If you went and read the law yourself you would have found that only group homes that are not accredited and licensed face the two week requirement, that is also where the concern stems it could cut into state budgets because it's shared based revenue, the cost isn't covered one hundred percent by the government, it's a cost sharing endeavor. So if states want to put kids in groups homes that are not accredited they will not get a federal fund match. Accredited means they have licensed professionals working there that are licensed to treat these kids professionally. As a example a group home cannot be a independent living center for older teens just supervised by a adult, there must be access/plans in place for professionally licensed care. It also does not forbid extended families from receiving monies as kin ship care, though some states do already forbid help based on kin ship care I am not positive IV-E entitlement program does and so far do not see it listed. The intent of the law is to keep children from entering foster care/group homes, if a home setting is not a viable option and a relative steps up to take the children they will not be reimbursed during the period of professional services rendered. Meaning if you volunteer to take in the child/children you will only be covered for professional services rendered. If the parent fails to rehab or change whatever it is that warranted the removal it does not state that at that point that family members fostering will not be eligible for monies. The objective is is to find ways first that child/children do not enter foster care, all this acts does is provide professional services that wasn't available unless children were removed with no income based priorities attached either. Meaning if wealthy grand parents took the child/children reimbursement for professional services rendered would not be income based, they would get reimbursement. It upgrades the status required of group homes to provide professional services, which could be a good thing if some homes, as I am sure there are some, just take kids for the sake of making money but don't provide support services.

Yes I could write a article on it but it wouldn't be based upon a article translated by some women, who if you probably dug a little deeper gets federal funding of some type to run her children advocacy organization, (that's speculative on my part), to a reporter whose half listening and doesn't get it straight and come out smelling like the bed of roses they like to hear on here. If I was going to write about a law at least I'd go look at it first, view various other "professional" resources, like those coming from those who this act will actually affect to get a proper perspective on the intent of the law, the fact it's not the light at the end of the tunnel most on here are expecting, and in my own personal opinion works out more of a benefit to the government if they actually move to take the child/children, (because all the professional evidence will already be in hand at that point to bolster CPS claims) my article wouldn't make ten cents on here. You, though, just like the reporter and the advocacy woman all get some money ...and hey, isn't that what it's really all about?....isn't that the claim?...it's all about the money and not really about the truth.