Postponing TPR until an adoptive placement is made

Interesting question...With my newest, the State did a "cease reunification," where they fought for and received an order that they did not need to attempt to reunify any longer. It appears that a motion to TPR was submitted, and then withdrawn, although we can not be certain why. Our speculation is because her present placement would not have adopted her at the time. Therefore, they would not want to completely seperate her.I don't think that this is a good thing for the kids overall. However, in some cases, perhaps these kids, even though the parents are harmful to live with full time, need or can benefit from that "attachment?" Perhpas that is the thought?

Your scenario is exactly how it is in CA. They don't TPR parents until an adoptable home has been found and the children have been placed in it. Our daughter was this way, but she was in our home as a foster child anyways. We then signed papers that we would be her adopted parents, which then enabled the courts to file for TPR. I never thought differently about it until moving to TX, where parents rights are TPR'd even without the child being in an adoptable home. It does make it easier to be placed with a child already free to be adopted....but I wonder if that makes them not care as much if they find a family to adopt. Ex, if they can't TPR until they find an adopt home, does that mean they work harder to find one? Or if they TPR first, does that mean they are more lax on finding a forever home, since who care there parents rights are already TPR'd? Makes me wonder which is truly better. I guess both have their pluss and minuses.

This is how Sparkle's case is. We're currently seeking TPR on 1 parent and have a possible Open Adoption agreement with the other. She's been in care for 6 years and CPS has been involved with the family even longer than that. Sparkle has been in 2 previous pre-adoptive placements and TPR was not sought in either of those cases (neither were stable for very long). They've signed/TPRed on all but 1 sibling (who is older than Sparkle and is aging out in 1 year by choice). Hubby and I have already said when we do this again, we'll only be seeking legally free placements (unless a bio sibling comes along in the future).

I've had several workers tell me that is how it is done in MA, too. (Except for, perhaps, older kids who have already been in the system for years.) I've been told that DCF wants to get the kids into their "permanent" families as soon as possible, rather than waiting until TPR (and appeals) are completed - which can drag on for years. Both of our kids were legal-risk and DCF wouldn't file for TPR until they were in a pre-adoptive home. (Both were in foster-only homes.) It worked fine for our little boy who we've now adopted. But our former FS was in a foster-only home, moved in with us as a pre-adoptive home, was here for 9 months, than DCF lost TPR and he went back to bios. We were thrilled to have him, but it was an extra transition and an extra trauma for him. And he wasn't even two years old.

THat's how its done in NV also. WHat usually happens is at the 1 year review the judge orders that CPS find an adoptive placement and that TPR be filed before the next 6 month review. I have represented a kid that the jude would not let CPS file for TPR until they found him a home (he was 10 at the time) and the judge specfically stated he "wanted no part in creating legal orphans."

This is part of what scares me about postponing TPR. The message sent to the child is that they can't be adopted, so why agree to try? I met a girl recently that fell into this category and she was talking about trying to get her worker to let her move back in with her mom, but she wasn't sure she wanted to do it because, as she said, "I would just end up taking care of my mom again, and that's a lot of work. . ." Ok, I have to wonder, what does he think the foster kids in the system are with parents who are incapable of taking care of them? Aren't they legal orphans already??? If there is no TPR, then often visits must continue, which may be harmful and problematic for the child and the foster parents both. I really don't get it.

Well he was a weird guy anyway. My pro bono kid (who chose to age out) graduated early from high school. Instead of praising her hard work he said "Don't commit suicide. I am very concerned that you are waiting a semester to go to college. Statistics show thats when most kids kill themselves--between high school and college." Idiot. Here by law all efforts at reunification, including visits stop once TPR is filed for (not all SWs follow the rule though). But really I think its a hold over from the olden days when people would not adopt their foster kids because then they would lose all benefits, including medical care. There were tons of kids aging out. I can't remember the stats now but basically, the percentage of kids who are adopted versus the percent of kids who age out has completely flipped since the passed the federal subsidy law. And it really hasn't been in place that long.

This is exactly how it went in J's case. He was in a foster only home. We did preplacement visits, and transitioned him to my home as a pre-adoptive placement, and both bioparents signed the surrenders a week later. They had been told by their lawyers not to sign until J had an adoptive placement, and they had already signed for his siblings who were in foster/adopt homes. I think it can help some kids- it certainly pushed J's workers to find a family who would adopt him instead of letting him stay even longer with a foster-only family. But I also know at least 2 couples who are looking to adopt ONLY legally freed kids, because as long as the tpr is not finalized you just never know... I had another similar placement, 10yo who was in foster only home, moved to my home as preadoptive, and then once TPR was filed a bioaunt came out of the woodwork to file for custody and she got him- which really was a great long term solution, but like a previous poster said it meant P had an extra transition and extra home in my home, because the original foster family would have kept him until the aunt took him.

