[TemporaryMom]

I have been thinking about this one a lot lately. So, here is the scenario:

Tinkerbell and her little sister Jasmine are removed from their home due to extreme, and I do mean extreme, filth and neglect.


Woody is removed because of prenatal drug exposure and continual drug abuse of the birth parent.

The two sisters' birth mom is given 20 months go try and "work a caseplan" but does nothing, except visits, for those two years, but somehow manages to secure housing for 12 months guaranteed at the last minute of a 6 month extension. During the impending RU plan, the sisters' birth mom continues to show instability in keeping a clean home, providing for the children, and proper parenting. (Including two incidents of neglect during unsupervised visits.)

Woody's mom on the other hand, is given a plan, but is told that because of her previous case, where she lost 4 sibs, that they are moving to direct termination. Woody's bio parents' rights are terminated within 2 months, despite the fact that both bios are "clean" whilst being incarcerated.

Back to the sisters. They are RU'd and none of the "at risk policies" that were supposed to be put in place for their protection were put in place.

Yes, I am getting to my point. Do you think that the system looks at children who were removed for neglect and filth differently, and somehow thinks that those bio parents are "better" and deserve more chances because they were not drug abusers (albeit, not proven) than they do at habitual drug abusers?

The reason I think that this bias exists is that when the sisters came into care, by all accounts of the agency "no judge is going to terminate parental rights because of a filthy home." Which of course offsets the reality that people do not live in homes like that unless they have some type of mental condition or drug abuse, and doesn't address the painful and obvious evidence of not only harmful neglect, but physical abuse that the children were subjected to in the home.

Maybe I should have started a poll with what was the root cause of the removal for children who's parents rights ultimately were terminated.

I hope this all makes sense. but I just wonder if it is just my area or if it like this everywhere. Often, drug abusers are not given nearly as many extensions as those parents accused of neglect, at least in my area.

[jtinhdg]

Sadly, I have to agree with you. I've had the same thing happen to one of my placements. The child that was removed for neglect and unsuitable living conditions went back when the birthmom cleaned the apartment. Keep in mind the 'apartment' was simply an 8X10 room in an illegal boarding house, with no bathroom, no kitchen. Shortly after RU, birthmom left child with another 'tenent' in the building. BD happen to drive by the building and found his child outside, wandering around the streets with no adult in sight. When asked who was watching her, FFD said mom's friend who lives upstairs. BD asked where this friend was...he was upstairs in his 'apartment' taking a nap! FFD is still with birthmom.

[UTbrie]

Yep, my FS is in care due to medical abuse. A very lethal form of child abuse according to research.

Yet, CW sings her praises for taking parenting classes and keeping the home in "reasonable and habitable" condition. Woo freakin hoo.

But biomom also comes to every visit and seems to be the extremely loving and playful mom. Yes, I know. But, unfortunately it is PART OF THE MBP pathology, to be seen as a saint of a mom by others. CW doesn't get that, and doesn't even try to understand the major abuse and trauma FS went through including a life changing stomach surgery as a baby (fundoplication.) He sees it as mom not understanding and just being an overanxious mom.

please!!!

If drugs were involved, things would be very different for sure.

[irelady10]

I think prior DCF history has much to do with how much time parents may be given to work a case plan.

My son's parents were not given a case plan (although they were entitled to request one, which they did 9 months into the case). This was because of a lengthy history with DCF and the TRP of numerous prior children. Both have substance abuse and mental health histories. My son was placed in care because of a positive drug screening at birth, although I think bio mom's extensive history with DCF played a large part in his removal.

My current FK were removed because of neglect/non compliance with an in-home case plan. This case is moving very quickly towards possible TPR. I am surprised how quickly things seem to be moving. Their permanency hearing is scheduled for next month and they were only placed with me last month (although their case has been opened for 18 months and this is their 2nd time in care).

I do agree with you, though, that there may be a bias towards certain types of abuses and the case plans. But I do think that prior history plays a large role.

[TemporaryMom]

Originally Posted by irelady10

I think prior DCF history has much to do with how much time parents may be given to work a case plan.

Yeah, I thought maybe that might be a bigger piece on the immediacy towards TPR, but more so, I see more disdain from the workers towards drug addicted, than those guilty of other abuses and neglect. I find it interesting because there are a lot of drug addicts who can do a "fair" (and I use that term loosely!) job of raising their kids and their habits, as long as they don't get called up on. (Unfortunately, i know this first hand only too well.)

But still, the prevailing "oh, it was just a dirty house" attitude really amazed me, especially since I know for a fact that anyone graduating from my Alma Mater with a SW degree had to take the same psychology classes (two of them) that told just how damaging neglect really is to children.

