby to his mother’ s custody. 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “I got the whole enchilada!” laughed Lynette m exasperation, unsure how at age 52 she suddenly became responsible for raising a toddler. Lynette was unemployed, although looking for work, and needed some support to help her cover the costs of raising Jesse an h a 1 awn. She considered calling the Department of Children and Family Services' child abuse hotline because die had heard that DCFS provides financial support to grandparents raising grandchildren. She was hesitant to call, however, because she was afraid of what might happen if she did so Winifred Dietz, a relative caregiver and the director of the private, non-profit agency that hosted the support group, urged Lynette, “ DONT call DCFS and get the system involved!” “You'll lose him,” warned one of the grandmothers. “They can take him away on a whim,” cautioned another. The members of the support group shared horror stories they had heard or experienced about grandparents’ difficulties with the dependency system. While Patricia Moore's experience with the Department o f Children and Family Services that a child is not always whisked away into protective custody following an investigation of abuse or neglect, the feet that this potential exists was enough to lead the grandmothers in the support group to steer clear of any voluntary involvement with the dependency system. Winifred Dietz described her own efforts to keep her 1 2 -year-old grandson. Donald, out of the foster care system: When my son, he came up to me and asked me, “would you raise [Donald]?” I said “Yes!” I wasn’ t going to let this child go to the state. I absolutely was not going to let other people raise my grandson. 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dee Dee Davis described the efforts of an absent support group member who struggled to get her grandson out of foster care. “I mean, we have one grandparent that has tried to get her grandson out of the system for seven years . . . She’s been trying all that time, spent thousands of dollars to try to get him out. . . . And he is, he’s almost destroyed,” she noted, sadly. Speaking for herself and her own experiences as the legal guardian of her 11- year-old granddaughter. Dee Dee declared, “I didn’ t want any part of that system!” All of die grandparents in the support group argued adamantly ag^msr calling DCFS, advising Lynette to seek guardianship through the probate court instead. Guardianship would give Lynette greater legal security they said, and would allow her to apply for welfare as a “non-needy caretaker” if she needed financial support. “A lot of grandparents don’ t know that you can get AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a.k.a ‘ 'welfare”] for the Idds,” Winifred explained. Summing up the goals of her support group, she added, 'W e’re trying to get the word out, you know, we’re trying to let people know. You know, yes, we are here. Yes, there are groups that can help. Yes, there are referral sources out there to help To thing? a lot easier.” '‘Welfare” and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services Financial issues are often of primary concern to grandparents raising grandchildren, nearly half o f whom Irve on a fixed income, and many of whom are unable to assume the costs of raising one or more children on their own (AARP 1994; see also Barth etal. 1994; Berrick, Barth and Needell 1994; Burnette 1999; Chipungu et al. 1998; Gebel 1996; Le Prohn 1994; Minkler and Row 1993; Pecora, Le Prohn, and Nasuti 1999; Thornton 1991). To compensate for financial constraints, many relative caregivers, like Lynette Jacobsen, seek alternative 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sources of support such as welfare benefits administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). With the Personal Responsibility and Work Opporttmky Act of 1996, Congress ended the federal welfare program. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and replaced it with the state-operated program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Children (TANF). TANF, or its Californian incarnation, the “California Work Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids” program (CalWORKS), limits the receipt of welfare benefits to 60 months and requires beneficiaries to participate in “welfare to work” activities. In Los Angeles, CalWORKS applicants may not have property worth more than $2000 or have earnings greater than a pre-determined “Maximum Aid Payment” for one's family size (DPSS n.d “CalWORKS Eligibility”).7 7 According to the Los Angeles County Department o f Public Social Services, needy relative caregivers are exempt from the time limits and work requirements of CalWORKS if they are 60 years old or older, and/or if they are “responsible for a child who is a ward of die [juvenile dependency or delinquency] court or a child who is at risk of foster care placement, if it prevents the person from working” (DPSS, n d. “CalWORKS Time Limits”) (See Table 3-1). The California State Department of Social Services, which regulates county welfare programs, further defines this exemption for relative caregivers with die following qualification: 7 7 Property limits exdude one vehicle worth a maximum of S 465Q . those 60 years old or older m a y have property worth up to S3.000 (CDSS. 2000. “Frequently asked questions”). A s of July 2000. the family income limits (minus $90 for each employed person in the family) range from $390 for a one-person family, to $ 1 7 0 1 fora family of ten or more (“L.A. Coalition to End H unger and Homelessness.” 2000). 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the county must also determine that die caretakmg responsibilities are beyond those considered normal day-to-day parenting responsibilities so that they impair the individual's ability to be regularly employed or to participate in the welfare-to-work activities (Cahfbnria-DSS-Manual-CWS, §42-302). Table 3-1: B enefits available to relative caregivers from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services__________________________________ Type of Benefit Assistance Call Benefit Level Rales / Restrictions Exempt caregiver and chikKren) 1 person: (n/a) 2 people: $582 3 people: $720 income restrictions determine caregiver eligibility: relative caregivers of foster children (or children at risk of foster placement) exempt from time limits and w ork requirements if 6(H-and if caregmng responsibilities prevent employment Non-exempt caregiver and childfren) 1 person: (n/a) 2 people: $520 3 people: $645 income restrictions determine caregiver eligibility: caregivers held to time limits and work requirements Non-needy caretaker (“child-only”) child only 1 person:$319 2 people: $520 3 people: $645 no income restrictions: no time limits or work requirements SO U RC E: L. A Coalition to End Hunger and Hotnelessness 2000; DPSS CalW ORKS help line. Rates effective October 1.2000 As already noted, whether or not a child is “at risk of foster care placement” depends to some degree on the perspective of the social worker or judge asked to make this determination. Furthermore, the additional state qualification calls into question whether or not relative caregivers younger than 60— especially those raising healthy grandchildren outside of the juvenile court system— can qualify for CalWORKS at all as an “exempt” member of the “assistance unit” (i.e., the recipient o f welfare benefits). If a needy relative caregiver does not qualify as an exempt recipient, she or he still may be eligible for a “non-exempt” CalWORKS grant that includes her as part of the assistance unit receiving aid. Non-exempt benefit levels are somewhat lower than “exempt” 98 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. grants, however, and they require the participant to acSiere to the time limits and work requirements of the program. Alternatively, tf a caregiver is unwilling or unable to work within the restrictions imposed by CalWORKS, she or he may apply for a “child-only" grant, such as the one relative caregiver Maxine Easton applied for and received for her two grandsons. Also commonly referred to as a “nan-needy caretaker" grant, the child-only benefit excludes the caregiver from the assistance unit and provides a small cash grant (equivalent to the non- exempt rate) to the child without imposing any time limits or work requirements on the caregiver 7 * Eligibility for a child-only grant is not based on the caregiver's income; in general, any child is eligible for a non-needy caretaker grant as long as she or he is living with a related caregiver (other than the parent) and has no other source of income, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for disabled children, or Social Security survivorship benefits for children whose parents are deceased. Indeed, according to an Information Supervisor with the Department of Public Social Services, most grandparents raising grandchildren in Los Angeles County with an open case with die DPSS receive a non-needy caretaker grant (personal communication with DPSS Public HELP Line and DPSS Information Supervisor, October 17, 2000). During the 1990s, the number of non-needy or child-only grew as a percentage of all welfare cases nationwide, in part because of the growth of kinship care and the increasing number of relative caregivers applying for child-only grants (DHHS-ASPE, 7 8 Federal regulations limit the percentage of welfare cases that states can exempt from the time restrictions and work requirements of TANF. 99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1999).7 9 According to the US D epartment of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the child-only grant is designed with relative caregivers m mmd The ASPE’s website explains the purpose of this benefit category: ta general, states do not impose work requirements or time Imuts on relative caregivers who do not receive benefits themselves, because they are under no legal obligation to support the child. If work requirements are imposed on such caregivers, they may choose not to bouse and support the children in general, it would be much more expensive for states to care for those children through the foster care system (ibid.). The federal government designed the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program to encourage relative caregivers to help tbeir grandchildren to “avoid the dependency system." As this discussion explains, states may exempt relative caregivers from the work requirements and time limits of TANF if those grandparents can establish that their caregrvmg prevents a child from entering the dependency system. Even if this is not passible, relative caregivers may apply for welfare as a “needy" or “non-needy" caregiver to help support the children in their care. These two welfare options reward relative caregivers for stepping into raise a child who would otherwise lack adequate care. However, many relative caregivers— like the members of Winifred Dietz's grandparent support group who dissuaded Lynette Jacobson from railing the Department of Children and Family Services for support— a void the dependency system primarily because of their fear of 7 9 McCurdy. Mancuso and O'Brien-Strain (2000) suggest that a large part of the growth of child-only cases in California can be explained by changes in immigration law . After the passage of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which granted legal status to a large number of immigrants, the number of child-only cases soared in California. These recently legalized immigrants were themselves ineligible for welfare benefits for a period of five years. After this period ended in the early 1990s. many of the child-only cases converted to one-or two-parent cases. 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. this system This is distinct from the state's apparent purpose for providing financial assistance to relative caregivers who prevent children from entering the foster care system. As evident in the ASPE's stateme nt above, the state pays considerably less to caregivers through CalWORKS than it does to grandparents with grandchildren in the dependency system who qualify for federal foster care funds1 0 When seen in this light, the goals ofthe state appear as much about “rewarding” relative caregivers as they do about saving the government money. Avoiding the Welfare System This discussion of die financial “rewards” and “penalties” associated with the government's support of kinship care sidesteps the fret that while many relative caregivers would like to avoid the dependency system, some would prefer to avoid the welfare system, as well. For even when grandparents struggling to support a grandchild outside of the dependency system could benefit from a child-only TANF grant (and know about this option), some decline to pursue it in order to stay off “the dole.” Patricia Moore, the grandmother whose efforts to establish guardianship for her grandson Toby are outlined earlier in this chapter, states simply that she and her husband, “don't want to be indebted to the system if we don't have to be.” Patricia explains: * ° As noted above, in Los Angeles Count) , a non-needy relative caregiver receives S319 per month from the DPSS to care for one child, with a smaller additional benefit for each additional child in her care. In contrast, a grandparent raising grandchildren eligible for financial support through the federal foster care program will receive S405-S569 per month, per child, based on the age ofthe dependent child Faster care is even more expensive to provide when the foster child resides in a group home, which receives between S1.3S3-SS.732 per child per month depending upon the kind of care provided by the group home (C D SS. 2000. September 1 2 ). I will discuss this issue further in later chapters. 101 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [Toby] does have Medi-Cal,8 1 and that's helpful for him, for his medical But if we can make it without depending an the state and tbe system, I want to That's the way that we would prefer to go. Both my husband and I work. We don't have good payrag- real high paymg jobs, and we barely get by But I just don't want to deal with them. For Liz Goss and ho- husband, whose three grandchildren returned home to live with their father, tbe issue was a political one: "[My husband] is a libertarian and the last thing an Earth he wants to do is take money from die government" For others, like Sandra Theodonos, it’ s a question of ethics. Sandra was pregnant and in die process of remarrying when die dependency court took custody of her oldest grandson, Jack. Because Sandra was unable to take an the responsibilities of raising a toddler in addition to a newborn baby, the court placed three-year-old Jack with his paternal grandparents. Sandra criticizes die paternal grandparents' decision to apply for a non-needy caretaker grant on Jack's behalf. They have a beautiful home. They’re a $100,000 bracket income. And they still receive the FDAC [sic. “AFDC"]. I don’ t think that’s right. You know what I mean? I think it should go to, you know, they don’ t need it But I still think, when you’re at $100,000 a year bracket, you know, that it should be divided with someone else that really truly needs it. Sandra considered herself m the category of those who “really truly need it," however. Years later, struggling to support three grandchildren and a daughter with a A»hiltr*hng medical condition, Sandra applied for AFDC on behalf of the three grandchildren she raised. Other relative caregivers 1 interviewed also sought assistance from the Department of Public Social Services, but many did do so reluctantly. Dee Dee Davis, a member of 8 1 Medi-Cal is California's medical insurance program for low incom e families (a.ta. "Medicaid" outside of California) Children residing with relative caregivers may be eligible for Medi-Cal regardless of the income status of the fondly (source: State of California Application for Healthy Families / Medi-Cal) 102 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Winifred Dietz's support group for grandparents raismg grandchildren, describes her reservations about applying for welfare You know, we have to do a lot of things that we really wouldn't want to do, to support these children and take care of them like they're supposed to If I hadn't have had so m xh financial difficulties with all foe funerals and whatnot,K I wouldn't have even gone on AFDC. 'Cause . .. foe first time I did was in 1996— and I've had [my granddaughter] since she was bom in '87. Similarly, the budget is often tight for Dot Fitzgerald who, as a single grandparent, raises her 17-year-old grandson, Jeff. Years ago, at a time when Dot wandered how she would make ends meet, she and a co-worker tried to find solutions to her financial problems. Dot recalls the conversation: See, I wasn't getting support when I first got [my grandson]. And then the banquet coordinator again told me, '‘Well, [Dot], you should get some help for [Jeff]. You can go down and get some AFDC " And 1 said, "Oh, God.” I thought, that’s welfare I don’ t want to do that. But then I decided, what the heck. His father don’ t give him a dime. . . . So, yeah, I did. And oh, it’s so degrading Like Dot, applying for welfare was contrary to the values hekl by grandparent support group leader, Winifred Dietz. Winifred, who raises her grandson, Donald, describes her perspective: And anyway, my husband says, "You’re going to go m and get same help with [Donald]." And I says, "No I’m not! I’ve never been a chanty case and I’m not going to start now." I worked two jobs with my ltids. I worked, for three years I worked two jobs, 60 hours a week. I did what I had to do. . .. And I didn’ t believe in welfare I didn't believe in anything Hite that Winifred, like Dot, found applying for welfare to be a degrading process. She explains: But anyway, my husband took me to the welfare office and I made him fill out all the forms— I was so dead set about it! . And that social worker made me fed like then [she indicates a small space between her thumb and forefinger]. I left there crying. I didn't want to be there to begin with. She made me feel like it was her money. 8 2 Dee Dee's mother, father and daughter aD died within mouths of one another. Dee Dee assumed the primary responsibility for the burial expenses fir her family members. 103 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I asked Winifred what about the process made her feel so insignificant. She responded: [The eligibility workers] ask you all kinds of questions. Making you feel guilty. “Well why do you need that money? Is that a home; and you're working? Why do you need the money7 ” . . . Wefl the thing is, see, when you're a relative caregiver, you're entitled to support, no matter how much money you have. ‘Cause it’s really none of their business what we have. ‘cause what it is, is, you go in as a non-needy caretaker. But they don't tell you this. And they make you feel like two cents. For Winifred, the process of applying for welfare made her fed inadequate and guilty, as though she were doing something “wrong.'' Theresa Richardson, a grandmother raising her granddaughter in south central Los Angeles, also felt guilty about receiving welfare to support the children in her care. I haven't always been on welfare. . . . So I was working, and you know what? it felt good to pay your bills and not have somebody, and not have to sit and wait for the mailman to bring you your check.*3 But now it doesn't bother me because I'm only doing it for her. And I'll do whatever I have to do, legally, for her. And in retirement, I will do illegal and legal ‘cause I don’ t know how I'll survive. The grandmothers' comments above allude to the stigma associated with the welfare system in American culture. Their comme nts— Theresa Richardson’s in particular— also suggest the lengths to which grandmothers are willing go to provide fix the grandchildren in their care. Apparently, these sacrifices include applying for welfare “I Was an Unwed Pregnant Grandmother. . . on Welfare!” Theresa Richardson also provides some insight into the papular culture's bias against welfare by describing a television program on a daytime talk show. She describes die 8 3 Since welfare reform, the Department of Public Social Services no longer delivers welfare benefits by mail. All recipients, regardless of the type of grant, must go to a county DPSS office to pick up the check. 104 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. discussion on tbe talk show— tbe topic of which was welfare— and provides her own analysis of the program And the welfare lady, girl, was saying, “I only get minimum wage paying jobs because I have no degree I have hardly any education. So when I get these minimum [wage] jobs, I need my MediCal fix my children and myself so I can stay healthy.” And [the host] said, ‘ ‘No you just want to be on there You just want to be an welfare ” . She belittles 'em And the lady wrote an article and she said, “You know, you need to stop belittling people until you've walked that walk.” That's how I fed about that 1 used to fed embarrassed about it Got to go to the store with your food stamps. And my friend said, “It’s just like money, [Theresa].” And she said, “Be resourceful If you got to be on i, be resourceful. You know, you can’ t buy Tupperware? Then get foil. Get you some good foil to go over your food.” Eddie Murphy gave a joke H e says he used to run for ice cream and he used to tell the other kids: “You can't get no ice cream. ‘Cause you’re on welfare " But then the main thing is you want the children not to feel that they're an welfare In the United States, welfare recipients are stigmatized to such an extent that grandmothers like Theresa Richardson will do whatever they can to protect their grandchildren from “feeling” like a welfare recquent. Apparently it is this same, shameful feeling that makes some grandparents' decision to apply for welfare a reluctant one Sandra Theodonos, sounding a bit like a daytime talk show guest herself; recognizes the “scandalous” nature of her status, even as she jokes about it. “I was an unwed pregnant grandmother,” claimed Sandra satirically, who later had to “go an welfare” to provide for the grandchildren in her care. Even though relative caregivers provide a valuable service to their families— and to society— by raising their grandchildren, the comments above suggest that grandparents believe their efforts will be seen less as charitable acts and more as a “charity case” should they ever need or seek public financial assistance. By applying for welfare— even a “non-needy” 105 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. caretaker grant-grandparents fear they will inextricably associate themselves with highly stigmatized “welfare queens'’ who presumably burden society by misusing public funds. Despite these fears, the popular press has issued countless stories m recent years that laud the efforts of relative caregivers who selflessly step in to raise their grandchildren * 4 Newspaper and news magazine articles have even made efforts, directly or indirectly, to disassociate relative caregivers from their “less responsible” parental counterparts who accept welfare benefits on behalf of their children. Consider the following descriptions of relative caregivers: They come together almost every Thursday night, gray-haired ladies wearing tired smiles and sensible shoes, most of diem struggling to raise grandchildren who have been damaged or discarded by their drug-abusing parents. This circle of women with big hearts and small bank accounts includes 63-year-old Lillian Branham, who shares a double bed and a hasnmmt apartment wife her 2-year-old grandson, Dante Oscar Stevens (Norris, 1991). This is Peg: 50 but looks 40, slender, a Wheaton divorcee and fee mother of two grown sons, plays forward on ho- women's soccer team, named her cat Pink Floyd. She is die eldest of nine children, a big sister to anyone who needs it. When the social workers called one Sunday afternoon and said that her grandnephew needed a new home, die didn’t think twice about it because, well, she just didn’ t (Jeter 1997). Grandparents will often minimize their own health problems, especially when it comes down to money. “Sometimes the situation ts, ekher I go to the dentist or my grandchild does” (Gilbert 1998). The elaborate system of child protection and support agencies throughout the land is more of a hindrance than a help to these beleaguered families his very difficult for grandparents to gain unchallenged permanent custody of * * See. for example. Beglin 1997; Berman 1997a; Berman 1997b; Bowman 1995; Cable News Network 19%; Campos and Boettcher 1997; Cass 1994; Chen and Howerter 1994; Christian 1997; Clemetson 2000; Creighton 1991; Drummond 1994; Feldman 1990; Fouquette 1993; Gilbert 1998; Gross 2000; Horwitz 1999; Jeter 1997; Mehren 1998; Mott 1997; Nguyen 1996; Norris 1991; O'Reilly 2000; Paterno 1994; Renwick 1993; Rovner 1995; Salmon 1996; Schmich 1997; Seaton 2001; Sherr and Downs 1997; Texeua 19%; Traster 2000; Uhrich 1997; Williams 1999; Yip 1993; Zeringue 1998. 106 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. threatened children. And the financial support they get is less than one third that available to foster families But nothing can really ease the unique burdens these grandparents bear Tbe stresses are compounded by the fact that some of the children they mherit are among the most needy, most emotionally damaged and most angry in the nation (Creighton 1991). To help with their ballooning expenses, [relative caregiver] Philip Edmger sold his motorcycle. “I regret it (selling the bike), but I have a lot o f love for my family and that has to came first” (Williams 1999). Would the Pearsons— irked that foster care parents receive so much more than they ck>-give up some autonomy for a bigger subsidy9 “If the state takes control of how my girls will be raised, the extra money is not worth it,” says Loraine [Pearson]. “But if I just had to file reports to update their progress, that would be acceptable. I can understand that die state wants to ensure that the money is being used for the girls and not for me to buy a new car” (Traster 2000). Unlike the racialized and stigmatized images o f “welfare queens” with numerous children in tow, cultural icons of grandmothers raising grandchildren are distinctly wanner and fuzzier. Articles about relative caregivers often emphasize the sacrifices grandparents make by trading in their “golden years” for another round of parenting. They suggest that kinship care is “not about the money” while they argue that relative caregivers are deserving of more support These stories are in stark contrast to the iconography ofthe welfare queen, which depicts mothers an welfare, for example, as more likely to use the money to “buy a new car,” rather than to feed and clothe their children (see, e.g., Platte 1994). Although a large number of media reports an grandparents raising grandchildren have supported the notion that relative caregivers are entitled to support, some evidence suggests that the tide may be turning. Generations United (GU), a “national coalition dedicated to intergeneratianal policy, programs and issues” (see www.gu.org), notes a trend toward negative coverage of relative caregivers GU provides an example: As recently as early 1999, an article appeared in die Washington Post that implied that grandmothers who raised grandchildren were “country dub 107 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. grandmothers” who raise children m order to collect a $161 monthly TANF child-only grant (Generations United n.d.). Although there was no citation included m the Generations United report, the article to which this statement most likely refers noted the following: But if the county [Craven County, N.C.] discovered that many of the families [receiving child-only welfare benefits] were deeply poor and equally troubled, it also found that a handful of these grandmothers were noddle class, a group quietly labeled “country club” grandmothers, legally entitled to assistance because the relatives they have taken in are destitute. And other communities have discovered that many are under age 40, young enough to be able to work. . . The search for ways to address this group isn’ t new. Even back in 1994, when President Clinton was designing his welfare proposal, administration aides were considering whether they could force these grandparents to work or take into account their income to avoid the “country club” grandmother problem (Vobejda and Havemann 1999). The Washington Post reporters made these statements in the context of a larger analysis of a growing policy debate on child-only welfare cases The article went on to provide a case illustration of one such “country club grandmother” who supports her grandson with S322 in wages and $181 in child-only welfare benefits each month Although it is implied in the article that the grandmother lives rent-free with a friend, an annual income of just over $6000 would hardly cover most country club membership foes, nor would it qualify as affluent by most standards. Providing a contrast to this case, the Washington Post article described another, more "deserving," grandmother who raises “four grandchildren m a decrepit trailer” and whose welfare and disability benefits when totaled do not break the poverty line. The article identified this grandmother as the more appropriate “target” of child-only welfare benefits, which are “aimed in part at addressing the needs of grandmothers raising young children an their own” as well as those who prevent “children [from] becom[ing] a part of the foster care system at for greater cost to the taxpayer” {ibid.). 108 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The “country club” grandm other in this scenario received custody of her six-year-old grandson “after she convinced the judge that her sen and his girlfriend were unfit parents and had felled to provide Aaron a home.” As such, this grandmother is not unlike many of the other grandm others I write about m this chapter who established legal guardianship of their grandchildren in probate court— and in so dong, may have prevented those children from entering foster care later on. In the long run, grandmothers who help their grandchildren avoid the child welfare system may save taxpayers even more money (in die form of foster care maintenance payments, counseling fees, medical bills, etc.) by helping to keep a neglectful situation from turning into an abusive one. Without this “abuse” label however, it may be more difficult for the public to empathize with relative caregivers who ask for financial assistance after “choosing” to assume the parental rights of their grandchildren. Indeed, some may perceive this “choice” as an unwarranted seizure o f a parent’s inviolable parental rights. In the wake of welfare reform, which ended the entjrkm ent to public support- including for grandparents raising grandchildren— the stigma associated with welfare usage may be spreading to “informal” relative caregivers on welfare, a group that has generally enjoyed relatively positive coverage in this context, it is perhaps not surprising that relative caregivers, many of whom already struggle with setfhiame over their perceived “failures” in raising their own children, view the need to resort to welfare as another sign of failure It is not unexpected either, that relative caregivers might want to Hisasgnriatg themselves from the stereotyped welfare recipient whose contributions as a mother are offset by her dependence on the system. Although the Department of Public Social Services, perhaps strategically, takes the edge off welfare stigma by referring to the category of benefits geared toward relative 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. caregivers as a “nan-needy caretaker” grant, the link between “welfare” and “neediness” remains unbroken for many of the grandmothers I interviewed.*5 The personal stigma felt by relative caregivers is a very real and troubling problem. Even more troubling, perhaps, is the realization that poor relative caregivers— including those impoverished by the very act of raising their grandchildren— are disproportionately affected by this stigma smce they may be less able to opt out of welfare. If the majority of these poor relative caregivers are African American— an assumption supported by statistics an kinship care-then this may simply further the stereotype of the black “ welfare queen.” Furthermore, some poor relative caregrvers— like Lynette Jacobsen (who happens to be white)— may feel they have no choice but to ask the dependency system to take over when the grandparent cannot afford to raise the children an ha- own. Thus, for those “Irving on the edge of the dependency system,” the potential to slip into “dependency” appears to be greater for poor relative caregivers, whether this means becoming dependent an welfare or becoming involved with the dependency system Asa result, and as I will describe further in the following section, those caregivers with greater access to financial and professional resources can avoid the stigma attached to the reliance on “the System.” Establishing Legal Authority: An Expensive “Can o f Worms” I spoke with Lynette Jacobsen a couple of months after observing the grandparent support group meeting in which her peers encouraged her to avoid die foster care system and 8 5 It is also important to note here that a few of the grandparents I interviewed were critical of other relative caregivers who accepted welfare and other benefits on behalf of their grandchildren. Sandra Theodonos' disapproving comments about her grandson’s paternal grandparents (noted earlier in this chapter) are an example of such critkasm-and not mtHlre the W ashington Post article that chided “country club" grandmothers who presumably do not “need” the support. 110 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. seek financial assistance from the Department of Public Social Services instead Lynette said she had decided against calling tbe child abuse hotline and expressed her gratitude to the group-especially to group-ieader Winifred Dietz— for helping her come to this decision “[Winifred] is the one who told me not to go to foster care ‘cause it’s like the government owns your child, and you don’ t want that. / really don’ t want that,” she concluded- However, getting guardianship of Jesse, as the support group also suggested, was not an easy alternative for her. “I was trying to get legal guardianship but I wasn’ t having much hick,” reported Lynette. They were telling me it would've been $600 and I'm doing good to keep food on the table,” she added In Los Angeles County, a person petitioning the probate court for guardianship must pay a filing fee of $194 and an investigation fee of $425 (Los Angeles Superior Court 2001 ) * 6 However, an eligibility worker from tbe Department of Public Social Services told Lynette that as long as die had proof that she was raising Jesse, she could still qualify for welfare m 8 6 Fee schedule for Los Angeles County current as of June 2000 However, a petitioner unable to afford these fees can ask the court waive them. Petitioners receiving financial assistance from the state (Cal WORKS. SSL General Relief, or Food Stamps) qualify for the waiver, as do families earning less than a maximum income determined by the state. Lynette's court fees could have been waived if her monthly gross income was less than $1,172 for her family of two (Judicial Council of California. March 1 . 2000). I l l Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. California,8 7 she didn’ t need to hire an attorney or petition the court for legal guardianship if all she wanted was financial support foam tbe DPSS. “1 went to [tbe Department of Public] Social Services. They said that if my son has custody and he will sign him over, that’s good enough for them," she said. So Lynette and a friend who is a Notary Public went to die jail where her son was held and had him sign some papers that, in effect, “signed over” Jesse to his grandmother’ s care. The next step was for Lynette to get financial support by applying for TANF/CalWORKS. “I'm trying to get organized. I’m trying to set up my files so I have all the stuffthe social services people want,” she said. Lynette Jacobsen nearly paid $600 to get guardianship of her grandson, Jesse, in an effort to get financial assistance for the child. This might not seem like a kit of money to some, but to Lynette, who was unemployed, it was a lot. Although die may have been able to get the court's permission to waive these fees, she didn’ t know about this possibility. Lynette was ensnared in a Catch-22: Getting legal guardianship did not necessarily have to be an expensive process for her, nor was it necessary to qualify for welfare, but Lynette couldn’ t afford to hire an attorney who could tell her these things or file the application for waiver of court fees on her behalf. Because her efforts were uncontested by the parents, however-and because of helpful advice from an eligibility worker at the Department o f Public Social 1 5 7 In feet, no U.S. state requires a caregiver to have legal custody of a child in order to qualify for welfare, although (me must be able to demonstrate that one is caring for the child, and states vary on what constitutes proof (Hoilidge and Mullen 1999). In addition. some states place restrictions on welfare funding for relative caregivers: in South Carolina, for example, a parent mint be dead, m jail, or have children in the foster care system in order for a grandparent to qualify for funding on behalf of the children (ibid.). Furthermore, some evidence suggests that eligibility m ay can according to the erroneous notions of eligibility workers; for example, a brochure published by the American Association for Retired Persons warns grandparents to “ be wary of agencies (or caseworkers) that tell you that you need legal custody to get benefits. . . . Ask to see the law that requires you to obtain legal custody” (AARP 1997; see also AARP red.). 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Services— Lynette was able to establish responsibility fix'Jesse in a way that did not break die bank. Since Lynette's primary goal m establishing legal guardianship was in order to qualify for welfare, when she was able to obtain tbe latter without legal guardianship, she gave up this line of pursuit. Ultimately, though, Lynette was denied the parental rights granted by guardianship because she could not afford the access fee; access to the court m the form of filing fees, and to knowledge about available fee waivers in the form of an attorney's fees, were beyond Lynette's financial means. Even for grandparents who can afibrd to hire an attorney and pay the court's filing fees, the process of filing for guardianship can become prohibitively expensive if a parent objects to the plan. If this happens, a guardianship can become very costly, very quickly. This is the problem Gmny Rose and her husband faced when they initially attempted to file for guardianship of their grandson, Vincent. When it appeared to the Roses that they would be caring for Vincent indefinitely, they hired an attorney and began the process of filing for guardianship. While their daughter, who is mentally ill, consented to this arrangement, the Roses ran into resistance from Vincent's father and paternal grandparents Girmy explains: We had tried [to get guardianship] earlier, and fix’ some reason-and I'm not really sure what reason— the father and the grandmother really fought it . . . [The father] wouldn’t sign any papers or consent. And we were told [a contested guardianship would cost] anywhere up to $10,000. And so... we said, no, let's just keep things as they are. And see what happens. We knew [Vmcent] was going to be here, but we also knew that the father would really fight it . .. And so we just kind of dropped the matter and never did anything The Roses got by with informal custody of their grandson for many years and relied on a caregiver authorization affidavit after this option became available in 1994. But they 113 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. decided to pursue guardianship again in 1998 when Vincent’s father prepared to move to the east coast to attend graduate school. By then, it was clear to all that the Roses would raise eight-year-old Vincent to adulthood. This tune, Vincent's father readily agreed to sign the paperwork suspending his parental rights and the guardianship hearing went smoothly. Even so, the Roses reportedly paid several thousand dollars in court costs and attorney fees to establish guardianship of their grandson. Dee Dee Davis, another member of Winifred Dietz's grandparent support group, also anticipated a contested guardianship. When her granddaughter, Krystal, was just an infant, Dee Dee's daughter, who was an addict, signed papers authorizing Dee Dee to care for Krystal. Dee Dee took these papers to court and the judge appointed her as Krystal s legal guardian. Dee Dee saw this as a temporary arrangement, necessary only until her daughter, Mary, overcame her problem with drugs. When Mary died in 1996,n however, Dee Dee wanted to have permanent custody of Krystal; she wanted to adopt her daughter's daughter in family court This became even more important when Krystal's father— who had never been significantly involved in Krystal's life-suddenly expressed an interest in raising his daughter. Concerned that her legal guardianship would not provide enough security to prevent him from regaining custody of Krystal, Dee Dee consulted an attorney to find out how to adopt her granddaughter. Dee Dee recalls her conversation with the attorney: “ Tragically. Mary died, according to tbe coroner's report of an "accidental overdose of acetaminophen over a period of months." Mary was beginning to get her addiction to cocaine and speed under control, but chronic back pain from a childhood injury led Mary to take large quantitive of the o\er-the-counter drag. According to Dee Dee. M ary died of liver failure, apparently tbe result of her b o d jy ’s inability to process the excessive amount of acetaminophen. 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Yeah,” be said, “I can do the adoption for you. No problem at all. But it will cost you $5000.” And be said, “You know, why spend money if you don't have to. So let's wait. . . . Let's not open a can of worms. Let them open the can of worms." The lawyer advised Dee Dee to keep her custodial arrangement the way it was and to wait until die father petitioned the court to reinstate his parental rights. By doing so, die attorney said, the father would assume the responsibility for paying the court’s filing fees, and Dee Dee could avoid having to do so herself. This was important advice, since 73-year-old Dee Dee's earnings from a retirement pension, part-time work and occasional child support payments from the father amounted to less than the federal poverty standard for a family o f two. She couldn't afford to open the expensive “can of worms" that could result if she initiated a messy, prolonged custody battle with the father * 9 But the lawyer's advice also encouraged Dee Dee to take a gamble, and hope that the father's talk of getting his daughter back was only that; talk. It was not the first time he had proposed to take Krystal away. According to Dee Dee, the father made a half-hearted attempt to get custody of Krystal once before while Mary was still alive. He had been living in "family housing" m the military, and when military officials discovered he did not actually have a fa m ily residing with him, he wanted custody of Krystal to avoid getting in trouble. This time, apparently, the preapitatmg event sparking an mterest m regaining custody was a summons from the Family Support Division of the District Attorney’s office. Dee Dee explains; 8 9 Furthermore, the “can of worms" might be even “wormier" if a grandparent tries to adopt a grandchild. Family court judges are likely to be hesitant to terminate a parent’s rights (via adoption) when they have the option to suspend them (via guardianship). 115 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The D.A.'s after him for child support.9 0 That's what it is. It's not the interest in the child. In fact, he called me after we started this and he said, “Well I didn’ t want to do this ” He said, “I didn't want to change anything.” According to Dee Dee, Krystal's father had not paid child support since when he was in the military and the payments were automatically deducted from his paycheck. Now he was facing a fine and possible jail time for failing to keep up an his payments. Despite these problems, Krystal's father was trying to straighten out his life. He was in an outpatient drug rehabilitation program and had recently married. Dee Dee feared these factors might work in his favor were he to challenge her guardianship in court. She also worried that a judge might believe that it was m Krystal's best interests to grow up with her biological father. Indeed, Faith Mullen and Margaret Hollidge, two policy experts at the American Association of Retired Persons, advised the audience at a 1999 kinship care conference that it is “burdensome” fix grandparents to establish and maintain custody of their grandchildren. Unless the grandparent can convince the court of the parents' extensive abuse and neglect, the assumption underlying the decision-making processes of many judges is that it is best for a child to be raised by his or her biological parent (Hollidge and Mullen 1999; see also Guggenheim, Lowe and Curtis 1996). Thus, the lawyer's advice to Dee Dee to “wait and see” seemed to flow from a favorable assessment of risk based on the family’s history with tbe father, as well as an awareness of Dee Dee's financial limitations. But Dee Dee also had legal precedence working 9 0 TANF regulations require that when a relative caregiver receives welfare benefits for a child whose parents are still alive, the caregiver must agree to work with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office to collect child support payments (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 19%: DPSS n.d.:“CalWORKS: What does it mean to you and your family " brochure). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on her side. Shortly before our interview in the summer of 1998, the 4th District California Court of Appeals ruled on a case remarkably similar to Dee Dee's. In this (Don H. v Patricia F ), the court ruled against a father (Don H.) reinstatement of his parental rights and left the children in the custody o f their grandmother (Patricia F.). The children's grandmother had been appointed the legal guardian six years prior, due m part to the father’s alcohol problem and the mother’ s “severe mental problems.” Although the father had three years of sobriety when he sought custody of his children, the appellate court judge ruled that removing the children from their grandmother’s care would not be in their “best interest.” In his decision. Judge David G. Sills wrote. It is true that [the father] had cured the one big problem (his drinking) that led to the guardianship. But he had not bothered with any of the logistical details of parenthood More importantly, he had not developed a strong bond with his children that would overcome the upheaval of terminating the formal care of Patricia and entrusting it to him. Indeed, he was a virtual stranger to the children (Don H. v Patricia F. 1998). Thus, the court argued that the loving care and stability provided by the grandmother in the case overrode the “natural” right of the biological father to raise his children. In other words, this case set an important precedent establishing that a parent whose parental rights have been suspended must do more than correct the particular problem that led to the suspension in the first place; she or he must demonstrate an “overall moral fitness” for parenting that “justiffies] a change in custody” (ibid.). hi effect, this maans that the game 117 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. standard the probate court uses to transfer custody to a legal guardian should be used to reestablish parental rights: a child’s “best interests” to reside in a loving, stable home.9 1 Lacking the financial resources to do otherwise, Dee Dee Davis had to place her bet on the odds that Krystal’s father would not be able to pass this judicial test, if he ever were to try. Like Girmy Rose and Lynette Jacobsen, Dee Dee Davis’ options for custody were restricted, in part, by financial limitations. Dee Dee couldn’ t afford to open the expensive “can of worms” that could follow if she tried to adopt Krystal and faced opposition from the father So, like Ginny and Lynette, Dee Dee had to opt for a custodial arrangement with less legal protection than she was seeking. Summary and Conclusion Grandparents raising grandchildren have many reasons to seek greater legal authority. One common reason is in order to overcome bureaucratic hurdles, such as the inability to enroll a child in school or take him or her to see tbe doctor. These two problems can be resolved with a caregiver authorization affidavit, a simple form filled out by the grandparent that establishes her responsibility for her grandchild. Sometimes, especially when a parent is only temporarily unable to care for ho- child, this is all a grandparent needs to legally “ parent” her grandchild. Other times, a grandparent may decide he or she needs greater legal authority than that which is provided by the caregiver authorization affidavit, and may petition the probate 9 1 In another California case, rr Stephanie K i. (1994) a judge ruled in favor erf the foster parents who wished to adopt the foster child in their cate over the wishes of the grandmother. The court ruled against tbe grandmother since she had not maintained a significant relationship with the child, whose primary attachment was to the foster mother. This ruling is <^ndop«it with Don H . v Patricia F. in that both judges emphasized the relationship, not the biological tie. in assigning custody (Oppenheitn and Bussiere 1996). 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. court for temporary or permanent legal guardianship of the child. A grandparent may seek guardianship because she knows she will be raising her grandchildren permanently Other grandparents do so because they fear for the safety of a child Irving with an abusrve or neglectful parent. In order to get a guardianship, the grandparent must persuade the court that it is in the child's “best interests" for the grandparent, rather than the parents), to have custody of the child Guardianship suspends the parental rights of the parent and transfers most of these rights to the grandparent, thereby allowing her to make important decisions regarding the life of the child. Another closely related reason for seeking guardianship is to prevent the dependency system from becoming involved in the child's life. “I never recommend that a client call Quid Protective Services,” says David Purcell, an attorney m Orange County who specializes in grandparents' lights cases “If a grandparent has been a de facto parent and die parent shows up [wanting to reclaim the children], move then to establish temporary guardianship,” be suggests. The reasoning behind Purcell's suggestion, and as I will explain in the following chapter, when the dependency system gets involved, it may remove a child from die home of an abusive parent and make the child a “dependent" of the juvenile dependency court. Many grandparents fear that when this happens a grandchild may be lost to a powerful and byzantme institution— an institution with which many grandparents have little experience, but about which they have heard many frightening stories. Like the members of Winifred Dietz's support group, many grandparents are apprehensive about what might happen to their grandchildren if they were placed m foster care, and strive to do whatever they can to avoid “the [dependency] system." Indeed, Claudette Kunzman, an attorney in Orange County, 1 1 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. California who works with relative caregivers, refers to the dependency system as “grandparents' greatest fear” (Kunzman 1997). Establishing guardianship may prevent the grandchild from being removed from the home of a parent on die verge o f being reported to the Child Abuse Hot Line (CAHL) o f the Department of Children and Family Services. And smce the jurisdiction of the dependency court (which oversees all DCFS cases) supersedes that of the probate court [Los Angeles County superior court, local rule 1 7 0(b)], this is a compelling reason for many grandparents to go to probate court to establish guardianship before calling the child abuse hotline. But die standard of die child's “best interests,” which tbe probate court uses to establish a guardianship, is decidedly vague (Oppenheim and Bussiere 1996) As a result, grandparents petitioning the court for guardianship are left, to some degree, to hope— as Gmny Rose's attorney put it— for a “good judge” who will be sympathetic to the grandparent's concerns about the parent and child. Furthermore, as Patricia Moore's experience demonstrates, the dependency system may become involved anyway if the probate court makes a referral to DCFS following allegations o f child abuse made cbrmg a guanfewrehip proceeding. In Patricia's case, already having established temporary guardianship allowed her to keep her grandson, Toby, in her custody— even after DCFS became involved. However, if a DCFS investigation uncovers evidence of child abuse, the case could be transferred to the dependency court, thereby halting guardianship proceedings in probate court (WIC §329). Even if die Department of Children and Family Services does not become involved, a parent who opposes the grancfoarent's application for gmmfeBKhip can disrupt the guardianship proceedings. Furthermore, even after a grandparent establishes permanent guardianship, a parent may file at any time a petition for the removal of the guardian in an 120 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. attempt to regain custody of his or her child. This is precisely what Dee Dee Davis feared might happen to her, when her granddaughter’ s father indicated an interest in raising his child. However, the decision of Don H. v Patricia F. (1998) sets a I g p l precedent that privileges a grandparent's long-term guardianship of a grandchild over a mother or father’s inherent parental rights (Hua 1998a; Hua 1998b). As these cases suggest, going to court to establish legal authority for one’ s grandchild can be a complex and confusing process. It can also be expensive. If a parent protests the grandparent's guardianship petition, this can lead to long, drawn out legal proceedings that require a lawyer’s expertise and a grandparent’s substantial financial investm ent Indeed, two authorities on California guardianships advise potential guardians repeatedly to, “see a lawyer if the guardianship is contested” (Goldoftas and Brown 1997). But even a relatively simple, uncontested guardianship may be beyond the reach of some grandparents who lack the financial means to access specialized legal knowledge about the court system. Financial matters come into play in another important way, as well. Relative caregivers often struggle to manage the expenses associated with “unplanned (grand)parenthood.” Although welfare benefits are available to relative caregivers through the Department of Public Social Services— including “ncn-needy caretaker” benefits that release grandparents from the work requirements and time limits of the CalWORKS program— many grandparents would prefer to avoid die “welfare system” whenever possible. When financial constraints make this impossible, grandparents often describe the process of applying for welfare to be degrading and a source of shame. That this occurs suggests the extent to which welfare is stigmatized in American culture; grandmothers raising grandchildren seem to fear 121 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that when they accept financial support from the government, any benefits they provide to society by raising their grandchildren mutate into burdens. Thus, the greater the financial resources a grandparent has, the more easily she or he is able to avoid “the System”— including both die “welfare” and “dependency” systems. Similarly, it appears that the greater the legal and custodial authority desired by the grandparent, the greater the financial resources required to get it Furthermore, the less legal authority a grandparent has, the more potential a grandchild has to be removed from die grandparent's home— either by a parent who retains legal custody, or by the Department of Children and Family Services who may take an abused child into protective custody. When this happens, grandparents face an entirely different set of legal and bureaucratic hurdles set up by the juvenile dependency court and the Department of Children and Family Services. I turn now to the experiences of these grandparents, and their encounters in the dependency system. 122 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - FOUR - FEAR AND LOATHING IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPENDENCY SYSTEM Send lawyers, guns and money. The shit has hit the fan. — Warren Zevon, singer-songwriter Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Jackie Knight” Looking back, it's pure luck that I was home when they called. I was dressed and ready to go out. H ad they called two minutes later I would've already been out the door. But J.C.. as I like to call Him, must have been working fo r the foatdly that day because I home when the call came from the Department o f Children and Family Services. They called to tell me that the children were there, at MacLaren Hall, where they usually take children when they re picked up. The Worker from the Department called to explain what had happened to my great-grandchildren and to ask me. would 1 like to take them home. And so I told her. "Yes! Yes! Yes'" and asked her to keep the children there, said I would be right down to pick them up. What could've never happened by a margin o f a couple minutes took only about that long to resolve. I called my daughter Ellen, the children s grandmother, and picked her up from work on the way down to MacLaren s Children s Center. We signed some papers and they were ready to go. The children went home with us that day. A few days later, as is typically the case, we had a court hearing down in Monterey Fork and the judg/e told us that we am id keep the children. Not too long after that, the children s mother got picked up by the police. And then she went away fo r 18 months or so. So at that point, my daughter and I knew we d have the children fo r awhile. 124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Well, really, it was a little more complicated than this. When Ellen and I went to court to get custody o f the children, it turns out the father showed up. saying he wanted to take them. Now this js the way it is usually done: i f the mother isn 7 able to take care o f the children, then the social workers and the court try to fin d the father. Not Just with my fam ily, but with any family. But this father hadn 7 been involved in the children s life at all. And when they checked him out— and the county checks eve-ry-one out— it turns out he was walking dawn the same dirty road as my granddaughter. He wasn 7 in any shape or condition to care fo r those children. But. as luck would have it. the court learned all this in their investigations and decided not to place the children with him. O f course, this made him angry, but he didn 7 help his chances at all when he decided to tell o ff the judge. You know that was the end o f him. So it really is a blessing that I was home when the call came. Yes it is. Because i f not. the children could've gone with their father— temporarily at least, until they found out he didn 7 have a decent place to live, or a job. and that all he did have was a problem with drugs. Or worse yet. the children might have been sent to a fo ster home— some o f which aren 7 so nice. Plus, once they are placed in a foster home, it s not always so easy to get them out. No. No. No. No! That would not have been right. I f the children couldn 7 be with their mother— which would have been the best thing— the next best choice was fo r them to be with Ellen and me. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. When and bow a grandparent becomes involved with the dependency system can vary widely. Likewise, relative caregivers’ experiences differ within the foster care system as well If there are any general rules to be found, it may that relative caregivers entering the system are typically anxious and uninformed about what encounters might lie ahead. Furthermore, as grandparents and grandchildren move through each step of the dependency process, their stories emphasize the ambiguous and tenuous status of grandparents raising grandchildren in a system designed for “strangers " This chapter depicts the experiences of relative caregivers whose grandchildren enter the foster care system. In some cases, and as 1 suggested in Chapter Three, this occurs when relative caregivers lack access to legal protections that might allow their grandchildren to remain independent of the dependency system. Not all relative caregivers become involved with the system after a foiled attempt to avoid it, however Indeed, grandparents become “kinship caregivers" in a number of ways and at different stages in the dependency process. Some grandparents, like Jackie Knight, could not have predicted this course of events; the initial involvement with the child welfare system often has a seemingly random quality to it. Other grandparents make a conscious decision to involve the dependency system, often after a long period of fretful and foiled attempts to get alternative help for their children and grandchildren. I will describe the experiences of relative caregivers as they progress through the various stages of the dependency process (see Figure 4-1). Beginning with the initial child abuse report made to the Department of Children and Family Services, I trace the process an through to the “permanency planning" hearing m foe dependency court. Part of my goal in 126 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. describing this process sequentially is to B ifo rm readers— {D eluding relative caregivers new to tbe dependency system— about important features of the Los Angeles County child welfare system. Along the way. I highlight some of tbe problems relative caregivers encounter as tbey are incorporated into this enormously complex and not always well-oiled machine. Figure 4-1: The Dependency Process________________________________________ 1 . Parent reported for child abuse 2. Department of Children and Family Services investigates allegations of abuse 3 . Department of Children and Family Services investigates potential relative caregiver placement 4 . Department of Children and Family Services places the child 5 . The arraignment and detention hearing held in Los Angeles County Juvenile Dependency Court (Children's Court) 6. The adjudication and jurisdiction hearing held in Children 's Court 7 The disposition hearing held in Children's Court 8. Review hearing; (including permanency planning hearings) held in C hildren's Court 9 On-going supervision of case by the Department of Children and Family Services (until the ______ child exits the dependency system via reunification, ggarrfiairehip or adoption)_________ Getting into the System: The Ch3d Abuse Report Getting into the system requires an initial report of alleged abuse to the Department of Children and Family Services' Child Abuse Hot Line (CAHL, a.k.a. Child Protective Services). Such a report might come from an average citizen or from a “mandated reporter," a person required by law to disclose suspected child abuse. In California, the list of mandated reporters is long and generally includes paid and volunteer professionals whose work brings them into regular contact with children and/or families, such as teachers, health care (including mental health care) professionals, child care providers, police officers, etc. (Penal Code §11166). In addition, and as noted in the previous chapter, probate court judges are required to make a referral to DCFS when allegations of abuse arise (hiring gtiawfiandiip proceedings [Probate Code §1513(4)(c)]. 127 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Frequently grandparents are aadeiy aware o f problems going an in tbe homes of their children and grandchildren. As a result, a grandparent may decide to make a child abuse report.9 2 Making this call is rarely easy for a grandparent, who may fear the uncertain consequences of gettmg the child welfare system involved. Many grandparents fear that tf they call the hotline, they may “lose” their grandchild to an anonymous, all-powerful “System" that assumes control over the child's life. It is this concern that leads many grandparents— including Patricia Moore, Winifred Dietz, Lynette Jacobsen, and Dee Dee Davis, whose attempts to avoid the dependency system were outlined in the previous chapter— to seek temporary or permanent legal guardianship rather than calling DCFS and asking them to intervene. Other grandparents who do not want to pursue guardianship for whatever reason may still feel tom about reporting their own sons and daughters to the CAHL. One concern that emerged from my interviews, for example, is that the parent could be arrested and charged with the crime of child abuse if law enforcement were to open a separate, criminal investigation of the reported abuse. Despite this concern, according to a publication on 9 2 Calls from relatives accounted for approximately 15-33% of all child abuse reports in California (Barth et al. 1994; Bemck. Barth and Needell 1994: Legislative Analyst's Office 19%). Nationwide, relatives reported 9% of all cases of alleged abuse (1997 DHHS Children’ s Bureau 1999). These figures might underestimate the imw lvr r f reports ftnm iriatrvrs ancf they may choose to make an anonymous referral to Child Protective Services; 11.7% of aO reports nationwide arc made anonymously. The largest numher of child abuse reports come from manAiBH reporters, accounting for 53.6% of all reports nationwide (ibid.). 128 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. child abuse reporting, few parents are arrested for nan-lethal and “less serious” forms of child abuse.9 3 Another voiced concern is the parent's revenge Grandpaicnts sometimes fear that if they make the child abuse report themselves, the parent will find out and retaliate in some way. This is particularly the case among grandparents I interviewed who have drug-addicted adult children whose reactions may be irrational and unpredictable. This very concern prevented Ella Dill Fernandes from reporting her daughter, Danielle, for several years. Ella had been raising her grandson, Jason, for four years, coping with all the challenges that come with raising a child with leukemia. EDa was stretched to capacity aid had made die decision she would not raise Danielle’s second child, Cleo, who was born when Jason was three years old Ella knew that Danielle was living an the streets, using drugs and neglecting her new baby, however And Elia was struggtmg financially smce she was cot working and smce Danielle refused to share Jason's SSI (disability) income with her. Ella thought that reporting her daughter for child abuse might protect Cleo and force Danielle to relinquish Jason’s disability check. Ella describes the complicated circumstances surrounding her decision to report I didn’ t feel in the position that I could report her because she'll be burning my house down or snwmtimgi You know what I mean? She’s, you know, I don’ t know what she’ll do. I don’ t put anything past her. . . . So when [Cleo] was five months old, there was an opportunity that arose. [Danielle] had never picked up his birth certificate. And tbe hospital had called several times to my house and I said, “She’s not living here,” and this and that. So anyways, a social worker called up from the hospital one day. And, I don’ t 9 3 According to the publication: “Usually the parent or caretaker is neither arrested nor criminally charged in a child abuse case. This is because the goal of intervention is to protect the child from further maltreatment and to hdp the parents) change their behavior” (Stale of California. H H S Agency . DSS, Office of Child Abuse Prevention. “Child Abuse Reputing. . . and You” brochure). 129 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. know, I just felt like I coukl trust her or something And I just told her, you knew, kind of what was going an. You know, my concerns for [Cleo]. He had never been to die doctor. He had never had his shots. You know, this and that and the other. And so she had me come m to pick up the birth certificate and she met with me. You know, we talked there and I explained to her the whole thing. How I'm scared, I can’ t report it I can’ t report it! Because she'll find out, you know what I mean? And she said, “I'm going to report it. I'll report it for you." . . . And I explained to the social worker, “She’s a dangerous gut" You know, cause when you're a social worker, you have to leave your name and stuff.9 4 I said, “You better stress to the DCFS worker for [Danielle] to not find out that you're the one that referred it. 'Cause she will come to that hospital and she will try to kill you." You know what I mean? If I’m her own mother and she’s going to kill me, what do you think she’s going to do to some stranger? Ella Dill Fernandes’s fear of Danielle’s violent reaction kept her from reporting her daughter for child abuse.9 5 Thankfully, the hospital social worker-a mandated reporter-agreed to call the hotline and Danielle never found out who made the report Even if a grandparent resolves to call the CAHL, some find that representatives from the child abuse hotline are not always accessible or eager to take the report. Patricia Moore for example, tried to call the hotline to report her daughter for abuse before establishing temporary guardianship of her grandson, Toby. As noted in the previous chapter, Patricia said she waited for over an hour on hold before she finally gave up and hung up the phone. Patricia's experience is common, appare ntly. In early 1998, the Los Angeles Times ran a series of articles documenting problems with the Los Angeles County Child Abuse Hot Line. According to these reports, many callers to tbe hotline wait on hold for more than an 9 4 Social workers, as mandated reporters, must identify themselves when making a report of child abuse, assuming the report is linked to the social worker’ s professional responsibilities; mandated reporters are only required to report suspected abuse only if they learned of the abuse in the course of their professional activities [Penal Code §11166(a)]. 9 5 Veiy little is known about the extent of elder abuse in grandpareni-hcaded families. See Brownell and Berman (2000) for a discussion of the abuse of relative caregivers by grandchildren. 130 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hour to speak to a social worker Those who experience the longest waits are callers to the Spanish-speaking hotline and the consultation line, where callers can discuss matters with a social worker to see if they meet tbe criteria for child abuse before making a report (Nazario 1998) Part of the problem is the rapidly increasing rate of child abuse repeats that outpaces the staffing levels of the CAHL and the Emergency Response Command Post, the latter of which assigns social workers to investigate child abuse allegations According to the Times, calls to the Los Angeles County CAHL rose 63% between 1993 and 1998— compared to only 16% nationwide— while the number o f emergency response social workers remained constant (Rainey and Nazario 1998). While the county made efforts to correct these problems by luring additional staff and improving working conditions (“Some gains for abuse hotline,” 1998), the department continues to struggle with an incredibly heavy load In a single year (1999), the hotline assessed 146,583 referrals resulting in 129,661 in-person investigations (Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services). Even if grandparents get through to the hotline to report dangerous circumstances, they may find that DCFS is unable to intervene. Angela Valentine for example, ran into roadblocks each time she tried to get help for her daughter, Chandra, and for her grandchildren who, according to Angela, lived with a violent man. Angela, who sought hdp long-distance from New York, explains: I knew my daughter was involved in an abusive relationship. And I called the system. 1 called different places attempting to get hdp for her. But every time I attempted to get help, I was told she was a grown woman and that until one of the kids were hurt, there was nothmg nobody could do You know, which used to really frustrate me because they’re saying, in other words— you 're going to tell me 'til one of my grandkids gets killed or seriously hurt, you cannot step m and do anything? And as her mother, I could not do 131 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. anything because she was over 21 So that was a real frustrating situation Because there was no preventative measures there. ft was not until the father of the children reported Chandra for abandoning her children— apparently m retaliation for Chandra calhng the police to report him for domestic abuse— that the Department of Children and Family Services finally intervened. Sarah Whitfield Perez, who lives in Whittier, California, ran into the same problem. Sarah spent more than a decade trying to get custody o f her daughter's two sons, appealing to everyone from the probate court to the Los Angeles Unified School District to multiple offices of the Department of Children and Family Services, to remove the children from a home wracked with domestic violence. For years however, agency representatives told Sarah— much like they told Angela Valentine— that she must “wait and see" if things improved, or that “nothing could be done” because her abused daughter was an adult and the children were not being directly mistreated.9 6 Sarah, who disagreed with this assessment, was nearfy ready “kidnap” the kids and “skip tbe country” when she met a sympathetic social worker at a seniors' center. After years of getting nowhere, Sarah found a mandated reporter who agreed to make a report to the Child Abuse Hot Line. The following morning, an investigative social worker from the Department of Children and Family Services removed die children and placed them with Sarah. In addition to these and other legal barriers experienced by many callers to the hotline, grandparents may face additional obstacles, unique to their status as relative caregivers 9 6 Sarah and Angela's experiences run counter to current California law which states specifically: “The Legislature further finds and declares that the perpetration of child abuse or domestic violence in a household where a child resides is detrimental to the child” [Family Code §3020(a)|. The perception of domestic violence as a child welfare issue is a relatively recent phenomenon, with most states establishing such laws in the 1990s (Guggenheim. Lowe and Curtis 1996). Angela and Sarah’ s experiences may have preceded these changes in the law. 132 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Barbra Foote for example, a grandmother raising two grandchildren in the Antelope Valley who educates other caregivers about the dependency system, describes how grandparents may feel put an the defensive when social workers' uaianents or attitudes suggest that grandparents have ulterior motives for reporting their children for child abuse. She explains: I felt like we were suspect as grandparents, you know. Even though they place children now with reiatrves-tfaat’s the preferred placement-there's still that little cloud of "the nut doesn't fell for from the tree." So you have that little cloud hanging over you. And like I said before, when you make a report, if one chooses to make a report, grandparents are looked at as suspect. You know, “why are you doing this? You're trying to control your child” As Barbra's comments suggest, grandparents may confront biases held by some hotline workers that hold grandparents partly responsible for their adult children's behavior. Child welfare professionals, police officers and others may be less willing to help grandparents if they fault them for dragging out the family's dirty laundry for public display rather than handling it privately and therefore, more “appropriately.” Many of the grandparents I interviewed recalled similar experiences in a wide variety of contexts. “Suspect” grandparents who call the child abuse hotline may even find themselves facmg charges of abuse, especially if they are already raising the grandchildren For example, after Greda Gladstone, who works fix the Department of Children and Family Services as a “Kinship Assistant,” reported her granddaughter’s mother for abuse, the mother apparently retaliated by accusing Greaa of “stealing" the child. When a court summons arrived at her house, Greda, who had raised her granddaughter, Sophie, for most of her life, said they “packed up the TV and left for a week,” feanng Sophie would be taken away. After the initial shock wore off Greda returned home and paid a paralegal SI500 to help her address die charges of kidnaping. According to Greaa, the charges were dropped and foe dependency 133 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. court investigated tbe mother for child abuse, allowing Sophie to remain at home with her grandmother. The same thing happened to Chioe Haziett, a grandmother from the San Fernando Valley. Chloe’s troubles began when she responded to a call from her grandaughter's paternal grandmother. The woman, who was worried about the child, had called the child abuse hotline to report her son for domestic abuse. She urged Chloe to come immediately to take her granddaughter before officials arrived and “sent [the child] to MacLaren Hall.” Chloe agreed and raced from one comer of Los Angeles County to the other to retrieve her granddaughter. The Department of Children and Family Services apparently foiled to investigate the case, however, and when Chloe’ s daughter found her daughter missing, she called the police to report her mother for “kidnapmg” the child. The police arrived at Chloe’s house and threatened to remove the child— and to lock up Chloe if she resisted— smce she lacked the parental rights to her granddaughter. Fortunately, Chloe was able to contact and retain an attorney who helped her to resolve the problem. Genie Taylor freed even more serious complications as a result of taking her one- year-old grandson, Joey, to the hospital after his mother’ s boyfriend allegedly struck the baby. In tears, Genie explained what happened: And so [the mother] came to take the baby to visit the great-grandmother. And it was like, the next day, I came from work and my daughter said that [the mother] had called and said that her boyfriend had beat her up, and . . . he shook [Joey] and punched him in the stomach . . . Course later, [die mother] took her boyfriend’s side, ‘ cause they got back together. So, “Oh, nothing ever happened,” and stuff. But I know it did ‘cause she even sat here, helped her grandmother look for bruises on the baby’s body and stuff. . . When die police report was filed, a social worker came to the hospital and it developed into a big problem. They took [Joey] away from me And so anyway, when it came time to go to court, [DCFS] had filled out a report saying that the baby had been emotionally mid physically abused here in my home. By me and my son. 134 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. After a prolonged battle, Genie Taylor eventually convinced the court that the charges made against her were unfounded. The judge ordered that Joey be placed with his grandmother where he had lived smce be was bom. This experience with “the System” left Genie jaded: As bad as I have been treated, do you think I'd ever call [DCFS] if I thought a child was bong abused? As bad as they've treated me-the innocent party9 . . . I'd really think twice about it— I would!— about opening my mouth again. Recognizing the irony in her experience, Genie, forcing a laugh, contends, “I could've just had my son and his friends go out and take care of this guy and never called [DCFS] ...B u t you know, you try to follow the law." Grandparents often struggle with the decision to call the Child Abuse Hot Line. Many distrust the dependency system and try to avoid it, calling CAHL only as a last resort. Others may wish to make a child abuse report but do not, fearing the arrest or retribution of the parent. Still others try calling the hotline but are unable to get through or to make a report, due to an overburdened, biased, or legally-constrained staff. And in some cases, a grandparent may actually face the removal of a grandchild she or he is raismg if a report of abuse goes awry. For these and many other reasons, most grandparents carefully consider the decision to report abuse. Because once they make the call to DCFS, “ the System” takes over, assuming the ability to make critical decisions about the child's life. Investigating Allegations of Abuse Reports of abuse to the Los Angeles County Child Abuse Hot Line (CAHL) are referred to the DCFS Emergency Response Command Post, established in 1986 to provide around-the- clock child protective services (DCFS 1997). The CAHL screens and prioritizes calk according to the severity of the alleged abuse and sends an Emergency Response (ER) social 135 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. worker from the Emergency Response Command Post to investigate situations that appear to fall within the legal parameters of child abuse.9 7 An ER worker will conduct an interview with the child and usually the parent to detennne if there is enough evidence to open a child welfare case and/or detain the dukL This determination is made by the social worker finding “reasonable cause” that the child has suffered, or is in significant danger of suffering, one or more counts of harm outlined by the California State Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 300 The forms of abuse listed in this statute include physical, sexual and emotional abuse, severe cruelty, neglect, and abandonment A child may be removed as well if die parent previously abused the child's sibling or caused the death of another child-even if the patent has yet to be convicted in criminal court of doing so^-or if the child has already been “deed” for adoption (i.e., the parent's rights have already been severed).9 9 Based on his or her mterviewfs), the Emergency Response worker will decide to detain die child or to allow the child to remain with the parent with or without opening a child 9 7 According to a review of stale child abuse report screening policies. Los Angeles County hotline w orkers “screened out" 19% of all child abuse reports in 1 9 9 4 Los Angeles County had the lowest screening rate of all counties in California (Tumlin and G een 2000. Legislative Analyst's Office 1 9 9 6 ). 9 8 In 1996. the state legistonre revised the langmgc of the California Welfare and Institutions C ode Section 300(f) so that the dependency court could assume jurisdiction over a child whose parent has “cansecT the death of another child Previous language specifically required the conviction of a parent for causing the death of another child. See A B 2679 (Sponsor Caidera; chaptered September 30.1996). 