I think it's wrong, plain and simple. The decision to file for termination, in federal law and I am pretty sure in every law in every state, is based SOLELY on 15/22 rule and/or grounds for termination. There is nothing in any law that makes it conditional on an adoptive home having been found. In fact, I think there is language in ASFA specifically indicating that a filing for termination should proceed whether or not an adoptive resource home has been found. Perhaps someone who knows the text inside out can help support that thought, but here's why: First and foremost, termination of parental rights is done to PROTECT the child from the parents' legal reach. The state fails in its protective duty and puts the child at risk for harm if it fails to file for termination parental rights and make a case for TPR when it should. Second, there is no benefit to the child in not terminating if it is not safe for the child to RU after services have failed within a set amount of time. So why does this happen time and again? Because social service agencies, courts, lawyers, and judges often just do not follow the law, letter or spirit. They follow local practice, which does not always change with legislation and often reflects old-fashioned views of parental rights and children as chattel. If the local courts look favorably on such practices, there is often no real way to hold them to task, even if they are violating federal law. The state also does not want to be the sole guardian of a child if it can help it. One word of mitigation, however. Just because your personal experience has been one way does not mean that it is a blanket practice across your state. In our child's case, local practice ignored the 15/22 in some situations but it was adhered to strictly in other parts of the state. Especially in states where social services is a county-based function, not a state-based system by district, you will find more discrepancies in practices. Also, I know it was only meant as an expression, but please do not refer to relatives--or any other human beings, really--as "coming out of the woodwork." In the foster world, we are too often viewed as vermin, and this phrase, which gets used often in more heated contexts, is not helpful in portraying relatives more objectively and fairly. But, yes, for various reasons mostly arising out of poor communication with social services, some relatives will wait for TPR before stepping up and that is another reason it is wrong to withold it from the child.

P.S. I agree that it is wrong to not file for TPR just to keep trying to get child support from the parents. I doubt that is a great motivation, however, since I doubt many parents actually pay it. Before TPR, however, I think the state absolutely should bill parents for support according to their ability to pay. Not to do so would be enabling, which actually hurts the parents in the long run.

Hadley, Thank you for the insight. When things are a direct impact to me, I've always looked up the actual laws. But, I haven't in this situation because it never effected us directly except that it has really been bothering me and seems really wrong. I think I will do a little more legal research on my own. Also, I agree with you that birth parents should be held financially accountable when they are unfit, the part that I find to be wrong on many levels is that it hadn't occurred to me until I was writing it that an agency might deliberately delay TPR in order to collect the money for longer. With all the budget cuts across the country, that doesn't seem that far-fetched. Nevada Jen, The numbers are really tricky to find regarding how many kids age out, how many are adopted, etc. There is no doubt that the subsidies have helped many foster families adopt and that they help recruit more adoptive families. But, I have not found any reliable studies that give an actual accounting of those changes. There are now efforts to fix the data problem, federal law has required all states to accurately report the number of kids in care and compile statistics about them since 2003. But, so far those statistics have only been tabulated for 2003 and 2004. What they did show is that 25,000 kids are aging out of the system every year but how that is changing remains to be seen.

Social Security Act, Section 475; 42 USC 675, (5) (E): [URL="http://forums.adoption.com/"](E)[/URL] in the case of a child who has been in foster care under the responsibility of the State for 15 of the most recent 22 months, or, if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined a child to be an abandoned infant (as defined under State law) or has made a determination that the parent has committed murder of another child of the parent, committed voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent, aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter, or committed a felony assault that has resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or to another child of the parent, the State shall file a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child's parents (or, if such a petition has been filed by another party, seek to be joined as a party to the petition), and, concurrently, to identify, recruit, process, and approve a qualified family for an adoption, unless[URL="http://forums.adoption.com/"](i)[/URL] at the option of the State, the child is being cared for by a relative;[URL="http://forums.adoption.com/"](ii)[/URL] a State agency has documented in the case plan (which shall be available for court review) a compelling reason for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the child; or[URL="http://forums.adoption.com/"](iii)[/URL] the State has not provided to the family of the child, consistent with the time period in the State case plan, such services as the State deems necessary for the safe return of the child to the child's home, if reasonable efforts of the type described in section [URL="http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0471.htm#act-471-a-15-B-ii"]471(a)(15)(B)(ii)[/URL] are required to be made with respect to the child; As you can see, federal law does not allow a compliant state to delay filing for TPR in the absence of an identified adoptive resource home; on the contrary, it is presumed that there probably isn't one and they are directed to start finding one immediately. Some judges may think that terminating parental rights and leaving the child with no guardian except the state means that no individual is vested with a compelling interest in the child, to advocate and protect, but for heavens' sake, that is the situation anyway. Personally, I would like to see (i) go away as it does NOT serve children or their families at all--it only gives the state a loophole on this one deadline that is used, in my experience, to try to coerce families into taking custody with no TPR. Agencies have actually been known (I have first hand knowledge) to threaten to place the child for closed adoption with strangers if family does not agree to take custody and insists on having the child freed for adoption by them. The only helpful use of this loophole is to give custody to a noncustodial, nonoffending parent who, coincidentally, still has parental rights. The permanency plan for anything other than RU should actually come AFTER the decision to withdraw services and file for TPR (not necessarily the actual filing and trial, which could take months although some jurisdictions still do that, too), not before. Except where it is allowed for by other code within concurrent planning, putting it before is putting the cart before the horse. Again, all this is great except that so many agencies and courts like to ignore whatever does not match up to their local practice and traditions. Few states actually have laws in conflict with federal law (might affect receipt of Title IV-E funding), but some have systemic noncompliance. So, it is certainly not "one nation" as far as the most helpless--children in care--are concerned.