[Singlemom619]

I'm blanking on the name but there is a federal policy that states that a child that's in care for 15 out of the last 24 months may have TPR and be freed for adoption. The policy is to help children to find permanent homes instead of being held in waiting for the parents that never step up.

However, the policy is worded as it "may" happen and so really it's up to the social worker to request it and/or the judge to actually do TPR.

Where I live, when TPR is done that also terminates any rights of the bio family and so they are slow to do TPR if they're still exploring family.

I've had a child in my care since a couple weeks after he turned two and he is now three (14 months now.) While a great grandmother said she wanted him the first month (last June) he was removed she didn't make any other contact for 4 months (Nov). Out of state home study was started in December, semi completed as of February. They have not finalized the home study because someone living in the home has a record (non violent and not against a child) and they need some sort of documentation or explanation for it.

It's now July and it's STILL not done (how long could it really take to write up the response? The family has to do it.)

Since Nov. She has called to talk to my son (who is very talkative) maybe 6 times and the first time wasn't until late January. She has seen him 3 times - once for 3 hours in April, and then 2 day time visits over a weekend in May.

July visit is schedule for the end of the month BUT she told me she may need to postpone it.

The county PAYS HER to come visit him - they give her XXX amount of money AND put her up in the 2nd most expensive hotel in the city even though she has family here. The XXX money is DOUBLE what her gas costs round trip so she's being PAID to see him and has only come up 2 times.

At what point does someone pull their head out of their rear and see that the relatives really aren't TRYING to see him or get him?

At what point does someone wake up and see that this child doesn't even remember his own mother and only sees my son and I as his family? When do they realize that moving him (which won't be until Sept-December if they ever get it together) is going to cause serious emotional harm since the relative won't allow contact once she has him?

How is this the best interest?

I wish there were statistics that could give me SOME idea on if he's going to stay with us and we can adopt or if he's going to be moved. SW makes it sound like 100% he's going to them but the "deadline" for that keeps getting pushed and the county is already out of compliance with this case.

(Another note - the judge informed the court room that he grew up with 1/2 of the people in the room that day - including the relatives of my son.... No one seemed to take issue with that except for me and the CASA - who no one listens to.)

[MassachusettsMom]

Have you talked to the worker (or your child's pediatrician) about a bonding study? I don't know much about them, except that we were told (after the fact) by DSS that a bonding study should have been done in our case and would have been one way to demonstrate what was in a child's best interest.

[Singlemom619]

Originally Posted by MassachusettsMom

Have you talked to the worker (or your child's pediatrician) about a bonding study? I don't know much about them, except that we were told (after the fact) by DSS that a bonding study should have been done in our case and would have been one way to demonstrate what was in a child's best interest.

I have never even heard of it. I'm going to research it now and I'll ask her about it when she comes out this week. Unfortunately she's not a great SW so I'll also contact the SW that's been a lot more helpful and see if he can help any.

[hrisme]

Originally Posted by Singlemom619

(Another note - the judge informed the court room that he grew up with 1/2 of the people in the room that day - including the relatives of my son.... No one seemed to take issue with that except for me and the CASA - who no one listens to.)

This is a major conflict of interest! It's compeltely unethical for the judge to remain on the case if he has ties to one side or another! Don't know what you could do about it, but your CASA certainly has grounds to request a new judge.

[Singlemom619]

Originally Posted by hrisme

This is a major conflict of interest! It's compeltely unethical for the judge to remain on the case if he has ties to one side or another! Don't know what you could do about it, but your CASA certainly has grounds to request a new judge.

She too told me she thought it was wrong BUT she also said (and I know this too) that no one is listening to her or giving her any credit in this case. There is no reason for her to be on it since no one cares what her thoughts are.

I have a hard time speaking up too much because I worry that we may never see my son again when he leaves if I do something wrong now. I already believe we won't - but if there is a shot in the dark that we might I'm scared to risk that...
UGH SO HARD

[EandDmom]

I have a hard time speaking up too much because I worry that we may never see my son again when he leaves if I do something wrong now. I already believe we won't - but if there is a shot in the dark that we might I'm scared to risk that...

I would be also.. but what if you don't do everything you thought you could to keep him. If it were me the guilt of knowing I didn't rock the boat enough would kill me forever versus knowing I did all I could ..including ticking off everyone.. and still lost him.
There has to be someone you can report that judge to that is so not ethical.

