Fostering and taxes: how we parented and she gets paid

The going rate for a kid in the United States is $4,600 and change to families making $110,000 or less in 2009 . At least that's what my tax prep computer program is telling me. (A $3,650 dependant deduction plus a $1,000 child tax credit) So, the mightier your uterus, the bigger your tax break. My uterus is weak and puny and has produced only one child. But we foster parent, and one of the ways the government compensates foster parents is by allowing us to claim tax deductions and credits for our charges as though they had popped out of our own baby-makers. Or so we thought.
So, I set about doing our taxes to include the little boy who spent a little more than half the year with us in 2009. No big deal, right? Wrong.
According to our case worker, the only time you get to claim a foster child as a dependent is when the state has forcibly wrenched the child away from his or her natural family. Voluntary placement kids are still deductible by their natural parent(s).
Many kids in foster care are in care because their parents voluntarily gave them up - either because they could not afford to feed and house them or because they are in prison, or because they just don't want to be bothered. One of our friends fosters two little boys who were voluntarily placed at birth. They are both six years old now. For six years, our friend has fed, clothed, loved, band-aided, taught and honored these children, apparently all without being able to deduct them as dependants. To a single mom on a high school teacher's salary, that's a huge disadvantage, financially.
A couple of years ago, when our finances were less tight and we had not even dreamed of a child, I would have thought "how crass - griping about a tax deduction instead of thinking about helping a child." I still feel somewhat like that - we won't stop fostering if we can't claim tax deductions; in fact, if the government revoked all tax deductions and charged people for kids instead, we'd still have had our own son, and been just as grateful for it. I just have to wonder what we are trying to achieve as a society with the policies we have set around children and taxes.
On the one hand, we have a problem with more demand for social services than we have the will or the heart to budget for. The more impoverished kids, the more demand. Worldwide population growth is an environmental concern on many levels, from food scarcity to global warming. But instead of teaching family planning in our schools and encouraging young people to have fewer rather than more children, we offer the single biggest tax incentive available to average people (outside of the mortgage interest deduction) to those who procreate the most. And we discourage families from taking care of kids whose own parents can't care for them by denying that tax deduction to at least some of those care-taker families.
The little boy we had in our home was moved to another foster family because he was behaving threateningly towards our son. He's a great little boy and is now in a home with his natural sister, where his behavior is exemplary. He and our son still play together. We would have cared for him even had we known from the start that we would not be able to claim him as a dependant.
His mom has five children. She was broke and homeless and living in her Escalade when she placed the kids in care. Now she's broke and living with some guy with whom she reportedly smokes dope and goes to bars when she's not in hairdresser classes.
She sold the Escalade and bought a little BMW 5 series with the proceeds. My heart broke for the eldest child when she first saw her mom's new car. She's a precocious seven years old and can count well enough to see that three car seats, two booster seats and Mom will not fit in that car. Since the mom can claim all five children despite them being in other homes more than two thirds of the year, she should get a handsome sum back from the government after she does her taxes. Hopefully, she will use the money to get a more suitable car and put a deposit on an apartment. That's our case worker's hope anyway. I'm not holding my breath.
Foster parenting is wonderful and terrible. Amazing children, amazing love. Monotonous paperwork that goes on forever, home inspections, CPR classes, licenses, continuing education. Getting attached and having to step aside for a natural family member. Getting attached and having to admit that there are some behavior issues that you just can't handle.
Voluntary placements get turned away by our agency regularly because there is no home to place the child in. I wonder how many families won't take voluntary placement children because of the tax rule giving the deductions/ credits for voluntarily placed children to their natural parent if they choose to claim them. Personally, I think that we foster parents who've actually cared for a child during the greater part of the year have earned the $4,600.


Salon.com
Comments
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf
If you fostered through a government agency, the county or state agency is considered the support provider. Amazing that true loving parenting is considered a business...thanks for bringing attention to this concern. Our children are our future. What foster children placed in loving homes are getting can not be quantified.
Melissa - It sure is frustrating. The kids are worth it, but it is emotionally hard enough without all the legal, paperwork and financial hoops to leap through! You would be an awesome foster parent BTW.
My ex abandoned her children, my daughters, with her aunt and uncle.
In spite of her resistance in resolving the custody situation, they were able to claim the tax deduction because the children were in their home during the tax year. (I know because she called me HOWLING because she did not get the refund money last year. Heh.)
I agree that foster parents should get the tax benefits. At the same time, I would like to remove money as an incentive in both directions, for the parent(s) as well as the foster parents. I think it really muddies the waters, and it creates a "child as chattel" system that doesn't serve children well. Although I've rarely had a foster child whose parents had any taxable income, they still feel like it's another perk they risk losing if they don't someone "keep" the child.
