PARENTS, COURTS, AND SOCIAL SERVICES TEND TO FORGET ABOOUT THE CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN PLACED IN FOSTER HOMES OR TRAINING INSTITUTIONS. IT IS THE JUDGES' RESPONSIBILITY TO EVENTUALLY SET UP A PERMANENT PLANNING PROGRAM FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL CHILD OR GET EACH CHILD INTO A PERMANENT HOME. OREGON JUDGES HAVE FOUND THAT THE FILES OF MANY CHILDREN WHO WERE GIVEN OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT WERE NOT REVIEWED FOR 10 YEARS, RESULTING IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PERMANENT ARRANGEMENT. ONE JUDGE FOUND THAT 79 CHILDREN WERE LOST, THAT IS, THEY COULD NOT BE FOUND ANYWHERE. FIFTY OF THESE CASES WERE EVENTUALLY FOUND AND ADOPTED, BUT THE OTHER 29 ARE LOST. THE PORTLAND PROJECT DEPENDS ON VOLUNTEERS; THE JUDGE APPOINTS A VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR TO WORK WITH A MEMBER OF THE JUDGE'S STAFF IN ORDER TO REVIEW EVERY CHILD THAT WAS PUT INTO OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT AND FOSTER CARE BY THAT COURT. THE JUDGE HAS THE POWER TO BENEFIT THE CHILDREN BY SEEKING OUT STATE CHILD CARE AGENCIES AND DETERMINING WHY CHILDREN ARE STILL IN THEIR ORIGINAL PLACEMENT. IF THERE IS FOSTER CARE, THE STATE PAYS ONLY 30 PERCENT OF THE COST FOR CHILDREN UP TO AGE 21, BUT FOR ADOPTION THE STATE PAYS THE FULL COST UP TO AGE 18. FEDERAL REGULATIONS MUST BE CHANGED IN ORDER TO FUND STATES FOR PLACING CHILDREN IN PERMANENT ADOPTIVE HOMES. THE JUDGE SHOULD SEE THAT THE STATE AGENCY MAKES PLANS FOR THE CHILD, AND THEN BOTH THE JUDGE AND THE AGENCY MUST APPROACH A PROSECUTOR AND PRESENT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN GATHERED. THE PROSECUTOR THEN REPRESENTS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE, BUT HE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE CONCERNS OF THE STATE AGENCY. THE AGENCY SHOULD ALSO HAVE ITS OWN COUNSEL, BUT JUDGES DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT ATTORNEYS FOR AGENCIES.