[Hadley2]

Lynard, I understand you are well intentioned and good-hearted, so it is difficult to convey to you how devastating your posts are. So I won't, except to say that they are.

It's partly language, you seem to use language differently than the actual legal definitions--for example, a transfer of legal custody does not sever parental ties or terminate rights, only a termination of parental rights does. Or maybe you have actually been trained to make recommendations that are, on their face, violations of both Ohio and federal law and blatant flouting of the social good purpose of the foster care and case planning system.

I can imagine you asking why that would be--I would guess because social services in your area prefers to go around the law to save money--the cost of case planning and services, the cost of hearings and trials, the cost of administering subsidy, the cost of Medicaid, the cost of state services beyond Medicaid, etc.--and that somehow CASA funding and training got influenced by that. It's not a far stretch. I have seen a young GAL attorney allow herself to be "trained" and "mentored" by the social services attorney--a blatant conflict of interest and, I can tell you, he steered her against the child's legal rights.

In any case, please, please read this and explore ASFA and other foster care law and information more so that you understand why just tossing children out of foster care and denying them their right to permanency and the services they need is so devastating. If you continue to recommend transfers of legal custody to relatives for no good reason, you will be complicit in the illegal harm being done to the children and their families by the state.

Here are the laws (actual text at end of post). As you will read, the agency is bound to follow this hierarchy and these rules:

1. RU first: If not recommended, the agency must document a compelling reason why it is not in the best interest of the child; if the agency or anyone else fails to do so, the judge must return the child

2. Adoption second: If not recommended, the agency must document a compelling reason why it is not in the best interest of the child; if the agency or anyone else fails to do so, the judge must issue an order directing the agency to place the child for adoption

Note: The federal law specifically calls first for adoption with a fit and willing relative

3. Referred for legal guardianship third: If not recommended, the agency must document a compelling reason why it is not in the best interest of the child; if the agency or anyone else fails to do so, the judge must issue an order directing the agency to refer the child for guardianship

Note: Guardianship is strictly defined and sets a higher standard than most state definitions of "legal custody"----[42 US Code 675(7). (guardianship defined as) A judicially created relationship between a child and caretaker which is intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, care and control of the person, custody of the person, and decision-making. The term ‘legal guardian’ means the caretaker in such a relationship.

Also note: The Ohio statute says, simply, "legal custody"; there is no such distinction as "permanent" legal custody or "temporary" legal custody. All legal custody is indefinite, subject to challenge by others and abdication of the custodian.

4. APPLA fourth

These priorities are set by law. Best interest is set by law. The various dispositions are not an a la carte menu of options, they are a ranked list. The child's best interest is not subject to the agency's, cw's, or your ideas--it is set by law. These laws should be followed for the host of good reasons behind them. The agency cannot legally pick and choose at will and neither should you imo.

CASA and GALs are court-appointed advocates for the children. You work for the court, not the state or the agency, and advocate for the children, not the parents, not the families, just the children. I mention this because the CASA on our case buddied up with the parents and didn't know and didn't care what the child's rights were. To advocate for the children, you must know what their rights are. Your posts indicate that your training has been contrary to your clients' best interest as defined and mandated in your state and federal law. Please read the Adoption & Safe Families Act and other supporting US Code and Ohio statutes in addition to what I've written here. You must know these things if you are going to advocate for any child's best interest.

As for what lawyers recommend, I doubt many of these relatives have their own representation. If they do, and this is the "advice" they are getting, they are being taken for a ride on the ka-ching train.

We ran into this kind of toss 'em out attitude and policy in another state. That state at least was honest enough that some of its laws, as written, did not agree with federal law. It is one of very few that are that blatant. I am greatly saddened to learn that, at least in your part of Ohio, children and families are subject to the same kind of mistreatment and legal neglect. I hope you are able to learn more about this and bring about some change at least among the CASA there.

Peace, H

State of Ohio
Permanency Options
Citation: Rev. Stat. § 2151.417
Permanency options include:
- Return home
- Adoption
- Legal custody
- Another planned, permanent living arrangement

Determining the Best Interests of the Child
Citation: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414(D)
In determining the best interests of a child at a hearing, the court shall consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, the following:

- The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child
- The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child
- The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22 month period ending on or after March 18, 1999
- The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency
- Whether any of the factors in § 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) apply in relation to the parents and child

