Reclaiming Foster Care: An America First Vision for Protecting Children and Strengthening Families

Executive Summary

For decades, dedicated professionals and communities have worked to protect vulnerable children from serious harm. Children who face genuine abuse have been protected, and tens of thousands are adopted from foster care each year. These efforts deserve recognition. Yet despite these successes and the commitment of those who serve, government systems intended to protect children have drifted far from this original mission.

America First principles focus on championing life and supporting women and men who choose life. As such, policymakers must thoughtfully prepare for the broader implications of a culture that values both life and family stability. Every year, the American child welfare system separates hundreds of thousands of children from their families—with the majority removed not for abuse but for conditions of poverty, parenting choices that differ from current bureaucratic standards, or the subjective judgment of government agents. What began as a narrow mission to protect children from severe harm has metastasized into a vast bureaucratic apparatus that views families as problems to be managed rather than institutions to be honored.

The America First Policy Institute presents a fundamentally different vision: one that recognizes the family as sovereign, the community as caretaker, and the government as a last resort constrained by constitutional limits. This is not a call for modest reform. It is a blueprint for rebuilding—shifting from a system that distrusts families to one that empowers them; from bureaucratic control to community care, from state custody to covenantal responsibility.

Across America, this vision is already taking root. Communities are proving that when freed from government mandates and bureaucratic oversight, they can protect children more effectively through relationships than the state ever could through regulation. Programs like 100 Families, Safe Families for Children, and Just in Time for Foster Youth demonstrate this approach in practice. The path forward requires both immediate reforms to restrain government overreach and transformative changes that restore child protection to its rightful guardians: families, faith communities, civic organizations, and neighborhood networks.

The America First Vision

The Family as First Society

At the foundation of American society stands a truth older than the Constitution itself: the family is the first and most essential institution of a free people (Logan, 2018). Parents do not derive their authority from the state—they possess it inherently, by nature and nature's God (Locke, 1988)¹. This is not a privilege to be licensed or a presumption to be tested, but a fundamental right that precedes and supersedes government authority.

The America First vision for child protection begins with this conviction. In a properly ordered society, parents bear primary responsibility for their children's safety, development, and formation. Extended family provides the first circle of support. Churches and community institutions offer assistance in times of crisis. Only when these natural bonds fail or turn harmful does government have any legitimate role—and even then, its purpose is to restore and support, not replace, the family structure.

This vision stands in stark contrast to the current system, which treats parental authority as conditional and state oversight as primary. Today's child welfare apparatus operates on the assumption that government agents—armed with checklists, risk assessments, and professional credentials—are better equipped than parents to determine a child's best interests. This inversion of rightful authority has created not just constitutional violations but human tragedies, as children are traumatized by unnecessary removals and families are destroyed by state intervention. To be clear, some parents do fail in their duty to protect their children from serious harm, but this reality does not justify treating all parents as suspects or defaulting to state control rather than family support.

Community as the Natural Safety Net

Before there were government social workers, there were neighbors. Before foster care systems, there were aunts and uncles, church families, and community networks that stepped in when parents struggled. These organic support systems did not require federal funding streams or professional licensing—they operated on moral obligation, personal knowledge, and mutual aid. By community, we mean the network of voluntary associations—churches, civic organizations, mutual aid societies, and extended family networks—that exist even in urban settings where neighbors may be strangers. These are the institutions that already mobilize during natural disasters, family crises, and local needs.

We recognize that rebuilding such networks presents a formidable challenge. As Marvin Olasky documented in The Tragedy of American Compassion (1992), America once possessed a robust infrastructure of mutual aid societies, settlement houses, and faith-based charities that provided effective and personal assistance. These institutions knew the difference between those who could not work and those who would not, between temporary crisis and chronic dysfunction. Decades of government expansion have atrophied these civic muscles. Yet the alternative—continued reliance on failed bureaucratic systems—demands that we begin this reconstruction now, starting with communities ready to reclaim their historic role.

The America First approach recognizes that these community-based networks remain more effective than any government program. They know the family's history, speak their language, share their values, and can offer help without humiliation. They can distinguish between a family in temporary crisis and one presenting genuine danger. This reflects what Olasky (1992) called “discernment”—the ability to understand root causes and respond appropriately, something possible only through relationship, not regulation. Most importantly, they can provide support that strengthens rather than supplants family bonds.

Evidence of this truth is emerging across the nation. The 100 Families initiative unites churches, nonprofits, and civic organizations in 23 counties across three states and two countries to support struggling families before crisis necessitates state intervention (Restore Hope, 2024). Operating without government contracts or federal mandates, these coalitions have dramatically reduced foster care entries while improving family stability. Through Safe Families for Children (n.d.), now active in over 30 states and eight countries, parents voluntarily place children with host families during temporary crises, all the while maintaining full parental rights and receiving the support they need. These models work not despite operating outside the government system, but because of it.

Limited Government, Maximum Freedom

Government intervention in families is constitutionally limited and must respect fundamental parental authority over children's upbringing, education, healthcare, and formation. This authority means that government agencies cannot remove children for reasons that do not constitute genuine threats to safety, including: economic hardship; temporary housing, food, or utility instability; parents permitting children age-appropriate independence; parents seeking second medical opinions or choosing educational alternatives; or parents' religious beliefs and affirmation of biological reality. These remain within the sphere of parental responsibility, protected from government interference even when officials would make different choices.

This constrained vision of government does not mean children go unprotected. Rather, it recognizes that protection is best achieved through the institutions closest to the child. A grandmother who takes in her grandchildren knows their needs better than any caseworker. A church that rallies around a struggling family provides more meaningful support than any government program. A community that holds its members accountable—where reputation matters, where poor choices have social consequences, and where helping neighbors is both expected and rewarded—creates stronger safeguards than any bureaucratic oversight.

For children who genuinely lack family or community connections—true orphans or those whose families pose serious danger—foster care and adoption remain essential. The America First approach does not eliminate these services or their funding. Rather, it redirects existing federal child welfare dollars through community-based management structures that deploy local nonprofits, churches, and civic organizations. By focusing on genuine protection rather than managing poverty or second-guessing parental decisions about child-rearing, education, or values, the system can better serve those who truly need intervention.

The America First vision is not about dismantling protection—it is about relocating it to where it belongs. This is not a reckless teardown but a careful reconstruction, returning to the proven formula that built strong American communities: family responsibility, community support, and limited government.

The Current Crisis

By the Numbers: A System in Failure

The scale of government surveillance of American families has reached unprecedented levels, with over 3.5 million children subject to child protection investigations annually (Administration for Children and Families, 2024a). In 2023, approximately 343,000 children were in foster care, with more than 175,000 entering the system annually (ACF, n.d.). Behind each statistic is a family disrupted, often unnecessarily. The question of when to remove a child involves life-and-death complexity: some children need immediate rescue from dangerous situations, but research shows the system has expanded far beyond these cases. Studies consistently demonstrate that poverty, not abuse, is the strongest predictor of child welfare involvement (Pelton, 2015), and for marginal cases, children left at home with support achieve better outcomes than those placed in foster care (Doyle, 2007, 2008, 2013).

Children in families earning under $15,000 annually are investigated for maltreatment at 22 times the rate of those earning over $30,000 (Sedlak et al., 2010). Neglect accounts for over 60% of removals to foster care compared to 12% for physical abuse (ACF, 2024b)—but this category has been defined so broadly it encompasses not just genuine failures to provide basic care, but also inadequate housing, missed medical appointments, and allowing children age-appropriate independence. Although narrowing definitions of neglect would reduce unnecessary removals, true reform requires transferring response authority from state agencies to community institutions equipped to address family needs through support rather than surveillance.

Compounding these failures, the system lacks even basic capacity. An annual survey found fewer than 190,000 licensed foster homes nationwide in 2023, a continued decline from approximately 220,000 homes in 2019, even as hundreds of thousands of children still need placement (Kelly, 2023). This shortage forces children into institutional settings or splits siblings across multiple placements. Caseworker turnover exceeds 40% annually in many states, meaning children experience a revolving door of strangers making life-altering decisions about their futures (Casey Family Programs, 2017).

The outcomes for children caught in this system are devastating. Youth who age out of foster care face a 20% chance of homelessness within their first year, and by age 26, only 8% will have earned a bachelor's degree compared to 36% of the general population. By age 21, approximately 25% of males will have been incarcerated (Courtney et al., 2011). Moreover, children removed for their protection often face new dangers: studies indicate that maltreatment rates in foster care may be three to six times higher than in the general population, with former foster youth reporting abuse in care at rates far exceeding official statistics (Euser et al., 2014), and substantiated maltreatment in foster homes and facilities rose 11% from 2017 to 2021 (ACF, 2022). These statistics represent systemic failure—proof that government custody often inflicts more harm than the situations from which children are rescued.

