Concurrent Planning in Foster Care: Timelines and Case Plans

Concurrent planning in foster care is the practice, required under federal law, of working toward reunifying a child with their birth parents while at the same time preparing a permanent alternative home in case reunification does not happen. Every state uses some version of it, and if your family is in a child welfare case, both tracks are running from the start. The agency is not choosing between returning your child home and finding another permanent family. It is pursuing both at once, with federal timelines pushing the case toward a final decision.

The authority for this dual-track approach comes from the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. The statute says reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian “may be made concurrently with” reasonable efforts to reunify the family.¹ The implementing federal regulation says the same.² Running the alternative track does not mean the agency has given up on reunification; the law still requires reasonable efforts to provide services like counseling, substance abuse treatment, and parenting education so parents can address the issues that led to removal.

The 15-of-22 Month Rule

The single most consequential deadline is the federal 15-of-22 month rule. Once a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, the state must file a petition to terminate parental rights and must simultaneously begin identifying and approving a qualified adoptive family.³ The same obligation kicks in immediately if a court has found the child was abandoned under state law, or if a parent killed or committed a felony assault causing serious bodily injury to the child or a sibling.

Three exceptions let the state hold off on filing the termination petition:

The child is being cared for by a relative, and the state decides not to pursue termination.
The agency has documented a compelling reason in the case plan, available for court review, that filing would not be in the child’s best interests.
The state has not yet delivered the services it identified as necessary for safe reunification within the timeframe set in the case plan.

Outside those narrow situations, the 15-of-22 month clock is what drives the urgency behind every decision in the case.

When Reunification Efforts Are Not Required

In some cases a court can find that reasonable efforts to reunify are not required at all, and the case moves straight to a single-track plan focused on an alternative permanent home. Federal law allows this finding when:

The parent subjected the child to conditions state law defines as aggravated, which may include abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, or sexual abuse.
The parent killed or attempted to kill another child of theirs.
The parent committed a felony assault resulting in serious bodily injury to the child or a sibling.
The parent’s rights to a sibling were previously terminated involuntarily.

When a court makes one of these findings, services aimed at reunification stop being part of the plan.⁴

What Pushes a Case Into Concurrent Planning Early

Even in cases where reunification is being actively pursued, caseworkers look for signs during the initial assessment that the family may not meet the reunification requirements before the federal deadlines hit. These are called poor prognosis indicators, and they tend to push the alternative track forward faster:

A parent has already had rights to another child terminated.
Chronic substance abuse, especially where past treatment has failed.
Long-term incarceration that makes completing services within 15 months unrealistic.
Severe abuse or chronic neglect documented in the record.
Very young children, who are especially vulnerable to the developmental harm of instability.

Research has produced some counterintuitive findings here. In one Colorado study of 125 children, when parental substance abuse was identified early, timely permanency was 23 times more likely, probably because the problem was confronted head-on rather than discovered late in the case.⁵

Full Disclosure to Birth Parents

Concurrent planning is designed to work in the open. The field calls this full disclosure, and if you are a birth parent in one of these cases, you are entitled to a direct, upfront conversation about both tracks from the beginning.

That conversation covers what you need to complete, usually some combination of substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, regular visitation, and stable housing. It also covers the consequences of not completing those steps on time, including the possibility that the state will file to terminate parental rights once the 15-of-22 month threshold is reached. And it covers the fact that while reunification is the primary goal, the agency is at the same time preparing a permanent alternative home.

Alongside those requirements, you keep real rights. You have the right to an attorney at all hearings. You have the right to visit your child unless a court restricts contact. You have the right to participate in your child’s educational and medical decisions. In return, you are responsible for following court orders, engaging with the services ordered, and maintaining contact with your child.

What the Written Case Plan Must Contain

Federal law requires a written case plan that covers both tracks. At minimum it must describe where the child is placed and why that placement is safe and appropriate, identify the services being provided to the parents and the child, and include the child’s complete health and education records: immunization history, medical conditions, current medications, school records, and grade-level performance.³ For children 14 and older, the plan must also describe services for the transition to adulthood.

When the permanency goal includes adoption or another permanent home, the plan must document the specific steps the agency is taking to find an adoptive family, identify willing relatives, or arrange legal guardianship. That is where the alternative track becomes a court-reviewable document rather than an internal agency effort.