US Code, Title 42, Section 675:
(C) with respect to each such child, procedural safeguards will be applied, among other things, to assure each child in foster care under the supervision of the State of a permanency hearing to be held, in a family or juvenile court or another court (including a tribal court) of competent jurisdiction, or by an administrative body appointed or approved by the court, no later than 12 months after the date the child is considered to have entered foster care (as determined under subparagraph (F)) (and not less frequently than every 12 months thereafter during the continuation of foster care), which hearing shall determine the permanency plan for the child that includes whether, and if applicable when, the child will be returned to the parent, placed for adoption and the State will file a petition for termination of parental rights, or referred for legal guardianship, or (in cases where the State agency has documented to the State court a compelling reason for determining that it would not be in the best interests of the child to return home, be referred for termination of parental rights, or be placed for adoption, with a fit and willing relative, or with a legal guardian) placed in another planned permanent living arrangement and, in the case of a child described in subparagraph (A)(ii), whether the out-of-State placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child, and, in the case of a child who has attained age 16, the services needed to assist the child to make the transition from foster care to independent living; and procedural safeguards shall also be applied with respect to parental rights pertaining to the removal of the child from the home of his parents, to a change in the child's placement, and to any determination affecting visitation privileges of parents....

[Hadley2]

Originally Posted by Lynard1210

i have never seen adoption as an option in any case i've worked on - NOT ONE!

Ohio state and federal law REQUIRE that adoption MUST be the first "option" that is, permanency goal, recommended if RU fails. TPR and adoption are a child's right. Children have a right to a safe, legally secure, and permanent home. Yet you say it's not even considered. Your post shows that your training led you to think that you weren't even allowed to discuss adoption? That you had to ask permission? Surely these clear contradictions show that something is deeply wrong with how the cases are handled in your area.

[Lynard1210]

It's partly language, you seem to use language differently than the actual legal definitions--

I'm not a lawyer so I use language in a way that hopefully other people can understand. I'm not trying to have a debate about WHAT is right or wrong under the law, I am telling you that legal custody is standard practice in Ohio. I'm sorry if that devastates you but it is just a fact.

If you continue to recommend transfers of legal custody to relatives for no good reason, you will be complicit in the illegal harm being done to the children and their families by the state.

What would make you think that I personally make recommendations for no good reason? I have two cases a year on average, at this time, BOTH PRIVATE! Private means there is no social services agency involved. And BOTH families have PRIVATE lawyers and BOTH familes are requesting Legal Custody on their own! My job (contrary to what you believe) is NOT to protect anybody's RIGHTS - that is a lawyers job - but to protect the best interest of the children. If that means keeping them with a grandparent by legal custody (because that is what the family is asking for) then as long as after my investigation and speaking personally with the child (who many times tells me specifically what they want) I am doing my job by reporting what the child wants and says (and the other parties) to the court along with recommendations. If the family in a private case needs services, I would of course, refer them to the local child services agency or job center.

If I am working on a case involving child services, then the caseworker is the one who initially would request legal custody and I can recommend against that. And many times I would! I would much prefer to have a child in foster care than send them off to a legal custody situation that was unsafe or not in their best interest.

I honestly don't think you are reading my posts and that you are just jumping to conclusions based on your own personal situation.

"Also note: The Ohio statute says, simply, "legal custody"; there is no such distinction as "permanent" legal custody or "temporary" legal custody. All legal custody is indefinite, subject to challenge by others and abdication of the custodian."

I agree and said this in my previous post . . . it is "considered permanent" but is in fact not permanent but it is as close to permanent that you will get if a child is not available to be adopted.

"The child's best interest is not subject to the agency's, cw's, or your ideas--it is set by law. These laws should be followed for the host of good reasons behind them. The agency cannot legally pick and choose at will and neither should you imo."

The law is only one piece of what is in the best interest of a child. The CASA/GAL is supposed to be an independent person looking at the child's life, interviewing the child and making recommendations based on what the child wants (if appropriate) and if not appropriate, what the CASA/GAL deems is best. There is a ton of judgment used - not a ton of law. That is how it is and the judges need gals because judges cannot personally go do all the investigative work necessary. If a child wants to be protected legally, the child is appointed an attorney. The GAL's role is NOT to protect legal interests. (a judge in a case I was in last month said so out loud).

"CASA and GALs are court-appointed advocates for the children. You work for the court, not the state or the agency, and advocate for the children, not the parents, not the families, just the children. I mention this because the CASA on our case buddied up with the parents and didn't know and didn't care what the child's rights were. To advocate for the children, you must know what their rights are. Your posts indicate that your training has been contrary to your clients' best interest as defined and mandated in your state and federal law. Please read the Adoption & Safe Families Act and other supporting US Code and Ohio statutes in addition to what I've written here. You must know these things if you are going to advocate for any child's best interest."

