Shocking Information about TPR

[illinoisgranny]

My daughter showed up today for a family meeting that was canceled and gave me a shocking piece of information and I'm livid!

She was offered a deal arranged by her lawyer and the judge before her TPR hearing on the 24th of June to regain custody of her infant son who is with another foster family if she would voluntarily sign surrenders to me on her son who lives with me.

How can a judge say that a parent is unfit to parent one child and then send an infant back home? This smacks of corruption and backroom deals to me. I'm beyond furious. Even though I don't foster my infant grandson anymore, I love him dearly and he would not be safe with my daughter. She told me today that her boyfriend still uses crack cocaine and the judge was well aware of the fact.

What is the world coming to?

[Katwoman]

I honestly think your daughter is yanking your chain. Whether it's from denial about the whole situation or her wanting you to suffer for some reason. It's ridiculous to believe that the the system knows her boyfriend still uses and has access to children and still allows the baby to go back home. (I'm not calling you ridiculous of course, simply that she would say that like it's true.) Although maybe there not living together? Maybe that makes a difference, but I can't see how.

As for letting the infant go home, I wonder what the conditions are. The law requires timeframes for parents to get themselves together. Perhaps the timeframe has run out for the grandchild still living with you, but not for the infant? That doesn't mean she has free access and no oversight. Simply that all things must be tried before terminating her rights to the baby.

I'm sorry this is so upsetting for you. Children really get the short end of the stick in our system - because of parents rights.

[illinoisgranny]

Originally Posted by Katwoman

I honestly think your daughter is yanking your chain. Whether it's from denial about the whole situation or her wanting you to suffer for some reason. It's ridiculous to believe that the the system knows her boyfriend still uses and has access to children and still allows the baby to go back home. (I'm not calling you ridiculous of course, simply that she would say that like it's true.) Although maybe there not living together? Maybe that makes a difference, but I can't see how.

As for letting the infant go home, I wonder what the conditions are. The law requires timeframes for parents to get themselves together. Perhaps the timeframe has run out for the grandchild still living with you, but not for the infant? That doesn't mean she has free access and no oversight. Simply that all things must be tried before terminating her rights to the baby.

I'm sorry this is so upsetting for you. Children really get the short end of the stick in our system - because of parents rights.

I know it may seem unbelievable but I checked with some foster families in my county and it does happen! Judges here have made deals to send one child home all the while knowing conditions had not improved....is it something like plea bargaining? I don't know but I do think it's horribly wrong.

[Sierra]

I am guessing it is a mix of truth and fiction. I know sometimes when progress is very slow and the situation is very bad, social workers and judges try to get parents to focus on children who have not been in the system for as long. Sometimes as a part of this they encourage voluntary relinquishment of older children, for whom there is little hope that the parenting relationship can be salvaged. They argue (and with cause) that when parents show that they can consider the best interests of the older child, not just their own needs, that this increases their ability to argue that they can parent the younger child. In other words, by voluntarily relinquishing on an older child, they are able to show they can put a child's needs above their own. It is an ugly truth, and not something that ought to be done in an ideal world, but it does in some cases help ensure older children don't languish in the system while parents endlessly make insignificant progress. It also sometimes increases the chance the parent will be able to succeed in making changes for the younger child. It is admittedly coercive, however.

All that said, I doubt they promised return of the younger child until things improved. I imagine that they truthfully told her she was jeopardizing her case with the younger child by her inability to do what was best for the older child. I imagine they did strongly encourage her to voluntarily relinquish on the older, and that they did tell her this was likely the last chance she had to get the younger child back. I am willing to bet that she still has a long road ahead to reunification with the younger child, even if she does go through with relinquishment of the older child.

However, I should say that I have seen cases in which different children were allowed to return home based on ages of the children. In all those cases, certain ages were considered risk factors based on parental history. If a parent seems to handle one age better than another, I have seen this be considered by judges.

