In some states, an unpaid foster care bill could mean parents lose their kids forever

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
WellPreserved
Donated
Donated
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9735
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:52 pm

Unread post

"Now, there are mixed signals coming from Washington. Last summer, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued new guidance to states and recommended that they stop charging and collecting money from poor families when their children go into foster care.

That new guidance came after an NPR investigation in 2021 showed the practice keeps struggling parents in debt and can delay or even prevent them from being reunited with their children.

But even as the federal government urges states to stop making poor parents pay, a new NPR survey finds that at least 12 states make failure to pay an acceptable reason for courts to terminate a parent's rights to their child altogether.

In addition to North Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin have similar laws."

"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show its own shame." - Oscar Wilde
Della
Princess
Princess
Posts: 21975
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Unread post

"In 2021, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that one of their sons — who was then 5 — was properly placed for adoption on the grounds that the Cunninghams had failed to reimburse the government for some of the cost of their child's foster care."

😬🥺
306/232

But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
Lemons
Donated
Donated
Princess
Princess
Posts: 11250
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:22 pm

Unread post

Thelma Harper wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:50 am "In 2021, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that one of their sons — who was then 5 — was properly placed for adoption on the grounds that the Cunninghams had failed to reimburse the government for some of the cost of their child's foster care."

😬🥺
Wow. That is sick.
Francee89
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 7:13 pm

Unread post

Thelma Harper wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:50 am "In 2021, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that one of their sons — who was then 5 — was properly placed for adoption on the grounds that the Cunninghams had failed to reimburse the government for some of the cost of their child's foster care."

😬🥺
Even if this little boy is adopted immediately out of the system by loving, non-abusive people (and that’s unfortunately a big if), I can’t imagine how traumatic it could be for him to one day find out his siblings were raised together with their parents, who wanted to keep all of them, and that was denied to him because the state treated him like the human version of a repossessed car.
jessilin0113
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:42 pm

Unread post

Imagine if we tried helping people out of poverty rather than penalizing them for it.
Carpy
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4199
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 5:26 am

Unread post

The bigger question is why were they in foster care?
User avatar
Valentina327
Princess
Princess
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 2:23 am

Unread post

That is absolutely infuriating. Make sure that the parents are responsible, most definitely. If drugs was the issue insure that they're clean, absolutely. Reimbursement as a reason? Are you kidding me???

The amount of money that's wasted on a federal level in these ridiculous spending bills on junk, the "covid relief" money that states have been bilking from the Fed for 3 years now, not to mention financially supporting the country of Ukraine and reimbursement is a reason to keep parents apart from their children permanently???

Beyond disgusting. This shit being allowed to go on is unconscionable.
Let's Go Brandon!
#FJB

https://openvaers.com/
Francee89
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 7:13 pm

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:38 am That is absolutely infuriating. Make sure that the parents are responsible, most definitely. If drugs was the issue insure that they're clean, absolutely. Reimbursement as a reason? Are you kidding me???

The amount of money that's wasted on a federal level in these ridiculous spending bills on junk, the "covid relief" money that states have been bilking from the Fed for 3 years now, not to mention financially supporting the country of Ukraine and reimbursement is a reason to keep parents apart from their children permanently???

Beyond disgusting. This shit being allowed to go on is unconscionable.
The article explains it doesn’t seem to be an issue of lack of money for counties and states (from their own or federal budgets), as they’re able to waste money trying to get these people to pay - “agencies collected only 24 to 41 cents for every dollar spent trying to track down families and collect” - and in 2022 the federal government issued guidance asking states to stop collecting money from impoverished families with kids in foster care, despite a Reagan era federal law saying states should collect money from them.

It seems like an issue of non-repayment being allowed by law in some states as sole grounds to terminate parental rights. If an upper middle class family and poor family both have their kids removed for the same reason and both have and meet the same conditions to get them back (like treatment, parenting classes, etc.), the poor family shouldn’t lose their kids forever while the upper middle class parents get their kids back simply because the upper middle class family can afford to repay the state and they can’t.
User avatar
Murdoc's Mistress
Donated
Donated
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2232
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 4:09 pm
Location: Point Nemo

Unread post

And people said I was lying or crazy to point out that TPR happens even if no abuse is founded. It should only occur if abuse is founded, not because the parents had trouble jumping thru CPS's hoops, couldn't pay the fees or because CPS delayed court long enough to claim bonding to fosters.
You were born an original, don't die a copy.
User avatar
Murdoc's Mistress
Donated
Donated
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2232
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 4:09 pm
Location: Point Nemo

Unread post

Thelma Harper wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:50 am "In 2021, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that one of their sons — who was then 5 — was properly placed for adoption on the grounds that the Cunninghams had failed to reimburse the government for some of the cost of their child's foster care."

😬🥺
I'd help the parents track the kid down and take him back. Failure to pay a debt is not a justified reason to steal and sell their kid.
You were born an original, don't die a copy.
Locked Previous topicNext topic