Kansas Senator Makes Case for “Experimental” Foster Care UPDATED
WOW! This is NOT April Fools Day! 
“Legislation delved into by a Senate committee Monday establishes an experimental foster care program in Kansas open exclusively to adults in stable marriages of at least seven years and with a minimum of one stay-at-home spouse.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Forrest Knox, R-Altoona, would grant foster parents in the statewide pilot program an exemption from standard licensing applicable to child care facilities.
“I believe there are many families in Kansas that do not step up to help children because they are so limited by the state,” said Knox, who believes state bureaucrats appear to only want “babysitters” to look after foster children.
Knox’s proposal to the Senate Judiciary Committee would require foster parents in the CARE trial program to be high school graduates and pass a background check. The participants would have to enforce a household ban on smoking and drinking alcohol.
The bill would place sole discretion with participating foster parents to determine the educational placement of foster children in their care. If the parent chose not to send a child to public school, the host parent would receive approximately $7,000 annually to cover the cost of private school, online courses or homeschooling. Families volunteering to be part of the CARE initiative wouldn’t receive other state payments for foster care services.
In addition, the bill would limit the program to families “actively, regularly socially involved in their local community,” which has been interpreted to mean church. [What if the child doesn’t go to church?]The program would be attractive to foster parents who want to step beyond the typical boundary and provide a more forceful presence in the lives of children, Knox said.
“The problem is we don’t have enough foster homes,” said Knox, who has been a foster parent. “We have too many foster parents who are doing it only as a business.”
He said law enforcement sources had shared with him estimates that about half of Kansas’ foster families were “good” and the other half “bad.” He said turnover among social workers was high, volunteer legal advocates see foster children only about once a month and judges presiding in foster care cases were dealing with a “stack of folders” on their desks.
Sen. Pat Pettey, a Kansas City Democrat on the committee with Knox, peppered the bill’s sponsor with a series of inquiries. She asked Knox how the state would realistically define “stable relationship” or “socially involved.” The bill requires three references from “people familiar with the family,” Pettey said, but she questioned who would determine that level of familiarity.
Pettey also asked why the bill contained a prohibition on consumption of beer, wine and liquor but had no limit on whether firearms could be in the household.
In response, Knox said many of those operational questions would be answered by officials in the Kansas Department for Children and Families, which would administer the pilot program.
Concern has been expressed by the Kansas State Department of Education that the legislation would draw Kansas out of compliance with federal law, while questions also have been raised about the legislation’s potential violation of the Kansas Constitution and U.S. Constitution.
Thomas Witt, executive of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Kansas, said Senate Bill 410 would limit CARE family applicants to couples married a minimum of seven years.
Until 2015, Kansas same-sex couples were prohibited from marrying or to have out-of-state marriage licenses recognized by the state.
“We believe the seven-year standard may violate equal protection provisions of both the Kansas and United States constitutions,” Witt said. “Native Kansans in committed, long-lasting relationships, who waited patiently for the years, in many cases decades, for marriage equality will be denied access.”
The state Department for Children and Families estimated the legislation would require $230,000 to hire four new staff for screening and monitoring of families. The bill sets a sunset on the trial program in 2022.
Sen. Jeff King, an Independence Republican and chairman of the Senate committee, said the panel was likely to consider the bill at some point this week.”
Kansas senator makes case for experimental foster care program in Kansas [CJ Online 2/15/16 by Tim Carpenter]
REFORM Puzzle Piece
Update:“The Kansas Senate voted Tuesday to authorize a five-year pilot program crafted to attract a precise type of foster care parent who is happily married, refuses to drink or smoke at home and stays regularly involved in community activities.
The experimental initiative forwarded to the House was the work of Sen. Forrest Knox, R-Altoona, and designed to appeal to potential foster parents in “stable” marriages of at least seven years. To be eligible, only one spouse could be employed outside the home. Both must pass background checks, hold high school diplomas and have avoided illegal drugs for seven years. They would need training in legal rights of foster parents useful in dealing with the courts and regulators.
“Now and then, you need to invent something,” Knox said. “What’s going on now is not working. We need totally new ideas. I think it has potential to meet needs.”
Modification of Senate Bill 410 by a Senate committee and on the Senate floor prior to approval on a 24-15 vote didn’t appease a contingent of colleagues who viewed Knox’s bill as an inappropriate formula for building capacity in the Kansas foster care network.
“I call it the Cleaver standard,” said Sen. David Haley, D-Kansas City. “We’re in a different country than when Ward and June took care of Beaver. I understand the Cleaver model, but it is passe.”
Knox said the state’s current approach to foster care left too many children without a suitable home led by people providing appropriate parental guidance. Regulatory oversight by the Kansas Department for Children and Families to often makes “babysitters” of foster parents, he said. Adoption of the CARE model can be a change agent, he said.
“I’ve tried to give them authority, so they could nurture as a parent should,” Knox said. “They can offer options to these kids they can’t get anywhere else.”
Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita, said the foster care program developed by Knox was an affront to single parents like herself. “I am a bit offended by this legislation,” she said.
In addition, Sen. Vicki Schmidt, R-Topeka, questioned Knox about difficulties DCF would have implementing the bill due to vagueness of terms contained in the measure. For example, the bill requires couples to have been in a “stable relationship” and to be “socially involved.” DCF would vet applicants based in part on three references by “people familiar with the family.”
Schmidt asked Knox during Senate debate whether the legislation included funding to defend the state from possible lawsuits.
The Senate rejected a proposed amendment from Sen. Pat Pettey, D-Kansas City, to require firearms to be secured in households where CARE foster parents reside.
“We are talking about children. We are talking about lives. You’re aware of drunk drivers. They kill. Guns kill, too.”
The new category of foster parent created by Knox’s bill would hold expanded authority to determine for children in their care how best to provide for their education by choosing from among public, private, online and home-school options.
Foster parents involved in this program would be eligible to receive $4,000 annually per child if the public school was bypassed. If placed in a K-12 public school, the money would follow the child regardless of the school district attended.
Before approved by the Senate, a provision exempting homes of CARE program participants from state licensing regulations was removed.
In addition, the Kansas State Department of Education indicated the bill could draw Kansas out of federal compliance and place in jeopardy $20 million in funding. DCF estimated the legislation would require $230,000 to hire four new staff members for screening and monitoring of families.”
One can only hope that this horrible bill privileging fundgelical Christians to be approved as foster parents without meeting usual standards– and to indoctrinate other people’s children in their religion at state expense– dies a quick death.
Oh, and Senator Knox? THERE WOULDN’T BE A SHORTAGE OF FOSTER FAMILIES IF THE STATE WOULD STOP YANKING KIDS FROM LOVING PARENTS FOR PROBLEMS WHICH COULD BE HANDLED BY AID TO THE EXISTING FAMILY!