Foster Children
| Abused Swan |
Each year concerned professionals and community members report nearly 500,000 instances in which they
suspect that someone is abusing or neglecting a child in California.
California's child welfare system is the principal intervention resource for protecting these children, as well
as children who are orphaned or abandoned. The system consists of a conglomeration of public and private
agencies, institutions, programs and services. These entities and individuals respond to allegations of
abuse and neglect, provide services to children and families who are victims or potential victims of abuse or
neglect, and provide services to children in foster care who were temporarily or permanently removed from
their homes because of abuse or neglect. In July, 2007, approximately 85,000 children in California lived in
out-of-home or foster care.
Federal and state laws provide the framework for child welfare services which are funded through a
combination of federal, state and county sources. The California Department of Social Services (DSS) is the
principal entity responsible for the state’s child welfare system, although each of the state’s 58 counties
administers its own child welfare program. In other words, counties are the primary source of direct
government interaction with children and families involved in the system. California is one of around a dozen
states with this state-supervised/county-administered governance system. The Departments of Health
Services, Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Programs, and Developmental Services, along with their county
counterparts, and the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Education also provide
services to children and families involved in the child welfare system.
Components of the system
Child welfare services include a variety of interventions designed to protect children from abuse and
neglect. Major services include emergency response to reports of suspected abuse and neglect; family
maintenance (which provides time-limited protective services to families in crisis); family reunification (which
provides time-limited intervention and support services to help create a safe environment to which a child
who was removed from home could return); and foster or out-of-home care. After a concerned individual
reports an allegation of abuse or neglect, a county social worker determines if an investigation needs to
occur and how quickly. An investigation may end the intervention, or it may begin the family's further
involvement in the child welfare system.
1 Needell, B., et. al. (2008). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved February 20, 2008,
from University of
California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL: <http://cssr.berkeley.
edu/ucb_childwelfare.
2 Funding
THIS FUNDING WAS APPROVED
The Governor's proposed budget for 2008-09 includes $4.179 billion in spending from all funds for the child
welfare system, of which $1.14 billion are from the General Fund.
3 The primary sources of federal funding for the child welfare system include Titles IV-B (child
welfare services) and IV-E (foster care) of the Social Security Act, with additional
funding in Titles IV-A (TANF) (Fatherhood Initiative Grant) , XIX (Medicaid) and XX (block grants).
Most stakeholders agree that current federal funding mechanisms for child welfare place a greater priority
on supports to children while in foster care at the expense of prevention efforts and supports to help at-risk
families care for their children at home. The federal Title IV-E program is an open-ended entitlement
program that guarantees federal reimbursement to states for maintaining an eligible child in foster care.
This program accounts for approximately 48% of federal child welfare spending in the states. The federal
Title IV-B program provides funds to states for family preservation and support services, reunification
services and adoption promotion. Unlike federal Title IV-E funding, Title IV-B funding is a capped entitlement
and considered discretionary funding, which is subject to the annual appropriation process. Title IV-B is an
important source of funding for prevention and early intervention services, yet these funds account for only
approximately five percent of all federal funding on child welfare. Thus, federal
financing has historically been a barrier to the implementation of many strategies to prevent children and
their families from unnecessarily entering foster care.
4 ¾ Foster Care Most of California's approximately 80,000 foster children entered foster care because of
Neglect (rather than abuse or abandonment). Three-quarters of these children were minorities or children of
color in 2006. African-American children in particular were disproportionately represented.
5 In 2006, foster children lived with foster parents (approximately 36% of placements), kin (36%), group
home providers (or congregate care facilities, 8%), or in other living arrangements. Group care placements
are the least preferred and most expensive (ranging from $1,454 to $6,371 per child per month) of these
major placement categories. Foster care is intended to provide children with temporary out-of-home
placements until they can safely return home or be permanently placed with relatives or other committed
adults. Yet in 2006, around 19,000 children for whom the state was responsible had been in our care and
custody for longer than 5 years. That same year, 42% of children in foster care had been placed in at least
3 homes or institutions.
3 LAO, Analysis of the 2008-09 Budget Bill. URL: http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/Analysis.aspx?
year=2008&chap=0&toc=0
4 Two large counties, Los Angeles and Alameda, are currently participating in the federal Title IV–E Child
Welfare Waiver
Demonstration Capped Allocation Project that allows more flexibility for IV-E fund usage.
5 Id. (The California Department of Finance estimates that African-American children represented 8% of
California’s population in 2006; yet during that same year, 28% of children in foster care were African-
American.)
