Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 13:45:53 GMT -5
Is that something you didn't know when you posted the link?
Yes. I pretty much took the story at face value initially. Bad Firebird.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,506
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 25, 2014 13:46:18 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 Because otherwise, we would have a bunch of poor people running around saying that their babies got taken away from them. Parental severance doesn't just happen - it is a long, hard process and parents are given every opportunity to keep their kids. Something to do with the constitution and stuff?
|
|
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 13:49:10 GMT -5
Because the legislature has decided that should be the goal Because otherwise, we would have a bunch of poor people running around saying that their babies got taken away from them. Parental severance doesn't just happen - it is a long, hard process and parents are given every opportunity to keep their kids. Something to do with the constitution and stuff? Yes, that dang pesky constitution.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 25, 2014 13:49:58 GMT -5
In the words of my boss: "Constitution, schmonstitution" ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png)
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 13:59:32 GMT -5
Wait a second - so this is a huge undertaking for a pair of grandparent - but a cakewalk for a 10 year old to step in and assume responsibility for hours each day on her own?
Who said it was a cakewalk (or remotely appropriate) for a 10 year old to parent/supervise three kids ages 5-9 every day? No one, as far as I can tell.
|
|
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 14:00:21 GMT -5
I think one of the things to remember is that in the past, (and sometimes the not too distant past), the government has taken away parental rights when it wasn't appropriate, it has made decisions based on beliefs about the "good of the child" that were widely held at the time and that we now cringe at (forcibly removing Native children and placing them in schools or families had cultural genocide as their goals, placing children of color in white homes with no thought or planning for allowing the child's culture to be explored). And even the most recent law suit by foster children against WA state which had to do with how many homes they were placed in during their time in foster care. The state now has a mandate about how often it can move kids around. In some cases, this is resulting in kids living in group homes instead of foster family homes, and that's not always the best situation, but it is better than having kids live in 10+ different homes over 8 years (say 10-18), which sadly, isn't an exaggeration of what was happening.
I am, believe it or not from my responses, sympathetic to this mother. Our child welfare system is absolutely not perfect, and we still need to be striving to improve it. More and more child welfare services are moving in the direction of NOT removing kids unless absolutely necessary. (If you follow the Casey Family Programs FB page, you can find all sorts of articles about how different states are doing this.) But sometimes, kids do need to be removed. And the requirements for getting them back are absolutely NOT arbitrary decisions by random social workers (as this mother would try and have us believe). They are based on court orders. And, again, the state social workers assigned to her case, actually have, as their primary duty, reunification. They want to HELP her get her kids back, not hinder it. At the same time, they MUST follow court orders, so if she violates a court order, yes, they will drive 100 miles and get help from local law enforcement to uphold that order.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 3:53:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 14:00:36 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. and what if, in order to take in those 4 kids, you had to make major changes to your household (bedrooms, etc.) or move to a place that would allow you to qualify as a foster?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,506
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 25, 2014 14:01:17 GMT -5
Who said the grandparents are in their 50's or 60's? They could be 43.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 3:53:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 14:09:10 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. 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. and what if, in order to take in those 4 kids, you had to make major changes to your household (bedrooms, etc.) or move to a place that would allow you to qualify as a foster? Unless I was physically unable, I would probably do what I had to do to keep them, but that's just me. YMMV. And are we certain Grandparents have to be certified as foster parents? I know my aunt crammed those kids in the first year. Then they bought a new, larger house.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 14:11:40 GMT -5
Who said the grandparents are in their 50's or 60's? They could be 43.
That would make both them and their daughter teen parents... I guess it's possible. But would two 43 year olds who had a daughter at 15/16 be well prepared/equipped to take on an extra four children at that point in their life? It sounds unlikely to me.
And anyway, four kids is a huge undertaking for anyone at any point in their life. It's one thing if they're your children and you chose to have them - very different if you didn't (and wouldn't have) chosen that many kids for yourself but feel obligated to take them in because they're family.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 14:15:09 GMT -5
And are we certain Grandparents have to be certified as foster parents? I know my aunt crammed those kids in the first year. Then they bought a new, larger house. shanendoah addressed this in an earlier post. Family and friends are given more leeway than normal foster parents if they're taking the kids in an emergency situation. They have more time to meet standard foster care home requirements and they can make modifications while the kids are living with them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 3:53:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 14:16:31 GMT -5
That would make both them and their daughter teen parents... I guess it's possible. But would two 43 year olds who had a daughter at 15/16 be well prepared/equipped to take on an extra four children at that point in their life? It sounds unlikely to me. As an almost 46 year old, you're starting to piss me off. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png)
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,372
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Nov 25, 2014 14:18:05 GMT -5
That would make both them and their daughter teen parents... I guess it's possible. But would two 43 year olds who had a daughter at 15/16 be well prepared/equipped to take on an extra four children at that point in their life? It sounds unlikely to me. As an almost 46 year old, you're starting to piss me off. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png) You are at a certain point in your life.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 25, 2014 14:19:29 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? we found out nothing, but we are on to villainizing the mother instead ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png) Is it villanizing to be skeptical?
|
|
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 14:21:15 GMT -5
minnesotapaintlady - Yes and no. If the state (and therefore the court) has to get involved, then the home does EVENTUALLY need to become foster licensed. However, since keeping kids with family is a major goal, kids can be placed in family custody immediately, with a plan in place to meet foster care requirements.
