This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, procedures, and agency rules can differ by jurisdiction and may change over time. A qualified professional can address specific facts and current requirements. The author and publisher are not responsible for actions taken based on this information.
Key Facts
- Federal level: Federal law addressing state plans for foster care and adoption assistance uses “reasonable efforts” standards and treats the child’s health and safety as the paramount concern.
- Federal level: Federal law describes “reasonable efforts” to preserve and reunify families before foster care and to make safe return possible.
- Federal level: Federal law allows “reasonable efforts” of the described type to be not required when a court of competent jurisdiction makes specified determinations.
- National overview: Federal program overviews describe foster care as a temporary, court-monitored service provided by States and supported by federal funding and legislation.
- Federal level: ACF-related ASFA materials describe child safety as the paramount concern and discuss shorter timeframes for permanency planning decisions and initiating proceedings to terminate parental rights.
- Federal level: Federal program overviews describe ASFA as requiring court proceedings to free a child for adoption after 15 of the most recent 22 months in foster care unless an exception applied.
- Federal level: ACF guidance for the Child and Family Services Review describes courts as stakeholders and explains that external consultation extends across phases including statewide assessment, on-site review, and the PIP.
- Federal level: ACF guidance states that through the State Court Improvement Program, all State court systems are required to participate in implementation of a CFSR PIP when the court system is involved.
- National overview: The ABA Center on Children and the Law describes itself as providing training and technical assistance and states it does not provide direct legal representation or legal advice.
Mark Hardin appears in a 2009 American Bar Association (ABA) retirement announcement framed through the phrase “National Child Welfare Law Authority,” and this archive recovery explains what that announcement described while separating it from current federal legal requirements.
- What the 2009 ABA retirement announcement said
- What Hardin’s described work involved courts and technical assistance
- Why courts show up in federal child welfare rules
- ASFA’s permanency timeframes and court proceedings
- How federal reviews and improvement plans involve court systems
- Where the ABA fits in training and technical assistance, not representation
- Separating the archive label from current legal authority
- Sources
What the 2009 ABA retirement announcement said
The ABA published an October 13, 2009 announcement titled Mark Hardin, National Child Welfare Law Authority, Retires and announced Mark Hardin’s retirement.
The same 2009 announcement described Hardin as an Oregon attorney and as the director of child welfare at the Center on Children and the Law.
The announcement also described Hardin’s experience directing the ABA’s National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues, describing it as a program of the Children’s Bureau in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
What Hardin’s described work involved courts and technical assistance
The archival announcement framed the National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues as a Children’s Bureau program, which matters for modern readers because child welfare systems often involve both case planning decisions and court-related processes.
A later federal grant program record describes NRCLJI grant program final report as being funded from October 2009 to September 2014 by the U.S. Children’s Bureau to provide free technical assistance to child welfare agencies and court systems.
The same grant record describes the center as comprised of partner organizations that included the American Bar Association on Children and the Law.
Why courts show up in federal child welfare rules
Federal child welfare law and program guidance use court involvement in multiple ways, including how courts’ determinations affect whether certain “reasonable efforts” are required and how court proceedings fit within permanency planning concepts tied to federal program expectations.
Federal law in 42 U.S.C. § 671 uses “reasonable efforts” concepts and states that, in determining those efforts, “the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern.”
Federal law in the same section describes “reasonable efforts” aimed at preserving and reunifying families before foster care placement and at enabling safe return to the child’s home, and it also describes a court-linked exception for when “reasonable efforts” of the described type are not required after specified court determinations.
Federal “reasonable efforts” and the paramount safety standard
Federal text in 42 U.S.C. § 671 combines a child-focused goal with a court-linked exception that can change how “reasonable efforts” operate in a state plan setting.
| Federal concept | What the source describes | Role of courts |
|---|---|---|
| “Reasonable efforts” framework | “reasonable efforts” include preserving and reunifying families before foster care placement and making safe return possible | Courts can make determinations affecting whether those efforts are required |
| Paramount concern | “the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern” | Judicial involvement can affect whether the statutory “reasonable efforts” category applies |
ASFA’s permanency timeframes and court proceedings
Federal guidance and overviews describe permanency planning timeframes that connect to court actions.
ACF’s Program Instruction — New Legislation: Public Law 105-89, Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 describes ASFA as emphasizing child safety as the paramount concern guiding child welfare services and discusses shorter timeframes for permanency planning decisions and initiating proceedings to terminate parental rights.
The Child Welfare Information Gateway describes ASFA’s court proceedings trigger as requiring court proceedings to free a child for adoption once the child had been waiting in foster care for at least 15 of the most recent 22 months, unless an exception applied, which it summarizes on Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 – P.L. 105-89.
Those permanency concepts connect to how foster care is described in federal program overviews, including Foster Care – Child Welfare Information Gateway, which characterizes foster care as a temporary, court-monitored service provided by States and supported by federal funding and legislation.
How federal reviews and improvement plans involve court systems
The “court role” idea in the 2009 ABA announcement aligns with federal quality and improvement mechanisms that explicitly treat courts as stakeholders.
ACF’s Court Involvement in the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) information memorandum identifies courts as among the stakeholders and describes external consultation as extending across CFSR phases, including statewide assessment, on-site review, and the PIP.
That ACF memo also explains a court-system participation link through improvement planning: it states that through the State Court Improvement Program (CIP), all State court systems are required to participate in implementation of a CFSR PIP when the court system is involved.
Where the ABA fits in training and technical assistance, not representation
The ABA Center’s role in the child welfare system differs from the role of statutes and courts, and the ABA’s own description helps clarify that boundary for readers.
The Center on Children and the Law states that it is a “full-service training and technical assistance provider” and also states that it does not provide direct legal representation and is unable to give legal advice.
Separating the archive label from current legal authority
The archival phrase “National Child Welfare Law Authority” appears in the 2009 ABA retirement announcement and functions here as historical wording tied to Hardin’s described leadership and experience, not as an independently verified description of today’s institutional naming or legal effect.
For current legal standards, the binding framework in this article comes from federal statutory text and federal program guidance sources such as 42 U.S.C. § 671 and ACF’s CFSR and ASFA materials, which also reflect explicit court-linked concepts.
As part of archive navigation, a related example from the ABA-centered history on TheFirstFile is an earlier archive post about the ABA and judicial issues.
Sources
- Mark Hardin, National Child Welfare Law Authority, Retires
- Center on Children and the Law
- 42 U.S.C. § 671
- ACF Court Involvement in the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) memorandum
- ACF Program Instruction — Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89)
- Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 – P.L. 105-89
- Foster Care – Child Welfare Information Gateway
- NRCLJI grant program final report
