[Aminah]

Originally Posted by Mom2blessings

In my case, my children have been moved five times since March 2007 (six if you count the move from the birth family...

I think we would all agree that this is devastating for the children and should be avoided. I'm wondering, where were the 5 (or 6) movements to and from?

Originally Posted by Mom2blessings

the review board asked whether the paternal aunt had been investigated as a potential placement...Quite frankly, I hope they never do this because she's an illegal immigrant and lives in another state.

...Auntie has not tried to have any contact with the kids, the kids are FINALLY settling down and feel like they are with real family, and they want to live with me...

I'm hoping that what you really meant was that you don't think placement w/ the aunt is in the best interest of the children because they need permanency and their interest are better served with their deepest and most healthy attachment (which is with you). The paternal aunt may live in another state and may be an illegal immigrant, but I don't think either one of those things is fair to use as to why she could not serve the children's best interest. Do you know why the aunt is coming forward now? Have previous relative resources been denied? I'm interested to know how this situation developed.

Originally Posted by Mom2blessings

I think it should be illegal to EVER ask a family to be an adoptive placement or a foster-to-adopt placement unless EVERY birth family member that is interested in the children has been investigated as a possible placement. If I had my way, and the first "3 month law" was passed, this would be a non-issue at the point of adoption, TPR or foster-to-adopt because all possibilities would be known in the first 3 months.

I agree. Wouldn't it be great if this was happening now? I think more needs to be done on behalf of agencies regarding pursuing relatives. In my experience, instead of pursuing all relative options at one time, they pursue one at a time. If one doesn't pan out, then they move onto the next one. I would be very much in favor of a 3-month law (w/ exceptions in extenuating circumstances) as long as agencies were required AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE to reach out beyond grandparents for placement. I think agencies in the first 3 months should reach out to family members and have them sign a legal document that says "yes" consider me as a resource, or "no" do not consider me as a resource. That way, it is clear the agency did a search for relatives, relatives are held accountable for their intentions early on, and permanency for the child can be found much quicker w/ a relative or a fost/adopt family.

Originally Posted by Mom2blessings

But did anyone else here come from a troubled childhood and ever daydreamed that you were adopted...or maybe that you could leave your birth family and go live with (gasp) a stranger?

I'm sure many people have had these moments. I have had these moments. I have watched my family evolve from being very dysfunctional to being very functional, healthy, and loving (for the most part). I come from a long line of drug abusers and teenage mothers. Nonetheless, my family has come through the storm and I can look back and be happy to be part of my family. We're not perfect, but we're family.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by Aminah

I would be very much in favor of a 3-month law (w/ exceptions in extenuating circumstances) as long as agencies were required AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE to reach out beyond grandparents for placement.

I'm 100% in favor of a procedure like this. (In fact, it is already DSS policy here in Colorado, and social workers are required to conduct what is called 'due diligence' in finding relative placements). And I've been mostly lucky in this---when my kids' relatives have been found, it's been usually fairly quickly, although I wish it took days instead of weeks.

But here's the problem: the only way that SWs can really track relatives down is to get names and contact information from the birthparents. Sometimes they give those names willingly, but many times, they do not. Is it possible for SWs to find, say, siblings and cousins of the bparents without real help from the bparents themselves or from other family members? If the SWs can't, and a relative steps forward 6 months later, what should be done? It's a serious dilemma.

[Godmother]

"due diligence" can be a strange thing. My girls have been in the system 11 years. In care the most recent time for 3 1/2 yrs. I was supposed to get guardianship of them but it was delayed because they had done "due diligence" on one sister, but not the other. They are full sisters, so no different relatives to check. No relative has stepped forward in 11 yrs, but still guardianship was delayed. Now mom has decided to contest the guardianship again. It could be another year before the trial and stuff take place. And it won't be TPR and adoption, just guardianship. I am not related to them, I was just their foster parent 11 yrs ago and have had a relationship with them since then.

[Mom2blessings]

Originally Posted by Aminah

I think we would all agree that this is devastating for the children and should be avoided. I'm wondering, where were the 5 (or 6) movements to and from?

Well the first placement was with me as a temporary placement. They said they already had a family that would take them, but we had to wait for a few days (this was supposedly the foster family that had their cousins). The next 3 placements, were all the fault of the foster family...they all got a divorce and quit fostering. The last move was back to me.

