Interstate kinship questions

Well when we were seeking placement of our niece my husband called almost every day!!!! He called so much when we went to ID to visit with her and meet the SW for the 1st time they knew him just by his voice!!! LMAO We were watching a parachuter jump off the big bridge in their town and there was a bunch of people there watching. My husband was chatting and a lady came up to him and said "You sound familiar. Are you X?" and it was HIS NAME!!! LOL So, we met her for the 1st time at the bridge before meeting at the office a few days later! It was kinda funny but we knew without calling all the time we probably wouldn't be here with our daughter (we adopted her a year later)! We also had to do FC licensing..MAPP classes and if anyone was in our home over 18 they had to be fingerprinted too. When we adopted they just took our FC home study, modified it to an adoption home study and shipped it off via ICPC so we could finalize.

1. SLOW down and clarify exactly what is happening before you agree to taking on not just some children but a long-running, expensive legal case. 2. STOP talking to your aunt. You need to deal with principals with first-hand information, not second-hand interpretations. 3. START talking to the cw in the sending state. 4. FIND OUT from that cw exactly what their plan is. Ask her point blank why the foster family is not adopting the children. Ask if the agency plans to petition for termination of parental rights (TPR; I bet they don't). Ask her if they are going to petition for a goal of adoption. "Placement with relative" is NOT adoption, pin her down if she uses that phrase. Talk to her, then send her an e-mail restating what she told you with a phrase like, "I will take your acceptance of this summary as a confirmation of its content." Sometime during the conversation, try to get contact info for the ff. Make it casual, ask the cw for a phone number or e-mail so that you can learn more about the children to prepare. Then talk to the ff and find out from them what is going on and why they aren't in line for adopting this child (they may be). Try to be as open and relaxed as possible to establish a partnership for the child's interest with them. You don't want to be adversaries. You may find out that they want to adopt and you may come to the conclusion that it would be best. Don't let the cw polarize you into taking a position you'll later regret. 5. The state's options are: A. Place the child with you for fostering until TPR and then change status to adoption placement.B. Grant you guardianship and close the foster care case with or without TPR.C. Transfer legal custody to you and close the foster care case with no TPR. The ONLY reason federal and state law doesn't force them to choose A unless there is a compelling not to is that you are a relative. A good lawyer can argue against the loophole, but probably won't do it for you if it is still accepted local practice. It is a crazy loophole that removes this protection from children going to relatives. You want them to choose A. It sounds as if they are planning on C, the least desirable result for the child and your family--transfer custody to you and close out the foster care case with no TPR. This is known as "dump and run." Worst case, legal custody leaves you with everything--child, support and medical care for the child, and the joys and costs of defending against your relatives' challenges for return, visitation, decision making, etc., in court and for prosecuting a private TPR. You would be legal adversaries. Since most states seal foster care records, of course, you will not actually have access to any of the evidence used in this case; you will have to find a way to either replicate it or gather your own. There would be no subsidy, no Medicaid unless you can get your state to recognize the child as a household of one--then you might get TANFF and/or Medicaid. The same scenario can play out if you take legal guardianship although you might have a better chance at getting subsidy and/or Medicaid. IF they give you actual legal guardianship (as opposed to legal custody, which is lesser), then the child MIGHT receive, if he/she is Title IV-E eligible now (federal grant money for foster/adoption subsidies and services), some form (sometimes the same as current foster rate, sometimes less) of subsidy, services, and Medicaid coverage (your state must enroll; the other state's coverage won't be accepted by providers where you are.) If the child is not Title IV-E eligible or if he is and the state doesn't have subsidized guardianships, you will most likely get nothing at all from them. You will have to go through the hoops of qualifying him as a household of one for TANFF and Medicaid in your own state. If the parents have jobs or receive Social Security, however, that gets much more difficult. Technically, simple transfer of legal custody with no TPR and no adoption plan would not require an ICPC because the child would not be being placed for either foster care or adoption. It is an ICPC loophole or at least it was; the new ICPC, if it is effective now, may have closed it, I don't know. I believe guardianship requires ICPC, but again, I am not sure. Just because they do an ICPC, however, does not mean that they intend to TPR and free the child for adoption by you. Many states will move heaven and earth to avoid that cost. 6. If they stick with the ICPC, then whose standards apply to qualify you for placement depends on the both states' policies. The ICPC gives the sending state the right to require you to meet its standards and ask the receiving state to confirm that you do. It also gives the receiving state the right to impose its own standards on you if it wishes. In our case, the sending state told the receiving state it would be happy to have us qualified under the receiving state rules. 7. Most states only require a home study and criminal checks for relative placement; much more rarely, they will require licensing as in Helen's instance. It is, however, VERY MUCH in your interest to go for classes and get licensed in your home state. CW would discourage this as she doesn't want you to be informed, she wants you to take her word for everything and not know what the child's rights actually are. CWs aren't evil, but they are often not above manipulating the situation and players to achieve the goals they've been given--very often to close out cases with as little cost to the state as possible. That is the end game, but the cw may well have been taught to believe that it is best for the child, too. It is not. In any case, getting licensed will inform you of the process, the child's rights under the law (federal and your state), and gain you a positive working relationship with your own local agency, which just might help in getting them to have your back when push comes to shove. 8. They have already sunk 15 months of care and services into this case. I suspect they are looking to cut their losses. 9. Again -- WHERE IS THE FOSTER FAMILY??? I am a relative who has adopted out of foster care, but I have to tell you, it is very questionable that the state is going for a relative placement now...unless the foster family has declined, a cw focused on the child's needs would be going for TPR and adoption by the foster family, not hunting up relatives who have been absent for 15 months, regardless of the reasons for that absence (and I know there can be reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that the child has probably attached to the ff and that disrupting that would cause harm). 10. Please re-post as you find out more and things go along. Good luck.

