i keep wondering if any of the legislators in my state ACTUALLY care about the welfare of children.
we are being bombarded with ludicrous bills regarding foster care and the children in custody.
(remember, THIS less than awesome piece of junk?)
well, now we are discussing HB 161.
PLEASE READ IT!! it is appalling.
********
the "highlights" include:
(my thoughts are highlighted- hehe.)
- "The fundamental liberty interest of a parent concerning the care, custody, and management of the parent's children is recognized, protected, and does not cease to exist simply because a parent may fail to be a model parent or because the parent's child is placed in the temporary custody of the state. At all times, a parent retains a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of family life."
While there have been moments in my life as a mother that I have failed to be a "model parent", none of those moments would have EVER warranted my children being brought into custody... and had they done so, I am not really sure that I would have been showing my "vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of family life.
- "In cases where actual sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment, severe abuse, or severe neglect are established, the state has no duty to make "reasonable efforts" or to, in any other way, attempt to maintain a child in the child's home, provide reunification services, or to attempt to rehabilitate the offending parent or parents."
While this is obviously a GREAT part of the bill, my question is: who determines whether or not the abuse is SEVERE? Will there be a list of things established? Or will they have each child/parent go through a psychic reading to determine the severity and long-term effects?
- "A court may not deny parent-time based solely on a parent's failure to: (a) prove that the parent has not used legal or illegal substances; or (b) comply with an aspect of the child and family plan that is ordered by the court."
Oh good, so parents can do WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT. They can completely disregard the service plans... they can fail drug tests... but no consequences?!?
- "There is a presumption that reunification services should not be provided to a parent if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following circumstances exist: the parent: caused the death of another minor through abuse or neglect; or committed, aided, abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit: (A) murder or manslaughter of a child; or (B) child abuse homicide."
Great to see we have some limitations!
********
thoughts?!? concerns?!?
i am VERY interested to hear your opinions.
i have sent Rep. Christensen an email, and am anxiously awaiting a reply.
(fingers crossed that he actually reads his bills, since we know that Rep. Watkins does not.)
i would like to give these legislators the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes... they make it REALLY difficult.
Posts
2 comments:
I have to say that while I think it is great that our representatives are concerned about the rights of parents and children, I think that we as foster parents can see what is happening with the OVER protection of parental rights. This bill is a perfect example of furthering the protection of parental rights which diminishes the protections of the child's rights.
While those children who are severely abused appear to be well protected, what about those in the middle? What about the ones who are moderately abused? The state doesn't want to interfere with those. So instead of requiring the parents to actually follow through on a family plan or requiring drug testing (because that would be too restrictive of their rights) they send the children back to these parents again and again. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.
As a foster parent I am required to meet a certain standard before children can even come into my home. I have to have a safe home and take 12 hours of classes every year to maintain my license. What is wrong with requiring parents to meet a minimum standard who have had children removed? Shouldn't they have to prove that they have enacted some kind of change before children can be returned to their home. Shouldn't they be proving that the home is safe for the children to return to? I should think so.
Anyways, that is my opinion.
Honestly, I don't have much of an issue with most of these things.
The first one, to me, sounds essentially the same as the rules already in effect (having to ask permission to cut hair, go out of state, etc.) and I have no problem with those. I don't look at it as looking out for the parent vs. the child, but more as looking out for the family vs. just the child. Many of these types of rules are put in place to empower the parents and give them opportunities for responsibility, which can lead to much more motivation to work toward reunification - which is good, right?
In the second one, I completely agree that there need to be guidelines to further define what the bill is encouraging and or trying to prevent.
The third part, while I see hundreds of red flags regarding this being VERY frustrating to foster parents, and I'm sure I have, many times, complained regarding this very thing, I also see the reason for.
Research shows that visits are the number one distinguishing factor in the likely hood of reunification. So it seems that as long as reunification is what we are working toward, and there are not safety issues regarding visits, that they should continue. Visits aren't put in place to be used as discipline.
Also, sometimes when a case is not going well, it is at the visits (or the parent missing the visits all together) that enough evidence is gained to justify termination of parental rights. If you take away visits, sometimes you are taking away the very information that you need to change a child's goal to adoption.
And to that last one, AMEN! :)
Sorry this turned into a book! I definitely see both sides of each of these issues. And by no means is a bill like this conclusive - but baby steps may be the best way to make change! :)
Post a Comment