The child is not my client. And just because you had one bad CASA, does not mean all of them are the same. You are making assumptions about what the CASA cared about. I do not need to know what the child's legal rights are to determine that a child needs to be in school more often, a child needs health care, a child needs time with parents (or not), a child needs counseling or a child needs permanence. These are all things that any good parent can know without having a law degree. Most CASAs are volunteers (who DO NOT work for the Court although court-appointed) and are unpaid volunteers who care deeply about kids. I do not need to know the law to do my job, although if i do need to know the law for a particular situation, i have people i can call.

"As for what lawyers recommend, I doubt many of these relatives have their own representation. If they do, and this is the "advice" they are getting, they are being taken for a ride on the ka-ching train."


I tell any parent or grandparent i interview to consider getting their own lawyer. MOST already have lawyers. That is still their choice and not the CASA's responsibility if they choose not to. My job is not to ADVISE anybody. My job is to ferret out the situation and report to the judge my recommendations in the child's best interest.

We ran into this kind of toss 'em out attitude and policy in another state. That state at least was honest enough that some of its laws, as written, did not agree with federal law. It is one of very few that are that blatant. I am greatly saddened to learn that, at least in your part of Ohio, children and families are subject to the same kind of mistreatment and legal neglect. I hope you are able to learn more about this and bring about some change at least among the CASA there.

And you may be right . . .maybe Ohio is doing things differently that what federal law mandates. I'm not a lawyer but I can tell you that Ohio uses legal custody frequently; caseworkers recommend it frequently, and private relatives request it frequently. And I'm not saying its right or wonderful and it may be a very bad idea for kids after the case closes -and that is very sad. I think your situation has taught you and me that the law may say one thing but it is not always followed in practice at family courts. I will definitlely consider what you have said the next time I see a recommendation by a caseworker for legal custody. I will be more inclined to ask the caseworker why he/she deems legal custody better than keeping a child in foster care. Usually the answer would be the goal is no longer reunification .. . but that does not mean it is necessarily a good thing to shove them out of the system into anyone's home that will take them legal custody. Frankly, I would rather see long term foster care parent(s) adopt than I would want a kid shoved into any ole relative's house that will send them back to mommy or daddy.

I think we both agree that adoption is the superior permanent solution. Thanks for the debate. I'm tired now so I need to take a nap

[Biblemom]

Don't really want to get into the middle of the debate, but would like to know what the OP decided to do. Are you still out there? Any update?

[Lynard1210]

Originally Posted by Hadley2

Ohio state and federal law REQUIRE that adoption MUST be the first "option" that is, permanency goal, recommended if RU fails. TPR and adoption are a child's right. Children have a right to a safe, legally secure, and permanent home. Yet you say it's not even considered. Your post shows that your training led you to think that you weren't even allowed to discuss adoption? That you had to ask permission? Surely these clear contradictions show that something is deeply wrong with how the cases are handled in your area.

I have not personally been assigned to a case where reunification fails, so of course adoption would not be considered if the child is going home. I'm still learning and each case is a new learning experience. However, I am a paralegal and have worked for lawyers for years and the majority of the cases i have worked on have ended in legal custody or reunification. That might just be a statistical thing. Maybe the permanent custody cases are much rarer and then given to attorney GALs - not CASAs. When I worked for an attorney GAL, he had more PC (or what you call RU) cases. In those situations, the legal rights are going to need to be protected and CASAs are not supposed to be protecting legal rights - only best interests-so it would make sense that an attorney GAL would be assigned (unless the CASA had the case from the beginning which then the CASA would stay on and an attorney for the child might be assigned). I'm sure there is a lot of room for improvement for Attorney GALs - they are a whole other breed and don't take the time that the CASAs do to ferret out the case in order to make the best recommendations. This is a real problem i've seen and i'm sure it is not unique to my area. Some attorney GALs are not doing a thorough investigation and not having enough information to make an informed recommendation. I always tell relatives and foster parents to bombard the GALs with letters and documentation so they will have something in their file and in their hands when they write recommendations, that would include any intent to adopt. Send letters, make phone calls, do whatever you can to make it known to both the caseworker and the GAL that you want to adopt because reunification is the goal until the parents rights are severed, which takes a long time in most cases. Hadley, it sounds like you know alot more about RU (PC) cases than I do but I don't think legal custody is unique to our area. I think it happens all over the state instead of severing rights, and maybe that is where the loophole to the law you are referring to comes into play. It sounds like after rights are terminated, that is a whole other area that I have not been exposed to as of yet, but I am looking forward to learning more about it.