9 9 Specifically, the Welfare and Institutions Code identifies the following forms of abuse (in order): serious physical harm; failure to protect (neglect): serious emotional damage; sexual abuse; severe physical abuse: the parent has caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect; the parent has left the child with no provision for support (abandonment); the child is freed for adoption; severe form s of cruelty, and abuse of the child's sibting(s) (W IC § 3 0 Q a-j). If the child suffers any of these forms of abuse, or otherwise fits into any of the above categories, she or he may be declared a dependent of the Court 136 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. welfare case.1 0 0 A third opdoa, and one that state policy encourages in some circumstances, is for the abusive parent to voluntarily relinquish custody of his or her child, either by giving up the child for adoption or by designating a relative w tffa whom the child will be placed.1 0 1 According to the Los Angeles County superior court and state chikl welfare statistics, most child abuse reports do not lead to a child being removed from the home (Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, “Frequently Asked Questions” n.d.; CDSS, HDD 2000). This is due in part to federal policies and a state mandate requiring social workers to make every effort to keep the family intact before removing a child from the home (Califomia-DSS-Manual-CWS, 31-201; see also the discussion m Charter Two), hi recent years in Los Angeles County, social workers often work with churches, health clinics, and other community-based agencies to provide intensive services aimed at preventing child abuse and keeping families intact (Noble 1996). But if the conditions are such that a child must be detained, the social worker must notify the parents immediately and let them know 1 0 0 Nationwide, half of all open child welfare cases involve the supervision and provision of services to children and parents in the same hom e. The other half involve out-of-home placements in foster- or kinship care (DHHS 1999 "Blending Perspectives"). 1 0 1 Among a dozen proposals to develop a "streamlined ldnship adoption process" and promote stability m the lives of children at risk of foster care placement, the California Department of Social Services and the Governor’ s Adoptions Initiative suggested "kinship relinquishments." which would allow birth parents to designate the adoptive placement of their children with relatives. Within this provision, "the birth parent will be notified and given the opportunity to rescind the relinquishment if the designated rdativefs) or individual(s) is unable or unwilling to adopt the child" (CDSS 1997. "The Governor’s Adoptions Initiative: Progress Report II). This option allows the parent and child to avoid the dependency system and saves the state the expense of providing reunification and "permanency planning" services for the family. I will discuss kinship adoptions, permanency plans, and related issues later in this chapter and in Chapter S even. 137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. how to contact the child, unless such contact is believed to be detrimental to the child (WIC §311, Rule 1440).1 0 2 Investigating the Home and Placing the Child If an Emergency Response worker decides that circumstances warrant the removal of a child from the home, DCFS must provide temporary, emergency placement services for the child. Since 1987, California state law maintains a preference for placing children with a relanve: o 3 -mciudmg a nan-custodial parent— who is willing and able to care for the child (Berrick, Needell and Baith 1999). If no relative is available, the social worker's second best option by law is to place the child in a licensed foster family home. The last resort for placement is a licensed group home, including the MacLaren Children's Center, Los Angeles County's only county-operated shelter for foster children (Califomia-DSS-Manual-CWS, 31- 410.4). Assuming no parent is willing and able to care for the child, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and adult siblings receive preference over other relatives who might request that the child be placed with them [WIC §319(d)] Before placing a child with a grandparent or any other relative however, the Department of Children and Family Services must conduct an 1 0 2 A recent audit of the Department of Children and Family Services suggested changes in the w ay the D ep artment investigaes allegations of abuse (sec. c.g.. Rainey 1 9 98b). In the past an Emergency Response social worker has responded to the CAHL call and then transferred the case to one or m ore social workers who will investigate the charges, work with parents to maintain the family unit and/or work to reunify the fam ily if children must be removed. The proposed reforms would reorganize tins system so that one social worker would see the process through from beginning to end. As of this writing, the Department of Children and Family Services is in the process of restructuring the department tow ard these ends. 1 0 3 The California Welfare and Institutions Code defines a “relative" as “an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblmgs. and all relatives w hose status is preceded by the words great.' 'great-great' or'grand'or the spouse of any of these persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution'' (W IC §319. §361.3). 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. emergency assessment of the relative aid his or her home. This investigation involves a criminal records check, a Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) check, and a fingerprint clearance check of all adults residing in the home (CDSS December 20,2000). Social workers must also inspect the home in-person to see that it meets the minimum safety standards required fix' placement and generally evaluate die relative’s ability to care fix’ die chiid(ren). (Califixnia-DSS-Manual-CWS, 31-410.5). Social workers also must begin a much more thorough dependency investigation to determine if the placement is appropriate should the child need to remain in out-of-home care.1 0 4 In addition to the more “objective” criteria considered by social workers (such as the fingerprint clearance), the investigation of potential kinship placements involves a number of subjective considerations as well. A recent study of more than 200 child welfare workers in ten counties in California asked the workers to identify specific issues that would lead them to question the placement of a child with a relative. The workers responded with the following concerns (from Berrick, Needell and Barth 1999): • a history with Child Protective Services 1 0 4 Factors to be considered in an investigation to determine the most appropriate placement (as outlined by the Welfare and Institutions Code) include the best interests of the child, the wishes of the parent, the rci&ive. and child, the ability to place siblings in the same home, the "good moral character” of the relative and any other adalt living in the home, the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the relative, and the safety of the relative’s hom e. In addition, social workers must evaluate the ability rtf' the relative to do the following, provide a safe, secure, and stable environment; exercise proper and effective care and control; provide a hom e and the necessities of L if e for the child; protect the child from his or her parents; facilitate court-ordered reunification efforts with the pm**: facilitate visitation with the child’s other relatives: facilitate implementation of all elements of the case plan; provide legal permanence for the child if reunification fails: arrange for appropr iate and safe child care, as necessary [W IC §361.3(a)|. SB 933. chaptered in 1998. required the California Department of Social Services to develop “ best practice guidelines” fix conducting investigations, which have the potential to significantly change the assessment process. I will discuss these changes later in this chapter. 13 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • a criminal record • poor parenting skills • poor condition of the home • drug or alcohol problems lack of cooperation with the child welfare department • too many people living in the household • relatives with an agenda to obtain custody of a child, who have personal vendetta, or who do not get along with parents • relatives who are too soft with parents and allow unlimited access to the child Clearly, the purpose of the DCFS investigation is to help ensure the child's safety. Yet some of the issues that raise concern for investigative social workers are difficult to measure or subject to the particular point of view of the worker. Even in the best of circumstances, social workers must make critical placement decisions with relatively limited information about a family Rarely, however, do social workers work under ideal circumstances. Indeed, those m the study reported that tune constraints and a general lack o f information inhibited their ability to condnct conscientious mvesbgations (ibid.). These findings suggest that some placement decisions ultimately may boil down to the gut feeling of a particular social worker, rather than an objective (much less mutual) assessme nt with a relative caregiver While most of the relative caregivers I interviewed can appreciate die purpose of the DCFS investigation, it was nevertheless a source of consternation aid concern for many. Harriet Jackson, a grandmother raising five of her daughter's six children, captures the essence of this concern when she warned her peers durmg a meeting for relative caregivers: 140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Things have gotten very, very serious. Very, very serious. I keep saying it because you have to wake up now. . . . Social workers are going to be asking many intrusive questions. Many of you will fed, “you don’ t need to be m my ‘b id n e s s And k will be a real challenge for social w orkers, because grandparents will be hesitant to tell the truth and answer questions they feel are intrusive. In fact, many of the grandparents m my study did fmd the investigation to be intrusive Shadena Franklm, a grandmother who has raised a remarkable 1 3 grandchildren, bristled at the memory of a social worker peering into her cabinets and comme nting disapprovingly about the “clutter” in Shadena's modest, south central Los Angeles home. The DCFS investigation was threatening to some grandparents, as well. Genie Taylor, for instance, who encountered problems after the hospital reported her grandson's injuries to the Child Abuse Hot Line (recounted above), recalls the fear and frustration she felt when pressed to demonstrate her ability to care for her grandson, Joey. Even after the child abuse charges made against her were dropped, Genie still faced an investigation as a potential caregiver for Joey after the DCFS became involved and named Joey a dependent of the court. Genie dug up old receipts for Joey's crib and playthings in an attempt to prove her long standing conumtmeut to raising her grandson. And upon the request of the social workers, she provided telephone numbers fix' Joey's doctor and day care provider in nearby Pasadena. She You know, they had to see him. They had to talk to the doctor to make sure the shots and stuff were updated. They had to go up to the daycare center. You know? And it's like, like you want the whole world in your business? You know what I’m saymg? But I had already told die daycare what was happening and stuff. But you know? Sometimes you just don’ t want the whole world to know your business. 141 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Henrietta Holliday, a relative caregiver who raises her grandson and nephew in south central Los Angeles, recalled her exasperation with the perceived futility of the investigation. Addressing a hypothetical social worker, she asked: Why would we have to go through all thist however much money it takes for us to do this paperwork, and for you to do these searches, and for you to do this investigation, for us to come right back to square one? He was mine to begin with! For grandparents who already have played a significant role in raising their grandchildren, the sudden involvement of foe Department of Children and Family Services can be perplexing and frightening. Furthermore, that grandparents should be held to same standards designed for foster parents (i.e., “strangers”) makes little sense to many relative caregivers who see themselves first and foremost as grandmothers. Significantly, other grandparents I interviewed described markedly different experiences with the county's investigation. Some noted with concern foe careless ease with which grandchildren were placed in their homes. Liz Goss, a grandmother from a middle class community in the Santa Clarita Valley, describes what happened when a social worker sought temporary placement for Liz's two grandchildren: So anyway.. . foe worker wens to our bouse and she did a very perfunctory walk in foe door. And then she called and said, “Yes, this house is fine ” Which, that irritates me quite a bit. But these workers are overworked so I can understand th at The reason it irritates me is that I have, you know, all this, my background is a home economics teacher. . . . And I fed that no matter what a house looks like, a person should go in and check it out. And it really should be checked out I mean, you should be told, “We don’ t want bleach underneath the sink or ammonia or anything else.” And nobody checked for any o f those things! And I would want to see all of the first aid stuff up. And any medications up, or locked. So that’s the only thing that bothered me, was that safety’s sake. And they never did say, “You need to 142 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. put a lock an your spa.” Which was right out the front door. You know, that kind of thing. From her experience as an educator, Liz Goss knows that evm the “best” homes aren’ t always child-proofed, and believes that social workers should insure that homes are safe before placing children there Steve Evans, a retired Naval officer living in the San Femmido Valley, agrees Steve began raismg his grand-nephew, Peter after he learned the child was m the dependency system and requested that Peter be placed with him. Steve describes the circumstances surrounding his grand-nephew’s placement; When Peter was first dropped off here, I don’ t think I saw a social worker again for like a year. You know, and he was 1 4 months old! . . . I really don’ t want the social workers coming in my house, but how do they know he’s not locked up in a closet somewhere? . . . And maybe because of where I live, my house, and the feet that I asked for him, they let their guard [down] a lot and didn't keep m touch like they should've Especially at his age. But like I said, that's no good excuse. . . . No one ever looked at my house. You know, they're supposed to do all this stuff. Trying to find an explanation fix'the Department’s failure to investigate throughly, Steve adds: But, 1 tell you . some of these areas [social workers go] into, I could see the social workers, why they have their hands full. ‘Cause I forget that some people have it really rough. . . . But, you know, it’s die kids in the system, a lot of ‘em are really needy for a lot of things. And maybe that’ s why the social workers never show up here and they’re busy spending their time where they think that it’s needed. Which, I understand that. I just, I think that if they’ re in the system, they have to be more, checked, once in awhile. In the initial thing, maybe because like I say, that I requested that he be placed here and the social worker I guess got the good vibes or something from me, that they never came. But it still irks me that something could’ve happened to that little boy. Although / know it would never h^ipen, they don’ t know that Steve’s analysis suggests something important about foe decision-making process fix' placing a child. As both Liz and Steve suggest, social workers typically cany enormous work 143 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. loads and often have little time to investigate potential placements h is possible, therefore, that when a social worker eaters a spacious home m a middle class neighborhood— such as those in which Liz and Steve reside-that worker might be quick to approve the placement- If this is the case, it suggests the extent to which class and race might influence the perception of what constitutes a “safe" placement. Liz Goss and Steve Evans, both white and middle class, were concerned when their grandchildren’s and grand-nephew's safety was assumed, rather than confirmed, by social workers In contrast, Harriet Jackson, Shadena Franklin, Genie Taylor, and Henrietta Holliday— all African Americans with incomes ranging from working class to middle class— felt frustrated by the more rigorous inspections they and their homes endured. At a national kinship care conference in 1999, Joe Loftus, the then-Executive Deputy Director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, and Mark Testa, die Research Director for the Illinois DCFS, described a “suburban strategy" employed by many social workers in Chicago who removed abused children from homes in die predominantly poor, black inner city and placed them in suburban neighborhoods miles away from their femilial support systems. In an effort to change this practice, the Illinois DCFS developed an “urban foster care program" to facilitate the placement of children from the nmer-aty with foster families who resided in the same community. This practice prompted cnriasms of die department, however— from social workers and the public— for developing a policy that sent children to live with “AFDC moms " Loftus and Testa used this example to expose die common and biased nations underlying placement * * •» « < » » « that presume that children need to be in (white) “middle class homes" (Testa and Loftus 1999). 144 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Zena Oglesby, the Executive Director o f the Los Angeles-based Institute for Black Parenting, made a similar observation m mother session at the same kmshq) care conference in 1999. Despite the fact that Los Angeles Coimty DCFS policy encourages the placement of foster children m ftv ^ r o w n n r n n n n ih ^ D g io g h y w w m w ifw rf tha* m a n y s o c ia l w n ricers an* afraid of working and placing children in the “crime-infested” areas from which they are removed (Pizzigati, Petrus et al. 1999). These examples suggest the potential for investigative social workers and others to use race and class as general indicators of the ability of a caregiver to parent. The public and professional outcry in Chicago over placing foster children with “AFDC moms,” for example, reflects the stigma associated with welfare and implies that those who need public assistance are inadequate parents— not to mention the fact that it assumes that all foster parents in the inner city receive welfare Similarly, social workers' concerns about placing children in their "crime infested” neighborhoods reflect a common tendency to conflate minority status and criminality, since 80% of foster children are black or Latino and since Los Angeles is a relatively segregated county ( http://dcfs-co.la-ca.us/wdcfs/FactSheetB-htin). Researchers have documented racial and class biases in the court system as well. For example, the California Judicial Council's Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, through analyses of court data, found that "California juvenile courts are more likely to detain poor children of color in juvenile hall or do an out-of-the-home placement of these children of their White counterparts [sic],” (Judicial Council of California 2000a). Furthermore, the Advisory Committee found widespread belief among the surveyed public that "minorities were not treated fairly by the courts and were judged through die filter of White middle-class values” (ibid.). These findings are relevant here, since social workers 145 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. make recommendations to the court regarding the placement of chiidra— recommendations the court accepts tbe majority of the time (Rainey 1996a). While racial and class biases may play a role in this process, the decision of when and where to place an abused child is imdeniabty complex and involves any number factors. For example, in Washington, D C in January 2000, a child was murdered by her mother just two weeks after the child welfare system reunited the family. Tbe media provided extensive coverage of the child’s death1 0 5 and in the two months that followed, social workers removed children from homes m record numbers. According to a social worker quoted by the Washington Post, social workers investigating abuse in Washington began to adopt the policy, “ When in doubt, take them out,” directly as a result of the child’s death (Horwitz and Higham 2000b). Similarly, in Los Angeles County, the 199S death of Lance Hehns-a two-year-old boy murdered by his father shortly after the Dependency Court removed him from the home of his foster-paternal aunt against the advice of the child's social worker-led to public awareness campaigns and legislative changes th& emphasized child safety over reunification (Blankstein 1998b; Blankstem 1999).1 0 6 Referring to a case in which he, as a “Ime worker,” disagreed with his supervisor over whether or not to remove a child from a foster home, Los Angeles County DCFS social worker Jonathan Flax notes, 1 0 5 See. for example. H orw itz 2000c;.....2000a;......2000b;......2000c;...... 1999; Horwitz and Higham 2000a;..... 2000b; Horwitz and Woodke 2000. 1 0 6 For more information on the Helms case. see. for example: Blankstein 1998a;...... 1998b;.... 1998c...... I998d;...... 1999;....... 1997; Eado 1996; Helms 1 9 9 6 ; Hernandez 1996; Rainey 1995a; Rainey 1995b; Saunders 1996; Schonnann 1996s 146 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Because of too many policies, a political climate of fear, social workers not knowing really what their doing, or not allowing themselves to go by their mstmcts or supporting their subordinates, we realty traumatized these children. ... So that's a very good example ofwhy the system is really overwhelmed, with everything. Jonathan’s comments indicate some of the mukiple factors that go into the decision-making process of social workers. These cases and others like them demo nstrate the extent to which social workers' decision-making processes are «nfl»»annarl and constrained by multiple factors outside of their own personal biases and belief systems— while also suggesting the potential for social workers to rely on race and class as proxies for other indicators of "safety." Criticisms about past practices prompted new le g is la tio n which may change the way social workers in California conduct investigations of potential relative caregivers in die future. Following the mandates outlined in Senate Bills 1544 and 933, passed in 1997 and 1998, respectively, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) developed a new set of "Model Relative Assessment Guidelines” for conducting emergency and comprehensive investigations for the placement ofchildren with relatives. According to an All-County Information Notice posted by the CDSS, these gniHdin^ mimH to the investigation process across all counties aid social workers and represent a "fundamental shift from a deficit-based, worker/agency centered, to a strength-based, family-centered approach” (CDSS 1999). These new guidelines , by law, m utf he "sensitive to the ethnic and linguistic background of the children and families being assessed” (SB 933), and "calls for an assessment with the family, not merely o/the family” (CDSS 1999). The impact of tins legislation will need to be studied. 147 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Going to Court: The Arraignment and Detention Hearing When a child is detained and placed with a grandparent (or elsewhere), the Department of Children and Family Services has 48 hoars to file a petition with the dependency court that outlines allegations o f abuse1 0 7 and 72 hours to hold a hearing in court (WIC §313, PeUman 1996) In the hearing, the judge reviews the social worker's petition and makes a decision about whether continued detention of the child is necessary or if the child can be returned to his or her parents). In Los Angeles County, the dependency court approves die majority of petitions filed by Department of Children and Family Services, defaming children until the allegations of abuse can be further reviewed (Constant and Cahill 1998) In the arraignment, parents leam tbe details of the charges filed against them in the petition, as well as their rights in court. Inchided among these rights is the right to representation (WIC §316) In fact, all "parties" to dependency court proceedings have the right to legal counsel Unless a party hires a private attorney, the court normally will appomt an independent-contractor "panel" attorney to represent parents, while lawyers from Dependency Court Legal Services (DCLS) will represent children, mid those from County Counsel will represent the Department of Children and Family Services Most of the families involved in the Los Angeles County dependency court are poor (Boland 1991; Courtney 1999; 1 0 7 An Emergency Response worker may file a petition with the dependency court even if the decision was made not to detain the child. In these cases, the worker may determine that the child is not in immediate danger, but that ew nngh evidence of maltreatment exists to ask the court to provide supervision of the family (W IC §301). 148 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mackenzie and Cahill 1999) and nearly all parents and children have court-appointed attorneys. 'm He Facto Parents, Be Jure Strangers U nlike parents, children and the DCFS, grandparents raising grandchildren are not automatically considered a party to dependency court proceedings. This is because the court historically and legally considers relative caregivers m the same category as foster parents— as temporary, "neutral” providers of care without an interest in the legal proceedings of the court. In other words, the law treats relatives caregivers as “strangers” to the children in their care. Of course, most grandparents do not see themselves in this way. In fact, among the grandparents I spoke to, many had considerable interest in the outcome of dependency court proceedings and wish to have a voice in court. "* T he rules regarding a parent's right to appointed legal counsel arc not entirely dear The language of the California state code indicates that the court " ma y " appoint counsel for indigent parents [W IC §317(a)|. while the California Rules of Court state that the court "shall appoint counsel for a n y parent or guardian unable to afford counsel if the child is placed in out of home care” [Rule 1412(h). emphasis added]. To further confuse the issue, the Supreme Court ruled in 1 9 8 1 that indigent parents do not have a fundamental right to appointed legal counsel in bearings regarding the termination e rf parental rights ( Lassiter v Department o f Social Services 1981: Stein 1 9 9 8 ). However, regarding appointed ««n<et for adults, the focal rules for the Los Angeles County superior court state the following: All parents and other adults w ho have been determined by the court to have standing are entitled to be represented b y legal counsel if they so desire. ... A tto rn ey 's shall be appointed to represent a client in dependency proceedings at the earliest possible stage of proceedings when parties must appear before the juvenile court and at afl subsequent proceedings. A ppointed counsel shall continue to represent the client unless properly relieved by the court (local rale 17.16). So while the decision to appoint legal representation for parents remains, at least to som e degree, subject to the discretion of the judge, it is standard practice in the Los Angeles County superior court. 149 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although relative caregivers (and foster parents) who have court dependents placed in their care may attend hearings and address the court in writing, they do not have the right to representation in court (see, e.g., local rale 17.11). The exclusion of grandparents from full participation in this process further illustrates the ambiguous status of relative caregivers in die dependency system. Betsy Hafterman, a grandmother raising two grandchildren in eastern Los Angeles County, describes her frustration with this policy: In the Children's Court, everyone— the kids, the parents, die social worker, even the fowvers-have lawyers Everyone but grandparents. We couldn’ t say anything We had to hire a lawyer. Wanting a more powerful voice in court, the Haheraians retained an attorney who told them about “de facto parent status ” The California Rules of Court define a “de facto parent” as: A person who has been found by the court to have assumed, on a day-to-day basis, the role of parent, fulfilling both the child's physical and psychological needs for care and affection and who has assumed that role for a substantial period [Rule 1401(a)(6), see also re: B. G.. California Supreme Court, 1974], This legal status recognizes the long-term caregiving of grand|parents raising grandchildren and confers additional rights beyond those normally granted to a foster parent or relative caregiver, such as the ability to speak m court and the right to representation. But unlike other parties to dependency court proceedings, de facto parents unable to afford legal counsel do not, by law, have the right to representation appointed by the court, die appointment of 150 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. such counsel ts explicitly left up to the discretion of the judge.'0 9 The HaJtermans petitioned the court for de facto parent status and the judge granted their request. Henrietta Holliday, a relative caregiver raising her grandson and nephew, identifies an additional benefit of de facto parent status: access to DCFS and dependency court files. She explains: At first, I didn’ t understand what was going an [in court]. We were going to the rooms with the children that had their attorneys . . . and things were bemg said that I knew nothing about, didn't understand, and then [snaps fingers] we'd be gone. And then, I guess two years, almost three years into having the children, I asked for de facto parent status. And I was granted that. They granted me an attorney, and I was able to really go in. Because once you get de facto parent status, you can read the records. . . . And you know, to see it, when you’re reading it, it's different from when you're just going in there and— like you say-ten minutes and you're out. But when you can actually sit down and read and see what happened, what the reports that the social worker submit, then you can see why that your case is going the way it is. De facto parent status confers to grandparents some of the legal rights and resources automatically extended to biological parents. In the case of the dependency court, de facto parent status allows grandparents to review court records for the grandchildren in their care. These records provide important information about the status of the case and can help explain dependency court proceedings to a grandparent unfamiliar with the process. Just because a grandparent files for de facto parent status does not guarantee that she or he will get it, however Devorah Ward, a special education teacher and a grandmother raising three grandchildren, petitioned the court for de facto parent status and the judge denied 1 0 9 Regarding this matter, the California Rules of Court stale: “The de facto parent may...be represented b y retained counsel or, at the discretion of the Court, by appointed counsel” (Rule 1412c). 1 5 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. her request. “The judge told me I didn't need it,” she explained. Devorah disagreed, but decided to “let it go because I didn’ t want to insuit her.” While a judge may refuse to grant de facto parent status on a case-by-case basis, some policy-makers question more broadly the practice of granting the legal status to relative caregrvers and other foster parents For example, in a report prepared for the Governor’ s Adoptions Initiative in 1997, die California Department of Social Services expressed concern that de facto parent status might interfere with the state’s goal of finding adoptive homes for foster children who cannot be returned to their parents. According to the report: Courts often give de facto parent status to fester parents [including relative caregivers], allowing these foster parents to block the adoption process. These are typically foster parents who want to continue to care for a child but do not want to make the commitment of adoption The foster parents argue that die child has been in their home for a period of time and removal would be detrimental to the child. When this happens, a child’s long term interests are traded away m the name of preventing disruption (CDSS 1997:9). As noted in Chapter Two, the child welfare system recently has emphasized adoption as the “permanent placement” of choice for foster children who have no hope of family reunification. If the state perceives de facto parent status as a potential barrier to this goal, it may encourage (or decree) dependency court judges to grant sparingly relative caregivers’ requests for this status. The same CDSS Adoptions Initiative repot also concluded that child welfare agencies must “ensur[e] that [relative caregivers] have enough information to make a fully informed decision” about adoption and other custodial arrangements (ibid.:27). Ironically, grandparents raising grandchildren often argue that de facto parent status is one of the most important tools for getting the information they need. Barbra Foote, a grandmother and educator living in the Antelope Valley, takes this argument a step farther when she complains 152 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that having to file for de facto parent status at all places an unnecessary burden on grandparents. know one thing I want to say loud and dear,” Barbra proclaims, “is that relative caregivers should have a voice m court. Immediately? None of this de fecto parent stuff They should just get a voice in court.” The Adjudication and Jurisdiction Hearing A dependency case proceeds from the detention hearing to an informal pre-trial resolution conference (PRC) and/or formal mediation. At this stage, attorneys for the parents, the county, and the child try to come to some agreement regarding the specific charges of abuse outlined by the petition (Pellman 1997. WIC §350) If a resolution cannot be achieved the case moves on to adjudication, a trial in which a judge or commissioner decides if the abuse allegations outlined in the social worker’s petition are “true” based on the standard of a “preponderance of evidence”1 (WIC §355). When a judge determines that the allegations are “true” she or he then makes the decision whether or not dependency court jurisdiction (i.e., court authority and control) is necessary for the child. The jurisdiction hearing must take place within 1 5 days of the detention order [local rule 17.18(a)(2)]. The outcome of die adjudication and jurisdiction hearing is of particular significance to parents accused of abuse, since the charges outlined in die petition provide a basis fix' the reunification plan (assuming the court determines that protective custody is necessary). In other words, the petition outlines what the parent did wrong and guides the court in determining what that parent must do m order to have the children returned and terminate 1 1 0 This standard suggests a slight majority of the evidence in favor of the petition— "a little more than 51%” (Pellman 1998). 153 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Court jurisdiction For example, rf the petition identifies a drug problem as one of tbe primary reasons that led a parent to neglect his or her child, tbe court may order the parent to successfully complete a drug-rehahilitafion program in order to regain custody of tbe children.1 1 1 Since hearsay evidence is permissible in the adjudication hearing (WIC §355), die parent has a big stake in making sure that she or he agrees to the particular wording of the petition. The Disposition Hearing The purpose of the disposition hearing— or “(bspo,” as it is commonly called by attorneys and social workers— is for the court to determine a course of action for a child found to foil within the jurisdiction of the dependency court. The disposition hearing may take place at the same time as the adjudication but often is scheduled for a later date. It must take place however, withm ten days of the adjudication if the child is detained [local rule 17.18(aX3)]. Prior to the disposition hearing, die court typically orders the Department of Children and Family Services to prepare a report with its recommendations regarding custody, visitation, and rehabilitative services for the parent. Based an this “dispo report" and other evidence available to the court, tbe judge decides either to return the child to the parents and order DCFS to supervise the family, or to place the child in the home of another parent, a relative, a foster parent, or a group home (in order o f preference). In order to remove the child from the parent's custody in the disposition hearing tbe court must find by the standard of “clear and convincing evidence”1 1 2 that the child would be at significant risk of physical, 1 1 1 As noted in Chapter Two. more than 65% of all dependency cases in California require a parent to undergo drug rehabilitation (GAO September 1998a). 1 1 2 This is a stricter standard than that which is used in the adjudication and jurisdiction hearing. 154 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sexual or emotional harm if she or he were returned to the home of the accused parent [Rule 1456(d); WIC §361], If it decides to place tbe child in out-of-home foster care, the court, in conjunction with the Department of Children and Family Services, must develop a visitation plan and determine what the parent must do to be reunified with his or ho-child. Such "reunification services” or “case plans” depend an the type o f abuse committed and typically include such activities as drug rehabilitation and/or drug testing, psychotherapy, parenting classes, anger management counseling, etc."3 In some cases, outlined by state law and by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, the judge may order no reunification services and refer the child directly to a permanent placement in an adoptive, guardianship or foster home (again, in order of preference) [Rule 1456(f)(4); WIC §361.5]. This is most likely to happen in cases of severe physical or sexual abuse although it may result for other reasons, as well, including if the child has been declared a dependent in the past or if the parent has had his or her parental rights for another child terminated by the dependency court In addition, a judge may legally refuse reunification services if the parent has “a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of alcohol or other drugs, and has not sought or participated m treatment during the three years immediately prior to the filing of the petition under [WIC] section 300 . . . and die removal of the child is based in whole or in part on the risk to the child presented by the use of alcohol or drugs” [Rule 1456(fK4)(L); see also WIC 1 1 3 In addition, the court must simultaneously work out a contingency plan for a "permanent placement” for the child in case efforts to reunify the family foil. The practice of seeking both family reunification and a permanent placement outside the home is referred to by the court as "concurrent planning.” 1 will dkoiq concurrent planning lat^r in thk chapter. 155 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. §3615(bXl2)]!U Considering that the majority of dependency court cases across tbe country involve an alcohol- or drug-abusing parent (Boland 1991; DePanfilis and Satus 1992a; DePanfilis and Sahis 1992b; Gaudm 1993; Held 1998; Rotzoll 2000; DHHS 1999), this policy has the potential to affect a large number of families in the foster care system."5 Further, it may affect African American families disproportionately since black women who abuse alcohol or drugs are more likely than white or Latina drug-abusing mothers to be reported for child abuse (DHHS 1999). A Sour Disposition A grandparent's home is a preferred placement— second only to a nan-custodial parent-fbr a child named a "dependent” of the juvenile dependency court. California law requires parents involved in the dependency process to provide the court with information regarding relatives who might be able to care for the child [WIC §361 3(a)(8); GAO May 1999], Thus, the decision of where to place a child made during the disposition hearing depends, in part, on information supplied by the parent. A parent may not be eager to cooperate with the court an this matter, however, especially if she or he believes the grandparent is responsible in some way for the court 1 1 4 Note that this standard guiding a judge in the disposition hearing is distinct from thai guiding a social worker in the initial investigation. B y the time the case reaches the disposition hearing the judge has confirmed the social worker's assessment that the child is at significant risk of abuse, due (for example) to a parent's alcohol or drug abuse. However, unlike the social worker’ s initial decision to detain the child, the judge's decision to deny reunification services in the dispo hearing m ay directly result in perm anently severing a parent's rights. 1 1 5 According to a federal report most studies of the link between substance abuse and child abuse estimate that between one- and two-thirds of all child abuse cases involve a drug- or alcohol-abusing parent (DHHS 1999, “ Blending Perspectives"). Individuals working in urban child welfare system estimate larger numbers (see e.g.. Boland 1991; DePanfilis and Salus 1992a; DePanfilis and Salus 1992b; and Rotzoll 2000) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. removing custody o f the child. Kenneth Pendley, an attorney specializing m dependency issues in Orange County, California, sees this frequently in his practice. He explains: And I'll tell you, though, the more typical case is where the grandparent was somehow the cause for the child's removal1 1 6 The grandparent called Social Services: “Look, my kid's leaving the child. Leaves the child with me for a week and then takes off and she’s off doing drugs.” You know, whatever the circumstances are. And they often will do that anonymously. But the parent of the child is capable o f putting two and two together. . . . Where it gets difficult, is that the parent will protest the placeme nt [of the child with the grandparent] Because this is. you know, their way of getting back at their parent for, you know, calling them on whatever drey were doing to the kid. . The parent’s actions, though, in trying to prevent that placement are usually vindictive. As noted earlier in this chapter, parents may try to retaliate against grandparents who make a child abuse report that results in the child being removed from the parent’s home. By withholding information or challenging a grandparent's request for placement, a parent might try to “punish” the grandparent for his or her actions. Liz Goss describes being “blamed” for the court's decision to remove Liz’s grandchildren from her son and daughter-in-law’ s custody. Liz explains: I think one of the-next to the g rief that you go through— biggest problems that you have is having to cope with the birth parents. Because in [my daughter-in-law's] case-then and now-she’s so immature and so insecure and so screwed up that you can do no right Because you are the “Enemy ” You have my children!'’ And it doesn’ t matter that we had nothing to do with it ft doesn't matter that it's not our {auk. That it’s the consequences of their actions. Although some parents, like Liz’ s daughter-in-law, misplace blame when the court takes away custody, grandparents often report that parents are initially supportive of— or at 1 1 6 As noted above, the “ typical” child abuse reporter is not a grandparent but a mandated reporter, such as a teacher, health care professional, or police officer (DHHS Children's Bureau 1999). Kenneth speaks here from his own experience regarding the typical cases he sees in his law practice. 157 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. least indifferent to— the court’s policy to place children with relatives. When Rocio Navarre, for example, a grandmother who lives near downtown Los Angeles, asks her daughter, Juanita, a mother of three and an addict and prostitute: “Why do you throw away your children?” Juanita replies: “I don’ t throw them away, I leave them with you.” The Fear of Foster Care That parents might be satisfied to ’ leave” their children in foster care with grandparents is not surprising, especially when compared to the alternative. For parents-like grandparents— may not want to see their children placed in foster care with ’’ strangers.” The fear of what might happen to children in the dependency system concerns many of the grandmothers I interviewed, h is a fundamental concern, according to relative caregiver and peer-educator Barbra Foote: People tend to isolate and they sk at home < m d they are frightened. I think with relative caregivers there's probably more fear. If I had to pick a predominant feeling m this whole thing it would be fear For the children. That we would lose them to this monster system. You know, that does not have checks and balances. That does not have compassion. Individuals do, but the system as a whole does not. The system as a whole can be abusive to children. It does exactly the opposke o f what k’s supposed to do sometimes. And there are no checks and balances. 1 mean, you know, it’s like stuff I've seen about the Gestapo. The county can come in and say and do anything the county wants to say and do and there’s nobody to say otherwise. There isn’ t I mean, what do you have recourse to? I got lucky because I was plugged into the communky and 1 knew, I mean, I had friends and I knew who to call. ... It’s very scary! You know, because this is your family. These are your children's children. It’s my baby’s baby. You know? For Barbra Foote and other grandparents, foe fear of foster care is rooted in a sense of poweriessness. Many grandparents feel they have little recourse to “ the System," an institution with seemingly limitless— ami potentially dangerous-power. 158 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For some relative caregivers, the fear of foster care is a fear of the unknown. Jackie Knight, for example, rests easy knowing that her great-grandchildren are safe in ho-home. She explains: We're happy that we were there, and we're blessed that the children are not in that, because that's not a nice thing, foster homes. Some of them are not too nice. This way, since they’re with us we know what’ s happening. They're not m some foster home or some place where we don t know .. I’m lucky to have them. And I know, I know what’s going an. I know what’s happening to diem. So I’m lucky too I probably wouldn’ t be as healthy as I am if I didn’ t know where they were. . . . So I’d rather for them to stress me out than that to happen. Lady Baker, a grandmother raising four grandchildren in south central Los Angeles, agrees. She wanted the Department of Children and Family Services to place her grandchildren with her, rather than in an anonymous foster home. “I know some are okay, but this way I'm sure they’ll be taken care of,” explains Lady. Ella Dill Fernandes also worried that her grandson, Jason, who has leukemia, wouldn’ t receive the care he needs if he were placed in foster care. Ella describes her concern: So, you know, then I got put in the dilemma that, you know, if I don’ t keep him he's going to go to a foster home. Are they going to take proper care of him? I mean, am I going to have peace? Am I going to worry side every single day and night about that? For some relative caregivers, the fear of foster care derives from public images and reports of problems encountered in the dependency system. When Angela Valentine, for example, learned that her grandchildren had entered the dependency system, she could only think of the stones she had heard about “what happens” to children m foster care. As a result, Angela, who was living 3000 miles away at the time, was a self-described “basket case.” She exp lams: But yeah, I was a basket case. And I was on a mission . . . because I didn’ t know anybody m foster care. All I knew was like the whole wild world. 159 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. That you turn an the TV set and here’ s another kid that’s been murdered or harmed or whatever in foster care. So that's all I knew! . . . But since then I've met foster parents that are fabulous. But I dkhi’ t know any o f these things. All I knew was, like I said, just hke everyone else, that God these foster parents are so awful. They get molested! They get killed! So I was a basket case thinking about my grandchildren being m a foster home And what were they going to do to them. Were they going to hurt 'em, were they going to kill ‘em, or, you know? I was crazed*. That Angela would fear the worst of foster care is not surprising considering the mostly negative press coverage of the dependency system. Generally speaking, information about foster children and dependency court proceedings is confidential; the state restricts relative caregivers, foster parents, social workers and others affiliated with the system from speaking openly about the details of dependency court cases, particularly the names of children involved. Similarly, the court limits the media's access to the dependency court records and proceedings (WIC §345-346; L A. County Superior Court, Rules of Court 1 7 .1- 17.2). The primary reason for confidentiality in the juvenile court system is to protect children who have already suffered abuses from the embarrassment and further endangennent that might result from a public airing of those abuses (Wetszn .d; SdufF 1999) Yet many argue that this protection allows the dependency system to function with fewer public “checks and balances”-as Barbra Foote put tt-than other public instmmans (Romo I998[b-d]; Vanzi 1999; Weisz n.d.). Largely because of these restrictions— or protections, depending on one's point of view-public awareness of the dependency system is often limited to the problems that come to light. And there have been serious problems. Newspapers and television stations across the country report the abuse and deaths of children while placed in foster care with distressing 160 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. regularity.1 1 7 In Los Angeles County, the deaths of foster children Robert Brown, Kameron Demery, Julio Gonzalez, Elijah Johnson, Jonathan Reid, Gilbreania Wallace, and others1 1 8 were widely publicized in the 1990s, adding to grandparents’— and the general public’s— concerns about the dependency system. Despite the feet that there are many “fabulous” foster parents— as Angela Valentine describes them— caring for dependent children, and although thousands of foster children receive adequate care in Los Angeles County, the failure of the dependency system to protect some o f its wards is literally and legitimately front page news. This undoubtably contributes to grandparents' fears of foster care.1 1 9 For other grandparents I interviewed, however, such fear is based on direct experience— their grandchildren’s and, in at least one case, their own. Gurdie Campbell, who has helped to raise several of her sibling's children and grandchildren in Ahadena, California, spent some time in the Los Angeles County foster care system as a child. “[A] couple times they took us and put us in MacLaren Hall. And they'd separate us, and I didn't like it,” noted Gurdie. “And I know what [my sister's grandchildren] are going through, so that's why I didn’ t want the kids to go into foster homes,” she added. 1 1 7 See. for example. Archibokl 2000; Bayles and Cohen 1995; “Beating Cited..." 1997. Clayton 1998; Cooper 1997; Doulin 1999; Harker and Bland 1997; Murphy 1999; N ew m an 1999; Poynler 1999; Robinson 1 9 9 9 ; Roche 2000; and Talbot 1 9 9 9 . 1 1 8 See. for example. Ali 1999; Boyer 1999a; Boyer 1999b; Daunt, Boyer and Riccardi 1999; Endo 19%; Gougis 1 9 9 8 ; Hernandez 19%; Johnson 1999; Malnk 1998; O’ Neill 1998a; O'Neill 1998b; Rainey 1995a;... 1995tr....... 1996b;..... 1997; Riccardi 1998;......1999a;...... 1999b;...... 1999c; Rippee 1 9 9 7 ; Roche 2000; R om o 1998(a-f); Stemman 1997a; Stemman 1997b; and Stolberg 19 9 1 . 1 ,9 It would be naive to suggest that grandpare nts are inherently above the fray. For as the case of Tenell Peterson— a foster child in Georgia who was killed by a woman who was his foster mother and paternal grandmother-and Michael Ferguson-a toddler beaten to death b y his paternal grandmother's boyfriend-dem onstratc. some grandparents. like some biological parents and foster parents, abuse and neglect children, sometimes with final results (Roche 2000; Larrubia 2001). 161 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Devorah Ward, a grandmother raising two grandchildren in southwest-central Los Angeles, describes what happened when the Department of Children and Family Services first removed her grandson, Martin, from his mother's custody. Before the department placed Martin with Devorah they sent him to live m a licensed group home According to Devorah, group home staff members mistreated Martm, who responded by running away Only then did the DCFS call Devorah and ask to place Martin with her. Some grandparents believe that the problems encountered by grandchildren in foster care placement can be explained by interracial conflict. For example, the DCFS placed Sabina Martinez's granddaughter— who is a '‘ blonde and blue-eyed” Latina— with African American foster parents. “It didn't work,” said Sabina's long-term boyfriend, Ricardo Vela. Ella Dill Fernandes also described her grandson's problems in foster care in terms of race. As noted earlier in this chapter, Ella made the difficult decision not to take in her second grandchild when die DCFS removed him from Ella's daughter, Danielle. But Ella maintained ties with the child and visited him in his foster home. Ella, who is white, describes the circumstances of her grandson, Cleo's, placement: He was in a foster home where I don’ t think they were too crazy about him. He was kind of a difficult baby. Ok, now, ok, I told you my daughter’ s father is black . . . [Cleo’s] father is black. So he’s just a black child. So he was m this white foster home I just, it was not good vibes. I went out there once to bring [my other grandson, Jason] to visit him and stuff, and I never really liked the vibes out there. But then I wasn't m a position to complain about it because I wasn’ t willing to take him Murtis Walker, an African American woman and a regular participant in a DCFS Regional Kinship Meeting for mostly African American relative caregivers, boldly noted the problems she perceived with her grandchildren's foster parents. “No offense,” Murtis said, 162 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with an apologetic nod m my direction, “ but they were white and they didn’ t really want a little nigger in the house ” It is impossible to know whether or not the foster parents described above took issue with their interracial foster families What is important for this discussion is the feet that race figured prominently into these grandmothers' understandings of their grandchildrens experiences in foster care placement And these grandparents' perspectives provide an important commentary on the child welfare system's policy regarding interracial placements- a policy that indirectly discourages same-race placements for foster children when not placed with relatives 2 0 Perhaps Donna Janes, a relative caregiver who helps to raise two grandchildren and a nephew in south central Los Angeles, sums up grandmothers’ perspectives on foster care the best: “Some places are good, some are bad, but there’s no place like home.” For this reason, many grandparents prefer to become relative caregivers in die dependency system rather than let their grandchildren be placed in the homes of strangers. 1 2 0 W hile beyond die scope of this project it is worth mentioning here that the federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 and the Interethnic Adoption Provisions added in 1 9 9 6 essentially prohibit child welfare agencies from using race as the basis of placement decisions for children in foster- or adoptive homes. This policy, while ostensibly intended to eliminate "discrimination." runs counter to standard child welfare practice which considers same-race placements to be. in general, in a child's best interests (GAO September 1998). The National Association of Black Social Workers (N A B SW ) takes this principle several steps further when it argues that interracial adoption is a form of “cultural genocide " In 1985. William T. Merntt. the then-presidem of the NABSW . spoke on b ehalf of the organization to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. In a hearing assembled to address “ barriers to adoption." Merntt testified to the following: W e are opposed to transracial adoption as a solution to permanency placement for Blade children. We have an ethnic moral and professional obligation to oppose transracial adoption. W e v iew the placement e r f * Black children m white homes as a hostile act against our com m unity. It is a blatant form of race and cultural genocide (“Barriers to Adoption”: Hearing? Before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 99th Cong. 214.1985. statement of William T. Merritt. President. NABSW : dted in B anks 1998). 163 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. * * * * * Even when birth parents support die dependency court's efforts to place children with grandparents, such a placement is not a fia t accompli, other issues may arise that complicate the process As already noted, a grandparent's home must first pass inspection by an investigative social worker, h addition, the court is required to place a child in the same county as his or her parent unless “no appropriate placements" are available m that county [WIC §3612(f)(I)] When a grandparent lives m another county, this may delay or even prevent the court from placing the child in die grandparent's home. Angela Valentine was living in the Bronx, New York when she found out that her granddaughters were detained by the dependency court By the time she could fly to Los Angeles and arrive in court for the disposition hearing, the Department of Children and Family Services had already placed Angela's grandchildren in a foster home. Determined to do whatever it took to get her grandchildren out of foster care, Angela asked the judge what needed to happen. In response, the judge told Angela about the need for an “interstate compact," or contractual agreement, with the New York City Administration for Children’s Services-the New York City equivalent o f the Los Angeles County DCFS— to oversee the placement of the children in ho-home. Angela describes her experience m court: And so then [the judge] started explammg to me abort the “interstate da-da- da-da-da." And I said, “Well, bow long will this take? And he said, “Oh, about six months.'' Well, you and I know now through our experience, when the county says “six months” you’re looking at four to five years. So I just went ballistic in the court room. I just started crying and just said, “Look . .. I have come to the System in the past I attempted to get help. No one would help me. I am here, again, to get my grandchildren. Do you want to tell me the system's gonna fell me again? No sir. You tell me, right now, what I have to do to get these children, because I am willing to do anything " So he says, “Well, you would have to live m Los Angeles." I said, “So be it It’ s a done deal.” And his mouth just dropped, and he says, “You would be willing to move here?” And I said, “ / ju st told you, I am willing to do anything it 164 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. takes to get these children.’ ' . . . And so he says, show him an address where the Dependency Investigator can come out and check it out, and I would have them in a week. With nothmg bin a hastily packed weekend bag. Angela Valentme made the decision to move to Los Angeles m order to care for her granddaughters. Planning to stay only for the “six months” it would take to arrange the interstate compact, Angela moved in with her friend, Tom, a long-time friend of the family and a generous man who had already been like a grandfather to the children They rearranged his apai tment to accommodate the children and awaited the investigative social worker's arrival. But as Angela predicted, a “week” turned into a month and “six months" mto five years Although Angela provided the court with the address of her friend, no cne from the Department of Children and Family Services came out to investigate the home. Finally, after many calls and a certified letter sent to the court to complain about the situation, a social worker investigated and approved the placement— four weeks after Angela initially appeared in court. And, after months of fighting a “Catch-22” that required Angela to remain in Los Angeles County with the grandchildren while simultaneously requiring an in-person investigation in New York, Angela gave up on pursuing the interstate compact Five years later, her New York accent fading, Angela Valentine is now an “Angelena” Review Hearings Once the dependency court and the Department o f Children and Family Services jointly determine the child’s placement and the parent's ramification plan (or “case plan”),1 2 1 a children’s social worker (CSW) from the DCFS must have face-to-face contact with each 1 2 1 Again, assuming the judge orders reumfkabon services in the disposition hearing, rather than referring the child directly to a permanent placement 165 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. child and his or her parent at least once a month and with the caregiver at least once every six m o nths.B ased an this an-going supervision, die CSW will prepare a report to be used by the cCourt to reassess the appropriateness of the placement and die parent’s progress toward reunification These case assessments, or “review hearings,” take place in the dependency court at least once every six months At the first sn-month review hearing— sometimes referred to as the “21 E” hearing, because of the specific Welfare and institutions Code that authorizes the hearing [WIC §36621(e)]— the dependency court judge must return the child to the custody of the parent unless doing so would put die child at risk. In making this determination, the court uses the “preponderance of evidence” standard, a less stringent standard than that used in the disposition hearing when legal custody is officially transferred to the court (see Table 4-1) If, for example, during the previous six months a parent fails to aAere to the stipulations of the case plan, the Court will consider this a “preponderance of evidence” of risk to the child. Thus, the law makes it more difficult fin * the court to initially remove a child from a parent's custody, but less difficult for the court to retam custody of the child once removed. In ether words, and rephrasing Barth et al., the law makes it as hard to get out of the child welfare system as it does to get in (1994:261). If the child is not returned to the parent at the six-month review hearing, the court will normally order the continuation of family reunification services. However, if the child is younger than three years old or is part of a sibling group with younger children, the court has the option of scheduling a “ permanency planning" hearing. This w em t that parents of very ir The CSW is required to maintain monthly telephone contact with the caregiver, the social worker must document and explain any exceptions to these rules (Califonria-DSS-Manual- CW S. §31-330). 166 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. young children may have only six months to overcome tbeir problems before the court can terminate their parental rights.1 3 T t ^ 4-1: SnminffiojfDepcade^Bcvipr Bearing Bearing rirpoK / rmcmam u h c o b o 6-month or 366.21(e) or 21(e) Hearing Assesses parent’ s progress towards reunification. The court m ay reunify the family or order more reunification services. If the child is younger than three or port of a sibling group, the court may terminate reunification services and schedule a Permanency Hearing 12-m onth or Permanency Hearing [366.21(1)1 Assesses parent's progress towards reunification and begins to develop the most appropriate “permanent plan" for the child The court may reunify the family, order an alternative permanent plan, or ofler six months of additional reunification services 18-m onth or Permanency R eview Hearing (366.22) Court must either reunify the family or refer the case to the selection and implementation hearing to execute an alternative permanent plan. Selection and Implementation Hearing or Termination of Parental Rights Hearing or 366.26 Hearing Court orders a permanent placement for the child adoption, guardianship or long-term foster care (in order of preference). If the court orders adoption as the permanent placement, it must terminate the parent s parental rights. R eview of Permanent Plan (RPP) Hearings (366.3) For children remaining in long-term foster care, the court holds review bearings every six months to monitor the status of the case. SO U R C ES: Welfare and Institutions Code. Section 366: MacKenzie and Cahill 1999: Pellman 1997 The 12-month review hearmg ts generally referred to as the “permanency hearing.” At this hearing, the court is supposed to decide upon a “permanent plan” that will provide the most appropriate, stable environment for die child, whether this means returning the child to the parent or finding a permanent placement outside the parent’s home with an adoptive 1 2 3 The purpose of this rule is based on the empiricaOy-supported notion that older children and groups of children are less “adoptaHe” than younger individual children (see, e g., Barth et al. 1994). Since one of the dependency system's primary goals is to provide long-term stability for children, this requires the court to begin the adoption process as early as possible for young children and sibling groups to increase their chances of being adopted. 167 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. parent^ legal guardian or foster parent. If tt has not done so already, at this point the DCFS Adoptions Division will often dispatch an Adoption Liaison soaal worker to conduct an adoption assessment to determine the likelihood of the duld being adopted— including an assessment o f the willingness of the current caregiver to adopt. Like the six-month hearing, the 12-month permanency hearing involves a reassessment of the case plra and the parent's efforts to adhere to it. If the parent is not living up to his or her end of the bargain, the court may cease reunification services and schedule a hearing to terminate parental rights— regardless of the age of the child. Only if it finds a "substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or ha- parent or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent [by DCFS]” may the court provide an additional six months of services [W 1C §366.21(f)], Following federal mandates, California law allows fix- a maximum of 18 months of reunification services to be provided to parents by the court1 : 4 Thus, at the 18-month Permanency Review hearing, if the child is still considered at risk and not returned to the parent’ s custody then the Court must terminate reunification services [W 1C §366.22]. At this point the court will schedule a "selection and implementation” bearing to choose the most appropriate permanent plan for the child and may begin the process of terminating parental rights. At die selection and implementation hearing-also known as die "366 26 hearing,” and sometimes referred to as the “ termination of parental rights” (TPR) hearing— the court has three legal options for placing the child: adoption, legal guardianship a long-term foster care. 1 2 4 Federal Ian- requires the termination of reunification services f a parents w hose children w ho have spent IS of the most recent 22 months in foster care [42 USC 675(5)]. 168 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Of these three options, adoption is the only one that necessitates the termination of parental rights. If the court recomme nds this option, the judge will refer the case to the Department of Children and Family Services Adoptions Division where an Adoptions Social Worker will begin (or step up) the process of locating a potential adoptive family— preferably the current caregiver— and conducting an adoptive home study .1 2 5 If and when die child is adopted, the court will end its jurisdiction over the case and the parent will no longer have any legal say in the child's life.1 2 6 If the court recommends guardianship or long-term foster care for the child, a parent's rights will continue in a state of suspension leaving open the possibility for the parent to petition the court for the reinstatement o f his or her parental rights at a later date. Permanency Plans Recent changes m federal and state law require the dependency court to pursue adoption as the “permanency plan” of choice for children who cannot be returned home to their parents. The California Welfare and Institutions Code compels the court to terminate parental rights and to seek an adoptive placement for such children unless there are compelling reasons to not do so. Statutory examples of these reasons mdnde the unlikelihood of the child being adopted, the objection of older children to the plan, and the on-going, beneficial (if not “parental”) relationship between the parent and child. In addition, the WIC 1 2 5 This extensive investigation requires an adoptive parent to participate in multiple interviews and surveys and to provide the Department with the following information (w hen relevant): marriage/drvorce/death/separatkm certificates, military discharge papers, fingerprints and child abuse clearances, medical reports (including the results ofTB tests for everyone in the hom e), employment verification, school reports for any children in the hom e, finnnriai statements and tax returns, verification of child support payments for children not living in the home, and references. It m ay also require the prospective adoptive parent to participate in the Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting foster parent training program (DCFS Adoptions Division 1 9 9 8 ). 1 2 6 "Kinship adoption" laws provide a modification to this rale. In addition, a bill passed in August 2000 creates an “open adoption" statute in California, permitting adoptive parents and birth parents to enter into voluntary post-adoption contact agreements (AB 2921). 169 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. provides an exception for a child placed with a relative who is “unable or unwilling to adopt the child because o f exceptional circumstances, that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibilky for the child, but who is wiling and enable of providing the child with a stable and permanent environment” [WIC §366.26(cXlXd)]. h > such cases, the WIC allows a judge to order legal guardianship or long-term foster care as die permanent placement for a dependent of the court. If adoption is generally considered the best plan for foster children, then legal guardianship is the option o f second choice. In fact, judges must seek legal guardianship prior to ordering long-term foster care as a permanent placement, as mandated by the following section of die Welfare and Institutions Code: Legal guardianship shall be considered before long-term foster care, if it is in the best interests o f the child and if a suitable guardian can be found. When the child is living with a relative or a foster parent who is willing and capable of providing a stable and permanent environment, bin not willing to become a legal guardian, the child shall not be removed from die home if die court finds the removal would be seriously detrimental to the emotional well-being o f die child because die child has substantial psychological ties to die relative caretaker or foster parents [WIC §366.26(cX4)] Even if the judge, in agreement with the social worker assigned to a case, decides that long-term foster care is in die best interests of the child, this option is seen as less permanent than adoption or guardianship— legally and procedurally. hi the case of long-term foster care, the dependency court retains custody o f the child and the relative caregrver remains beholden to the rules and regulations o f the Department of Children and Family Services Furthermore, the California Department o f Social Services' “M anual o f Policies and Procedures for Child Welfare Service's states that “exercise o f this option [long-term foster care] requires continued efforts to obtain adoption, guardianship or preparation for independence for the 1 7 0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. child" (Califomia-DSS-Manual-CWS, 1999, p. 68; note: quoted segment is highlighted in die Manual). Thus, the law allows the dependency court some discretion m ordering a permanent placement, encouraging judges to consider what would serve the best interests of each individual foster child. However, judges must document the “exceptional circumstances" and "serious detriment” they think warrant a decision to place a child in something other than an adoptive home [see e.g., WIC §36626(c)(l){d)] Indeed, the law clearly states a preference for adoption while only ambiguously outlining the circumstances under which alternatives might be pursued. Concurrent Planning for Reunification and Adoption: A Solution to the Problem of Long-term Foster Care While the child welfare system has long had the goal of finding adoptive placements for children otherwise destined for long-term foster care, the sequential nature of the dependency process has interfered with its ability to achieve "permanency” for children in a timely manner Although most children who are reunified with their parents spend less than a year in foster care, a statistical snapshot of the child welfare system illustrates that on any given day, the foster care population is made up o f children who have spent years in the dependency system. In California, for example, more than half of all children m foster care an September 30,1997 had been so for more than two years; one-quarter had been in placement for more than five years (DHHS Children’ s Bureau 1998; data from the period 4/1/97- 9/30/97). "Concurrent planning” developed in the late 1990s as a corrective to problems caused by the standard practice of seeking a permanent placement for foster children only after 171 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reunification efforts failed This model used to be the nonn since many believed that seeking an adoptive family for a foster child before parental rights were terminated amounted to a conflict of interest that imdennmed child welfare agencies' efforts to reunify children with their parents In line with this earlier framework, social workers used to encourage foster parents to see caregrvmg as a temporary assignment and advised diem to “give love, but don’ t get too attached" (KroU 1998). This is precisely what happened when the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services placed Steve Evan's grantktephew, Peter, with him Steve explains: When they first placed [my grandoephew] here the social worker said, “Now don't get too attached, you know, “ cause then they’re going to go back.” Well! He's a 14-month-old baby! And after, you know, hours, how do you not get attached to a baby? Under the old system and despite this particular social workers’ claim, many foster children, like Peter, never would “go back” to their parents But only when the dependency court officially declared reunification efforts to be a fa ilu re — which could be years after a child initially was removed from his or her parents— could social workers begin seeking a “permanent’ ’ placement for a foster child. For many such foster children, however— especially those coming from long-term care— adoptive placements were not forthcoming, since older children who remain m foster care for long periods of time are considered less “adoptabie” than infants and toddlers m short-term placement.1 2 7 As a result, many children remained 1 : 7 Age is an especially significant factor for children who are independently adopted (Le., outside the foster care system ), three-fourths of whom are less than three years old. A study of children who entered the California child welfare system between January 1988 and May 1989 found that the older the child, the less chance she or he had of being adopted (Barth, Courtney. Berrick. and Albert 1994). H ow ever, since 1985. the average age of children adopted through public child welfare agencies has increased; by 1993. approximately half of all public agency adoptions in California were of children three years okl or older (Barth, Brooks and Iyer 1 9 9 5 ). Only 5% of the foster children adopted in California during the six m o iB h period from April through September, 1997 were less than 1 2 m onths old (DHHS Children’s Bureau 1998). 172 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stuck in long-term foster care, subjected to tbe an-gomg trauma caused by the lack of a “permanent” family to call one's own (CDSS 1997). In response to growing dissatisfaction with this two-step approach to reunification and permanency planning, former California Governor Pete Wilson convened the Governor's Adoptions Initiative in 1996 to study the issue and identify ways to improve child welfare practice.1 3 In conjunction with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), the state department that funds and oversees the activities of all county child welfare agencies, die Initiative proposed concurrent planning for reunification and permanent placement as a more effective way to care for children placed m foster care. According to the findings of the Initiative's Workgroup assigned to study the issue, concurrent planning when successfully implemented can benefit die foster care system in the following ways: A successful concurrent planning program is one in which the number of children who enter long-term foster care is significantly reduced (ideally, eliminated), the time that the typical child spends in the system is reduced, virtually all young children who do not reunify are adopted rather than placed with legal guardians, the number of children replaced is reduced significantly, the proportions of relinquishments increases, and social workers' comfort with the quality of adoptive families increases (CDSS circa 1999:23). Beyond simply facilitating permanency for children, the members of the Governor's Workgroup hoped that concurrent planning would eliminate most of the problems associated with long-term foster care. Through this policy, not only children achieve permanency 1 3 The 19% California Governor's A doption Initiative, developed directly from a 1 9 9 5 adoption policy conference co-hosted by the U C -B erfceley Child Welfare Research Center, the California Department of Social Services, the California Association of Adoption Agencies, and the California County Welfare Directors Association. The reconnnendatioas of the Governor's Adoption Initiative echo those made by these and other child welfare experts in the 1990s, as well as changes in state and federal policy (see. e.g.. the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; the DPSS's Executive Summarv of the 19% California Policy Summit on Kinship Care; Testa et al. 19% ). 173 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. more quickly, but they could potentially avoid the child welfare system altogether if social workers placed simultaneous and equal emphasis on finding adoptive placements for children while working with parents to strengthen their parenting skills and prevent further abuse. The recommendations of the Workgroup resulted m legislative and policy adjustments, including the statutory clarification that concurrent planning efforts “shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable [reumficadan] services” (WIC §366.21, WIC §366.22). No longer were social workers trained to believe that seeking an adoptive placement while trying to reunify a family was a contradiction m toms. Instead, the child welfare system sought to find “ pre-adoptive placements” for children immediately upon removal m order to minimize potential disruptions in their lives. “More, Better, and Faster Adoptions” Complementing its concurrent planning proposals— and the goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the “Adoption 2002” campaign (described in Chapter Two)— the Governor's Adoptions Initiative and the California Department of Social Services recommended policy and programmatic reforms that would result m “more, better, and foster adoptions” (Gunderson and Fife 1999). Following their recommendations, the state legislature authorized funding in 1996 for the hiring of an additional 250 adoption case workers statewide and the CDSS established performance agreements with most county child welfare agencies setting target goals for increasing the number of children adopted out of foster care (CDSS 1996). Financial incentives encouraged counties to meet these goals1 2 9 and 1 2 9 These financial incentives com plem ent those established by the Adoption and Safe Families A ct of 1997 (ASFA), which provides states with a bonus of $4000 for each foster child adoption over and above a minimum number established for each state, with an additional S2000 bonus for each adoption ofa foster child with “special needs” (PL 105-89). See Chapter Two for m ore information about ASFA and these incentives. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. within aoe year, California saw a 26% increase in the number of foster care adoptions (Fife 1997). Two Progress Reports prepared by the Governor's Adoption Initiative and the CDSS for the California state legislature outlined remaining proce&iral. regulatory and statutory barriers to the adoption offbster children (CDSS, 1996; CDSS, 1997). Among the many barriers described in the Reports are relative caregivers and foster parents who refuse to adopt the foster children in their care. According to the second Progress Report: The current caretakers may not wish to or are unsuitable to adopt yet may, for various reasons, still wish to continue to care for the child.1 3 0 Because the child has been m the home for so long, the court and the child welfare agency often are hesitant to remove the child from that family in favor o f placement in a family that is willing and able to provide the permanent commitment of adoption. This sacrifices the child’s long term interests and needs for permanency for die immediate interests of the foster parents (CDSS 1997:13). In an attempt to explain relative caregivers’ reluctance to adopt the foster children in their care, die Progress Report concluded that adoption may not appeal to grandparents when their adult children oppose it. According to the report: When parents will not relinquish the child voluntarily, relatives wishing to adopt a foster child placed in their care must go through court proceedings to have the parents declared unfit This often has a negative impact on mtra family relationships. To avoid this negative impact, relatives often spum adoption. As a result children who would otherwise benefit from adoption remain in long term foster care with relatives or have their ties to family members severed unnecessarily when they are adopted by non-relatives (CDSS 1997:24). 1 3 0 It is undear how the child welfare system could consider a person ‘ 'unsuitable" for adoption yet “suitable’ ' for foster care pfaw nw "* 175 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Recognizing that the number of kmship caregivers m California recently surpassed the number of non-rdatrve foster parents,1 3 1 the Initiative’ s Kinship Adoption Workgroup realized they must get relative caiegrvers on board if they hoped to increase the number of foster care adoptions The Workgroup made several recomme ndations, many of which have since been codified into state law, to tiy to make adoption a more appealing option to grandparents. One recommendation proposed designated “kmship relinquishments” of children to grandparents and other kin by abusive parents as an alternative to involuntary placement m foster care The Kmship Adoption Workgroup also recommended the expansion of kinship adoption laws to allow birth parents to maintain ties to their children post-adoption and to provide for the re-adoption of children by birth parents who are willing and able to reassume parental responsibilities later on (CDSS 1997; CDSS 1998). These proposals meant to reduce the potential for mtergenerabonal conflict in an adversarial dependency court process, thereby encouraging the adoption of foster children by km. More fundamentally perhaps, the recommendations made by Governor's Adoptions Initiative serve to reduce the number o f children who are under court jurisdiction, since kinship relinquishments and adoptions eliminate die need for on-going dependency court custody and supervision (CDSS 1997). 1 3 1 Since 1992, more children are placed each year with kinship caiegrvers than with parents (Barth. Brooks and her 1995). Kinship caregivers form the majority (53%) of foster care providers in Los Angeles County, their numbers for surpassing any other category of caregiver (DCFS 1 9 9 9 ). 176 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Indeed, the California Adoptions Initiative,1 3 2 which has played a significant part in shaping state child welfare pobcy and practice in the last few years, views the existence of the foster care population as a problem m and of itself Following from this point of view, state policy (reflecting federal policy) recommends concurrent planning for reunification and adoption as a primary solution to this problem. Concurrent planning as a solution to foster care is secondary, of course, to the preferred goal of prevention. But for those children who must enter die system, the court is increasingly likely to seek an adoptive placement concurrently with its efforts to reunify the family Given the fret that parents have less time than in the past to address the problems that led to the removal of their children in the first place, it is likely that the number of failed reunifications— and the number of adoptions from foster care— will grow. This has important implications for relative caregivers— implications I consider further in Chapter Seven. Conclusions When grandparents enter the dependency system, they are swept into a process that is fraught with bureaucratic barriers and inaccessible legalese They apprehensively submit themselves to an institution about which most have heard only frightening reports Although sometimes “ the System” incorporates kinship caregivers relatively easily, more frequently the process is an agonizing one for relative caregivers who are outsiders to the dependency system— "de jure strangers”— with little knowledge and few legal rights to guide them through the process. Indeed, finding one’s way in the dependency system is rarely described as a pleasant experience for any the parties involved. I 3 ' B y its fourth year, the "Governor’ s Adoption Initiative'' was more frequently referred to as the "California Adoptions Initiative,'' perhaps reflecting the change in the Governor’ s office with the election of Democrat Gray Davis in N ovem ber 1998. 177 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As the policy analyses and caregrver accounts in this chapter demonstrate, the status of grandparents raising grandchildren m the child welfare system is shaky at best. Although grandparents benefit from some legal advantages, such as a preference for placing dependent children with relatives, in practice grandparents often describe their relationship to the dependency court as an adversarial one. Because they are not full-fledged parties to the process, relative caregivers must seek speaal statuses and request exceptions to the rules every step of the way. And other factors, such as the race and class of a relative caregiver, sometimes appear to significantly influence the process— although Los Angeles County is apparently making attempts to minimize this potential bias. As relative caregivers progress through the various stages of the dependency process, their growing responsibilities to the child welfare system often disrupt their relationships with family members. As I will demonstrate in the following chapters, the relationships grandparents have with their children and grandchildren become increasingly complicated by the bureaucratic and legal demands of “the System." 178 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - INTERLUDE- A DAY IN CHILDREN’S COURT Through the energy, commitment and generosity o f many, many people, the Edmund D. Edelman Children s Court has established a new national standard fo r innovative and compassionate care o f children and fam ilies subject to the Dependency Court process. -L os Angeles Superior Court website Go there sometime. . . . That place. I mean, some o f my worst, nightmarish days— I ve spent some o f the worst time o f my life in that building. - Ella Dill Fernandes, relative caregiver Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In early 1999,1 took a grandmother's advice to “Go there sometime'’ and made my first trip to the Edmund D. Edehnan Children’ s Court, the courthouse in which most dependency cases are heard. I planned to meet Shadena Franklin there, a grandmother who was intending to get guardianship of her oldest daughter’s oldest son, Terrence.1 5 3 The Children's Court is located in Monterey Park, on die eastern edge of Los Angeles, on a high wooded hill that overlooks the intersection of two freeways. I armed at the courthouse by 8:30am as instructed by Shadena. I paid $3 to park and was surprised to find the large parking garage already nearly full of cars. After finding a spot to park on the roof of the garage, I made my way along the landscaped path to the main entrance of the courthouse. The Children’s Court is an attractive building, contemporary in style with muted peach, mauve and taupe tones. Other than the security checkpoint and metal detector through which all must pass, the lobby is surprisingly warm and welcoming. As you enter the building, an information desk is nearby to help newcomers find the courtrooms to which they have been assigned. Soft light filters in through blue-tinted windows and from several white light fixtures that are designed to look like clouds. And two large steel and plaster palm trees in the entryway provide a playful, decorative touch. All of these details help to ease some of the visible distress felt by parents, grandparents and children who are apprehensive about what the day holds m store for them. On one of the walls in the lobby a row of panels recounts the court’s history Until die mid-1970s, dependency cases were few enough fear a single judge was able to handle all 1 3 3 S hadena already had established legal guardianship of her 1 2 other grandchildren; the delay in getting guardianship for Terrence was due to the feet that be was living in a group home when the judge appointed Shadena the guardian of Terrence’ s brothers, sisters, and cousins. 180 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cases in just two days a week at the MacLaren Children's Center, the Los Angeles County- operated shelter for abused and abandoned children located in El Monte, California. Child abuse reporting increased throughout the late '60s and '70s, however, so the presiding judge o f the juvenile court at the time. Judge Richard Gadbots, created a separate dependency court to hear die growing number of dependency cases. Having outgrown the available space at MacLaren Hall, most dependency cases were heard in the Criminal Courts Building in downtown Los Angeles. A report from the Los Angeles Times details the major problems with this prior arrangement: The van carrying abused children from the MacLaren Children's Center drives up to an ominous high-rise building with 'Criminal Courts' written an the entrance. The children are driven into a high-security garage and the same caged-off entrance where the Night Stalker was brought for his day in court. The children's van h alts behind a long black-and-white sheriff s bus filled with men wearing jail-issue blue jumpsuits. The children, age 4 to 18, wait while the men disembark in shackles and chains. Frequently the children ask ifthey are being taken to jail. But there is little time to explain that the Dependency Court is separate from Criminal Court. The children, who have already suffered physical and sexual abuse, are frightened and disoriented (Freedman 1990). The dependency court and the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors agreed that such conditians were sorely inadequate and inappropriate for foster children already struggling to cope with family crises Indeed, aid as noted in Chapter Two, the purpose of the juvenile court was m part, to provide a separate, safe place in which to conduct court proceedings involving children. Furthermore, the division of the juvenile court into dependency and delinquency divisions meant de-link the historic conflation of the two (Katz 1996). Because children are “victims, not defendants” in dependency cases (Los Angeles Superior Court-Juvenile Court website), the county sought to provide a separate courthouse designed specifically for hearing cases involving abused and neglected children. After several 1 8 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. years of fund-raising efforts and planning, the Edmund D. Edehnan Children's Court, named for the now-retired Los Angeles County Supervisor, opened on June 22,1992 becoming the first courthouse m the United States devoted exclusively to juvenile dependency proceedings (ibid.). Those involved in the planning for a “children’s court” conferred with children's advocates, judges, representatives from county departments, and a mnoilmwr specializing in “child design,” to create a space with the needs of abused and neglected c h ild ren in mind. Indeed, as one walks around the courthouse, these efforts are apparent m the buildmg’s structure and decor. One of the first things one sees as one enters the building is a large quilt hanging in the entryway. A patchwork of colorful squares, the quilt is designed with children's cheery artwork An area called “Shelter Care,” reserved exclusively for foster children, is used as a play area or therapeutic retreat. Additional playrooms, picnic areas, quiet meeting spaces, and activity rooms are available to all who visit the court (Los Angeles Superior Court-Juvenile Court website; Pelbnan 1997). A less comforting feature of the buildmg is the wall next to the lobby elevator that transports visitors to their assigned courtrooms. The wall is covered with square panels designed with foster children's self-portraits. The drawings include feces with indistinct borders and haunting, melancholic expressions. Oily one-quarter of the feces appear to be smiling. The rest convey a sense o f despondency, a testimony to emotional wounds and a foster child’s unfair burden. The panels serve for me as a reminder of the somber function of the Children’s Court. Each floor of the building has a number and symbol assigned to it. As I entered the elevator that would to take me to the “Sun” or 4th Floor, another woman aclrwH a child 182 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. accompanying her which floor they needed to sdect. “The one with the moon,” responded the young girl, as she easily reached op to press the button for the 3rtFloor. Providing yet another example of the plmmmg that went into the building's design, even the elevator had a child's perspective in mind. When the elevator doors opened an 4*-Sun floor, the din of crying children and the stench of dirty diapers abruptly displaced the relative tranquility of the first floor lobby. I exited the elevator into a large, bustling, and appropriately sun-filled waiting room filled with people of all ages. Most of those without badges, which would indicate a professional link to the court, were African American and Latino, reflecting the demographics of foster children m Los Angeles County .1 3 4 All those presea presumably waited for their cases to be called by a bailiff from one of the eight courtrooms an the floor Shadena Franklm and her grandson were nowhere to be found so I sat down and tried to absorb the scene while awaiting their arrival. Children sat on long benches in extended family formations or worked in peer groups at diminutive tables equipped with ait supplies and games Several television sets mounted high an the walls played programs from the Nickelodean Network although few seemed to show much interest in watching diem. In die center of the room, a few children chased one another while frustrated adults yelled paradoxically at them to, “Quiet down?" Nearby, lawyers and social workers with gigantic stacks of files sat at tables with parents aid caregivers to plan for upcommg hearings An air 1 3 4 The foster child population in the Los Angeles County Dependency Court is 16.6% white. 37.4% Latino. 42.4% African American, and 2.2% Asian (D CFS, Child Welfare Services - CY 1999). This contrasts with the overall population of Los Angeles County, which is 75.2% white. 43.0% Latino (includes other races). 11.2% African American, and 12.9% Asian (1996 data from the Census Bureau: USA Counties 1998. Note: data on white population in Los Angeles County is not limited to non-Hispanic whites). 183 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of anxious expectation seemed to fill the room, pn«m»fing from the uneasy expressions and jittery dispositions oftfaose preparing to see the judge While I waited, a lawyer greeted her cbents, an African American girt about six years old and the girl's elderly caregiver, both of whom were sitting directly across from me. The lawyer squatted down to say hello to the child. “Oh, you look so pretty," she said, oohmg and aahmg over the young girl. “You've grown so much since I last saw you! And what a pretty dress you have an,” she added. I watched as the child reacted in a puzzling way that seemed simultaneously shy, startled, and appreciative of the lawyer's compliments. The child’s eyebrows rose high and her eyes opened wide. She looked at the ground, avoiding eye contact with her admirer, but grinning so vigorously it looked like her ears were strung together with a ribbon of lips and teeth. The lawyer laughed and affectionately hugged the child and then stood up to speak with the caregiver At that moment, I saw Shadena and her grandson, Terrence, get off the elevator. I had not seen Terrence in over a year and the child apparently had turned into an adult during the interim As we walked toward the seating area 1 mwtttingfy mutated the lawyer I had just witnessed, marveling at Terrence’ s growth spurt; in this case, however, the 17-year-old towered a good 12 inches over me. The boy in Terrence smiled dieepishly and said hello, and then found a seat a teenager's distance away from where Shadena and I sat down. Shadena asked me if the bailiff assigned to her courtroom had called Terrence’s name I told her I had not heard any names called from that particular courtroom. S h aH w n a said she was going to “stick her head in” the courtroom to let the bailififlmow she was there in the hope that her case might be called sooner. When she returned, I asked Shadena how long she typically had to wait at Children's Court for her case to be heard. She said die had waited 184 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as long as six or seven hours m tbe past, but more recently her case wrapped up usually within a couple of hours. She attnbrted this positive change to her Icng-term relationship with the judicial officer handling her many grandchildren's cases. As we waited for Terrence's case to be called, I overheard a conversation taking place outside one of the courtrooms directly behind us. A white woman, evidently a lawyer, spake with an African American family about a case. Two men and four women representing at least two generations of a family were there to support the efforts of a mother to regain custody of her children The group reacted with surprise and dismay when they learned from the lawyer that one of the mother's children had been adopted by another family. The woman whom I presumed to be the mother began to cry quietly and an older woman, also crying, tried to console her. One of the men questioned the lawyer, explaining that the mother had been released from jail only recently and was never notified of the planned adoption. “ Hello!9” the lawyer countered in a loud, condescending tone. “Hello?!” she repeated “ft’s not the court s fault that she went to jail The court isn’ t responsible for that— she is! Hello!? The court’ s responsibility is to take care of tbe child. It needs to find a responsible parent and can’ t wait forever to see when and if she’ll get her act together.” Shadena. who couldn’ t help but to overhear the conversation as well, offered her observations. “She doesn’ t have to be so insensitive about it all,” she whispered, referring to the lawyer and shaking her head. “And it shouldn't be too hard for the court to find the mother, seeing as how she was already locked up in the system,” she added. Shadena should know, since her two daughters, who are the parents of Shadena's 1 3 grandchildren, have spent most of their adult lives m pnscn. 185 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I. too, was taken aback by tbe lawyer's brusque demeanor and struck by tbe stark contrast between this conversation and the friendly, if awkward, interaction I'd witnessed between another lawyer and young girl only a few mmates pnor. While die present lawyer's comments to tbe family were, in general, a m accurate description o f court policy, her delivery lacked discretion or even a modicum o f tact I wandered also, about tbe family's claim that tbe mother was not notified of critical dependency court matters while in jail. Although little is known definitively about tbe parental status of inmates, tbe 1.6 million incarcerated men and women in the United States (U.S. Department o f Justice, 1999) leave behind an estimated 1.5 to 2 million children wben they go away to prison (Barnhill 1996; Butterfield 1999; Porterfield, Dressel and Barnhill 2000). With the number of prisoners rising rapidly and with die average length of prison sentences increasing, more and more children are likely to enter the child welfare system when parents are unable to make other arrangements prior to their incarceration.1 3 5 Although rarely the basis for a decision to terminate parental rights (Stem 1998), die dependency court does consider a parent’ s long-term incarceration when deriding whether to deny reunification services.’ 3 6 In fact, some estimates suggest that as many as 18% o f all cases where the 1 3 5 Since 1990. the number of inmates in the country has increased by an average of 6.1% each year, with an even higher growth rate for incarcerated women, who are more likely than male prisoners to have children (U .S. Department of Justice 2000; Beatty 1997; Prison Activist Resource Center'Women in Prison"). In California, the number of imprisoned men and w om en more than doubled from 1989 to 1998 (State of California. Department of Corrections 1999). Prisoners are serving longer sentences mo-cspecially drag offenders, whnsp sentences have lengrhpnari hy approximately 54% in the past 1 0-15 years (Beatty 1997, citing DiMascio 1995). 1 3 6 The court may den y reumficatiofi services to an incarcerated parent only if it determines that reunification would be harmful to the child. In making this determination, the court considers the following factors: the child’s age, the relationship between the parent and child, the type of crime committed by the parent and the length of the sentence, and the child's preference, if over 1 0 [W IC §361.5(eXl)]- The law does not state specifically how these factors should be interpreted by a judge It does state, however, that the sam e tune limits an remrificaboo services apply to prisoners as they 186 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. parental rights are terminated for parents of dependent African American children involve parents in prison (J. Norman 1995, cited in Beatty 1997). However, in California incarcerated parents have the right to be informed of all court hearings, including— if net especially-the termination of parental rights (TPR) hearing held prior to a child's adoption (Penal Code §2625; Prison Activist Resource Center, “Dependency issues”). Regarding TPR hearings, the California Penal Code states sp e c ific a lly : Upon receipt by the court of a statement from the prisoner or his or her attorney indicating the prisoner's desire to be present during the court's proceedings, the court shall issue an order for the temporary removal of the prisoner from the institution, and for the prisoner's production before the court. No proceeding may be held [to establish a child as a dependent of the court or to terminate parental rights] without the physical presence of the prisoner or the prisoner’ s attorney, unless the court has before it a knowing waiver of die right of physical presence signed by the prisoner or an affidavit signed by the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of die institution, or his or her designated representative stating that the prisoner has, by express statement or action, indicated an intent not to appear at the proceeding1 3 7 [Penal Code §2625(d), emphasis added]. Although tbe court is required to send nobce of hearings ahead of time, prisoners with children placed in foster care often rely an social workers and attorneys to notify them of dependency court proceedings and to act an their behalf by requesting the court order permitting attendance at hearings. If it is true that the woman in Children's Couit was not informed of her rights as a parent while m jail then the loss of her child is all the more heartbreaking. “You know," Shadena told me, “I found out that one of the boy’s old lawyers passed away earlier this year. I wish I'd known about his death when it happened because I would've do to other parents in the dependency system. 1 3 7 Judges “may" issue an order commanding the presence of prisoner-parents in other. non-TPR. dependency hearings [see. c.g.. Ratal Code §2625(e)]. 187 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. liked to have attended his funeral." As if she were mentally comparing her own considerable experiences with juvenile couit attorneys with the scene we had just witnessed, Shadena told me about a lawyer who had “really cared” abort her family. According to Shadena, the lawyer was instrumental in persuadmg the court to let all 1 3 of Shadena's grandchildren rem ain in her custody. “He supported me,” when others expressed concern about .Shadena's ability to adequately care for so many children. Shadena described the sadness she felt upon learning about his death “It doesn't matter if he wasn’ t family,” she noted regarding her need to moum the loss “He had a real impact on our family," observed Shadena, summing up a fundamental truth about the influence of agents in the Los Angeles County juvenile court system. Within a few minutes and stemming, perhaps, from Shadena's strategy of announcing her arrival, the bailiff called Terrence's case Shadena invited me to join her so the three of us walked toward the courtroom and greeted the smiling bailiff who held the door open for us. A court official in the vestibule asked whom 1 was and Shadena quickly intervened, saying I was a “counselor” from the University of Southern California. This seemed to satisfy the woman who allowed me to enter the courtroom.1 3 * Shadena and Terrence walked toward the front of the room and sat at a table in front of the judge's bench The judge, seeming to recognize Shadena, smiled and nodded his head in a welcoming gesture. Meanwhile, I tried to find a seat in the back of the courtroom, which 1 3 8 Dependency cnnrt proceedings are normally cnnfiAnrial and Hnwnd tn ihr pifrlir H owever, the Los Angeles County superior court local rules state that “a member of the public shall not be admitted to a dependency court hearing unless: (a) a parent/guardian makes a request for admission of a person, and the minor who is subject of the petition consents, or (b) the subject minor makes a request for admission of a person, or (c) the judicial officer admits a person w ho he or she deems to have a direct and legitimate interest in a particular case or the work of the court" [Rule 17.2(a)(2)]. See also, the discussion of confidentiality in "Adoption Days at the DCFS" 188 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was crowded with lawyers and social workers with no apparent connection to Terrence's case. The dependency court professionals gossiped aid discussed their lunch plans making it nearly impossible for me to hear the proceedings- ft did not matter much though, because just as I began to get situated I saw Shadena and Terrence rise and turn to exit the courtroom. Surprised to see them leaving so quickly, I scrambled to grab my belongings and rushed to join them. “What happened?” I asked Shadena once we were outside die courtroom. Shadena explained simply that the judge approved the guardianship petition and that they were free to go home. The Los Angeles County Children's Court is a notorious place, legendary among grandparents raising grandchildren m the dependency system, ft is a site where families' pasts unravel exposing painful, sometimes grisly, wounds, ft is an arena where families' futures are constructed, beyond tbe reach of some who try desperately to regain control over their lives, ft is a giant, overburdened bureaucracy that holds the power to make some of die most important decisions in a family's life. A fabled place, the Children's Court is not the subject o f bedtime stories told to grandchildren, ft is, rather, a place thar breeds nightm are* for many nf th e grandparents who enter its solemn chambers, ft is a place defined by contrasts and contradictions. This brief ethnographic interlude describing my first trip to the Children's Court gives one a sense of the efforts made by Los Angeles County to provide a relatively humane setting for conducting the fundamentally difficult dependency process, ft further provides a glimpse of dependency court proceedings from the eyes of a seasoned “professional” caregiver 1 8 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Shadena Franklin has raised grandchildren for nearly two decades and has afanost as many years of experience with the juvenile dependency court. Her veteran status and long term relationships with social workers, attorneys and judges are central to the ease with which Shadena navigates “the System." Years of experience have taught her what to expect and how to approach the dependency court process in a way that minimizes delays and other headaches. Yet this trip to the courthouse provided dues that not every encounter is as hassle- free as Shadena Franklin’s. The interaction we witnessed between the attorney and the recently-released inmate, whereby the attorney brusquely informed the woman that her child had been adopted by another family, provides a sharp contrast to Shadena's cordial, rubber- stamped approval of her request for legal guardianship. Furthermore, most grandparents come to the Children’ s Court as neophytes, not knowing what to expect and fearing the worst For these newcomers, the dependency system presents an onslaught of bureaucratic rules, administrative procedures, and technical legalese that is bewildering to many In the following chapter, I will describe relative caregivers' day-to-day experiences with the policies and procedures of the child welfare system and outline the process by which some grandparents are transformed into “professional’’ relative caregivers like Shadena Franklin. 190 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - FIVE — “OFF THEIR ROCKERS”: BECOMING A “PROFESSIONAL” GRANDPARENT "It s like you 're not a grandmother anymore. " commented a frustrated grandmother at a Regional Kinship M eeting in North Hollywood in August. 1999. "That s right. " replied Jonathan Flat, a social worker at Grandma's House. " You re an employee. " "We 're imprisoned!" insisted another caregiver. "Yes. " replied Jonathan. "You ve become an employee o f the big, bad DCFS and you re encumbered by certain rules. " I Just do what I ’ m told unless i t ’ s totally unreasonable. Just tell me what to do and 17/ Jump through os meaty hoops as necessary. - Bertha MaJone, relative caregrver 191 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. An Open House at “Grandma's House1 * “It’s a beautiful and wonderful thing,” for a foster child to hue with a relative caregiver So claimed Department of Children and Family Services Director, Peter Digre, in a parking lot in Culver City, California. At the Grand Opening o f Grandma's House an a sunny moramg in October 1998, Peter Digre and Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke stood before a large audience of caregivers, social workers, media representatives, and other professionals outside a Department of Children and Family Services office building. Together, Digre and Burke sang the praises of relative caregivers and the new program designed to serve them. Digre noted that nearly 60% of all foster children in Los Angeles County— amounting to some 30,000 children— live with relatives. On behalf o f the department, Peter Digre expressed his gratitude to these grandparents, aunts and uncles and “encourage[d] [them] to take the difficult step to become the legal parent” of the children in their care. Taking ho-turn at the microphone. Supervisor Burke noted that her district1 3 9 has the largest number of kinship caregivers of all districts in Los Angeles County. Burke sympathized with the caregivers, highlighting some of the additional burdens they bear when parenting children the “second time around”-burdens made even greater by a relative lack of church support and unnecessary interference by the government 1 3 9 Burke represents the 2n d District of L os Angeles County, which covers the south-central and west-central areas of the city of Los Angeles. This district has a predominantly African American and Latino population. 192 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To make a difficult situation a little less so Burke, like Digre, encouraged kinship caregivers to consider adoption. “We don’ t need people gomg to court, or social workers in homes,” she declared, when relatives are willing and able to care for children. Smiling for cameras, Digre and Burke used an oversized pair of scissors to cut a ribbon in front of Grandma's House, symbolically launching the program that would help lift the burdens of relative caregivers. The fact that the DCFS office building that housed the program looked nothing like the cozy “grandma's house” illustrated on the “Grand Opening / Open House” program— complete with a welcome mat and a rocking ch air an the front porch— was an insignificant detail that seemed troubling to no one. After die ribbon-cutting ceremony the gathering moved indoors. Beyond tbe offices and cubicle divisions in a conference room in die back of building lay a huge buffet of food for guests— more evocative, perhaps, of the “grandma's house” effect the DCFS was trying to achieve. * * * * * In the early 1990s, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Families Services recognized that kinship caregivers require additional support since, unlike foster parents, most relative caregivers come to the dependency court and the DCFS with little to no understanding about how the child welfare system operates. In order to help grandparents better understand their roles as caregivers in the dependency system, the “Kinship Care Division” within die Bureau of Specialized Programs in tbe Department of Children and Family Services developed a number of educational programs and support services Most of 193 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. these programs are housed in the Department o f Children and Family Services’ ‘ ‘ Grandma’s House”'4 0 Although the Grand Opening for Grandma’s House took place m October 1998, the program began one year earlier, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) awarded the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services with two grants. The first grant, from the Adoption Opportunities Program of the DHHS Administration for Children and Families, provided the DCFS with funding to develop a program that would increase the number of “kinship adoptions” (the adoption of foster children by relatives) in die central-western region of Los Angeles (“Grandma’s House IV” brochure, Los Angeles County, Department of Children and Family Services), ft was this goal to which DCFS Director Digre and Supervisor Burke referred in their remarks an adoption at Grandma’s House. The second grant, from the DHHS’s National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, was earmarked for programs to “promote the safety, permanency, and well-being o f the children in kinship families within one o f the highest risk areas of Los Angeles County”— namely, the south-central region of the city (“Grandma’s House 0” brochure, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services).1 4 1 1 4 0 As of this writing, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services is undergoing a substantial reorganization. Tbe information provided here about the organizational structure of the department in the late-1990s is likely to change. 1 4 1 In addition to these stan-up grants, the California Department of Social Services' Kinship Support Services Program awarded the DCFS and Grandma’ s H ouse with additional funding to expand its services and to open a “Kinship Resource Center” in the southeastern part of tbe city (Compton-Moore 1999; CDSS-KSSP n.d_). 194 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Despite separate funding sources and distinct target service regions, “Grandma's House” is a unified program that offers five primary and interrelated services to relative caregivers across Los Angeles County: • Information and referral • Advocacy Support groups and networks • “Special Kinships” programs “Kinship Education, Preparation and Support” (KEPS) program At die Culver City office. Grandma's House operates a toll-finee information and referral “warmline” fix' grandparents raising grandchildren, staffed by relative caregivers with experience in the dependency system.1 4 2 These “Kinship Assistants” are employed through a joint effort of the DCFS and the California Department of Aging's Senior Community Service Employment Program, which provides re-training for adults 55 years old and older1 4 3 (Logan et al 1999; Los Angeles County Department o f Community and Senior Services n.d ). A second objective fix’ Grandma's House is to “empower” relative caregivers through various advocacy efforts. Although this goal is apparent in all five programs, according to the Grandma's House Logical Model advocacy efforts specifically seek to “provide training and information to enable relative caregivers to advocate on their own behalf and an behalf of abuse [wc] and neglected children” (from the DHHS grant proposal). Grandma's House and other divisions within the DCFS offer regular, free conferences for relative caregivers and foster parents that address various components o f the child welfare system. A typical 1 4 2 1-888-M Y -G RA N D (888-694-7263) 1 4 3 Funding for the Kinship Assistants comes from Title V of the Older Americans Act 195 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conference might offer sessions an first aid and home safety, the Adoption Assistance Program, M edi-CaL, the Women, Infants and Children (WIQ Program, and tbe Emancipation and Independent Living Program.1 * * These conferences serve to educate caregivers about the fester care system and help them obtain the services they need for the children in their care. Another way m which Grandma’s House advocates for relative caregivers is through its support of the Kinship Council of Los Angeles (KCLA). KCLA is a non-profit organization whose membership is made up primarily of relative caregivers with current or former ties to the Department of Children and Family Services KCLA began as an internal “Kinship Advisory Council” for the DCFS; relative caregivers on the advisory council took part in the early planning and policy development stages of Grandma's House before spinning off to form a private, non-profit agency that advocates for kinship caregivers through various educational and lobbying efforts Currently, members of the Board of Directors o f KCLA organize and lead the monthly Regional Kinship Meetings for relative caregivers in each of die eight regions of the Department of Children and Family Services These Regional Kinship Meetings are part o f the third objective of Grandma's House- -to provide support groups and networking opportunities for relative caregivers Since 1993, tbe Regional Kinship Meetings, like foe DCFS conferences, have provided relative caregivers with information about foe dependency process and services available through foe DCFS and other county departments (“Fact Sheet: The Kinship Council of Los Angeles” n.d.; Kinship Council of Los Angeles, Inc. n.d.). While the KCLA Board members determine foe agenda for these meetings, the Department of Children and Family Services provides mining space 1 4 4 These particular workshops made up the program at the Kinship Resource Center's Kinship A dvocacy Conference hdd in Baldwin Park, CA on June 8.1999. 196 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and funding The department also promotes the program by mailing notices to relative caregivers in each region to inform them o f upcoming meetings. Grandma’ s House social workers help to facilitate the Regional Kinshq) Meetings and provide more clinically-oriented support groups for relative caregivers at other tunes The fourth program agenda for Grandma’s House, “Special Kinships,” is an assortment of programs aimed at supporting and strengthening kinship care families Grandma’s House offers occasional “Teen Summits”— all-day, self-esteem-building workshops for adolescent foster children in kinship care, h addition, the department provides educational programs for relative caregivers, one example of which was die “Kinship Specialized Training Seminar on Pre-teens and Teenagers’ ’ held in June 1999.! 4 5 The department also organizes occasional recreational activities for kinship caregivers and their families that are designed to give grandparents a brief respite from caregrvmg responsibilities. The final program component o f Grandma’s House is the Kinship Education, Preparation and Support program (KEPS). A collaborative effort on the part of the Department of Children and Family Services, the Kinship Advisory Council, and the Georgia- based Child Welfare Institute, this voluntary program for relative caregivers addresses the emotional and practical aspects of raising grandchildren m the dependency system. Each week for nine weeks, participants meet fix' two to three hours to discuss igoms ranging from child development, to the responsibilities o f relative caregivers and the importance of 1 4 5 This seminar featured Ron Johnson, the Director of the Los Angdes-based "Rites of Passage” program, a holistic personal development program designed especially for African American teens (Rites of Passage Program 1993). Johnson also led one of the DCFS‘ Teen Summits.” in March of the same year. In addition to Ron Johnson, the D e p a rtm e n t regularly contracts with Joseph Crumbiey— a Philadelphia-based social worker and m arriage and family therapist who specializes in kinship care and adoption— to conduct workshops on the family dynamics and grand/parentiiig issues unique to kinship care families. 197 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. establishing “permanency" for children.1 4 6 In the process, grandparents leam about dependency court and DCFS policy and how to access services available through the county. Support from the Department of Children and Family Services: Too little, too late? It's a nightmare. First of all, it's very stressful. Because the key word is, you're not going to be told anything. And for you get any information, you’re going to have to get out there and get it on your own. Now that's the keyword. And then ifyou don’ t get it, you’re going to be penalized with allegations, possibly children being removed. Because then die people-the svsrem is going to say you didn’ t try That you didn’ t go to classes. You didn't go to conferences. You didn't go to workshops. You should’ve, you know, asked. You should’ve this, you should’ve that So it’ s extremely hard. When relatives go to court. .. the court is saying, “Do you have a lawyer?” And then the relative is saying, “I don't have any money for a lawyer.” “Well, have you had any bonding? Can you do tbe de facto?7 ' And then die relative is saying, “I don't understand the terminology, and I don’ t understand why I’ m here, and I don’ t understand the court system!” So then the relative is totally left out. Ah. they're iosmg their hair, they’re losing their nerves. They’re very high strung. The comments of Harriet Jackson, a grandmother raising five grandchildren and a leader of several kinship care organizations in Los Angeles, capture the fears and frustrations of many grandparents with grandchildren in the dependency system. Her words also expose an apparent failure on the part of the DCFS to prepare caregivers for their new roles Despite the efforts of Grandma s House to educate and advocate for relative caregivers, many grandparents feel that the day-to-day support from the department— support that comes 1 4 6 The format for the KEPS p rogram is as fellows; W eek One; Introduction to the relative caregiver educational/group support program; W eek Two; Assessing the impact of the children living in m y hom e: Week Three: Looking at m y role in achieving legal permanency: W eek Four Assessing the strengths and needs of tbe children in m y care: W eek Five; Building on the strengths and meeting the needs of the children in my care; W eek Six. Preparing children and youth for the future: W eek Seven; Understanding the issues of birth parents: Week Eight: W orking with birth parents to achieve permanency for their children: W eek Nine; N etw orking and moving ahead (Smith 1997). 198 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. primarily from the Children’s Social Worker (CSW) assigned to the case— is too little, too late. Although the DCFS automatically assigns a CSW to work with relative caregivers and the children in their care, involvement wfth Grandma’s House is much less routine. Unlike other services that are mandated by the dependency court (e.g., reunification services for parents), participation in the programs offered by Grandma’s House is voluntary. Thus, as Harriet Jackson suggests, grandparents must seek out these services. In order to do so, however, grandparents must know first where to look. Grandparents typically rely on their primary link to the dependency system-the Children’s Social Worker-to leam about and obtain access to such services. But because the DCFS is such a large, complex organization, CSWs working on the “front line”1 4 7 may not even know about new programs like Grandma’s House. That social workers may not know about every program available through the DCFS is understandable. It is less defensible however if social workers are unfamiliar with the primary program m place for relative caregivers. Several of the grandmothers I interviewed said their social workers never told them about Grandma's House or the KEPS program. Others mentioned they never received notices from the DCFS about the Regional Kinship Meetings. These complaints may be simply isolated examples of the glitches common to enormous bureaucratic systems. Yet the invisibility of resources available to a group that 1 4 7 Several social workers I met during the course of my research described the work of Emergency Response (ER) social workers and Children's Social W orkers (CSW ) as “on the front line” or “on the line.” Similarly , they often referred to this group of social workers as “line workers." Although no one ever made explicit the connection between the work o f social workers and soldiers “on the front line.” tbe analogy is apparent and speaks volum es about tbe perception of social node. 199 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cares for the majority of foster children m Los Angeles County also indicates die tenuous position o f relative caregivers in the dependency system.'4 * The Hard Work o f Social Work Realistically, social workers can hardly be expected to keep track of each and every new service available through the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. The DCFS web site lists nearly 60 distinct pro grams and services for foster children1 4 9 and new and/or short-term services frequently become available. Steve Evans, a member of the Kinship Council of Los Angeles, complained about die inefficient communication within the county and the difficulty grandparents have getting information about available programs. Steve learned, for example, about a program that offered $25 bookstore gift certificates to foster children with a library card. According to Steve, although the county helped to coordinate the program, it apparently failed to spread the word to social workers who claimed to know nothing about the program when Steve asked about it. Steve provides another example: Around Christmas time, there was also, the Lens Crafters was doing free eyeglasses and stuff . . And it changes so much and . . . different times of the year-like the Lens Crafters and stuff-thmgs come up. And if you don’ t go to die monthly [Regional Kinship] meetings, you’ll never know because they don’t send you a notice in the mail that says, “Oh by the way, if you need an eye check or your kids need braces, this month only we have a program set up.” 1 4 8 A B 2307, chartered into law in September, 2000. requires com m unity colleges to offer educational programs for relative caregivers. Although grandparents are not (currently) required to attend them, the state mandates the Department of Children and Family Services to injorm relative caregivers about these programs. Perhaps this more recent attention to tbe training opportunities available to relative caregivers will increase the likelihood that they will leara about them in the future. 1 4 9 As of June 2001. this list is m knng at least one DCFS program: Grandma’ s House. 200 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As Steve indicates, grandparents may be most likely to hear about such programs at the Regional Kinship meetings where relative caregivers share i nformation and learn about programs from each other and from guest presenters invited to speak abottt various services available to foster children. This was the case for relative caregiver Harriet Jackson, another Kinship Council member, who often learns about available resources from her peers at the Regional Kinship Meetings. Harriet explains: W hen it comes time fix the children's clothing order, you have to get it through die grapevine. The other relatives, they say, “Did you get your clothing order? [Jackson], it's time to ask the social worker fix the clothing order. [Jackson], da da da." It's the grandparents who teO me, “You were supposed to have gotten a clothing order. This is the amount of money you were supposed to have gotten.” It’s the grandparents* The ones that find out how to survive, they tell the next person and the next person. . . . [Relative caregiver Myma Lamb is] the one that told me about die emergency kits [fix earthquakes] . Then I had to get an the telephone and tell the social worker, “Did you know that the children, the county children, have emergency kits that go to school?" She didn't know that. Social workers are often for too busy with the day-to-day work of managing caseloads to be able keep up with the frequently changing array of services offered by the DCFS and other county departments. According to the 1999 SB 2030 Child Welfare Services Workload Study,1 social workers in California who provide family reunification services have an average workload of 23 cases, which allows them to spend approximately 5 hours per ! 5 ° W ith the passage of S B 2030 in 1998, the California legislature mandated the California Department of Social Services to conduct a study of the workload standards and actual workloads of caseworkers in the child welfare system. Tbe study sought to evaluate whether or not ament workload standards allow social workers to provide all the services required by child welfare policy and law The findings of the study suggest that workload standards have not kept up with numerous policy changes in the past decade and that increased staffing levels and reduced caseloads are necessary in order to comply with the law (Senate Bill 2030). 201 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. month on each case (see Table 5-l).lsl The SB 2030 Study estimated that in order to meet die standards of care established by state and federal child welfare policy, social workers should spend a minimum of 7.5 hours and an optimal 9.7 hours per month providing reunification services to a family In order to do so, however, this would require a 50% reduction in social workers' current caseloads (American Humane Association et al. 2000). Table 5-1; Actual and Recommended Workload For Caseworkers by Type of Service Family Reunification Permanency Planning Actual honrs worked per m o n t h per case4 4.97 2.37 M in im u m recoouneoded standard 7.46 4.90 Optimal recommended standard 9.72 7.07 Actual caseload4* 23.36 48.99 M in im u m recommended standard 15.58 23.67 Optimal recommended standard 11.94 1 6 .42 S O U R C E : S B 2030 Child W elfare Services Workload Study Final Report April 2000 4 measured in hours, based on a total of 116 hours available per mouth for direct- service provision 4 4 measured in number of cases; cases may mriudr mote than one child The discrepancy between actual and optimal workloads is even greater for caseworkers providing permanency planning services The SB 2030 Study found that social workers provide an average of 2.4 permanency planning service hours per month per case, and manage a caseload of approximately 49 families. The researchers recommended that child welfare agencies adjust social workers' caseloads so that they may spend an optimal 1 5 1 Another survey of social workers in 1 0 Counties in California found that caseloads range from 8 to 100 cases, with an average of 35 children per social worker (Berrick. Needell and Barth 1999). 202 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. seven hours per month providing permanency planning services to each of 16.4 families in a caseload (ibid.).'5 2 The findings of the SB 2030 Child Welfare Services Workload Study suggest that caseworkers struggle to provide the minimum standard o f care required by current child welfare policy b addition, the fact that social workers spend only 3% of their time in training activities suggests that social workers on the “front line” are ill-equipped to offer more than the most basic services to the families with whom they work (ibid.). Evaluations of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services serve to further illustrate these problems A 19% state audk of the DCFS found that the department regularly failed to comply with its own policies regarding background checks and other safety measures for children (Rainey, 1996a; “State auditor.. .,” 1996). In the following two years, a grand jury investigation and an independent evaluation of the DCFS criticized the department for foiling to provide more than marginal care to foster children residing in MacLaren Children’s Center and other licensed group homes. The Los Angeles Times editorial desk summarizes the findings of these two inquiries: Both reports faulted the county's standards of care as minimal While county foster care facilities generally succeed in immediate protection of children's safety, the reports said, they foil to meet long-term needs for education, counseling and other social services. The problem, both reports said, is rooted in the failure of tbe county's myriad agencies to communicate with one another (“Holes in the . . . ” 1998). Is: The wide gap between the actual and optimal working conditions for social workers who provide permanency planning services is particularly significant given that it undermines the child welfare system’s staled goal of establishing permanency for children as quickly as possible. 203 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The findings of the two investigations reveal the effect of heavy workloads that prevent the Los Angeles County child welfare system from providing integrated, consistent and high quality care. The problems in service provision cannot be blamed on an apathetic cadre o f social workers, however In fact, the untenable working conditions described above ted CSWs m Los Angeles County to go on strike m 1997, demanding an increase in pay and a decrease in caseloads and excessive paperwork requirements (Meyer 1997: Rainey 1996a; Rainey and Meyer 1997a; Rainey and Meyer 1997b). The county responded with promises of increased staffing reorganization and other reforms to improve conditions for social workers and the foster children they serve.1 ” Marvela King, a social worker with more than 25 years of experience with the Department of Children and Family Services, captures the essence of this problem: And I mean, I need to be perfectly honest with you. There's so much that goes on m this department, if it's something I'm not dealing directly with I don't keep it up in my mind because there's just too much going on. The reason social workers like Marvela must resort to this minimalist strategy is because there is simply too much to do and learn, and too little time in which to learn and do it. This 1 5 3 One of these reforms is the shift toward coammmty-besed foster care, whereby social workers work in small neighborhoods and pull together resources within that community to serve dependent children and their families This approach to fester care (a.k_a. “F am ily to Family ") began in Los Angeles County as a pilot project in Pacoima. California and. with the help of a planning grant from the Annie E Casey Foundation in 1996. the program expanded to other parts of the San Fernando V alley , the Antelope Valley, south-central Los Angeles, and southern Los Angeles County (DCFS n.< L “Fam ily to Family L.A...."). The primary objectives of the “Family to Family” initiative are "a decrease in the length of stay for children in foster care: reduced numbers of placement disruptions: an increase in the mnnber of planned ramifications; and a reduction in the total number of children served aw ay from their own families” (DCFS n.d.. “ Services we provide.. “: see also Annie E. C asey Foundation n.d_). See also Bailey 1998 and Bernstein 1997 for additional proposals for child welfare reform. 204 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. is especially true for social workers “c m the line” who tend to have the least experience and some of tbe most demanding work. Marvela explains: Yeah, because they're overwhelmed. And I woukki't dare make you think that they’re not They are. They are overwhelmed. And IT 1 tell anybody, it takes a good ten years on this job to really know what you’re doing. And you know, we've had- we have a high turnover of staff in our department. Social workers "overwhelmed" by excessive caseloads and other demands are unlikely to be able to keep up with all the temporary and nonessenrial programs that might benefit some of their clients. Another problem contributing to tbe lacking communication between same relative caregivers and the DCFS, however, may have to do with the perception of kinship care by social workers. Research an kinship care indicates that social workers provide less supervision and support to relative caregivers than nan-related foster parents (Bemck et al. 1994; CDSS May 31, 1996; Chipungu et al. 1998; DHHS Children's Bureau 1999; Gebel 1996; Iglehart 1994; Meyer and Link 1990). For example, a 1988 study of the Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services1 5 4 found that social workers had fewer visits and less familiarity with their kinship care caseloads than with the children in nan-related foster care (Iglehart 1994). Furthermore, a 1996 California Policy Summit an Kinship Care found that “generally, social workers and judges assume that children who are placed with relatives are safe and require less supervision,'' and that “due to heavy caseloads, children [m the dependency system] placed with kin often receive less monitoring and supervision than non kin placements” (CDSS May 31, 1996). 1 5 4 The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services used to be called the “Department of Children Services.” 205 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This unfortunate combnabcn of dfcumstances often results ip nexperienced, overburdened social workers providing inadequate support to overwhelmed relative caregivers who are also new to the “ job.” And while tbe programs at Grandma's House might be able to fill in some of this gap, grandparents must first be able to find oitt about the program.1 5 5 Caught in a “Catch-22,” grandparents entering the dependency system often find themselves desperately needing information about how it works while having limited access to such information. Understanding how die system works is o f vital importance to grandparents, however, since as Harriet Jackson notes above, breaking the rules can result in the department removing children from a relative caregiver's home. Indeed, when die dependency court places a child with a grandparent, that grandparent enters into a contractual agreement with the Department o f Children and Family Services that requires her to care for the child according to an extensive set of rules established by the state and the county. These rules are often difficult for relative caregivers to relate to smce they tend to thmk of themselves primarily as grandparents-not as state-regulated providers of care. The Bureaucratization of Grandpareuthood Basically as relatives you are to do for these children what you have done for your own and other children.. . . But we must remember that they are not your children.. .. And they are now a part of the dependency system with all it's [r/c] rules and regulations (Kin Care Consulting 1998) Kin Care Consulting, a Los Angeles-based organization, offers this cautionary reminder to grandparents who participate m the organization's one-day Relative Caregiver Orientation program offered through community colleges around Los Angeles County The 1 5 5 In addition, and as I will discuss in the following chapter, even when relative caregivers do make an effort to educate themselves about the dependency system, they m ay hit a glag; ceiling of sorts that limits their ability to act as equal partners with social workers, foster parents, and other agents in the system. 206 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. orientation, developed and conducted (and originally funded) by relative caregivers with years of experience m the child welfare system, highlights some of the important issues grandparents need to know about when they enter the dependency process. Kin Care Consulting developed its Relative Caregiver Orientation to supplement the sometimes lackmg support offered by the Department of Children and Family Services when it places a child with a grandparent Barbra Foote, a grandmother raising two grandchildren in the Antelope Valley and one of the developers o f the program, says her primary goal as a peer-educator is to “leave the system better than I found i t ... To leave something better for the next person that comes along." At an orientation held at Pasadena City College in December 1998, Barbra Foote and her co-presenter, Steve Evans, addressed die following issues: the responsibilities of the caregiver/DCFS regulations, the court process, the need for documentation, permanency planning, financial issues, medical and dental care, mental health care, education, emancipation, child care, caregiver support, community resources, and legislation. During the orientation, Barbra and Steve devoted a lot of attention to the first category, the “responsibilities of the caregiver/DCFS regulations" “You come into the system without training or without any information," observed Barbra for the small audience of six relative caregivers and myself. “So that’s one of the things we built into the orientation is, what are the rules. Understanding DCFS regulations is important, explained Barbra, “because people have had children removed, or they come down on caregivers because they’ve broken rules they never even knew anything about." 207 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Steve Evans noted that m contrast to relative caregivers, foster parents go through an extensive training and becomes licensed before children are placed with them.1 5 6 But for relative caregivers, according to Steve, “if you're related, they drop 'em off and that’ s it! Your only prerequisite is that you’re related and they drop ’ em off.” Although social workers must evaluate a home before they place a child there, and while they are supposed to closely supervise each case, Steve’s social worker apparently did little more than “drop off” his grandnepbew. “But just because I slipped through the cracks doesn’ t mean you will,” warned Steve, referring to the relative lack of supervision of his case by the DCFS “You need to know the rules so that tf [the social workers] are an the ball they won’ t come down on you for doing something wrong,” Steve concluded. “Rules and Regulations” for Relative Caregivers When a DCFS social worker places a child in a relative caregiver’s home, both the caregiver and Children's Social Worker (CSW) must sign the Department of Children and Family Services’ “Agency-Relative Caregiver Agreement” (DCFS form; 76A349R). This form summarizes i nformation about the caregrver and the child— including < m y known behavioral problems the child might have— and describes the initial visitation plan for parents and other family members. According to the form, all information regarding the caregiver's grandchild is confidential; the grandparent may not discuss die “case” with any “unauthorized person.” 1 5 6 According to the Community College Foundation, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Fam ily- Services requires foster parents to undergo 36 hours of training through the M odel Approaches to Partnerships in Parenting (M APP) program, in addition to continuing education requirements (Community College Foundation, ad.). State law requires only 1 2 hours of training prior to becoming a foster parent, in addition to 8 hours of continuing education each year to maintain the license {Health and Safety Code. §1529.2(b)|. 208 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Agreement compels relative caregivers to meet the following fifteen requirements of the Department o f Children and Family Services (verbatim from the “fe e print” of the Agency-Relative Caregiver Agreement, em phasis theirs): * Provide a secure and stable environment fix the child. * Maintain a good moral character. * Exercise proper and effective care and control of the child. Provide a home and the necessities o f life inchidipg medical and dental exams within 30 days of placement and psychological care for the child. [In addition, the DCFS requires all foster children to have regular medical check-ups: once every 2 months for children under one year, twice annually for children between 2 and 4, and annual check-ups for older children.] * Protect the child from his or her parents. * Comply with aO orders of the court made with respect to the child. * In voluntary relinquishments: Recognize any Imhtatians of consent imposed by the court or the parent Facilitate visitation with the child's other relatives. * Facilitate family reunification efforts with the parents, including parent/child visits, in accordance with the DCS case plan. Not use corporal, degrading or humiliating punishment. * Use only constructive methods of discipline. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY WORKERS OF CHANGES IN CHILD’S HEALTH, BEHAVIOR OR LOCATION AND ANY CHANGES IN HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION. * Give the worker prior notice if removal of the child is requested. * Notify the worker m advance of relative caregiver absence of 48 hours or longer * Look out for the best interest of the child. in return, the Agency-Relative Caregiver Agreement requires the Department of Children and Family Services to provide die relative caregiver with information regarding funding, medical insurance and other services available to the child through DCFS. By signing this form, a grandparent enters into a contractual agreement with the Department of Children and Family Services to care for the child acooiding to its policies. As noted above, unlike foster parents who undergo extensive training to leam the unique responsibilities of foster parenthood, grandparents are typically thrust into this role with little to no preparation. As a result, relative caregivers may be more likely than foster parents to be 209 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. frustrated by this arrangement, since it means that their relationships with then- grandchildren are suddenly bound by an extensive list of bureaucratic rules for parenting. Furthermore, many of the rules in this contract are relatively vague with ample room for uterpretation. This may lead to problems if a caregiver interprets her responsibilities differently than the social worker and/or resists the required transition from grand-parent to fo ster parent. Supervised Crandparenthood hi my interviews with relative caregivers in the dependency system, grandparents often talked about the constraining effects of the “rules and regulations” of the DCFS. In the process, caregivers noted with varying levels of dissatisfaction the differences between raising foster-grandchildren and their own biological children. Apparently for some, not only is raising a grandchild in the dependency system not like being a grandparent anymore, it is not even like being a parent One ofthe most obvious reasons for this difference is the heightened supervision of one's parenting that relative caregrvers must endure. “When you have your own children, you raise your own children the way you want them to be,” notes Jackie Knight, a great-grandmother of two in west-central Los Angeles. “You don't have to think about what someone else likes or don't like. You don't have someone over there telling you what to do, and what not to do, with your own children,” she recalled. But when it came to raising great-grandchildren in the dependency system, Jackie faced an entirely different standard: “Whatever I do, if it's not right I have to answer to the county. You know? You have a lot of people to answer to.” Rosa and Juan Hernandez, grandparents raising three grandchildren m eastern Los Angeles County, agree with this sentiment. With the assistance of their niece, who acted as a 210 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. translator during our interview, Rosa and Juan described to me their frustrations with all the unique rules for parenting m the dependency system, in particular, they felt uneasy with their perception that social workers are “watdung over you all the time.” Indeed, and as noted in the previous chapter, social workers are required to have regular contact with dependents of the court. Within the first 30 days of placement in foster care, a social worker must visit a child at least three times. After the first month, social workers are required to have face-to-face contact with a foster child at least once a month, with or without the caregiver present (Califbmia-DSS-Manual-CWS §31-320). In addition the caseworker must have telephone contact wtfh the relative caregiver once a month and meet with them in-person a minimum of once every six months (Califbmia-DSS-Manual-CWS §31-330). Even if a grandparent and social worker have a more congenial relationship than Juan and Rosa Hernandez apparently do with their worker, constant supervision from the department can become irritating. Ella Dill Fernandes feels, for example, that even though she has a “great” relationship with her social worker, she would “rather not have to have [her] visiting.” EOa explains: h is intrusive md all that. I mean, ifthey're coming once every six months, that’s cool. That’ s fine. That’s enough for me. But this every month thing I think that’s ridiculous. You know, when you’ve already had the kid this 211 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. many years.'” .. . It's annoying. Phis, I'm busy. I have other things, you know, to do. Grant^arents often have a difficult time with the frequent supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services. Although this supervision is intended to support relative caregivers as much as it is meant to protect children, grandparents raising grandchildren in the dependency system often feel as if they are Irving in a fish b o w L , their lives exposed for all to see. Grandparents also express frustration with rules that regulate whom, other than the caregiver (if anyone) is allowed to supervise the child, and whether or not older children may be left unsupervised for short periods of time. The possible alternatives for supervision outlined in the Agency-Relative Caregrver A greement range from any “responsible adult” to “no alternative to relative caregiver supervision,” with a middle category allowing grandparents to leave older children (15 years or older) unsupervised for no more than six hours at a time ‘s 5 8 In addition, the Agreement details the guidelines for supervising visits between parents and children1 9 9 (DCFS form: 76A349R DCS 129 Rev. 11/92). 1 5 7 According to the Caitfanna-DSS-Manual-CWS. soaal workers are not required to contact the relative caregiver on a momhh basis if "the child has been receiving permanent placement services and one of the following criteria is met: (a) the child has been placed with a legal guardian: (b) the child has been placed with the sam e relative for five years or longer and there are no problems with the child's placement” (§31-330.211). Social workers may visit a foster child in kinship care as little as once every three months if the child has no "special needs.” the placement is stable, and the worker is able to obtain written or oral reports on the child's status (§31-320.411). Ella's grandson has leukem ia winch qnalifies him as a “special needs” child 1 5 8 A fill-in-the-biank “other” option allows the social worker to define additional supervision alternatives, such as leaving the child with a licensed day care provider or in the care of specific adults approved by the court to supervise the children. 1 5 9 “Monitored visits” between parents and children are often supervised by the grandparent. Other tunes such visits take place with a DCFS social worker present- 212 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The DCFS supervision rule is often difficult for grandparents to relate to, smce most are used to being able to make their own decisions regarding with whom they leave their (grand)children. Furthermore, if the department leaves grandparents with no alternatives fix supervision, this puts an enormous burden on grandparents expected to provide 24-hour care with no relief Relative caregivers may find die rule that limits unsupervised contact between one's adult child and grandchild to be contrary to their personal goals as a parent and grandparent. For example, when the DCFS first placed two grandchildren with Barbra Foote, she didn't understand the specific restrictions on her daughter's contact with her children. Barbra explains: I mean, I broke the rule about monitored visits and no one ever told me what a “monitored visit” was. I didn't realize 1 had to stay in the same room with the mother and the children. That I had to stay within, you know, if they went m the backyard I had to keep them m sight and be able to hear what they were saying. .. . And when we first got the kids, you know, I had high expectations and nobody told me what a monitored visit was and whatever, and so my daughter used to come over— her daughter was eight months old, and [her son was] a two-year-old. Yon know, those are little. I dkhi't want her to lose that closeness and attachment And so she'd come over and spend the night, and she'd spend a few days or whatever, and nobody told me this was a no-no. Wanting to support her daughter's— and the department's-effbrts to reunify the family, Barbra mistakenly assumed that she was within limits by encouraging her daughter to maintain a “parental” relationship with her children. JoAnn Fiske, a grandmother who has raised several of her children’s children in various capacities in Pasadena, ran into the same problem with a child placed with her by die Department of Children and Family Services. JoAnn explains: 1 went to court a couple times. And the last time I went to court, die very last time we went to court, I draught the judge told me-and Fm sure that he did- 213 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that if I thought it was all ngbt, {the parents] could have {their children] bade. So that night, I let them take [my granddaughter, Tina] home. And the social worker called me up, “What do you mean they got that kid!?” “Well,” I said, “Look Til hang up the phone aid go get her right now This is my understanding, but if it doesn’ t suk you, I will hang up and go get her right now. I’D have her in 10 minutes.” I had to do that! .. That was a terrible thing. Because I had [my granddaughter] that five months and [the parents] would come to visit her. And they'd come to get her and I'd have to tell them, “You can’ t have her. You can’ t take her from here ” Grandparents often struggle with the supervisory role required of them m relating to their children and grandchildren. While grandparents want to protect their grandchildren from further abuse, many also wish to encourage parents to take more responsibility for their own children Although the dependency court and the DCFS generally share this desire, the reunification plan defines the particular way in which parents may relate to their children and according to what time frame. This case plan may differ from the relationship and pace preferred by the grandparent, parent and child. Furthermore, suddenly having to abide by a new and unfamiliar set of rules is sometimes difficult for grandparents who have raised grandchildren “informally” prim' to entering the dependency system. Having helped to raise several of her children's children for several years, JoAnn Fiske had a difficult time accommodating rules designed exclusively for the one grandchild who was a dependent of the dependency court. According to Angela Valentine, a grandmother raising four granddaughters in the San Fernando Valley, the DCFS supervision rules interfered with her grandchildren’s ability to live normal lives. Angela explains: You know, when [my granddaughter, Tiffany] was told that she could not go spend the night with her friend m Lancaster— it was a birthday party and sleep-over, and the little girl’s mother was a social worker. But because she didn’ t reach [Tiffany's] social worker to go over all her verifications of who she was and all, Tiffany could not go. Now, I don’ t think this was fair. You know, I knew this woman. I had met this woman an several occasions. Her 214 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. child had spent the night here. I, you know, you’re going to tell me I cannot make the judgement call'’ Rocio Navane, a grandmother raising three grandchildren m central Los Angeles, believed that she, like Angela, should be able to make the judgement call for the three grandchildren in her care Although the Children’s Social Worker clearly stated that there were to be no overnight visits with extended family members for Rodo’s grandchildren, Rocio made the conscious decision to break this rule. “I’ve gone against the soaal workers, but they're my family," explained Rocio The DCFS's rule regarding supervised visitation with the parent i nterfered in different way for Rosa and Juan Hernandez. The Hernandez's daughter had one hour per week of monitored visitation with her children and the visits took place at the Department of Children and Family Services. For Rosa and Juan, who are in their irod-60s and do not own a car, this required a long walk to the DCFS office with a seven-month-old baby, a three-year-old toddler, and a ten-year-old child in tow. At the time of our interview, the department was considering adding an additional hour of visitation per week with the children's father These requirements required considerable sacrifices an the part o f Juan and Rosa.1 6 0 The purpose of die Department of Children and Family Services’ rules limiting unsupervised contact between foster children and adults— including parents— is to protect children who have already suffered abuse. When understood as a safety measure protecting foster children, the DCFS policy makes sense. In practice, however, this policy impacts 1 6 0 A caregiver m ay request to have a social worker monitor all visits. H ow ever, since one o f the requirem ents o f th e A gency-Relative C aregiver Agreem ent is tn “facilitate fam ily retm ifirgrinn efforts with the parents, including parent/child visits, in accordance with the D C S case plan." some relative caregivers may fed compelled to ad in this supervisory rale. 215 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. relative caregivers differently than it does foster parents, smce relative caregivers must shift between the distinct inodes o f“grandparent” and “foster parent" In some cases, grandparents may prefer not to facilitate contact between their grandchildren and children since, unlike foster parents, they may be unable to separate their “professional" role as a foster-grandparent from the outrage they feel toward their own child for abusing their grandchild. But if a grandparent decides to “{go] agamst the soaal workers," as Rocio Navarre did, they risk having die children removed. As Marco Falcon, a social worker at Grandma's House observes, grandparents “bury themselves" when they refuse to follow court orders “They have to follow court orders whether they like or not," the social worker concludes. Travel Restrictions Another rule that constrains the day-to-day lives of grandparents and grandchildren is the restriction on travel imposed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. “I didn't know I couldn't take [my grand nephew] out of the county," admitted Steve Evans. “I didn't know that. I figure he's with me, I do what I want with him," he added. But grandparents are not able to treat foster children as if they were their own. In fact, relative caregivers who wish to take children beyond the borders o f Los Angeles County must get permission to do so— from the parent, if parental rights have not been terminated, and/or from the court, particularly when the parents no longer have rights to their children. According to materials provided at the Kin Care Consuming Relative Caregiver Orientation, travel requests are sometimes granted by court order only, which the grandparent may obtain 216 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. directly during a regularly scheduled review bearing. However, since these hearings generally take place only once every six months, a relative caregrver may need to ask the CSW to make the request an the caregiver’s behalf during an imsrirednled “ Walk on” appearance before a judge The orientation materials recommend that grandparents make > < walk on" requests to CSWs at least rare month ahead of time. (Kin Care Consulting 1998). A relative caregiver is required to abide by the judge’s or parent’s decision. At times, this rule regarding travel poses a minor inconvenience to grandparents who have to make adjustments to their plans. For example, Betsy Halterman, a grandmother raising two grandchildren in eastern Los Angeles County, had to postpone a trip with the children to Central California to see her mother and die children's great-grandmother when the court denied her initial request for travel. The restriction an travel has the potential to put a crimp in one's style, as well. Angela Valentine, for example, noted with frustration the inability to go out of town on a moment’s notice She explains: Friday afternoon I might call [Tam] at work and say, 'Tfey let's go to Vegas for the weekend, or let’ s go to San Diego You coukki’ t do that You know, I had to worry about hunting down a social worker and getting permission. Weil, that 's not always possible at the last minute. I mean, we would like to drive up in the mountains aid take these little trips and ail. But I had someone dictating to me what I could do, where I could go. Other times, die restriction an travel leads to potentially irrecoverable losses. For example, when Genie Taylor found out that her sister was dying of cancer, Genie wanted to travel to the Midwest with her grandson to see her sister-possibly for the last tune. Genie explains: I had to get permission to take the baby And I'm thinking, what rf they tell me “no”? Then what am I going do, you know? So I had to petition the court to take the baby. And it came— I guess it came down from tire judge or 217 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from the court that I had to get permission from the mother and the father What is that!7 Why would I have to get permission from them7 To take the baby out of state? Neither one of them has spent a penny on the baby. They re not taking care o f this baby Why do I have to ask their permission9 And so the DC[F]S worker at the tnne said, “You know what? We’re not asking them nothing.” And I dkfci’ t. And I went and I took the baby. While it worked out so that Genie could make this important trip, Angela Valentine wasn’ t so fortunate. When Angela got a call from family members to let her know that her termmalfy-ill brother was near death, Angela called the department to get permission to make the trip to attend his funeral The social worker told Angela that she would have to get a court order to take her granddaughters with her or the children would be placed m foster care in her absence. With tears and lingering bitterness, Angela describes the circumstances surrounding her brother's death. I missed my brother’s funeral. . . . We knew he was iD and . . . I immediately called the social worker. I called the children’s attorney. I called the dependency investigator. I called all of them to say, "this is what’s happening. What does it take to get back there?” . . . I was being told that I had to take [my granddaughters] with me, and I had to have a court order to dothatorthey would be in foster homes while I was gone. So, needless to say, I did not go Because 1 still did not have the court approval. Two days after the funeral, I received a phone call. [With false cheer] “The judge approved your trip!” I was livid. I was livid. I was like, “1 think you're a couple of days late an that.” Adding insult to injury, Angela found out after the fact that there may have been alternatives to waiting for the court order or placing the children m foster care that would have allowed her to make the trip. She explains: Well, course I dkki’ t know how simple that it really is for them to walk it in through the court at that time. The only difference, it might be simple, but someone would’ ve been inconvenienced having to go out there to walk it through. . . . Of course I found out since then, once I educated myself a little more, is that yes, I could’ve taken them. Or I could’ve left them here with my niece who was an approved monitor by the court You know, there was 218 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. things, there were people that I could've left them with for a couple o f days, for me to go home to my brother’ s funeral. Raising children in the dependency system requires foster parents and relative caregivers to go through a bureaucratic process m order to get permission to do many things that other families take for granted. The DCFS regulates everyday activities, such as going out without the children, allowing self-selected adults (including parents) to care for the children, and traveling with the children beyond the Los Angeles County borders While these rules and regulations serve to protect foster children, they have a different impact on kinship care families than they do on unrelated foster families. For when a licensed foster parent has a family crisis (for example), the foster parent can turn to his or her “boss” and to the child’s legal “parent”-the dependency system— to care for the child in his or her absence Furthermore, since foster parents are trained to raise children in the dependency system, they may know more about what other options are available to them. But when emergencies require a relative caregiver’s immediate attention, the restricted options and/or lack of information available to grandparents may mduce an additional family crisis This is because the grandparent, who has a fundame ntally different relationship to her foster-grandchild, may be less likely to want to entrust the child’s care to *1he System”-an ominous institution to which the relative caregrver is often connected by necessity rather than by choice I do not mean to suggest that foster parents do not care about the children they raise or that they lackadaisically return foster children to the dependency system the moment caring for them becomes inconvenient. Indeed, many foster parents consider and treat foster children as a member ofthe family, and some eventually adopt the foster children in their care. 219 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Furthermore, grandparents may find that the Department o f Children and Family Services can be an unexpected source of support m trying times. However, foster parents have chorees to make abort the way they wish to personally relate to the dependent children in their care whereas for grandparents, relationships are determined by preexisting family ties and by the new restrictions imposed by the dependency system. As Ella Dill Fernandes puts it: I mean, there are wonderful foster parents that really care and blah, blah, blah But the bottom line is, it’ s like their job. You know, when these kids go, there’ll just be some new ones to replace them. These policies, designed for maintaining children's safety in the homes of strangers, may have the unintended effect of impeding, rather than aiding, grandparents raising grandchildren in “the System.” Many relative caregivers find that m order to cope they must develop alternative strategies for foster-grandparenting. Among these strategies, as Angela Valentine and others allude to above, is to learn as much as possible about how the dependency system works. Indeed, many grandparents find that the more they learn about the dependency court and the DCFS, the better they are able to care for their grandchildren. But doing so requires a considerable investment of tone and energy on the part of relative caregivers. And for some, it also involves an identity shift, from thmkmg of one’ s self primarily as a grandparent to adopting the persona of a “professional.” Getting "Off Their Rockers" and Other Strategies for “Professional" Grandparents I had to get out here and tell myself, “first of all, you're not a grandmother.” Now that’s the key word. If you sit in the bouse and tell yourself you’re a grandmother, you’re going to drown. There’s not going to be anybody that’ s going say, “do you need food? Do you need diapers? Do you need medical? Do you need legal? Do you need [respite]?” 