Do new babies automatically go into foster care...

Depends on the case. I had a 6 yo fs who I got in December. (This was a few years ago). Bmom was pregnant, due in April. bmom's hubby hit her in the stomach when was pregnant so DSS took the baby from the hospital. If that hadn't happened, the baby probably would have went with her. Her issue was mental illness and meds and having an abusive husband.

I have almost the same case. I have some kids which the plan is for TPR on them and then the mom gave birth again. At first they let the mom keep the baby with her but at a women's shelter so they could keep an eye on her but then it developed that the baby had stuff in its system so then baby was placed into care. Time will tell what the outcome is going to be.

There's a new housebill in Texas, 948, modifying Texas Family Code on who bio parents can give their kids to if removed. It is under review, not final until September. Should help weed out inappropriate relatives.

She has also unfortunately admitted, and continues to, drink and smoke heavily during her pregnancy. I think that the admission of using while pregnant would be more of a deciding factor in this case than the housing issue.

Thanks for the insight regarding the alcohol use while pregnant. Though it is clearly harmful to biomom's unborn baby, I didn't even think of that as the primary factor, mainly because I only hear about babies being taken into care due to drug use. Maybe that's just because it's something you can test at birth, while you can't do that with alcohol. However it is in the court record that biomom told her manager at her last job she wasn't coming in to work because she'd been on a week long drinking binge, and she has only been to about 2 alcohol abuse meetings in about 4 months. Biomom also told a close relative (who has reported this to the GAL and SW) that she feels she is "justified" in drinking and smoking during her pregnancy because she "doesn't care about this baby". Such a sad situation, it breaks your heart. :( No wonder the SW didn't hesitate to say biomom's child would be taken into care at birth.On a personal level (and from things I learned in a class that scared the living daylights out of me) I have always believed alcohol has the potential for much more damaging, long term effects on a child than even some hard drugs, so I am glad social services IS taking the alcohol abuse very seriously. Even though it is legal, alcohol should be taken just as seriously as illegal drugs.

in GA they have to prove imminent danger to that child. We had 2 boys in a sibling group of 7 whose mother had already had the children removed and returned twice for drug abuse and neglect and then prostituted her children for drugs and money to have them taken the third time. When she finally relinquished her rights with no charges filed and another year and a half in care she got pregnant again. Since she had already relinquished and the baby tested negative she has been able to take this child home to parent. The oldest child is like 25 and CPS has been involved his whole life they think she will make good decisions now??? These rules are sometimes rediculous.

My adopted daughter has a long story, as is the case with most kids in foster care I suppose. She was child number 8 for birth Mom. DHS came into the hospital and took DD into custody. Bio Dad and Paternal Grandma came in and got custody. She had 3 more kids after and all were taken into custoday as soon as they were born. I guess what others say also it depends on the case. The Mom had extensive past with DHS as a parent and as a child. She was in foster care numerous times growing up as well. There is that history being considered as well I guess. Bio Dad had a history with DHS as well. Lost 2 other kids to the Moms in custody issues. No actual TPR in those cases only full custody to Mom. He too was in foster care in the past. I don't know, but I imagine that all plays into the decisions they make.

This one hits home hard with me... We adopted our son 12 years ago, when he was about 2 1/2. We did this as a private action in our state... a probate matter. He was family, and the state did not protect him from an abusive mother. So, my wife and I stepped in, hired a lawyer, prepared the case, and got it done. The Bmom was pregnant at the time of our hearing to terminate parental rights. We had discussed with our lawyer an action to protect this child as well, which she told us was well within our power. We discussed this before our hearing, and she said that with a positive outcome (TPR - Involuntary), we should be able to do this once the baby was born. We found out shortly after our hearing that we were expecting a baby. That, and the fact that we were happy to be done with the abuse that we had put up with, (plus, we had spent over $14,000 of our own money in legal fees, and were out of money!) we decided not to pursue our own action, but made it clear that we would contact people with the state, and attempt to let them know the seriousness of the situation. Remember, ours was a private action (although they did know about it), so it was sealed, and not available to them. We were certain that they would do the right thing. We received the order terminating parental rights one day. The very next day, she gave birth to a baby girl. We called, and talked to several people. They did nothing, and she took the baby home from the hospital. This, the biological sister to our oldest son. We found out later, that one of the social workers had decided that our hearing was about an abusive husband, who was no longer in the situation, so she should be fine. She decided this through eroneous information, but she thought that it must be the case (even though she never read any of our case information.) Well, the Bmom abused this girl, and her two other siblings that she had later, for years, leaving the state for about four years, and coming back. And, we now have her back with us, doing the same thing all over again. And, our state is, once again, "remaining neutral" in the matter. I deeply regret not doing it twelve years ago. It would have been easier than I thought. So, the answer is, NO, they do not necessarily take a child when the sibling has had a TPR.

You never know what will happen. Our former FS was on track for adoption and DSS was pursuing TPR. Biomom had another baby and they let her keep the new one. DESPITE ongoing substantiated reports of neglect of the newborn AND positive screens, a judge denied TPR and sent our former FS back to the bios. It is a heartbreaking system.

MassMom, that's just insane. And thanks everyone who has answered. I can't wait for this situation to work out. It's getting so nervewracking. Court Monday. If it's not rescheduled AGAIN. But the plot is twisting and turning. Please PRAY FOR THE CHILDREN!

It Depends Only Becuz My Bio Mom Had Lost All Of Us She Later Ahd A Babii Girl And She Got To Keep Her Till This She Loves Her More Than Me Lol But Really I Think Majority Loose Them I Think It Just Depends

SW in my county told me they will take any newborn babies from the hospital if mom had been TPR'd or TPR currently being pursued. They do not give the mother "another chance to mess up another kid", but try to give them permanency as early as possible to cause the least trauma possible to the child. She said they were more concerned with the right of the child to having a safe and loving home as fast as possible. And that outranked the right of the mother to take each new baby home from the hospital and start over with services when she had already had all services available for years and it hadn't been successful with her previous children. I know this is so controversial, but wow... rights of the children.... what a concept. Didn't know they had any. I had to appreciate the comment.

Our fd's mom is due this week and they will NOT be removing baby. The situation has changed since fd came into care. So in answer to your question, as others have said also, it is not automatic.

Hi Millie58,I was wondering what happened with that case from 2009 but also I have a FC for almost 2 years now, she was with family before she came to me. I got her at about 1 year and shr will be 3 in august. The CP went to court abd the judge insyructed herto to change the goal before they go back to court at the end of this month. Also the BM just gave birth to a son this past weekend and the CP is calling me to take that baby, smh. I want to know if anyone knows what happens with the son,if I adopt the daughter and if they TPR her what about the son? Oh by the way she has mental illness which is the agency big concern, thats why they took both children..Can ajyone help with answers, thank you

Hi Jackie,I have researched many cases. They are available like open books online, amazing. It's difficult to answer your question because every case has so many variables. I was told by a CW in CT that a they did a TPR on one child of a mother and not the other. The reason was that the child (that they TPRd) had developmental delays and they thought that mom could not handle them due to her own mental capacity but that she was able to parent her other child enough to the satisfy the states standards. However, that does not mean that they will never be involved again and that the son will not come into care, in that event they may contact you, but if there is no relationship between the two, it may not be a concern that they are together. In our case we have a FC that has three other siblings but she was born after they were in DCF care. The Foster family (caring for the siblings) was approached about taking the baby, but they could not for their own personal reasons, and so we were contacted. They have a relationship because we (foster parents together) have facilitated an ongoing relationship and live live close by to the siblings, this family have become dear friends of ours.