Saturday, May 25, 2024

Racial disparities remain present in Michigan’s foster care system

From WILX:

Children of color are put into the system at a disproportionate rate, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

Failing to identify cases of child abuse or neglect can have negative impacts. However, over-reporting can lead to families being caught in the court system and their children pushed into the foster care system. One local advocate shares she believes there are ways to avoid this.

Children of color make up 31% of Michigan’s population according to Michigan’s Child Welfare Improvement Task Force, yet they make up 51% of the state foster care population.

“When we separate families, we don’t give anyone a pathway to doing it better,” said Tashmica Torok, co-director of the Firecracker Foundation in Lansing.

Read more here.

May 25, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 24, 2024

State Bar Family Law Toolkits

State bar family law toolkits are a compilation of helpful tips, methods, charts, tables, sheets, and guidelines that aid family law practitioners in representing their clients in legal settings, provided by their state bar. These toolkits can range from 60 - 200 dollars, depending on the material provided in the toolkits, and whether the purchaser is a member of their state’s bar association or not.

Linked are the Texas, Iowa, and Illinois state bar family law toolkits as examples, though family law practitioners can find their state bar’s family law toolkits online by searching up their state + “state bar family law toolkit.”  These toolkits are also helpful guides for legal scholars or potential litigants seeking information about how a state’s particular laws are practiced and interpreted in court.

May 24, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, May 23, 2024

Richardson: "Civil Suits by Parents Against Family Policing Agencies"

Alexa Richardson (Harvard Law School) recently published her article, Civil Suits by Parents Against Family Policing Agencies.  Here is the introduction:

In recent decades, the family policing system has penetrated more deeply into poor communities, removing children and surveilling families at a rate never before seen. Family policing agencies that execute these removals — despite being state actors — face few constraints on their actions: state laws give agencies broad discretion, and agencies are not bound by many of the constitutional limits that apply to criminal police. However, there are some constitutional protections and state law limits that apply to the conduct of family policing agencies. Families, media, and advocates document systemic exertion of state power over parents outside the limits of agency authority, from unlawful removals to warrantless searches to racially discriminatory practices. While there are established routes to sue police officers who abuse their authority, cases against family policing agencies by parents whose rights are violated are rare.

This piece explores some of the civil cases that have been brought by parents against family policing agencies and considers the challenges and potential of such suits. There’s no question that civil suits by parents face significant obstacles, including the lack of applicable protections for parents, qualified immunity laws, and the lack of attorneys able or willing to bring claims. Civil suits certainly cannot “solve” the problems of family policing, nor replace the central role of movement building and political change. But they can and should be part of a multifaceted strategy to contest and abolish family policing. Civil suits by parents against family policing agencies and child abuse reporters can serve as a limited check on agency power, and — perhaps most importantly — can focus media and court attention on the harms of forcible family separation for parents and children. These suits should be led by impacted families and designed in response to their priorities. In sum, while imperfect, civil suits are an underutilized approach that should be considered more often by advocates fighting family policing.

May 23, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, May 22, 2024

Bala: "Parent-Child Privilege as Resistance"

Nila Bala (UC Davis School of Law) recently posted her article, Parent-Child Privilege as Resistance, forthcoming in Boston College Law Review, on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, minors face increasing restrictions in accessing reproductive care. The majority of pregnant minors consult their parents before obtaining abortions. While the parent-child relationship is the first to exist and is often where children turn for guidance, there is no recognized parent-child privilege in the majority of states. These healthcare conversations between parent and child now hold criminal implications. This Article provides a novel contribution in exploring parent-child communications within the health and reproductive decision-making contexts, arguing privilege is essential to protect minors in accessing care post-Dobbs.

In the process, this Article provides a broader theoretical contribution—introducing a new conceptual framework of "privilege as resistance" that envisions evidentiary parent-child privilege as a tool to oppose unjust systems and laws. Privileges are generally disfavored in evidentiary law as impeding the truth; however, this Article critiques the prioritization of the carceral system’s search for truth over the relationship between the parent and child. Parent-child privilege as resistance is informed by a history filled with the separation of families and denial of intimate spaces for marginalized individuals, in particular enslaved individuals and Native people.