220 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. With these words, Harriet Jackson reveals the secret to becoming a “professional” grandparent, one who knows bow to stay afloat m the dependency system. Over and over agam. the grandparents I interviewed who had years of experience m the dependency system repeated some variation of this theme: “If you want to get what you need for your grandchildren, you’re gomg to have to get off your rocker to do it!” In order to provide the best care possible, “professional” grandparents make k their mission-and nearly full-time jobs— to locate and obtain services for their grandchildren Ella Dill Fernandes, a grandmother raising a grandson with leukemia, notes die importance of seeking out such services. “If you want to find things to help your kid, you have to go out and find them They don't come to you. You know, you really have to get out there,” she stresses. Rocio Navarre, a grandmother of three, concurs with this statement when she observes: “A lot of people want help come to them. But no. You have to go out and find it.” Barbra Foote, one of the developers of the Relative Caregiver Orientation program, explains that desptte the fact that the children ate dependents ofthe dependency court, ultimately it is up to grandparents to advocate for the children in their care. Barbra emphasizes this necessity while recognizing the difficulty of doing so: You are the voice for that child And the sooner you leam that, the better off everybody will be. I mean, you have to be very strong. You shouldn t have to be that strong, h should be much easier to do this, ft’s a very hard thing to do. in order to become an articulate “voice” for one’s grandchild, Barbra and many ofthe other grandparents I interviewed recommend that relative caregivers attend conferences, workshops, KEPS classes, aid other framing opportunities available through the Department of Children and Family Services and other parts of the child welfare system. By domg so, not 221 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. only will grandparents team about rules, regulations and opportunities from representatives of various departments within the child welfare system, but they will pick up tips for dealing with problems from peers who have faced similar circumstances n the past. And as noted above, sometimes grandparents will know about programs or services unfamiliar to social workers Steve Evans, Barbra’s co-presenter at the Relative Caregiver Orientation, explained how the Regional Kinship Meetings can assist in die process of becoming educated about the dependency system while simultaneously highlighting the importance of doing so: The advantage o f going to the [Regional Kmshq>] meetings is that we all have endured different problems that come up within raising these children. And we’ve all found our own little way of dealing with that problem, or where and who has the service. Or we don’ t know where to go and someone at these meetings has been there, done that, and they can help you out. That's one of the big things. But learning how to access the system is what's really important for these meetings. h'U make it easier for the grandparents which, in turn, makes it easier on the kids. And that’s why it’s really important For Jackie Knight a grandmother raising two great-grandchildren, the Regional Kinship Meetings and DCFS conferences are indispensable for providing relative caregivers with information available only through networkmg and experience. She explains: You have to go to the meetings and know what's going on Yes Yes, yes, yes Because there’s so many people out there that don’ t they don’ t know their rights. . . . And you ju st as I said, you can’ t sit at home and know how to do it because it’s not going to came to you. And you can read all those books in the world, but unless you get something, some hand-on- hand experience, you may know some o f it but you don’ t really know. Shadena Franklin, a relative caregiver who has raised thirteen grandchildren agrees. Regarding “book smarts,” Shadena observes, “You may have read it in a book, but that isn’ t worth very much.” What is valuable, according to Shadena, is the knowledge gained through experience. 222 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. According to Ella Dill Fernandes, Rocio Navarre, Barbra Foote, Steve Evans, Jackie Knight, Shadena Franklin, andotber veterans of “the System,” even if grandparents had a “ how-to” manual to guide them through the dependency process, it would not make up for the knowledge imparted by the collective wisdom of experienced relative caregivers. Furthermore, without becoming actively involved in learning about the services available through the DCFS, one might accidently deprive a grandchild of his or her “rights” as a foster child. In fact, many of the grandparents I interviewed describe access to services in terms of “rights.” Ricardo Vela, a surrogate grandfather for his girlfriend Sabina Martinez’ s grandchildren, notes, for example, that when dealing with the Department of Children and Family Services, “if you don't know your rights and stand up for them, they'll bamboozle you.” Liz Goss, a member ofthe Kinship Council of Los Angeles, agrees when she observes, “You know, you really have to be an activist and a lot of these grandmothers aren’ t. They're more the mousy-mousy type and they’re afraid.” The problem with timidity, according to the professional grandparents I interviewed, is that it may result in grandchildren not getting their needs met. Sarah Whitfield Perez, a grandmother raising two grandsons m south-eastern Los Angeles County, boldly advises her peers to get over their fear If you don’ t say it like it is, keep your mouth shut But if you keep your mouth shut, you won’ t get anything. And neither will the kids. . . . That’s why I've become such an outspoken big mouth at meetings. Grandmas with similar problems, they don’ t speak up like they should. Isay.no. You have to open your mouth so they can hear you loud and dear. In order to help these kids we have to speak up. 223 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jackie Knigbt adds to Sarah's advice, suggesting that grandparents also need persistence, as they may have to “speak up” more than once. Jackie explains: And if you have a soaal worker or whoever, whatever, that doesn't give you what you want? And you know that you're supposed to have it? You have to fight for it. And you don't just fight with that one. You just go to die next one. And tben if that one doesn't work, go to the next one. [If] that doesn't work, you get your cronies together and you a ll gom and make it work. It’s like walking die picket line! Marvela King, a social worker at Grandma’s House, encourages this sort of activism At the July 1999 Regional Kinship Meeting in south-central Los Angeles, Marvela offered the following advice to the relative caregivers in attendance: The rules are changing all the time. That’s why you need to come to the [Regional Kinship] meetings so you can find out what you're eligible for and what you’ re not eligible for. So that you contact your elected official and let them know what they need to advocate for. Many of the grandparents I spoke to agree with this approach For example, Winifred Dietz, a grandmother raising her 12-year-old grandson and die director of an organization for relative caregivers in and outside ofthe dependency system, claims that the “squeaky wheel gets the oil.” "I've grown from the ‘ hugger’ to the ‘ bugger,’” notes Winifred, a self-described advocate for relative caregivers. “And I do bug. I bug for the sake ofthe children,” she adds. Indeed, professional grandparents insist that m order to avoid getting “bamboozled” by “die System, ” it is crucial for grandparents to get over die fear and intimidation factor and to become vocal, persistent advocates on behalf o f their grandchildren. And, if necessary, relative caregivers may need to band together to take collective, political action. As Winifred Dietz puts it, relative caregivers must transform themselves from grandmotherly “huggers” into activist “buggers” to obtain vtfal services for their grandchildren. 224 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Documenting the Process Professional grandparents also insist that it is critical for grandparents to immerse themselves fully in the dependency process. Ella Dill Fernandes, for example, emphasizes die importance of grandparents gomg to every dependency court hearing— even iftheyarenot required to do so. Ella describes why: And then they say to yon, “Well you don’ t have to go [to court hearings]." .. Well that's another lie that I tell people [about] I don’ t care if they say you don't have to go. GO! ‘Cause you don’ t know what’s gomg to happen when you're not there. This is the other thing I tell grandparents that's so important, write all this stuff down because you will forget You know, you will forget. Steve Evans and Barbra Foote agree and press relative caregivers to goto each and every court hearing. “You may have no say-so, but if you don't go, you don't know what's gomg on," notes Barbra. By going to court hearings, a grandparent— even one without de facto parent status1 6 1 - -will know more about the social worker's perception of the case and die direction it is likely to take, whether this means reunification with the parent, placing the child up for adoption, or some alternative in between. Along with making sure one attends every court hearing, grandparents offer another strategy for staying an top o f die dependency process: documenting one's experiences as a relative caregiver Documentation entails keeping good records of all the services one obtains on behalf of one’s grandchildren Similarly, it involves taking good notes at meetings and 1 6 1 As noted in Chapter Four, the de pendency court may or m ay not grant grandparents de facto parent status, which allows them to fully participate as a party to the proceedings. H ow ever, whether or not they have this status, grandparents are allowed, by law, to aitmrf aD court involving the dependent children in their care. 225 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conferences about available services. Docume ntation as a strategy also encourages grandparents to keep a log of their interactions with social workers aid parents. The reasons for keepmg detailed records are many One reason is to avoid delays and to otherwise facilitate the dependency process. Steve Evans believes, for example, that he might have been able to adopt his grand-nephew several months earlier had he kept better records throughout the process. He explains: If I knew when I first gat mto the system what I know now. I would've made sure that all the paperwork- My case got screwed up so many times by the right paper work not being done and stuff. I'd have been on it. And that's why I want these people to come in the system now to know .. that this is what you have to make sure [die social workers] do. . .. So don't get 'em mad at you, but you still have to let them know aid stuff And keep notes. Keep good nates . . . You have to write everything down. You have keep on top of the social workers Hamet Jackson joins Steve Evans in encouraging grandparents to keep notes on the available services one learns about at meetings. She explains that another reason for doing so is because some programs require a referral from the DCFS in order for a child to participate. If a social worker is unfamiliar with a particular program, a grandparent's detailed notes may help the social worker determine what needs to be done to get die child signed up. Like Steve, Harriet notes that this strategy requires a certain degree of tact and diplomacy on the grandparents’ part. Advises Harriet: Don’ t keep fighting the social worker. Don’ t keep fighting the system. Just go and get the paperwork. Then once you get a document m your hand, then get a copy Hand it to the social worker and say, “Yes, I am entitled to child care. Yes, I am entitled to [respite] care. Yes, I’m entitled to the minutes.’ ’ And then you hand them a copy of a minute that was given to another person. You hand them a copy of a form like— like this destruction in my house1 6 2 — these are the forms that are mailed out. Then that educates the social worker 1 6 2 Harriet refers here to a DCFS program that reim burses caregivers for any damage to personal property caused b y foster children. 226 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Then the social worker isn't as hostile in thinking that you're asking for too much, but only that you're asking to continue to protect and provide for the children in your care. Ella Dill Fernandes echoes this a i g y ^ when she encourages relative caregivers to use copies of other relative caregivers’ DCFS forms as teaching tools. Explains Ella: "If your social worker doesn’ t know what form to use, you can show them your copy " Grandma's House social worker Marvela King makes another important point regarding the documentation strategy when she encourages relative caregivers at a Regional Kinship Meeting in south-central Los Angeles: “You can say a lot of things to people and when you don’ t get a response, it’s time to put it in writing. Because sometimes the written word is taken more seriously " The Power of the Pen Perhaps the most important reason to keep records, according to many ofthe relative caregivers I interviewed, is to protect one's self »g*insr accusations that one is not providing adequate care as a foster-grandparent. As I have indicated throughout this chapter, the dependency system has many rules that regulate grandparents' relationships with their grandchildren. And there are many ways in which a grandparent might inadvertently (or deliberately) break one of these rules. Regardless of whether the rule-breaking brags harm to the child, a social worker could still make the decision to remove the child from the caregiver's home. Thus, grandparents say it is crucial that they become familiar with these rules and document their efforts to follow them. Indeed, and building an social worker Marvela King's advice, anmerimas written evidence will be taken more seriously than a verbal defense. 227 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. □la Dill Fernandes developed a strategy of recording every time her daughter, Danielle, called her son— or failed to call him— to counter her daughter’s testimo ny in court that Ella was blocking Danielle's efforts to reunify with her son. Ella describes this strategy: So I had like an appointment book that was just like my “[Danielle] Book.” When she would call I would write, “she called” or whatever, you know, and when she was supposed to have visits. So 1 would keep track of it So then I would copy it over onto a piece of paper every time before we’d go to court and I'd give to my social worker, you know. I'd send it to her so she could put it in her report And it would say, you know, the weekends that she was supposed to have him and it would say, “Didn’ t call. Didn't show up.” You know, “Called. Said whatever.” You know, that kind of stuff. By keeping a daily log of her experiences as a relative caregiver, EDa established her efforts to meet the DCFS requirement in the Agency-Relative Caregiver A greement that relative caregivers “facilitate family reunification efforts.” Having such documentation can be critical. For example, Hattie Albertson, a grandmother raising four grandchildren and two nephews, had to defend herself against a social worker's charges of “medical neglect” One of the children in Hattie's care suffers from asthma and sleep apnea, two candkkms for which he requires medical treatment For several months after the dependency court placed the children with her, Hattie had to pay for her grandson's medical care out of her own pocket because the child's MediCal application had not yet been approved. This was fmaudaOy difficult for the retired nurse who lived an a fixed income. Hattie volunteered at food hanks to get food for children and held yard sales and bake sales to earn some extra cash. With these additional resources, Hattie was able to pay the medical bills. Despite his treatment, however, Hattie’s grandson oonfhuied to have health problems, and when a new social worker was assigned to the case foe accused Hattie of medically neglecting the child. Ironically, the social worker arrived at Hattie's house to 228 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. remove the children while Hattie was attending a Regional Kinship Meeting to inquire about the problems with her grandson’s MediCal application. Thankfully, Hattie had extensive records of her grandson's medical treatments, as w eD as a letter of support from the child's doctor. Upon reviewing this documentation, the dependency court judge ordered the social worker to return the children to Hattie. Similarly, medical records, long-term relationships with child care providers aid other evidence helped Genie Taylor defend herself against child abuse allegations aid prove h a commitment to raising her grandson, Joey. Although Genie’s efforts to defend herself were successful— largely because o f her abifey to demo nstrate her caregrvng history— Genie still worries about whether or not she would be able to defend herself against ‘ 'the System” a second time around. She explains. Oh, I w ary an the time. I really do. You know, if he comes home from daycare with a scar it's like, oh God. if the social worker comes by and sees the scar, what if she thinks he got it here? You know, and he gets little scuffs and stuff at daycare, you know? But you know, it's just, things you have to worry about, you know I'm thinking, I mean, if they could lie and say that he received physical and emotional abuse [in Genie's home], you know, at six months old and it was a total lie, but it was proven it was a lie, I mean, what's to stop them from saymg, you know, whatever they want to say7 You know, and you see these people an TV where they would say, you know, “this happened," and you're thinking, “God how could that happen?” I totally understand! I totally understand. Especially when you're dealing with people who are supposed to have authority and all they have to do is write something. Genie's comments reiterate the importance of grandparents documenting their caregrvmg efforts as a precaution against potential accusations. But her observations also suggest the extent to which the “power of the pen” is an influential tod for both grandparents and “the System.” While grandparents may use various records to defend their histories of caregrvmg, die case record arguably has die most significance and influence as a written 229 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. document m dependency court Thus, many grandparents worry that the power and authority extended to the social worker’s pen in particular may be difficult to defend against in court. In order to avoid what is percerved to be an unfair fight in the dependency court between the grandparent’ s wrtften word and die social worker’s, some grandparents will call on other professionals for collateral support. This is precisely what Hattie Albertson did to establish her efforts to provide medical care for her grandson. Ella Dill Fernandes also called upon her counselor and doctor to talk the DCFS social worker and write reports for the court. According to Ella, this strategy made all the difference m the world when the judge considered reuniting Ella's grandson with his mother, who continued to abuse drugs— and her significant other When a social worker removed Henrietta Holliday’s grandson from her home, apparently upon the request of her grandson who was disgruntled at the time, Henrietta also fought to have the DCFS return her grandson to her south-central Los Angeles home. Although the social worker was hesitant to do so, Henrietta describes how she called upon her grandson's therapist to help out: The m ajority or the biggest part o f the case centers around what die social worker reports Her reports that get submitted Now the difference that happened in our case was when we were going to conjoint counseling and we were gomg to individual counseting, and I was tryng to get [my grandson placed with me], I had the therapist to submit reports about what was gomg on. And that took the weight off o f whatever the social worker was saying. Because [the therapist] saw the child three or four times a week and then she saw me and the child, you know, as a conjoint [session], so that made a big difference in him coming back to me. Because die social worker seeing you once a month, they can’ t say what's going an with you. So the therapist had a big part to play with what happened. By obtaining a report from her therapist, with whom Henrietta and her grandson had contact several times a week, Henrietta was able to persuade the court that it was in her 230 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. grandson's best interests to remain with her, rather than die group home in which he was placed by the social worker. She explains: When I finally. . . got de facto parent status and went and was able to read the files, and then I found out a lot of statements in there was not what I told the soaal worker. A lot— like I’m having this conversation with you1 7 And the whole conversation that I’ve had with you and you’re taping9 If you take out one sentence from here and you pttt k in another place here, that makes everything that I said a different stafane nt. That’s what was being done And it’s still being done. And it’s hard for you to have to contend with. Aimeda Beauchamp, a grandmother raismg grandchildren in south-central Los Angeles, reiterates this concern: I've seen what the court can do. I’ve seen workers come out and interview you and then write lies about you and report these lies to the court ...I feel like I’m living in fear because I have no representation in court. I have no control over what happens to me or the children in my care. Grandma’s House social workers Marco Falcon and Allison Poulame recognize die disadvantaged position of relative caregivers who challenge the authority of social workers. At a meeting for grandparents raising grandchildren in the dependency system, fee two workers offered their business cards to relative caregivers, half joking that fee cards were A n them to “use in case of emergency” If a relative caregrver ran into difficulties with a soaal worker, Marco and Allison suggested fee caregivers flash the business cards in order to lend back up support and credibility to their position. The Chain of Command Building upon the strategy suggested by the Grandma’s House social workers, another useful technique for relative caregivers is learning to climb the “chain of command,” or organizational Structure ofthe DCFS. Grandmcriiers and social workers alilrp amphagjgg fee effectiveness of “pulling rank” when filing formal complaints with fee Department. 231 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. According to a ‘ "Cham of Command” flyer frequently distributed at Regional Kinship Meetings and conferences, the pecking order wrthm the DCFS is as follows: Children's Social Worker ■A Children's Social Worker's Supervisor A Assistant Regional Administrator Regional Administrator A Director of the Department of Children and Family Services Los Angeles County Board o f Supervisors If a grandparent has a complaint about the social worker assigned to her grandchildren's case, she may take her complaint through this chain of command to seek resolution to the problem. The relative caregivers I interviewed often pay homage to the cham of command. At an April 1999 Regional Kinship Meeting in south-central Los Angeles, the relative caregivers literally chanted, “Cham of command! Chain of command!'' to make the pomt that one must learn and make use of the power structure within the dependency system. Relative caregiver Barbra Foote notes that even the highest “links” of chain are accessible. “[The DCFS] doesn’ t want to give you [(former) Director Peter Digre’ s] telephone number, but you can fox him,” notes Barbra. “And he does look at his foxes,” she adds. At a Regional Kinship Meeting in Pasadena in November 1998, Steve Evans assures his peers: “You can’ t jump from your social worker to Peter Digre, but if you get there he’ll listen to you.” 232 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “ft’s like going to the Emerald City to see the Wiraid,” observed another grandparent at the meeting regarding Mr. Digre. Keeping Up Appearance* Embedded m these stones and strategies ts one of the most important things a relative caregiver can do, and that is to develop a good relationship with the Children's Social Worker Marvela King, a social worker at Grandma's House, is the first to admit the importance of this strategy At a Regional Kinship Meeting in Pasadena in March 1999, Marvela observed: The thing is, you're gonna have to assert yourself. And if you're in our system, you're gonna have to learn how to communicate with your social worker ’Cause the social worker is a very powerful person I hate to say this, but your social worker can make your life rosy or terrible. Harriet Jackson notes that a relative caregiver’s relationship with the Children’s Social Worker is likely to bring both roses and thorns. At a March 1999 meeting for relative caregivers in Inglewood, Harriet, who convened the meeting, claimed: “My growth came from the DCFS. My pam came from the DCFS ” Ella Dill Fernandes emphasizes the difference a good relationship with a social worker can make Although her social worker was relatively less helpful m finding resources for Ella’s “special needs” grandson, Jason, she was invaluable as a source of emotional support— especially during a highly stressful series of hearings m which the dependency court nearly removed Jason from Ella's home. Ella describes her relationship with her social worker: She’s a wonderjul worker. She helped me so much She’s been supportive through everything. She knew everything about my daughter She was with me through all that court nightmare. Giving me total support. I mean, I have, you know, not as far as giving resources. She says, “What do you mean? You give me more resources than I.” She says, “I give you nothing.” 233 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. She says, “You know everything before me." You know, once I started getting involved with stuff. I don't mean that, but I just mean during the tune when I was ready to biow my head off during that court thing. She helped me so mush. You know, and havmg a social worker that you have that rapport with, it has made the total difference. Sarah Whitfield Perez's experience, noted briefly in Chapter Four, demonstrates the difference a single social worker can make. After years of trymg unsuccessfully to get the DCFS to respond to Sarah's reports o f domestic violence in her daughter's home, Sarah finally met a social worker at a senior citizen’s center who offered to help After she explained the situation and described her concern fix’ her two teenaged grandsons, Sarah said the social worker was incredulous at the department's lack of response. “You mean to tell me they haven’ t done anything?” the social worker asked Sarah. With her characteristic, outspoken “big mouth,” 70-year-old Sarah claims to have replied, “Honey, they haven't done shit.” Convinced of the severity of the situation, die social worker reported Sarah's daughter and son-in-law and die DCFS removed the children the following morning. In the meantime, the social worker offered to take Sarah— who doesn't drive— to the grocery store in anticipation of her grandsons' arrival and delivered the groceries to Sarah's home. While some relative caregivers, like Ella and Sarah, develop truly supportive relationships with social workers, many others have much more superficial relationships. Some superficiality can be attributed to the fact that staff turnover is so high in the department, making meaningful relationships difficult, if not impossible, to establish. When I asked Hattie Albertson, fix example, about her relationship with her social worker, she had to ask, “Which one? Oh honey, I've had forty workers!” die exclaimed. 234 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Great-grandmother Jackie Knight explains part of the problem: “The social workers have a lot of cases. She doesn’ t know, mine is a number. She doesn’ t know mine from die others.” When it is impossible to develop more than a superficial relationship with one’s social worker, grandparents often «nph»ci” » the importance of image control. Harriet Jackson, for example, discussed with other grandparents at the March 1999 meeting m Inglewood the importance of keeping up appearances: [The social workers] keep asking me, “Are you okay?” and I say, [cheerily] “ I'm fine!" “How are you feeling with your dialysis?” “Ok. ju st f i n e But then what it really is, is “Ugh- 1 feel so awful.” But you have to say and smile and look gorgeous because you have that threat hanging over you if you’re looking tired and raggedy that they’ ll say, “Maybe this is too much for you and what we should do is place [the children] somewhere else.” Barbra Foote agrees that image is im portant. At the December 1998 Relative Caregiver Orientation in Pasadena, Barbra admitted that she bakes bread every time the social worker is scheduled to visit so that her house is homey, inviting, and “smells great!” “Try to let them see your best true self,” encouraged Barbra. LeFrancme Stone, a grandmother at the June 1999 Regional Kinship Meeting in south-central Los Angeles, observed that “just a smile will open doors.” While “acting snappy and bitter” won’ t go very for with most social workers and judges, a smile might get positive results. Echoing die message in Barbra's advice, LeFrancme encouraged her peers to simply “smile.” “Just a simple smile-even if it's a w^pe-off smile. SnaJe.r recommands LeFrancme While grandparents suggest that a cheery and friendly attitude is important, so too do they emphasize the importance of putting forth a “neutral” front— even when one is anything but neutral. 235 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Try not to get involved in the politics," suggested Steve Evans at the Relative Caregiver Orientation “You need to look like a neutral observer." “Try to look like you're sane." added his co-presenter Barbara. “Don't bash the birth parent. Say, T see some wide discrepancies in mood and behavior,' rather than, ‘My daughter’s the biggest pig!'" Cecilia Bartoiome, a licensed clinical social worker m private practice, agrees with this advice and encourages relative caregivers at a support group in the San Fernando Valley to “keep your cool.” “It's important to keep your cool and not let them see how emotional you are," advised the social worker A “professional" attitude will assist in this effort contends Elise Cordes, a member of the Kinship Council of Los Angeles. At a Regional Kinship Meeting in Covina, California in November 1998, Elise reminds her relative caregiver peers: “This is not your child. This child belongs to the court. Grandparents have to realize this so they can take a more professional view of their role.” Perhaps Harriet Jackson, a relative caregiver who advocates for her peers in a number of organizations and capacities, does the best job of summing up the issues faced by relative caregivers and the strategies necessary to survive: Don't go into court hostile with the parents, because you're not interested in the parents. You're only interested in the child. So then the judge will not see a hostile grandmother. Ifyou go in there, “1 don’ t hke the mother and I can’ t stand the father, and da, da, da, da, da, da.” Well then the judge is going to say, “Well that little kid isn't going to be able to visit the man or the dad, because the grandmother can't stand the mother or the father.” And all this confusion. And not really intending to do it, you give the child to the mother or the father Or put the child in a fester home. . . . Ifyou want to cry, please don’ t cry in court Go in the bathroom. Shout holler, scream, cry. Warsh your face Put your makeup back an and come back out. Because see, when we cry in court, the judge looks at us as hysterical old grandparents. Crazy grandparents. I mean we portray many things. And all 236 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. it is, we’re so tired We're so stressed. We’re so m fear that we’re not going to see our grandkids anymore. And it's just a sadness. It's overwhelming. We’re already frightened and afraid that the children are gomg to be taken from us And when we walk m there m front of that jodge it just magnifies, you know? So I tell them, “You feel like you’re gomg to cry, or you’re just overwhelmed? Go in that bathroom and just kind of cry a tittle bit or whatever. Kind of get it out, and then put your makeup back on and then go back m there Because die judge has to see a person that’s going to take care of a child feat's been traumatized already. And if you’re stanfang there bubbling and boo-boomg and stuff it don’ t make a good impression. Condusioiis Harriet Jackson, a “professional” grandmother if there ever was one, captures the fundamental contradictions involved in raismg grandchildren in the dependency system. Although life in “the System” presents an endless series of circumstances— such as dependency court hearmgs-that are confusing and stressful and that have raimficatians of the gravest importance, grandparents raising grandchildren must adopt a relatively neutral attitude that demonstrates a “professional” capacity for caregrvmg In other words, although grandparents raise grandchildren for the most personal of reasons, they do so in a system that expects them to behave as impersonal “strangers ”1 6 1 The grandparents I interviewed stress that relative caregivers must actively seek out available services for their grandchildren smce overworked social workers are often limited to providing only the most basic level of support Simultaneously, they must document their efforts to provide for their grandchildren withm the rules and regulations imposed by foe dependency system. Doing so may help to solidify their status as a kmship caregiver— a tenuous status that can be easily revoked. 1 6 3 One could also argue that the dependency system, with its emphasis on neutrality and formalin , also expects relative caregivers to act “white." It is beyond the scope of this chapter to address this issue here, although I will explore biases related to race and dass further in Chapter Seven. 237 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As the stories in this chapter suggest, raising grandchildren requires a substantial investment oftime and energy. As Lady Baker, a grandparent raising grandchildren in south central Los Angeles, claims: “It's a job. By the time you get four lads in the bath, dressed and off to school it’s a job You don’ t have a life of your own aiymore. You really don't have a life” As Lady suggests, just performing every day caregrvmg responsibilities is a “job ” But becoming a professional grandparent in tbe dependency system is more like a career-one that requires an identity shift and an activist approach in order to provide die best possible care for one’s grandchildren. Explains relative caregiver Steve Evans: “I've talked to some grandparents, I mean, it’s almost a full-time job being a squeaky wheel Because it takes so much time and so much energy to keep on top of all of the different tilings.” Great-grandmother Jackie Kmgbt agrees: “h is a full-time job It is. ft really is.” Devoting one's life to raising grandchildren in the dependency system does not necessarily mean that one will be regarded by social workers and others as a professional peer, however. As I will describe in the following chapter, one of tbe greatest frustrations expressed by veteran relative caregivers is their sense of disenfranchisement w ithin “the System.” 238 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. -S I X - 4 4 JUNETEENTH”: THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF RELATIVE CAREGIVERS When coming fo r my grandchildren, I never dreamed, nor was I advised that I would be abused by the County o f Los Angeles both mentally and physically; be talked down to like a small child: have my se lf esteem stripped: told I had no rights as I caredfor these children 24 7; give up my career: and then be threatened that if I don t do and say as and I m told or i f I said a word about this abuse then I would have my grandchildren taken away from me. I also was not informed that I would become an unpaid babysitter fo r the County ofL os Angeles. I will no longer accept this behavior from those in a paying or non-paying position. Your jo b is to educate me. not to degrade me with the old adage that "the apple doesn " t fo il for from the tree. ” — Angela Valentine; in a letter to a DCFS social worker So. you know, (my grandson] has come a long way in the two years that I ve had him. But it s totally different 'cause I can call there and talk to the social worker and say what / need for him— what / know is available— and have no problem getting it. Out here it s like pulling teeth. It " s like, they challenge my credibility. They challenge my knowledge. They challenge everything. — Henrietta Holliday, relative caregiver, comparing the two DCFS regional offices to which she has been assigned 239 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Jancteenth” On June 19, 1999, the Department of Children and Family Services’ Grandma’s House program hosted the Fust Annual Juneteenth Picnic to commemorate the emancipation of slaves in Texas an June 19, 1865. Marvela King, a social worker from Grandma’s House, made an announcement about the Juneteenth Picnic a few weeks prior to the event during a session at the Kinship Resource Center’s Kinship Advocacy Conference. Other relative caregivers received letters about the picnic. Marvela’s initial invitation to attend a “Juneteenth picnic” was met with more than a few blank stares. “Doesn't anyone here know about Juneteenth?” Marvela prodded a mostly white group, about equally divided between DCFS social workers and relative caregivers, including Myma Lamb, Angela Valentine and A rm Simpson. Angela Fox Valentine, a white woman, quipped, “Come on, Marvela. You know white folks don’ t know about Juneteenth.” Marvela, who is black, joked back, “Y ”all are going to have to excuse my friend Angie Fox, an old gangster from the Bronx. Angela and I grew up together. We go way back.” “And you’ll have to excuse my good friend, Marvela,” replied Angela. “Especially smce she knows I’m no gangster, and she always forgets to use my married name, ’Valentme.’ It’s already been a year, Marvela.” “Valentine, Valentine. I always forget about your new name,” Marvela conceded, apologizing for her mistake. 240 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Marvela briefly described tbe history of Juneteenth to the group. Juneteenth is one of the oldest traditions celebrating die end of slavery in tbe United States and June 19* has been recognized as an official state holiday in Texas since 1980 Qimeteenth.com). The Los Angeles Times described tbe holiday in the following way; Sometimes called the African American Fourth of July, Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, the day an American general rode into Galveston, Texas, and announced the end of slavery. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves m the Confederate states had been issued by President Abraham Lincoln 2x h years earlier. But the news had been slow to reach Texas, whether by accident or design on the part of the Texas farmers who wanted unpaid black workers to bring in one more cotton crop (Biederman 1999). Celebrations marking Juneteenth take place nationwide each year and like many cultural fetes, they often center around food. Elaborate buffets with special dishes prepared by attendees create an atmosphere of independence and prosperity. According to the “Juneteenth.com World Wide Celebration and Network,” a website dedicated to distributing information about the holiday, Certain foods became popular and subsequently synonymous with Juneteenth celebrations such as strawberry soda-pop. More traditional and just as popular was the barbecuing, through which Juneteenth participants could share in the spirit and aromas that their ancestors— the newly emancipated African Americans, would have experienced during their ceremonies. Hence, the barbecue pit is often established as the center o f attention at Juneteenth celebrations (juneteenth.com). Marvela King told the audience that in keeping with tradition Grandma’s House would to like to treat grandparents to a big barbecue supper on this special day. She enthusiastically encouraged everyone to plan on attending the picnic. The Juneteenth picnic took place a few weeks later in a lovely, wooded and surprisingly quiet park not too far from the LAX Airport. When I arrived at the park about 241 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. an hour into the Saturday afternoon celebration, approximately 100 people, mostly African Americans, were already there. The average age of attendees was considerably lower than most of the Department-sponsored events for relative caregivers as the majority of those in attendance were children. Even more unusual was the presence of friends and family of some of social workers in the Kinship Division. On first glance, the Juneteenth celebration seemed to break down the boundaries often separating “social worker” from “client” and “work” from “pleasure” by commemorating an historical event of importance to the African American community, to which many of the social workers and relative caregivers belonged. One of the biggest recreational events of the year. Grandma’s House went all out for Juneteenth, planning many activities for relative caregivers and the children they fostered. When I arrived, a clown entertained kids with tricks and balloons and coordinated games for them to play Bats, mitts and balls were available for the older children to play softball while the younger kids played tirelessly on playground equipment and in an inflatable romper room rented by the Department. Many of the relative caregivers visited and relaxed at picnic tables, seemingly grateful for the respite provided by the event while a D.J. soothed the worn-out grandparents with smooth R&B. Consistent with Juneteenth traditions, the focal point of the event was the catered food from a popular barbecue restaurant in nearby south-central L A . Employees from die restaurant, assisted by social workers from Grandma’s House, served an abundance of barbecued ribs, potato salad, cole slaw, sweet potato pies, ice cream, and sodas brought in for the party. 242 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. My first impressions of the event were overwhelmingly positive. I was impressed with the efforts of Grandma’s House to plan such a lavish affair that celebrated freedom while giving grandmothers a brief furlough from the constant responsibilities o f child care. I was surprised, however, not to see many of the “regulars” from the south-central Regional Kinship Meeting, considering the park was located in their region. Looking around, I finally spotted Jackie Knight sitting wtfh her 11-year-okl great-granddaughter, Jacqueline, at one of the picnic tables I walked over to where they were sitting and said hello Jackie seemed to be in a sour mood although Jacqueline seemed characteristically cheerful. I tned to stnke up a conversation with them. “It’s so nice to see all the children here,” I said. “Well, the children aren’ t all that welcome,” Jackie replied brusquely. Jacqueline ran off at this point to play with some of the other children “You seem upset about something,” I said to Jackie, commenting on the obvious “Yeah. Maybe a little ” “Can I ask what’s going an?” “No I don’ t want to get into all of th at” I took the hint and asked if she would rather be left alone. She nodded so I said I’d visit with her a little later. I left Jackie and wandered over to the baseball diamond where Jon Flax and Can Williams, two social workers from Grandma’s House, were rounding up children for a game of “ tag and pop.” A clown blew up long, tubular balloons at an impressive rate of speed while his assistant helped the children tie the balloons around their ankles in preparation for the game. After many premature explosions the children were ready to play. Jon, Cari and I 243 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. watched from the sidelines as children chased each other, popping their opponents' balloons while trying to avoid bursting their own. As we were watching, Jon said something to Can about one of the grandmothers being upset. Although I had the impression that the comment was meant for Can, I inserted myself into the conversation asking, “Are you talking about Ms. Knight?” Jon said only “No,” and would not offer any additional explanation. Strike two. Something was gong on underneath the surface of the Juneteenth festivities but 1 had yet to figure out what it was. As soon as only one child remained with an unpopped balloon and as children were gearing up for a softball game, I left tbe baseball diamond and found Marvela King, another social worker from Grandma's House. Marvela is rarely one to withhold her perspective but she is also a person who sometimes speaks from where she is at the moment Asa result, a listener may not have the background information necessary to understand die gist of ho- story. Marvela started to tell me about her family and how they “always fed whoever showed up at tbe table. ” “At Thanksgiving, 1 go out and spend $300 and roast the biggest turkey I can fold. I make enough food to feed the family as well as any friends who might show up to my table. But that's the way I was raised.” Trying to discern Marvela’s point, I asked her a series of questions to which she provided some answers. I eventually came to understand that the social workers in charge of the picnic were not allowing certain people to eat— namely Myrna Lamb and two of her grandnephews— who harki't signed up properly for the event Several social workers joined the conversation. Based an the hushed tones it was apparent that some of them wanted to prevent nearby relative caregivers from hearing what 244 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. they had to say. The workers discussed and debated the unique requirements of attending the picnic, which apparently involved multiple confirmations of one’ s plans to attend. Some defended the protocol while others thought it byzandne. ‘ These events are always under-attended and there’s always leftover food," one of the social workers remarked. "Even today, we planned for 150 and I don't think there are that many people here,” another added. "But two wrongs don’ t make a right,” commented a third, “and if we feed everyone who shows up, we run the ride of not having enough to feed those who bothered to register " Thinking to myself I realized that/had not signed up for the event, nor had Marvela emphasized the registration process when she invited us to the picnic during her session at die Kinship Resource Center’s conference a few weeks prior— a session Myrna Lamb attended as well. I wondered aloud if Myrna might have thought the event was structured more like DCFS conferences which encourage but do not require pre-registration. One of the social workers responded, “She’s not that dumb.” Silently, I wandered if the social worker would have said this had I attributed the same reasoning to myself. Regardless o f Myma’s, the workers’ or my own perspective, ultimately it was the opinion of the organizers that mattered. And they believed that those who felled to register should not be allowed to eat. Marvela and I left the other social workers to find her son, Isaiah, and his high school friends who came with him to die event As we walked, I asked about the absence of one of the social workers from Grandma’s House. Marvela told me that the social worker had decided to boycott the event Apparently, six months previously Grandma’s House hosted a holiday party for relative caregivers and a similar situation occurred. The now-absent social worker personally invited several guests to the party, but they too were denied food by die 245 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. people in charge of the event There was some question about whether the registration list was full when she tried to sign up the guests or whether tbe guests had failed to register themselves b any case, some rules were broken, some people went unfed, and the social worker was angry and embarrassed by the fiasco. Anticipating similar circumstances at the Juneteenth picnic she decided to stay at home. Marvela and I found Isaiah and his friends eating at one o f the picnic benches. Marvela introduced me to the boys and left me there while she went to get herself something to eat. She was gone a long tune and I was running out of things to talk about with the teenage boys, so I excused myself and wandered off in search of others I knew. I found Marvela— who still had not eaten-talkmg with Jackie Knight about the situation with Myma Lamb. Jackie was still very angry, as she had been when I spoke with her earlier in the day, although this tune she was evidently less reluctant to talk about her feelings. Marvela again referred to family traditions and described how early childhood experiences can influence how we behave as adults. Jackie seemed unconvinced by Marveia's attempts to provide a rationale for the decisions of the event organizers. “Well my family wouldn’ t do this1 " she snapped, cutting off Marvela “It just pisses me off that she'd do Myma like that. And I don’ t know why Myma’s still hanging around. If she did that to me. I'd turn around and go home. There’ s no way I would stay here if she treated me that way.” Marvela said she talked to Myma as soon as she realized her name was not on the list so she would know what was in store for her with the soaal workers m charge of the event. “Myma had water in her eyes after I told her that she and her grandoephews wouldn’ t be able to eat at the picnic,” Marvela lamented “I hated to upset her, but I had to be up-front about 246 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the situation.” Sighing deeply Marvela added, "I know I get too mvoived and emotional about these things ft just doesn’ t seem right to me." "You know what this is?” Jackie asked rhetorically “This is shitty.” Marvela excused herself from the conversation. “I’ll call you,” she said to Jackie as she left in search of something to eat. I continued to talk with Jackie about the stfuaDon She showed me a letter she was required to bring with her to the event. I was surprised by how much the “invitation” resembled a court summons, ft read: This letter will confirm your registration for die JUNETEENTH Picnic on June 19, 1999 at Ladera Park fora total of 2 persons, including adults and children Due to the very limited space at the park, we need you to do the following steps: • Upon receipt ofthis letter CALL 1-SOO-GRANDNiA, ask for the JUNETEENTH RESPONSE PERSON, and say that you received it. Additional names CANNOT be accepted at the time of this call. • You must bring this letter to the picnic and present it at lunch time m order to be served food. I f for any reason you do not follow these two steps, we will not be able to accommodate your family at the picnic. On the day of the event we will also not accept any aH H irinnal participants. I f , for any reason you cannot attend the event, we would appreciate your calling and telling us. We have a very long waiting list and others would be very appreciative of attending the picnic. Your cooperation will insure a pleasant tone for everyone. Thank you. I thought back to the debate among the social workers over the registration protocol for the event. After seeing the letter, I agreed with those who had described it as unnecessarily complicated. While limits on funding required an accurate headcount, I wondered if the convoluted registration process actually undermined this goal. 247 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jackie and I walked over to the table where Myma Lamb was sitting. I asked Myrna wfaat she thought about the situation, and she responded graciously and without complamL “At least the children are able to play,” she said. Then, noticing Jackie's letter which I still had in my hand, Myma noted quietly that she never received a letter. Jackie, determined to undermine a system of rules she considered to be unfair, plotted with her great-granddaughter to get food for Myma and her grandnephews. Jacqueline took Jackie's letter to the enclosed food area, showed it to die person standing guard, ami then disappeared behind the gate. She came back shortly with a couple of drinks She headed back for some food, this time joined by one of Myraa’s granckiephews. Jacqueline was readmitted into the food area, but Myma’s grandnephew, without a letter in hand, was turned away by the “guard” at the gate. Refusing a foster child’s request for food seemed to me a particularly inappropriate thing to do Witnessing this scene reminded me of the comments of Mabel Thiele, a grandmother raising two grandchildren who were severely neglected by their parents. Mabel described finding food hidden in the children's beds shortly after they came to live with ho-. Apparently, her grandsons were in die habit of hoarding food since their mother and father provided it so inconsistently. While the circumstances of Myma’s grandson were less dire, the social worker showed questionable judgement by denying food to a child. I decided 1 had seen enough and so I tried to find Marvela to say good-bye. I approached the food area, tiunkmg I might be able to call Marvela over to the gate. I was surprised when the current guard an duty— a social worker I had met at one of die DCFS conferences— let me in without any hesitation. Inside, there were several long tables set up with large, heated serving dishes, all o f them heaping with food. 248 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The “Jane Vroom’ The w eds surrounding the Juneteenth picnic were filled with conferences and workshops for relative caregivers. Many grandparents and several social workers joked about what one grandmother called the “June Vroom,” a term to describe sped up efforts by the department to spend all the money m the budget before the end of the fiscal year. One way DCFS can acconqrlish this— and does according to the theory— is by hostmg multiple, catered all-day co nferences I had arranged with Myma to pick her up on the way to the Grandma’s House Kinship Advocacy Conference in nearby Culver City an the Monday after the picnic. I arrived early at her house, having met relatively little traffic on the morning L. A. freeways When I arrived, Myma was still getting ready for the day. She invited me inside and offered me a seat at her kitchen table. As I waited I noticed evidence of Myma’s history as a relative caregiver A small room adjacent to the kitchen was crammed with materials related to her involvement in the Department of Children and Family Services. Papers and files were piled high on top of-and bek>w-a small table The walls were covered with certificates of participation from various programs for relative caregivers in DCFS, in addition to Myma’s license and other documents verifying her framing as a day care provider High up an some shelves were several industrial-sized boxes of laundry detergent suggesting the frequency with which Myma must wash her three granctaephews' and one grancfciiece’s dathmg-not to mention those of the many additional children of family and friends who often end up staying at Myma’s fix' awhile. 249 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. After a few minutes, Myma called me into the back. I followed her voice through a maze of narrow, dimly lit hallways, all lined with yet more papers and books, until I found Myma sitting in a chair in die hallway outside o f her bedroom. A young Latma woman combed Myma's hair. “Go in there,” Myma said, pointing toward the bathroom, “and get me my hair elastic." I did as I was instructed and brought the small cloth band out to tbe two women. Myma introduced me to die woman combing her hair. “This is Elena. She helps me out with the day care." Within a few minutes, Myma was ready to go. Before we left, Myma gave me a tour of the section of her home used for the day care center. Compared to the rest ofher home, the day care was bright and cheery and clutter-ffee Tbe floor was lined with a giant spongy puzzle which served both as a toy and as a cushion in case of a fell. There were a few small tables and desks and several bookshelves lined with children’s toys, books and games. Myma, normally a soft-spoken person, talked animatedly about her plans for die day care. I could see that Myma was proud ofher work, she was a professional caregiver I helped the septuagenarian woman who occasionally uses a cane into the passenger seat of my car Once we woe on our way to the conference hotel, Myma without looking at me said quietly, “That was shitty what they did to me die other day." I agreed that it was and asked her to teO me her version o f what happened at the picnic. Myma proceeded to talk, although less about the picnic and more about what ensued afterwards. When Myma returned home on Saturday, die got an the phone and called relative caregivers Harriet Jackson and Ella Dill Fernandes to tell diem about what happened. This set off a flurry of phone calls and from the sounds of it, it wasn’ t long before most of the 250 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. regulars at the south-central Regional Kinship Meeting— most of whom did not attend the piczuc-knew about what had happened. According to Myma, the grandmothers were incensed and vowed to find ways to remove the offending social workers “fian office.” I did not have to take Myma's word for it though, for when we arrived at the conference tbe Juneteenth picnic was the subject of everyone's conversation. Small groups of grandmothers and social workers were buzzing quietly about the event m the hotel lobby. Occasionally someone in one of the groups would exclaim audibly, “That's terrible!” or “I can't believe she did that!” Although it was difficult as an outside observer, not a part of every conversation, to tell which side ofthe fence the social workers’ perspectives fell, the grandmothers' unanimous outrage at the event organizers was unmistakable. The Grandma's Bouse Kinship Advocacy Conference was set up like most DCFS conferences. The event took place at a hotel and the day began with registration, a continental breakfast and a keynote address Following the breakfest plenary session, conference attendees chose from a list of several 2-hour workshops led by professionals affiliated with various non-profit agencies and county departments. The following workshops were on the agenda that day; Changing Roles for Relative Kin Families Understanding Permanency for your Child Adoptions / AAP [Adoption Assistance Plan] Legal Issues Impacting Relative Caregivers • Budding Self-Esteem Through Family Ties Advocacy / Emancipation / ILP [Independent Living Program] 251 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • Kinship Education, Preparation, and Support (KEPS) Program Tbe morning workshops preceded a free three-course luncheon with another keynote address which was followed agam by the same senes of workshops in tbe afternoon. The keynote speakers scheduled for the breakfast session were DCFS Director Peter Digre and Annie Fairchild, a retired DCFS social worker who was to be honored that morning for her 31 years of service to the county Annie Fairchild’s good reputation is legendary among the grandmothers I interviewed. Annie was among those in the department who first saw tbe need for a separate division to serve the growing number of relative caregivers in the DCFS. As the first Division Chief, Annie co-wrote the grant that provided the initial funding for Grandma’ s House and helped to implement many ancillary programs within the Kinship Division. Shortly after Grandma’s House was up and running however, Annie abruptly announced her retirement-much to the surprise and dismay of many relative caregivers A long elevated table lined one wall of the conference room that was reserved for die breakfast plenary session. Several DCFS administrators and Kinship Division social workers sat at the head table, facing the 75 or so relative caregivers and social workers attending the conference. Included at the table were the social workers in charge ofthe Juneteenth picnic. I sat with Myma Lamb and Ella Din Fernandes at one of the tables near the front of the room. After a brief welcome, Peter Digre kicked off the session with his customary "Adoption Quiz.” As he had done at other DCFS conferences I had attended in previous weeks, Digre quizzed the audience about adoption and the Adoption Assistance Program (AAP), a federal program feat provides cash benefits and medical insurance to families who 252 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. adopt children otA of the dependency system. Digre addressed the group. "I know most of you finished school a long time ago but we’re going to begin this morning with a pop quiz.” The audience giggled and groaned facetiously, apparently willing to mdulge the director. Digre asked the group a series of “true or false” questions about AAP beginning with a question about basic eligibility.1 6 4 “True or false. A D children n the dependency system are eligible for AAP benefits.” “True,” called the audience in unison. “Very good,” Digre replied acknowledging the correct response “What about 'Families are eligible fix’ AAP funds only if they remain in California/" “False,” proclaimed the audience again providing the correct response. “You guys are good!” commented Digre “But what if the family leaves the country? True or false: Families are not eligible for AAP if they move away from the United States.” This question seemed to stump tbe audience, which replied with a mix of “trues” and “falses” “The answer is ‘false,’” he explained. “Unlike foster care funds, AAP follows the family wherever it goes whether it’ s Riverside County or South America. A D right, here’s another ‘Family preservation and post-adoption services are available to adoptive families ’” “True,” replied the majority of the audience, again with a correct response. This question prompted a woman in the audience to raise her hand and ask tbe director if the Emancipation Program— a group of programs fix adolescent children nearly ready to “age out” o f the dependency system— were available through AAP. “No,” Peter Digre replied “ That’s a program for foster lads.” 1 6 4 I have paraphrased the dialogue between Digre and the caregivers in the audience. 253 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ella Dill Fernandes, who had provided color commentary throughout Digre’s entire talk, leaned over to me and whispered, "See? That’s why so many people don’ t w ait to adopt, because they’ re no longer eligible for coonty programs.” “All right, just one more," Dtgre continued. “True or false: ’AAP continues until the child is 18, or until age 21 ifthe child has a physical or mental handicap.’” “True,” replied the audience. “That’s right,” concluded Dtgre “AAP funds continue until age 18. Foster care funding ends at 18 as well, unless the child is still enrolled in school ” “Oh that s a great incentive," snickered Ella “Pay ’ em to flunk a couple of years.” Laughing, she added sarcastically, “See that's another reason to stick with long-term foster care. AAP will end when the kids turn 18, but if we hold ’em back in school they can get Youakim [foster care benefits] for a whole extra year " More seriously, Ella added, “Not to mention the can of worms it’d open for me with my daughter if I decided to adopt [my grandson, Jason]” Ella's humor mocked the perceptions of those who erroneously believe that relative caregivers are only “in it for the money ” As Ella’s comments suggest, such limited benefits are hardly sufficient “pay” for the services provided by relative caregivers and foster parents. In feet, a recent study of state kinship care policies found that only 35% of relative caregivers and 45% of non-related foster parents believe that foster care maintenance payments are adequate to meet a child’s needs (Chipungu 1999). Peter Digre wrapped up his “AAP quiz” and turned to the main event He introduced Annie Fairchild, who had to pass through an exalting gauntlet made up of everyone at the head table on her way to the podium. Ella could hardly contain herself as she watched what 254 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. she referred to as “ the show” unveiling before her As Annie made her way to the lectern, the soaal workers m charge of the Juneteenth picnic hugged and kissed Annie in a way that made them appear to be affectionate old friends. E D a shook her bead excitedly and said, “I can't believe my own eyes!” I asked why Ella was so flabbergasted and she explained that when Annie worked for the Department, she clashed an a regular basis with a few ofher colleagues over issues of policy and program structure-the same colleagues who now responded so warmly to Annie. “That's why [Annie] retired,” Ella declared. “She was stressed to foe max and I think foe finally just said, 'I'm not going to let these people kill me,' you know.” When I interviewed Ella several months before the conference she described Annie Fairchild as a “wonderful person” and foe “visionary” behind an idealised version of Grandma's House that failed to materialize after her retirement. Unlike the social workers m charge of die Juneteenth picnic, Ella considered Annie an ally and friend and was aghast at foe display of affection from her perceived antagonists. “I can't wait to tell [Henrietta] about this!” Ella raved, referring to the co-chair ofthe Regional Kinship Meeting in south-central Los Angeles. After the breakfast session, I helped Myma find the elevator that would to take us to the conference wing of the hotel where the workshops were located. Unfortunately, the long walk to foe elevator was possibly more challenging for Myma’s arthritic joints than the single flight of stairs might have been. When we finally found the elevator and the doors opened, two young black women were already onboard. Each woman wore a green and white gym suit with T-shirts 255 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. underneath bearing the Women's World Cup emblem. I recognised the women as members of the Nigerian National Soccer Team. I had seen the game at the Rose Bowl the night before when the Nigerians played and defeated the North Korean National Team. I congratulated the women on their victory and they thanked m e “Hello, Mama,” they each greeted Myma. I explained to Myma that the women were soccer players from Nigeria. She turned to the women, smiled and asked, “Are you girls in school?'” “No, Mama,” responded one ofthe women. “We’ve finished school, Mama,” added die other. “Well dial's very good then,” commented Myma approvingly. The two women exited the elevator before Myma and I did. After they left Myma remarked, “They seemed like very nice girls. You know,” she added smiling wryly, “they call everyone ‘Mama' over there.” This delightful, random encounter perfectly suited Myma who, as a respected African-American eider, acts as “Mama” to many. After the morning workshop, I walked bade to die lobby area outside the conference rooms. Many ofthe social workers in the Kinship Division congregated together in a small circle talking. I sidled up to Marvela King who moved over just enough to allow me to join the circle I realized only then that one ofthe social workers— the one who boycotted the picnic— was on the verge of tears She was distressed because one of die main organizers of the picnic had just asked the subordinate social worker to return to die office to answer the phones. The worker was unhappy about this particular assignment, but much more upsetting 256 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to her was ho- belief that the senior social worker's order was an indirect way of taking out her personal gripes. “I am a social worker, a professional*” she cried fiercely under her breath. “I don't deserve to be treated this way I’ve had it up to here with all of this.” Turning to Marvela, she added, “I'm not sure I'm going to make it in this department It's been two years ...” Her words trailed offas she dissolved into tears. Marvela put her arm around the social worker and die two retreated to the women's restroom. I continued listening to the conversation of the remaining social workers, some of whom had attended tbe picnic, others of whom had not. Kimberly Turner, an African American social worker who was at the picnic, described an incident that occurred in the women’s restroom earlier in the day. Apparently, Myma Lamb approached Kimberly and began to talk to her about the picnic Kimberly responded evasively and diplomatically to Myma, saying she did not know what was going on and that she was sorry Myma was upset. At this point the senior social worker partly responsible for the picnic emerged from one ofthe bathroom stalls and “yelled” at Myma: “I did what I said I was going to do and I meant it!” Kimberly peered nervously over her shoulder as she told the story, apparently worried she might be overheard agam Another social worker responded to tbe story, criricizmg Myma for not going directly to the supervisor with her concerns. Marco Falcon, a Latino social worker who had not gone to the picnic, turned to me and asked if I had attended. I said I had, and he asked what I thought about it. I told him honestly that I thought it was unfortimate that the organizers refused to feed Myma and her grand-nephews. 257 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Another social worker, a white woman from the Adoptions Division of DCFS, declared, “I would have fed her at the end but I would've made her wait. She would have other grandmothers go without because she dkfci't want to follow protocol " The worker continued, perhaps not realizing Jackie Knight had moved within earshot. “Myrna was dearly inappropriate. She knew [the registration list] was full and she came anyway " “But what about the fact that there was plenty of food?” I asked her. “We're not codependents here. We sometimes need to be an appropriate parent and set limits for people" she responded glibly. The idea of the young woman setting “parental limits” for grandmothers who were much older and experienced than she struck me as incongruous. I continued to squabble with the social worker even though the researcher inside me was screaming for me to keep quiet. An internal methodological and personal debate raged. One side told me it was important to appear “neutral” to the social workers in order to gain their trust. But another equally compelling side contended that it was perhaps even more important to be sure the grandmothers knew that 1 supported them. I knew Jackie Knight was standing nearby and I was aware that “neutrality” could be easily— and perhaps appropriately- -interpreted as “support” for the social worker’s perspective Furthermore, my role as a “sociologist" was often closely and uncomfortably linked by same grandmothers to a social worker’s professional and powerful status. It would not take much for me to be labeled as “untrustworthy" or even “dangerous,” and it would take even less time for the word to spread through the dose-knit network of caregivers. This internal debate was complicated by the fact that I had developed what I considered to be real relationships with social workers and grandmothers over the course of 258 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. many months. As a result, I felt compelled to respond to than as a person, a peer and, m some cases, a friend. I did support the grandmothers and I empathized with their distress about the events that occurred over the weekend Bm I also understood the constraints placed on social workers that sometimes lead them to behave inflexibly and bureaucratically— even when they personally prefer a more friendly and informal approach. Marco Falcon, perhaps trying to break the building tension, asked absurdly, "Did they have ribs at the picnic'7 '’ “Yes,” I laughed, “But I didn’ t eat.” “Ohhh!” he said sarcastically. “So you cfafci’ t register either, then9 ” “No, I didn’ t,” I admitted. “Well you could have eaten, because you re a professional," declared die anti codependence social worker. The woman’s comment helped me to resolve my internal debate as I responded indelicately, “That’s so uncool! Why should I be able to eat but not Myrna, when neither cue of us registered'7 ” “You do more,” she offered lamely. “What do you mean9 " I asked incredulously “All I do is go to meetings and take notes. Myma's been involved in Grandma’s House since the very b eginning She’s very knowledgeable about the system . .” “But she doesn’ t do anything,” she repeated stubbornly. At this pomt, thankfully, our debate was interrupted by the senior social worker who was the source o f the entire conflict She joined die group and retold the story about overhearing die conversation between Myrna Lamb and Kimberly Turner in die restroom. 259 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Her account was consistent with die version we had heard from Kimberly earlier, with one addition In defense of her part of the decision to stick to the rules and deny food to those who did not register for the picnic, she claimed to have told Myma, “I’m sorry, bat you’re not that privileged” Professional Privilege I had a hard time concentrating on the presenter in the next workshop as I was preoccupied by the social worker’ s comment about “privilege ” I thought about the picnic and how easily I was able to obtain access to the food area, even though I lacked the letter required of others to gain the same access. A separate set of quahfications-and “letters”— seem to have allowed my entree. A professional privilege, based an my education and my collegial relationship to the social workers, afforded me access and other benefits denied the grandmothers. My graduate degree in sociology and my experience as a clinician allowed many of the social workers to see me as a peer or “insider,” while the client status of the grandmothers relegated them to an “out” group. Ironically, as a researcher I was completely dependent upon the social workers to allow me access to their world, just as relative caregivers are dependent upon social workers to provide access to vital services for their grandchildren. I was not, therefore, a true peer in the professional sense as I required the permission of the Department of Children and Family Services to be there in the first place. But nor was I a client of the DCFS I did not “need” the services provided by the department and so that placed me in a position of privilege as well, relative to the grandparents and other caregrvers. Given the stigma attached to need and dependence on public support in American culture, this is a huge privilege indeed. 260 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. But grandmothers raising grandchildren aren’ t “dependent an the system” m the same way as others involved m the public welfare system. Unlike parents applying for CalWORKS or TANF to help them provide for their own children, grandparents typically do not go to the Department o f Children and Family Services seeking support m times of need. In fact it is usually the other way around. In this sense, relative caregrvers in the child welfare system are more like foster parents m that they care for children who are dependents o f the dependency court. Unlike foster parents, however, relative caregrvers do not “volunteer” m the same way to assist children in need. Observes Liz Goss, a member of the Kinship Council of Los Angeles, on this matter And that's the problem with, no, that’s the difference between foster care and kinship care. Foster care people were recruited. They’re being paid. They decided they wanted to do this. Ok? Kinship care people were not recruited. And a lot of them, if they aren’ t under the auspices o f Department o f Children and Family Services, they are not being paid. They are just taking care of their grandchildren. Liz Goss, Jackie Knight, Henrietta Holliday, Myma Lamb, and countless other relative caregivers become “unplanned parents” the night DCFS calls asking if the grandparent would like to take her grandchildren before they are placed m a foster home. Unlike licensed foster parents who acquire a professional license prior to caring for foster children, most relative caregivers are not licensed by the state. This distraction leads to another important difference noted by Liz Goss. Unlike licensed foster parents, not all relative caregivers receive financial support to care fix’ children. In fact, even many “formal” relative caregrvers m the dependency system do not receive foster care maintenance payments for the children m their care. This has the paradoxical effect of creating many financially needy relative caregivers who aid a system that is “dependent” an such caregivers to provide safe and permanent homes for children 261 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Fiscal Politics o f Kinship Care Federal and state policy for funding relative caregivers in the child welfare system is incredibly complex and has a long and complicated history. Debates over whether and how grandparents should be reimbursed for fbster-caregrvmg can be traced back at least as for as the 1970s and a Supreme Court case: M iller v Youahm. In this case, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services placed two o f Linda Youalhm's younger brothers and sisters m her care after they were removed from the custody of their mother Linda Youakun and her husband, Marcel, were licensed foster care providers in Illinois, yet the state DCFS refused to pay the Youakims the same rate they would have received as foster parents caring for unrelated children. In justification for this policy, the Illinois DCFS maintained that foster care payments were designated for foster family homes, defined as “facilities] for children unrelated to the operator” (A filler v Youaktm 1979, emphasis added). After several appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to bear the case. Bringing resolution to a ten-year case, in 1979 the Court ruled unanimously1 6 5 in favor of Youakim. In the opinion of the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote: Neither the legislative history not the structure of the [Social Security] Act indicates that Congress intended to differentiate among neglected children based an their relationship to their foster parents. Indeed, such a distinction would conflict m several respects wSh the ovemdmg goal of providmg the best available care for ail dependent children removed from tbeir homes because they were neglected (ibid.). M iller v Youahm ruled that child welfare agencies could not deny federal foster care maintenance payments to licensed foster care providers simply because they were related to the children in their care However, not aO foster children receive federal foster care funds 1 6 5 Justice Stevens did not take part in the deliberations for .Kfiller v Youahm. 