Introduction
It is the duty of adults to protect children and help them grow in a safe, healthy and stable environment. In order to address the problems that a child may encounter, child welfare laws and policies are created. The laws and policies in this subject are one of the most debated topics, no matter which country the laws and policies belong to. They are always changing and evolving in order to properly avoid the mistakes of the past and to create a better future for all children and young people. In the United States, one of the most significant legislations that came into place was the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). Although the law made effort to give children safety, stability, and permanence, it was not a perfect …show more content…
ASFA clearly addressed this issue by shifting the priority from promoting family reunification to adoptions. This is shown in the creation a shorter time frame for terminating parental rights and the exceptions to making ‘reasonable efforts’ in preserving families. However, the lack of details in the programs led to unforeseen consequences. In Zavez’s article on ASFA, he includes several cases where these new features created ‘a case-plan goal that was impossible for [the mother] to meet’ (2008, p.191). While a shorter time frame for the termination of parental rights was implemented, ASFA lacked proper guidelines and funds to support parents who wanted to be reunified with their child. Moye and Rinker claim, ‘there is a limited number of publicly funded housing, mental health, utility assistance, and child care programs to address the needs of families’ (2002, p.388). ASFA fails to acknowledge that every family’s situation is different and the programs reflect the assumption that all parents of children who get sent to foster care are dangerous. Barth, Wulczyn, and Crea (2005) include in their study how substance abuse is one of the main reasons a child ends up in foster care. Moye and Rinker add to this statement by claiming recovery time for substance abuse is not a speedy one and that ASFA’s provided timeframe is not enough time (2002, p.388) The set up of the time frames and parental rights of ASFA offered only two outcomes for the child: family reunification or adoption. However the lack of support for parents and family reunification suggests adoption as the favoured choice. Supporting this claim, Kernan and Lansford suggest in their research, ‘the financial incentives favouring adoption may bias placement decisions in that direction, even if reunification with biological parents would be in the best interests of the child’
It is the duty of adults to protect children and help them grow in a safe, healthy and stable environment. In order to address the problems that a child may encounter, child welfare laws and policies are created. The laws and policies in this subject are one of the most debated topics, no matter which country the laws and policies belong to. They are always changing and evolving in order to properly avoid the mistakes of the past and to create a better future for all children and young people. In the United States, one of the most significant legislations that came into place was the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). Although the law made effort to give children safety, stability, and permanence, it was not a perfect …show more content…
ASFA clearly addressed this issue by shifting the priority from promoting family reunification to adoptions. This is shown in the creation a shorter time frame for terminating parental rights and the exceptions to making ‘reasonable efforts’ in preserving families. However, the lack of details in the programs led to unforeseen consequences. In Zavez’s article on ASFA, he includes several cases where these new features created ‘a case-plan goal that was impossible for [the mother] to meet’ (2008, p.191). While a shorter time frame for the termination of parental rights was implemented, ASFA lacked proper guidelines and funds to support parents who wanted to be reunified with their child. Moye and Rinker claim, ‘there is a limited number of publicly funded housing, mental health, utility assistance, and child care programs to address the needs of families’ (2002, p.388). ASFA fails to acknowledge that every family’s situation is different and the programs reflect the assumption that all parents of children who get sent to foster care are dangerous. Barth, Wulczyn, and Crea (2005) include in their study how substance abuse is one of the main reasons a child ends up in foster care. Moye and Rinker add to this statement by claiming recovery time for substance abuse is not a speedy one and that ASFA’s provided timeframe is not enough time (2002, p.388) The set up of the time frames and parental rights of ASFA offered only two outcomes for the child: family reunification or adoption. However the lack of support for parents and family reunification suggests adoption as the favoured choice. Supporting this claim, Kernan and Lansford suggest in their research, ‘the financial incentives favouring adoption may bias placement decisions in that direction, even if reunification with biological parents would be in the best interests of the child’