Archives for March 2015

Foster Care Advisory Group Recommendations

Ohio Advisory Group Makes Recommendations to Attorney General

Ohio Advisory Group Makes Recommendations to Attorney GeneralIn late 2012, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine put together a panel known as the Foster Care Advisory Group, a collection of child welfare expert tasked with taking a close look at the state’s child welfare system, and with making specific recommendations to increase the safety and well-being of children in foster care in Ohio. In April, 2013, that committee came back to DeWine with the following recommendations:

  • Reduce the number of times that a child goes in and out of foster care
  • Provide more funding for child welfare
  • Allow foster parents to actively participate in all court proceedings related to foster care. The panel acknowledged that this would require some special training for foster parents, so that they could maximize their effectiveness in the process. The panel also proposed that foster youth have a more active voice in the legal process.
  • Enforce the rules established for guardians ad litem—The panel found that there were many instances where guardians ad litem had failed to follow Rule 48, which sets minimum expectations for guardians ad litem. As a consequence, many children in Ohio did not receive adequate legal representation.
  • Provide mentors for foster youth—Experts acknowledged that one of the most difficult periods in the life of a foster child is the transition from youth to adulthood. The panel recommended putting a mentoring program in place to provide guidance at this critical juncture.
  • Allow children in foster care to live a normal life—The panel found that many children in foster care were not granted the same opportunities and privileges as biological or adopted children, making it difficult for them to socialize and develop skills for success as adults.
  • Narrow the use and application of Planned Permanent Living Arrangements—Ohio places too many foster children in Planned Permanent Living Arrangements, where they are not eligible for adoption, and will seldom be reunified with their families, virtually assuring that they will become adults without ever having a safe and permanent family situation.

Contact Adoption Attorneys Cofsky & Zeidman, LLC

At the law office of Cofsky & Zeidman, LLC, our lawyers bring more than 25 years of experience to every matter we handle. Attorney Donald C. Cofsky has personally handled more than 1,500 adoption proceedings since joining the bar in 1974. We understand the challenges you face, and can help you identify all your options so that you can make good decisions that are in your best long-term interests.

Contact our office online or call us at (856) 429-5005 in Haddonfield, NJ, at (856) 429-5005 in Woodbury, NJ, or in Philadelphia, PA, at (856) 429-5005.

Bureau of Indian Affairs – Revised Guidelines

Bureau of Indian Affairs - Revised Guidelines On February 25, 2015, the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the United States Department of the Interior issued revised guidelines involving the placement of Indian children into foster care or the termination of parental rights so that the child could be placed for adoption.

Those guidelines are to supercede those that had been in effect since 1979. The purpose of the Indian Child Welfare Act as adopted by Congress in 1978 was to prevent the removal of children from Indian reservations when there had been suspected or reported abuse and neglect. Children who were removed were often placed with families who did not live on the reservation, or with families who were non-Indian. After the adoption of the ICWA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs with in-put from many tribes, groups, and other organizations developed guidelines that state courts could apply when dealing with such cases. One exception to many of the guidelines involved a voluntary placement for adoption.

After the Supreme Court of the United States decision in the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 1521 (2013), which limited the reach of ICWA and which appeared to limit a tribe’s ability to assert rights over a child who had never been registered with a tribe, lived on a reservation, and/or whose parents had never done so, a push was made by a number of the Indian tribes to have the guidelines revised.

The guidelines that have been published, and which are only guidelines and are neither statutory law nor federal regulations, are problematic at best. While they attempt to clarify certain issues, the guidelines suggest certain procedures, notices, and standards that seem to be far beyond that which is authorized under the Indian Child Welfare Act. These guidelines were issued without a draft having been submitted for public comment, and since they are guidelines only, it is likely that many courts will reject them. Of greatest concern is that the guidelines now say that the best interest of the child as well as prior bonding and attachment circumstances are irrelevant since the most important thing is the best interest of the tribe. For those of us involved in family formation and in protecting children, we have very real concerns about this approach since it appears to violate the constitutional rights of privacy and due process of parents and children, and to classify children as mere “possessions” as opposed to human beings with rights of their own.

The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys has responded to these guidelines in a press release which can be read by clicking on the following link:

Contact Adoption Attorneys Cofsky & Zeidman, LLC

At the law office of Cofsky & Zeidman, LLC, our lawyers bring more than 25 years of experience to every matter we handle. Attorney Donald C. Cofsky has personally handled more than 1,500 adoption proceedings since joining the bar in 1974. We understand the challenges you face, and can help you identify all your options so that you can make good decisions that are in your best long-term interests.

