news-record.com

In its Tuesday ruling on Guilford orphan John G., the N.C. Court of Appeals made it clear that foster care policy must be made based on what’s best for children, not what’s best for government. North Carolina counties should adjust social service policies with this decision in mind. Government interests often trump children’s interests in foster care.

The court unanimously decided it wasn’t in John’s best interest for the county to take Social Security benefits to pay for care it is mandated to provide. Instead, it ruled he could use the $571 monthly benefits to pay the $221 monthly mortgage on a Habitat for Humanity house his stepfather had left him. The county had refused to let John’s money be used to make payments, so in 2005 it was taken to court and was ordered to do so. The county appealed the decision, resulting in Tuesday’s ruling.

John is 17 and about to age out of foster care, so time is on his side. It’s likely the house will remain his, giving him a leg up on a stable adulthood.

Still, John’s case will remain important long after he has left foster care. It is being followed nationally because local governments nationwide are doing what Guilford’s government is doing: using children’s Social Security benefits to help pay for foster care. States take in $150 million annually this way, says the Congressional Research Service. Not wanting to see that revenue stream dry up, the N.C. Association of County Commissioners filed as a friend of the court for Guilford County.

Counties can argue that it’s their legal right to take such money. A 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision found that the state of Washington could use children’s Social Security benefits to pay for care. But that decision was mute on whether doing so serves children’s "best interests" — and federal law mandates that children’s best interests be served.

The county hasn’t yet commented on Tuesday’s decision. Let’s hope that it doesn’t challenge it. The last thing Guilford needs is negative attention. (Just think of the Scrooge comparisons likely to be drawn during the upcoming holiday season.) Still, with acceptance come tough choices by both county government and its residents. Is county government willing to give up this stream of income? Are Guilford’s residents willing, knowing it could lead to program cuts or tax increases?

The answers to those questions may become easier knowing of the possible outcome: the crafting of policy for Guilford’s most vulnerable children based on their best long-term interests. Ideally, such policy also would benefit the public. Isn’t it better for everyone if Guilford’s foster kids are helped, not hindered, in becoming financially stable adults?