CBS News is reporting on the issue of what happens to Social Security dependent benefits for children who end up in foster care. In most cases, the state applies for and receives the dependent benefits. The child receives nothing. The child usually doesn't know this is happening or has happened. The theory is that the states need this money to pay for foster care. The contra argument is that the foster care is often terrible and it's not the state's money to begin with. This controversy has been around forever.
I note the contrast with SSI child's benefits where a child's parent or guardian must establish a separate bank account to receive the benefits for a child and must show how the money was spent. Not so with Title II dependent benefits. The state just gobbles up the money.
Social Security's new Commissioner, Martin O'Malley, is quoted in the piece as opposing what's going on. However, he has no authority that I can think of to do anything about this.
15 comments:
Children entitled to SS benefits should be supplied with an attorney to help decide if someone can provide care cheaper than foster care does
The primary intention of SSI benefits is intended to pay for food and shelter costs. T2 auxiliary and survivor benefits aren't as explicit, because the representative payee *may* spend it otherwise depending on the needs of the child. However, in all cases, the representative payee should prioritize food and shelter costs of the child when deciding how to use benefits.
The vast majority of parental rep payees roll the child benefits into the rent, utilities, and grocery bills. Only the rich minority can stack up the money or hold it aside for whatever else. Are we going to point the finger at parents who are "gobbling up" the benefits of their children?
The existing rules for Dedicated Accounts are pure foolishness, where poor parents have to let thousands of dollars sit in a bank account. Dare they try to spend it, the rules dictate punishment meted out. Compare this to ABLE accounts, where disabled children of the wealthy are able to stack up money for the future.
The states are not acting inappropriately. The "fix" will certainly make things worse.
I don't know what the average child's benefit is but in my experience most are under $1000 per month. My child's share of the rent, food, utilities is way more than that. If the child's benefit is more than the cost of foster care, the difference should be saved for future expenses of the child.
T2 child benefits are meant to support the child, not save up money for them to have access to later in life.
Some children age out of foster care but most either go back home or are adopted. So, say we put the money in an account for the child. The child is returned home. Would the money then go to the parents? The taxpayers paid for the child's care for months or years and then the parents who failed to do so are rewarded with a pot of money? Does that make sense? This is an issue that sounds compelling on the surface but when you understand what is really going on you see it is perfectly reasonable for the money to be used by the state to pay for the child's care.
I think Arizona passed the only law that I know of at the state level in 11/23 which prohibits the State DCS from taking RSDI/SSI benefits of foster children. They are required to instead place them in accounts held in the name of the children.
Of course, that same legislature then turned around and failed to make up the $4 million shortfall in funds that this change caused Arizona DCS in their budget.
Politicians. Go figure.
Survivor benefits are what enabled me, one of three children of a widowed school teacher, to attend college in the late 1970s. I'm sorry that today's youth is not afforded the same opportunity.
Jim @1054. Student benefits were very difficult to administer. Students either cut back to part time or stopped going all together without reporting those events. Cutting student benefits saved money but it also was a pain in the neck.
Conflating the costs of foster care with the entitlement to RSDI benefits is wrong, they are 2 different and separate things. Foster care or whatever a state calls it is something that exists by state law and applies to kids of all strip[es, with and without other income or resources. T2 benefits for kids is also under law and kids inside and outside can be entitled to such. I'd question whether the state is a proper payee for such funds without something formal in place. We will disallow a drug addicted parent from being payee but assume the state is always a good one?
Unless the state has in place a setup (like Medicaid) AND SSA is OK with it, that allows the state to request to be reimbursed for expenditures, that money belongs to the kid. Folks may not like it but it does and taking it from them should be a formal documented process with some accountability and a chance to push back/rebut. Don't care that the "taxpayers" paid for the kids care, the wage earner paid for the FICA benefit that the child is entitled to. The taxpayer doesn't trump the kid automagically.
@436 Children benefits are to keep the child fed, clothes and housed. With foster care, the government pays someone to do this while the child is in foster care. Why should the child or the child's family monetarily benefit in this situation? The family that would reap the windfall benefits may even be a less than ideal family unit. Paying the money to the children's family could be an incentive to have their kid in foster care so they could spend those benefits later.
When a person files for T2 and T16 disability and is approved for both, they are eligible for both but due to windfall offset don't collect the full amount of both.
@6:42 - you are conflating. Just because the foster care system is set up (ideally) to feed, clothe, house kids does not mean they have a right or priority to the child's benefits simply because they too are to be used for similar purposes. They are 2 separate things, both with the goal of seeing the child is cared for. But that simply does not give the state the automatic "right" to the benefits. Your fear of someone getting a "windfall" is so transactional but irrelevant. And comparing it with windfall offset is also irrelevant, as windfall offset is an official SSA policy established due to law. Not at all like this situation. And your boogeyman "what if" situations? Easily handled by SSA and states by having clear state laws and agreements over what is and isn't appropriate. So the assumption by all parties that the state has a right to these funds is simply wrong, and sure, they can apply and be made payee and I'd certainly be interested in a rep payee accounting from the state. Frankly, the state set up an obligation for state taxpayers to support kids in foster care and if this money was being used in lieu of those funds, I'd call it stealing. Use it for things the child might not otherwise get, or partially saved to have a bankroll at age 18, OK. But I know if I had family in this situation, I'd likely file to be payee for the kid and let the state do what it set itself up to do. Or get a law passed that SSA can live with to take the kids money legally.
@955 If you filed to be payee for a child that you didn't have in your care and were not contributing to his or her welfare, your payee application would be denied.
Maybe I have a different idea of what is fair to the child and taxpayers than you do. I was never that happy about paying 3 years of retro DIB dependent benefits to an 18 or 19 year old kid for he or she to blow when the parents had to get, borrow, etc to keep that kid housed and fed all those years. I'd tell them the money is theirs but it's being paid for the years their parents struggled to feed and house them and if they had younger siblings their money was going to the parent to pay the 3 years worth of bills.
Re WF.. it wasn't always the law.
I really don't understand the logic of saying they are 2 different things. The state is the caregiver, the substitute parent. The taxpayers are on the hook for providing care. The state therefore is entitled to those benefits just as any other caregiver would be. It is the same thing. By your logic, a grandparent would not get SSI benefits. If a grandparent is raising a child should the SSI benefits be held for a drug using parent? There is really not as much separation as you seem to believe. Most foster care, while run by the states, is federally funded. So, it is the federal taxpayers funding both programs. By holding the SSI and giving it to the parents or the child later, you are increasing the burden on the taxpayers. If the money is to be used for the child's care, shouldn't the money go to the party responsible for providing that care, even if it is the taxpayers?
The state is acting like the parent? It's the substitute parent? That is the basis for the taking? Then it is itself in need of an intervention and the kids taken away from it in far too many cases. The horror stories of kids in foster care are legion, and should disqualify the state as a qualified parent automagically.
If SSA is going to come after the kid 40 years later to deal with an overpayment, why is it their issue when the prevailing wisdom here is that it doesn't really belong to them, it's just money for their care administered by others, a situation they have no voice or input in. If they are on the hook for the OP, then it should be their money.
Are there problems with the foster care system? Certainly. Are there horror stories? Yes. Are the fantastic foster parents who do an excellent job? Yes, there are. Is there a better alternative for children who are abused or neglected? Unfortunately, not at this time. If you have a better idea, let's hear it. The best thing you can do if you think the system is so bad (which it sometimes is), become a foster or adoptive parent.
Post a Comment