0

1

• Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2015

• Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2016

• Monday, March 28, 2016

• Thursday, May 26, 2016

• Tuesday, July 26, 2016

• Thursday, Sept. 29, 2016

All times are 2 p.m. – 3 p.m. EST

Leveraging the Strengthening Families Act (SFA)Webinar Series Dates

2

• If you experience technical difficulties during this webinar, visit www.aecf.org/webex for guidance. If you still have trouble, notify us using the chat or Q&A window, or contact WebEx technical support at 1-866-229-3239.

• If you do not see the Q&A window, make sure the Q&A icon at the top of that column is blue (see image to left; icon circled in red). If it is not blue, click the icon, and the window should appear.

• You can type questions for presenters in the Q&A window at any time during the webinar.

• The webinar is being recorded and will be available after the presentation.

Questions?

3

• Nick Abdallah, director and foster care review board facilitator, Maury County (Tennessee) Juvenile Court

• Nyasha N. Justice, Court Improvement Program, Tennessee Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts

• Jenny Pokempner, child welfare program director, Juvenile Law Center

• Esther Rodolphe, peer advocate, Johnson City (Carter/Washington/Sullivan counties)

• Brandon Rutledge, peer advocate, Shelby County (Memphis)

• Andy Shookhoff, attorney and former juvenile court judge (Tennessee)

Moderator: Gina Davis, senior communications associate, the Annie E. Casey Foundation

Presenters

4

• Legal and practice background

– Benefits of enhanced youth engagement

– Legal structure for youth engagement in case review and case planning, including new SFA requirements

– Federal structure for court and administrative reviews

– Court Improvement Program.

• Panel discussion: Tennessee’s foster care review boards

• Replicating the model and enhancing youth engagement

Agenda

LEGAL AND PRACTICE BACKGROUND THE CASE REVIEW STRUCTURE AND YOUTH ENGAGEMENT

5

• More information improves accuracy of decision making

• Having a youth present provides helpful information about safety and well-being

• The youth’s understanding and involvement in the process and decisions making fosters trust in the system

• Having a youth present helps keep everyone focused on case goals

Meaningful Youth Engagement Benefits Systems

6

7

• It gives them a better understanding of their cases

• They get the opportunity to advocate for themselves

• They feel respected by the system

• They feel like they have some control of their own lives

• It helps them feel like the system is fair, even if they don’t agree with the outcome

SOURCE: Youth Justice Board, “Stand Up Stand Out: Recommendations to Improve Youth Participation in New York City’s Permanency Planning Process.” 2007

Youth Applaud Meaningful Engagement

8

• Existing requirementThe court must “consult” youth in an “age-appropriate manner” about the proposed permanency and transition plan

42 U.S.C.A. § 675 (5)(C)(iii)

• New requirementFor youth with the permanency plan of Another Planned Permanency Living Arrangement (APPLA), the court must ask the child about his or her desired permanency plan

42 U.S.C.A. § 675a(a)(2)(A)

Youth Engagement in Case Reviews: The Legal Requirements

9

• At each review hearing for youth with plan of APPLA, the court must document that steps are being taking to ensure:

‒ The child has regular, ongoing opportunities to participate in age- and developmentally appropriate activities

‒ The caregiver is exercising the Reasonable and Prudent Parent standard

• To satisfy this inquiry the court can consult with the child in an “age-appropriate manner about the opportunities of the child to participate in the activities”

42 U.S.C.A. § § 675a(a)(3)(B) & (a)(3)(A)

Court Oversight and Youth Engagement Requirements with Respect to Normalcy

10

• The court should play an important role in the development and review of the transition plan

• Hearings/case reviews should be held under conditions that support active engagement of the youth in key decisions

SOURCE: Guidance on Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, Program Instructions, ACYF-CB-PI-10-11 (July 9, 2010), p. 7, available at www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1011.pdf

Federal Guidance

11

• States must have a process to review cases for which the child welfare agency has placement care and responsibility

• These reviews take the form of status and permanency reviews

The Case Review Process Under Federal Law

12

• The status of each child is reviewed periodically but no less frequently than once every six months by either a court or by administrative review

42 U.S.C.A. § 675 (5)(B)

• “Administrative review” means a review open to the participation of the child’s parents, conducted by a panel of appropriate people at least one of whom is not responsible for the case management of, or the delivery of services to, either the child or the parents who are the subject of the review

42 U.S.C.A. § 675 (6)

Status Reviews

13

• Must be conducted at least once a year

• Must be conducted by a family or juvenile court or another court of competent jurisdiction or by an administrative body appointed or approved by the court which is not a part of or under the supervision or direction of the title IV-E agency

• Paper reviews, ex parte hearings, agreed orders, or other actions or hearings that are not open to the participation of the parents of the child, the child (if of appropriate age), and foster parents or pre-adoptive parents (if any) are not permanency hearings

45 CFR § 1355.20 (2)

Permanency Review Hearings

14

• Funds to state courts to maximize the court’s capacity to facilitate the achievement of permanency, safety and well being

• Court Improvement Program funds are used to:

– Assess court process

– Develop and implement court process improvements that:

o provide for safety, well-being and permanence of children in foster care, or

o implement a corrective action plan, or

o increase and improve engagement of the family in court processes relating to child welfare, family preservation, family reunification and adoption

Court Improvement Program42 U.S.C.A. § 629h

15

• Nick Abdallah, director and foster care review board facilitator, Maury County Juvenile Court

• Nyasha N. Justice, Court Improvement Program, Tennessee Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts

• Esther Rodolphe, peer advocate, Johnson City (Carter/Washington/Sullivan counties)

• Brandon Rutledge, peer advocate, Shelby County (Memphis)

• Andy Shookhoff, attorney and former juvenile court judge

Panel discussion

16

Resources

17

Wrap-up and Recommendations

18

For additional informationwww.aecf.org/work/child-welfare/jim-casey-youth-opportunities-initiative/

Questions?

19