I'm hoping that what you really meant was that you don't think placement w/ the aunt is in the best interest of the children because they need permanency and their interest are better served with their deepest and most healthy attachment (which is with you). The paternal aunt may live in another state and may be an illegal immigrant, but I don't think either one of those things is fair to use as to why she could not serve the children's best interest. Do you know why the aunt is coming forward now? Have previous relative resources been denied? I'm interested to know how this situation developed.

We will have to agree to disagree with each other on some of this. Yes, I believe these kids have made substantial bonds with me and therefore I think it's in the children's best interest. But I 100% disagree that an illegal immigrant should NEVER get US children. They are criminals. However, to be honest, I have no idea if the Aunt even knows about the kids being in care. The casewoker originally told us that she's in the US illegally. Later she denied knowing about her (in front of the panel...I think she just hasn't pursued it really and didn't want to look bad in front of them). The kids have no idea who she is, they've never met her. Incidentally, if she were in Mexico and she had shown interest right away (and was found suitable) and I would have fully supported her getting her nieces and nephews months ago (or even prior to coming to me, since none of those homes were stable...the kids could have been moved to her as easily as they could have been moved to me, right?...if she was legal).

I agree. Wouldn't it be great if this was happening now? I think more needs to be done on behalf of agencies regarding pursuing relatives. In my experience, instead of pursuing all relative options at one time, they pursue one at a time. If one doesn't pan out, then they move onto the next one. I would be very much in favor of a 3-month law (w/ exceptions in extenuating circumstances) as long as agencies were required AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE to reach out beyond grandparents for placement. I think agencies in the first 3 months should reach out to family members and have them sign a legal document that says "yes" consider me as a resource, or "no" do not consider me as a resource. That way, it is clear the agency did a search for relatives, relatives are held accountable for their intentions early on, and permanency for the child can be found much quicker w/ a relative or a fost/adopt family.

We very much seem to agree on this one. And I agree that ALL the relatives should be pursued simultaneously and aggresively. Accountability is a must, for the sake of children and families. All of your suggestions are great. I think we should start a petition to present to our lawmakers!

I'm sure many people have had these moments. I have had these moments. I have watched my family evolve from being very dysfunctional to being very functional, healthy, and loving (for the most part). I come from a long line of drug abusers and teenage mothers. Nonetheless, my family has come through the storm and I can look back and be happy to be part of my family. We're not perfect, but we're family.

I'm very close with my siblings and mom. My relationship with my father was difficult till the day he died. If my mother had died, and I had been left with my father, I would have begged to be put in foster care. My cousins/aunts/uncles would never be people I'd want to live with, with the exception of 1 aunt. I had 14 aunts/uncles. One of them used to be a foster parent. She would be the person I'd LEAST want to live with...well, maybe the paranoid schizophenic uncle tops her, but she's a close 2nd.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

I'm 100% in favor of a procedure like this. (In fact, it is already DSS policy here in Colorado, and social workers are required to conduct what is called 'due diligence' in finding relative placements). And I've been mostly lucky in this---when my kids' relatives have been found, it's been usually fairly quickly, although I wish it took days instead of weeks.

But here's the problem: the only way that SWs can really track relatives down is to get names and contact information from the birthparents. Sometimes they give those names willingly, but many times, they do not. Is it possible for SWs to find, say, siblings and cousins of the bparents without real help from the bparents themselves or from other family members? If the SWs can't, and a relative steps forward 6 months later, what should be done? It's a serious dilemma.

boulderbabe is right as usual! With the internet today, you'd think social services would step into the 21st century and check all this.

Oddly enough, just this week we got some mail for lil guy's birthfather. A private investigator had gotten our address off the internet and sent a letter to BIL at our address, hoping we were relatives. If that can happen, why can't social services take 20 minutes to google some names and see what comes up? Invest a stamp--a child is worth a first-class stamp and a one page letter, I should think!

For our lil guy, the bparents did not mention us, but the 1/2 sister did-she was 15 at the time. SW ignored her because we were out of state. Not exactly in child's best interests--he is here now and very happy. We were naive, figured if we were needed in this situation the sw would call us. What a wake up call when we finally called the sw--go back to the post #1--I won't go over all that again!


I have thought about starting a thread where we could share what we have done in our state to update laws that have to do with CPS/social services, etc.

I have contacted my state representative and an updated version of laws concerning the Interstate Compact for Placement of Children will (hopefully) be passed in the Hawaii State Legislature this fall. My state legislator is the bomb!