Kinship Placements

Caseworkers typically look first at relatives or close family friends for the alternative track. Kinship placements are usually less disruptive for children and are preferred by both federal law and most state policies. Potential kinship caregivers go through background checks, home safety inspections, and an assessment of financial stability and willingness to commit to long-term care or adoption. The home study examines the physical safety of the home, interviews household members, and assesses the caregiver’s relationship with the child and ability to meet developmental, medical, and educational needs.

Out-of-State Placements

If the best alternative caregiver lives in another state, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) applies. The receiving state must evaluate and approve the placement before the child can cross state lines. The sending state’s caseworker assembles the child’s social, medical, and educational history, routes it through each state’s central ICPC office, and the receiving state conducts its own home study.

One line worth drawing: the ICPC applies when a state child welfare agency is making the placement. It does not govern a parent or grandparent placing a child directly with a relative in another state. The process typically adds weeks or months, so caseworkers try to identify out-of-state relatives as early as possible.

Court Hearings and Reviews

Federal law requires a permanency hearing no later than 12 months after a child enters foster care, and at least every 12 months after that. At the permanency hearing, the court decides the plan: whether the child will return home, be placed for adoption with a termination petition filed, enter legal guardianship, or, only for children 16 and older when no other option exists, be placed in another planned permanent living arrangement.³

Between permanency hearings, courts or administrative panels conduct status reviews at least every six months. The court checks whether the parent is complying with the service plan and whether the alternative placement is ready. Caseworkers present documentation of every service provided, every visit conducted, and every milestone met or missed. That record is what the judge relies on when deciding permanency.

How the Case Ends

A concurrent plan ends in one of four outcomes.

Reunification. Parents complete the court-mandated requirements, finish treatment, maintain stable housing, show safe parenting during visits, and consistently engage with services. Research suggests nearly three-quarters of children who are reunified reach that outcome within 12 months of entering care.⁵

Adoption. If reunification fails and the court terminates parental rights, the concurrent caregiver, often the foster family the child has been living with, can proceed with adoption. Continuity matters here. One study found that when the foster family caring for a child at the time of termination was rejected as the adoptive family, the child was 66 percent less likely to be adopted at all, and each additional year following termination reduced the likelihood of adoption by 80 percent.⁵

Legal guardianship. This provides permanency similar to adoption but does not sever the legal relationship with the birth parents. It is more common in kinship placements, where a grandparent or other relative wants to raise the child while the family keeps some legal connection. Court orders vary on how much contact, if any, the birth parents retain.

Another planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA). This is a last resort, available only for children 16 and older when the agency has documented a compelling reason why reunification, adoption, and guardianship have all been ruled out.³ Courts scrutinize APPLA requests closely because aging out of foster care without a permanent family produces some of the worst outcomes in the system.

Financial Support for Caregivers

Foster parents providing concurrent care receive monthly maintenance payments from the state, funded in part by federal Title IV-E dollars. Payments cover daily needs: food, clothing, shelter, school supplies, and transportation. Amounts vary by state and typically increase with the child’s age. Children with significant emotional, behavioral, or medical needs often qualify for enhanced rates.

If the case moves toward adoption, federal law provides ongoing financial support for families adopting children with special needs. The state enters into an adoption assistance agreement for monthly payments, though the amount cannot exceed what the foster care maintenance payment would have been for that child.⁶ The state also reimburses reasonable one-time adoption expenses like court fees and attorney costs.

For kinship guardianship arrangements, federal reimbursement for nonrecurring legal expenses is capped at $2,000.⁶ That cap often does not cover the full cost, so guardians should ask the caseworker whether the state supplements it.

Families who finalize an adoption may qualify for the federal adoption tax credit, which offsets qualifying expenses by more than $17,000 per eligible child.⁷ Children adopted from foster care or placed in guardianship through the child welfare system typically remain eligible for Medicaid regardless of the new family’s income, which is one of the most valuable financial benefits available and one of the least discussed.

1
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 671 – State Plan for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
2
eCFR. 45 CFR 1356.21 – Foster Care Maintenance Payments Program Implementation Requirements
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 675 – Definitions
4
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 671 – State Plan for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
5
Child Welfare Information Gateway. Concurrent Planning: What the Evidence Shows
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 673 – Adoption and Guardianship Assistance Program
7
Internal Revenue Service. Notable Changes to the Adoption Credit