Another thought I had is that the innate behavior of the drug addicted, disappearing for a long time, makes it easier to justify TPR since they aren't doing the visits.

[UTbrie]

Not sure if prior involvement really changes anything. FS as in care 1.5 years when he was a baby/toddler. This hasn't seemed to make a big difference so far in his case.

[jeni-b]

Personally I haven't seen the reason for removal play much of an impact on RU. More the bios attitude and commitment toward working their plan.

As others have mentioned prior history does weigh heavily. BUT that prior history has to be within the same county. I've had a kid who had mom facing TPR in another county where it had no impact and others where it was the sane county and little or no services were offered.

[Rockhound6165]

Personally, IMO, child services is more interested in getting the child out of their system than making sure they are going to be in a stable environment. Case in point, our FS. birthmom has 5 children(a 6th is on the way) from maybe 4 or 5 different men(4 confirmed but the wife and I are convinced FS father is the father of the baby on the way). Counting this time, this woman has had her children removed 3 times. This latest time, she left the kids at home alone(oldest was 7 at the time) and the 6 year old was hungry and decided to cook dinner for everyone and she got burned. Now, while going through PRIDE classes, we were told that the average time children are pulled is between a year and a year and a half. Well, these kids were pulled this past June. Now, what the CW told us is that on the previous removals, the mother would go through the motions, get her kids back, and go back to the same behaviors. Well, this time around, at least for a while, she wasn't doing what she needed to do, not even going through the motions.

Going to court recently, they were saying that all she needed to do is get "stable housing" whatever that means and she's going to get her kids back and it looked like they were pushing for an April RU, before the new child is born. SMH

Meanwhile, they are pushing for FS to go live with his father. Well, just read the thread on bed bugs and you'll get that story. On the flip side, our FD(we got her 4 days old), her brother was pulled over a year ago due to possible child abuse, which IMO is a relative term. IMO to be considered abuse, it has to be ongoing. Well, he was 2 months old when he got injured(per the doctor it was an inflicted injury) and they are working toward RU in about 6 weeks with RU of FD this summer but at the earliest May.

The point: 2 cases, one habitual and one a first timer. The habitual one, they're standing on their heads for RU. The other, they're being made to jump through more hoops. Doesn't make sense.

[MomInCorazon]

Yes, I believe the reason for the removal matters a lot. My FFKs were initially removed for the squalid conditions you mention and while MANY other issues of neglect then came up mom made her visits and did the minimal on her case plan so she got the kids back (she didn't even clean up until 6 months post-removal and only after DCF provided the supplies and her parent aide physically helped which was NOT in her job description but she was so frustrated with mom and wanted off the case that she dug in and did it). And here we are 3.5 years since the case was open, its still open, the conditions are from what I hear back to squalor, the other neglect issues have not been resolved, there are now allegations of physical abuse (to be detailed in another thread) and the kids are still there. Mom has mental health issues but no alcohol or drug use and as the DCF investigator told me last week "she knows the right things to say". Why her actions don't speak louder I just don't get.

[Rockhound6165]

The shame of it is that some people aren't fit to care for a house plant but they keep getting their children back. I know of several people who are willing to adopt but the state just will not TPR unless they're charles manson.

[jmd5294]

I definitely think that prior involvement with CPS changes the way a caseworker views a bp and their ability to work a plan.
As far as drugs vs extreme filth and neglect, in my area, it's all given the same timeline. Nobody gets TPR'd in 2 months' time.

But, generally speaking, I think it's far harder for an addict to get/stay clean outside of prison/rehab than it is for someone to learn parenting skills, housekeeping skills, etc.
My 2nd placement was a set of brothers who were 2 of 6 kids removed from a filthy, disgusting home. Their mouths were full of rotten teeth, they were wearing shoes/clothing that were 3 sizes too big or 3 sizes too small, they were dirty and malnourished, and the bios were even dirtier. It was horrific, and I had never seen anything like it, since this was only our 2nd placement.
Well, lo and behold, once birthmom was able to get away from bd, she was able to get a handle on her life, and able to create a safe, hygenic environment for her kids. Now, her house will never be as clean and uncluttered as I would keep mine, but it's safe. It's messy, but not necessarily dirty, kwim? I've kept in touch with this birthmom, and she's doing ok. Her parenting skills are not the best, her housekeeping skills are not the best, but they are doing ok. It took her 14 months to get her kids back, and that was over 3 years ago.

That is a case of extreme filth and neglect, and birthmom got it together and still has it together over 3 years later. What are the chances of an addict getting clean, and still being clean 3 years later? I think that fact is what shades the judgement of caseworkers.

[A.S.]

