[takingtheplunge]

I am not an expert, so take the analysis with a grain of salt. I'm reflecting on my friends' cases and what was learned in training.

DPSS will move a child if TPR is being pursued instead of R/U and the current foster home doesn't want to adopt. Due to mom's no-shows the first 6 months or so, they probably moved away from r/u to TPR. They probably had a hearing that "ended services" meaning that TPR hasn't happened but they are no longer required to pay for intervention programs, classes, drive mom to visits, etc. Even though "services are ended" the parent can still pursue the prescribed r/u steps and earn their child back. But, as you can imagine, it's much harder for them to do it on their own w/o pre-paid services. DPSS is probably talking to her through her court appointed lawyer. DPSS can still request TPR if mom completes classes. Ultimately, the judge has the final say.

My guess is that having the child moved was this parent's wake up call. It's apparent she isn't following through with classes; she is probably in denial. If she is making progress (no matter how meager) she is entitled to visits. I don't think they are "rewarding her behavior" as much as they are following procedure w/ visits. The visit times seem long. Maybe they are seeing if she can handle that much time with the kids. The more she cancels, the worse it looks for her. Set rules about rescheduling after canceled or late visits. Others might have suggestions.

Hang in there. Pray for a judicial ruling that will benefit the kid.