Home | Links | Contact Us | Bookmark
Legal Forum Search :
   Homepage      News     Legal Directories      Legal Forum      Dictionary  
Legal Forum    Child Adoption
Legal Discussion Forum

 My biological 'daddy' just found out about my existence what shall i do?
my mother married my father at the age of sixteen she was in love a few years later he became abusive and violent towards her at the age of 20 she got pregnant and together my grandmother, auntie and ...

 How to make her 1st mom comfortable during her visit?
My daughter's 1st mom just called. She and her new husband are coming up on Friday. They will be spending the night in a motel and heading home Saturday afternoon. They want to see my daughter ...

 Is this true about adoption?
I read a while ago that women adoptees are more likely to want to get in touch with their first family while male adoptees focus more on their careers and tend not to care as much about getting in ...

 Adoption of a child please help me?
is there any body who is looking to put up their baby for adoption
or that knows of a place that we could adopt a child in michigan that dose not take forever??

please,please help me<...

 If I'm 18, can I either adopt or foster if my mom helps me?
I love children and I would love to help out the children who others can't.
Additional Details
my mom would only help because i still live at home....

 How does Foster-to-adoptions work ?
Foster-to-adopt' How does this work we have been told it is the easiest way to go about and we have a big chance getting a baby?!? really not negitave stuff.. I've been told i cant carry ...

 Do you think it is fair to let people foster/adopt?
when they have had previous abortions? Is it fair to let one raise another's child when they have terminated their own?
Additional Details
Independant...why is it that you bring ...

 Extended relatives, business relationships, neighbors and friends?
I hope I do this topic justice.....when being introduced I notice that people slip in with my one child the extra--and so and so's adopted. When I called into my insurance folks to check on ...

 What are the adoption procedure to adopt an orphan in India ?
It is my pleasure to write you. Let me first introduce myself. I am Hemant Uppadhyay, Age 29, Hindu by religion and Indian by nationality.

At present, I am working in an educational ...

 Does anyone else find this infuriating?
I understand that there are extreme cases... but this article just kinda burns me up....

please, help!!!!! I want to know where is the best adoption agency is in the dc/md/va area? who wants to give me the best answer, please help me out. I would love to adopt a newborn baby ...

 Adoptees: ABOUT YOU~~?
1) What avenue did you parents take to place/adopt you and what age?
2) Are you in an open/closed adoption?
3) What hurts you the most when in comes to being relinquished?
4) What ...

 How do parents on here feel about girls in college being looked at as fresh meat or prey?
Do you think its ethical for individuals and businesses to market or advertise for "egg donors" in exchange for money so they can pay off their tuition?

Would you prefer your ...

 For birthfathers or adoptees?
I am currently beginning the process of contacting my birthfather and I am curious.
For birthfathers:
If you have met your adopted children, what expectations did you have for the meeting? ...

 Can someone help me find info on american indian adoption?

 Anyone else unsettled in this? Do you think I am over reacting in being upset?
Ok so our foster son just got PC after five months. (long story short mom has a history with the agency and has lost 10 kids to them. Some adopted by family some adopted out they moved quickly on ...

 For people both for and against Adoption ?
a agree i read a question that another asked of anti adoption and know others have there own views but who else has adopted children like me that have been abused or used horribly that now have a ...

 Inform me...please! What is going on? Everyone in this section seems so anti adoption...I'm confused.?
I have been reading through the questions and answers in this section after I put my question about adoption on here & noted how many "anti adoption" responses I got.

It ...

 How do I find other adoptees in my area?
I've known only two adoptees in my life, one moved away and the other I've never got along with. Honestly, I'm sort of desperate to meet an adoptee I can get to know and maybe confide ...

 Aps....do you subconsciously hope or want your achild to feel guilt over your infertility?
Im listening to the show Runaways on msnbc and the runaway being profiled was adopted at 3days old. She said she is haunted by not knowing who her mother is as well as her identity.
She ...

Carnie C
How many chances should parents have before the court moves for TPR in foster care cases?
It seems like there are a lot of kids that languish in foster care throughout their lives. Mom does well for 6 months and then falls off the program and the cycle starts over again and again . . .

do you think that if a child has two placements in less than 3 years that TPR should be started immediately?

Do you think that a TPR should be started within 12 months (or sooner) if the bparents aren't making steady progress?

OR what do you think the TPR process should be for foster care?
Additional Details
for the purposes of this question, when a child is removed for abuse, drug abuse and neglect (i.e. not being fed, 4 year old left alone at home, etc).

