I Speak For This Child: True Stories of a Child Advocate (61 page)

Rich Stevenson was a boy who had learned that sadness was unacceptable, so when he acutely felt the loss of his family, he became angry and behaved in ways that got him into serious trouble. He never was able to have friends or develop any long-term relationships because as soon as someone came close, he feared he would lose them. To remain in control Rich acted out first to instigate the break.

His brother, Cory, had no help getting over the initial grief of being removed from his home. Until he was reunited with his father, Cory idealized Red, which is common when children are displaced from their families. They need guidance to mourn the disappearance not only of the home they actually lost, but also of the dream family that they fervently had hoped it might someday become. Then Cory was thrown out of the MacDougals’ home. Even though I knew he was better off in the Rose/Perez household, I realized that he suffered an injury from that rejection. “What is wrong with me?” is how he internalized losing two homes in a few short months. Unfortunately, when the Rose/Perez foster home moved out of our district, Cory was burdened with yet another layer of unresolved grief. By the time Cory suffered this third loss, he was well on his way to becoming an unsalvageable, nonattached child. And classically, unattached children turn against society through criminal activities.

No matter where a child is living, primary consideration must center on who is the child’s psychological parent before he is moved. This has to be discussed the moment a court begins the process of extracting a child from his home and kept in mind through every change. Even if the psychological parent is someone other than the biological parent, the effects of removing the child from that parent can be just as devastating. Many children have spent most of their young lives with the same foster family only to eventually be “reunited” by court order with their rehabilitated parents, who are virtual strangers. This amounts to nothing less than a legalized amputation in terms of the pain endured by the child. Gregory K. had no emotional relationship with his biological parents and begged to be adopted by his psychological family, the Russes. The psychological parent is the person who the child feels understands him, whom the child turns to for assistance, the person with whom he feels secure. This parent knows a child’s likes and dislikes and can interpret his moods. He knows a child’s favorite food, toy, music. When Woody Allen tried to obtain custody of his children, it was revealed that he didn’t know the name of his children’s doctors, friends, or even their pets. Julie Colby’s mother did not even know what grade she was in—and that was when Julie was living with her! Julie’s father professed deep love for her but hadn’t the slightest idea of her likes, dislikes, or interests. Gregory K.’s mother claimed she desperately wanted him back but had not communicated with him by phone, letter, or even sent him a birthday card in more than a year. As Simone Colby told me regarding her father’s reluctance to terminate his parental rights, “He talks a good game, but he never comes through and does what he says.” Indeed, the Colbys know better than anyone that “parental rights” are spelled “responsibility.”

Listening to people fight over their children, I’ve become acutely aware of two types of refrain. Some parents relate everything to their own needs and wishes: “I’m upset when I can’t see my son” or “Nobody cares how I feel about this,” while the other parents see beyond themselves: “She gets upset when her father doesn’t show up for visitation” or “He hasn’t done well in school since he’s been in foster care.” These child-oriented statements demonstrate that the adult is thinking about the concerns of the child. Sometimes it is surprising to hear who is doing this. It may be a grandmother, social worker, guardian, foster parent, neighbor, or even a sibling. It also might be a parent who has refocused her interest on her child, and this is a good indicator of potential success.

More and more guardians have to fill the role of a mediator. As soon as conflicts in families begin, sides are taken and issues escalate with very little concern for how this affects the welfare of the child. Whenever we attempt to do something to help the child, we are also doing something to harm that child. The list of things we want our own children to have and the idealized way we expect our own family to be treated are not necessarily what is essential or best for another child. We must be careful not to inflict our values or assumptions on others. Young people require what is referred to as “minimally sufficient care.” Even very inadequate parents can provide enough to meet a child’s needs to grow and remain healthy and safe. Poverty makes many opportunities impossible, but there is nothing as debilitating to a child as the lack of someone who feels connected to the child. In weighing all the possibilities for a family in crisis, professionals must search for the least detrimental alternative. As heartless as it seems on the surface, the best interests of a child often end up being not the perfect solution but the least worst choice. A child removed from a violent home is still losing his home. If that transition is not going to lead to a much better future outcome, perhaps we should reconsider doing it in the first place. Every single intervention in a child’s life has potential to bring harm, so we need to evaluate whether or not removing a child from a home or even trying to reunite a family might do more damage than maintaining the status quo and supplementing with services or other forms of aid. There are often less drastic solutions possible, and while caseworkers have manuals to follow and laws with which they must comply, creative solutions sometimes offer the best alternative.

An out-of-home placement should attempt to be the least disruptive possible. A child’s family may be the most important place he receives security and socialization, but the wider community of neighborhood, friends, and school are part of his essential root system. If you try to transplant a tree, it will have the best chance for success if as much of the root structure as possible can be left intact. You can remove primary and secondary roots, but you cannot sever a plant stalk and expect it to survive in an entirely different climate and without having some of the taproot left to grow again.

