Six year old girl removed from foster parents of 5 years

[WOT?*]

Mar 22, 2016 15:09:52 GMT -5 msgeeksout said:

This article has a very different interpretation of some of the events surrounding this, including the fact that the family did this once before.

indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/03/22/breaking-california-returns-child-family-icwa-case-163881 

If the timeline on this is correct, then I have less sympathy for the family. The father was in jail for one year and reunification was attempted. The Utah family has a relationship with Lexi, cited as familial and continued. I'm sure the article is biased in preference to the tribal rights, but if there is truth to the timeline, the Pages knew for several years that the child was under ICWA jurisdiction, which means family and extended family are preferred placements.

ETA: But again, the problem I have is that Lexi is NOT Native American. She has 1.5% heritage and as far as I can tell, her family claims only minimal heritage, if at all beyond custody matters. But even absent ICWA, family placements are preferred. I'd like to know why the family wasn't the initial placement. All of this furor would never have happened.

[ttt]

Mar 22, 2016 15:25:09 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Mar 22, 2016 15:09:52 GMT -5 msgeeksout said:

This article has a very different interpretation of some of the events surrounding this, including the fact that the family did this once before.

indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/03/22/breaking-california-returns-child-family-icwa-case-163881 

If the timeline on this is correct, then I have less sympathy for the family. The father was in jail for one year and reunification was attempted. The Utah family has a relationship with Lexi, cited as familial and continued. I'm sure the article is biased in preference to the tribal rights, but if there is truth to the timeline, the Pages knew for several years that the child was under ICWA jurisdiction, which means family and extended family are preferred placements.

ETA: But again, the problem I have is that Lexi is NOT Native American. She has 1.5% heritage and as far as I can tell, her family claims only minimal heritage, if at all beyond custody matters. But even absent ICWA, family placements are preferred. I'd like to know why the family wasn't the initial placement. All of this furor would never have happened.

The father decided to end reunification attempts in 2012, though. I don't blame the family for thinking that after the father chose not to reunify with his daughter, that would be that. 

[ttt]

I'd also like to hear more about this claim that the family has had custody battles with a previous foster child too. I saw it mentioned in the Indian Country article but I haven't seen anything else about it.

[readyin07]

I feel like I should reserve judgment b/c I don't know 100% all the facts about her "new" family and how long they have been fighting the courts on this, but...I won't. Screw all these assholes.

[OscarQ]

Not much makes me shed a tear anymore. This did.

[WOT?*]

Mar 22, 2016 15:35:52 GMT -5 ttt said:

Mar 22, 2016 15:25:09 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

If the timeline on this is correct, then I have less sympathy for the family. The father was in jail for one year and reunification was attempted. The Utah family has a relationship with Lexi, cited as familial and continued. I'm sure the article is biased in preference to the tribal rights, but if there is truth to the timeline, the Pages knew for several years that the child was under ICWA jurisdiction, which means family and extended family are preferred placements.

ETA: But again, the problem I have is that Lexi is NOT Native American. She has 1.5% heritage and as far as I can tell, her family claims only minimal heritage, if at all beyond custody matters. But even absent ICWA, family placements are preferred. I'd like to know why the family wasn't the initial placement. All of this furor would never have happened.

The father decided to end reunification attempts in 2012, though. I don't blame the family for thinking that after the father chose not to reunify with his daughter, that would be that. 

ICWA was still in effect, and jurisdiction was with the tribe because of it. I'm reading the documents here and it's really heart-breaking. But the interpretation of the documents, at the point I'm reading, is that a therapist (United American Indian Involvement - so they knew the tribe was still involved), in *2012* affirmed placement with Ginger R. (as extended family and with continued ties to other extended family, including the half-sister) but with continued visitation with the Pages as beneficial because she had such a positive rapport with them.

The Pages were initially a respite placement, when her second foster placement went on vacation. It seems to me that there is a lot underlying there, that they were willing to take her from an existing foster placement from a short-term respite care (rather than her being placed there from the foster placement agency). That seems pro-active. There were some pretty immediate and intense feelings, imo, if you're willing to do that. It may color my view just a little bit because of it, but my sympathy is waning a smidge because it seems they were fighting for an adoptive placement from the get-go, regardless.