Building on this context, the Article argues that despite using parents to legitimize judicial processes, the justice system fails to recognize them and shield their communications. Privilege as resistance can enable parents to be an integral part of anti-carceral– and far more successful approaches to juvenile justice–such as restorative justice models. With this critical lens, the Article imagines a contemporary parent-child privilege that protects a child’s privacy, bodily autonomy, and direction over their lives.

 

May 22, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 21, 2024

Pennsylvania Enacts UFLAA

Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania General Assembly unanimously passed House Bill 917, adopting the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act (UFLAA). Pennsylvania joins the six other jurisdictions that have enacted the Act. 

Kansas legislators have also introduced a bill to adopt UFLAA (House Bill 2017). 

Read the full Act here.

May 21, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 20, 2024

State Spotlight - Ohio: Court Must Find Parent Voluntarily Unemployed Before Estimating Child Support

From Court News Ohio:

A domestic relations court must expressly find that a parent is voluntarily unemployed before calculating a child support order based on estimated potential future income, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Wood County Domestic Relations Court skipped a legal step when it determined a man who lost his job during the COVID-19 pandemic could pay child support at an amount similar to a calculation based on his eliminated position. The decision reversed a Sixth District Court of Appeals decision, which found the  judge’s divorce decree implied that the father of three was voluntarily unemployed.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Michael P. Donnelly stated that based on the domestic relations  court’s scant record , it appeared that the judge found David Ayers was “involuntarily unemployed” at the time the child support order was issued. Justice Donnelly wrote that state law requires a domestic relations court to issue a court order expressly determining a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed before “imputing a potential income” for child support payments.

Read more here.

May 20, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, May 19, 2024

A Visit to a "Marriage Market" in China

From NPR:

China, the country that once feared overpopulation, is now experiencing a falling birthrate. The government is encouraging its citizens to have children. We visit a "marriage market" where hopeful young people are looking for a match.

Listen here.

May 19, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, May 18, 2024

IRS statement on agency’s continued support of child support payments to states, Indian tribal governments

From the IRS:

The IRS understands the importance of child support payments in helping families make ends meet, and we continue to work hard to prevent any disruption to these vital payments related to federal tax refund offsets. These payments are continuing – both for states and Tribes—and the IRS will remain focused on not disrupting child-support collections, while respecting the current taxpayer privacy laws. Contrary to published reports, Native American Tribes’ access to federal tax payment offsets through arrangements with states has not changed. The IRS is available to engage with Tribes with questions regarding this matter.

The IRS is working with Congress on potential legislative changes to provide additional flexibilities to help states and Native American Tribes. The IRS is also open to considering extensions for states working to bring the administration of their child support programs into compliance with new guidelines.

Read more here.

May 18, 2024 in Child Support (establishing) | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 17, 2024

Shifting Federal Guidance on Mandatory Child Support Orders

From the American Bar Association:

Introduction   

In most states, parents are referred to the local child support enforcement office and are requested to pay for the cost of their child's stay in care. Federal guidance on this issue shifted last year and states are now encouraged to develop "across the board" policies and to assign child support "only in very rare circumstances." Some states are beginning to address this issue, but due to the obscure nature of the policy, most are not.

Why Mandatory Child Support Orders Hurt Families and Delay Reunification

The practice of requiring parents to pay child support when their children are in Title IV-E foster care is harmful to children and families. To limit this harm, The Administration for Children and Families (AFC) Children’s Bureau (CB), together with the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), announced new guidelines for Title IV-E child welfare agencies regarding the collection of child support for children receiving title IV-E foster care maintenance payments (FCMPs). Their new guidelines encourage child welfare agencies to establish policies limiting support order referrals to only rare cases where the order does not delay reunification.

Read more here.

May 17, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, May 16, 2024

Disabled Adults Shouldn’t Have to Pay This Price to Marry

From the New York Times:

In 2004 Heather Hancock and Craig Blackburn were set up on a blind date while attending a Down syndrome advocacy conference. “I knew right away Craig was who I wanted to marry,” Ms. Hancock told me.

