[vernellinnj]

Let's assume YOU made the rules, how long would you give biological parents to COMPLETE their case plan goals before you sent the case to TPR?

I know there can be all kinds of extinuating (sp) circumstances, but let's assume there are no insurmountable obstacles preventing the bios from completing the plan.

What's your opinion?

Me: I say if the plan is not completed in one year, the case goes to TPR...

[hunterfamily]

I have seen a few parents do it in 6 months, so that is possible, but just on the safe side I say 9 months. Which by the way, that is what florida will go to after July 1st.

[Yash]

Six months. If the bios are working their caseplan then they get a continuance in monthly increments to see if they are staying the course.

A friend's judge once said, a kid's childhood doesn't wait for parents to become adequate.

[vernellinnj]

Yash.. I like that judge's thinking

[graciej]

I agree with the six months with extensions granted for steady progress.

Our FD has been with us 14 months since the age of 5 months, knows no other parents, hasn't seen Bdad since she was a couple months old, hasn't seen bmom since her first birthday and yet still bmom has time to work the case plan. Hasn't done a single thing on it in 14 months, but still has time to decide to start working on it, I guess? Very frustrating.

[MassachusettsMom]

I vote for six months. MAYBE if the child is older and in a stable relative placement then a bit more time... but six months is a lifetime (sometimes literally their entire life) for these kids. And then I'd make sure TPRs get resolved within another three months MAX. None of these delays after delays and then appeals after appeals.

[Scrapsathome]

Well, for my aunt about 32 years ago it took her 7 months to complete her plan from the day of her son's birth. I personally can't imagine giving birth and then hopping off the bed and rushing out to start a case plan, so I'd err on the side of giving them a little extra time.

For our current FD it took her mom a year to convince the county that she should have her daughter back. FD will be going home in the next week or so. It was especially difficult for her mom because she had to change her entire life style and manage a serious heart condition so well that her doctor completely changed her diagnosis from "six months to live" to "a full and healthy life with proper care." We are happy to report that the most incredible changes occurred after we received FD and began praying every day for her mom. God is good.

So, I'd say the one year guideline is good.

Jess

[LoViN_LiFe]

I have to say that if parents are REALLY REALLY trying then a year. But if they are "doing enough to get by" or doing nothing at all then 6 months. The thing is some of these children taken into custody so long only know fp as mom and dad, is that fair to wait YEARS and allow sometimes strangers to come into these kids life?? My lil girl was 4mo when we picked her up...and she is 19mo now...both parents admit never to have "bonded" with her. Bio-dad has not seen her since the day she was removed and Bio-mom has not seen her since Aug 07...almost a year. Neither has called me, CW, or anyone to check on her since first week of December 07. TPR was granted...appeal process over! So it was literally a year from the day CPS was granted PMC and the day TPR occured.

[Kat-L]

Originally Posted by Yash

Six months. If the bios are working their caseplan then they get a continuance in monthly increments to see if they are staying the course.

A friend's judge once said, a kid's childhood doesn't wait for parents to become adequate.

I'm with Yash. I'd give them six months. If they haven't made any progress, I'd want the goal switched to TPR. If they HAVE made significant progress but aren't ready for the kids to be returned, I'd give them more time.

[mom2behappy]

if there is a drug abuse issue I would want the child to stay in care while the parents complete the 6 months program alone then have to go into another parent child program (child remaining in care but placed in treatment with mom) for another year. if there has been no progress in the first 6 months then I vote for termination right there, if the parents have not come to visit the child when child taken into care nor has any family member within the first 3 months if that child is a baby I vote that tpr should be filed I think the 6 months for abandonment is too long.

[Lumpkin]

I agree with our state, it depends on the age of the child. The younger age, the quicker the timeframe should expire. Younger children who have the possibility of forgetting the impact of the neglect/abuse/etc at such a young age should be given a "fast track" to avoid further possible impact imo.

6 months is long enough IF the parent is working the plan. I might even stretch it to a year, depending on circumstances and progress. HOWEVER, if the parent is not working the plan at all, that time should move up quickly - say 3 months. If parents are not making any appointments, being destructive, and have a history of abuse and/or other TPR'd children, 3 months is WAY longer than I think anybody should have to wait until moving the child into a reasonable permanency plan.

[MomwithFive]

Originally Posted by Kat-L

I'm with Yash. I'd give them six months. If they haven't made any progress, I'd want the goal switched to TPR. If they HAVE made significant progress but aren't ready for the kids to be returned, I'd give them more time.

I agree with this. Six months is a lifetime in the life of a child. After living with RAD, more importance needs to be put on these children's attachments and future ability to attach. It can emotionally ruin them at such young ages. They have one childhood.....