Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 24, 2014 17:33:52 GMT -5
It is a little bit of a weird system, though, in that there are items on the home visit checklist that mean you fail that home visit. So if you need a clean home visit, those things have to be addressed. On the other hand, if you have one of those conditions in your home when CPS visits, that doesn't necessarily mean your kids are taken away.
Got it. I'm pretty sure the home one of my old friends grew up in would have failed the home visit checklist. But since she was not otherwise neglected or abused, she was never removed from the home. And I think they did get a CPS visit or two.
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Nov 24, 2014 17:38:43 GMT -5
CPS steps in if it's an unsafe living environment. Infestations, health code violations, fire code violations (ability to safely get out of the house in a fire), major mold issues, etc.
CPS does not step in because you haven't vacuumed or steamed cleaned your floors, unless your floors are covered in feces and urine.
In order to check your oven, the state of the kitchen would have to be awful to begin with. (In getting my foster care license, which requires me to meet standards that are significantly higher than the ones it would take to have kids returned to you, my social worker never looked to see if my oven was clean. No social worker who has ever visited my house- and there's been lots of them - has ever checked my oven. But my house, while no where near "white glove inspection" clean, is obviously well cared for enough that they don't see that as a risk.)
There are cobwebs in certain corners of my house. I've never been told that those needed to be removed.
I can't speak for any state other then WA, but in general, for the cleanliness of your home to be an issue with CPS, your home has to be in VERY bad shape.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 24, 2014 17:38:45 GMT -5
I had to actually look in the frig as a GAL as well as the cupboards and look into the clients bedroom. I always felt strange doing that.
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Nov 24, 2014 17:47:06 GMT -5
The checklist I have to meet for being a foster parent is VERY different from what parents need for getting their kids back.
The reason for this is that as a foster parent, I am a designee of the state, and if something happens to the kid while in my care, the state is at fault. So vitamins, cleaning supplies, and medications have to be locked up. Internal medications vs external medications must be kept clearly separate. Alcohol has to be "inaccessible" - so put out of reach, but not locked up. Our ornamental swords and axes currently live with friends. My brother's guns live with another friend. In both cases because it was easier to impose on our friends for storage (and cheaper) than meeting all the safety requirements for keeping those in our home.
Those requirements don't necessarily translate to kids being returned to their parents, though prescription meds probably shouldn't be sitting on an end table at toddler height, and guns and ammo probably need to be locked away.
The way we try to explain it is on a scale of one to one hundred, most houses/situations are going to be around an 80% - parents aren't perfect, but we're people. In order to get a foster care license, we have to go through a series of actions that puts us at 90%. In order for your kids to be removed from your home by the state, you need to be down around 30%.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 24, 2014 17:49:45 GMT -5
The way we try to explain it is on a scale of one to one hundred, most houses/situations are going to be around an 80% - parents aren't perfect, but we're people. In order to get a foster care license, we have to go through a series of actions that puts us at 90%. In order for your kids to be removed from your home by the state, you need to be down around 30%.
Yikes. That really puts it in perspective. Scary thought. Thanks for explaining your perspective, shanendoah (and others involved with the state). It really throws a much different light on the letter.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 24, 2014 22:53:59 GMT -5
You all know me, I'm all about leaving my kids in the car for a few minutes. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png) However, there were things about her story that just didn't sit right. My DS is almost 5 and he would be fine in the care of a responsible 10 year old. (My 2 year old, not so much). i don't something just didn't jive. A delay enrolling your kids is school? Really? Why would you even risk it? There was more to it, but there is enough in her story that makes you wonder what was really going on.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,433
|
Post by swamp on Nov 25, 2014 8:14:34 GMT -5
If moving in with her parents was an option after CPS intervention, why wasn't it an option before?
I wondered that too, but chalked it up to her probably not wanting to uproot her four kids, potentially having to sell a house, etc. There are a lot of reasons why moving wouldn't have been her first choice. Not all of them are shady. but when kids are taken - why wasn't grandma and grandpa the first option for placement? Loads of kids are fostered with relatives. Isn't that the first place before other foster options? Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 3:51:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 8:51:47 GMT -5
Yes it's possible there's more to the story but it's also not unheard of that agencies like this sometimes go stupid and overreact. agencies over react, but the court makes them prove their case.
And, in the meantime, the children are living in a stranger's home, unable to even see their parents for the next two or three years until the courts get around to them.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,433
|
Post by swamp on Nov 25, 2014 10:22:41 GMT -5
agencies over react, but the court makes them prove their case.
And, in the meantime, the children are living in a stranger's home, unable to even see their parents for the next two or three years until the courts get around to them. No, that's not how it works. If there is an emergency removal, the hearing is within 24 hours. There are then regular court appearances to see that DSS is working towards whatever the family goal is, and how the parents are doing working towards that goal, and whether or not the kids need different/additional/more/less services.
If the kids are removed, the parents will have visits. They might be supervised, but there will be visits. If there aren't any, there is some serious abuse going on and termination of parental rights is forthcoming.
The goal is almost always family reunification, especially when there is allegations of neglect by leaving the kids alone, not severe abuse. But, the parents need to comply with services.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 10:43:44 GMT -5
but when kids are taken - why wasn't grandma and grandpa the first option for placement?
Maybe Grandma and Grandpa weren't equipped to take four kids. Assuming there was (a lot) more to the story, these kids might have had serious emotional issues even apart from losing their dad. Not everyone is set up to just jump into that situation. It would give me serious pause even if I knew the alternative was foster care. I would hate myself if I said no, but that doesn't mean the answer would automatically be yes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 3:51:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 10:47:22 GMT -5
In my opinion, there IS a difference between whether she was doing this because she wanted to make her own way and give a better life to her children and doing it because she wanted a night out partying. Yes, something could have happened either way; however, there are a lot of unknowns. I'm not ready to pass judgment on her based solely on the information given here.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 10:55:21 GMT -5
Yes, something could have happened either way; however, there are a lot of unknowns. I'm not ready to pass judgment on her based solely on the information given here.
IF it truly happened exactly as she stated in the letter, then I would have a lot of sympathy for her situation (and initially I did). However, I agree with the people who have weighed in from "the other side" - it sounds like an awful lot of details were omitted or prettied up to put her in a better light.
The situation she was in is automatically sympathetic - widow of four kids just trying to make a better life for herself to support them. So that was my first reaction. But if she was "dealing" with that by neglecting them to the point where the house was so unsanitary it wasn't safe for them to live there (and whatever else), then I think taking the kids away until she got her shit together made a lot of sense.
She's not being fully honest with herself if she really believes that she lost her kids and it took two years to get them back "only" because she had the poor judgment to leave them home alone for a few hours.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,542
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 25, 2014 10:58:06 GMT -5
why wasn't grandma and grandpa the first option for placement
When DH's niece lost custody of her four kids they approached BIL (niece's father), niece's mother, MIL/FIL (nieces grandparents), and the biological father of niece's son.
This happened in a very short period of time. Biological father took in his son. That left three other kids, one of which was a newborn addicted to meth.
MIL/FIL are in their 80's. They wouldn't have been able to handle three kids, especially one that was an infant requiring large amounts of care.
BIL/SIL considered it but they couldn't take the kids right away anyhow because their house didn't conform to state rules for foster care. They also would have ended up going from a family of four to a family of seven, that's a pretty hefty adjustment. They also both work full time and the baby could not initially go to daycare due to her issues. Niece's mother ended up taking in the girls. She runs her own business at home so she didn't have to make daycare arrangements and could tend to the baby. She also didn't have any other children at home to focus on.
She ended up with custody of the kids. MIL/FIL and BIL all went thru the system so they could get approved for visitation.
It's great if family can take people in, but it isn't always realistic.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 11:14:31 GMT -5
It's great if family can take people in, but it isn't always realistic.
