FEDERAL RESOURCES
Child Welfare Act
| Adoption & Safe Families Act
|
Indian Child Welfare Act
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
Act | Parental Kidnaping Prevention
Act
U.S. Supreme Court Cases
Home
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
( text
of Act )
-
42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.
Congress passed the Act in response to mounting criticisms of the
foster care system. Before the passing of this Act, the goal of child
protective services was to remove children from any and all unsafe environmnents.
With this goal, the number of children in foster care grew to more than
500,000 by 1977. The Act mandates that states that accept certain
federal funds must provide rehabilitative services to families to prevent
removal of the child whenever possible and to facilitate speedy reunification
once the child has been removed.
-
A problem with the AACWA was the lack of a clear definition
of the "reasonable efforts" to be applied towards family preservation.
As a result, the number of children in foster care actually increased.
Top of
page | ICWA
| UCCJA
| PKPA
| Cases
Adoption and Safe Families Act (
text of Act)
-
Pub. L. No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 215. The ASF seeks
to speed up the entire child welfare process and clarifies the ambiguous
"reasonable efforts" requirement of the AACWA. Rather than focusing
on family preservation, this Act "emphasizes that the health and safety
of children must be the paramount concern in determining reasonable efforts
to preserve and reunite the families of maltreated children." The
importance of this Act cannot be over-emphasized. It affects all
families who are subject to state interference.
Top of page
| AACWA | UCCJA
| PKPA | Cases
Indian Child Welfare Act (text
of Act)
-
25 U.S.C. 1901, et seq. ICWA
is very important because it applies anytime an Indian child is involved
in a foster care, institutional or guardianship placement, termination
of parental rights, and pre-adoptive or adoptive proceeding. Any
judicial order that fails to meet applicable I.C.W.A. requirements may
be set aside, even after the state's relevant period for setting aside
judgements has run.
Top of page
| AACWA | ASF
| PKPA | Cases
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act
( text)
-
Uniform Laws Annotated.
-
For a detailed commentary on the UCCJA, see: Haralambie,
Ann., 1993. Handling Child Custody, Abuse, and Adoption
Cases, Shepard's/McGraw Hill, 703 pp. (two volumes).
Main: KF547.H38 1993
-
The purpose of the Act : decrease litigation
between states, ensure litigation occurs in the state where the child and
family have the closest ties, facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees,
discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest
of greater stability for the child, and makes uniform the laws of the states
that enact the UCCJA.
-
This Act is important to child advocates because it applies
to all proceedings involving visitation and custody (temporary as well
as final orders) and because all states have enacted the UCCJA.
-
Failure to comply with this Act may result in invalidation
of the custody or visitation order.
Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act
( text)
United States Supreme Court Cases
-
A group of U.S. Supreme Court cases contains paradigm cases
in child advocacy. These cases are referred to, either singly or
as a group, in most literature that discusses the various issues surrounding
child welfare. Also, one can almost invariably count on one
or more of them being referred to in state child welfare cases, so these
cases can be search terms in themselves. They are summarized below,
with links to the full text provided.
-
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
The
Court invalidated a state law forbidding schools from teaching foreign
languages before eighth grade and in so doing recognized the right "to
marry, establish a home and bring up children" as being "essential to the
orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
-
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
The Court held that Oregon's Compulsory Attendance
Act was unconstitutional in requiring that every parent send his or her
child to a public school. Specifically, the Court said that the Act
unreasonably interfered with "the liberty of parents and guardians to direct
the upbringing and education of children under their control." Further,
the Court pointed out that "the child is not a mere creature of the State;
those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with
the high duty to prepare him for additional obligations."
-
Prince v. Massachussets, 321 U.S. 390 (1923)
The
Court reaffirmed the rights of parents without compromising the validity
of the State's interest when it upheld a conviction for violation of child
labor laws against a Jehovah's Witness who was having her child sell magazines
on the street. The Court said, "It is cardinal with us that the custody,
care and nurture of the child reside first in the parent, whose primary
function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can
neither supply nor hinder. And it is in recognition of this that
these decisions have respected the private realm of family life, which
the state cannot enter." The Court, however, carefully balanced the
parents' rights against the interest of the child in not being harmed:
"in areas that concern child welfare, such as the crippling effects of
child employment, [the State] could act to protect children by limiting
parental freedom and authority."
-
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
When
an Amish family chose to remove their child from public school after the
eighth grade, the Court found that the State's "high responsibility for
education of its citizens" was not more compelling than a parent's liberty
interest in directing the education of their children. The Court
also mentioned, however, that if it appeared parental decisions would jeopardize
the health or safety of the child or have a potential for significant social
burdens, the parent's right would be subject to limitation.
-
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)
The Court held that an Illinois statute was unconstitutional because the
statute contained a presumption of parental unfitness against unmarried
fathers. In so holding, the Court noted that the right to family
integrity protects the familial bonds between a man and the children he
has "sired and raised". This case is a good resource
when arguing the rights of families because it has a detailed discussion
of what constitutes family.
-
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 The
Court held that the minimum standard of proof in termination
of parental rights cases is clear and convincing evidence. The Court
noted that the fundamental liberty interest of parents in the care, custody,
and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have
not been model parents.
Top of page
| AACWA | ASF
| ICWA | UCCJA
| PKPA