Triggered By a Master's Degree

I've mentioned before that I'm in Grad School.  I'm working on a masters in Health Care Law.  (Not to brag but I have a 4.0 at law school. I think my undergraduate GPA was like a 2.7 and not because I was out partying either.  Its not a fake island based law school either.  Its a well known brick and mortar Catholic university with a campus and dorms and everything. (I will admit I picked this one because I can actually walk graduation in cap and gown and ceremony like that is important to me.))

My program is on-line and so I have yet to actually go to campus. We have a fancy cloud based classroom where teachers give live lecture and all of your homework is on-line.  I'm not going to lie.  This whole working mother thing has made juggling all of this very hard at times and tonight I had class and then was able to get everyone in bed in time for me to sit down and do some of my reading.

I had to read the following Supreme Court case from 1989 ( I give you my two second overview below if you don't want to read the legal mumbo jumbo):

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (No. 87-154)

DSS in Wisconsin became aware of a child who was being abused by his father, failed to remove him from his abusive father, who despite being visited by DSS (who was documenting the suspicious marks) continued to beat him until he was beaten so badly he suffered traumatic brain injury and was left severely retarded.

The mother (non-custodial parent) sued the state for violating her son's Due Process Rights to life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The Supreme Court had to decide if the lower courts properly decided if Wisconsin denied the child those rights.  The answer was no - they did not violate his Due Process rights because the constitution does not mandate that the state protect citizens from private harm. And because the state did not remove him, they did not contribute to his situation being more worse than if he had never been on their radar in the first place.

Two Supreme Court judges disagreed with the ruling.  Both found that because DSS was involved and DSS is the end all be all of child protection in the state (making decisions, being notified, investigating), their failure to remove him was just like failing to give a prisoner reasonable medical treatment, thus violating Due Process.  I have to say I agree 100% with the dissenting judges.

It totally derailed my studying for the night. It triggered all of my feelings about protecting my kids and protecting Solana from the same experiences that Sarah has had. The court cases swirling at the Texas and New York State levels calling for kids to be moved out of the system in a reasonable time frame because it is denying their rights to safely and permanency. And how ridiculous is it that we live in a country that doesn't seem to get that kids need stable, safe, loving homes.  That our laws are written in such a manner that a man beat his child so severely that he ends up institutionalized and the state that was aware had no responsibility to that kid. The fact that the judges compared this case to the landmark cases about the care of prisoners, tells us something. 

Let that sink in.  To determine if what the state did was right or not, the facts were compared to the case about the mistreatment of a prisoner.

This boy, could have been my kids.  The case was from 1989 but it seems, not much has changed.  Sure my children weren't physically abused but they were neglected. Neglected so severely that they had no idea how to form basic relationships or trust adults. They had no idea how to be apart of a family.  Incident after incident and they kept returning my kids to their Mom.  Made me think of Cherub Mamma's kiddos.  Daisy who is still bouncing around the system with her sister and the adorable Russell who was abused so badly that Cherub Mamma is undergoing an investigation because he re-fractured a previous break at her home. And the state finally steps in to remove these kids and still, does nothing to move them along into stable, permanent homes, even when they are in an adoptive home, within a reasonable timeframe.  Stella has been bouncing around for 11 years now.  I think 11 years is long enough.

This particular week's lesson is on Public Policy vs the Rights of individuals.  I have a feeling this is going to be a tough thing for me to separate.


 

Surrender

Its been a hectic and interesting week.  I'm busy with the move, grad school, and a lice infestation. (Seriously the grossest thing I've had to do as a mother.  I'll take stomach flu over lice any day.)  And of course this is the week that Caseworker #3 reaches out about Bio Dad possibly relinquishing his rights.  He wants to know if he did sign a surrender, would we still involve him in his children's lives and allow him to maintain a relationship with him.

My head may spin off.  For real.

Not because of the question but because of the timing. 

PEOPLE LISTEN UP! I can't handle one more thing that requires concentration. Or thought. Or empathy.  My brain is mush and I have a Strengths Assessment from the folks over at Gallup that says empathy is not one of my strengths. Seriously out of 35 strengths, empathy doesn't make the top 30.

Something as important as the discussion of openness in adoption requires careful consideration.

Not seeing his Bio Dad again would crush Simon.

I met Bio Dad once when I picked the kids up from a visit.  We have a service that transports the kids to and from visits which are 45-60 minutes away from our house so run ins are rare.  (The kids get transported to a fast food place near Bio Dad. And I've said over and over we have one 10 minutes from our house and doesn't it make sense for the Bio Dad (who is supposed to be working towards getting his kids) to have to travel instead of the kids but that falls on deaf ears...) You either meet parents at court or case reviews.  Because we work and the case review is in the county handling the case for DCFS, and not the county where the children reside, we mostly do those and family meetings on the phone. Bio Dad has not been to court when I have been there.  We have not gone the last few hearings because they don't really pertain to the kids (these have been about scheduling the TPR Trial), court runs late, and the courthouse is 1 1/2 hours from our house. 

Bio Dad was nice.  He was dressed nice, he smiled, seemed happy to meet me and let me snap a few pictures of the kids with him.  Aside from his lack of consistency with the visits and non-compliance with the case plan, he has been appropriate with the kids.  He brings activities for them, provides meals, and sends gifts that are age appropriate.  He also sends shoes which is fantastic! Kids always need shoes.  (They do not need: candy, chips, nail polish, glitter make-up, or another doll that looks like she's dressed in lingerie. Seriously.  The kids came home with another of this same doll.  Now tell me she doesn't look like a hooker?)

