DEE WILSON CONSULTING
Contested Issues in Kinship Care
(Originally published May 2026)
​
Last month’s Sounding Board discussed the large increase in the percentage of children placed in kinship care in the U.S. during the past 15-20 years. The increase in kinship care reflects a sea change in attitudes of child welfare staff regarding kinship care from past decades, i.e., from unreasonably suspicious to uncritically supportive. The shift in attitudes toward kinship care has been accompanied by strategies to overcome barriers to kinship care, including foster care licensing standards for homes that many low-income kin families cannot meet, as well as required training programs that some kin caregivers regard as onerous and unnecessary. Barriers to kinship care have also included lists of crimes that either permanently, or for five years, disqualify relatives and other kin caregivers, and non-kin applicants, from being licensed for foster care, as well as caring for a child or sibling group in unlicensed care.
The federal Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has authorized state child welfare agencies to develop separate licensing standards for relatives and other kin of children in foster care. According to a recent ACF report, one-third of states (including Washington) have developed separate licensing standards for kin families. State child welfare agencies whose goal is to equalize economic support of kin and non-kin placements can do so (in part) by increasing the percentage of kin families licensed as foster parents caring for children in out-of-home care. Washington State’s Department of Children, Youth and Family Services (DCYF) has increased the percentage of kinship families licensed as foster parents caring for a child or siblings in out-of-home care to 61% vs. less than 10% two decades ago.
It is also possible to increase rates of kinship care by revising and reducing the list of crimes and negative actions that temporarily or permanently disqualify both kin and non-kin caregivers from being licensed as foster parents, i.e., applying a single set of guidelines for assessing prospective kin and non-kin caregivers’ criminal backgrounds, guidelines developed to expand the pool of kin families eligible to become foster parents.
​
Disqualifying and non-disqualifying crimes and negative actions for employees and providers
​
There has been widespread support among child welfare leaders and child advocates for revising foster parent licensing standards to better accommodate kin-families. However, I have yet to read a candid discussion of how states’ child welfare systems assess the criminal backgrounds of applicants, either kin or non- kin, for a foster care license; or assess the suitability of unlicensed relatives with criminal histories to care for children in out-of-home care.
​
The DCYF document, “Secretary’s List of Crimes and Negative Actions for Employees and Providers,” (2022) states:
​
“The Department of Children, Youth and Family Services (DCYF) must adhere to federal and state requirements when reviewing an individual’s background information prior to authorizing unsupervised access to children and youth. DCYF must assess an individual’s suitability whose criminal or negative action history are not disqualifying under federal law but may relate directly to child safety, permanence or well-being.” What this statement means is that federal and/or state law makes some crimes permanently or temporarily disqualifying, but otherwise allows state agencies discretion in how to respond to other crimes or negative actions.
​
Convictions of murder and rape (regardless of the victim) permanently disqualify persons from being licensed as foster parents. Other violent crimes, sex crimes or criminal exploitation in which a child was a victim are permanently disqualifying, or disqualifying for five years, while many of these same crimes are not disqualifying if the victim was not a child.
Crimes not disqualifying if the victim was not a child:
-
Criminal gang intimidation
-
Criminal mistreatment 1, 2, 3 &4
-
Custodial assault (if no bodily harm)
-
Custodial interference 1 &2
-
Custodial sexual misconduct 1 &2
-
Cyberstalking
-
Drive-by- shooting
-
Endangerment with a controlled substance
-
Extortion 1 &2
-
Hate crime
-
Incest 1 &2
-
Indecent exposure
-
Kidnapping 1 &2
-
Luring
-
Manslaughter 2
-
Promoting pornography
-
Promoting prostitution 1 &2 (if does not involve violence)
-
Promoting suicide attempt
-
Robbery 1&2 (if not a child and no physical assault)
-
Stalking
-
Trafficking 1 &2
-
Unlawful imprisonment
-
Use of a machine gun or bump fire stock in felony
-
Vehicular homicide
-
Violation of domestic violence no contact order
-
Voyeurism
Other crimes that are not disqualifying include:
-
Animal Cruelty
-
Arson 1 &2
-
Assault 4
-
Harassment (if a misdemeanor)
-
Leading organized crime
-
Malicious placement of an explosive
-
Permitting commercial sex abuse of a minor (gross misdemeanor)
-
Reckless endangerment (if a misdemeanor)
-
Sexual misconduct with a minor 2
Crimes that are disqualifying for five years include:
-
Assault 1 &2 (if child and spouse are not involved)
-
Controlled substances homicide
-
Custodial assault with bodily harm
-
Unlawful use of building for drug purposes
-
Vehicular assault
-
Violation of imitation and uniform controlled substance act
Negative actions such as a substantiated finding of child abuse or neglect or a dependency finding of abuse and neglect are also non- disqualifying in Washington State.