Foster children are also highly at-risk as they transition to adulthood. Youth who "age out" of or
"emancipate" from foster care at 18 (or up until the age of 21 in some circumstances) are especially
vulnerable. When compared to children who were not in foster care, foster children are more than twice as
likely to drop out of high school.
6 Former foster children also face unemployment and incarceration at rates far higher than the general
population.
7 According to some studies, 24% to 50% of former foster
children become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation.
8 In recent years, the Legislature, media and other leaders have devoted important attention to reforms of
the overall child welfare system and foster care in particular. These efforts have resulted in some very
positive changes (see below for examples). However, some changes have not been fully-implemented; and
as the dire outcomes described above indicate, further attention to improving the system is still urgently
needed.
¾ Adoption & Guardianship
Adoption is a process that creates a new parent-child relationship under the law- after the birth parents'
rights are terminated and transferred. The majority of finalized adoptions in
California are overseen by public adoption agencies, including CDSS district offices, and state-licensed
county adoption agencies.
The Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) provides benefits or subsidies to promote permanent placement of
children in need of families who are difficult to place, including those who are older, members of sibling
groups, or who have disabilities. Eligibility for federal benefits is based on the child's eligibility for federal Aid
to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care Program (AFDC-FC). The amount of financial assistance
is based on the child's needs and cannot exceed the age-related, foster family home care rate for which the
child would otherwise
be eligible. This amounted to monthly federal and non-federal average grants in 2006-07 of $761.16 and
$806.23, respectively. Payments continue until the child attains the age
of 18 except in limited circumstances when it may continue until the child turns 21.
Guardianship is a legal arrangement whereby a court grants the responsibility to care for a child to an adult
or adults who then have the authority to make decisions a biological parent would otherwise make.
Guardianships last until the child reaches the age of 18 or the court terminates the guardianship. Non-
relative guardians for children in the foster care system may receive AFDC-FC payments and other foster
care services.
6 See, e.g., Mark Courtney & Amy Dworsky, Chapin Hall Center for Children, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult
Functioning of
Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 19 (2005); Advocates for Children’s Project Achieve: A Model
Project Providing Education
Advocacy for Children in the Child Welfare System (2005); Retrieved October 12, 2007 from Advocates for
Children of New
York, Inc., URL: http://www.advocatesforchildren.org/pubs/ProjectAchievefinal.doc.
7 The Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, Retrieved 4/30/07. URL:
http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications.
8 California Department of Social Services, All County Information Notice I-101-01 (November 21 ,2001).
Retrieved 11/16/07. URL: http://www.cdss.ca.gov/getinfo/acin01/pdf/I-101_01.pdf.
4 ¾ Kin/Relative Care Relative caregivers often serve as a primary if informal source of care for children
whose parents are absent. Once a child is in foster care, federal law requires the child welfare agency to try
and place the child with a relative before turning to placement in a stranger's home or another facility. Long-
term kinship care is especially valuable because it provides greater stability for children. Children who are
cared for by relatives move less frequently and remain more connected to their culture, identities and
communities. By contrast to non-relative foster parents, relative caregivers tend to be older, single and
more frequently African-American.
To support kinship care and combat the financial disincentive that might otherwise accompany relatives
becoming guardians, California has enacted a series of legislative reforms. The Kinship Guardianship
Assistance Payment program (Kin-GAP) is a voluntary program that provides financial assistance equal to
the basic foster care rate based on the child's age to relative caregivers who become legal guardians.
These relative guardians' homes must meet the same health and safety standards as licensed foster homes.
Performance Measures and Recent Reform Efforts Outcome Measures
In November 1997, with the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, Congress mandated that state's
child welfare programs be assessed on the basis of outcomes achieved for children and families served by
public agencies. In 1999 the federal Health and Human Services (HHS) agency adopted seven outcome
performance measures in the areas of safety, permanence and well-being. HHS also established a review
process for determining whether states are in compliance with those outcome measures. The process
known as the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) examines the delivery of child
welfare services and the outcomes for children and families served by child protective services, foster care,
adoption, and other related programs.
In 2001 the Legislature passed AB 636 (Steinberg), the California Child Welfare System Improvement and
Accountability Act, which provided the framework for measuring and monitoring the performance of each
county child welfare system. The federal government last reviewed California's child welfare system and
published results in 2002. The state failed all seven of the outcome measures pertaining to child safety,
permanence and well-being. As a result the state developed a Performance
Improvement Plan (PIP) to avoid future funding penalties. According to the LAO, actions taken on the PIP
were expected to improve California’s performance to passing some (but not all) measures in the next round
of results.
9 The new round of reviews began in spring 2007, with California's taking place in February, 2008 (results
pending).