The only experience I have had in which someone needed to become foster licensed first was a couple in our PRIDE training, 5 or so years ago. They were contacted during a relative search by a different state when a half sibling he didn't even know he had was taken into state care. They were absolutely willing to take this child into their home, but due to either that state's laws, or the fact that the kid would be being placed out of state, they needed to get their foster care license first. I know our state was helping them fast track through the system.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 3:53:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 14:23:32 GMT -5
Wait a second - so this is a huge undertaking for a pair of grandparent - but a cakewalk for a 10 year old to step in and assume responsibility for hours each day on her own?
Who said it was a cakewalk (or remotely appropriate) for a 10 year old to parent/supervise three kids ages 5-9 every day? No one, as far as I can tell. 4 kids for a pair of grandparent is a huge enterprise, but it was fine to leave the 10 year old in charge for - let's say - 3 hours 3/4 times a week? That still doesn't make any sense to me. I don't agree with a 10 year old babysitting three kids, but 3 hours of watching TV and keeping the siblings occupied is not exactly equivalent to the responsibility of full-time child care.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 14:23:21 GMT -5
As an almost 46 year old, you're starting to piss me off.Sorry, it was nothing against 46 year olds being parents. thyme4change suggested that the grandparents could be in their early 40s. I don't think that would necessarily make it a whole lot easier. If I had a kid at 15 and spent the next 18 years raising it, even in the best case scenario I seriously doubt I would be in a financial position to take four extra kids practically the second my daughter (who had also been a teen mom) finally got on her feet with her husband. I'm trying to imagine myself in that scenario. I had a kid at 15, then my kid had a kid at 15. I'm now 43. I finally have time to focus on my career, catch up on my retirement savings, etc. Whoops, my kid is screwing up so bad that the state is about to take her four kids. Suddenly I have to start all over again (again). I started way behind the eight ball and literally never had a chance to catch up. Sure, I have age on my side since I'm still at an age where a lot of people become parents, but I've also spent the past 20+ years raising babies. I probably still don't make much money due to that. It just doesn't strike me as an ideal time to start over.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 14:27:09 GMT -5
4 kids for a pair of grandparent is a huge enterprise, but it was fine to leave the 10 year old in charge for - let's say - 3 hours 3/4 times a week?
I don't understand your point. No one said a 10 year old was an adequate parent figure for 3 kids. How does that have any bearing on whether it's a huge undertaking for the grandparents?
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Nov 25, 2014 14:29:03 GMT -5
Who said the grandparents are in their 50's or 60's? They could be 43. I thought the story said she was 35? I would hope they would be at least in their 50's.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 14:29:38 GMT -5
I am too. But - she'd be better off owning to whatever shortcomings resulted in this situation and try to improve them and learn and move on, rather than stew on her victimhood. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yeahthat.gif)
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Nov 25, 2014 14:32:12 GMT -5
Who said the grandparents are in their 50's or 60's? They could be 43.
That would make both them and their daughter teen parents... I guess it's possible. But would two 43 year olds who had a daughter at 15/16 be well prepared/equipped to take on an extra four children at that point in their life? It sounds unlikely to me. And anyway, four kids is a huge undertaking for anyone at any point in their life. It's one thing if they're your children and you chose to have them - very different if you didn't (and wouldn't have) chosen that many kids for yourself but feel obligated to take them in because they're family. but ok for a 10 year old ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/tongue2.png) Well depending on the spacing of the 2 middle kids, it could be the oldest 3 making sure the youngest doesn't die ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) . The older 2 being in charge of the younger 2. Or the Oldest being in charge of the youngest 3. It really depends on the ages - if they are 10, 9, 8 and 5 - then the oldest 3 would all be legally allowed to stay home alone in my state. If they are 10, 9, 7, 5 - then the second scenario is more likely. If they are 10, 7, 6, and 5, then the third is probably likely. But there is a difference between watching kids for a couple hours and being the parental authority 24/7, grocery shopping, paying bills, keeping a roof over their head, regular baths, regular meals, etc. I agree 100% with this statement by you: Frankly, if you just got your kids back and one of the conditions was keeping them in school. Then you up and move and delay enrolling them back in school, you are asking for trouble. No matter how "unreasonable" the authorities might be, you are not making a smart decision (IMO).
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 14:33:38 GMT -5
The gist of the OP was that this wasn't such a huge deal to leave the 10 year old in charge of 3 siblings - but then expect grandparent to step in in an emergency situation is asking way too much.
I never, ever said that leaving the 10 year old with the younger siblings was okay to do. I specifically said I disagreed with that choice and considered it wrong/very poor judgment. And NO ONE said that a 10 year old should be parenting his siblings full time (even the ones who said leaving him with them once in awhile for a short time was probably okay).