But Mr. Blackburn lived in Metairie, La., and Ms. Hancock in Oklahoma City. They visited each other when they could and talked on the phone constantly. The relationship grew over the next three years, and eventually Mr. Blackburn proposed. Their parents supported their relationship, but they knew that legal marriage would be complicated.

Ms. Hancock, 40, and Mr. Blackburn, 44, both receive Supplemental Security Income, a federal program for people with little to no income and assets who have a disability or are over the age of 65. S.S.I. is also a gateway to Medicaid and its waiver programs, which provide health care, help with living independently, and transportation. When policymakers established S.S.I. in 1972, they sought to ensure that people with disabilities would not fall into poverty.

To receive the benefit in 2024, a person with a disability generally must earn less than $1,971 per month and have no more than $2,000 in assets. The income limits are a calculation of what someone in a particular financial situation needs to make ends meet. But the asset limitation for S.S.I. recipients hasn’t been adjusted since 1989, and marriage between two S.S.I. beneficiaries results in a devastating decrease in financial support. In 2024, an individual may receive up to $943 in federal S.S.I. a month, but a married couple may receive only $1,415 and must have less than $3,000 in assets.

Read more here

May 16, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, May 15, 2024

More States Are Allowing Child Support Payments to Reach Children

From ProPublica:

It is one of the enduring myths of the U.S. child support system: that payments made by fathers actually make it to their families. And yet, every year, hundreds of millions of dollars in child support is instead intercepted by federal and state governments — as reimbursement for the mother having received welfare at some point.

But that may be changing. Since a 2021 ProPublica investigation found that child support payments totaling $1.7 billion annually were taken from families and redirected into state coffers, at least six states have rewritten their laws and policies to allow the money to flow directly to kids.

New Mexico, where we focused our reporting, made such a change shortly after our story was published. From Wyoming to Illinois, Michigan to Vermont to California, more child support is now going to children. And several other states are considering similar reforms during their upcoming legislative sessions.

Read more here.

May 15, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 14, 2024

‘Vows’ Review: Marriage, Love and Commitment

From the Wall Street Journal:

Somewhere around 1549, an English priest introduced love into marriage. Sort of. Thomas Cranmer, the archbishop of Canterbury during Henry VIII’s break with Rome, was the author and compiler of the English Book of Common Prayer, whose marriage rite—containing that familiar “love, cherishe, and to obey” and “til death us departe”—is the basis of the civil formula common to much of the contemporary English-speaking world. In codifying the marriage rite for what would be the new, independent Church of England, Cranmer preserved much of the medieval world’s earlier traditions about what husbands and wives were to swear to one another. But to these he added the promises “to love and to cherishe” (and, to the bride’s portion, more unsettlingly, to obey).

Read more here.

May 14, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 13, 2024

House passes bill to raise minimum marriage age to 18, sending it to governor

From New Hampshire Bulletin:

The New Hampshire House passed a bill Thursday raising the legal age of marriage to 18, sending the legislation to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk after years of advocacy.

Senate Bill 359, which passed 192-174, states that “no person below the age of 18 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.” Under present law, that age is 16.

The bill would also repeal statutes that currently provide legal avenues for minors to marry. Currently, RSA 457:6 allows parents and guardians for those between 16 and 18 to petition a family court to grant permission for the marriage. That petition must include an indication of whether the Division for Children, Youth and Families has ever been involved with the child, and it allows the court to conduct an interview with each minor getting married without their parents present. SB 359 would eliminate the process entirely.

If signed into law, SB 359 would make New Hampshire one of 12 states that have banned marriage under 18 with no exceptions, a list that includes Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, according to UNICEF

Read more here.

May 13, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, May 12, 2024

Mother's Day and the changing face of family dynamics and custody arrangements

From ABA Journal:

Since I founded my firm, the Moore Family Law Group, in 2008, I’ve witnessed the evolution of American family dynamics. I’ve also seen firsthand how these shifting dynamics have influenced court decisions and legal strategies.

