Should CPS take Social Security money away from...

A sixteen year old boy in foster care, John G., wanted to travel to Washington DC to testify before Congress because CPS is taking away his Social Security money. But now he's decided not to go because of stress and pressures from the social service agency that did not want to lose his money.

The Department of Social Services wants to use the money to "offset the cost of his care" but John wants to spend it on the upkeep of a house inherited from his late adoptive father.

It's in the news: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/16668317.htm

What do you think should be done with the money?

Should the child welfare caseworkers pressure him not to testify in Washington DC?

Comments: 12

Joe T. Feb 11, 2007, 3:25pm EST

He should testify and use the money in whatever fashion that he should decide.

reply to this comment

Jenny D. Feb 11, 2007, 3:36pm EST

I agree with Joe completely.

reply to this comment

Peter Wimsey Feb 11, 2007, 3:49pm EST

If a child is in Foster Care, he is being supported by public funds paid to the foster parents.
The child should not be recieving an "income" from social security while he is already a ward of the state.

reply to this comment

Joe T. Feb 11, 2007, 3:50pm EST

Peter - I agree if it is a child but this boy is old enough to be emancipated and should be.

reply to this comment

Laura H. Feb 11, 2007, 3:54pm EST

Sticky situation, there will be more like this to follow for sure.

reply to this comment

Eyvonne H. Feb 11, 2007, 5:26pm EST

He needs to be emancipated so that he can function as an adult and use his money for what he wants and leave the system behind.

reply to this comment

Rex T. Feb 11, 2007, 6:48pm EST

Depending on state law, he may not be eligible for emancipation. In Maryland, only married, pregnant girls under 18 can legally be emancipated.

reply to this comment

Linda M. Feb 12, 2007, 1:18am EST

I agree that the boy, at 16, should be allowed to be emancipated so he can spend his money on what's important to him. He has an income and a place to live, so why is he in state custody? I also wonder if he'll still have that home by the time he's 18. If it isn't being taken care of the county that's holding him in custody might take it, and even if it is in good shape, they might take it because they say he owes him money for his stay in foster care. I'm glad he's got an attorney looking after his needs. Kids at 16 can be so naive and gullible, and so easily taken advantage of.

reply to this comment

Jessie W. Feb 12, 2007, 1:25am EST

Well, I'm glad to see someone else said that. My thoughts were, the boy now owns a house and has social security to support him. In today's society, he's not exactly a child and not exactly a man. They should emancipate him, he should use his social security to live on, and a mentor should be sought for him, kind of like through Big Brother's of America. Or, if he wants, he should be allowed to sell the house and put the money into a college fund, stay in foster care until he goes to school. But, in that case, I think he shouldn't be getting social security because as was pointed out, the state is already paying to support him.

reply to this comment

vickey w Feb 12, 2007, 10:54am EST

I dont understand how he is getting a check, and owns a home. wouldnt this be considered assets. I thought you could only have so much assets when you received a check from social security??

reply to this comment