[Bamamom07]

When a parent has all of her children in foster care, and has not yet been TPR'd, but that is the plan, are any future babies automatically removed from her? Or does she get the opportunity to parent until/unless she demonstrates inability to provide properly for new one?? I know a foster mom who was absolutely shocked a new baby is home with mom, in her county she says DHR would take the newborn from the hospital. I figured that decision is made in individual counties, based on the circumstances, and not a general rule.

[potentialsinglemom]

It really is a case by case situation. Social services is hard to predict.

[AmahMama]

If BioM hasn't done anything to harm the new baby (ie drugs, alchohol,etc) and has shelter some depts do not remove immediately. They seem to watch a little closer and are prepared to remove tho' and the bioM's usually are aware of this. I have personally seen when a bioM does well with a new baby after she has had others tpr'd. Some finally do accept that it was thier own actions that led to the tpr and face the reality that if they don't do right - it is thier own fault. But the suprise is that there are a few (at least) that do well with the 'fresh start'.

[mommytoelmolover]

It depends. Usually on the state but sometimes on the county. For example in IL, they assign a fitness status. If you are fit you can parent your child. If you are unfit you cannot. This applies to the entire state except Cook County (Chicago). In Cook County they evaluate the risk to each child instead of assigning a blanket fitness status. So let say you beat your teenager because they would not obey you but then you have an infant. They would let you keep the infant because the situation is different and the child is not considered at risk.

[CaddoRose]

In my county it depends on the circumstances. However, if the Mom has a history with CPS, then here they will keep a close watch on her, but there are so many factors involved. If she is a addict and the baby tested positive, they would take her asap, but if not, then they do not have a legal right to take the baby unless they can prove to a judge imminent danger based on her actions against the previous children.

[EandDmom]

My county is the same.. they don't take unless there is a reason. My caseworker said it is harder to take a baby then you would imagine in our area.

[minerva]

Originally Posted by AmahMama

If BioM hasn't done anything to harm the new baby (ie drugs, alchohol,etc) and has shelter some depts do not remove immediately.

So do you feel as though the key thing is having shelter? And that as long as biomom has shelter that gives DSS more leeway of making their decisions about taking the child into care at birth?

Our FD's biomom is pregnant and due early September and from what the SW told me, DSS would take custody of this child when she gives birth. Which makes complete sense given the totality of the situation, but I admit I was a little surprised she said it with such certainty. We have a permanency hearing in May, in which the plan will very likely change from concurrent to adoption, so I have no idea if TPR would happen with FD before this baby is born. I thought THAT was the main thing that gave DSS a reason to take a baby into care, if they were still in the process of terminating on other children, but maybe the shelter is really the most important thing??

There are a lot of issues going on with FD's biomom, but the key thing is that she has difficulties following "rules" - which lead to her criminal record, not being able to go to back to public housing for at least 5 - 6 years, not being able to hold down a job nor stay in shelters for any more than a few days. She has also unfortunately admitted, and continues to, drink and smoke heavily during her pregnancy. This inability to follow "rules" is the killer for any parent who has to follow a caseplan and maintain these things for 6 months before RU will even be considered - and we're almost at 12 months of FD in care, so time is running out.

I know it seems like a no-brainer not to send a baby home to a mom who has no stable home, but the system allows tons of things I think are no-brainers, so I assume nothing these days.

I just wanted to get some opinions about whether or not shelter trumps everything - if you have that, it gives DSS leeway in making these decsions when a baby is born, while if you don't, DSS will NOT send a child home with you if you are still involved with them, period.

I guess I wonder if biomom somehow voluntary TPR before new baby is born, since I know biomoms will do this to get DSS out of her business, will it STILL not matter because of the lack of stable housing? Or maybe the continued drinking is a factor too? Frankly, it is a little scary to thing shelter is the ONLY thing you need to allow this to happen, but like pp said, it's all on an individual basis.

I've just always wondered if shelter really was the starting point for everything, meaning a judge would laugh you out of court if DSS actually recommended sending any child home to someone without shelter. Again, seems like a stupid question, but I am seriously curious.