[hermi14]

Hello. I have just spent several hours reading this thread--something I am able to do b/c my 7-mo. old FS is visiting his aunt and uncle, who will be taking guardianship of him within the next week or so. I will post my experience on the principle that more information is always better.

I picked my FS up from the hospital at a day and a half. I was told that the bparents had recently moved to the city from a southerly, rural county. The bmom had had seven previous children, all of them were placed with relatives or adopted out. Bmom told the agency that she was not on good terms with anyone and that there were no kin to take him. There was mention of an uncle and a paternal grandmother in town, but bmom and dad were living with said grandmother and the uncle lived down the street, so neither the grandmother nor the uncle were acceptable placements since they were so physically close to bparents.

The reason baby was taken from bmom was that he was cocaine-positive (though he is very healthy, developmentally on-track, and has experienced no visible side effects from the exposure).

I think there was also mention of an aunt calling right at the beginning, but she had not called back so I assume everyone assumed that she was not that interested.

When he was about two months old, both of his parents were placed in jail for a serious crime. The caseworker told me that his bmom had written a letter stating that he should be placed with an aunt who already had two of his siblings. The aunt had traveled up to the city to inquire about him. She was told that he was doing well, and she seemed satisfied with that, although she was also applying for placement.

Children Services visited her home and performed a home study. The caseworker said that they told her that the child was not really the bio child of the father (and thus not really related to the aunt and uncle), so the proposition of a paternity test came up. The aunt and uncle said that none of the children they had were really the father's children. Also, the caseworker mentioned that they seemed "slow."

At this point I did not immediately realize that this far-away aunt and uncle could be legitimate--in fact we thought maybe their confession about the questionable paternity implied that they would relinquish rights to the infant. The idea that they were "slow" and lived in a trailer didn't do anything to legitimize their interest in my baby boy.

Looking back on it, I think (well, I know) that the caseworker wanted me to keep him--she knew how much I wanted him. I will also care-fully speculate that race and class conflict may have played a subtle part in it--but not in the classic way you would expect. Caseworker is African-American. Baby and family are Caucasian. More importantly, family seems to be somewhat racist. Caseworker may have been reacting to that--not wanting baby to grow up under those conditions. There is a delicate relationship between educated blacks and uneducated, racist whites.

Caseworker told me that now all the families with siblings had to be located and investigated as possible homes, in addition to a paternity test being done. Time passed while I waited for someone to come and swab baby for DNA.

Caseworker told me she hadn't returned aunt's call for two months. I wondered about that, and yet somehow I rationalized to myself that this was appropriate--and I even sort of held onto the idea that the fact that the aunt hadn't called back in two mos meant that she wasn't really committed to the boy. And the questionable paternity made it seem as if they could have less of a relationship to the baby.

And then the caseworker called to tell me she had visited the bmom in jail, and bmom had said that I could keep him. She said bmom's word wasn't final, but this was a good step forward. When caseworker described the progression of the conversation, I was a little uncomfortable with the fact that it had started with her describing the baby's "medical condition" and implying that the aunt and uncle might not be able to deal with it--the "condition" was actually only vaguely established and not conclusive in any way. (At first I was like "what medical condition?") But the second reason that bmom approved my keeping the baby seemed to be the fact that I would allow him to see her when she got out of jail, b/c apparently the aunt had not visited her and supported her like she wished, and hadn't brought the siblings to see her.

That was something I could hold on to--if I would agree to an OA, essentially I could keep the baby. OF COURSE! For a week or two, I thought that it was highly likely that I could keep my FS. So, I even went out of town for work, leaving him with his regular daily sitter for the week.

I came back and picked him up late Sunday night. I had to attend a case status meeting on Monday morning, so I decided to bring him with me instead of dropping him off at the sitter's first. Waiting for the meeting to start, I was talking to my caseworker and his caseworker, when his caseworker said "oh, there's his aunt." The whole family was there, including his 2 and 3-year old siblings.

I had had *no idea* that they would be attending the meeting. I started to tear up just from the intensity of meeting them. When we got into the meeting room and the neutral observer who was running the meeting asked about his medical issues, I broke down in tears. The rest of the meeting was just a blur as the siblings climbed on and off my lap and I allowed aunt to take baby in her arms.

Aunt described how they had driven up the night before and visited bmom in jail--it was the first time bmom had seen her children in 18 months. Bmom had changed her mind and said that aunt and uncle could take the baby.

By that time I knew, however, that what bmom said was pretty irrelevant (especially since she had changed her mind so fast). What was relevant was the siblings.

