Clear and firm time lines for permanency decision-making –usually 12 months unless there are extenuating circumstances –during which both reunification and alternative permanency options are pursued; case planning that includes early and intensive service provision to parents, focusing on parental ability and willingness to make changes to undertake caretaking responsibilities
 
What are federal timelines for permanency?

ASFA, Public Law 105-89, was enacted in November 1997. ASFA amended the 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act by refocusing efforts to promote safety and permanence for children in the foster care system. Of primary importance was addressing cases where children still lingered in the foster care system for an extended period of time or had returned to foster care after a previous placement because of an unsafe family situation.

ASFA includes criteria to define when efforts to preserve and reunify a family are not required and outlines the court's discretion to make decisions on a child's permanency based on safety considerations.ASFA also limits the amount of time a child can be in the foster care system prior to being placed in a permanent home. Moreover, ASFA requires permanency hearings be held for children no later than 12 months after they enter foster care (6 months earlier than the prior law). The Act also requires, in most cases, that TPR be initiated for any child who has been in state custody for 15 out of the most recent 22 months.

Social workers are expected to present the court with compelling reasons to continue the permanency designation or select another. Social workers should familiarize themselves with the compelling reasons protocols in their state or jurisdictions.

Criteria for Compelling Reasons Determination for Not Filing TPR include, but are not limited to:

The decision whether compelling reasons exists must be decided on a case by case basis after considering all of the facts and circumstances of the case. Federal Law prohibits states from developing a standard, exclusive list of compelling reasons for not filing for termination of parental rights (TPR) that exempts groups of children.

Federal regulations set out some examples of cases where it is or may not be in the best interests of the child to file a petition for termination parental rights.

Examples of such cases:

1. There are no legal grounds for filing a TPR; This determination could not be made without legal and supervisory case review and documentation of the finding in the case record.  In addition this finding should require a case plan revision with specific actions to make reasonable effort, and frequent (every three to six months) review of progress.
   
   
2. Adoption is not the appropriate permanency goal for the child;
   This example could also include cases where:
   
   • Reunification is the goal;
   • The child has a permanency goal other than adoption (i.e., permanency with a kin/relative through guardianship and is expected to achieve that goal within 12 months of establishing the goal;
   • The child objects to being adopted. The legal age to consent is 14 years of age;
   • The child has severe emotional or behavioral problems or a serious medical condition and reunification remains an appropriate goal; or
   • The parent is terminally ill, does not want parental rights terminated and has designated the child’s present caretaker, with the caretaker’s agreement, as the child’s permanent caretaker.
     
     
3. The child is an unaccompanied refugee minor as a person who has not yet attained 18 years of age, or
   
   
4. There are international legal obligations or compelling foreign policy reasons that would preclude terminating parental rights.

The determination of compelling reasons is made by the child welfare worker in consultation with his or her supervisor. The court may conduct its own independent review and issue an order. For ASFA compliance, federal law only requires that the child welfare agency make the determination of compelling reasons and document those reasons in the permanency plan. Those reasons must be made available to the court and the other parties to the case.

Federal law requires the child welfare agency to document its compelling reasons “in the case plan” if the worker, in consultation with his/her supervisor, has determined that compelling reasons exist for not filing for a petition for termination of parental rights. There must be specific reasons in the case plan documenting compelling reasons in detail. It is best practice for documentation to list the specific factual basis for its reasons why it is not the best interests of the child to file a petition for terminating parental rights. For example, using the compelling reason of a child with severe emotional, behavioral, or medical problems, the worker should document in the case record with supported clinical evidence on the child’s severe emotional, behavioral or medical issues and the need for placement in residential treatment or other intensive treatment. The record should provide evidence that the parent(s) is actively involved in the child’s life and is planning for the child’s return home. If the child objects to being adopted, after carefully unpacking the objection, the child welfare worker must document evidence in the case record that the child has participated in specific counseling to discuss all permanency options and understands all the permanency options.

Supervisory Case Review is a process to be utilized periodically for, but is not limited to, children who are in an out-of-home setting and in the care and custody of the child welfare agency, or when the child welfare agency is under court ordered supervision.  This review will assist the child welfare worker in consultation with their supervisor in developing an initial and concurrent permanency plan, and in evaluating progress toward the permanent plan for that child.  The Supervisory Case Review process is embodied in several formal activities which are utilized at various times while the child is in care.
A Supervisory Case Review should occur where compelling reasons to not file TPR petition cease to exist, to evaluate current status of the case as it relates to the reasons to file for TPR and to evaluate the permanency options available in the child’s best interests. 
For further information on compelling reasons consult the National Resource Center for Legal and Judicial Issues website.

Iowa Department of Human Services.  (2008).

Concurrent Planning Checklist.
Provides time frames for all key concurrent planning activities

Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services.  (2005).

Case Review Timelines. 
Sets out the timelines for administrative, court and desk reviews in achieving permanency.

Missouri Department of Social Services. (2009).

Child Welfare Manual: Components of Effective Concurrent Planning
The list of components includes:  front loading of services that provides reasonable efforts and attempts to get the family engaged early; and effective and timely court hearings with firm timelines for permanency decision making; during which time, documented steps are taken to achieve reunification and an alternative permanency option.

Oregon Judicial Department’s Juvenile Court Improvement Project.

Oregon’s Child Abuse and Neglect Law: Underlying Policy.
Provides a review of the Oregon’s “Best Interest of the Child” bill enacted in 1997. Includes a graphic of the state’s Dependency Court Timeline

Washington DSHS Children’s Administration. 

Practices and Procedures Guide:  Case Planning: Shared Planning.
Provides the time frames for all reviews and staffings.

Family Centered Practice Model
Describes the model’s intervention strategies that include:  Service plans are based on contracts or agreements that have been developed with the family (Intervention Strategy #2); Services are coordinated and the family is linked with resources necessary to improve functioning and resolve issues of concern (Intervention Strategy #4); and Intensive services and child visitation are offered to parents to facilitate timely and successful reunification (Intervention #7).

Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. (2005). 

Continuous Permanency Timeline.
A work aid for county, tribal, contract and state child welfare staff to standardize the concurrent case planning process, guide collateral, communication and coordinate permanency planning activities.  Designed to help ensure timely legal determinations and referrals for permanency consultation leading to permanence for all children served by the Wisconsin child welfare system.

DCFS Info Memo 2005: Continuous Permanency Planning Timeline
The DCF memorandum explaining use to the Continuous Permanency Timeline.

Center for Social Services Research, University of California, Berkeley. 

Promising Practices in Concurrent Planning: Early, Intensive Support Services to Birth Parents
Provides detail on the promising concurrent planning practice of providing intensive support services to birth parents early in the reunification process to help manage emotional reactions, facilitate responsibility-taking, education about the child welfare intervention process, and support engagement in services.

University of California at  Davis. 

Concurrent Planning Checklist for Counties. (begins on page 4)
Provides a sample checklist for the components of concurrent planning for California counties to use to effectively implement and practice concurrent planning. Includes: “We have a wide range of services available to support birth families with reunification. Our concurrent plans include providing intensive services to birth parents early on to assist in reunification. We also regularly conduct and disseminate a survey of services needed and available in various communities in both our county and nearby counties.”