Alternative Solutions for Terminations of Parental Rights:
Ensuring that Young People Emancipate Without a TPR
Published in Children’s Voice, Volume 33, Number 2
By Linda-Jeanne M. Mack, MSW, LICSW
According to recent reporting from the U.S. Children’s Bureau, almost 114,000 children and youth in the United States are considered “waiting to be adopted,” a term used by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS) to describe young people with adoption goals (Children’s Bureau, 2023; U.S. DHHS, 2023). Approximately 57% have experienced a termination of parental rights (TPR; U.S. DHHS, 2023), the legal severing of the parental rights of any and all living parents (Sankaran, 2017). TPR generally occurs to facilitate adoption, but many young people, especially older youth, will emancipate (“age out”) with no legal permanency—as will youth over the age of 16 with TPRs who have Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) and are not included in the “waiting for adoption” statistics. According to a recent Youth Engagement Report from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), youth over the age of 14 considered to be “waiting for adoption” will age out of out-of-home placement at a rate of 47% (2021). In fact, in 2020, approximately 18,000 youth who aged out had experienced a TPR (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, analysis of raw data). These children and youth who experience TPRs are also disproportionately Black and Native American (Wildeman et al., 2020). Despite these elevated numbers, there is little research about the experiences of young adults who age out with a TPR.
When young people experience out-of-home placement, regardless of TPR status, they may be more likely to experience adversity in their lifetime. As child welfare professionals, we know that children and youth in any type of placement may experience unique challenges related to identity, grief, and loss (Rozia & Maxon, 2019). Young people who have been in out-of-home placement also may have higher rates of incarceration, and homelessness, and lower levels of educational achievement in adulthood (Courtney et al., 2011; Think of Us, n.d.). Life may be even more difficult for young people who age out without legal permanence or a support system. On top of having lived through difficult childhood experiences that may impact emotional and intellectual functioning, these young people are forced to grow-up quickly at a very young age (Avery & Freundlich, 2009). Experiencing a TPR may make aging out even more challenging. For example, in a recent study comparing youth who aged out with and without a TPR, young people who aged out with a TPR were more likely to have more placement moves, spend double the time in foster care, and have higher rates of homelessness than their peers (Gibbs et al., 2023).
Over the past several years, child welfare professionals have paid increased attention to the legal and relational permanency needs—the development and maintenance of relationships with relatives, friends, peers, mentors, or others—of older youth in out-of-home placement. In my own career, from my early days as a therapeutic foster care case manager to permanency program director, therapist, and now a PhD student and consultant, I have witnessed this change in conversation, policy, and practice. I have seen firsthand how programs across the country increasingly have focused attention on legal permanency for older youth, including specialized recruitment for adoptive homes. Some youth, however, may not want to be adopted, may not understand what exactly adoption means, or may want to be adopted but, for whatever reason, have not been matched with an adoptive resource. To support these young people, child welfare professionals must consider alternative solutions, such as:
- increasing interdependence through relational permanence;
- advocating for policy and practice changes that support families by increasing time limits for TPRs and providing permanency solutions that do not require TPRs; and,
- using reinstatements of parental rights (RPRs) as an additional permanency option for youth still in out-of-home placement or before aging out.
Interdependence and relational permanency go hand in hand. Interdependence acknowledges that youth who age out will need to take on the adult tasks required of living on one’s own but still may need supportive relationships to accomplish these tasks (Propp et al., 2003). Relational permanency prioritizes the need to maintain relationships that youth in out-of-home placement have. These relationships can include anyone in the kinship network—like birth parents, siblings, extended relatives, family friends, teachers, coaches, or peers—or anyone else in a youth’s life. Research has consistently found that youth find significant value in preserving and maintaining these important connections (Samuels, 2008). In fact, the ACF Youth Engagement Team’s 2021 report included the importance of relational permanency as a key finding in their “Recommendations for Improving Permanency and Well-Being,” and Think of Us highlights the importance of ensuring that young people who experienced out-of-home placement have access to the same relational supports that youth who are not in out-of-home placement have as they transition to adulthood (Think of Us, n.d.).
Policy advocacy is a critical component of social work and human services practice, and TPRs are tied closely to federal and state policies like the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), which has federal guidelines for TPR. Under this Act, child welfare agencies are mandated to move toward TPR when a child has been in foster care for 15 of 22 months in most circumstances; the Act also allows some states to use even shorter timeframes based on conditions like a child’s age or a parent’s history of past TPRs. These timelines, though sometimes necessary to avoid extended time in out-of-home placement, do not account for the unique needs of many families. For example, families who struggle with substance abuse are required to meet mandated service plan tasks and work toward recovery to have their children return to them within this short period of time (Radel & Madden, 2021). This can be a nearly impossible expectation. Additionally, there are alternative permanency options that do not require a TPR, such as legal guardianship, custody transfers, and kinship care (Sankaran & Church, 2023). There are many stakeholders calling for policy and practice changes to support families—for example, repealing ASFA completely (Center for Social Policy, 2022)) or calling for new legislation that changes the timelines to allow more time for families to reunite (Kelly, 2024).