The trauma begins at first contact with the system. Even non-substantiated investigations that do not result in removal can be experienced as violating and traumatic for families (Sankaran et al., 2019; Featherstone et al., 2014). For those who are removed, research on foster care alumni found that 25% met criteria for PTSD—a rate twice that of combat veterans (Pecora et al., 2009). The act of removal compounds this initial trauma and results in lasting psychological harm (Mitchell, 2016; Sankaran et al., 2019).

For children on the margin—where the removal decision could reasonably go either way—studies demonstrate that those left at home with support achieve better outcomes than those placed in foster care, including lower rates of delinquency, teen pregnancy, and adult criminal justice involvement (Doyle, 2007, 2008, 2013). When removal does occur, placement type matters significantly: kinship care produces superior outcomes across mental health, behavioral, and developmental domains compared to traditional foster care (Dubois-Comtois et al., 2021).

The Architecture of Overreach

The current system's failures are not accidental—they are built into its structure. Federal funding through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act provides unlimited reimbursement for foster care while capping prevention and family support services (Congressional Record Service, 2025). States earn more money by removing children than by keeping families together. This perverse incentive has created an industry dependent on family separation, with private agencies, group homes, and therapeutic facilities all benefiting from a steady stream of removed children.

This structural dysfunction was turbo-charged when the successful 1996 welfare reforms ended AFDC dependency but left the existing welfare bureaucracy intact. This created the conditions for what Hughes and Rycus (2024) describe as “mission creep”—the transformation of child protective services from a specialized system designed to investigate serious abuse into a broad social services apparatus—a rebrand of the same welfare functions under a different name but one that requires family separation. The bureaucratic infrastructure found a new uncapped funding stream through Title IV-E foster care reimbursement, creating a system that now separates families to access services that were once provided through family support programs.

The legal framework enabling these removals has steadily expanded. Most states permit child removal based on "risk of harm"—a standard so vague it grants near-unlimited discretion to child protection workers. Parents can lose their children for "educational neglect" if they homeschool without proper paperwork, "medical neglect" if they seek second opinions on treatment, or "environmental neglect" if their housing fails to meet middle-class standards. Federal and state law should explicitly exclude these situations from grounds for removal: economic hardship; temporary housing, food, or utility instability; parents permitting children age-appropriate independence; parents seeking second medical opinions or choosing educational alternatives; and parents' religious beliefs and affirmation of biological reality. Each expansion of definitions creates new opportunities for state intervention while moving further from the original mission of preventing serious abuse.

Constitutional protections that apply in every other area of law often disappear in child welfare proceedings. Parents face the loss of their children—a deprivation the Supreme Court has recognized as irreversible and among the most severe actions a state can take (Santosky v. Kramer, 1982)—without the right to counsel in many jurisdictions. Emergency removals occur without warrants, rigorous evidentiary standards, or immediate judicial review. Anonymous allegations trigger invasive investigations that would be unconstitutional in any criminal context. The presumption of innocence, fundamental to American justice, is reversed: parents must prove their fitness rather than the state proving unfitness.

The Marginalization of Natural Protectors

Perhaps most perniciously, the current system actively undermines the very institutions best positioned to protect children. Extended family members who step forward to care for relatives' children face the same licensing requirements as stranger foster parents—background checks that disqualify for decades-old misdemeanors, home inspections that mandate separate bedrooms, and extensive training requirements that treat grandmothers as novices in child-rearing. While relatives caring for traumatized children may benefit from support and resources, mandating the same training required for stranger foster parents creates unnecessary barriers to kinship placement.

Faith-based agencies, which have centuries of experience caring for vulnerable children, face increasing pressure to abandon their religious convictions or exit child welfare entirely. In Massachusetts, Illinois, and the District of Columbia, Catholic Charities—once the backbone of American adoption services—shut down adoption programs entirely rather than violate religious teachings on marriage and family. While the Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) recognized religious liberty protections for faith-based agencies, many continue to face lawsuits, contract cancellations, and regulatory pressure for maintaining traditional beliefs. The systematic exclusion of these agencies eliminates placement options for children and removes from the system those organizations most likely to provide not just temporary care but lifelong community support. The very institutions that pioneered child protection in America are being regulated out of existence.

