[maybemomma]

Quick back-story: 19yo sister is pg and plans to put the baby up for adoption. She doesn't know that we may be interested in adopting it, but we're planning to talk to her while we're home for Christmas. We're trying to quickly gather info so that we know we're definitely going to do it if she agrees before we ask her and get everyone all excited (good or bad).

Well, I've talked to an agency, which is a pretty expensive way to go. It will be $6000 if she lives with us for about a month before L&D b/c she would deliver in the state we live in instead of her state. (Saves a lot of paperwork and additional legal fees.) The advantage to this method is that she and the father only have 72hrs after birth to change their minds.

We decided that we'd rather go through a lawyer. It's only $2000 that way, but the ones I've talked to will only do kinship adoptions in this situation meaning that the we are given temporary custody and power of attorney for the child for 12mos, and the adoption isn't finalized for those 12mos. Interpretation: Costs significantly less, but there's more time for something to go awry.

Any thoughts? I am meeting via phone with another lawyer tomorrow morning.

As a PS, we know that she needs to agree to all of this including living w/us prior to L&D, and we plan to get her counseling to make sure this is what she really wants to do.

[bvotto]

My husband and I are in the beginning stages of seeking adoption. We are a young couple 29 and 32 with professional jobs that can be trusted and provide love and support. I would like to connect with you and let you know that being scarded is a natural feeling and that we are here if you need to speak to someone. I am also working with a great lawyer that you can call toll free and let him know that I referred you to speak with him. Trust me he is very kind and understanding and will help you with all your questions. If you need his number please contact me asap...

Hope to hear from you soon

Bara Votto
nemser_12@hotmail.com

[DCMomLady]

I think it might actually be a good idea to have 12 months to finalize an adoption between sisters. If you love your sister, wouldn't you want her to have enough time to be sure that she wouldn't have a lifetime of regret over a decision made under pressure of time and circumstance?

Although the court rushed our adoption of my niece's baby following her involuntary TPR, my husband and I both felt our adoption could be "reconsidered" during that first year if my niece was changed by what happened. We love her and wanted only what was best for her and her child. It turns out, we didn't have to test our love for either of them because my niece doesn't seem to have any regrets.

I don't know how much weight to give to cost when you make your decision. Only you can decide how much money is too much to spend on your dream of adopting this baby. I would have written a blank check if that was the cost of bringing our daughter back into the family.

DeeCee

[bromanchik]

Please remember that that 72 hours is a minimum. Also, living with you a month before the baby is born can influence her decision. Can you imagine how painful it would be to watch you prepare for her baby? Do you really think that she is going to feel free to change her mind?

Additionally, what happens after the baby is born?

[Lynard1210]

This is obviously a very old post; however, since bromanchik posted, i thought i would too considering there will be many people in adoption-land reading this! There are other options beside adoption . . .they is guardianship and legal custody. Relative adoption can be a very positive thing (ours is) however there is a price to pay, many times. Currently the birth mom (our relative) has cut off all contact with us. I don't think we did anything wrong per se, but just know that if the situation is not handled delicately (all parties' feelings and needs considered, what is truly best for the child and how everyone will feel after the change), then relationships within the family can be severely damaged or possibly severed. Adoption within the family changes everyones lives permanently . . for the good and for the bad. Don't expect your family to ever be the same.

[Hadley2]

I have to respectfully disagree with lynard's suggestion.

I personally think guardianship/legal custody "solutions" more often cause more problems than anything else--they leave the door open for arguments and lawsuits and the boundaries murky for day to day living. What is the point of doing this, anyway? Either a person has decided not to parent or they haven't--I do not think it is moral or ethical to impose the damaging effects of their indecision on a helpless child. Barring exceptional circumstances, having one set of parents with rights intact and living with another set of adult "guardians" or "legal custodians" does nothing positive for the child while compromising the child's actual legal security as well as the child's sense of security, safety, identity, and the permanency needed to attach, bond, root, and thrive. For the most part, this is not a good legal status for a child in a household and that is why federal law makes adoption the highest priority goal in foster cases not going to RU.

