Policy Research Articles and Reports

Interstate Placements and the Rights of Adoptive Families Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997

[Added: February 1999]

In an attempt to break down geographical barriers to adoptive placement, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105­89) affords an important right of appeal to prospective adoptive parents. Section 202, entitled "Adoptions Across State and County Jurisdictions" provides that states lose eligibility for federal funding in cases where they have:

1. denied or delayed the placement of a child for adoption when an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction with responsibility for handling the case of the child; or

2. failed to grant an opportunity for a fair hearing, as described in section 471(a)(12), to an individual whose allegation of a violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection is denied by the State or not acted upon by the State with reasonable promptness. . .

Essentially, prospective parents who believe their attempt to adopt a child in the care of another county or state is being thwarted may request an administrative hearing to determine if the agency's action is justified.

Let us suppose that Kate Murphy, an experienced parent in Cleveland, Ohio learned that Bill, a five year old boy in Texas, was available for adoption from a photo listing resource on the INTERNET. Kate contacted the agency and confirmed that the child had been diagnosed with a reactive attachment disorder resulting from the severe neglect he suffered as an infant. She was not discouraged, however, because she was raising an adopted son with severe attachment problems. After many travails and many visits to Dr. Greg Keck at the Attachment and Bonding Center in Northeast Ohio, John was doing well in school and hoped to go to college one day.

The Texas agency was impressed with Kate's home study and recognized the obvious fit between Bill's emotional problems Kate's skills and experiences. The letter from Dr. Keck praising the progress that John had made provided additional support for the placement. Texas approved Kate as an adoptive parent for Bill. On June 1, 1998, it appeared that the placement was a forgone conclusion.

On June 10, Kate received a letter from the Texas state agency stating that it was normal policy for prospective parents to make a face to face visit prior to placement. Kate wrote back saying that a visit would be burdensome for several reasons. John was involved in a summer music camp which was very important for his emotional development. Kate was a self-employed web site consultant and had a number of crucial deadlines looming. Finally, since her income as a consultant was irregular, the travel expenses would be hard to cover until she was paid for the projects at the end of the summer.

Over a month went by with no response from Texas. On July 22, she received a letter from a different person, a Mr. McInvale telling her that a face to face visit was a matter of state policy. Kate called around and finally got in touch with Susan Savage, the Deputy Director of the agency. After explaining her situation, Ms. Savage told Kate that the face to face visit was an agency requirement, but one that could be waived. Kate observed that with the emphasis on interstate adoptions in the Adoption and Safe Family Act, the travel issue was likely to come up quite often. Ms. Savage agreed and said that she would contact the Dallas region where the child was located. Texas has a state administered child welfare system, but is divided into a number of regional offices.

Another month passed. Mr. McInvale reiterated his insistence that Kate visit and indicated that if arrangements were not made within a month, the state would explore other placement alternatives. Kate wrote Mr. McInvale and informed him that with school starting and the need for structure in John's life, she couldn't come to Texas and requested that the requirement be waived. After several attempts, she reached Ms. Savage and told her about the situation. Ms. Savage told her that the visitation question was now being considered in the agency's policy bureau.

Kate called an advocate friend and learned of the hearing provisions in the federal law. She, then reviewed her own situation. The State of Texas had affirmed that she was a desirable placement for Bill. The boy had qualified for Title IV-E foster care maintenance benefits and with his special needs would obviously be eligible for federal adoption assistance. Under Ohio regulations, Bill would also be eligible for the state's Post Adoption Special Service Subsidy or PASSS program which would pay for up to $20,000 a year for services that were not covered by Kate's health insurance or Medicaid.

Given the fact that the visitation requirement was not Texas law, but a policy that could be waived, Kate concluded that Texas was delaying Bill's placement in defiance of federal law. She contacted the Texas agency and requested an administrative hearing for violations of 202 (b) of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Prospective parents who suspect that a state or county jurisdiction is delaying an adoptive placement without a good reason should consider requesting an administrative hearing. The hearing division is usually found in the state agency responsible for child welfare. Hearing requests, of course, should be made to the state that is responsible for the child's care and placement. Delays or denials involving intercounty issues should also be appealed to the hearing section of the state's child welfare agency.

When requesting a fair hearing, it is advisable for parents to also ask for a copy of the State's "Plan for Child Welfare Services" dealing with adoptions across state and county lines. Section 202 (a) of the Adoption and Safe Families Act requires states to amend their plans and add new sections containing " assurances that the State shall develop plans for the effective use of cross­jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting children.''.