[Singlemom619]

Originally Posted by EandDmom

I would be also.. but what if you don't do everything you thought you could to keep him. If it were me the guilt of knowing I didn't rock the boat enough would kill me forever versus knowing I did all I could ..including ticking off everyone.. and still lost him.
There has to be someone you can report that judge to that is so not ethical.

I have stepped up and I have said things - a lot of things.

However the SW (who appears to have the most power in this case because the judge doesn't listen to anyone else) started telling the relatives not only what I was saying but twisting it into other things so they had this lovely (sarcasm there) image of me until they met me. I can tell they're still on guard and don't like me but they've also told me that they don't believe all they've heard.

Since then I was turning to the CASA and another SW for advice and help... But at the same time the SW and the judge (who's biased) are the only ones that matter in this case at this point...

I'll do what I can because I always live my life doing everything I can so I don't have regrets - but I also need to be realistic and not go too far or be too public in hopes that the relatives don't find out and completely cut me off (for my son's benefit.)

I hope that made sense.

[vernellinnj]

Summary of The Adoption And Safe Families Act of 1997 -


Excerpt
*Establishes New Time Line and Conditions for Filing Termination of Parental Rights. Federal law did not require states to initiate termination of parental rights proceedings based on a child's length of stay in foster care. Under the new law, states must file a petition to terminate parental rights and concurrently, identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified adoptive family on behalf of any child, regardless of age, that has been in foster care for 15 out of the most recent 22 months. A child would be considered as having entered foster care on the earlier of either the date of the first judicial finding of abuse or neglect, or 60 days after the child is removed from the home.

This new requirement applies to children entering foster care in the future and to children already in care. For children already in care, states are required to phase in the filing of termination petitions beginning with children for whom the permanency plan is adoption or who have been in care the longest. One third must be filed within six months of the end of the state's first legislative session following enactment of this law, two-thirds within 12 months and all of them within 18 months. A state must also file such a petition if a court has determined that an infant has been abandoned (as defined in state law) or if a court has determined that a parent of a child has assaulted the child, or killed or assaulted another one of their children. Exceptions can be made to these requirements if: (1) at the state's option, a child is being cared for by a relative; (2) the state agency documents in the case plan which is available for court review, a compelling reason why filing is not in the best interest of the child; or (3) the state agency has not provided to the child's family, consistent with the time period in the case plan, the services deemed necessary to return the child to a safe home.


Good Link explaining Bonding Assessments

Bonding Assessments

[Singlemom619]

Originally Posted by vernellinnj

Summary of The Adoption And Safe Families Act of 1997 -


Excerpt
*Establishes New Time Line and Conditions for Filing Termination of Parental Rights. Federal law did not require states to initiate termination of parental rights proceedings based on a child's length of stay in foster care. Under the new law, states must file a petition to terminate parental rights and concurrently, identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified adoptive family on behalf of any child, regardless of age, that has been in foster care for 15 out of the most recent 22 months. A child would be considered as having entered foster care on the earlier of either the date of the first judicial finding of abuse or neglect, or 60 days after the child is removed from the home.

This new requirement applies to children entering foster care in the future and to children already in care. For children already in care, states are required to phase in the filing of termination petitions beginning with children for whom the permanency plan is adoption or who have been in care the longest. One third must be filed within six months of the end of the state's first legislative session following enactment of this law, two-thirds within 12 months and all of them within 18 months. A state must also file such a petition if a court has determined that an infant has been abandoned (as defined in state law) or if a court has determined that a parent of a child has assaulted the child, or killed or assaulted another one of their children. Exceptions can be made to these requirements if: (1) at the state's option, a child is being cared for by a relative; (2) the state agency documents in the case plan which is available for court review, a compelling reason why filing is not in the best interest of the child; or (3) the state agency has not provided to the child's family, consistent with the time period in the case plan, the services deemed necessary to return the child to a safe home.


Good Link explaining Bonding Assessments

Bonding Assessments

HAHA that's the same link I found earlier today - I read it all and then forwarded it to the CASA and the SW that's been helping me (not on the case) and asked what they thought about it.

I know about the safe families act BUT somewhere in there it says it "may" happen and not that it "must" and so the system is using that as their loophole to do what they want.

Once these SW's burn me out for good (I have a feeling it will happen eventually - hopefully not anytime soon) I want to do something to help pass legislation that really is clear and really is about the kids.

[vernellinnj]

P.S. My FC and I had a bonding evaluation and it was ruled that my FC should stay with me as I am the psychological parent. The child had a bonding eval with biomom too.

