ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILY ACT OF 1997
I. Background
The history of child welfare practice in the United States is a history of pendulum swings. We
have had no clear, overriding philosophical perspective that has been consistently applied to our
efforts to protect children from harm while at the same time being deferential to the
constitutionally protected right of family members to maintain their relationships.
In the time before juvenile courts and active state intervention into family life in an effort to
protect children from abuse and neglect, parents, in particular fathers, were permitted unfettered
control over their children. Children were for all intents and purposes the property of their
parents. In the late 1800’s a growing movement of individuals concerned about the welfare of
children led to the establishment of the first juvenile court in Chicago in 1899. Over the course of
the next few decades every state established one form or another of the juvenile court with the
responsibility over juvenile delinquency and dependency cases.
In the late 1950’s Dr. Henry Kemp brought to light the “battered child syndrome.” The
recognition and labeling of this group of symptoms set off a revolution in child welfare. With a
clearer understanding of the problem of child abuse, states rapidly established an infrastructure
of child protection: statutes authorizing courts to remove children from their parents’ care,
children’s protective service agencies to investigate, and foster care programs to care for children
who could not live with their families.
With the infrastructure established, the number of children removed from their family home
increased rapidly. By the mid-1970’s, there were approximately 500,000 children in foster care.
Since there were no requirements to work toward reunifying families or providing alternative
permanent homes, many of these children spent years in the temporary foster care of the state.
Attendant to this problem was the unique situation of Native American children. At least since
the 1870’s it had been the policy of the United States government to remove Indian children
from their families and place them in boarding school, run either by the government or church
organizations.1
A reform movement consisting of tribal members and child advocates culminated in the passage
of the Indian Child Welfare Act (the ICWA) 2 in 1978 and the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA) 3. The ICWA established rules specific to the handling of cases
involving Indian children. These rules include required procedures to transfer jurisdiction to
tribes, allowing tribal intervention in state court proceedings, higher standards of proof for
temporary or permanent custody, and required expert testimony.
Like the ICWA, the purpose of the AACWA was to reform the method by which child welfare
cases are handled. Using financial incentives, the federal government encouraged the
1

See Roberts, The Indian Child Welfare Act: Implications For Culturally Competent Service Providers, 2 Mich
Child Welfare L.J. 7 (1998).
2
25 USC 1901 et seq.
3
P.L. 96-272..

establishment of programs for family preservation by requiring that “reasonable efforts” be made
to reduce the number of children entering the foster care system. By requiring that “reasonable
effort” be made to reunify children with their families of origin and establishing a requirement
that Permanency Planning Hearings be held within eighteen months of the child’s removal from
his or her home, Congress hoped to reduce the length of time children spent in foster care.
Finally, to aid children who could not be returned to their families to be adopted, a program was
established to subsidize the costs of adoption (i.e., adoption assistance).
Seventeen years after the enactment of the AACWA, there was a sense in Congress that its
mandate to the states had been misunderstood. The “reasonable efforts” requirement, many
believed, had resulted in the practice that every conceivable effort had to be expended before a
child could be removed from the home or before an alternative permanent plan could be made.
This, it was thought, led to the needless injury of many children as “reasonable efforts” was
interpreted to mean “every conceivable effort.” Children were again languishing in foster care.
In November, 1997, Congress passed and the President signed The Adoption And Safe Families
Act (ASFA). The ASFA is intended to clarify the Congress’s intent with regard to child welfare
practice. This section of the training manual will summarize the major changes wrought by the
ASFA and discuss their implication for child welfare practice.
II. The Adoption And Safe Families Act
The Adoption and Safe Families Act was signed into law by the President in November of 1997.
The act makes significant changes in the federal law relating to child welfare practice. The states
have until June 1, 1999 to come into compliance with its provisions.
A. General Principles
Congress had four broad goals in enacting the ASFA. These broad areas of reform include: to
assure the safety of children who become known to the child welfare system, to expedite
permanency, and, finally, to provide states with more options to achieve permanency.
Additionally, ASFA contains a number of miscellaneous reforms that do not fit neatly into one of
these categories. Moreover, it is important to note that these categories overlap and interrelate.
The reader is encouraged to consider the interaction of these changes with one another as well as
with existing law, policy and practice. Each of these broad goals will be discussed in detail
below.
Before looking at what changes in the law were wrought by the ASFA, it is important to briefly
discuss what it does not do, namely, abandon the commitment to family preservation and
reunification when this can be accomplished while assuring the safety of children. What seems to
have been lost in much of the discussion of the ASFA is that Congress strongly reaffirmed its
commitment to family preservation and reunification. Indeed, not only was this program
reauthorized,4 the Congress significantly increased its funding. In 1997, for example,
$240,000,000 was allotted to preserve and reunify families. By 2001, that amount will increase
4

42 USC 629(b).

to $305,000,000. 5 Moreover, this legislation continues the commitment to the use of “reasonable
efforts” to reunify families where out-of-home placement is necessary.
Having reaffirmed its commitment to “reasonable efforts,” however, the new legislation makes
clear that in some extreme circumstances “reasonable efforts,” either to preserve or to reunify a
family would be unreasonable. Moreover, the ASFA makes clear that in determining what action
should be taken in a confirmed case of child abuse or neglect, Congress intends that the welfare
of the child—as opposed to the preservation of the family unit—is the most important
consideration. That is to say, in those close cases between maintaining a child in the family home
or removing the child, the ASFA requires the safety of the child be given primary consideration,
tipping the scale toward taking action to ensure the well-being of the child.
Finally, to address the problem of continued “drift” of children in foster care and to ensure that
children are moving to permanency in an expeditious fashion, the ASFA tightens the permissible
time frames along the child welfare continuum and provides additional financial incentives to
place children in adoptive homes.
B. Safety Of Children
In enacting ASFA the Congress sought to clarify its intent relating to the preservation and
reunification of families. We will examine each of these changes in turn.

