Foster Care

Assessing child safety and monitoring of safety plans

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has issued instructions on assessing child safety when determining if a child can be remain safely in their home. In order to ensure consistency across counties, the CDSS has provided information on safety assessments, safety plans, and risk assessments used during worker visits to the home.

During the initial investigation, caseworkers must determine whether or not the child can safely remain in the home or if immediate removal is necessary. Caseworkers must identify any potential safety threats prior to leaving, and report these threats using the Safety Assessment tool within two (2) days of the visit.

If a caseworker assesses that there is reason to know if the child is an Indian child, the caseworker must take into account the tribe’s social and cultural standards and way of life. In accordance with county procedures, caseworkers must also collaborate with the tribe, and may utilize other tribal or Indian community service agencies.

When child safety has been assessed and the child is allowed to remain in the home, caseworkers must work with caregivers to draft a safety plan. The safety plan, which allows the child(ren) to remain in their current placement, lists specific and immediate steps that can be taken to remedy potential hazards, as well as long-term objectives to ensure the child’s health and safety. Safety plans must also specify all of the involved and their roles and responsibilities. Caseworkers are expected to monitor these safety plans over time through consistent visits (both announced and unannounced), as well as ongoing collaboration with involved parties.

In cases involving substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms, the safety plan must satisfy all requirements established by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. This includes specific action steps to mitigate safety threats to both the child and the caregiver, which may involve referrals to external services.

Once a safety plan has been drafted, caseworkers must conduct a risk assessment to determine if the child is in danger of future mistreatment. The risk assessment must be completed within thirty (30) days of the initial visit, and may be used when deciding the status of referrals.

Before a case is closed, a caseworker must conduct a risk reassessment, which evaluates the progress of the safety plan. If the risk is reassessed as low, the caseworker must complete a case closing assessment before the case is closed. If the child has the goal to reunite with their original caregiver, the caseworker must assess whether the child should be returned to the caregivers, maintained in their current placement, or have a permanent placement established.

If a caseworker believes the problems to be too severe to remedy or that the child may be in severe or immediate danger, the case worker may instead draft a case plan, which expedites the removal and re-placement process. (ACL 17-107, February 6, 2018.)

Short-term interim funding for emergency caregivers

Posted on by

CDSS has issued instructions implementing interim funding for caregivers who have taken placement of children or non-minor dependants  on an emergency basis.  This funding is to provide benefits while a Resource Family Approval (RFA) application is pending.  The funding is needed because of a backlog in processing RFA applications.

Counties must provide payments the emergency caregiver equal to the basic level rate paid to resource families.  This funding will remain in effect until June 30, 2018.  Payments are effective the date the emergency caregiver signs the RFA application form.  There will not be payments prior to the date of application.

In the first month the child is eligible for interim funding, CalWORKs payments on behalf of the child do not count as income.  This means that receipt of CalWORKs does not impact the calculation of interim caregiver funding.

If emergency placement funding is required for a family for longer than 60 days, the county must document good cause for the RFA application not being processed , identify a prior backlog of RFA applications and submit a backlog plan.  (ACL 18-33, March 30, 2018.)

Hearing representative responsibilities and privileges process

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has issued clarification about county hearing representative responsibilities before a hearing.  The county hearing representative initially impartially reviews the hearing request.  After the review, the hearings representative either orders the county to take corrective action or defends the action at hearing.  The county hearings representative also provides claimants with information about the hearing process, including preparing a position statement.

The county hearings representative ensues that aid paid pending is paid when appropriate, identifies the issues raised in the hearing request, reviewed the disputed action(s) based on available evidence and regulations, and determines whether the case can be resolved or should proceed to hearing.

The county hearings representative also must provide reasonable accommodations for claimant’s disabilities, and services for limited English proficient claimants, including using forms that have been translated and using an interpreter for communication with the claimant at no cost to the claimant.

If the hearings representative cannot identify the issues from the hearing request, the hearings representative should attempt to contact the claimant to discuss the case.  If the hearings representative cannot reach the claimant, the hearings representative should review the case file for 90 days prior to the hearing request to determine issues.  If the hearings representative still cannot determine the issues, the hearings representative should write a limited position statement for the hearing. If the issues are identified on the day of the hearing and the hearings representative and claimant cannot reach a resolution, the hearings representative can request postponement of the hearing.

If the hearings representative determines the county action is correct, the county hearings representative should contact the claimant to explain the basis for the county action.  The hearings representative cannot imply that the claimant cannot or should not proceed with the hearing.  The hearings representative can explain the claimant’s right to withdraw if the claimant states they do not want to proceed with the hearing, but the county hearings representative cannot request a withdrawal.

