what do you guys think about this case?

[ks777]

I saw this on tv and I felt really bad for the baby and her grandparents. what do you guys think? Should CPS have that much control over a child life?

http://www.king5.com/topstories/sto..._TP.44743f48.html?ocp=1#slcgm_comments_anchor

 

[antmanb]

I saw this on tv and I felt really bad for the baby and her grandparents. what do you guys think? Should CPS have that much control over a child life?

http://www.king5.com/topstories/sto..._TP.44743f48.html?ocp=1#slcgm_comments_anchor

It doesn't sound to me like the child's interests are even vaguely being considered. Any kind of deal making like the one described in the paragraph saying if the biological mother gives up her parental rights in favour of the foster mother then the biological mother and grandparents will get access four times a year, sounds like hard bargain blackmailing to me. Tactics used in commercial deals not ones used where the life of a child is concerned.

It also seems extremely bizarre that the courts would elect to give the child to a single mother as opposed to a couple who are blood relatives to the child. somethign smells fishy and it i'm not sure all of the facts are being presented there.

Ant

 

[sillylionlove]

Since this is my field of expertise I will make a few comments.

This article did not say too much about why they fell out of favor. If this was my case, I would not have moved the child just because the parents were hyper critical or whatever it was that the article said as to why they fell out of favor. That just seems really crazy!!

Termination of parental rights is not a joke and in my 12 years of doing this, I have never seen a "deal" offered. Is that even legal? Not here in NJ. There is such a thing as an identified surrender where you identify where the child will be adopted and then surrender your parental rights. Courts try not to do that since if that fails to work out then you are back in court again starting all over. Technically when a parents rights are terminated, they are no longer your parents which means that the grandparents are no longer your grandparents and so on. No court I have ever been in (and that would include both NY and NJ) would ever give a biological family member rights like that after a termination.

From what this article says, the grandparents would have been the best option. But there must be more to this story because I can't see a judge allowing the child to be removed from the home that easily. So there had to be more to that story then they are reporting. The grandparents had to have done something to have the chld removed, that's the only thing that I can think of.

And to KS....yes CPS can have that much control over a child's life when the child is in state custody. It's sad but true.

But I have to agree with ant...something is not right here. There is more to this story then someone is saying. Lets hope that the truth comes out and the right decision is made.

 

[Tonichelle]

The media is on a witch hunt on the foster care system because in many areas the system is broken. President Bush stepped in and basically threw the book at the system here in Alaska, and we saw them straighten up quite a bit, but they're not only swamped with new cases they are having to clean up the new. It was quite interesting as some of the heads of the departments in the different boroughs were brought up on charges... unfortunately the case worker that sent my brother back into an abusive home and basically didn't care retired before he could be found at fault...

identified surrender where you identify where the child will be adopted and then surrender your parental rights

This is how we adopted my brother. His father's rights were terminated by the court (scum bag demanded Duane be put on the stand so his lawyer could bully him, and that backfired because Duane got riled and got right in the mic, pointed at his "dad" and said he wasn't his father anymore...), but his mother was always adamant that while she would love to have him she couldn't keep him safe (his "dad" threatened her family's life if she got Duane back) so she said she'd sign the papers if we adopted Duane. My parents were more than happy to take him...

He's still in contact with her and calls her mom... and his half siblings consider him their brother... he gets visitation with her and what not... it's totally up to my parents and they're fine with it...

 

[ks777]

I was thinking that the grandparents must have done something but they haven't mentioned any. All they say was that grandparents were too "selfish and hypercritical". that seems like personality conflicts between CPS worker and grandparents. I just hope the little girl will go back to her family where she belongs.

 

[Ptichka]

CPS scares me. They can pretty much remove the child from a family without the judge even looking at the case (though, of course, the judge is needed to actually terminate parental rights).

This article just reminds me that I need to get me will in order so that in case both my husband and I are gone, my parents would get custody of our son (not that such a will is binding, it is really not much more than a suggestion to the judge). I don't know the details of that particular case, but I do know of cases in Massachusetts when recent emigrants from Russia were not given custody of their granddaughter because they were old and living on Social Security, and the court decided to give the baby to a young working family instead. I guess I could see how that could be in the interests of the baby, but my heart just refuses to acknowledge this. IMO, a lot is needed to justify removing a child, much less a baby, from their home. The more we find out about how babies develop, the more we understand how strong attachment to the primary caregiver(s) helps ensure everything from better academic achievement to less anti-social behavior in the future. I, too, think there is much that this article is omitting; OTOH, if there was a hint of allegation of abuse, why wouldn't the services scream about it from the rooftops? And, as I've said, I don't think anything short of that justifies such action...