There are many programs available for people to feed their children if they're poor so i'm not completely sold that children are being taken merely because they're poor. Foster Care here *tries* (but is overworked) to assist people in finding programs for them (WIC, Public Aid, Soup Kitchens, reduced priced food through co-op programs, etc); There are programs available to help people hone their job and interview skills; they assist with AODA issues as well.

I don't know but i'd be interested in hearing answers and comments related to this.

Show all answers
Post your answer

1 chance only. Who's to say they wont screw up again?

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

This is not a black and white issue. Sometimes it is better to give the parents more time to get it together...healing takes time! Sometimes you know they just aren't going to do it...they never show for visits, don't do their programming etc. etc.

By saying two placements, well what if the reason they are taking them is because of a...let's say mental health issue. Would the better thing then not to separate the child from mom, but get the mom mental health supports?

If removed for neglect, did they know what they did was wrong? Have they taken parenting classes? Perhaps the first apprehension was due to severe neglect. Over the course of the year, the mother takes classes and is on her way to a better life with her children. After she gets her kids back, she slips up one day and say forgets to send lunch to school. An overzealous social worker could apprehend again...so that is twice, but the second "offense" was just progressing from her problems of origin.

Yes there are cases where it is beyond obvious that the kids will be going permanent. So my answer to your question is that it has to be done case by case, nothing more northing less.

Let us not forget the big sixties scoop (1960-184) where they "scooped" copious amounts of Aboriginal children in Canada for many offenses that in fact were just different ways of living, and for people having problems stemming from discrimination and assimilation efforts causing mutil-generational impacts. So do we work towards reunifying all these families, or do we work towards sending more and more children for adoption?

We cannot make any bold policy statements, for fear of further marginalizing families and communities. This has to be balanced to best interest of the child, and then decisions can be made, with community and family inputs.

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

I like the idea of two placements in less than 3 years idea. Parents screw up that many times, it's better for the child to know that he/she is cared for and protected. If parents are that irresponsible, why should they keep getting more and more chances? The only one it's hurting is the child, and the only one it's "helping" is the slacker parent who, in today's system, is more important than the child. It's sad, really.

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

It all depends on the reason for the child's placement in foster care.

A child in foster care due to abuse is completely different from a child in foster care due to poverty. (The trend now is to use the word "neglect" when a child is simply poor, even though no evidence of true neglect is present).

So instead of trying to fund programs to lift people out of poverty (I know, this sounds suspiciously like WELFARE, yikes!), we spend million of dollars on putting kids in foster care. Guess what, we probably spend MORE money on foster care payments than if we spent money on reducing poverty and keeping families intact.

So what are we talking about here? Abuse, neglect, poverty, addiction? They are all different situations and it would be very dangerous to set a broad "2 strikes and you're out" standard. These types of generalized policies do more harm than good because individual circumstances are ignored.

(Obviously in abusive situations there should little leeway.)

ETA: The answers colored by white-privilege-tint glasses are always interesting.

"You have an appointment at 10 am Monday," be there or lose your kid. You realize that many people will be FIRED if they are not at work at 10 am on Monday? Glad to hear your employer offers a flexible work schedule, most do not.

Let's consider what other people often have to deal with:
-Miss work to visit your social worker: FIRED or LOST WAGES
-Clock-in twenty minutes because you rely on public transportation and the bus was late: FIRED or LOST WAGES
-Miss work because the babysitter cancelled: FIRED or LOST WAGES
-Miss work because the kid is sick: FIRED or LOST WAGES
-Leave the kid alone at home because you MUST be at work or you will be FIRED: neglect charge, put the kid in foster care.

Substance abuse / addiction is serious, buy why don't we put all of the children of alcoholics in foster care? How many high income alcoholics/addicts have had their children removed? Almost daily I see a wealthy businessman/athlete/celebrity telling their tale of alcohol, cocaine, heroin addiction - yet their children were never removed. Why is that?

Foster care is a class and racial issue. The children of rich folks never end up in foster care, no matter how lousy the parenting.

And the bandaid programs of WIC, soup kitchens, etc. provide temporary relief. They do not solve the fundamental problems of limited educational, daycare, medical, and employment opportunities. These areas must be addressed to prevent the need for foster care in the first place.

Again, abuse and true neglect are separate issues. No one is supportive of the idea of returning children to abusive homes.

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

Santa&#39;s Lil&#39; Helper
The problem as I see it is parenthood is not unlike a job.

You have one chance to get it right. If I fail to ship a part the manufacturing process is delayed but in the end the product is made. When I fail to give a child what it needs we can't start over from scratch...hence the damage is done. Children can not be placed on hold until parents get their act together. It takes years not months to overcome addictions and even then it is a daily struggle.