And then the supervisor said "so what is the case plan?" and the caseworker said "reunification with family." At some level I realized that that meant aunt and uncle and siblings-but it was not like... a rational thing... I cannot explain it... it was sinking in emotionally for me that there were other unforseen forces taking over his life (and thus my life)... it was really strange. Any talk of paternity tests was abandoned--reunification meant reunification with HIS SIBLINGS, regardless of the aunt and uncle's biological relationship with the baby.

And then the aunt and uncle said "can we have our visit now?" --no visit had been scheduled, since I had had no idea they'd be there. My caseworker said that I didn't have to let them have a visit, but I was feeling like I was being carried by this river--why shouldn't I let them visit him, since they were going to have him? I didn't have any pressing meetings to go to today at work. So I let them take him for a half hour or so while I stood around and cried and called my best friend. They were crying and taking pictures of him with his siblings.

I found out later that my caseworker was livid at his caseworker for the way that meeting took place. That made me feel better--that I had an advocate, that my shock and disbelief were justified. I don't know why his caseworker didn't tell me the aunt was coming--I think that she was afraid of letting me down or something. Or me not coming to the status meeting. I don't know. I wasn't angry at her b/c I knew she had wanted me to have him.

I took the rest of the day off and spent it with baby and best friend --I called the GAL and he was able to come over to my house and tell me his thoughts that very day--unfortunately I didn't have a chance. The law always favored reunification with family.

I was thankful for that decisiveness. And I immediately started digesting the idea that I would not get to keep my dear FS. I asked his caseworker to get aunt and uncle's phone number, and I called them a week or two later. I started arranging visitation, and took him down to visit them (two hours away) one weekend, then overnight for the next weekend (I stayed in a hotel).
(Meanwhile the caseworker still does not return their calls in a timely manner, so I call them and tell them what's up.)

Aunt and uncle were supposed to take babyu permanently this weekend--the caseworker had said it would be by the end of the month, so his aunt and I were planning the transfer for last night (Friday night). But (predictably) caseworker had not completed all the paperwork, so she said he could only have a weekend visit. Aunt and uncle were angry and hurt, but I assured them that they will get him. They came over last night and visited my home for the first time--stayed a couple hours, then left with him. They'll bring him back on Tuesday and then probably come and get him permanently in a week after that.

I am SO THANKFUL that I have had the opportunity to get to know his new parents--that they've wanted to get to know me, that the agency has allowed us to arrange our own pre-placement/transition visits.

They lead a very different lifestyle from me--they do not work and rely on SSI income--but they are good people and they seem to be doing well with the two siblings. Dad seems to pay as much attention to them as mom does. My FS may not go to college, but he will be loved. They knew about him from the day he was born, and they wanted him. For some important but unknown reason, he was destined to be with me for a while (he's bigger than any other child his bmom has had--I'm confident that this is due to my love :-)).

[vernellinnj]

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

But here's the problem: the only way that SWs can really track relatives down is to get names and contact information from the birthparents. Sometimes they give those names willingly, but many times, they do not. Is it possible for SWs to find, say, siblings and cousins of the bparents without real help from the bparents themselves or from other family members? If the SWs can't, and a relative steps forward 6 months later, what should be done? It's a serious dilemma.

I sometimes wonder about this too...in one of my cases,the biofather never came forward and the state was not able (or liable) to find HIS family members. (They DO have to show proof of having used all measures to contact HIM). The biomom is not willing to give any info. It's quite possible the paternal side of the family has no idea the child exists. BUT, when a tremendous amount of time has passed..let's say YEARS, and healthy attachments are formed the bio family IMO should have no rights to remove the child from a loving home and the only family they know.

I do think, in this situation, the adoptive parents should do whatever they can to allow the child to find his/her family (once they are the legal parents and able to take such measures).

[Hadley2]

hermi thank you for your story.

Unless someone has gone to great lengths to assume a fictitious identity, in 2008, I think it is ridiculous for ss agencies to claim they can only go by what the parents give them for family information. Given an ss number, place of birth, even high school attended or similar type of information, it is not at all hard to find out who someone is and who they are related to. Police and hospitals find next of kin all the time with nothing more than a driver's license. If they can do that to get a body buried, they can certainly do it to send a child home.

It is not acceptable to me to say, "oh, well, they wouldn't tell us" when a $20 internet search would tell all.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by Hadley2

hermi thank you for your story.