It is better in most cases, I think, for a child to be raised in his or her family of origin. Unfortunately, these decisions are not always made with the child's best interest or familial rights in mind--they are often made according to the wants and fears of the adults involved. Before birth, it is the mother's body; after birth, it is the parents' child for whom they have a responsibility to make all decisions in the child's best interest--the child is a human being whose personhood, including familial rights, imo should be respected except where they are outweighed by other factors negative to the child, not the parents. Sometimes, that may mean that if the adults are not able to handle the situation beneficially for the child, then the child's better interest is served by being adopted out.

Children need to be raised by a parent or parents. Children need permanency. They need to know the people on whom their lives depend are bonded to them legally as well as emotionally. Guardianship or legal custody does not give them that. It denies them a rightful place in the family in which they are being raised. It makes them a perpetual guest. They deserve better than that, I think.

I am saying all this as a relative who is adopting an older child who we have been fostering for several years. She shows me the damage limbo does to a child every day. Yes, the pending adoption is changing the dynamics of our extended family, and not in all positive ways. On balance, though, she is benefiting greatly, first from knowing she will soon really be a legitimate, legal member of our family and, second, from finding herself in the bosom of her family of origin. So the discomfort of some of the adults is secondary as far as I am concerned. I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but I think it is wrong to deny a child his or her real developmental and legal need for a real family just to accommodate the indecision or comfort level of a parent who won't or can't commit to parenting. Once the decision to give birth has been acted upon, then I think all the decisions that follow must be made in the child's interest, not the adults'.

[Lynard1210]

I totally agree with Hadley that adoption is the best choice if permanence is in fact the goal. However, not all familes have permanent parenthood as the goal. That is when Legal Custody comes into play. I know of a grandmother right now who has legal custody of her grandchild because her daughter (the first mom) was in college. There was a possibility that the daughter might take over parenting. There are other situations where guardianship is the right choice depending on the family's circumstances. We chose adoption for our granddaughter because it was right for us and the permanance was the number one factor; however, adoption is not always the best answer ESPECIALLY when the child is older and has a family he/she is bonded to and wants to keep their name or some other personal reason. There is an entire juvenile court system that uses legal custody as permanent. Unless the child's circumstances change (not the bio parents), legal custody is considered permanent. Personally I wanted no part of the juvenile court system and we had a choice to go to Probate Court for adoption. Not every family has that choice. They are thousands of children already in the system when their permanence comes into question and sometimes the only way a family can get them in their home is through legal custody (adoption could obviously possibly come later if needed). Child services wants kids out of the system and once a child is with a relative and/or nonrelative by legal custody, they can close the case.

Adoption is the most permanent and safest for children's permanence, i agree, but not always realistic for the situation, especially when child services is involved. If the goal is to get the child out of the system, then legal custody is the only way unless the child has gone to permanent custody and is then available to be adopted. In a perfect world, all children would have permanence and I agree with Hadley that people should either parent or not. In the Juvenile Court system, IMO parents are given too long a time period to get their acts together. You either want your kids or you don't and it is usually evident at the beginning a case by whether the parent(s) are working their case plan. It is very sad for children to be left in limbo while parents try to get off drugs and take parenting classes. But that is what we are dealing with and it definitely needs to be changed.

[Lynard1210]

Hadley, i just re-read your post and i think you and i agree that a child's best interest should be served - that is the number one goal and that is why I volunteer as a guardian ad litem for juvenile court. It sickens me to see what many of these children go through - sounds like your adopted child has as well. We were very fortunate that the decsion was made at birth so we didn't have to go through as much red tape as many families. I know of two situations right now where the grandparents have temporary custody. These kids, even though they have the love and safety of their grandparents, still have to worry that they will be sent back to the bad situation they were living in. Adoption (at this point) isn't even an option . . the grandparents are just hoping and praying for legal custody . . .but later down the road, adoption would definitely be extra insurance . . not sure if that is possible without consent but it definitely should be!

[Hadley2]

Originally Posted by Lynard1210

...once a child is with a relative and/or nonrelative by legal custody, they can close the case.

That is the crime--and it does violate federal law--against children that I would really, really like to stop.

I'm sure you mean well, but except in the case of a MUCH older child who has a statutory right to be heard in court, I still vehemently disagree with you. If you are a gal who is advising social services or dealing with relatives, I really hope you listen and understand what I'm going to say here. I'm afraid you've hit my hot button, I'm sorry to come on so strong and a little disorganized, but here goes.