1. Reasonable Efforts Requirement Reaffirmed
As noted above, the general rule continues to be that reasonable efforts must be made to prevent
removal and to safely reunify children with their parents. Indeed, Congress authorized 6
additional money to both support and expand these services. The ASFA, however, makes
several important changes in how the reasonable efforts equation is applied.
a. Child’s Safety
The ASFA refines the “reasonable efforts” requirement of the AACWA by indicating that “in
determining reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child . . . and in making such
reasonable efforts, the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern.”7 Thus, in
considering what efforts are reasonable with respect to preservation or reunification of a family,
state Children’s Protective Services (CPS) workers, foster care workers, and the courts will be
required to give additional consideration to the welfare of the child as the most important
concern. In essence, rather than considering preservation of the family and safety of the child as
equal considerations, the law will require that the child’s physical health and well-being be given
elevated status in determining whether to take protective action.
5

Id.
Note that this does not necessarily mean that the states will see an increase in funds. “Authorization merely permits
the Congress to “allocate” up to the authorized amount. Each year’s budget must actually “allocate” a specific
number of dollars to this particular program.
7
42 USC 671(15)(A).
6

An example may help to illustrate this point. Imagine a case where CPS substantiates physical
abuse in a case of excessive discipline, a mother who, while under the influence of alcohol, hits
her son 8-10 times with a belt leaving numerous bruises and abrasions on the child’s buttocks,
upper legs and lower back. An in-home services program is put into place to work intensively
with the family. Mother is involved in outpatient treatment for an assessed alcohol abuse
problem, she receives and cooperates with parenting instruction aimed at increasing her
repertoire of disciplining techniques, and the family engages in conjoint counseling. After four or
six weeks, the case is closed. Then two months later, the CPS again substantiates abuse based on
a very similar set of facts. Rather than reinstitute in-home services, the agency will need to
seriously consider whether, giving additional weight to the “health and safety” of the child as the
primary consideration, it must take more assertive action to protect the child. The action may
include a voluntary placement of the child with a relative or a court petition seeking wardship
and out of home placement.
In determining what response is reasonable, the agency workers must give elevated consideration
to the child’s need for a safe home environment. As a result, cases that used to automatically
trigger an in-home program will require consideration of more aggressive protective action.
Cases that present close questions between protection and preservation should come down in
favor of protecting the child rather than preserving the family unit.
b. Applied To Permanency Plan
As previously noted the law for the past two decades has required reasonable efforts to preserve
and reunify families. When these primary objectives could not be achieved, the law provided for
termination of parental rights. Many cases in fact resulted in termination, unfortunately efforts to
achieve permanency for the child after termination were not aggressively pursued. Many
children languish in temporary placements as permanent wards of the state.
In an effort to ensure children move expeditiously to permanent homes, the ASFA engrafts a
reasonable efforts requirement onto the post termination phase of child protection proceedings.
Specifically, “reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in
accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize
the permanent placement of the child.” 8 Thus, where the court determines that reasonable efforts
to reunify the family are no longer required, the agency must then establish that it has taken those
steps reasonably calculated to achieve the alternative permanent plan as soon as possible.
Imagine a case where the agency recommends to the court, and the court agrees, that continued
efforts to reunify a family will not serve the child’s interest. Rather, everyone agrees that the
alternative plan will be for a relative to adopt the child. The agency will have to establish that
reasonable efforts have been made to achieve the permanent plan (e.g., the child is placed with
the relative, a petition to terminate parental rights been filed, the adoptive home assessment been
completed, an adoption petition been filed). If the court finds that the child has not been placed
consistent with the permanency plan or that steps necessary to institute the permanency plan
8

42 USC 671(15)(C).

have not been made, the court will be forced to find that reasonable efforts have not been made.
Such a finding may jeopardize federal funding.
c. When Not Required
Under the AACWA “reasonable efforts” were required. The statute contained no exceptions, so
therefore many states interpreted this requirement as mandating “reasonable efforts” in every
case. With the passage of the ASFA, Congress has clarified its intentions by specifically
indicating that in some circumstances “reasonable efforts” are not required. That is, Congress has
determined that in egregious cases “reasonable efforts” are by definition unreasonable.
1. Aggravated Circumstances
ASFA establishes that “reasonable efforts . . . shall not be required to be made with respect to a
parent of a child if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that—(i) the parent has
subjected the child to aggravated circumstances.”9 (Emphasis added.)
The statute then grants the individual states the authority to define “aggravated circumstances.”10
Having done so, Congress then gives the states some guidance as to what it means by
“aggravated circumstances.” The “definition may include but need not be limited to
abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and sexual abuse.”11 Thus, for example, a state may
determine that in every case where a parent sexually abuses a child and that abuse involves
penetration a petition for permanent custody must be filed with the court. Later in this section
we will examine your state’s definition of “aggravated circumstances.”
2. Specific Instances When Reasonable Efforts Not Required
After providing the individual states with an opportunity to define “aggravated circumstances,”
ASFA then defines more specifically cases in which reasonable efforts are not required.12.
Federal law no longer requires “reasonable efforts” be made in cases where: 1) a parent has
murdered13 or committed voluntary manslaughter14 upon another child of the parent; 2) a parent
has “aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit” murder or voluntary
manslaughter of the child or a sibling of the child; 15 3) a parent commits “a felony assault that
results in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent;”16 or 4) where “the
parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been terminated involuntarily,” 17 the state is under
no obligation to provide “reasonable efforts” to either prevent removal or to reunify the family.

