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.
Especially since at age two, the child had already been in multiple homes and been abused in several of them. And from the court documents,when she first came to them, she had serious emotional problems and the beginnings of attachment disorder, which they worked hard to overcome. After seeing the consequences of her having so many caregivers, working hard to help her overcome it, then seeing her finally gain emotional stability and begin to thrive, I can certainly see why they would feel so strongly about not wanting her to be yanked away yet again and placed in yet another new home.
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.
Based on the timeline they had her for 16 months (12/11-4/13). And foster parenting is not an intention for permanent placement. She was a respite placement, so they affirmatively sought her placement with them during respite care. They knew going in that she was ICWA protected, that there was a family member (who has priority) interested in placement. Yes, they had a bond. It is irrelevant. That is the nature of foster care. The therapist suggested that visitation continue because of that. But they are wrong in not following the laws in place in 2013, when Lexie was THREE (and less likelihood of long-term trauma), that would have prevented the scene today.
The Pages were the third home. There were signs of abuse from the first home which is why she was transferred to the second. No clue as to why the placement from the second home to the Pages other than possible reactive attachment disorder and the Pages thought they could help her with love and long-term care - which they did. I give them props for being amazing caretakers and foster parents. But the order was in place in April 2013, and it was not done in a vacuum. They knew what was about to happen and why. They chose to fight it.
And in the interest of clarity, she wasn't placed with the Rs because reunification requires that the father meet and have visitation with Lexi on a regular basis, so she needs to be within commuting distance. Our reunification plan included a weekly visit at an outside location (generally a McDonald's that was an easy commute from the ferry, but still at least 45 minutes for each of us) with a court-appointed visitation supervisor plus alternate weekend visitation at a park or other location under my supervision. It's not a matter of mere inconvenience. It's simply not possible from a state away. For the Rs to have custody while dad is under the reunification plan means they would have to move to his location or he would have to be incarcerated/move to theirs.
Why does the Veronica case not apply here?? Don't make me look it up my bleeding heart will kill me.
Different case facts.
For one thing, ICWA applied before the Pages even had custody. It was relevant from the first day of placement. It wasn't applied post-placement. (Not looking up the case. Going off memory.) For another, there was never a denial or obfuscation of parentage (I think Veronica's father claimed the mother didn't inform him of paternity?) Family members were looking to foster/adopt from the beginning of the process, and family has priority.
The ICWA is made to forceably keep a tribal nation intact. It overrides women's rights. It overrides child welfare. It overrides human rights and welfare. It is ONLY to gather and retain members by force for the sake of these nation's own existence and business goals.
The ICWA is made to forceably keep a tribal nation intact. It overrides women's rights. It overrides child welfare. It overrides human rights and welfare. It is ONLY to gather and retain members by force for the sake of these nation's own existence and business goals.
I don't disagree with this. But it was made in an attempt to correct wrongs done to tribal nations over centuries. So I understand its relevance. I just don't think that the "one drop" rule should necessarily apply. But it does. She, her sister and her father were on the tribal registry, so while it applies, it applies.
The underlying matter is that family (R) was looking to adopt, from before the Pages were given foster care. They knew that going in, and there was an order in place three years ago to place her with the family - they were part of the conversation - and the foster family decided to fight the court order. It wouldn't have reached this point if they had the court order when it was initially placed. She wouldn't have been part of this traumatic separation if they had followed the plan set forth by the court, the social worker, the therapist, the social worker's supervisor, and all the other people involved to get it to that point. THAT would have been the best interest of the child, not fighting a losing battle hoping that "possession" renders a court order moot.
ETA: reading the court documents changed me from "oh how horrible for the foster parents and Lexi" to "how horrible of the foster parents to do this to Lexi knowing how it was supposed to end." Even had ICWA not been in play, there is a line of precedence for adoption, beginning with family. And with the Rs having custody of her sister, and living down the road from another one, in the end the courts would have sided that Lexi knowing her bio-family, if it was deemed safe and appropriate, was in her best interest. They said that in 2013.
This is why a lot of people say they can't be foster parents.
Post by daydreamer on Mar 22, 2016 19:04:48 GMT -5
I know it looks bad, but it seems that the foster parents delayed as long as possible and then made the custody transfer as traumatic as possible. Why would anyone behave like this?
In CA, I'm pretty sure parents of children in foster care can choose an adoptive family complete with an open adoption agreement up until TPR. I'm confused as to why using ICWA is even necessary here.
I'm commenting as a lurker because this is my (extremely unlikely because our children's birth parents will be wonderful parents when they are ready) nightmare, that a foster family would fight us for custody of our adopted children's sibling.
Post by berrysweet on Mar 22, 2016 19:32:37 GMT -5
I've been out of the child welfare field for about six years now, but when I was working, dealt with ICWA and ICPC placements frequently, and my understanding is exactly the same as WOT?* , has posted. Also, I feel like I remember reading that the out of state family has custody of a sibling? If that's the case, then it probably explains the ICWA placement--in my experience, ICWA highly favors placement with a sibling.
I will probably get flamed for saying this, but I don't feel bad for the P. family. I feel PISSED OFF that they put their own wants and desires above what was best for Lexi. Would it likely have been heartbreaking for them to have said goodbye to her in 2012 and sent her to live with her family? Yes. Absolutely. But when you're a foster parent, sometimes you do things that are really painful and hard because they are what's best for the child that you've taken into your care. I also believe, based on my experience and years of evidence, that it is almost always best for children to be placed with family whenever there is a willing family member available, especially one that has custody of a biological sibling.
So, if you want to talk about what would have been BEST for Lexi, what would have been in HER BEST INTEREST would have been for the P. family to yield to the recommendation of her therapist in 2012, wherein he recommended that what would be BEST FOR LEXI would be placement with her family (R. family), and an ongoing relationship with the P. family during that time of transition. The court documents say that the P. family was consistently reminded that Lexi's case fell under ICWA and that the planned adoptive parents were the R. family. They (DHS, R. family, P. family, therapists, tribe) created a FREAKING TRANSITION PLAN to move Lexi to the R. family in 2013, which I'm assuming was not followed because her placement was frozen when the P. family objected to DHS's concurrent plan in court.
I am noping the SHIT out of the way that the P. family handled this case, and I could seriously scream seeing all the support that the P. family is getting over social media. Because from where I stand, it seems that the best interests of Lexi was the last thing on their mind.
I know it looks bad, but it seems that the foster parents delayed as long as possible and then made the custody transfer as traumatic as possible. Why would anyone behave like this?
In CA, I'm pretty sure parents of children in foster care can choose an adoptive family complete with an open adoption agreement up until TPR. I'm confused as to why using ICWA is even necessary here.
I'm commenting as a lurker because this is my (extremely unlikely because our children's birth parents will be wonderful parents when they are ready) nightmare, that a foster family would fight us for custody of our adopted children's sibling.
You said this a lot more eloquently than I did. I was fired up.
Post by wesleycrusher on Mar 22, 2016 19:48:29 GMT -5
I have a lot of thoughts about this as a foster parent with a child in family (but not blood-relative) placement. I don't think anyone on this board can say what family member is close enough to take in a child, because there are many ways that individual families are defined. One of the main things learned in training is family placement is always the first goal of foster care and family is always considered before out-of-family placement. The P family should not have been foster parents if they could not/would not abide by their care being temporary. I feel very sorry for the little girl who was drug into this with a family that clearly should not have been foster parents if they couldn't accept this.
I've been out of the child welfare field for about six years now, but when I was working, dealt with ICWA and ICPC placements frequently, and my understanding is exactly the same as WOT?* , has posted. Also, I feel like I remember reading that the out of state family has custody of a sibling? If that's the case, then it probably explains the ICWA placement--in my experience, ICWA highly favors placement with a sibling.
I will probably get flamed for saying this, but I don't feel bad for the P. family. I feel PISSED OFF that they put their own wants and desires above what was best for Lexi. Would it likely have been heartbreaking for them to have said goodbye to her in 2012 and sent her to live with her family? Yes. Absolutely. But when you're a foster parent, sometimes you do things that are really painful and hard because they are what's best for the child that you've taken into your care. I also believe, based on my experience and years of evidence, that it is almost always best for children to be placed with family whenever there is a willing family member available, especially one that has custody of a biological sibling.
So, if you want to talk about what would have been BEST for Lexi, what would have been in HER BEST INTEREST would have been for the P. family to yield to the recommendation of her therapist in 2012, wherein he recommended that what would be BEST FOR LEXI would be placement with her family (R. family), and an ongoing relationship with the P. family during that time of transition. The court documents say that the P. family was consistently reminded that Lexi's case fell under ICWA and that the planned adoptive parents were the R. family. They (DHS, R. family, P. family, therapists, tribe) created a FREAKING TRANSITION PLAN to move Lexi to the R. family in 2013, which I'm assuming was not followed because her placement was frozen when the P. family objected to DHS's concurrent plan in court.
I am noping the SHIT out of the way that the P. family handled this case, and I could seriously scream seeing all the support that the P. family is getting over social media. Because from where I stand, it seems that the best interests of Lexi was the last thing on their mind.
You don't think the fact that she had been through so many different families and suffered psychological harm as a result played a role in her parents not wanting her to be uprooted yet again after she had finally managed to form attachments?
I'm just not convinced that pulling her away from a family where she had been able to finally overcome her trauma was really in her best interests simply because her fathers wife's grandfathers niece had custody of one of her many half-siblings.
The ICWA is made to forceably keep a tribal nation intact. It overrides women's rights. It overrides child welfare. It overrides human rights and welfare. It is ONLY to gather and retain members by force for the sake of these nation's own existence and business goals.
I don't disagree with this. But it was made in an attempt to correct wrongs done to tribal nations over centuries. So I understand its relevance. I just don't think that the "one drop" rule should necessarily apply. But it does. She, her sister and her father were on the tribal registry, so while it applies, it applies.
The underlying matter is that family (R) was looking to adopt, from before the Pages were given foster care. They knew that going in, and there was an order in place three years ago to place her with the family - they were part of the conversation - and the foster family decided to fight the court order. It wouldn't have reached this point if they had the court order when it was initially placed. She wouldn't have been part of this traumatic separation if they had followed the plan set forth by the court, the social worker, the therapist, the social worker's supervisor, and all the other people involved to get it to that point. THAT would have been the best interest of the child, not fighting a losing battle hoping that "possession" renders a court order moot.
ETA: reading the court documents changed me from "oh how horrible for the foster parents and Lexi" to "how horrible of the foster parents to do this to Lexi knowing how it was supposed to end." Even had ICWA not been in play, there is a line of precedence for adoption, beginning with family. And with the Rs having custody of her sister, and living down the road from another one, in the end the courts would have sided that Lexi knowing her bio-family, if it was deemed safe and appropriate, was in her best interest. They said that in 2013.
This is why a lot of people say they can't be foster parents.
Thanks for your summaries of the court documents. The articles are all so biased toward one side or the other. The pictures are so sad, it was a horrible scene and I'm sure the P's are truly devastated. BUT since they knew all along what was likely to happen, they could have handled this much better and made it less terrifying for Lexi. I'm sure the P's love her, but it almost of feels like they created such an outrage-inspiring scene to force someone to give her back to them. They started a petition that has over 75k signatures already.
ETA: maybe it would have been in her best interests to be adopted by the P's, but maybe if they hadn't fought so much, she would have been with the R's sooner and would have a strong bond with them and her sister by now. Who knows :/
Also I can't imagine what it's like to be a foster parent. "Here's a child, probably with some difficult issues and in desperate need of love and stability, that you need to parent, but don't love her too much or anything and don't get attached because she's not really your child at all and any stability you give her is kind of pointless because she's going to go away soon anyway. Also your opinion about what's best for her is meaningless." That would take a very specific kind of personality I think. I understand why so few people want to do it.
I've been out of the child welfare field for about six years now, but when I was working, dealt with ICWA and ICPC placements frequently, and my understanding is exactly the same as WOT?* , has posted. Also, I feel like I remember reading that the out of state family has custody of a sibling? If that's the case, then it probably explains the ICWA placement--in my experience, ICWA highly favors placement with a sibling.
I will probably get flamed for saying this, but I don't feel bad for the P. family. I feel PISSED OFF that they put their own wants and desires above what was best for Lexi. Would it likely have been heartbreaking for them to have said goodbye to her in 2012 and sent her to live with her family? Yes. Absolutely. But when you're a foster parent, sometimes you do things that are really painful and hard because they are what's best for the child that you've taken into your care. I also believe, based on my experience and years of evidence, that it is almost always best for children to be placed with family whenever there is a willing family member available, especially one that has custody of a biological sibling.
So, if you want to talk about what would have been BEST for Lexi, what would have been in HER BEST INTEREST would have been for the P. family to yield to the recommendation of her therapist in 2012, wherein he recommended that what would be BEST FOR LEXI would be placement with her family (R. family), and an ongoing relationship with the P. family during that time of transition. The court documents say that the P. family was consistently reminded that Lexi's case fell under ICWA and that the planned adoptive parents were the R. family. They (DHS, R. family, P. family, therapists, tribe) created a FREAKING TRANSITION PLAN to move Lexi to the R. family in 2013, which I'm assuming was not followed because her placement was frozen when the P. family objected to DHS's concurrent plan in court.
I am noping the SHIT out of the way that the P. family handled this case, and I could seriously scream seeing all the support that the P. family is getting over social media. Because from where I stand, it seems that the best interests of Lexi was the last thing on their mind.
You don't think the fact that she had been through so many different families and suffered psychological harm as a result played a role in her parents not wanting her to be uprooted yet again after she had finally managed to form attachments?
I'm just not convinced that pulling her away from a family where she had been able to finally overcome her trauma was really in her best interests simply because her fathers wife's grandfathers niece had custody of one of her many half-siblings
Her therapist addressed this specifically back in 2012, and still recommended that she be placed with her relatives out of state. He also laid out a transition plan that would have minimized the trauma during the transition. Had the P. family followed the plan, she wouldn't have been "pulled away from a family where she had been able to finally overcome her trauma". She would have been placed with the R. family in 2013, and would have had continuing contact with the P. family, with them being considered her extended family. The P. family did not follow that plan. They are the ones that caused the unnecessary trauma, not the R. family.
Also I can't imagine what it's like to be a foster parent. "Here's a child, probably with some difficult issues and in desperate need of love and stability, that you need to parent, but don't love her too much or anything and don't get attached because she's not really your child at all and any stability you give her is kind of pointless because she's going to go away soon anyway. Also your opinion about what's best for her is meaningless." That would take a very specific kind of personality I think. I understand why so few people want to do it.
This is a fair point, and I personally think it's really compounded by the fact that there are sometimes competing interests at play. For example, some foster parents are upfront with DHS that their goal for fostering is to adopt. That's fine, but it conflicts with DHS's initial goal of reunification, and so those who are strictly interested in adoption probably shouldn't be offered temporary, emergency, or respite placements, and probably only should receive placement of children who are actually legally free to be adopted. But that's not how it happens practically at all, which adds to problem.
It's also important to know that foster parents are not "parties to the case". They don't usually get the reports from doctors, therapists, or other treatment providers. Sometimes a caseworker may share some of that info, but foster parents certainly don't get as much info as the caseworker, child's attorney, or CASA/guardian ad litem. So, the foster parents may not always have the entire picture in terms of being able to make recommendations into the best interests of the child. It's a really difficult dynamic!
I've been out of the child welfare field for about six years now, but when I was working, dealt with ICWA and ICPC placements frequently, and my understanding is exactly the same as WOT?* , has posted. Also, I feel like I remember reading that the out of state family has custody of a sibling? If that's the case, then it probably explains the ICWA placement--in my experience, ICWA highly favors placement with a sibling.
I will probably get flamed for saying this, but I don't feel bad for the P. family. I feel PISSED OFF that they put their own wants and desires above what was best for Lexi. Would it likely have been heartbreaking for them to have said goodbye to her in 2012 and sent her to live with her family? Yes. Absolutely. But when you're a foster parent, sometimes you do things that are really painful and hard because they are what's best for the child that you've taken into your care. I also believe, based on my experience and years of evidence, that it is almost always best for children to be placed with family whenever there is a willing family member available, especially one that has custody of a biological sibling.
So, if you want to talk about what would have been BEST for Lexi, what would have been in HER BEST INTEREST would have been for the P. family to yield to the recommendation of her therapist in 2012, wherein he recommended that what would be BEST FOR LEXI would be placement with her family (R. family), and an ongoing relationship with the P. family during that time of transition. The court documents say that the P. family was consistently reminded that Lexi's case fell under ICWA and that the planned adoptive parents were the R. family. They (DHS, R. family, P. family, therapists, tribe) created a FREAKING TRANSITION PLAN to move Lexi to the R. family in 2013, which I'm assuming was not followed because her placement was frozen when the P. family objected to DHS's concurrent plan in court.
I am noping the SHIT out of the way that the P. family handled this case, and I could seriously scream seeing all the support that the P. family is getting over social media. Because from where I stand, it seems that the best interests of Lexi was the last thing on their mind.
This is pretty much where I ended when reading the court documents. There was a slew of professionals who said her best interest was placing her with the R family when she was three and they fought for THREE YEARS to keep her, despite being told multiple times that there was a plan in place.
And I say this as a foster parent. Fortunately mine was uncontested in the end, but yes, I dealt with several years of back-and-forth (fortunately most was between us and DD2, and GD1 wasn't affected as an infant-preschooler). Ultimately we had to give GD1 back after 5 years of guardianship and it broke my heart. My first visit with her as "visiting grandma" and not "momma grandma" was heart-wrenching. Then we got both girls placed with us and had to go through the reunification with keep them/put them in counseling/do what's best for them...and send them back in four months because "you can't learn to parent (the goal of reunification) if you don't have a child to parent."
My sympathy fled at reading a court order was in place while she was still a toddler and had a chance to bond with her intended family. The Ps did that to her.
ETA: And what berrysweet said. I had certain advantages as a foster because I was also the mother of the mom and grandmother to the girls. I was invited to some hearings but not all. I was only involved in family planning meetings (when she was removed from her mom and placed with us - that was heartbreaking for all of us; at the placement hearing and at termination.) We were told how to proceed with the reunification and when. But the *only* reason that I was as involved was because I was biologically related to all parties and had consent to be involved from the BM up to the point of termination proceedings. At any time, that consent could have been revoked. Even after adoption, I was only provided a partial file, relevant to medical and psychological and health needs of the girls, with a LOT of information redacted.
You don't think the fact that she had been through so many different families and suffered psychological harm as a result played a role in her parents not wanting her to be uprooted yet again after she had finally managed to form attachments?
I'm just not convinced that pulling her away from a family where she had been able to finally overcome her trauma was really in her best interests simply because her fathers wife's grandfathers niece had custody of one of her many half-siblings
Her therapist addressed this specifically back in 2012, and still recommended that she be placed with her relatives out of state. He also laid out a transition plan that would have minimized the trauma during the transition. Had the P. family followed the plan, she wouldn't have been "pulled away from a family where she had been able to finally overcome her trauma". She would have been placed with the R. family in 2013, and would have had continuing contact with the P. family, with them being considered her extended family. The P. family did not follow that plan. They are the ones that caused the unnecessary trauma, not the R. family.
2013 is still a year after she had come to the Ps though, so unless they had just ignored her attachment issues and not helped her bond with them, she still would have been leaving behind yet another set of parents and caregivers for more new ones. How do you explain to a 3 year old that sorry, I'm not your mommy anymore?
I don't know. I just don't see any situation in which moving this child to ANOTHER new family wouldn't be traumatic, and I don't understand what the benefit to her is in doing so. Is the trauma and risk to her stability really outweighed entirely by her being with a biological sibling? Are biological siblings that much inherently superior to adopted siblings so that a stranger who shares your DNA is much better and more important than a sibling you've grown up with but don't share DNA with?
WOT?* The P family is just a foster placement family, so if there were orders in place, why wasn't Lexi taken from them and placed with the R family when she was a toddler? Why did the P family have the power to block the placement anyway? It would seem like their rights with regard to the girl's placement should have been extremely limited. Is this not the case for foster families?
Her therapist addressed this specifically back in 2012, and still recommended that she be placed with her relatives out of state. He also laid out a transition plan that would have minimized the trauma during the transition. Had the P. family followed the plan, she wouldn't have been "pulled away from a family where she had been able to finally overcome her trauma". She would have been placed with the R. family in 2013, and would have had continuing contact with the P. family, with them being considered her extended family. The P. family did not follow that plan. They are the ones that caused the unnecessary trauma, not the R. family.
2013 is still a year after she had come to the Ps though, so unless they had just ignored her attachment issues and not helped her bond with them, she still would have been leaving behind yet another set of parents and caregivers for more new ones. How do you explain to a 3 year old that sorry, I'm not your mommy anymore?
I don't know. I just don't see any situation in which moving this child to ANOTHER new family wouldn't be traumatic, and I don't understand what the benefit to her is in doing so. Is the trauma and risk to her stability really outweighed entirely by her being with a biological sibling? Are biological siblings that much inherently superior to adopted siblings so that a stranger who shares your DNA is much better and more important than a sibling you've grown up with but don't share DNA with?
My nephew (step-brothers son) came to us at the age of 3. He had lived with a different relative since he was 5 mos old and fully believed she was his mom. But when she was unable to care for him anymore, as much as it broke her heart to admit it- she knew if he was going to be moved it had to be ASAP because the more time he spent with her the harder the transition would be. And I will quote her "sometimes the right things in life are not always easy." That is the mentality the Ps needed to have. The judge, the case workers, everyone worked hard to get nephew transferred to us and even though it was an in-state placement it still took 3 months. He has fully adjusted and now calls that other relative "aunt." Not saying it was an easy transition for him or that he fully understands, but transferring him to us as young as possible was the best thing to do, in his best interest, and everyone in our case understood that. I don't know why the Ps didn't.
2013 is still a year after she had come to the Ps though, so unless they had just ignored her attachment issues and not helped her bond with them, she still would have been leaving behind yet another set of parents and caregivers for more new ones. How do you explain to a 3 year old that sorry, I'm not your mommy anymore?
I don't know. I just don't see any situation in which moving this child to ANOTHER new family wouldn't be traumatic, and I don't understand what the benefit to her is in doing so. Is the trauma and risk to her stability really outweighed entirely by her being with a biological sibling? Are biological siblings that much inherently superior to adopted siblings so that a stranger who shares your DNA is much better and more important than a sibling you've grown up with but don't share DNA with?
My nephew (step-brothers son) came to us at the age of 3. He had lived with a different relative since he was 5 mos old and fully believed she was his mom. But when she was unable to care for him anymore, as much as it broke her heart to admit it- she knew if he was going to be moved it had to be ASAP because the more time he spent with her the harder the transition would be. And I will quote her "sometimes the right things in life are not always easy." That is the mentality the Ps needed to have. The judge, the case workers, everyone worked hard to get nephew transferred to us and even though it was an in-state placement it still took 3 months. He has fully adjusted and now calls that other relative "aunt." Not saying it was an easy transition for him or that he fully understands, but transferring him to us as young as possible was the best thing to do, in his best interest, and everyone in our case understood that. I don't know why the Ps didn't.
But in this case, this child lived with her bio parents, who abused her. Then she lived with another foster family, more abuse. Then another foster family. Then another one. Then, finally, the Ps. When she came to them, she had signs of attachment disorder and other psychological issues, which they spent a long time working through and helping her, and finally she was bonding with them and thriving and had overcome those issues.
Then they're told "no, she has to go live with someone else now." I can see how they felt that this would be highly detrimental to her wellbeing, even aside from them loving her as a daughter and wanting her to stay with them. I don't think it's fair to say that they only cared about themselves and their own pain in having to give up a child they loved.
My question is, what is the benefit to her in leaving to go live with these other (distant) relatives? Like I said before, is DNA so superior to everything else that being with a biological half-sibling is critical enough to outweigh any psychological trauma she would incur?
I see a lot of benefits in her staying where she is (and staying where she was in 2013), a lot of risk and potential damage that could come from moving her, and little to no benefit to her wellbeing in moving her. Which leads me to believe that her wellbeing is not, in fact, the primary concern here.
WOT?* The P family is just a foster placement family, so if there were orders in place, why wasn't Lexi taken from them and placed with the R family when she was a toddler? Why did the P family have the power to block the placement anyway? It would seem like their rights with regard to the girl's placement should have been extremely limited. Is this not the case for foster families?
My understanding/interpretation (take it for what you will) is that as a foster child in CA, she was under the jurisdiction of CA law. (I'm up to reading the procedural and discussion). The GAL and her court-appointed attorney requested a stay of removal (a "Do Not Remove") from the state without a court order and since CA retained jurisdiction of the *person* of Lexi during the ICPC process (which was not finalized), the stay was granted while they could decide whether ICWA was being properly applied, fair, and whether it would be traumatizing for Lexi to be removed, whether that trauma would supersede the application of ICWA as decided by lower courts, etc. If Lexi was removed from California while proceedings were ongoing, there was an argument that she would no longer be under their jurisdiction but potentially a resident of Arizona, and further muddy the waters.
As an example of the "jurisdiction" issues, when we were fosters for the girls, they were living with us but actually under the custody of the state of WA. We were not allowed to take them out of state without court approval, which means to take them out of the state we had to notify the caseworker, who notified the bio-mom, who granted or denied permission. If bio-mom approved or the caseworker thought it was more important that they go on vacation regardless of mom's wishes, she would notify the court of our intended vacation, destination, what hotel, the dates we would be gone, etc. [This is why the foster system has respite care. Sometimes there are pre-planned events out of state and the kids simply can't go because the state (or bio-parents) won't let them. (This is why I'm so adamant about them being respite caregivers who were taking advantage, seeing a potential adoption of this adorable little girl, despite all the underlying issues.)]
When the girls were placed with us, we had planned a vacation to the Oregon Coast. The caseworker's response was "oh, too bad, I wish I had known about this a couple months ago so I could have had it approved. Sucks to be you." and we had to find a destination in Washington instead, over Labor Day weekend when we also had to get fingerprinted, get the girls to physicians and a dentist for examinations and a host of other things in a narrow window of opportunity. We gave four months advance notice for a trip to Florida and that gave us only a few weeks leeway during the process. We didn't bother with the Oregon Coast or other trips until the adoptions were finalized because it's just so cumbersome.
My nephew (step-brothers son) came to us at the age of 3. He had lived with a different relative since he was 5 mos old and fully believed she was his mom. But when she was unable to care for him anymore, as much as it broke her heart to admit it- she knew if he was going to be moved it had to be ASAP because the more time he spent with her the harder the transition would be. And I will quote her "sometimes the right things in life are not always easy." That is the mentality the Ps needed to have. The judge, the case workers, everyone worked hard to get nephew transferred to us and even though it was an in-state placement it still took 3 months. He has fully adjusted and now calls that other relative "aunt." Not saying it was an easy transition for him or that he fully understands, but transferring him to us as young as possible was the best thing to do, in his best interest, and everyone in our case understood that. I don't know why the Ps didn't.
But in this case, this child lived with her bio parents, who abused her. Then she lived with another foster family, more abuse. Then another foster family. Then another one. Then, finally, the Ps. When she came to them, she had signs of attachment disorder and other psychological issues, which they spent a long time working through and helping her, and finally she was bonding with them and thriving and had overcome those issues.
Then they're told "no, she has to go live with someone else now." I can see how they felt that this would be highly detrimental to her wellbeing, even aside from them loving her as a daughter and wanting her to stay with them. I don't think it's fair to say that they only cared about themselves and their own pain in having to give up a child they loved.
My question is, what is the benefit to her in leaving to go live with these other (distant) relatives? Like I said before, is DNA so superior to everything else that being with a biological half-sibling is critical enough to outweigh any psychological trauma she would incur?
I see a lot of benefits in her staying where she is (and staying where she was in 2013), a lot of risk and potential damage that could come from moving her, and little to no benefit to her wellbeing in moving her. Which leads me to believe that her wellbeing is not, in fact, the primary concern here.
They are a FOSTER placement. Their JOB is to provide safety and security to damaged children. No matter how it feels to send them elsewhere later in the process. The courts, the therapist, everyone, said that going to the family that had been intended for her since she was young was in her best interest, and HERE IS HOW BEST TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. The R family, with Lexi being so young, would be fully capable of developing a relationship. She already had one, as "family" with visits and Skype. They weren't strangers. And they all knew going in that she was intended to live with the R family. And the P family knew she was intended to go to the R family in the end, during the entire process. It wasn't a surprise. The P family, in fighting to keep her, instead caused her further harm by denying her the ability to develop a nurturing relationship while she was still young enough to do so. Even the court documents state that she had progressed to the ability to develop other relationships with other caregivers thanks to the work done by the P family. In not conforming with the court order and transfer plan three years ago, they caused her immeasurable harm now that she's older and had developed deeper relationships with the family.
Post by hopecounts on Mar 22, 2016 21:37:48 GMT -5
ttt, in general it is viewed that a placement with family is in the best interest of children. Psychologically and Emotionally, having that access to the family narrative/framework is reassuring and positive in most cases. Ultimately the P's opted to fight the order and drag this out knowing they were very likely to loose and that she would pay for it when they lost and she had to move. Less damage would have been done if they had assisted the transition at 3. If they had any real chance of keeping her maybe it would have been different but knowing how unlikely them winning was it was cruel to drag it out for 3 yrs just making the end result harder for everyone.
ttt , in general it is viewed that a placement with family is in the best interest of children. Psychologically and Emotionally, having that access to the family narrative/framework is reassuring and positive in most cases.
This seems to undermine the very institution of adoption.
ttt , in general it is viewed that a placement with family is in the best interest of children. Psychologically and Emotionally, having that access to the family narrative/framework is reassuring and positive in most cases.
This seems to undermine the very institution of adoption.
It's why open adoption is the norm now. It allows the child to maintain some connection to their original family. And yes in general it is why familial adoption is preferential in foster situations. Adoption is wonderful but it comes with challenges for all members of the triad including the children who loose their family of origin. Doesn't mean it isn't the best choice for some but it's stuff that a responsible a parent learns about and helps their child with. ETA: and historically adoptions were mostly familial. It really wasn't until the 20th century that closed non-related adoptions became the norm. (The early orphan trains were the front runner of this trend) By the 80s we began to see why this was and open adoption became increasingly common. So it's not so much that it undermines adoption as it undermines a particular type of adoption.
This seems to undermine the very institution of adoption.
It's why open adoption is the norm now. It allows the child to maintain some connection to their original family. And yes in general it is why familial adoption is preferential in foster situations. Adoption is wonderful but it comes with challenges for all members of the triad including the children who loose their family of origin. Doesn't mean it isn't the best choice for some but it's stuff that a responsible a parent learns about and helps their child with. ETA: and historically adoptions were mostly familial. It really wasn't until the 20th century that closed non-related adoptions became the norm. (The early orphan trains were the front runner of this trend) By the 80s we began to see why this was and open adoption became increasingly common. So it's not so much that it undermines adoption as it undermines a particular type of adoption.
I don't really know what to say to that other than that I'm out of this thread.