What a sad story. DSS workers are overloaded with cases and have limited funds. I know their jobs are tough. Those who need and deserve help often fall between the cracks. What is the answer???

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the case referred to in the lte, nor with the rational behind DSS' handling of it.

However, from my limited past interactions with their personel and director I would suspect the perceived problem originates with their legal mandates and options and not from a lack of concern in the local department.

From what I understand, this case involves a Habitat for Humanity house that was left to the boy upon his adopted father's death. At that time he was sent to foster care and the DSS, in their infinite wisdom, decided not to make the mortgage payment from his Social Security check. The house was in or near foreclosure when someone (Guardian Ad Litem, I think) interceded on the boy's behalf and took DSS to court. They were ordered to pay the mortgage out of his Social Security check but have appealed this decision. Guess they don't think he deserves to have a place to live when he ages out of their little system. I'm not familiar with laws pertaining to a situation like this, but it seems a little common sense would be in order here.

Judging from what you said Kel, I'm inclined to agree. I'll try to read the original article later today.

I in no way meant to implicate individual DSS workers in my statements. They work very hard for very little. I criticize instead DSS as an institution that has been forced to care more about numbers than individuals. But enforcing a mandate meant to save money is not always the right thing to do, and we as a society tend to ignore that. The situation at DSS is indicative of a larger societal problem: our priorities are completely out of wack. And as a result, those most unable to defend themselves, (i.e. minors, minorities, the elderly) find themselves the victims of skewed and faulty values.

I'll play devil's advocate today. First, you have to have some rigidity of policies and procedures in order to be fair, organized, etc.

Without knowing the exact circumstances, I have to question the wisdom of using SS checks to pay the mortgage for a home that is not being lived in. How old was the boy and how long would the home be vacant? Besides mortgage costs, I'd think you'd have to consider tax costs as well as maintenance costs.

A home is not going to hold up well with nobody living in it or maintaining it.

When the boy gets out of foster care, how exactly would he continue to make mortgage payments on it? If I'm correct, foster care ends at 18 years old. That doesn't give time to get a college degree and it isn't exactly easy to get a job with a high school education and immediately be able to afford a mortgage payment.

The purpose of social security is to provide for the living expenses of the child while they are a child. To my knowledge, paying the mortgage on a home the child does not live in does not provide for the child currently. If the purpose of social security checks was to create a nest egg for the child, then why not just invest it all in a good interest bearing investment? That way the child could use it for a college education, a new home, or a Trans-Am when they become an adult.

I just think there are so many extenuating circumstances that they can't even be addressed in this lte. That's part of the reason I understand why policies and procedures are so cut and dry.

You raise some good points, nit. However, I'm still not convinced that allowing the house to go into foreclosure is the best solution. Don't know how much equity there is, but maybe DSS could have considered selling it and using the money for the boy's care??

I'm not sure how old he was when his father died, but I believe he was a teenager.

As far as him affording a mortgage payment when he turns 18; I'm assuming he will have to pay rent to live wherever he goes. What's the difference? Oh, that's right...he'll be 18...not DSS's worry any more...just put him out into the world homeless 'cause DSS has done their duty. Yeah, that sounds GREAT!

I don't know anything about the payments on a Habitat house, but I'm assuming they would be pretty reasonable. After all, isn't that the point of the Habitat program?

I certainly understand the value of policies and procedures; I just get a little upset when they override common sense and common decency.

I agree that there is are many unknowns about this particular situation but I still don't agree with letting the house go into foreclosure.

Kel,

You make some good points and I understand what you mean about form over substance. I honestly don't know whether selling the house would be better than foreclosing on it. Like you said, it would probably depend on the equity invested, marketability and all kinds of factors. I agree with you that it is a screwed up situation and can understand the your feelings about common sense.

I guess the positive thing is that at least we do have protections in place for children like this (although I have major issues with DSS). As far as him being homeless, I see it as more likely that he would be transitioned to some other type of social service (welfare, section 8 etc). It isn't very encouraging and perhaps there is a way that we can help?

I have a family relative who is involved with the Guardian Ad Litem. They work very closely with DSS. As nit suggests we don't have all the information on this case, so everyone has a point and I lean more toward nit's perspective. The impression that I would have though is that much thought and discussion between both agencies (DSS and GAL) went into this decision. They don't always agree but decisions are not frivilously made either. I know personnel from both agencies who work overtime and on weekends so that the child's interests are handled as well as possible.