This letter describes the changes resulting from SB 720, to encourage the joint placement of infants and their teen parents when both are in foster care. The main changes are the expanded definition of a “whole foster family home” (WFFH). The new definition includes the home of 1) a nonrelated legal guardian when the guardianship is established by the dependency court, not the probate court; 2) ward of a nonrelated legal guardian whose guardianship is established by the dependency court, not the probate court; 3) related guardian’s home under the KinGAP Program for relatives who were previously designated as WFFHs while the child was in foster care. It also clarifies the rate paid to previously designated WFFH KinGAP relatives and the board and care rates. Includes a reminder to counties that when court ordered reunification services are terminated and the minor dependent’s child is no longer under the placement and care of the county welfare and/or probation department, the child is no longer eligible for a Title IV-E payment. In that case, a provider would be entitled to the infant supplement amount only.

For those of you into coding, a listing of new codes is included. [Download]

Winner for “needs a new name”: the “Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention and Treatment, Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention, and Promoting Safe and Stable Families Three-Year Plan will now be integrated into the California Children and Family Services Review. Phew. All in the name of administrative efficiencies. The Notice reviews what’s changed and what’s stayed the same. [Download]

Recently enacted federal and state law impacts the placement of dependent children and wards of the court across state lines. States must develop a process to ensure that foster care and adoptive home studies for children placed across state lines are completed within 60 calendar days; to establish a 14-day time frame for agencies to reject home studies done in another state for placing a California child across state lines; ensure caregivers access to court proceeding; require the court to consider both in-state and out-of-state options.

The effective date of the federal law was October 1, 2006, but California got an extension. The pertinent provisions of the state implementing legislation (SB 703) were effective January 1, 2008. This letter sets out the California provisions, including the exceptions for the 60 day time frame to do the home study (circumstances beyond agency’s control) and what must be in the home study to be complete, incentive payments for “on time” studies, and data reporting requirements. [Download]