In the past, many family courts almost always awarded primary custody to mothers. Decades ago, that tendency made sense—when a married couple had children, the father was often the primary breadwinner. Children spent the majority of their time with their mothers, and a working single father would likely have found raising a child alone logistically impossible.

In today’s day and age, mothers and fathers often both work outside the home, and most courts have moved away from assuming that a child would be better off with one parent over the other. Modern families divide work and child care more equitably than they did in past generations, which means that custody decisions tend to be more equitable too.

Fittingly, custody law has become a court of equity. There are no set rules. Everything is determined using the standard of best interests of the child. Courts will take parents’ wishes into consideration, but at the end of the day, the child’s well-being matters most.

Of course, not all parents see it that way. Sometimes parents may think that the court is being unfair, but they’re misreading the reasons behind custody decisions. A family court isn’t going to make a custody decision to spite one parent (or both). The court is unconcerned with fairness to parents—it’s looking out for the children.

Read more here.

May 12, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, May 11, 2024

State Spotlight: Ohio's Adoption Grant Program

From the Ohio Senate: 

In Ohio, the adoption journey can cost families anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000. Meanwhile, thousands of Ohio's children are eligible to be adopted. Unfortunately, this cost can prevent parents and our children from becoming families.

For years, adopting families could take advantage of the Ohio Adoption Tax Credit, which helped them recoup adopted-related expenses up to $10,000. This tax credit was helpful, but it was spread out over a number of years. We wanted to do more to help families.

The Senate created the Ohio Adoption Grant program in House Bill 45 last General Assembly. The program provides grants to prospective parents adopting a child to help them better manage the cost of the process. Grants can total:

•     $10,000 to families adopting a child; 
•     $15,000 to families adopting a child from the foster care system; 
•     And $20,000 to families adopting a child with special needs.

House Bill 45 gave $15 million to this program, and in the next budget (House Bill 33 passed last summer), the legislature made a $30 million additional investment—another $15 million for each fiscal year. This amount was an estimate based off the cost of the old tax credit this new program replaced.

Read more here.

May 11, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 10, 2024

State Spotlight: North Carolina, Green v. Carter

From North Carolina Lawyers Weekly:

The trial court did not have a legal basis to order plaintiff to pay child support.

We reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings.

This case raised the issue of whether plaintiff, who is not the child’s parent but who is a person acting as a parent, can be required to pay child support under North Carolina General Statute Section 50-13.4(b). Based on long-established North Carolina law, the short answer is no: plaintiff cannot be required to pay child support unless she is the child’s mother or father or she agreed formally, in writing, to pay child support. The long answer required us to interpret North Carolina General Statute Section 50-13.4(b), which governs both primary liability and secondary liability for child support. The difference between primary and secondary liability for child support is that a person may be held secondarily liable for child support only if the people who are primarily liable – the child’s parents – cannot adequately provide for the child’s needs.

Because the parties are women who were previously in a romantic relationship, never married, and share custody of the child equally, the trial court determined that plaintiff is primarily liable to pay child support, as a “parent,” based on a novel “gender neutral” interpretation of North Carolina General Statute Section 50-13.4. But based on the well-established law, the trial court did not have a legal basis to order plaintiff to pay child support. Instead of being “gender neutral” in application, the trial court’s interpretation of North Carolina General Statute Section 50-13.4(b) created a different result than would have been required under the law if the parties to this case had been a heterosexual couple. North Carolina General Statute Section 50-13.4(b) has the same application to both same-sex unmarried couples who have a child by in vitro fertilization as to unmarried heterosexual couples who have a child by in vitro fertilization if the male partner is not the donor of the sperm; neither can be required to pay child support.

Further, the General Assembly has given instructions in North Carolina General Statute Section 12-3(16) on when a statute may have a gender-neutral interpretation, and Section 50-13.4 is not covered by this statute. In addition, plaintiff also could not be secondarily liable to pay child support because this would violate established precedent addressing child support liability for a person standing in loco parentis to a child, regardless of gender.