[illinoisgranny]

Originally Posted by Sierra

I am guessing it is a mix of truth and fictuion. I know sometimes when progress is very slow and the situation is very bad, social workers and judges try to get parents to focus on children who have not been in the system for as long. Sometimes as a part of this they encourage voluntary relinquishment of older children, for whom there is little hope that the parenting relationship can be salvaged. They argue (and with cause) that when parents show that they can consider the best interests of the older child, not just their own needs, that this increases their ability to argue that they can parent the younger child. In other words, by voluntarily relinquishing on an older child, they are able to show they can put a child's needs above their own. It is an ugly truth, and not something that ought to be done in an ideal world, but it does in some cases help ensure older children don't languish in the system while parents endlessly make insignificant progress. It also sometimes increases the chance the parent will be able to succeed in making changes for the younger child. It is admittedly coercive, however.

All that said, I doubt they promised return of the younger child until things improved. I imagine that they truthfully told her she was jeopardizing her case with the younger child by her inability to do what was best for the older child. I imagine they did strongly encourage her to voluntarily relinquish on the older, and that they did tell her this was likely the last chance she had to get the younger child back. I am willing to bet that she still has a long road ahead to reunification with the younger child, even if she does go through with relinquishment of the older child.

However, I should say that I have seen cases in which different children were allowed to return home based on ages of the children. In all those cases, certain ages were considered risk factors based on parental history. If a parent seems to handle one age better than another, I have seen this be considered by judges.

Sierra, what you said makes a lot of sense to me. My daughter said that her lawyer told her she had little to no chance of getting my older grandchild back, so maybe they wanted to see if she loves him enough to let him go. This is one of the reasons why I think it is a terrible disservice to foster parents not to let us into the courtroom.....at least in Illinois we're not welcome....not until they want us there and only when we have to testify.

I do think there is some coercion going on but my daughter is very stubborn and it may take just that to get her to her senses. It's such an ordeal to see the girl I raised, my daughter, make such a mess of her life and her children's lives.

I keep a plaque on my desk that is a quote from Mother Teresa (my first name is Theresa and I adored her)

"I know God won't give me anything I can't handle. I just wish he didn't trust me so much." AMEN to that!

[Thandiwe]

Originally Posted by Sierra

I am guessing it is a mix of truth and fictuion. I know sometimes when progress is very slow and the situation is very bad, social workers and judges try to get parents to focus on children who have not been in the system for as long. Sometimes as a part of this they encourage voluntary relinquishment of older children, for whom there is little hope that the parenting relationship can be salvaged. They argue (and with cause) that when parents show that they can consider the best interests of the older child, not just their own needs, that this increases their ability to argue that they can parent the younger child. In other words, by voluntarily relinquishing on an older child, they are able to show they can put a child's needs above their own. It is an ugly truth, and not something that ought to be done in an ideal world, but it does in some cases help ensure older children don't languish in the system while parents endlessly make insignificant progress. It also sometimes increases the chance the parent will be able to succeed in making changes for the younger child. It is admittedly coercive, however.

Reading this makes my stomach turn. Basically, this happened to us. Two older sibs in the system, basically non-existant progress on the treatment plan. New baby was due in a couple of months, so it was a "behind the scenes" discussion between old case social worker and parents. "If you sign off voluntarily, a judge will be more likely to consider letting you fight for this one." So, they discarded the old and focused on the new. Like an old pair of jeans, not the two children who had been severely abused and neglected and witnessed horrors all their lives. So when tpr should have happened in our case, the ref and the prosecutor said, "Sure, let em try." In the meantime, true progress has not happened. The major issues still exist. On the surface, we can tick off therapy, classes, and visitation. But what of a home? A job? Independence? Lack of substances? Legal troubles?

I do agree, though, that even if this is sort of what happened with your daughter, I believe she may have twisted it around some, the truth that is. I know in our case, the mother has a way of saying things so matter of factly that I believe she truly believes them. However, the truth is often far from it. For example: "So, I could potentially get baby for overnights for Christmas at our next hearing?" she asked the social worker. SW: "If a judge ordered it, it would happen. But I will not be recommending it." Mom: "So, if the judge says I can, then I can?" SW: "Yes, if the judge orders it, it would happen. But it's highly unlikely." That became, she is getting baby for Christmas. We went through this on every single holiday the first year. Heck, she still has clothes from baby's birthday from family members because she "is getting her back at the next hearing." What I mean is, there is some true mental delusion, and the truth gets all twisted around.

