FOLLOW US

1. Prevention Services Over Foster Care
   Under FFPSA, states can use federal funds formental health counseling, substance abuse treatment, and parenting programs to address the root causes that lead to CPS involvement. This shift marks a radical departure from ASFA’s emphasis on swift adoption timelines; Despite Trump signing the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA), existing laws still allow local courts to terminate parental rights based on the outdated Clinton-era timeline. This raises questions about whether the entire FFPSA should be abolished.
2. Kinship Care Support
   FFPSA encourages and fundskinship navigator programs, ensuring relatives receive the help they need—financially, legally, and emotionally—to care for children within the family network. This focus on relatives is another blow to ASFA’s outdated framework, which often funnels children into non-relative foster placements or adoptive homes.
3. Stemming the Tide of Terminations
   While ASFA championed rapid permanency, FFPSA invests inevidence-based interventions that can prevent placement disruptions. In a reelected Trump administration that’s vowing to keep families out of the foster care system, advocates believe FFPSA’s model should be the new gold standard.

In light of President Trump’s renewed pledge to “Protect and Keep Families Together” the focus on prevention services has never been sharper. If child welfare agencies and juvenile court prosecutors continue operating under a model that prioritizes fast-track adoptions or TPR, they may find themselves under federal scrutiny.

"I've seen cases where hearsay and vague allegations resulted in the permanent termination of parental rights," says Samuel A. Lopez, a legal analyst and former senior paralegal with extensive experience in juvenile justice cases. "The FFPSA's focus on intervention and support is exactly the corrective measure our system needs."

Trump’s administration has repeatedly signaled that states should not be penalized for taking extra time to help families secure the resources and guidance they need. Instead of incentivizing out-of-home placements, the administration is encouraging states to invest their “humongous budgets” in holistic support—therapy, housing assistance, job training, and more—before resorting to removing children.

One of the most troubling aspects I’ve encountered in my legal career is how the child welfare process can be weaponized. I’ve seen prosecutors use “shock and awe” tactics, sensationalizing mild or uncorroborated allegations to push for immediate removal of children. Social workers, under immense pressure to meet internal agency metrics, sometimes rush to file TPR petitions.

The tide is turning. With increased public awareness and federal pressure, agencies could face audits and investigations if they fail to adapt. The reelected Trump administration has a duty to American families negatively impacted by the Clinton-era "Adoption and Safe Families Act" to swiftly review existing foster care cases where parental rights have been terminated to identify situations where children might be safely returned home.

It’s high time we audit and scrutinize the entire child welfare apparatus. If CPS has the power to irreversibly end the parent-child relationship, then those processes must be above reproach. Parents deserve legal representation, accurate investigations, and ample opportunity to correct shortcomings before losing their children forever.

“Our job is not to punish families,” remarked a clinical psychologist who consults on CPS cases in California, who wished to remain anonymous. “Our job is to protect children in a way that respects the fundamental role of parents while providing any support necessary to keep families safe and intact.”