The voices of youth are often ignored in the foster care system. A system that is supposed to work for youth can’t succeed if it doesn’t include those it is supposed to serve. The foster system needs to afford youth agency in their well-being in order to be successful. The following article explains the process of the Foster Care system, and the abuses that unfortunately arise from it.
Table of Contents
- The Foster Care System Process
- Rights of Youth in Foster Care – State by State
- Flaws and Abuses of the Foster Care System
- Lack of Youth Agency in Placement
- State implores discriminatory policies against same-sex foster parent applicants
- State discriminates against foster parents based on age
- Failure to remove Youth from Harmful Situations
- Unable to be placed with siblings
- Inability to stay in placement with children
- Health/ Safety requirements
- The Rights Youth Deserve in Foster Care
- What you can do – Resources for Foster Care
The Foster Care System Process
When a child enters foster care in the United States, it usually starts with a report to Child Protective Services alleging abuse, neglect, or unsafe conditions. CPS reviews the report and, if it meets legal criteria, opens an investigation. Caseworkers interview the child, caregivers, and sometimes teachers or medical providers to assess immediate safety. If they believe the child is in imminent danger, they can seek an emergency removal, often followed by a prompt court hearing to review whether that removal was justified. If the situation is less urgent, CPS petitions the court before removing the child. At this stage, the focus is safety and stabilization, and agencies are required to consider whether supports could keep the child safely at home before removal.
After removal, the child is placed in the least restrictive safe setting available. Preference is usually given to kinship placements with relatives or close family friends. The Family First Prevention Services Act aims to keep children who are in care connected with their family and friends. Before placing any child into foster care, the system provides support for families through practices including counseling, parenting workshops, and other services. This helps reduce trauma by giving youth access to the support they need while also maintaining important bonds with family and friends. In addition, FFPSA requires states to be more careful when making placement decisions for youth, with the goal of maintaining or building family connections. The Act also includes accountability measures to help ensure that an individual is not placed in care for longer than necessary.
If kinship placements are not possible, the child may be placed in a licensed foster home, or in some cases a group home or residential setting. Within a few days, a judge holds an initial hearing to confirm placement, set visitation with parents when appropriate, and order services. A formal case plan is then created that outlines what must happen for the child to return home safely. This plan often includes counseling, treatment programs, parenting classes, or housing requirements for the parents, while the child may receive medical care, therapy, and educational support.
To leave foster care, the primary goal is usually reunification. If parents meet the requirements of the case plan and the court determines the home is safe, the child is returned, sometimes with continued monitoring or in-home services. If reunification is not possible within legal timeframes, the court may shift to another permanent option, such as guardianship with a relative or adoption. In some cases, parental rights are legally terminated before adoption can occur. Youth who do not achieve permanency before adulthood may age out of the system, often with access to transitional support services. Throughout the process, the court oversees decisions to ensure the child’s safety and long-term stability.
If you want to learn more about the CPS System, Foster care, and Runaway Rights, watch all of these things be explained by a former CPS worker in the following video:
Rights of Youth In Foster Care – State by State
The following map shows a breakdown of Youth rights in foster care state by state.
- States highlighted in green have a legal, statutory bill of rights for youth in foster care
- States highlighted in yellow have departmental (unofficial) bill of rights for youth in foster care
- States highlighted in red have neither.
Click a specific state to learn more:
Flaws and Abuses of the Foster Care System
Lack of Youth Agency in Placement
Increasing youth agency in the foster care system starts with allowing them a say in their placement. Placement stability has been linked to an increased likelihood of positive outcomes for youth in foster care. Because of this, it is clearly favorable that each person find a well-fitting permanent placement as soon as possible. In order to increase the chances that a placement be permanent and successful, researchers have stressed the importance of taking the views of youth into account.
Despite this, youth in foster care are consistently denied the opportunity to contribute to the important decision of determining their residence and guardians.
State implores discriminatory policies against same-sex foster parent applicants
At a time when placements are in critical need, the government continues to deny same-sex couples from becoming foster parents. Diminishing the pool of foster parents based on religiously-driven policies does a disservice to youth that would benefit from seeing their own values reflected in same-sex parents or from a stable family environment regardless of sexual orientation.
The American Civil Liberties Union brought charges against the state of Michigan for systematically discriminating against prospective same-sex foster parents on the basis of religion. The Court ordered them to desist from excluding same-sex couples from consideration as foster parents and to cease funding from all private organizations that did so.
State discriminates against foster parents based on age
States continue to limit qualified foster parents by imposing age restrictions that often cap applicants at age 60 or 65. These policies are only doing a disservice to youth in foster care that could benefit from a loving foster home, regardless of the age of their foster parent(s).
