P.O. Box 923
Clovis, CA 93613
October 19, 2008
Glenn A. Freitas, Branch Chief
744 P Street
mail station 8-12-31
Sacramento, CA 95814
Greg Rose, Deputy Director
744 P Street
mail station 8-17-18
Sacramento, CA 95814
John Wagner, Director
744 P Street
mail station 8-17-11
Sacramento, CA 95814
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Baby R.
Baby R is my two year-old nephew. He has been in custody of the D N County CPS since November 23, 2007. Repeatedly, I have requested for an immediate foster placement, and eventual adoption of Baby R. Personally, I provided the department with Baby R's medical care providers' names and numbers, demonstrating that I was both the physical and psychological caretaker. I was more than happy to write letters, send gifts, cards, photos, and clothing to Baby R, as I have continued to do. Diligently, I asked each social worker involved with Baby R's case what steps I could take to ensure placement of my nephew. Unfortunately, I have been pushed aside and condemned for my efforts to try and care for my own blood relative.
Family Code 361.3 (a) clearly states that relatives have preference when it comes to the placing of a child. Not only am I a blood relative but I have provided the day to day needs of this child and treated him as if he were my own for the first nine months of his life, in my home.
Family Code 8700 (f) states that a relinquishing parent may designate with whom their child may be placed with for adoption. In this case BOTH parents; M.T. and R.S. have been asking to sign designated relinquishments from the State Adoptions A District Office and have been denied their rights. Repeatedly, both parents have requested meetings to sign the paperwork from T. B. and S. W. (Supervisor), since August 2008. T. B. has met with the parents on two occasions (while allowing one entire month to lapse between meetings) and still has NOT allowed the signing of documents necessary to have Baby R placed into my home in Fresno County, even with my approved State Adoptions Home Study, completed by the Fresno District Office. The Fresno District Office was the office to complete the home study due to the DENIAL of A District Office. They were so bold as to not provide a written request of the Fresno District Office, as is customary when an applicant lives out of the area.
It is evident that State Adoptions A Branch is biased and unwilling to be objective about the best interests of the child, Baby R. T. B. clearly exhibited her bias during recent testimony in D. N. Court on October 15, 2008, where she stated that Baby R was too fragile to be moved to my home. Baby R clearly has a relationship with me and is very comfortable in my care, as witnessed in photos and video of us together. Allegations of a fragile mental state were made, but we are now aware of an evaluation, by R. V., which resulted in a determination that no services were necessary because Baby R was doing fine. Even if Baby R were to need therapy or services adjusting to the transition into my home, I have made it abundantly clear that I will seek any help he may need. I have confirmed this fact in the past when Baby R was still in utero and after he was born. I personally found the medical professionals necessary to properly diagnose his heart anomaly and provided the necessary transportation and follow through to aid in his successful delivery and recovery. If not for my diligence, I dare to wonder what could have happened to Baby R. Of course, I will seek any and all medical and psychological professionals that he may need now and in the future. Isn't the best determination of future actions shown by past actions?
Both parents have been denied their right to sign designated relinquishments by State Adoptions in A. Both parents have stood in court to ask for placement of Baby R into my home and yet he lingers in the foster home that wishes to adopt him. Time is of the essence the .26 hearing is set for December 5, 2008. The foster parents have made it known in court that they want to adopt Baby R. Foster parents are necessary for temporary nurturing of a child and sometimes when reunification is not possible for the birth parents, but NOT when a ready and able relative has been requesting her very loved nephew since the beginning, especially when she has demonstrated her commitment to him in the past.
April 19, 2006 M.T. was seven months pregnant with Baby R and in a serious auto accident, where two people were fatally injured. She was airlifted to Redding Hospital.
April 20, 2006 M.T. had surgery to repair her broken left leg and left arm, rods were placed in both extremities.
May 2008 I drove M.T. from Redding Hospital to Fresno County, so that she and unborn Baby R would be able to receive proper medical care, there were some heart anomalies on the ultrasound.
Baby R was born 6-7-06 in Fresno County, with a medical team present and support for his heart problems. I was present for his miracle birth.
Baby R spent seven days in the NICU at Valley Children's Hospital. He received follow up care by a pediatric cardiologist, physical therapist, and pediatrician.
Baby R lived in my home, with my family and his mother for the first nine months of his life. Daily I cared for both Baby R, who was born with Ductus Constriction, and his mother who was recovering from the accident and surgery.
After 9 months Baby R and his mother moved to D. N. County, to be near Baby R's three, previously adopted biological siblings and Baby R's father.
November 23, 2007 Baby R was taken into custody of the D. N. CPS.
December 10, 2007 I sent D. N. CPS my formal request to have Baby R placed back into my home, as a follow up to a phone call to S. W. of D.N. CPS, stating the same.
January 2007 I officially received and began application for relative placement home evaluation.
May 5, 2008 my home was approved for relative placement by D.N. CPS.
July 24, 2008 and July 25, 2008 I had visits with Baby R in D.N.
July 25, 2008 I attended a court hearing in D.N.
July 2008 I retained an attorney in D.N. County.
August 2008 S.W. of State Adoptions A District Office, denied me an application for adoption. S. clearly stated, "that she did not want to waste state resources studying my home since she was not even considering my home as an adoptive home for Baby R."
August 21, 2008 I formally applied for adoption to State Adoptions Fresno District, on my own without a written request from A. District Office.
August 25, 2008 I filed a complaint with the California Foster Parent Ombudsman.
August 28, 2008 I had my relative placement home evaluation renewed and approved.
September 12, 2008 I attended a hearing in D. N.
September 12, 2008 and September 13, 2008 I had visits with Baby R in D.N.
September 14, 2008 I had visits with Baby R in D. N. (I also facilitated a sibling visit between R. and two of his biological sisters; J. and K. The first of its kind since R. has been in foster care.)
October 3, 2008 my home was approved for adoptive placement by State Adoptions Fresno District Office. (see attached)
October 14, 2008 and October 15, 2008 I had visits with Baby R in D.N.
October 16, 2008 I attended a hearing to request placement of Baby R, I was denied placement by D.N. County, with T.B.'s testimony.
October 16, 2008 I had an overnight visit with Baby R in D.N. County. (I also facilitated a sibling visit between J, K, and Baby R.)
In summary, Baby R is being denied his rights to his entire biological family. He is being held hostage by the foster parents, who although may care for him, are NOT his biological family. As his maternal aunt I have requested placement, his parents have requested he be placed with me, and to date no one can state as to why it would be, in fact, detrimental to him if he were. He is a miracle baby who has made it through an auto accident, his mother's surgery while in utero, an uncertain heart condition before birth, and now lingers in foster care. And despite this, he is an intelligent, gentle, and affectionate toddler who is happy and fun to be with. I understand the foster parent's affection for him, I am even grateful for their time, I have stated that I would continue their relationship as to honor Baby R's time with them. It is a travesty that relatives are condemned instead of commended for relentless efforts to bring him home to his family. By denying Baby R's placement into my home, State Adoptions A. Branch, is depriving him of his large extended family, sibling contact, and a supervised relationship with his biological parents. Baby R's best interests are, very obviously well served by placement with me as soon as possible.
I thank you in advance for your time and assistance in this matter. Time is of the essence and a little boy is waiting to go home.
Respectfully,
K.F.
cc: My attorney
California Foster Parent Ombudsman