262 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. since eligibility is determined by a complex set of additional requirements— requirements not specifically linked to licensing until recently (see Figure 6-1). Figure 6-1: Key Plif9>jBty Requirements for Tide 1V-E Federal Foster Care Funds Removal: The Juvenile dependency court must order the removal of the child from his or her parents and demonstrate that the rem oval was necessary in order to protect the well-being of the child Six-moatfe Rule: The child must have lived with the parent from w hom she or be was removed within the six-month period prior to the time of the removal AFDC Eligibility: While living with the parent from whom she or he was removed, the child must have been eligible for AFDC Licensure: the child must be placed m a licensed foster care facility In addition to other rules regarding the safety of tbe foster home and the nature of the child's placement there, federal regulations limit the use of Title IV-E “AFDC-FC” foster care funds to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by indigent foster children. This means test is further complicated by a residency requirement; a poor foster child who would otherwise meet the income standards for Title IV-E funding is ineligible for such funding if she or he did not live with the parent at any point during the six months prior to the time a judge named the child a "dependent” of the dependency court. In other words, the child must have been removed from an AFDC-eligible home (Gleeson, 1996). In California and most other states, licensed foster parents who are ineligible for federal AFDC-FC funding are reimbursed at the same rate from state and/or county coffers. Relative caregivers in Los Angeles County receive federal foster care maintenance payments-often called AFDC-FC, or “Youaltim” payments in reference to the 1979 Supreme Court decision— if the children m them care meet the federal eligibility requirements regarding removal, AFDC eligibility and the six-month rule. The Department of Children and Family Services place foster children with km as long as the home is “approved,” exempting relative 263 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. caregivers from the more extensive licensing requirements imposed on non-related foster parents. But children who do not meet the three criteria listed above are ineligible for federal funds. This is important because the California Department of Social Services does not pick up the tab for unlicensed relative caregrvers raising foster children who do not qualify for AFDC-FC. Instead of using state monies to support unlicensed relative caregrvers at the federal foster care rate— as it does licensed foster parents caring for ineligible foster children— county child welfare agencies refer such relative caregivers to the state's CalWORKS program (administered in Los Angeles County by the Department of Public Social Services). Here, relative caregivers may apply for a “non-needy caretaker” (or “child only”) welfare grant to support the foster children in their care. But because the non-needy caretaker grant is considerably less than the “Youaldm” foster care maintenance payment, this may impose a hardship on unlicensed relative caregivers with limited financial resources.1 6 6 As noted in Chapter Three, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services provides $319 per month to “non-needy” relative caregrvers caring fix one child (as of October 2000). For each additional child, the DPSS increases the benefit on a declining scale (see Table 6-1). In contrast, fix relative caregivers wdh children eligible for federal “Youalom” reimbursement, the DCFS pays a basic foster care maintenance payment of $405-5569 per month, based on the age of the child (CDSS September 12,2000). Furthermore, unlike the 1 6 6 Actually . California has one of the more generous state child welfare systems in that it does not. by default relegate all relative caregivers to the welfare system (i.e., CalWORKS or TANF). For information on other st&es' funding policies, see. for example. Boots and Geen 1 9 9 9 . Gleeson and Craig 1994. Leos-UtbeL Bess and Geen 1999, and D H H S Childien’ s Bureau 1 9 9 9 b . 264 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DPSS duld-only grant, the foster care benefit is a per child rate. Thus, when a grandparent raises more than one dependent child she or he stands to receive considerably more support if those children are eligible fix’ federal funds. Categories of Caregivers Funding Source Benefit Level* Licensed unrelated fester parents with Title IV-E eligible children Federal AFDC-FC funds $405-5581 per child Licensed unrelated foster parents with Title IV-E ineligible children State ancV or county fester care fends $405-5581 per child Licensed relative caregivers with Title IV-E eligible children Federal AFDC-FC fends CYouakim") 5405-5581 per child Licensed relative caregivers with Title IV-E ineligible children State anchor county foster care fends 5405-5581 per child Unlicensed relative caregivers with Title IV-E eligible children Federal AFDC-FC fends (“YouakmT) $405-5581 per child Unlicensed relative caregivers with Title IV-E ineligible children Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services “Cal W orks" (“non- needy caretaker gram”) $319 fix one child $520 for tw o children $645 for three children Source: CDSS 2000. September 1 2 ; L . A. Coalition to End Hunger and D PSS CalWORKS help line. A ll rates effective October 1.2000 * basic foster care rales vary b y child's age. These rates do not reflect a care increments (a.ta. “D and~F~ rates) added for children with “sper medical needs. Homelessness 2000; ny additional specialized nal” psychological or Many find feult with this funding structure which link* AFDC-FC eligibility to the parent's income, rather than the fmancral needs o f the relative caregiver or the dependency status of the child- Low-mcome grandparents complain that they are limited to the relatively meager CalWORKS “non-needy” caretaker grant while many of their more financially secure peers receive the larger federal foster care maintenance payment Furthermore, many grandparents care for grandchildren informally for months prior to die involvement of the 265 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DCFS, thereby rendering them ineligible for federal funds. Relative caregivers feel they are unfairly penalized for caring for their grandchildren outside of the dependency system. A recent case m California challenged the six-month rule tied to federal funding, h the “Capitoia Land” case, several relative caregrvers had raised children for more than six months prior to the time the state removed the children from their parent's custody (Capitoia Land v Eloise Anderson, Director, Department o f Public Social Services et al. May 1997). The Department of Children and Family Services deemed that the caregivers were ineligible for federal foster care fends due to the feet that the six-month residency requirement was not met. The caregivers sued the state, claiming it unfairly denied them fending. The Los Angeles County Superior Court and California Court of Appeal both ruled in favor of the relative caregivers. In her ruling an the appeal, Judge Baron wrote that “the Department violated the plain meaning of the governing statute” by claiming the caregivers were ineligible for federal Youakim fending (Land v Anderson 1997). The Capitoia Land case sparked a battle between the courts, the state legislature, the California Department of Social Services, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding fending for relative caregivers in the dependency system. A state budget bill passed in 1998 (SB 2779) added a section-authored by the California Department of Social Services— essentially ordering child welfare agencies to ignore the Capitoia Land decision (Anderson v Superior Court 1998). The bill revised the California Welfare and Institutions code to state the following: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, until and unless federal financial participation is obtained, no payment of AFDC-FC may be made from either state or county fends on behalf of a child determined to be eligible for AFDC- FC solely as a result of the decision of the California Court of Appeal in Land v Anderson (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 89 (W 1C §11402.1). 266 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Simultaneously, the California Department o f Social Services drafted a proposal for revising funding practices in a manner consistent with the Capitoia Land decision. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHSX which pre-approves all state child welfare plans, rejected the proposal, claiming that “the Capitoia Land decision and your proposed State Plan amendment are dearly contrary to title IV-E statutory eligibility requirements for AFDC eligibility and the sn-month limitation ...” (Anderson v Superior Court 1998). The CDSS sought a judicial review of the DHHS’s decision to rqect the plan.1 6 7 Meanwhile, the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which wrote the initial Capitoia Land decision, found Eloise Anderson, the Director of die California Department of Social Services, in contempt of court-a ruling later overturned by die Court of Appeals (Anderson v Superior Court 1998). Finally, in September 2000 and presumably bringing closure to the matter, a U.S. District Court ruled that die DHHS's decision to reject die CDSS's plan to comply with Land v Anderson was based on sound reasoning and dismissed a complaint made against the DHHS by the CDSS (Department o f Social Services v Donna E L Shalala, Secretary. The Department o f Health and Human Services). This wild series o f actions and counteractions ultimately saved to maintain die funding structure for relative caregivers, including six-month rule. The funding status of relative caregivers has been challenged recently on another front. In January 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a “Final Rule” outlining implementation procedures for the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 1 6 7 The Ninth Circuit Court dismissed an initial request for judicial review citing “lack of jurisdiction.'' 267 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (DHHS-ACF January 25 2000). This set of regulations clarifies the eligibility requirement for federal foster care funds by specifically Imutmg tbeir use to providing for children placed in homes that are “ fully licensed or approved as meeting the State's licensing standards " (ibid., emphasis added). When a child welfare agency contacts a relative regarding the placement of a foster child, however, it is a matter of coincidence if that relative is a licensed foster care provider. More often— and unlike non-relative foster parents— relative caregivers have their first introduction to the dependency system when the Department of Children and Family Services calls asking to place the child. In December 2000, the California Department of Social Services issued an All- County Letter (00-85) outlining the state’s response to the DHHS Final Rule. The letter explained that the state will continue to place abused and neglected children with unlicensed relative caregivers if they meet the same safety requirements imposed on licensed foster parents (CDSS December 20,2000). Although the memo did not say so explicitly, presumably the state will maintain the same funding structure for relative caregivers as well. That is, relative caregivers whose grandchildren do not qualify for federal AFDC-FC funds will be referred to the state TANF program (i.e., the welfare system) instead. Difficult questions regarding the fundmg of tmlicensed relative caregivers continue to arise. In July 2001 the DHHS further clarified its policies regarding Title IV-E reimbursement, reasserting die requirement that agencies must place a child in a “licensed foster family home or drild-care institution, m order for the child to be eligible” for federal foster care funding (DHHS Children’s Bureau July 3,2001). The DHHS conceded that most kinship care placements will be ineligible fix * foster care maintenance payments under these 268 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. guidelines, due to the fact that most kinship caregrvers lack a foster care license. Thus, and in order to maintain an incentive for placing children with related family members, the DHHS q > iH it will allow g ta » « » s to Haim reimbursement for administrative costs associated with placing a child with an unlicensed relative— but not foster care maintenance payments. Later that sum month at a national kinship care conference, a representative from the CDSS claimed that ralHbmia child welfare agencies wifl continue to seek reimbursement for foster care maintenance payments made to “approved” but unlicensed relative caregrvers (Contreras and Needell 2001). Regarding this policy, die DHHS Children's Bureau writes: Regardless of the term used to denote foil licensure or approval, the statute and the regulation require that the State use the same standards to license or approve all foster homes, and the standards used must comprise full licensure or approval of the homes, including all applicable safety requirements. Some States have applied the terms “licensed” and/or “approved” to foster family homes that have complied with the States' requirements to provide foster care for children under the States' care and placement responsibility. At times, State requirements for “licensure” and “approval” have been different, particularly in their applicability to related and non-rdated foster family homes. While States may continue to use two different terms to denote licensure or approval of homes, the benefits of doing so are unclear as the same standards must be used for all homes (DHHS Children's Bureau December 6, 2000). While the CDSS representative claims that state child welfare agencies use the same standards to “approve” relative caregivers’ homes as they do to “bcense” foster homes, only time (and federal audits) will tell if the state will be able to maintain this particular interpretation of federal regulations. Meanwhile, despite its unwillingness to support relative caregrvers raismg Title IV-E ineligible children at the foster care rate, California can be commended for preserving one of the nation's more generous kinship care funding strategies. Nevertheless, by relegating a subset of relative caregivers to a separate-but-unequal system of economic support, the child 269 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. welfare system stands to reap substantial savings '6 1 In the process, it disadvantages many relative caregrvers— and more importantly, the children m their care— who, by no fault of their own, are eligible for fewer resources than nan-fdative foster families. The politics of funding m the child welfare system further illustrate the ways in which relative caregivers are treated as "professionals” on the one hand, while expected to simply "do for family” on die other. Back at the Grandma’s House Kinship Advocacy Conference and at the end of die afternoon session, I returned to the hotel lobby where I saw Myma Lamb, Ella Dill Fernandes and the social worker who boycotted the picnic all standing together. As I approached, Myma was describing her experience at the picnic. The social worker listened, shaking her head in disapproval. "That’s why I didn’ t come” the social worker said. "I knew that would happen and I couldn't stand there and see them treat people that way Let me tell you something. In our culture, you don’ t treat senior citizens that way,” the social worker claimed referring to the African American community. "Or children,” Myma added softly. "I mean, you’re old enough to be their grandmother They have no busmess treating you that way,” the worker argued angrily. Through the glass door of the foyer, Ella spotted Linda Phillips and Loretta Thomas, two administrators in the Department of Children and Family Services, standing oitfside 1 6 8 This is particularly true at the federal level, since the federal gov ernment increasingly transfers the burden of supporting foster children from its own coffers to the relatively limited budgets of the state and county 270 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. smoking cigarettes. Ella suggested that Myma go talk to them and file a complaint Since Ella hatfa’ t attended the picnic, Myma asked me to come with her and “be a witness" to the discussion. Tbe two of us went outside and Myma told tbem an abbreviated version of what had occurred an Saturday while I stood silently nearby. The two administrators listened politely to the story and then Loretta Anderson said she'd “look into it” and get bade to Myma The two women then excused themselves and went inside to the conference area. Ella came outside and asked what happened. Myma told her and Ella responded pessimistically. Given Loretta’s limited response Ella concluded, “She ain't going to do anything. She'D talk to the event organizers and they'll say you knew the picnic was full and you came anyway. They'll make it sound like they had nothing to do with it.” The Disenfranchisement of Kinship Foster Care Grandparents often describe a perceived lack of “privilege" that afiects their experiences as relative caregivers m many ways Not only are they relegated to a lesser status by some social workers who privilege letters of scholarship over letters o f registration, they are disenfranchised by a system that is as social worker Marveia King once described it, “designed for stranger care, not relative care " While m the first case this lack of privilege may be due to the whims of a particular social worker, die latter is systematic. The caregrvers of foster children, whether related or not, bear many economic and bureaucratic burdens when they take on this responsibility A recent study found, for example, that while the majority of kinship caregrvers draw upon their own financial resources to provide fix the children in their care, so too do nearly 50% o f unrelated foster parents (Chipungu et al. 1998). Yet in general, these burdens affect relative caregivers differently than they do unrelated licensed foster parents. While some might seethe 271 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exemption o f relative caregivers from the trammg requirements imposed on licensed foster parents as a form of privilege, this “privilege” prechides many grandmothers from receiving the most fundamental source of support from the child welfare system: fall and adequate funding. Considering that as a group, relative caregivers are older, poorer and generally more disadvantaged than foster parents, one might argue that kinship caregrvers are more deserving the child welfare system's resources and support. The grandparents I interviewed for my study frequently voiced their frustrations with the relative privilege afforded to licensed foster parents by the Los Angeles County dependency system. Observes Ella Dill Fernandes, for example: “They're eligible for a kit of stuff They have all these co nferences and stuff. They have way more stuff than we have” Many grandparents believe that the reason foster parents have “way more stuff*’ available to them is because of a perception among policy makers that relative caregivers should not get the same support as nan-related foster parents. Steve Evans, a relative caregiver who also serves as a member o f a county policy-making committee, notes the following: I know that even an the task force, there’s people that are on the fringes of the system that [think] because we’re related to these kids, we shouldn’ t get any monetary reimbursement for it. And there’s one person on my task force... that's his thinking too. “Why? Why should you be getting money?” 'Cause m the old days, of course, it was you just took care of the children that came into your care. That “family should do for family” is essentially what a DCFS social worker told Theresa Richardson when she contacted the department to see about getting support for raising her granddaughter. Theresa explains: 272 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. So I raised her by rayseif without any assistance for five years. . . . So anyway, I called Protective Services and this guy came out and he said, “Look. That’ s your daughter’s daughter. And if you’re the grandmother, so you should take care of her anyway. You diould have no problem with th at” Theresa Richardson did have a problem with that however, as did Henrietta Holliday, who contends that relative caregivers should be treated no differently than foster parents in terms of support Argues Henrietta: Why should the burden be placed an you? When the children's needs are still going9 They still need to eat. They still need to sleep. Clothes need to be cleaned. They still need to go for an appointment They still need to go to school. They expect you to do all of this. . . . And if you don t do it, then there's a problem. Henrietta reiterates the dilemma feeing relative caregivers; they are forced to play by at least some of the same rules as foster parents— lest the DCFS remove foe children— but they are not congiensated equally for doing so Some of foe grandparents I interviewed identify an important contributing fector to this problem— the lack of political power of relative caregivers in the child welfare system. According to Liz Goss, [Politically active foster parents] have been around for 25 years, and they’ve got great organization going there nationwide. And kinship is just Uttie tiny groups of people everywhere. And nobody is bed together Everybody has different names-cu/e names, neat names, you know— but nobody is able, because so many states don’ t have kinship programs. [In] so many states, kinship people don’ t even get subsidies. You know, there’s just no there there. The “there there” to which Liz refers is an organized group able to lobby for equal support. Elise Cordes, who like Liz Goss is a member of the Kinship Council of Los Angeles, agrees that relative caregrvers lack comparable political power. “This is because foster parents have a strong lobby,” explains Elise— a lobby that wields considerable political power and obtains adriititnal services fix’ foster parents. 273 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Based an the successes of thetr licensed counterparts tn the child welfare system, Liz and Elise stress the importance c f grandparents getting involved m politics and lobbying for reforms that will benefit relative caregrvers and the children in their care. Writing in a DCFS-sponsored newsletter for relative caregivers, Elise wrote, “Welfare reform was just die beginning of what could happen if we are not involved and aware. Make your voice beard. Don’ t be a victim!” (Los Angeles County October 1998). * * * * * Many of the grandparents I describe above and in the previous chapter, such as Elise Conies, Steve Evans, Ella Dill Fernandes, Barbra Foote, Liz Goss, Henrietta Holliday, Harriet Jackson, Jackie Knight, and Myma Lamb, have been activists within the dependency system and the Department of Children and Family Services for many years Many within this same group played an important part in the development of Grandma's House, the KEPS program and other programs within the Kinship Care Division of the DCFS. Jackie Knight recounts some of this history and the efforts o f relative caregivers to compensate for their perceived disenfranchiseme nt within the dependency system: At first, the people who had their own children, their own flesh and blood, [the DCFS and the Dependency Court] weren't treating them die way they were treating the regular foster children Because someone— I don't know who— felt that if you had your relative's children that you were relatives and you’re supposed to do for them. Well everybody’ s not able to just do whatever. So then that’s the reason for this kinship thing that they got together And you know, you have to lobby and do all that. And they go do that. There’s one person in our group that goes to Sacramento. She’s up there two or three tunes a week, lobbying and domg whatever for whatever needs that we have. So that’ s the reason why we have the kinshq) thing. . .. Because they were thinking that you don't need this because you’ve got your own grandchildren and that’s your blood. But they had needs and we had needs, just like everybody else. So that’s, that’s a good thing that we get all, that we get involved. 274 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Despite the im pressive efforts of these truly “professional” caregivers, many of the grandparents I interviewed express frustration that the DCFS fails to recognize the expertise they have to offer other relative caregrvers m the dependency system. Furthermore, and despite the lade of “privilege” extended to relative caregivers, many of the grandparents I interviewed feel a sense of authority and entitlement. This active group of caregrvers notes m particular their disappointment with the failures o f Grandma's House to live up to its promises of advocacy and empowerment, including initial plans to involve relative caregivers as partners in the process. Henrietta Holliday captures this sentiment: Well, Grandma’s House, let me tell you. We’ll go back to when we first heard that they were planning to build a Grandma’s House. . . . We thought— the people an die Kinship Council-that we would be volunteers, if nothing more, m Grandma’s House That we could take all of this stuff we had gotten from all die conferences, all the trainings, all the everythings that we had all gone to and we would have a resource center And like I’m talking to you and telling you all ofthe experiences that have gone on with me? Maybe we could help somebody else out with whatever was going on. To tell them the ABCs of Dependency Court. To tell them how to ask for de facto parent status. To tell them what family preservation was about. We could tell you about the Black Family investment Program. We could tell you about the Independent Living Program. We could tell you about Emancipation. . .. We thought when Grandma’s House came into being we were going to get all our stuff and go through all of it.. to where we could just put our hands on whatever information you needed to know . . . All of us really got involved and got hyped up about doing this for Grandma’s House. But Grandma’s House is nothing but a Department of Children and Family Services office. A business office. Ella Dill Fernandes agrees and laments the failure o f Grandma's House to live up to its potential and initial goals: [Annie Fairchild, the retired Division Chief ofthe DCFS Kinship Division] was a really wonderful person and her vision of Grandma’s House was more like our vision. This [the actual Grandma’s House] is like an office building. This is not like a drop-in place which, you know, at one time they had talked about having houses m different neighborhoods where you could just come in with your kids. You know, have a cop of coffee. There was other people there. You could talk to each other, get resources. Me and [Henrietta] were 275 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ready the day this place opened. We were going to be here ‘cause they said, oh, they'll give us a little space. So we're collecting all these papers for years. We’ ve got boxes and boxes of everything from everywhere we go And we’re going to be here and we're gomg to be helping and all this. And then when they got here they don't want us. They totally slammed the door in our face Henrietta and Ella believe they were misled by early promises of inclusion. They thought, as "expats in the field,” they would be able to woik alongside sodal workers and really make a difference for relative caregrvers m the system. They are frustrated to see these plans stymied by the department.1 6 9 Other relative caregrvers’ frustrations with Grandma's House center on die program's failure to offer vital services. Barbra Foote explains: My idea of "Grandma's House" is a house that has a day care facility. Has after school care. Has computer classes in it Has a clothing closet a food pantry, and maybe baby furniture or beds available. And it should be a gathering place for support and having social functions. What Grandma's House has turned into is not at all what I support. . . . It's hard if you get a child and you don't have, you know. They tell you, "You have to have these beds and you don't have any beds,” and "Well, we’re going to take the kids if you don’ t have any beds." So you're scrambling. I was even told, "Go to your neighbors and borrow— if they have extra beds— borrow them aid set 'em up so the social worker can see them and then take them back and give them back ’ ’ I mean, no! The solution is to get these people beds You know? Oh God, it's crazy. Just crazy. But the concept of Grandma’s House is very good— when done properly Adds Harriet Jackson: I want a real “Grandma's House”— a place where kids walk in and they think, "Wow!” A place where grandparents can come and have respite and there are programs for the special needs kids. And a place where you smell coffee and you smell gingerbread. I mean, this is Granchna’s House. 1 6 9 This includes a frustration (on the part of Ella and Henrietta, at least) with the funding stream for the Kinship Assistants who staff the Information and Referral "wannline” at Grandma's House. This joint effort with the Department of Aging requites that Kinship Assistants be 55 years old or older in order to qualify far the training program. Thus, at 49 and 5 1 respectively. Ella and Henrietta are ineligible to participate-despde the valuable contributions they could m ake. 276 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Several ofthe grandparents I interviewed contrasted the apparent failures of the DCFS Grandma’s House with the perceived successes of other programs for relative caregivers Greaa Gladstone, a relative c a r e g iv e r and a Grandma's House “Kinship Assistant,” unfavorably compares her experiences with the DCFS program to those at the “Grandma’s House” operated by the Children’s Institute International (CH), a non-profit agency based in Los Angeles. According to Greaa, the CD program is run more like the drop-in center model preferred by many grandparents. “They get to know your little habits," notes Grecia, and “call you if you haven’ t been by m awhile " Grecia, like many of the relative caregivers I spoke to, prefers the personal attention and laid-back style of Children’s Institute International’s Grandma’s House. Grandparents also endorse the Kinship Support Network developed by the Edgewood Center for Children and Families, a non-profit agency established in San Francisco in 1851 that has served relative caregrvers and their families smce 1989 1 7 0 According to the agency 's website, the Kinship Support Network is a “comprehensive public/private collaboration designed to fill the gaps in public social services to relative caregivers and the children they are raising" (Edgewood Center for Children and Families n d ) The program provides a variety of services, much like those offered by the Los Angeles County DCFS Grandma’s House. The major difference, according to relative caregrvers, is that Edgewood— perhaps because of its non-profit status— is less hampered by the bureaucratic entanglements of a public child welfare system. 1 7 0 Grandmothers aren't the only ones who laud the Edgewood program . Several of the DCFS social workers 1 interviewed referred positively to the program as well. For example, regarding Edgewood Grandma's House social worker Jonathan Flax remarked, “ you know, one of the best models that is ahead of us. probably, would be Edgewood And from w h & I’ve seen, what I've— I've talked to the people w ho are there. It’s a great p rogram. It’ s really a beautiful facility.” Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Grandma's House needs to be modeled more tike Edgewood. . It needs to be friendlier.’ ' notes Elise Cordes, who, like several other relative caregrvers in Los Angeles County, visited the center while in the San Francisco Bay area to attend a conference an kinship care. Barbra Foote agrees: Have you ever been to Edgewood9 Up in San Francisco? .. You have to go there. You have to go there. That s my idea o f a— and there’ s another Grandma’s House in L.A. At die Children’s Institute. I haven’ t been there, but [Elise] says it’s great. So, but the concept o f [die DCFS] Grandma’s House is a good concept And if it’s done like Edgewood is done ...They have a child care area. It’s open, friendly. People greet you there They have a clothing closet that’s big... with everything labeled and clean. And they have toys there, and then the food pantry, you know. * * * * * This is what we thought was going to be our haven Going to Grandma’s House, where we could have a cup of coffee or a cup of tea and sit and talk. You could have a room— we pictured it as this. You’ d have a room where you had the toys and the games and the puzzles and the stuff. You could have your children there: somebody would see about the children. Over here you would have another place you could go if you wanted to work on something. If you wanted to send a fax. If you had something you wanted to put on the board or whatever you would be able to do this. If you had a crisis and you needed to talk you could just talk. If you just wanted to go and reserve a space for an hour or two and say, “I’m here if anybody needs to talk to me or ifyou need me to take any calls. ” This is what we thought was going to go on. it dkfc't happen like that So this has been a major disappointment. Because it's nothing like we thought it would be. It’s nothing like we were told it was going to be. With these words, Henrietta Holliday summarizes the frustrations of many grandparents with long-standing ties to the Department o f Children and Family Services. Most ofthe grandparents quoted here have been involved in die DCFS for longer than the life of Grandma's House. They take their responsibilities as caregivers very seriously and do not 278 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. see themselves primarily as “clients” ofthe DCFS; indeed many see themselves as “experts” with much to offer to the department These caregivers envisioned a “Grandma’s House” that would be accessible, friendly, informal, and supportive— m other words, “grandmotherly ” What they got instead is a restricted-access office building with a “stressful” atmosphere and a program that doesn’ t offer the kinds of pragmatic services that many grandparents say they need. The comments above suggest that what many grandparents really want is the “Grandma's House” pictured on the “Grandma’s House Grand Opening” invitation and other materials printed for the DCFS program. They want an open, friendly, genuine gingerbread house, and one that is responsive to their individual needs. Fundamentally, the grandparents I interviewed want to go to a “Juneteenth” picnic organized by flexible Grandma’ s House staff who extend the same “privileges’ ’ to caregrvers as they do to their peers— “privileges” professional grandparents feel they have earned and deserve. As a result, when the organizers ofthe Juneteenth Picnic refused to feed Myma Lamb when she felled to register for the event, this act was only the most recent in a long line of perceived betrayals committed by Grandma’s House igxm “professional” relative caregivers It reinforced a caste system within the department ifar encourages the subordination of “clients" who are perceived not to “ do anything” of value by “professionals” who, according to relative caregivers, are sometimes rewarded fix’ doing little more And it forced grandparents to came to terms, again, with the feet that Grandma’s House is simply an extension of “the System,” rather than die oasis it promised to be. As one empathedc 279 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Grandma's House social worker put it, “As far as the grandparents are concerned there’ s been a breach of trust.’ ’ Ironically, many ofthe Grandma’s House social workers I met share the grandparents’ goals for the program. Notes social worker Jonathan Flax, fir example: The reason I moved . . . to Grandma’ s House [from the Adoptions Division] was to empower the families- Knowledge is power and most of our families feel very Ju-empowerad. And my goal is to give them the power and support through information, so that they don’ t have to put up with what we put them through Which, to me, is traumatizing the children over and over again. .. . But the bottom line is empower families so that they don’ t have to be hurt by the bureaucrats. That's the bottom line. What prevents Grandma’s House from achieving these goals, according to Jonathan, is die following: “We are a public agency. We are the only— 1 believe, die only-public agency in the country Therefore, we have different standards that we have to deal with." These “standards” include limited funding and the massive bureaucratic complex that is the Los Angeles County child welfare system. Many social workers I met appreciate relative caregivers’ contributions to Grandma’s House-and their frustrations with “the System.” After aQ , social workers are constrained by some ofthe same bureaucratic mechanisms binding grandparents. Thus, while some social workers may be unwilling to develop the kind of congenial relationships relative caregivers prefer, “the System” is not monolithic nor can the attitreles and behaviors of some social workers be generalized to all. As the debates among the social workers about the Juneteenth picnic suggest, there is a wide range of perspectives and approaches to the practice of social work. Indeed and as noted in the previous chapter, it is often the strength— or weakness— of the relationship with a single social worker that can make a big difference fra- a relative caregiver, as the following account illustrates. 280 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Saving Grace During a break at the Grandma's House Kinship Advocacy Conference in Culver City, Angela Valentine and Ann Simpson stood outside with three other relative caregivers and Grandma's House social worker, Marveia King. From a distance the group appeared to be comforting one of the women, Marvela had her arm wrapped around the woman's shoulders I made my way over to the group, said “Hello” to Angela and Ann and gave them a questioning look that conveyed my concern for the distressed woman “That's [Grace Edwards],” Angela whispered discreetly taking a step back from the group. “Ho-daughter just died and she's totally overwhelmed. I missed most of [Annie Fairchild's] speech this morning because I was with [Grace] in the ladies' room,” Angela said, referring to the site of many intense interactions that day. Angela told me that Grace had been raising her daughter’s oldest child as a “formal” relative caregiver m the child welfare system But when her daughter died the issue of reunification became moot and the social worker closed the case. This meant that Grace’s grandchild no longer was eligible for the services provided through the foster care system In addition, the child’s social worker referred Grace to the SSI program where she learned her granddaughter would receive only a fraction of the “Youakim” payments she qualified for through DCFS. Making matters worse, Grace suddenly became responsible for taking care of her daughter's other children who, for same unexplained reason, had lived with their mother until the time of her death Grace’s small apartment was inadequate to house her suddenly large family so she was forced to find a new place to live. Grace told Angela she'd spent the bulk of her savings burying her daughter and didn't know how die would possibly make ends meet. 281 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Marveia King called Angela and me to jom the small group. She asked us to make a a id e to pray for Grace. The seven of us stood together, heads bowed and holding hands, while Marveia prayed for tbe Lord to provide a "Red Sea mirade." Grace Edwards needed the grace of God to help her get the money she needed for the deposit on an apartment. Marveia prayed that God might lighten the spirit of the landlord to help him find a way to give Grace a break. Several o f die women wept quietly throughout Marveia's prayer and I watched as tears fell like a rare June ram shower forming a ring an the ground around our feet. Marveia concluded her prayer and wrote an a piece of scrap paper a “spiritual prescription" made up of several chapters from the book of Psalms I'd seen Marveia do this once before for a friend who was a mother struggling together life back together and her children out ofthe dependency system. Handing the prescription to Grace, Marveia advised, “The Lord asked me to give this to you. Read these scriptures every day for thirty days." Grace thanked Marveia as grateful tears streamed down her face. Angela, Ann and the other women ministered to Grace as weO. Angela asked her what else she needed, “other than our prayers." Crymg, Grace managed to say, “I need everything Food. Abed Diapers.” One of die women I did not know said she had a “freezer full of food" she could drop off at Grace's that night “I have a twin bed" added Angela. “Do you have a crib? Because I have a crib you can use,” offered Arm. “What size are the older kids?" die asked. “They're six and seven,” responded Grace. 282 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Oh great. Because mme are seven and eight. We have tons of stuff that I couldn’ t brmg myself to throw away because I thought someone else might need i . Now I know why I saved it.” The women exchanged addresses and telephone numbers and made plans to drop off items for Grace's grandchildren. 1 watched, touched and amazed, as Angela gave the contents o f her wallet to Grace and told her where she could find inexpensive but good-quality diapers. Grace appeared to be overcome with gnef, relief and gratitude “I’m not trying to beg,” she stuttered, trying to catch her breath between sobs. Angela, crying herself, assured Grace they once had been in the same position. “We’ve all been here,” she said, “and we’re just glad we're now able to return the favor And once you’re bade on your feet you’ll be able to help the next person who comes along.” Conclusions We are senior citizens but we're not mentally gone. People keep saying we're too old. We are not people that can’ t function in raising the grandchildren. It’s just that we need resources. Put the resources in the house. If there's diapers that can be delivered— deliver the diapers If there’s formula, there’s special formula that can be delivered— deliver it If there’s medication that can be delivered and you don’ t have to go to Children’s Hospital to the pharmacy— deliver the medication If somebody can cone in this house and help you with combing hair and help you with bed-making and stuff-put that resource in the house. . . . Put-it-in-to-the- house! Then that gives the children the safety they all keep talking about and all the quality care they all keep talking about. - Harriet Jackson The generosity and kindness of grandmothers like Angela Valentine and social workers like Marvela King can ease the pain of a relative caregiver in crisis-like Grace Edwards. But as Harriet Jackson suggests in the epigraph above, the dependency system foils to provide fundamental resources and support on a systematic basis that could make a fundamental difference for relative caregivers. 283 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The development o f kinship care m the child welfare system is an die one hand a formal recognition of the valuable contributions of extended family members to children removed from their biological parents. On the other hand, the policies and practices that prohibit kinship care families from receiving the same benefits and status as unrelated foster families reflect the belief that mothers— and grandmothers by extenswn-generally should not be “paid" for taking care of children. P rofessional “strangers” m contrast, are more “deserving” of pay since caring for foster children is in a sense their vocation. However, foster care benefits technically support the child, not the caregiver Furthermore, and to quote Marveia King from a Regional Kinship Meetmg in March 1999, “We need to dispel the myth that foster parents [and relative caregivers] are in the system to get rich. 'Cause it's just not enough money!” Nevertheless, whereas foster parents are compensated as workers, relative caregivers are expected to assume the burden caused by their adult children's failures as parents, simply by virtue of their biological ties. Indeed, some believe that relative caregivers felled m their own responsibilities as parents and therefore owe it to society to atone for their sins. More typically, however, societal perceptions of relative caregivers remain on the “warm and fuzzy” side, a steady stream of media reports praising relative caregivers fix' their selfless contributions to the family help to maintain this perception. It is when relative caregivers expect or require support for this unanticipated role that they run into resistance Like the “country dub grandmothers” (described in Chapter Three) who are criticized for receiving welfare benefits for raising grandchildren oittside of the child welfare system, relative caregivers in the system confront a similar stigma. The complaints lodged against both “informal” and “formal” relative caregivers derive from the common perception that 284 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “family should do for family” without relymg on outside public— especially governmental— support. Yet state and federal policies that refuse to treat relative caregivers as foster parent- equivalents, passing them off to the traditional system of “family care” (i.e., the welfare system), serve to undermine the very goals o f child welfare: safety and permanency. Far from being “lazy” “welfare queens” who presumably line their own pockets with a welfare (or foster care) windfall, relative caregivers generally struggle to provide for their grandchildren indeed, relative caregivers m the foster care system are models of ingenuity and self-determination, finding resources for their grandchildren in spite of die institutional barriers constructed by the system. The Juneteenth picnic and the events following shortly thereafter capture die paradoxes that characterize the relationship between relative caregivers and the dependency system. On the one hand, the DCFS wanted to publicly recognize the valuable services provided by relative caregivers and reward them with the “gift” of a family picnic. On the other hand, because this “gift” came wrapped m the bureaucratic trappings of a formal program more suited for strangers, it was unmvitmg to caregrvers who tend to prefer a more personal approach It is not my point m this chapter to mahgp the particular social workers with whom I disagreed regarding their policies for the juneteenth picnic. Instead, I mean to illustrate yet another way in which the informality of family caregivmg clashes with the formality of die foster care system. I attempt to embed a critique of child welfare policy withm a story that demonstrates the complex ways in which policies are translated into practice. Although I argue that the system as a whole disenfranchises relative caregivers, this cannot be said of all 285 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the social workers, judges and attorneys who work w itfam it. Indeed, the Marveia Kings and the Amne Fairchilds of the child welfare system— just to name two among many remarkable individuals m the dependency system— demonstrate that it cannot be understood or condemned as a monolithic entity However, that these social workers persevere in the dependency system is remarkable m itself smce the bureaucratic demands of the institution compels social workers to function in ways that are abrupt, legalistic and highly formal. The rapid turnover in the profession suggests the devitalizing effects of “ the System" on social workers as well. Thus, the story of Juneteenth is a story of the ambiguous relationship relative caregivers have with “ the System.” Not quite “professionals," relative caregrvers are relegated to the status of “client" whereby they lack access to resources easily obtained by others with more clout m the child welfare system. But the grandparents I describe in this chapter are no longer simply “grandparents" either. Through the process of becoming actively involved in the dependency system, they have developed skills and expertise they are eager to share. As a result, they become frustrated w g fa they confront the impersonal, bureaucratic character of a system that makes an exclusive hierarchy the norm and collaboration the exception. 2 8 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - INTERLUDE- ADOPTION DAYS AT THE DCFS Raising a fam ily is a choice to take on one o f life s most rewarding challenges, to be responsible fo r the nurturing and development o f a new generation, and to participate in what can be one o f life's most satisfying experiences. For those with heart, desire, and patience, choosing to adopt a child is also an opportunity to create a new and promisingfuture fo r a child who otherwise might not have one. It is an opportunity to acquire new wisdom and to experience the delight and love a child can bring into your life. And it is an opportunity to contribute something o f lasting value to the future o f the entire community. — Department of Children and Family Services Adoptions Division Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Them that's got. shall get. Them that s not. shall lose. So the Bible says, and it still is news. Mama may have. Papa may have. But God bless the child dun’ s got fas own. So sang Pamela Black, a staff member of Grandma’s House, n a glorious gospel rendition of the Billie Holiday classic, “God Bless the Child.” Pamela's operatic voice dazzled the several hundred kmship caregivers, foster parents and social workers gathered together for hmch at the June 1999 Department of Children and Family Services Kmshqi Advocacy Conference m Baldwin Park, California. Pamela's performance served as the opening act for the plenary address from Peter Digre, the then-Directorofthe Los Angeles County DCFS. Elaborating an die conference theme, “Keeping the Ties That Bind,” Digre used the occasion in typical fashion to speak to the group about the importance of a permanent family for every child. “One of the reasons for these conferences is to talk about die possibility of adoption,” noted Digre for die predominantly African American and Latino crowd. As Peter Digre began to describe the benefits of the Adoption Assistance Program for adoptive parents of foster children, an African American woman at the table at which 1 sat whispered imtatedly, “A m I at the right place9 What's all this stuff about adoption? I'm not here to adopt.” “For many years we assumed that relatives woukki't be interested in adopting,” Digre continued, “and this is true of many for many good reasons ” “That’s right,” agreed the annoyed woman under her breath. “[But] many are deciding they don’ t want to go to court and [deal with] lawyers. They think they’ll live just fine without the Children’s Social Worker visiting every month. 288 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. And they think they could do better living on their own as a private independent family,” he aHriaH A third woman at the table-also African American— nodded her bead m silent agreement with the Director. Other caregivers around the room responded e nthusiastically to Digre’ s comments. “We want to grve information on adoption so that relatives can make their own informed decisions in their own hearts,” concluded Digre. Preventing Charles Manson Earlier that morning 1 attended a conference session designed to do just that. Two social workers from the DCFS Adoptions Division1 7 1 provided information an adoption and die Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) to approximately 30 foster parents, relative caregivers and DCFS staff. One of the social workers began her presentation with a moral tale She described die life of a man who spent his childhood bouncing from one foster home to the next. By the time he was an adult, he had lived in 1 4 separate placements. The man, who is now in prison, apparently endured repeated rejections by his mother. As a foster child, “he used to dress every day and wait for his mother to visit— and she never came,” noted the social worker lamentably “That man's name is Charles Manson,” the social worker revealed dramatically to the audience. : 7 1 As noted in Chapter Four, the Adoptions Division is the unit within the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services dedicated to the identification and investigation of potential adoptive families for foster children. According to a department brochure, the DCFS Adoptions Division is the second largest public adoption agency in the United States (D C F S Public Information Office circa 1997). 289 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The moral of the story, accordmg to the social worker, is that the child welfare system must do everything it can to provide each child with a permanent, adoptive family, lest that child “turn into” a mass murderer like Charles Mansan. “It is so im portant to have a permanent plan,” explained the social worker, her voice trembling with emotion as she spoke. “If we can’ t reunify— which is our first choice— then we have to have a back-up plan. We can't wait until it’s dear that they won’ t be reunified to hustle to find a placement, h could take years, and by then the child might not be adoptable because he’s too old. And, God forbid, the child turns into Charles Manson.” The social worker's story, similar to— if less dramatic than-that told by many child welfare advocates, relies an evidence of poor outcomes for children who grow up in long-term foster care. A recent, national survey of “emancipated” foster children found that as young adults, they were less likely to have a high school diploma (or the equivalent) and more likely to be unemployed and receiving welfare than their counterparts m the general population (Cook 1997; see also Barth 1990; Cook et al. 1990; Cook etal. 1991, Benedict, Zuravin, and Stallings 1996; Fagnom 1999; Romo 1999). Many foster children have physical and mental health problems they carry with them into adulthood as well. To counter this problem, the child welfare system has begun emphasizing adoption as a way to establish a permanent family for a child who might otherwise “emancipate” from the foster care system at age 18 without any family ties. “It's die goal we are all working toward,” noted die second presenting social worker, describing the expeditious placement of foster children in adoptive homes. Yet reality often falls short of this goal. According to the two social workers, an adoption within the dependency system takes a “m inim um of six m onths” to complete and die 290 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dock does not start ticking until parental rights are tennmated-and this step alone may take months or years to complete. More often the process takes much longer.1 7 2 An analysis of adoptions m California during FY 1994-95 found that nine of every ten children adopted out of the child welfare system spent at least 1 8 months m foster care prior to being adopted, dose to half (46%) spent more than three years in foster care prior to adoptive placement (CDSS-ISB n.d.). “ That bathers me,” commented one of the social workers regarding the lengthy delays. “Me too," agreed the other, “I don’ t know why it takes so long." The Rise of Kinship Adoption During his plenary address at the Kinship Advocacy Conference, DCFS Director Peter Digre happily announced a significant increase in the number of children adopted out of the foster care system. Evidence of the success of the California Adoptions Initiative— a campaign started by former Governor Pete Wilson to move more children out of foster care into adoptive homes— Digre’s report reflected a statewide pattern. A 1999 summary of the first three years of the Adoptions Initiative claimed an 88% increase in the number of foster 1 7 2 One of the steps in the process of adopting, according to a “factshcet" published by the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, is “Be prepared to wait" According to the publication. "If you want to adopt a Caucasian infant you will probably have to wait at least 1 year from the time the home study is completed, and more frequently 2 to 5 years. Applicants wishing to adopt African American infants m ay have a shorter wait probably less than six m onths. . . . For am type of adoption, even after a child is found, you m ay have to wait weeks or months while final arrangem ents are made" (NAIC 1999: “A doption: Where do I snutT’ ). 291 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. children adopted, including a 42% increase in the rate of adoptions o f foster children m long term placements (CDSS circa 1999).1 7 3 Ptter Digre emphasized in his address that nearly half of the foster children adopted out of tbe child welfare system m the previous year were adopted by relatives. This is consistent with a statewide trend which has seen increases in the number o f kinship adoptions over the last 15 years. The California Department o f Social Services recently reported, for example, that the number of foster children adopted by km almost quadrupled in the six years from FY 1985-86 to 1991-92 (from 275 to 996 children). The percentage of kinship-foster care adoptions in California increased during this time as well. Nearly 13% of all foster children adopted in 1986 were adopted by kin; by 1993, the percentage of kinship care adoptions more than doubled to 27.3% (Magruder 1994). According to the DCFS Director’s comments at die Kinship Advocacy conference, this percentage doubled again by 1999, in Los Angeles County, at least While the rate of adoptions by ldn and non-kin has increased rapidly, especially in the late 1 990s, it has not been able to keep pace with the number of children legally “freed” for adoption.1 7 4 As DCFS and dependency court policy moves more in the direction of time- limited reunification services and the termination of parental rights, more and more foster 1 7 3 The total number of foster care adoptions has grown steadily since the Adoption Assistance and Child W elfare Act of 1980. In 1981. kin and non-kin adopted approximately 1.500 foster children in California (Barth, Brooks and Iyer 1995; see also Magruder 1994). By 1998. an estimated 4.300 children left the foster care system for an adoptive home (NAIC: “Finalized Adoptions from Foster Care") The rate of faster care adoptions in California has sped up considerably since the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and the California Adoptions Initiative. See also R ainey 2000a. 1 7 4 Note: the term “legally freed” is used by the Department of Children and Family Services and others to describe legal arphans-children whose parents' rights are terminated and who are awaiting an adoptive family 292 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. children become available for adoption each year. According to the Department of Children and Family Services Adoptions Division, at any given time approximately 300 foster children in Los Angeles County are available for adoption (DCFS Adoptions Division n .< L ); more than 8400 foster children in California were “freed” for adoption during FY 1998-99— a 60% increase over the previous fiscal year (CDSS circa 1999). “Adoption Saturday”: “More, Better and Faster” DCFS Adoptions hi the summer of 1997, the Public Counsel Law Center (Public Counsel), the largest pro bono law firm in Los Angeles and the United States, and foe Alliance for Children's Rights (Alliance), a non-profit organization that advocates on behalf of poor children, responded to a request for help from Michael Nash, the then-Presiding Judge of foe juvenile court. Judge Nash sought help for foe court— and for the Department of Children and Family Services, which struggled to keep up with its rapidly expanding Adoptions Division caseload. Foster children and their adoptive parents waited in legal limbo, often for several years, before their adoptions became final (Hall, 2000). This was because the system lacked an adequate number of staff to process adoption paperwork1 7 5 and too few adoptive parents of foster children could afford to retain a private attorney who might be able to move the process along. 1 7 5 W hile each case is unique, an adoption through the Department of Children and Family Services A doptions Division may include the following foe paperwork: Petition for A doption (Judicial Council form Adopt-200). Petitioner Consent and Agreement to Adoption (Judicial Council form A D O PT-210). Adoption Petition— Consent and Joinder (CDSS form AD 824). A ccounting Report-Adoptions (Judicial Council form ADOPT-230). Consent to Adoption f a y Parent in California (C D S S form AD 165). Physician's Examination of Adoption Appbcant/Ftoitiooer (CDSS form AD 524). Request for Adoption Assistance (CDSS form AAP I). Eligibility Certification— Adoption Assistance Program (CDSS form AAP 4), Adoption Assistance A greement (C D S S form A D 4320). A gency Adoption Program— Individual Case Repot (CD SS form AD 4241), the DCFS Adoptions Division hone study report and/or documents verifying the termination or relinquishment of parental rights. 293 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These delays led to a backlog in 1997 of an estimated 2000 foster children with pending adoptions (Palermo 1997).1 7 6 Contributing their services as attorneys and community organizers, Public Counsel and tbe Alliance recruited lawyers m the Los Angeles legal community to volunteer their time to help process the paperwork for the hundreds o f foster children waiting for adoptions to become final'7 7 Steven Meiers was one of those attorneys A partner of one of the largest law firms in Los Angeles, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (GD&C), Meiers ventured far afield from his usual corporate legal practice to help with die Alliance's Foster Children Adoption Project He offered to take responsibility for processing the paperwork for 30 foster children and enlisted die help of his colleagues at GD&C. Meiers describes his initial experience with the project: It only took me an hour [to complete the paperwork for a case], and I dkta’ t know what I was doing, because I’m a corporate lawyer and I don’ t know the ins and outs of adoption. And then it hit me that we were doing this all wrong. . . . We should get DCFS personnel en masse at our office. We should get adoptive parents ert masse at our office And we should get someone from the court at our office. And we should work together to do the paperwork. While working with the other volunteers from his firm, Meiers learned that many of the DCFS adoption files were complete but just as many had inaccuracies or were missing vital information. Meiers believed that these problems constituted a major part of the delay m 1 7 6 This is a conservative estimate, provided by an attorney from the Public Counsel Law Center. Department of Children and Family Services data for 1999 indicate that more than 9.000 foster children are in the Adoptions Division: 2.740 children have pending adoptions, another 2,452 foster children are legally freed and awaiting adoptive placement, and nearly 4000 more are currently in the process of having their parents’ rights terminated (DCFS 1 9 9 9 ). 1 7 7 The Weingart Foundation also provided the Alliance for Children’ s Rights with a $50,000 grant to support its Foster Children Adoption Project (Weingart Foundation 1998). 294 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. completing adoptions through the department- He reasoned that if lawyers, social workers and adoptive parents could come together m a mass paperwork session, their combined perspectives and expertise would make it easier to fill in the gaps in any incomplete files. Workmg together they could finalize hundreds of files in a fraction of the time it took to process them through normal, independent means. “This isn’ t brain surgery,” Meiers quipped, but “yon have to push die government because it's as slow as molasses ” Meiers’ assembly-line approach caught on and eventually evolved into a large, two- step operation called the "Sara Berman Adoption Saturday” project.1 7 1 Several times a year, hundreds of volunteer attorneys and staff from GD&C and other Los Angeles law firms, working with adoption agents from the dependency system and attorneys for the Alliance and Public Counsel, spend the greater part of a weekend day processing die legal paperwork for hundreds of foster children. A few weeks later, the Edmund D. Edebnan Children's Court opens its courtrooms in a special Saturday session to conduct the adoption confirmation hearings. This approach allows glitches in the process to be dealt with immediately and can cut months or years off the amount of time needed to finalize an adoption (Mol 1998). h its first year, the Adoption Saturday project oversaw the completion of 1,800 adoptions according to Presiding Judge Michael Nash, and an estimated 3,000 adoptions took place in the year 2000 (Hall 2000). The program's success is widely praised and saves as a model for other dependency systems in the country. In 1999, fix’ example, the Adoption Saturday project received a Public Service Excellence Award from the Public Employees m "Adoptions Saturday” was re-named for the late Sara Berman, former director of the Department of Children and Family Services Adoptions Division. Berman died in 1998 in an automobile accident (Oliver 1998). 295 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Roundtable, a non-profit organization supporting careers in public service (Public Employees Roundtable 1999). Adoption Day at the C U drea's Court In April 1999,1 observed a smaHer-scaie, weekday “ Adoption Day” that finalized the adoptions of 51 children in the Los Angeles Coimty dependency system (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 1999). Steven Meiers, whom I'd met the previous fail at a Los Angeles County juvenile court conference where he spoke about his involvement in Adoption Saturday (Meiers etal. 1998), told me about the event and invited me to attend. I arrived at the Children’s Court on a Tuesday morning and proceeded to the 5 t h floor to Presiding Judge Michael Nash's courtroom. A friendly greeter surprised me as I exited the elevator lobby; he seemed to be welcoming each arrival, and he offered pre-printed name tags to die media, attorneys and other volunteer professionals. Happy children played or sat with large groups of doting adults, presumably the friends and family members of adoptive parents. Volunteers clustered in the comer of the waiting room for an energetic briefing by Jeanine McKeown, the manager of Paralegal Services at GD&C and the well-organized coordinator of the event. Smiles and laughter abounded in the waiting room. Notably absent were die tears, short tempers, and smelly diapers that permeated the room when I visited the courthouse with Shadena Franklin several months earlier. Judge Nash’s courtroom, devoted exclusively to conducting Adoption Day confirmations that morning, was the only courtroom in operation on the floor. Thus, the waiting room was also relatively unaowded and quiet. Unlike my previous visit to the Children’s Court when die anxiety in the waiting room was palpable, the atmosphere on this particular day was more like a church reception. Proud children dressed in 296 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. their Sunday best could be mistaken for children celebrating a religious— rather than an adoption— confirmation. If someone assigned to another courtroom on another floor wandered into this high-spirited group, they might wander, “What in God's name is going an?” Confidentiality, Revisited Since I had ex pressed an interest in better understanding the process, Steven Meiers invited me to join him in Judge Nash's courtroom to observe an adoption confirmation. We walked into the courtroom and faced the gentle smiles of 100 teddy bears lined up on the judge's bench. A video camera mounted on a tnpod stood in the comer of the courtroom— a conspicuous anomaly in a courtroom normally bound by strict canfidentialky rales. Steven motioned for me to jom him at one of the tables m front of Judge Nash and introduced me to the judge as a “student from ‘SC .” Although another judge admitted me to Shadena Franklin's guardianship hearing a few months earlier and while “Adoption Day” was a clear departure from standard dependency court procedure, I wondered if Judge Nadi would allow me to stay. As noted wiriier in this dissertation juvenile dependency enurf p mrwadingg1 7 9 am fiiW ia l and closed to the public unless the child, parent or guardian requests that access be granted and/or the judge allows such access (see Los Angeles County Superior Court, Rules of Court 17 .1 and 17.2, W 1C §345-346). Court policies on confidentiality and access to courtroom proceedings are currently under review. Recent repeats ofthe abuse and, in some cases, the deaths of children under 1 7 9 This includes adoption proceedings, as noted by the California Family Code: “All court hearings in an adoption proceeding shall be held in private, and the court shall exclude all persons except the officers of the court the parties, their witnesses, counsel and representatives of the agencies present to perform their official duties under the law governing adoptions (Family Code §8611). 297 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. protective custody and have led to widespread concern that die lack of public oversight of the court allows such tragedies to occur.1 1 0 A 1998 juvenile court commission, led by Judge N ash considered the issue of loosening the rules restricting access. In addition, a bill introduced to the California Legislature in January 2000 would if passed, reverse the “dosed unless opened" policy of the court making open-access the norm (Senate Rules Committee 2000).I S I The same 1998 juvenile court conference at which I met Steven Meiers offered a session entitled “The Media and the Dependency Court: Confidentiality, Press Responsibility and Related Issues” (Bndge et al 1998). htterestmgiy, many of the same players who collaborated on the Adoption Saturday project were on opposing sides of a panel assembled to debate the issue of confidentiality and access to the court. In the session Andrew Bridge, the Director of the Alliance for Children’s Rights, directed sharp criticisms to the court and the DCFS for restricting the rights of all those associated with the dependency system— including but not limited to children, caregivers and social workers— from speaking about a case Neil Rincover, a representative from the Department of Children and Family Services Press Office, defended the department and its policies afrhough he acknowledged some room for reform. ,s n See. for example. Boyer 1999; Endo 1996; Gougis 1998; H ernandez 1996; M alnic 1998; O'Neill 1998a; Rainey 2000b; Rainey 1997; Rainey 199 5 a; Riccardi 1999a; Romo 1998(a-f); and Vanzi 1999 1 8 1 Senate Bill 1 3 9 1 passed the California Stale Senate on M ay 31.2000. Since then, and directly in response to the bill, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services instructed the California Department of Social Services to “carefully consider the federal confidentiality requirements in designing open courts or nskjeopanfeing [approximately S1.5 billion in yearly] federal funds for Titles IV -B and IV-E. as w e O as C A PTA [Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Actp (Iscri 2000). Supporters of SB 1391 include the County of Los Angeles, the Judicial Council of California, the Association of Federal. State, and Mumripal Employees, as well as several organizations that lo b b y on behalf of children and the press. The National Association of Social W orkers and the Youth L aw Center oppose the bin. A s of Jane 2001. the legislature has taken no further action c m the bill. 298 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For his part. Judge Michael Nash provided a balanced and historical overview ofthe debate on confidentiality and access, concluding that “openness ts a good dung for the system. ”'c Perhaps in this spirit of “openness,” Judge Nash welcomed me into his courtroom and allowed me to stay for the adoption confirmation hearing Sitting around the other table in front of the judge were five Latino children, a Latina woman and a white couple; a few more adults and children sat in die back ofthe courtroom. Judge Nash in mock seriousness declared that the proceedings could not begin until the children completed a very important task. He instructed them to approach the bench to “adopt” their very own teddy bears. As the children set about this task, one ofthe younger girls in a tiny voice asked Judge Nash if she could take another bear for her brother who was sitting in die back ofthe room. The judge srmled aid granted her request. In the next few moments we learned from the judge that the children were siblings and that the Latina woman— the children’s grandmother-planned to adopt four of them The fifth child— the young girl who asked for the extra bear— Irved m a foster home with the white couple who were to about become her new adoptive parents. The bailiff conducted the procedure for “swearing-in” the adoptive parents who then testified to their intentions to IC Ai a follow-up session at the Los Angeles C ounty juvenile court conference a year later. A ndrew Bridge provided copies of correspondence between the Alliance and Michael N ash. In a letter dated February 24. 1 9 98. the Alliance asked the Presiding Judge to repeal Los Angeles County Rule of Court 17.2(e) regarding restricted media access to the dependency court claiming it an unconstitutional “ prior restraint” on speech (Bridge, et a L , 1999; Bridge. 1998). Apparently the Alliance's (and others') efforts paid off: as of May. 1999, L ocal Rule 17.2(e) is no longer on the books. [Note: a “prior restraint” is defined as “a governmental restrictioii cm speech or p ublic ation before its actual expression; prior restraints violate the First Amendment unless the speech is either obscene or defamatory, or creates a dear and present danger to society” (Garner 1996:500).] 299 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. assume the parental responsibilities for their adoptive children).1 1 3 Once the judge finished briefly reviewing the legal responsibilities of parenthood he issued a decree that made the adoption official. The extended family of nine, including the young girl's adoptive brother, posed for a picture with Judge Nash, holding their bears and crisp “Certificates of Family Membership.” The new father smiled for the camera through joyful tears, comforted by his wife. The judge answered a few procedural questions and let the family know they would receive a free videotape ofthe ceremony. And with that the children and their parents were free to go, released firm the supervision of the dependency court and the Department of Children and Family Services. The beaming grandm other and new mother of four declared with relief “We thought we were never going to see this day.” Steven Meiers and I left the courtroom while Judge Nash prepared for die next confirmation hearing. When die courtroom door opened I was surprised to find in the waiting room a dozen or so people dancing to music and following the commands of an aerobics instructor. Noticing my apparent confusion, Jennifer DeWitt, an attorney, exp lamed that lawyers and social workers often work out during their hmch breaks. “You need it,” commented Jennifer, to release built-up tension and to compensate for the stress that comes with working at the dependency court. 10 An adoptive parent must testify on an adoption petition to his or her intention to do the following: “Support and care property for the child The welfare of the child will be served and the child's best interest promoted by this adoption and each petitioner will treat the child in all respects as his or her own lawful child” (Judicial Council of California January 1.2000). 300 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nearby, a large group o f achilts had amassed wtfh one child sitting among them. The young boy, who was the obvious center of the group’ s attention, seemed to enjoy the spotlight. A woman in the group offered the child a piece o f candy asking him, “What do you say0 ” “Thank you," mumbled the child, who looked about seven years old and who appeared to have some difficulty speaking. “Thank you, what?” asked the woman, pronouncing each word carefully and slowly. “Thank you. Mama’ ” he responded, underscoring his enthusiasm and his relationship to the woman. “That’s right! “Thank you, Mama,'" said the woman, smiling and hugging her soon- to-be son. “Ruby Miller" Ruby M iller looks like a woman who carries the weight o f the world on her shoulders. Strong and sturdy but tired from the effort. Ruby has had to bear more burdens in the last decade than most people do in a lifetime. Ruby was the mother o f seven boys, bom across a span o f nearly twenty years. But now her children only range in age from 20 to 33. since her oldest and youngest sons died Ruby s oldest child Robert Jr.. died a senseless death. He got him self mixed up with the wrong crowd and died over a S50 debt. Ruby s baby son, Joseph, was murdered two weeks after his high school graduation. In the wrong place at the wrong time, Joseph was the innocent victim o f a dnve-by shooting. 301 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Robert Jr. left behind an unborn son. His girlfriend had a problem with drugs. and she used them die whole time she was pregnant. The baby was bom with cocaine in his system and a social worker called Ruby down to the hospital to pick up the baby when he was ju st four hours old. While still mourning the loss o f Joseph and Robert Jr.. Ruby prepared to raise her dead son s baby boy as i f he were her own. Robert and Joseph s passing and the baby s homecoming had profound effects on the Miller fam ily. Because o f the chugs, the baby had some problems developing his motor skills and required a lot o f special attention. Ruby s husband a retired county employee, couldn t handle it all so he left the fam ily to cope on their own. Not too long after Robert Jr. s baby was bom. Ruby s middle son. William, got fas girlfriend pregnant. This woman was a drug user too. but she was able to keep it together while she was pregnant. After the baby was bom though, she decided she loved drug? more than being a mother. So she called Ruby to come pick up her g r a n d d a u g h te r Ruby respects her decision. “ A lot o f mothers would keep the kidfor the welfare money. ” contended Ruby. "But she didn t do that. She was responsible. ” It is hard to imagine how Ruby has survived the heartache. “ God has seen me through. " she explains, with patient tempered optimism. She credits her fortitude to the Church and to a good counselor— and to keeping busy so that other things can occupy her mind But anyone who comes to know Ruby, even ju st a little bit. knows that she deserves a lot o fth e credit 302 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fo r herfam ily's perseverence. For Ruby can see new life where others see only death, and that is a wonder in itse lf As I waited for the next adoption confirmation hearing to begm, I took an open seat next to a middle-aged African American woman. She said hello and we introduced ourselves and rhattpH about the unusual goings-on at the courthouse that morning. The woman tokl me her name was Ruby Miller and that she was there to adopt her granddaughter, Laurel. I told Ruby about my research and she told me about the events leading up to this day. Ruby adopted her grandson about a year after her oldest son's death, it took that long for the court to terminate the mother’s parental rights, h was a slower process for her granddaughter, however, whose mother and father voluntarily relinquished their child to die care of Ruby and the custody ofthe dependency court. According to Ruby, the judge was hesitant to terminate the rights ofthe mother in particular, giving her every chance to change her mind and reassume responsibility for Laurel. “She never did change her mmd,” said Ruby. Nor did Ruby’s son, although he does remain involved in his daughter’s life to a limited extent. The bailiff called Ruby Miller and her granddaughter to Judge Nash’s courtroom. Steven Meiers gestured for me to Join him again and I asked Ruby if it would be all right if I observed the confirmation hearing. She invited me to attend so the four of us entered the courtroom together. Ruby's granddaughter’s eyes opened wide when she saw the teddy bears lining die Judge’s bench. Although she had been in many courtrooms in her short life, apparently die had never seen a courtroom like this one before. 303 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Once everyone was seated inside, Nash began the hearing again by asking Laurel to adopt a teddy bear. After she found one sbe liked and returned to the table where ber grandmother sat, Judge Nadi commenced the same simple yet meaningful confirmation process. Ruby cned quietly throughout the bearing, dabbing her eyes with tissues from a box on the table, added since the last hearing presumably fix this purpose. When the bearing concluded, I followed Ruby and Laurel out of the courtroom. As Ruby passed the last row of seats m the back of the room, an African American woman whom I recognized as a social worker from the DCFS Kinship Division stopped Ruby and shook her hand. The social worker— who is a kinship caregiver herself— looked at Ruby with an empatiuc expression and said, “I know you by name but not by face I just wanted to say ‘Congratulations1 I know it has been a hard path for you to get here ” “Adoption Saturday” is a bright exception to the general rule that shapes most experiences at the Children's Court. Certainly not all encounters at die courthouse are wrought with the pain of learning one's child or grandchild could be adopted by another family, or the anxiety about a judge’s decision regarding the placement of a grandchild, or the frustration of not being allowed to speak in court— experiences not uncommon to relative caregivers and described earlier m this dissertation. And while same visits to the court are relatively hassle-free, such as those conation to veteran relative caregivers, such as Shadena Franklin, rarely are Children’s Court hearings described as jubilant affairs More often, grandmothers speak of their experiences mthe Children's Court with a mix of bewilderment, frustration and dread, indeed, attorney Steven Meiers captures the stark contrast between the modus operand! of the dependency court and “Adoption Saturday”: 304 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The [Adoption Saturday] confirmation bearings are parties. They’re not contested because the biological parent isn't there. They are joyous occasions, not like the typical courtroom where there’s a winner or loser. . .. We make it a party with balloons, lots of food, and the press. While balloons and a large media presence were absent from this particular mid week Adoption Day, it is fair to say that the atmosphere was a festive one. Furthermore, all those in attendance— from the volunteer attorneys, to the DCFS social workers, to the adoptive parents and grandparents— seemed to agree that adoption was the best thing for the foster children present. Not all relative caregivers m the dependency system are eager to adopt, however Indeed, adopting one’s grandchild is always a complex decision and often a reluctant one. Those who choose to adopt do so for many different reasons, and some grandparents come to the conclusion that adoption is not the best option fix their families. As I will explain in the following chapter, the child welfare system’s recent emphasis on finding a permanent-and preferably adoptive-home for every foster child complicates grandparents' decisions about establishing “permanency” for their foster-grandchildren 305 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - SEVEN - THE POLITICS OF ADOPTION The Department s stance is. we look at long-term foster care as no real commitment. As. 7 7/ keep this child until something goes wrong.' With [adoption] and guardianship you 're taking more responsibility. — Marvda King, DCFS social worker And we as relatives feel, why should we adopt our kids? They ’ re our family. . . . Children that need a permanent home— I m all fo r it. I'm not opposing them getting a permanent home. But I'm saying children that have a family, like me— there s no reason why any o f my grandchildren should be adopted — Harriet Jackson, relative caregiver I chose adoption because I wanted the hell out o f ‘ the System .' — Angela Valentine, relative caregiver 306 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To Adopt or Not to Adopt? That is the question for granc^iarents raising grandchildren— especially those caring for foster children m the dependency system. Whether posed by the Adoptions Division of the Department of Children and Family Services or driven by personal circumstance, most relative caregivers eventually grapple with this question. For some, like grandmothers Ruby Miller and Dee Dee Davis, the decision to adopt followed the death of their adult child and parent of their grandchildren Both women described wanting to adopt out of a sense of responsibility to their grandchildren and so that they could maintain their children's legacies. 