For children in out-of-home care (OOHC), the SSW, in consultation with the FSOS, staff, and other professionals involved in the case, may consider pursuing termination of parental rights (TPR) at any point in the case depending on the case specific circumstances; however, a pre-permanency conference should occur no later than nine (9) months of the child entering OOHC as outlined in
SOP 4.14 Timeframes for All OOHC Cases. In general, if the family is unable or unwilling to meet the child’s need for a permanent, safe, and nurturing home, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Cabinet/CHFS) considers termination of parental rights (TPR) as a means to provide permanency.
Once a child has been in OOHC for fifteen (15) of the last forty eight (48) months, state law requires the agency to file for TPR, unless there are compelling reasons not to file. The agency may elect not to file or join a petition to TPR of a parent if:
- The child is being cared for by a relative who has custody or who wishes to receive custody;
- The agency has documented in the case plan (which must be available for court review) a compelling reason for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interest of the individual child; or
- The agency has not provided to the family, consistent with the time period in the case plan, services deemed necessary for the safe return of the child to the home, when reasonable efforts to reunify the family are required. (45 CFR 1356.21 (i)(2)).
Federal language around “compelling reasons” is broad. Such reasons may include, but are not limited to the following:
- No grounds for TPR exist;
- Adoption is not an appropriate goal—perhaps due to the parents’ recent progress.
The SSW, in consultation with the FSOS as appropriate, may exercise some discretion as to whether or not there is a compelling reason not to move forward with TPR. However, the justification for not moving forward will be clearly documented, as required by the federal standard, on the case plan and available for court case review. Policy reflects that according to statute a court review is referred to as a case review.