ETA as I'm continuing to read when I should actually be doing stuff...the R (extended) family expressed an interest in adopting as early as 2011. They were told to not contact while the father was attempting to reunify with Lexi. Reunification attempts were initially succeeding for the first six months but setbacks caused him to relinquish in June 2012. They had multiple visits and talked over Skype. They were referred to as "family from Utah." It seems to me that there were ongoing attempts by them to maintain a relationship. Placement was approved for the R family through the ICPC (Interstate Child Placement Act...foster placement with extended family or other third-party relationships with families in other states. A few extra hurdles to jump through but foster placement.) in 2011.  She moved in with the Ps. in 2011 via a respite placement, not intended as a permanent placement. (I'm through page 7 now)

[asdfjkl]

So, as I understand things, bio-mom who is NA *would* consent to adoption, and bio-dad who is NOT NA was in jail and then failed reunification, so is eligible to have his parental rights involuntarily terminated (or already has?).  Bio-dad's NON-NA family wishes that bio-dad weren't such a worthless pile of dog shit and so instead of doing right by his daughter and allowing her to be adopted by her foster family perhaps even in exchange for occasional visitation, they decide to use MOM'S NA ancestry to contest placement of the child with the non-NA family even though they are also a non-NA family.  

Did I follow that right?  Because if so, I would like to see some people go dy-rectly to hell.  I also am having trouble understanding how the Veronica case precedent doesn't govern here.  Did Alito state that that holding was limited to just that case?  I can't remember now. 

ETA:  Okay, I've read the court documents.  So, bio-mom is not NA.  Bio dad IS NA but is subject to involuntary termination.  Bio-dad's non-NA step parents want to adopt Lexi.  And because the tribe says step parents count as family, ICWA gives preference to them even though at baseline, the choice is between two non NA families - one this child knows and one she does not.  All so that the 1/64th of her ancestry that her step parents ostensibly understand nothing about, will be honored.  Nice.

[WOT?*]

DAD is Native American and on the registry, as is her half-sister, his other daughter. Mom is not Native American. asdfjkl
Per the court documents, dad requested reunification cease and daughter placed with extended family, the R family.


I'm only on page 7 though.


ETA: Page 8 has transition planning to the R family in April 2013, including the Ps in the family plan consult.

And I will note for the record that (per my foster training at least, in a state with strong tribal rights laws) ICWA does not cease even if the tribal member's paternal/maternal rights have been terminated (voluntarily or involuntarily.) ICWA has precedence, and was applied in this case from August 2011. It was under ICWA jurisdiction the entire placement per the court documents, as Lexi was not placed with the Pages until December 2011. My sympathy for them is waning with each little bit I read. They wanted her in their family from the first, as I'm reading it.

[maddysmum]

Mar 22, 2016 15:43:52 GMT -5 OscarQ said:

Not much makes me shed a tear anymore. This did.

Holy shit, yes.

I've got a pretty cold, dead heart and I'm full on in tears. Those pictures. The devastation on the families faces. I imagine my niece being taken from our family and I'd be collapsed on the street in a puddle of devastation, too. I cannot imagine.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Mar 22, 2016 14:45:03 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

I saw this story earlier. I have a lot of criticisms with ICWA (in that in many cases, the child has little connection with the tribe, yet the tribe gets a very large say in how the case proceeds), but I am trying to figure out the procedural history here. The court is supposed to immediately give the tribe notice and allow the tribe to intervene and give placement preference. I wonder why this was allowed to drag on for this length of time? Its a tragic situation and so heartbreaking.

I have similar ICWA concerns, IIRC. Did the tribe originally agree with the placement? Did they unsuccessfully object to it originally? Basically, WTH happened here?

[WOT?*]

Mar 22, 2016 16:03:25 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Mar 22, 2016 14:45:03 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

I saw this story earlier. I have a lot of criticisms with ICWA (in that in many cases, the child has little connection with the tribe, yet the tribe gets a very large say in how the case proceeds), but I am trying to figure out the procedural history here. The court is supposed to immediately give the tribe notice and allow the tribe to intervene and give placement preference. I wonder why this was allowed to drag on for this length of time? Its a tragic situation and so heartbreaking.

I have similar ICWA concerns, IIRC. Did the tribe originally agree with the placement? Did they unsuccessfully object to it originally? Basically, WTH happened here?

From what I'm reading, the tribe agreed to the placement as a way to expedite reunification and placement. It was meant as a temporary measure. They never released their jurisdictional rights over her as a tribal member. Father did not initially assert tribal rights. The grandfather informed the foster placement agency that father and her half-sister were registered tribal members. ICWA was granted August 2011.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Mar 22, 2016 16:05:13 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Mar 22, 2016 16:03:25 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I have similar ICWA concerns, IIRC. Did the tribe originally agree with the placement? Did they unsuccessfully object to it originally? Basically, WTH happened here?

