Bonding and the courts

It depends on your state law. In Massachusetts the Court can TPR if: (1) the child has formed a substantial bond with the substitute caretaker, (2) the child will be adversely affected by removal from the substitute caretaker, an (3) the bioarents are not capable of adequately addressing the loss of the substitute caretaker. Much will depend on your area, the social worker and the Judge. Good luck.

I would guess that no, it wouldn't be a reason to TPR but yes, it would be a reason for the child to stay with you rather than being moved to a relative placement or something like that.

i was afraid of that, but hope it's not the case. If it will damage the child to move back to the bio family, if the child has been visiting the parents for 2 years and have no bond or attachment to them, and they still RU them, I just think it's sad.

It's that "the bios can't address the issues brought up by breaking the bond with the substitute caretaker" thing that can get you.We asked for a bonding assessment to try to get moved ahead of the queue, in front of the grandparents, when Little Miss This's goal was changed to adoption. No one will fund it or provide it, including the baby's attorney.The fact that the bio-grandparents are probably capable of addressing the baby's loss of. . .well, us. . .would probably make the bonding assessment irrelevant in her case, and is why the baby's attorney wouldn't go for it. She said, "Well, we already know what the result would be--of COURSE she's bonded to you and your family!" She went on to explain that in the case of TPR, the bonding assessment is usually done to compare the bioparents to the potential adoptive parents, not the bio-relatives who hope to adopt vs. the foster parents who hope to adopt.So, if your bonding assessment compares the child's bond between you-as-potential-adoptive-parents vs. the bioparents, it will probably work in your favour. Pretty much any other use of the assessment is probably not going to help you.

thank you mama. that's what ours addressed, our bond versus the biological parents bond.....it was done as a recommendation to determine what was in the best interest of the children developmentally and emotionally, long term

no, what would be sad is making parents work a case plan that takes two years and then using the time they’re in care as an excuse or factor in not reunifying them with their children. The goal is reunification whenever possible. If the parents do the work, then they should reunify. The child bonding with the foster parents is never enough reason for a TPR and you shouldn’t want that either unless you’re selfish. Foster kids that spend a year or more with foster parents are obviously going to have some kind of bond with the foster parents and an attachment, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be reunified. Many kids have strong bonds with their bio parents and are placed with foster parents upon removal and expected to cope and be resilient even with being taken from the only family they’ve known. It’s necessary. Well, the same is true in reverse.