How frustrating for you. Have you considered boundaries regarding talking to your daughter? I don't know what that would look like for you, but I know when I was pregnant this past winter and baby's family wouldn't stop bugging me with updates that stressed me out even more, I had to send them a direct message saying, "Please don't. Call the social worker with any updates." I just couldn't do it anymore. It stressed me more getting excited, then being let down. It's really, really hard when you know the parents separate of the case. It's hard anyways, but knowing them separately is that much harder.

((hugs))

[illinoisgranny]

Originally Posted by Thandiwe

Reading this makes my stomach turn. Basically, this happened to us. Two older sibs in the system, basically non-existant progress on the treatment plan. New baby was due in a couple of months, so it was a "behind the scenes" discussion between old case social worker and parents. "If you sign off voluntarily, a judge will be more likely to consider letting you fight for this one." So, they discarded the old and focused on the new. Like an old pair of jeans, not the two children who had been severely abused and neglected and witnessed horrors all their lives. So when tpr should have happened in our case, the ref and the prosecutor said, "Sure, let em try." In the meantime, true progress has not happened. The major issues still exist. On the surface, we can tick off therapy, classes, and visitation. But what of a home? A job? Independence? Lack of substances? Legal troubles?

I do agree, though, that even if this is sort of what happened with your daughter, I believe she may have twisted it around some, the truth that is. I know in our case, the mother has a way of saying things so matter of factly that I believe she truly believes them. However, the truth is often far from it. For example: "So, I could potentially get baby for overnights for Christmas at our next hearing?" she asked the social worker. SW: "If a judge ordered it, it would happen. But I will not be recommending it." Mom: "So, if the judge says I can, then I can?" SW: "Yes, if the judge orders it, it would happen. But it's highly unlikely." That became, she is getting baby for Christmas. We went through this on every single holiday the first year. Heck, she still has clothes from baby's birthday from family members because she "is getting her back at the next hearing." What I mean is, there is some true mental delusion, and the truth gets all twisted around.

How frustrating for you. Have you considered boundaries regarding talking to your daughter? I don't know what that would look like for you, but I know when I was pregnant this past winter and baby's family wouldn't stop bugging me with updates that stressed me out even more, I had to send them a direct message saying, "Please don't. Call the social worker with any updates." I just couldn't do it anymore. It stressed me more getting excited, then being let down. It's really, really hard when you know the parents separate of the case. It's hard anyways, but knowing them separately is that much harder.

((hugs))

I don't know for sure about that supposed deal, but I talked to the foster family who has my youngest grandson and they were told that the adjudication hearing for him was delayed because they didn't want to lose him if the TPR failed (which it did on June 24, thanks to an inept caseworker who lacked enough documentation to back her statements). Why would they have lost him over a failed TPR if there wasn't a deal in the works? I don't know for sure, but it may be very likely that there would have been conditions and goals she would have to have met.

It is very hard having a familial relationship with a daughter who abused her own child. I am trying right now to bring some boundaries into our relationship. Our former caseworker pushed me into doing weekly supervision of visits and it was almost impossible to have any boundaries like that.

She would often spend large amounts of visit time complaining to me how I stole her son away from her, told my DH that she wouldn't shed a tear if I died, would never willingly walk in my door again, on and on and on. And of course the cruel remark "I hate you". I told the caseworker about 2 months ago that I would not do any more visits, at least not for a while. Then our case got transferred to a newbie caseworker fresh out of college. She did two visits and then I got a call from her saying we had to have a family meeting to set up visits AT MY HOUSE with ME supervising! Not only for my grandson, but also for my infant grandson who is in another foster home now. (He was with me until February of this year but I couldn't handle both boys with my health issues).