9

42 USC 671(15)(D)(i).
Id.
11
Id.
12
42 USC 671(D)(ii).
13
42 USC 671(D)(ii)(I).
14
42 USC 671(D)(ii)(II).
15
42 USC 671(D)((ii)(III).
16
42 USC 671(D)(ii)(IV).
17
42 USC 671(D)(ii)(V).
10

Additionally, the new federal law contains this general rule of construction:
Nothing in this part shall be construed as precluding State
courts from exercising their discretion to protect the health
and safety of children in individual cases, including cases
other than those [listed above]. 18

2. Reaffirmation That Federal Law Is A Funding Statute
The principle of Federalism, the division of powers between the individual states and the federal
government, prohibits the federal government from requiring that the states take specific actions.
Since the federal government frequently cannot mandate actions which they want to see happen,
they often use financial incentives to entice the states in to taking the desired actions. Pursuant to
this method the AACWA was implemented by saying to the states, essentially, “If you do A, B,
and C, we will give you X dollars.” Thus, if states implemented programs to prevent the
unnecessary removal of children from their homes, utilized reasonable efforts to reunify children
with their parents, held permanency planning hearings in timely manner, the federal government
would give them money for their programs. The amount of money at issue could be tens or
hundreds of millions of dollars, a strong incentive to make your program comply with these
federal “requirements.”
To clarify the Congress’s intention that the “reasonable efforts” requirement is a part, albeit it an
important part, of a funding scheme and not a mandate in each case, the ASFA states:
Nothing in this part shall be construed as precluding State
courts from exercising their discretion to protect the health
and safety of children in individual cases. . . .” 19
This rule applies both to those situations where the federal law requires that the state petition for
termination of parental rights, as well as those cases that individual states may establish as being
exempt from the “reasonable efforts” requirement.20

7. Mandatory Petitions To Terminate Parental Rights
For the first time, the federal law, as a condition of receiving federal financial support for child
abuse prevention and foster care services, mandates that under certain circumstances the states
must either file or join, if another party files, a petition to “terminate the parental rights of the
child’s parents.” There are several circumstances under which required action must be taken:

18
19
20

42 USC 678.
Id.

a. The child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months;21
b. The parent has committed murder of another child of the parent;
c. The parent committed voluntary manslaughter of another child of the
parent;
d. The parent aided, abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit
murder or voluntary manslaughter upon a child of the parent;
e. The parent committed a felony assault upon the child or another child of
the parent that results in “seriously bodily injury;”
f. The court with jurisdiction determines the child is an “abandoned
infant.”
This section of the statute also requires the state “concurrently, to identify, recruit, process, and
approve a qualified family for an adoption.” 22
To understand how this would work, consider the following examples:
1. A father attending to a crying infant in the middle of the night loses his temper, shakes
the child, resulting in shaken baby syndrome that causes the child’s death. The state
would as a general rule be required to file a petition to terminate the parental rights of
both the father and the mother of their other children.
2. A mother beats a child in a manner that would a) constitute a felony assault under state
law and b) results in serious bodily injury to the child. Again, the state would generally
be required to file a termination petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents.
3. The child was placed in foster care, returned to the parent, then put returned to foster
care such that she has spent 15 of the last 22 months in foster care. Here, again, the state
must seek to terminate the parental rights of the parents.
In each of these examples the state would also be required to pursue an alternative permanent
placement while seeking to terminate parental rights. But consider how the law would work in
the following situation, two cases with almost identical fact have been decided recently by the
Michigan appellate courts:23

21

Note that the ASFA establishes an elaborate scheme to provide states sufficient time to come into compliance
with this requirement as it applies to children who were in foster care at the time ASFA was enacted. It is sufficient
for our purposes that the reader understand that the states are given a period of time to phase in the requirements of
this provision.
22
42 USC 675(5)(E).
23
In re Ramsey, 229 Mich App 310; 455 Mich 861 (lev app den, remand for consideration as if on appeal)(1998);
In re Huisman, Mich App (1998)(Court of Appeals No. 206872, June 19, 1998).

The parents of a young child are divorced. While with the non-custodial parent for parenting
time (i.e., visitation), the non-custodial parent attempts to kill the child. (In the Michigan cases
one effort was via asphyxiation the other was by putting poison in the child’s milk.) Under the
general rule established by the ASFA, the state would be required to seek to terminate the
parental rights of “the child’s parents,” i.e., the custodial as well as the non-custodial parent. This
would be true even if, as was true in the Michigan cases noted, the custodial parent initiated
proceedings to have the non-custodial parent’s rights terminated. To avoid injustices such as this,
the law provides three exceptions to the mandate to file or join a petition to terminate where:
a. the child is being cared for by a relative (e.g., a parent or a grandparent);
b. the state has documented a compelling reason that filing a petition to terminate would
not serve the child’s best interests;
c. the situation requires that the non-offending parent be provided reasonable efforts to
reunify and those efforts have not been provided.24
In these situation the state child protective agency may advocate for alternatives to termination to
protect the child.
8. Criminal Records Checks
ASFA generally requires that before a foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for
placement of a child, that individual must have undergone a criminal records check. 25 Conviction
of a felony relating to any of the following will bar the individual from ever being approved for
placement of the child:
1. Child abuse or neglect;
2. Spousal abuse;
3. A crime against a child, which specifically includes child pornography;
4. The following crimes of violence:
a. Rape;
b. Sexual assault;
c. Homicide
d. This group does NOT include any other physically assaultive crimes.26

24

42 USC 675(E)(i), (ii), and (iii).
42 USC 671(a)(20).
26
42 USC 671(20)(A)(i).
25

In addition to this grouping, which, again, bars the individual from ever being approved to take a
child as a foster or adoptive parent, another group of crimes bars an individual from being
approved as a foster or adoptive parent if that individual has been convicted of a felony27 in the
five years before the check is conducted. The five-year restrictions include the following:
1. Felony physical assault or battery (e.g., felonious assault, assault with intent to
commit great bodily harm);
2. Any drug-related felony.28
NOTE: While the ASFA generally requires a state’s plan for providing child welfare services to
contain these bars to the placement of children, this provision is one of the few areas where the
state may opt out without suffering a penalty.29 Thus, your individual state may chose not to
require such checks or may not require that a potential foster or adoptive parent be barred from
providing care based in one or more of these circumstances.