9 See Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Health and Social Services; Child Welfare Services. URL:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/health_ss/hss_13_anl07.aspx#Despite%20Substantial%
20Improvement,%20Federal%20Financi
al%20Penalties%20Likely%20in%202007-08.
5 Assembly Select Committee on Foster Care
In October 2005 the Speaker appointed a Select Committee on Foster Care chaired by Assembly Member
Karen Bass. The Select Committee has held hearings throughout California. The Committee also
coordinated a 25-piece legislative package in 2006, as well as numerous efforts in 2007. The Legislature
and Governor acted upon many of the proposed reforms in those years, including significant new funding.
The Select Committee will continue its work this legislative session.
Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care
In 2006 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster
Care chaired by Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno to provide leadership and develop recommendations
and strategies to reduce the number of children in and entering foster care while ensuring they have safe,
secure, and stable homes. The Commission is expected to present a final report to the Judicial Council in
2008.
The California Child Welfare Council
Also in 2006, the Governor signed AB 2216 (Bass) which created the California Child Welfare Council, an
advisory body responsible for improving the collaboration and processes of the multiple agencies and the
courts that serve the children and youth in the child welfare and foster care systems. The Council is co-
chaired by the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency and the Chief Justice of the California
Supreme Court. The first meeting was held late in 2007.
Selected Legislation
SB 84 (Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review), Chapter 177, Statutes of 2007
Selected provisions: • 5% rate increase for group homes, county foster family homes, Kin-GAP, and
emergency assistance cases, effective January 1, 2008.
• 100% increase– from $5000 to $10,000– in maximum private adoption agencies can be reimbursed for a
completed adoption, beginning February 1, 2008. My Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Also does adoption. This
has always bothered me and the fact that she make over a million dollars a year. Wonder if she receive part
of the proceeds for the adoption.
• $35.7 million for Transitional Housing Plus- to provide housing and supportive services to emancipated
foster youth ages 18-24.
6 AB 1808 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 75, Statutes of 2006.
Selected provisions:
• Eliminated county share of cost for transitional housing for former foster youth.
• Enhanced AAP benefits for a pilot project to increase successful adoptions of hard-to-adopt children.
• Extended Kin-GAP assistance to wards of the juvenile court in addition to dependent children of the
juvenile court.
• Deleted requirement that county seeking to participate in KSSP must have 40% or more dependent
children in relative care placement.
• Provided specialized care and clothing allowance benefits to Kin-GAP children.
AB 408 (Steinberg), Chapter 862, Statutes of 2003 & AB 1412 (Leno), Chapter 640, Statutes of 2005.
Requires social workers to identify important people in the lives of older foster youth and to support their
continued relationships to enhance permanence for youth. AB 408 also ensures that foster youth are
allowed to participate in age appropriate extracurricular activities.
AB 899 (Liu), Chapter 683, Statutes of 2001. Created foster youth Bill of Rights, codified in Calif. Welf. &
Inst. Code Section 16001.9.
AB 636 (Steinberg), Chapter 678, Statutes of 2001. Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability
Act of 2001. Created California's Child and Family Service Review system and serves as a guide to the
assessment process.
SB 2030 (Costa), Chapter 785, Statutes of 1998. Required DSS to commission a study to evaluate child
welfare services budget methodology, social worker caseload levels, supportive services and prevention
services for clients. The dialogue about the resulting caseload standards and related funding needs
continues today.
Resources
The Performance Indicators for Child Welfare Services in California/California Children's Services Archive at
the Center for Social Services Research, School of Social Welfare, U.C. Berkeley, provides an ongoing
analysis and reporting using statewide and county-specific child welfare administrative data, along with data
from other sources: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/cwscmsreports/
Understanding the Child Welfare System in California, California Center for Research on Women and
FamiliesCALIF. FOSTER CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
Foster Care Fundamentals: An Overview of California's Foster Care System: A Primer for Service Providers
and Policymakers, California State Library Research Bureau.
http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/01/08/01-008.pdf
• Still in Our Hands: A Review of Efforts to Reform Foster Care in California (February 2003). Little Hoover
Commission.
CALIF. FOSTER CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
• Fostering the Future: Safety, Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster
Care (May 2004). Pew Commission.
CALIF. FOSTER CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
• Broken Promises: California's Inadequate and Unequal Treatment of its Abused and Neglected Children
(2006). National Center for Youth Law.
http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/2006_broken_pro
mises.pdf
Assembly Committee on Human Services, State Capitol, Room 4206, (916) 319-2089
Updated: February 2008
Matthew 23
suspect that someone is abusing or neglecting a child in California.