Community organizations that attempt to help families navigate the system often find themselves frozen out. Information is withheld in the name of confidentiality. Offers of support are rejected as "interference." Churches that try to prevent removals by providing resources are told they lack standing. The system has created a monopoly on compassion, insisting that only professional, government-approved actors can be trusted with vulnerable families. This represents what Olasky (1992) identified as the destruction of “effective compassion”—replacing personal, values-based care with professionalized services that lack moral authority or relational accountability.

The Path Forward: From Incremental Reform to Fundamental Transformation

The journey from the current system to the America First vision requires both immediate steps and long-term structural change. Some reforms can be implemented within existing frameworks to reduce harm and restore balance. Others require reimagining child protection entirely, building new models that honor family sovereignty and community responsibility. Appendix A provides a detailed implementation framework identifying which reforms require federal legislation, state action, or local initiative—and which can be pursued simultaneously at multiple levels.

Immediate Reforms: Restraining the Current System

While working toward fundamental transformation, several reforms can immediately reduce the system's harm and begin shifting power back to families and communities.

Guaranteeing Due Process Rights

The most urgent reform is enforcing the Constitution's promise of due process before the state can deprive citizens of fundamental rights. When the state seeks to sever what the Supreme Court calls the “far more precious than any property right” bond between parent and child (M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 1996), families deserve the strongest procedural safeguards our legal system can provide.

Research demonstrates that parents with quality legal representation are significantly more likely to reunify with their children and spend less time under state supervision. Studies across multiple jurisdictions have found that parents with attorneys experienced higher rates of reunification and shorter time in the child welfare system compared to those without representation (Casey Family Programs, 2019; Courtney & Hook, 2012). Research analyzing over 9,500 families in New York City found that interdisciplinary legal representation—where attorneys work with social workers and parent advocates—reduced foster care stays by an average of 118 days with no negative impact on child safety (Gerber et al., 2019). Yet in many states, parents navigate these life-altering proceedings alone or with overburdened public defenders who meet them minutes before hearings.

Every parent should have the right to competent counsel from the moment CPS initiates contact, not just after removal has occurred. This representation must be independent—not contracted by the same agency seeking removal—and sufficiently funded to mount a genuine defense. States should be required to provide attorneys who specialize in child welfare defense, understand both the legal standards and the family dynamics at play, and have reasonable caseloads allowing meaningful advocacy, with existing federal IV-E cost-sharing already available to cover half the cost.

Federal and state law should clarify that certain circumstances do not justify family separation: economic hardship; temporary housing, food, or utility instability; parents permitting children age-appropriate independence; parents seeking second medical opinions or choosing educational alternatives; or parents' religious beliefs and affirmation of biological reality. Parents and children must receive immediate access to legal representation before any removal occurs, ensuring these limitations on government authority are enforced.

Reforming Federal Funding Structures

The Title IV-E funding mechanism that incentivizes removal over preservation must be fundamentally restructured. The ultimate solution is to block grant all federal child welfare funds to states, allowing them to direct resources where most needed—whether upstream for prevention, midstream for family preservation, or downstream for necessary removals—without federal micromanagement. Child protection is constitutionally a state’s responsibility; federal funding should support, not dictate, how states protect children. Until full block granting is achieved, Congress should, at a minimum, eliminate the categorical restrictions and allow states maximum flexibility in using federal funds for family preservation, legal representation, kinship navigation, and voluntary community programs.

While comprehensive reform requires congressional action, the executive branch retains substantial authority to reshape child welfare through regulatory interpretation, executive orders, and enforcement discretion. An administration committed to family preservation has multiple tools at its disposal: reinterpreting federal regulations to maximize state flexibility, issuing policy guidance that expands allowable uses of federal funds, and declining to pursue enforcement actions against states innovating with family preservation models. Through strategic use of executive orders, program instructions, and information memoranda, the Department of Health and Human Services has historically reshaped entire policy areas without new legislation. An administration prioritizing family sovereignty would use this same authority to expand what qualifies as "administrative costs" under Title IV-E, broaden definitions of prevention services, and recognize community-developed interventions as meeting federal standards. The extensive guidance documents that currently constrain states demonstrate the executive's power—that same power redirected toward family preservation would transform the system while Congress debates.