P.S. It would probably actually be more productive if you asked for contact information for the foster family BEFORE you ask why they aren't adopting. Once that question is on the table, the cw may not want you talking to them.

It would also be better if you got e-mail addresses and e-mailed the cw and sw these questions and got answers back in writing which you PRINT OUT AND KEEP.So, if they tell you you don't need to qualify as a FP and later they insist you do, then you have it in their own words that they told you not to do it. etc.

Ok, how are these for questions? 1. What is the goal for the kids? Does Legal Custody mean the same thing as Termination of Parental Rights? 2. What rights will BM retain if we get the kids? 3. Can BM in the future petition to get the children back? 4. What rights will we have to the children? 5. Will they be available to be adopted by us in the future? 6. Whose laws apply, our state or yours? 7. Can we communicate with the foster family, so we can get to know the kids better? 8. What subsidies, if any, will be available to help pay for the kids' care? Will college funding be available if the kids choose to go? 9. Will we need to put the kids on our insurance or will they be provided for through Medicaid? 10. What kind of follow up and involvement will social services have with the kids once they are with us? 11. When do we need to plan a trip to your state? 12. Will we need to be there in December for the hearing? 13. Will we have the kids for Christmas?Anything else we should add? A better way to say something? Thanks in advance!

You don't need to ask the first question. The answer is NO. Legal custody and parental rights are entirely separate things. The only people in the world that can have parental rights with regard to these children are the legal parents. Period. Most legal parents also have legal custody of their children. But not all. One parent could have legal custody while the other does not. Or both may have lost legal custody to the state, a relative, a guardian, or other third party. Nevertheless, both still have parental rights. One or both may not be able to exercise those rights, but the rights remain intact to be re-activated, as it were. Parents not having legal custody can and often do petition or sue for return of physical or legal custody, visitation, medical/educational/religious/association decision making, etc. The same also holds true if a third party has both legal custody and the higher status of guardianship. The walls of guardianship are thicker, in a way, than simple legal custody--it is more difficult for a parent to win back the exercise of their rights, but they still have the legal standing to try. When a parent's rights are terminated, however, that parent is no longer a legal parent and has no standing to petition or sue for anything. They are a complete and total legal stranger to the child. Then and only then is a child free for adoption. If you want to ensure the parents do not sue you and/or adopt and the state does not prosecute a termination of parental rights trial, then you would have to. You would have to hire your own lawyer to prosecute the case--usually in the original state, which retains jurisdiction--and you would have to replicate or gather your own evidence to meet the standard of grounds for termination of parential rights in that state. The caseworker is not competent and not obligated to provide you accurate legal information or advice. You must get that information from your own lawyer. However, briefly: - If you are given legal custody or guardianship of the children and there is no termination of parental rights, then the parents retain ALL their rights. They cannot exercise them without taking you to court. In court, you are the defendant and you have to prove WHY NOT they should be able to excercise some of their rights or get the children back; they do not have to prove WHY they should unless or until a judge orders conditions to return. The burden will always be on you to prove a case against them. In the case of guardianship, there might be federal subsidy and Medicaid if the child is already Title IV-E eligible and IF the sending state provides subsidized guardianships. In the case of legal custody, there would be no federal subsidy and no Medicaid based on foster care or foster-adoptive status. If there is no subsidized guardianship or you only get legal custody, you MIGHT be able to enroll the child as a household of one in your state for TANFF (or whatever it is called now) benefits and Medicaid. But you might not. You would have to check with the TANFF and Medicaid people in your own state to find out. - If you are given guardianship of the children and there is a termination of parental rights, then the parents have NO rights. The child would have no legal parents and would be free for adoption by you. Federal law regulating subsidy funds and Medicaid do not require states to make these funds or healthcare available to children who leave foster care to go to a guardian. Many states that chose to use federal funds for this purpose are cutting back or cutting them out so that they can put more federal funds toward foster care and fost-adopt and save on state funds. Again, the sending state can only tell you what the sending state requires. You must check with your own state to find out if they will impose their own standards for placement. They can and sometimes do. Finally, two things are really important to keep in mind now. (1) The children have been with the foster family at least 15 months (is this the first removal? how do you know?). That is significant. A huge part of what you'll be taking on will be the fallout of their disrupted attachment. It might be in the kids' interest on balance, but it very well may not be. You really need to find out more about their status with this family and examine your own role, if any, in the fact that they are not already with you. (2) Caseworkers do not decide cases, judges do. Don't take everything the cw says will happen at face value. You need unbiased insight into how the local court system works where the child is. Figure out a way to get some free consults with family lawyers who practice in foster care cases there...find out if dump and run is SOP. Find out what, if anything, you can do to fight it and still keep the kids with their family.