C. Expedited Permanency
A second major theme in ASFA is to tighten the time frames to achieve permanency for children
who must be removed from their families. As we shall see, it does so in several ways.
1. Definition Of “Entered Foster Care”
The various states have defined the date at which a child enters foster care differently. This is an
important point since it establishes the date from which the time requirement for the permanency
hearing will be held. Michigan provides a good example of how this worked. In Michigan, the
Permanency Planning Hearing was required to be held at least 364 days after the court entered
it’s initial dispositional order, 30 a date that could be six months or more after the child had been
removed from the parent’s care. As a result, children spent much longer in temporary foster care
placement then intended.
Congress has sought to remedy this unintended consequence by defining what it means for a
child to enter foster care. It has done so thusly:
a child shall be considered to have entered foster care on the earlier of—
(i) the date of the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to
child abuse or neglect; or
(ii) the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child was removed
from the home. 31
27

Note that a felony is a serious crime, generally one for which a person could be sent to prison for more than one
year.
28
42 USC 671(20)(A)(ii).
29
42 USC 671(20)(B).
30
MCL 712A.19a(1). NOTE that this section of the statute was recently amended, which will be discussed in detail
later.
31
42 USC 675(5)(F).

To illustrate, imagine that a child enters foster care on January 1, 1999, and that the case is
adjudicated on February 22, 1999. That child, for federal funding purposes, will be deemed to
have entered foster care on February 22 since this date is before the expiration of 60 days. If,
however, the adjudication of the case did not take place until April 16, 1999, the child will be
deemed to have entered foster care on March 1, 1999, 60 days after removal from the home.
2. Permanency Planning Hearings
Coupled with defining when a child enters foster care is a shortened period of time from the
“date the child is considered to have entered foster care” for the state court to hold a permanency
planning hearing. 32 Before the enactment of ASFA, a permanency planning hearing was required
to be held within eighteen months of “original placement.” With ASFA, the permanency
planning hearing must now be held within twelve months of the date the child “entered foster
care” as discussed above.
Continuing with the example from above, the permanency planning hearing must now be held on
or before March 1, 2000. Prior to ASFA, the hearing would not have been held until at least
August 22, 2000, and may have been held as late as October 16, 2000.
3. Expedited Permanency Planning Hearings
When a court with jurisdiction over child abuse and neglect proceedings determines that
reasonable efforts are not required, ASFA requires that a permanency planning hearing be held
within 30 days.33 Once the decision that reasonable efforts to reunify are not necessary, the
reasonable effort requirement shifts to achieving the permanency plan.34 Thus, caseworkers will
be required to demonstrate to the court that they have taken the necessary steps to move toward
the permanent plan.
Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the ASFA requires that in all cases the Permanency
Planning Hearing (PPH) must be held within 12 months of the initial placement in foster care. 35
This requirement replaces the prior requirement that the PPH be held with 18 months of
placement in foster care.
4. Concurrent Planning
The ASFA permits child welfare agencies to use reasonable efforts to simultaneously pursue
inconsistent permanency goals for a child. The text of this provision provides:
[R]easonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a
legal guardian may be made concurrently with reasonable

32

42 USC 675(C).
42 USC 671(E)(i).
34
42 USC 671(E)(ii).
35
42 USC 675.
33

efforts [to reunify the family] 36
In many jurisdictions concurrent planning is an entirely new concept. It has been described as
follows:
Traditionally, case management in child welfare has consisted
of efforts at parental rehabilitation which, if unsuccessful, are
followed by the introduction of alternative permanent plans
(adoption, relative placement, foster parent guardianship, etc.). Typically, an agency
might spend 1-3 years providing services to parents before turning to “permanency
planning” [SIC] i.e., filing a petition to terminate parental rights, recruiting an
adoptive home or permanent relative placement, research in service delivery over
permanent relative placement. Research in service delivery over permanent relative
placement. . . .
Concurrent planning was developed as an alternative to the above-described
sequential planning. It is both a philosophy and a case management method
emphasizing candor, goal setting and time limits in our work with neglectful and
abusive parents. It is based on the belief that foster care outcomes are determined as
much by the agency’s approach as by the parental situation. What we do will create
foster care drift or prevent it.
Concurrent planning provides for reunification services while simultaneously
developing an alternative plan, in case it is needed. The approach follows logically
from family-centered practice, as parents are involved in decision-making and are
given candid feedback from their worker throughout the process. It depends on
accurate assessment and culturally sensitive interviewing.37 (Emphasis in original,
internal citations omitted.)
5. Documentation of Permanency Efforts
To aid in achieving a permanent home for children unable to return to their family of origin, the
ASFA requires the states to have in place procedures for documenting efforts to place a child
permanently. Thus, the caseworker must document
“the steps the agency is taking to find an adoptive family or other permanent
living arrangement for the child, to place the child with an adoptive family,
a fit and willing relative, a legal guardian, or another planned permanent living
arrangement, and to finalize the adoption or legal guardianship.38

36

42 USC 671(F).
Katz, Linda, M.S.W., Norma Spoonemore, M.S.W., Chris Robinson, M.S.W., Concurrent Planning: From
Permanency Planning To Permanency Action (1994, Lutheran Social Services of Washington and Idaho).
38
42 USC 675(1)(E).
37

While the statute does not specifically define the form this documentation must take, the
information must include at least the “child specific recruitment efforts such as the use of state,
regional, and national adoption exchanges including electronic exchange systems.”39
6. Adoption Incentives
The amended statute establishes a program of financial incentives to encourage each state to
move children out of foster care and into adoptive homes.40 [DOUBLE CHECK THIS CITE]
That is, the more children a state places from foster care into adoptive homes in the current year,
the more money it will receive from the federal government to run its program in the following
fiscal year.
a. Incentive Eligibility
If a state is an “incentive eligible” state, it will receive additional money to support its programs.
A state is “incentive eligible” if it meets the following criteria:
1. The state has a plan approved be the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to assure that children in foster care are moving into adoptive homes;
2. The number of adoptions during the year 41 exceeds the base number of
adoptions as established by a formula (which will be discussed in detail below);
3. The state has used prescribed methods to:
a. Determine the number of children adopted from foster care; and
b. Determine the number of special needs children adopted from foster
care;
4. If there is an adoption assistance agreement in place for special needs adoptees
(i.e., children already adopted), the state provides health care coverage as part of
that assistance agreement;
The adoption incentive program is in place for the years 1998 through 2002. The law authorizes
$20,000,000 for the program for each fiscal year through 2002. Recall, however, that the amount
of money actually made available will depend on the appropriation the Congress and President
agree to in each of those years. If less than the $20,000,000 is appropriated, a state will actually
receive a pro rata share of the money it would have received had all the money been
appropriated.
1. Brief Discussion of the Program
The adoption incentive program requires that each state establish a base number of adoptions for
each year. For every adoption in excess of that base number, the state will receive from the
39

