(Newswire.net — February 21, 2018) — The Texas House refused to sign a bill that the Senate moved along that would grant immunity to contractors in the state who provide foster-care services and beds. Those who oppose the bill believe that it will put many in the foster care system in danger, and will give those who are already traumatized no recourse when their cases aren’t handled correctly.
The law was initiated to limit not-for-profit agencies, who reach out to the community to help children, from frivolous lawsuits. The problem is that many Democratic leaders believe that such a broad scope of immunity from personal injury lawsuits could lead to gross negligence. If agencies know that they won’t face prosecution, it is likely that they won’t maintain the same standard of care that they would if they knew that personal injury suits were possible.
Both Florida and Kansas have passed similar bills, which allow contractors who are responsible for placing children into foster care situations to be considered as not responsible if negligence should happen. Incidents like birth parents suing not-for-profit agencies for money when their child falls off a bike have created an atmosphere of litigation. Although most frivolous suits are dismissed, it is still a huge cost for the organizations that work tirelessly to find foster homes for children who are already vulnerable.
Frank’s bill, which would sever the Health and Human Services from the Child Protection Service system, attached the immunity stipulation believing that if the ties were severed, then personal injury suits would befall the nonprofit agencies that are overseeing the foster care system. The problem is that there just isn’t any proof that it would expose nonprofit foster care systems any more than they already are. But what it would do is give them blanket immunity when things do go wrong.
Giving anyone immunity against personal injury is a very risky proposition, especially when there are children involved. Many Baltimore personal injury lawyers believe that granting immunity might be a recipe for disaster and that it would endanger foster children around the state. Many insist that you simply can’t provide immunity to private vendors who are put in charge of the lives of millions of children.
District Judge Scott McCown, who is in charge of the University of Texas law school’s Children’s Rights Clinic, maintains that any state employee can have immunity if they are sued but can prove that they acted in good faith, even if something happens to a child. But giving private corporations the right to escape personal injury suits in a broader scope which would cover blatant intent or negligence is not sufficient. If blanket immunity is given the way that it is proposed to be, it shifts the onus onto a child to prove that they have been injured through negligence.
In essence, you are asking an already-vulnerable population of kids, who have likely suffered both emotionally and potentially physically, to prove in a court of law that they were hurt. The new measure comes on the heels of another child welfare bill that creates “kinship care” payments made to any relative that will take in a foster child. The proposed bill will make payments of $386 to a relative who fosters a child. It is a measure to encourage grandparents or other relatives, who might not have the financial means but want to care for the child, the possibility to do so. The hope is to keep millions of children out of the foster system in Houston altogether.
Any close family friend or relative who agrees to foster a child would be eligible if their federal income is less than three times the poverty level mandated by the federal government. If contractors have blanket immunity, that could put children in foster care in dangerous situations. And if something does happen, no one will be held personally liable. Having a blanket policy in place where the child must prove negligence is never a good idea, especially in a situation where they have already been through so much.