So basically, no one is even remotely suggesting that a 10 year old was fully capable of taking this burden on and therefore it should be no big deal for the grandparents to do so. I don't know what you think I'm saying.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 14:39:23 GMT -5
Also, I don't necessarily think it's "asking too much" for the grandparents to step up in an emergency situation. One hopes most grandparents would at least try. It's just that I can easily picture a LOT of scenarios where that was NOT a reasonable thing to ask of them. I'm not going to judge the grandparents because they (maybe) didn't leap up to take four kids into their home on a moment's notice for who knows how long. We don't even know for sure that they didn't try. And I can also imagine it being reasonable for them to not even try. Anyway, we're supposed to be judging the mother not the grandparents ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/tongue2.png)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 3:53:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 14:40:58 GMT -5
As an almost 46 year old, you're starting to piss me off.Sorry, it was nothing against 46 year olds being parents. thyme4change suggested that the grandparents might be in their 40s. I don't think that would necessarily make it a whole lot easier. If I had a kid at 15 and spent the next 18 years raising it, even in the best case scenario I seriously doubt I would be in a financial position to take four extra kids practically the second my daughter (who had also been a teen mom) finally got on her feet with her husband. I'm trying to imagine myself in that scenario. I had a kid at 15, then my kid had a kid at 15. I'm now 43. I finally have time to focus on my career, catch up on my retirement savings, etc. Whoops, my kid is screwing up so bad that the state is about to take her four kids. Suddenly I have to start all over again (again). I started way behind the eight ball and literally never had a chance to catch up. Sure, I have age on my side since I'm still at an age where a lot of people become parents, but I've also spent the past 20+ years raising babies. I probably still don't make much money due to that. It just doesn't strike me as an ideal time to start over. I can't imagine myself in a lot of scenarios, but one thing I've learned is life rarely goes as planned.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 14:42:34 GMT -5
I can't imagine myself in a lot of scenarios, but one thing I've learned is life rarely goes as planned.
Well, yeah. This is all hypothetical anyway. We don't know what happened. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't suggesting people in their 40s shouldn't become parents. Only that I could see it being difficult to impossible for some people, depending on circumstances. Really regardless of age. Being younger could be an advantage, but could also be a major minus in a lot of ways.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Nov 25, 2014 14:45:57 GMT -5
Here's another thing that comes up for me - what if (for whatever reason) the grandparents were not equipped for more than, say, two kids? Like if their house isn't big enough and they don't have the financial resources to build or move.
So they can take two kids and two kids get turned over to the state. How the heck do you choose which of your two grandchildren get to live with you and which two get to go into foster care where anything could happen to them?
As hard as it would be to live with myself for not taking all the kids, I think that taking only a couple of them would almost be worse in some ways. That's another reason I could understand the grandparents saying "No, we can't take the children."
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Nov 25, 2014 14:48:26 GMT -5
It said that the grandparents lived 100 miles away. Maybe they wanted the kids to stay in the same school. Having their dad die, I think they would want to keep as much continuity in the kids' lives as possible.
|
|
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 15:02:11 GMT -5
We will only ever hear another side to this story of the kids one day wish to talk about it. The state, due to privacy reasons, will never be able to discuss it, and the court documents, because they deal with minors, are not open to public/journalistic discovery.
I am not trying to villainize the mother. However, I did point out areas in her letter where I felt she was telling us the technical truth without sharing the full scope of the situation. (As in the kids weren't removed BECAUSE of absenteeism from school and therefore, in her mind, she shouldn't have had rules about getting them to school.)
My goal was not so much as to paint her as a bad guy as to defend the system. The system is by no means perfect, but it is not arbitrary or fickle, and the social workers involved are not in it for a power trip.
|
|
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 15:15:44 GMT -5
Lizard Queen - It's often a balancing act. However, the state will prioritize continuity of FAMILY care over continuity of school, because keeping kids with people with whom they already have relationships as their primary caregivers is more important than maintaining teaching or friendship relationships.
We can't know what happened with the grandparents because the mom doesn't mention them until the point at which she moves in with them, right before having the kids taken away a second time. I would expect that the state reached out to them, and for whatever reason, it wasn't possible for them to take the kids.
I also want to say, that I would bet my house that NO ONE involved in taking the kids away that second time (not the social worker who drove 100 miles to do it, nor the sheriff's deputies who took part in it) was happy about doing so, even wanted to be there. This absolutely would have been their last choice scenario. BUT they don't have the power to decide what court orders must be followed to the letter and which ones can be let slide. That is absolutely a slippery slope we don't want individuals taking on. So. Mom violated court order. Social worker and law enforcement responded as they were required to by court order. It sucks. But the mom paints that scenario as if the social worker looked forward to doing this to her, as if this is what the social worker was just waiting for - a chance to drive 100 miles, gather up some cops and drag screaming kids out of a house, only to have to drive 100 miles back, this time with the traumatized kids, to the county of jurisdiction. From the way the letter was written, it seemed as if, in the mom's mind, the social workers wanted to do this. I have no problems stating unequivocally that that was not the case.
|
|
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 19:49:49 GMT -5
I know a lot of caseworkers and can guarantee I have never met one that enjoys removing kids from their parents.
|
|