​
Applicants for a foster care license with a background of non-disqualifying or five-year disqualifying crimes are subject to a Suitability assessment. According to the “Secretary’s List of Crimes and Negative Actions for Employees and Providers,” a DCYF Suitability assessment must include the following:
-
Acceptance of a Certificate of Parental Improvement (CPI) for substantiated child abuse or neglect or dependency findings of child abuse or neglect by a juvenile court.
-
Acceptance of a Certificate of Restoration of Opportunity (CROP) for persons convicted of crimes as set forth in RCW 9.97.020.
-
Consideration of the time that has passed since the criminal conviction.
-
Consideration of the seriousness of the crime.
-
Consideration of the person’s age at the time the crime was committed.
6. The individual’s role or purpose of the background check, e.g., to be licensed as a foster parent.
​
The Suitability assessment may also consider the applicant’s relationship with the child or youth, and the likely consequences for the child or youth if the applicant does not pass the criminal background check.
​
Eligibility for a Certificate of Restoration of Opportunity (CROP) is set forth in RCW.9.97. Applicants must wait from 1 to 5 years from date of sentencing (when on probation) or end of confinement (when incarcerated), be in full compliance with sentencing requirements, including court ordered payments, or show good cause why not, and not have been arrested or convicted for another crime since their initial conviction.
​
Persons convicted of Class A felonies that include a number of violent and/or sexual offenses are not eligible for CROP. What this means is that persons who have committed several crimes on the Secretary’s list of non-disqualifying crimes cannot meet the CROP criteria. Nevertheless, DCYF staff have the authority to approve their application for a foster care license, depending on the Suitability assessment.
​
Through state statute, Washington utilizes a review process designed to restore economic opportunity to persons with criminal backgrounds to determine eligibility for a foster care license, a dubious conflation of purposes. DCYF, however, has gone further by including crimes that make perpetrators ineligible for CROP (such as extortion 1 or drive-by- shooting) on its list of ‘non-disqualifying’ crimes.
​
Perhaps DCYF managers would insist that a Suitability assessment would never approve applicants with these criminal backgrounds for a foster care license due to the seriousness of the offense. If so, why include these crimes (and others) on the DCYF list of non-disqualifying crimes? According to DCYF staff I spoke to, DCYF limits the number of disqualifying crimes to those set forth in federal law, and, in so doing, gives the agency maximum discretion in how to respond to criminal histories of applicants. I was informed that the DCYF criminal background checks unit rejects less than 2% of 50,000 applicants annually for employment, licenses and service provision. The goal of the unit is “getting to yes,” i.e., approving applicants rather than disapproving them, in some instances through in-depth review of mitigating circumstances of crimes committed at a young age or decades ago.
​
I was informed that there is no current data regarding the percentage of licensed kin or non-kin foster parents or of unlicensed kin families who have criminal histories, or data regarding the criminal histories of persons who have passed a criminal background check that includes a Suitability Assessment. There is not an organized process in DCYF for evaluating the outcomes of the criminal background checks on child safety. However, I was assured that there have been no child fatalities or near-fatalities of children caused by the actions of caregivers with a criminal history who have been approved for care by a Suitability assessment, as indicated by DCYF Child Fatality and Near-Fatality Reviews.
It is worth pondering how ACF and state child welfare systems develop lists of permanently disqualifying, temporarily disqualifying and non-disqualifying crimes. These lists incorporate rudimentary risk assessment principles, moral frameworks that justify giving some persons (but not others) with criminal backgrounds a second chance, political ideology that influences views regarding the impact of the criminal justice system on racial minorities, and (inevitably) political calculation. Any clearly articulated framework for determining the consequences of criminal backgrounds on eligibility to be a foster parent, or on placement of children in out-of-home care with unlicensed relatives, is sure to be controversial. Given the increase in kinship care during recent years, and the goal of child welfare agencies to further increase use of kinship care, there can be no avoidance of a debate about guidelines used to assess criminal backgrounds of kin-caregivers. It is remarkable that this issue has remained “under the radar” of public opinion for so long.