California's child welfare system is the principal intervention resource for protecting these children, as well
as children who are orphaned or abandoned. The system consists of a conglomeration of public and private
agencies, institutions, programs and services. These entities and individuals respond to allegations of
abuse and neglect, provide services to children and families who are victims or potential victims of abuse or
neglect, and provide services to children in foster care who were temporarily or permanently removed from
their homes because of abuse or neglect. In July, 2007, approximately 85,000 children in California lived in
out-of-home or foster care.
Federal and state laws provide the framework for child welfare services which are funded through a
combination of federal, state and county sources. The California Department of Social Services (DSS) is the
principal entity responsible for the state’s child welfare system, although each of the state’s 58 counties
administers its own child welfare program. In other words, counties are the primary source of direct
government interaction with children and families involved in the system. California is one of around a dozen
states with this state-supervised/county-administered governance system. The Departments of Health
Services, Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Programs, and Developmental Services, along with their county
counterparts, and the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Education also provide
services to children and families involved in the child welfare system.
Components of the system
Child welfare services include a variety of interventions designed to protect children from abuse and
neglect. Major services include emergency response to reports of suspected abuse and neglect; family
maintenance (which provides time-limited protective services to families in crisis); family reunification (which
provides time-limited intervention and support services to help create a safe environment to which a child
who was removed from home could return); and foster or out-of-home care. After a concerned individual
reports an allegation of abuse or neglect, a county social worker determines if an investigation needs to
occur and how quickly. An investigation may end the intervention, or it may begin the family's further
involvement in the child welfare system.
1 Needell, B., et. al. (2008). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved February 20, 2008,
from University of
California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL: <http://cssr.berkeley.
edu/ucb_childwelfare.
2 Funding
THIS FUNDING WAS APPROVED
The Governor's proposed budget for 2008-09 includes $4.179 billion in spending from all funds for the child
welfare system, of which $1.14 billion are from the General Fund.
3 The primary sources of federal funding for the child welfare system include Titles IV-B (child
welfare services) and IV-E (foster care) of the Social Security Act, with additional
funding in Titles IV-A (TANF) (Fatherhood Initiative Grant) , XIX (Medicaid) and XX (block grants).
Most stakeholders agree that current federal funding mechanisms for child welfare place a greater priority
on supports to children while in foster care at the expense of prevention efforts and supports to help at-risk
families care for their children at home. The federal Title IV-E program is an open-ended entitlement
program that guarantees federal reimbursement to states for maintaining an eligible child in foster care.
This program accounts for approximately 48% of federal child welfare spending in the states. The federal
Title IV-B program provides funds to states for family preservation and support services, reunification
services and adoption promotion. Unlike federal Title IV-E funding, Title IV-B funding is a capped entitlement
and considered discretionary funding, which is subject to the annual appropriation process. Title IV-B is an
important source of funding for prevention and early intervention services, yet these funds account for only
approximately five percent of all federal funding on child welfare. Thus, federal
financing has historically been a barrier to the implementation of many strategies to prevent children and
their families from unnecessarily entering foster care.
4 ¾ Foster Care Most of California's approximately 80,000 foster children entered foster care because of
Neglect (rather than abuse or abandonment). Three-quarters of these children were minorities or children of
color in 2006. African-American children in particular were disproportionately represented.
5 In 2006, foster children lived with foster parents (approximately 36% of placements), kin (36%), group
home providers (or congregate care facilities, 8%), or in other living arrangements. Group care placements
are the least preferred and most expensive (ranging from $1,454 to $6,371 per child per month) of these
major placement categories. Foster care is intended to provide children with temporary out-of-home
placements until they can safely return home or be permanently placed with relatives or other committed
adults. Yet in 2006, around 19,000 children for whom the state was responsible had been in our care and
custody for longer than 5 years. That same year, 42% of children in foster care had been placed in at least
3 homes or institutions.
3 LAO, Analysis of the 2008-09 Budget Bill. URL: http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/Analysis.aspx?
year=2008&chap=0&toc=0
4 Two large counties, Los Angeles and Alameda, are currently participating in the federal Title IV–E Child
Welfare Waiver
Demonstration Capped Allocation Project that allows more flexibility for IV-E fund usage.
5 Id. (The California Department of Finance estimates that African-American children represented 8% of
California’s population in 2006; yet during that same year, 28% of children in foster care were African-
American.)
Foster children are also highly at-risk as they transition to adulthood. Youth who "age out" of or
"emancipate" from foster care at 18 (or up until the age of 21 in some circumstances) are especially
vulnerable. When compared to children who were not in foster care, foster children are more than twice as
likely to drop out of high school.
