Walk me through the whole 15 out of 22 thing....

The answer to those questions varies widely based on the state and even the county your hand. Here in Ohio they generally don't even start talking termination of parental rights until at least 18 months into the case. I believe the average though is 24 months before they will file for termination of parental rights. Until termination of parental rights is awarded by the judge the birthparents still have visits and any other rights they would already have. Federal law dictates that children should not being care for more than 15 of the last 22 months. Ironically Ohio law actually states that termination should be considered at 12 months. Big loophole in the federal law is the clause " unless it's not in the best interests of the child to terminate parental rights." Certainly there are very remote instances where that may be the case but by and far it's overused in almost every state.Here in Ohio and specifically my county, we usually have a semi annual review at 12 months. This is generally when CPS will indicate whether they're going to file for termination or give a six-month extension to the birth family. The only exceptions to this are cases that are "fast tracked." Chubbs was one and we had TPR seven weeks after placement. This is extremely rare in our county.ETA: I found this:[url=http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/22/title22sec4055.html]Title 22, §4055: Grounds for termination[/url]So it looks to me that if no reasonable efforts taken, they can pursue TPR after nine months. But again, that may be the law but not necessarily the common practice.

There is no way of knowing, and IME, the 15/22 "rule" is really more of a guideline, and it's a guideline that recommends they have a plan for the child's permanency, not that the child has achieved permanency by 15 months in care. In our area, permanency hearings are just reviews where no actual decisions are made, just a review of the case and a recommendation by the Master. In most areas, they will not terminate 1 parent's rights without terminating the other's. So, while things might be headed to TPR for one parent, they likely won't finalize that TPR until they have enough to TPR the other parent. In some areas, there are formal goal change hearings in front of an actual judge, and in some areas, that part is skipped (cw & DHS staff decide on the goal change), and they file for TPR and wait for a court day to open up. In some areas, visits stop when TPR is filed, in other areas (like mine), visits continue until TPR is ruled. Bottom line, it's just different for everyone. I am in the middle of my 3rd adoption, and all 3 of my adoptions (all from foster care, all from the same county, all with children I've had since infancy), have drastically different timelines. In your case, I would flat out ask the cw what will be happening next, and ask all of your hypotheticals, too.

The bios are not together and only one was indicated in the abuse/neglect that opened the case, if that makes a difference. The non-indicated parent has mental illness/retardation that may or may not be an issue leading to TPR for that parent too though. Might they terminate one and not the other in a case such as this?

No, they would not TPR one parent without the other. If the child is able to be returned to 1 parent, they want that parent to be able to pursue child support from the other parent, even if the other parent is not to have any visitation.

In my state, it also depends on the age of the kid. If the kiddo is 3 and under, they have the permanency hearing at or around the six month mark! For kids 4 and older it's at the one year mark. Again, it varies within the state how aggressive they are, but our upper courts have been pretty consistent with children deserve permanency and should not have to wait for parents to grow up. Even more so with younguns. I usually don't hear about the 15/22 rule here because the state has a faster timeline than that. In my experience, visits don't stop until TPR ruling is actually received. We're waiting on a ruling for one of our foster kiddos right now, and he's still having visits. Same thing happened with other placements. It's unusual IME for them to only terminate on one, but not unheard of. It happens more in a situation where parents separate and one gets their act together, and they terminate for the safety and protection of the other parent and children. As in your circumstance, I would tend to believe if neither is working the plan, they will terminate on both unless there are reasons not too. As for what you're looking for, a big ole roller coaster. IMO, the biggest emotional swings and ups and downs in cases happen around permanency/TPR times.

Basically...nothing...that rule means absolutely nothing. If by chance the state you live in follows that guideline, it means that the state will file a request for permanency by that point. But that means absolutely nothing. Once filed, the child can remain in foster care for many more years, because there is no ending point guidelines for permanency, just starting points. Whether or not the bios still receive RU services depends on your state. Sorry to be a debbie downer, but from my experience, i have learned that it means absolutely nothing. :( Maybe you live in a state where children are the primary focus though. Children seem to be an after thought here, but hopefully its not the same where you live. Good luck on your roller coaster ride. I wish you the best!

They quote that "rule" in my area a lot- I am in KY.But I have heard what a pp has said about 6 months being when they start looking at goal changes and TPR for infants, especially infants that have been in care since birth with no parental involvement.In our case, SW said even if Squeaks goes to grandparents, as it looks right now, they will start seeking permanency at 6 months if bios are still out of the picture or not working a plan. I have a friend that finalized 2 adoptions within 3 years, the first the whole process took about 15 months from placement to adoption. The second was faster because mom was ready to sign over her rights voluntarily at the hospital and bio dad was in prison serving a pretty long sentence. They still had to wait until 6 months I believe, to get to that point. I think it is all very dependent, as folks say, on your area and the specific case. Good luck! Hope yours is fast and thorough!

Double this.^^ I would think they would discuss with you if there were any plans for things to go in a direction other than RU. They have to know if you are willing to adopt first. If the CW has not given you any indication that bios are nearing the end of their rope, plan on more time. A lot more time.:arrow:

This sounds similar to my current case as they are talking worst case scenario to TPR one parent and not the non-offending parent as there is a 6 month permanency law here and they have to either TPR, RU or ask for a 6 month extention at this point. Problem is parents ARE together (well, off and on) and dad is still alleged dad. Not proven because he can't seem to manage a paternity test and he's not on the birth certificate. So because of his lack of actions, he may get an extension which makes no sense! Alleged dad may not be mentally ill, but he is definitely cognitively low leading him to make very bad life decisions. I'm uncomfortable with TPRing one parent as much as I want mom to be TPR'ed. Just makes me uneasy, but I have been told by both CW and GAL it can be done.

My Family Resource worker indicated she thinks there is federal money tied to the 15/22 rule. I don't know how or what that means, but I would guess it means that if a state/county social service agency can't prove they are making significant progress toward permanency by the time of 15/22, they might lose (some) federal funding. It is the Feds' way of telling the states to "fish or cut bait" on a case: once 15/22 is achieved, the state is "required" to pursue TPR (not necessarily that the judge must grant it, only that the state agency can't spend endless time trying to RU a family while kids linger in care).The rule was put in place to keep kids from lingering in care forever, and to encourage permanency through adoption, but it is not a mandate. States' rights trump the federal law and ASFA has no teeth.

It's part of the formula in Title IV-E funding. [url=http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/title-ive-foster-care]Title IV-E Foster Care | Children's Bureau | Administration for Children and Families[/url] And that's about as detailed an explanation as I am capable of giving. :D

15 out of 22 was more like 36 out of 36 for us, for TPR of bio mom, unknown father took 39 months and 6 more for adoption! good luck

In my case, my fd is 26mo old and been in care the entire time. Tpr was done on any known our unknown father in the beginning. Tpr trial for mom is in May. Visits will continue until granted. So basically that 15/22 doesn't mean much.