Arkansas Blog: Change gonna come? UPDATE

UPDATE: Big news today, as I predicted this morning, in state policy on foster parenting. But I'm going to take you to the jump so that those who might care about kids can read it all from the beginning without making the eyes of others glaze over.

Based on my own reporting, I wrote this morning that the Democrat-Gazette's Charlie Frago was dropping a broad hint in an article this morning that the Beebe administration might NOT adopt the rule banning placement of foster children in homes with couples who have sex occasionally (cohabitating is the 25-cent word). Another, similar rule of a state board still dominated by Huckabee appointees has a restrictive regulation somewhat in conflict should the rule go away, but that board's rule was so poorly written that it should not control state decisions on foster homes. And Beebe has already begun rooting out the worst members of that so-called child welfare board -- i.e., Ted Suhl of the infamous Lord's Ranch -- as he has had opportunities to make changes.

What does this mean if I happen to be right?

It means that foster child placement will be decided -- as it should be -- on a case-by-case basis with the best interests of the child at heart, as determined by professionals and judges. For example:A needy child might be placed with a caring aunt who happens to have been living for years in a stable relationship outside matrimony with a man who is functionally but not legally her husband. Much better than with a stranger.

It would be a powerful statement if the weight of a popular administration would come down in favor of this child-friendly approach. It would serve as a powerful recommendation, too, to VOTE NO ON INITIATED ACT 1. That initiative would throw up new barriers to adoption and foster parenting in state law.

I think the possibility of this wonderful change of heart by the state, which is currently enforcing the no-cohabitants rule ad hoc, is illustrated by Frago's discussion toward the end of his story. He writes about what would happen if the rule -- subject of a mostly critical public hearing yesterday -- is not formally approved. I hope I can say someday that you heard a prediction of the news here first.

UPDATE: Beebe has now confirmed to another reporter what I understood was in the works. (When I asked about this yesterday, Beebe people wouldn't tell me about it. I guess that's what you get for speaking ill of St. Mike II.) The state appears ready to back away from the rule on unmarried couples as foster parents.

An unreserved thumbs-up for the governor if this occurs. The governor has every bit of the political capital necessary to take this action, which is nothing more than common sense and humane. The noisy "Christians" who see this issue solely through the lens of homophobia -- not the simple child welfare issue that it is -- spook many politicians. Beebe, forever, has been nothing but a cautious politician, so I don't mean to say it was wholly easy for him to join the entire medical and social services community in support of this change.

Like I said this morning, you heard about this change here first, not from the AP.

But, no, I'm not ready to confer sainthood on the governor just yet. Child services is a much larger issue than this one rule.

I'd still like to hear from the governor (thanks, no more mush from the stonewallers and deceivers among his enablers): 1) What he found wrong at DHS that has required a top-to-bottom reivew and changes of personnel there; 2) a comprehensive list of personnel changes as a result of that review; 3) actions, if any, taken against people who failed to carry out their duties; 4) the causes of deaths of four foster children who died AFTER the reorganization began and the state's culpability, if any, and actions taken as a result; 5) an explanation of the handling by DHS of the case of a two-year-old found by Little Rock police nearly beaten to death not long after a complaint was made to a DHS worker and after the child went home to a household in which a DHS worker lived; 6) a statement from the governor on how he feels about a private foster parent recruitment agency the state promotes that makes sure to bar from its services gay people, unmarried couples and people who won't sign an oath about their sexual practices; 7) a demonstration, through statistics, that there's an aggressive, active and competent foster parent recruitment program by the state itself; 8) and, if 7) is so, an explanation of why the state never responded to a woman denied a place in foster parenting by the private agency because she refused to sign their sexual loyalty oath; 9) an explanation why, if so many things were wrong, so many Huckabee-era people remain in the same highly paid positions at DHS.

That's a start of a list for the governor, who has so far refused to address them for me despite weeks of requests. Since, I don't expect any more response from Beebe on these questions than he has provided previously, that ought to do for the time being.

Nonetheless, governor, thanks for something.

Comments

I have ZERO faith that Mike Beebe will ever, ever do the right thing on a social issue. He's a good ole boy who'll slap your back and tell ya he'll see you on Sunday Republican with a D in front of his name. Not a bad man, but one without the strength or courage to make the important stands on the issues that matter to me.

Posted by: calmwriter | October 3, 2008 11:30 AM

One of my problems with the ban is that its just whacked to say (1) you have to be married to foster kids but (2) gays can't marry.

So theoretically, even if you wanted to exclude co-habitating couples or couples "living in sin", gay couples do not have any way to "legitimize" their relationship in Arkansas. So they will always be co-habitating -- the State doesn't give them the choice not to like it does for heterosexual couples.

One one hand, the State wants you to be married to foster kids, while at the same time denying that right to marry for certain groups.