First, I'd like to say that I am pretty sure there is no such thing as "permanent" or "temporary" legal custody or guardianship. There is legal custody and/or guardianship; whether it turns out to be "permanent" or "temporary" depends on the players and the courts that get involved. This was admitted to me by the social services attorney--the cw kept talking about "permanent legal custody" and how legal custody is "considered permanent" but the fact that social services or a particular judge intends for a particular order to be permanent carries no actual legal weight. Any legal custody order can be challenged at any time--by other relatives or others with standing as well as the parents. Anyone taking on legal custody of a child is opening themselves to lawsuits from many quarters.

Second, in some states, including mine, there is no such thing as legal custody without parental rights or rights of guardianship. It simply does not exist. A legal custody order from another state does not suffice for even the most mundane things--a tooth extraction, a sports team registration, school registration, etc. School districts, hospitals, and others want the signature of "parent or guardian"--"custodian" doesn't cut it. The sending state for our niece learned this firsthand when a hospital here did not want to accept its consent for surgery.

Third, the definition of "legal custody" in most state law does not meet the higher standard set in the federal definition of "guardianship" as an acceptable lower priority disposition. Therefore, "legal custody" is often NOT a disposition that meets the federal requirements set forth in Title IV-E legislation. Transferring legal custody to a relative in those cases is a direct violation of federal law.

Fourth--This idea of transferring legal custody to a relative serves only to save the state a buck, it not only does not help children, it injures them.

Too many social service agencies play on relatives' misplaced fears and concerns about "the system" and wanting to "get the child out of the system" in order to dump open custody cases on private citizens while, at the same time, often cutting the child off from the services that the child needs and that would be provided if the child were foster or foster-to-adopt. The foster case may be "closed" but the custody case certainly is not--although all the evidence related to it is sealed and unavailable to the new parties. Our state sees this a lot in ICPC cases and deems it a violation of federal law and our state law.

I do not believe agencies do this to help families or children. That is a completely empty and false pretense.

Transferring legal custody to a relative is NEVER the only way to close a case or uphold a child's right to be raised by family. That just simply is not true. Families CAN foster their kin while the system works to protect them, their rights, and their parents' right to due process. Families CAN adopt their kin when reunification is eliminated as a goal. By federal law and the laws of 45 states, three territories, and the DC, adoption is the next-priority goal. Guardianship, not legal custody, comes next. Legal custody by itself is not an allowed disposition under any of these laws.

If the state can't make a case for TPR, then it has no basis for denying reunification. If the state has a case for TPR, then it has no excuse for not upholding the child's best interest in permanency by adoption. States that try to have it both ways--deny RU to the parents and TPR to the child--are violating federal law and most likely the laws of their own states if they receive Title IV-E funds.

No, cases are closed when social services does its job and protects children while providing due process for their parents. Dumping an open custody case on private citizens to "close" a foster care case only inflicts further harm on the child and violates both federal and state law.

I believe those simple truths are ignored to save a buck, nothing else.

"Getting the child out of 'the system'" should NEVER EVER be anyone's goal. The child's safety is paramount--that is in federal law and every state law; all goals must serve the child's best interest.

"The system" is not the bogey man to be feared. "The system" is there to protect the child and provide for the child's needs, including the need for permanency. There is no child- or family-based need to short-circuit due process for the parents and sacrifice children's safety and rights to permanency. The only reason to do those things is, again, to save a buck--certainly NOT to help families which get skewered legally and financially by such gamesmanship and sometimes outright lies.

Another argument that it is more family-friendly to not terminate parental rights, etc., is equally bogus and disingenuous. Nothing could be further from the truth. Without clear legal boundaries, families are literally forced into adversarial roles legally, guaranteeing legal and emotional strife where they could have been healing and some degree of harmony or at least acceptance in the child's life.

When custody transfers to the relative and the "case is closed," there is no case plan for the parents, no services for the parents, no case plan or services for the child, no path to permanency for the child--only a path to endless costly litigation for the child and the families and either sky-high medical and therapy bills or neglect of medical and mental health needs because insurance, even state-based insurance, just doesn't, very often, cover what these kids need.