Id.
42 USC 673b.
41
Note that “year” for the purposes of this discussion of adoption incentives means fiscal rather than calendar years.
40

federal government an additional $4,000. Likewise, each state must establish a base number of
special needs adoptions for the year. For each special needs adoption achieved beyond that base
number the state will get another $2,000. Thus, a state may receive up to $6,000 for each
finalized adoption of a special needs child beyond its base number. The base number for a given
year may go up, but it cannot go below the original base number. Therefore, each year the state
will need to achieve adoption of more children from foster care to be eligible for the incentive
money.
2. A Closer Look
An example will help to illustrate how this program will work. Imagine that the State of Grace, a
state in the United States, has the following adoption numbers:
Year

Adoptions From Foster Care

Special Needs Adoptions

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001

256
213
222
230
231
264
301

113
119
136
112
138
156
141

To establish its base numbers of adoptions in the first year of the program, 1998, we average the
numbers of adoptions from the three previous years, 1995, 1996, and 1997. After 1998, we look
for the highest number of adoptions between 1997 and the prior year. Thus, in 1998’s base is:
256 + 213 + 222 = 691/3 = 230
However, 2000’s base is the 231 established in 1999, the largest number of adoptions from 19971999.
As just established the base of all adoptions for the State of Grace in 1998 is 230. Since the
number of adoptions it achieved in 1998 was also 230, it has no adoption incentive eligible
adoptions for 1998. The State of Grace needs to work harder to get its foster children adopted.
The State of Grace’s 1999 base number is determined by the higher of 1997 and 1998. Since it
had 8 more adoptions in 1998 (230) than in 1997 (222), its 1999 base is 230. In 1999, the State
of Grace achieved 231 adoptions, so it has one adoption that is eligible for an incentive payment.
The state will receive an additional $4,000:
(Number of Incentive Eligible Adoptions) x (Incentive Payment) = (Total Incentive Payment)
1 x $4,000 = $4,000

If that one incentive eligible adoption involved a special needs adoption, the state would get an
additional $2,000:
(Number of Incentive Eligible Adoptions)
x (Special Needs Adoptions Above Base)
= (Special Needs Incentive Payment)
In our example:
1
x$2,000
$2,000
With special needs adoptions, the two incentives are added together, so the State of Grace will
receive a total of $6,000 for 1998.
Let’s look at how the State of Grace did in the year 2000:
The base number for 2000 is established by the highest number of adoptions in the years 1997
through 1999. Thus the base number for 2000 is 231, established in 1999. To determine the
number of incentive eligible adoptions, we subtract the base number from the current year’s
number:
(Current Year Adoptions) – (Base Year Adoptions) = (Incentive Eligible Adoptions)
264 – 231 = 33
In the year 2000 the State of Grace has 33 incentive eligible adoptions resulting in an incentive
payment of $132,000:
33 x $4,000 = $132,000
To establish the special needs adoption base for 2000, we must use the highest number of special
needs adoptions the state achieved from 1997 through 1999:
1997
1998
1999

136
112
138

Thus, we must use 1999’s number of 138 as our base for 2000. We must then subtract that base
number from the number of adoptions achieved in 2000:
156 – 138 = 18
We now know that 18 of the special needs adoptions achieved in 2000 are eligible for the special
needs adoption incentive payment of $2,000:

18 x $2,000 = $36,000
This $36,000 special needs adoption incentive payment is added to the $132,000 incentive
payment for non-special needs foster children (notice that the Adoptions From Foster Care
number includes the Special Needs Adoptions number)42:
$36,000 + $132,000 = $168,000
The State of Grace’s total year 2000 adoptive incentive payment is $168,000.
b. Technical Assistance to States
The ASFA authorizes $10,000,000 for the Department of Health and Human Services to issue
grants or contracts to provide the states with technical assistance to the states to enhance their
ability to expedite the adoption or other permanent placement of foster children.43 That technical
assistance may take one of these forms:
1. Develop best practice guideline;
2. Models to encourage concurrent planning;
3. Develop specialized units to expedite adoptions;
4. Develop risk assessment tools;
5. Develop “fast track” adoption for infants;
6. Develop programs to place children in pre-adoptive homes before termination
of parental rights has taken place.
At least one-half of the money appropriated for technical assistance must be target state courts.

7. Cross-Jurisdictional Adoption
To ensure that children who are eligible for adoption are given the best possible opportunity to
achieve permanency, the ASFA requires that the states implement “plans for the effective use of
cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent” homes.44 (By “crossjurisdictional” the law means across state or county lines.) It does not, however, stop there.
Rather, the law goes on to provide for financial penalties if the state either fails to place a child
42

Notice that because of this fact a state could receive the $4,000 payment for a special needs child because it was
able to adopt sufficient numbers of children from foster care but not be eligible for the additions $2,000 special
needs adoptions incentive if it did not exceed the base number of special needs adoptions.
43
42 USC 673(b)(i).
44
42 USC 622(b)(12).