6 Former foster children also face unemployment and incarceration at rates far higher than the general
population.
7 According to some studies, 24% to 50% of former foster
children become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation.
8 In recent years, the Legislature, media and other leaders have devoted important attention to reforms of
the overall child welfare system and foster care in particular. These efforts have resulted in some very
positive changes (see below for examples). However, some changes have not been fully-implemented; and
as the dire outcomes described above indicate, further attention to improving the system is still urgently
needed.
¾ Adoption & Guardianship
Adoption is a process that creates a new parent-child relationship under the law- after the birth parents'
rights are terminated and transferred. The majority of finalized adoptions in
California are overseen by public adoption agencies, including CDSS district offices, and state-licensed
county adoption agencies.
The Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) provides benefits or subsidies to promote permanent placement of
children in need of families who are difficult to place, including those who are older, members of sibling
groups, or who have disabilities. Eligibility for federal benefits is based on the child's eligibility for federal Aid
to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care Program (AFDC-FC). The amount of financial assistance
is based on the child's needs and cannot exceed the age-related, foster family home care rate for which the
child would otherwise
be eligible. This amounted to monthly federal and non-federal average grants in 2006-07 of $761.16 and
$806.23, respectively. Payments continue until the child attains the age
of 18 except in limited circumstances when it may continue until the child turns 21.
Guardianship is a legal arrangement whereby a court grants the responsibility to care for a child to an adult
or adults who then have the authority to make decisions a biological parent would otherwise make.
Guardianships last until the child reaches the age of 18 or the court terminates the guardianship. Non-
relative guardians for children in the foster care system may receive AFDC-FC payments and other foster
care services.
6 See, e.g., Mark Courtney & Amy Dworsky, Chapin Hall Center for Children, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult
Functioning of
Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 19 (2005); Advocates for Children’s Project Achieve: A Model
Project Providing Education
Advocacy for Children in the Child Welfare System (2005); Retrieved October 12, 2007 from Advocates for
Children of New
York, Inc., URL: http://www.advocatesforchildren.org/pubs/ProjectAchievefinal.doc.
7 The Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, Retrieved 4/30/07. URL:
http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications.
8 California Department of Social Services, All County Information Notice I-101-01 (November 21 ,2001).
Retrieved 11/16/07. URL: http://www.cdss.ca.gov/getinfo/acin01/pdf/I-101_01.pdf.
4 ¾ Kin/Relative Care Relative caregivers often serve as a primary if informal source of care for children
whose parents are absent. Once a child is in foster care, federal law requires the child welfare agency to try
and place the child with a relative before turning to placement in a stranger's home or another facility. Long-
term kinship care is especially valuable because it provides greater stability for children. Children who are
cared for by relatives move less frequently and remain more connected to their culture, identities and
communities. By contrast to non-relative foster parents, relative caregivers tend to be older, single and
more frequently African-American.
To support kinship care and combat the financial disincentive that might otherwise accompany relatives
becoming guardians, California has enacted a series of legislative reforms. The Kinship Guardianship
Assistance Payment program (Kin-GAP) is a voluntary program that provides financial assistance equal to
the basic foster care rate based on the child's age to relative caregivers who become legal guardians.
These relative guardians' homes must meet the same health and safety standards as licensed foster homes.
Performance Measures and Recent Reform Efforts Outcome Measures
In November 1997, with the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, Congress mandated that state's
child welfare programs be assessed on the basis of outcomes achieved for children and families served by
public agencies. In 1999 the federal Health and Human Services (HHS) agency adopted seven outcome
performance measures in the areas of safety, permanence and well-being. HHS also established a review
process for determining whether states are in compliance with those outcome measures. The process
known as the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) examines the delivery of child
welfare services and the outcomes for children and families served by child protective services, foster care,
adoption, and other related programs.
In 2001 the Legislature passed AB 636 (Steinberg), the California Child Welfare System Improvement and
Accountability Act, which provided the framework for measuring and monitoring the performance of each
county child welfare system. The federal government last reviewed California's child welfare system and
published results in 2002. The state failed all seven of the outcome measures pertaining to child safety,
permanence and well-being. As a result the state developed a Performance
Improvement Plan (PIP) to avoid future funding penalties. According to the LAO, actions taken on the PIP
were expected to improve California’s performance to passing some (but not all) measures in the next round
of results.
9 The new round of reviews began in spring 2007, with California's taking place in February, 2008 (results
pending).
9 See Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Health and Social Services; Child Welfare Services. URL:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/health_ss/hss_13_anl07.aspx#Despite%20Substantial%
20Improvement,%20Federal%20Financi
al%20Penalties%20Likely%20in%202007-08.