Even if the parents never again challenge the "custodians," even if the "custodians'" insurance covers the child needs, every child deserves far better than to grow up with a "custodian." Children are not zoo animals, they need more than "custodians" and "caretakers"--they need a parent(s), a strong core sense of self rooted in a safe and legally recognized and secure family.

There are cases where a child is so severely in need of services that family placement of any kind--related or not--is not safe for the child or the resource home. That is where long-term foster care and appla come in. Even in those cases, though, parental rights are terminated so that the child's guardian, usually the state, has the freedom and authority to make best-interest decisions for the child.

But when a child who should have either been reunited with his parents or adopted by family or others is just tossed out by social services through a transfer of custody, many families give up and just give the child back to the parents. The DSS attorney in our child's case actually ENCOURAGED us to do so "two or three years from now, you know, if they get themselves together, you could give her back." He was trying to tout the "benefits" of taking legal custody to us by saying we could always just give her back to the parents! WHAT? As if her identity, her life, her development, her humanity, her safety--those things don't count? She's just a "thing" to be given back whenever we feel like it?

But--transfer custody. To close a case. To save a buck. To get the kid and the kids' costs out of local jurisdiction. I know for a fact that was social services' motivation in our case. Never mind why there was a case in the first place. Never mind that leaving parental rights intact endangers the child. Never mind that the child is a human being. Toss her around like a Yankee swap item and save the state some money.

Agencies that do this also sometimes RU with a bus ticket. If there is no family willing to take custody alone, they will RU the child with a strong suggestion to the parents to leave the county or district.

The people involved are probably not evil. They are probably trying to do social triage, hoarding their resources for the worst cases, trying to make do with not enough. Understandable in my view, but not OK. I am the kind of person who says that if you don't have what you need to do the job, push back until you do.

Anyway, though, your example of the mother in college and the grandmother raising the child makes my point re adults' viewing children as things, not people, even in the private sector. That just simply is not a good situation for the child, imo. Absent parents are not parenting--they are telling their children that the children are not worthy enough to actually parent. That they are things to be set aside when parenting is inconvenient.

Children are human beings. They are not cans of beans a mother can put on the shelf while she goes out to do something else and considers her "options." Children don't have "options"--they grow up no matter what. The child doesn't and can't wait for the mother and I don't think the mother has any moral right to come back later and simply pluck that child out of the life they've grown into and are emotionally and developmentally vested in. I think it's almost worse if the mother perpetuates limbo on the child--leaving the threat of return and RU there indefinitely. If the mother were gravely ill and unable to parent, that might be one thing, but to just go off to do something else more interesting for an indefinite amount of time? I don't think so.

I'm sorry if I am coming on strong, but this is just the kind of self-absorbed and absolutely selfish thing our niece's first parents used to say, that they wanted us to just take custody and take care of her but keep their status as her parents. Maybe even take her back when they were well enough then give her back to us again when they were not. The fact that they could not understand how deeply and callously harmful this idea was for the child only proved to me another reason why they were unfit to parent anybody.

The other big problem with this custody idea is that, "down the road" adoption will still almost always be out of the question without consent from both parents. You seem to think a "custodian" or "guardian" can simply petition and that will be it. No way, it just simply does NOT happen that way.

It is nearly impossible to terminate parental rights privately, and certainly highly expensive to try. I have friends who went the guardian route privately, to "keep the child out of the system." The parent petitioned for return, they went to court, put on a case, the judge ordered a case plan (even though not a foster case), etc., etc., last year they were at $20K in and counting, now it is closer to $30K. In the meantime, there have been numerous hearings and petitions for visitation and other parental rights that they have had to defend against. They were actually put in the position of paying for some of the parent's services themselves!

The point is, you have to have grounds to terminate parental rights--and if the foster case is closed, the evidence for the grounds is sealed! If it is difficult for the state to terminate rights with access to all of the information and the full weight of the state's legal and financial depth and resources, how well is a family--who may never have had any clue or right to a clue due to confidentiality as to the actual details of the original removal--going to pull off this trick?

You say you believe in permanency for children, but yet I sense a casual dismissal of this principle for children who are with their relatives. Why should children be punished and denied their basic human rights just because their family loves them enough to want to raise them? Why should families be punished for stepping up for their loved ones? Why are these kids and families less deserving of safety, legal security, and special needs help than those who don't have a family connection?

