Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12
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.
|
I think most become CASA's just to ensure reunification. Regardless of the child's circumstances. It's a great concept, if only the court's had a crystal ball to screen out those similar to the one you had. Honestly, this is one of the things that angers me about the whole system. "Best interest of the Child" - yeh right!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggiebuttercup
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) |
My answer: A through C. Choice D: it depends on the situation.
With regard to the soldier, his child was rightfully returned to him. I haven't read the story yet, but if it's the same one I'm thinking of, his wife was crazy and basically tried to get money for her child while she was simultaneously divorcing him. Plus, they were married. That adoption should have been overturned and the adoptive parents did not have the child that long.
I'm actually upset with DCS, in both states, and her bio-family. I'm not too upset with the adoptive parents or the nanny. The courts must follow the law and it's the judges interpretation of the law that ultimately matters.
Yes, I would have been equally upset if the state had placed her with yet another foster family!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie
I would have added e) Fear, that if it happened to one, it could happen to any potential adoptive parents. But, in this case, transparency could have saved a lot of heartache.
|
For me, not fear per se, rather a clearer understanding of adoption laws and more protection for adoptive parents who are providing a safe, stable home over a significant period of time.
Lately, too many cases have been dragged out in court. And, I hate to say this, but mainly because biological parents didn't or won't get their act together in a timely manner. DCS nationwide needs an overhaul, and the federal government needs to state concretely what exactly are the rights of biological parents and adoptive parents.
Transparency would not have saved heartache here IMO. The birth father is selfish IMO. Some feel that is his God-given right. I don't. Here's how I see it:
1. He's had multiple run-ins with the law (including felonies and armed robberies)
2. He has, on record, a violent past (his violent behavior isn't something a program can resolve)
3. He allowed his infant child to be taken to a state hundreds of miles away.
4. He finally decided to retrieve his child (three months later); but he didn't go himself...Wow!
5. He was too busy to go?? Then we find out why: He was breaking the law, again!
6. He refuses to accept his role in this whole situation. Dude, you broke the law, got a 15-year sentence (reduced), and missed nearly 8-years of your child's life!! You did this. Only you.
Here's how I see the other parties involvement:
1. Nanny saw some fishy behavior and possibly knew the father's shady history
2. Nanny did not want to leave the child in his care...see No. 1
3. Nanny did not want to raise his child...something she likely realized was happening!
4. Nanny takes child to TN. Not much convincing was needed. Dad said "sure!"
5. Nanny's life is not stable; her parents are a little better; a family they knew was more ideal.
6. Hodgins family takes child in; fires nanny's mother contacts DCS to retain custody of the child.
7. Father sends brother and friend to pick up HIS daughter (still can't believe this!)
8. Police officer doesn't release child - why would she? Her father didn't even bother to show up.
9. Father gets sentenced to federal prison for 15yrs. Makes a deal to reduce sentence. Loses custody.
10. Hodgins family begins what has now become a lengthy custody battle involving the adoption of child; the overturning of the adoption; and the return of the child to her bio-dad.
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.
)