5 Assembly Select Committee on Foster Care
In October 2005 the Speaker appointed a Select Committee on Foster Care chaired by Assembly Member
Karen Bass. The Select Committee has held hearings throughout California. The Committee also
coordinated a 25-piece legislative package in 2006, as well as numerous efforts in 2007. The Legislature
and Governor acted upon many of the proposed reforms in those years, including significant new funding.
The Select Committee will continue its work this legislative session.
Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care
In 2006 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster
Care chaired by Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno to provide leadership and develop recommendations
and strategies to reduce the number of children in and entering foster care while ensuring they have safe,
secure, and stable homes. The Commission is expected to present a final report to the Judicial Council in
2008.
The California Child Welfare Council
Also in 2006, the Governor signed AB 2216 (Bass) which created the California Child Welfare Council, an
advisory body responsible for improving the collaboration and processes of the multiple agencies and the
courts that serve the children and youth in the child welfare and foster care systems. The Council is co-
chaired by the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency and the Chief Justice of the California
Supreme Court. The first meeting was held late in 2007.
Selected Legislation
SB 84 (Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review), Chapter 177, Statutes of 2007
Selected provisions: • 5% rate increase for group homes, county foster family homes, Kin-GAP, and
emergency assistance cases, effective January 1, 2008.
• 100% increase– from $5000 to $10,000– in maximum private adoption agencies can be reimbursed for a
completed adoption, beginning February 1, 2008. My Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Also does adoption. This
has always bothered me and the fact that she make over a million dollars a year. Wonder if she receive part
of the proceeds for the adoption.
• $35.7 million for Transitional Housing Plus- to provide housing and supportive services to emancipated
foster youth ages 18-24.
6 AB 1808 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 75, Statutes of 2006.
Selected provisions:
• Eliminated county share of cost for transitional housing for former foster youth.
• Enhanced AAP benefits for a pilot project to increase successful adoptions of hard-to-adopt children.
• Extended Kin-GAP assistance to wards of the juvenile court in addition to dependent children of the
juvenile court.
• Deleted requirement that county seeking to participate in KSSP must have 40% or more dependent
children in relative care placement.
• Provided specialized care and clothing allowance benefits to Kin-GAP children.
AB 408 (Steinberg), Chapter 862, Statutes of 2003 & AB 1412 (Leno), Chapter 640, Statutes of 2005.
Requires social workers to identify important people in the lives of older foster youth and to support their
continued relationships to enhance permanence for youth. AB 408 also ensures that foster youth are
allowed to participate in age appropriate extracurricular activities.
AB 899 (Liu), Chapter 683, Statutes of 2001. Created foster youth Bill of Rights, codified in Calif. Welf. &
Inst. Code Section 16001.9.
AB 636 (Steinberg), Chapter 678, Statutes of 2001. Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability
Act of 2001. Created California's Child and Family Service Review system and serves as a guide to the
assessment process.
SB 2030 (Costa), Chapter 785, Statutes of 1998. Required DSS to commission a study to evaluate child
welfare services budget methodology, social worker caseload levels, supportive services and prevention
services for clients. The dialogue about the resulting caseload standards and related funding needs
continues today.
Resources
The Performance Indicators for Child Welfare Services in California/California Children's Services Archive at
the Center for Social Services Research, School of Social Welfare, U.C. Berkeley, provides an ongoing
analysis and reporting using statewide and county-specific child welfare administrative data, along with data
from other sources: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/cwscmsreports/
Understanding the Child Welfare System in California, California Center for Research on Women and
FamiliesCALIF. FOSTER CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
Foster Care Fundamentals: An Overview of California's Foster Care System: A Primer for Service Providers
and Policymakers, California State Library Research Bureau.
http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/01/08/01-008.pdf
• Still in Our Hands: A Review of Efforts to Reform Foster Care in California (February 2003). Little Hoover
Commission.
CALIF. FOSTER CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
• Fostering the Future: Safety, Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster
Care (May 2004). Pew Commission.
CALIF. FOSTER CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
• Broken Promises: California's Inadequate and Unequal Treatment of its Abused and Neglected Children
(2006). National Center for Youth Law.
http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/2006_broken_pro
mises.pdf
Assembly Committee on Human Services, State Capitol, Room 4206, (916) 319-2089
Updated: February 2008
Matthew 23
Posted by Kimberly Edds, Staff Writer
The County of Orange lost its battle in the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to overturn a record-setting $4.9
million judgment awarded to a Seal Beach woman, after two county social workers lied to a juvenile court
commissioner in order to take away the woman’s two daughters.