I hopethat what I've written may influence your thinking as a GAL on cases in which a family wants to do what's best for their kin. Please don't let social services off the hook of doing their job--running a case plan, providing services, etc., and, when the time comes, either making RU work or going for TPR. No TPR is no kindness for the child or the family, none at all.

Thanks for listening.

[Hadley2]

And wow, believe it or not there is a point that I missed. Federal law and every state law written to comply with federal law in order to receive Title IV-E funds requires that, any time a lower-priority goal is chosen, social services must show why it is in the best interest of the child vs. the higher goal. States, agencies, and courts are NOT allowed to have a blanket rule--e.g., transfer of legal custody to a relative or guardianship by a relative is the goal for all children residing with a relative--they MUST show, for each individual case, why that goal is better than adoption.

I know firsthand that some states and agencies completely skip this step, their local courts do not call them on it (frankly, I don't think the judges actually know or care what the law is), and they lie to relatives and tell them that it is the law that they can't adopt and must take legal custody or LOSE THEIR RELATIVE TO A CLOSED ADOPTION BY A STRANGER. As bizarre and nonsensical as that sounds, that is exactly the threat made to us. Again, fortunately, that did not happen and we are, finally, adopting, but our circumstances in that we already had physical custody and were in another state were what made the difference.

The point is, if the child is not RU and not free for adoption, then social services has not done its job according to the law and the court involved has not made orders or decisions in accordance with the law, either. There is no reason for any relative to take custody to get the child out of the system.

[Lynard1210]

Hadley - so shocking they lie!! That was sarcasm! I was not aware that there were any laws mandating judges to go for adoption. In the state where i live, it is common and usual practice for relatives to get legal custody; however, i see your point that the relatives probably don't know know adoption is an option, especially if they have a caseworker who is definitely not looking out for the relatives interest. But their lawyers must be advising them to go legal custody for a reason . . . my best guess would be that getting bio parents to sign consents before the time limits for reunification run is probably not a realistic option. I believe that the time limits allowing parents to reunify are the real problem. It's true that some judges don't hold to the year (allowed in Ohio) specified. They give extensions of time to child services even though they don't really have to. I'm sure there are some judges who stick close to the time lines but from what I have seen pre permanent custody, the relative has two options: legal custody or temporary custody and see if the parents do what they are supposed to do. The two cases i am working on the judge refused to order legal custody - i think they love temporary custody to wait and see what parents do. This is definitely wrong in my opinion. Kids need permanence and adoption is the best kind of permance in almost all situations. It SHOULD be standard practice for relatives to be able to adopt straight from the system (the added benefit being they are a permanent part of their original family which is what we wanted for our daughter). Until you wrote your post, i'd never questioned why they do things the way they do other than the law protects the bio parents rights for longer than they should. Hmmmm . . . obviously there needs to be serious reform.

[Lynard1210]

Hadley, i can see you feel passionate about this topic. I don't advise people . .i make recommendations to the judge in what is the child's best interest. Here are my choices for recommendation: Temporary custody, Legal Custody or return to the parents. Now, after rights have been severed, adoption is a recommendation. I have seen it a thousand times while working for lawyers and in the courts, the ATTITUDE of the caseworkers is: legal custody, case closed. I'm not saying this is a GOOD idea for relatives - i'm only saying it's an option that they apparently like because i have never seen adoption as an option in any case i've worked on - NOT ONE! As I have mentioned, legal custody is not an option I personally took for our family because we didn't want any of the risk involved that you mention in your posts, but we didn't have an open child services case. Other people I personally know have chosen legal custody for whatever reasons they have. Do I think its smart? Absolutely not, but I figure lawyers go to law school for a reason and they are advising clients to go legal custody in the state of Ohio for a reason. I don't claim to understand what that reason is.

If you are in a situation where you do not have to deal with the system (lucky you!), there are options that SOME families might choose . . .not saying they are better because obviously adoption is the safest most permanent method. That's all I'm saying. But thank you for the information, because you have motivated me to call my local CASA office today and ask if I can talk to the relatives about adoption instead of legal custody . . it has never come up before in any one of my CASA trainings but it is an avenue i will now explore . . .i will let you know the outcome!

PS Have you considered becoming a CASA yourself?

[Lynard1210]

As promised, i checked with my CASA supervisor whose word I trust as close to gospel since she has been working in the juvenile court system for decades. Legal custody in the state of Ohio is considered permanent but it does maintain the parents right to visit and the parents responsibility to support. Yes, legal custody can be challenged for two reasons: 1. child's situation deteriorated and custodian can no longer care for child and 2. custodian agrees to change in custody. A parent can file for legal custody but I am told they do not win it back unless 1 or 2 above happens.

The rest of your post, Hadley, contains alot more invididual situations than I am unable to even consider commenting on, but I understand your frustrations.

I still disagree that Legal Custody is not sometimes the appropriate option, although admittedly not as permanent as adoption. If I were queen of the world, things would be different, but I have to deal with reality -- the way it is in my county, in my state and in my opinion, the system is broken and in desperate need of repair. But until that miracle occurs, and when adoption is not imminent (due to judges, courts, caseworkers or whatever) - a child is much better off in the legal custody with somebody he loves and trusts (relative or non-relative) than he is in the temporary custody of child services - JMO!

It's not black and white . . . .its a lot of grey.

There are relatives who see no involvement with "the system" as a positive (I happen to be one of them). You can apply for services in a child-only case - you don't need the system to do it for you. However, it is helpful and many times necessary to have "the system" provide services as Hadley outlines.

[Lynard1210]

[quote=Hadley2]

I don't think the judges actually know or care what the law is), and they lie to relatives and tell them that it is the law that they can't adopt and must take legal custody or LOSE THEIR RELATIVE TO A CLOSED ADOPTION BY A STRANGER.

Hadley, this can happen because once permanent custody occurs (severing off parental rights), relatives are no longer related! If the child is already placed with those relatives and its in the child's best interest, it is likely not an issue, but losing the relative to strangers is a a possibility -especially if the foster parents are interested in adopting too.

[Lynard1210]

"Transferring legal custody to a relative is NEVER the only way to close a case or uphold a child's right to be raised by family. That just simply is not true. Families CAN foster their kin while the system works to protect them, their rights, and their parents' right to due process. Families CAN adopt their kin when reunification is eliminated as a goal. "I do not disagree . . . in fact I don't recall denying that this is valid . . but let's talk about a PRIVATE custody case . . .where "the system" is not involved at all. Private meaning that mom dumped the child off at grandma's house and disapeared. Grandma files a legal custody action through her private attorney because she is not able to file an adoption case because there is not going to be any consent forthcoming. This situation is as permanent as it is going to get due to the circumstances.


"Getting the child out of 'the system'" should NEVER EVER be anyone's goal. The child's safety is paramount--that is in federal law and every state law; all goals must serve the child's best interest.
Legal Custody does serve SOME children's best interest, depending on circumstances, but not all by any means.

"The system" is not the bogey man to be feared. "The system" is there to protect the child and provide for the child's needs, including the need for permanency.
That is the utopia of the system . . the reality of the system is a new caseworker every month, cases falling through the cracks, services not provided, deadlines not respected, people feeling victimized including some good parents who got drug into the system by false complaints. . . ..


Another argument that it is more family-friendly to not terminate parental rights, etc., is equally bogus and disingenuous. Nothing could be further from the truth. Without clear legal boundaries, families are literally forced into adversarial roles legally, guaranteeing legal and emotional strife where they could have been healing and some degree of harmony or at least acceptance in the child's life.
Anyone can file a lawsuit . . . my neighbor can try and get custody of my child (good luck) . . we cannot control what other people do and just because there are legal boundaries around the child does not guarantee emotional boundaries. Legal custody is a legal boundary and there are situations where children DO want contact with their parents. Nothing wrong with that if its best for them.

When custody transfers to the relative and the "case is closed," there is no case plan for the parents, no services for the parents, no case plan or services for the child, no path to permanency for the child--only a path to endless costly litigation for the child and the families and either sky-high medical and therapy bills or neglect of medical and mental health needs because insurance, even state-based insurance, just doesn't, very often, cover what these kids need.This is a shame and needs reform.