across state or county lines or delays a placement across state lines when a family in another
jurisdiction has been approved.45 Moreover, the state must give a potential adoptive parent a “fair
hearing” if that individual alleges that cross-jurisdictional placement has either been denied or
unnecessarily delayed.46 Again, there is a financial penalty if the state fails to provide such a
hearing.
So if siblings Johnny and Suzie are available for adoption in Michigan and a suitable home is
available in Indiana, Michigan will suffer a financial loss if it delays or denies the adoptive
placement due to the cross-jurisdictional nature of the adoption. Likewise, if the State of Grace, a
state in the United States has a child available for adoption in Nirvana County and an adoptive
home available in Harmony County, the state will suffer a loss of its federal support if it delays
this cross-jurisdictional placement.
8. Study Ways to Achieve Cross-Jurisdictional Adoption
The law charges the Comptroller General of the United States with conducting a study and
submitting to Congress its findings regarding ways to expedite adoptions across state and county
lines.47
9. Health Insurance for Children With Adoption Subsidies
The new law requires that the state have in place a plan for services to children that provides
health care insurance as part of adoption assistance program. Such insurance must cover
children’s special “medical, mental health or rehabilitative care.”48 Since these benefits are
generally provided through a state medicaid grant, which requires matching funds to be provided
by the state, some states were either reducing, particularly mental health benefits, or eliminating
medical subsidies as part of their adoption subsidy programs. This provision seeks to reverse that
trend.
10. Continuation of Subsidy if Initial Adoption Breaks Down
The ASFA requires that in situations were a child is eligible for an adoption subsidy, is adopted,
and that adoption breaks down (whether the adoptive parents’ rights are terminated or because of
the death of the adoptive parents), the child will remain eligible for a subsidy in a second
adoptive home.49
11. Standards of Care
A new provision of the law requires that each state establish standards of care for children in
foster care placements, whether public or private. 50 The purpose of these standards of care are
45

42 USC 674(e)(1).
42 USC 674(e)(2).
47
GET CITE
48
42 USC 671(a)(21).
49
42 USC 673(a)(2).
50
42 USC 671(a)(22).
46

“to ensure that children in foster care . . . are provided quality services that protect the safety and
health of the children.” 51
D. Expanded Permanency Options
1. Guardianship As A Permanent Plan
In most jurisdictions, legal guardianship is intended to be a temporary arrangement to provide for
the care of a child when a parent is unwilling to do so.52 Generally, the court which granted the
guardianship has either the right or the obligation to supervise the child welfare while under the
guardianship.53 Indeed, under some states’ laws, a legal guardian may request to adopt the child 54
or petition for termination of parental rights.55
As noted above, in passing the ASFA Congress authorized concurrent planning and, in doing so,
indicated that among the permanency options that should be available to the states is the
placement of a child under a legal guardianship.56 To make its intention clear that guardianship
may be used as a permanency plan, the Congress defined guardianship as:
A judicially created relationship between a child and caretaker
which is intended to be permanent and self sustaining as evidenced
by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the
child: protection, education, care and control of the person, custody of the person,
and decision-making. The term ‘legal guardian’ means the caretaker in such a
relationship.57
At this writing, the Children’s Bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services is in the
process of promulgating administrative rules that would encourage the states to establish a means
of granting guardianships that are intended to be permanent. For those states that choose to
establish such statutes, that would mean that the establishment of a guardianship with, say, a
relative or foster parent would provide a final resolution to the case by providing a home that is
indeed permanent.
As noted above, the categorization of the changes in the law overlap one another. Notice how
providing for a permanent guardianship statute both expands the state’s options for achieving
permanency and also expedites permanency.

51

Id.
Consider, for example, the guardianship statutes of Indiana, , IC 29-3-3-1 et seq,, and Michigan, MCL 700.401 et
seq.
53
See, e.g., MCL 700.424b.
54
MCL 700.401 et seq.
55
MCL 712A.19b(3)(d), (e) and (f).
56
See d, above.
57
42 USC 675(7).
52

E. Miscellaneous Provisions
The ASFA contains numerous miscellaneous provisions which are attendant to the primary areas
of change. These will be considered here.
1. Notice To Caretaker
Federal law now requires that the child’s caretaker—whether foster parent, preadoptive parent,
or relative—receive notice of review hearings. This includes the right to be heard during the
conduct of those hearings. This provision does not make them a party to the case.58 As a result of
this change, the individual who has the responsibility for day-to-day care of the child must be
provided notification of the time and place of a review hearing regarding a child in his or her
care. At that hearing the court must provide the caretaker the chance to address the court as to his
or her concerns regarding the case. This does NOT give the caretaker the right to be represented
by an attorney, ask questions of witnesses, or to call witnesses to support his or her position.
2. Parent Locator Service
The Federal Parent Locator Service is a nationwide data bank that is used to help states, courts,
and agencies to locate parents who owe child support or who have child custody or visitation
disputes.59 This data bank includes information such as the person’s name, address, employment
information, income information, and information related to an individual’s assets. ASFA
permits the state child protective services agency to access this data bank for the purposes of
locating a child’s parent.60

3. Annual Report
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is directed to:
a. Use the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System to develop
outcome measures to asses the performance of the states in operating their child
protection and child welfare programs;
b. Develop a system of rating the states’ performance relative to those outcome
measures;
c. Require that the states provide the necessary information so that HHS can rate
them. This requirement is tied to the state receiving funding for its child welfare
system;
d. Make an annual report to Congress regarding the performance of each state
relative to the outcome measures. The report must assess the reasons for good and
58

42 USC 675(G).
42 USC 653.
60
42 USC 653(c)(4).
59

poor performance and make recommendations for improvement of
performance..61
Additionally, the HHS must study, develop, and recommend an incentive-based system for the
provision of support to the states for child abuse related programming.

4. Report on Kinship Care
The ASFA requires that the Secretary of HHS convene the advisory panel and submit to the
panel a report as to the extent to which children in foster care are placed in the homes of
relatives.62 By June 1, 1999, HHS must submit a final report to the Congress regarding policy
recommendations the use of kinship care for foster children. The report must include
information from each state regarding each state’s:
a. kinship care policy;
b. characteristics of kinship providers such as age, race, ethnicity, income, and the
provider’s relationship to the child;
c. household characteristics of the providers such as number of persons in the
household and family composition;
d. the child’s access to the parent from which the child was removed;
e. cost of kinship and source of funds used for kinship care;
f. permanency plan for the child and what actions the state has taken to achieve
that goal;
g. services provided to the parent from whom the child was removed;
h. services being provided to the kinship caregiver.
HHS must convene an advisory panel of parents, foster, parents, relative caregivers, former
foster children, state and local child welfare officials, private child welfare agency
representatives, tribal governments and courts. The group must review the report regarding
kinship care and comment on it to HHS.