This is an interesting thread. I don't necessarily think that drug abuse is seen as 'worse' then severe neglect.
I think that drug abuse is easier to objectively measure. So if a parent is having positive drug tests it is easier to say they haven't met their case plan and move to TPR.
On the other hand with severe neglect it is harder to define success--- particularly b/c there can be a burst of compliance.
One other thought- which is probably applicable to Utbrie's situation--- SW's have a tremendous amount of discretion and vary in quality significantly.
I think with the neglect cases a poor SW is more likely to call a little bit of compliance good compliance b/c it is the easier path for them.

[ladyjubilee]

Originally Posted by TemporaryMom

Yes, I am getting to my point. Do you think that the system looks at children who were removed for neglect and filth differently, and somehow thinks that those bio parents are "better" and deserve more chances because they were not drug abusers (albeit, not proven) than they do at habitual drug abusers?

I do think there is a difference in levels of abuse/neglect and how the system should look at a case.

With one of my placements, the parent sexually abuse the children over the long term, and even kidnapped and abused other children, one of the family "games"--done for pleasure--was to take one of the children, strap her to a chair and have the entire family beat her with sticks. To give you an idea just how "normal" these kinds of games were, one day I didn't have anything planned and asked what we should do today. The response was that we should play that game, becuase "its really fun" (the beaten child replied "well, I didn't enjoy".) The impression I got from the children was that their parent boarded on evil.

With another placement, there had been long term supports in the home plagues by domestic violence and the *very* low cognitive functioning level of the parent. The poor parenting and neglect was bad enough that one child was killed in an accident (run over by a car).

Needless to say, the system didn't work with the first family and moved almost immediately for TPR. In the second case, the system has tried everything possible to restore the family. But frankly, in the second case, I wish there was something more that could be done to save the family. The mom really loves her kids....and if it were possible to have a 24/7 parenting mentor watching everything she did and making correctings it might work. So, the system did treat them differently.

But if I'm understaning your post, I don't know that its a matter of treating your set of parents differently. It sounds more like it is a matter of the law. Reunification is the law--unless there is a legal reason for children not to be reunified, they will be reunified. The legal reason has to be one of the grounds for termination of parental rights. Depending on what state you live in, that standard can be (and really should be) narrow, but probably includes involuntary termination of rights for another child. Sooo, in one case they had legal grounds for termination and not in the other. What is true doesn't matter so much in court as what can be proved.

[TemporaryMom]

Interesting comments. And I am glad nobody took offense, it was a iffy post from me, but one that I have been curious about.

What stands out the most to me is that over and over we see cases where more and better early intervention MIGHT make a difference.

This system reminds me of the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. (Can't recall who said that originally.)

I wonder if anyone keeps statistics on RU percentages and such based on original reason for removal...

[sadoyle1216]

I've seen this a lot, too. At one point, we had 3 different placements with a total of 5 kids. 2 kids were removed because of drug use, 2 were removed because of physical abuse and 1 because of domestic violence. The kids who were removed because of physical abuse had older siblings and this was their 3rd time in care (second time for the ones we had). Bio mom was on probation for injuring one of the older children from the second time they were in care. CPS had worked with the family for 6 months prior to removal and the goal was still RU. Allegations of additional physical abuse and severe sexual abuse came out during the time the kids were with us; it made no difference. Everyone involved said that the parents would do what they needed to and go back to old habits once CPS was out of the picture, as this is what happened on the previous cases. From what we were told, 18 months into the case, the kids were returned....it's only a matter of time until they come back.

The 2 kids we had that were removed because of drug use, also had been in foster care before. Just like the other placement, their previous time in care was for the exact same reasons. These kids came into care the second time as legal risk and it was a matter of waiting for the clock to expire before rights were terminated.

The 1 removed because of domestic violence had never been involved with CPS, there was no family history of involvement either. Bio dad was incarcerated, bio mom did what she needed to (only a psychological) and got the baby back after 2 months....and then left the state to return to her own family.

All 3 cases were from the same county, but all had very different paths. It's much harder to prove that parents who physically abuse their children haven't changed than it is for those with drug addictions. If the parents do what they are required, refrain from physical discipline during visits, and say the right things...where's the proof that the changes aren't permanent? Where as the drug addicted parent that comes up dirty over and over is only providing the state with the evidence needed to be able to justify TPR. Personally, if kids come into care a second time for the same reasons, RU with that parent shouldn't be the goal. What makes the second removal and second time working services more effective than the first? I realize that resources are scarce and that it would mean more kids end up in care for longer periods of time, but what's the long term impact of kids repeatedly going back to those environments? Does the state pay for the kids to grow up in a more stable environment, improving the possibility of them becoming productive adults, or does the state pay for them as kids and then again after they become adults because they are too impaired by their trauma and history to be productive?

Ok.....getting off the soapbox now