All I know about this guy is that he beat up Bio Mom while she was pregnant with Sarah.  Got Bio Mom pregnant a second time, and then was sent to jail for beating her up again after breaking into her house. His kids really love spending time with him. He has at least one other child. And now, he would consider surrender if we'd be open to allowing him contact with his kids.

I'm sure I've got a very limited view here.  Similar to Maria, I can only see a very small window into this person. And now we've got to decide what a relationship would look like.

I started with asking Caseworker #3 what "involved" and "maintain a relationship" means to him.  I think at a very minimum, we would require some sort of meeting with the therapy team so that he can understand more about the mental health of the kids.  A lot of our decisions about contact are going to be based on where they are at emotionally with adoption and their mental health treatment plans.

Can he be respectful of boundaries we set up? Will he be sober? Does he understand everything will be supervised? Will he respect our role as the parents? Does he understand he won't get a voice in decision making pertaining to the kids?

Maybe he just doesn't want to lose track of them? Maybe a shared Facebook Page and a semi-annual visit plan would be enough?

Last month this wasn't something he was willing to consider.  Maybe his attorney advised him that he may have better access to the kids if he volunteers to sign the surrender.  (We never offered this, but its the logical conclusion.) Maybe his attorney told him he has no chance of keeping his rights in tact because he didn't work the case plan (again).  But I think it was the Christmas gift we sent.  A framed professional portrait of Simon and Sarah.  Their adorable dimples and huge grins in a blue frame that they lovingly picked out.  I also sent a copy of the photo and their school pictures.  Such an easy thing to do and it may be the olive branch that allows my kids to have less loss in their life.  Both kids told both Hubby and I separately that their Dad said he loved the photo and to thank us for sending.





 

Crushed

So we had the status hearing yesterday. I bravely told the judge what Gabby was feeling- she's done. She's vomiting. She doesn't want to go home. She doesn't want to have visits. The judge basically said too bad. The goal is return home. Despite a psychiatrist recommendation and her therapists supporting her assertiveness she told me the child doesn't get to hold the power and will need to see her mother. The judge feels Mom is doing well and is making progress. Although we found out the changes to the therapy schedule are due to a job Mom got-3 hours away and she will be staying with a friend and coming back on the weekends. So no more Friday family therapy and no more individual visits. The only day she is now available to see her kids is Saturday.

But the judge made it clear. Goal is return home. So now shell be spending less Tim with them. Family Therapy will have to be put on hold until a weekend provider can be found. Isn't that stepping backwards?

So we spoke with case worker about the mandate for Gabby. Basically she said Mom doesn't notice her feelings because she hasn't lived with her for 19 months. And it's easy for me since I live with her. I really wanted to scream.

Well how the HELL is it going to change of you can't find a Spanish speaking parenting coach, and the visit supervisor isn't qualified and Saturday is the only day that any of this can be worked on?

Then We talked about getting Gabby to change her run away coping mechanism. Um excuse me but why is it up to the 9 year old to change. Why aren't we putting the responsibility on Mom to learn about her kids? Oh yeah that's right because she can't learn that and hasn't in 19 months. Heck she didn't learn in 9 years.

And the psych eval that was rumored to disclose a personality disorder only made the court empathize with her more. Apparently, they missed the part where it says you can't recover or take medication for a personality disorder. That they require extensive therapy in order to fit in to society. Oh and that caring for deeply traumatized children is hard selfless work. Work that this disorder will prevent her from being able to do.

I know I shouldn't get worked up because she's not likely to keep this job. Her track recorded isn't great. And 3 hours away doesn't seem very promising. And leaves very little time or space for transition if and when that happens. I get she's got to pay her bills but doesn't she also need to worry about getting her kids back too?

I know unfair. I'm sure she's plenty worried but it doesn't feel like that. And how many years is this judge going to give her to do this? I really don't know how 6 months is going to make a difference. Especially if therapy has to start over and she's spending less time with her kids.

My Daughter

This week there was shift in me. I know that I am a Foster Mom. These children living with me have no other connection than this. But THIS week I caught myself not clarifying for everyone that THESE are NOT MY children. Rather I let go for one week and just lived in the moment.

At the grocery store on Monday the well meaning cashier exclaimed:
C:Are all four yours?
M: Yep
C: They are so cute! I've always wanted to have a lot of kids.
M: It keeps life interesting.

On Tuesday when asked what I was doing later:
M: It's my daughter's birthday dinner.
O: Oh Wow how old is she?
M: 11.
O: Thats a good age.

On Wednesday at the State's Attorney's Office:
M: We will do whatever we can to make this guy accountable for what he did and we appreciate you trying to prevent unecessary trauma to our kids.

Today: I just simply missed them. And my heart broke when the little guy told me he missed his Really Mama. I cried on the phone to my Mom about how angry I am that these people have abused these kids and they aren't being held accountable to the fullest extent. The guy who caused one to have nightmares and fear hasn't spent 1 hour in jail and she will have to face him in open court if he doesn't plead out.
The woman who systematically abused them gets a 1-2 year break from motherhood and all of these support services to get them back and she's telling US that we aren't good enough from her perspective for them to live with because we don't speak HER language.

I knew that there were awful people in the world that hurt children but its different. These kids have become "my" children. And I just want to protect them. And in so many instances I can't. The law is the law. And even those these people who hurt them didn't abide by the law we have to. Because thats what we want OUR kids to learn.