Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

Sorry, but DHR is robbing foster children

I appreciate Maryland Department of Human Resources Secretary Ted Dallas' recent response ("DHR is not 'robbing' any children," Oct. 17) to my commentary, "How Maryland robs its most vulnerable children" (Oct 14), and I echo his comment about seeking opportunities for collaboration to improve child welfare. On his defense of taking foster children's Social Security benefits as government revenue, I respectfully disagree. Mr. Dallas' asserts that:

1. Other states take children's assets too. True. But that doesn't make it right.

2. The practice is in agency regulation. True. The agency actually wrote its own regulation to take not only children's Social Security benefits, but all of the child's resources including assets, insurance, trust accounts and the child's own earnings. Everything. I think that's bad policy.

3. "Every dime goes to helping that child." Not true. Children see zero benefit when the agency takes their funds to reimburse costs for services the state is already federally required to provide — and for which children have no debt obligation. The MAXIMUS contract makes the goal clear: "revenue enhancement" for the state.

4. The practice wasn't done in secret. Not true. For years, the agency has applied for and taken the benefits of disabled and orphaned children with no notice to the children or their lawyers. The agency fiercely argued in court against giving notice, even arguing a boy's claim was time-barred for not filing within one year after the state began taking his funds although he was a child without notice.

5. The Supreme Court validated the practice. Also not accurate. The court only addressed whether federal law banning attachment of benefits by creditors applies to this practice and concluded no — that states aren't creditors of foster children because no law "provides that [children] are liable to repay the department for the costs of their care…" The court recognized that several legal concerns remain undecided — including breach of fiduciary duty and constitutional violations.

6. The agency is striving to improve services. I agree, and the agency needs more funding. However, it's not good policy for the state or agency to seek revenue by taking assets from abused and neglected children.

In fairness to Mr. Dallas, he didn't start this practice. He inherited it. But he could stop it immediately. Rather than defending and expanding the practice of taking foster children's funds, he could take the lead in doing what's right for children.

Daniel L. Hatcher, Baltimore

The writer is a professor of law in the University of Baltimore's Civil Advocacy Clinic.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Get rid of bad cops
    Get rid of bad cops

    It's a sickening, recurring pattern in Baltimore: A citizen is arrested and while transporting the so-called suspect to the police precinct for booking, he gets the stuffing beat out of him. To further rub salt in the wound, the cops are ultimately exonerated from any wrongdoing ("Investigation...

  • Ignorance on immigration
    Ignorance on immigration

    Republicans have written to your newspaper claiming that President Barack Obama, former Gov. Martin O'Malley and other Democratic elected officials are trying to "give voting rights to millions of undocumented immigrants who came here illegally and don't belong in this country in the first place"...

  • Aid agencies sow seeds of hope
    Aid agencies sow seeds of hope

    I read the your report "Fierce clashes in Iraq as Islamic State seizes villages near Ramadi" (April 15) with a mixture of sadness, fear and exasperation.

  • MRIs for pets aren't so novel
    MRIs for pets aren't so novel

    I read your recent article about magnetic resonance imaging of pets at Johns Hopkins with great interest ("Johns Hopkins begins using high-tech equipment on pets," April 7).

  • How can Hillary Clinton be a champion of the middle class when she's part of the 1 percent?
    How can Hillary Clinton be a champion of the middle class when she's part of the 1 percent?

    Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton says there is something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker. I can't help but wonder why she doesn't feel there isn't something wrong with making $300,000 for one speech.

  • NRA's paranoia is catching
    NRA's paranoia is catching

    The Sun's editorial reflecting on the National Rifle Association convention in Nashville is an important statement on how the NRA has devalued our lives and our society ("Guns and the 'permanent darkness,'" April 16).