X

Opinion: CHILDS wants to cease placement of St. Lawrence County foster children in homes of DSS employees

Posted 10/26/21

To the Editor: CHILD is calling on the legislators to pass a resolution that would cease the placement of SLC foster children into the homes of SLCDSS employees- a practice that very few counties …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Opinion: CHILDS wants to cease placement of St. Lawrence County foster children in homes of DSS employees

Posted

To the Editor:

CHILD is calling on the legislators to pass a resolution that would cease the placement of SLC foster children into the homes of SLCDSS employees- a practice that very few counties allow, as it poses several ethical concerns. I have personally spoken with representatives from several state-wide agencies and organizations who agree that what is currently being allowed to happen in SLC is a major ethical conflict, and is a practice that should cease immediately. These concerns, at the very least give the appearance of impropriety, which SLC should avoid at all costs. Many of these allegations have been confirmed by individuals within the department.

The job of many SLCDSS employees is to reunite children with their biological families. If a SLCDSS employee is fostering or adopting a child, a conflict arises from that child being in the custody of the employee’s employer, the case being handled by the employee’s coworkers, and the case updates being communicated by and through said employee. This brings into question if due diligence efforts are being made for reunification.

SLCDSS employees being given “first dibs” on the children coming into care.

CPS investigations being conducted by SLC caseworkers. When a hotline call is made against a SLCDSS employee, SLCCPS is tasked with conducting the investigation. Meaning, the assigned investigator could be friends with the subject of this investigation. This brings into question if the investigation is handled appropriately.

Case oversight being conducted by SLC caseworkers. Meaning, these caseworkers could be friends with the fostering employee. This brings into question if that child will get the same treatment as one not fostered by an employee, or if this employee is afforded additional benefits.

In August 2021, OCFS issued a letter to then Commissioner, Cynthia Ackerman, identifying the following deficiencies during their review of DSS employee foster homes:

MAPP training for both foster parents is not documented.

Criminal background check results not entered into the record.

Children were noted to be placed in homes, which exceeds regulatory capacity.

CHILD would like the public to understand that in no way do we wish to prevent individuals from fostering; however, we would like to see procedures and protocols being properly followed. CHILD welcomes the employees of SLCDSS to continue fostering, but in ways that are clear and free of conflict. If the board deemed it appropriate, possible solutions to this issue could include:

CHILD believes it would be appropriate for a SLCDSS employee to take a family member as a kinship placement, with the approval of the biological parent. It would be reasonable for an outside county to provide oversight on this case until the child aged out, was adopted, or reunified with the birth family.

CHILD believes a SLCDSS employee could take placement of an older child who was at risk of aging out of the foster care system. In this situation an exception could be made for that child to be placed with an employee if it is deemed that there are no other homes available. In this event, it would be reasonable for an outside county to provide oversight on this case until the child aged out, was adopted, or reunified with the birth family.

CHILD believes it would be appropriate for a SLCDSS employee to take placement of a foster child from an outside county. In this event, it would be reasonable for that outside county to provide oversight on this case until the child aged out, was adopted, or reunified with the birth family.

CHILD believes that a SLCDSS employee could take placement of a child whose parental rights have been previously terminated and no appeal is being sought. In this event, it would be reasonable for an outside county to provide oversight on this case until the child aged out, was adopted, or reunified with the birth family.

CHILD hopes that the citizens of SLC will take this information and speak to your local legislators about why this resolution should be passed. Again, this is not about preventing SLCDSS employees from fostering, this is about ensuring that the proper procedures and protocols are being followed to ensure the rights of children and families.

Courtney Fantone, Director,
Community Helping Individuals Living in Distress (CHILD)