FWD asfp:
Subject: Re: Fit and willing relatives of foster children
From: pohakuyakokane@subdimension.com (Kane)
Date: 1/1/2004 1:25 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <7ed8d1be.0312312225.18a91757@posting.google.com>
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:30:44 -0600, "Ron"
<apositiveplace@netscape.net> wrote:
"Suzy" <nickel@nospam.toledotel.com> wrote in messagenews:c1e2927b062cb2f54d80b2f538ae2f4f@local host.talkaboutsupport.com... DCFS is abusing it's authority and breaking the law (Adoption and
safefamilies act, Kinship law, Children's and Young Peoples Act)by
disregardingthese laws which clearly state that any "fit and willing relative"
should begiven preference in gaining custody of a related child placed in
state care.Really? "Willing" is just as had to find as "fit". And if I
rememberright, ASFA states that they must make the effort, not that they aremandated to do it. Therefore they are not breaking the law, they arefollowing it closely.
I have read the law. You are correct sir. The requirement is to
attempt to recruit relatives when appropriate. There is NO mandated
requirement to place with relatives. What is so often forgotten is
that the state has the responsibility for a SAFE placement.
There is another little thing this lady might want to check on. In the
state she wishes to adopt from "cousin" may be not a designated
relative at all. States do differ on this and there is NO federal
guideline attached to PL 105-89 (ASFA).
I know this law many states interpretations of it (each state was
required to pass ancillary laws in parallel to 105-89). NON as far as
I've found changes the wording on "attempt." I haven't been able to
access all states and would welcome any updates.
fern and I have had that discussion many times, and he/she/it has yet
toshow us where kinship care is mandated.
Ah, well, the Plant has changes IT'S leaves on that matter. It now
words things just a bit different. I think you frosted IT'S Leaves
just a bit on this matter...R R R R R
Relatives who petition for custody are not being considered in
preferenceof non-related foster parents.
This is patent nonsense. Relatives are vetted. Some make the cut and
some are felons, some child abusers, some violent with long criminal
records, some do not have the capacity to parent, some refuse to
undergo psych evals or drug assessments, etc. Some want to make the
grand gesture but really DON'T want to actually parent the
child...they just want to be able to say to the other relatives, "Well
gee I tried but that damn CPS.....you know how they are."
And some will even take trainings, get vetted, and STILL not actually
step forward when it gets down to the bottom line...that is they found
out that adopt subsidy is less than guardianship, or permanent foster
care so they try to hold up the state and refuse to adopt...damn the
child's feelings of not really being wanted.
The state is well disposed to go carefully and cautiously and make
every relative that comes forward jump through enough hoops to PROVE
THEY ARE ACTUALLY COMMITTED.
DCFS is not an adoption agency,
ON the contrary. They are exactly that. ASFA is Adoption and Safe
Families Act...not Apologize and Surrender For Assholes that may or
may not want or can parent the child.
On the other hand I do cut relatives some slack. Sometimes the
circumstances are such that they cannot come forward in fear for their
very lives.....by threat of the abusive malicious drub abusing
incestuous parents.
Or the entire TWO families (everyone kind of forgets the inlaw
problem) are at each other's throats so everyone is frozen, paralized
with their nonsense.
and shouldfollow the mandates of these laws
Cite the laws. Chapter and verse and a clickable link to the document.
I've researched this thoroughly and I know the feds don't back up that
statement. Possibly the state you are dealing with does. Let's see it.
by allowing foster children to remain intheir biological homes,
You seem to forget how they came into out of home care. It's Child
PROTECTIVE Services. And until such time as a "biological" relative
shows capacity, willingness, and safety they can just piss up a rope.
Too many children are abused by RELATIVES to let that just be
automatic.
with extended family members, when it is safe forthe child to do so.
Yeah, well, there is a bit more to it than safety. And why should the
state just take someone's word they are safe?
The kind of grief a hostile relative (especially to the non offending
parent) can bring to a case is horrendous..and they do. In fact legal
findings had to be made to stop some of kind of inlaw abuse.
Preference automatically goes to relatives,
Some states Ron, but there is no legal mandate to do so. Most DO make
it a point to study only a relative but if foster parent requests to
be considered the state has the option.
but if they are unsuitable tocare for the children in any one of a number of ways then they are
notconsidered. That's the way it works.