Failure to remove Youth from Harmful Situations
In many cases, youth’s concerns about their parents are not taken seriously. CPS and other legal systems may decide against removing a child from their home, and placing them into the CPS or foster care system, when in reality, they need it.
Children’s services in Wisconsin received multiple reports that a young boy was being physically abused by his father. Caseworkers documented injuries and concerns but chose not to remove him from the home. Despite ongoing warning signs, the child remained in his father’s custody until he was brutally beaten and left permanently brain damaged. His mother then sued the county agency, arguing that its failure to act violated his constitutional rights. That lawsuit became DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect individuals from private violence when the state has not taken them into custody.
Unable to be placed with siblings
Approximately two-thirds of youth in foster care are siblings. Research consistently shows that keeping siblings together in placement greatly increases emotional wellbeing and success in school. Legally, all states are required to make reasonable efforts to place siblings together in the foster system. Unfortunately, with limited resources and no clear definition of ‘reasonable efforts’, this doesn’t always happen.
Five siblings in Kansas had a creative solution to make sure they were placed together. They released a “Family Wanted” posting in their city newspaper that went viral and resulted in hundreds of inquiries.
“Family Wanted”: Siblings in the foster system make a plea in the newspaper to be placed together
Inability to stay in placement with children
The foster system is ill-equipped to accommodate youth that are pregnant or have young children, often lacking essential services and separating parents from their kin.
In Illinois, pregnant and parenting teenagers in foster care were routinely separated from their own children and placed in settings that did not accommodate their role as parents. Advocates argued that the child welfare agency failed to provide appropriate services or planning to support young mothers in care, often leading to unnecessary family separation. These systemic practices prompted a class action that became Hill v. Erickson, which resulted in a consent decree requiring reforms and the development of improved case management systems for parenting youth in foster care.
Health/ Safety requirements
Many youth in foster care report that their placement fails to meet health and safety standards.
National standards require that each placement provide hygienic, secure, and well-maintained homes. Each foster home should be inspected annually without appointment to ensure that it is up to standard.
When possible, the national standard insists that all children over the age of three have their own room. If this isn’t possible, each youth should have their own area within the bedroom.
In some cases where youth are placed with family, the State fails to properly investigate living conditions. In California, counties were placing foster youth with relatives without consistently applying uniform safety standards or conducting thorough assessments of those homes. Advocates alleged that the state Department of Social Services failed to enforce federal licensing and safety requirements, potentially exposing children to unsafe living conditions. This challenge became Higgins v. Saenz, which settled with statewide reforms requiring standardized assessment and approval procedures for relative placements.
The Rights Youth Deserve in Foster Care
Agency over Contact and Visitation
Your right to visitation and contact with your parents is subject to the States’ perception of what is in your best interest. This is often determined without input from the youth involved and lacks a comprehensive definition of ‘best interest’. In one instance, a Department of Children and Family Services was brought to court for failing to facilitate reasonable visitation between foster youth and their parents. Their policies dictated one hour-long visit per month with social worker supervision, which the court found to hinder possibilities of building relationships. The Department was required to change its visitation requirements from monthly to weekly.
If you are not placed with your siblings, you have the right to reasonable visitation with them.
In many Illinois foster care cases, siblings were routinely separated into different homes without structured plans for maintaining their relationships. Youth advocates argued that separating brothers and sisters without ensuring consistent visitation harmed children emotionally and violated their associational rights. This systemic issue led to Aristotle P. v. McDonald, which resulted in a consent decree requiring DCFS to prioritize joint placements and ensure regular visitation when siblings could not be placed together.
Education
Although it is not technically your right to stay at the same school, the State often tries to keep foster youth in their current school environment in the name of their best interest. In cases where the State determines that it is not in your best interest to stay at your school, they often try to put you in a similar environment (for example, if you went to a catholic school before, you should be put in a new catholic school if possible). In California, four siblings brought charges against their Department of Education for being placed in a school for emotionally disturbed children despite having no disabilities and having only attended public schools in the past. The court found that the Department was acting outside of the law and ordered corrective actions.
Healthcare
You have the right to receive physical, mental and therapeutic healthcare services in a timely fashion. Being denied necessary medical services is against the law. In California, foster youth and children at risk of entering foster care were often unable to access intensive, community-based mental health services, even when those services were medically necessary under federal Medicaid law. Advocates alleged that poor coordination between child welfare and mental health agencies left vulnerable youth without adequate therapeutic support. These failures led to Katie A. v. Bonta, a federal class action that resulted in statewide reforms expanding access to home- and community-based mental health services.
