CRUSHED, and not understanding the laws!

Thank-you again for the help, and for sending me that link. I have read over the site, and while I would interpret it to mean that we could adopt them (as would any other normal person who cares about kids), this is exactly the same law that CPS is saying PREVENTS us from adopting them. This is the part of the law the CPS lawyer keeps bringing up: "ASFA does not require the filing of a petition (for termination of parental rights) in the following circumstances: The child is being cared for by a relative..." I've done a TON of searching on line over the past few months, and VA laws seem to be very vague to say the least. We were told at the last hearing that we were NOT allowed to speak, and they did not even permit us to be in the court room. Furthermore, we have been told that if we do not stay in "good standing with the department" (meaning that if we continue to question what they are doing and if we continue to voice our concerns) that they will remove the children from our home! I feel like we are being bullied out of being able to obtain an attorney. I just don't understand this entire situation. I thought CPS was supposed to PROTECT kids and look out for their best interest...but that does not seem to be the case. As they told us, even if the b-parents were sentenced to 15 years, and would not get out of jail until a day before the child's 18th birthday, their goal would still be to RE-UNITE with the b-parents! What is the deal?!?!?!

Sending you a hug and wishing you luck. I hope you will be able to adopt the kids, but since you asked for opinions too (I think you did) I just have to say, as a kid who spent a year once bouncing between relatives, I think if you really do care for these children, you should offer to be guardians, even if it is for only 5 - 10 years. That would be much better than sending them into the foster care system. In fact, if the parents were already teaching them to act like criminals, throwing them into the foster care system might reinforce that by making them feel unwanted and "bad." (There are some great foster parents out there... probably most of them are, but you don't know that they will go into a good or long-term situation). I know it would be heartbreaking to lose them, but if it is indeed 10 years, then you might be able to file a petition to adopt at that time (as the parents are about to get out of jail) and then the kids might have a say. It would be sad all the way around if they were there for years and were forced to leave their (your) home, but you are adults, and they are kids. Agreeing to take custody/guardianship only should prevent you from being dragged into court over and over as well (I would think) for the time being. D.

Thank-you for your thoughts...I am still SO torn by this whole situation. Unfortunately there is a LOT of details I left out...the family situation is a NIGHTMARE!!! Both children have "issues" to say the least, but we have seen HUGE improvements over the past few months. Part of what makes this so hard on us is because of the abuse we are suffering from the rest of the family...we are receiving threats, being accused of not being good parents, etc. and defending ourselves on a daily basis is really taking a toll. My husband and I are doing a GREAT job with these kids, and the accusations are COMPLETELY bogus, and I personally don't even understand WHERE the b-parents get off accusing US of not doing a good job when they are in JAIL and were HORRIBLE parents! We have said that as long as there is a shread of HOPE we would fight for these kids...but we are being told there is NO hope of us being able to keep them. Also, my husband and I want to have a baby of our own, and we are scared to do so when receiving threats, etc. We don't want to bring our child into a life of constant fighting and stress. Every night my 3yo foster daughter asks me "can I stay forever?"...and is scared to death that her parents are going to get out of jail and take her away. (We do NOT let on to her about all that is going on, she just has fears on her own.) It breaks my heart! I just don't understand a law that would prevent a child from having a PERMANENT happy, loving home where they thrive. But to answer one of your questions...they would not go into the system. Now that the rest of the family has found out that we get a monthly stipen, now all of a sudden some other family members have stepped forward and expressed a want to foster. (Funny how that works isn't it! They will be suprised to see that the small amount of money each month doesn't even BEGIN to cover the real cost of two kids!!!) So, they would still be with family...but it would be yet another move for them, and I do fear that they will be traumatized by it! I don't know what to do. At what point do you act selfishly and take the road of self preservation? I KNOW the best thing for the KIDS is to stay HERE...but unfortunately that means a lot of heart ache for us. Oh, God what to do???

It sounds like you know what to do, but are scared of how hard it will be for you. The right thing to do is rarely the easiest thing to do. I would recommend letting family know that if they cannot treat you respectfully, then there will be no further contact. You know that if you decide not to continue to be guardians of these kids then they will most likely end up with a relative who only wants them for the money. Then they'll decide it's not worth the money and the kids will get bounced around even further. I would definitely keep the kids, pray for their futures, and fight like crazy when and if the time comes years from now. Their bio parents would still have to meet some basic bench marks after they get out of jail, like a stable job, home, remaining drug free, etc. If they couldn't do those things, then you might very well end up with no problem at all except some emotional ups and downs. And aren't the kids worth that? Jess

I agree with Jess, it sounds like you know what you both need and want to do but are terrified, understandably. You and your DH sound like a wonderful, stable, loving family for the kids. Eight years may seem short, but can you imagine giving a more amazing gift to yourself and those children?? I once heard someone say in the face of a really difficult choice "SOMETIMES YOU'VE JUST GOT TO COWBOY UP". It speaks to the "right" in all of us. It would appear that everyone else you have described in your postings are just all "wrong". I wish you all the strengh you can muster. Keep us posted. Alison

As I understand it, the clock stops ticking when relatives take the kids...I wish you the best!! Big Hug!

