NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
|
SPONSOR: |
SJC |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
“Caregiver” in Kinship Guardianship Act |
SB |
542/SJCS |
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Maloy |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
See
Narrative |
|
See Narrative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses
Received From
Office
of the Attorney General
Department
of Health
Administrative
Offices of the Courts
Children,
Youth and Families Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
The Senate Judiciary Committee Substitute for Senate Bill
542 expands the policy of the state under the Kinship Guardianship Act to
emphasize that, when a parent is unable or unwilling to care for a child, the
child should be raised by family members, kinship caregivers or “caregivers
that maintain intact sibling groups in a residential setting.”
The bill also expands the applicability of the Act to cover
instances where a parent has left a child with a caregiver having limited power
of attorney for six months or more.
Finally, SB 542 SJCS expands the definition of “caregiver”
under the Kinship Guardianship Act to add “caregiver means:
·
a
nonprofit organization that;
a. receives no public funding;
b. acts as a temporary or permanent guardian
of children voluntarily placed in its care pursuant to a caregiver’s power of
attorney;
c. is
dedicated to maintaining sibling groups intact in a residential setting;
and
d. provides the children placed with it the care,
maintenance and supervision consistent with the duties and responsibilities of
a parent of the children.”
In
those instances involving a nonprofit organization “caregiver”, the court is
required to appoint a guardian ad litem to oversee
and represent the interests of the child / children. Further, if the child placed is less than 14
years of age, the court shall review the placement every 6 months. If the child placed is 14 years of age or
older, the court shall conduct an annual review of the placement of the
child. This review is to assess a
child’s placement and make a recommendation to the courts based on the
recommendations of the guardian ad litem.
Significant
Issues
1. Concern
is expressed regarding the expanded definition of “caregiver” to include a
non-profit corporate entity. With regard to placing a child with a non-profit
corporate entity, the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) states “it
is hard to see how a child could have a “kinship bond” with an entity or
organization.” To add such entities or
organizations to the definition of “kinship” is “contrary to the intent behind
this law.”
2. The Department of Health (DOH) asserts
the bill would create a considerably different kind of caregiver, a caregiver
that it is unrelated to the child (or children) by blood, affinity or other
cognizable tie, such as tribal membership, previous care-giving,
or quasi-parental relationship. Also,
the DOH notes that residential setting is not defined. Thus, the door may be
opened to impersonal, institutional placement of children in large groups,
which is contrary to the policy and philosophy of long-term care in this state.
While concern is expressed by DOH
regarding defining “caregiver” to include corporate entities, DOH expressly
supports keeping sibling groups together.
With regard to defining “caregiver” to
include corporate entities, DOH believes the Act should address a standard of
care, and that the inclusion of corporate entities should be limited to
organizations subject to appropriate laws and licensing regulations governing
the care and well being of children and sibling groups.
3. SB 542 SJCS likely addresses the some of
the concerns raised originally by CYFD and DOH because of the appointment of a
guardian ad litem to oversee and represent the interests
of the child, and because of the scheduled 6-month or annual reviews by the
courts. However, the appointment of a
guardian ad litem does not resolve the issue that a
corporate entity cannot have a kinship bond with a child.
4. Opponents of this bill would ask whether
committing children to being raised by corporate entities
gives rise to issues about the love, nurturing and care that will be
available. Can children develop healthy,
stable and consistent relationships within an organizational setting? Will children develop emotionally, physically
and mentally as they should in such settings?
5.
Proponents of this bill would ask whether
placement with a caregiver organization is preferable to other options
currently available to children that cannot be placed with family,
kin-relations, adoptive families, or foster families.
There is no direct
fiscal implications for the state.
However, there may be secondary costs to the state if it is harder to
place a “sibling groups” instead of one child at a time. This could lead to additional costs for the
state in securing a home for these children.
These costs are presumably outweighed by the benefits to the sibling groups.
The non-profit caregiver organizations may
also ultimately require state assistance, such as medicaid
benefits, food programs, education programs, and the like, at some point.
The DOH recommends “craft[ing] a bill that provides for expansion to sibling groups
and recognizes the parental limited power of attorney as a basis for kinship
guardianship, but defines the residential setting to avoid, limit, or otherwise
specify the authorization of an institutional setting.”
SJM/yr