Why should a child wait while the parent learns to parent? That would like asking a math class to sit still until the teacher learns how to add and subtract. Would you be allowed to accept a job you are not unqualified just because you hope to learn as you go along? Of course not and children deserve no less then our best.

12 months tops. And in case of severe abuse and neglect immediate TPR on finding of the facts.

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

Looney Tunes
Severe abuse = immediately TPR
(The recidivism rate for sexual abuse is greater than 80%; these f^ckers can not be rehabilitated.)

1) Child in care 15 consecutive months of 18 months = TPR
2) A child who reunites to the bio- home; but is at any point later removed from the bio-home again = TPR

I know many of you are thinking that quicker TPR means a better shot at adoption for the child; that is not true. After TPR a permanency planning may aim for adoption as a goal; but let's face it, you still have the problem of no-one wanting to adopt older children. The average age that a child FIRST enters the foster care system ranges between 7-8 years old...............

Kids languish in the system because no-one wants to adopt older children; racial children, gay children, children with special needs, siblings, etc.

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

In the cases of abuse (physical, sexual), then IMO, there is no going back. I think parents rights should be terminated. It scares me to think what would have happened to my son if he'd been returned to his first mother. I have no doubt he would be dead. My son was removed at the age of 2 months and was made a Crown Ward No Access relatively quickly. Due to the severity of the abuse and the intent behind it, his original parents were never given a plan to work. They would never be given a chance to parent him again. I believe that was the right choice. I also don't believe that children should be in care for more than a year, regardless of the circumstances. 12 months is an appropriate amount of time for parents to get it together: either to get their financial house in order or their addictions under control. After 12 months then TPR proceedings should begin.

It may not be a popular opinion, but I do not believe that there should be any second chances for abusers. I believe whether it's through birth or adoption, parenting is a priviledge, not a right. You harm a child, you forfeit that priviledge. Kids have a right to be protected and safe and loved. If their original parents cannot provide that, then children should be placed with parents that will.

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

mom of many
there are laws on that. If they are in foster care (or not living with bio parent) for 15 out of the last 22 months, most times a social worker will start termination. every state has own laws on this. One lawyer told us the national average is 18 months. My state of wisconsin says 15 months. (I am adopting thru foster care)

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

Randy B
I would like to know that there is a clear cut off whereby "enough is enough" but I think the problem that we have is with the system that wants to preserve the family at any costs in many cases. Yes, there are those that will feel that they have not been given a chance in the past and perhaps that is the case. I'm not talking individual cases here, I'm talking in general.

Unfortunately for many of the children who have revolved around and around in the system people make the cases that they should be returned and that is what happens. I believe that families need to be preserved but not to the detriment of the children which is often the case. Parental rights seem to trump children's rights when people assume they are the same thing.

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

In Ontario, they do have guidelines set up for this. If a child is under the age of three, they cannot be in care for more than a year. When that year is up, and if the parent is not following their plan, then the case goes to court for CWNA (termination of rights). Now if the child goes home right at the end of that year and ends up back in care within a month, the process of another year starts all over again.
Hey, at least they are starting to recognize how non-permanency actually effects children in their primary years, but it certainly is not perfect.
But then again nothing in the fostercare system is perfect :(

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

Happily married
I whole-heartedly agree that if a child has been removed and placed in Foster Care 2 times in the span of 3 years that parental rights should be revoked. I am all for giving 2nd chances. We all screw up and we all make mistakes. Parents should definitely be given the opportunity to straighten themselves up and get their children back - for the sake of the child, parent and over-loaded system. However, if you neglect your children and get them taken away once and are lucky enough to get them back that should be the wake-up call. If a 2nd time the parents are neglectful enough for the state to step in then they're probably never going to really get their lives together. The children deserve better than to be tossed around from home to home because their parents are to irresponsible to give them a caring home.

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

In our state if a child is in care 18 out of 24 months TPR is taken it does not have to be consecutive months either

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

Heather B
I think each case should be taken on it's own merits and treated accordingly.

I think parents should not be sent away to 'shape up' without the appropriate support needed to achieve that.

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

I think it has to depend on the situation.

I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I support immediate TPR proceedings in physical or sexual abuse cases. Parental rights come with parental responsibilities, and abuse is about the most flagrant abandonment of those responsibilities possible, so continued rights should not be expected. Then there's the high recidivism rate (nearly 100% for sexual abuse, and high for physical abuse too.) Returning children to that situation is too much of a risk, of both physical and psychological harm.