It took Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick 6 ½ years to regain custody of her children.
The jury award given to Fogarty-Hardwick included damages against the two social workers. The Supreme
Court also upheld $1.6 million in attorneys fees for Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorneys, but that could end being
as much as $3 million, Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorney Shawn McMillan said.
The county and the two social workers will also be responsible for paying interest which has accrued on the
$4.9 million jury award over the last four years, bringing the grand total close to $9.3 million, McMillan said.
Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorneys had offered to settle with the county for $500,000.
Orange County Social Services social workers Marcie Vreeken and Helen Dwojak filed false reports and
held back evidence which would have cleared Fogarty-Hardwick, an Orange County jury found. Vreeken
would later be promoted, according to county records. A third social worker was found not liable.
According to court papers, Vreeken threatened that if Fogarty-Hardwick did not “submit” to her will, she
would never see her children again. The social workers also tried in 2000 to coerce Fogarty-Hardwick to
sign a document saying she was a bad parent by threatening to take her daughters away, Fogarty-
Hardwick alleged.
She refused. A county commissioner ordered Fogarty-Hardwick’s daughters, 6 and 9, taken from their
mother and put in Orangewood Children’s Home. The girls were later put in foster care.
Fogarty-Hardwick gave her ex-husband full custody in 2002, hoping to protect her daughters. She was then
allowed two supervised visits a month for two years. She eventually won 50-50 custody in 2006.
Fogarty-Hardwick sued the county in 2002, arguing the Social Services Agency and its two social workers
violated her civil rights. A jury ruled against her. She sued again, arguing this time county’s policies violated
her constitutional rights, including her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Fogarty-Hardwick’s accused the county of violating her constitutional rights by removing her children
without making a finding of imminent danger or serious physical injury; interviewing her daughters without a
parent present; holding her children without cause; fabricating evidence; and failing to properly train
employees about parents’ constitutional rights.
An Orange County jury voted 10-2 in 2007 in favor of Fogarty-Hardwick and awarded her $4.9 million.
The county appealed the judgment. In the Fourth District Court of Appeal opinion, Justice William
Bedsworth wrote, “the evidence adduced at trial obviously caused both the jury and the judge to conclude
not only that something seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also that the
wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident.”
“Despite Fogarty-Hardwick’s complaints, and the concerns expressed by others about the handling of this
dependency case, SSA did not investigate the situation or consider assigning different social workers to the
matter. Neither of the social workers involved was disciplined. Instead, Vreeken was promoted to supervisor
in 2001,” Bedsworth wrote.
The Watchdog is looking into whether Vreeken and Dwojak still work for the county.
“What the county and these social workers did to her was horrendous and she deserves to be
compensated in full measure,” McMillan said.
“It’s a big deal for a private citizen to take on the government all the way to the United States Supreme
Court,” McMillan said. “(Fogarty-Hardwick) poured her whole life into this case. She provided a valuable
service to Orange County and to other parents for having the tenacity to stick with it.”
The County of Orange lost its battle in the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to overturn a record-setting $4.9
million judgment awarded to a Seal Beach woman, after two county social workers lied to a juvenile court
commissioner in order to take away the woman’s two daughters.
It took Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick 6 ½ years to regain custody of her children.
The jury award given to Fogarty-Hardwick included damages against the two social workers. The Supreme
Court also upheld $1.6 million in attorneys fees for Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorneys, but that could end being
as much as $3 million, Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorney Shawn McMillan said.
The county and the two social workers will also be responsible for paying interest which has accrued on the
$4.9 million jury award over the last four years, bringing the grand total close to $9.3 million, McMillan said.
Fogarty-Hardwick’s attorneys had offered to settle with the county for $500,000.
Orange County Social Services social workers Marcie Vreeken and Helen Dwojak filed false reports and
held back evidence which would have cleared Fogarty-Hardwick, an Orange County jury found. Vreeken
would later be promoted, according to county records. A third social worker was found not liable.
According to court papers, Vreeken threatened that if Fogarty-Hardwick did not “submit” to her will, she
would never see her children again. The social workers also tried in 2000 to coerce Fogarty-Hardwick to
sign a document saying she was a bad parent by threatening to take her daughters away, Fogarty-
Hardwick alleged.
She refused. A county commissioner ordered Fogarty-Hardwick’s daughters, 6 and 9, taken from their
mother and put in Orangewood Children’s Home. The girls were later put in foster care.
Fogarty-Hardwick gave her ex-husband full custody in 2002, hoping to protect her daughters. She was then
allowed two supervised visits a month for two years. She eventually won 50-50 custody in 2006.