The practice of states claiming foster children's Social Security benefits, survivor benefits, and other federal payments must end immediately. These funds, often the only assets available to youth aging out of care, are routinely seized by states to offset foster care costs—requiring children to pay for their own removal from their families (Todd-Smith & Butch, 2025; Hager & Shapiro, 2021). Federal law should prohibit this practice and require states to preserve these benefits in trust for the children who earned them. States can take immediate action through executive orders to direct their agencies to restrict this practice and require transparent accounting of children's funds (America First Policy Institute, 2024).

Prioritizing Kinship Care

When removal is genuinely necessary, placing children with relatives should be the overwhelming preference, not an afterthought. A Cochrane systematic review of 102 studies involving more than 650,000 children found that those in kinship care experienced significantly fewer behavioral problems, fewer mental health disorders, better overall well-being, and less placement disruption than children in non-kinship foster care (Winkour et al., 2014). These findings are reinforced by a recent meta-analysis confirming superior mental health and developmental outcomes in kinship placements (Dubois-Comtois et al., 2021). Yet relatives often receive less financial support than stranger foster parents and face bureaucratic barriers that discourage their involvement.

States must eliminate the differential treatment of kinship caregivers. Licensing standards designed for strangers—such as square footage requirements, separate bedrooms, and extensive training curricula—should not apply to grandparents taking in grandchildren. This does not mean relatives need no support—they may benefit from resources about trauma, accessing services, and navigating systems. But mandatory training programs and regulatory frameworks designed for strangers create unnecessary barriers when optional, targeted support would better serve both caregivers and children. Financial support should be equalized so that relatives are not forced to choose between poverty and caring for family members. Legal processes should be streamlined to allow relatives to quickly obtain necessary authority for medical and educational decisions without entering the formal foster care system.

Enabling Community-Based Care Models

Florida has proven that privatized, locally managed systems deliver better outcomes than state-run bureaucracies, even while operating within federal constraints. Florida's Community-Based Care model—which transferred complete management of local child welfare systems to regional lead agencies while maintaining state oversight and federal compliance—has operated for over two decades. The model's success is evident in national comparisons: Florida ranks 6th overall in the composite Right for Kids ranking and, most notably, ranks 1st among large comparable states and 2nd nationally in achieving ”Forever Families”—a composite measure of how quickly children reunify with parents or achieve adoption (Brown et al., 2020). While implementation has varied across regions, with some lead agencies struggling financially or operationally, the overall model demonstrates that local nonprofit management can achieve superior permanency outcomes.

This system was made possible through a Title IV-E waiver that provided flexibility from rigid federal requirements. However, the waiver's expiration has forced a shift to the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA)—a well-intentioned but limited reform whose rigid evidence-based criteria and professionalized requirements create barriers to community-driven preservation efforts—underscoring the need for permanent flexibility for states to implement CBC models without time-limited waivers or arbitrary federal approval processes. While Florida's CBC still operates under government contracts, state oversight, and federal regulations, its two-decade survival and strong performance on key metrics like permanency suggest that local nonprofit management offers a viable alternative to state-run systems. Every state should have the permanent option to transfer system management from government bureaucracies to community-based lead agencies that know their regions and can respond with greater flexibility and effectiveness.

Transformative Changes: Building the New Paradigm

While incremental reforms can reduce harm, the ultimate goal is to replace the current state-centered system with a family-centered, community-driven approach to child protection. This new paradigm shifts primary responsibility from government agencies to the natural circles of care surrounding each child: first to parents and extended family, then to faith communities and neighborhood organizations, with government serving only as a last resort when these organic protections fail. Instead of caseworkers making unilateral decisions about family life, local networks of churches, nonprofits, and civic groups would coordinate voluntary support, mentorship, and temporary care. Rather than bureaucratic compliance driving interventions, relational accountability and moral obligation would guide community responses. This transformation requires legal, cultural, and structural changes that may take years to fully implement, but can begin immediately in willing states and communities.