Let's pray the judge rules in the best interest of the child (in both of our cases).

[Hadley2]

It doesn't matter what ASFA or US Code, Title 42, Section 675 says because the Commonwealth of Virginia does not comply with federal law on permanency placement goals priority or the 15/22 law.

VA Code explicitly makes permanent placement with relatives--defined in its fc policy manual as intended to be accomplished via a transfer of "legal custody" to the relative with no TPR or adoption)--as a higher goal than adoption.

Under federal law, priorities are supposed to be (1) reunification with parents or prior guardians, (2) adoption, by a fit and willing relative [mentioned first], or other, (3) guardianship, etc. VA's definition of "legal custody" does not even meet the federal standard for "guardianship."

Federal law and VA Code allow for an exception to the 15/22 rule at the discretion of the state (that's where the "may" comes in) when a child resides with relatives. VA Code copies federal law language that has, as a first requirement of this exception, that the state must show a compelling reason why TPR is not in the child's best interest, as it is presumed to be. VA Code ignores that requirement, by assuming an "or" when the intent is clearly "and," if that makes sense. This makes, in practice if not on paper, a blanket rule that effectively prohibits most relatives from adopting their kin out of foster care.

This saves the state the time and money of a TPR trial and appeals--which are redundant and convoluted compared to other states' process--for any child it can place with a relative. This leaves the relatives with an open custody case and angry parents who still have the right to sue for return, etc. Of course, the relatives can also very easily return the child to the parents if they want to.

Your agency is stretching it even further by refusing to file for TPR when the child is not actually residing with relatives but is simply on a case plan with that goal.

It has nothing to do with terminating extended family rights. They have none, anyway. The child's presumptive best interest, in VA law, is to be raised by his/her own family when possible...that connection to extended family in the child's interest, would be considered the child's right, and it does not evaporate with TPR. For purposes of placement in the child's best interest and as a matter of placement priority in VA Code, the child goes to family first.

TPR does, however, terminate the child's right to inheritance. If grandma wants the child to inherit, she must name the child, not assume he/she will be included in the group "my grandchildren."

Oddly enough, this barring of relatives from adoption still carries in foster care policy but not in the overlapping adoptive policy and law; the adoptive policy manual was updated last year and now includes relative adoption, which is mentioned elsewhere in VA Code, as well. So, it's not really against the law (and couldn't be, as long as VA wants to get Title IV-E grant moeny from the feds). Still, the law on paper and actual practice are two different things. The further away a county is from DC and the eastern portion of the state, it seems (I could be wrong), the less likely local practice will follow anything that looks like federal law.

VA is one of only five states that changes the placement priority given in federal law and distorts the intent of the exception in federal law--to allow placement with a non-offending, noncustodial parent; to respect an older child's wishes regarding TPR or adoption; and to accommodate some families' desire to avoid the disruptive influence on the extended family of a TPR (which is silly; it's much easier and clearer for family relations when there is a TPR and an adoption). Of the other states, most that list "permanent placement with relative" first after RU still require TPR and intend the placement to be adoptive unless there's a good reason for it not to be.

Which is not to say that no other state agency will push relatives to take custody or guardianship and skip out on TPR and adoption. It happens all the time despite federal law. VA is just nearly the only state that is a bit more upfront about it in its laws.

VA also has no way for an fp to file for standing as an intervenor. The CASA is not an attorney in VA, just a citizen volunteer. She does not know how to do anything and may not be able to take any legal actions. You could try contacting GALs (guardian ad litem attorneys who get appointed by the court to represent children and others who can't give consent) serving your J&DR county court and tap them for ideas. Most will give free consultations if you ask.

It might be possible for one to file on behalf of (that is, representing) the child as an officer of the court, IDK. Or one might be able or willing to come into a fc case plan review hearing and request the judge to appoint them to represent the child. In both those cases, they would be paid by the court. I don't think they can represent you in the case and be paid by you if you don't have standing but you could ask.

To find a GAL, go to Virginia's Judicial System, click on Juvenile & Domestic Relations Courts under the heading Virginia Courts; then click on your county court; then click on the Guardians Ad Litem for Children in District X box in the right-hand column.

Good luck. It is possible that the grandparents will not follow through or the ICPC won't get approved, or a hundred other things. At some point, the agency will need to move the child out of fc and into a permanent placement, but it could be a couple of years before they give up on the relative. Or it could be tomorrow. Or a more motivated relative may be found and that could turn out to be a good thing, one way or another, for the child.

