Some agencies use the term “legal risk placement” while others do not. Some people state it is a made up term. I do hear this term used a lot with agencies, caseworkers, foster parents and child welfare.

A "legal risk placement" goal is usually adoption but there is a “risk” that the child will be returned to the biological parents. In cases where this is not the first time the child has come into care, in prior placement(s) the child was reunited with biological parents. After returning to foster care again it may be decided to look for a foster to adopt placement with the plan being adoption.

Children that are more apt be to labeled a “legal risk placement” are cases where biological parents have lost their rights to their other children and continue having children without making changes in their living situation and parenting abilities. Some are biological mothers that repeatedly have babies born exposed or addicted to drugs, etc. Sadly, it is not uncommon for a biological mother to lose her parental rights to 3 or 4 of her children and continue having babies that are also placed into foster care.

Not every “legal risk placement” works out to be adoption in the end. Family members could decide to step up and become involved with the children anytime before the parental rights have been terminated. One of our adoptions was a “legal risk placement” it was a failed “bad” kinship placement the plan was to terminate the parental rights, so they wanted a foster placement that would adopt when rights were terminated.

You can still provide foster care to a child that is considered a “legal risk placement” without wanting to adopt the foster child. In some cases they will continue looking for a placement willing to adopt and may move the child out of a “straight” foster home. They want the foster child to start bonding to a possible adoptive family as soon as possible.

More reading:

Why is it so Hard to Adopt an Infant or Toddler through Foster Care?