61
62

42 USC 42 USC 679b.
See 42 USC 5113.

5. Substance Abuse and Child Welfare
The Secretary of HHS is charged with submitting to Congress “a report which describes the
extent and cope of the problem of substance abuse in the child welfare population.” 63
Additionally, the report must examine the services provided to this population, the outcomes
attributable to those services, and make recommendations for legislation to address the problem.

63

42 USC 613.

II.

IMPACT ON STATE LAW, POLICY, AND PRACTICE

The enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act will cause most states to make
adjustments in their law and practice regarding child protection, child welfare, and adoption. The
precise amount of change will depend upon the individual states’ statutory scheme, policy and
practice. Clearly, too, some general changes can be anticipated. Since the statute weighs the
placement equation in favor of protecting children, there is likely to be some increase in the
numbers of children removed from their homes. In cases involving close questions about
removal, action will be favored over family preservation. As a result of the new definition of
when a child enters foster care and the earlier permanency planning hearing, in some states
children should remain in temporary care for shorter periods of time. 64 Given the redoubling of
efforts to find permanent homes and the expanded options for declaring a child permanently
placed, children should achieve adoption, permanent guardianship, or other permanent placement
more quickly. The required use of the Parent Locator System and the focus on kinship should
result in children who are removed being placed with relatives more often and more quickly. Use
of the Parent Locator System should also get putative fathers and other absent parents located
and involved more quickly.
Beyond these general predictions, specific changes will depend upon the precise changes in the
individual state laws, policies, and practice. In this section, we will consider your state’s specific
situation.

A. INDIANA
In early 1998, the Indiana legislature passed legislation, to become effective on July 1,1999,
which will bring it into compliance with the requirements of the ASFA. Specifically, the new
statutory provisions make the following changes:
1. The Division of Family and Children is charged with the responsibility of
developing programs that comply with the requirements of federal law, assisting
the juvenile court, and providing permanency planning services “in a timely
manner”65
2. Defines an “abandoned infant” consistent with ASFA’s requirement that a
petition to terminate parental rights be filed in such cases. A child under one year
of age will be deemed an abandoned infant if the parent, guardian, or custodian of
the child “knowingly or intentionally” leaves the child in an “environment that
endangers the child’s life or health or in a hospital or medical facility” if he or she
“has no reasonable plan” for the care, custody, or control of the child.” 66 Notice

64

Some states already require the permanency planning hearing to be held within 12 months, Michigan is an
example.
65
IC 12-13-5-1.
66
IC 31-9-2-0.5.

that there is no minimum period of time associated with the act of leaving the
child;
3. Defines the state’s policy relative to child protection. These broad policies
include recognition of the importance of families and children to society, to
remove children from their families only when doing so will serve the child’s best
interests, to provide for adoption as “a viable permanency plan for children who
are adjudicated children in need of services,” and to provide a continuum of
services to families and children; 67
4. Requires that child protection service’s (CPS) report be available to the court,
prosecuting attorney, or law enforcement. Where child abuse or neglect is
substantiated by CPS, it must forward a copy of its report to the prosecuting
attorney’s office. 68
5. That a detention hearing be held within 48 hours after the child’s removal from
the parents’ care. The 48 hours is calculated excluding Saturday, Sunday, and
holidays. So, if a child is removed on Saturday night, the court has until the close
of business on Tuesday to hold the detention hearing. If that removal takes place
on July 4 and the court is closed for the holiday on Monday, the court has until the
close of business on Wednesday to hold the detention hearing If the hearing is not
held within this timeframe the child must be released to the parent;69
6. The amended law requires that the court must find clear and convincing
evidence that a basis to terminate parental rights exists before entering an order
terminating parental rights. The court may, however, dismiss a petition to
terminate parental rights if there is sufficient reason to do so consistent with
ASFA (i.e., child is placed with a parent, stepparent, grandparent, an adult sibling,
an adult aunt, an adult uncle, or any relative if that relative is the child’s legal
guardian; a compelling reason exists not to terminate parental rights; or the
agency has not yet provided appropriate services to the family AND the case does
not involve a situation where termination of parental rights is mandatory, e.g.,
where a parent has murdered a child.); 70
7. Requires periodic court review of cases “In accordance with federal law,” and
establishes that such a review must be held at least once every six months.
Reviews may be held more frequently if the court so directs. Moreover, each such
review must be conducted as a formal court hearing; 71
8. Require that foster parents, relative care takers, “suitable” relatives, relatives
with “significant relationships” to the child, prospective adoptive parents, and
67

IC 31-10-2-1.
IC 31-33-8-9.
69
IC 31-34-5-1.
70
IC 31-35-2-4.5.
71
IC 31-34-21-2.
68

any other person providing care to the child be given notice of review hearings
and be provided the opportunity to address the court at that hearing; 72
9. Effective July 1, 1999, all case reviews must be conducted by the court. Such
reviews will no longer be conducted by administrative panels; 73
10. That regarding the use of “reasonable efforts” the “the child health and safety
are of paramount concern,” and that as a general rule “reasonable efforts” must be
made to prevent removal of a child from the family home and to reunify the
family;74
11. Establishes, consistent with the ASFA, a number of circumstances under
which reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family are not required. These
include convictions for the following criminal offenses if either the convicted
person’s child or stepchild or a parent of the child is a victim: murder, causing
suicide, voluntary manslaughter, rape, criminal deviate conduct, child molesting,
child exploitation, sexual misconduct with a minor, incest. Note that if a parent
kills his or her stepchild, this is a basis for termination regarding that individual’s
biological children. Likewise, where domestic violence between adults results in a
conviction as described, the offending parent’s rights may be terminated (in
essence, the state legislature has deemed this to be an aggravated circumstance
under ASFA). Additionally, reasonable efforts are not necessary if there is
conviction for aiding, attempting or conspiring to commit one of the offenses
listed here. Nor are reasonable efforts necessary if the parent’s rights in another
child have been involuntarily terminated. Finally, the court may terminate
parental rights relating to an abandoned infant if the court does four things: a)
appoints a guardian ad litem or a court appointed special advocate; and b)
receives a written report from the child’s advocate; and 3) holds a hearing; and 4)
finds that making reasonable effort to locate or reunify the family will not serve
the interests of the child.75 Consistent with this determination, the law will permit
a petition to terminate parental rights to be filed in these circumstances.76
Additionally, after July 1, 1999, a petition to terminate must be filed if
circumstance exist that federal law requires a petition to be filed; 77
12. Whenever reasonable efforts are not required, the agency must develop and
seek the court’s approval of a permanency plan. The agency need not prepare a
predispositional report regarding the parents’ participation in a treatment plan and
the court need not enter a dispositional order regarding this issue or whether
reasonable efforts were made in the case;78
72