Legitimizing Non-State Care Arrangements

One of the most promising innovations in child welfare is the emergence of voluntary care arrangements that support families without triggering state custody. The Safe Families for Children program has demonstrated that parents in crisis will voluntarily place their children with trained host families when they can do so without losing parental rights or entering the foster care system. A recent randomized controlled trial in Illinois found that families participating in Safe Families experienced statistically significant reductions in both foster care removals and protective custody compared to control groups receiving services as usual, with positive or null effects on subsequent maltreatment—meaning children were as safe or safer than in the control group. The intervention effects were particularly strong for preventing protective custody, with families assigned to Safe Families showing a 99% probability of superior outcomes (Schneider et al., 2023). The vast majority of children in the Safe Families program return home, most within a few weeks, with families reporting high satisfaction with the support.

States should create legal frameworks for these voluntary arrangements that provide necessary protections without bureaucratic entanglement. This includes recognizing temporary guardianship agreements that allow caregivers to make routine decisions, providing liability protection for good-faith participants, and ensuring that voluntary placement does not trigger mandatory reporting or CPS involvement absent evidence of abuse. These frameworks should extend to kinship care, allowing relatives to provide temporary support without formal custody proceedings.

Beyond individual placements, states should recognize and empower community-based care networks. Churches and civic organizations should be able to form care communities that provide wraparound support to struggling families: temporary housing, respite care, material assistance, and mentorship. These networks would operate on covenantal rather than contractual relationships, motivated by moral obligation rather than financial reimbursement. This model embodies what Olasky (1992) identified as effective compassion: personal bonding between helper and helped, voluntary participation rather than coercion, and moral accountability within relationships rather than bureaucratic compliance.

Establishing Community Care Compacts

The most ambitious element of the America First vision is the creation of Community Care Compacts—formal alliances of churches, nonprofits, and civic organizations that assume primary responsibility for child protection in their regions. These compacts would operate parallel to, not under, government child welfare agencies, handling cases of neglect and family crisis through relational support rather than legal coercion.

The legal framework exists. States possess constitutional authority over child welfare and already delegate this responsibility to private agencies in Florida's Community-Based Care system and similar models in Kansas and other states. Community Care Compacts would require new state enabling legislation creating special districts with authority to receive referrals, coordinate services, and operate with liability protections—similar to how states authorize charter schools or special improvement districts.

Working models demonstrate viability. The 100 Families initiative unites churches, nonprofits, and civic organizations across 19 counties in Arkansas, preventing foster care placements through coordinated responses (Restore Hope, 2024). Families receive immediate support through self-referral or referral from schools or police without entering the formal child welfare system. In San Diego, Just in Time for Foster Youth (n.d.) operates entirely outside government systems, creating permanent support networks for aging-out youth through volunteer mentors, host families, and peer communities that provide lifelong relationships.

Community Care Compacts would formalize these approaches through interorganizational covenants establishing shared protocols for referral acceptance, service coordination, and outcome-based accountability. Implementation requires the following: state legislation authorizing compact formation; liability protections for participating organizations; basic training in recognizing abuse versus neglect; clear protocols distinguishing community response cases from those requiring government intervention; and sustainable funding through redirected public resources as compacts demonstrate superior outcomes.

These existing models—from 100 Families' prevention work to Just in Time's transition support—demonstrate that community protection compacts can serve families across the entire spectrum of need. What they lack is not capacity or effectiveness, but the legal authority and sustainable funding currently enjoyed by ineffective, bureaucratic government systems that produce worse outcomes at higher costs.

For these compacts to function effectively, they need legal recognition and protection. States should pass legislation authorizing communities to form such compacts, granting them authority to receive referrals, coordinate services, and even accept diversions from the formal child welfare system. States could formally authorize them to receive direct referrals from mandatory reporters, with clear protocols distinguishing cases appropriate for community response versus those requiring immediate government intervention. Liability protection would be essential, as would the ability to access some portion of the funding currently flowing to state agencies. Over time, successful compacts could assume greater responsibility, eventually replacing government-run systems in their regions.

Redefining Permanency

The current system's approach to permanency—focused on terminating parental rights and achieving adoption within rigid timelines—often forces premature decisions that separate families who could reunify adequate support and realistic timeframes. The Adoption and Safe Families Act's requirement to seek termination after 15 months in care has separated countless children from parents who might have successfully reunified given adequate services and time to address their challenges.