Reversed and remanded.

Read more here.

Read Green v. Carter here.

 

May 10, 2024 in Paternity | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, May 9, 2024

Cory: "The Children Are Not for Sale: Stamping Out the Monetized Sharenting Entertainment Industry and Rehabilitating Parental Rights"

Gabriella Cory (Columbia Law School) recently posted her article, The Children Are Not for Sale: Stamping Out the Monetized Sharenting Entertainment Industry and Rehabilitating Parental Rights, on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Saving the children is once again on the sociopolitical docket, and the legislature has an opportunity to enact legislation that might actually save children. A pertinent child welfare concern shared by psychologists, child advocates, and the Federal Government today is an increasing youth mental health crisis and overwhelming evidence that social media use is a primary cause. Meta has even joined the cause, launching a public relations campaign voicing strong support for congressional reform. Additionally, Bipartisan Bill S.1409, known as “Kids Online Safety Act,” is currently pending. This is a bipartisan effort to pass evidence-based regulation aimed at protecting children by supporting parental rights. Despite this progress, there is one extremely big gap in this piece of legislation that runs the risk of undermining it entirely, a generational gap.


Children who were raised on the internet are now parenting on the internet. When a parent posts pictures, videos, or publicly discusses their child in detail online, this is called “sharenting.” In practice, sharenting can range refer to a range of content. Some forms include high levels child participations, such scripted skits with their parents. Others involve passive participation, such as parent incorporating filming into their daily routines. Online posts divulging stories with identifiable information or repurposing of already existing photos of the child is a common form of sharenting. Scholars in law and psychology problematize excessive sharenting for contributing to harm already associated with general childhood internet use: reputational harm, privacy risks, vulnerability to harassment and cyberbullying, or simply amplified general embarrassment. Although those sound like harms a parent would intuitively avoid, the unregulated rollout of the internet is likely to blame for the public’s unhealthy relationship with it.


As technology rapidly developed over the past several decades, the social role of the internet was somewhat of a loose cannon. Sociological shifts in internet use impacted different age demographics at different developmental moments. For example, the Millennial generation ranges from people born in 1980 through 1996, and Generation Z (“Gen Z”) ranges from people born in 1997 through 2012. At-home computer use increased in the 1990s at a fast pace with two percent of American households having internet access in 1992 and twenty-six percent in 1998. By 2007, sixty-four percent of teens ages 12-17 reported to engage in some form of content creation, ranging from blogs to online communities to publishing works of art. That same year, Facebook started incorporating user data into a user-targeted advertising structure and YouTube introduced in-video advertisements and its paid Partner Program. The average teen’s diary and locker room discussion became a marketplace overnight without any real means of understanding the implications of this shift. This same cohort is now in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. Many still use social media as a form of diary or group discussion, but now the topics of discussion include their children. Although this narrative thread is not the only explanation for the proliferation of sharenting, a legislative agenda that aims to protect children’s online safety needs to take the history of the internet into account to succeed.
An unregulated internet helped create a generation of parents primed to share an unsafe amount of information about their family life and seamlessly transitioned into an infrastructure that facilitates monetizing that habit. Increasingly, parents who post pictures and videos of their kids are gaining lucrative mass followings for the content they post. Parents can profit off of this following by teaming up with a given social media platform to get a share of related ad revenue from the platform, or get paid directly by companies to discuss their products in their family posting. When follower counts start reaching the thousands or millions, children can turn into an online celebrities. Child-rearing is becoming a form of self-expression in an era in which online self-expression is a viable career option, all while more and more commerce is online. The result is a new entertainment industry in which parents combine their parental liberties and freedom of expression to commodify their parent-child relationship.
This note argues that Congress should enact a wholesale ban on monetized sharenting content online. It supplements various proposals in legal scholarship addressing sharenting in general and rejects proposals suggesting that children’s participation in monetized sharenting be regulated like child actors. Part I will provide a brief history of parental rights and introduction to the Child Wellbeing Framework of children’s rights as it applies to the issue of sharenting, current court holdings on the constitutionality of limiting free speech to advance the state interest of child welfare, and describe the developing bipartisan legislative agenda around childhood social media use (currently referred to as Kids Online Safety Act). Part II will use a Child Wellbeing lens to analyze how anachronistic assumptions made in the Kids Online Safety Act about Millennial/Gen Z parents run a risk of compounding monetized sharenting’s current harm towards kids and ultimately undermine the stability of parental rights by sharpening the divide between the parent and child’s interests. Part III will argue that a federal legislative ban on monetized sharenting content is legally justifiable under the current state of family law and the most relevant areas of First Amendment law. This note predicts that a wholesale federal ban with the brunt of liability placed on online platforms and advertisers is the most effective way to mitigate the harm of parental social media use on children, and will ultimately protect parental rights of younger generations of families and the individual free speech liberties of parents. The policy analysis will also incorporate political observations about why such a seemingly extreme limit on freedom is currently politically viable, and why it is important to take advantage of a fleeting opportunity to stamp out an abusive industry before too many economic interests are tied to it.