Posted by: Solon | October 3, 2008 12:23 PM

Solon, the reason they are doing this is so gays cannot adopt kids. They know gays cannot marry in AR.
I wonder what would happen though if a same-sex couple married in another state wanted to adopt a child in AR once they become AR citizens? You can't say they're not legally married. They are not married under AR law but they are under someone else's law.
::shrug::

It's these kid of amendments that make me so glad I'm getting out of this state once I get out of college.

Posted by: EcoFemme | October 3, 2008 12:45 PM

It is quite simple, as a child of the foster system, I was one. We just want to be loved. We do not care about your rhetoric on who should have us as long as there is love involved. I would suggest for all the people that want to limit who can have a child.....maybe make them become full time care givers.

Posted by: Creatingmovement | October 3, 2008 01:33 PM

"Solon, the reason they are doing this is so gays cannot adopt kids. They know gays cannot marry in AR."

Gays can adopt. They just can't foster under this arrangement.

Posted by: jrb | October 3, 2008 02:15 PM

Regarding the legality of denying same-sex marriage, Article Four of the Constitution states:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

"Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Constitutionally, no State has a right to ignore or dismiss civil agreements reached in other States. If a same-sex couple marries in Massachusetts or California, no State may legally deny that marriage. All States are required to fully recognize that marriage because it is a civil matter. The various "State Defense of Marriage Acts" are completely unconstitutional.

"So let's amend the U.S. Constitution," says George W. Bust. Er, Bush.

Only problem? Article Six.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Our wise Founding Fathers thus ensured that the Constitution is prevented from contradicting itself. A Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment that deprives a singled-out minority populace of any rights clearly contradicts Article Four and Amendment Nine of the Constitution. States don't have the right to pick and choose the people to whom it will acknowledge rights and privileges.

If same-sex couples are barred from marriage, it is an abridgment of the privileges they are entitled to as citizens of the United States; it would be a deprivation of liberty and would strip same-sex couples of equal protection under the laws. It is discriminatory and the Fourteenth Article unequivocally states that selectively granting privileges is not allowed in the United States of America.

So whatever the argumentative approach toward banning same-sex marriage the US Constitution, it's clear that doing so is illegal, even to the point of prohibiting Congress the authority to amend or revise the Constitution so that it contradicts itself.

That's what the bigots don't want you to know.

Only now, you do.

Posted by: NormaBates | October 3, 2008 05:06 PM

NB,
I'm not a lawyer, but could you explain how a federal amendment that amends the U.S. Constitution can be in violation of the Constitution - unconstitutional? That is the very definition of what an amendment does - modifies what was previously written. The Fourteenth Amendment that you cited did just that. For instance, the amendments that extended voting rights changed (contradicted) what was in the original body of the Constitution. An amendment that would ban same-sex marriages would be a shameful and regressive legalization of bigotry and hate in the constitution, but, if it passes, it would not be unconstitutional. Let's not use misrepresentations like the pushers of discrimination do.

Posted by: Jim Lendall | October 3, 2008 09:12 PM

Oh, Jim. Jim. CAREFULLY reread the post. The 14th Amendment "modification" you cite was to INCLUDE previously (unconstitutionally) excluded minorities. That Amendment made SPECIFIC what was already embodied in the Constitution but previously skirted or ignored.

That's exactly the reverse of the same-sex marriage situation, which is a retrograde attempt to EXCLUDE a minority, thus going against the very provisions in the Constitution that prevent exactly that.

INCLUSIVE = CONSTITUTIONAL.

EXCLUSIVE = UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Posted by: NormaBates | October 3, 2008 09:25 PM

Again, Jim, as above, "prohibiting Congress the authority to amend or revise the Constitution so that it contradicts itself" is Constitutional.

Amending the Constitution to contradict itself, which is what the same-sex inequality amendments would do, is not.

That'll be $215 for my ten minutes. My hourly fee is $1290.

Yes, I'm that good. How do you think I can live in Chenal?

PayPal it to me.

Honor system.

Posted by: NormaBates | October 3, 2008 09:31 PM

NB,
The ratifying of amendments to the U.S. Constitution is done by the vote of the several states, not unilaterally by Congress. And yes an amendment can be of ANY type, modifying, adding, or subtracting (repealing) rights or provisions of the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Look at the history of the Prohibition Amendments (18th and 21st Amendments). With the requisite number of states ratifying the Congressional resolution, even blatantly unconscionable changes would not be unconstitutional.

Was it a bar that you passed or the one that you lingered in the basis for your legal expertise? I've already admitted the I am not a lawyer, but I have taken a few constitutional law college courses and visited some law facilities, sometimes involuntarily. Perhaps if a real expert in constitutional law would weigh in, we'd be able to avoid acting like the opposition that consciously uses misinformation.

Posted by: Jim Lendall | October 4, 2008 09:35 AM

Max's Keyboard is Mightier than the Suhl.

Good job. This change in Beebe's position would not have happened without your blogging the issue.

Posted by: Cassandra | October 4, 2008 12:08 PM

Arkansas Blog

Change gonna come? UPDATE

Comments

Post a comment