[carlychan]

Minerva,

I am not the original poster of the shelter comment, but I wanted to reply. In our county they can not take a child based soley on housing. You can be homeless and they can't take the child if you are doing everything else alright (this is usually NOT the case, however). The continued alcohol use would be a BIG read flag in considering whether to take the baby or not. Shelter is sort of a side note.

Carly

[jllambert]

In our case bio mom signed over her rights to her 1 yr old the same day she had our baby "G"! She thought this would keep them from taking "G". Well she was in prison at the time and was going to give the baby to her mom. Grandma had CPS history and CPS had already decided they would take this baby when it arrived. They also told us that they will remove any other babies she has! "G" was her 7th child! Right now we think she moved to another state because she knows that if she gives birth in Texas that baby will be taken away as soon as it is born.

I had another FS whose mother was expecting (She moved about 5 hours away from us and her son during the case) and CPS met them at the hospital as soon as the baby was born. They called us to take the baby, but ended up placing it with family in that county so she could be close to the baby and see it more often! Soon after they moved our FS to that family member as well!

I think there is a VERY good chance they will remove the baby from your Bio-mom at birth! If they are moving to change case to TPR/adoption then they have good reason to believe she will not be able to care for the new baby!
I hope you will keep us posted!

[millie58]

Depends on the case. I had a 6 yo fs who I got in December. (This was a few years ago). Bmom was pregnant, due in April. bmom's hubby hit her in the stomach when was pregnant so DSS took the baby from the hospital. If that hadn't happened, the baby probably would have went with her. Her issue was mental illness and meds and having an abusive husband.

[shaylynn]

I have almost the same case. I have some kids which the plan is for TPR on them and then the mom gave birth again. At first they let the mom keep the baby with her but at a women's shelter so they could keep an eye on her but then it developed that the baby had stuff in its system so then baby was placed into care. Time will tell what the outcome is going to be.

[Sunnyblu]

Originally Posted by jllambert

...was going to give the baby to her mom. Grandma had CPS history and CPS had already decided they would take this baby when it arrived. They also told us that they will remove any other babies she has! "G" was her 7th child! Right now we think she moved to another state because she knows that if she gives birth in Texas that baby will be taken away as soon as it is born.

There's a new housebill in Texas, 948, modifying Texas Family Code on who bio parents can give their kids to if removed. It is under review, not final until September. Should help weed out inappropriate relatives.

[mnmomma]

She has also unfortunately admitted, and continues to, drink and smoke heavily during her pregnancy.

I think that the admission of using while pregnant would be more of a deciding factor in this case than the housing issue.

[minerva]

Thanks for the insight regarding the alcohol use while pregnant. Though it is clearly harmful to biomom's unborn baby, I didn't even think of that as the primary factor, mainly because I only hear about babies being taken into care due to drug use. Maybe that's just because it's something you can test at birth, while you can't do that with alcohol. However it is in the court record that biomom told her manager at her last job she wasn't coming in to work because she'd been on a week long drinking binge, and she has only been to about 2 alcohol abuse meetings in about 4 months. Biomom also told a close relative (who has reported this to the GAL and SW) that she feels she is "justified" in drinking and smoking during her pregnancy because she "doesn't care about this baby". Such a sad situation, it breaks your heart. No wonder the SW didn't hesitate to say biomom's child would be taken into care at birth.

On a personal level (and from things I learned in a class that scared the living daylights out of me) I have always believed alcohol has the potential for much more damaging, long term effects on a child than even some hard drugs, so I am glad social services IS taking the alcohol abuse very seriously. Even though it is legal, alcohol should be taken just as seriously as illegal drugs.

[jolean12]

in GA they have to prove imminent danger to that child. We had 2 boys in a sibling group of 7 whose mother had already had the children removed and returned twice for drug abuse and neglect and then prostituted her children for drugs and money to have them taken the third time. When she finally relinquished her rights with no charges filed and another year and a half in care she got pregnant again. Since she had already relinquished and the baby tested negative she has been able to take this child home to parent. The oldest child is like 25 and CPS has been involved his whole life they think she will make good decisions now??? These rules are sometimes rediculous.