IC 31-34-21-4.
IC 31-34-21-5.
74
IC 31-34-21-5.5.
75
31-34-21-5.6. Note that under this provision, the conviction may take place under Indiana law or the comparable
law of another state.
76
IC 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(A)(ii).
77
IC 31-35-2-4.5.
78
IC 31-34-21-5.7
73

13. When reunification is not the permanency plan for a child, the agency must,
with court approval, make reasonable efforts to place a child permanently and to
take the steps necessary to finalize that placement. Consistent with the change in
permanency plan, no progress report or review is needed to determine progress
toward reunification of the biological family or that the child is placed close to the
biological parents;79
14. The new law mandates that the court convene a permanency planning hearing
as required by federal law:
a. Within 30 days after the court determines efforts to reunify the family
are not necessary;
b. Every twelve months after the earlier of the: 1) the date the child was
removed from the home; or 2) the date of the initial dispositional decree.
The court may hold the PPH earlier. The new law presumes that temporary
jurisdiction over a child should not last beyond twelve months. This presumption
can be overcome by the state showing the objectives of court intervention have
not been accomplished, that efforts to reunify the family should continue, and that
it is in the child’s best interest to continue the temporary jurisdiction. If the state
does not show these three things, the agency must either establish a new
permanency goal or the child must be returned to the care of the parent, guardian,
or custodian.80 A permanency plan must contain the intended long-term care
arrangements for the child. This long-term care plan may include reunification
with the natural parents, initiating termination of parental rights, placement for
adoption, placement with an appropriate relative, appointment of a legal guardian
(this provision creates a permanent guardianship), or placement in another
permanent living arrangement . The plan must also contain a time schedule for
achieving the permanency goal as well as information pertaining to the care of the
child while the permanency plan is being implemented.81
15. As of July 1,1998, when a petition for termination of parental rights is
authorized by the court, the agency must place nonidentifying information (i.e.,
no name or photo) about the child on the internet. The agency must update the
information periodically; 82
16. Provides that in those circumstances where termination must be considered, a
hearing must be held without a party requesting a hearing. In circumstances were
a termination petition may be filed—but is not mandatory—a party must still
request that a court set a hearing on the petition.83 If a hearing is requested by a
party, it must be held within 90 days of the request.84
79

IC 31-34-21-5.8.
IC 31-34-21-7.
81
IC 31-34-217.5.
82
31-34-21-7.3.
83
IC 31-35-2-6.
84
IC 31-35-3-7(b).
80

17. Require that foster parents, relative care takers, “suitable” relatives, relatives
with “significant relationships” to the child, prospective adoptive parents, and
any other person providing care to the child be given notice of review hearings
and be provided the opportunity to address the court at that hearing; 85
18. Allows the following persons to file a petition to terminate parental rights:
a. County’s attorney;
b. Prosecuting attorney;
c. Child’s court appointed special advocate; or
d. Child’s guardian ad litem.86
Provides for the state to join a petition to terminate parental rights if the petition is
filed by the child’s Court Appointed Special Advocate or by the child’s Guardian
ad litem;87 In those circumstances where a party must request termination, the
court must hold a hearing on that request.
Provide for dismissing a termination of parental rights petition, consistent with
the ASFA, if the child is placed with a relative or if there is a compelling reason
not to terminate the parental rights;88
19 The amended statute permits the court to terminate parental rights if a child has
been in foster care 15 of the most recent 22 months.89 It also establishes that the
date from which this period of time is calculated begins either when the child is
declared a child in need of services or 60 days after removal from the parental
home.90 Additionally, after July 1,1999, the CPS will be required to provide the
child’s parents with written notice that it must file a petition to terminate parental
rights if a child under this section;91
20. Establishes a procedure for the court to hold hearings required by the federal
amendments;92
21. Effective July 1, 1999, if the court finds the allegations contained in a petition
to terminate parental rights to be true, it must terminate the parental rights of the
parents. If the allegations are found to be untrue, the court must dismiss the
petition.93
85

Ic31-35-2-6.5.
IC 31-35-2-4(a).
87
IC 31-35-2-4.5(c).
88
IC 31-35-4-2-4.5(d)(1) and (2).
89
IC 31-35-2-4(b)((2)(A)(iii).
90
IC 31-35-2-4.5(a)(2)(B).
91
IC 31-34-4-6(a)(5). This section also requires that the written notice provide the following information: the
parent’s right to have a detention hearing within 48 hours, the right to be represented by an attorney, to cross
examine witnesses and to present evidence to the court. If the parent cannot afford to hire an attorney, the court
must appoint an attorney to represent the parent.
92
IC 31-35-2-6.
93
IC 31-35-2-8.
86

22. If the juvenile court terminates parental rights, the juvenile court may refer the
case to the court having jurisdiction for adoption or make another appropriate
dispositional order. 94
23. The recent amendments require that any money the state receives as a result of
the ASFA must be used to facilitate the adoption of children in need of services
and for post adoption services.95

94
95

IC 31-35-6-1.
IC 31-40-3-4.

B. MICHIGAN
With the enactment of the Binsfeld legislation in December of 1997 and its implementation on
April 1, 1998, Michigan’s statutory framework is largely in compliance with the ASFA. Indeed,
in most particulars, Michigan’s law is either consistent with or more rigorous than the federal
legislation. There are but a few areas where our statutes will need to be amended to conform with
the new federal legislation. The first of these is that we must make petitions for termination of
parental rights mandatory when a parent has committed voluntary manslaughter upon a child.
Additionally, the Juvenile Code will need to be amended to require a petition to terminate be
filed when a child has been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months.