You got that in the 10 ring.
It is ironic that I am not only a cousin to the foster child
Is that sufficient in the state you are trying to adopt in? In some
states cousin may not be a designated "relative." In fact one can be a
"cousin" and have NO blood relationship at all.
Are you a blood related cousin and is that sufficient in the state?
I am fightingto gain custody of, but a licensed foster care mother myself.
How many children do you have in the home? Is there any conflict with
the kinds and numbers of children you have and the kind of child your
relative is?
Are you willing to move all foster children out and foster only the
relative child with the understanding you will be available for
adoption?
You haven't really thought this through have you? You just want a
fight.
It seems thatDCFS is prejudiced against the families of foster children to the
extentthat they use their power to abuse the "best interest of the child"
clause,
Bull****. Relatives are kept at bay in the early part of the case for
reasons I've stated. I've worked with relatives trying to adopt for
many years now and I KNOW what is up. Some are great. They DO GET THE
CHILDREN. Some are assholes and whiners and usually NOT suitable for
the child for inlaw or other reasons...sometimes the child themself
has expressed (privately and confidentially of course) they "would
rather DIE than live with Auntie Soandso and her stinky cats....etc."
and in my case resorted to lying about the status of the child,
obstructingby burying paperwork for weeks, and ultimately threatening me.
WEEKS? WEEKS? RRRRRR...you gotta be kidding. A government bureaucracy
and you think weeks is a long time for papers to work their way
through the system....R R R R, you are a card. I think they have your
number...you are an ignorant prat.
Threatening you with WHAT? If it was really true you'd have told us
right out what the threat actually was....what, cut the foster subsidy
to the adopt subsidy? Make you give up fostering other kids? What.
Well now, that's going to depend on how you approached the problem.
If youwent in with a chip on your shoulder (as I suspect you did), or are
livingin another state, then I can see where you might find problems.
Naaaaaaaaaw...yah think, Ron? This lady, a chip? R R R R R
I called the Governor's Office, the Oversight Committee, Senator's,Representatives, and several Watchdog groups, and am making mild
progress,but it is ridiculous that families should have to go to such extremes
tobring their relatives back into the biological home.
Me guess is that you were trying to hold the state up for more than
just placement. You've got that anti CPS stench about you.
Oh, so you started this with an adversarial approach? What did you
expect?The state to hand over the kid without comment or concern? Just how
longhave you been a foster parent? Not long is my guess, for if you had
beenyou would have had experience with relative placements and have seen
some ofthe many problems that ensue from them.
I doubt this person is a foster parent at all. My bet is they told her
she had to become a foster parent to have the placement and she just
went through the classes, homestudy, and background check and got the
certificate. Never fostered or all this garbage and misinformation
wouldn't be what it is.
I hope public awareness will help resolve this,and I will publish
my storythroughout the state. Hopefully many children who would otherwise
sufferdisplacement from their biological homes will be returned to the
extendedfamily and be able to live with familiar relatives.
Just like bio families trying to get their children out of foster
care, relatives that are trying to get placements are pretty much
guaranteed to blow it by going REFORM CPS crazy.
You get's to do one or the other, but rarely both...very rarely.
Children need a great deal of help after abuse and neglect. And an
adversarial placement, foster or adopt, is NOT what CPS wants or
needs...and the child certainly doesn't need it.
Public awareness is not the problem here, approach is. How you go
aboutmaking your case. Sounds to me, given the tenor of your post, that
you wentin demanding things and got your hat handed to you. I would have
expectedno less if I had done that when my nephew went into care in the early
90's.Instead, I used the system as it was designed, went in requesting
ratherthan demanding, and they had him on a plane in less than a week. I
lived 4states away at the time, and California was more than willing to
accommodatemy request because they understood the importance of family to a
child. Youmight give a more sedate approach a try. Better for you, better for
yourcousin.Ron
And California is no great shakes in casework from county to
county...some great, some lousy. Strange system, but you are
right...most of the time CPS IS looking to do the right thing and it's
the client or others who believe themselves to be stakeholders that
create havoc and make the state pull waaaay back and take extreme care
in selection of placement resources.
And many a child has had their heart broken by "relatives" that were
just playing inlaw or money games on the child's back.
Kane