In a California group home, foster youth alleged that administrators interfered with their ability to obtain confidential reproductive health care, including restricting access to contraception and outside medical providers. Advocates argued that these practices violated state privacy laws and youths’ statutory rights to confidential medical treatment. These allegations became the basis for Planned Parenthood Education Fund v. Promesa Behavioral Health, which sought to protect foster youths’ access to confidential reproductive health services.
Safety
You have the right to a home free from physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Upon reporting any of these kinds of abuse, you are entitled to an investigation. There are numerous cases of Children’s Services Departments being brought to court for failing to provide necessary services or failing to launch timely and effective investigations into allegations of abuse.
In New York City, systemic backlogs and administrative failures allegedly led to delayed investigations of abuse and neglect reports and inadequate services for children already in foster care. Plaintiffs claimed the city’s child welfare administration was unable to provide timely investigations, safe placements, and legally mandated services. These allegations resulted in Marisol A. v. Giuliani, a federal class action that produced settlement agreements mandating structural reforms in the city’s child welfare system
In Arizona, former foster youth alleged that state child protection officials repeatedly failed to properly monitor foster placements, prevent abuse, or respond adequately to reports of sexual misconduct within foster homes. They sought both damages and systemic reform, arguing that these failures exposed children to preventable harm. These claims were brought in Bogutz v. State of Arizona, a case often cited in discussions of state liability for foster care negligence. The case raised the inherent conflict of the state opposing the claims of foster youth while also being responsible for their protection.
What you can do – Resources for Foster Care
Know the law
Federal
Bates v. McDonald (District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 1984)
Plaintiffs sued the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services of limiting visits between foster youth and their parents. The original settlement agreement ensured weekly in-home visits between children and parents, but the terms were not met. The agency was held in contempt and the court appointed a Special Master to review the Departments practices. After years, the Department achieved “substantial compliance” with the court order.
Aristotle P. v. Samuels (District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 1988)
Plaintiffs claimed that Department of Children and Family Services failed to make appropriate efforts to place siblings together in foster homes or allow them proper visitation rights. The Court found that plaintiffs did not have enforceable rights to be placed in the most family-like setting and were only obliged to make “reasonable efforts” to reunify families. The parties entered into a consent decree that required efforts to place siblings together in the future as well as proper visitation policies and training of staff.
Four siblings filed suit against the California Department of Education, alleging that the Department failed to appoint proper surrogate parents to protect their educational rights and served their own interests in sending them to an education centre inappropriate for their abilities. Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement awarding damages of $37,500 to each sibling.
Katie A. v. Bonta (District Court for the Central District of California, 2006)
Class action was filed against Los Angeles County’s Department of Children and Family Services on the basis that they failed to provide fundamental mental health care services to youth in care. Plaintiffs and the Department entered into a settlement within the year.
M.E. v. Bush (District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 1990)
Plaintiffs filed suit against the Department of Children and Families on the basis that they failed to provide therapeutic services to children and youth in state services. After a stay and a motion for class certification, the parties entered a settlement agreement that required audits of 100 files showing sufficient improvement.
State
Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (Michigan Eastern District Court, 2017)
Placement: Concerning the state’s practice of permitting state-funded child placement agencies to use religious criteria to turn away same-sex prospective foster and adoptive parents
Hill v. Erickson (Illinois Circuit Court, 1988)
Placement: Concerning youth parents being separated from their children and the department providing inadequate support
Higgins v. Saenz (California Superior Court, 2002)
Health & Safety Requirements: Concerning department failure to require counties to investigate relatives homes, thereby subjecting youth in foster care to inadequate or dangerous conditions
Planned Parenthood v. Promesa (California Superior Court Fresno County, 2016)
Health Care: Concerning youth foster care’s right to access reproductive health care and to confidentiality in their medical treatments
Martin A. v. Giuliani (Supreme Court of the State of New York, 1985)
Safety: Concerning the administration’s failure to provide services necessary to the quick and appropriate response of accusations of abuse and neglect
Bogutz v. State of Arizona (Arizona Supreme Court in Maricopa County, 1993)
Safety: Concerning the state’s ineffectiveness in preventing neglect and abuse as well as its failure to provide preventive or reunification services
File a Grievance
- If you feel like your rights are being violated, the first step is to talk to your caseworker.
- If talking to your caseworker isn’t successful, tell your Agency Supervisor.
- If your grievance still hasn’t been addressed, contact your County Director.
- The highest level of complaint is to address your concerns to your State Ombudsman or State Child Welfare Director. Find an official in your state here.
Have a CASA/ GAL appointed to your case
If you are in court proceedings, you can ask that your judge to appoint you a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) or Guardian ad Litem (GAL). The CASA or GAL is an adult familiar with the court system that will work as an intermediary between you and your judge. They can guide you through the complex legal system while also getting to know you and your situation, and making recommendations for your best interest to the judge. Find a CASA/GAL program in your area.
