NO law requiring them to chase relatives

At this time I have no knowledge of how to help you or guide you....but I wanted to send you some BIG OLE (((HUGS))) and let you know I'm here and thinking about your situation and hope things work out for the girls to stay with you. I too would wonder just how far removed do they look for in the name of family...you are the family!

I think it has to do with money. In NY, kinship subsidy isn't as much as non-kinship. In MAPP class, it was said that if a family member (no matter how far out) comes forward, they would be preferred even if they don't know the kids. I believe the cw's here try to get names in the beginning so as to avoid major disruptions. Of course, that doesn't always work.

Quite often, placed will consider FRIENDS of the bio family over foster parents. It's idiotic.

Our area doesn't look that far down the family tree. I would personally fight it in court considering they have been with you so long and moving to that distant of a family member is rediculous....only because they have never met!

Perhaps I am cynical and have a jaded view, but what I "see" happening, and maybe not in this case but in general in my area, is that DSS is trying to place w/ relatives/kin/fictive kin in order to lower their numbers of children in foster care. Here they are really pushing "family first" and their definition of "family" really has no limit. There is no specification as to whether the "family" has to have a relationship with the child, and the guidelines/homestudy process for placing a child w/ "family" is not at all comprehensive or in-depth, and while they do background checks lets just say they don't matter all that much. This was not the case 5 or even 3 years ago, but it is the reality today. DSS says that kinship is better for the children, the biological connection is better for them in the long run. Well, every study I have read says that kinship does benefit the children when there is a prior relationship, not when they are strangers; further, no studies have been done on the long-term effects and very few of the children in kinship placements are adopted which puts them at risk for more upheaval as gaurdianships can be over-turned. Also, I think family should be defined by the child's perspective; therefore, the foster family who has raised this child for the past 12 months is "family" to the child and therefore should be treated as such. On a sad note, our DSS doesn't not recognize siblings, once adopted by a "non-kin family," as kin. So, great-aunt Sally, who didn't pass a homestudy 3 years ago and who has never met 2 yo Timmy, is a better placement than the Walker family, who adopted Timmy's bioloigical brothers 3 years ago and are currently fostering him, because she can give him the biological connection that the Walker's can't. I don't agree with "family first" when it is twisted to fit the needs of DSS and not the needs of the children. I do believe in "family first" when it is used to place children with competent and loving family members or close friends whom they have a relationship with and will keep them safe AND when it takes into account sibling relationships. In terms of an infant, I think they should be placed with "family" whenever possible; however, I just think they should use my version of family (:happydance: ) being someone appropriate, who can pass a real homestudy, and one who would honor sibling conncections if applicable, and take the perspective of "family" from the child... "Who is family to this child?" In this case, I see the little one going to live with the Aunt if she follows through; however, if the only reason she is stepping up is because she didn't realize "the adoption would so quick" I honestly don't see her following through... just call it a hunch. Maybe she will, and if so and she passes a homestudy then the baby should go there; and if she doesn't then the baby will stay. I get the importance of biological connections and I get the importance of attachment to current caregivers, I just don't like to see them twisted. Unfortunately, this is not easy, many people have different views, and the children are the ones who lose the most.

Since this subject comes up so frequently I thought this was a good read... Placement of Children With Relatives Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway Year Published: 2010 This brief introduction summarizes how States address this topic in statute. To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search. In order for States to receive Federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance, Federal law under title IV-E of the Social Security Act requires that they "consider giving preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards."1 Title IV-E further requires States to exercise due diligence to identify and provide notice to all grandparents and other adult relatives of the child (including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents), that the child has been or is being removed from the custody of his or her parents, explains the options the relative has to participate in the care and placement of the child, and describes the requirements to become a foster parent to the child.2 Approximately 41 States and Puerto Rico give preference or priority to relative placements in their statutes.3 In nine States, the statutes specifically require State agencies to make reasonable efforts to identify and locate a child's relative when out-of-home placement is needed.4 Approximately four States, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands do not address the issue of the placement of children for foster care with relatives in their statutes.5 The remaining States use statutory language such as "may consider" placement with relatives. Preference to Relatives Each State defines "relative" differently, including relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption ranging from the first to the fifth degree. Generally, preference is given to the child's grandparents, followed by aunts, uncles, adult siblings, and cousins. For Indian children, eight States allow members of the child's Tribe to be considered "extended family members" for placement purposes.6 In most States, the placing agency must do an assessment to determine that the relative is "fit and willing" to provide a suitable placement for the child, able to ensure the child's safety, and able to meet the child's needs. Three States require the relative to complete requirements for licensure as a foster parent.7 Illinois and Wisconsin require the relative to be licensed before he or she can receive foster care assistance payments. Approximately 21 States and the District of Columbia require relatives to undergo a criminal background check that may include all adult members of the household.8 Financial Support Approximately 15 States and the District of Columbia have established kinship care or relative caregiver programs to provide relatives with benefits to help offset the cost of caring for a placed child.9 Statutes in 13 States address foster care payments and financial support for kin caregivers.10 In these States, if a relative meets the qualifications for being a foster parent, he or she may receive payments at the full foster care rate and any other benefits available to foster parents, whether in money or services. Adoption by Relatives In approximately seven States, State agencies must give preference to relatives when making adoptive placements for children in their custody.11 However, in four States, if the child has been placed in foster care with a nonrelative and has been living with the same foster parent for significant period of time when he or she becomes available for adoption, the nonrelative foster parent may be given first preference to adopt.12 In approximately 31 States, when a parent makes a direct placement of the child with a relative, the laws provide for a streamlined adoption process, such as not requiring a preplacement assessment or home study unless specifically ordered by the court.13 In 12 States, the child must have resided with the relative for a period of time or have established a significant relationship with the relative in some other way.14 Approximately 21 States require a criminal records check of the adopting relatives and other adult household members.15 To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search. (Back to Top) 1 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(19) (LexisNexis 2010). Placement refers to the placing of a child in the home of an individual other than a parent or guardian or in a facility other than a youth services center. back

