Opinion: The Adoption Subsidy: Good Intentions Unfortunate Realities

Occasionally, we will link to media opinions on aspects of adoption and child welfare that you may never have thought about. This opinion piece discusses the lack of postplacement monitoring. It mentions the Judith Leekin Case.

Excerpt on payments: ” However, because the adoptive parent continues to receive the adoption subsidy until the child’s twenty-first birthday, even if the adolescent is returned to foster care, there is no incentive for the adoptive parent to work on services to keep the child or, following placement, to plan for their return…unless the adoptive parent voluntarily stops accepting payments or turns over the adoption subsidy to the agency or to a new caretaker, the adolescent’s care is, in effect, paid for twice by taxpayers. ”

Excerpt on verification of education: “Ultimately, it is the adoptive parent’s responsibility to update the agency yearly regarding the child’s educational status. However, there is no affirmative obligation placed upon the agency to track the progress of the family. The agreement essentially assumes that the adoptive parent is going to be forthcoming about the parent’s relationship with and care of the child. Although it is possible that the failure to provide the educational status update would alert officials to investigate an adoptive child’s situation, it is unclear what would happen as a result and how that would occur. Additionally, the state is not required to verify educational documents submitted, thereby allowing individuals such as Leekin to submit fraudulent documents falsifying the children’s school records to receive monetary support without actually providing for the adopted children.”

See the whole opinion at  The Adoption Subsidy: Good Intentions Unfortunate Realities [City Limits.org 6/7/13 by Dawn Post]

REFORM Puzzle Piece