Unless someone has gone to great lengths to assume a fictitious identity, in 2008, I think it is ridiculous for ss agencies to claim they can only go by what the parents give them for family information. Given an ss number, place of birth, even high school attended or similar type of information, it is not at all hard to find out who someone is and who they are related to. Police and hospitals find next of kin all the time with nothing more than a driver's license. If they can do that to get a body buried, they can certainly do it to send a child home.

It is not acceptable to me to say, "oh, well, they wouldn't tell us" when a $20 internet search would tell all.

Absolutely. A private investigator was motivated to find us-a potential relative--so he could get a $300 share of my BIL's settlement from a class action lawsuit--just $300 was enough to get him on the internet and send out form letters. And social services can't do the same for a child.

I understand some states have laws saying how much looking social services has to do--and that they have to be careful about confidentiality. That is where I see a need for updated laws--let's bring social services into the 21st century and use the technology available.

[MamaS]

Please remember the "privacy laws". Social services cannot send out letters to people of the same name and hometown who "might be" relatives -- if they were not relatives, they would have violated the b-mother's privacy. They can only contact identified relatives -- these can be relatives named by the b-mother or relatives listed on any "next of kin" forms (hospital, arrest, etc.). Private detective agencies, collection agencies, etc. are not bound by the privacy laws and can make any contacts they wish.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by MamaS

Please remember the "privacy laws". Social services cannot send out letters to people of the same name and hometown who "might be" relatives -- if they were not relatives, they would have violated the b-mother's privacy. They can only contact identified relatives -- these can be relatives named by the b-mother or relatives listed on any "next of kin" forms (hospital, arrest, etc.). Private detective agencies, collection agencies, etc. are not bound by the privacy laws and can make any contacts they wish.

They can send a letter without identifying information--asking simply are you a relative of so and so. Not asking why, just asking them to be on contact.

As I said, each state may have different laws about what they can or cannot do--I think all the laws need to be updated to allow social services to use the internet to contact people directly.

[vernellinnj]

I'm curious of other's opinions....

What if the bioparent is of sound mind and CHOOSES to not have biofamily raise their child/children..should the wishes of the parent be honored? SHOULD social services be looking for family if the parent doesn't want them to? Afterall...they know their family much better than social services..perhaps there's a reason why they did not id any immediate/extended family members. Let's assume, for this scenario, that both parents choose to NOT id other family.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by vernellinnj

I'm curious of other's opinions....

What if the bioparent is of sound mind and CHOOSES to not have biofamily raise their child/children..should the wishes of the parent be honored? SHOULD social services be looking for family if the parent doesn't want them to? Afterall...they know their family much better than social services..perhaps there's a reason why they did not id any immediate/extended family members. Let's assume, for this scenario, that both parents choose to NOT id other family.

Once the child is "in the system" it's not up to the bio parents anymore. They are no longer the child's legal guardian. Even if they haven't been TPR'd, they cannot pick and choose where the child goes.

If the family is not safe or suitable in any respect, that is what the home study is supposed to "catch" and show the court.

[vernellinnj]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

Once the child is "in the system" it's not up to the bio parents anymore. They are no longer the child's legal guardian. Even if they haven't been TPR'd, they cannot pick and choose where the child goes.

If the family is not safe or suitable in any respect, that is what the home study is supposed to "catch" and show the court.

Good point...

[hkolln]

Originally Posted by vernellinnj

I'm curious of other's opinions....

What if the bioparent is of sound mind and CHOOSES to not have biofamily raise their child/children..should the wishes of the parent be honored? SHOULD social services be looking for family if the parent doesn't want them to? Afterall...they know their family much better than social services..perhaps there's a reason why they did not id any immediate/extended family members. Let's assume, for this scenario, that both parents choose to NOT id other family.

As Robinkay stated the bioparents don't have that option. Once the children are taken via DCF then DCF is legal guardian to the child until adoptive families are found (or of course they are RU'd with the bioparents). Some states won't allow conditional TPR so I doubt they could guarantee placement with certain people either (at least in our case they couldn't allow a conditional voluntary surrender for biomom). And, if the bioparents don't like someone due to something not related to being suitable to raise the child (IE: they don't get along with say an Aunt, Uncle or their own parents), then would we really want the bioparents to make that determination for placement? They wouldn't be thinking clearly and making the right determination for that child (afterall the child was taken from them for a reason). That is what the home study if for...to screen everyone to find the right placement for the child.

BTW: Happy Labor Day to everyone! I'm hiding from all these tropical storms/hurricanes down here in NE Florida YUCK DOUBLE YUCK!