If the hearings representative determines the county action is incorrect, the county representative must contact the case worker to take corrective action.  The county hearings representative must also contact the claimant to resolve the case without a hearing.  If that resolution is a conditional withdrawal, the language of the conditional withdrawal must be specific regarding the duties of the county and claimant for the action to be corrected.  A conditional withdrawal that states the county will re-review its action is insufficient. Conditional withdrawals should be in writing.  The county must ensure that corrective action is completed within 30 days.  If the claimant still chooses to attend the hearing, the hearings representative must be prepared for the hearing.

The hearings representative should inform the claimant of their right to review the case file and provide that access in two business days.  If the hearings representative withholds documents from the claimant pursuant to a claim of privilege, the hearings representative must prepare and give to the claimant a form identifying the withheld documents and the basis of the claim of privilege or confidentiality.  Welfare fraud investigation information from an active investigation is confidential unless that information has been used or relied on by the county in making its decision to take administrative action.  When the claimant challenges a county claim of privilege or confidentiality, the administrative law judge will convene an in camera proceeding to adjudicate that claim.

Finally, CDSS has issued guidelines for the content and format of county position statements for hearings.  (ACL 17-102, September 29, 2017.)

State AFDC-FC eligibility for registered non-California guardianship orders

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services has issued instructions implementing the court order in Ramirez v. Lightbourne, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2015-80002216, regarding eligibility for State AFDC Foster Care (AFDC-FC) benefits for guardians with non-California guardianship orders.  The state AFDC-FC program provides cash aid to non-relative legal guardians.  (See Welf. & Inst. Code § 11405; MPP § 45-203.)  Previously, non-relative guardians with non-California guardianship orders could only be eligible for State AFDC-FC by obtaining a California guardianship order.  Ramirez held that non-relative legal guardians with non-California guardianship orders are eligible for State AFDC-FC if the guardianship order is registered with a California court.

Counties must inform applicants for State Only Foster Care benefits who have a guardianship order issued by another state that they may be eligible for benefits either by registering their non-California guardianship order with a California court or by obtaining a new guardianship order from a California court.  (ACL 17-82, July 27, 2017.)

Resource Family Approval Hearing Procedures

Posted on by

CDSS has issued instructions about administrative hearings in the Resource Family Approval (RFA) program.  RFA is a unified process for licensing foster family homes, approving relatives and non-relative extended family members as foster care providers, and approving adoptive families.  AB 403 amended Welfare and Institutions Code Section 16519.5 to create a right to a state hearing to appeal a county action denying or rescinding a RFA or criminal records exemption, or CDSS’ action to exclude an individual from a resource family.  A resource family parent, applicant or associated person will have the right to a state hearing to challenge application denial, rescission of approval, exemption denial or approval, or exclusion.  Such a hearing must be requested within 25 days of service of a notice of action, or 30 days if the notice is mailed.

Disputes regarding submission of an alleged severe neglect or child abuse incident to the Child Abuse Central Index are submitted to the county and there is not state hearing jurisdiction for these disputes.  There is also no right to a state hearing regarding decisions to remove or place a foster child and those disputes can be submitted to the county grievance procedure.

Cases where a county denies a relative or non-relative extended family member approval to provide foster care  and approval is requested prior to December 31, 2016 will continue to have the right to a state hearing under the court order in Harris v. California Department of Social Services.

Hearings will occur before either the California Department of Social Services State Hearings Division or the Office of Administrative Hearings.  For a description of the issues that are heard by the California Department of Social Services State Hearings Division or the Office of Administrative Hearings see Resource Family Approval Program Written Directives Version 3 at pp. 79-81.  (ACL 16-110, December 19, 2016.)

Preserving Medi-Cal eligibility for Foster Youth who run away from placements

Posted on by

DHCS has issued a letter to clarify eligibility guidelines for foster care youth who leave court-ordered placements.  While loss of contact with the youth may discontinue foster care payments, that youth may be in other Medi-Cal aid codes and must not be discontinued simply due to loss of contact.

During ex parte review of Medi-Cal cases, workers should determine if the foster care youth is still under jurisdiction of the court; if so, the youth should be placed in the appropriate Medi-Cal only aid code not associated with a foster care payment.  If the foster care youth is still under the court’s jurisdiction, that youth should stay in the appropriate aid code regardless of whether the youth is located.  Foster care youth are not required to enroll into managed care unless in a COHS county.

The letter runs down scenarios about whether a foster care youth is located, where that youth is located, and whether the youth is under jurisdiction of the court.

DHCS ACWDL 16-20 (September 1, 2016).