BTW, Toni, my problem with CPS has nothing to do with the foster care system, which I actually think is great, and which is now only beginning to be introduced in Russia as a very much overdue alternative to the awful and heartbreaking orphanages. It is weird, though, to see some Russians' reactions. For example, I know a woman, Lisa, who fostered a boy who was taken into an orphanage after living on the street with his mother for a year; during a whole year he was at an orphanage, his "mother" did not visit him even once! After fostering the boy, Lisa decided to adopt him; when she started going about terminating the "mother"'s rights, though, she found the workers really sympathetic - not to the boy, but to the "mother"! They'd say - "what if she gets back on track - she won't even have her little boy anymore! That's just so cruel and unfair!" Lisa was the one looked at as a monster, even though clearly it was in the boy's interests to be with someone who could actually care for him...

So I'm certainly not against foster system. Nor am I against foster parents in some situations being given the chance to adopt the child (I know some consider this to be very wrong). The problem here in the US is that it's often much easier to latch onto allegation of abuse such as a spanking in an honest home that may be fairly open about their actions than it is to go after real abuse where perpetrators are often experts in fooling the system.

 

[Tonichelle]

I agree Ptichka on our system's priorities being screwed up. I still feel the media does more harm than good on this (they also scream for the heads of parents who spank... so it's a catch 22 with them)...

However in some cases the foster care system in certain areas sucks. There was a case that was just sickening here in S. Central Alaska that it had everyone up in arms... children chained to trees outside and in well holes and this was supposed to be an upstanding foster family. Their whole family (extended included) turned a blind eye as did the foster system in their area...

I get that it's a thankless job and the people poop out early... but why are THESE foster families allowed to continue to have children placed with them when others are denied because they go to 'the wrong church' or they are 'too strict' (gasp we ground children when they get into trouble!).

the system is horribly flawed. it's not seen as a glory job, it doesn't pay well, so few people get into that line of work and so it's a small group of people that get saddled with hundreds of cases...

Alaska has more issues because they also have to deal with "Bush Families" (not the Bush Family.. .but people who live in the villages "in the bush")... where you have culture differences (there are some groups that don't diaper their babies and let them just... go... wherever... it's... interesting...). I wouldn't have the stomach for it (I'd throttle the abusive parents, especially someone like Duane's bio dad).

ETA - this thread might be better in the politics forum...

 

[Ptichka]

Alaska has more issues because they also have to deal with "Bush Families" (not the Bush Family.. .but people who live in the villages "in the bush")... where you have culture differences (there are some groups that don't diaper their babies and let them just... go... wherever... it's... interesting...).

Toni, why is that a issue (I'm not being sarcastic here, I honestly don't know)? Many believe that diapers, especially the modern kind, do more harm than good; it has certainly become much more difficult to potty train children with the modern diapers. In the few months I stayed home with my son, I tried to let him spend a few hours each day without a diaper; it's more difficult now that he's mobile, but I still try to manage a little time here and there if I can.

 

[Tonichelle]

9 times out of 10 the children are never diapered and aren't potty trained the 'normal way' the families just let the children just train themselves.

the problem is - you can't really tell when it's a cultural difference (this is how it's been for generations) or if the parents/adults are just neglecting the child (in the case of the one boy we had - David - it was obvious neglect)...

this is just the example that popped into my head. The interaction with the very young is different too. Not in every family/village, but that's where it becomes hard. And it is a hot button topic between the 'natives' and the 'white run organization'. I'm not saying it's wrong, however when the child is four and is not able to control his bodily functions (and all check ups show that he is capable of such things) it's clear something is wrong... however the parents in David's case were claiming that it was just another way the government was forcing them to conform. Nevermind the child spoke no known language (not even his native Yup'ik), had the social abilities of a 1 year old in a lot of cases... and a whole list of other 'issues'... in the village maybe he would have been right on with the other kids his age... I don't know I'm not familiar with his home... but when they brought him 'into town' it became a problem..


does that make any sense at all? I think I've confused it myself... which just shows, I guess, how convoluted the system up here is.

 

[ks777]

ok, here is the update on this case.
http://www.king5.com/topstories/sto...e-TP.335b132.html?ocp=3#slcgm_comments_anchor

I am so happy to learn that the little girl is finally going home!!

 

[antmanb]

I fear that the UK equivalent of Child Protection Services may be due an enormous shake up after this heartbreaking case that was widely reported in the run up to Christmas: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5140511.ece

More so because the director of child services at the relevant borough Council refused to apologise for the supposed mis-management of the case. She refused to resign over the matter but was then sacked and is now going through an employment tribunal seeking a ruling for unfair dismissal.

I suspect new protocols will soon be drawn up more for "**** covering" of the professionals involved as much as for child protection.

Ant

 

[sillylionlove]

I am glad to see the update about the child possibly going to be returning home to the grandparents. That's nice to see.


As for what Ptchika and Toni were talking about....
Bush Families? I understand what you are saying. The US is a country with may immigrants. Often times, they run there households and raise their children here in the US the same way that the did in other countries but in this country that way may be illegal. An example would be that in many southeast asian countries, flogging a child (hitting a child with a stick) is an acceptable form of punishment. But here in the US that's considered excessive corporal punishment. Not only do you risk your child being removed but you also risk being charged criminally with charges such as child endangerment and possibly assault. It's a very fine line to tell people, well I know it's your culture but in the US you can't do that. Trust me I have had to explain this to a number of people.