What a horrible situation for all involved. I don't know how that law came to be on the books, but I guess nobody thought about having the horrible option of letting the kids go to strangers so they could have some stability in their lives. Maybe if your sister realized that they WILL be adopted, either by you or someone she doesn't know, she might be willing to terminate her rights. Again, how sad for you and the kids.

My advice to you is keep the children. Then when the parents are released fight for them. The children will have some say in who they want to live with. The judge does take their wants into consideration. IF it happens that you don't get them then know that you did right by your family. You loved them and gave them a safe home while they needed one. Not to mention the parents may very well end up finally getting the help they need to overcome their drug problem and end up being the kind of parents you always hoped they'd be. If that doesn't happen then hopefully their CW will step in and remove the children which at that point you will hopefully get them back. Good luck.

One more thing to consider most of these kind of people when they get out of jail will go right back to doing what they where doing. If you have quardianship they would have to fight you in court to gain the custody of the children back they would basically prove they could do better than you with the kids. So that would mean stable home, Job, food, Money they will have to pay the lawyers they may look at all that and just give up.

Yes TPR can happen when the relatives have the kids. Our niece lives with us and has been here prior to TPR. Her mother is in prison for drugs too and her Dad is in jail right now for a serious crime (Hoping he stays there!) Can you get the parents to voluntarilly TPR? My SIL did voluntarilly TPR in August and bio dad was TPR'd by default so our niece would be free for us to adopt. We are now just starting the adoption process. So, yes relatives can adopt. And yes TPR can happen if relatives have the kids. Maybe they have not gotten to the TPR point in the case. I know in some cases it can take along time to get a Judge to agree to TPR. I also know (even in our case) we were told that the Judge may throw out TPR because our SIL was not presented with a case plan due to being in prison. However come to find out due to our niece being taken because of aggravated circumstances they did not have to provide Mom or Dad with any case plans. According to ASFA it states that kids should have permancy after being in care 15 of the past 22 months...therefore doesn't that apply to your case? I'm confused. Are you licensed foster parents whom were placed with the kids? Do you receive monthly stipends to take care of them? If you are foster parents and the kids are placed with you then you are NOT relative caregivers. In our case we are licensed foster parents...get the regular foster care stipend from the state our niece came from...and she is considered our foster child in our home. Maybe check into guardianship. Only thing is it doesn't take away their rights.

I want to let you know that we had to do the same thing for my husbands cousins. CPS being involved with one of the children of six gave us the child and did nothing. We had to hire an attorney so we could go through with termination and adoption. It took five years to terminate and consumate the adoption but they have been mine since o4. I would not have done anything different. I am very thankful that we did the adoption and the mother now has nothing to do with us. It was hard on the family becasue the mother turned against all of us. With it being family made it hard. We are a family now and I love my kids. :) Don't give up where there's a will there's a way. Good luck

I would consult a lawyer. If you don't like what they have to say, consult another one! Find one that will go up against CPS! In my state (IN) relatives adopt everday! CPS would love to give you guardianship b/c it saves them $$$$! Bottom line. I say fight.......it may cost money, but in the end, it can be worth it.