[Hadley2]

Sorry, feel compelled to clarify a couple of things I said above.

VA Code language for the second priority is actually "2. Transfer custody of the child to a relative other than his prior family." That is followed by "3. Finalize an adoption of the child;" and "4. Place the child in permanent foster care." So there is NO allowance, as interpreted and put into practice by many county-based VA agencies and courts, for adoption by a relative or transfer of custody (no such thing as true guardianship in VA system) by an unrelated person.

Again, some of the code (actual law) and DSS policy manual (interpretation and practice) regarding adoption planning is slightly different from the code regarding foster care planning and seems to be moving forward toward better compliance. In those sections, TPR may not be filed "if the child resides with relatives and the relatives do not want to adopt the child." So, at least the family is not being skewered by those agencies that abide by that and counsel the families on the benefits to the child and them of true permanency through adoption.

All VA Code is online at LIS > Code of Virginia. The foster care and adoption policy manuals are online at (fc--click on policy manual at left for full manual) FC Laws, Regulations, Guidance - Virginia Department of Social Services and (adopt--click on agency placement adoptions in main frame) Adoption Manual - Virginia Department of Social Services

There is also code requiring compliance with federal laws and regulations, but how they get uniquely interpreted in VA is the issue.

Understand then, that the J&DR court's decision to approve elimination of the first goal--RU--does not, as it does in other states, trigger TPR and a default to adoption. In VA, the decision tree is reversed--the choice of adoption as a goal, based on the child's best interest (defined by VA Code 63.2-1205), triggers TPR.

[Singlemom619]

Originally Posted by Hadley2

Sorry, feel compelled to clarify a couple of things I said above.

VA Code language for the second priority is actually "2. Transfer custody of the child to a relative other than his prior family." That is followed by "3. Finalize an adoption of the child;" and "4. Place the child in permanent foster care." So there is NO allowance, as interpreted and put into practice by many county-based VA agencies and courts, for adoption by a relative or transfer of custody (no such thing as true guardianship in VA system) by an unrelated person.

Again, some of the code (actual law) and DSS policy manual (interpretation and practice) regarding adoption planning is slightly different from the code regarding foster care planning and seems to be moving forward toward better compliance. In those sections, TPR may not be filed "if the child resides with relatives and the relatives do not want to adopt the child." So, at least the family is not being skewered by those agencies that abide by that and counsel the families on the benefits to the child and them of true permanency through adoption.

All VA Code is online at LIS > Code of Virginia. The foster care and adoption policy manuals are online at (fc--click on policy manual at left for full manual) FC Laws, Regulations, Guidance - Virginia Department of Social Services and (adopt--click on agency placement adoptions in main frame) Adoption Manual - Virginia Department of Social Services

There is also code requiring compliance with federal laws and regulations, but how they get uniquely interpreted in VA is the issue.

Understand then, that the J&DR court's decision to approve elimination of the first goal--RU--does not, as it does in other states, trigger TPR and a default to adoption. In VA, the decision tree is reversed--the choice of adoption as a goal, based on the child's best interest (defined by VA Code 63.2-1205), triggers TPR.

WOW Hadley - that was a lot -VERY intereresting and THANK YOU so much for it.

I forwarded it on to the CASA because I thought it was interesting that VA is only one of 5 states that does this and really - WHY are they not following federal guidelines? My theory has always been about money - if they can pass a child off to family they no longer have to foot the bill. If the family is out of state the other state picks up the medicaid and welfare expenses as well. It's all about money in my eyes.

I can't contact the GAL because unfortunately race has come into play in this case and the GAL, family, and judge are all of one race and it's been made very clear that they'd prefer the child being placed with the same race... I might try again after I speak to the SWs.

[EandDmom]

Originally Posted by Singlemom619

I have stepped up and I have said things - a lot of things.
I hope that made sense.

Makes complete sense. I didn't realize you had been through that. Good luck to you and I'm really hoping something can be done about that judge. Best wishes.

[MassachusettsMom]

Great discussion!

Singlemom: Make sure you are documenting everything, too.

MA just appointed a new state-level office for child advocacy which has been a great resource for finding out who to talk to at various child-related agencies. Do other states have such a person/office?

My heart broke to read the bonding assessment info. If we'd had one of those done, I'm sure our FS would still be with us. Bmother never touched our FS during more than a year of visits.