Nine year old Tennesee Girl taken from parents and delivered in the care of ex-con bio-father (infant, birth)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hopes, a court-appointed guardian does not have to be a lawyer. You just want to be right. Did you read the provisional guidelines I posted? They came from the same place you got yours! It's in the first dang paragraph who can be appointed one. Have you ever undertaken becoming a Foster or Adoptive parent? Never you mind, back to the story...
Someone posted that the adoptive family was not considered for custody any longer. Where did this statement come from? Is there a link to this new information?
It still speaks volumes that although the bio dad initially was given parental rights, they were later terminated and they have not been reinstated. We'll see what happens in subsequent court hearings.
Don't start with that. It's an ad hominem and not playing fair. It's pot kettle stuff, Jaded, because we both want to be right. I strive to understand things. That's my goal. If you showed me something that made sense, I would readily concede.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded
Did you read the provisional guidelines I posted? They came from the same place you got yours! It's in the first dang paragraph who can be appointed one. Have you ever undertaken becoming a Foster or Adoptive parent? Never you mind, back to the story...
Yes I did! Did you read the one I posted? Mine is more detailed and actually says "represent the child in court, file appeals on the child's behalf." Go read it. The only thing I can think of is the page I'm looking at is about juvenile court. This case isn't in juvenile court, is it? That might be where I'm confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded
Someone posted that the adoptive family was not considered for custody any longer. Where did this statement come from? Is there a link to this new information?
I have no idea. I don't recall reading that here or anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded
It still speaks volumes that although the bio dad initially was given parental rights, they were later terminated and they have not been reinstated. We'll see what happens in subsequent court hearings.
I wouldn't say it speaks volumes. To me, it's an indication they are trying to be certain of the right decision.
Don't start with that. It's an ad hominem and not playing fair. It's pot kettle stuff, Jaded, because we both want to be right. I strive to understand things. That's my goal. If you showed me something that made sense, I would readily concede.
Yes I did! Did you read the one I posted? Mine is more detailed and actually says "represent the child in court, file appeals on the child's behalf." Go read it. The only thing I can think of is the page I'm looking at is about juvenile court. This case isn't in juvenile court, is it? That might be where I'm confused.
I have no idea. I don't recall reading that here or anywhere.
I wouldn't say it speaks volumes. To me, it's an indication they are trying to be certain of the right decision.
Oh vey. Okay, I've rested and am ready to reply .
It could be the juvenile court issue that's causing the confusion. They are in family court. I did read your post and link. It was misleading, so I looked up mine . I can't help that my link didn't make sense. I'll try to explain: Children in foster care technically are in the custody of their state. While they are in care, the courts appoint an approved specialist (CASA, Guardian, Attorney, etc.) to represent the "best interest of the child." This person's sole purpose is to give an objective opinion based on facts to the judge for consideration as to what they believe is in the best interest of the child. These court appointees are not necessarily attorneys. Even when they are, they are acting in a different capacity then if they were hired to be an "attorney" for the child. They are appointed, not hired. Some states assign both an advocate and an attorney.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has adopted a provisional rule for the appointment of guardians ad litem (GAL) in cases involving the custody of children... A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to represent the interests of a child... In cases involving child custody issues, guardians may be attorneys, licensed professionals, or other advocates with specialized training in the evaluation of children’s best interests.
From this page for the state of Tennessee (note the underlined and bolded):
Quote:
(a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (a), on the filing of a petition for the appointment of a fiduciary, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the respondent. The court also may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interest of the minor or disabled person in any proceeding brought by the fiduciary. If the respondent is represented by adversary counsel who has made an appearance for the respondent, no guardian ad litem shall be appointed.
Quote:
(c) The person appointed guardian ad litem shall be a lawyer licensed to practice in the state of Tennessee. If there are insufficient lawyers within the court's jurisdiction for the appointment of a lawyer as guardian ad litem, the court may appoint a nonlawyer.
(d) (1) The guardian ad litem owes a duty to the court to impartially investigate to determine the facts and report the facts to the court. The guardian ad litem is not an advocate for the respondent but has a duty to determine what is best for the respondent's welfare.
Quote:
(B) If the respondent wants to contest any portion of the proceeding and the guardian ad litem's opinion is that there should be a fiduciary appointed, the guardian ad litem shall identify the adversary counsel or indicate there is none and request the appointment of an attorney ad litem;
So after you respond can we move on?
Last edited by Jaded; 05-22-2014 at 01:57 AM..
Reason: added text
I've supplied a link to the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) web site.
Many people think that CASAs are professionals - attorneys, or at the very least, social workers with a BSW. They are not.
We had an unofficial "foster child" (long story, not appropriate for now.) He was provided, as per NY State law, with a CASA and a guardian ad litam (an attorney)
The CASA was horrible and readily told us and the boy that her goal was to "reunite the family". If you read the job description, that was not her job at all. It could have been an outcome, however it should not have been her agenda.
This CASA volunteer had an "axe to grind". She freely told us that CPS had ruined her family and stole her grandkids.
This link paints CASA volunteers in a very positive light. I guess, this is how they are supposed to be. It was not our experience, however.
The termination of the father's parental rights was overturned. That is what nullified the adoption. He has parental rights.
In my understanding, in most states when a child there are allegations that a child has been abandoned (which is the case for Sonya) and CPS/DCS take custody, if the child is returned it is generally on a trial basis. If the parents show that they have gotten their act together, then CPS/DCS can close the case. In a situation like this, with a child who has been uprooted from one home and sent to another, I expect DSC to stay involved to make sure that she is doing okay.
The father is not required to meet the standards that an adoptive parent has to meet. That is how society has decided to handle biological families. Otherwise we'd all be required to have a home study and pass certain qualifications before being allowed to procreate. That's never going to happen here.
For those of you who disagree with the outcome of the court case, what is it that bothers you most?
a) That she lived so long with one set of foster parents and then had to leave?
b) The father's perceived character - that he is an ex-con who was in jail for part of her childhood?
c) The perception that the adoptive parents may be able to give her a "better" life?
d That she was adopted and the adoption was overturned?
Would you have been equally upset, if the state had chosen to place her with a different set of foster parents? Or if the father's rights had been terminated unlawfully for a different reason (i.e., this case)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
. I can't help that my link didn't make sense. I'll try to explain: Children in foster care technically are in the custody of their state. While they are in care, the courts appoint an approved specialist (CASA, Guardian, Attorney, etc.) to represent the "best interest of the child." This person's sole purpose is to give an objective opinion based on facts to the judge for consideration as to what they believe is in the best interest of the child. These court appointees are not necessarily attorneys. Even when they are, they are acting in a different capacity then if they were hired to be an "attorney" for the child. They are appointed, not hired. Some states assign both an advocate and an attorney.
