Child Abuse-Neglect Victims Guidance

[marlasmom]

I would appreciate it if the people who told me they have experience with GAL-CASA programs and other social services would write here or pm me. My major question is why is DCF so hell-bent on reunification where the parents have convincingly demonstrated that they do not want their children. I have a case where the mother was blown off 3 court appearances, has failed every drug test, has not seen the kids for 3 weeks and then only for 30 minutes, has not offered a dime in support. Yet they insist on giving her a case plan. I am wondering if we shouldn't just sever parental rights now while the children are young enough to be adoptable. What is the logic here? Do they hope the parents will make a turn-around?

You know I look at how my own grandchildren are nutured and cared for and at the people here who will do anything, everything for their kids and it just breaks my heart.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I can see your frustration... These situations are heartbreaking!!!!

The bottom line is, these policies and guidelines vary from State to State....

In our state, it used to be like what you are describing. The children stayed in the system FOREVER.

If I am right, in order to qualify for Federal Funds now, our State has had to make changes. They give the parents so much time. (18 months ?????) and then they HAVE to have a plan to move the child into 'permanent placement' (Adoption) After the 18 months, steps are taken to remove the parents rights.

Of course, this still leaves many older and special needs children in the system. They can be much harder to place.

 

[marlasmom]

Thanks. That may be it. I think it might be 12 months in Florida, but I have never heard that that is a hard and fast rule. My daughter has some friends in Cleveland who often babysit my grandaughter. They are wonderful with kids - she worked in a pre-school and directs the children's choir at church. They have passed their screenings in Ohio and were called to go to the hospital to see a baby with a 16 year old mother. They were so excited and then the members of the mother's church came to see her and convinced her it was a sin to give the baby up for adoption.

I knew I would be angry, but I didn't know how angry I would be at people who willfully abuse and neglect their children. This particular "mother" did both.

 

[va32h]

I never understood why the parents would insist that they wanted the children back.

The children that they found so frustrating that they would hit them. The children that they found so burdensome that they would completely ignore them or leave them with "friends" for days at a time.

Oh the parents would claim that they had "changed". But within weeks if not days, they'd be coming back to social services...."it's too hard", "what can you do to help me".

Some of these people just expect their kids to be like dolls that you can put in a cupboard when you are bored with it and take it out again when you want to play for awhile.

I know that's not an answer for you OP, but I understand your frustration.

 

[Snoopymom]

edited

 

[sammy66]

Here in Massachusetts, the DSS review board consists of the ongoing social worker, their superviser, two independent people, and the mothers lawyer. The foster parents can also attend. The lawyer for the children usually does not attend. ( my case, I am a foster aprent to two nieces, ((this is called kinship placement)). If the ongoing social worker is either arrogant and refuses to admit they can make a mistake in reunification, or is just plain dumb, they will argue for reunification. On the other hand, if the social worker is savvy and sees what goes on or realizes that reunification is a mistake, they will argue against it. Reunification, is always the initial goal though.

It is almost like saying that these poor neglected and abused kids either get help or no help, depending on what type of social worker they have. I know when a Guardian ad Litem is assigned, their review is done so quickly, that by the time the actual court date comes around, the sitution is usually not the same, like consistent visits, phone calls, and support.

Personally, I wonder why the bio parent or parents even want the children back, but then again, sometimes, it is either arrogance, or just plain stupidity. I mean really, how many times can you tell yourself that you are a good parent when you know that you are not.

Well, I could ramble forever, and I really have to go, I hope I answered your question. Please PM me if you would like,my opinion is my own, but I do have a lot to say on this subjec, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

Rachel

 

[CRB#33]

You know what MM?

I cannot believe you post things that should remain confidential.

I don't care that you're not using any names.

We know where you live, we know where you work. It doesn't take much more than that to figure out who you may be talking about.

Your lack of responsibility in regards to confidentiality scares me.

I work with children with issues also. And that's about all I would dare say on this board.

It's a matter of knowing what is right and what is wrong. I believe you are being irresponsibly wrong.

 

[tiggersmom2]

{{{HUGS}}} to you Marlasmom. It must be very frustrating to see these poor children being so neglected and feel like your hands are tied.

God bless you for trying to help these kids.

 

[snoopy]

My major question is why is DCF so hell-bent on reunification where the parents have convincingly demonstrated that they do not want their children.

Do you not have a direct supervisor or someone else who is working for this organization to go to for guidance? How about the person who assigned you the case? I'd start there.

 

[barkley]

You know what MM?

I cannot believe you post things that should remain confidential.

I don't care that you're not using any names.

We know where you live, we know where you work. It doesn't take much more than that to figure out who you may be talking about.

Your lack of responsibility in regards to confidentiality scares me.

I work with children with issues also. And that's about all I would dare say on this board.

It's a matter of knowing what is right and what is wrong. I believe you are being irresponsibly wrong.

i have to echo this sentiment. the op claims to be retired but is obviously working in some capacity with children and family services (possibly a volunteer through a private agency or support group?) because she states "i have a case" and "should WE sever parental rights". if you are involved in any capacity with child services it is illegal, immoral and unethical to discuss this case in any manner outside official channels. client confidentiality laws are very clear and specific in this matter. additionaly, if you have a family member or friend who is involved in a situation with child and family services you are mandated to notify your superior so that the case is coded as confidental within the bureau. providing any information on current or past cases (your experiences, judicial citings, past precidents) is illegal. only information that has been made public through a judicial order is available for review-and that is for their attorney to access during "discovery"-not for you to provide.

