Lynard, I understand you are well intentioned and good-hearted, so it is difficult to convey to you how devastating your posts are. So I won't, except to say that they are.
It's partly language, you seem to use language differently than the actual legal definitions--for example, a transfer of legal custody does not sever parental ties or terminate rights, only a termination of parental rights does. Or maybe you have actually been trained to make recommendations that are, on their face, violations of both Ohio and federal law and blatant flouting of the social good purpose of the foster care and case planning system.
I can imagine you asking why that would be--I would guess because social services in your area prefers to go around the law to save money--the cost of case planning and services, the cost of hearings and trials, the cost of administering subsidy, the cost of Medicaid, the cost of state services beyond Medicaid, etc.--and that somehow CASA funding and training got influenced by that. It's not a far stretch. I have seen a young GAL attorney allow herself to be "trained" and "mentored" by the social services attorney--a blatant conflict of interest and, I can tell you, he steered her against the child's legal rights.
In any case, please, please read this and explore ASFA and other foster care law and information more so that you understand why just tossing children out of foster care and denying them their right to permanency and the services they need is so devastating. If you continue to recommend transfers of legal custody to relatives for no good reason, you will be complicit in the illegal harm being done to the children and their families by the state.
Here are the laws (actual text at end of post). As you will read, the agency is bound to follow this hierarchy and these rules:
1. RU first: If not recommended, the agency must document a compelling reason why it is not in the best interest of the child; if the agency or anyone else fails to do so, the judge must return the child
2. Adoption second: If not recommended, the agency must document a compelling reason why it is not in the best interest of the child; if the agency or anyone else fails to do so, the judge must issue an order directing the agency to place the child for adoption
Note: The federal law specifically calls first for adoption with a fit and willing relative
3. Referred for legal guardianship third: If not recommended, the agency must document a compelling reason why it is not in the best interest of the child; if the agency or anyone else fails to do so, the judge must issue an order directing the agency to refer the child for guardianship
Note: Guardianship is strictly defined and sets a higher standard than most state definitions of "legal custody"--
--[42 US Code 675(7). (guardianship defined as) A judicially created relationship between a child and caretaker which is intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, care and control of the person, custody of the person, and decision-making. The term ‘legal guardian’ means the caretaker in such a relationship.
Also note: The Ohio statute says, simply, "legal custody"; there is no such distinction as "permanent" legal custody or "temporary" legal custody. All legal custody is indefinite, subject to challenge by others and abdication of the custodian.
4. APPLA fourth
These priorities are set by law. Best interest is set by law. The various dispositions are not an a la carte menu of options, they are a ranked list. The child's best interest is not subject to the agency's, cw's, or your ideas--it is set by law. These laws should be followed for the host of good reasons behind them. The agency cannot legally pick and choose at will and neither should you imo.
CASA and GALs are court-appointed advocates for the children. You work for the court, not the state or the agency, and advocate for the children, not the parents, not the families, just the children. I mention this because the CASA on our case buddied up with the parents and didn't know and didn't care what the child's rights were. To advocate for the children, you must know what their rights are. Your posts indicate that your training has been contrary to your clients' best interest as defined and mandated in your state and federal law. Please read the Adoption & Safe Families Act and other supporting US Code and Ohio statutes in addition to what I've written here. You must know these things if you are going to advocate for any child's best interest.
As for what lawyers recommend, I doubt many of these relatives have their own representation. If they do, and this is the "advice" they are getting, they are being taken for a ride on the ka-ching train.
We ran into this kind of toss 'em out attitude and policy in another state. That state at least was honest enough that some of its laws, as written, did not agree with federal law. It is one of very few that are that blatant. I am greatly saddened to learn that, at least in your part of Ohio, children and families are subject to the same kind of mistreatment and legal neglect. I hope you are able to learn more about this and bring about some change at least among the CASA there.
Peace, H
State of Ohio
Permanency Options
Citation: Rev. Stat. § 2151.417
Permanency options include:
- Return home
- Adoption
- Legal custody
- Another planned, permanent living arrangement
Determining the Best Interests of the Child
Citation: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414(D)
In determining the best interests of a child at a hearing, the court shall consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, the following:
- The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child
- The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child
- The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22 month period ending on or after March 18, 1999
- The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency
- Whether any of the factors in § 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) apply in relation to the parents and child
US Code, Title 42, Section 675:
(C) with respect to each such child, procedural safeguards will be applied, among other things, to assure each child in foster care under the supervision of the State of a permanency hearing to be held, in a family or juvenile court or another court (including a tribal court) of competent jurisdiction, or by an administrative body appointed or approved by the court, no later than 12 months after the date the child is considered to have entered foster care (as determined under subparagraph (F)) (and not less frequently than every 12 months thereafter during the continuation of foster care), which hearing shall determine the permanency plan for the child that includes whether, and if applicable when, the child will be returned to the parent, placed for adoption and the State will file a petition for termination of parental rights, or referred for legal guardianship, or (in cases where the State agency has documented to the State court a compelling reason for determining that it would not be in the best interests of the child to return home, be referred for termination of parental rights, or be placed for adoption, with a fit and willing relative, or with a legal guardian) placed in another planned permanent living arrangement and, in the case of a child described in subparagraph (A)(ii), whether the out-of-State placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child, and, in the case of a child who has attained age 16, the services needed to assist the child to make the transition from foster care to independent living; and procedural safeguards shall also be applied with respect to parental rights pertaining to the removal of the child from the home of his parents, to a change in the child's placement, and to any determination affecting visitation privileges of parents....