[KelleyF]

I was speaking with a woman in the placement office for dcyf, and she told me that our state has adapted a new "infancy clause" . It states that if a child is under 6 months old when placed, and is with the same foster family for one year, they have to start TPR no matter where the bio's are in the case plan. Has anyone heard of this or experienced this?

Thanks

[Withay]

I've not experienced it, but agree with it except for one part. If the parents are close to completing their case plan, then I don't believe that TPR should be started. If there is little or no progress, then I believe that the case should go to the alternate plan to give the little ones permanency. JMHO

[jeni-b]

Never heard of this, but I can see where they are coming from.

[Hadley2]

Haven't heard of it, but something to remember on rules like this and the 15/22 rule: they apply to what social services must do, not the court. That is, social services must file a petition asking for a TPR trial to be held, but a judge does not have to grant the petition to hear the trial or, if granted, order a TPR at the end of it. At that, social services can fulfill its mandate to file but recommend against at the same time.

[mom2behappy]

nys does follow this procedure. often times then not the courts follow thru especially if the parents are no where near the point of having the child returned to them

[KelleyF]

She also said that the reason for they'
ve adapted this clause is because DCF has come to the conclusion that it is never in the best interest of an infant to be removed from the only home they have ever known (safe, loving that is) after such a long period of time. She told me it's pratically the only law they have that focuses on the childs needs only...not the whole bio family. She also said it basically states that the child is already too bonded to be removed after a year, no matter where the bio's are in their plan.

[KelleyF]

I'm in RI. Yes, you're right about what the judge could decide could be different then what DCYF is recommending. I'm curious to find out how many of these cases actually do go to TPR. Although, I'm wondering if once the year has passed, can i now hire a lawer to push for them to TPR since it is a rule they follow?

[Boulderbabe]

That is a TERRIFIC policy. Finally, a policy that puts a very young child's need for permanency and stability above parents' property rights.

[EandDmom]

I am in Indiana and have been told they are going to file TPR on my 3 foster kids this december if mom hasn't made progress (she hasn't ). Caseworker said these kids are too young to sit in foster care and they have now decided younger kids need to move through the system as fast as possible. They will hit 8 months in care total in dec. They were in care for a short time before us and then sent home for 6 weeks before being pulled again and placed with us. Court date is 2 weeks from tomorrow I really can't wait to see what happens.

[Mummy_Big_Bird]

How very interesting. I am right next door to you, in MA. Although our case is going to TPR for other reasons, our adoption worker did make a comment about now is the time to push for TPR anyways, because the baby is about to turn a year old. I wonder if my state is adopting something similar?

[KelleyF]

I am very anxious to see how this works out. My fs will be with us 1 year in Jan. He was 3 months old when placed. Supposedly it's do or die right now for the bio's since the next court date is in Jan. I'm just wondering if I should let the cw know that we are interested in adopting our fs. She has never asked us and we are a foster only home. I'm assuming that would be pretty important for the judge to know since the next court date coinsides with my fs being here a full year.

[aclee]

Originally Posted by Mummy_Big_Bird

How very interesting. I am right next door to you, in MA. Although our case is going to TPR for other reasons, our adoption worker did make a comment about now is the time to push for TPR anyways, because the baby is about to turn a year old. I wonder if my state is adopting something similar?

About a year ago was when I attended an informational meeting with (then called) DSS. The worker at the time said our state WAS pushing for permanency for all children, regardless of age, that had been in care a year. She actually made it sound like it was a law that they had to follow, but with more research I've found it's something they are working towards, but some judges don't seem to like it, so they are having a hard time "enforcing" it.

To me, 1 year to permanency is best for the kids, and it would get kids "out" of the system quicker wouldn't it...and wouldn't that also lighten the work load for the SW? I could see a lot of benefits to this type of law...

[sunsetsky]

The 9 month mark was very important in my case. It was the point when the TPR is filed to to heard in the next few months. I spoke up at the permanency hearing and the judge heard me loud and clear. It made a difference. I expressed interest in adopting my child that I love so much. I was scared but I needed to tell the judge. From the point on I was referred to as the pre-adoptive mother. I say... let it be known that if .TPR happens.... you would be willing to adopt. I still had to wait out relatives up until TPR which took place at the 15 month mark. No one came forward. I am Still waiting for appeals to finish. 6 months later!!!!

[EandDmom]

Originally Posted by KelleyF

I am very anxious to see how this works out. My fs will be with us 1 year in Jan. He was 3 months old when placed. Supposedly it's do or die right now for the bio's since the next court date is in Jan. I'm just wondering if I should let the cw know that we are interested in adopting our fs. She has never asked us and we are a foster only home. I'm assuming that would be pretty important for the judge to know since the next court date coinsides with my fs being here a full year.

We were foster only also. When they said they were planning on filing tpr starting dec. we told our caseworker we were interested in adoption. She said ok then go to the adoption class because if you don't and we do file tpr they may make me move them to a preadoptive foster home. Luckily there was one 2 weeks later in a town 15 min. away so we got that out of the way. So I would definetly let them know.

[wantaskinbaby]

Originally Posted by KelleyF

She also said that the reason for they'
ve adapted this clause is because DCF has come to the conclusion that it is never in the best interest of an infant to be removed from the only home they have ever known (safe, loving that is) after such a long period of time. She told me it's pratically the only law they have that focuses on the childs needs only...not the whole bio family. She also said it basically states that the child is already too bonded to be removed after a year, no matter where the bio's are in their plan.

We've had our fs since he was 13 days old. He's 6 months now and the next court date isn't until March (so he'll be 10 months old).

Unfortunately, our sw told us during our home visit this week that she doesn't believe that they will automatically begin TPR at the 1 year mark because there's been no evidence of abuse or neglect. How crazy is that? How can you abuse or neglect someone that you've never been alone with? (Mom surrendered the baby at the hospital, saying that she wanted to "give" him to someone for 6 months - I'm still not sure why that wasn't considered abandonment - the GAL seems to think so).

I would love to encourage FEDERAL legislation to require moves toward permanency even faster than the current federal policy of 15 months. I agree that for an infant who has known only one home, the damage done by removing that child from that home is far greater than any potential for issues relating to not being raised by a biological family member.

I agree with a PP, there are so many advantages to achieving permanency much faster. I realize that this is just a material advantage, but if we were allowed to adopt our fs sooner, it would mean that DSS would not be paying for our fs's medical, daycare, and monthly stipends anymore, since we would assume all of those expenses as his legal parents (without medical, this totals about $1300 a month where we live).

Is there any national organization to give fp's a voice with legislators?