Meander61 - Interesting. I will look into this some more; it sounds like there is more ambiguity than I had been told, based on what Leonde and you are saying. Thanks for the comment.
Kathy - Thanks for your comment. Sorry to hear you've been here too - it really caught me by surprise since I'd planned our withholding and everything based on 2 dependents!
Natalie - I don't actually know anyone who deliberately has more kids just to claim deductions and/or benefits, but the mind set that more kids is somehow better is a mindset that I would like to see us change as a society. More is not better - not unless you can provide an adequate home and adequate parenting.
Martha - Thanks. I know you've been there! I usually try not to think about the money part of fostering at all. I have always looked at it as having another child, not as a business - we put the kids in preschools or nurseries that cost more than would be reimbursed etc. When our son got something, our foster child got something similar etc. When I was given this information last week, it really caught me off guard though.
High Lonesome - Those are good points. I am hoping that the kids' mom really will use this tax windfall to make some positive changes that ultimately could reunite their family. Part of my point here is that I would like to see the whole system revamped. If the tax advantages to having multiple children were removed or lessened, it might help us in how we view decisions to expand families etc. And having Medicaid in place for these kids is invaluable. I sure wish it was available to all kids. When our natural son was uninsurable for his first several years, it would have really helped!
The IRS stays out of all custody matters and it is very frustrating. The bio parent can voluntarily sign form 8763 and give you the deduction. The other parent may consider it - often people owe back taxes and other entanglements and just walk away from credits.
Bio-parents have the same problem with exes that the first parent to file electronically will get a refund for children they did not live with and have no court order to claim. Even with a signed form from the other parent if you have 50/50 custody - if they sign your form but run their taxes first - the IRS says you are on your own as a "domestic matter" then you can go to family court.
The parent who financially supports the child should just automatically get the deduction. If you show up to family court claiming ZERO cash income and your only means of income is child support because you REFUSE to work - then you don't get the deduction just to have it because you want it to screw your ex out of it. My stepson's mother gets the deduction every other year even though she has no obligation to file taxes with zero income.
Leeandra - That's sort of what I thought too. Complaining about money in this context is distasteful, but the truth is that, while this won't deter us, it might deter potential foster parents. And that's the last thing we need!
Girl Fren - Thanks so much for your comment. I will go check out your blog; I bet you have an interesting POV. I agree that it sort of is what it is, as far as we go. I just wish that the policies of our society really supported fostering and adoption.
Joe - Thanks for the support. It is a huge issue, and we rarely see fostering talked about. BTW, HOOK 'EM. I'll be watching Thurs too!
Daniel - Thanks for reading. I hope I didn't come across too harsh about the birth mom. She ended up homeless initially through no fault of her own (fleeing spousal abuse). She is NOT a bad person, and she loves her kids. I just hope she uses this money wisely.
Write NOWMom - Thanks so much for the additional info. I had not even thought about the implications of this in custody situations. In some ways that's even much worse b/c the parent with custody is not getting any help from the state to raise the child.
Emma - Thanks for stopping by and thanks so much for your comment.
Bonnie - Right? I should have asked earlier in the year rather than just assuming....Oh well...Thanks so much and thanks for the heads up earlier!
Wildmarjoram - It is true that foster parents get a monthly stipend. Rates vary between agencies and state placements. We got $18 per day plus $14 per day for daycare. We always way outspend the child care allotment. I have not been able to find decent care for less than about $500-600 per month. So, you're right - there is not the out-of-pocket expense associated with having one's own child. Medicaid is included too. I think to me it's less about the money and more about encouraging fostering in every way possible.
Though I think your math is a bit off. Somebody else can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's the way I think it works...
A $3650 deduction is not actually worth $3650. It's worth your tax rate *times* $3,650. So if your tax rate is, say 25%, then the $3650 deduction is worth 25% * $3,650 = approximately $900. (Because that's how much that deduction saves you in taxes: $900.)
A tax *credit*, however, is worth exactly its dollar amount.
So then, the going rate for a child, assuming a 25% tax rate, is $900 + $1,000 = $1,900 annually.
Great post. Rated.
ame i - I don't think this particular situation is one of a parent trying to scam the system; I think the mom in this case may be making some decisions I wouldn't make (like buying a little car instead of one large enough to transport her kids) but she has had a hard road and does love her kids. I did not know that about social security - it seems like an odd tax provision as well.
ranjit - Thanks for the comment. And thanks for the math clarification; I see what you're saying there.
wildmarjoram - A specific tax credit would be easier to handle than all this deduction juggling, that's for sure. That's a really interesting idea!
Sad.
Best of luck.