Maura Corrigan Corrects The Record On Michigan Foster Care As A Business

Madame Maura Corrigan

The glorious Madame Maura Corrigan has come out the woodwork to pontificate on the wonderful world of Michigan Child Welfare.

I have arisen to slam her with fact.

(I will update with links).

DHS does not treat foster care as if children are a business

Grace Grogan made some inaccurate statements in her Nov. 12 column.

She erroneously implies that the Michigan Department of Human Services profits financially from removing children from their homes and that we remove children without proper investigations.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, this is true.  Michigan Department of Human Services does not profit financially from removing children as it is the privatized Child Placing Agencies and other so-called community contracted entities who profit, with non-profit, charitable status.

It is called false billing but I prefer to call it fraud.

The Madame calls it revenue maximization.

There is no contractual performance oversight other than "self-reporting".  This is when the contractor reports to the state that everything they do is perfect.

There is no contractual disbarment, sanctions, license revocation or criminal prosecution for fraudulent billing.

Our committed caseworkers are primarily concerned with the safety and well-being of vulnerable children and for keeping families together whenever it's safely possible, and are responsible to courts in every case where a removal occurs.

Responsibility typically means there is some form of consequence.  I have not checked lately but the Child Welfare Training Institute was run by second semester community college kids who only trained in what they were instructed to train: bill.

When evidence of child abuse or neglect exists, DHS staff are legally required to assist parents and families to address those concerns through services that help to resolve any risks to child safety and well-being.

Legal assistance is "checking the box" on the "reasonable efforts" court form for removal, which of course I would be remiss to not mention are ex-parte (you are not told to be in court) hearings.

If the safety of a child cannot be reasonably assured, our workers are legally obligated to bring these concerns to the court for swift and deliberate action — including, but not limited to, placing that child in another home until those concerns can be successfully resolved.

This sounds lovely considering the fact most workers are aware of the high financial hurdles most relatives must jump in order to care for the removed children.  This is just state culture of unenforced policy.

When a child must be placed in out-of-home care for safety reasons, the department petitions the family division of circuit court. This petition must show steps DHS took to prevent removal. DHS must show why it is unsafe for the child to remain in the home.

Poverty is a big reason for removals but what does the Madame Corrigan care, she is focused on criminalizing poverty, a sub-industry of child welfare, instead of going after fraud, particularly Medicaid Fraud.  

Due to privacy laws and poorly trained court appointed attorneys, there is no legal challenge to the ex-parte petition.  CPS just shows up at your door.

Only the court can order a removal and only after the court has made findings that Children's Protective Services has worked to prevent removal or that the risk to the child is so great that out-of-home placement is the way the child will be safe.

These requirements were enacted into federal and state law to ensure no children are placed in foster care who could be protected in their homes.

There are also federal requirements to make sure a child is placed in the least restrictive environment, but since there is no way to file a grievance, as the Chidlren's Ombudsman's Office cherry-picks which complaints it will take, or even which substantiated investigative findings will make it to any legal action.

Of the nearly 150,000 complaints of child abuse and neglect DHS received last year, fewer than 2.5 percent (3,706 in 2013) resulted in court involvement and out-of-home placement of children.

How conveniently does the Madame neglect to state how many children are under the auspices of Michigan.  I include juvenile justice and mental health.  Dare I be so bold to include every child in Michigan eligible for the school lunch program and in a household receiving SNAP benefits?

The state's social safety net quickly unravels under the Madame's leadership, but this is part and parcel of the revenue-maximization scheme.  The more children and families reliant upon the state there is a direct correlation to federal dollars to fund programs which are ultimately outsourced to private corporations who are not accountable for transparent billing practices.

Next, DHS does receive federal Title IV-E dollars for children in the foster care system. That money is spent to reimburse actual costs related to case management.

What about Title IV-B or even Title XIX?  Each federal child welfare program under Title IV has variant cost reimbursement formulas.  

Oh wait, Michigan got busted on those billing schemes with HHS a few times.

Some of that federal money went to political campaigns.  Right, Madame Corrigan?

Plus, Michigan is required to match federal Title IV-E funding. Federal law prohibits DHS from drawing down more Title IV-E dollars than needed to reimburse for services and payments for foster families.

Michigan snatched Block Grant dollars to cover some of its foster care programming.  

I even go so far to allege that the state used federal dollars as part of its federal match.

In fiscal year 2014, DHS received $97.2 million in Title IV-E funding for foster care. But DHS actually spent $202 million on foster care services — including state general fund, local and federal dollars. For every 66 cents in Title IV-E foster care funding DHS receives, the department must match those dollars with 34 cents of spending.

"If it does not make money, it does not make sense."  Michigan Child Welfare Institute Training Program.  Seriously.

Our state's foster care system still has room for improvement. I took over leadership of the department because of a lawsuit that led to federal oversight of Michigan's child welfare system. At our last court hearing, U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds and the plaintiff in the lawsuit both praised our incredible progress in improving the child welfare system.

No where in that Children's Rights lawsuit, or the monitoring reports have they ever addressed Michigan Children's Institute, the dark and nefarious arm of the state to cover up its fraudulent billing and severe violations of civil rights.

It has never been audited.

We do not arbitrarily place children into foster care. And Michigan has no financial incentive whatsoever for doing so. Thankfully, out-of-home foster care does not occur frequently — only when we have no other way to keep children safe, according to a judge.

Madame Corrigan is absolutely correct. 

DHS "arbitrarily and capriciously" places children into foster care.

Michigan Department of Human Services does not, nor has it ever, removed children for profit because it is called revenue maximization and it creates jobs.

Besides, not all children in foster care are removed from the home.

Child welfare is a multi-billion dollar industry,

If anyone questions the veracity of my statements, fell free challenge me.  I got docs.

Maura D. Corrigan is director of the Michigan Department of Human Services.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©