 

[Holly]

As someone who also works in child welfare, IMO the OP did nothing inappropriate by posting that vague scenario here.

DCF has (in many states) established a pretty firm 12 month reunification plan. If the parents have not made sufficient effort in that time period, their parental rights will, most likely, be terminated. One of the main reasons for this is to prevent children from languishing in the system for years. It is impossible for DCF to do any permanency planning if they are dealing with wishy washy parents who cannot decide if they want the responsibility of a child or not.

We know where you live, we know where you work. It doesn't take much more than that to figure out who you may be talking about.

Do you really have that much time on your hands?

 

[CRB#33]

Do I have that much time on my hands? (sarcasm ignored because I believe this is an important issue.)

Absolutely not. Marlasmom has made it very clear on this board exactly where she lives and what she does and where she works.

She posted personal information that would be considered confidential by many parties involved in that situation.

I am very well aware of what is considered confidential and what isn't and these days almost everything is considered private.

Barkley stated it very well and he/she is completely correct.

*edited to fix my double negative)

 

[inaminute]

We know where you live, we know where you work. It doesn't take much more than that to figure out who you may be talking about.

Do you really have that much time on your hands?

It takes no time to find the information: Marlasmom lives in Winter Park, FL (it's listed right there under her name). She works with DCF in Florida. That's right from her post.

I'm in agreement that these types of situations need to be kept private--even if names are not used. I felt the same way about a physician who posted about one of his patients. Sometimes, the little details are all one needs to determine who the players are.

 

[marlasmom]

Thanks. I am very cognizant of confidentiality regulations and I am very sure I have not broken any. If, however, you think you can figure out who my cases are, feel free to phone them and let them know.

Sammy 66 - it's hard to believe your adoption has taken so long. Do you have an update?

I am a volunteer guardian ad litem. We are required to see our children at least once a month, but can and do see them more often if we think it is necessary or wise. I have one case where the children have been taken in by a family member and she treats them wonderfully. They have gone from being filthy kids who wouldn't take their eyes from the floor to immaculately clean, happy and affectionate kids who, for the first time in their lives, are getting the required innoculations and regular meals and bedtimes. I am pretty new at this, but we are told that our opinion carries a great deal of weight with the court. I won't harrass the caregiver any more often than once a month - I don't need to - the kids are doing beautifully.

I have another case where the 16 year old mother truly loves her baby and takes pretty good care of her, but she is terribly immature and her living situation is abysmal. My case manager asks me regularly whether we should remove the child and put her/him in a foster home. I am very reluctant to separate a mother and child and this mother is a tiger when it comes to her baby. My responsibility is the children - not the parents - but I am trying very hard to help the mother make the right choices so she can get out from our supervision. I see her more often. I am specifically not allowed to transport children, but in this case I called my nurse daughter regarding a problem and she arranged to get a child to a doctor. The child was in tough shape, but all is ok now. Rumor has it the mother is pregnant again and my supervisor said - "oh, ok - job security" which was pretty funny. He was kidding of course - no one cares more about the kids than he does.

It's an old saying but so very true. You need a license to drive a car - even to go fishing, but so many unfit people have children.

The bureaocracy is terrible. I met a 10 year old child who has been in 65 foster homes. I figure if I can help even one child, it's all worth it, but it can be hairy.

 

[JerseyJanice]

Thanks. I am very cognizant of confidentiality regulations and I am very sure I have not broken any. If, however, you think you can figure out who my cases are, feel free to phone them and let them know.

How very cavalier of you!

Newsflash: even if no one figures out whom you're talking about, it's still not ethical for you to be posting details--all of which are confidential--about your cases on the internet.

I have another case where the 16 year old mother truly loves her baby and takes pretty good care of her, but she is terribly immature and her living situation is abysmal.

Rumor has it the mother is pregnant again

Aside from the other details in this passage, thanks to your post, that rumor has now been spread to--oh, I don't know. How many people read the DIS on any given afternoon? Somewhere in the 1,000's probably. That's mighty professional of you, I must say. (NOT!)

 

[nuke]

I certainly hope that 16 year old mother has no friends that like Disney and use the internet.

 

[CRB#33]

Thanks. I am very cognizant of confidentiality regulations and I am very sure I have not broken any. If, however, you think you can figure out who my cases are, feel free to phone them and let them know.

Oh.

My.

Gosh.

That's all you can say?

Holy Crow.

Take yourself off that perch you're on and start thinking about the children involved in this matter. They already have enough problems with the parents they have let alone it being broadcasted on a very active public message board.

It's wrong Barbara. Just plain wrong.

 

[marlasmom]

CRB33. Please explain. How can anybody possibly trace these people, who don't live in my town btw by the vague and disguised facts I have posted? Thanks.

 

[CRB#33]

Have you or have you not told the DIS where you work?

 

[marlasmom]

Nope. What difference would that make? I'm not trying to argue with you - just wondering why you are so adamant. I have talked to our lawyers and I feel safe, but what do you know that I don't. It could be plenty. I am very new at this.