A new understanding of permanency should prioritize relational continuity over legal finality. This means recognizing that children can achieve stability and belonging through various arrangements that preserve family connections: long-term guardianship with relatives, open adoption that maintains birth family relationships, or supported reunification with ongoing community involvement. The goal should be ensuring every child has permanent, committed relationships—not necessarily severing all ties to birth families.

States should be freed from federal timelines that force premature termination proceedings. Instead, permanency planning should be individualized, considering the child's bonds, the parents' progress, and the availability of supportive relationships. Some families need two years to overcome addiction or mental health challenges; arbitrary deadlines should not prevent eventual reunification. Others might benefit from shared custody arrangements that provide stability while maintaining family connections.

The Role of Faith Communities

Throughout American history, religious institutions have been the primary providers of care for vulnerable children and families. Orphanages, adoption agencies, and family support services emerged from churches and religious orders long before government assumed any role in child welfare. This was not merely charity but ministry—a calling to serve "the least of these" as an expression of faith.

The America First vision recognizes that faith communities remain uniquely positioned to provide effective, compassionate care. They offer what government cannot: moral formation, spiritual support, and lifelong community. Whether through church families, faith-based agencies, or congregational support networks, children gain not just caregivers, but extended communities invested in their wellbeing. Parents struggling with addiction find not just treatment but redemption. Families in crisis receive not just services but fellowship.

Yet current policies increasingly marginalize faith-based providers. Agencies are forced to choose between their religious convictions and their ability to serve. Discrimination lawsuits threaten ministries that maintain biblical standards. Licensing requirements impose secular frameworks that conflict with religious approaches to care. The result is a steady exodus of faith-based providers from child welfare, impoverishing the entire system.

Protecting and empowering faith-based care is essential to the America First vision. This requires robust religious liberty protections ensuring that agencies can operate according to their beliefs while serving the public good. It means recognizing that diverse approaches—including explicitly religious ones—strengthen rather than threaten the child welfare ecosystem. It means trusting communities of faith to care for their own members and extending that care to the broader community.

Cultural Renewal Through Family Sovereignty

The fight for family sovereignty in child protection is part of a broader cultural renewal—a reclaiming of American principles of liberty, responsibility, and community. When government assumes the role of parent, it teaches citizens that they are incapable of managing their own affairs. When bureaucrats override parental judgment, they communicate that credentialed experts matter more than natural bonds. When the state becomes the default protector, communities atrophy and social trust erodes.

Reversing this requires more than policy change—it requires cultural transformation. Parents must reclaim confidence in their God-given authority and responsibility. Communities must remember their capacity for mutual aid and collective action. Churches must resume their historic role as sanctuaries and support systems. Citizens must reject the notion that every problem requires a government solution.

This cultural renewal is already beginning in communities that have implemented family-first approaches. Parents are organizing to support one another. Churches are stepping forward to host vulnerable children. Neighbors are intervening before crises escalate. These early adopters are proving that the America First vision is not just theoretical but achievable.

Conclusion: The Choice Before Us

America stands at a crossroads in child protection. We can continue down the current path—where the system helps some children but fails too many, where government power expands while family authority weakens, and where poor outcomes for foster youth persist despite good intentions. Or we can choose a different way—one that honors the family, empowers communities, and limits government to its proper role.

The America First vision for child protection is not radical but restorative. It returns to principles that Americans once took for granted: that parents have the right and responsibility to raise their children; that communities are capable of caring for their vulnerable members; that government should protect liberty, not manage families. These principles built the strongest, most prosperous nation in history. Abandoning them has created the current crisis. Reclaiming them offers the path forward.

The evidence is clear that the current system fails children and families. The examples from Arkansas, San Diego, and communities nationwide prove that alternatives work. The only question is whether we have the courage to change—to trust families over bureaucracies, communities over agencies, and freedom over control.

American children deserve better than a system that traumatizes them in the name of protection. American parents deserve better than a government that treats them as suspects. American communities deserve the opportunity to care for their own without interference from distant bureaucrats.

The choice is ours. We can perpetuate a failed system that grows more expensive and intrusive each year. Or we can reclaim child protection as a mission of genuine care, rooted in family, community, and constitutional principles. The America First approach offers not just reform but renewal—not just better outcomes but a reaffirmation of who we are as a people.

The family is the foundation of American society. It is time our policies reflected that truth.