{"id":813528,"date":"2026-05-22T01:50:16","date_gmt":"2026-05-22T01:50:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/813528\/"},"modified":"2026-05-22T01:50:16","modified_gmt":"2026-05-22T01:50:16","slug":"new-yorks-highest-court-strikes-down-states-host-homes-program-after-calling-it-a-shadow-foster-care-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/813528\/","title":{"rendered":"New York\u2019s highest court strikes down state\u2019s Host Homes program after calling it a \u2018shadow foster care system\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

The state\u2019s highest court struck down<\/a> on Thursday a controversial state program<\/a> that would allow struggling families to temporarily place their children with people who aren\u2019t licensed foster parents, citing concerns that it would strip parents and kids of necessary legal and safety protections and that the state lacks liability if something were to go wrong.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeals ruled the state\u2019s Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) did not have the legal authority to launch the program, called Host Homes, because it undermined the state legislature\u2019s \u201ccarefully designed\u201d foster care system. It does so, judges said, by sidestepping critical requirements, such as providing kids and parents with attorneys and placing foster kids in state custody so the state\u2019s on the hook for their well-being \u2014 an argument made in court by the program\u2019s opponents, Lawyers for Children and the Legal Aid Society.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Host Family Home program purports to relieve its participants from some of the most important protections in the foster care system,\u201d wrote Judge Anthony Cannataro in the decision. \u201cThere is no requirement of judicial intervention of any kind, and therefore no assignment of counsel to parents or children at any point during the placement.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

OCFS had argued that a state program that didn\u2019t require families to give up custody of kids would serve as a positive alternative to the state\u2019s voluntary foster care system. The agency argued that it would offer temporary child care to families going through a rough patch who didn\u2019t have friends or relatives to look after their kids.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the OCFS added, families are already handing their kids off to others, so this program would establish baseline guidelines for the process and open that opportunity to parents without those connections.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The court said all of this was part of what made the program problematic.
\n\"\"The New York state Court of Appeals courthouse in Albany.Photo by Max Parrott\n<\/p>\n

Judges recognized that the foster care system may be difficult for parents, but said this program could create a false sense of security for people turning to the state for help. <\/p>\n

Families may feel the program sounds attractive, they argued, because they\u2019d maintain legal custody of their kids, and feel like they can be assured it\u2019s safe, since it\u2019s run by the state. However, the state would actually have minimal responsibility to struggling families, as there would not be regular court hearings to ensure the child\u2019s well-being, and individual host families wouldn\u2019t be vetted.<\/p>\n

It would also allow the state to wiggle out of legal obligations, like providing paid services to families, searching for a child\u2019s next of kin, and assessing kids\u2019 well-being. It would also mean parents who don\u2019t want to deal with the court system or an attorney representing their children\u2019s rights wouldn\u2019t have to, judges said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile many of the statutory limitations on foster care can be frustrating to parents who seek (or need) this kind of assistance, these limits reflect the considered policy judgment of the legislature in balancing the interests of parents and children with the overall safety and stability of the foster care system writ large,\u201d Cannataro writes. \u201cIt is not for this Court nor [OCFS] to rate the wisdom of these choices by countenancing a parallel regulatory program that attempts to evade them.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Office of Children and Family Services did not respond to a request for comment.\n<\/p>\n

Host Homes created \u2018shadow foster care system\u2019<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeals\u2019 decision \u2013 which overturned that of multiple lower courts ruling in favor of OCFS \u2013 comes just over a month after judges questioned<\/a> whether the Host Homes program would operate as a \u201cshadow foster care system\u201d when attorneys on both sides argued the case.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cHow is this not creating a shadow system without oversight?\u201d Judge Shirley Troutman asked attorneys for OCFS. \u201cWhy is the state being involved here without the legal protections not, in effect, the creation of a shadow foster care system?\u201d<\/p>\n

The Host Homes model stems from faith-based Illinois nonprofit Safe Families For Children, which has said<\/a> the host home movement\u2019s goal is \u201cenabling the global Church to return to its historic role of caring for the orphan and the widow.\u201d In 2021, when OCFS proposed adopting the program through New York state, three child advocacy groups sued, which kept the program on hold until the state\u2019s high court killed it Thursday.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Lower courts siding with OCFS cited the fact that 38 other states currently have a similar program, agreed with the agency that it had the regulatory authority to create a program like this, despite state foster care law. <\/p>\n

The courts said that, though different from voluntary foster care, the OCFS had its own set of legal protections. Those included informing parents and children of their rights, offering (but not requiring) free or low-cost legal representation and implementing consequences for host families if they refuse to honor a parent\u2019s request to take their child back.<\/p>\n

Court of Appeals judges said New York\u2019s state legislature was so clear in laying legal requirements for the foster care system, however, that those arguments weren\u2019t convincing.<\/p>\n

Lawyers for Children and Legal Aid released a joint statement applauding the court\u2019s decision, calling it a major victory for children and families across New York.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Court made clear that the State cannot separate families without due process and the protections required by law,\u201d the statement reads. \u201cAny program overseen by the state that removes children from their homes must include counsel, court oversight, and accountability.\u201d <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The state\u2019s highest court struck down on Thursday a controversial state program that would allow struggling families to…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":813529,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5122],"tags":[5229,38261,3228,405,403,269664,5226,5225,5228,5227,330406,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":["post-813528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-york","tag-america","tag-foster-care","tag-law","tag-new-york","tag-new-york-city","tag-new-york-court-of-appeals","tag-newyork","tag-newyorkcity","tag-ny","tag-nyc","tag-office-of-children-and-family-services","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116615723637688308","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/813528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=813528"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/813528\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/813529"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=813528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=813528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=813528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}