I think I've already communicated privately with itsjustmel on this topic. For everyone else, federal law does not protect everyone in the country. It only protects those citizens who live in a state that chooses to abide by the letter and spirit of federal law. We are not one country; we are a republic of 50 states, three territories and the DC, and each can do pretty much whatever it likes--the most leverage federal law has in most cases is to open or close the flow of federal dollars. Unless or until violations of federal foster care law are criminalized, states are free to ignore it. VA has taken this freedom to a level higher than any other state as far as I know. The only violations of federal foster care law that are criminalized are those of an ICPC; otherwise, foster care cases and issues related to them cannot be brought to federal court. In the case of an ICPC violation, only individuals can be prosecuted for violations; the only real leverage a federally complying state has is in the concurrence in a disposition other than RU, adoption, or aging out. If a child is unlucky enough to have originated in a state like VA, his/her only real hope is to be residing, under an ICPC, in a state that abides by federal law and is willing and able to enforce it under the provisions of the ICPC--a contract signed between the states agreeing to abide by certain rules. Of the 50 states, three territories, and DC, VA is one of only five states that does NOT list adoption as the second-priority goal after RU. Of those five, VA is the ONLY one I know of that specifically provides for transfer of custody to a nonparent without TPR of the previous parent(s) as the second-priority goal after RU. Other states are known to try to give foster children residing with relatives the bum's rush out of the foster care system, often with no TPR, by playing on relatives' fears and ignorance of the benefits to the children of that system, but none I've seen so far is so blatant about it, going so far as to encode it in its law, as VA. It is VA law that the second priority goal after RU is transfer of custody (with no TPR, no adoption, and no granting of full guardianship) to a relative: [FONT=Arial]VA Code 63.2-906, B. "Each child in foster care shall be assigned a permanent plan goal to be reviewed and approved by the juvenile and domestic relations district court having jurisdiction of the child's case. Permissible plan goals are to: [/FONT][FONT=Arial]1. Transfer custody of the child to his prior family; [/FONT][FONT=Arial]2. Transfer custody of the child to a relative other than his prior family; [/FONT][FONT=Arial]3. Finalize an adoption of the child; [/FONT][FONT=Arial]4. Place the child in permanent foster care; [/FONT][FONT=Arial]5. Achieve independent living; or [/FONT][FONT=Arial]6. Place the child in another planned permanent living arrangement in accordance with subsection A 2 of [URL="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-282.1"]16.1-282.1[/URL]."[/FONT][FONT=Arial]Notice that ADOPTION is listed as a completely SEPARATE goal from relative placement.[/FONT][FONT=Arial]Also, VA Code, Section 16.1-228.1 Permanency Planning Hearing for Children in Foster Care: "To achieve the permanent goal, the petition for a permanency planning hearing shall seek to (i) transfer the custody of the child to his prior family, or dissolve the board's or public agency's placement agreement and return the child to his prior family; (ii) transfer custody of the child to a relative other than the child's prior family, subject to the provisions of subsection A1; (iii) terminate residual parental rights pursuant to ǧ [URL="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-277.01"]16.1-277.01[/URL] or [URL="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-283"]16.1-283[/URL]; (iv) place the child in permanent foster care pursuant to ǧ [URL="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+63.2-908"]63.2-908[/URL]; (v) direct the board or agency to provide the child with services to achieve independent living status, if the child has attained the age of sixteen years; or (vi) place the child in another planned permanent living arrangement in accordance with the provisions of subsection A2."Notice that TPR is listed as a "goal" ENTIRELY SEPARATE from relative placement and adoption as a goal isn't even mentioned here.[/FONT][FONT=Arial]"Custody" in VA law is NOT in any way equivalent to the "guardianship" allowed as a goal in federal law if it matches the definition in federal law:[/FONT][FONT=Arial]VA Code Section 16.1-228. Definitions. "'Legal custody' means (i) a legal status created by court order which vests in a custodian the right to have physical custody of the child, to determine and redetermine where and with whom he shall live, the right and duty to protect, train and discipline him and to provide him with food, shelter, education and ordinary medical care, all subject to any residual parental rights and responsibilities or (ii) the legal status created by court order of joint custody as defined in 20-107.2."'Residual parental rights and responsibilities' means all rights and responsibilities remaining with the parent after the transfer of legal custody or guardianship of the person, including but not limited to the right of visitation, consent to adoption, the right to determine religious affiliation and the responsibility for support."Compare to the federal definition of guardianship: US Code Title 42, Section 675, Chapter 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 Ǒlegal guardian means the caretaker in such a relationship."Notice that in the federal definition, the absolutely broad right of "decision making" is given to the guardian and NOTHING is "subject to any residual parental rights."Elsewhere in its code, VA law has the contradictory and ambiguous note that Title IV-E funding is tied to various federal rules, regulations, and laws and that social services should therefore "cooperate" with those. The Foster Care policy manual specifically states that VA agencies will NOT file for TPR according to the 15/22 month rule if the child resides with relatives. The Adoption policy manual says the same thing, then, later, says the agency will not file for TPR "unless" the relative chooses to adopt. This little note did not appear until July 2006 and is only a baby step toward recognizing federal law. VA gets away with