Was Gabriel Another Victim of Adoption Bonuses?

February 2001

Gabriel Ricker may have had a narrow escape. Approximately 10,000 children per year are taken from families in Massachusetts and placed into foster care, according to DSS spokesman David Van Dam (“DSS Follows the Money; Makes an Extra $90 Million per Year,” by Edward G. Oliver, Massachusetts News, December 1999).

Massachusetts News has reported a number of cases where DSS has taken children from their families without justification. Some of these are apparently motivated by a desire to maximize income from federal adoption bonuses. A search of the Massachusetts News print archives on www.massnews.com website using the word “DSS” provides several articles documenting the problem, particularly “Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness,” by Nev Moore, Massachusetts News, May 2000.

Clinton’s 1997 “Adoption and Safe Families Act” gives cash bonuses to states of up to $6000 for each child adopted out of foster care. The goal is to double the number of adoptions by 2002 and sustain that number each year.

Adoptive parents are also given cash bonuses until the child reaches 18, or 22 if he stays in school.

The federal legislation, run by the Department of Health and Human Services, offers technical assistance to support “the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights.”

(This looks like a golden opportunity for those who think children belong to the state and that families are oppressive institutions.)

The legislation was ostensibly well meaning, intended to help children caught in the revolving door of foster-home-after-foster-home for their entire childhood, when clearly negligent and abusive parents refused to give up custody.

An unintended consequence of the legislation, however, is that DSS and other social agencies around the country are viewing adoption bonuses as another income source. This increases the likelihood that children considered “more adoptable” might be removed from their families for less (or trumped up) reason.

Maximizing Income for DSS
As reported in the aforementioned article, a report by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, entitled “Maximize Federal Revenues for Health and Human Services,” says, “States typically obtain more revenue from the federal foster care program by increasing the number of cases that are eligible for federal reimbursement.” The report uses Massachusetts as an example, which raised the percentage of children in its services who are eligible for federal reimbursement from 23 percent in 1993 to nearly 65 percent in 1996. DSS received $58 million in  bonuses the first year, $64 million the second, and expected to receive $90 million in additional funds in the third year.

State Rep Knows DSS First Hand
Massachusetts State Representative, Marie Parente, is a former foster child herself. She is now Chair of the Legislative Committee on Foster Care. She gave Massachusetts News an amazingly revealing interview in December 1999. She said there is no due process for families under DSS which acts as an unaccountable police force, judge, jury and executioner. The DSS equivalent of execution is termination of parental rights. She insists DSS must be made to adhere to established legal standards.

Rep. Parente talked about the role federal money plays in decision-making about children under DSS. “I remember Congresswoman Schroeder. She said her greatest fear about federal funding for DSS is that every time they decided to put more money into a different facet of DSS, then DSS focuses the attention on that. It is that way across the country. If they thought that children should stay with families and that was their big thing that year, all kids stayed with their families because then the state would get a lot of money. If the focus of the federal government and funds changed to adoption, then everybody would get adopted.”

Shortly afterwards, federal bonuses were announced for adoption.

Call for Hearings and Investigation
Some people are now calling for Congressional hearings to review the legislation and its unintended effects.

A thorough investigation should also be made into the systematic abuse of innocent citizens by an agency charged with protecting the public. DSS has become so powerful and so unaccountable that it is now a widespread danger to constitutional rights. When challenged, DSS hides behind client confidentiality.

Nev Moore, of Justice for Families, told Massachusetts News, “Legislation is needed to change the standard in DSS cases to a need for ‘clear and convincing evidence’ before a child is taken from a parent. The importance of separation of a child from his family is so fundamental that the higher standard should be used…In addition, law enforcement should be in charge, not a social agency.  Parents should be criminally charged in cases of alleged abuse and neglect, so they will not be deprived of their constitutional rights.”

Scott Somerville of the Home School Legal Defense Association said that in juvenile court, while the wouldn’t say so, an unrecognized “err on the side of the child” standard is used. “This means that if you can raise any questions at all as to whether the child is perfectly happy, healthy and safe to the satisfaction of the social worker, the judge is probably going to rule against the parent. Whereas in the criminal court, you‘ve got to dismiss all doubt that the parent might be innocent. If you prosecute as criminal, the fine is $20. If you prosecute as civil, you can take the child away. Very few are prosecuted as criminal.”

When 10,000 Massachusetts children each year are taken from their parents, something is terribly wrong.