So the therapists suggested Mom have the visit prior to the birth. I called the Supervisor because Caseworker #3 is apparently on vacation (was not aware). They were going to check with Bio Mom to do it this weekend which logistically has like a 2% chance of happening. She heard my concerns. I mentioned my sibling visit letter and she towed the policy line about sibling visits being law...but that they would take all of our supporting information into consideration with the team that makes those decisions. I pointed out that it seemed convenient to reference one policy given that the policy about expedited termination was being ignored and she of course blamed the lawyers.
Then she totally rocked my world. They may combine the case of the baby with my kiddos' case. Again up to the State's Attorney but it sounded like the department may try to keep the case in the same county my kids are in (baby will be born several counties away) since the judge has all of the history with this Mom.
Seems to me that could go one of two ways- tack the baby on and terminate her at the same time, or keep the case open and potentially change the goal for my kiddos/delay their adoption further. I don't see the judge changing the goal back but Holy Hell people...
The supervisor also said that Bio Mom was playing games and they aren't exactly sure when she is going to give birth now. The baby daddy was also hit with an additional DV felony charge for the incident that prompted another order of protection.
Of course his family and his involvement could come into play if she lists him as the baby daddy and the DNA test matches.
::sigh::
These people have no idea how much we suffer for their children. Sending prayers.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, I can't remember what state it was... Vermont, maybe? But I read an article recently about how a state was going to actually have rights for the CHILDREN over some rights of parents. It's a novel idea. Maybe other states will catch on.
ReplyDelete