Testimony Given Before the Ohio House
Health and Family Services Committee
May 10, 2006
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Bryan
Brown. I am the Assistant Executive Director of the Ohio Association of Child Caring
Agencies and I am pleased to be here today to provide interested party testimony for
House Bill 529. I want to extend my thanks to the sponsors, Representative Jeff
Wagner (and Senator Tom Niehaus on the companion bill, SB 287) for their leadership
and collaborative nature of the interested parties’ process they followed in the
development of the bill.
The Ohio Association of Child Caring Agencies (OACCA) is a statewide association of
private and public agencies that provide a wide array of services to thousands of
children and families across Ohio every day of the year. These services include:







Caring for children in foster care experiencing the trauma of child abuse or
neglect.
Finding adoptive families for waiting children and providing post-adoption
support so that new families can grow together.
Helping children recover from mental illness, substance abuse or juvenile
delinquency.
Providing emergency shelter care for children whose families are in crisis.
Counseling for children and for families.
Coordinating respite care for families with children who need intensive
support.
Offering highly structured, closely supervised education services for
children who cannot attend public school.
Some OACCA members were founded in the 1800s by citizens concerned for the
thousands of children orphaned following the Civil War. Some were founded in the
early 20th century in response to the needs of children and families during the Industrial
Revolution. Other members were founded more recently to provide high quality
professional services to families and children coming to the attention of county juvenile
courts and children service agencies. OACCA was formed in 1973 to unify these
agencies’ advocacy efforts and achieve common goals.
HB 529
Many of our members work tirelessly on behalf of the nearly 6,000 children in Ohio who
are waiting for a permanent family. Some of our members are nationally recognized
experts in adoption practice, and they have expressed serious concerns with one
section of this bill. Before I get to that section, let me say a few words about two other
sections of the bill:
Sec. 3107.032 Lines 755-774
The requirement for a large family protocol (multiple children assessment) infers that a
home study and home study update fails to “evaluate the ability of the person seeking to
adopt in meeting the needs of the minor or foster child to be adopted and continuing to
meet the needs of the children residing in the home.”
We strongly believe that good social work practice mandates that any home study
process for any adoption includes the above referenced evaluation. If not, then we fail
every child who is adopted into a family that currently has other children in it, regardless
of the number. Every child who is adopted deserves this consideration. OACCA is
concerned that the creation of a state form masks a deeper problem of enforcement of
existing rules regarding home study assessments, qualification of assessors, and
placing agency oversight of the required documentation to finalize an adoption.
OACCA recommends that this section be revised to reflect that ODJFS shall promulgate
rules necessary for an assessor to complete an assessment pursuant to ORC 3107.031
that includes an evaluation of the ability of the person seeking to adopt in meeting the
needs of the minor or foster child to be adopted and continuing to meet the needs of the
children residing in the home. We believe this creates a more seamless home study
process for all Ohio children waiting to be adopted.
Sec. 3107.034 lines 791-824
Our members are encouraged by the revisions to this section which seem to recognize
the current limitations of the central registry. We thank the sponsors and LSC for their
work on this section to limit the use of central registry information in the home study
process. This demonstrates respect for families and acknowledges the lack of due
process rights in the current functioning of the central registry. Please refer to the
ODJFS form letter attached to my testimony to understand what a prospective adoptive
parent receives when a request is made to obtain a central registry search for their
information.
We want the committee to understand the concerns of providers, foster parents, and
others with respect to the problems currently associated with the central registry and its
application to the home study information gathering process. We believe the use of
central registry information is severely compromised by a lack of available, credible, and
accessible due process.
Sec. 3107.10 “Notification” line 917-961
2
OACCA supports the current discovery process and sharing of relevant information
regarding a prospective adoptive parent with the PCSA in the county of residence at the
initiation of a home study. We believe this is good practice and affords a meaningful
opportunity for the agency/assessor conducting the home study to vigorously screen a
prospective adoptive parent. However, any automatic and additional notification
triggered by the placement of a specific child into an approved home raises significant
concerns that OACCA vigorously opposes.
OACCA members who are adoption experts have raised serious objections to these
mandated notifications to the PCSA of the adoptive family’s county of residence
because of the potential for adverse and inappropriate action by a local PCSA and/or its
staff. What information could they possibly share that an assessor would not already
obtain through the required information gathering currently mandated in the home study
process?
Every Family who steps forward to adopt waiting children SHOULD NOT be
automatically referred to their local CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY whose purpose is
to conduct abuse and neglect investigations. Given the population of waiting children,
we are very concerned that this requirement will discourage special needs adoptions
and adoptions of minority children into communities where they may be perceived to be
marginalized. We object to this provision as it feels like a violation of constitutionally
protected rights of privacy and self determination of each adopting family to seek out
supportive services without the mandated awareness of the local PCSA which may feel
intrusive or threatening to that family. We do not want Ohio public policy to
unintentionally stigmatize the children waiting to be adopted, the prospective adoptive
family, or the adoption process itself without a clear and compelling governmental
interest to the contrary.
We are concerned that this section of the bill requiring child-specific notification does
not result in any solution to a specified public policy problem. This notification will not
prevent another “Gravelle” case. Currently, it is common for a child placing agency
(agency A) to utilize another agency’s home study (agency B) for the placement of the
child into the prospective family who is being recommended, supported and supervised
by Agency C. The PCSA of the prospective adoptive family’s county of residence may
be Agency D. In this system, notification with no purpose or clear role for the notified
PCSA results in too much risk for disrupting an adoption process that already involves
the custodial PCSA, the agency supporting the family, the adoption assessor agency,
AND the courts.
OACCA urges you to remove Section 3107.10 from the bill. We believe that the intent of
this language is fulfilled by OAC rule 5101:2-48-16. If this rule is enforced, the
proposed Ohio Revised Code language in this bill is unnecessary and we will avoid
creating confusion that may lead to interference with matching waiting children with
prospective families. I have attached this rule for your reference. Please note, in
particular, Sections (M), (Q), (R), (U), (V), and (Y). Together, these sections require
3
comprehensive information exchange among all agencies involved in an adoption,
whether public or private.
Clearly, the process is regulated. Moreover there are multiple opportunities for agencies
responsible for matching a waiting child with an adoptive family to ensure the care and
safety of that waiting child. What is less clear is the enforcement actions taken to hold
licensed individuals and licensed agencies accountable for bad practice. Have any
agencies involved with the Gravelles, be they public or private, faced sanctions or
consequences for their work in that case?
We urge the committee to consider the best interest of waiting children and adoptive
families and NOT place needless barriers in the adoption process that continue a
tradition of inconsequence. While it solves nothing, it could adversely impact the
children who need our help the most.
OACCA wants to support HB 529. However, we cannot support it with Section 3107.10
in the bill. We appreciate the concern of the legislature and its desire to strengthen
protections for children waiting to be adopted. While other components of the bill are
ones that we support, or have no objections to, this “notification” provision is one that
we strongly object to and ask for your help in removing it from the bill.
Thank you and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
4