It's partly language, you seem to use language differently than the actual legal definitions--
I'm not a lawyer so I use language in a way that hopefully other people can understand. I'm not trying to have a debate about WHAT is right or wrong under the law, I am telling you that legal custody is standard practice in Ohio. I'm sorry if that devastates you but it is just a fact.
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.
What would make you think that I personally make recommendations for no good reason? I have two cases a year on average, at this time, BOTH PRIVATE! Private means there is no social services agency involved. And BOTH families have PRIVATE lawyers and BOTH familes are requesting Legal Custody on their own! My job (contrary to what you believe) is NOT to protect anybody's RIGHTS - that is a lawyers job - but to protect the best interest of the children. If that means keeping them with a grandparent by legal custody (because that is what the family is asking for) then as long as after my investigation and speaking personally with the child (who many times tells me specifically what they want) I am doing my job by reporting what the child wants and says (and the other parties) to the court along with recommendations. If the family in a private case needs services, I would of course, refer them to the local child services agency or job center.
If I am working on a case involving child services, then the caseworker is the one who initially would request legal custody and I can recommend against that. And many times I would! I would much prefer to have a child in foster care than send them off to a legal custody situation that was unsafe or not in their best interest.
I honestly don't think you are reading my posts and that you are just jumping to conclusions based on your own personal situation.
"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."
I agree and said this in my previous post . . . it is "considered permanent" but is in fact not permanent but it is as close to permanent that you will get if a child is not available to be adopted.
"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."
The law is only one piece of what is in the best interest of a child. The CASA/GAL is supposed to be an independent person looking at the child's life, interviewing the child and making recommendations based on what the child wants (if appropriate) and if not appropriate, what the CASA/GAL deems is best. There is a ton of judgment used - not a ton of law. That is how it is and the judges need gals because judges cannot personally go do all the investigative work necessary. If a child wants to be protected legally, the child is appointed an attorney. The GAL's role is NOT to protect legal interests. (a judge in a case I was in last month said so out loud).
"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."
The child is not my client. And just because you had one bad CASA, does not mean all of them are the same. You are making assumptions about what the CASA cared about. I do not need to know what the child's legal rights are to determine that a child needs to be in school more often, a child needs health care, a child needs time with parents (or not), a child needs counseling or a child needs permanence. These are all things that any good parent can know without having a law degree. Most CASAs are volunteers (who DO NOT work for the Court although court-appointed) and are unpaid volunteers who care deeply about kids. I do not need to know the law to do my job, although if i do need to know the law for a particular situation, i have people i can call.
"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."
I tell any parent or grandparent i interview to consider getting their own lawyer. MOST already have lawyers. That is still their choice and not the CASA's responsibility if they choose not to. My job is not to ADVISE anybody. My job is to ferret out the situation and report to the judge my recommendations in the child's best interest.
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.
And you may be right . . .maybe Ohio is doing things differently that what federal law mandates. I'm not a lawyer but I can tell you that Ohio uses legal custody frequently; caseworkers recommend it frequently, and private relatives request it frequently. And I'm not saying its right or wonderful and it may be a very bad idea for kids after the case closes -and that is very sad. I think your situation has taught you and me that the law may say one thing but it is not always followed in practice at family courts. I will definitlely consider what you have said the next time I see a recommendation by a caseworker for legal custody. I will be more inclined to ask the caseworker why he/she deems legal custody better than keeping a child in foster care. Usually the answer would be the goal is no longer reunification .. . but that does not mean it is necessarily a good thing to shove them out of the system into anyone's home that will take them legal custody. Frankly, I would rather see long term foster care parent(s) adopt than I would want a kid shoved into any ole relative's house that will send them back to mommy or daddy.
I think we both agree that adoption is the superior permanent solution. Thanks for the debate. I'm tired now so I need to take a nap
