[aMarylandfamily]

I'm not sure if it is true in all states, but Maryland no longer accepts voluntary placement in foster or respite care for children when a family is in crisis ... they are forced to keep the child at home even if they are unable to care for him/her or "place" their child with social services, charged legally with neglect or abandonment depending on the circumstances and the child is processed for Permanency Placement ... often referred to as adoption ... with family reunification in between. Having experienced the need for services and narrowly avoiding legal charges, I can only state the unfairness of this ... Social Services should be there to help not to put a family further into crisis ... this may be where "placing" a child is coming from ....

Just another insight - hope it helps clear some things up.

[lucyjoy]

There need to be some major changes in the laws to allow families to get the services they need. Having lived with a dangerous child, I know that sometimes removal is(life and death) necessaryand many states do not give parents options leaving them to be forced to find other adotive homes or face ciminal charges. I got lucky. Our state allowed my son o go into care for 17 months in a restrictive RTC. I thought it was forever and he'd never come home. The RTC tried to force us to give up custody for him to go to independant living at 14, but the state said I didn't have to. My son is home and doing well after 17 months. Had I lived in another state, I would have been forced to give up custody and be charged with child abandonment and my son would have lost his family.

Many families facing this situation opt to find other placements for their older children.

[jlee71803]

This is so sad for the family a child /children people always want to know why children have problems like rad , this is why no stable home ... we all need to think about what this does for our children.

[roxanna425]

the first option for pemanency placement is usually reunification, not adoption. without a permanecy plan (ie mental health, chemical dependency treatment, parenting classes) services cannot be offered and paid for by the state. I have been a sw for a few years now and I haven't seen a permanency plan for a child from DCFS that did not list reunification as option A unless a child's sibling had died in the care of the parent or the parent had left the state or been incarcerated. that is why birth parents get so many services and are given so many chances. DCFS is not a crisis shelter. in order to make sure that a parent is in a serious enough situation that they are willing to be charged with abandonment (the judge can see that the parent is there with a lawyer explaining their circumstances or that they are in an inpatient asylum) otherwise there's Childhaven and such for parents in crisis. There's not enough state money to do all things for all people.

[notjustanykatie]

We don't get to be parents when we want too..and send our kids away and then get them back when we feel like it. It still isn't a reason for neglect/abuse.

[Rifilanna]

I don't think this is about when we "want" to parent. Famalies face very real crisies about safty to all especially with children with mental health issues. I lived with a violent child, she was placed in a private institution from time to time, but the state was no help at all...even when the police were called. Parenting classes (I wasn't her legal parent so I wasn't involved) for her legal parents did not change her mental health issues. No one parenting were drug users or criminals. She had to wait to be 18 to receive needed services. She is now on full disablity. It is an idiotic system.

I have a friend with a violent mentally disabled teenager, and there is no respite care available, none, in our state. She has to be in danger in order to parent. There is state money for a lot of odd things there isn't a priorty for the care of mentally ill children and famalies in crisis. I know how to physically restrain children becuase the system failed a vulerable family. Neither of these children are/were neglected or abused in both cases adults have been hurt.... and we chose to care for these children is that good enough for the Social workers? Help in the form of respite care, accesbile mental health services for children, training in special needs issues (not just restraint) would all have been useful.

Do I think the state has a responsablity to children and famalies..yes, if they take my tax money.

[Lorraine123]

We don't get to be parents when we want too..and send our kids away and then get them back when we feel like it.

This is not about being parents when we want to be. Its about getting the necessary help for our children, while keeping ourselves safe. Parents don't relinquish custody of their children just because they are tired of parenting. They relinquish because they have no other choice. As a parent its very expensive to pay for an RTC for a violent child. However, if that same child were in state custody, they would get treatment right away. So, should we as parents deny our children the opportunity for treatment? And does the state have the right to stand in our way?