Even if the parents never again challenge the "custodians," even if the "custodians'" insurance covers the child needs, every child deserves far better than to grow up with a "custodian." Children are not zoo animals, they need more than "custodians" and "caretakers"--they need a parent(s), a strong core sense of self rooted in a safe and legally recognized and secure family.
The child can see the adult as a parent regardless of what the legal papers say. I wouldn't tell my "custodian" child that I am just a custodian. I am Aunt Lynn or Grandma or Mom . . . .if they are with a relative, they are safe and secure in the family . . kids don't care what the legal status on the paperwork says.

There are cases where a child is so severely in need of services that family placement of any kind--related or not--is not safe for the child or the resource home. That is where long-term foster care and appla come in. Even in those cases, though, parental rights are terminated so that the child's guardian, usually the state, has the freedom and authority to make best-interest decisions for the child.
Our former foster daughter was in this situation. It has served her well to be in long term foster care and she is now getting her college paid for.

But when a child who should have either been reunited with his parents or adopted by family or others is just tossed out by social services through a transfer of custody, many families give up and just give the child back to the parents. The DSS attorney in our child's case actually ENCOURAGED us to do so "two or three years from now, you know, if they get themselves together, you could give her back." He was trying to tout the "benefits" of taking legal custody to us by saying we could always just give her back to the parents! WHAT? As if her identity, her life, her development, her humanity, her safety--those things don't count? She's just a "thing" to be given back whenever we feel like it?What if the mother was a good mother but didn't have housing at that moment? What if the child asked to go back? What if, what if, what if???


Anyway, though, your example of the mother in college and the grandmother raising the child makes my point re adults' viewing children as things, not people, even in the private sector. That just simply is not a good situation for the child, imo. Absent parents are not parenting--they are telling their children that the children are not worthy enough to actually parent. That they are things to be set aside when parenting is inconvenient.
You are making assumptions and judgments about people you don't even know. The daughter (mother) lives with the child and is involved. This is a good solid family and legal custody worked for them. The child is thriving.

The child doesn't and can't wait for the mother and I don't think the mother has any moral right to come back later and simply pluck that child out of the life they've grown into and are emotionally and developmentally vested in.
No plucking will take place with legal custody but maybe the mother and her family can all be involved. Why does it have to be all or nothing?


You seem to think a "custodian" or "guardian" can simply petition and that will be it. No way, it just simply does NOT happen that way.
It can happen in a private case.

It is nearly impossible to terminate parental rights privately, and certainly highly expensive to try. I have friends who went the guardian route privately, to "keep the child out of the system." The parent petitioned for return, they went to court, put on a case, the judge ordered a case plan (even though not a foster case), etc., etc., last year they were at $20K in and counting, now it is closer to $30K. In the meantime, there have been numerous hearings and petitions for visitation and other parental rights that they have had to defend against. They were actually put in the position of paying for some of the parent's services themselves!
It's definitely not cheap but it can be done.

The point is, you have to have grounds to terminate parental rights--
which is why legal custody is sometimes the only option - if there are no grounds - legal custody is plan b.


"You say you believe in permanency for children, but yet I sense a casual dismissal of this principle for children who are with their relatives. Why should children be punished and denied their basic human rights just because their family loves them enough to want to raise them? Why should families be punished for stepping up for their loved ones? Why are these kids and families less deserving of safety, legal security, and special needs help than those who don't have a family connection?"
I think punishment is a strong word. And my beliefs in permanancy are anything but casual. However, reality dictates other plans besides adoption. And if you haven't noticed, I am an adoptee whose relatives didn't bother to fight for me AND I'm a relative adoptive parent who did the adoption outside of the system.

"I hopethat what I've written may influence your thinking as a GAL on cases in which a family wants to do what's best for their kin. Please don't let social services off the hook of doing their job--running a case plan, providing services, etc., and, when the time comes, either making RU work or going for TPR. No TPR is no kindness for the child or the family, none at all."My job is to make recommendations to the Court.

My job can include holding the caseworker accountable but the county and state are responsible for the way the system is run. I cannot save the world but i do care about children's rights. I am certain the fact that I was raised by non-related family and have adopted my husband's daughter holds great weight in my recommendations and the reason I became a CASA in the first place.

What we have discussed at length today is exactly why more people will hopefully decide to volunteer as a guardian ad litem and speak up for children's rights. Is it ever going to be a perfect outcome? No. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils . . . .