Who is responsible financially when a child is in foster care? the state or the parent?

It depends. The State will probably pursue child support against the family to cover the child's expenses while in foster care IF the family has the ability to pay. The State makes up the difference as they are legally obligated to provide for a foster child's needs. The relative foster care provider is not obligated to pay for anything and if he/she is licensed then they will receive a payment that supposedly covers the child's basic needs.

Check the foster parent guidelines. I'm not sure with a family member being a foster parent. Typically, the foster parents get money from the state.

If the child is in foster care the foster parents are paid by the state to care for the child. The parents are not finanacially responsible for their child since the child is a ward of the state.

If you are talking of the UK, then the local government pays foster carers. It would be unreasonable to expect the family to pay for foster care for a number of reasons: the child may have been taken into foster care against the wishes of the family; there may be no family (deceased); or the child may be in foster care as a result of criminal action by the family.

I don't know what they do in the U.K., but in the U.S., families who took in foster children used to receive money from the state.

I thought I read somewhere last year that they no longer do this, but I'm not sure. This is because foster care programs have been cut by the government.

In California, the natural parent must pay child support including when they're in foster care.

initially, Sly, your link says that as a lot as 24% of all adoptions from a lengthy time period 12-17 disrupt, no longer 24% of all adoptions. i assumed that stat appeared unreasonably intense. i visit't locate an invaluable deal about the information of international adoption disruption in the U. S.. i have discovered a source that suggested it develop into 4.5%. i found a study in Holland that suggested lower than 3%, a study in Spain that develop into lower than 2%. for my section, the in elementary words IA adoption disruption that i understand of develop into related to a newborn that develop right into a risk to youthful little ones in the relations. an option placement develop into prepared in the corporate, with a relations that already had followed older little ones from a similar united states, even from a similar orphanage. So, the newborn develop into no longer going to a house complete of strangers. I truly have considered posts on the internet "14 twelve months previous boy from *fill in the country* needs re-homing", and so on. And it continually makes me indignant. i imagine that safe practices is the in elementary words justifiable rationalization for a disruption and that i imagine the adoption company and the adoptive relations have a responsibility to ensure that the newborn would not finally end up in the foster care equipment. definite, I keep in mind that taxpayers are responsible for each citizen and a international adoptee turns right into a US citizen. yet I nevertheless do not imagine that's suitable to allow a international adoptee to in elementary words develop right into a statistic in the equipment. ETA: i visit't locate any stats that say what percentage IA adoptees finally end up in the foster care equipment in any respect. no longer each and every disruption leads to foster care. ETA2: No newborn being in foster care in any respect is acceptible! yet you're making the implication that it ought to circuitously be in epidemic numbers and the evidence isn't there to help that. BTW, seem at your link again. It says that those little ones are nevertheless in the custody of their adoptive moms and dads and not in any respect in foster care.

My daughter is in this situation, in her case, the state pays the foster parents, my brother & his wife.

the state, if they have permanent custody, the child is considered a ward of the state and state 'property' if you will. with temporary custody i think the state is financially resp. as well