Yup. Some of you may remember a few years ago when DH and I were preparing to take temporary custody of our niece (barely 8 years old at the time). For various reasons, that ended up not happening but one of the complications was that I found out I was pregnant while we were trying to figure out the situation.
I was not at all sure I was equipped to be a parental figure to my niece during my first pregnancy (when I didn't have the first clue how I would be feeling physically or emotionally). Plus, there were her feelings to consider. How would she feel about us having a new baby only months after her arrival? Obviously it would take up a lot of our time/attention. They might have to share a room for awhile, as we only have two bedrooms. There would be major financial considerations. And so on.
This wasn't the only reason she didn't come to live with us. In the end, she and her mom worked things out (they're doing really well now). But DH and I are pretty sure it wouldn't have been good for her to live with us at the time. I'm grateful we didn't have to make that choice. And I'm REALLY glad the choice wasn't "us or foster care" in an emergency situation because that would have put us over a barrel and most likely caused us to take her whether we were the best place for her or not, just to avoid her going into the system.
So it's not always straightforward. And if there had been four DNs instead of one, it wouldn't have even been a question. No way DH and I could ever take four children. I doubt the state would even sanction that in our current living situation.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 25, 2014 11:17:17 GMT -5
In my opinion, there IS a difference between whether she was doing this because she wanted to make her own way and give a better life to her children and doing it because she wanted a night out partying. Yes, something could have happened either way; however, there are a lot of unknowns. I'm not ready to pass judgment on her based solely on the information given here. In most cases, I am the one here saying kids are fine being left in the car for 5 minutes. The kid at the park was fine. But really in this situation, I don't think these kids were fine. Her own words - words she is using to paint herself in the best possible light, they don't make sense. They are there to insight sympathy, but it appears that there is a very large chunk of this story missing. I'm not saying what the authorities did was right or wrong, but I think things were a lot worse off than she realized.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 25, 2014 11:22:57 GMT -5
4 kids is A LOT. Lets be honest. 4 kids in 5 years (or maybe 6 if the oldest is almost 11 and the youngest just turned 5) is a lot. Look at sibling sets with kids less than 2 years apart - while the kids can entertain themselves, sometimes it is trouble X2 (or in this case 4). You have to have room for 4 kids. Yes I know some people just make it work. I know one guy locally who had 2 kids and his family of 4 lived in an 800 SQ ft house. His sister was going to jail and Family services showed up at 8pm and basically gave them 20 minutes to decide if they could take her 4 kids (so the story goes). They made it work and a couple years later, extreme makeover gave them a brand new huge house and everyone had their own rooms. But they had bunk beds in the laundry room, kids sleeping in the dining room, etc to make it work. I don't think most people would be equipped to handle that.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 11:29:00 GMT -5
4 kids is A LOT. Lets be honest. 4 kids in 5 years (or maybe 6 if the oldest is almost 11 and the youngest just turned 5) is a lot.
Especially for grandparents! Who are presumably done raising kids. I don't EVER want four kids. The idea gives me shivers, and I sure as hell wouldn't want four kids thrust on me when I'm in my fifties or sixties (or maybe older, who knows). Maybe I could make it work for awhile in an emergency situation but that's assuming I would even have the space - minimum 2 extra bedrooms, according to shanendoah. That's a pretty big assumption right there. A lot of people downsize their living space in retirement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 3:51:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 12:42:18 GMT -5
4 kids is A LOT. Lets be honest. 4 kids in 5 years (or maybe 6 if the oldest is almost 11 and the youngest just turned 5) is a lot.
Especially for grandparents! Who are presumably done raising kids. I don't EVER want four kids. The idea gives me shivers, and I sure as hell wouldn't want four kids thrust on me when I'm in my fifties or sixties (or maybe older, who knows). Maybe I could make it work for awhile in an emergency situation but that's assuming I would even have the space - minimum 2 extra bedrooms, according to shanendoah. That's a pretty big assumption right there. A lot of people downsize their living space in retirement. I get not wanting four kids, but it's tough when they're your grandkids to turn away even if it's not your idea of a good time and you don't really want to do it. My aunt took in her four grandkids (it might even be 5...I wasn't real close to this side of the family), her daughter has a drug problem and had 4 kids with 4 guys and just couldn't take care of them. The state ruled she could only have supervised visitation. My aunt didn't want them in the foster care system, partially because they would probably be split up, but she's had them for a good 10 years now. The fourth (or maybe fifth) was added later on when DD got pregnant again.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 12:47:33 GMT -5
I get not wanting four kids, but it's tough when they're your grandkids to turn away even if it's not your idea of a good time and you don't really want to do it.
Agreed but again, that's assuming the state will even let you take them if you have insufficient room in your house.
And it would be very difficult not knowing whether it was temporary or permanent. If it was just for one or two months, that would probably be okay. If it was for several years, or the rest of their childhoods when the youngest was 5... well, that's a lot less okay for people already past middle age. Who takes care of the kids if something happens to you and/or your partner, such as major health issues?
Most people, I'm sure, would try to take in their own flesh and blood. I'd like to think I would at least try before they were turned over to the state. But if I just couldn't... like I said, I would hate myself but sometimes limitations are limitations. Sometimes it's not about "not really wanting to do it," it's about being physically/mentally/emotionally unable to do it.
I can't judge the grandparents for not immediately stepping up to save the grandchildren. First of all, maybe they tried. Maybe the state wouldn't allow them to take all four and they were hoping there would be a home for all of them, or they didn't want to blatantly favor one or two by taking them and not their siblings.
Alternatively, maybe they felt like having the kids taken by the state temporarily would be the wake-up call their daughter needed. Maybe they'd been enabling her for years prior to this and they didn't want her using the children as a shield any longer.
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Nov 25, 2014 13:04:09 GMT -5
@ram - In my experience, the only time there is no visitation with parents is when parents are incarcerated, leave the state (happens more often than you think), or simply don't show up for their visits. Even parents who are addicts, who might be considered dangerous, often get supervised visitation within DSHS or Agency offices (often there are rooms set aside specifically for these types of visits). No parent who wants to see their kids (and isn't in jail) goes more than a few weeks to a month between visitations. And even when parents move out of state, things like video phone calls are made options for them so that they can see their child and interact via video with them.
A lot really depends on the situation. In our current case, Mini Wheat wants nothing to do with his family. On a good day, he'll consider an occasional phone call, but he adamantly does not want to go visit. However, if the court orders visitation, a social worker will pick him up and take him to visitation.
As a note, in many cases (at least in WA), family members who are willing to take kids are given an exception from meeting some of the standard foster care rules, at least at first. Health and safety issues may have to be addressed, but they are given plenty of time to address those, with the kids living in their home. In one case we looked at, kids had been in a relative placement for about 2 years, with the relatives making changes to many issues, but there was one they simply decided they weren't going to do. After two years, and with that the last thing left to do, they told the state they refused to make that change (it was a long term health issue, having to do with water supply), and so the state then had to start looking for foster homes to send the kids to.
The first options are always family and friends. If something were to happen and Firebird's niece needed to be removed, firebird, when contacted, could say "We can't take her right now, but we have friends in the area who are licensed foster parents" and give them my information, and I would be the state's very next call.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 13:11:16 GMT -5
For people who work in the system, I have another question. Why is the legal goal of the social worker always automatically reunification? It seems like if the abuse is verifiable and severe enough, parents should really not be given second/third/fourth chances.
I can see why it would make sense in MOST situations to try to get the kids back with their families (especially given the home shortages) but it seems a little odd to me that the social worker is flat out NEVER supposed to work in the child's best interest, only toward a reunification plan. Curious about the reasoning behind that one.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 13:19:31 GMT -5
The first options are always family and friends. If something were to happen and Firebird's niece needed to be removed, firebird, when contacted, could say "We can't take her right now, but we have friends in the area who are licensed foster parents" and give them my information, and I would be the state's very next call.
That's really good to know. Especially since DN knows you and Pop Tart a little bit now.
