Fostering Relations

Maryland and D.C. need to cooperate on homes for needy children.

THERE'S NO GOOD reason to place a child in foster care when responsible relatives are willing to open their homes. Too often, though, that's exactly what happens to D.C. children in need. Their misfortune is caused by having relatives who live in the Maryland suburbs, where indifferent officials make placement difficult. No doubt the District's troubled child welfare agency shares in the blame, but it is children who are being hurt as the problem stays unresolved.

New attention to this long-standing issue comes in a recent report by the court monitor in a federal case involving D.C. child and family services. The report decries that "far too many children" are placed with strangers because the District can't get Maryland to inspect or license the homes of relatives in a timely manner. The dispute centers on the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, a nationwide agreement that governs the placement of children across state lines. It's not unusual for states to encounter delays under this system, which many see as archaic. But the problem is pronounced for the District, given its small size and the movement of many families to Maryland, particularly Prince George's County.

That the city looks to Maryland for most of its foster care placements, not just kinship arrangements, is an obvious irritant. It's always a struggle to find foster homes, and since the District pays foster parents more than Maryland, the state fears it will lose out on finding homes for its children. Then, too, the District hasn't always been a good neighbor. For many years it simply flouted the compact's requirements by placing children in homes without Maryland oversight. By all accounts, though, those days are in the past as the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency, while it still has a way to go, has made enormous progress in reforming its operations.

Clearly, one factor influencing Maryland's stance is worry about the possible financial implications of accepting abused and neglected children, who typically have myriad medical and social needs. The District picks up the tab, including school tuition costs, as long as the child is in foster or temporary care but not necessarily in the event of adoption or permanent placement.

The District is getting guidance from national advocates; retired Alexandria family court judge Stephen W. Rideout has been enlisted. It's encouraging that Maryland officials have signaled a willingness to talk. An obvious solution is to follow the example of other states and broker a border arrangement that would ease placements in, say, a 50-mile radius. Such an agreement would do well to include Virginia; we're recalling here the tragedy of a little boy horribly injured by a foster parent when he had relatives in Virginia who had hoped to adopt him. If the jurisdictions don't come up with a solution, it's clear from the exasperated report of the court monitor that legal or congressional intervention will be sought.