Ohio's Families and Children Rule Review Site

5101:2-40-10 The Ohio kinship and adoption navigator (OhioKAN) program.

This form is no longer open for comment. However, here you can view an archived, read-only version of the form and any associated comments.

Note: if the PDF document does not appear below, you can either download and install Adobe Reader or download the PDF directly.

Click here to download and view the PDF directly to your device.

Please note this is a brand new rule and is for the OhioKAN program (Ohio Kinship and Adoption Navigator)
2I Agree3I Disagree
Robynn Jasper
03-13-2020 (8:56am)
(B) (5) d and e appear to be duplicates
1I Agree1I Disagree
Crystal Allen
03-16-2020 (11:04am)
Kudos to all for the very thoughtful construction of this rule. Flexibility for brief and more thorough assessments, flex for meeting needs on-line, on phone, in person; flexibility for when to close; SACWIS connection to ensure Family First Kin Nvgt federal funding; complaints mechanism addressed. Ohio has a very good, broad definition of relatives/kin, and appreciate this rule embracing both formal and informal kin and adoptive parents, as eligible for Ohio KAN.
0I Agree1I Disagree
Nancy Rolock
03-16-2020 (12:37pm)
Very nice job “ I think this is very comprehensive and clear. I wonder about the term “post-adoptive family”. It seems to me that what is defined here is an adoptive family (not post-adoptive family). I think all instances of ‘post-adoption family’ should be changed to ‘adoptive family’. Furthermore, does an adoptive family need to physically reside together? I can think of good reasons why a young adult may not live with her or his parent (e.g., living on a school campus, living temporarily with a relative, cases of divorce where the child lives with one parent). Rather than use residence as the definition, could it be something like….where a parent provides care and/or support for the child? (The same definition could apply to “kinship family”.)
0I Agree0I Disagree
Ronald R, Browder
03-24-2020 (4:21pm)
While one might understand what the department is attempting to accomplish, the overarching philosophy of this rule is does not reflect the reality of what families are experiencing. This rule seems ill-designed. Both adoptive parents and formal kin caregivers would already have access to a county worker who would provide resources or be able to provide directions on how to access resources, because there is an open case. Why would families already involved in the system seek help from a “shadow system”? What is the benefit to families who are involved with informal kin caregiving, why would they ask for help after being informed that their children might be reported for child abuse and/or neglect? The reason they are caring for their relative children is to keep them out of the system. The rule further references that the families will be in the state child welfare information system. Will that fact be explained to families at the beginning of the contact? This may also drive families to reconsider their participation. The rule makes sense for Private and International adoptive families, since they do not have ready access to county driven and/or directed supportive services.
0I Agree0I Disagree
Barbara Turpin Ohio Grandparent Kinship Coalition
03-25-2020 (6:47pm)
One of the intended goals of the OKAN program is to be a user-friendly service to formal and informal kinship caregivers who have volunteered to take care of children who cannot be cared for by the biological parent(s). One of the differences between a kinship caregiver and an adoptive parent is that, in most cases, the caregiver had not anticipated or prepared for taking responsibility for the children. As a result, caregivers may not be familiar or comfortable with working with public agencies i.e., courts, children services etc., therefore some of the requirements of rule 5101:2-40-10 may create concern for caregivers which could result in them not utilizing the OKAN services. Once the requirements of the navigator program are disclosed to the caregiver, which may appear to be invasive and child welfare agency functions i.e., input of information into a SACWIS system; “screening” instead of an assessment; “open and closed” cases; mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect; and required provision of documents and verifications, the kinship caregiver may not be willing to pursue the services of the navigator for concern that the child would be removed.
0I Agree0I Disagree
Beth Bullock
03-25-2020 (7:24pm)
I appreciate the work on this issue. My concern is in regard to adding the informal caregiver to the system. I feel a parent who is making a choice to allow a family member to care for their child on their own free will should not then be expected to enter into a system where additional scrutiny will occur. The informal caregiver needs to be supported and have the same access too services that are extended to a child going through the foster care system. Formal and informal caregivers are separate instances and should be kept separate where agency and court requirements are involved. An informal caregiver is a better choice if at all possible to save the additional resources of agency involvement for more severe cases. The thresholds of income should not apply for informal caregivers thereby allowing the caregiver to access services and assistance which will make the situation easier for all involved.
0I Agree0I Disagree
Ohio Family Care Association
03-26-2020 (10:36am)
Putting a community program into the child welfare system (cws) with rules that are cws processes will not serve families. The Navigators are to provide information, referral services, and "additional services." If you must make a rule for anticipated federal funding can it be for formal kinship care only. Can we get some experience before setting such a rule in progress? Making the Navigators assessors and mandated reporters of families vs. provider of services will dramatically reduce participation of kinship families or adoptive families who prefer to stay away from the cws. Kinship families are more than parents and children placed through kinship. Cultural understanding is not evident here. Navigators need to be individuals who relate well to families needing services - individuals who have experience in being a kinship or adoptive family preferred. Information found in (E) is publicity not a rule. Why have a complaint process that has no resolution of conflict? The issues in the rule appear to be written in a cws mindset and not as a community agencies/resource. Issues like: post-adoptive, no definition of Primary caregiver (C), (B)6 definition of kinship family, (C) not giving services to a kinship parent whose adult child who might be incapacitated lives in the home. If the family has a child already in the cws would these services not be provided by the ongoing caseworker. This rule appears to confuse boundaries of service for "formal kinship" families. To collect data do it anonymously without all the rules attached. If it must be in SACWIS, have a strong firewall.