From what I'm reading, the tribe agreed to the placement as a way to expedite reunification and placement. It was meant as a temporary measure. They never released their jurisdictional rights over her as a tribal member.

Then shouldn't something like laches come into play?

[WOT?*]

Mar 22, 2016 16:06:01 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Mar 22, 2016 16:05:13 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

From what I'm reading, the tribe agreed to the placement as a way to expedite reunification and placement. It was meant as a temporary measure. They never released their jurisdictional rights over her as a tribal member.

Then shouldn't something like laches come into play?

Since I'm not extremely familiar with the concept, I would say that since the Pages were part of a family planning discussion in April 2013, fully three years ago, when Lexi was 3, and the case continued at their behest, laches shouldn't apply as they were fighting her removal. They should not benefit from their actions.

Further, the Ps are a FOSTER family. The extended family placed notice for adoption in 2011 when she was first removed but told that it would not be appropriate while there was a chance at reunification, so she was placed outside the family. The father was was attempting to reunify through June 2012. Placement with the R family was April 2013, nine months later. That is not untimely.

[asdfjkl]

Mar 22, 2016 16:03:25 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Mar 22, 2016 14:45:03 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

I saw this story earlier. I have a lot of criticisms with ICWA (in that in many cases, the child has little connection with the tribe, yet the tribe gets a very large say in how the case proceeds), but I am trying to figure out the procedural history here. The court is supposed to immediately give the tribe notice and allow the tribe to intervene and give placement preference. I wonder why this was allowed to drag on for this length of time? Its a tragic situation and so heartbreaking.

I have similar ICWA concerns, IIRC. Did the tribe originally agree with the placement? Did they unsuccessfully object to it originally? Basically, WTH happened here?

From what I am reading i the court documents (skimmed), it looks like the tribe initially consented to placement with the Ps because of their close proximity to dad.  Then dad bailed on reunification and the P's began adoption proceedings, but dad's step-family who are not NA themselves are considered "NA family" by the tribe, so the tribe wants the child placed with them.  I think the reason that it's so fucked up is because dad's failure to complete reunification delayed what would have otherwise probably been an initial placement with the step-family.  If dad had just bailed at the go, she never would have been placed with the Ps; she would have been placed with the Rs.  But the timeline is what it is.  And, as was the case with the Veronica litigation, this is the scenario the ICWA was drafted to AVOID - a NA child being forcibly removed from a loving family simply because she's NA.  Explain to me, someone, how this application of the ICWA isn't doing exactly that.  If this child were "white", a court would tell the R's to pound sand.  But since she's 1/64th NA, she gets the special federal protection of her "best interests" not being paramount. 

[ttt]

I am having a real problem with this child being subject to ICWA when her mother is not NA and her father denied being NA until it was convenient.

I realize that legally as long as the tribe says a child is NA, nothing else matters and the law applies, but I think this is ridiculous. And obviously not in this child's best interests.

[WOT?*]

Mar 22, 2016 16:09:01 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Mar 22, 2016 16:03:25 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I have similar ICWA concerns, IIRC. Did the tribe originally agree with the placement? Did they unsuccessfully object to it originally? Basically, WTH happened here?

From what I am reading i the court documents (skimmed), it looks like the tribe initially consented to placement with the Ps because of their close proximity to dad.  Then dad bailed on reunification and the P's began adoption proceedings, but dad's step-family who are not NA themselves are considered "NA family" by the tribe, so the tribe wants the child placed with them.  I think the reason that it's so fucked up is because dad's failure to complete reunification delayed what would have otherwise probably been an initial placement with the step-family.  If dad had just bailed at the go, she never would have been placed with the Ps; she would have been placed with the Rs.  But the timeline is what it is.  And, as was the case with the Veronica litigation, this is the scenario the ICWA was drafted to AVOID - a NA child being forcibly removed from a loving family simply because she's NA.  Explain to me, someone, how this application of the ICWA isn't doing exactly that.  If this child were "white", a court would tell the R's to pound sand.  But since she's 1/64th NA, she gets the special federal protection of her "best interests" not being paramount. 

Actually, the Rs would have had preference as extended family per foster care guidelines in CA and her placement would have been with the R family (via ICPC), not the P family. But because of reunification with the father, she was not placed with the R family because they were not local. They expressed an interest in placement as early as 2011.

[dirtyred]

Mar 22, 2016 15:00:05 GMT -5 hopecounts said:

Mar 22, 2016 14:57:11 GMT -5 Dig Ophelia said:

Heartbreaking.  Poor little Lexi.  

I don't understand this statement though.  So, the Pages were OK enough of a white family to foster an NA child, but they should have "known better" than to try to love the child and want to adopt the child? What?  

Probably means that they were told she would be removed a long time ago and why and instead of conceding so she could get stability they took it to the courts.

This.  I remember hearing about this case when the girl was around two and the courts ruled that she should be returned to the sort-of relatives.  The foster family has been fighting it for four years.

[ttt]

Mar 22, 2016 16:13:14 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Mar 22, 2016 16:09:01 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

From what I am reading i the court documents (skimmed), it looks like the tribe initially consented to placement with the Ps because of their close proximity to dad.  Then dad bailed on reunification and the P's began adoption proceedings, but dad's step-family who are not NA themselves are considered "NA family" by the tribe, so the tribe wants the child placed with them.  I think the reason that it's so fucked up is because dad's failure to complete reunification delayed what would have otherwise probably been an initial placement with the step-family.  If dad had just bailed at the go, she never would have been placed with the Ps; she would have been placed with the Rs.  But the timeline is what it is.  And, as was the case with the Veronica litigation, this is the scenario the ICWA was drafted to AVOID - a NA child being forcibly removed from a loving family simply because she's NA.  Explain to me, someone, how this application of the ICWA isn't doing exactly that.  If this child were "white", a court would tell the R's to pound sand.  But since she's 1/64th NA, she gets the special federal protection of her "best interests" not being paramount. 

Actually this is not true, because the Rs would have had preference as extended family per foster care guidelines in CA and her placement would have been with the R family, not the P family. But because of reunification with the father, she was not placed with the R family because they were not local. They expressed an interest in placement as early as 2011.

What is considered "extended family" in the guidelines? I'm not familiar with the rules but "fathers wife's grandfather's niece" seems pretty darn extended.

[asdfjkl]

Mar 22, 2016 16:13:14 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Mar 22, 2016 16:09:01 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

From what I am reading i the court documents (skimmed), it looks like the tribe initially consented to placement with the Ps because of their close proximity to dad.  Then dad bailed on reunification and the P's began adoption proceedings, but dad's step-family who are not NA themselves are considered "NA family" by the tribe, so the tribe wants the child placed with them.  I think the reason that it's so fucked up is because dad's failure to complete reunification delayed what would have otherwise probably been an initial placement with the step-family.  If dad had just bailed at the go, she never would have been placed with the Ps; she would have been placed with the Rs.  But the timeline is what it is.  And, as was the case with the Veronica litigation, this is the scenario the ICWA was drafted to AVOID - a NA child being forcibly removed from a loving family simply because she's NA.  Explain to me, someone, how this application of the ICWA isn't doing exactly that.  If this child were "white", a court would tell the R's to pound sand.  But since she's 1/64th NA, she gets the special federal protection of her "best interests" not being paramount. 

Actually this is not true, because the Rs would have had preference as extended family per foster care guidelines in CA and her placement would have been with the R family, not the P family. But because of reunification with the father, she was not placed with the R family because they were not local. They expressed an interest in placement as early as 2011.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. 

[WOT?*]

Mar 22, 2016 16:14:21 GMT -5 ttt said:

Mar 22, 2016 16:13:14 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Actually this is not true, because the Rs would have had preference as extended family per foster care guidelines in CA and her placement would have been with the R family, not the P family. But because of reunification with the father, she was not placed with the R family because they were not local. They expressed an interest in placement as early as 2011.

What is considered "extended family" in the guidelines? I'm not familiar with the rules but "fathers wife's grandfather's niece" seems pretty darn extended.

They are still considered family if there is a familial tie and the parents consent if their rights are not terminated. As long as they have parental rights, even if they're not the best parents, they do have a say in placement.

Termination does change that, obviously. When he asked to cease reunification, termination proceedings would have begun and he would have lost any say in their placement.

[WOT?*]

Mar 22, 2016 16:18:33 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Mar 22, 2016 16:13:14 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Actually this is not true, because the Rs would have had preference as extended family per foster care guidelines in CA and her placement would have been with the R family, not the P family. But because of reunification with the father, she was not placed with the R family because they were not local. They expressed an interest in placement as early as 2011.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. 

