[Lynard1210]

"Transferring legal custody to a relative is NEVER the only way to close a case or uphold a child's right to be raised by family. That just simply is not true. Families CAN foster their kin while the system works to protect them, their rights, and their parents' right to due process. Families CAN adopt their kin when reunification is eliminated as a goal. "I do not disagree . . . in fact I don't recall denying that this is valid . . but let's talk about a PRIVATE custody case . . .where "the system" is not involved at all. Private meaning that mom dumped the child off at grandma's house and disapeared. Grandma files a legal custody action through her private attorney because she is not able to file an adoption case because there is not going to be any consent forthcoming. This situation is as permanent as it is going to get due to the circumstances.


"Getting the child out of 'the system'" should NEVER EVER be anyone's goal. The child's safety is paramount--that is in federal law and every state law; all goals must serve the child's best interest.
Legal Custody does serve SOME children's best interest, depending on circumstances, but not all by any means.

"The system" is not the bogey man to be feared. "The system" is there to protect the child and provide for the child's needs, including the need for permanency.
That is the utopia of the system . . the reality of the system is a new caseworker every month, cases falling through the cracks, services not provided, deadlines not respected, people feeling victimized including some good parents who got drug into the system by false complaints. . . ..


Another argument that it is more family-friendly to not terminate parental rights, etc., is equally bogus and disingenuous. Nothing could be further from the truth. Without clear legal boundaries, families are literally forced into adversarial roles legally, guaranteeing legal and emotional strife where they could have been healing and some degree of harmony or at least acceptance in the child's life.
Anyone can file a lawsuit . . . my neighbor can try and get custody of my child (good luck) . . we cannot control what other people do and just because there are legal boundaries around the child does not guarantee emotional boundaries. Legal custody is a legal boundary and there are situations where children DO want contact with their parents. Nothing wrong with that if its best for them.

When custody transfers to the relative and the "case is closed," there is no case plan for the parents, no services for the parents, no case plan or services for the child, no path to permanency for the child--only a path to endless costly litigation for the child and the families and either sky-high medical and therapy bills or neglect of medical and mental health needs because insurance, even state-based insurance, just doesn't, very often, cover what these kids need.This is a shame and needs reform.

Even if the parents never again challenge the "custodians," even if the "custodians'" insurance covers the child needs, every child deserves far better than to grow up with a "custodian." Children are not zoo animals, they need more than "custodians" and "caretakers"--they need a parent(s), a strong core sense of self rooted in a safe and legally recognized and secure family.
The child can see the adult as a parent regardless of what the legal papers say. I wouldn't tell my "custodian" child that I am just a custodian. I am Aunt Lynn or Grandma or Mom . . . .if they are with a relative, they are safe and secure in the family . . kids don't care what the legal status on the paperwork says.

There are cases where a child is so severely in need of services that family placement of any kind--related or not--is not safe for the child or the resource home. That is where long-term foster care and appla come in. Even in those cases, though, parental rights are terminated so that the child's guardian, usually the state, has the freedom and authority to make best-interest decisions for the child.
Our former foster daughter was in this situation. It has served her well to be in long term foster care and she is now getting her college paid for.

But when a child who should have either been reunited with his parents or adopted by family or others is just tossed out by social services through a transfer of custody, many families give up and just give the child back to the parents. The DSS attorney in our child's case actually ENCOURAGED us to do so "two or three years from now, you know, if they get themselves together, you could give her back." He was trying to tout the "benefits" of taking legal custody to us by saying we could always just give her back to the parents! WHAT? As if her identity, her life, her development, her humanity, her safety--those things don't count? She's just a "thing" to be given back whenever we feel like it?What if the mother was a good mother but didn't have housing at that moment? What if the child asked to go back? What if, what if, what if???


Anyway, though, your example of the mother in college and the grandmother raising the child makes my point re adults' viewing children as things, not people, even in the private sector. That just simply is not a good situation for the child, imo. Absent parents are not parenting--they are telling their children that the children are not worthy enough to actually parent. That they are things to be set aside when parenting is inconvenient.
You are making assumptions and judgments about people you don't even know. The daughter (mother) lives with the child and is involved. This is a good solid family and legal custody worked for them. The child is thriving.

The child doesn't and can't wait for the mother and I don't think the mother has any moral right to come back later and simply pluck that child out of the life they've grown into and are emotionally and developmentally vested in.
No plucking will take place with legal custody but maybe the mother and her family can all be involved. Why does it have to be all or nothing?


You seem to think a "custodian" or "guardian" can simply petition and that will be it. No way, it just simply does NOT happen that way.
It can happen in a private case.

It is nearly impossible to terminate parental rights privately, and certainly highly expensive to try. I have friends who went the guardian route privately, to "keep the child out of the system." The parent petitioned for return, they went to court, put on a case, the judge ordered a case plan (even though not a foster case), etc., etc., last year they were at $20K in and counting, now it is closer to $30K. In the meantime, there have been numerous hearings and petitions for visitation and other parental rights that they have had to defend against. They were actually put in the position of paying for some of the parent's services themselves!
It's definitely not cheap but it can be done.

The point is, you have to have grounds to terminate parental rights--
which is why legal custody is sometimes the only option - if there are no grounds - legal custody is plan b.


"You say you believe in permanency for children, but yet I sense a casual dismissal of this principle for children who are with their relatives. Why should children be punished and denied their basic human rights just because their family loves them enough to want to raise them? Why should families be punished for stepping up for their loved ones? Why are these kids and families less deserving of safety, legal security, and special needs help than those who don't have a family connection?"
I think punishment is a strong word. And my beliefs in permanancy are anything but casual. However, reality dictates other plans besides adoption. And if you haven't noticed, I am an adoptee whose relatives didn't bother to fight for me AND I'm a relative adoptive parent who did the adoption outside of the system.

"I hopethat what I've written may influence your thinking as a GAL on cases in which a family wants to do what's best for their kin. Please don't let social services off the hook of doing their job--running a case plan, providing services, etc., and, when the time comes, either making RU work or going for TPR. No TPR is no kindness for the child or the family, none at all."My job is to make recommendations to the Court.

My job can include holding the caseworker accountable but the county and state are responsible for the way the system is run. I cannot save the world but i do care about children's rights. I am certain the fact that I was raised by non-related family and have adopted my husband's daughter holds great weight in my recommendations and the reason I became a CASA in the first place.

What we have discussed at length today is exactly why more people will hopefully decide to volunteer as a guardian ad litem and speak up for children's rights. Is it ever going to be a perfect outcome? No. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils . . . .