Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Stealing from Orphans

The thief in this case is the state of Maryland, but if they have figured out that this is a lucrative budget filler, I'm sure other states have as well:

Public officials in Maryland often justify their excessive spending of other people's money by pretending to be champions of the poor and downtrodden. Don't fall for it. Maryland is just one of many states that apply for -- and keep -- Social Security benefits that legally belong to children in foster care.

This is happening to tens of thousands of foster kids nationwide, says Dr. Daniel Hatcher, associate professor of law at the University of Baltimore. Child welfare agencies regularly file for Social Security benefits that should go to orphaned or disabled foster kids, then pocket the money in their budgets, leaving their young charges with no financial resources when they leave the system at age 18.

Since Social Security benefits legally belong to the minor child, whoever receives the money has a fiduciary responsibility to spend it in the child's best interest. This is a broad standard, but padding bureaucratic budgets doesn't even come close.

Ninety percent of the Social Security Administration's "representative payees" are government agencies, even though they're supposed to be the least preferred custodians of foster children's benefits.

The SSA even set up an automated "kiddie loop" to expedite the transfer of funds so bureaucrats don't have to work so hard to get at the dough. "Picking the state agency is the easiest choice," Hatcher points out, adding that there's nothing in SSA regulations that allows for this practice.

Not only do foster children get no benefit from their own benefits, they often have no idea that child welfare agencies are keeping their money. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this despicable practice in Washington State Department of Social and Health Services v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, Hatcher says.

But, he notes, the Court did not address the breach of fiduciary duty or the violation of foster children's property and equal protection rights without due process.

More

No comments: