New federal child welfare guidance must translate into agency culture, measurable accountability, and meaningful inclusion of fathers and paternal relatives.
By Kenneth Braswell, CEO, Fathers Incorporated
A child’s family does not end at the address where a caseworker first knocks. Somewhere beyond that doorway may be a father who lives across town, a grandmother who works evenings, or an aunt who knows exactly how to settle the child when he is frightened. Whether those people become part of the response depends partly on what the family can offer. It also depends on whether the child welfare agency asks about them, finds them, and gives them a meaningful opportunity to help.
Since founding Fathers Incorporated in 2004, I have made the visibility of fathers central to my work. That commitment requires looking beyond a man’s name on a form to the relationships surrounding him. When we overlook a father, we can overlook a child’s connection to grandparents, siblings, cousins, and other people whose care may matter enormously. Those relationships deserve careful assessment, especially when a child’s safety and stability are at stake.
The Search for Noncustodial Parents and Paternal Relatives
A recent federal policy clarification offers an opportunity to examine how seriously we take that responsibility. On June 10, 2026, the Children’s Bureau announced a change to the Child Welfare Policy Manual. Agencies administering Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance may count up to 60 days toward the required six consecutive months when a prospective guardian’s home satisfies all licensing or approval requirements but the agency delays issuing the actual approval. It is a focused adjustment to an eligibility timeline. It does not waive safety requirements or create automatic eligibility for every relative caregiver.
For a qualified family waiting on government paperwork, however, the distinction can have real consequences. The clarification recognizes that an agency’s delay should not necessarily extend a family’s wait to satisfy this requirement. Its promise reaches paternal relatives as well as maternal relatives, provided they meet the applicable conditions. But that promise begins well before an application is processed. A paternal grandmother cannot benefit from an opportunity she never learns exists, particularly if no one has identified her as part of the child’s family.
Federal attention to that problem is longstanding. Guidance issued in July 2010 explains the requirement for diligent efforts to identify and notify adult relatives within 30 days after removal, subject to exceptions involving family or domestic violence. It also encourages earlier engagement when a child is at risk of removal and specifically calls for examining notification practices involving noncustodial parents and paternal relatives. We should recognize the difference between a binding requirement and a recommended practice. We should also ask why early engagement remains a question that needs repeating.
Implementing Child Welfare Guidance
Policy has to make it into culture. Culture is visible in the assumptions a worker brings to an interview, the questions a supervisor asks, and the relationships an agency treats as worth pursuing. A manual may tell staff to consider paternal relatives while a familiar routine keeps attention on the household already known to the agency. Training can explain the rule. Supervision, resources, and accountability determine whether following it becomes ordinary practice.
That means asking about Dad early enough for his participation to matter. Depending on the circumstances, a safe father may be able to provide care, share essential information, or help identify relatives who can support the child and the other parent. His role should be assessed as a parent. The search for extended family should proceed with its own attention to each person’s relationship, capacity, and safety. A father’s inability to provide care does not establish that every member of his family is unable to help.
Meaningful notification requires more than recording an attempted phone call. Did the person receive the information? Was it understandable? Did someone explain the options, deadlines, and assistance available? An unanswered call, an incorrect address, and an informed decision to decline are different events. When records collapse them into the same outcome, families can disappear from consideration without a clear account of what happened.
Accountability and Reporting in Child Welfare
We already have an oversight foundation. The federal Child and Family Services Reviews examine agency practice, including efforts involving maternal and paternal relatives. States found out of conformity must develop Program Improvement Plans, and failure to complete those plans can result in financial penalties. The challenge is to make the connection between findings and correction visible to the people whose lives depend on improvement.
National placement data answer only part of the question. In the AFCARS 2020 technical guidance, the foster-parent relationship field distinguishes relatives, nonrelatives, and kin. That field does not separately identify the maternal and paternal sides. Knowing that a child lives with a relative cannot tell us whether anyone looked for the father’s relatives, whether they received notice, or why they were excluded. Nor can a placement count explain what happened to a safe father who wanted to participate but needed help establishing his legal standing.
I would like to see the Children’s Bureau lead the development of consistent measures that follow those decisions. States should record when fathers and relatives were identified, when contact succeeded, whether assessments occurred, what assistance was offered and received, and why a person was not considered further. The system should distinguish biological relationships from legal parentage and distinguish residence from involvement. Public reporting should protect identities while showing patterns by family relationship, geography, and relevant demographic characteristics.
The denominator matters as much as the percentage. An agency can report that it contacted most identified fathers while leaving unanswered how many fathers it failed to identify. Reports should show both stages, disclose missing information, and explain exceptions. For the new guardianship clarification, agencies should track when homes met requirements, when approval followed, and whether the permitted credit was applied. Otherwise, we will know that the language changed without knowing whether eligible families experienced a shorter delay.
Oversight also needs a response that people can recognize. I would recommend regular public reporting, independent checks of case records, and feedback from fathers and relatives about whether the recorded outreach actually occurred. Findings should name the responsible agency, the corrective action, and the deadline. Recurring failures should trigger closer review and the remedies available under applicable law. Publishing the same concern year after year is not an adequate substitute for changing the practice that produces it.
Legal Advocacy and Education in Fatherhood Programs
The value of new guidance will ultimately be measured in decisions made around a particular child:
- Was a safe father reached while he still had an opportunity to help?
- Did his family receive a fair assessment?
- Did a qualified caregiver receive the assistance the policy made available?
Those are questions a child welfare system should be able to answer. A child should not lose access to dependable people because the promise written into policy never shaped how an agency works.
The Responsible Fatherhood field has work to do here. We need to understand these policies, explain them clearly, connect families with qualified legal help, and participate in state improvement efforts. We should help fathers respond to opportunities with preparation and accountability. We should also document barriers accurately enough that agencies can address them. Community organizations can make policy more accessible, but the obligation to carry out agency duties remains with government.
Safety must remain central to every part of this work. A documented risk of violence, coercion, or abuse demands an appropriate response. Relatives need individual assessment, and children’s experiences must be heard. At the same time, a father’s residence elsewhere or unresolved relationship with the child’s mother should not substitute for evidence about his parenting. Good oversight must be able to identify both unsafe inclusion and unjustified exclusion.