I wouldn't settle for anything less then TPR and adoption...but that's just me!

I have nothing to add to the extensive info Hadley described on this thread, except to recommend that you definitely get familiar with the terminology and some of the differences to make sure you're all talking about the same thing when you reach the child's CW.

Put it this way -- without termination of parental rights and adoption by you, you have NO RIGHTS to the children. If you have legal custody and/or guardianship with no termination of parental rights, then you have SOME decision-making authority over the care and control of the children--whatever is specified in either the court order and/or by statutory definition--but NO actual "rights." Those still belong to the parents who can sue at any time to relieve you of that authority and take it back to themselves. People often confuse powers and authority granted by agreements or other means with "rights." They are not the same thing and do not carry the same weight in court. Rights trump conferred powers unless compelling reasons can show why they shouldn't. If all the compelling reasons are sealed up in the records of the closed foster care case, you've got a problem.

I emailed the social worker my questions. About a week later, she emailed me and said that she was meeting with her supervisor in a few days and would have the answers for me. I have hear nothing from her, but have been dealing with the death of a loved one, so I haven't been focused on calling her back. Then this week, the BM told the grandma that she overheard the SW and CASA saying that they were planning on asking the judge to give her an extension. That kind of bothered me, because the mom, while she has done all the classes, hasn't made huge strides to get her life right. :grr: The next day, grandma calls and says that the CASA worker came over and interviewed her son, who wants the little boy, and her. She said that the CASA told him several things that he needs to do in order to work towards getting the boy. She also said that he had asked her what she thought was best for the kids. Grandma said that they are concerned about separating the kids which has been a concern of mine too, but I don't know how we would handle having 4 kids each one year apart and 2 college age students. The BM had a meeting with the SW the next day and was told (supposedly) that the state is not planning on separating the kids. They said that they were going to take custody of them (which they already have since they are in foster care) and keep them together rather than giving them to their uncle and us. Now, I don't know if the SW in fact said that or if the BM misunderstood or what. I didn't think that they could put them with someone who wasn't family if the family wanted them and were qualified. Other than taking our name, number and address, they haven't done any type of checking on us as far as I know. Maybe the SW was trying to scare the mom? Maybe they won't separate the kids? Maybe they are trying to get us to agree to take them all? I don't know what to think right now...

The CASA worker also said that they are concerned that I won't be able to handle the learning disablities of the girls. If they would do the homestudy, they would know that I am a special ed teacher. :grr:

Sorry you are going thru all this. It's a rollercoaster ride for sure..at least it was in our case. I hope what is best happens soon!

I just caught up with this post sorry to chime in so late!!!!!!We took custody of nephew from the state at the time we thought it was the best thing but now we are the ones stuck trying to adopt on our own and I will tell you having 5 kiddos and the expense of the adoption it is something you dont want. I got a 1000.00 Christmas bonus this year and I wont get to buy one single Christmas present with it it will all be going to our lawyer. OHHHH if this goes through this time my kiddos are getting so spoiled when the tax refund gets here Please push for TPR it is the best thing take it from someone living the financial mess that CPS has stuck us in

Well that sucks CPS left you with the burdens of adoption (financial). I'm so glad we didn't end up in that situation. We did hire an attorney here to make sure it worked smoothly...but we didn't need one at all. Good luck!

Well, I got an email from the SW today saying that they feel that it would be detrimental to separate the kids, so they are exploring other options. The couple that adopted the birthmom's first child are one possiblity according to the grandma is one possiblity that the SW is suggesting. I did not know this but the woman who adopted the first child worked for CSB, so while they were discussing the case one day, someone brought up her name as a possiblity. She had at one time said that she would not do it, but maybe she has changed her mind? The grandma is now willing to explore her options of taking the kids. She is a nurse and works 12-15 hour days, so she didn't feel that it was an option, but feels that she would now rather do that than lose them to the system. It breaks my heart, but if this is God's will then I will accept it. We were really looking forward to this and I don't think my husband will be willing to explore other types of adoption or foster care.