​
Removing children from long term placements with non- kin foster parents in favor of a kinship placement
​
During the past decade, I have periodically been contacted by caseworkers, child advocates and community professionals asking for research to support their views regarding the following type of scenario:
​
“Jason, a 15-month-old child, was removed from his mother, Susan, at birth due to her long-standing substance misuse, lack of prenatal care and resistance to entering treatment. Jason was initially placed with his maternal grandparents, but then moved to non-kin foster care at age 3 months after the grandmother was diagnosed with cancer. Other relatives in the county were unable or unwilling to care for Jason due to their work schedules and other family obligations.”
​
“Jason has thrived in foster care and is developmentally normal in all domains. The foster parents have stated a strong desire to adopt Jason. Susan entered and quickly dropped out of substance abuse treatment; her whereabouts are currently unknown. The father has shown no interest in Jason and has moved out of county. DCYF has filed a termination of parental rights.”
​
“Two weeks before the scheduled termination of parental rights hearing, the DCYF caseworker is contacted by a paternal aunt and uncle who live in the Mid-West. The paternal aunt and uncle state they would like to adopt Jason and will travel to Washington in the next few days to meet him for the first time. They have three children, two of whom are adolescents and another in college. Both the aunt and uncle have histories of stable employment in health care and education, and are confident of their ability to be approved for adoption after a family assessment. The maternal grandparents are supportive of their desire to adopt Jason.”
“DCYF has initiated legally required actions under the Interstate Compact to request that the out-of-state child welfare agency in the community where the aunt and uncle live undertake an adoption home study. DCYF has also scheduled visits between the child and kin family who have indicated a willingness to take up residence in the community where Jason lives until the Court decides which family will be approved to adopt the child.”
​
“The non-kin family has obtained legal representation, and maintains that it is clearly in Jason’s best interest to remain in the home where he has lived for the past year and where he is deeply loved and thriving.”
​
Caseworkers, child advocates and community professionals who have contacted me regarding this type of scenario were looking for research studies to support their views, and were disappointed to hear that I did not know of studies that compared outcomes for children removed from foster homes where they had lived for a year or longer in favor of adoption by relatives whom they had not met until recently. Of course, there is a large body of research that discourages unnecessary separation of children from parents or caregivers to whom they are attached, but this begs the question of when a separation is necessary. It is easy to overgeneralize or misapply research findings that apply to one type of child removal to dissimilar situations, a serious misuse of research that has had a large impact on child welfare in recent years.
​
I have queried a few DCYF staff regarding the legal rationale for moving a young child from a stable and nurturing non-kin foster family to a kin family with whom the child has no relationship. Their answer was that DCYF has a responsibility, per RCW 13.34.060, to continue to seek a kinship placement for a legally dependent child regardless of the child’s length of stay in foster care. This response does not mention the following statement at the bottom of RCW. 13.34.130:
​
“It is not the intent of the legislature to create legal obligations or responsibilities between siblings, and other family members whether by blood or marriage, step families, foster families, or adopt families that do not already exist. … Finally, it is not the intent of legislature to manufacture, or anticipate family relationships, which do not exist at the time of the court intervention, or to disrupt already existing positive family relationships.”
Arguably, Washington law establishes relational stability as a goal of public policy and gives preference to kinship care to achieve this goal, not to disrupt stable and nurturing relationships of infants and toddlers who have lived for a year or more with non-kin foster family. However, for many advocates of kinship care, kinship care is not just a means to maintain family relationships that already exist, but a source of cultural identity and social connectedness of extended families across the life span. For these advocates, giving preference to kinship care in permanency decisions regardless of a child’s placement history strengthens cultural identity and extended family networks, which they believe should be a fundamental goal of child welfare.
It is time for the state legislature to bring together various sections of the R.C.W.s that apply to kinship care and children’s need for permanency into a coherent whole that gives DCYF and Courts clear direction in contested cases. ©
References
​
Kidder, K., “To protect WA’s vulnerable kids, realign practice with foster care law’s true intent," Op- Ed, Seattle Times, December 29, 2025.
Secretary’s List of Crimes and Negative Actions for Employees and Providers (2022), Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Family Services, Olympia, Washington. Click here to see full report.
​See past Sounding Board commentaries
​
©Dee Wilson
​