The foster home should be culturally appropriate. Lydia insisted on a family that was of the same religious affiliation, and while this is not always practical, serious consideration should be given to race and religion. Proximity to the last address is vital so that a child can maintain school continuity, have the same friends, visit easily with parents, siblings, and other relatives. While this seems logical, in our jurisdiction attention to these factors is largely ignored. Next, services should be directed at remedying the problems that precipitated the child’s removal from the home. In some cases a parent needs only to clean up the house, apply for the various services and benefits for which she qualifies, and learn some parenting skills. Having a mother educated, trained for a job, or employed might be best for the parent in the future but should not hinder reunification with her child. A family should be told what they must do to reach minimally sufficient goals. Service providers must act quickly to help them achieve those objectives, and evaluators must determine whether or not the parent has made a reasonable effort to do so. Sadly, many parents just cannot get it together. They are unable to wean themselves from drugs or attend parenting classes or restrain their angry outbursts. They may show little interest in visiting their children and their behavior with the children when they are together may continue to deteriorate. At that point, the child’s need for permanence should take precedence and another long-term solution found.

PERMANENCY IS THE CRITICAL FACTOR

If, after careful consideration, it looks like it will be impossible for a child to be cared for by his family in a minimally sufficient way in the near future, getting the child into a permanent home should be the next mandate. In doing so, however, the child must be involved from the beginning. We should never mistrust empowering individual children. Nobody understands a situation better than the child who lives with it. He must be asked how he feels about visitation and to help evaluate where he is living and where he might like to live. Foster parents are often given the right of first refusal to decide if they want to adopt a child in their care, but these options are not offered to the child. The idea that Cory or Alicia might choose their foster home terrified the social workers, yet if a child participates in the decision-making process, he is much more likely to cooperate with the result.

Caseworkers are also apprehensive that the children will grow too attached to their foster parents. Sometimes children are moved when it is perceived this is happening, and foster parents, like the Fowlers with Lydia, are blamed for not maintaining distance from them. After Baby Jessica DeBoer had spent two years with her adoptive parents while a court fight raged in two states, who was most harmed by her return to her natural parents? While we can argue that the mother or father were denied their rights or that the DeBoers purposefully used every legal loophole to delay the case, thus making it harder on Jessica, the fact is that the process was set in motion and the decision was made by several courts entirely without Baby Jessica’s needs being considered. Returning young people to their natural families because of the parents’ “rights” means that we permit children to be repossessed like property.

Our federal funding structure actually hinders the resolution of foster care cases. As long as we spend more to reimburse agencies for maintaining children in foster homes and do not offer social services to either repair the family relationships quickly or facilitate adoptions, children will wither in transient homes.

Time is of the essence when it comes to moving children. Intervention in a family crisis should be a team effort. First the child should be worked with in the home, if at all possible, and services given to that family. If that fails— or if the child is in jeopardy—a plan that considers intervention with constant monitoring should be attempted. Goals must be set, and a timeline established. A year-old baby living apart from her drug-addicted mother for six months has been out of her home for half her life. A three-year-old in a foster home for a year has spent one-third of his life attached to another family. Anyone who works with these children should hear the clock ticking loudly. Procedures must be speeded up accordingly. Children cannot be allowed to languish just because they are “safe” for the moment.

However, in order to terminate parental rights the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit and that it is in the best interests of the child to end that relationship. In Florida, we must demonstrate that the child was adjudicated dependent, a performance agreement was offered to the parent, and that the parent failed to substantially comply with the agreement for reasons other than lack of financial resources or failure of HRS to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. In addition, the court must then determine that the termination is in the manifest best interests of the child. Judges are very reluctant to bear the responsibility for severing a family forever. A 1991 Florida ruling
(Padgett v. Dept. of HRS)
stated that while a parent’s interest in maintaining parental ties is essential, the child’s entitlement to be free of physical and emotional violence is more so, and the state has a compelling interest in protecting all citizens, especially a child, against the clear threat of abuse, neglect, and death. We must include emotional abuse and neglect in this rule. Once and for all the judiciary must discard the old maxim that whoever “begets them gets them.”

PARENTAL RIGHTS COULD BE SPLIT TO PERMIT OPEN ADOPTIONS

When I worked on the Colbys’ termination of parental rights, I saw how excruciating it was for the mother and father to sign those forms, which demanded that a parent agree to the “permanent deprivation of my present parental right to this child” and “the right to further information concerning the whereabouts of this child, or the identity or location of any adoptive parent of this child.”

Perhaps there is a way to modify the termination of parental rights statutes to make them less onerous in some situations. To do this, though, there has to be a change in the perception of children as the property of parents. At birth children would be inalienably members of their birth family, and this status could change only if the parents did not want to raise their children or willfully and repeatedly seriously abused or neglected them physically or emotionally. But once a parent injured a child, the rights would shift from the parent to the child. From then on the child’s right to a safe, constant, nurturing home would supersede the prerogative of the parents to have possession of the child.

With this in mind, it behooves the courts to move swiftly to provide for a child’s needs. Much as a criminal has a right to a speedy trial, a child should have the right to be placed in a permanent home as quickly as possible. Some psychologists feel that ninety days is the limit a child should be in limbo. Unfortunately, that is far too short a time to make legal decisions. I would suggest a six-month window of time to analyze and locate the best placement for a child.

In order to make this more palatable and swift, as well as to include some of the complex issues of parenthood brought on by new medical technologies and family structures, I would propose a two-tiered termination of parental rights.

Every natural parent automatically possesses both rights: primary and secondary.
Primary rights
would be the right to have physical custody of a child and includes the responsibility to support and give loving, stable care to that child.
Secondary rights
would give the parent, or another party, the right to know the whereabouts of the child as well as for the child to know the whereabouts of that person, as well as the right to visit the child on a schedule that is agreeable to all parties. In actuality, secondary rights would virtually legalize open adoptions.