It is. I read it backwards. And apparently upside-down too. 

ETA: I need to stop reading this and go pick up my ribbons. My brain is getting frazzled.

[asdfjkl]

Mar 22, 2016 16:14:21 GMT -5 ttt said:

Mar 22, 2016 16:13:14 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Actually this is not true, because the Rs would have had preference as extended family per foster care guidelines in CA and her placement would have been with the R family, not the P family. But because of reunification with the father, she was not placed with the R family because they were not local. They expressed an interest in placement as early as 2011.

What is considered "extended family" in the guidelines? I'm not familiar with the rules but "fathers wife's grandfather's niece" seems pretty darn extended.

I'm also having trouble with the whole "expressed an interest."  The R's let this girl live with a foster family that loved and cared for her for more than two years basically so that they wouldn't have to drive her to see her dad because that would have been like real inconvenient or something.  In the meantime, "they expressed an interest" in adopting her... like, what does that even mean.  "We would like to adopt her if things don't work out with her dad, but in the meantime, in evidence of our total lack of understanding or sympathy with the effect of disrupted attachment on young children, we'll have her live with a foster family because then we don't have to drive her to see her piece of shit father who in relation to us is basically the adoption law equivalent of:"

[asdfjkl]

Mar 22, 2016 16:19:45 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Mar 22, 2016 16:18:33 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. 

It is. I read it backwards. And apparently upside-down too. 

ETA: I need to stop reading this and go pick up my ribbons. My brain is getting frazzled.

I'm supposed to be making pierogies.  I should probably go do that.  

[biscoffcookies]

Mar 22, 2016 15:52:55 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Did I follow that right?  Because if so, I would like to see some people go dy-rectly to hell.  I also am having trouble understanding how the Veronica case precedent doesn't govern here.  Did Alito state that that holding was limited to just that case?  I can't remember now. 

I don't think it was limited to that particular case.  However, it only applied when the parent who objected never had physical or legal custody of the child.  My computer isn't cooperating to let me view the court records, so I don't know if it is the case here -- although the references to reunification suggest to me that it might not be.

I have such problems with the IWCA.  I understand the history and reasoning for it, but it doesn't seem like those reasons apply much anymore.   And then, when it does apply, it means that the best interests of the child is no longer the driving consideration in the custody evaluation.  Instead, IIRC, the standard changes to something along the lines of that the child has to be placed in a place acceptable to the tribe unless it can be shown that the child is likely to be harmed -- which is not the same thing as the place that is in the best interests of the child.  How is it acceptable to require that custody determinations be made "in the best interests" of the children -- unless you're at all Native American, at which point your best interests are subjugated to those of the tribe?  And in some cases even the parents are impacted.  I read of one case where the Native American mother wanted to give the child up for adoption (father was not NA), and the tribe intervened and tried to stop the adoption to the family the mother (and I think father?) picked and instead place the child with someone they wanted.  Why should the right that a birth parent has to choose who gets to adopt their child all of a sudden evaporate just because you are Native American?  IMO it violates equal protection in this way.  I also really have a problem when it is applied to cases like this where the amount of Native American blood is so small, since it doesn't seem to comport with the original purpose and intent of the law.

In any event, oh my god, that poor baby.  I had to close my office door because I started crying.  I don't care if maybe the hopeful-adoptive parents could have handled this better or not, my heart breaks for that little girl.  I pray that she truly did have a relationship with the people to whom she is being sent, because the idea that she both was ripped away from her loving family and dropped into a crowd of strangers makes me want to throw up.  I pray that the family that is taking custody of her also shows compassion for the foster family and consideration for that little girl's mental and emotional state and lets her keep in contact with the foster family.

[DesertMoon]

She's 1.5%? Really? That qualifies as a native tribe member? I'm 12.5% native...I'm sure many ppl are more native than her, why do they have jurisdiction?

[biscoffcookies]

Mar 22, 2016 15:52:55 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

ETA:  Okay, I've read the court documents.  So, bio-mom is not NA.  Bio dad IS NA but is subject to involuntary termination.  Bio-dad's non-NA step parents want to adopt Lexi.  And because the tribe says step parents count as family, ICWA gives preference to them even though at baseline, the choice is between two non NA families - one this child knows and one she does not.  All so that the 1/64th of her ancestry that her step parents ostensibly understand nothing about, will be honored.  Nice.