 

May 9, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

Colorado changed its definition of child abuse and introduced ‘Plans of Safe Care.’ The impact isn’t clear

From CPR News:

When Jaid Redmon-Greene’s water broke in September of 2021, she went to UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora, which delivers about 3,700 babies annually. She and her partner were unhoused during her pregnancy, and Redmon-Greene had been using cocaine and alcohol.

When they arrived at the hospital, Redmon-Greene was in a lot of pain. Her partner, the father of her son, asked for a wheelchair. She said he was told he would have to find one himself.

“He said, ‘Since we’re Black and she’s in a lot of pain and we look the way we do, you’re not going to assist us?’” she recalled. “Someone there told me to ‘Just calm down, calm down, calm down. You’re being dramatic.’”

Redmon-Greene said she wasn’t surprised by the response. She had visited the hospital’s emergency department intermittently throughout her pregnancy but said she was never connected with resources—not housing assistance, substance use treatment or food assistance.

Read more here.

May 8, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 7, 2024

Elite NYC Lawyers Locked in Bitter Custody Feud Over Beloved Mini Poodle

From The Daily Beast:

A corporate restructuring attorney at a high-powered New York City law firm is suing his ex-boyfriend for allegedly dognapping his beloved miniature poodle and holding her hostage at an apartment in Midtown Manhattan, plunging him into a grievous state of emotional distress.

In a six-figure lawsuit obtained by the Daily Beast, Akin Gump associate Taylor Leighton says he wants back his pet—who is named for onetime child actress Raven-Symoné and a member of The Real Housewives of New York City cast—plus more than $200,000 in damages.

“Raven is more than a dog to me,” Leighton wrote in an affidavit submitted alongside a complaint filed Tuesday in New York State Supreme Court. “I consider her to be my child. As an illustration to this Court of my love for Raven, I planned an extravagant first birthday party for her in the apartment. I spent several days planning and decorating, including blowing up hundreds of balloons and placing decals on the wall to give Raven a special day. Defendant, of course, participated in the festivities but it was me who took the lead on all planning and implementation.”

Read more here.

May 7, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 6, 2024

Updated Resources to Help Tribes Start a Child Support Program

From the Administration for Children & Families:

In 2020, OCSS launched a project to update guidance for tribes interested in starting a child support program. Ultimately, this effort expanded into a multi-year effort to produce resources that will help tribes and tribal organizations apply for federal funding to start a unique child support program that meets the cultural needs of tribal children and families.

A tribe or tribal organization can apply to get $500,000 in federal funding to begin the start-up phase of a child support program and can take up to two years to prepare to meet federal regulations. Once the start-up phase is complete, programs apply for funding to operate their comprehensive program.  

Based on feedback from our partnership with the National Association of Tribal Child Support Directors, we convened the Start-up Guide Workgroup. This group included seven tribal child support directors from around the country and OCSS staff.

We want to increase the number of tribal programs so children benefit from programs that are consistent with their history, values, and cultures.

Read more here.

May 6, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)