Parents don't own their children-- children are separate people with their own right not to be harmed, and that right supersedes parental rights to custody. While I realize parents who abuse usually have triggers and causes in their own backgrounds, and that's unfortunate, the child's safety comes first. Someone who for whatever reason cannot control themselves enough to avoid abusing their child may be a sad case who deserves our pity, but is definitely NOT a fit guardian even so.

In no other situation would a victim be sent back to the person who battered, beat, assaulted, molested, or raped them. Especially when it's a parent who has extreme sway over a vulnerable child, we shouldn't be sending the victim back to the abuser, even if the abuser is a biological relative.

So yeah, one physical or sexual abuse conviction, and I think TPR proceedings should begin. It is never acceptable to physically harm your kids, and parents can't expect continued rights after doing so. And children shouldn't be put at risk of continued abuse.

In cases of neglect, addiction, etc., I think parents should get some time to clean up their act. How much time depends on their commitment to following their case plan.

For example, the mom who is told there are no spots available in rehab for the next six months and she will have to wait is playing a totally different ballgame from the mom who took six months of farting around to decide she wanted to follow her case plan at all... even if it took the two women the same amount of time to actually get into rehab. Parents who are making a genuine and demonstrable effort should get more time than parents who don't bother.

There will probably be setbacks, especially for parents struggling with addictions. That is to be expected. But the parent MUST make consistent effort toward meeting case goals. If the parent fails to try, or fails to make any progress toward case goals, it's time to start TPR proceedings.

It's not fair to the kids to leave them in limbo while the parents decide whether or not to even bother. Parenting is something you don't get endless time to make up your mind about. You either do your best to take responsibility... or you don't, and you lose your chance. I don't expect the parents to be perfect, but I do expect them to step up and try. Consistently. From the beginning. Or TPR.

Even if the parents are trying, they can't get an endless amount of time. At some point, the children need permanence, and the courts will have to say "Enough is enough." But when that end point comes should vary based on whether the parents are trying or not, whether they're meeting at least some goals, and their level of motivation.

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

I do not think a child should be in custody after three years.....if mom and/or dad are not working their treatment plan and do not have reunification well under way by that point...then there is no reason to maintain a child in state custody and adoption needs to be the next step. The state is never a good parent and we all know children age and when they age their hour of opportunity of being adopted moves on.

So....I think the 15 out of the last 22 months is a good "rule" of thumb. Not the almighty law....but a good place to look.

I have worked with many children and the underlying cause of "most" of them is abuse related. I have not ever placed a child who was removed "just because" their parent did not feed them due to poverty. Maybe the parent sold their food stamps for drugs, or the parent was battling mental health issues and they themselves did not eat....but never stone-cold-poverty-related lack of food.

IMO, the state offers much in the way of services and happily of late, we are sending more children home with parents than we are keeping in care.

I do not feel as though we can narrow the scope solely on the number of placements the child has had in a given time period. There are challenging children who have had more than three in a year...but it is not their fault and it is not the n/parents fault. TPR should lean only on the progress the parent(s) have made on their TX plan.


Here is a link that I think will show every state and the implications the American Safe Families Act (mandates related to TPR) made in each.


Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

Quite frankly, (and I'm spewing here, because I get mad at situations), I think some of the original parents ought to be steralized as part of their treatments, if they have had their children taken 2 times for either abuse or neglect (not the poverty thing-3 times for that one-there's really not an excuse with all the help).

If the parents make the choice of doing the drugs, instead of taking care of their kids, and fails 2 times, then take the children. It's not fair to have any little excuse come in and then they do the drugs again, and again. Drugs endanger kids, and they can't be safe parents if they're using. For anyone who is pregnant and uses, and the baby shows up positive for drugs, at lease, for God's sake, if they wish at that time to get steralized, don't make them wait for 30 days! Let them have it done THEN.

I agree that kids should be with biological parents in many ways, but only if it's beneficial to the children. To me, if the biological parents don't care enough about their kids to get the help, to ask for the help, or at least to show up when someone says, "You have an appointment at 10 am Monday," then they don't deserve to be parents. The harm that the volleyball game of bouncing back and forth is worse than doing TPR. I do think that in the case that parental rights are terminated, that the children should have the contact information at age 18 for neglect, and probably for drug use, depending on the situation, and at age 26 for the severe abuse cases. At 18, there can still be immaturity not able to deal with the severe abuse, but at 26, the "child" (now adult) can deal with most situations.

Yes, I know I'm tough, but the kids deserve better

Was this answer helpful to you?  Yes  /  No

Archive: Forum - Forum - Links - Links1 - Links2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
Trusted legal information for you. 0.044
Copyright (c) 2007-2010 Find Legal Advice Thursday, July 30, 2015 - All rights reserved - Terms of use - Privacy Policy