[Fran27]

I didn't want to hijack the other thread... I'm sad, shocked and angry at what happened, but with such a precedent why would any family want to adopt a drug exposed child, knowing that the parents can just claim they were under drug influence and didn't think clearly when they signed TPR and get the baby back later? Does it mean those poor kids should spend their life in foster care waiting for their parents to get clean then?

I'm confused, and I can't even imagine what it must be like to go through this... But how is such a ruling in the child's best interest? And all the future children this set a precent for?

I'm probably not going to adopt again (wish we would but I don't think dh will ever agree to it), but after this there is no way I'd dare being open to drugs

[loveajax]

Fran, I know...I couldn't sleep last night...seriously.

Of course, not having seen the ruling, it sounds also like there was a second "factor" at play here...it sounds as if DSS (or whatever it was called) told the birth parents that they would lose custody of the baby if they didn't voluntarily TPR. And maybe the "truth" was really that the baby would have been placed in foster care while they tried to "work their plan" (and it sounds as if they have worked their plan).

It really did have me thinking though like...did anyone consider what the best interest of the baby was or is this all based on "rights" of the biological parents? It bothers me. And if it was truly based on just the drug argument, I totally can see why people would avoid those situations.

[DianeS]

This is exactly why having meetings to "persuade" the bio parents to sign TPR is such a bad idea.

Meetings in CPS where the CPS folk sit at a table, push papers over to the bio parents, and talk and talk and talk about all the bad things that will happen to the bio parents if they don't sign, and all the good things that will happen if they do sign, are very typical.

Bio parents are told if they wait for the court to terminate their rights, then it WILL happen, and then they'll have that on their record, and any other kids they have will be taken away, and nobody will hire them, and they'll be convicted of child abuse, and they're generally awful people... and therefore they should sign.

They're told if they sign the papers willingly then nothing will be on their record, they can have a chance to keep any other children they have, nothing will be on their record, they're showing that they care more about the child then about themselves, and they may even get to visit with the child that CPS has... so they really should sign.

It's pretty awful, and really in many cases it is coersion. I find it hard to blame any bio parent who regrets listening to that speech and giving in and signing. And therefore I find it hard to blame any bio parent who grasps at any straw to find a reason to take back their signature.

Before anyone argues with me - YES it is usually best for the child if the bio parents sign those papers. When it gets to that point it is usually best that the bio parents rights are terminated and the child is adopted. But these meetings aren't the right way to go about it, and as long as they continue, bio parents and their lawyers will continue to try to find loopholes to get out of what the bio parents signed and later regret.

If this case had gone to court, then the bio parents could have shown up at that court date higher than kites, and still wouldn't have been able to use drugs as an "escape". It's only because they were persuaded to sign that this one is a problem.

[reetoreet]

Kaiden was put in foster shortly after birth. We were adopting him through foster care. I guess I should have explained that. The ASFA time frames were nearing ( he was in care 13 months out of 22) at the time that they signed. Instead of terminating their rights through the courts they were given the option to voluntarily TPR. The caseworker admitted that she thought she would have a hard time proving termination and may have "pressured" them to sign. I wasn't involved at the time so I guess I can't say how it went down. Mom and dad were on drugs at the time, as documented by random screens. So it wasn't hard for them to prove that. In my biased opinion I do not think it is in his best interest to be returned home. And not because I love him dearly and want him to stay with me. More because his parents are only 19 years old, neither of them have jobs (special needs kids are expensive kids), and they ran away every time he was really sick and in the hospital. The courts feel that the deserve the chance to parent since they didn't have to chance to before. I have to say that maybe they weren't given a fair shake in the beginning....the CW never thought they would get him back and did little to help them. I sat there on the phone listening to the judge and lawyers and I could barely speak. It was like I didn't matter one bit because the judge felt that the parent's rights were violated in this situation and "these are the situations that make it into the newspaper". Sorry I made everyone worry!

[Fran27]

It's not your fault Reetoreet... The fact is that for so many drug-exposed babies, it's exactly what happens, and adoptive parents are often not aware of it

[shy_bear]

First, as a parent of a drug exposed baby from fc this thread has rubbed me the wrong way!
I would not trade my experience for the world. We had a VERY easy case. Bmom delivered at the hospital, told the sw she did not want to parent and left. No bdad was named, no relatives, etc. B/c the state had bmom's name we had to wait the 6 mths to TPR and then we finalized right before his 9mth bday.
Again there is more to this case than just the bp's being on drugs. I am POSITIVE there have been private and agency adoptions that have overturned b/c someone along the way did not do eveyting according the letter of the law.

[Stormster]

Anyone can be unethically coerced (drug related or not).

[Sleeplvr]

A lot of kids enter foster care as newborns and end up toddlers or older before being adopted or returned to their parents.

