I am hopeful that it will turn out as good as it appears on the surface. My concerns are who is the funnel to put families in the parenting classes (CPS?), what do these classes will focus on? Based on some of the social arguments taking place these days over such things as home schooling, vaccinations etc I fear it will be a further push to brainwash parents into compliance against their families best interests. I hope I am wrong, but after decades of watching these programs created using feel good names with feel good objectives that achieve the opposite of what everyone thought the laws applied to, I am skeptical now till I see proof.
Also, based on all the experiments on and desire to drug so many kids/people I fear anything that mandates the mental un-health fields involvement.
Thank you for your comment @practicalthought, as always you are a deep thinker about these issues. And I get your point about who will be presenting these classes to the parents but at least it is a step in the right direction. At least the funding for Foster care homes i now limited because we all know most of the times it's about the money. We will have to wait till later in the year to see what guidelines the government will give for this law to be properly applied. The other amendment that I wrote about previously that will secure parental rights on things like vaccinations and homeschooling will hopefully sort out the parental right to choose for your children.
I second, skepticism. Is it truly a law? Looks as if the title specified has been introduced, but not actioned?!
I'm hoping this turns out to benefit families that need it, instead of a tool to use against families.
Thank you for commenting well as I said above only time will tell and I want to try and be positive. At least if it is a law then the lawyers that represent parents also have more backing in their cases.
Youre great @hope777 i know you want to keep positive. Keep up the good work. Are you still active with that advocacy group?
It was passed, there is question to it being a unfunded mandate. I think that that concern comes from the perspective of the additional man power (paper work) that will be required by the government to be sure all group homes are not just licensed but certified, otherwise funding options for mental/substance abuse issues will come from the Title IV-E program run through the social security administration. Shouldn't be a incredibly extra expense because basically what this program does is spend what would have been spent if the child/children were removed anyway but it will be spent before hand instead of afterwards. Before children had to be removed before such services could be rendered. If child/children aren't living in dire straights and the only problem seems to be a mental/substance abuse problem there may be a chance the parent can recover without the lost of said child/children. On the other hand though it could also prove to hasten the paste at the amount of time children sit in foster/group care, remember the child/children will still be at home during the process the parent goes through to correct whatever the situation may be. That means that all pertinent information required by caseworkers to warrant removal, placement and/or termination of rights will be already done by psychologist and health care officials before removal if the parent fails. In some cases this is going to turn out to be more of a bonus of savings for the government(s) involved then a plus for some parents.
The words expedite intra-state adoptions should instill fear into you.
I have read the act, its more of the same. I remain skeptical. They seek to hasten adoption rates, while capping funding for foster homes.. this is the problem; going to be blunt about it. People need to learn the difference between, law, provisions, acts, and legislation.
That's why I said this is going to turn out to be more of a bonus savings for the government. If I had said it like you did someone on here would have countered me with "I am sure you think that's a bad thing". Well technically yeah but not in the same sense that they think of it as a good thing. They think this will limit the available foster homes. It won't, it only serves as a cap from increasing because of the opioid epidemic, if they can rehabilitate parents off drugs through programs it will cost them a lot less money, for those who can't be rehabbed it will serve to move children through the process to adoption faster, which just means less time in foster care which means more open beds in foster homes faster to process kids, once processed into adopted homes they will save because adoptive parents only get title money but do not receive all the other entitlements available to foster children, like medical, dental, psychiatric care, etc., clothing allowances etc., etc.
None of it instills fear in me, it should though to parents to wake up and work on the issues that brought them to attention of the authorities in the
first place. There's a extremely small chance that CPS is (in the US at least) in the wrong when they removed kid(s), if CPS is knocking on someone's door there's a good chance that knock was warranted to at the least serve as a wake up call whether they remove or not.
Now according to HR1985 (thinking before coffee is dangerous) children can be placed for adoption intra-state. So they could be place for adoption in two weeks in any state. This is terrible for parents.
I can't find anything on it as being passed yet...do you have any links?
I stand corrected 1892
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1892
See that, 1892 is a related bill that original (not hope777) publisher put a ton of spin on. Remember that provision from CPS post actually awarded bonuses to adoption rates. That element (conspiracy in my eyes- incentive) will spell disaster. Who can see a judge in less than two weeks? Im for rehabilitating those who need it, but these bills really heighten powers.