Foster Careless

Did culture wars quash a bill to protect children in placement?

by Doron Taussig

child welfare

CAREGIVER: Fatima Williams now serves as her sister's guardian. Photo By: Michael T. Regan (CLICK IMAGE FOR LARGER VERSION)

There was an alarm system in the living room of Fatima Williams' foster home, and her foster mother wouldn't give her the code. On weekend mornings, teenaged Fatima would sit in her room while the woman slept in � she couldn't start her day, even visit the kitchen, for fear of setting off the alarm. One time, she thought she heard her guardian up and about, and headed downstairs. But she had heard wrong, and the woman, roused from bed against her will, came storming down as if Fatima had perpetrated some horrible crime. Fatima was standing at the sink, drinking tap water from a glass.

"She was pissed ," Fatima says.

Fatima had come into the foster system at 16, after showing up at school with scars from a bloody fight with her mother. Rather than suggest counseling, a Department of Human Services (DHS) worker asked Fatima if she wanted to go into placement. Fatima, who says she witnessed her mother beat her older sisters when they reached their mid-teens, said she did. The life she found in the foster system, however, had troubles of its own. After spending 60 days in shelters, Fatima was placed in a foster home that was not a home, with no apparent plan for the long term. She had no idea who, or what, was controlling her life.

There are close to 20,000 Pennsylvania children in foster homes and institutional settings. Though many caregivers try their best, too many kids have stories like Fatima's � children denied keys to their homes, denied basics like eyeglasses, and worse.

Last week, while Philadelphia was discussing how to fix the investigative piece of its child welfare system, the state House considered a bill aimed to improve foster care. The bill is now, in the words of its sponsor, "dead in the water." It's not clear whether the legislation was a victim of concerns about its efficacy, or a collateral casualty of the culture wars.

The Children in Substitute Care Act (CSCA) was to be a "bill of rights" for children in placement � a guarantor of things like "clothing that is clean, seasonal and age and gender appropriate," "freedom from unreasonable searches," and, significantly, "freedom from discrimination because of race, color, religion, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, age or gender."

Many of the bill's provisions are already enumerated in various regulations; the rationale for restating them, rather than seeking better enforcement, is twofold, according to Jenny Pokempner of the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center (JLC). First, some of the original laws are "more applicable to a congregate-care setting than a family home," she says, and proponents wanted to extend basic rights to all foster children. Second, the bill would have created a comprehensible document to provide kids entering foster care. That way, a child could recognize a violation and complain to her social worker or, if need be, file a grievance in juvenile court.

"This bill would not solve all [foster care's] problems," says JLC legal director Marsha Levick. It would not help, for instance, with the hard question of whether many children should be there in the first place. But it might help give foster kids the foundation that Fatima lacked.

The CSCA, which grew out of a 2001 House task force chaired by local advocate Frank Cervone, was introduced by Rep. Phyllis Mundy of Luzerne County. It passed through two committees, where, in response to concerns it would lead to foster children suing their caretakers, it was amended to clearly state that its provisions were enforceable only in juvenile court, and not a cause for private action.

Supporters thought the bill had been thoroughly vetted. On the House floor, however, it encountered unexpected opposition. The Catholic Conference, the Family Institute and several legislators were concerned about aspects of the bill � including the part about not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Now, to be fair, the detractors articulated a broader, philosophical objection: that the bill undermined parents' authority. Could "age and gender appropriate" clothing mean fashionable shoes? Could "culturally appropriate" activities be interpreted as a right to listen to rap music?

"Foster kids would say, 'Hey, you're not allowed to look at my e-mail,'" says Rep. Kate Harper. "I don't think that's how you handle children."

Both Harper and Rep. Brad Roae introduced amendments. Roae's removed several strictures on parents, including a line forbidding the use of corporal punishment. Harper's replaced the section on "freedom from discrimination" with "protection from any conduct" prohibited by applicable law. It also changed the bill of rights into a statement of "principles" or unenforceable suggestions.

The opponents wanted to remove extra laws from foster homes, enabling parents to treat foster kids more like their own. But, argues Pokempner, "They aren't their own." In many cases, their parents still have rights to them. What's more, she wonders what foster system the opponents are looking at.

"I wish what they say is the problem was the problem," she sighs. But she doesn't see kids looking for ways to sue their foster parents. She sees kids who don't get a winter coat.

In response to this, Harper says simply, "That's abuse," and already clearly against the law. But many child welfare groups, from Liberty Lutheran Services to Covenant House to Pennsylvania's State Foster Parent Association (PSFPA), found existing law insufficient, and supported the act (though PSFPA didn't mind Harper's amendment).

Mundy feels the case for the bill was so strong that she suspects her opponents' objections were just a "cover-up" for their concern about the sexual orientation language. That's not to say they were secretive about that concern. In his testimony, the Catholic Conference's Francis Viglietta wondered aloud whether, under the anti-discrimination clause, a foster agency would be required to place a child who "thinks they are gay" with gay parents, or if foster parents would be forbidden from trying to dissuade the child from "pursuing a gay lifestyle." The phrase, he said, is "not at all clear."

Asked what "discrimination because of ... sexual orientation" means, Mundy replies that it's no different from religious discrimination: You can't punish someone for it. She kept the language in, she says, because "a lot of foster kids are in foster care in the first place ... because they're gay" and their families rejected them.

After these disagreements were aired on the House floor last week, Roae's amendment eliminating the prohibition on corporal punishment failed. Harper's amendment making the bill a "statement of principles" passed. In Mundy's mind, this rendered the legislation "meaningless." It was sent to the Appropriations Committee for review, but Mundy has asked the chair, erstwhile Philly mayoral candidate Dwight Evans, "not to do anything with it." Evans' office says he will honor the request.

For now, the bill is dead. As for Fatima, she's 22, and acting as guardian for her sister Phyllicia, who says she also started getting beaten by her mother when she turned 15. Phyllicia was initially placed with a different sister, but Phyllicia says that sister treated her like a "modern-day Cinderella," even making her complete the foster-parent paperwork. Reading this material helped Phyllicia realize she was being treated inappropriately. She was able to ask to move in with Fatima because she knew her rights.

(doron@citypaper.net)