Parental drug use is a game of odds. If they are drug addicts the chances of them kicking the habit in a reasonable time after birth is kinda low. We took low legal risk placements and the type of drug really dictated whether the parents could be rehabilitated quickly or if it would be long term rehabilitation plan.

Frankly I think that "we were on drugs" excuse is a crock because any kids of drug addicted parents could potentially end up in foster care indefinitely. I know the state tries to get the parents to voluntarily sign to save time but if the potential is there for them to turn around to say they were coerced then it's not worth it IMO.

[loveajax]

Shy, we weren't "knocking" adopting drug addicted babies from foster care, but concerned about Reet's situation where she said that one of the reasons the judge overturned the TPR was because the parents were on drugs at the time (this would happen in either private adopt or foster adopt).

Reet, that social worker who admitted to the "pressuring" should be fired. Seriously. It makes me angry...for everyone involved, including you. Again, I am so sorry!

[reetoreet]

When I started my original thread I was stating all the reasons the bparents and their lawyers brought up as a reason to return the child to the parents. Not saying which reason carried more weight with the decision, those were their arguments. I have adopted my daughter who was drug exposed and tried to adopt this child who was drug exposed. The fear is there...things can happen. Even if the "we were on drugs" started this process, now that they are clean and thinking more clearly they had the notion to begin these proceedings. Had they not gotten clean I doubt they would have even thought of trying to get him back. That is pure speculation on my part. I think people are expressing their fear here....that things like this can happen. When I took a child into my home who was legally free for adoption I never in a million years thought he wouldn't be here with me and my family forever. But he isn't going to be, regardless of the reason, them getting clean had a part in it. All factors played a part.

[Fran27]

I would be so mad at the social worker for pressuring them... but again... it's a known fact that babies born from drug-addicted mothers end up in foster care, at least for a while, so it makes me wonder at what point it becomes coercion?

[thanksgivingmom]

Fran, I'm not sure where the line is exactly either...

But what DianeS describes here:

Meetings in CPS where the CPS folk sit at a table, push papers over to the bio parents, and talk and talk and talk about all the bad things that will happen to the bio parents if they don't sign, and all the good things that will happen if they do sign, are very typical.

Bio parents are told if they wait for the court to terminate their rights, then it WILL happen, and then they'll have that on their record, and any other kids they have will be taken away, and nobody will hire them, and they'll be convicted of child abuse, and they're generally awful people... and therefore they should sign.

They're told if they sign the papers willingly then nothing will be on their record, they can have a chance to keep any other children they have, nothing will be on their record, they're showing that they care more about the child then about themselves, and they may even get to visit with the child that CPS has... so they really should sign.

That seems to be over the line - to me. This isn't a discussion about working a case plan - this is a conversation full of threats.

When a case worker says something like, "she thought she would have a hard time proving termination and may have "pressured" them to sign."

That too seems to cross the line, and it seems like this particular CW knew it.

It's tragic that these loopholes are left open by this behavior. Would there be fewer TPR's signed if things were done differently? Perhaps - but at least it would close the door on arguments of coercion and unethical practices.

I don't mean any of this to be a comment on reetoreet or her situation - my heart goes out to you, truly it does. It's more just an observation and commentary on the policies and procedures in place.

[Sleeplvr]

I think the length of time the child has been in care has some indication on whether they were coerced or not. If they sign right after leaving the hospital they might be able to say that all was presented was voluntary TPR or foster care. But in Reet's case the child was in care 13 months before they signed. The parents had months to work a caseplan. Did they work it? Probably not hence the reason they signed the relinquishments. Why would you sign it if you are working a caseplan? Makes no sense. The way I know it to work is the state lays all options on the table with infants. It's never a one on one offer... there's usually witnesses present for the discussion of the parents options. Here's something that I noticed was problem in situations like this. It takes forever to get a caseplan written up and presented to the court and then to the parents. The parents could be presented with the caseplan and the relinquishment option at the same time. For some parents... the caseplan looks daunting. Rehab, mandatory drug testing, stable housing, employment, supervised visits... there are many parents who would opt for the TPR especially if they are actively using.

I don't think all drug exposed infants should go into care but I do think all drug addicted infants need to go into foster care. We have a place here in Atlanta where babies are sent for withdrawal.

[aclee]

What I think is sad, and what says volumes to me, is that the child was in care for 13 out of 22 months, and the parents were still having positive drug screens and THAT wasn't enough to TPR...THAT is scary. I understand parents have a right to parent, but if they aren't passing drug screens after 13 months, then it's time to let the child move on and have a forever family. That should be reason enough for TPR. Period.

[Fran27]

Exactly Aclee The whole thing is just crazy