It's very hard to place boundaries when my caseworker keeps sabotaging my efforts. Our team meeting was to have been Friday, but the caseworker canceled at the last minute and told my daughter to come on over and have her visit! I found our state's DCFS rules and it states "Foster parents are not required to supervise visits and should not agree unless they feel comfortable with the situation and know the supervisor has approved."

Guess what I'm going to be telling everyone at our family meeting???? I WILL NOT SUPERVISE ANY MORE VISITS!!!

[IncompetentHousewife]

Good for you for resolving to be firm with stating you will no longer supervise.

In our case going to trial soon, our worker thinks there could be a last-minute plea bargain in which the mother would give up rights to the baby we're fostering in order to keep visitation of her older children (she already gave up custody). The difference is the older children are with their father who seems to be providing adequate care. Mom is living with the baby's father — different guy — who has a severe criminal and psychiatric history. For baby to go home it wouldn't be safe, but the olders are assumed safe.

It does seem so unjust to "trade" children for custody and discard them like an old pair of jeans. I'm still trying to get used to everyone talking about my foster child as if he is a "case" and not a person.

[Thandiwe]

Originally Posted by illinoisgranny

It is very hard having a familial relationship with a daughter who abused her own child. I am trying right now to bring some boundaries into our relationship. Our former caseworker pushed me into doing weekly supervision of visits and it was almost impossible to have any boundaries like that.

She would often spend large amounts of visit time complaining to me how I stole her son away from her, told my DH that she wouldn't shed a tear if I died, would never willingly walk in my door again, on and on and on. And of course the cruel remark "I hate you". I told the caseworker about 2 months ago that I would not do any more visits, at least not for a while. Then our case got transferred to a newbie caseworker fresh out of college. She did two visits and then I got a call from her saying we had to have a family meeting to set up visits AT MY HOUSE with ME supervising! Not only for my grandson, but also for my infant grandson who is in another foster home now. (He was with me until February of this year but I couldn't handle both boys with my health issues).

It's very hard to place boundaries when my caseworker keeps sabotaging my efforts. Our team meeting was to have been Friday, but the caseworker canceled at the last minute and told my daughter to come on over and have her visit! I found our state's DCFS rules and it states "Foster parents are not required to supervise visits and should not agree unless they feel comfortable with the situation and know the supervisor has approved."

Guess what I'm going to be telling everyone at our family meeting???? I WILL NOT SUPERVISE ANY MORE VISITS!!!

This is nuts! See, I wanted visits in my home before we moved, so that the strain would be relieved on me (it was an hour away from our home at the time). I was told that, though the courts wouldn't prevent it, it was not encouraged by anyone involved because it is a possible scenario where appeals could win. Basically, it could be argued that, with me - the primary caregiver - present, mom couldn't adequately bond with child and have unimpeded time with her. Therefore, her right to visitation was not respected and appeal won. I guess they've had cases like that. Which is also why I wasn't allowed in to the visits when baby was hysterical week after week. They were afraid my presence, because there is such a jealousy on mom's part towards me, would create too risky a scenario for a possible appeal.

I would try stating during the "family meeting" (though I snidely find that funny - how the heck is it a family meeting when you're being told what you HAVE to do????!!!! ), that it's NOT beneficial to the children because there is so much conflict present. Maybe appeal to the kid's best interest. Seriously, if there's conflict and tension during the visit, the emotions are not neutral for the kids. That's detrimental. Definitely not helpful for the bonding process. Perhaps stress that it's necessary to diminish any risk of further emotional stress to maintain a neutral third party in the supervisory role. What case worker in their right mind can argue with trying to protect the kids when you've tried it and it's failed in the past?? If all fails, contact her supervisor?

[illinoisgranny]

Well, the rescheduled meeting was canceled, too. The caseworker called Monday and pleaded with me to resume doing the visits. I refused. Then she offered to supervise one visit a month if I do 3. I agreed to do the visits until the end of the year if there is no more verbal abuse and can end the visit if my daughter doesn't abide by the rules.

The caseworker will ask her supervisor to request a meeting with the judge if there are any more difficulties with my daughter's behavior.

We'll see how it goes.