definition of "special needs"

Sibling groups are considered special needs. So I would say that they would qualify.

From my understanding, I agree with o2b30. Just being a part of a sibling group is enough to qualify as a special need here in TX.

That's what's so confusing about this. My state specifies that a child doesn't qualify for a "special needs" designation unless part of a "sibling group of 3 or more", all placed at the same time. I imagine that is to avoid situations where new siblings continue to be born and placed with previously adopted siblings, thereby eventually qualifying the previously placed children for subsidies if the AP's attempted to seek out subsidy payments? Here's the language outlined for my state: A child with special needs is defined as a child that has at least one of the following needs or circumstances that may be a barrier to placement or adoption without financial assistance: a. Ten years of age or older (if age is the only factor in determining eligibility) b. Member of a minority race and children of that minority race cannot be readily placed due to a lack of appropriate placement resources c. Member of a sibling group of three or more children that must be placed together at the same time d. Exhibits special need characteristics judged to be moderate or intensive e. At high risk of developing a moderate or intensive level of special needs as outlined above Note: Children must be legally free for adoption to be eligible for adoption assistance. Change your opinion at all, or no?

huh. Maybe the mionority race will qualify him, and his brother by special circumstance? I am going to do a little research, i think there is a federal standard here somewhere that may come into play.

Well, the whole thing that got me looking was a comment from DianeS, I think it was, on the IRS question on the foster care board. So I started looking at stuff regarding adoption tax credit and how "special needs" is determined, and then found the info about that same definition being used to determine subsidies. Like I said above, subsidy would have a great impact on extras and luxuries, but we'll manage without if that's the case. I'll never turn down $$$ that I can use for my kids, though, KWIM? If I even get to have them be my kids, that is. :)

just-breathe, if one sibling qualifies for any reason (minority group, medical condition, etc) and another sibling does not, its entirely possible for one sibling to be designated special needs (and qualify for all the benefits that entails) and the other one be not designated that way (and not receive those benefits). There's no rule that says a sib group has to all benefit or none benefit - they can pick specific kids for certain reasons and qualify them alone. txwannabemom, there is no federal standard except for Title IV-E funding, which is harder (and stranger) to qualify for than most states' special needs definitions.

Since one sibling would qualify for a special needs designation, and they are requiring the other child to be placed with the special needs child, wouldn't that second child would get the designation, too? I mean, if one child is a minority and supposedly not as able to be "readily placed", by requiring the second child to go with the first, they are now causing the second child to have issues with being "readily placed", right? Not trying to be silly, but that just seems like a plain old this action equals this result, KWIM?

I just think it's interesting to see how there are all these laws, rules, regulations, etc. and there are so many things in life that just don't conform to them. Life is so messy and wonderful.

The definition of 'special needs' is so interesting to me. I personally think any child coming out of foster care should qualify for subsidy/Medicaid, etc. For example, we have a foster-to-adopt child who was born with cocaine in her system, had a very rough first few months - everyone thought she was going to be majorly delayed and have big issues. Now, at almost one-year-old, she is developmentally on target (Thank goodness). So, when we adopt, she won't qualify for anything.Many things can arise in the future for her (hopefully they don't) - such as ADHD, speech issues, etc because of the drug exposure.She's a minority. So if she were 2 years old at the time of adoption (in Texas) she would automatically qualify. But since she'll only be one, she won't.However, if she had something relatively minor - even asthma - she would qualify.We are very blessed to have her and I thank God every day that she's doing great right now. I just think she deserves to have the benefits, for what has happened to her the past and what might come up in the future.

What you are saying *SHOULD* be true. I agree completely. but since "sibling of special needs child who must be placed with the special needs child" is not on the list of your state's special needs definition, then it probably is not true. Sorry! You're welcome to try to persuade them and see if it works, I just wouldn't "expect" it to work, KWIM? Good luck in trying!

Question: special needs in what regards? I have A FAS child who was deemed not elligible for subsidy because she's not special needs enough (doing too well). I intend to declare her special needs when it comes to the adoption tax credit When she enters first grade next month, she will do so as a normal (not special needs) child. No IEP.

The IRS definition of "special needs" for the purposes of the federal adoption tax credit are as follows: It is important to remember that the "assistance" mentioned in #3 can be any kind of assistance whatsoever. The state may have given the child medical coverage only. The state may have given the parents a monetary subsidy of any amount. And so on. The most important thing is that your state MUST have stated that your child is special needs and that you are receiving assistance because of it. If you are audited, that's what you must provide. It's your state's definition, and the IRS abides by that.