this seemingly flagrant violation of ASFA for several reasons. First and foremost, federal law itself actually contains a loophole big enough to drive a freight trainload of foster kids through. US Code provides that, "at the discretion of the state" it does not have to file for TPR at the 15/22 month mark if the child resides with relatives; however, elsewhere US Code Title 42, Section 675, F contains language that clearly says the state must actually make a case to the court that it is in the best interest of a particular child in a particular case for not seeking TPR and placing the child for adoption by a relative or other suitable guardian--it cannot simply make a blanket rule. VA ignores that part and uses the first part--intended by Congress to provide flexibility for placing a child with a non-offending non-custodial parent, for older children who do not wish to be adopted by a family member, and for family situations where the family simply decides to take guardianship only (personally I disagree with that, but it's there)--to establish a blanket rule that it is ALWAYS in the child's best interest to NOT TPR and NOT PLACE for adoption, but to place with a relative under its construct of "custody." So VA can give the appearance of compliance by echoing the words of federal law intended to achieve one thing and deliberately interpreting it differently in practice. Compliance on paper does not translate to compliance in practice. Additionally, the only consequence--pulling federal Title IV-E funds out of the state--is distasteful because it hurts the kids, not the VA legislators, courts, or agencies. Please excuse the following uses of caps. It is still hard for me to explain this dispassionately. Aside from the huge amount of money the state saves in court costs and benefits administration, the intent of this policy and practice is to AVOID PERMANENCY for the child and LEAVE THE CHILD IN CLOSEST PROXIMITY POSSIBLE TO THE OFFENDING PARENTS, thereby respecting the PARENTS' (property) "rights" in their children. The prosecutor in our case explained to me that simply transferring custody to us was in fd's best interest because it was the disposition that LEFT HER IN THE CLOSEST RELATIONSHIP POSSIBLE TO HER OFFENDING PARENTS without placing her directly in their (admittedly dangerous)custody. That was GOOD, he said, because the goal should be to KEEP THE FAMILY AS INTACT AS POSSIBLE. That was the point of relative placement, he said--no mention of the CHILD's RIGHT to a SAFE, PERMANENT, and LEGALLY SECURE placement or his/her family and heritage--only the RIGHTS of the PARENTS in the child. It was perfect, he said, because, of course, in 2, 3, 4, 5 or more YEARS, IF the parents rehabbed themselves WE COULD SIMPLY AND EASILY GIVE HER BACK and wouldn't that be wonderful? Also, if we ever got TIRED OF TAKING CARE OF HER, we could very much more SIMPLY AND EASILY TRANSFER CUSTODY OF HER to another relative or "friend" to TAKE THEIR TURN, WITHOUT STATE OVERSIGHT and wouldn't that be wonderful? Why wouldn't we want that kind of CLOSENESS to the parents and that kind of FLEXIBILITY? Hmmm, what "friend" did he envision us "giving" a five year-old, white, green-eyed blonde girl with no obvious disabilities to? I'm sorry, but just what WERE or could be the implications there? As for the parents suing us on the basis of all the residual rights they would retain, well, he said, most of them aren't functional enough to actually pull off a lawsuit and even if they were, they usually didn't win. But, yes, they could sue for return, change of visitation orders, religious affiliation, medical decisions, mental healthcare decisions, educational decisions, to cut off support, etc., etc. and the state would not be involved; all defense costs would be on us. If it really troubled us that much, he said, we could "probably" file for TPR ourselves in three or four years and if the parents had been MIA for that time, we would "probably" get it. Of course, all court records and evidence from the original foster care case would be sealed and unavailable for use as grounds for TPR. And of course, with an interstate case, you could end up with both states disavowing jurisdiction and having nowhere to go with that filing. I won't go into more details as it might be too identifying. Suffice to say that threats of RU and/or disruption of relative placement and subsequent placement with another, unrelated family for a closed adoption is not unheard of as a tactic to get relatives to comply with this agenda. Someday it will change. The change in the adoption policy manual is an encouraging sign. Daylight on this shameful practice, I think, is probably the best remedy available whenever any state is so out of step with the rest of the nation.[/FONT]

The very reasons why we will be adopting our niece instead of guardianship. Even though my husband is related to her mother doesn't give her mother the right to allow what happened to our niece to happen in her care, period! Maybe we are the minority. I don't know. But I do know she will be safe with us and won't ever go back to the life she had previously. She deserves permanency as do all kids.

Hi all , this may be the wrong place but please help if you can. Since May I have been going thru the process of becoming a fosterparent. Everything went well untill the homestudy which was seven hours with no breaks, no lunch just a twenty year old drilling and trying to make me say I hated my parents. She left stating that she would recommend me but the final decision was on the class instructor. Later i got a letter sayng thanks you were not a good match and thats it so I applied elsewhere to learn that there is something in the homestudy so bad that I was advised not to apply anywhere else. I was told to make these people prove the allergations or remove them. And to call and request a copy. I was told that I cannot get a copy and they cannot tell me why I was denied. Can anyone advise please which way do I go now. Only God knows what they have said but I can't imagine when Ihave never done anything negative. Do I have a right to know. After the agency said they couldnot send me a copy of the denial I sent a certified letter requesting it one week ago but havenot heard anything. Please help and thanks so much I just feel so bad after buying beds and going thru all of this to be accused of something I know nothing about.