2 42 U.S.C. ǧ 671(a)(29) (LexisNexis 2010), as amended by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. back

3 The word approximately is used to stress the fact that States frequently amend their laws. This information is current only through July 2010. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin address preference for relative placements in their statutes. back

4 California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon. back

5 South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. back

6 Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. back

7 Connecticut, Minnesota, and South Carolina. back

8 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. back

9 Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. back

10 Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. back

11 Arkansas, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. back

12 California, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee. back

13 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. back

14 Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Virginia. back

15 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. For more information on the requirements for criminal background checks for foster and adoptive parents, see Information Gateway's Criminal Background Checks for Prospective Foster and Adoptive Parents. back This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a State's code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures.

Keep us updated. I hope everything works out for you and your family.

Now what I found interesting about what I just posted, is the way I read it, Federal law only requires that States "Consider" giving preference to an adult relative. So what does consider mean? Think about, mull over, reflect on. What does preference mean? Favor, first choice, fondness. Nowhere does Federal law mandate relatives first, and even most state codes have wording "when in the best interest of the child". I think many times family is the best interest of the child, but think in just about as many situations, the stability of the foster family that has cared for them for a continuous period of time is in the child's best interest. Unfortunately I think "the best interest" sadly takes a back seat with over zealous agencies competing for ever decreasing funding streams. I work in the nonprofit accounting field, a social services charity to be exact and I don't think many of you would be suprised at how much funding streams influence agency policy and practice. If they are getting funding for Family Preservation, sending a child to a relative may keep that stream of money flowing. Its a typical case of follow the buck... Posted all this to really say good luck, it is really a coin toss. Knowing how your local agency and court system normally rules is probably your best indicator of how this case will turn out. I would definately consider contacting an attorney and finding out what your rights are. Good luck!

but you did say no. then they began a relative search! plus they have to prove they did a due diligence search at the start of them coming into care. yes, after being with you a year they should look at you as a first option, but my guess is when you said no, they started looking.

So we should be penalized (read: our kids taken from us) because we did not make a commitment before we had to (before TPR)? IF the goal is reunification, and we expressed interest in adopting them, wouldn't we THEN being accused of not being supportive of RU? So basically, they (and you) are saying that because we did not say we wanted to adopt them roughly 6 months before TPR even happened (IF it happens in September) that they should look to a family member that the girls don't even know? I would understand IF the girls had been removed and then we tried to say this, or IF our 30 day notice was currently in, or IF TPR had occurred, or IF the girls knew this person. The way the law reads (in PA anyways) is that once TPR occurs and the foster parents (who have had the kids over 12 months) sign something saying they don't want to adopt, then they should look. Where was this lady when they went into care? She's supposedly how known all along they were in care. This isn't the start of them coming into care-they've been with us for 16 months.

Great - reading that this is all happening in my state... blah! I feel for ya, I really do and I hope to know the actual outcome of all this and the legality or interpretation of policy behind it. ((hugs))

Our now adopted sons GAL found a great aunt she had only seen him one time knew about the family issues knew he was in care for 18 months and did nothing until the GAL went looking for her becusae the GAL felt family should always come first no matter what.So GAL told her she needed to come forward and take him since the TPR was going to happen. Well we went to court and judge( he is my favorite judge) asked why the aunt did not take him in the first place or why she did not do something with all the stuff going on in the family and she had no answer.Well long story short He is now OUR son because the judge understood what family really is.It is not whos blood runs through your veins but who loves you and you love them! I think it will all work out okay for you and your girls!

Yeah, i guess you get penalized, if you want to see it that way. If they asked you before TPR it was because they wanted to know, BEFORE TPR! typically they do that. because tpr is easier to get with an adoptive family lined up. so did you or did you not sign a paper saying you wanted to adopt them? where i am, if you've had them for over a year, you have priority over family. a lot depends on the case worker, and what they think. maybe they are upset you said no to adopting them. if you say no, they move on to looking for family. it's kind of late in the game to change your mind maybe. many times family members try to get placement and caseworkers put them off. other times they are waiting for the parents to step upand do a case plan. they think if they take them, it will deter the parents from working their plan. who knows. either way, you apparently said no to adoption when asked so they moved to the next plan. you can fight it and maybe win, maybe not.

so did you say no to adoption or just not express interest? most places to their due diligence search early in the process, thus ruling out anyone family related. afte ra year in care they would ask the foster family if they were interestedin adopting. before tpr. did this happen in this case? if it did, and you said no,then i have to ask how much 'family' you feel for them. if they didn't ask and you never brought it up, then it's both parties faults, imo. it came up early in our case and yet, 2.5 years later, kids are still in limbo

If it had to do with money then they would be pushing for foster parents to adopt as they usually do within corrupt agencies because they have an incentive to adopt to non-family members since they receive more money that way. They get nothing for reunifying which is why you see so many railroaded and corrupt cases where they set the parents up to fail, prolong the case intentionally so they can TPR, don’t do their due diligence to look for relative placements, etc.