Contact our office online or call us at (856) 429-5005 in Haddonfield, NJ, at (856) 429-5005 in Woodbury, NJ, or in Philadelphia, PA, at (856) 429-5005.

Gestational Carrier – Sherri Shepherd Case

Gestational Carrier - Sherri Shepherd CaseThe news media has been carrying stories almost weekly if not more often, about T.V. personality, Sherri Shepherd, and her court case involving a gestational carrier.

As has been reported in the media, Sherri Shepherd and her husband entered into a written agreement with a woman to serve as a gestational carrier for them in order to create a family. They obtained an egg from an anonymous donor which was fertilized with the sperm of Shepherd’s husband. The embryo was transferred to the gestational carrier. Six months into the pregnancy the couple apparently separated. From that time on Ms. Shepherd decided that she did not wish to parent the child who would not be biologically related to her despite the fact that they had entered into the gestational carrier agreement. The child was born and is currently being raised by the father who is now in California. Since Ms. Shepherd would not proceed with obtaining a pre-birth order in Pennsylvania where the child was born, the gestational carrier’s name is on the birth certificate as being the child’s legal mother, despite the fact that she is not genetically related to the child.

Litigation is currently taking place in Pennsylvania as to the validity or enforceability of the contract since there is no law on the books that guides this. In the meantime the question of child support and insurance coverage is at issue as to whether Ms. Shepherd is obligated to provide it.

This case points out the necessity of having laws in place that specifically guide all parties with regard to gestational carrier arrangements. This is extremely important since all parties should know what the respective rights of each will be, but most importantly so that any child created from a gestational carrier arrangement will have certainty and will be protected. Many states are now enacting such legislation which certainly will benefit all parties.

The gestational carrier was recently quoted in the media as saying, “I don’t want this to happen again to any other woman because what happened gives surrogacy a bad name, and it’s not a bad thing. We give families the gift of life. I can’t wait for it all to be over.”

Contact Adoption Attorneys Cofsky & Zeidman, LLC

At the law office of Cofsky & Zeidman, LLC, our lawyers bring more than 25 years of experience to every matter we handle. Attorney Donald C. Cofsky has personally handled more than 1,500 adoption proceedings since joining the bar in 1974. We understand the challenges you face, and can help you identify all your options so that you can make good decisions that are in your best long-term interests.

Contact our office online or call us at (856) 429-5005 in Haddonfield, NJ, at ((856) 845-2555 in Woodbury, NJ, or in Philadelphia, PA, at (215) 563-2150.

New Jersey Appeal Court issues opinion on the Indian Child Welfare Act

New Jersey Appeal Court issues opinion on the Indian Child Welfare ActIn February 2015 a three judge panel of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issued an opinion involving application of the Indian Child Welfare Act and the requirement to notify an Indian tribe of a pending involuntary termination of parental rights.

The New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency sought to terminate the parental rights of a birth mother who had a long history of drug use and other mental conditions. Although the birth mother had advised the court of family members who may have been members of a recognized Indian tribe, specifically a Cherokee tribe, she could not give specifics as to which tribe or possibly the full names of the family members. She herself had never been registered with a tribe nor had she lived on an Indian reservation.

The trial court found that the statutory standards had been satisfied and terminated her parental rights. On appeal the Appellate Division, while agreeing that the standards for termination had been met under state law, nevertheless found that there had been enough information given that triggered the notice requirement to the tribe under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The court held that the state was required to attempt to follow up on the information received in order to notify the tribe of its right to intervene in the proceeding. The court sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to perform the required search and notification if possible, along with additional instructions if the tribe were to intervene.

This case serves as notice to all petitioners and individuals involved in adoption where there may be eligibility for tribal membership to follow the requirements under ICWA. It is important to note, however, that this was in the context of an involuntary termination of rights as opposed to a voluntary termination of rights which, if all of the requirements are fulfilled, does not require notification to a tribe under ICWA.

Contact Adoption Attorneys Cofsky & Zeidman, LLC

At the law office of Cofsky & Zeidman, LLC, our lawyers bring more than 25 years of experience to every matter we handle. Attorney Donald C. Cofsky has personally handled more than 1,500 adoption proceedings since joining the bar in 1974. We understand the challenges you face, and can help you identify all your options so that you can make good decisions that are in your best long-term interests.

Contact our office online or call us at (856) 429-5005 in Haddonfield, NJ, at (856) 429-5005 in Woodbury, NJ, or in Philadelphia, PA, at (856) 429-5005.

Contact Us

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Offices