Fogarty-Hardwick sued the county in 2002, arguing the Social Services Agency and its two social workers
violated her civil rights. A jury ruled against her. She sued again, arguing this time county’s policies violated
her constitutional rights, including her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Fogarty-Hardwick’s accused the county of violating her constitutional rights by removing her children
without making a finding of imminent danger or serious physical injury; interviewing her daughters without a
parent present; holding her children without cause; fabricating evidence; and failing to properly train
employees about parents’ constitutional rights.
An Orange County jury voted 10-2 in 2007 in favor of Fogarty-Hardwick and awarded her $4.9 million.
The county appealed the judgment. In the Fourth District Court of Appeal opinion, Justice William
Bedsworth wrote, “the evidence adduced at trial obviously caused both the jury and the judge to conclude
not only that something seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also that the
wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident.”
“Despite Fogarty-Hardwick’s complaints, and the concerns expressed by others about the handling of this
dependency case, SSA did not investigate the situation or consider assigning different social workers to the
matter. Neither of the social workers involved was disciplined. Instead, Vreeken was promoted to supervisor
in 2001,” Bedsworth wrote.
The Watchdog is looking into whether Vreeken and Dwojak still work for the county.
“What the county and these social workers did to her was horrendous and she deserves to be
compensated in full measure,” McMillan said.
“It’s a big deal for a private citizen to take on the government all the way to the United States Supreme
Court,” McMillan said. “(Fogarty-Hardwick) poured her whole life into this case. She provided a valuable
service to Orange County and to other parents for having the tenacity to stick with it.”
| 1-800-706-4951 |
A SOCIAL WORKER'S POEM
I am a social worker,
I'm really very nice.
I help you loving mothers,
And give you good advice!
Your partner has departed
Your income is too low.
I'm really very sorry,
All your kids will have to go!
Your partner was abusive?
He beat you black and blue?
We'll soon be there to help you,
And take your children too !
You have a learning problem,
you’re really not too clever
We'll get your kids adopted
When can you see them?? NEVER!!
Your son is hyperactive?
You need a brief respite;
we’ll soon take ALL your children
give up the hopeless fight!
Your child was taken into care,
So many years ago
If now you have a baby
That too will have to go!
Foster parents love your kids
To get some more they seek,
For each one brings a tidy sum
£400 per week!!
Children's homes are run by us ,
Where paedophiles abound
Each time we cover up abuse
"The gutter press" come round
"They" said adoptions worked the best
we soon proved that they would
Fathers shout and mothers cry
Their kids are gone for good!
What happens in our special courts?
Our experts they will say
"You're a danger to your children,
so we'll take them all away!"
Your children may be healthy,
Happy and well fed
But one day you might hurt them
That's what our experts said
The judges know that we are right,
With us they will agree
They dare not risk another course
You have no chance you see !
Our special courts are secret,
So don't you breathe a word
Of what goes on inside those walls
No matter how absurd!
We'll get your kids adopted,
and don't you dare complain!
Or you'll end up in prison
and I won't say that again!
We have adoption targets,
They must be met you see,
Failure means a reprimand,
So spare a thought for me!!!
I am a social worker,
I'm really very nice.
I help you loving mothers,
And give you good advice!
Your partner has departed
Your income is too low.
I'm really very sorry,
All your kids will have to go!
Your partner was abusive?
He beat you black and blue?
We'll soon be there to help you,
And take your children too !
You have a learning problem,
you’re really not too clever
We'll get your kids adopted
When can you see them?? NEVER!!
Your son is hyperactive?
You need a brief respite;
we’ll soon take ALL your children
give up the hopeless fight!
Your child was taken into care,
So many years ago
If now you have a baby
That too will have to go!
Foster parents love your kids
To get some more they seek,
For each one brings a tidy sum
£400 per week!!
Children's homes are run by us ,
Where paedophiles abound
Each time we cover up abuse
"The gutter press" come round
"They" said adoptions worked the best
we soon proved that they would
Fathers shout and mothers cry
Their kids are gone for good!
What happens in our special courts?
Our experts they will say
"You're a danger to your children,
so we'll take them all away!"
Your children may be healthy,
Happy and well fed
But one day you might hurt them
That's what our experts said
The judges know that we are right,
With us they will agree
They dare not risk another course
You have no chance you see !
Our special courts are secret,
So don't you breathe a word
Of what goes on inside those walls
No matter how absurd!
We'll get your kids adopted,
and don't you dare complain!
Or you'll end up in prison
and I won't say that again!
We have adoption targets,
They must be met you see,
Failure means a reprimand,
So spare a thought for me!!!
