User:Reveritt12/sandbox

Ramsay, my question is did the family just pass the child off or was there an agency that oversaw the re-homing. I do not know very much about this topic, but I always thought there was a whole adoption process with legal paper work involved.

~Mike

Scenario:
Child X has been adopted before and is not adapting well into this new home. This child has Reactive Attachment Disorder which is when a kid does not establish a bond with the caregivers. Child X is causing major problems within the house and the family decided it was bet to get rid of him and put an ad on facebook. Someone reaches out because they saw the ad, within the same state and would like to take in this child. Without researching the interested party or hiring an agency to oversee the process, the adoptive family gives over the child. Little did they know, this new caregiver is a child trafficker and would end up putting the child in harm's way.

Issue:

 * Did the family fail to meet the standard of care for the child?
 * What legislation allowed the family to give up the child without investigating the new caregiver?

Rule
Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014 - this requires that states implement a “Reasonable and Prudent Parenting Standard" giving foster parents the authority to make day-to-day decisions affecting children in their care regarding extracurricular, enrichment, cultural, social or sporting activities. This is defined as “careful and sensible parental decisions that maintain the child’s health, safety and best interest”.

Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children - this was enacted in all 50 states and DC. This should technically regulate re-homing - it is a contract that works to make sure children that are placed or adopted across state lines receive adequate care and services. Also establishes procedures for the placement of kids across state lines and sets requirements and responsibilities for the agencies and individuals involved. This means that the placements are safe and placing the individual who takes in the child remains legally and financially responsible.

Analysis

 * The family did not research where they were re-homing this child, and put the child at extreme risk which goes against the Reasonable and Prudent Parenting Standard.
 * Since the person who reached out to the family was not from a different state, the family does not have to make sure that the child is placed in adequate care as the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children focuses on crossing state lines and therefore did not violate this act.

Conclusion
The family did fail to meet the standard of care for the child since they did not make the sensible decision to research the person they were giving their child up to and potentially put their child’s safety at risk. However, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children states that the family only has to make sure children are placed in adequate care when the re-homing process is done across state lines. So the family did not have to investigate the new caregiver since it was still within the same state and therefore did not violate this act. The Reasonable and Prudent Parenting Standard was made to put the child first, and focus on their safety, and what is in their best interest. However, when the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children act came to fruition, this contradicts the original standard and actually says that this is only the case when the child is being re-homed across state lines. The parents can argue their innocence and child trafficking rings can use this as a loophole.

Abstract
With the increase in adoption rates over the many decades, the United States has been faced with a new immoral practice: re-homing. This is the act of caregivers posting an advertisement when they do not feel the child should be in their care any longer. Oftentimes there are no requirements for investigation around the child’s new housing situation and this has created an underground market, one where traffickers can thrive. There is a lack of regulation surrounding this practice and current legislation contradict each other, making this harder to combat. To further investigate the illegal practice that re-homing is, this paper will delve into how the loopholes that allow people to continue doing this. How effective is U.S. legislation in preventing child trafficking through re-homing? On top of that, what can be done to address these issues and protect children, keeping them out of this underground market.

Summary
When a parent adopts a child, they sometimes may not have been aware that the child has special needs and thus, are not equipped to help this child. The child may act out or not fit in with the family so the family turns to re-homing. Re-homing is not technically adoption and because of that, the government does not have to be notified of this process and it does not even have to go through an adoption agency. Thus, re-homing is a prime target for child and sex traffickers. There are laws set in place to protect children through adoption and against sex trafficking, but there are barely any laws about re-homing. The courts authorize this practice since SSL374 allows a parent, legal guardian or relative within the second degree to place out of board out a child. While the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014 state that the family must make rational decisions and prioritize the health of the child,

The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children contradicts this. The latter law states that the family only has to make sure children are placed in adequate care only when the re-homing process is done across state lines. There is no mention of maintaining the children’s safety when re-homing within the same state.

The laws surrounding re-homing are basically non-existent which puts adopted children at the risk of unequipped parents and all other types of dysfunctional homes. This second-chance adoption, as some parents see it, has led to negative effects that failed adoptions have on children as they go through the process of readapting to a new home environment again. With the statute that allows second-degree legal guardians to put their adopted child in the care of someone else, and the rising of re-homing websites and ads on social media, the re-homing process highly exposes children to underground markets and other trafficking prospects. In that regard, laws and statutes concerning adoption and re-homing should be re-evaluated to ensure the full protection of adopted children.