|
And wow, believe it or not there is a point that I missed. Federal law and every state law written to comply with federal law in order to receive Title IV-E funds requires that, any time a lower-priority goal is chosen, social services must show why it is in the best interest of the child vs. the higher goal. States, agencies, and courts are NOT allowed to have a blanket rule--e.g., transfer of legal custody to a relative or guardianship by a relative is the goal for all children residing with a relative--they MUST show, for each individual case, why that goal is better than adoption.
I know firsthand that some states and agencies completely skip this step, their local courts do not call them on it (frankly, I don't think the judges actually know or care what the law is), and they lie to relatives and tell them that it is the law that they can't adopt and must take legal custody or LOSE THEIR RELATIVE TO A CLOSED ADOPTION BY A STRANGER. As bizarre and nonsensical as that sounds, that is exactly the threat made to us. Again, fortunately, that did not happen and we are, finally, adopting, but our circumstances in that we already had physical custody and were in another state were what made the difference.
The point is, if the child is not RU and not free for adoption, then social services has not done its job according to the law and the court involved has not made orders or decisions in accordance with the law, either. There is no reason for any relative to take custody to get the child out of the system.
|