It'll probably never come up (I hope not) but it's good to know all the same.
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Nov 25, 2014 13:22:32 GMT -5
Firebird- because living with the people you are bonded with is in general better, regardless of the health of that relationship, then being shuffled around from home to home. I'll have to go back and see if I can find it, but a few months ago, Casey Family Programs, a national foster child advocacy group, shared a new report that shows kids are better off being returned to their family home, even in cases of neglect.
However, that's not actually the reason, at least in WA. The reason is law suits. Law suits from families who said the state didn't work hard enough to help them get back their kid, law suits from former foster children who said their lives were screwed up based on foster care moves, having their families legal rights removed, etc. I'm not saying the law suits were right or wrong (though they won in the courts), and the state must absolutely act on those results. The legally mandated first option must ALWAYS be for reunification. (We were having to explain this to Mini Wheat just last week.) However, when it is known that that is not a real option, there is also concurrent planning that is done. A state social worker's job is to be an advocate for the FAMILY, not for any individual member of it. Parents get their own lawyer to be their advocate. Children under 13 get a GAL/CASA, 13+ get a lawyer, too. The state social worker's job is to look at the family as a whole and aim for reunification, or the best way to keep the family together in some fashion.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 13:27:47 GMT -5
A state social worker's job is to be an advocate for the FAMILY, not for any individual member of it. Parents get their own lawyer to be their advocate. Children under 13 get a GAL/CASA, 13+ get a lawyer, too. The state social worker's job is to look at the family as a whole and aim for reunification, or the best way to keep the family together in some fashion.
Got it. So basically in order for a child to be free for adoption, the court has to have determined that putting the family back together won't work? And at that point they're no longer trying to maintain contact between the kid and the family?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 25, 2014 13:27:42 GMT -5
I'm not really "in the system," but there is quite a bit of caselaw on the constitutional right to parent your child, absent extraordinary circumstances. Because terminating parental rights is an extreme remedy, there are a number of hoops to jump to get to that point, and the parent has to be afforded every possible opportunity to respond, to change behavior, etc. familyrights.us/bin/Constitutional_Rights_Parents.htm
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Nov 25, 2014 13:29:03 GMT -5
Here's a link to an article that mentions the studies I reference. Having problems finding the links to the actual studies. And note that the foster care system is TRYING to change based on these stories, but it costs MONEY, and foster care/dshs isn't something people often vote for more money for.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,506
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 25, 2014 13:37:45 GMT -5
So, did we ever find out the other side of the story - or are we still villanizing social services under the assumption that this lady is 100% truthful and objective about the situation?
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 13:39:49 GMT -5
So, did we ever find out the other side of the story - or are we still villanizing social services under the assumption that this lady is 100% truthful and objective about the situation? There is no real way to "find out the other side of the story" due to privacy laws but we've pretty much sussed out that the mother is probably leaving out a whole bunch of details in order to make herself look better, based on the knowledge of how these things work by people who work with the state on CPS cases.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,506
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 25, 2014 13:41:27 GMT -5
So, did we ever find out the other side of the story - or are we still villanizing social services under the assumption that this lady is 100% truthful and objective about the situation? There is no real way to "find out the other side of the story" due to privacy laws but we've pretty much sussed out that the mother is probably leaving out a whole bunch of details in order to make herself look better, based on the knowledge of how these things work by people who work with the state on CPS cases. Is that something you didn't know when you posted the link?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,433
|
Post by swamp on Nov 25, 2014 13:43:59 GMT -5
For people who work in the system, I have another question. Why is the legal goal of the social worker always automatically reunification? It seems like if the abuse is verifiable andy severe enough, parents should really not be given second/third/fourth chances. I can see why it would make sense in MOST situations to try to get the kids back with their families (especially given the home shortages) but it seems a little odd to me that the social worker is flat out NEVER supposed to work in the child's best interest, only toward a reunification plan. Curious about the reasoning behind that one. Because the legislature has decided that should be the goal
|
|