Gah, see, this is one of the things that is so infurating about the law.  It's being used as a tool in custody disputes, not to achieve the actual purpose of the law.

ETA: God, I went back to read the article and how the hysterical little girl was screaming at her foster dad not to let them take her away and I'm crying again.  Jesus H Christ.  I mean....I know on one hand the Rs are family and asked to adopt years ago, and the adoptive parents maybe aren't blameless here (still haven't read court documents).  But....given the Rs never had custody, and given that their relationship with the girl is limited, I am wondering how the Rs insisted on going through with this knowing it would cause this kind of trauma and upheaval for her.

[WOT?*]

But the thing is, in reviewing (and being somewhat familiar with the process, lol.) there was an order in APRIL 2013 that Lexi be placed with the R family.

She was placed with the P family as respite care. Foster care is temporary placement until it becomes foster/adopt placement. RESPITE care is intended to give foster families time away from being a full-time parent. Lexi was placed with them for what probably amounted initially to two weeks. And they affirmatively sought her placement with them after respite care. Because the nature of respite care is temporary above temporary. It's "vacation care." She was never intended for permanent placement with them.

Lexi was placed under ICWA in August 2011. She was under the jurisdiction of ICWA the entire time she was with the Pages. They knew that.

Lexi's father was married, in jail and wanted to clean up. His marriage failed and he didn't want to be a daddy so he asked that his rights be terminated in June 2012.

Even without ICWA, families are the preferred placement. The R family asked for placement in 2011. They were denied because it would have been interstate and reunification with the father would be impossible. To quote my caseworker "You can't reunify a family if there isn't a child to reunify." So they were placed local to the father. When the termination happened, the R family, based on my interpretation of the timeline had continued to seek custody/adoption of Lexi.

The reason I say "my timeline" is that reunification was attempted through June 2012. After dad says "thanks but no thanks" the social worker has to notify the Assistant Attorney General handling the case, who has to draft paperwork to file with the court to terminate parental rights. The court has to set a hearing date, the attorney and social worker attend the hearing, the court makes a decision, files the order and notifies the parties. It takes time. And during this, there may be a new caseworker since she's being moved from "reunification with parents" to "termination of rights and open for adoption." which at least in my state is a different department with different caseworkers (and even different funding. Oy.)

And during that time, the Rs have to contact the social worker to inform her of their continued interest (as attested to the visits to California and Skype conversations, etc.). They have to go through THEIR state social workers, who have to work jointly with Lexi's social worker to get approved for her placement with them. Even absent licensing, they have to attend classes, have their house inspected, have the house re-inspected to make sure anything that didn't pass the first inspection passes the second (and it has to pass inspection per the more stringent or both states, not sure how ICPC impacts this part) then make arrangements with the case worker and all others to have the child transferred from the foster home to their home. And if it's termination/adoption, there are more hoops to jump through.

The hearing for transfer to the R home was April 2013. From father's request for termination in June 2012. That's less than a year.

This is I have issues with how the Ps proceeded. They had an order in April 2013 to transfer her to the R family. And the entire process was ongoing from June 2012. It wasn't in a vacuum. And Lexi was THREE, not SIX at the time of the order. So I'm withholding blame against the Rs for this. They were doing the same thing as the Ps, only without the advantage of "possession is 9/10 of the law."

But I'm only on page 9. lol.


ETA: I'll end with I don't think ICWA is being used as a tool in this case as much as I think the Ps were fighting the Rs to keep Lexi and ICWA was one tool that the Rs had in their arsenal. The April 2013 order, where I ended in the reading so far, is what is holding my attention. They knew in April 2013, after just fifteen months of FOSTER care, that Lexi was to go elsewhere. And during this time there would have been continued hearings and conversations regarding her placement. They weren't blindsided by the April hearing; they were part of the conversation (page 8).They just hoped for different results.

Off to pick up my ribbons and baggies for the coin drive before I sit here for.e.ver because this case is just horrible. Poor kid.

[WOT?*]

I know it's a wall, but it's a lot of information. At least the first 75% or so.

[cookiemdough]

Based on your timeline they had her for almost 2 years. I don't get the notion that they should have known it was temporary and therefore never pursue wanting her. That is plenty of time to build a bond. I don't fault them for fighting to keep her and provide some stability.

[SwimDeep]

So when I first read this it made no sense. When I read all the replies it started to make a little bit of sense, but it still broke my heart. Now that I've reached the end... my heart hurts </3

This poor girl and  her family