Relative Placement in Child Protection Cases: A Judicial Perspective

Child welfare agencies and courts place thousands of children in out-of-home care every year. This paper examines whether the state should give relatives preference over non-relatives when placing children—and, if so, how to accomplish that goal. In the 1980s, state and federal government policies shifted toward favoring relatives (so-called “kinship care”), but significant problems arise when delays occur in implementing these policies. For example, relatives do not always know that child protection proceedings are pending, and delays in the child protection and court systems often exclude them from consideration for placement even when they have notice. When relatives request placement long after a child has entered foster care, child welfare agencies and courts struggle with the competing placement interests of relatives, foster parents, and the child. To implement relative preference policies effectively, child protection agencies and courts must modify their practices and procedures. The stakes are high because placement will have a lifelong impact on the families involved and, most significantly, on the child. Section II briefly describes child placement history in the United States. The third section addresses the emergence of relative preference as a goal within the child protection system. This discussion includes reasons why policy makers prefer relative placements to non-relative placements, and when and why states and the federal government began passing legislation reinforcing this preference. The fourth section examines the