Finally, 28 states allow for the reinstatement of parental rights (RPR)—a legal mechanism that reinstates parental rights for families who have experienced a previous TPR that can be used as another option to achieve permanency—under certain circumstances (Mack & Barth, 2022; Schalick, 2013). In states where RPRs are legal, child welfare professionals, CASA workers, and legal professionals can advocate for an RPR. Requirements by state usually include age, time spent in care since TPR, and the current circumstances of the family (Mack & Barth, 2022; Schalick, 2017). There are two possible options for using an RPR. First, if considered eligible, families can be reunited and children can return home to their parents from out-of-home placement before they age out; an RPR also can be used to rebuild the legal connection before emancipation. In addition to increasing relational permanency and honoring family bonds, RPRs allow youth to inherit (Schalick, 2017), for youth with developmental delays who reunify as adults to have their parents be able to sign legal documents for them, and for the potential mitigation of the unique impacts of family separation that youth experience (Roszia & Maxon, 2019).
As child welfare professionals, we must use our position to advocate for changes to existing legislation, policy, and practice. The potential solutions outlined can be used as a starting point for prioritizing alternatives to TPRs and ensuring that young people do not age out of foster care without legal and relational connections to family.
Linda-Jeanne M. Mack, MSW, LICSW, is a PhD student at the School of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore. Prior to becoming a doctoral student, Ms. Mack worked in the child welfare system for over a decade in Massachusetts. She was also a community mental health therapist specializing in therapy for individuals and families impacted by family separation and adoption. She continues to consult for a variety of agencies and lead trainings for mental health providers and child welfare workers. Ms. Mack has been an adjunct lecturer for several years for multiple institutions. She has also been active in policy and legislative change at the state and federal levels. Now a full-time PhD student, she channels her passions for social work practice and policy advocacy into research. Her research interests include the impact of social and child welfare policies and implementation on the experiences of all stakeholders involved in the child welfare system, preventing family separations, and reuniting families.
References
Administration for Children and Families Youth Engagement Team. (2021). Recommendations for improving permanency and wellbeing: A resource for agencies and courts. Author. https://www. acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/Recommendations- Improving-Permanency-Well-Being.pdf
Avery, R. J., & Freundlich, M. (2009). You’re all grown up now: Termination of foster care support at age 18. Journal of Adolescence, 32(2), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence. 2008.03.009
Center for the Study of Social Policy. (2022, November 15). ASFA 25 years later: Time for repeal. Author. https://cssp.org/2022/ 11/asfa-25-years-later-time-for-repeal/
Children’s Bureau. (2023). The AFCARS Report: Preliminary FY 2021 estimates as of June 28, 2022 [Report No. 29]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/afcars-report-29
Courtney, M., Dworsky, A., Brown, A., Cary, C., Love, K., & Vorhies, V. (2011). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 26. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
Kelly, J. (2024). Bill to remove federal requirements to terminate parental rights resurfaces. The Imprint Youth & Family News. https://imprintnews.org/youth-services-insider/bill-rewritefederal- rules-terminating-parental-rights/248136
Mack, L.-J. M., & Barth, R. P. (2022). Reinstating parental rights that have been terminated: Finding ways to restore legal connections for children who had been in foster care. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 17(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2022.2113200
Propp, J., Ortega, D. M., & NewHeart, F. (2003). Independence or Interdependence: Rethinking the Transition From “Ward of the Court” to Adulthood: Families in Society. Families in Society, 84(2), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.102
Radel, L., & Madden, E. (2021, February 11). Freeing children for adoption within the Adoption and Safe Families Act timeline: Part 1 – The numbers. Office of Human Services Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. https://aspe. hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/265036/freeing-childrenforadoption- asfa-pt-1.pdf
Roberts, D.E. (2022). Torn apart: How the child welfare system destroys Black families—and how abolition can build a safer world. Basic Books.
Roszia, S.K. & Maxon, A.D. (2019). Seven core issues in adoption and permanency: A comprehensive guide to promoting understanding and healing in adoption, foster care, kinship families and third party reproduction. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Samuels, G. M. (2008). A reason, a season or a lifetime: Relational permanence among young adults with foster care backgrounds. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/UC-AReasonaSeasonora Lifetime-2008.pdf
Sankaran, V. S. (2017). Child welfare’s scarlet letter: How a prior termination of parental rights can permanently brand a parent as unfit. New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 41(4), 685–706.
Sankaran, V.S. & Church, C.E. (2023). The ties that bind us: An empirical, clinical, and constitutional argument against terminating parental rights. Family Court Review, 61(2), 246-264.
Think of Us (n.d.). A system ready to be reimagined. Author. https:// www.thinkofus.org/about-foster-care