[Archive]

Originally Posted By lsb

There has been a major change in policy regarding adoption subsidies which all prospective adoptive parent must be aware of. A recent Policy Announcement virtually reverses many years worth of PIQ's which have clearly stated eligible children adopted through private agencies can receive adoption subsidies for medical and financial assistance. Now, however, in all but a very, very few cases, THIS WILL NO LONGER BE POSSIBLE.

If you are contemplating a private adoption through an agency of a child who meets the state's criteria OR WHO MAY AT SOME FUTURE TIME meet the criteria due to an unknown medical, physical, or emotional condition, you need to understand exactly what this new policy means to you. You also need to understand that EVERY child is a potential "special needs" child.

For further information you may wish to study the following web site: http://www.homes4kids.org/piqs.htm

I am copying here an excerpt from this page. I share the same emotions expressed in this text--I am absolutely sickened as I think about what this means for private adoptions of minority children and children with medical or emotional needs. Although some will say adoptive parents should not expect any financial help beyond what they would be entitled to for children born to them, I say there is a much larger issue at stake. Thousands of children already languish in state foster care who may never have a forever family. EVERY CHILD SUCCESSFULLY PLACED THROUGH A PRIVATE AGENCY IS ONE LESS CHILD DEPRIVED OF A FAMILY. There are many good families who would be glad to give another child a home, as long as they could be sure of a safety net in the event of unforseen problems. This ruling can and will dramatically reduce the pool of potential adoptive families.

So many things in life are already unfair. So many children already are victims of governmental regulation and bureaucracy. Why in the world do we want to make the situation worse?

Please get the word out in any forum or manner you are acquainted with. I don't know if anything can be done, but I am not going to accept this lying down. If anyone is interested in working with me on this, please contact me at hop2it100@hotmail.com. I want to hear from all of you.

The following is text from homes4kids.org website:


In the year 2001, the Children's Bureau implemented major policy changes through
PA 01-01. Everyone concerned with adoption assistance entitlements for children adopted with special needs should become familiar with this
Policy Announcement, which revoked a number of PIQs and shifted policy to favor children placed by State agencies, as opposed to those
placed by private agencies, facilitators, attorneys, and others.

While our initial reaction to this Policy Announcement was dismay and anger toward an already inefficient and archaic system, we also
acknowledge that several areas of the Adoption Assistance program were strengthened. For example, children eligible for SSI who also meet
the federal definition of "child with special needs" need not meet any other requirements to qualify for IV-E adoption assistance payments.
Language is strengthened against means testing of adoptive parents. On the other hand, internationally adopted children and those adopted
through private agencies are now excluded from the federal adoption assistance program with very, very few exceptions. This gives States
already notorious for their inefficiency, ineffectiveness, stagnation and dishonest treatment of adoptive parents, foster parents, and adoptable
children the monopoly for placement of children with special needs. It senselessly bars virtually all internationally adopted children and virtually
all private agency children from participating in federal adoption assistance programs for kids with special needs, no matter how severe the
challenges or disabilities the child faces. It also bars parents who pay taxes to support these federal programs, but who decide to adopt a child
with special needs from a private agency or (worse yet) from a foreign country from participating in programs designed to help just such
children.

The new policy discriminates against certain classes of children and certain classes of adoptive parents. Supposing that only homeowners with
FHA loans were allowed to deduct their mortgage interest on their income taxes, while those who borrowed with privately-loaned money
were not allowed to deduct their mortgage interest? Or supposing that women who gave birth in hospitals could deduct their medical expenses,
but women who chose to give birth in birthing centers or at home could not deduct midwifery charges as legitimate medical expenses?
Certainly there would be a hue and cry against a system so blatantly unfair, so punitive toward those who colored outside the circles, so to
speak.

Considering the new faith-based and charitable programs being supported by the Bush administration, it seems strange that, three days into the
new administration, the Children's Bureau released its new Policy Announcement. Also strange is the fact that a number of private, faith-based
and charitable agencies such as Lutheran Social Services have been working with state agencies for the past few years to help place waiting
children. Many child advocates rejoiced that the States were finally acknowledging some of the strengths inherent in this type of agency by
partnering with them to place waiting children. But with the advent of the federal government's bounty to states on the heads of every waiting
child placed by the State, many advocates are beginning to wonder whose best interests are being considered by the Children's Bureau in
issuing this type of announcement.

Although 15 different PIQs or policy announcements were withdrawn by the Children's Bureau through PA 01-01 (which we wryly have
begun to call "Pow Oy! Oy!&quot, we've decided to leave the old, withdrawn PIQs posted at Homes for Kids. We want you to be able to
compare PA 01-01 with the PIQs it replaces. Look at the language and at the way the Children's Bureau interprets the same federal law one
way in 1985, that same way in 1987, similarly again in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992, and then suddenly, in 2001, decides that the very law
they interpreted one way in earlier years is now to be interpreted differently in subsequent years. Ever read Animal Farm, by George Orwell?
Think about it, and then drop us a line and let us know what you think. In L. Anne Babb's letter to President George W. Bush, Anne shares
what she thinks about the new direction of the ACYF.

A Note to State Agency People and Federal Bureaucrats: In spite of our strong words and grief over the heartache your actions often
bring to special needs kids and their families, we realize that you're only human. Many state social workers are uninformed or misinformed
about the real impact of the state's policies and actions. It's hard for all of us to look at the big picture, because we tend to look at things from
a limited perspective. If you're a state social worker or administrator, or (better yet) a Children's Bureau administrator or advocate, we'd like
to hear from you. Maybe there's something we don't understand about these new policies, or about the way you regard kids with special needs
or the people who adopt and raise them. By all means, educate us. We're always willing to learn or to post opposing views at Homes for Kids.

[Archive]

Originally Posted By PeaceInHim

What happened to the childs needs come first? There should be special programs for willing couples to adopt especially special needs children to aid not only adoption costs but to help with medical,mental and physical support for those who would but are financially unable on their own income.