As for foster families...there are some that are great and some that really stink. There are some that really care about the kids and there are some that really care about the great tax free money that they get for being foster parents. I deal with both every day.

There always needs to be reform to the system. Sad to say that this usually doesn't happen until something tragic happens.

Well I would love to write more....but duty calls!!

 

[Ptichka]

Bush Families? I understand what you are saying. The US is a country with may immigrants.

Silly, but let me ask you - do you think there is a difference between immigrant groups and "different" native population? Immigrants make a conscious decision to come to this country; if they disagree with US laws, they should have thought about it before coming here. However, it's different with indigenous groups (or, say, Amish). They have always been here. Do you think there should be exceptions to how they are treated? I mean, Amish certainly aren't treated like the rest of the population...

 

[Tonichelle]

Bush Families are an Alaskan term to say "people who live in a native village"... most families are native blood, some are white (very few, though a childhood friend of mine and her hubby live in "the bush") you can only get to them by plane, dogsled, 4 wheeler or snow machine (depends on time of year)

 

[sillylionlove]

Silly, but let me ask you - do you think there is a difference between immigrant groups and "different" native population? Immigrants make a conscious decision to come to this country; if they disagree with US laws, they should have thought about it before coming here. However, it's different with indigenous groups (or, say, Amish). They have always been here. Do you think there should be exceptions to how they are treated? I mean, Amish certainly aren't treated like the rest of the population...

Wow that's a good question. I had to think about this one. When I think native population I think of american indians and natives of Alaska(eskimos...is that still an Ok work to use?). And actually there are different foster care rules and adoption rules regarding these populations. It's called the Native American Adoption act or something...for the life of me I just can't remember it right now!!! But actually those laws only cover the foster care/adoption of a child...not the upbringing of the child. Everyone has to follow those US laws....that's why there was such a big uproar about the kids who were removed from the religious sect in Texas. But everyone needs to follow the law but unfortunitly some states treat these populations differently.

Here's an FYI.....animals were protected by the SPCA in this country before children had any protection rights!!!

 

[antmanb]

Here's an FYI.....animals were protected by the SPCA in this country before children had any protection rights!!!

I have a sneaky suspicion that here in the UK it was exactly the same. I guess people thought you could trust/leave parents to bring up their kids the "right way", and the animals were legislated for before the children as a result of cases coming to light.

I suppose it's far easier to tell someone you think they are mistreating an animal rather thatn saying to someone - the way you are bringing up your kid stinks.

Ant

 

[Tonichelle]

....Alaska(eskimos...is that still an Ok work to use?).

Okay, get ready for a quick social studies lesson.

Eskimo is used rather loosely in the lower 48 and elsewhere (lower 48 being the US that aren't in little windows at the bottom of a US map ). It's used to describe any native from Alaska. Which is not a correct term.

There are Eskimos, they live in the most northern and northwest regions of Alaska. I believe some groups also live in northern parts of Canada (or did).

Then you have the Athabascan INDIANS in the Interior of Alaska. The Denia'na (I spelled that wrong I'm sure) INDIANS are the South Central group... though there are several tribes that are associated with them... like the Kenaytze tribe (again spelled horribly wrong lol) The Aleut Indians are -obviously- the people of the Aleutian Islands (also known as the chain, or the old man's beard). And the Tlingets make up the tribes on the Panhandle (Juneau, Sitka, Ketchican, etc).

We have more Indian populations than we do Eskimo.

 

[sillylionlove]

Okay, get ready for a quick social studies lesson.

Eskimo is used rather loosely in the lower 48 and elsewhere (lower 48 being the US that aren't in little windows at the bottom of a US map ). It's used to describe any native from Alaska. Which is not a correct term.

There are Eskimos, they live in the most northern and northwest regions of Alaska. I believe some groups also live in northern parts of Canada (or did).

Then you have the Athabascan INDIANS in the Interior of Alaska. The Denia'na (I spelled that wrong I'm sure) INDIANS are the South Central group... though there are several tribes that are associated with them... like the Kenaytze tribe (again spelled horribly wrong lol) The Aleut Indians are -obviously- the people of the Aleutian Islands (also known as the chain, or the old man's beard). And the Tlingets make up the tribes on the Panhandle (Juneau, Sitka, Ketchican, etc).

We have more Indian populations than we do Eskimo.

I knew Toni would set me straight. Thanks for the info!!

 

[Tonichelle]

I hope you didn't feel like I was a school marm correcting you... you asked, so I answered not trying to be hostile (I'm nnot even sure I got the S. Central Indian group right, ironic since I was born and raised in this region)

 

[ks777]

http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_010909INV-granddaughter-custody-battle-TP.d7530d0.html

another update.