'i'm going to do the best that I can for my daughter,” explained Dee Dee Davis, regarding her desire to adopt her granddaughter, Krystal. “So that my daughter can be peaceful," she added wistfully Ruby Miller was equally resolute about raising her grandson after her elder son's death. When I asked if the maternal grandparents expressed any interest m raising their grandson. Ruby responded, “No. But I wouldn't have let them.” Although rooted in tragedy, adoption is sometimes simpler when the parent has passed away. Especially when no one else is willing to raise the child, die process is unhampered by potential conflict with angry parents who oppose the adoption of their children. The latter happens with same frequency according to the findings of the Governor’s Adoptions Initiative, as well as many ofthe grandparents I interviewed. According to the latter, hostile parents may accuse adoptive grandparents of “stealing” their children and respond by trying to make life bell for grandparents. 307 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Angela Valentine moved from New York to Los Angeles and eventually adopted her four granddaughters with her friend and new husband, Tom. She describes the children’s parents’ reactions to this decision: Well you know, at that time, it was like him and her were against me. [The father] was so upset with me that, you know, I had die kids. And it’s what we as relative caregivers pretty much all go through. You know, [the parents] wind up blaming everything on us. it’s our fault. You know, “ You’re just trying to take my Idds.” Considering the prospect of trying to “take” her daughter’s children to be absurd, Angela added, laughing: You know, it’s like, right. I had no life and I said, [Tom] and I called up each other and said, “ “ What are you doing this weekend? Oh nothing? Well, let s take [Chandra 'sj kids\ What should we do? Take her ktds\" Rather than seeking to take something— or someone— away from one’s adult children, the decision to adopt often requires grandparents to sacrifice a lot Angela Valentine, for example, made considerable sacrifices, not the least o f which was entering into a platonic marriage with her friend, Tom, in order to provide stability for her grandchildren. Tom, a long-time friend o f Angela and a grandfather-equivalent to Angela's grandchildren, assumed more responsibility than most “Active kin” when he agreed to become the children’s legal parent. Angela explains their decision to marry When the adoption tune came along, [Tom and I] just sat down and talked about it and thought about what was gomg to be the best for the kids. What could we do to cover the kids? What happened if something happened to me? Where would they go? What would happen? And that’s when we came up with the concept of getting married. Of not altering our friendship— everything would remain the same. But we would marry to give the kids a family. And that way, if anything happened to me, at least they had him to make a decision of where they would go, or if he was gomg to get help or whatever. That it wouldn’ t be a court making the decision. Strangers making decisions. And rf anything would happen to him, you know, the kids would have Social Security. I would be, you know, we would be okay. So it was a thing for whatever happened. Whether k was him or me or whatever, 308 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. everyone would be okay. And then we got married. And the kids were our flower girls While Angela and Tom's decision to many for the sake o f Angela's grandchildren is undoubtabiy uncommon, that adoption often requires a number o f sacrifices on the part of a grandparent is not. Relative caregiver Harriet Jackson is affiliated with several state, county and private kinship care organizations. Speaking an behalf of many of her peers, she describes one of the problems that can anse when grandparents decide to adopt: That means you’re telling the mother and the father they're no longer going to be the mother and the father That means their motber-the grandmother— has to then tell the mother, “I’m adopting your child.” So then the mother comes in with her little nasty attitude to say, “You’re not adopting my child!” and so, so and so. . . . So grandparents are caught in this vice. The ones that want to adopt are afraid to adopt because it means cutting off their children But we have tire new kinship adoption law. That is a law that means you really don’ t have to sever the parental rights.1 1 4 So there are mote options. . .. But when you’re dealing with a cocaine mother— a woman that is not nice— they don’ t hear options. They don’ t see nothing but the fact you’re taking your kids from them And that's when they start calling all of us bitches and Mother Hubbard and I mean, they talk to us like dogs. They call us up in the middle of the mgbt. Oh, they’re very nasty to us. Ella Dill Fernandes, who raises her nine year old grandson in the foster care system, describes a similar attitude on the part of her daughter, Danielle My daughter is finally kmd of leaving us alone. You think I'm going to go bring up the word “adoption” and have her start threatening and torturing me again? I mean, I said enough. If you guys [the dependency court] terminated her rights and she has no rights, I’D consider it. But if her rights are not terminated, I ’ m not going back into court bringing up anything. Because if 1 1 4 The law Harriet refers to here is Assembly Bill 15 4 4 . chaptered in 1997, which revised sections of the California Family Code. The law establishes the parameters of voluntary, yet binding, "kinship adoption agreements" between adoptive parents, biological parents and children. Although kinship adoptions do. in fact, sever the parental rights of the biological parent, the kinship adoption agreement establishes limited provisions for on-going contact between parents and children. Failure to ascribe to the terms of the agreement does not affect the validity' of the adoption (§8714.5-8715). 309 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. she heard the word “adoption,” she would go right through the ceiling and it would be right back to day one The idea of actively stripping the birth parent's parental rights dissuades many grandparents from adopting their grandchildren. Relative caregivers often describe the hostile reactions o f parents w h o feel th e y a re losing their titles as “Mother" or “Father”— even if they have never assumed the responsibility of a parent While Danielle's potential reaction to losing her parental status is partly responsible for Ella's avoidance of adoption, it may produce the opposite effect in other situations. Indeed, it is often parents' “little nasty attitudes.” as Harriet Jackson pot it, that compel some grandparents to consider adoption. Grandparents raising grandduldren-nifbmially or withm the foster care system— have fewer legal rights than do parents. And when parents are abusive to grandparents and/or threaten to reclaim their children, fearful grandparents may decide to adopt to prevent reckless parents from regaining custody or control of the children. Genie Taylor, a relative caregiver in the San Gabriel Valley, struggled over whether or not she should adopt her foster-grandson, Joey. Among the many issues Genie considered in making this decision were the on-going conflict with her teenage son (and father of Genie's grandson) and her wish to be free from his manipulation Genie explains: I’ve taken so much off my son ‘ cause be knows that 1 can’ t get in any trouble with him, you know. Even though sometimes I’d like to punch him out when he’s like cursing me out or ripping me off and stuff, I can’ t say anything. I don’ t ‘cause I’m so afraid that they’ll go, “Oh, she's not a good mother. Let’s take the baby.” And he knows that He can do anything that he likes Because, you know, because he knows I’m so afraid of losing the baby. Genie’s circumstances were complicated by the feet that her son was still a minor, and a “juvenile delinquent” in the juvenile justice system at that Genie’s son apparently held out his mmonty status and link to the juvenile delinquency comt as a threat according to 310 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Genie, he often threatened to falsely report her for mistreating him or tbe baby Genie lived in fear that one day her son would make good on his threats. If he did, Genie might face a second set of child abuse charges-charges that might be difBcuk to prove false, given her prior experience with the Department o f Children and Family Services (see Chapter Four). Barbra Foote, a grandmother m the Antelope Valley who adopted her two grandchildren out of the dependency system, also sought escape from an over-controlling birth parent: 1 wanted to make sure these children are legally safe. And . . . when we got to court my daughter said, “Mom, don’ t take my kids. Don't adopt them. I'll get better someday.''. . . I didn't thmk she would, but I thought well, you know, as long as they're safe with us, we’ ll do legal guardianship. Well, I went to court to do that and sure enough, the father of the little boy [i .e . Barbra’s grandson] showed up and lied and tried to get custody of him again. And I said, you know, even if he doesn't get custody we're going to have to, [my grandson] is gomg to go through this harangue every so many months with his dad. And you know, this man has a control issue and we’ve got to permanently adopt these children So that's, you know, I said it's not going to change our roles It's not gomg to change our title You know, these are still your children But I need to know that we’re out of the system We don't have some burned out social worker making wrong decisions, or som e new social worker that's uninformed yet. You know, I want to make sure the children are safe Genie and Barbra's comments suggest another critically important and closely related issue driving relative caregivers in die dependency system to adopt— the desire to be free from die dependency system's control. Many grandparents become frustrated with the seemingly unlimited authority of “the System” and see adoption as a way to regain power and independence. Relative caregiver Angela Valentine describes some of the issues involved m ho- decision to adopt: I just wanted them out of the System. I had wound up with a real crazy social worker for about eight months, that I just wanted them out of the System. I did not want to deal with another social worker. I did not want to have to deal with going to court again. I just wanted them out I was tired 311 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and I didn't like the idea of other people making decisions for me-or for these children. Angela's frustration w flfa the foster care system ultimately drove her to adopt her granddaughters. Echomg the comments of DCFS Director Peter Digre at a conference m June 1999, Angela agreed that die (in Digre’s words), “[dxhi’ t] want to go to court and [deal with] lawyers," and thought her family could “live just fine without the Children's Social Worker visiting every month." .Angela, like many other relative caregivers, according to Digre, thought she, Tom, and die girls would be better off “living on their own as a private independent family ” The Adoption Dilemma “You're caught between and betwixt," says Ricardo Vela, describing the adoption dilemma many relative caregivers m the child welfare system find themselves trying to resolve. Ricardo, who has helped his girlfriend, Sabina Martinez, raise seven o f her foster- grandchildren over the last 16 years in Long Beach, captures the essence of this problem: “You don't want to adopt, but you don't want to risk losing the child." Indeed, many grandparents raising grandchildren in the dependency system feel they risk “losing the child” if they choose not to adopt Harriet Jackson explains: Because we do have grandparents that call me and say that, “they’re threatening me to adopt my [grandjchikhen. And if I don’ t adopt my [grand]children, they're going into a foster home. [Jackson], what do I do?” I say, “Well they are, by law, to ask you if you want to adopt But they cannot threaten or force you to adopt your [grand]childien ” For some grandparents, the dependency system's recent campaign to place as many foster children as possible into adoptive and pie-adoptive homes translates into social workers pressuring caregivers to adopt. Many grandparents live in fear that a DCFS social worker or 312 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dependency court judge will remove a grandchild against tbe grandparent’s wishes— either to reunify the child with his or her parents or to place the child m a foster- or adoptive home1 * 5 Steve Evans, a member o f several kinship care organizations in Los Angeles County and the adoptive parent of his grand-nephew, Peter, describes this common fear and his method of coping with it: In fact, the reason I even got involved m the Kinship Council is because I was afraid that [the System] would try to take him away from me Puthimback with die parents or whatever. So I'd gotten involved to try to see, well, what is the system and how does it work, kind of thing. So that's why I’m active on die Council— and all because of my fear. Ifthere was a chance, and after awhile I realized there was no chance because the parents had never, from day one, never tried to contact os. I just wanted out so that I knew that no one could take him. Steve's fear extended from his lack of experience with the child welfare system and not knowing what to expect from it. Once he learned more about the way the foster care system operated, however, he was less worried about Peter returning home to his parents. Nevertheless, for Steve, complete confidence came only after he and his wife adopted Peter out of foster care, thereby eliminating the possibility of his removal by the dependency system. Sandra Theodonos, a grandmother raising three of her eight grandchildren in the San Fernando Valley, felt less secure about keeping her foster-grandson, Timothy. Timothy, an adorable toddler with blonde curls framing his face, was on the Department of Children and Family Services' “fast-track” for adoption, according to Sandra. He was tbe fourth child to be removed from Sandra's daughter's custody. Shortly after placing Timothy with Sandra, the dependency court terminated parental lights and ordered DCFS to find an adoptive 1 8 5 For information on similar circumstances in Chicago see, for example. Forte 1999 and Karp 1999 313 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. placement for Timothy Sandra describes how the judge's decision compelled her own decision to adopt: Timothy would've went m a heartbeat Yon know what I mean? He would've been adopted in a heartbeat. And be was two years old then. Almost two years okL Well, I coukki’ t let Timothy go. . . . So we decided we’ll adopt him W ell take the consequences. You know, well bite it And that’s why we decided to adopt him. Because without, I mean, Timothy lights up our life, you know? He’s a special baby I coukki’ t love him any more if I would’ve had him. Although Sandra and her husband were willing to “take the consequences” and adopt their grandson, many other grandparents are less comfortable doing so. Genie Taylor, for example, was committed to raising her grandson, Joey, but feared the financial consequences of adoption. She, too, felt entrapped by tbe adoption dilemma, and worried die might lose Joey if she chose not to adopt him. Genie explains the circumstances surrounding her particular situation: Yeah and it’s scary because it’ s like, DC[F]S is currently petitioning the court to put die baby up fix adoption. And when they came in they woe like pushing me to adopt this baby “Get this baby. You’re gomg to lose this baby. These people are going to, you know, this, this, this, that.” And they were pushing me to adopt the baby. And I'm like, of course I don’ t want to lose him. So 1 go, 6k, yeah, I’ll adopt him. And so then when I went to court a couple months ago, my attorney was saying, “Well, you know, there’s other options. There’s legal guardianship and there's long-term foster care.” And I’m like, “No, not reaDy?” Cause they were just, I mean, they really pushed adoption! . . . But the problem with adoption is that right now 1 get free daycare, which is $780 a month I can’ t afford the daycare. If I adopt him, I don’ t get the free daycare. So I— and even one o f the social workers, you know, she was helping me to investigate and she said, “well you can get some of it but the cither part you have to pay.” And my thing was, I’m already a poor person, okay. And you're talking about me going into debt 3- or 400 dollars a month for daycare? By trying to help? That’s not helping to me. . . . And so I declined to, I said I wanted to do the legal guardianship or the long-term foster care Because I couldn’ t afford the daycare. Weil, I gat a paper I guess like a month ago that they’re pushing for the adoption anyway. 314 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One month after my initial interview with Genie, tbe dependency court granted her request for legal guardianship of Joey. This ruling provided Genie with greater legal security to care for her grandson, but tf preserved the county's day care subsidy, as well. “I won't be an pins and needles anymore,” Genie sighed, her tremendous relief unmistakable over the phone Assistance for Adoption Genie Taylor's primary concern about adopting her grandson was that it would result m die loss of monetary support from the county; she worried she would not be able to manage financially without the Department of Children and Family Services’ day care subsidy. Had Genie decided to adopt Joey, die would have been entitled to support from the Adoption Assistance Program (AAP), however. This program, funded by federal and state dollars and administered at the county level, provides adoptive parents of foster children1 1 6 with a monthly cash benefit no greater than the amount the child would receive had she or he remained in foster care AAP benefits continue until the adopted child turns IS, or 21 if die or be has any serious disability, in addition, AAP extends Medi-Cal health care benefits to foster children adopted out of foster care. According to a flyer widely distributed at the Regional Kinship Meetings and conferences organized by the DCFS, the Adoption Assistance Program is a “permanent 1 4 6 Federal guidelines for the Adoption Assistance Program limit eligibility to children who have characteristics that make them less likely to be adopted. These characteristics include membership in a sibling group that should remain intact, m em bership in a “minority" group (based on race, ethnicity, language, etc.). three years of age or mac. and other verifiable "special needs." The State of California defines a "special-nccds chikT as “a child w hose adoption without financial assistance would be unlikely because of adverse parental background, ethnic background, race, color, language, membership in a sibling group that should remain intact, m ental, physical, medical, or emotional handicaps, or age of three years or mare” [Family Code §8545; see also W IC §16120(a)]. The Los Angdes County Department of Children and Family Services broadly interprets these guidelines to include ~all children in the dependency system" (DCFS ad.: “ The ABC’s of AAP”). 315 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. commitment” by Los Angeles County to support former foster children and their families post-adoption.1 1 7 As Genie Taylor explained, however, many services provided to foster children, such as day care subsidies, clothing allowances, educational and summer camp schoiarships-and the list goes on-end when a child exits the system via adoption. Harriet Jackson reiterates this problem, providing an example of one of the benefits not covered by AAP: They're saying that it's Adoption Assistance. They're trying to make die statement that if you are on Youakim and you adopt, then while you're in court, then you should make the statement that you still need the income to follow the child. And it’s supposed to follow. But like, I asked one question. I said, “Then does that also mean, will you get a clothing order?” “No. You do not get a clothing order You adopted the child. The child is yours.” As Harriet notes, when a grandparent adopts her grandchild, s/he assumes the ultimate responsibility for providing for that child. Although some grandparents, like Genie Taylor, might be willing to assume the legal responsibility for a grandchild, they may be less able to take on the financial liability that implies. Even if a grandparent receives a monthly AAP check in the amount she received as a foster parent, it may be difficult for her to cover the costs of the additional services formerly provided by DCFS In addition to concerns about grandchildren being cut off from services provided only to foster children, some grandparents worry about just how “permanent” die county's commitment is to maintaining Adoption Assistance Program benefits. Ella Dill Fernandes, a co-leader of one of die DCFS Regional Kinship Care Meetings, describes this additional concern about adoption: 1 8 7 This flyer is also available on-line on the L o s Angeles County Department of Children and Fam ily Services website (as of July. 2001): <dcls.co.la.ca.us/wdcfs/ABC%20af%20aap.htin>. 316 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Now what they’re trying to do is force you to adopt They're trying to make you say, “Look. We can't live on this. So we'll have to adopt.” But Susan, what people are afraid of is, they’re afraid if they adopt, two, three, four years down the raad-and this has happened before-tbey’D say, “Oh, we ran out. We don't have any more money.” And then what are they going to do? Then they can't go back to Youakim. Then they’ ll have to go back to AFDC. . . . Two or three years down the road when they run out of money [they’ll] say, “Sorry, Charlie. It’s finished. You adopted. That's your ldd. Too bad for you” Infect, the state has made adjustments to the Adoption Assistance Program. In 1992, due primarily to budget constraints, the California Budget Act standardized Adoption Assistance Payments, capping the benefit level at the basic foster care rate, which ranged from S300-5500 at the time (see Table 7-1). Prior to 1992, monthly AAP benefits varied widely by county, ranging from a low of $329 to a high of $2,589 per child (AB 390 Bill Analysis 1999). Thus, as Ella suggests, the 1992 Budget Act resulted in many adoptive parents receiving a significantly decreased AAP benefit— and primarily because the state “tan out of money” for the program The state revised Adoption Assistance Program policy again the following year with the passage of AB 930, which instituted an mcome-based standard for AAP eligibility Under this system, adoptive families who earned less than the state median income qualified for AAP benefits equivalent to the basic foster care rate, plus an additional “specialized care increment” (“D” or “F” rate) for children with special psychological or medical needs. Those families who earned more than the median income were eligible for the specialized care increment only. This meant that when someone from this latter group of relatively wealthier families adopted a foster child without any special needs, she or he would not qualify for any financial support from the AAP program. 317 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In addition to these new restncbons, AB 930 required cxxaibes to renew AAP agreements every two years, making adjustments for changes in a family's income (AB 930 1993; AB 390 Bill Analysis 1999). This version of AAP policy had the potential to reduce an adoptive family’s benefit level over time, as well. Table 7-1: Lesislative > Intendments to the Adoption Assistance Program (CA) Bill Name n d /o r Nember, (Year) PuBcy far iWrnaiamg AAP it— m------ m D C M u l ICvCI AAP benefit (Pre-1992) Varied by county $329-52,589 California Budget Act (1992) State AAP rate capped at basic foster care rate $300-5500 A B 930(1993) Added income-based eligibility system tied to the statewide median income and adoptive family's earnings incom e < stale median = basic foster care rate + Special Cate Increment (SCI); incom e > state median = SC I only A B 1654 (1998-VETOED) (Would have ehmmaled income requirements) (no change) A B 390(1999) Eliminated incom e requirements tied to eligibility A A P benefit < rate received (including SCI) if child remained in foster care Source: A B 390 Bill Analysis 1999 In 1998, Republican Governor Pete Wilson vetoed Assembly Bill 1654 which would have eliminated the use of tbe statewide median mcome as a basis for AAP eligibility In his veto message to the California Legislature, Wilson wrote: No child support award is permanent and all are subject to review upon a change in circumstances until the child attains his or her majority. The fact that a foster family has adopted a child does not mean that the family should be awarded an annuity by the State whose payments will continue unchanged, regardless of the family’s financial arcumstances and regardless of the needs of the child (AB 1654, 1998; AB 390 Bill Analysis 1999). 318 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Former Governor Pete Wilson’ veto message further justifies Ella Dill Fernandes' and others’ suspicions of promises of enduring support from the county following the adoption of a foster child. in 1999, the recently elected Governor, Gray Davis (a Democrat), signed into law AB 390 which contained many of the same provisions as tbe bill vetoed by Pete Wilson the year before. Lobbying for both AB 1654 and AB 390 was the Youth Law Center, a public interest law firm in San Francisco, that supported and/or sponsored various versions of the two bills. In addition to supporting these legislative efforts, m January 1998 foe Center filed a law suit against foe State of California— A /crnt A. v Wilson, later renamed M ark A., et al v Gray Davis. Rita Saenz, and the California Department o f Social Services— alleging that foe state violated federal policy when it employed a means test to determine AAP eligibility and benefit levels (AB 390 Bill Analysis 1999). The suit was settled out of court in late 1999. In compliance with the terms of the settlement and the legislative changes instituted by A B 390, the California Department of Social Services issued an All-County Letter in December 1999 demanding that county child welfare agencies stop using the statewide median income level as a basis for AAP eligibility. In addition, foe terms of the settlement prohibit child welfare agencies from reducing AAP payments without an adoptive parent s consent— unless the reduction is due to a change m the family's basic eligibility (e.g., the child turns 18 or severs legal ties with his or her adoptive parents) (CDSS December 1, 1999). Today, the California Welfare and Institutions Code (§16115-16123), as it is interpreted by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, extends AAP benefits to all adoptive families of children in foe dependency system (DCFS, n.d., “The 319 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABCsofAAP”). Although tbe law continues to provide only vague guideimes for determining the amount of the AAP benefit, it does state die following: It is the intent of the Legislature m enacting this chapter to benefk children residing m foster homes by providmg the stability and security of permanent homes, and in so doing, achieve a reduction in foster home care. It is not the intent of this chapter to increase expenditures but to provide for payments to adoptive parents to enable them to meet the needs of children . . . (WIC §16115.5). The California Department o f Social Services relies on this section o f the law when it suggests that county child welfare agencies “keep in mind the ultimate goal o f facilitating the adoption of a child when they negotiate [AAP benefits] with families, as long as the negotiated amount of benefits does not exceed tbe amount of foster care maintenance that the child would receive in a foster family home” (CDSS December 1,1999). This policy normally results in an AAP benefit equivalent to the foster care rate, according to many relative caregivers, social workers and others affiliated with the Los Angeles County DCFS with whom I spoke. Although the most recent changes in AAP policy appear to have made the program more secure for adoptive grandparents, a historical look at the program— and a short-term look at that-demonstrates the fundamental instability of Adoption Assistance Program funding. Furthermore, with President Bill Clinton's oft-quoted words describing 'the end of welfare as we know it” still echoing, it is reasonable fix’ grandparents to question the security of any entitlement program. The Economic and Legal Politics of Permanency "No, I did not and will not adopt my grandchildren, not one!” exclaimed Harriet Jackson indignantly, her fist pounding on the lectem, her words drawing die rowdy applause of the grandmothers at the first Regional Kinship Meeting of 1999. 320 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. S tanding before a group of about 70 African American women1 ” on a cool January morning m south central Los Angeles, wearing her characteristic shaded glasses and an aberrant baseball cap bearing the initials “D.C.F.S.,” Harriet Jackson was unusually irritated. It would take a subject like adoption to ruffle the feathers of this experienced public speaker. More often than not, Harriet's dramatic moments in front of an audience, like those of the most seasoned politician or preacher, are attended to arouse the listener and do not necessarily reflect her own emotional state. But on this particular morning, the subject matter of the meeting and the fervor of her relative caregiver-peers were just enough to get Harriet upset. The topics up for discussion that morning were permanency options for foster children and a new law passed by the California state legislature. Senate Bill 1901, nicknamed “Kin-GAP,” established a state-fended subsidized guardianship program-similar to the Adoption Assistance Program— fry relative caregrvers who become the legal guardians of the foster children m their care.1 * 9 Clara Mason, an attorney who often speaks to groups of foster parents and relative caregivers in Southern California, prepared to talk about the pros and cons of the Kin-GAP law and the impleme ntation issues yet to be resolved Four months earlier, at the September 1998 Regional Kinship Meeting, Harriet Jackson lectured about recent and proposed changes in kinship care policy— including the not- yet-passed Kin-GAP bill. At that meeting, Harriet expressed her support fry SB 1901 and 1 8 8 On this particular day. a relatively large group of approxuaately 70 people attended the Regional Kinship Meeting. All but about eight in attendance were African American, and all but four or five were fem ale. 1 ( 9 S B 1 9 0 1 was chartered into law on September 30.1998; the tall created the Kinship Guard ianship A ssis tance Payment program (meknamed “K in-GAP* or “K-GAPQ. In 1 9 9 7 , California received a 5-year waiver thal allows them to use federal Title IV-E funds to subsidize the guardianships of foster children age 1 3 and older (DHHS Children's Bureau 1997: Assisted Guardianship/Kinship Permanence waiver. Epstein 1998) California uses state monies to fund guardianship subsidies for younger foster children (Sosso 1999; McDaniel and Sosso n d.). 321 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. urged the 40-odd caregivers present to contact their legislators to encourage them to vote for the bill.1 9 0 Attorney Clara Mason, who was in tbe audience that day, reacted strongly to Harriet’s suggestion. Clara implored the caregivers to educate themselves about the program before lending their support to the bill She warned the group that Kin-GAP was “good for those without Youakim [foster care maintenance payments], but devastating for those with ’special needs’ kids." Harriet Jackson responded smoothly to Clara, reassuring the attorney and the caregivers present that she was “on top of the situation" and would find out more about die bill to share with the group. Clara offered to talk more about SB 1901, but since another speaker waited to inform the group about a rehabilitation program fix’ at-risk youth, Harriet tabled the Kin-GAP discussion until the January Regional Kinship Meeting. Clara Mason began her presentation at the January meeting as she often did, by settmg the legal context for permanency planning and the new Kin-GAP law She described the recent shift in the dependency system away from prolonged reunification efforts and toward adoption as the preferred permanent plan for foster children. Clara explained the legal benefits of adoption, emphasizing the security it offered, relative to guardianship or long-term foster care. “Legally, adoption is the best option; it offers the most protection,” explained Clara, noting that only adoption grants foil control and the legal rights conferred by parenthood. In 1 9 0 Harriet Jackson was not the only relative caregiver in support of the bill; SB 1 9 0 1 had official endorsement from the Kinship Council of Los Angeles (whose Board of Directors is made up of the Chairs of the eight DCFS Regional Kinship Meetings). Grandparents as Parents, the California State Foster Parent Association, and many other organizations and individuals with links to kinship care and/or the dependency system (SB 1 901 Bill Analysis, 1998). 322 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. mnfrasr with legal guardianship and long-term foster care, parental rights are only temporarily (and partially) held by the caregiver or indefinitely held by the dependency court, respectively In foot, in Los Angeles County, caregivers who established legal guardianship of foster children essentially used to share custody of the child with the dependency court. Pnor to Kin-GAP, California law allowed dependency courts die discretion to maintain or terminate jurisdiction over a foster child for whom a legal guardianship was established (SB 1901) Unlike other counties in California, Los Angeles County opted to keep an “open file” for such children and continued to hold regular six-month review hearings to monitor the status of each case.1 9 1 In other words, a relative caregiver m the Los Angeles County dependency system could file for legal guardianship of a foster child, but this would not sever die child’s ties to the system. In contrast, Kin-GAP requires the court to “terminate its dependency jurisdiction over any child if the child has been placed, for a specified period,1 9 2 with a relative and the relative has been appointed the child’s legal guardian” (ibid.) Thus, Kin-GAP offers relative caregivers who wish to exit the dependency system as alternative to adoption Shifting her attention away from adoption and toward guardianship and the new Kin- GAP program, Clara Mason emphasized these changes. “The bin is good because it gets the government off your back,” she offered, referring to die requirement of the law to terminate 1 9 1 This is different from what usually occurs in the probate court 'Tnfbnnai” relative caregivers outside of the child welfare system who obtain a legal guardianship through the probate court arc not subject to on-going supervision of their reiadoiKhip with the child. Nor are they eligible for Kin-GAP. which is reserved for the legal guardians of former foster children. 1 9 2 1 2 months, according to the bill (SB 1901). 323 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. court jurisdiction Clara expressed concern, however, about pending (incisions regarding the program’s scope, timing and benefits. Unlike Adoption Assistance Program payments, Clara warned that Kin-GAP guardianship subsidies would be restricted to California residents, legal guardians who moved away from tbe state would lose their Km-GAP benefits.1 9 3 In addition, tbe California state legislature passed the Kin-GAP bill m September 1998 with the goal of implementing the program in July 1999.1 9 4 But Clara observed warily that the bill did not specify whether or not relative caregivers who established guardianships in between these two dates would qualify for Kin-GAP benefits.1 9 3 Perhaps most significantly— especially to the granchnothers m the room— Clara emphasized the potential loss of financial support to grandparents raising grandchildren in the dependency system as a result of establishing legal guardianship. As it was originally passed, the Kin-GAP bill set benefit levels at a rate no greater than 85% of the age-adjusted base foster care rate with no additional subsidy for children with special needs [SB 1901, Article 4.5, §11364(a)], and early proposals by die state committee convened to resolve implementation issues for the bill suggested a flat monthly rate of $500 for Kin-GAP payments (“Issues/Concerns” handout from die SB 1901/AB 2779 Advisory 1 9 3 Verified b y CDSS All County Letter N o . 99-97 which instructed county child welfare agencies regarding the implementation of Kin-G A P: “If the caretaker relative and the Kin-GAP child move outside of the Stale of California, eligibility for Kin-GAP ceases as the child no longer meets the C alW O R K S residence requirements” (C D SS November 4.1999). 1 9 4 A trailer bill (AB 1111) passed in M ay 1999 postponed the start date of the Kin-GAP program to January 1.2000. 1 9 5 In feet in June 1999 (several months afler the discussion at the Regional Kinship Meeting described here), the California Department of Social Services issued a notice staring “Children whose dependencies are dismissed prior to January 1.2000 will not be eligible for the Kin-GAP program" (CDSS June 16,1999). This decision probably cost som e relative caregivers who were encouraged prematurely to take advantage of Kin-GAP the opportunity to benefit from the program. 324 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. committee, dated January IS, 1999). If tbe state decided to implement Kin-GAP using the 85% standard allowed by tbe law, this meant that relative caregivers receiving “Youaktm,” or federally-funded foster care payments, would receive an automatic 15% decrease in monthly subsidies. But caregivers receiving the higher “D” and “F” rates (i.e., “specialized care increments” or SCI) for foster children with emotional and physical problems, respectively, stood to lose up to 70% of their monthly foster care payments since an SCI supplement can amount to hundreds of dollars a month 1 9 6 The Kin-GAP benefit level was one of the bill’s most debated items; over the course of the bill’s seven month legislative history, the authors significantly altered the language establishing this rate three times. The 85% rate was a last-minute revision, added to the bill one week before it was sent to Governor Wilson for his signature.1 9 7 Clara Mason explained that part of the legislature’s reasoning behind setting the Kin- GAP guardianship subsidy below the base foster care rate was to create a financial incentive 1 9 6 A s of July 1.2000. the basic foster care rate in Los Angeles County ranges from $405- S 581 per month, per child, depending upon the age of the child (CDSS 2000). Specialized “D” and ~F supplements increase foster care rales by approximately S100-S900 per month, depending on the age of the child and the severity of his or her problems (information provided at the DCFS Kinship Regional Meeting. June 9.1999). Relative caregivers may not be able to receive on behalf of their grandchildren the specialized care increments without additional training and licensing (Kin Care Consulting 1998). 1 9 7 Article 4 5 §11364 of SB 1901uutially read; “ The department shall establish the payment rate for K in-G A P. That rate shall exceed the current rate payable under the Temporary Assistance for N eedy Family (TANF) program but shall be less than the current rate payable as Aid for Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC).” Later, the bill was revised to read: “The rate shall be paid utilizing tw o hundred sixty-six dollars ($266) from federal funds received as part of the TANF block gram program grant. The balance of the rate shall be paid in equal portions by the state and the counties." The final wording approved by the Governor read as follow s: T he department shall establish, in collaboration with the County Welfare Directors Association, the California Partnership for Children, the California State Association of Counties, and other key representatives identified by the departm ent and the California Partnership for Children, the payment rate for Kin-GAP on or before July 1.1999. which rate shall not exceed 85 percent e rf the AFDC-FC pay ment rate” (SB 1 9 0 1 1 9 9 8 ). 325 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to adopt. This incentive would be created by the feet that Adoption Assistance Program subsidies paid to adoptive parents of foster children are normally equal to the rate one received as a foster parent, including any specialized D " and “F” increments. Nadia LaFhmme, a somedmes-paitidpant in the monthly Regional Kinship Meetings and a frequent and articulate critic of the foster care system, responded angrily to Clara Mason's news. Perhaps confusing the messenge r with the message, Nadia interrupted Clara, thundering about her own experiences in the dependency system with adoption and AAP. Nadia explained furiously that contrary to what Clara said— and what Nadia was told by die social worker who encouraged her to adopt her granddaughter— Nadia's AAP benefits were less than what she had received as a foster parent. In addition, by adopting her granddaughter, Nadia inadvertently cut off her access to services provided only to children who are dependents of the court 'The biggest mistake I ever made was adopting my granddaughter and not remaining a foster parent!” exclaimed Nadia, whose other grandchildren remain in tbe foster care system. Another grandmother m the group wandered aloud— and loudly— if Kin-GAP and the Adoption Assistance Program were just another way for ''the System” to dupe grandparents into a canning the financial responsibility fo r children whn an* dependents frf~ the dependency court. The women's comments seemed to animate the crowd. Many grandmothers responded boisterously with dapping and affirmmg calls that recognized Nadia’s plight and the other woman's theory about the child welfare system's hidden agenda. 326 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Clara Mason replied to Nadia LaFlamme and the increasingly rambunctious audience by offering an explanation for why Nadia's experience might have occurred. She noted that in the past, California interpreted federal AAP standards too narrowly, resulting in the denial of many AAP applications and the unfair reduction of benefits But there were plans m the California legislature, Clara noted with satisfaction, to introduce bills that would redefine state AAP policy to better reflect the intentions of the federal guidelines.1 ” Clara wrapped up her comments to the group by reassertmg her concerns about the Kin-GAP bill and by emphasizing adoption and AAP as a more secure alternative— legally and financially— to guardianship and Kin-GAP. “As a lawyer,” Clara said, underscoring the basis ofher remarks, “I can tell you that adoption is best for the child. But I wouldn't presume to tell you what is best for your family ” Clara Mason's efforts to assuage the concerns of the group about AAP appeared to have foiled, although she succeeded in increasing its awareness about the potential problems with Kin-GAP. Devorah Ward, a kinship caregiver and the leader of a private support group for grandparents raising grandchildren in south central Los Angeles, voiced her own concerns about the new program. “This bill is gomg to create a new generation o f poor children,” Devorah argued "They say, “We put the children first,” but if that were really the case, then why would they cut tbe rates?” Devorah added, eliciting more outrage from the group. I 9 * Two bills introduced in February 1 9 9 9 (one month after the January Regional meeting I describe here) and chaptered in tbe foil of the sam e year— AB 390 and A B 1 2 2 5 — altered State law regarding the Adoption Assistance Program. A s noted earlier in this chapter. A B 390 (and the Youth Law Center's lawsuit settlement) prohibits the use of an adoptive family's income as a basis for determining eligibility for AAP, A B 12 2 5 requires the Department of Children and Fam ily Services and other adoption agencies to inform prospective adoptive families about the availability of AAP benefits. 327 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Perhaps because of tbe group's attention to the problems with die new Kin-GAP law, a potential financial benefit of the program for one group of relative caregivers went undiscussed For even a subsidy that was 15% less than the base foster care rate would amount to an increase in support for grandparents raising grandchildren who did not qualify for the federally-funded “YouakmT foster care rate. According to a November 1998 report published by the California D e partment o f Social Services: Fifty-seven percent of the relative placements [in California] receive an average foster care grant payment of $459.98; the remaining 43 percent receive a California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS) Program payment of $206.90 (CDSS Administrative Division 1998). Assuming as the 1998 CDSS report did that KinGAP subsidies would amount to S391 per child (equivalent to 85% of the mean foster care rate), grandparents receiving “YouakmT foster care payments who opted to establish guardianship could expect an average $69 decrease in funding. But relative caregivers eligible only for CalWORKS (i.e., ^o n - needy caretaker” or “child-only”) benefits could receive an additional $184 or more per mouth The increase would be even greater for grandparents raismg more than one grandchild, since the Kin-GAP subsidy is a per-child benefit while CalWORKS subsidies increase disproportionally with each additional child. .After more heated discussion o f the benefits and disadvantages of adoption, guardianship and long-term foster care, Harriet Jackson returned to the lectern and attempted to restore order to the group. Rather than letting these changes frustrate them, Harriet encouraged her peers to channel their anger instead. She urged the grandmothers to “contact the person who wrote the [Kin-GAP] bill who thought they knew more about raising the children than you do!” She invited the group to learn from the collective wisdom of Myma 328 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lamb, Jackie Knight, Henrietta Holliday, Ella Dill Fernandes, Devorah Ward, and many other experienced caregivers who had learned to effectively negotiate the dependency system and adapt to policy changes to meet their grandchildren’s needs. “They’re asking us to be permanent? Well, ladies and gentlemen, we are permanent,” Harriet declared, referring simultaneously to grandmothers’ roles as long-term caregivers and as committed advocates within the dependency system. “Did you adopt?” Nadia LaFIamme asked Harriet pointedly. “No, I did not and will not adopt my grandchildren, not one!” Harriet responded, as the caregivers erupted again in applause. Setting an example of grandmother-acdvism, Harriet promised the relative caregivers that she would pass along their concerns about Kin-GAP to her colleagues an the state advisory committee convened to work oat the implementation issues fix’ SB 1901. “Your voices are heard because I am the voice,” Harriet assured the group inspirationally. Harriet Jackson's voice on the advisory committee may have made a difference, in fact For in May 1999, the California state legislature passed a bill (AB 1111) that increased the benefit level o f KinGAP to 100% of the age-adjusted basic foster care rate (S40S-S581 in Los Angeles County). Although the specialised care increment for children with behavioral or medical problems (i.e., the “D” and “F” rates) would not transfer to KinGAP guardians as they often do to adoptive parents receiving AAP, the California Department o f Social Services advised county child welfare directors that “exiting to Kin-GAP fix: children with special needs may not be in their best interests” (CDSS January 10,2000). 329 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thus for caregivers of children with special needs, the state maintained a financial incentive to adopt, smce m theory at least, adoptive parents can negotiate an AAP payment that includes a specialized care increment Bat the state also established a policy that recognizes the unique circumstances of children with special needs and the possibility that remaining in the dependency system with access to the many services that DCFS provides may be a better option for some children than placing them in a more legally “permanent’ ' home. The January meeting was not the first time— nor was it the last— that the relative caregivers would erupt over the issue of adoption. Two months later, at the March 1999 Regional Kinship Meeting in south-central Los Angeles, Annette Sawyer, an aunt fighting to get her two nephews out of foster care placement after they were removed from her care, described to the group several “lessons learned” from her experiences. “Don’ t push adoption when I'm stressed,” Annette said for the benefit of the social workers in the audience. “And I don't like adoption because I don’ t trust it,” she added. “I want guardianship, not adoption,” announced another grandmother in die audience m solidarity with Annette As the group began to collectively express their concern about the dependency system’s adoption policies. Grandma’s House social worker, Marvela King, tned to calm the group. I want to say, as a social worker from the Department of Children and Family Services, I want you to do what’s best for you. . . . Adoption doesn’ t change your status. It’ s not like a stranger adopting a child who doesn't know its mother. The status doesn’ t change, it’s the legality. . . . But no one knows what the family needs more than the family. I can come with all the books 1 read m school, but no aoe knows what you need better than you. 330 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Marvela King encouraged the relative caregivers to form workgroups to explore their concerns about various aspects of tbe foster care system and to consider strategies to improve the system. Included among her suggestions for workgroups was one to study recent legislative changes regarding permanency plans affecting relative caregivers. Relative caregiver Harriet Jackson had already done as much by convening an independent monthly meeting fix her peers to come together to ‘ ‘ work on legislation." Describing the goals of this group to the members of the south-central Regional Kinship Meeting, Harriet announced: I want to address why tbe terminology is so hard and over us. I want to break down this process. I want you to come in with a pen, a pencil and a pad. I want you to understand I want you to know this is nor a game. I want you to know what has happened— to your grandchildren I want you to walk out better knowiedged about the law than you were when you walked in. The co-diairs of the Regional Kinship Meeting agreed not to schedule any speakers to present at the May 1999 meeting so that the group could implement Marvela King's workgroup plan. At the May meeting, after wishing everyone a happy Mother’s Day, Marvela underscored the purpose of the workgroups: Everything you do m groups is gomg to lead to advocacy You are telling L A . County what you want to have and what you don’ t want to have. You’re going to become an expert on the subject you are working an and policy is gomg to change. . . . You are experts because you are relative caregivers and you have a lot to bring to tbe table. Marvela identified relative caregivers who might serve as chairs for each of eight topical workgroups.1 9 9 She proposed that Harriet Jackson draw upon her expertise to chair 1 9 9 The eight workgroups formed were: Legislation. Education, Respite Care, Resources. Health Care. M ental Health Care. Child Care, and a general “Complaints" group. 331 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the Legislation workgroup and suggested that I participate in the group as an “advisor ” Harriet agreed, so I jomed her and nme other African American caregivers interested m legislative issues. Harriet encouraged the group to contact their legislators to discuss any concerns they might have. “This will help the legislators understand that you're taking control. That they can’ t write legislation without taking your needs mto consideration," she said. After setting an agenda for the group, Harriet excused herself m order to get to her thrice-weekly dialysis treatment. The remaining members of the workgroup began to discuss various legal issues affecting grandparents raising grandchildren, ranging from de facto parent status, to grandparents’ rights, to forms of legal custody. The implementation issues yet to be resolved for Kin-GAP were of particular concern to tbe women. Murtis Walker, a former relative caregiver still active in tbe R e g io n a l Kinship Meetings, announced her plans to meet with her state Representative to discuss the Kin-GAP bill. To assist her m this process, I offered to summarize the concerns raised by the grandmothers tbe Workgroup, as well as to use my access to resources at the university to write an analysis of the bill. In addition to Kin-GAP, tbe caregivers were upset by the “scare tactics” used by some social workers to pressure grandparents to adopt Several in the group described a sense of powerlessness in the face of the system’s authority to make custodial decisions about their grandchildren Almeda Beauchanqi, an aunt and tbe youngest relative caregiver m the workgroup, proclaimed angrily, 332 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The social workers threaten to take our kids and put them up for adoption. There's no difference between that and putting them up on die Mode to be sold as slaves. Adoption Politics in Black and White Ahneda Beauchamp is not the first person to see a relationship between the child welfare system's adoption policies and state-sanctioned slavery Cheryl Allen Craig, a Pennsylvania juvenile court judge, for example, criticizes the national trend in child welfare toward adoption, especially when it leads to the division of sibling groups. At the 1999 National Kinship Care Conference sponsored by the Child Welfare League of America, Judge Craig commented, “It reminds me of slavery when children were split up aid sent here and there without any consideration of their family, culture and history” (Pizzigati et al. 1999).3 0 0 Nation of Islam leader, Tony Muhammed, made analogous claims about die Los Angeles County foster care system: “There’s money to be made in taking black, brown and poor white babies,” argued Muhammed. “ft’s a new slavery [and] the courtrooms are being used as trading blocks,” he added (“Activists call foster care 1999) :nl Almeda Beauchamp’s and other’ comments reveal a complex tmderiying cultural and race-based dynamic that colors the issue of adoption within the child welfare system. 2 0 0 U nder California state law. the placement of siblings together is one of many factors the court must consider in determining the most appropriate placem ent for children (see e.g.. W IC §16002). 2 0 1 S ocial scientist Jayne O . Ifekwunigwe also compares adoption and slavery in her book. Scattered Belongings (1999). In a section entitled “From the Auction Block to the Adoption Block” Ifekwunigwe recounts an interaction between a social worker and a potential adoptive parent that took place in a grocery store. In Ifekwunigwc's account, the social worker said to the prospective client. “Have I got a beauty for you,” describing an unborn baby to be put up for adoption. Ifekwunigwe notes how this interaction represents the growing commodification of the adoption process. Although she writes about the British child welfare system , Ifekwunigwe's comments are relevant to the experiences of many in the United States, as wdl. H ow ever, her comments are most pertinent to the debate over transracial adoption which is beyond the scope of this dissertation. 333 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although often m less explicit terms tfaai those Aimeda uses, many o f the grandparents I interviewed describe a racial or cultural foundation for their perspectives on foster care and adoption. Ricardo Vela, for example, explains that the reason he and his girlfriend, Sabina Martinez, have been willing to raise seven grandchildren is because they are “more Mexican- oriented, in terms of family ” According to Ricardo, a first generation Mexican American raised in the mid-western United States, “Mexicans are sentimental about family and will take in family no matter what.” “Even if you have ten kids out there, they’re not going to an orphanage,” claims Ricardo; “we’re more like southern blacks way,” he adds. Harriet Jackson apparently agrees, as she identifies a long-standing tradition of caregiving within the African American and Latino communities: Afro-American and Latino families have always done this [i.e., raised grandchildren informally] because it was the right thing to do. But things have changed and we don’ t understand why people need to be in our business. According to Harriet Jackson, when relative caregivers perceive social workers to be coercing them to adopt, this leads some to distrust or reject adoption as a safe option. As a result, the commitment to caregiving within the African American community, combined with a perturbation with interference imposed by “the System,” translates into a general unwillingness to adopt. As Harriet claims, “Oh, the pressure is really great Because first of all, your Afro Americans do not believe in adoption.” Other African American grandmothers expressed a similar sentiment, evident in die use of pronouns that reflect a sense of shared identity and solidarity. For instance, Henrietta 334 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Holliday offered the following strategic advice to her African American peers at the July 1999 Regional Kinship Meeting: If you've heard negative things about adoption or you have questions, you need to go [to DCFS conferences and trainings] Because 1 know social workers are asking us to adopt and we’re usually saying, “No.” We need to go to the conferences so that we know why we’re tellmg them, “No.” Relative caregivers are not the only ones to suggest that African Americans may be less willmg to adopt, some professionals affiliated with the dependency system make the same claim. A white attorney who works with the Adoption Saturday project, (see “Adoption Days in the DCFS” interlude), comments on the issue of race and adoption: The African American community isn’ t interested in adopting-or so I’ m told. But that's okay. It’ s good for a kid to be with Grandma and with family. It’s not good for that kid to be in a foster family. He knows they aren’ t fondly. Consistent with the comments noted above, die African American relative caregivers with whom I conducted extended interviews were less likely to be interested in adopting their grandchildren than were the white grandparents I interviewed.2 0 2 Among the 34 grandparents I interviewed (fourteen African American, seventeen White, three Latino/a), five (individuals ex’couples) had already adopted their grandchildren and eight more were interested in adopting some more actively than others (see Appendix A). Within this group of thirteen, nine are white, three are African American, and one is Latina. Thus, only 21% o f the African American grandparents I interviewed favored adoption while 53% of the white relative 3 X 1 Please note that I provide these data for the reader’s information only and do not suggest anything regarding the representativeness of m y sample. Furthermore, due to the fact that my field work and subjects drew mostly from meetings organized for relative caregrvers in the foster care system, m y sample is very likely predisposed to include fewer adoptive grandparents than a random sample might 335 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. caregivers said they wanted to adopt In addition, one whke caregiver wham I met during the course of my field work mentioned her interest in eventually adopting her granddaughter and grand nephew, while one Afncra American adoptive grancfanotfaer claimed that adopting her grandchild was the “biggest mistake [she] ever made” (see discussion above). When asked why African American caregivers are “ teUmg [social workers] no,” as Henrietta Holliday put it explanations centered less on race, per se, than the desire to maintain existing family relationships and to provide the best possible care for their grandchildren. “I don't feel like I should adopt my kids; I'm already related,” states Devorah Ward succinctly. For some grandparents, like Devorah, adopting a child to whom one is already related makes little sense. Henrietta Holliday agrees: Why would I adopt somebody that’s already mine? Why? Why wouhhi’ t you just try to pool your resources and send me, and give me a referral, and provide what I need to take care of die child where he is? . . . All you're doing is putting it an a piece ofpaper and then whatever. But it makes no difference to us because they’re already ours. Part of the issue, according to some of the African American grandparents I interviewed, is that adoption has the potential to damage family relationships As noted earlier, some parents appose the adoption of their children by grandparents, even if this allows the children to remain m the family Grandparents may choose not to adopt in order to minimize conflict with their adult children. 336 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. But some grandchildren may not like the idea o f severing ties with their parents either.2 0 3 Jackie Knight, for example, bebeves her great-grandchildren would appose such a plan. Jackie explains: I'm not going to adopt.. . . We have guardianship. That's as close as I'm getting. That's next to adoption. I woukta’ t, they woukfei't want me to The children. I thmk they’d be very, very angry. Noway. Noway. Another important factor, already noted, is the concern that adopting one’ s grandchildren will put the children at a disadvantage. Akhough the Department of Children and Family Services provides post-adoption services to adoptive parents, consisting primarily of counseling services and information and referral,2 0 4 many of the services provided to a foster child end when that child exits the system via adoption. Many of the African American grandparents I met, such as Genie Taylor, Nadia LaFlamme and the more vocal members of the Regional Kinship Meeting, worried— or knew from experience— that they would not be able to provide the same level of care to their grandchildren without the support of the county. Thus, while many grandparents distrust the dependency system, they are willing to remain a part of it so that their grandchildren can have access to resources. As for the white grandparents m my sample— half of wham indicated an interest in adopting their grandchildren— far and away the most commo n reason given for this interest 2 0 3 California la w states that children over the age of 1 2 must consent to their adoption (Family Code §8602). 2 0 4 According to the Department of Children and Family Services w ebsite, the Adoptions Division provides the following post-adoptive services: AAP, crisis counseling, information and referrals, support group meetings, and family preservation services. In addition, the D CFS provides “non-identifying background information for adnlt adoptees, adoptive parents and birth parents' and will help “facilitate reunions through filing of consent forms and counseling” <http:7/dcfsco.la.ca-us/wdds/Post%20Adoprion htm>. 337 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was, as Angela Valentine put it bluntly, to get “the bell out of *the System. For many of the white grandparents I interviewed, the legal security and personal autonomy available through adoption were more valuable than any of the services available through foster care. As noted earlier in this chapter, a fundamental reason for exiting the foster care system via adoption for white relative caregivers Sandra Theodonos, Steve Evans, Barbra Foote, and Angela Valentine was to ensure that a social worker would not remove their grandchildren from their homes— either via reunification with the parent or (replacement in a foster or adoptive home.2 0 5 Similarly, Liz Goss, a white grandmother whose grandchildren were reunited with her son, said that if the children were ever permanently removed ft am her son’s custody. We would take the kids. And if we had to adopt them or if we had to become legal guardians w e would d o w h atev er w as the logical choice . . . We’d just do whatever it would take to give these children a healthy, safe environment. For the white grandparents in my sample, more so than the African American grandparents, being free from the foster care system's constraints and obligations was of primary concern Whether they were trying to avoid entering the foster care system (see Chapter Three) or struggling to get out of it, m general, white grandparents placed significantly more value on remaining “independent” of the dependency system. As relative caregiver A nn Simpson put it, “I just want out." Like some of the grandparents recervmg non-needy caretaker or child-only “welfare" grants (see Chapters Three and Six), some white grandparents raising grandchildren in the foster care system were uncomfortable with the notion of “taking money from the 2 0 5 This latter fear m ay be complicated by the fact that white babies are more “ in demand" by potential adoptive parents (who are mostly white) than are babies of color. Therefore, the pressure to adopt to prevent another fondly from adopting a child may be more intense for grandparents with white grandchildren 338 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. government " For example, Liz Goss, who raised her two foster-grandchildren until they were returned to her son, describes she and her husband's initial efforts to refuse the foster care maintenance payments from tbe Department of Children and Family Services: They make it so tough! That if you want to turn down the Youakun, you have to go through so many hoops and an this stuff that it's more trouble than it's worth. Just take the money. And it turned out we had a really bad year and we needed the money And I got a subsidy for daycare for the boys. So that really helped. Steve Evans also tried to turn down tbe department's offer of federal “Youakun" foster care payments for his grand-nephew, Peter And I tell you, when [Peter] was first placed here, the social worker asked if I wanted Youakun And I says, “No, I don't need the money." She says, “Well, take it anyway and put it in an account so when he gets older it's there for him.” Following the social worker's advice, Steve accepted the foster care payments Like Liz, Steve came to appreciate the financial support. He explains: I didn't realize how much more expensive things are today. Like his daycare I was getting the Youakun check and giving it to them, in essence, and adding to it so that be could be taken care of while I’m out workmg. And at that age especially, they grow up so fast that you go through everythmg. I mean, they don't wear out their clothes because they don't wear‘ em long enough They grow out of them. So it’s actually very expensive to raise kids today. I forget all that stuff My lads, like I say, they're in their 20s already. It's been a long time. So actually, die Youakun has helped out. Barbra Foote, in her capacity as a kinship care peer-educator, encouraged relative caregivers at a meeting in Pasadena to accept financial support from the foster care system: It's important to keep the financial support because you never know what will happen. We're older, we may have health problems. I thought, “We don’ t need this money.” But it’s not foruou, it’s for the children. ...D o n ’ t be embarrassed to take it.” 339 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. While many of the white grandparents I interviewed felt some discomfort about accepting support from the DCFS, framing it in terms of “providing for the children” seemed to make doing so more palatable. Angela Valentine, referring to tbe invaluable contributions made by relative caregivers put it to grandparents at a Regional Kinship Meeting like this: “We’re basically unpaid babysitters for tbe county.” According to Angela, tbe contributions of relative caregivers to the dependency system are worth considerably more than they are “paid.” Adoption Politics in Shades of Grey A pattern marking racial differences in grandparents' perspectives an adoption and other permanency options emerged from my interviews and field work. These differences were perhaps most pronounced at the various Regional Kinship Meetings I attended. In Los Angeles County, regional differences translate roughly mto racial differences and the attendance at each Regional Kinship Meeting tended to reflect the racial/ethnic make-up of die communities served. Over the course of a year, 1 observed each of the DCFS Regional Kinship Meetings one or more times, and only at tbe south-central Los Angeles meeting— the most well-attended of all the Regional Kinship Meetings and the only one with a predominantly African American membership— did the caregivers discuss the issue of adoption with such intensity and concern. At the other Regional Kinship Meetings, if caregivers discussed adoption at all, they did so much more passively, usually by listening quietly and asking information-seeking questions to 340 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. speakers on tbe subject. Thus, tbe racial homogeneity of the south-central region stands out when I consider differences in perspectives by race.2 0 6 However, a more detailed look suggests that caregivers' perspectives on adoption and the dependency system are not always so clearly divided by racial borders. For example, many of tbe concerns dnvmg the white grandparents m my sample to adopt are shared by the African American grandparents who do not want to adopt Many African American grandparents, like many white grandparents, have considerable fears about the seemingly unbridled authority of social workers and judges to make fundamental decisions about grandchildren who are dependents of the court Many of the grandparents I spoke to, regardless of their race or ethnicity, described their fear that one day, a social worker who is “crazy” (Angela Valentine), “burned out” (Barbra Foote), “inexperienced” (Henrietta Holliday), “ineffective” (JoAnn Fiske), “vindictive” (Hattie Albertson), “unkind” (Theresa Richardson), “condescending” (Devorah Ward), or otherwise “strange” (Grecia Gladstone) would decide to remove children from a grandparent's care. Such fears were often warranted, most notably by some of the African American grandparents I met, such as Genie Taylor, Murtis Walker, Annette Sawyer, Henrietta Holliday, Harriet Jackson, and Hattie Albertson, each of whom temporarily or permanently “lost” a grandchild to “the System.” 2 0 6 The strength of this explanation is reduced in part by my relatively limited association with the other Regional Kinship Meetings, with the exception of the Regional Kinship iwwting* held in Pasadena and N. Hollywood in alternate month— a meeting I attended with regularity. The only discussion of adoption that I observed ottside of the south-central meeting that might be described as even marginally “heated” took place at the Regional Kinship Meeting in Pasadena in March 1999 (described briefly in the Introduction to this dissertation)- At this particular meeting one of the relative caregrvers-a Latina wom an— described her concerns about a social worker who “threatened" to take her grandchildren away if the caregiver did not agree to adopt them. The group— which was generally the most diverse in terms of race and class of all the Regional Kinship M eetings— was supportive of but not outraged by her concerns. This was in direct contrast to the meetings in soiah- central Los Angeles which regularly discussed adoption and other issues related to “ permanency” with a sense of urgency and fury . 341 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Furthermore, African American grandparents were not the only ones who n rra ra n a lly A^crriheri their decision tn raise grandchildren in cnltnial terms Many of the white grandparents I interviewed described a fanilal and/or cultural, if not explicitly racial, tradition that taught them the adage: “family does for family ” Notes JoAnn Fiske, a white grandmother who helps to raise four grandchildren in foe San Gabriel Valley, for example: “It's my family's way to step in and take 'em.” Likewise, apprehension about losing financial support and other resources as a result of adopting one's grandchildren is not foe exclusive concern of African American grandparents. Angela Valentine, for example, commented that had not she and her husband Tom pooled their resources and gone through the steps necessary to apply for foe Adoption Assistance Program, adopting foe grandchildren might have led to significant financial troubles. Angela explains: We had gotten to that point o f yeah, we're going to do foe adoptions 'Cause, I cried for a year and a half ova- making the decision for adoption. I just thought it was so ludicrous, so ridiculous, that I had to adopt my grandchildren. To get'em out of the system. Now I could've gotten'em out of foe system, but with no funding. And I knew that I coukki't, I just couldn’ t take that position Because I coukki't work. I couldn’ t work. Getting out of “foe System” was Angela's primary goal. But Angela realized that after she adopted her granddaughters, she would become responsible for covermg the girls' day care expenses that were previously covered by the Department of Children and Family Services. With four children to care fix, it would not be cost-effective for Angela to continue working. Without her additional income, she and Tam would have struggled without the support provided by foe Adoption Assistance Program. 342 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. African American foster children are less likely to be adapted than are white foster children According to researchers at the Child Welfare Research Center at UC-Berkeley, for every two African American children m long-term foster care there is one African American foster child who is adopted. The trend is reversed for white foster children, for every white child m foster care for six or more years, 2.2 whde children are adapted out of the system, h California, white foster children are five times more hkeiy than likely African American foster children to be adopted (Barth et al. 1994). Despite these findings, other surveys suggest that statistically, African American kinship caregrvers may be no less likely than white caregrvers to adopt the related children m their care For example, a nine-state survey (including California) found that while African American children in kinship care are less likely to reunify with their parents or to leave the foster care system than are white children in kmship care, when they do, a greater percentage exit via adoption (12.8% vs. 9.0%) (Wulczyn, Brunner and Goerge 1999)2 0 7 Furthermore, recent evidence from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services suggests that when the same financial resources are available to support relative caregivers who become adoptive parents or legal guardians, the differences between the “permanency plans” selected by African American and white relative caregrvers disappear (Testa and Roiock 2001). 2 0 7 This multi-state pattern m ay be less pronounced in California Nevertheless, while African Americans make up a disproportionately large part of the foster care population in California the data suggest that African American children enter the foster care system and exit it to adoptiv e homes at nearly the same proportional rate. In other words, and to provide a specific example, m the period from April 1.1997 to September 30. 1997,22% of tbe children entering foster care were African American. During the same period. 23% afthe foster children who were adopted were African American. Similarly, of those children who entered the system during this 6- month period. 42% were white; 45% of the children exiting the system to adoptive homes were white (D H H S Children's Bureau 1998). 343 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These findings are contrary to the perspectives of some involved m the dependency system— including grandparents— who believe that relative caregrvers (aid African American relative caregivers m particular) are less likely to adopt. As Joe Loftus, the farmer Executive Deputy Director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, suggested at a national kinship care conference m 1999: “Social workers leam the script within two weeks of working for the system: 'relatives aren't interested in permanency'" (paraphrased; see also Testa and Loftus 1999; Testa et al. 1996). However according to Loftus, “Everything people are saying about relatives is wrong because relatives are die most committed and driving the increase in adoptions . “But give them a choice," Loftus urged his colleagues. The Politics of “Permanency” These “exceptions" to the general pattern that emerged along racial Im es reveal the extent to which race and class intersect in shaping grandparents' perspectives on permanency options in die dependency system. While nearly every kinship caregiver I spoke with had concern about the risks involved in remaining m the dependency system, those with greater financial resources were more likely to express an interest in adopting their grandchildren in order to get them out of the system. Ami m my sample— as m the general population— those with greater wealth on average tend to be white. Furthermore, I interviewed several white grandparents who sought legal guardianship or adoption as a means to avoid the dependency 38 Link (1996) found similar support for adoption among a small sample of relative caregivers in the Erie Couim . N ew York child welfare system. Loftus made these mmnirntc as a member of the audience at a pre-conference institute at the Child Welfare League of America’s National Kinship Care conference (field notes; Pizzigati et al. 1999). 344 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. system (see Chapter Three) Within this group, those with greater financial means were likely to have easier time achieving this often (though not necessarily) expensive goal Race and class figure into the picture in more subtle ways as well. ta my interviews, white, middle class grandparents frequently mid African American grandparents less frequently, described their relationships to the Department of Children and Family Services and the Department of Public Social Services as a source of stigma. Then reluctance or discomfort about accepting financial support in the form of foster care payments or child-only welfare grants reveals die extent to which raising children in the broadly-defined child welfare system is stigmatized. Such stigma derives from a deeply rooted cultural mandate to be “self- sufficient,” combined with a prohibition against associating with or relying on “die System.” By accepting support from die DCFS or die DPSS, grandparents raising grandchildren establish an uncomfortable link between themselves and the “welfare-dependent” in society. And in the United States, pop-cultural stereotypes characterize the welfare dependent as the poor, black and lazy “welfare queens" who rely an and take unfair advantage of “die System.” While some in recent years have undertaken efforts to unmask the racism inherent in this “welfare queen” mythology, the perception still persists (see, e.g., Quadagno 1994; Zucchmo 1997). Consciously or unconsciously, white grandparents— as well as African American grandparents— raising grandchildren in the dependency system may want to disassociate themselves from this racially-and class-coded and stigmatized image. One way to do so is to characterize the acceptance of financial support from the DPSS or the DCFS as being “for die sake o f the grandchildren,” thereby allowing grandparents to disassociate themselves from the “ welfare-dependent. ” Indeed, die Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services 345 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. assists m this m atter by referring to the child-only welfare benefit as a “ yton-needv caretaker” grant. Unlike w elfare benefits that include the parent m the “assistance unit,” the child-only benefit absolves the relative caregiver, to some extent, from goift by associatio n. Furthermore, due to tbe generational gap separating them from their grandchildren, caretaker-grandparents are more often seen as helpers who do the “irresponsible” parent— and the state— a favor by stepping in to raise children who are not their responsibility. In fact, the federal government is well aware of the substantial contribution made by relative caregivers and offers the child-only grant so that they will “choose.. to house and support the children,” rather than leaving the state to find alternative and “much more expensive” (foster) care (DHHS-ASPE 1999) Another way grandparents escape the stigma of “die System” is by adopting their grandchildren and becoming a “private, independent family,” as DCFS Director Peter Digre once put it, with no ties to the system of dependency that is the foster care system However, adopting one’s grandchildren and exiting the dependency system requires a financial commitment above and beyond the means of some grandparents— in my sample, mostly African American and mostly working class grandparents. Because even if a grandparent can count on the “permanent commitment” o f the Adoption Assistance Program to provide financial support— which may not be a safe bet— she or he may not be able to afford the additional m-kmd benefits previously provided by the Department o f Children and Family Services, such as day care, summer camp and tutoring, that improve the quality of life for children. 346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. While it is interesting to note the ways in which grandparents try to avoid the stigma associated with involvement with “the System,*' what is more important is to identify the mechanisms by which “the System” uses this stigma to achieve particular outcomes. The politics of permanency within the foster care system simultaneously obscure and foster the significance of race and class by focusing on adoption as the primary and best way for grandparents to provide a “permanent conwmtment" to the foster children m their care. Through promises of financial support-apart from the stigma of welfare based on “needmess”-and enticements of getting the government off one's back, the child welfare system tries to make adoption a universal and appealing option to all, without ever explicitly identifying the race- and class-coded messages imbedded in these rhetorical strategies While they may not be explicit or even intentional, they are the foundation upon which the child welfare system’s adoption campaign is built. The racially and class-coded roots of child welfare rhetoric become even more apparent when compared to the efforts of grandparents outside of the dependency system who try to adopt their grandchildren. For some evidence suggests that a different standard for “permanency” exists for children m informal kinship care, since grandparents who attempt to take on the “permanent commitment of adoption ” in family court may have difficulty doing so. Dee Dee Davis, the “informal” relative caregiver who sought adoption to prevent her granddaughter's father from contesting her legal guardianship, was discouraged by her lawyer from opening the “can of worms” that was an adoption petition in family court Instead, he encouraged her to stick with legal guardianship since pursuing adoption would likely be an expensive process, and one with die potential to foil or backfire. 347 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ginny Rose, who established legal guardianship of her mentally ill daughter’s son, received similar advice from her attorney. When I asked Ginny if she and her husband had ever considered adopting their grandson, Vincent, Ginny responded: No, we have not. Because we've been advised, straight up, by several different lawyers, not to go that route. That, in fret, we might even lose him. . . . It seems, it seems strange, doesn’ t it? But even though the father has signed the papers and the mother has signed the papers, the court could still award [Vincent] to the biological parents. You know, so, no, we haven’ t We’re satisfied with guardianship. . . . Adoption is such a permanent thing, you know, a really permanent thing. And in most cases, the court does not take too kindly to the grandparents adopting grandchildren. And I don’ t know if it has to do with age or just what it is, but there area lot of issues that are involved with adoption. [With] guardianship we still have all die say over [Vincent]. Ifwe want to make it so that he never sees his father agam while we have guardianship, we could do that We could say he could never see his [paternal] grandparents So it's just, at this point, it’s just an easier and safer way to go. David Purcell, an attorney specializing in “grandparents’ rights” in Orange County, California, agrees. Regarding adoption in the fam ily court, Purcell notes, “The court is not inclined to permanently strip parental rights ”3 0 9 The different standards for adoption maintained by the dependency and family courts do make sense. In the Dependency Court, the termination of parental rights and the granting 3 0 9 The California Family Code states that courts should grant custody first to a parent second to the “person or persons in whose home the child has been living in a wholesome and stable environment." and third to another suitable caregiver appointed b y the court [Family C ode §3040(a)]. The court must go to great lengths to identity, notice, counsel, and obtain consent from the biological parenKs) before terminating parental rights and granting an adoption petition (see, e.g.. Fam ily Code §7660-7670; §8604; §8801). Thus, and not surprisingly, parents have a custodial advantage under the law. Furthermore, tbe law provides few avenues for terminating a parent’s rights and adopting a child independcntly-that is. outside of the dependency system where parental rights are in a state of suspension— if the parent does not consent to his or her child's adoption (Exceptions which allow for the termination of parental rights include if the parent is declared guilty of abandonment or abuse of the child nr if the parent is an addict, a felon, mentally ill or incompetent [Family Code §7820-78271). For these reasons, a fondly court judge’s hands are relatively tied under the Family Code compared to a dependency court judge bound by the Welfare and Institutions Code. 348 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of an adoption petition follow the court’s determination that an abusive or neglectful parent has foiled to rehabilitate himself or herself. In contrast, a contested adoption in family court involves, by definition, a parent who has not inflicted abuse severe enough for the dependency system to intervene. If this were the case. Dependency Court would assume jurisdiction, thereby disallowing an independent adoption petition in family court.:i° The significance o f these different standards, then, is what they reveal about the underlying strategies guiding child welfare policy and practice. Although policy makers emphasize that a “permanent" adoptive family is best for all children, realistically this option is open only to grandparents raising grandchildren in the foster care system. And while many relative caregivers are happy to take advantage of this opportmuty to get “the hell out of the system,” many others— in my sample, working class African American grandparents— say they can’ t afford to do so.:i' Conclusions The decision to adopt is a difficult one for most relative caregivers, and complicated by many factors. Many grandparents are hesitant to adopt because their adult children and/or grandchildren do not want to alter their legal relationships within the family. Other caregivers argue that adoption is unnecessary since they are already related to the children. When the parents have died or are completely out of the picture, the decision to adopt one’s :ib H ow ever, as Patncia Moore's and others' experiences demonstrate, even if the DCFS determines a child does not require the protective custody of the Dependency Court, this fact may not prev ent the probate court from establishing a guardianship for the child. :u This does not mean, however, that those who decide to adopt are "rich.” Indeed, analyses provided by the California Department of Sodal Services indicate that 75% of adoptive grandparents in California earn a family income of less than $35,000 per year (Magroder 1994). These statistics further suggest the significance of dass and the importance of financial support for m any relative caregrvers deciding whether or not to adopt 349 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. grandchildren may be somewhat simpler. But even when it is (typically) more involved, some grandparents are more than willing— anxious, even— to adopt their grandchildren if it grants than freedom from the foster care system. Ultimately, the availability o f financial resources and services is one of the most important factors in a grandparent's decision to adopt-or not to adopt. And the fact that exiting the system via adoption requires grandparents to grve up most of the services associated with the foster care system makes this option less viable for some relative caregivers Child welfare policies imply that adoption is die only way to achieve “real” permanency for foster children. And these policies often translate in practice to social workers coercmg grandparents to adopt their grandchildren-even when grandparents argue that adoption may do more harm than good. As a result, the dependency system's narrow fixation with adoption does not offer relative caregivers the fair “choice” of permanency options that Illinois DCFS Director Joe Loftus argues they deserve. Given the unique needs of each grandparent-headed family, this one-ftumly-fits-all solution will fell to serve the best interests of all children. Providing children with stability and permanency is certainly an important goal, and adoption is one valid way to work toward this goal. A serious side effect of promoting adoption as the method for achieving permanency, however, is that doing so furthers inequitable race and class divisions— both inside and out of die dependency system. These effects are particularly treacherous withm the dependency system. The adoption campaign within the dependency system draws upon a white, middle class rhetorical strategy that emphasizes freedom from the racialized stigma of “dependency,” while the foster children and caregivers who are the primary targets of this strategy are mostly 350 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. poor and disproportionately African American. When and if black (or white) grandparents choose to remain m the system in order to provide the highest quality care for their grandchildren, they often are accused (explicitly or implicitly) of not doing what is best for their grandchildren— that is, providing a permanent adoptive family. This furthers a racist and unfounded notion that African American aid poor families are less “responsible” than white middle class families. 351 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - EIGHT - CONCLUSION: KINSHIP CARE AND THE POLITICS OF CHILD WELFARE By tightening the links between benefits and employment, the late-twentieth-century welfare state has stratified Americans into first- and second-class citizens and undermined the effective practice o f democracy. Everywhere market price has superceded social justice. — Michael Katz, historian (2001:2). 352 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In The Price o f Citizenship, social welfare historian Michael Katz writes: In the 1980s public social policy coalesced around three great objectives that began to redefine the American welfare state. The first was the war to end dependence— not only the dependence o f y o u n g unmarried mothers on welfare, but all forms o f dependence an public and private stqiport and on the paternalism of employers. The second was to devolve authority, that is, to transfer power from die federal government to the states, from states to counties, and from the public to the private sector. The third was die application of market models to social policy (2001 26). The practice of kinship care within the U.S. child welfare system emerged during this time of anti-dependence, devolution, and market solutions to social policy problems. Kinship care is not a new phenomenon. To be sure, grandmothers and other extended kin have a long history of stepping in to care for children during times of family crisis or transition. What is new about kinship care at the turn of the 21 a century is that now grandmothers are expected to bear more of the burdens of supporting families— burdens that parents, with the support of public and private institutions, assumed in the recent past. In the mid-1990s, the welfare (public assistance) and child welfare (foster care) populations swelled to historic proportions. In 1994 more than 14% of all children mthe United States received AFDC benefits and nearly half a million children were a part of the foster care system (Committee on Ways and Means 2000). Reformers offered solutions aimed at reducing the size of these populations. Within the child welfare system, for exanqile, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) reduced the amount of tone a child can spend in foster care before the dependency system must find an alternate permanent placement for the child. Within the public assistance realm, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRA) eliminated the entitlement of poor families to welfare and offered work relief (via the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, program) in the place of direct relief. 353 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Each of these historic reforms represents, m effect, weapons m what Katz refers to as the “war to end dependence." In the case of both foster care and welfare, the problem needing a solution is the very existence of dependency-that is, the huge numbers of children in the dependency system aid the growing number of families who depend upon welfare. When the problem is framed m this way, the sohidan is to reduce dependency by shrinking these dependent populations. In other words, tbe strategy is to make the effect disappear while doing relatively little to address the underlying problems that caused the effect in the first place. Indeed, and as Pennsylvania juvenile court judge Cheryl Allen Craig argues regarding the effort to move children out of foster care, “ too often the emphasis is on the numbers. . . . We try to make thmgs look good on the surface because we need to reduce the number of lads in foster care [but] the best interests of kids get lost in all this” (Pizzgati et al. 1999). As a result, the real problems affecting children who enter the welfare and child welfare systems— poverty being the strongest common denominator— continue to afflict many American families The belief that dependency, rather than poverty (for example), is tbe problem to be solved becomes exceedingly dear when one considers the tone of the debate on welfare reform in the mid-1990s. For example, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, suggested that children would be better off ltvmg m orphanages than an welfare. Similarly, tben-Caiifbmia Governor, Pete Wilson, asserted that poor mothers should grve up their children for adoption rather than rely on welfare to support them (see, e.g., Associated Press 1997; Chazanov 1995, Gilliam 1994; Gunnison 1997; Jehl 1994; McKenzie 1998; Morain and Stall 1995; Scheer 354 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1994). The message Gingrich and Wilson convey is clear relying on tbe welfare system is inherently immoral and inherently bad for children.2 1 ' Further illustrating th is point is the recommendation, offered by several child welfare policy analysts, that w elfare support should be linked to the “legal and social obligation” o f the caregiver 2 1 3 According to th is logic, which inform ed the PRA, biological parents should be bound by a moral duty to fully support their own children. Foster parents (or “strangers”), on the other hand, should be rewarded for domg som ething that they are under no legal or social obligation to do— to care fo r children to whom they have no ties Grandparents, who fall somewhere m the middle o f th is continuum, should receive only limited support; while they are not required to raise th eir children's children, by virtue of their biological ties to parents, grandparents are held partially responsible fo r their grandchildren's dependent status. In feet, this is the very approach the dependency system has adopted with regard to relative caregivers, providing (through policy or practice) less financial support and fewer services to grandparents raising foster-grandchildren. The problem with this approach, however, is that it ignores the fundamental needs o f children, regardless of the relationship they have to their caregivers Furthermore, one could logically argue that relative caregivers 2 1 2 Although in a twist of "family values” rhetoric. Gingrich seems to suggest that children who enter the dependency system— the modern version of the orphanage— are better off than children who Irve in "welfare dependency ” with their ow n biological parents. 2 1 3 See. for example. Hornby . Zeller and Karraker. who suggest the following policv : “ the level of suppon provided to anyone caring for a child should be in inverse proportion to that person's legal and social obligation to care for the child. This principle is already implicit in ament federal rules. . . . A fall implementation of this principle would suggest that parents should receive the least support from the government because of their legal and social obligation to care for the child: relatives should receive a mid-range amount because they have a social responsibility but no legal obligation: and strangers, that is foster parents, should receive the most because they have no legal or social responsibility" (1996:441). 355 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. need more support than foster parents (or parents, for that matter), since as a group they have fewer resources of their oven with which to support the children in their care. With fewer opoons available to poor parents m need o f financial support and neglectful parents in need of rehabilitation, the continuing existence of dependent children necessitates alternative solutions outside o f tbe nuclear family unit. And since “dependency" currently is defined within social policy in terms of a parent s failure to adequately care for her child,:u this leaves open the door-a crack, at least-fer non-parents to care for poor and neglected children m a way that appears to solve the dependency problem. Thus, the welfare system allows “non-need/' caregivers to accept financial support for children who might otherwise enter foster care, and the child welfare system increasingly promotes tbe adoption of foster children as a way to reduce dependency. However, regarding this latter solution, die lack of interest on the part of the general public in adopting the “crack babies" and otherwise “damaged” children perceived to be in foster care puts an undue burden an grandparents and other relatives to assume this responsibility^1 5 But because many :u Nancy Fraser and Linda Gordon note that the meaning of the word “depen dency" has varied w idely throughout American history. The current use of the word generally refers to unwed teenage mothers on welfare— the primary targets of the assault on “dependency" (1994). : 1 5 Indeed, the number of legal orphans awaiting adoption continues to grow within the foster care system while the number of potential (m wntalnd) adoptive parents lags behind. This situation is exacerbated by growing public fears of children, as Nancy Sheper-Hnghes and Carolyn Sargent argue: Neoliberals in North America and the United K ingdom have managed to portray children— other people’s children, of course— as a danger and threat to societal order and to adult econom ic and personal security. A citadel mentality pradrwninates in which fears nf m gntfing hoards n f mraiantwrt H iiM rai (all thnwe "dangerous" HIV-infected and drug-addicted babies) and their irresponsible parents (“impossible" teenage mothers, post-wdfare “losers." and deadbeat D ads) have coarsened the political culture (1998:11). Although not identified by Sheper-Hughes and Sargent, foster children are often the children 356 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. grandparents feel they are not in the position to take on all the financial responsibilities associated with legal parenthood— even if they are committed to permanently raising the children— this assault on dependency osng adoption for amnaaitfion has the ironic potential to create yet another class of dependents— grandparents who become needy caregrvers in the process of raising adoptive grandchildren. This broad-based effort to end dependency is closely related to the second major policy shift of the 1980s and '90s-the devolution of authority from the federal level to state and local governments, and from die public to tbe private arena (Katz 2001). As noted above, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act dhninatod the basic federal “safety net” for poor families and allowed states to develop their own programs to address tbe effects of poverty. This reversed a nearly century-long trend of expanding federal programs to serve an increasingly diverse group of recipients. thg dismantling n f the welfare system rfkrarrieri the very principles upon which the program was built. When the Committee on Economic Security recommended die Aid to Dependent Children program in the 1930s, it did so because it believed that only a public program administered at the federal level had the capacity to “re!eas[e recipients] from die inadequacies of the old type of poor relief and die uncertainties of private charity” (Social Security Board 1937:233). The PRA transferred this responsibility back to the states— and increasingly to private chanty via President George W Bush's plan to allow religious groups to administer federal TANF funds. described in this quote: they are the “dangerous” children and the “drug-addicted babies,” abandoned by their parents and left with the only people willing to raise them— their grandparents. 357 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. At the core o f devolution and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act is an assumption that “private” extended families will assume the burden of canng for a needy child m the absence o f pubbc institutional support. However, recent evidence suggests that extended km networks are less a source of support to poor Latino and African American families, m part because the burdens associated with contemporary poverty are greater and limit the ability to offer support (Roschefle 1997). Ifthis is the case, welfare strategies that rely on private (i.e., familial) solutions to social problems can have only limited success. Devolution impacts the child welfare system as well The foster care system always has been decentralized, with relatively few federal regulations and widely varying state- operated programs However in recent years, the movement away from placing foster children with publicly licensed and federally subsidized foster parents toward the use of unlicensed and relatively underfunded kinship caregivers further represents the devolution of responsibility from public institutions to private families Many child welfare policy analysts express concern that kinship foster care indirectly represents the devolution of the responsibility for poor families from the welfare system to the child welfare system (see, e.g., Bernstein 1999; Shook 1998; Tucker 1997). This concern is based an the prediction that child neglect will increase as needy families with poor job prospects face the time limits imposed by TANF. While some estimates submit that there has been no resultant rise in the foster care population following welfare reform (Sengupta 2000), other indicators suggest that it may be too soon to know the full effects of welfare reform on the child welfare system. Indeed, preliminary reports indicate the complexity of die situation. Smce the PRA passed in 1996, welfare caseloads and unemployment rates have dropped and many former 358 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. welfare recipients have found jobs that increase both their overall income and their sense of self-worth (Cheriin 2001; Edin 2001; DHHS 2001). However, many former welfare recipients have jobs that foil to lift them out o f poverty, and many experience problems securing medical insurance, affordable housing, and stable employment (Cheriin 2001; Danziger 2001, Edm 2001; Wilson and Cheriin 2001). Furthermore, a recent analysis of pre- 1996 welfere-to-work pilot programs found some evidence that mothers who participated in programs were more likely to lose custody of their children as a result o f being unable to “care for or handle them” (Sheldon 2001). Because poverty and child neglect are closely correlated (Paxson and Waktfogel 1999), it is reasonable to speculate that welfare reforms that do little to raise the standard of living for families, while adding the additional burdens associated with m aintaining employment, may lead to more cases of child neglect— especially if the economy falters and fewer jobs are available to welfare recipients approaching the five-year lifetime limit forTANF Market solutions to social problems make up the third policy reform identified by Michael Katz. Katz summarizes these principles as follows: According to market logic, benefits should originate with private, rather than public, agencies wherever possible, and competition between providers should be relied on to improve foe quality and efficiency of service. When governments must provide benefits, authority should rest with state and local officials, rather than with Congress or federal agencies, while only those who earn benefits should receive them. Demonstrated need, socially useful labor (for example, volunteering or child raising), or even good behavior do not by themselves earn benefits: only work for pay counts (2001:30). These principles dearly build upon the strategies of anti-dependence and devolution. Yet it is difficult to imagine how the “clients'’ of the welfare and child welfare systems might participate in a market “exchange ” hi his book, Katz argues that within foe welfare arena, the market involves an exchange between policy makers and their constituents. Politicians 359 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. promise to not reward unpopular and unworthy weHaie-dependents m exchange for votes; welfare recipients are effectively left out of the deal (2001) Within the child welfare arena, licensed foster parents offer a valuable service to an overburdened system willing to compensate them for an ordinarily unmarketable endeavor (i.e. caregrvmg) While grandparents provide the same service, their inexperience with the foster care system and their lack of bargaining power— combined with their presumed culpability for the failures of their adult children— leave them with little to bring to the table. Thus, they are left to accept whatever the dependency system is willing to offer them which, currently, is for less than that provided to their more organized and less blameworthy peers. The successes of die grassroots campaigns waged by groups of welfare recipients to extend welfare benefits in the 1960s suggest that kinship caregivers could be served well by a stranger collective identity. This, in fact, is what many of the “professional" relative caregivers in Los Angeles County have achieved through their efforts to network and defend the rights of the foster children m their care However, the feet that many relative caregivers see themselves primarily as individual grandparents embroiled in their own personal and familial nightmare and not as members of a disenfranchised group may undermine efforts to mobilize forces to wield greater political and bargaining power. The previous discussion reviews the ways in which several broad-based policy trends apply to the case of kinship care. Indeed, the circumstances of relative caregivers m (and on the borders of) the child welfare system offer a unique lens through which to the successes and failures of late 20t h century American soaal welfare policy An account of the 360 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. day to day experiences of grandparents raising grandchildren sheds tight on haw tbe politics of social welfare undermine, ratber than support, this particular family form. Grandparents raising grandchildren are caugftt in the middle of two convoluted and contradictory systems for child-caregrvmg, neither of which addresses relative caregivers’ unique concerns. The informal system o f“family care” claims privacy and self-sufficiency as its hallmark, yet grandparents raising grandchildren must turn to public institutions for support— economic support, since grandparents often struggle to raise grandchildren on their own, and legal support, since die act of parenting requires legitimacy and official recognition from the state. Lacking these resources, grandparents often are forced to take the risky step of approaching the court for legal guardianship, a move that could result in the dependency system taking custody if it uncovers any evidence of child abuse or neglect-the very reasons that lead most grandparents to assume informal responsibility lor the child in tbe first place. Furthermore, the process of establishing legal guardianship can be an expensive one, especially if the parent objects to the transfer of parental rights. In general, the more complicated the situation. the greater the resources a grandparent will need to achieve a secure legal parental status— and to maintain it. While financial resources are available to “private” (or “informal”) relative caregivers from what remains of the system of family care-that is, the welfare system— the stigma surrounding public assistance leads some grandparents to refuse such support Indeed, the cultural assault on dependency has been so effective that many relative caregivers go out of their way to avoid the welfare system— and the child welfare system— and employ rhetorical devices that distance themselves from the ignominious state of dependence. 361 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If and when grandparents enter the child welfare system, they confront a complex bureaucracy designed for the care of children by strangers, net relatives. Child welfare policy conceives of foster care as an unnatural, temporary phase in which child-caregrvmg is subject to public oversight and regulation. These aspects of tbe foster care system ostracize relative caregivers whose histories as “private” parents and whose (often) long-term relationships with grandchildren lead them to prefer a friendlier, less formal approach than is generally possible within “the System.” In addition, most granr^arents come to the dependency system with little knowledge and a lot of fear about its mner-workmgs-a combination that can work against relative caregivers withm an institution that expects them to know and abide by an extensive set of rules while acting as an advocate for foster-grandchildren. Even when relative caregivers learn to make their way through the process, many continue to confront roadblocks that result from their ambiguous position within the dependency system. Lacking the privileges that come with parenthood and without the legitimacy bestowed by foster parent licensure, relative caregivers have no dear framework for how to meet the needs of their foster-grandchildren. Veteran relative caregivers offer advice to their less experienced peers, however attend trainings and other meetings, network with other relative caregivers, leam and use the cham of command, develop a professional attitude and demeanor, document the process, and cultivate a positive relationship with the child welfare authorities assigned to the case. While these strategies certainly help, ultimately grandparents depend on the good graces of a particular social worker or judge to act in die “best interests” of the child. Even those “professional” grandparents, whose extensive knowledge and command of the dependency system allow them to navigate its stormy waters with relative ease, sometimes 3 6 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. encounter resistance Rather than embracing them as partners m tbe process, tbe child welfare system tends to relegate grandparents to the powerless status of “client," failing to recognize the debt owed to relative caregivers. Despite its emphasis an “safety and permanency,” the dependency system lacks the resources necessary to achieve these goals. Social workers in California manage caseloads far bigger than ideal— bigger, in fact, than even the maximum caseload size recomme nded by the state (American Humane Association et al 2000). This leads to a situation in which social workers struggle to stay an top of their paperwork, much less leam about new services and programs for children in kinship care. As a result, relative caregivers are caught in a double bind; with limits on the resources of social workers, grandparents are sometime left to fend for themselves within the dependency system. Yet if a relative caregiver accidently breaks a rule she was never informed o f a social worker may respond by removing a grandchild from a grandparent’s care. Finally, the child welfare system’s policies an “permanency p lanning” represent yet another set of contradictions for relative caregivers. As Los Angeles County DCFS social worker Marvela King notes, these policies convey the commo n belief within the department that foster care represents “no real commitment,” and that a grandparent seeking adoption demonstrates a greater willingness to “tak(e] more responsibility” fix- a child than a caregiver who wishes to remain in long-term foster care. However, the drive to move children from foster homes to adoptive homes (even when it involves the same home) imposes a “one- family-type-fits-all” solution that disregards the complex issues involved in determining the most appropriate permanent plan for a child 363 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Adopting a grandchild is more feasible for those grandparents of independent means. But tbe characteristics of grandparents raising granddnklia— disproportionately poor, African American, single, and unemployed (Casper and Bryson 1998; Fufler-Thomson, Minkler and Driver 1997)— make them unlikely candidates to have extensive private resources upon which to draw. As a result, those grandparents— in my sample, mostly grandparents who share the characteristic identified above-who decide not to adopt may be condemned by the dependency system for their lack o f responsibility and commitment, when in feet they make an enormous sacrifice by staying in an all-powerful institution for the sake of the grandchildren. The effort to move children out of foster care as quickly as possible raises questions about the child welfare system’ s own commitment to its wards. One ofthe important goals driving the adoption campaign is to replace foster care drift with permanency and security for children. However, there is no reason to believe that a grandparent committed to raising her grandchild within the child welfare system inherently condemns that child to an unhappy and unstable childhood. Indeed the foster care system has the unique capacity to offer invaluable support to relative caregivers and children by virtue of its status as a public institution with access to a wide range of services and resources. As the following case demonstrates, a paradox exists whereby a relative caregiver who remains in the dependency system might, in fact, provide a foster-grandchild with even greater stability and support than a grandparent who attempts to raise a grandchild independently. For a few of die African American grandparents m my study, maintaining ties to the dependency system provided a necessary and temporary “out” when things gat to be too 364 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. difficult For example, Letitia Thompson— a grandmother currently raising a 15-year old niece m foster care and 18-year old grandson outside of tbe dependency system m the San Gabriel Valley— describes having her niece placed in a foster home during a low point in Letitia's life: Oh yeah, I was [depressed]. I was an medication and everything That's one ofthe reasons I gave up [my niece] at that time. I was really, truly depressed and didn't feel like I had much to give her. And then the 1 8-year-old, I was getting rid of both of diem. You know, I was tired of raising children and the results that I was getting wasn't great. So I was giving up everybody. Letitia was, like many of the grandmothers 1 interviewed, tbe “Primary Caregiver” for her extended family; over the course o f her hfe, Letitia raised or supported siblings, nieces, nephews, and grandchildren, as well as her own biological children When she was diagnosed with depression shortly after her son was murdered in 1994, she had no one in her family to turn to for help. Thus, Letitia had to rely on her niece's social worker and the foster care system to care for her niece while Letitia sought help for depression. For S haH w na Franklin, a grandmother raising thirteen grandchildren, the ju6enile court-both the dependency and delinquency divisions-provided support when two of Shadena's teenaged grandsons needed more help than Shadena could give The two boys had a lot of “anger issues,” according to Shadena, which increasingly led them into trouble with die police and the juvenile justice system. When it got to the point that the boys’ behavior began to rub off an the younger children, Shadena, working with the children’s DCFS social worker and die boys’ probation officers, had the boys placed in a group home specializing in the care of wards of the juvenile delinquency court. This strategy appeared to help at least one of Shadena's grandsons Shadena described how her 1 7-year-oki grandson, Malcolm, “opened up” some during placement, he 365 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. called his giandiuolher and told her bow much he appreciated what she had done far him and for “sticking by” him over tbe years. According to Shadena, Malcohn, whose anger masks an underlying tenderness, started to cry an die phone. “ That just tore me up inside,” Shadena said. Nevertheless, Shadena fW t that Malcolm's teats were evidence that she had made the right decision in having him placed. For Letitia Thompson and Shadena Franklin, “the System" was a source of support in difficult times Far from indicating a lack of commitment to their graidchildren, Shade na and Ledtia's use of the child welfare system's resources and temporary reliance an (nan-relative) foster care helped them to take better care of the children Each grandmother lacked a supportive network of friends and fondly who might have been able to offer support. And each faced unusually difficult circumstances. Were they adoptive grandmothers entirely responsible for their grandchildren, Ledtia’s depression and Shadena's grandsons’ delinquency could have led to accusations of child neglect, at which point die dependency system could have taken custody ofthe children, in this scenario, the grandmothers— like biological parents who have lost custody of their children— would likely perceive die dependency system as an adversary, rather than an ally Of course, the child welfare system has the potential to act as an aDy to parents charged with abuse and neglect, hi fact, the child welfare system must provide services aimed at keeping a family intact before removing a child from the home. However, when a parental figure (biological or otherwise) enters the dependency system following accusations of abuse or neglect, this is likely to be a fin more stressful and potentially disruptive situation for a family than when a relative caregiver already affiliated with the dependency system asks for additional support. 366 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Some might read this and worry about overwhelmed grandmothers unable to manage their own or a grandchild's problems, and question whether grandparents should be raising grandchildren at all These are reasonable concerns as children deserve to be raised by caregivers who are relatively stable Indeed, a large portion of the literature on kinship care is devoted to analyzing the effects of caregrving on grandparents raising grandchildren, who on average tend to experience greater levels o f stress and poorer health than foster parents or grandparents who do not raise their grandchildren (see e.g., Bowers and Myers 1999; Burton 1992; Giarrusso, Sihverstein, Feng, and Marenco 2000; Giarrusso, Siherstein and Feng 2000; Jendrek 1993; Mmkler and Fuher-Thompson 1999; Mmlder, Roe and Price 1992; Rodgers- Farmer 1999; Sands and Goldberg-Glen 1998; Sands and Goldberg-Glen 2000; Hayslip, Shore, Henderson, and Lambert 1998; Strawbndge, Wallhagen, Shema, and Kaplan 1997). While this research is important and while it is not unreasonable to worry about children in the care of stressed-out grandmothers, I question whether there is a more fundamental point to consider. Smce high stress levels and poor health are associated child abuse and neglect, it would serve children's best interests to identify ways to address fundamental issues of support, rather than simply trying to understand how the “off-time” and “non-normatrve” roles of caregiving-grandparents contribute to their levels of stress. The implication— in feet, the theoretical basis of this literature— is that it is inherently the role ofthe grandparent that makes caregivmg stressful or unmanageable. While this may be true to some d e g r e e , I want to argue in this dissertatian that we need to turn our attention not to the caregiver role, per se, but to the structural and social support systems that make effective caregivmg more or less possible. 367 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The “professional” relative caregivers I interviewed for this dissertation argue that m order to care for grandchildren m the child welfare system, grandmothers need to make an effort to seek oat resources and support. Likewise, the dependency system has a responsibility to make such resources available and accessible to grandparents raising grandchildren. Relative caregiver Harriet Jackson offers an interesting variation on this theme when she suggests that the foster care system has die potential to make one a better parent and can ultim ately provide more “permanency” for children. I quote Harriet at length to capture die complexity of her argument: I'd rather have someone come in my home. I'd rather be connected with the court and all. Because it keeps me on top of me. This way I know that / ve got to do this. I’ve got to keep up with the medical I've got to keep up with the education, h keeps me an top of providing really good quality care for my grandchildren. I think if the court wasn't involved and the social workers weren’ t involved, there’s many a time I would say, “No, I won’ t be going. No, no, you're not going for a doctor appointment today. I'm just too tired. Can't be dealing with it. No, you can go into any school ” I don’ t think I would be putting as strong an effort m really trying to get all of the best quality I can And I certainly wouldn't be out here attending all these conferences and all these meetings and everything aid getting a ll of this education. .. So I'm looking at the fact- if I can relax, mentally, thinking, [with artificial cheer] “Oh this is great! The court won't be in my life. The social worker won't be coming to my house Fine! Don't have to do the dishes today Don’ t have to dean up the house. The lads don’ t have to look as shiny and dean.” Ha! You know? Then I mean, I’m looking at- Wait a minute. That means, children are going to threatened. Children are not going to be as protected as they are now. . . . So I don’t fed that children should be fast-tracked into adoption. I fed we need to continue to screen out the families before the child is placed with them. Quote quote, the words “permanency” and “safety ” Take more time, to make sure that child is safe in the home, and you’re not going to dump that kid back in the system. Do you understand? When this kid gets older, it may present more problems, medically or whatever? Are you ready fo r that? Make sure that person is fully aware, not in a, ‘ N w e fl, I just want to adopt the kid and get the kid where I don’ t have to be bothered by social workers and the court system and just get out o f all of this paperwork.” No. No. As 368 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. much as I have had— and I've had a nightmare, I'm honest with yon. My life has been a living hell, trying to keep these kids safe. Keep these kids where they've got protection and all. And I’ll be honest with you. I would rather stay in all this confusion. Because like I keep saying over and over, it keeps me on top of what I’m supposed to be doing for children that have been placed in my home. It’ s nice to say that children are adopted, but are we really protecting our children? By fast-tracking them through adoption? .. . Because people will adopt children and then when they get older, find out that they’re fire starters. They have mental problems. They’re schizoid. They have behavior problems. And then they say they can’ t handle them. They're too expensive They’re too hard to deal with. And then they put them back in the system. Then you're traumatizing them really more, because they thought they had a permanent home. Harriet Jackson, whose extensive voluntary involvement in a number of state and local kinship care organizations betrays her comments about fatigue slowing her down, provides an interesting analysis of the child welfare system’s mission to provide safety and permanency for children. Although the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services’ priority is ’ ‘child safety” and its motto is “a family for life for each child,” Harriet notes that in some cases, the department might best achieve these goals by keeping a child in the foster care system. In feet, Harriet suggests that m some cases adoption might not achieve the goal of permanency at all, since the law allows for an adoption to be set aside if previously unknown problems with die child arise after the adoption isfmal.: i < > : 1 6 Secuon 9100 of tbe Family C ode states the following regarding the "vacation of adoption": ~If a child adopted pursuant to the law of this state shows evidence of a developmental disability or m ental illness as a result of conditions existing before the adoption to an extent that the child cannot be relinquished to an adoption agency' on the grounds that the child is considered unadoptabie. and of which conditions the adoptive parents or parent had no knowledge or notice before the entry of the order of adoption, a petition setting foith those facts may be filed by the adoptive parents or parent with the court that granted the adoption petition If these facts arc proved to the satisfaction of the court it m ay m ake an order setting aside the order of adoption." To reduce the likelihood of this occurring, the law requires adoption agencies to conduct an investigation into the adoptive child's medical history , and recommends that birth parents maintain contact with the adoption agency should any medical problem s arise with child that have a potential genetic link (see. e g.. Family C ode §8702, §8706). 369 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Harriet's comments also illustrate the relevance of the old adage, “it takes a village to raise a child.” It is simply unrealistic to expect that individuals or even families can raise children in isolation, especially in the past-industrial context in which former sources of social and economic support are less reliable or no longer available (see, e.g., Bowen, Desimone and McKay 1995). Indeed the legally and fiscally responsible, mamed-couple families so celebrated by welfare reform and adoption only provide tbe illusion of functioning “independently,” when in fact they receive countless tangible and intangible benefits from various public and private sources (such as tax breaks, participation in subsidized group insurance plans, etc.2 1 7 ). 1 once asked Angela Valentine what were the most important filings I should try to convey about the experiences of grandparents raising grandchildren in the child welfare system. “You write about rights, resources and options," she replied without hesitation. As a matter of policy and practice, tbe current child welfare system does not meet the needs of grandparents raising grandchildren. Tbe rights of relative caregivers are ambiguous in a system designed for “strangers” and the resources available to foster children are less so for those raised by grandparents. Furthermore, tbe options for relative caregivers who wish to provide safe, permanent homes fix' fbster-grandchildren mcreasmgiy are limited to those ~ 1 7 Furthermore. Anne Roscbdle's research, which uses data from the National Survey of Families and Households, suggests that families with greater financial resources are more likely to benefit from extended family and social networks than poor families who. arguably, are in greater need of such support (1997). 370 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. which transfer the legal and financial responsibility for a child from tbe state to the grandparent. Yet the everyday experiences o f relative caregivers who labor tirelessly to make sure the dependency system works for their grandchildren suggest that public institutions, when pushed, can support and even strengthen struggling families. Waging campaigns to dismantle all systems of dependency and transferring the entire burden for child-caregivmg to private, independent families will not serve grandparents raising grandchildren. A truly reformed and broadly defined child welfare system— and one that depends on grandparents to care for duldren-should work to ensure that these caregivers have the rights, resources and options they need to succeed. 371 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY “Activists Call Foster Care System a ‘New Slavery.'’' 1999. Los Angeles Times, November 5, p. B4. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act H.R. 3434,96* Congress, P.L. 96-272. 1980. (AACWA) Adoption and Safe Families Act H.R. 867, 105* Congress, PL 105-89. 1997. (ASFA) Aldous, Joan. 1998. “Public Policy and Grandparents: Contrasting Perspectives.” Pp. 230- 246 in Handbook on Grandparenting, edited by M. E. Szmovacz. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. All, Najee. 1999. “Guest Commentary: It Takes a Village to Save a Child’s Life.” Lor Angeles Times, June 25. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Grandparent Information Center. September 8, 1994. Grandparent-headed Households and Their Grandchildren. Washington, DC: Author. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Grandparent Information Center. 1994. Tips fo r Grandparents: Finding Help. Untangling the Web o f Public Programs. Washington, DC: Author. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). N.d. “Welfare Reform and Grandparents.” AARP. Retrieved May 9,2000 <http:/Avwwaarporg/getans/consumer/welfereJtfml> American Humane Association, Walter R. McDonald & Associates, be., and Leon Tuttle. April 2000. SB 2030 Child Welfare Services Workload Study Final Report. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association, Children’ s Division. Anderson v Superior Court (Lopez). 1998. No. B126094, Second DisL, Div Four, December 30, 1998. A New Beginning for Partnerships fix' Children & Families in Los Angeles County. October 22,1998. Proceedings from the 4* Annual Conference. Sponsored by the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court, California State Unrversity-Los Angeles, and tbe Los Angeles County Juvenile Dependency Court A New Beginning for Partnerships for Children & Families in Los Angeles County. October 15, 1999. Proceedings from the 5* Annual Conference. Sponsored by the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court, California State Unrversity-Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Juvenile Dependency Court. 372 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Angel, Ranald and Malta Tieoda. 1982. “Determmaits of Extended Household Structure: Cultural Pattern or Economic Need?” American Journal o f Sociology, 87:1360- 1383. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. N.d. “Family to Family: Tools for Rebuilding Foster Care.” < http://www.aecf-org/familytofamily>. Appleton, Susan Frdidi. 1999. “‘Planned Parenthood': Adoption, Assisted Reproduction and the New Ideal Family.” 1 Wash, U . J.L & Pol'y 85. Archibold, Matt. 2000. “Norristown Foster Child, 2, Buried.” Philadelphia Inquirer, April 21, p. B 8. Associated Press. 1997. “Wilson Defends Proposal Encouraging Welfare Mothers to Weigh Adoption.” Los Angeles Times, January 11. Author unknown. Circa 1999. “Proposed plan for a separate kinship care program.” Report from California State Advisory Committee on the implementation o f SB 1901 and AB 2779. Author unknown. January 15, 1999. “Issues/Concerns ” Report from the from California State Advisory Committee an the implementation of SB 1901 and AB 2779. (Handout at the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services Region 2/6 kinship care meeting.) Bailey, Eric. 1998. “S81 -million Plan Weighed for Oversight of Child Welfare.” Los Angeles Times, June 10, p. A3. Banks, R. Richard. January 1998. “The Color of Desire: Fulfilling Adaptive Parents’ Racial Preferences Through Discriminatory State Action.” 107 Yale L J. 875. Barnhill, Sandra. 1996. “3 Generations at Risk: Imprisoned Women, Their Children, and Grandmother Caregivers.” Generations, 20:39-40. Barth, Richard P. 1994. “Long-term in-home Services.” Pp. 175-194 in When Drug Addicts Have Children: Reorienting Child Welfare’ s Response, by D. J. Besharov. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America Barth, Richard P. 1990. On Their Own: The Experience o f Youth after Foster Care. Berkeley. Child Welfare Research Center, School of Social Welfare, University of California. Barth, Richard, Jill Duerr Berrick, and Neil Gilbert, eds. 1994. Child Welfare Research Review. Vol. 1 . New York: Columbia University Press. 373 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Barth, Richard, Jill Duerr Berrick, and Neil Gilbert, eds. 1997. Child Welfare Research Review. Vol. 2. New York; Columbia University Press. Barth, Richard, David Brodzinsky aid Madelyn Freundbch, eds. 2000. Adoption and Prenatal Alcohol & Drug Exposure: Research. Policy, and Practice. Washington, DCCWLA Press Barth, Richard P., Devon Brooks, and Seema Iyer. 1995. “Adoption in California; Current Demographic Profiles and Projections Through the End ofthe Century” Manuscript prepared for the California Adoptions into die Twenty-first Century; A Policy Planning Seminar, November 8-9, 1995. Berkeley; Child Welfare Research Center, School of Social Welfare, University of California. Barth, Richard P., Mark Courtney, Jill Duerr Berrick, and Vicky Albert. 1994. From Child Abuse to Permanency Planning: Child Welfare Services Pathways and Placements. New York; Akkne de Gruyter. Barthoiet, Elizabeth. 1999. Nobody s Children: Abuse and Neglect. Foster Drift, and the Adoption Alternative. Boston; Beacon Press. Bayies, Fred and S h a ro n Cohen. 1995. “Chaos Often the Only Parent for Abused and Neglected Children.” Los Angeles Times, April 30, p. A1. “Beating Cited in Death of Foster Child, 4.” 1997. New York Times, July 30, p. B2 Beatty, Cynthia. 1997. Parents in Prison: Children in Crisis. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America Press. Beglm, Julie. 1997. “Increasingly, Grandparents Raise Their Children's Children.” New York Times, February 23, p. 6 . Bell, William and Joe Gamer 1996. “Kincare.” Journal o f Gerontological Social Work, 25(1/2); 11-20. Benedict, Mary I., Susan Zuravm, and Rebecca Y. Stallings. 19%. “Adult Functioning of Children Who Lived in Kin Versus Nonrelative Family Foster Homes.” Child Welfare, LXXV:529-549. Berman, Karen. 1997a. “Caring fix the Grandchildren.” New York Times, March 30, p. 1. Berman, Karen. 1997b. “The Fight for a Better Monetary Solution.” New York Times, March 30, p. 11. Bernstein, Nell 1999. “Is Welfare Reform Sending More Kids to Foster Care?” Salon.com, September 1 . Retrieved May 9,2001 <www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/01/welfere>. 374 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bernstein, Neil. 2000. “When the Jaihause Is Far from Home.” Sakm.com, March 29. Retrieved May 9, 2001 <www.salen.com/mw t/feature/2000/03/29ijaiIed>. Bernstein, Sharon. 1997. “Reforms voted for County children's group home.” Los Angeles Times, December 10, p. Bl. Berrick, Jill Duerr. 1997. “Assessing Quality of Care in Kmshqi and Foster Family Care.” Family Relations, 46:273-290. Berrick, Jill Duerr and Richard P. Barth. 1994. “Research an Kinship Foster Care: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go from Here?” Children and Youth Services Review, 16:1-5. Berrick, Jill Duerr, Richard Barth, and Neil Gilbert, eds. 1997. Child Welfare Research Review. Vol. 2. New York: Columbia University Press. Benrick, Jill Duerr, Richard P. Barth, m d Barbara NeedeO. 1994. “A Comparison of Kinship Foster Homes and Foster Family Homes: Implications for Kinship Foster Care as Family Preservation.” Children and Youth Services Review, 16:33-63. Berrick, Jill Duerr, Barbara Needell, and Richard P. Barth 1999 “Kin as a Family and Child Welfare Resource.” Pp. 179-192 in Kinship Foster Care: Policy, Practice, and Research, edited by R. Hegar and M. Scannapieco. New York: Oxford University Press. Berrick, Jill Duerr, Barbara NeedeO, and Richard P. Barth. December 1995. Kinship Care in CA: An Empirically Based Curriculum. Berkeley: Center for Social Services Research, California Welfare Research Center, University of California. Besharov, Douglas J , ed. 1994. When Drug Addicts Have Children: Reorienting C hild Welfare s Response. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Re: B. G.. California Supreme Court. 1974. No. 30181, Supreme Court of California, June 20, 1974. Biedennan, Patricia Ward. 1999. “Day Honors Blacks’ Experiences in U.S.” Los Angeles Times, June 20, p. B9. Blankstein, Andrew. 1998a. “Father Arrested in 1995 Death of Young Son.” Los Angeles Times, April 4, p. AI. Blankstein, Andrew. 1998b. “Father Convicted of Son’s Fatal Beating.” Los Angeles Times, August 15, p. Al. Blankstein, Andrew. 1998c. “Helms Sentenced to 21 Years to Life.” Los Angeles Times, September 26, p. Bl. 375 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Blankstein, Andrew. 1998d. “Judge Orders Father to Be Tried in Abuse Death of 2-year Old." Los Angeles Times, June 2, p. B4 Blankstem, Andrew 1999. “Woman Honored for Her Role as Wrtness." Los Angeles Times, June 30, p. B4 Blankstein, Andrew. 1997. “Woman to Be Freed m Toddler’s Slaying." Los Angeles Times, September 13, p. Bl. Boland, Paul. 1991. “Perspective of a Juvenile Court Jud^e” The Future o f Children, 1:100-104. Boots, Shelley Waters, and Rob Geen. 1999. “Family Care or Foster Care< > (few State Policies Affect Kinship Caregivers ” Working Paper No. A-34 in die series. New Federalism: Issues and Options for States. Urban Institute. Retrieved May 9, 2000 <newfederalism.urban.org/html/anf_34.htinl> Bowen, Gary L , Laura M. Desimone, and Jennifer K. McKay, 199S. “Poverty and the Single Mother Family: A Macroeconomic Perspective " Marriage & Family Review, 20:115-142. Bowers, Bonita F. and Barbara J. Myers. 1999. “Grandmothers Providing Care for Grandchildren: Consequences of Various Levels of Caregrvmg." Family Relations, 48:303-311. Bowman, Lisa M 1995 “Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Find Ally." Los Angeles Times, July 5, p. Bl. Boyer, Edward J. 1999a. “Satfriess, Anger at Foster Child’s Funeral ” Los Angeles Times, May 20, pp. Bl, B 6 . Boyer, Edward J 199%. “Suspect m Boy’ s Scaldmg Death Arrested after Turning Self In ” Los Angeles Times, May 14, p. Bl. Bridge, Andrew. February 24, 1998. “Re: Los Angeles Comity Rule of Court 17.2(e), 'Public and Media Access — Media Requests for Observing, Interviewing, Photographing, Videotaping, or Voice Recording of Minors or Their Families, and Requests for Access to Certain Facilities.’" (Correspondence between Bridge and Michael Nash, Presiding Judge ofthe Los Angeles County Juvenile Court), hi “A New Beginning for Partnerships for Children & Families in Los Angeles County,” Proceedings from the 5* Annual Conference, October 15,1999. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bridge, Andrew, Jo Kaplan, Michael Nash, Jennifer Perry, Jim Rainey, Neil Rmcover, and Cheryl Romo. October 22, 1998. “The Media mid the Dependency Court: Confidentiality, Press Responsibility and Related Issues." Presentation at the 4* Annual Conference, A New Beginning for Partnerships for Children & Families m Los Angeles County Sponsored by the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court, California State U niversky-Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Juvenile Dependency Court. Bridge, Andrew, Dawn Kusomoto, Nicholas Riccardi, Virginia Weisz, and Kim Garim Dunning. October 15, 1999. “Confidentiality in the Dependency Court.” Presentation at the 5* Annual Conference, A New Bqpnning for Partnerships for Children & Families in Los Angeles County Sponsored by the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court, California State Unrversity-Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Juvenile Dependency Court Brown, Diane R. and Joan Mars. 2000. “Profile of Contemporary Grandparentmg in African American Families.” Pp. 203-217 in To Grandmother s House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents, edited by C. B . Cox. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc. Brown-Standndge, Marcia D. and Caroline Walters Floyd. 2000. “Healing Bittersweet Legacies: RevisitHig Contextual Family Therapy for Grandparents Raising Grandchildren in Crisis.” Journal o f M arital and Family Therapy, 26:184-197. Brownell, Patricia and Jacquelm Berman. 2000. “Risks of Caregrvmg: Abuse Within the Relationship.” Pp. 91-109 in To Grandmother s House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents, edited by C. B . Cox. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc. Burnette, Denise 1999. “Custodial Grandparents in Latino Families: Patterns of Service Use and Predictors of Unmet Needs.” Social Work, 44:22-34. Burnette, Denise. 1996. “Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: A Small Group, School- based Intervention ” Presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, February 17, Washington, D.C. Burnette, Denise 1997. “Grandparents Raising Grandchildren m the Inner City.” Families in Society: The Journal o f Contemporary Human Services, 78:489-499. Burton, Linda M. 1996. “Age Norms, the Tnnmg of Family Role Transitions, and intergeneratknal Caregrvmg among Aging African American Women.” The Gerontologist, 36:199-208. Burton, Linda M. 1992. “Black Grandparents Rearing Children of Drug-addicted Parents: Stressors, Outcomes, and Social Service Needs.” The Gerontologist, 32:744-751. 377 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Burton, Linda M. and Cynthia Devries. 1992. “Challenges and Rewards: African American Grandparents as Surrogate Parents." Generations, 16:51-54. Burton. Lmda M. and Peggye Dilworth-Anderson. 1991. “The fatergenerabonal Family Roles of Aged Black Americans." Marriage & Family Review, 16:311-330. Burton. Linda M.. Peggye Dilworth-Anderson, and Cynthia Merriwether-DeVries. 1995. “Context and Surrogate Parenting among Contemporary Grandparents." Marriage < & Family Review, 20:349-366. Butterfield, Fox. 1999. “Parents in Prison: A Special Report; As Inmate Population Grows, So Does a Focus an Children." New York Times, April 7, A1. Cable News Network 1996. “Grandparents Worried Howto Support Their Grandkids.” CNN News, March 6, Transcript 1157. Cahn, Naomi R. 1999. “Welfare Reform and the Juvenile Courts: Children's Interests m a Familial Context: Poverty, Foster Care, and Adoption." 60 Ohio St. L J 1189. Cahouet, Arm P. 1998. “New Law Will Facilitate Adoption of Foster Kids.” The National Law Journal, January 12, p. B7. California Budget Act. 1992. California Education Code. <http://www.ieginfb.ca.gov/calawJitml> California Family Code. < http://www legmfb ca.gov/calawJitml> California Penal Code. < http://www.leginfoca.gov/calawJitml> California Probate Code, < http://www legmfo ca.gov/calaw.hlml> California State Code of Regulations. <http7/www.cabegs coni/> Califbmia State Assembly Bill 390 (AB 390). August 1999. California State Assembly Bill 390. Senate Floor Analysis (AB 390 Analysis). August 18, 1999. California State Assembly Bill 930 (AB 930). October 1993. California State Assembly Bill 1111 (AB 1111). May 1999. California State Assembly Bill 1225 (AB 1225). October 1999. California State Assembly Bill 1544 (AB 1544). October 1997. 378 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. California State Assembly Bill 1654 (AB 1654). July 1998. California State Assembly Bill 2307 (AB 2307). September 2000. California State Assembly Bill 2679 (AB 2679). September 1996. California State Assembly Bill 2779 (AB 2779). August 1998. California State Assembly Bill 2921 (AB 2921). September 2000. California State Senate Bill 933 (SB 933). August 1998. California State Senate Bill 1 3 9 1 (SB 1391). June 2000. California State Senate Bill 1391. Senate Floor Analysis (SB 1391 Analysis). May 23, 2000 California State Senate Bill 1 9 0 1 (SB 1901). September 30, 1998. California State Senate Bill 1901. Senate Floor Analysis (SB 1901 Analysis). August 30, 1998. California State Senate Bill 2030 (SB 2030). September 1998. California Welfare and Institutions Code, < http://www legmfb ca.gov/calaw.html> Campos, Susan and Boettcher, Mike. 1997. “More and More Grandparents Face Duty of Raising Grandchildren.” NBC News at Sunrise, July 25, NBC News Transcripts, National Broadcasting Co. Inc. Anderson v Superior Court. 1998. No. B126094, Second Dist., Drv Four., Dec 30, 1998. Capitola Land v Eloise Anderson. Director. Department o f Public Social Services et al. {Land v Anderson). 1997. No. B094688, Second Dist, Drv Four, May 20, 1997 Caregiver Authorization Affidavit. 1999. California Family Code §6550-6552, California Education Code §48204. Casper, Lynne M. and Kenneth R. Bryson. March 1998. “Co-resident Grandparents and their Grandchildren: Grandparent Maintained Families.” Population Division Working Paper No. 26, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC. Retrieved September 2001 < http://www.census.gov/population/www/ doaimentation/twps0026/twps0026Jitm> . Cass, Connie. 1994. “Harried Grandparents Experience Parenting, the Second Time Around.” Los Angeles Times, April 10, p. A19. 379 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chaifie, D eborah 1995. The Real Golden Girls: The Prevalence end Policy Treatment o f M idlife end Older People Living in Nontraditional Households. American Association of Retired Persons, Office of Special Activities, Hie Women’s Initiative. Washington: AARP. Chatters, Linda M., Robert J. Taylor, and Rukmalie Jayakody 1994. “Fictrve Kinship Relations in Black Extended Families.’’ Journal o f Comparative Family Studies, 25:297-313. Chazanov, Mathis. 1995. “Family Matters: Alumni Offer Mixed Views an Whether Orphanages Are a Good AkemaDve to Welfare.” Los Angeles Times, January 5, p. J10. Chen, Edwin. 1998. “Meth Use an Rise in West as Cocaine Rates Fall.” Los Angeles Times, July 12, p. A20. Chen, Vivien Lou and Rose Howerter. 1994. “Second Parenthood.” Los Angeles Times, September 5, p. Bl. Cheriin, Andrew J. 2001. “Welfare Reform Five Years Later Research-based Perspectives.” Presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe American Sociological Association, August 19, Anaheim, CA. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. S. 1191, 93,d Congress, P.L. 93-247. 1974. (CAPTA) Child Welfare League of America. 1994. Kinship Care: A Natural Bridge. Washington, DC: Author. The Children’s Health Act. H R. 4365, 106* Congress, P L 106-310. 2000. Children’s Institute International. June 3, 1999. “How America Defines Child Abuse” (press release). Retrieved May 2001 <http ://childrensmstituteorg/, pressite.htm?pressidno=33600yp1 659u2u31 92> Chipungu, Sandra Strikes, Joyce E. Everett, Mary Jeanne Verdieck, and Judith Janes. November 19, 1998. Children Placed in Foster Care with Relatives: A M ulti State Study: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration an Children, Youth and Families. Christian, Sue Ellen. It's not always grand parenting a 2nd time- Couples discover raising child's kids is a mixed blessing. Chicago Tribune, N l. 1997, October 4. Civil Rights AcL H R. 7152, 88* Congress, P.L. 88-353. 1964. 380 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Clayton, Chris 1998. “Woman Pleads Not Guilty in Foster Child's Death." Omaha World- Herald, December 31, p. 1 4. Clemetson, Lynette. 2000. "Grandma Knows Best" Newsweek, Jimc 12, pp. 60-61. Clinton, Bill. August 22, 1996. Remarks by President Clinton at tbe Welfare Reform Bill Signing. Retrieved July 2001 <http ://www.acf.chhs.gov/news/weifare/wr/822potus.htm> Cole, Elizabeth S. 1983. "Advocating for adoption services” Pp. 449-487 in Foster Children in the Courts, edited by hi M. Hardin. Boston: Butterworth Legal Publishers. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1991. Blade Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge. Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (Committee an Ways and Means). May 19, 1998. / 998 Green Book: Background M aterial and Data on Programs Within the Jurisdiction o f the Committee on Ways and Means. Washington: U.S. Government Prating Office, 37-943 CC Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (Committee an Ways and Meats). October 6, 2000. 2000 Green Book: Background M aterial and Data on Programs Within the Jurisdiction o f the Committee on Ways and Means. Washington: U.S. Government Prating Office, 61-710 CC. Community College Foundation. N d. MAPP: Model Approaches to Partnerships in Parenting. Retrieved March 12,2001 < http://www.communitycoUege.org/ythserv/inappiitm> Compton-Moore, Karen. 1999. “1999 A Year in Review: Grandma's House Kinship Support Services Program ” Kincideration, Winter-Spnng Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. Constant & Cahill, Attorneys & Counselors at Law. 1998, January. “The Child Abuse Reporting Statutes: Understanding the Web of California's Reporting Statutes” (brochure). Los Angeles: Author. Contreras, Teresa and Barbara NeedeU. 2001. “Kinship Care in California: Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program Implementation.” Presented at the Child Welfare League of America National Kinship Care Conference, July 26, Chicago, IL Cook, Ronna J 1997. “Are We Helping Foster Care Youth Prepare for Their Future?” in Child Welfare Research Review (Vol. 2), edited by J. D. Berrick, R. P. Barth, and N. Gilbert. New York: Columbia University Press. 381 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cook, Rcnna et al. 1990. A National Evaluation o f Title IV-E Faster Care Independent Living Programs fo r Youth: Phase I. U.S. DHHS. Rockville, MD: Westat Corporation. Cook, Rcnna et al. 1991. A National Evaluation o f Tide IV-E Foster Care Independent Living Programs fo r Youth: Phase 2. U.S. DHHS. Rockville, MD: Westat Corporation. Coontz, Stephanie. 1992. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: BasicBooks. Cooper, Michael. 1997 “2 Brooklyn Women Charged after Death o f a Foster Child.'’ New York Times. June 30, p. B3. Courtney, Mark E. 1999. “Reconciling welfare reform and child welfare.” Presented at die Annual Conference ofthe North American Council an Adaptable Children, July 29, Pasadena. CA. Cox, Carole B , ed. 2000. To Grandmother's House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents (Springer Series an Lifestyles and Issues in Aging). New York: Springer Publishing Company, he. Creighton, Linda L. 1991. “Silent Saviors.” U.S News and World Report, December 16, pp. 80-89. Crambley, Joseph and Robert L. Little, eds. 1997. Relatives Raising Children: An Overview o f Kinship Care. Washington. DC: CWLA Press. Czapanskiy, Karan. 1994. “Grandparents, Parents and Grandchildren: Actualizing Interdependency in Law.” 26 Conn. L Rev. 1315 Danziger, Sandra. 2001. “Welfare Reform Five Years Later Evidence from the Women’s Employment Study ” Presented at the Annual Meetmg of the American Sociological Association, August 19, Anaheim, CA. Danziger, Sandra. 1998. “The Scope of Welfare m the Lives of the Poor: Research and Policy Assumptions Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association,” August, San Francisco, CA. Danzy, Julia and Sondra M. Jackson. 1997. “Family Preservation and Support Services: A Missed Opportunity for Kinship Care.” Child W elftre, LXXTV.31-44 Daunt, Tina, Edward J. Boyer, and Nicholas Riccardi. 1999. “Boy, 3, Dies of Bums Suffered in Foster Home.” Los Angeles Times, May 13, p. B l. 382 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Davidson, Beverly. 1997. “Service Needs of Relative Caregivers: A Qualttatrve Analysis ” Families in Society: The Journal o f Contemporary Human Services, September/October502-510. DePanfilis, Diane, and Marsha K. Sabs. 1992a. Child protective services: A guide for caseworkers. U.S. Department of Health and Homan Services. Administration for Children and Families. Administration on Children, Youth and Families. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect Washington DC. DePanfilis, Diane, and Marsha K. Sahis. 1992b. A coordinated response to child abuse and neglect A basic manual. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. Administration on Children, Youth and Families. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect Washington DC. DeParie, Jason. “Life After Welfare: The Grandmothers." New York Times 21 Feb. 1999, late ed., sec.l: 1+. Department o f Social Services vs. Donna E Shalala. Secretary. The Department o f Health and Human Services. 2000. N o. S99-0355, U.S. Dist. Eastern Dist. Of California, September 1 , 2000. Dilworth-Anderson, Peggye 1992. Extended kin networks in Black families. Generations, 16(3), 29-32. Don H. v Patricia F. 1998. No. G019208,4th District California Court of Appeals, June 16, 1998 Douim, Ton. 1999 “Foster Mom Gets 7 Years m Tot’s Death ” Columbus Dispatch. December 9, p. 1C. D resseL, Paula L. and Sandra K. Barnhill. 1994. “Reftammg Gerontological Thought and Practice: The Case of Grandmothers with Daughters m Prisons." The Gerontologist, 34:685-691. Drummond, Tammehn. 1994. “OrangeCounty Grandfather Takes Role o f Single Dad.” Los Angeles Times. Orange County Edition, June 19, p. Al. Dubowitz, Howard. 1994. “Kinship Care: Suggestions for Future Research ” Child Welfare, LXXni:553-564. Dubowitz, Howard et al. 1994. “Children in Kinship Care: How Do They Fare?” Children and Youth Services Review, 16:85-106. Dubowitz, Howard and Diane DePanfilis, eds. 2000. Handbook fo r C hild Protection Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 383 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dubowitz, Howard, Susan Frigteman, and Susan Zuravin 1993. “A Profile of Kinship Care ” Child Welfare, LXXD: 153-169. Economic Opportunity A ct 92n d Congress, PA. 92-464. 1964. Edgewood Center for Children and Families. N .d “Kinship Support Services.” Retrieved April, 2001 <www.edgewoodcenter.org/services/kinshipJitm>. Edm, Kathryn 2001. “Welfare Reform Five Years Later Research-based Perspectives.” Presented at the Annual Meebng of the American Sociological Association, August 19, Anaheim, CA. Edwards, Leonard P. 1992. “The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge” Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 43(2): 1-45. Ehrle, Jennifer, Rob Geen, and Rebecca Clark. February 2001. “Children Cared For by Relatives: Who Are They and How Are They Faring?” Working Paper No. B-28 New Federalism: National Survey of America's Families, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Emick, Michelle A. and Bert Hayshp, Jr. 1996. “Custodial Grandparentmg: New Roles for Middle-aged and Older Adults ” International Journal o f Aging and Human Development, 43:135-154. Endo, End. 1996. “Looking Ahead: Child Abuse— Toddler's Death Brings Network into Being.” Los Angeles Times, April 16, p. B2. Epstein, Heitzi. March 1998. “Child welfare technical assistance paper, Summary of state child welfare waiver demo nstrations projects.” National Association of Child Advocates, Washington, DC. Retrieved April 2001 < http://www.childadvocacy.org/publicatJttmI> “Fact sheet The Kinship Council of Los Angeles.” n.d. Fagnani, Cynthia M. 1999. “Foster care: Challenges in helping youths live independently.” Testimony before the Subcommittee an Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House or Representatives, May 13. Washington, DC. Fears, Darryl 1998. “AIDS among Black Women Seen as a Growing Problem.” Los Angeles Times, July 24, pp. Al, A28. Feldman, Linda. 1990. “When Grandparents must Rear Children.” Los Angeles Times. Valley Edition, November 20, p. B16. 384 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fife, Beth Hardesty 1997. Letter from the California Department of Social Services Adoption Initiative Bureau to the Adoption Policy Advisory Council members, December 5. Flint, Margaret M . and Melinda Perez-Porter. 1997. “Grandparent Caregivers: Legal and Economic Issues.” Journal o f Gerontological Social Work, 28:63-76. The Food Stamp Act. H.R. 10222, 88* Congress, P.L. 88-525. 1964. Forte, Lorraine. 1999. “Report DCFS Forces Adoption.” Chicago Sun-Times, October 4, p. 21. Fouqoette, Danielle A. 1993. “Orange County Focus: Placentia; Help with Raising Grandkids” Los Angeles rimes. Orange County Edition, October 5, p. B2. Fox, A., Kane Ftasch, and Jill Dnerr Berrick. 2000. Listening to Children in Foster Care: An Empirically Based Curriculum. Berkeley: Center for Social Services Research, California Welfare Research Center, University of California. Fraser, Nancy and Linda Gordon. 1994 “A Genealogy of Dependency Tracing a Keyword to the U.S. Welfare State.” Signs: Journal o f Women in Culture and Society, 19:309-336. Freedman, Jonathan. 1990. “Foster Children; A Charade of Justice for Adults Only.” Los Angeles Times, April 10, p. B7. Fuller-Thomson, Esme, Mmkler, Meredith, and Driver, Diane. 1997. “A Profile of Grandparents Raising Grandchildren in the United States ” The Gerontologist, 37:406-411. Gamer, Bryan A., Becky R. McDaniel, and David W. Schultz, eds. 1996. Black s Law Dictionary: Pocket Edition. West Publishing Company. Garrison, Marsha. 1987. “Child Welfare Decisionmaking: in Search of the Least Drastic Alternative ” 75 Geo. L.J. 1745. Gaudin, Jr., James M. April 1993. Child Neglect: A Guide fu r Intervention. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Admi nistration for Children and Families, Administration an Children, Youth and Families, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: Westover Consultants, Inc. Gaudin, Jr., James M. and Richard Sutphen. 1993. “Foster Care vs. Extended Family Care for Children of Incarcerated Mother.” Journal o f Offender Rehabihtiation, 19(3- 4): 129-147. 385 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. GebeL Timothy J 19%. “Kinship Care and Non-relatrve Family Care: A Comparison of Caregiver Attributes and Attitudes." Child Welfare, LXXV 5-18. Generations United, n.d. “In the press.” Retrieved September 2001 <www.gu.org/ projg&onews-htm> Giarrusso, Roseann, Du Feng, Qian-wei Wang, and Meml Silverstein. 1996 “Parenting and Co-parenting of Grandchildren: Effects on Grandparents' Well-being and Family Solidarity.” International Journal o f Sociology and Social Pohcy, 16(12): 124-155 Giarrusso, Roseann, Merril Silverstein, and Du. Feng. 2000. “Psychological Costs and Benefits of Raising Grandchildren: Evidence from a National Survey of Grandparents "GD&C In To Grandmother s House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents edited by C. Cox. New York: Springer Publishing. Giarrusso, Roseann, Merril Silverstein, Du Feng, and Anne Marenco. 2000. “Primary and Secondary Stressors of Grandparents Raismg Grandchildren Evidence from a National Study.” Under review at the Journal o f M ental Health and Aging Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. 1999. “Completed Adoptions” [GD&C data]. Los Angeles Author. Gilbert, Susan. 1998. “Rising Stress of Raising a Grandchild.” New York Times, July 28, p. F7. Gilens, Martm 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media and the Politics o f Antipoverty Pohcy. Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press. Gilliam, Dorothy 1994. “Gop Family Values End with the Poor.” Washington Post, December 1 7, p. Dl. Gillis, John R. 19%. A World o f Their Own Making: Myth, Ritual and the Quest fo r Family Values. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press. Gleeson, James P. 1995. “Kinship Care and Public Child Welfare: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Work Education.” Journal o f Social Work Education, 31:182-193. Gleeson, James P. 19%. “Kinship Care as a Child Welfare Service: The Policy Debate in an Era of Welfare Reform.” Child Welfare, LXXV419-449 Gleeson, James P. and Lynn C. Craig 1994. “Kinship Care in Child Welfare: An Analysis of States' Policies.” Children & Youth Services Review, 16(l/2):7-31. Gleeson, James P., John O’ Donnell, and Faith Johnson Bonecutter. 1997. “Understanding the Complexity of Practice in Kinship Foster Care.” Child Welfare, LXXVL801-826. 386 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Glenn, Evelyn Nakano, Grace Chang, and Linda Ramie Forcey, eds. 1994. Mothering: Ideology. Experience, and Agency. New York: Routledge Goidofias, Lisa and David Brown. 1995. The Guardianship Book: How to Become a Child's Guardian in California. (Second California Edition). Berkeley: Nolo Press. Goldstein, Joseph, Anna Fiend, and Albert Solnk. [1973] 1979. Beyond the Best Interests o f the Child. New York: Free Press. Goldstein, Joseph, Anna Freud, aid Albert SobiL 1979. Before the Best Interests o f the Child. New York: Free Press. Goldstein, Joseph, Anna Freud, and Albert Solnit. 1986. In the Best Interests o f the Child. New York: Free Press. Gomby, Deanna S. and Patricia H. Shiono. 1991 “Estimating the Number of Substance- exposed Infants The Future o f Children. l(l):I7-25 Los Abos, CA: The David and Lucxle Packard Foundation. Gordon, Linda. 1994. Pitied but Not Entitled. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gougis, Michael. 1998 “Protected to Death.” New Times Los Angeles, October 8-14, pp. 11-17. Grass, Jane. 2000. “Child Raising 201: A Graduate Course for Grandmothers.” New York Times. Late Edition— Final, March 8, p. H 4. Guggenheim, Martin, Alexandra Dylan Lowe, and Diane Curtis. 1996. The Rights o f Families: The Authoritative Aclu Guide to the Rights o f Family Members Today. (Norman Dorsen, Series Editor). Carbondale, IL Southern Illinois University Press. Gunderson, Karen and Beth Hardesty Fife. 1999. “ The California Adoptions Initiative.” Presented at the Annual Meeting o f the North American Council on Adoptable Children Conference, July 31, Pasadena, C A. Gunnison, Robert B. 1997. “Wilson Urges Unwed Moms to Give up Kids.” San Francisco Chronicle, January 11, p. AI3. Hall, Carla. 2000. “380 Children Join New Families in Mass Adoption.” Los Angeles Times Valley Edition, May 14, pp. B l, B4-B5. Harden, Allen W., Rebecca L. Clark, and Karen Maguire. 1997. “Formal and Informal Kinship Care.” Prepared fix’ the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department o f Health and Human Services, June 27. Retrieved July 2000 <http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/cyp/kincare/toc.htrn> 387 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hardin, Mark, ed. 1983. Foster Children in die Courts. Boston: Butterworth Legal Publishers. Harker, Victoria aid Karina Bland. 1997. “Foster Mother Guilty of Murder.'’ Arizona Republic, October 4, p. Al. Harris, Susan and Holly Pedersen. 1996. “Re-thmkmg Family Therapy: A ddre ssing Macrosystemic Issues and Oppression.” Unpublished manuscript. Hawley, Theresa Lawton, Tamara G Halle, Ruth E. Drasm, and Nancy G. Tbamas. 1995. “Children of Addicted Mothers: Effects of the ‘Crack Epidemic' on the Caregrvmg Environment and the Development o f Preschoolers.” American Journal o f Orthopsychiatry, 65:364-379. Hayslip, Jr., Bert, R _ Jerald Shore, Craig E. Henderson, and Paul L. Lambert 1998. “Custodial Grandparentmg and the Impact of Grandchildren with Problems an Role Satisfaction and Role Meaning.” Journal o f Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53B:S164-S173. Hegar, Rebecca. 1999. Kinship Foster Care. The New Child Placement Paradigm. Pp. 225- 240 in Kinship Foster Care: Policy, Practice, and Research, edited by R. Hegar and M. Scannapieco. New York: Oxford University Press. Hegar, Rebecca and Maria Scannapieco. 1995. “From Family Duty to Family Policy: The Evolution of Kinship Care.” Child Welfare. LXXTV:200-216 Hegar, Rebecca and Maria Scannapieco, eds. 1999. Kinship Foster Care: Policy. Practice, and Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Held, Gale A . June 1998. “Linkages B etween Substance Abuse Prevention and Other Human Services: Literature Review.” Bethesda, MD: National Institute an Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health. Heims, Gail. 19%. “Murdered Children.” Los Angeles Times, February 1 1, p. M-4. Hernandez, Jr., Efiain. 19%. “10-year Term for Death of Boy, 2, Is Criticized.” Los Angeles Times, Valley Edition, January 11, p. B4. “HIV Rate Highest for Young, Poor Women.” 1998. Los Angeles Times, August 28, p. A16. Hollidge, Margaret and Faith Mullen. 1999. “TANF and Kinship Caregivers: One Size Doesn’ t Fit AH.” Presented at the Child Welfare League of America National Kinship Care Conference, August 18, Atlanta, GA. 388 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hornby, Hdaine, Dennis Zeller, and David Kanaker. 1996. “Kinship Care in America: What Outcomes Should Policy S eek*’” Child Welfare, LXXV 397-418 Horwitz, Sari. 2000a. “Girl's Death Leaves Foster Care Shaken.” Washington Post, January 14, p. Al. Horwitz, Sari. 2000b. “ Judge Dkfa't See Report Before Moving Briarma.” Washington Post, January 15, p. Bl. Horwitz, San. 1999. “Opening Up Homes— And Hearts.” Washington Post. February 28, p. C01. Horwitz, Sari. 2000c. “Toddler's Death Ruled Homicide.” Washington Post, January 9, p. C01. Horwitz, Sari and Scott Higham. 2000a. “D.C. Foster Reports Often Late, Officials Say.” W ashingon Post, February 4, p. B l. Horwitz, Sari and Scott Higham. 2000b. “Record Numbers of D C. Children Go to Foster Care: Bnanna’s Death 'Scared' Caseworkers.” Washington Post, February 28, p. A01. Horwitz, Sari and Yolanda Woodlee. 2000. “Court Sent Briama to Illegal Residence.” Washingon Post. January 28, p. B l. Hua, Thao 1998a. “Court Stiffens Stance on Child Custody Changes.” Los Angeles Times, June 19, p. B5. Hua, Thao. 1998b. “Grandparent Guardianships Get Legal Boost.” Los Angeles Times, June 19, p. Bl. Hungerford, Gregory P 1996. “Caregivers of Children Whose Mothers Are Incarcerated: A Study of the Kinship Placement System.” Children Today, 24{l):23-27 Hunter, Andrea G and Robert J. Taylor. 1998. “Grandjparenthood in African American Families.” Pp. 70-86 in Handbook on Grandparenthood, by M. E Szinovacz. Westport Greenwood Press. Ifekwunigwe, Jayne O. 1999. Scattered Belongngs: Cultural Paradoxes o f “ Race. ” Nation and Gender. London: Routiedge. Iglehart, Alfreda P. 1994. “Kinship Foster Care: Placement, Service and Outcome Issues.” Children and Youth Services Review, 16:107-122. 389 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Igiehart, Alfreda P. 1995. “Readiness for Independence: Comparison of Foster Care, Kinship Care, and Nan-fbster Care Adolescents." Children and Youth Services Review, 17:417-432. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. 1999. Dialogue: A News Letter fo r and about DCFS Employees, Fall. DCFS Communications Office. Immigration Reform and Control Act S. 1200, 99* Congress, P.L. 99-603. 1986. Indian Child Welfare Act S. 1214,95* Congress, P.L. 95-608. 1978. Ingram, Charlene. 1996. “Kinship Care: From Last Resortto First Choice." Child Welfare, LXXV550-566 Iseri, Joyce. August 9,2000. Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Analysis of California State Senate Bill 1391 (Senators SchifFand Polanco, authors). Itani, Zena and Jennifer Kates. May 2001. “Key facts: Women and HIV/AIDS." Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Jayakody, Rukmalie, Linda M Chatters, and Robert J. Taylor 1993. “Family Support to Single and Married African American Mathers: The Provision of Financial, Emotional, and Child Care Assistance." Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 55:261-276 Jehl, Douglas. 1994. “Clinton Says Orphanages Can't Replace Strong Parents.” New York Times, December 11, p. 34. Jendrek, Margaret Plan. 1994. “Grandparents Who Parent Their Grandchildren: Circumstances and Decisions ” The Gerontologist, 34:206-216 Jendrek, Margaret Platt. 1993. “Grandparents Who Parent Their Grandchildren: Effects on Lifestyle." Journal o f Marriage and die Family, 55:609-621. Jeter, Jon. 1997. “Foster Care's Relative Solution.” Washington Fost, April 16, p. A01. Johnson, Ivory L. 1994. “Kinship Care." Pp. 221-228 in When Drug Addicts Have Children: Reorienting Child Welfare's Response, edited by D. J. Besfaarov. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Johnson, Janmse 1999. “Despite Deaths, Foster Care Said to Be Safe." Los Angeles Times, June 25. Jones, LaNiece and Jerutha Kennedy. 1996. “Grandparents United: intergeneratknal Development Education." Child Welfare, LXXV 636-650. 390 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Joslin, Daphne. 2000. "Grandparents Raising Children Orphaned and Affected by HIV/AIDS” Pp. 167-183 in To Grandmother's House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents, edited by C. Cox. New York: Sprmger Publishing Company, he. Joslin, Daphne and Anne Brouard. 1995 "The Prevalence of Grandmothers as Primary Caregivers m a Poor Pediatric Population.” Journal o f Community Health, 20:383- 401 Judicial Com al of California. 2000a. Executive Summary o f the Final Report o f the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts. Retrieved April 2001 <http://www.couitkifb.gov/ referenoe/execrace±tm>. Judicial Council of California. March 1,2000. “Information sheet on waiver of court fees and costs.” Form982(aX17XA). Judicial Council of California. January 1 , 2000. “Petition for adoption.” Form ADOPT- 200 Judicial Council of California. January 1 , 1995. “Probate guardianship pamphlet.” Form GRANDCHILD-205 juneteenth.com. Juneteenth.com, 6003 Bullard Avenue, Suite 9, Box 370, New Orleans, Louisiana 70128. Retrieved June 2000 <http://juneteenth.com> Karp, Naomi. 1996. “Legal Problems of Grandparents and Other Kinship Caregivers.” Generations, 20:57-60. Karp, Sarah 1999. “DCFS Policy Spells Pressure for Blade Families.” The Chicago Reporter, October Retrieved July 2000 <http7/www.chicagoreporter.com/10- 99/1099fostercare ,htm>. Katz, Michael B. 1996. In the Shadow o f the Poorhouse: A Social History o f Welfare in America (10* anniversary edition). New York: Basic Books. Katz, Michael B. 2001. The Price o f Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare State. New York: Metropolitan Books. Kaufotan, Joan and Edward Zigler 1989. “ The m tergenerational transmission of child abuse.” Pp. 129-150 m Child Maltreatment: Theory and Research on the Causes and Consequences o f Child Abuse and Neglect, edited by D. Ciccheth and V. Carlson. New York: Cambridge University Press. KeUerman, Vivien. 1994. “Idea of ‘Grandparents’rights* Is Gaining Wider Attention.” New York Times, December 18, p. LI8. 391 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kennedy, James F. and Virginia T. Keeney. 1988. “The Extended Family Revisited: Grandparents Rearing Grandchildren.'' Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 19(1), 26-36. Kennedy, James F. and Virginia T Keeney. 1987. “Group Psychotherapy With Grandparents Rearing Their Emotionally Disturbed Grandchildren.” Group, 11(1): 15-25. Kin Care Consulting. 1998. “Relative Caregiver Orientation and Resources: A Kin Care Consulting Program." Washington, DC: Kin Care Consulting. King v McMahon. 1986. No. A029065. Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Two., October 21, 1986. Kinship Council of Los Angeles, be. n.d. (brochure). Komhaber, Arthur 1996. Contemporary Grandparenting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kroll, Joe. 1998. “Permanency planning: Parents Role [sic] in Concurrent Planning." Presented at the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services “Families for Life 2 Conference," November 2, Los Angeles, CA. Kroll, Joe. Winter 1998. “Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 Signed into Law.” Adoptalk North American Council on Adoptable Children. Kunzman, Claudette Donatella. 1997. “Grandparents raising grandchildren. Legal needs." Presented at the Orange County Therapist-Attorney Network, June 6, Orange, CA. L A Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness. “How to Get Food and Money: The People’ s Guide to Welfare, Health and Other Services in Los Angeles County." 2000. Los Angeles: Author. Lambert, B . 1989. “AIDS Legacy: A Growing Generation of Orphans." New York Times, July 17, pp. A l, B5. Larrubia, Evelyn. 2001. “Death Spotlights Foster Care Problems.” Los Angeles Times, June 15, p. Al. Lassiter v Department o f Social Services, 1981. No. 79-6423, U.S. Siqweme Court, June 1 , 1981 League of Women Voters of California (LWVC). July 1998. Juvenile Justice in Califomia- -Part II Dependency System: Facts and Issues. (Prepared by the LWVC Education Fund; Juvenile Justice Study Committee). Retrieved June 2000 <http://ca.lwvorg/ ijdsr > . 392 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lee, Felicia R 1994. “Orphaned by AIDS." Chicago Tribune, November 28, p. C7 Legislative Analyst's Office. 1996, January 5. “Child Abuse and Neglect in California.” <http://www.lao.ca.gov/cwl 1096tocJttml>. Leos-Urbel, Jacob, Roseana Bess, and Rob Geen. 1999. State Policies fo r Assessing and Supporting Kinship Foster Parents. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Le Prohn, Nichole S. 1994. “The Role of the Kinship Foster Parent: A Comparison of the Role Conceptions of Relative and Non-relative Foster Parents.” Children and Youth Services Review 16:65-84. Lesher, Dave. 1997. “Success Stories Shaped Wilson's Welfare Views." Los Angeles Times, January 12, pp. Al, A25. Lester, Barry M., Linda L. LaGasse, and Ranald Seifer. 1998. “Cocaine Exposure and Children: The Meaning of Subtle Effects." Science, 232:633-634. Lindenmeyer, Kriste. 1999. “When Government Became Children's Advocate.” Connect for Kids, Benton Foundation. Link, M. K. 1996. “Permanency Outcomes in Kinship Care: A Study of Children Placed in Kinship Care in Erie County, New York." Child Welfare, LXXV:509-528 Logan, Sharyn. Marva J. Anderson, Karen Compton-Moore, Tina Goodman-Brown, and Frances Crawford. 1999. “‘Grandma's House': Keeping die Ties That Bind.” Presented at the Child Welfare League o f America National Kinship Care Conference, August 19. Atlanta, GA. Los Angeles County. October 1998. Kinship Care Newsletter (No. 5). Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). N.d. “ The ABC's of AAP: A Family for Life for Every Child" (flyer). Retrieved May 2001 <http://dcfs.co.la.ca.us/wdcfs/ ABC%20of%20aapJitm>. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). 1999. “Child Welfare Services-Calendar year 1999.” Retrieved May 2001 <http://dcfe.co.la.ca.us/wdcfs/FactSheetB Jitm> Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). 2000. “Child Welfare Services— Fiscal Year 1999-2000." Retrieved May 2001 <http://dcfs.co.la.ca.us/wdcfs/FactSheetCJitm>. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). N.d. “Family to Family L.A.. A community based foster care system" (brochure). 393 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Los Angeies County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) N.d. “Frequently Asked Quekions about Child Abuse.” Retrieved May 2001 <http7/drfsco.la.ca.us/wdcfe/FAQJitm> Los Angeles County D epa rtm en t of Children and Family Services (DCFS). 1996, January. “Information Sheet about Foster Care Payments for Relative Caretakers (Youakim)” (brochure). Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). N.d. “Services We Provide, Family to Family Initiative.” Retrieved May 2001 <http://dcfs co.la.ca.us/wdcfs/services2.htntffFamily to Family initiative^ Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). N.d. “Post Adoption Services." Retrieved May 2001 < http://dcfs.co.la.ca.us/wdcfs/Post%20Adopticn.btm> Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). June 1994. “Summary of information— Distinctions Between Adoption/Legal Guardianship/Long Term Foster Care.” (Handout at Kinship Caregivers Regional Meeting, Regions 2& 6). Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Adoptions Division (DCFS Adoptions Division) N.d. “Creating a Family; Creating a Future" (brochure). Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Adoptions Division (DCFS Adoptions Division). 1998, November. “Adoption Home Study Guide." (Handout at the DCFS Kinship Advocacy Conference, June 8,1999) Los Angeies County Department of Children and Family Services, Grandma’s House (DCFS Grandma’s House). 1998, July. “Grandma’s House VI" (informational flyer). Los Angeies County Department of Children and Family Services, Public Information Office (DCFS Public Information Office). Circa 1997. “Our Vision, Our Mission” (brochure). (Faxed transmission flam DCFS headquarters to Grandma’s House, May 27, 1997.) Los Angeles County Department of Community and Senior Services. “Area Agency on Aging, Title V Senior Community Employment Program.” Retrieved November 2000 < http://dcssco.la.ca.us/AAA/titlevJitm> Los Angeies County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) N.d. “CalWORKS Eligibility.” Retrieved May 2001 < http://dpss.co.la.ca.us/calworks/eligibility.cfin>. Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). N.d. “CalWORKS Time Limits.” Retrieved May 2001 < http://dpss.co.la.ca.us/calworks/tinielimits.cfin>. 394 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). n.d. “CalWORKS: What Does it Mean to You and Your Family9 ” (brochure). Los Angeles County Superior Court “Historical Perspectives o f the Court.” Retrieved September 2001 <http:yAiww.lasuperiorcouit.ofg/aboutcourt/>. Los Angeies County Superior Court “Juvenile Dependency Court” Retrieved September 2001 < http://wvw.lasuperiorcourt.org/juveniIe/> Los Angeies County Superior Court. “Probate Court” Retrieved September 2001 < http://wvwlas1 3jer10rcourt.0 1g/probate/> Los Angeles County Superior Court 2001, July 1 . “Probate, Fees, Probate Court.” Retrieved August 2001 < http://www.lasupenorcourt.OTg/probate/> Luckey, Irene. 1994. “African American Elders: The Support Network of Generational Kin.” Families in Society: The Journal o f Contemporary Human Services, 85:82- 89. MacKenzie, Joseph D , and John B. Cahill. 1999. “Legal Issues Impacting Relative Caregivers ” Presented at the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Grandma’ s House Q Conference: “Keeping the Ties That Bind: Understanding the Relative Caregrver’s Role to Kinship Care of Children in the Child Welfare System,” June 21, Culver City, CA. Magruder, Joseph. 1994. “Characteristics of Relative and Non-Relative Adoptions by California Public Adoption Agencies.” Children and Youth Services Review, l-2( 16): 123-131. Magruder, Joseph. 1998. “Kinship Adoption.” Presented at Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services conference, November 3, Los Angeles, C A. Mabic, Eric. 1998. “Mother Sues County over Son’s Foster Home Death.” Los Angeles Times, June 9, p. B2. March, Karen and Charlene Miall. 2000. “Adoption as a Family Form.” Family Relations, 49:359-362. Marx, Jonathan and Jennifer Crew Solomon. 2000. “Physical Health of Custodial Grandparents.” Pp. 37-55 in To Grandmother's House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents, edited by C. Cox. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc. 395 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. McCurdy, Thomas, David Mancuso, and Margaret O'Brien-Strain. June 2000. The Rise and Fall o f California's Welfare Caseload: Types and Regions. 1980-1999. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. McDaniel, Sharon L. and Anthony R. Sosso. n.d. Subsidized Legal Guardianship: a Permanency Planning Option Study fa r Children Placed in Kinship Care. Pittsburgh: A Second Chance, he. McGokinck, Monica. 1989. “Women and the Family Life Cycle.” Pp. 31-68 in The Changing Family Life Cycle edited by B. Carter and M. McGokirick. Neediam Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. McKenzie, Richard. 1998. “Perspective on Child Welfare: Gingrich Was Right about Orphanages ” Los Angeles Times, December 24, p. B9. Mehren, Elizabeth. 1998. “An Innovative Place for When Parenting Skips a Generation.” Los Angeles Times, November 8, p. A3. Meiers, Steven, Barbara Morales, Karen UUman, and Julie Van Wert. 1998. “Adopting children from the dependency system.” Presented at the 4* Annual Conference, A New Beginning for Partnerships for Children & Families in Los Angeles County. Sponsored by the Los Angeies County Juvenile Court, California Slate University- Los Angeies, and the Los Angeies County Juvenile Dependency Court, October 22, Los Angeles, CA. Merl, Jean. 1998. “Program Banishes Adoption Blues for Some Families.” Los Angeles Times, March 22, p. Bl. Meyer, Bernard S., and Maryjane K. Link. 1990, October. Kinship Foster Care: The Double Edged Dilemma. Rochester, New York: Task Force on Permanency Planning for Foster Children, he. Meyer, Josh. 1997. “Contract Agreements Avert Strikes by County Workers.” Los Angeles Time, October 2, p. B l. Miller. Director. Department o f Children and Family Services ofIllinois, et al. v Youahm et al. (M iller v Youakim). Argued October 30, 1978; Decided February 22, 1979. Supreme Court of die United States, No. 77-742. 440 U.S. 125; 99 S. C t 957; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 26; 59 L. Ed. 2d 194. Mmkler, Meredith and Esme Fuller-Thampsan. 1999. “The Health of Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: Results of a National Study.” American Journal ofP ublic Health, 89:1384-1389. 396 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Milkier, Meredith and Kathleen M. Roe. 1993. Grandmothers as Caregivers: Raising Children o f the Crack Cocaine Epidemic. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, h e . Minkler, Meredith, Kathleen M. Roe, and Marilyn Price. 1992. “The Physical and Emotional Health of Grandmothers Raising Grandchildren in the Crack Cocaine Epidemic.” The Gerontologist, 32:752-761. Minkler, Meredith, Kathleen M. Roe, and Relda J. Robmsan-Beckley 1994. “Raising Grandchildren from Crack-cocame Households: Effects on Family and Friendship Ties o f African-American Women.” American Journal o f Orthopsychiatry, 64:20- 29 Moorehead, James Donald. “Of Family Values and Child Welfare: What Is in the “Best” Interests of the Child0” 79 Marquette L R. 517. Moram, Dan and Bill Stall. 1995. “Speech Cements a Remaking of Wilson's Image” Los Angeles Times, January 10, p. Al. Morganthau, Tom (with Bob Cohn and Eleanor Clift) 1993. “The Entitlement Trap.” Newsweek, December 13, p. 33. Morton, Thomas D , and Marsha K Salus. 1994. Superviskig Child Protective Services Caseworkers. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. Administration an Children, Youth and Families. Washington DC: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect Mott, Patrick. 1997. “ft’s Round 2 of Raising the Kids ” Los Angeles Times, August 24, p. E3. Multiethnic Placement Act. H.R. 6 ,103"1 Congress, P.L. 103-382 1994. Murphy, Mary Beth (with James H. Burnett ID). 1999. “Boy Who Drowned in Foster Mother's Tub Was Alone for 25 Minutes, Report Says.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 2, p. 1 . National Adaption Information Clearinghouse (NAIC) 1999. “Finalized Adoptions from Foster Care.” Retrieved May 2001 < http://Svww.cahb.coni/naic/pubs/s_fuial.htni> Nazario, Sonia. 1998. “Abuse Hotline Is Improved, Report Finds; Children: Response to Callers Is Quicker, County Audit Says, but Not Fast Enough to Prevent Some from Hanging Up.” Los Angeles Times, April 28, p. Bl. Nazario, Sonia. 1997. “Child Abuse Reports Rise 20% at Agency.” Los Angeles Times, November 18, pp. A l, A23. 397 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N eedelL , Barbara and Neil Gilbert. 1997. “Child Welfare and the Extended Family ” In Child Welfare Research Review (Vol. 2), edited by J. D. Berrick, R. P. Barth, and N Gilbert. New York: Columbia University Press. Newman, Andy. 1999. “Mother and Daughter Sentenced in Death of a Young Foster Child.” New York Times, March 10, p. B7. Nguyen, Tina. 1996. “Parenting: The Sequel.” Los Angeles Times, December 15, p. B l. Noble, Kenneth B. 1996. “Pressing Reform, Child Wdfere Commissioner Looks to Los Angeles.” New York Times, November 12, p. Bl. Norris, Michele L. 1991. " ‘ Grandmothers Who Fill Void Carved by Drugs ” l^os Angeles Times, August 30, p. Al. Oliver, Myraa. 1998. “Sara B erman, 53; L _A . County Director of Adoptions.” Los Angeles Times, April 2, p. A 22. O’Flynn, Mary. 1999. “Comment: The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997: Changing Child Welfare Policy Without Addressing Parental Substance Abuse.” Journal o f Contemporary Health Law < & Policy, 16:243. O’Laughlin, Megan. 1998. “A Theory of Relativity: Kinship Foster Care May Be the Key to Stopping the Pendulum of Termination Vs. Reunification ” 51 Vanderbilt L R. 1427. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. H.R. 3982,97th Congress, P.L. 97-35. 1981 (OBRA) O'Neill, A im W. 1998a. “A Boy's Fatal Journey in the System.” Los Angeles Times, May 29, pp. Bl, B 6 O'Neill, Ann W. 1998b. “Judge Refuses to Seal Suit in Boy's Death.” Los Angeles Times, December 8, p. Bl. Oppenheim, Elizabeth and Alice Bussiere. 1996. “Adoption: Where Do Relatives Stand?” Child Welfare, LXXV471-488. “Orangewood Trend Good.” 2000. Los Angeles Times. Orange County Edition, June 11, p. B16. O'Reilly, Bill. 2000. “Their Labor of Love.” Los Angeles Times, Parade Magazine, March 26, pp. 4-5. Palermo, B.J. 1997. “Pro Bono Firm to Offer Adoption Help.” The National Law Journal, June 30, p. A6 . 398 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pasternak, Judy 1998. “Meth ldds: Heartland’s tragic tale.” Los Angeies Times, May 29, pp. A l, A35-36. Patemo, Susan. 1994. “People: Help for Grandparents an Second Go Around.” Los Angeles Times, September 1, p. J19. Paxson, Christina and Jane Waldfbgei. September 1999. “Work, Welfare, and Child Maltreatment.” Working Paper No. 7343. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved May 2001 < http://wwwjiber.otgfrapers/w7343> Pebley, Anne R ~ and Laura L. Rudkm. 1999. “Gram^jarents Caring for Grandchildren: What Do We Know?” Journal o f Family Issues, 20:218-232. Pecora Peter J , Nichole S. Le Protm, and John J. Nasud. 1999 “Role Perceptions of Kinship and Other Foster Parents in Family Foster Care.” Pp. 155-178 in Kinship Foster Care: Policy. Practice, and Research edited by R. Hegar and M. Scannapieco. New York. Oxford University Press. PeUman. Amy July 1997. “The ABC's of the Los Angeies Dependency Court System.” Los Angeles: Dependency Court Legal Services, be. Pekon, Leroy H. 1989. For Reasons o f Poverty: A Critical Analysis o f the Public Child Welfare System o f the United States. New York: Praeger Publishers. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. H R 3734, 104* Congress, PL 104-193. 1996. (PRA) Petrus, Frank. 1998. “Analysis of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.” Unpublished manuscript. Pmson-Millbum, Nancy M., Ellen S. Fabian, Nancy K. Schlossberg, and Marjorie Pyle. 1996. “Grandparents Raising Grandchildren." Journal o f Counseling and Development, 74:548-554. Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A Cloward. [1971] 1993. Regulating the Poor: The Functions o f Public Welfare (Updated Edition). New York: Vintage Books. Pizzigati, Karen, Frank Petrus etal. (1999). “From Pohcy to Practice: A Look at the Impact of legislation” Presented at the Pre-conference Institute at the Child Welfare League of America National Kinship Care Conference, August 17, Atlanta, GA. Platte, Mark. 1994. “From $650,000 O.C. House to Welfare Line; Finances: Despite Assets including a $7,700 Watch, Susie Hernandez Applies for AFDC, Authorities Say.” Los Angeles Times. Orange County Edition, May 5, p. A l. 399 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Porterfield, Jeff, Paula Dressd, and Sandra Barnhill. 2000. “Special Situations of Incarcerated Parents." Pp. 184-202 m To Grandmother’ s House We Go and Stay: Perspectives on Custodial Granc^arents., edited by C. B. Cox. New York: Springer Publishing Company, he. Poynter, Chris. 1999. “Foster Child's Death to Be Investigated." The Courier-Jdumal, April 24, p. 01b. Prison Activist Resource Center. N.d. “Dependency Issues, Grandparent Caregivers: A National Guide.” Oakland, CA: Author. Retrieved July 2000 <http y/pnsonactivistorg/Tspc/ngcm/depend htm fc> Prisan Activist Resource Center. N.d. “Women in Prison.” Oakland, CA: Author. Retrieved September 2001 <http:/Avww-unix oit.umass edu/'-kastor/ walkmg-steel-95 Avs-women-m-pnson .html> The Public Employees Roundtable. 1999. “Government Programs that Work for America.” Retrieved May 2001 <http ://wvm theroundtable-org/unsung/gov_progS-htm> Quadagno, Jill. 1994. The Color o f Welfare: How Racism Undermined the War on Poverty New York: Oxford University Press. Rainey, James. 1995a. “A Child Dies, and legal System Is Blamed." Los Angeles Times, April 28, p. Al. Rainey, James. 1995b. “Child's Death Shows Judges Need Training, Sheriff Says." Los Angeles Times, April 29, p. Bl. Rainey, James. 1998a. “'Crack Babies' Show Fewer Problems than Predicted, Experts Say.” Los Angeles Times, September 15, p. A23 Rainey, James. 1996a. “Flaws Cited n County Protection of Children.” Los Angeles Times, October 24, p. Bl. Rainey, James. 2000a. “Foster Child Adoptions Soar in California." Los Angeles Times, May 8, pp. Al, A20-21. Rainey, James. 1997. “Grand Jury Cites Abuses in Group Foster Homes." Los Angeles Times, April 9, p. Al. Rainey, James. 1996b. “Guardian Charged in Boy's Death; Courts:‘Shaken Baby Syndrome' Is Suspected; State Confirms Complaints about Foster Home ” Los Angeles Times, December 7, p. B l. Rainey, James. 1998b. “Ideas Offered for More Responsive Child Welfare Agency ” Los Angeles Times, November 17, p. B2. 400 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rainey, James. 2000b. “Senate backs Dependency Court access.” Los Angeles Times, June U P- A3. Rainey, James and Josh Meyer. 1997a. “Child Social Workers Strike, Demand Lighter Caseloads." Los Angeles Times. Valley Edition, October 1, p. Bl. Rainey, James and Meyer, Josh. 1997b. “Child Social Workers Walk Out.” Los Angeles Times. Home Edition, October 1 , p. Bl. Rainey, James and Sonia Nazario. 1998. “Child Abase Reports Swamp County System.” Los Angeles Times, January 11, p. A l. Renwick, Lucille. 1993. “The Grandparent Trap: More Find Themselves Raising a Second Family.” Los Angeles Times. City Times, July 4, p. 14. Riccardi, Nicholas. 1998. “County Lawyers Push to Seal Foster Care Suit m Boy’s Death.” Los Angeles Times, November 24, p. B2. Riccardi, Nicholas 1999a. “Grandmother Blames County m Latest Death of Foster Child ” Los Angeles Times, June 15, pp. Bl, B3. Riccardi, Nicholas. 1999b. “Many Problems Found at Foster Care Agency.” Los Angeles Times, June 25, p. Al. Riccardi, Nicholas. 1999c. “Review of Foster Care Vowed ” Los Angeles Times, June 26, p. Bl Rippee, Greg 1997. “Couple Pleads Not Guilty n Death of Their Foster Child.” Los Angeles Times, April 19, p. B7. Rites o f Passage Program. 1993. “The 10 Steps.” Culver City, CA: Author. Roberts, Dorothy E. 1995 “The Genetic Tie.” 62 U . Chi. L Rev. 209. Robinson, Marilyn. 1999. “Westminster Mm Jailed in Foster Child Death.” Denver Post, March 5, p. B01. Roche, Timothy. 2000. “ The Crisis of Foster Care.” Time, November 13, pp 74-82 Rodgers-Farmer, Antoinette Y 1999. “Parenting Stress, Depression, and Parenting m Grandmothers R aisin g Their Grandchildren.” Children and Youth Sendees Review, 21:377-388. 401 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Roe, Kathleen M. 2000. “Community Interventions to Support Grandparent Caregivers: Lessens Learned from die field.” Pp. 283-303 in To Grandmother s House We Go and Stay Perspectives on Custodial Grandparents, edited by C. Cox. New York: Springer Pubiishng Company, Inc. Rogers, Ronald, and Chandler Scott McMillin 2000. “How Do I Screen a Caregiver’s Use and Abuse of and Dependence on Alcohol and Other Drags and Their Effects on Parenting?” Pp. 105-108 m Handbook fo r C hild Protection Practice, edited by H. Dubowitz and D. DePanfilis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Romo, Cheryl. 1998a. “Buried Alive.” Los Angeles D aily Journal, September 10, p. 1,9. Romo, Cheryl. 1998b. “Cracks in the Wall of Silence: Even Judges Doubt the Need for So Much Secrecy in Juvenile Cases.” Los Angeles Daily Journal, May 6, pp. 1, 10. Romo, Cheryl. 1998c. “Father Battled for Kids’ Records.” Los Angeles Daily Journal, September 10, p. 9. Romo, Cheryl. 1999 “For Foster Kids, Emancipation Often Leads to Homelessness.” Los Angeles Daily Journal, July 29. Retrieved July 2000 < http://www.pubhccounsel.org/hews/jul2999Jitin>. Romo, Cheryl. 1998d. “Group Contests Speech Limits an Foster Kids.” Los Angeles Daily Journal February 27, pp. 1 , 8 . Romo, Cheryl. 1998e. “On Boy's Death: Agency Retaliation Seen; AG Is Urged to Step in.” Los Angeles Daily Journal, June 1, pp. 1,9. Romo, Cheryl. 1998f. “These Children Are Usually Not Seen, Not Heard.” Los Angeles Daily Journal, July 20, pp. 1,9. Roschelle, Anne R 1997. No More Kin: Exploring Race, Class, and Gender in Family Networks. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage. Rotzoil, Brenda Warner 2000. “Costs Increase as Crack Babies Mature.” Chicago Sun- Times, April 23, p. 12. Rovner, Sandy. 1995. “Families Calling Granny ‘Mom.’” Washington Post, April 24, p. D05. Sabol, Barbara J 1994. “The call on agency resources.” Pp 125-143 m When Drug Addicts Have Children: Reorienting Child W elfare's Response, edited by D. J. Besharov. Washington, DC: Child Welfare L ea g u e of America. Salmon, Jacqueline L. 1996. “For More Grandparents, It’s Parenthood, the Sequel: Raising die Grandkids Brings New Challenges” Washington P ost, July 23, p. A01. 402 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sands, Roberta G and Robm S. Goldberg-Glen. 1998. “The Impact of Employment and Serious Illness on Grandmothers Who Are Raising Their Grandchildren.” Journal o f Women & Aging, 10(3):41-58. Saunders, Debra J. 1996. “ Who Killed lance Helms? Who Cares?*’ (editorial). San Francisco Chronicle, February 5, p. A19. Scannapieco, Maria. 1999. “Kinship Care in die Public Child Welfare System: A Systematic Review of the Research.” Pp. 141-154 m Kinship Foster Care: Pohcy. Practice and Research, edited by R . Hegar and M. Scannapieco. New York: Oxford University Press. Scannapieco, Maria, Rebecca L. Hegar, and Catherine McAlpine. 1997. “Kinship Care and Foster Care: A Comparison of Characteristics and Outcomes.” Families in Society: The Journal o f Contemporary Human Services, 480-488. Scheer, Robert. 1994. “Returning to the Bad Old Days of Orphanages” (editorial) Los Angeles Times, December 11, p. M5. Sduff, Adam B. (Chair) 1999. “The Juvenile Justice Hearing on Confidentiality ” California State Senate Select Committee on Juvenile Justice, May 21. (Report among materials provided by Bridge et al. 1999. “Confidentiality in the Dependency Court.” Presented at the 5* Annual Conference, A New Beginning for Partnerships for Children & Families in Los Angeles County, October 15, Los Angeles, CA.) Schormann, Kathleen 1996. “The Anniversary of a Death Foretold. Southern California Voices; Community Essay.” Los Angeles Times, April 6, p. B9. Schuerman, John R. October 1997. “Best interests and Family Preservation in America.” Discussion Paper No CS-44 Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Schwartz, Noaki. 2001. “Meth Epidemic Fueling Child Abuse.” Los Angeles Times, May 7, pp. Bl, B6 . Sengupta, Sonuni 2000. “No Rise in Child Abuse Seen in Welfare Shift.” New York Times, August 10, p. Al. Seymour, Cynthia 1998. “ Children with parents m Prison: Child welfare policy, p r o g r a m and practice issues (Introduction).” Child Welfare Journal o f Policy. Practice and Program, (Special Issue: Children with Parents in Prison). Sheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Carolyn Sargent, eds. 1998. “Introduction: The Cultural Politics of Chikfcood.” Pp. 1-33 in Small Wars: The Cultural Pohtics o f Childhood, edited by N Sheper-Hughes and C Sargent. Berkeley: University o f California Press. 403 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sherr, Lynn aid Hugh Downs. 1997. “Don’ t Take Our Grandkids Away" (transcript). 20 20, February 28, ABC News. Shook, Kristen. 1998. “Assessing the Consequences of Welfare Reform for Child Welfare” Poverty Research News, 2(1). Joint Center for Poverty Research, Northwestern University and University of Chicago. Shore, R Jerald and Bert Hayslip, Jr. 1994. “Custodial Grandparenting: Implications for Children's Development.” Pp. 191-218 m Redefining Families: Implications for Children's Development, edited by A. E. Gottfried and A W. Gottfried. New York: Plenum Press. Sidel, Ruth. 1992. Women and Children Last: The Plight o f Poor Women in Affluent America. New York: Penguin Books. Siegel, Lawrence M 1999. “ The Complete IEP Guide: How to Advocate for Your Special Ed Child.” Berkeley Noio.com. Silverstein, Merril, Anne Marenco, and Cara Rice. 1998. “Styles of Grandparenting in the U.S. and Their Consequences for Well-being.” Presented at the Andrus Gerontology Center, University of Southern California, March 23, Los Angeles, CA. Schmich, Mary. 1997. “Like So Many Grandmas, Shahazy Was a Family Savior” Chicago Tribune, June 27, p. M l. Smith, Zehna (with Joseph Crumbley). 1997. Kinship Education, Preparation and Support Program: “ Keeping the ties that bind. ” Participant workbook. County of Los Angeles, Department of Children and Family Services. Snell, Tracy L. (with Danielle C. Morton). 1994. “Women in Prison.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U. S. Department of Justice. Social Security Act. 74* Congress, P.L. 74-271. 1935. Social Security Board. 1937. “Social Security in America.” Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. “Some Gains for Abuse Hotline.” 1998. Los Angeles Times, April 29, B6 . Sosso, Anthony R 1999. “Kinship guardianship- A national rftsmssinn n f program outcomes and results.” Presented at the Child Welfare League of America National Kinship Care Conference, August 20, Atlanta, GA. Stack, Carol B. 1974. All Our Km. New York: Basic Books. 404 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stack, Carol B. 1996. Call to Home: African Americans Reclaim the Rural South. New York: Basic Books. Stack, Carol B and Linda M. Burton. “Kinscripts: R eflectio ns on Family, Generation, and Culture ” Pp. 33-44 in Mothering: Ideology, Experience. and Agency, edited by E. N. Glenn, G. Chang, and L. R. Foreey. New York; Rotttledge. “State Auditor Criticizes Los Angeles County's Child Protection Services” 1996. Metropolitan News-Enterprise: Capitol News Service, October 24. State of California, Department of Corrections, Population Projections Unit, Estimates and Statistical Analysis Section, Offender Information Services Branch. February 16, 1999. “Spring 1999 Projections ” (Table 1 : Institution Population, Actual and Projected, June 30, 1989 through June 31,2004). State of California, Department of Social Services (CDSS). March 1, 1999. “All-County Information Notice No. 1-18-99, Subject Assembly Bill (AB) 1544 M odel Relative Assessment Guidelines.” (Attachment Standards and guidelines for a m odel assessment of relative homes.) State of California, Department of Social Services (CDSS) June 16, 1999. “All-County Information Notice No. 1-40-99. Subject Updated Status of the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Km-GAP) Program.” (SB 1901, Chapter 1055, Statutes of 1998). State of California, Department of Social Services (CDSS). December 20,2000. “All- County Letter No. 00-85. Subject Adoptions and Safe Families Act Regulations: Approval of Relative Caregivers and Certification Pending Licensure of Non-relative Caregivers” State of California, Department of Social Services (CDSS). 2000, September 1 2 . “All- County Letter No. 00-64. Subject Aid to Families with Dependent Chiidren-foster Care (AFDC-FQ and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Km-GAP) Program Rates.” State of California, Department of Social Services (CDSS). January 10,2000. “All-County Letter No. 00-09. Subject: Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Km-GAP) Program.” State of California, Department of Social Services (CDSS). December 1, 1999. “All-County Letter No. 99-101. Subject Mark A., et al v Gray Davis, Rita Saenz, and the California Department o f Social Services." State of California, Department of Social Services (CDSS). circa 1999. “ The California Adoption Initiative: Year Three Progress Repot” Retrieved May 2001 <http:/Avww.childsworklorg/adoption/adgovJitm>. 405 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. State of California, Department of Social Services (CDSS). May 31, 1996. California Policy Summit on Kinship Care Summary Report. Sacramento: Author State of California, Department of Social Services (CDSS). January 3,2000 (date last modified). “Frequently Asked Questions About CDSS Programs.” Retrieved May 2001 <bttp ://www.dss.cabwnet.gov/getmfb/faq/ faqgpmgram html> State of California, Department of Social Services (CDSS). November 1, 1996. The Governor s Adoptions Initiative: Progress Report Report to the Legislature. State of California, D epartment of Social Services (CDSS). February 1,1997 and March 1, 1997. The Governor’ s Adoptions Initiative: Progress Report U. Report to the Legislature. State of California, Department of Social Services, CalWORKS and Food Stamps Data Systems Design Taskforce (CDSS CalWORKS). 1998. “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: A Characteristics Study on the Social ami Economic Characteristics of Families Receiving Aid. Federal Fiscal Year 1998; October 1997 Through September 1998.” State of California, Department of Social Services, Data Analysis and Publications Branch. August, 1998. “Selected characteristics of children m foster care at the end of three consecutive years.” State of California, Department of Social Services, Information Services Bureau (CDSS ISB). N.d. “A Publication Describing the fT ^» ra< * « » n stics gf Children, Birth Parents and Adoptive Parents involved in Agency Adoptions in California from July 1994 Through June 1995.” Sacramento, CA. State of California, Department of Social Services, I nformation Services Bureau (CDSS ISB). 1997. “Characteristics of Independent Adoptions m California, July 1994 Through June 1995 .” (Program hfonnation Series Report No. 1997-04.) Sacramento, CA. State of California, Department of Social Services, Kinship Siqiport Services Program (CDSS-KSSP). N.d. Support Services fix’ Kin Families (brochure). State of California, Department of Social Services, Research and Development Division, Data Analysis and Publications Branch (RDD). October, 2000. “Child Welfare Services: Emergency Response Caseload Trends and Characteristics.” State of California, Health and Human Services Agency, Department o f Social Services May 1999. Manual o f Policies and Procedures: Child Welfare Services (Califomia- DSS-Manual-CWS) 406 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. State of California, Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services. Administration Division. 1988. “Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program." November 1998 Subvention, 151-154. State of California, Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services. Adoptions Branch. “A Guide to California Adoptions" (brochure). PUB 50 (9/98) State of California, Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prev ention. “Child Abase Reporting. . . and You: What Happens When a Report Is Made?" (brochure). PUB 129 (10/99). State of California, Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Soda! Services (CDSS). “Adoption Assistance Program” (brochure). PUB 152 (8/94). Stein, Theodore J. 1998. Child Welfare and the Law. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, he. Steinhauer, Jennifer 2001. “A New York Vastly Altered by AIDS " New York Times, June 4, pp. A l, A21. Steinman, Jan. 1997a. “Couple to Be Sentenced in Foster Child's Death." Los Angeles Times, October 9, p. B5. Steinman, Jan. 1997b. “Foster Father Gets Five-year Sentence in Infant's Death." Los Angeles Times, October 11, p. B5. Re Stephanie M 1994 No. S030816, 7 Cal.4th 295, Feb 24, 1994. Strawbndge, William J., Margaret, I. WaOhagen, Sarah J. Shema, and George A. Kaplan. 1997. “New Burdens ex'More of the Same? Comparing Grandparent, Spouse and Adult-child Caregivers." The Gerontologist, 37:505-510. Strom, Robert D. and Shirley K. Strom. 1993. “Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: Goals and Support Groups." Educational Gerontology, 19:705-715. Sussman, Alan and Martin Guggenheim. 1980. The Rights o f Parents: The Basic ACLU Guide to the Rights o f Parents. (Norman Dorsen, Editor). New York: Avon Books. Szmovacz, Maximiliane E., ed. 1998. Handbook on Grandparent hood. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Tabbert, Wynn, Peggy Sullivan, and Robert Whittaker. 1994. California Risk Assessment Curriculum fo r Child Welfare Services: Resource Handbook. Child Welfare Training Project, California State University— Fremo, School of Health and Social Work. 407 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Testa, Mark F. and Joseph Loftus. 1999. “The Politics and Practice of Kinship Care (Part 1 of 2) ” Presented at the Child Welfare League of America National Kinship Care Conference, August 19, Atlanta, GA. Testa, Mark F and Nancy Rolock. 2001. “The Changing Significance o f Race md Kinship for Achieving Permanency for Foster Children ” Presented at the Child Welfare League of America National Kinship Care Conference, July 27, Chicago, IL. Testa, Mark F., Kristen L. Shook, Leslie S. Cohen, and Melinda G. Woods. 1996. “Permanency Planning Options for Children m Formal Kinship Care.” Child Welfare, LXXV:451-470. Texas Department o f Protective and Regulatory Services, Forecasting and Program Statistics Division 1997. 1997 Legislative Data Book. Austin, Texas. Retrieved August 2001. http://www.tdprs.state.tx.us/About_PRS/ PRS_Statistics_&_AnnuaI_Reports/1 997toc.asp Texeira, Erin. 1996. ‘ W alter's Miracle ” Los Angeles Times, January 24, p B2 Thornton, J L . 1991. “Permanency Planning for Children in Kinship Foster Homes " Child Welfare, LXX:593-601 de Toledo, Sylvie and Deborah Edler Brown. 1995 Grandparents as Parents A Survival Guide fa r Raising a Second Family. New York: The Guilford Press. Traster, Tina 2000. “When Grandparents Are 'Parents’ Agam” Los Angeles Times. Parade Magazine, March 26, p. S . Tucker, Carol. 1997. “Study Warns Welfare Reform Will Increase Poverty ” University o f Southern California Chromcie, April 11. Tumlin, Karen C. and Rob Geen. May 2000. "The Decision to Investigate: Dnderstaxhng State Child Welfare Screening Policies and Practices” Working Paper No. A-38, Series A. Assessing the New Federalism. Urban institute. Uhrich, Kevin. 1997. “Bringing up Baby Again: Grandparents Find No Easy Answers in Raising Their Children's Children ” Pasadena Weekly, July 11, pp. 6-7. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistrictmg Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File. 2001. QT-PL. “Race, Hispanic or Latino, and A g e: 2000, Geographic area: Los Angeles County, California.” U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population Estimate Program. January 2,2001. “Resident population estimates of the United States by sex, race, and Hispnic ongm: April 1,1990 to July 1, 1999, with short-term projection to November 1,2000.” Washington, DC: author. 408 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U.S. Census Bureau, Public Information Office. 2001, September 7. “Grandparent's Day 2001: September 9 " Retrieved September 7,2001 <www.census.gov/Press- Release/www/2001 /cbO 1 fiffl 2 Jttml>. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Enumerator Questionnaire, United States Census 2000, Form D-2(E) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1998 “USA Counties 1998. Los Angeles County, California. General Profile.*' Retrieved May 2001 < http://wwwcensus.gov/statab/USA98/06/037txt> U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of die Census. Public Information Office. September 3, 1998. Grandparents Day 1998. “Life in Grandma's (and/or Grandpa's) House— The Grandparents' Perspective” (Press release). Retrieved May 2001 < www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-ff'. 10iitml>. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs . Bureau of Justice Statistics. April 1999. “Correctional papulations in the United Stales, 1996.” (Publication NCJ 170013). U S Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. April 19,2000. “Nation's Prison and Jail Population Reaches 1,860,520, Could Reach Two Million by Late 2001” (press release). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). February 1997. “Adoption 2002: A Response to the Presidential Executive Memorandum an Adoption Issued December 14, 1996 ” Retrieved August 2001 < http://wwwacf.cfchs.gov/prograins/ch/Butiatives/adopt2002/2002toc.htm> U S Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) March 2001. “Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Annual Report to Congress.” Washington, DC U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administratian for Children and Families (DHHS-ACF). April 10, 1999. “HHS Reports New Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics” (press release) Retrieved June 2000 < http://www.acf.ciihs.gov/iiews/aprilOO.htm>. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administratian fix' Children and Families (DHHS-ACF). May 2000. “Protecting the Well-being o f Children” (feet sheet). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (DHHS-ACF). January 25,2000. 45 CFR Parts 1355, 1356 and 1357. T itle IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews and Child and Family Services State Plan Reviews; Final Rule ” Federal Register, 65{16) :4020-4093. 409 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau (DHHS Children's Bureau). January 2000. The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Report. U.S. Department of Health aid Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau (DHHS Children’s Bureau). 2000. The AFCARS Report. (Current estimates as of October 2000). Retrieved May 2001 <fattp://www.acf.dhhs.gov4>Tograms/cb/stats/taneport/rptl0004/ar1000Jrtm>. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administratian for Children and Families, Children's Bureau (DHHS Children’s Bureau). August 19, 1997 (date of approval). “Assisted Guardianship/kinship Permanence Waiver.’ ’ (Five-year demonstration project beginning December 1, 1998). Retrieved September 2001 <www.acf.dbhs.gov/programs/cbAvaivers/ca_bJttm>. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau (DHHS Children's Bureau). 1999a. Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administratian for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau (DHHS Children's Bureau), circa 2000. “Child welfare Final Rule: Executive Summary.” Retrieved May 2001 < http://wwwacfdhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/execsumin.htm> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau (DHHS Children’ s Bureau). July 3,2001. “Clarifying Guidance Regarding Candidates for Foster Care” (policy announcement). Log N o: ACYF-CB- PA-01-02. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administratian for Children and Families, Children's Bureau (DHHS Children's Bureau). 1998, 1999. “Foster Care and Adoption Statistics Current Reports.” Retrieved May 2001<http ://www .acf-dihs.gov/prograins/cb/stats/afcars/hiciexJttin> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administratian for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau (DHHS Children’s Bureau). December 6,2000. “Questions and Answers on the Child Welfare Final Rule.” Retrieved September 2001 < http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/qsettl imn> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administratian for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau (DHHS Children’s Bureau). 1999b. Report to the Congress on Kinship Foster Care. 410 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U.S. Department of Health and Homan Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (DHHS-ASPE). 1999, September. Human Services Policy. “Frequently Asked Questions about Quid-only Cases.” Retrieved September 2001 <btlp .//aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/FAQ-Child-Onty99/chikfcnlyfaq.htin> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. April 1999. Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground: a Report to Congress on Substance Abuse and Child Protection. (“DHHS, Blending Perspectives’ ^ U S Department of Health and Human Services Press Office. August 12, 1997. “Fact Sheet: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administratian (SAMHSA). 1997. “Substance Use Among Women in the United States.” Rockville, MD: HHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration . U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). July 1997. “Child Protective Services: Complex Challenges Require New Strategies.” Report to the Honorable Nydia Velazquez, House of Representatives. GAO/HEHS-97-1 1 5 Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). September 26, 1995 “Child Welfare: Complex Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services.” Report to C o n g re s s io n a l Committees Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). September 1998a. “Foster Care: Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable (fames for Children of Substance Abusers.” Report to the Chairman, Committee an Finance, U.S. Senate. GAO/HEHS-98-182 Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). May 1995. “Foster Care: Health Needs o f Many Young Children Are Unknown aid Unmet” Report to the ranking minority member, Subcommittee an Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. GAO/HEHS-95-114. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). September 1998b. “Foster Care: Implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act Poses Difficult Challenges.” Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee an Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. 411 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). May 1999 “Foster Care: Kinship Care Quality and Permanency Issues.” Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House o f Representatives. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. U.S. General Account ing Office (GAO). December 1999. “Foster Care: States’ Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act.” Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee an Hum an Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. U S. General Accounting Office (GAO). October 28, 1997. “Parental Substance Abuse: Implications for Children, the Child Welfare System, and Foster Care Outcomes.” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. GAO/T-HEHS-98-40. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). March 1999. “Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families Affected ” Report to Congressional Requesters. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. Vanzi, Max. 1999. “Silence in the Courtroom.” California Journal, September, pp. 218- 224. Vardi, Danya, J. and Ester S. Buchholz. 1994. “Group Psychotherapy with Inner-city Grandmothers Raising Their Grandchildren.” International Journal o f Group Psychotherapy, 44:101-122. Wald, Michael. 197S. “State Intervention on Behalf of “Neglected” Children: A Search For Realistic Standards.” 27 StanfordL R. 985. Walker, Clarice Dibble, Patricia Zangnllo and Jacquatine Marie Smith. 1994. “Parental drug abuse and African American children m foster care.” Pp. 109-122 in Child Welfare Research Review (Vol. I), edited by J. D. Berrick, R _ P. Barth, and N. Gilbert New York: Columbia University Press. Wang, Ching-Tung, and Deborah Daro N.d. “Current Trends in Child Abuse Repeating and Fatalities: The Results of the 1997 Annual Fifty State Survey.” Working Paper No. 808. The National Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research, National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse (NCPCA), Chicago, IL. Wegar, Katarina. 2000. “Adoption, Family Ideology, and Social Stigma: Bias in Community Attitudes, Adoption Research, and Practice.” Family Relations, 49:363-370. Wemgart Foundation. 1998. “1997-98 annual report” Retrieved May 2001 <wwwweingartfila.ocg/ weingart98> 412 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Wosz, Virginia (with Michelle Fowier). N.d. “Confide ntiality in Dependency Court" (Article among materials provided by Bridge, eL al. 1999. C o nfidentiality in the Dependency Court.” Presented at the 5* Annual Conference, A New Beginning for Partnerships fix' Children & Families in Los Angeles County, October IS, Los Angeles, CA.) The White House, Office ofthe Press Secretary. 1996a. “Presidential Direction on Adoption from Foster Care." White House press briefing, December 14. The White House. Office of die Press Secretary. 1996b. Proclamation o f National Adoption Month, 1996. White House press briefing, October 29. Williams, Krissah. 1999. Growing Number of Grandparents Are Taking up the Slack When Parents Fail. Houston Chronicle, August 2, pp. 15A, 19A . Wilson, Dana Burtiness and Sandra Stukes Chipungu, eds. 1996. Child Welfare (Special Issue: Kinship Care). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, be. Wilson, Dana Burdness and Sandra Stukes Chipungu. 1996. “ Introduction.” Pp. 387-395 in Child Welfare (Special Issue: Kinship Care), edited by D. B. Wilson and S. S. Chipungu. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, Inc. Wilson, William Julius and Andrew J. Cherlin. 2001. ‘ The Real Test of Welfare Reform Still Lies Ahead.” New York Times, July 13, p. A21. Wukzyn, Fred H. May 1998. “Federal Fiscal Reform in Child Welfare Services.” Discussion Paper No. CS-50 Chicago, IL: The Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Wukzyn, Fred. 1994. “Status at Birth and Infant Placements in New York City ” Pp. 146- 184 in Child Welfare Research Review (Vol. I), edited by J. D. Berrick, R. P. Barth, and N. Gilbert. New York: Columbia University Press. Wukzyn, Fred H., Kristen Brunner, and Robert M. Goerge. 1999. An Update from the M ultistate Foster Care Data Archilve: Foster Care Dynamics 1983-1997. Chicago, IL: The Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Yip, Pamela. 1993. “Unexpectant Parents.” Chicago Tribune, November 29, p. 1. Zelizer, Viviana A . 1985. Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value o f Children. New York: Basic Books, be. Zenngue, Demese 1998. “Parenting Difficult Second Time Around.” Times Picayune, July 5, p. 711. Zucchino, David. 1997. Myth o f the Welfare Queen. New York: Touchstone. 413 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A Name1 Age1 Race / Ethnicity1 Hattie Albertson Lady Baker Evalina Baldwin Almeda Beauchamp Clarice Beecher Marilyn Brown Gurdie Campbell Elisc Cordcs 60s niid-60s late 30s carly-40s 30s mid-60s 47 52 African American African American African American African American African American African American African American White Dee Dee Davis 73 White Margaret Day Winifred Dietz Maxine Easton late 40s 58 50 African American White African American Grace Edwards early 50s African American Steve Evans 48 White Ella Dill Fernandes 49 JoAnn Fiskc 36 Dorothy (Dot) Fitzgerald 39 White White White Barbra Foote 50 White Shadena Franklin Grecia Gladstone 65 early 60s African American African American • p . * SAMPLE SUMMARY Marital Reason for Legal Relationship Status4 Raising Grandchildren* to Grandchildren* Unknown abusc/ncglcct foster parent Single abuse/neglect foster parent Unknown abusc/ncglcct foster parent Unknown abusc/ncglcct foster parent Unknown abusc/ncglcct foster parent Unknown abusc/ncglect foster parent Married addiction/death “informal” Married mental illness adoptive parent (foster parent) Divorced addiction/death legal guardian/seeking adoption Unknown abusc/ncglect foster parent Married addiction/abandoned legal guardian Divorced addiction/abandoned legal guardian/foster parent Unknown abuse/neglect/death “informal” (foster parent) Married addiction/abuse/neglect adoptive parent (foster parent) Divorced addiction/abandonment foster parent Married addiction/medical condition “informal’ Vfoster parent Divorced addiction “informal”/seeking adoption Married addiction/mental illness adoptive parent (foster parent) Divorced addiction/incarceration foster parent Single addiction/abandonment foster parent/seeking adoption Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Li/ Goss 54 White Betsy Haltcmiun 49 White Chloe Hazlcu Rosa & Juan Hernandez Henrietta Holliday Harriet Jackson late 40s 65/67 5 1 60 White Lalino/a African American African American Lynette Jacobsen 53 White Donna Jones Mary Louise Kendrick Jackie Knight 50s late 40s "70 plus” African American White African American Myma Lamb Nadia LaFlammc early 70s early 50s African American African American Helen Lewis Bertha Malone Ruby Miller mid-60s early 40s 56 African American African American African American Patricia Moore Rocio Navarre 45 67 White Latina Pearl Parker Sarah Whitfield Perez Theresa Richardson 74 70 49 African American White African American Virginia (Ginny) Rose 55 White Annette Sawyer Alina Shofar mid-40s 60 African American While (Iranian heritage) Married drugs/instability reunited w/parenl (foster parent) Unknown drugs/instability foster parent/seeking adoption Single domestic violence foster parent Married addiction foster parents Divorced addiction/incarceration foster parent Widowed addiction foster parent/legal guardian Divorced addiction/i ncarceration/ legal guardian abandonment ("informal") Unknown addiction/teenage daughter foster parent Unknown abuse/neglect foster parent Widowed addiction foster parent/legal guardian Married addiction/abusc/neglect foster parent Unknown abuse/neglect foster parent/adoptive parent Unknown abuse/neglect foster parent Unknown abuse/neglect foster parent Unknown abuse/neglect adoptive parent (foster parent) Married addiction/neglect legal guardian Single addiction/abandonment/ foster parent/seeking mental disability adoption Widowed addiction/abandonment foster parent Single domestic violence foster parent Divorced abuse/neglect/addiction "informar/seeking adoption Married mental illness legal guardian (“informal”) Unknown abuse/neglect foster parent Divorced abuse/neglect foster parent Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ann Simpson mid*50s White Unknown abusc/ncglcct foster parent/seeking Janet Kills Small 40 White/Native American Married abuse/neglect adoption foster parent LcFnincine Stone late 60s African American Unknown abuse/neglect foster parent Genic Taylor 44 African American Divorced addiction/abandonment legal guardian/foster Sandra Theodonos 53 White Married addiction parent foster parent/seeking Mabel Thiele early 50s African American Unknown addiction adoption foster parent Lclitia Thompson 54 African American Widowed addiction/death "informaP/fostcr parent Janine Tuttle 63 White Married abuse/neglect foster parent Angela Fox Valentine 52 White Married domestic violence/ adoptive parent (foster Ricardo Vela and 67/67 Latino/a Cohabi tating abandonment addiction parent) foster parent Sabina Martinez Donald and Betty Voglcr 67/66 White Married addiction/medical condition foster parents/seeking Murtis Walker mid-50s African American Unknown abuse/neglect adoption foster parent Devorah Ward 53 African American Married addiction foster parent Demetria White mid-60s African American Unknown abuse/neglect foster parent Wanda Whitman m id-SOs African American Unknown abuse/neglect foster parent Department of Children and Family Services Social Workers and Staff Pamela Black Peter Digre* Annie Fairchild Marco Falcdn Jonathan Flax Marvela King Lesley Mayfield Linda Phillips Allison Foulaine Diego Rodriguez Loretta Thomas African American White White Latino White African, African. African African, Latino African American Notes: Former Director of the Los Angeles County DCFS i American American i American American Reproduced w ith permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kimberly Turner African American Lucy T. Vasqucz Latina Madeline Walker African American Cari Williams African American Anne Wilson White Attorneys Patrick Adam White Jennifer DeWitt White Richard Blackburn White Mark Hazlett White Geraldine Hunt White Clara Mason White/Latina Steven Meiers* White Kenneth Pendley White David Purcell White Steve Sewell White Attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and primary organizer of Adoption Saturday 1 . The name of every person in or related to this study has been changed to protect the identity of all subjects. * The only exceptions to this rule are public figures, such as Pete Wilson and Gray Davis, respectively the former and current Governors of California, Peter Digre, the former Director of the Department of Children and Family Services, and Steven Meiers, an attorney and volunteer with the Adoption Saturday project, whose work with the project has been reported in the Los Angeles Times. 2. 1 do not know the exact age of all of the grandparents in my sample I collected this information from all of those with whom I conducted formal interviews. I learned the ages of some, but not all, of the grandparents I met at conferences or knew from other informal contacts. For those grandparents whose age I do not know , I provide an estimate of their age range. Please note that these estimates are based on my often faulty perception of age and may not always be accurate. M y apologies to the grandparents’ whose ages I’ve grossly misjudged. I do not provide the ages of the social workers and lawy ers in m y sample for two reasons First, 1 did not attempt to collect this information from most of them, as I believe age is less relevant to their experiences as lawyers and social workers than it is for grandparents as caregivers of children. Secondly, specific information about the age of social workers, in particular, might reveal too much about them and make them too easily identifiable to those who might read this book. Reproduced w ith permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3. Clearly, input from Latino caregivers is lacking in m y study. Because of my limited proficiency in Spanish, I interviewed only five Latino caregivers during the course of my research-a couple from Region I (East Los Angeles County), a single woman from Region III (east L . A ), and u couple from Region VII (South Los Angeles County/Long Beach) Only the last of these interviews was in English. The interview in Region III was translated by a bilingual social worker, and in Region I, the Hernandezes and I found creative ways to communicate in “Spanglish." using an impromptu bilingual “sign language," and with the periodic input of their visiting bilingual niece. The literature on Latino kinship caregivers is equally sparse and would benefit from fiiture research that considers the unique experiences of this group. 4. I indicate the marital status of grandparents for whom I have this information as an imperfect indicator of familial support. As with age, I did not specifically collect information on the marital status of lawyers and social workers, nor do I include such information when I have it (see comments above fn 2). For those grandmothers identified as “single,” I lack specific information regarding whether she is widowed, divorced or never-married. 3 “Grandchildren” is used genetically here and in the following column. Most of the relative caregivers in my sample raised grandchildren but a few raised, (grand) nieces and/or nephcws-somclimcs in addition to raising grandchildren. Kinship caregivers in the dependency system by definition raise children as a result of abuse and/or neglect. This frequently includes neglect as a result of parental substance abuse. When I have this specific information, I include it (“addiction”); otherwise. I use the general category “abuse/neglect.” 6. “Foster parent" generally is not a legal status, but I use it here to indicate that the child is a dependent of the dependency court and that the relative is raising the child within the dependency system. Some of the grandparents I met had legal guardianship of a child whom the dependency court and Department of Children and Family Services continued to supervise. As of January 2000 this is no longer possible. Now, when a relative establishes lepl guardianship of a foster child in California, the dependency court must terminate jurisdiction and DCFS must close the case. Some of the grandparents 1 interviewed were adoptive parents of grandchildren who had once been court dependents. Other foster-kinship caregivers were in the process of seeking adoption. Since adoption is one of the central issues in this dissertation, I indicate these important changes in legal status: “adoptive parent (foster care)" indicates the former while “foster parent/seeking adoption" refers to the latter. (Generally speaking, a “/" indicates dual status while parentheses indicated a former status.) Since my interviews took place prior to January 2000, “legal guardianship” refers here only to those relative caregivers who established legal guardianship of their grandchildren via probate court, thereby remaining outside of the dependency system. “Informal” refers to relative caregivers who arc raising grandchildren “informally"~that is, without any legally defined relationship, such as legal guardianship. 4 k 0 0 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In some cases, a relative caregiver may be raising several children with whom she has different legal relationships. For example, Maxine Easton has legal guardianship of her two grandsons but her granddaughter is u dependent of the Dependency Court In such cases, I indicate both statuses. In general (and to clarify), the legal status of kinship caregivers can be described in relation to the dependency court: "Private" Relative Caregivers (outside of the dependency system): * "Informal” caregiver (no legal status) • Legal guardian (established through the probate court or through the dependency court since January 2000) • Adoptive Parent (established through the family court or (in the case of relative caregivers in my sample) following a period of raising a child in the dependency system "Public” (or “formal") Relative Caregivers (within the dependency system): kinship-foster parents (children arc dependents of the dependency court) * (prior to January 2000) legal guardians of children with open cases in the dependency court and the Department of Children and Family Services APPENDIX B • INTERVIEW SCHEDULES Crw dn H ^ " <prMilrMiir.n i«terw w Guide: (remind subject of confidentiality issues, right to refuse to answer any question) BACKGROUND INFORMATION. May I ask your age? (Confirm race/ethnicity of subject) Were you raised in Los Angeles? (When did you move to LA/CA/the US?) (If no: Where were you raised? Do you still have a family m _______7) Are you married? (If yes - How long have you been married? Is this your first marriage9 ) (If no: Divorced? Widowed? Living with significant other?) How many children do you have? What are their ages? Sex? How many grandchildren do you have? How old are they? (Clarify relationships mothers, fathers, siblings, etc) Who currently lives in your household and how is everyone related? (If no info about grandchild!ren)'s parent is given: Whose children are you raising? Daughter's? Son's? More than one child's children?) How okl is/are the grandchild!ren) you are raising? What grade is/are s/he/they in? How has your household changed over time? (i.e., how has who has lived with you changed overtime?) INFORMATION ABOUT GPANDCHIinRFN I'd like to know a little more about your grandchildfren) (Confirm previously collected data: sex, age, grade in school, etc.) How long have you been raising your grandchikKren)? How okl was your grandchikKren) when s/he/they began living with you? [If grandchild!ren) haven't lrved with grandmother from birth] Who did the children live with prior to living with you? [Parent(s)? Other relatives? Foster home? Group home?] How do you think s/he/they have adapted to living with you and the changes in their living environment? 420 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Can you describe the circumstances which lead to your assuming responsibility for raising your granddiild(ren)? (Probe here: whose decision, history o f involvement, etc ) Do you have legal custody of your grandchildfren)? (If yes: Are you a foster parent? An adoptive parent? A Iggal guardian? What was the process of gaining custody like for you? describe experiences with the court, etc.) (If no, clarify relationship: Does your son/daughter have legal custody? Have you had to be involved with the legal system? Are you seeking custody? If yes, what form?) May I ask your approximate annual income? Your source of income? What do/did you do for a living? Has raising your grandchildren caused any financial hardship for you? Clarify involvement with various parts o fth e System”: dependency, probate, welfare, juvenile justice, schools, (immigratian?). etc [If receiving any public assistance for children: Does/do the child(ren) have a social worker assigned to him/her/them? How has it been working with the social worker/public agendesTthe System?”] Was your daughter/son supportive of your decision to take charge o f raising your grandchildren [i.e. his/her child(ran)]? (If grandmother has more than one child) What about your other children? Were they supportive? If so, how so? Do you think your relationship with your other children has changed m any way since you began raising your grandchikKren)? How involved are they in the grandchildren's life? Do they help with any o f the child care responsibilities? (If married/cohabitating) What about your husband/(boy)fhend? Does he help with the child care responsibilities? If so, bow so? (Is he a legal guardian as well?) How did (he) feel about assuming responsibility for the grandchildren9 Do you think your relationship wrth (him) has changed at all smce you began takmg care of the children?) What about the children's other grandparents: Are they involved in the children’s lives? Is anyone else significantly involved m helping you raise your grandchildren7 (What about your family back in______ ?) RELATIONSHIP WITH ADULT CHILD Tell m e a little more about your daughter/son [i.e., the parents) of die grandchildren grandmother is raising] Is s/he married? Employed? (If yes: What does s/he do for a living?) Where does(do) the grandchild(ren)'s parent(s) live (generally speaking, no addresses)? 421 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Does s/he have any other children? With whom do they live? (assu m in g not with grandmother) If daughter’ s children: How involved is year daughter in her children’s (i.e., custodial grandchildren's) lives? Is/Are die fother(s) involved in his/their child(ren)'s life/lives? (If no: How long has it been since your grandchildren saw their mother9 ) If son's children: Do/Does your (custodial) grandchikKren) have any contact with his/her/their father9 [If yes: How involved is your son in her children's lives? Is/Are die mother(s) involved in her/their chiid(ren)'s life/lives?] (If no: (tow long has it been since your grandchildren saw their father9 ) How would you describe your son's/daughter's relationship with his/her children (your custodial grandchildren)? How would you describe your relationship with your san/daughter (parent(s) of custodial grandchildren)? FAMILY DEFINITION RFJATJONS How would you describe your relationship with your grandchikKren)9 Do you think your grandchildren see you as his/her/their “mother?” How do you see yourself? Do you think this definition of yourself and your role has changed at all over time? If so, how so? Do you have any sense of what it means/what it's like for your grandchildren to be raised by their grandmother9 Where do you see yourself and your fam ily in five years? Do you think you will still be raising your grandchildren? (If yes: Do you think you will raise her/him/them to adulthood?) What are your hopes/goals for your future and your grandchildren's future? (Try to get some sense of whether/if grandmother forks grandchild's success/failure with fondly status.) Would you like to see your daughter/son resume his/her responsibility for his/her children? (Why or why not?) Do you think it is likely that s/he will resume responsibility? Have you considered other living arrangements for the children, such as other relatives’ homes, foster homes, adoption, etc.)? This may be a difficult question to answer, but have you thought about what would happen to your grandchildren if you were to get ill or die? 422 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Where would you want the grandchildren to live/Who would you want to take care of them? Do you think your wishes would be followed? You are one of a rapidly growing group of grandmothers who have taken responsibility for raising your grandchildren. D o you have any thoughts about why this might be the case? What do you think this trend means for contemporary American families and/or the future o f the family7 What advice would you give to others who are raising grandchildren? What have you found most difficult about raising your grandchildren? What have you found most enjoyable? What is different about raising your grandchildren, compared to when you were raising your own children? What was your relationship with your own grandparents like? What were they like? H ow involved in the family9 Has raising your grandchildren required you to change your life plans many way (i.e., quit your job, postpone retirement, etc.) Do you think having the responsibility for raising your grandchildren has affected your relationships with other important people in your life (e.g., friends, significant other, other children, etc.) (If yes: H ow have these relationships been affected? Do you have any friends/neighbors/acquaintances who are also raising grandchildren? Do you think s/he/they might be willing to talk with me about their experiences as caregivers for their grandchildren? (Ifyes: Would it be all right with you iff called them and let them know you referred me to them?) Social Workers and Attorneys— Interview Guide; (remind subject of confidentiality issues, right to refuse to answer any question) WORK Describe day-to-day work (advocacy? Policymaking? Trial? Clinical? Case management?) (Note awareness of confidentiality) Can you talk about your experiences workmg with grandparents raising grandchildren? Any concerns about the ability o f the grandparents with whom you work to care for their grandchildren (generally or specifically)? 423 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. How do you think relative caregivers perceive your w ork0 How do you think relative caregivers perceive the system more generally? How do you think those in the dependency system (social workers, judges, etc.) perceive relative caregivers (in general and compared to foster parents)? LEGAL ISSUES CUSTODY Recent increase in the numbers of grandparents seeking custody? Why now? What are some of the various reasons grandparents seek custody? (Clarify legal options for grandparents seeking custody.) Do relative caregivers seem to prefer one type of legal custody over another? What are some of the ways relative caregivers become involved in the dependency system? Adoption vs. legal guardianship vs. foster care: What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages associated with each of these options0 Do you see any variation by individual judges regarding the type of custody arrangement typically ordered/preferred (i.e., favoring adoption, legal guardianship, long-term foster care, etc.)0 If so, what? Any differences across courts (i.e., probate vs. dependency)0 Any variation by county/state? Court is supposed to use the concept ofthe “best interests” ofthe child for determining custodial arrangements. What lands of factors are considered? (Define “best interests”) Issue of “pennanancy planning” (ask for definition): What is the primary goal? (i.e., to return children to biological parent? Adoptive placement? Both?) Is foster-and/or kinship-foster care ever seen as a “permanent placement” by the court? With legal guardianship, who is responsible for child’s expenses? (Court? Biological parent? Legal guardian7 ) Info about and perspective an grandparents' rights issues (e.g., Troxel v Granville) LEGISLATION REFORM Changes in law affecting grantkiarents-e.g.JCin-GAP, Adoption and Safe Families Act, Welfare Reform-perspective on these changes? Any personal involvement in policy making? How might dependency system be improved? If you had the power to change the system, how would you do it? 424 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SERVICES AVAILABLE TO KINSHIP CAREGIVERS Differences between services available to/pobaes for Itmship caregivers vs. foster parents History of Grandma's House, mission of program, other programs for grandparents raising grandchildren (parenting classes, financial support, support groups, etc.) Other types of support provided by Department of Children and Family Services for relative caregivers 425 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C: California Caregiver Affidavit Fam ily Code §6550. (a) A caregiver's authorization affidavit that meets the re quirements of this pan authorizes a caregiver 1 8 years of age or older who conpleies items 1-4 of the affidavit provided in Section 6552 and signs the affidavit to enroll a minor m school and consent to school-related m edical care on behalf of the m inor. A caregiver who is a relative and who completes item s 1-8 of the affidavit provided in Section 6552 and signs the affidavit shall have the same rights to authorize m edical care and dental care for the minor that are given to g p i »« rf» a w * under Section 2353 of the Probate Code The medical care authorized by this caregiver who is a relative may include mental health treatment subject to the limitations of Section 2356 of the Probate C ode. (b) The affidavit shall not be valid for more than one year after the date on which it is executed. (c) The decision of a caregiver to consent to or to refuse medical or dental care for a minor shall be superseded b y any contravening decision of the parent or other person having legal custody of the minor, provided the decision of the parent or other person having legal custody of the minor does not jeopardize the life, health, or safety of the nrinor. (d) No person who acts in good faith reliance on a caregiver's authorization affidavit to preside medical or dental care, without actual knowledge of facts contrary to those stated on the affidavit is subject to criminal liability or to civil liability to any person, or is subject to professional disciplinary action, for such reliance if the applicable portions of the affidavit are completed This subdivision shall apply even if medical or dental care is provided to a minor in contravention of the wishes of the parent or other person having legal custody of the minor as long as the person providing the m edical or dental care has no actual knowledge of the wishes of the parent or other person having legal custody of the minor (c) A person who relies on the affidavit has no obligation to make any further inquiry or investigation. (0 Nothing in this section shall relieve any individual G ro m liability for violations of other provisions of law (g) If the minor stops living with the caregiver, the caregiver shall notify any school, health care provider, or health care service plan that has been given the affidavit (h) A caregiver's authorization affidavit shall be invalid unless it substantially contains, in not less than lO-pmm b o id G a c e type or a reasonable equivalent thereof the warning statement beginning with the word "warning" specified in Section 6552 The warning statement shall be enclosed in a box with 3-point role Ihies (i) For purposes of this part: (1) “Person’ ' includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, the state, or any city , county, city' and county , or other public entity or governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal entity. (2) “Relative” means a spouse, parent, stepparem. brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, half-brother, half-sister, unde. aunt, niece, nephew, first cousin, or any person denoted by the prefix “grand” or “great." or the spouse of any of the persons specified in this definition, even after the marriage has been terminated by death or dissolution. (3) “School-related medical care” means medical care that is required by state or local governmental authority as a condition for school enrollment, in d n d iw g immunizations, physical examinations, and medical examinations conducted in schools for pupils. §6552. The caregiver's authorization affidavit shall be in substantially the following form : 426 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Carepver’s Authorization Affidavit Use o f this affidavit is authorized by Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 6550) of Division 1 1 of the California Family Code. Instructions: Completion o f items 1-4 and the sigpmg ofthe affidavit is sufficient to authorize enrollment of a minor in school and authorize school-related medical care. Completion of items 5-8 is additionally required to authorize any other medical care. Print clearly. The minor named below lives in my home and I am 18 years of age or older. 1 . Name of minor ________________________________________ . 2. Minor’s birth date: _____________________________________ . 3. My name (adult giving authorization): _______________________ . 4. My home address: ______________________________________ I f you are a qualified relative, yon may fill in items 5-8 to authorize out-of-school medical care for the minor. 5. □ (Check only if applicable): I am a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or other qualified relative of the nunor (see back of this form fix’ a definition of “qualified relative”). 6 Check one or both (fix example, if one parent was advised and the other cannot be located): □ I have advised the parents) or other perscn(s) having legal custody of the minor of my intent to authorize medical care, and have received no objection. □ I am unable to contact the parents) or other persan(s) havuig legal custody of the minor at this time, to notify them of my intended authorization 7. My date of birth: ______________________________________ . 8. My California’s driver’s license or identification card number______________ . Warning: Do not sign th e form if any of the statements above are incorrect, or you will be committing a crime by a fine, imprisonment, or both. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated:__________________________ Signed:_____________________________ 427 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Notices: 1 . This declaration docs not affect the rights of the minor's parents or legal guardian regarding the care, custody , and control of the minor, and does not m e an that the caregiver has legal c u sto d y - of the minor 2 . A person who tdics on this affidavit has no obligation to make any farther inquiry or investigation 3 . This affidavit is not valid for more than ooc year after the date on which it is executed. Additional Information: TO CAREGIVERS: 1 . -Qualified relative." for purposes of item 5. means a spouse, parent stepparent, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, half-brother, half-sister, unde, aunt niece, nephew, first cousin, or any person denoted b y the prefix “gramf or “great” or the spouse afany ofthe persons specified in this definition, even after the marriage has been terminated by death or dissolution. 2 . The law may require you. if you arc not a relative or a currently licensed foster parent, to obtain a foster home license in order to care for a m inor. If you have any questions, please contact your local department of social services. 3. If the minor stops living with you. you are required to notify any school, health care provider, or health care service plan to which you have given this affidavit. 4. If you do not have the information requested in item 8 (California driver's license or I D ), provide another form of identification such as your social security number or Medi-Cal num ber. TO SC H O O L OFFICIALS 1 . Section 48204 of the Education Code provides that this affidavit constitutes a sufficient basis fe w a determination of residency of the minor, without the requirement of a guardianship or other custody order, unless the school district determines from armai facts that the minor is not living with the caregiver. 2. The school district m ay require additional reasonable evidence that the caregiver lives at the address provided in item 4. TO H EA LTH CARE PROVIDERS AND H E A L T H CARE SERVICE PLANS: 1 . N o person who acts in good faith reliance upon a caregrver’ s authorization affidavit to provide m edical or dental care. without actual knowledge of facts contrary to those stated on the affidavit, is subject to criminal liability or to civil liability to any person, or is subject to professional disciplinary action, fo r o if-h m lia n n e i f t h r a p p l ir a t i l f pnrtinw c r£tlw fo rm m - m .n p tW w l 2. This affidavit does not confer dependency for health care coverage purposes. 428 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Asset Metadata

Creator Harris, Susan Corban (author)

Core Title "Relative strangers": An ethnography of grandmothers raising grandchildren in the Los Angeles County welfare system

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Social work,Sociology, general,sociology, public and social welfare

Language English

Advisor Stacey, Judith (committee chair), Binder, Amy (committee member), Silverstein, Merril (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-193786

Unique identifier UC11334692

Identifier 3065792.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-193786 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3065792.pdf

Dmrecord 193786

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Harris, Susan Corban

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA