Please forgive the below if it is a repeat of anything but these are the typical questions I ask everyone. Some people just aren't aware of what they can do to help themselves yet. You would think we could TRUST CPS and our court system....
1. Where does the child's attorney stand on this? Do they even KNOW you exist? Our nephew's attorney did NOT know I had been involved until I hired an attorney myself;(
2. Have you EVER had custody or has the child EVER lived in your home with you? Can you file for de facto status with the court?
3. Does the child have a CASA worker? Another set of eyes could help you.
4. Have you filed a State Grievance with CPS? People RARELY win but trust me they get reprimanded behind the scenes.
5. Ask for a complete file FOIA from everywhere you can, CPS, State Adoptions, etc. there are forms to fill and send via certified mail. (This puts them on alert as well so be careful.)Be informed about what they have.
6. Get your government involved.......start at the bottom and go ALL the way up to Obama and Mrs. Obama. (Hillary Clinton was KEY in helping return the Brazilian boy back to his father just recently.)
7. Write the media.......remove juvenile names and replace with initials. I am talking the GREATS Oprah, Dr. Phil, America's Most Wanted, 20/20.......to your local media. Glenn Slacks is another good one.
8. Start a petition get friends, family members, neighbors, and pass it around........summarize your story to a page and get some signatures. (this also gets the word out, not everyone knows this happens)
9. Watch foster family blogs and discussion boards. Seriously foster parents can be great, but some are devious and JUST want a child and they tell EACH OTHER how to KEEP kids from their family. Babycenter has one and I know there are tons more out there. Join and ask questions too, CAREFULLY as many are watching. I have a blog and the link is below. I have been asked in court about it.......trust me they watch it;) Writing a book too.......
10. Fightcps.com has much information along with links to other sites. Join the discussion board and ask questions. READ and research there IS someone out there that has been through this.
11. Legal help, ask for it from adoption attorneys. I hate to say it but adoption is where the final cut is made. IF you can bypass those pitfalls then do it! 8700(f) a designated relinquishment from the birthparents may seem radical now but trust me if it gets that far.....you will need it to fight. Our appeal was won in CA a link is below. READ the appeals that may help you at www.findlaw.com .........more reading but do it! You need the case law behind you.
12. Document everything, phone calls, visits, letters, everything! Keep a case log going!
13. Network with others in this situation, FB, Myspace, Twitter........information is out there; go get it!
14. Ask for visits, phone visits, send packages, letters, cards to the child on a regular schedule.
15. Get foster parent AND adoptive parent certification. Take the classes required by your county and state. Have the home study and get approved. Do it on your own if you have to. State Adoptions is where we do that here in CA. Be ready to bring that child home. Get CPR certified. Line up child care if you will need it, child proof your home, get fire extinguishers, have an escape plan for a fire, lock up your medications........follow all licensing rules.
16. Pam Roach has a blog read what is going on there and contact her. http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com/
17. Find and learn the family laws for your state along with Welfare Codes. If you ask for them CPS has to give you a book but it takes a LONG time so I have heard. I found mine online. ;)
All of the above is just a start. If you are doing all of it then KEEP it up;)
Please contact me with any questions. I am a busy mother to 5 children, married, and a human being. THAT said, I understand what it feels like to do everything right and still have my nephew in an adoptive home. It hurts. I will do what I can to help or at least try.
Monday, November 29, 2010
In re R.S. (2009) , Cal.App.4th
Below is another repost of the appeal won in our favor. It is sometimes easier for me to repost on my blog (and refer to it here) than to put in each email;) Forgive the repeats everyone else. THANKS!
In re R.S. (2009) , Cal.App.4th
[No. A124021. First Dist., Div. One. Nov. 30, 2009.]
In re R.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. M.T. et al., Objectors and Appellants.
(Superior Court of Del Norte County, No. JVSQ-07-6254, Robert W. Weir, Judge.)
(Opinion by Marchiano, P.J., with Margulies, J., and Banke, J., concurring.)
COUNSEL
Donna L. Hall and Valerie E. Sopher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Objectors and Appellants.
Janet G. Sherwood, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for the minor.
Dohn R. Henion, County Counsel and Ian W. Trueblood, Deputy County Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent.
OPINION
MARCHIANO, P.J.-
The parents of the minor R.S. executed a relinquishment of parental rights with the state's Department of Social Services (State Adoptions) in conformance with Family Code section 8700. Subsequently, the Juvenile Court of Del Norte County terminated their parental rights. M.T. (Mother) and R.S. (Father) appeal from that order, made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. fn. 1 We consider first Father's contention--in which counsel for the minor has joined--that the juvenile court erred in holding the section 366.26 hearing and in issuing orders that terminated parental rights and granted a request by the minor's foster parents (Foster Parents) to be designated as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n). Father argues that in doing so the court impermissibly interfered with a final, voluntary relinquishment the parents had made to State Adoptions. This relinquishment included a designation of persons other than the Foster Parents as the intended adoptive placement, namely, Mother's sister K.F. (Aunt) and Aunt's husband P.F. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (f).) {Slip Opn. Page 2}
As discussed below, we agree with this contention and reverse the orders of the juvenile court. Secondly, we conclude that it is unnecessary to address Mother's contention, that the court violated notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), because any defect in the notice provided to Indian tribes, concerning the minor's dependency proceeding, was rendered moot by the parents' voluntary relinquishment to State Adoptions.
BACKGROUND
In November 2007, the county's Department of Health and Human Services (Department) initiated these proceedings as to the minor (born June 2006). On January 9, 2008, the juvenile court established dependency jurisdiction over the minor after sustaining allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j). After a dispositional hearing on January 25, 2008, the court directed the minor's removal for out-of-home placement and ordered the Department to provide reunification services to the parents. On this date, the minor was placed with Foster Parents, D.D. and K.D.
At the conclusion of the six-month status review hearing (six-month hearing) on August 5, 2008, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a hearing under section 366.26. Mother sought review of this order by petition for extraordinary writ. The underlying facts and procedural background up to this point are summarized in this court's decision denying Mother's petition. (M.T. v. Superior Court (Nov. 14, 2008, A122647) [nonpub. opn.].)
The juvenile court held a hearing on September 12, 2008, to review visitation between the parents and the minor pending the section 366.26 hearing. At this hearing, Mother's counsel indicated that her preference, since the termination of reunification efforts, was to have the minor adopted by Aunt, who resided in Clovis, Fresno County. On the other hand, Foster Parents had retained counsel and were "jumping through all the hoops in as vigorous a way as they can" in seeking to adopt the minor. For this reason, Mother's counsel moved for a hearing on her request to have the minor placed with Aunt {Slip Opn. Page 3} pursuant to the relative placement provisions of section 361.3. fn. 2 Counsel representing Aunt, who was present at the hearing, mentioned to the court that both Mother and Father were in the process of preparing a "designated relinquish[ment]" with State Adoptions--that is, a voluntary relinquishment of their parental rights that would include their designation of a person with whom they intended the minor to be placed for adoption. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (f).) Minor's trial counsel supported Mother's request for a relative placement hearing, noting that Aunt had made "a very strong showing," and that "it's better normally . . . to leave the child with family rather than with foster parents." Counsel for the Department stated that State Adoptions should be involved in the hearing.
At the outset of the relative placement hearing under section 361.3, Aunt's counsel again noted that both parents were "prepared to sign" a relinquishment of their rights with State Adoptions, designating Aunt as the person they intended the minor to be placed for adoption. S.A. (Grandmother), the mother of both Aunt and Mother, appeared at the hearing and informed the court that the minor's placement with Aunt in Clovis would interfere with her relationship with the minor, as well as the minor's relationship with a seven-year-old half sibling, F., who lived with Grandmother. Grandmother further stated she herself was "being considered for adoptive placement" and, as she had previously adopted F., queried why she should not be able to adopt the minor as well. Mother testified to her desire that the minor be placed with Aunt, stating she and minor had lived with Aunt from before his birth until he was almost one year of age. Mother explained neither she nor Aunt had been able to maintain a relationship with F.--her biological daughter and the minor's half sibling--because Grandmother would not allow it. She indicated, however, that Aunt would ensure the minor had contact with the minor's two other half siblings, J. and C., who had been adopted by their paternal grandmother. The State Adoptions specialist for Del Norte County testified that she had only recently {Slip Opn. Page 4} received an approved home study of Aunt from the Fresno branch of State Adoptions. She stated that several families, including Foster Parents and Grandmother, were also interested in adopting the minor, and she had not yet completed her adoption assessment for the section 366.26 hearing. She recommended that the minor not be moved from his current placement with Foster Parents before she completed her assessment. At the conclusion of the hearing, on October 16, the court denied Mother's request for immediate placement of the minor with Aunt.
Meanwhile, both Foster Parents and Aunt and P.F. filed requests for de facto parent status. The juvenile court granted these requests on November 7 and November 13, 2008, respectively. On November 17, Foster Parents additionally filed a request to be designated as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n).
The Department's report prepared for the section 366.26 hearing, completed and filed December 3, 2008, recommended that the juvenile court terminate the parents' parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan. The Department further recommended that the court designate Foster Parents as the prospective adoptive parents and that the minor remain placed with them for adoption.
The assessment by State Adoptions, completed on December 2, 2008, by the Arcata district manager, was submitted as an attachment to the Department's report. This assessment noted that in late November, Mother and Father had "completed designated relinquishments identifying [Aunt and P.F. as] the prospective adoptive parents." State Adoption's central office had "received and acknowledged" the completed relinquishment. State Adoptions thus regarded Aunt and P.F. as the minor's prospective adoptive parents, deeming them "suitable and committed to the adoption." It recommended that the juvenile court "take into consideration the birth parents' wishes, as reflected in their designated relinquishment." State Adoptions noted that "[g]iven the {Slip Opn. Page 5} aforementioned designated relinquishments, in which the birth parents voluntarily terminated their parental rights, it is not necessary for the court to also move to terminate the parental rights of [Mother and Father]." Declarations attached to the assessment averred that State Adoptions headquarters had issued an acknowledgment of the relinquishment on December 1. fn. 3
At the outset of the section 366.26 hearing, on December 5, 2008, the juvenile court noted that it had before it the Department's "report and its attachment." Counsel for the minor pointed out, "as a procedural matter" that both parents had "officially relinquished their claims," and thus there was no "necessity for the classical reason of a [section 366.26] hearing." Counsel for Foster Parents agreed, stating in effect there was no issue requiring a contested section 366.26 hearing, as the parents could not contest the termination of parental rights they had already relinquished. The court continued the hearing without making any determination on this point.
At the continued hearing, on December 19, 2008, the juvenile court admitted the Department's report and the State Adoptions assessment into evidence. Counsel for Aunt and P.F. expressed his view that "the only issue to be resolved" was whether State Adoptions determined there would be "serious detriment" to the minor if he were removed from his current placement with Foster Parents. Counsel for Foster Parents stated there was the additional issue of Foster Parents' pending request for designation as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n). Father's {Slip Opn. Page 6} counsel made an objection to the court's termination of parental rights based on the designated relinquishment of those rights. Counsel for Mother essentially expressed willingness to submit on the Department's report and the State Adoptions assessment. The court, meanwhile, twice posed the question whether "there [was] any reason not to complete our objectives under [section] 366.26," that is, to "terminate parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan." Asking for any disagreement, and "[h]earing none," the court proceeded to terminate both parents' parental rights, made a finding that the minor was adoptable, and ordered a permanent plan of adoption.
Counsel for Foster Parents then renewed his request that they be designated as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n). Counsel for Aunt and P.F. objected on the ground that State Adoptions had already determined that placement with Aunt was appropriate pursuant to the parents' designated relinquishments. The juvenile court did not find this objection persuasive, deeming the provisions of section 366.26, subdivision (n), to be a procedure "removing" State Adoptions' placement discretion "in a limited way." The court concluded that Foster Parents, Aunt and P.F., and Grandmother were all to be designated as prospective adoptive parents, and continued the matter for an evidentiary hearing relating to the minor's ultimate adoptive placement.
The parents' appeal followed. (§ 395.)
DISCUSSION
I. The Juvenile Court's Orders Impermissibly Impaired the Voluntary Relinquishment
A. Father's Contention
Father argues that the juvenile court erred in holding the hearing under section 366.26 after the voluntary relinquishment he and Mother made to State Adoptions. He points out that the juvenile court had no right to limit their ability to make a voluntary relinquishment to a public adoptions agency that was willing to accept it. (§ 361, subd. (b).) Father also points out that, once their designated relinquishment became final--before the date set for the section 366.26 hearing--State Adoptions was vested with exclusive custody and control of the minor until an order of adoption is granted. (Fam. {Slip Opn. Page 7} Code, § 8704, subd. (a).) In Father's view, the court's decision to hold the section 366.26 hearing, and to make orders that included one that terminated his and Mother's parental rights and one that granted Foster Parents' request for designation as prospective adoptive parents under section 366.26, subdivision (n), was error that impermissibly and prejudicially interfered with their voluntary relinquishment to State Adoptions, with its designation of Aunt and P.F. as the intended adoptive parents. Appellate counsel for the minor has filed a responding brief that joins in this argument.
B. The Statutory Scheme
Father's contention calls for a detailed examination of the Family Code provisions governing voluntary relinquishment and the applicable provisions of the dependency law. Once a child is adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court, that court is authorized to issue orders that limit the control a parent may exercise over that child, to the extent necessary to protect the child. (§ 361, subd. (a).) The juvenile court may not, however, "limit the ability of a parent to voluntarily relinquish his or her child to [State Adoptions] or to a licensed county adoption agency at any time while the child is a dependent child of the juvenile court, if [State Adoptions or the county adoption agency] is willing to accept the relinquishment." (§ 361, subd. (b).)
A birth parent may relinquish a child to State Adoptions or a licensed adoption agency fn. 4 by a written statement signed before two subscribing witnesses and acknowledged before an authorized official of State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (a).) To be effective, a certified copy of the relinquishment must be sent to and filed with State Adoptions. (Fam. Code, § 8700, {Slip Opn. Page 8} subd. (e)(1).) As noted above, a relinquishment generally becomes final when State Adoptions sends a written acknowledgment of receipt of the relinquishment, or in any event after the lapse of 10 business days after State Adoptions receives the relinquishment for filing. (See fn. 3, ante.)
After a relinquishment becomes final, it may be rescinded only by mutual consent of the relinquishing parent and State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(2).) There is, however, one exception. As was done by Father and Mother in this case, a birth parent may name in his or her voluntary relinquishment the person or persons with whom he or she intends that placement of the child for adoption be made by State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (f).) State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency may not accept a relinquishment under Family Code section 8700--including one that designates the intended adoptive parent--unless the agency determines it is able to place the child for adoption. fn. 5 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 35135, subd. (a)(2).) Nevertheless, the provisions for voluntary relinquishment recognize that State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency, even after accepting a designated relinquishment, might ultimately decide either not to place the child with the designated persons or to remove the child from placement with the designated persons prior to granting of adoption. In such an event, State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency must provide notice of its decision to the relinquishing birth parent. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (g).) The relinquishing birth parent then has 30 days from the mailing of the notice in which to rescind his or her relinquishment, or to rescind that relinquishment and make a new one that designates a different person or persons for adoptive placement. fn. 6 (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (h).) {Slip Opn. Page 9} With the exception of this right to rescind a designated relinquishment when the designated placement is terminated before an adoption order is granted, the filing of a voluntary relinquishment with State Adoptions operates to terminate all parental rights and responsibilities with regard to the child. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (j).)
When a birth parent has voluntarily relinquished a child for adoption under Family Code section 8700, and that child is a dependant of the juvenile court, the adoption agency accepting the relinquishment must, within five court days, provide written notice of the relinquishment to the juvenile court having jurisdiction, counsel for the minor, if any, and counsel for the relinquishing parent, if any. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (i).)
When a child is freed for adoption--whether by voluntary relinquishment under Family Code section 8700 or by termination of parental rights--the agency to whom the child has been freed becomes responsible for the care of the child, and is entitled to exclusive custody and control of the child until an order of adoption is granted. (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (a).) The agency to whom the child has been freed for adoption may, in its discretion, terminate a temporary care placement or an adoptive placement at any time before an adoption order is granted. (Fam. Code § 8704, subd. (a).) The juvenile court retains jurisdiction over a dependent child freed for adoption, until the order of adoption is granted. (See §§ 366.29, subd. (c), 366.3, subd. (a).) Its oversight of placement decisions by the agency having exclusive custody and control however, is limited. Once a petition for adoption has been filed by the prospective adoptive parents, the agency having exclusive custody and control may not remove the child from an adoptive placement with these parents without approval of the court--that is, the juvenile court or family law court in which the adoption petition has been filed. (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (b); see § 366.26, subd. (e).) But before the prospective adoptive parents file an adoption petition, the juvenile court may interfere with or disapprove a placement decision made by the agency having exclusive custody and control only if the agency's decision is " 'patently absurd or unquestionably not in the minor's best interests.' " (In re Harry N. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1397, quoting Department of Social Services v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 721, 725 (Theodore D.).) {Slip Opn. Page 10}
This limitation on the juvenile court's oversight of the adoption agency's placement decisions was modified by 2005 legislation. "If the court, by order or judgment, declares the child free from custody and control of both parents, or one parent if the other does not have custody and control . . . [State Adoptions or the] licensed adoption agency . . . shall be entitled to the exclusive care and control of the child at all times until a petition for adoption is granted, except as specified in subdivision (n). . . ." (§ 366.26, subd. (j), italics added.) Subdivision (n), in turn, authorizes the juvenile court "at a [section 366.26] hearing or any time thereafter, [to] designate a current caretaker fn. 7 as a prospective adoptive parent" if the caretaker has taken care of the child for at least six months, has expressed a commitment to adoption, and has taken at least one step to facilitate the adoption process. (§ 366.26, subd. (n)(1), italics added.) The designation gives the caretaker limited standing in the dependency proceeding, essentially requiring the agency to give the caretaker notice of any proposed decision it has made to remove the child from placement with the caretaker, permitting the caretaker to file a petition with the juvenile court objecting to the proposed removal, and permitting removal of the child only if the court determines removal is in the child's best interest. (§ 366.26, subd. (n)(3); see Wayne F. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1334, 1342.)
Finally, we note that section 366.26 generally outlines the procedures by which the juvenile court selects a permanent plan for a dependent child "in order to provide [a] stable, permanent home[]" for that child, choosing, in order of preference, a plan of either adoption, legal guardianship, or long-term foster care. (§ 366.26, subd. (b).) The court may select a plan of adoption only after ordering the termination of parental rights, and, if the petition for adoption is filed with the juvenile court, may proceed with the adoption only after the appellate rights of the natural parents have been exhausted. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1); see also § 366.26, subds. (c)(1) & (e).) {Slip Opn. Page 11}
But section 366.26 is not the exclusive procedure to terminate parental rights in a dependency proceeding. With regard to a dependent child, the "exclusive procedures for permanently terminating parental rights" are those specified in section 366.26, and also those specified in several Family Code sections including section 8700. (§ 366.26, subd. (a).)
C. The Interplay of Voluntary Relinquishment and Dependency Law
The foregoing provisions, read together, clearly evidence a legislative intent to preserve without limitation the right of a birth parent of a dependent child to relinquish voluntarily his or her parental rights and free the child for adoption through a public adoption agency. (§§ 361, subd. (b), 366.26, subd. (a); Fam. Code, §§ 8700, 8704.) This right includes the ability to participate in the adoption process to the extent of designating a relative or other person with whom the birth parent intends the public adoption agency to place the child for adoption. It also includes the right--notwithstanding the voluntary relinquishment of all other parental rights--to rescind the relinquishment within the specified 30-day period, in the event that the public adoption agency terminates the designated placement before adoption is final. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subds. (f), (g) & (h).) These rights necessarily continue throughout the dependency proceeding, at least until the juvenile court has ordered the involuntary termination of parental rights, an order that obviously leaves the birth parent with no further rights to relinquish.
Here the juvenile court, at its hearing on December 5, 2008, had before it the State Adoptions assessment and attached declarations. The assessment and declarations indicated that the parents had completed a voluntary, designated relinquishment that had been accepted by State Adoptions, a public adoption agency, and that duly became final on December 1, when State Adoptions headquarters gave written acknowledgment of the relinquishment. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(1)(A).) The court was on notice, as the minor's trial counsel pointed out, that there was no "necessity" for a section 366.26 hearing, at least in its "classical" sense, because the parents had exercised their right under section 361, subdivision (b), to relinquish their parental rights and free the minor for adoption through a public adoption agency. {Slip Opn. Page 12}
Neither the dependency law nor the applicable rules of court specify what the juvenile court must do in such circumstances--that is, when the parents make a voluntary designated relinquishment that becomes final after the court has set a section 366.26 hearing, but before the date set for the section 366.26 hearing. The scheme outlined above, however, makes it clear what a juvenile court may not do. The court is barred by section 361, subdivision (b), from making any order that interferes with a birth parent's final, voluntary designated relinquishment.
The orders made by the juvenile court in this case impermissibly interfered with the parents' relinquishment in several respects. First and foremost, the court was no longer authorized to order the involuntary termination of parental rights. The parents had effectively terminated their parental rights through the alternative procedure of voluntary relinquishment, an alternative expressly authorized by section 366.26, subdivision (a). Moreover, an order of involuntary termination, once it becomes final, is conclusive and binding in nature, both on the parents and the minor, and the juvenile court cannot set it aside. fn. 8 (§ 366.26, subd. (i)(1).) As such, it would necessarily interfere with and effectively cut off the parents' one remaining right to rescind their relinquishment in the event the designated placement was terminated before adoption became final. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subds. (g) & (h).)
Because the court could not properly make an order that involuntarily terminated Father's and Mother's parental rights, it was also precluded from making an order under section 366.26 placing the minor for adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) The minor had already been placed for adoption through the final designated relinquishment, at which point State Adoptions was entitled to exclusive custody and control of the minor until the granting of an order of adoption. (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (a).) The most that the juvenile could properly do, under theses circumstances, was to hold a hearing for the purpose of vacating the scheduled section 366.26 hearing, and state on the record its reasons for doing so. That is, the selection of a permanent plan under section 366.26 had {Slip Opn. Page 13} become unnecessary because the parents and State Adoptions, through a final, voluntary designated relinquishment, had freed the minor for adoption through State Adoptions, a public adoption agency.
Finally, it was error for the juvenile court in this instance to issue an order granting the request of the minor's current caregivers, Foster Parents, for designation as prospective adoptive parents. Such an order may only be made at a section 366.26 hearing or thereafter. (§ 366.26, subd. (n)(1).) But the court in this instance could not accomplish the purposes of a section 366.26 hearing. It was precluded by the final voluntary designated relinquishment from ordering the involuntary termination of parental rights, and thus from ordering the minor placed for adoption. Nor was the court authorized to select any other permanent plan, as the relinquishment had effectively accomplished such a selection by freeing the minor for adoption through State Adoptions. As we have noted, the only proper course open to the court was to vacate the section 366.26 hearing, and thus it was premature for the court to consider properly any request for designation as prospective adoptive parents under section 366.26, subdivision (n). More importantly, the order designating Foster Parents as prospective adoptive parents was in critical conflict with the Father's and Mother's final designation of Aunt and P.F. as the intended adoptive placement, in violation of section 361, subdivision (b) and Family Code section 8700, subdivision (f).
The Department argues that the juvenile court was entitled to proceed with the section 366.26 hearing in order to address the protections offered to current caregivers under subdivision (n) of section 366.26, because those provisions are applicable "[n]otwithstanding section 8704 of the Family Code." (See § 366.26, subd. (n)(1).) The simple answer to this is that "exclusive custody and control" provisions of Family Code section 8704 apply when a child has been freed for adoption by "either relinquishment or termination of parental rights." (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (a), italics added.) When this language is read together with section 366.26, subdivision (n)(1), it is clear that the procedures of section 366.26, subdivision (n), are intended to limit the "exclusive custody and control" provisions of Family Code section 8704 only when the child has been freed {Slip Opn. Page 14} for adoption through a juvenile court order terminating parental rights involuntarily in a section 366.26 hearing. The protections for current caregivers under section 366.26, subdivision (n), do not come into play when a child has been freed for adoption through the voluntary relinquishment procedures of Family Code section 8700. Any such interpretation would allow the error that occurred in this case--a designation of current caregivers as prospective adoptive parents that actively conflicts with a voluntary designated relinquishment in violation of the protections afforded to birth parents under section 361, subdivision (b).
The Department protests that such an interpretation would allow "different standards" to be applied to a child depending on whether his or her birth parents relinquished their rights or had them terminated involuntarily by the juvenile court. However, the scheme outlined above is designed to balance the best interests of a dependent child with the rights of birth parents. On the one hand, a birth parent is entitled to contest a proposed involuntary termination of his or her parental rights, and when there is an involuntary termination of parental rights, the juvenile court may not proceed with nor finalize any adoption until the parents' appellate rights have been exhausted. (§ 366.26, subds. (e) & (j).) On the other hand, when birth parents relinquish their parental rights voluntarily, they are not only able to participate in the adoption process, but their relinquishment also obviates the need for a contested hearing to terminate their rights involuntarily. The child relinquished voluntarily, may, in turn, achieve the stability of a final adoption without the delay attendant upon the exhaustion of the parents' appeal from an involuntary termination of parental rights. fn. 9 {Slip Opn. Page 15}
The Department's other arguments are similarly unpersuasive. It suggests, for example, that the juvenile court was entitled to proceed with a section 366.26 hearing in order to implement the protections of section 366.26, subdivision (k). That subdivision sets out a "preference" for the application for adoptive placement made by a current caretaker when the agency making the placement determines that the child "has substantial emotional ties to the . . . caretaker . . . and removal . . . would be seriously detrimental to the child's emotional well-being." (§ 366.26, subd. (k).) That subdivision, however, had little or no relevance by the time of the date set for the section 366.26 hearing. The "preference" refers only to the processing of the application for adoptive placement and the completion of the family study. (§ 366.26, subd. (k).) The Department's report completed immediately prior to the scheduled section 366.26 hearing indicates that the applications for adoptive placement and home studies had already been completed for Foster Parents, as well as for Aunt and P.F.
The Department suggests finally that the juvenile court was entitled to proceed with the section 366.26 hearing because none of the parties clearly disputed the need for the court to select a permanent plan. We disagree. As noted above, the court was on notice that a final, voluntary designated relinquishment had been accomplished prior to scheduled commencement of the section 366.26 hearing, and the minor's trial counsel pointed out there was no longer any need to accomplish the "classical" purposes of a section 366.26 hearing.
D. Conclusion
We conclude, in summary, that when, as here, the birth parents make a voluntary designated relinquishment to a public adoption agency under Family Code section 8700, and the relinquishment becomes final after the section 366.26 hearing has been set, but {Slip Opn. Page 16} before it is scheduled to commence, the relinquishment effectively precludes the need for a hearing to select a permanent plan under section 366.26. The juvenile court is precluded from making any order that interferes with the parents' unlimited right to make such a voluntary relinquishment to a public adoption agency. In this case, the court made such orders, both when it terminated parental rights involuntarily, and when it designated Foster Parents as prospective adoptive parents under section 366.26, subdivision (n). These orders not only violated the parents' statutory rights under section 361, subdivision (b), but were clearly prejudicial to the designation they made under Family Code section 8700, naming Aunt and P.F. as the intended adoptive placement. We accordingly reverse the order of December 19, 2008.
II. ICWA Notice Violations
At the outset of the proceeding, Mother stated she had a grandmother who was a member of a Cherokee or Choctaw tribe, while Father stated he thought he might have Blackfeet "ancestry." The Department sent notice to these tribes, including such information about their grandparents and great-grandparents as Mother and Father had provided. Based on the tribes' responses, the Department determined, by the time of the six-month hearing, that ICWA did not apply. At the six-month hearing itself, counsel for Mother stated that Aunt, who was not present, had provided counsel with documents indicating that Aunt was applying for a "certificate of degree of Indian blood" from the Chickasaw tribe--a tribe not previously identified in the proceeding. Grandmother, who was present at the hearing, informed the court that neither her own mother nor her grandmother had an "affiliation with any tribe." The court stated that, since the documents did not establish any specific information indicating Chickasaw ancestry, and since Grandmother denied such ancestry, there was "no credible basis" for the claim, and ruled that the minor was not an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA.
Mother argues, essentially, that the Department failed to investigate adequately the parents' initial claims of Indian ancestry, to provide the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Blackfeet tribes with more detailed information than what she and Father had provided. She also claims the juvenile court violated its ongoing duty to provide notice when it {Slip Opn. Page 17} declined to provide notice to the Chickasaw tribe after being informed at the six-month hearing of Aunt's application to that tribe.
The duty of the Department and juvenile court under ICWA, to inquire regarding Indian affiliation, and to provide notice and an opportunity to intervene to appropriate Indian tribes, is one that applies in dependency proceedings that involve a child the court knows or has reason to know is an Indian child, and that may result in an involuntary foster care placement, guardianship, or involuntary termination of parental rights and adoptive placement. (25 U.S.C. § 1912; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.480; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481.) After the parents' voluntary relinquishment freed the minor for adoption through State Adoptions, the minor was effectively freed from the dependency proceedings to the extent they might result in involuntary foster care placement, guardianship, or adoptive placement following an involuntary termination of parental rights. At that point, State Adoptions, as the adoption agency accepting relinquishment, became subject to separate provisions of ICWA relating to voluntary relinquishments by the parents of an Indian child. (See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1913, 1915; Fam. Code, § 8606.5.) The inquiry and notice provisions no longer applied pending the outcome of the voluntary adoption proceeding. Accordingly, we deem events subsequent to the court's ICWA status ruling, made at the six-month hearing, rendered Mother's objections moot, and deem it unnecessary to consider the merits of those objections.
DISPOSITION
The order of December 19, 2008, is reversed. fn. 10
Margulies, J., and Banke, J., concurred.
FN 1. Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
FN 2. Prior to the dispositional hearing, Aunt herself had made a request to the Department for relative placement. It appears this earlier request was not granted largely because a relative placement in Fresno County, at that point, would have interfered with the parents' reunification efforts in Del Norte County.
FN 3. When a voluntary relinquishment such as that made by Father and Mother is made to State Adoptions or some other licensed adoption agency, the agency accepting the relinquishment must send a copy to State Adoptions for filing. The relinquishment becomes final 10 business days after receipt of the filing by State Adoptions or when State Adoptions sends written acknowledgment of receipt, whichever is earlier (unless a longer period for finality is necessary due to causes beyond the control of State Adoptions). (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(1).) With one exception discussed below, a voluntary relinquishment, once final, may be rescinded only by mutual consent of the relinquishing parents and the agency that accepted the relinquishment. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(2).) The filing of the relinquishment with State Adoptions operates to terminate all parental rights and responsibilities, again with one exception discussed below in the opinion. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (j).)
FN 4. A "licensed adoption agency" is one licensed by State Adoptions to provide adoption services, including both county adoption agencies and private adoption agencies. (Fam. Code, § 8530.) While section 361, subdivision (b), prohibits a juvenile court from limiting the ability of a birth parent to make a voluntary relinquishment of a dependent child either to State Adoptions or a county adoption agency, the court may, nevertheless, limit the ability of a birth parent to make a voluntary relinquishment of a dependent child to a licensed private adoption agency, pursuant to its authority to limit parental control under section 361, subdivision (a). (Teresa J. v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 366, 375-376.)
FN 5. Thus, for example, the adoptions specialist in this case testified at the relative placement hearing that State Adoptions would not "randomly" accept a designated relinquishment, but would first need to complete an approved home study of the designated placement and determine additionally that the designated placement was in the child's best interest.
FN 6. Of course, to be effective the new designation must be accepted by State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency and filed with State Adoptions. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (h)(3).)
FN 7. Given the limitation to designate only "current caretakers," the juvenile court in this instance had no authority to designate Grandmother or Aunt and P.F.-in addition to Foster Parents-as prospective adoptive parents.
FN 8. There is a limited exception applicable when the plan for adoption has been unsuccessful after at least three years. (§ 366.26, subd. (i)(2).)
FN 9. Such delay is illustrated by the period that has elapsed since the order of December 19, 2008, the subject of this appeal. We note also that the provisions of subdivision (n) of section 366.26 originated with Statutes 2005, chapter 626, section 1 (Sen. Bill No. 218). To determine legislative intent it is appropriate to consider the floor analysis of this bill. (See People v. Broussard (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1067, 1075.) The Senate Floor Analysis for Senate Bill No. 218 of 2005 indicates that the procedures to protect current caregivers, now set out in section 366.26, subdivision (n), were designed to address concerns arising during the more delayed "period between termination of parental rights and the granting of a petition for adoption," as distinguished from the more expedited period between voluntary relinquishment and the granting of a petition for adoption. (See Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, analysis of Sen. Bill No. 218 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 6, 2005, par. 3.) [as of Nov. 30, 2009].)
FN 10. The motion of minor's counsel to strike references to Dr. Blake Carmichael's report from respondent's brief is denied as moot in light of the controlling issues on appeal.
In re R.S. (2009) , Cal.App.4th
[No. A124021. First Dist., Div. One. Nov. 30, 2009.]
In re R.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. M.T. et al., Objectors and Appellants.
(Superior Court of Del Norte County, No. JVSQ-07-6254, Robert W. Weir, Judge.)
(Opinion by Marchiano, P.J., with Margulies, J., and Banke, J., concurring.)
COUNSEL
Donna L. Hall and Valerie E. Sopher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Objectors and Appellants.
Janet G. Sherwood, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for the minor.
Dohn R. Henion, County Counsel and Ian W. Trueblood, Deputy County Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent.
OPINION
MARCHIANO, P.J.-
The parents of the minor R.S. executed a relinquishment of parental rights with the state's Department of Social Services (State Adoptions) in conformance with Family Code section 8700. Subsequently, the Juvenile Court of Del Norte County terminated their parental rights. M.T. (Mother) and R.S. (Father) appeal from that order, made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. fn. 1 We consider first Father's contention--in which counsel for the minor has joined--that the juvenile court erred in holding the section 366.26 hearing and in issuing orders that terminated parental rights and granted a request by the minor's foster parents (Foster Parents) to be designated as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n). Father argues that in doing so the court impermissibly interfered with a final, voluntary relinquishment the parents had made to State Adoptions. This relinquishment included a designation of persons other than the Foster Parents as the intended adoptive placement, namely, Mother's sister K.F. (Aunt) and Aunt's husband P.F. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (f).) {Slip Opn. Page 2}
As discussed below, we agree with this contention and reverse the orders of the juvenile court. Secondly, we conclude that it is unnecessary to address Mother's contention, that the court violated notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), because any defect in the notice provided to Indian tribes, concerning the minor's dependency proceeding, was rendered moot by the parents' voluntary relinquishment to State Adoptions.
BACKGROUND
In November 2007, the county's Department of Health and Human Services (Department) initiated these proceedings as to the minor (born June 2006). On January 9, 2008, the juvenile court established dependency jurisdiction over the minor after sustaining allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j). After a dispositional hearing on January 25, 2008, the court directed the minor's removal for out-of-home placement and ordered the Department to provide reunification services to the parents. On this date, the minor was placed with Foster Parents, D.D. and K.D.
At the conclusion of the six-month status review hearing (six-month hearing) on August 5, 2008, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a hearing under section 366.26. Mother sought review of this order by petition for extraordinary writ. The underlying facts and procedural background up to this point are summarized in this court's decision denying Mother's petition. (M.T. v. Superior Court (Nov. 14, 2008, A122647) [nonpub. opn.].)
The juvenile court held a hearing on September 12, 2008, to review visitation between the parents and the minor pending the section 366.26 hearing. At this hearing, Mother's counsel indicated that her preference, since the termination of reunification efforts, was to have the minor adopted by Aunt, who resided in Clovis, Fresno County. On the other hand, Foster Parents had retained counsel and were "jumping through all the hoops in as vigorous a way as they can" in seeking to adopt the minor. For this reason, Mother's counsel moved for a hearing on her request to have the minor placed with Aunt {Slip Opn. Page 3} pursuant to the relative placement provisions of section 361.3. fn. 2 Counsel representing Aunt, who was present at the hearing, mentioned to the court that both Mother and Father were in the process of preparing a "designated relinquish[ment]" with State Adoptions--that is, a voluntary relinquishment of their parental rights that would include their designation of a person with whom they intended the minor to be placed for adoption. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (f).) Minor's trial counsel supported Mother's request for a relative placement hearing, noting that Aunt had made "a very strong showing," and that "it's better normally . . . to leave the child with family rather than with foster parents." Counsel for the Department stated that State Adoptions should be involved in the hearing.
At the outset of the relative placement hearing under section 361.3, Aunt's counsel again noted that both parents were "prepared to sign" a relinquishment of their rights with State Adoptions, designating Aunt as the person they intended the minor to be placed for adoption. S.A. (Grandmother), the mother of both Aunt and Mother, appeared at the hearing and informed the court that the minor's placement with Aunt in Clovis would interfere with her relationship with the minor, as well as the minor's relationship with a seven-year-old half sibling, F., who lived with Grandmother. Grandmother further stated she herself was "being considered for adoptive placement" and, as she had previously adopted F., queried why she should not be able to adopt the minor as well. Mother testified to her desire that the minor be placed with Aunt, stating she and minor had lived with Aunt from before his birth until he was almost one year of age. Mother explained neither she nor Aunt had been able to maintain a relationship with F.--her biological daughter and the minor's half sibling--because Grandmother would not allow it. She indicated, however, that Aunt would ensure the minor had contact with the minor's two other half siblings, J. and C., who had been adopted by their paternal grandmother. The State Adoptions specialist for Del Norte County testified that she had only recently {Slip Opn. Page 4} received an approved home study of Aunt from the Fresno branch of State Adoptions. She stated that several families, including Foster Parents and Grandmother, were also interested in adopting the minor, and she had not yet completed her adoption assessment for the section 366.26 hearing. She recommended that the minor not be moved from his current placement with Foster Parents before she completed her assessment. At the conclusion of the hearing, on October 16, the court denied Mother's request for immediate placement of the minor with Aunt.
Meanwhile, both Foster Parents and Aunt and P.F. filed requests for de facto parent status. The juvenile court granted these requests on November 7 and November 13, 2008, respectively. On November 17, Foster Parents additionally filed a request to be designated as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n).
The Department's report prepared for the section 366.26 hearing, completed and filed December 3, 2008, recommended that the juvenile court terminate the parents' parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan. The Department further recommended that the court designate Foster Parents as the prospective adoptive parents and that the minor remain placed with them for adoption.
The assessment by State Adoptions, completed on December 2, 2008, by the Arcata district manager, was submitted as an attachment to the Department's report. This assessment noted that in late November, Mother and Father had "completed designated relinquishments identifying [Aunt and P.F. as] the prospective adoptive parents." State Adoption's central office had "received and acknowledged" the completed relinquishment. State Adoptions thus regarded Aunt and P.F. as the minor's prospective adoptive parents, deeming them "suitable and committed to the adoption." It recommended that the juvenile court "take into consideration the birth parents' wishes, as reflected in their designated relinquishment." State Adoptions noted that "[g]iven the {Slip Opn. Page 5} aforementioned designated relinquishments, in which the birth parents voluntarily terminated their parental rights, it is not necessary for the court to also move to terminate the parental rights of [Mother and Father]." Declarations attached to the assessment averred that State Adoptions headquarters had issued an acknowledgment of the relinquishment on December 1. fn. 3
At the outset of the section 366.26 hearing, on December 5, 2008, the juvenile court noted that it had before it the Department's "report and its attachment." Counsel for the minor pointed out, "as a procedural matter" that both parents had "officially relinquished their claims," and thus there was no "necessity for the classical reason of a [section 366.26] hearing." Counsel for Foster Parents agreed, stating in effect there was no issue requiring a contested section 366.26 hearing, as the parents could not contest the termination of parental rights they had already relinquished. The court continued the hearing without making any determination on this point.
At the continued hearing, on December 19, 2008, the juvenile court admitted the Department's report and the State Adoptions assessment into evidence. Counsel for Aunt and P.F. expressed his view that "the only issue to be resolved" was whether State Adoptions determined there would be "serious detriment" to the minor if he were removed from his current placement with Foster Parents. Counsel for Foster Parents stated there was the additional issue of Foster Parents' pending request for designation as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n). Father's {Slip Opn. Page 6} counsel made an objection to the court's termination of parental rights based on the designated relinquishment of those rights. Counsel for Mother essentially expressed willingness to submit on the Department's report and the State Adoptions assessment. The court, meanwhile, twice posed the question whether "there [was] any reason not to complete our objectives under [section] 366.26," that is, to "terminate parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan." Asking for any disagreement, and "[h]earing none," the court proceeded to terminate both parents' parental rights, made a finding that the minor was adoptable, and ordered a permanent plan of adoption.
Counsel for Foster Parents then renewed his request that they be designated as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n). Counsel for Aunt and P.F. objected on the ground that State Adoptions had already determined that placement with Aunt was appropriate pursuant to the parents' designated relinquishments. The juvenile court did not find this objection persuasive, deeming the provisions of section 366.26, subdivision (n), to be a procedure "removing" State Adoptions' placement discretion "in a limited way." The court concluded that Foster Parents, Aunt and P.F., and Grandmother were all to be designated as prospective adoptive parents, and continued the matter for an evidentiary hearing relating to the minor's ultimate adoptive placement.
The parents' appeal followed. (§ 395.)
DISCUSSION
I. The Juvenile Court's Orders Impermissibly Impaired the Voluntary Relinquishment
A. Father's Contention
Father argues that the juvenile court erred in holding the hearing under section 366.26 after the voluntary relinquishment he and Mother made to State Adoptions. He points out that the juvenile court had no right to limit their ability to make a voluntary relinquishment to a public adoptions agency that was willing to accept it. (§ 361, subd. (b).) Father also points out that, once their designated relinquishment became final--before the date set for the section 366.26 hearing--State Adoptions was vested with exclusive custody and control of the minor until an order of adoption is granted. (Fam. {Slip Opn. Page 7} Code, § 8704, subd. (a).) In Father's view, the court's decision to hold the section 366.26 hearing, and to make orders that included one that terminated his and Mother's parental rights and one that granted Foster Parents' request for designation as prospective adoptive parents under section 366.26, subdivision (n), was error that impermissibly and prejudicially interfered with their voluntary relinquishment to State Adoptions, with its designation of Aunt and P.F. as the intended adoptive parents. Appellate counsel for the minor has filed a responding brief that joins in this argument.
B. The Statutory Scheme
Father's contention calls for a detailed examination of the Family Code provisions governing voluntary relinquishment and the applicable provisions of the dependency law. Once a child is adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court, that court is authorized to issue orders that limit the control a parent may exercise over that child, to the extent necessary to protect the child. (§ 361, subd. (a).) The juvenile court may not, however, "limit the ability of a parent to voluntarily relinquish his or her child to [State Adoptions] or to a licensed county adoption agency at any time while the child is a dependent child of the juvenile court, if [State Adoptions or the county adoption agency] is willing to accept the relinquishment." (§ 361, subd. (b).)
A birth parent may relinquish a child to State Adoptions or a licensed adoption agency fn. 4 by a written statement signed before two subscribing witnesses and acknowledged before an authorized official of State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (a).) To be effective, a certified copy of the relinquishment must be sent to and filed with State Adoptions. (Fam. Code, § 8700, {Slip Opn. Page 8} subd. (e)(1).) As noted above, a relinquishment generally becomes final when State Adoptions sends a written acknowledgment of receipt of the relinquishment, or in any event after the lapse of 10 business days after State Adoptions receives the relinquishment for filing. (See fn. 3, ante.)
After a relinquishment becomes final, it may be rescinded only by mutual consent of the relinquishing parent and State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(2).) There is, however, one exception. As was done by Father and Mother in this case, a birth parent may name in his or her voluntary relinquishment the person or persons with whom he or she intends that placement of the child for adoption be made by State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (f).) State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency may not accept a relinquishment under Family Code section 8700--including one that designates the intended adoptive parent--unless the agency determines it is able to place the child for adoption. fn. 5 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 35135, subd. (a)(2).) Nevertheless, the provisions for voluntary relinquishment recognize that State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency, even after accepting a designated relinquishment, might ultimately decide either not to place the child with the designated persons or to remove the child from placement with the designated persons prior to granting of adoption. In such an event, State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency must provide notice of its decision to the relinquishing birth parent. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (g).) The relinquishing birth parent then has 30 days from the mailing of the notice in which to rescind his or her relinquishment, or to rescind that relinquishment and make a new one that designates a different person or persons for adoptive placement. fn. 6 (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (h).) {Slip Opn. Page 9} With the exception of this right to rescind a designated relinquishment when the designated placement is terminated before an adoption order is granted, the filing of a voluntary relinquishment with State Adoptions operates to terminate all parental rights and responsibilities with regard to the child. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (j).)
When a birth parent has voluntarily relinquished a child for adoption under Family Code section 8700, and that child is a dependant of the juvenile court, the adoption agency accepting the relinquishment must, within five court days, provide written notice of the relinquishment to the juvenile court having jurisdiction, counsel for the minor, if any, and counsel for the relinquishing parent, if any. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (i).)
When a child is freed for adoption--whether by voluntary relinquishment under Family Code section 8700 or by termination of parental rights--the agency to whom the child has been freed becomes responsible for the care of the child, and is entitled to exclusive custody and control of the child until an order of adoption is granted. (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (a).) The agency to whom the child has been freed for adoption may, in its discretion, terminate a temporary care placement or an adoptive placement at any time before an adoption order is granted. (Fam. Code § 8704, subd. (a).) The juvenile court retains jurisdiction over a dependent child freed for adoption, until the order of adoption is granted. (See §§ 366.29, subd. (c), 366.3, subd. (a).) Its oversight of placement decisions by the agency having exclusive custody and control however, is limited. Once a petition for adoption has been filed by the prospective adoptive parents, the agency having exclusive custody and control may not remove the child from an adoptive placement with these parents without approval of the court--that is, the juvenile court or family law court in which the adoption petition has been filed. (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (b); see § 366.26, subd. (e).) But before the prospective adoptive parents file an adoption petition, the juvenile court may interfere with or disapprove a placement decision made by the agency having exclusive custody and control only if the agency's decision is " 'patently absurd or unquestionably not in the minor's best interests.' " (In re Harry N. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1397, quoting Department of Social Services v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 721, 725 (Theodore D.).) {Slip Opn. Page 10}
This limitation on the juvenile court's oversight of the adoption agency's placement decisions was modified by 2005 legislation. "If the court, by order or judgment, declares the child free from custody and control of both parents, or one parent if the other does not have custody and control . . . [State Adoptions or the] licensed adoption agency . . . shall be entitled to the exclusive care and control of the child at all times until a petition for adoption is granted, except as specified in subdivision (n). . . ." (§ 366.26, subd. (j), italics added.) Subdivision (n), in turn, authorizes the juvenile court "at a [section 366.26] hearing or any time thereafter, [to] designate a current caretaker fn. 7 as a prospective adoptive parent" if the caretaker has taken care of the child for at least six months, has expressed a commitment to adoption, and has taken at least one step to facilitate the adoption process. (§ 366.26, subd. (n)(1), italics added.) The designation gives the caretaker limited standing in the dependency proceeding, essentially requiring the agency to give the caretaker notice of any proposed decision it has made to remove the child from placement with the caretaker, permitting the caretaker to file a petition with the juvenile court objecting to the proposed removal, and permitting removal of the child only if the court determines removal is in the child's best interest. (§ 366.26, subd. (n)(3); see Wayne F. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1334, 1342.)
Finally, we note that section 366.26 generally outlines the procedures by which the juvenile court selects a permanent plan for a dependent child "in order to provide [a] stable, permanent home[]" for that child, choosing, in order of preference, a plan of either adoption, legal guardianship, or long-term foster care. (§ 366.26, subd. (b).) The court may select a plan of adoption only after ordering the termination of parental rights, and, if the petition for adoption is filed with the juvenile court, may proceed with the adoption only after the appellate rights of the natural parents have been exhausted. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1); see also § 366.26, subds. (c)(1) & (e).) {Slip Opn. Page 11}
But section 366.26 is not the exclusive procedure to terminate parental rights in a dependency proceeding. With regard to a dependent child, the "exclusive procedures for permanently terminating parental rights" are those specified in section 366.26, and also those specified in several Family Code sections including section 8700. (§ 366.26, subd. (a).)
C. The Interplay of Voluntary Relinquishment and Dependency Law
The foregoing provisions, read together, clearly evidence a legislative intent to preserve without limitation the right of a birth parent of a dependent child to relinquish voluntarily his or her parental rights and free the child for adoption through a public adoption agency. (§§ 361, subd. (b), 366.26, subd. (a); Fam. Code, §§ 8700, 8704.) This right includes the ability to participate in the adoption process to the extent of designating a relative or other person with whom the birth parent intends the public adoption agency to place the child for adoption. It also includes the right--notwithstanding the voluntary relinquishment of all other parental rights--to rescind the relinquishment within the specified 30-day period, in the event that the public adoption agency terminates the designated placement before adoption is final. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subds. (f), (g) & (h).) These rights necessarily continue throughout the dependency proceeding, at least until the juvenile court has ordered the involuntary termination of parental rights, an order that obviously leaves the birth parent with no further rights to relinquish.
Here the juvenile court, at its hearing on December 5, 2008, had before it the State Adoptions assessment and attached declarations. The assessment and declarations indicated that the parents had completed a voluntary, designated relinquishment that had been accepted by State Adoptions, a public adoption agency, and that duly became final on December 1, when State Adoptions headquarters gave written acknowledgment of the relinquishment. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(1)(A).) The court was on notice, as the minor's trial counsel pointed out, that there was no "necessity" for a section 366.26 hearing, at least in its "classical" sense, because the parents had exercised their right under section 361, subdivision (b), to relinquish their parental rights and free the minor for adoption through a public adoption agency. {Slip Opn. Page 12}
Neither the dependency law nor the applicable rules of court specify what the juvenile court must do in such circumstances--that is, when the parents make a voluntary designated relinquishment that becomes final after the court has set a section 366.26 hearing, but before the date set for the section 366.26 hearing. The scheme outlined above, however, makes it clear what a juvenile court may not do. The court is barred by section 361, subdivision (b), from making any order that interferes with a birth parent's final, voluntary designated relinquishment.
The orders made by the juvenile court in this case impermissibly interfered with the parents' relinquishment in several respects. First and foremost, the court was no longer authorized to order the involuntary termination of parental rights. The parents had effectively terminated their parental rights through the alternative procedure of voluntary relinquishment, an alternative expressly authorized by section 366.26, subdivision (a). Moreover, an order of involuntary termination, once it becomes final, is conclusive and binding in nature, both on the parents and the minor, and the juvenile court cannot set it aside. fn. 8 (§ 366.26, subd. (i)(1).) As such, it would necessarily interfere with and effectively cut off the parents' one remaining right to rescind their relinquishment in the event the designated placement was terminated before adoption became final. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subds. (g) & (h).)
Because the court could not properly make an order that involuntarily terminated Father's and Mother's parental rights, it was also precluded from making an order under section 366.26 placing the minor for adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) The minor had already been placed for adoption through the final designated relinquishment, at which point State Adoptions was entitled to exclusive custody and control of the minor until the granting of an order of adoption. (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (a).) The most that the juvenile could properly do, under theses circumstances, was to hold a hearing for the purpose of vacating the scheduled section 366.26 hearing, and state on the record its reasons for doing so. That is, the selection of a permanent plan under section 366.26 had {Slip Opn. Page 13} become unnecessary because the parents and State Adoptions, through a final, voluntary designated relinquishment, had freed the minor for adoption through State Adoptions, a public adoption agency.
Finally, it was error for the juvenile court in this instance to issue an order granting the request of the minor's current caregivers, Foster Parents, for designation as prospective adoptive parents. Such an order may only be made at a section 366.26 hearing or thereafter. (§ 366.26, subd. (n)(1).) But the court in this instance could not accomplish the purposes of a section 366.26 hearing. It was precluded by the final voluntary designated relinquishment from ordering the involuntary termination of parental rights, and thus from ordering the minor placed for adoption. Nor was the court authorized to select any other permanent plan, as the relinquishment had effectively accomplished such a selection by freeing the minor for adoption through State Adoptions. As we have noted, the only proper course open to the court was to vacate the section 366.26 hearing, and thus it was premature for the court to consider properly any request for designation as prospective adoptive parents under section 366.26, subdivision (n). More importantly, the order designating Foster Parents as prospective adoptive parents was in critical conflict with the Father's and Mother's final designation of Aunt and P.F. as the intended adoptive placement, in violation of section 361, subdivision (b) and Family Code section 8700, subdivision (f).
The Department argues that the juvenile court was entitled to proceed with the section 366.26 hearing in order to address the protections offered to current caregivers under subdivision (n) of section 366.26, because those provisions are applicable "[n]otwithstanding section 8704 of the Family Code." (See § 366.26, subd. (n)(1).) The simple answer to this is that "exclusive custody and control" provisions of Family Code section 8704 apply when a child has been freed for adoption by "either relinquishment or termination of parental rights." (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (a), italics added.) When this language is read together with section 366.26, subdivision (n)(1), it is clear that the procedures of section 366.26, subdivision (n), are intended to limit the "exclusive custody and control" provisions of Family Code section 8704 only when the child has been freed {Slip Opn. Page 14} for adoption through a juvenile court order terminating parental rights involuntarily in a section 366.26 hearing. The protections for current caregivers under section 366.26, subdivision (n), do not come into play when a child has been freed for adoption through the voluntary relinquishment procedures of Family Code section 8700. Any such interpretation would allow the error that occurred in this case--a designation of current caregivers as prospective adoptive parents that actively conflicts with a voluntary designated relinquishment in violation of the protections afforded to birth parents under section 361, subdivision (b).
The Department protests that such an interpretation would allow "different standards" to be applied to a child depending on whether his or her birth parents relinquished their rights or had them terminated involuntarily by the juvenile court. However, the scheme outlined above is designed to balance the best interests of a dependent child with the rights of birth parents. On the one hand, a birth parent is entitled to contest a proposed involuntary termination of his or her parental rights, and when there is an involuntary termination of parental rights, the juvenile court may not proceed with nor finalize any adoption until the parents' appellate rights have been exhausted. (§ 366.26, subds. (e) & (j).) On the other hand, when birth parents relinquish their parental rights voluntarily, they are not only able to participate in the adoption process, but their relinquishment also obviates the need for a contested hearing to terminate their rights involuntarily. The child relinquished voluntarily, may, in turn, achieve the stability of a final adoption without the delay attendant upon the exhaustion of the parents' appeal from an involuntary termination of parental rights. fn. 9 {Slip Opn. Page 15}
The Department's other arguments are similarly unpersuasive. It suggests, for example, that the juvenile court was entitled to proceed with a section 366.26 hearing in order to implement the protections of section 366.26, subdivision (k). That subdivision sets out a "preference" for the application for adoptive placement made by a current caretaker when the agency making the placement determines that the child "has substantial emotional ties to the . . . caretaker . . . and removal . . . would be seriously detrimental to the child's emotional well-being." (§ 366.26, subd. (k).) That subdivision, however, had little or no relevance by the time of the date set for the section 366.26 hearing. The "preference" refers only to the processing of the application for adoptive placement and the completion of the family study. (§ 366.26, subd. (k).) The Department's report completed immediately prior to the scheduled section 366.26 hearing indicates that the applications for adoptive placement and home studies had already been completed for Foster Parents, as well as for Aunt and P.F.
The Department suggests finally that the juvenile court was entitled to proceed with the section 366.26 hearing because none of the parties clearly disputed the need for the court to select a permanent plan. We disagree. As noted above, the court was on notice that a final, voluntary designated relinquishment had been accomplished prior to scheduled commencement of the section 366.26 hearing, and the minor's trial counsel pointed out there was no longer any need to accomplish the "classical" purposes of a section 366.26 hearing.
D. Conclusion
We conclude, in summary, that when, as here, the birth parents make a voluntary designated relinquishment to a public adoption agency under Family Code section 8700, and the relinquishment becomes final after the section 366.26 hearing has been set, but {Slip Opn. Page 16} before it is scheduled to commence, the relinquishment effectively precludes the need for a hearing to select a permanent plan under section 366.26. The juvenile court is precluded from making any order that interferes with the parents' unlimited right to make such a voluntary relinquishment to a public adoption agency. In this case, the court made such orders, both when it terminated parental rights involuntarily, and when it designated Foster Parents as prospective adoptive parents under section 366.26, subdivision (n). These orders not only violated the parents' statutory rights under section 361, subdivision (b), but were clearly prejudicial to the designation they made under Family Code section 8700, naming Aunt and P.F. as the intended adoptive placement. We accordingly reverse the order of December 19, 2008.
II. ICWA Notice Violations
At the outset of the proceeding, Mother stated she had a grandmother who was a member of a Cherokee or Choctaw tribe, while Father stated he thought he might have Blackfeet "ancestry." The Department sent notice to these tribes, including such information about their grandparents and great-grandparents as Mother and Father had provided. Based on the tribes' responses, the Department determined, by the time of the six-month hearing, that ICWA did not apply. At the six-month hearing itself, counsel for Mother stated that Aunt, who was not present, had provided counsel with documents indicating that Aunt was applying for a "certificate of degree of Indian blood" from the Chickasaw tribe--a tribe not previously identified in the proceeding. Grandmother, who was present at the hearing, informed the court that neither her own mother nor her grandmother had an "affiliation with any tribe." The court stated that, since the documents did not establish any specific information indicating Chickasaw ancestry, and since Grandmother denied such ancestry, there was "no credible basis" for the claim, and ruled that the minor was not an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA.
Mother argues, essentially, that the Department failed to investigate adequately the parents' initial claims of Indian ancestry, to provide the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Blackfeet tribes with more detailed information than what she and Father had provided. She also claims the juvenile court violated its ongoing duty to provide notice when it {Slip Opn. Page 17} declined to provide notice to the Chickasaw tribe after being informed at the six-month hearing of Aunt's application to that tribe.
The duty of the Department and juvenile court under ICWA, to inquire regarding Indian affiliation, and to provide notice and an opportunity to intervene to appropriate Indian tribes, is one that applies in dependency proceedings that involve a child the court knows or has reason to know is an Indian child, and that may result in an involuntary foster care placement, guardianship, or involuntary termination of parental rights and adoptive placement. (25 U.S.C. § 1912; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.480; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481.) After the parents' voluntary relinquishment freed the minor for adoption through State Adoptions, the minor was effectively freed from the dependency proceedings to the extent they might result in involuntary foster care placement, guardianship, or adoptive placement following an involuntary termination of parental rights. At that point, State Adoptions, as the adoption agency accepting relinquishment, became subject to separate provisions of ICWA relating to voluntary relinquishments by the parents of an Indian child. (See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1913, 1915; Fam. Code, § 8606.5.) The inquiry and notice provisions no longer applied pending the outcome of the voluntary adoption proceeding. Accordingly, we deem events subsequent to the court's ICWA status ruling, made at the six-month hearing, rendered Mother's objections moot, and deem it unnecessary to consider the merits of those objections.
DISPOSITION
The order of December 19, 2008, is reversed. fn. 10
Margulies, J., and Banke, J., concurred.
FN 1. Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
FN 2. Prior to the dispositional hearing, Aunt herself had made a request to the Department for relative placement. It appears this earlier request was not granted largely because a relative placement in Fresno County, at that point, would have interfered with the parents' reunification efforts in Del Norte County.
FN 3. When a voluntary relinquishment such as that made by Father and Mother is made to State Adoptions or some other licensed adoption agency, the agency accepting the relinquishment must send a copy to State Adoptions for filing. The relinquishment becomes final 10 business days after receipt of the filing by State Adoptions or when State Adoptions sends written acknowledgment of receipt, whichever is earlier (unless a longer period for finality is necessary due to causes beyond the control of State Adoptions). (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(1).) With one exception discussed below, a voluntary relinquishment, once final, may be rescinded only by mutual consent of the relinquishing parents and the agency that accepted the relinquishment. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(2).) The filing of the relinquishment with State Adoptions operates to terminate all parental rights and responsibilities, again with one exception discussed below in the opinion. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (j).)
FN 4. A "licensed adoption agency" is one licensed by State Adoptions to provide adoption services, including both county adoption agencies and private adoption agencies. (Fam. Code, § 8530.) While section 361, subdivision (b), prohibits a juvenile court from limiting the ability of a birth parent to make a voluntary relinquishment of a dependent child either to State Adoptions or a county adoption agency, the court may, nevertheless, limit the ability of a birth parent to make a voluntary relinquishment of a dependent child to a licensed private adoption agency, pursuant to its authority to limit parental control under section 361, subdivision (a). (Teresa J. v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 366, 375-376.)
FN 5. Thus, for example, the adoptions specialist in this case testified at the relative placement hearing that State Adoptions would not "randomly" accept a designated relinquishment, but would first need to complete an approved home study of the designated placement and determine additionally that the designated placement was in the child's best interest.
FN 6. Of course, to be effective the new designation must be accepted by State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency and filed with State Adoptions. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (h)(3).)
FN 7. Given the limitation to designate only "current caretakers," the juvenile court in this instance had no authority to designate Grandmother or Aunt and P.F.-in addition to Foster Parents-as prospective adoptive parents.
FN 8. There is a limited exception applicable when the plan for adoption has been unsuccessful after at least three years. (§ 366.26, subd. (i)(2).)
FN 9. Such delay is illustrated by the period that has elapsed since the order of December 19, 2008, the subject of this appeal. We note also that the provisions of subdivision (n) of section 366.26 originated with Statutes 2005, chapter 626, section 1 (Sen. Bill No. 218). To determine legislative intent it is appropriate to consider the floor analysis of this bill. (See People v. Broussard (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1067, 1075.) The Senate Floor Analysis for Senate Bill No. 218 of 2005 indicates that the procedures to protect current caregivers, now set out in section 366.26, subdivision (n), were designed to address concerns arising during the more delayed "period between termination of parental rights and the granting of a petition for adoption," as distinguished from the more expedited period between voluntary relinquishment and the granting of a petition for adoption. (See Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, analysis of Sen. Bill No. 218 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 6, 2005, par. 3.) [as of Nov. 30, 2009].)
FN 10. The motion of minor's counsel to strike references to Dr. Blake Carmichael's report from respondent's brief is denied as moot in light of the controlling issues on appeal.
This is a repost of a letter;)
Lately my brain has been busy fighting itself. It seems that being kind isn't working much to my advantage. As I pray on the right thing to do I am reminded that I am not the only one suffering right now. Letters and emails from family members have picked up again. As I struggle to answer each one with the attention it deserves I feel the pain even more deeply. ;(
Love is never a bad thing so I am letting that feeling wash over me today.
My timeline is up to date. My book is moving along. Things are good in many ways and I have much to be grateful for;)
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY!
To all of the scheming people involved in corruption everywhere.......well I had better not say it. ;) All in good time.
SAVING BABY R.
To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right. -Confucius
My purpose for writing this is not to paint foster parents as villains. In most cases they are the opposite. Foster parents our very important and should be looked at with high regards and respect by society.
They are there to provide temporary love, support and a family like atmosphere when children are taking away from their biological parents. And at times, the best place for the child to remain permanetly if reunification does not take place with their biological parents should be with the foster parents through legal adoption.
But foster parents should not fight the child’s family when the family has jumped through every hoop required by the State for proper placement especially when the State Adoptions itself recommend the placement with family.
If I may address the “foster parents” of my nephew:
First I would say thank you, thank you for having a heart for children. Being a “foster parent” is a difficult job to say the least. But my thank you ceases there. I find it terribly difficult to praise “foster parents” who would fight a very loving, very qualified and very dedicated family for the return of our beloved family member. Our nephew is very much missed by eight aunts and uncles, ten cousins, two siblings and numerous extended family members. All who did nothing to deserve for him to be taken from us.
We have been there for him since before birth. We anxiously awaited his arrival and were ecstatic to see him take his first breath of this earth. When CPS took him from his biological parents we ALL stepped up and made it very clear we are his family and we want him to be returned to us. You were aware that we have always been here, you met us, we sent pictures of him and his cousins. We provided clothes, toys, valuable family medical information, prayers, support, love and never ending desire to have him remain in the family God blessed him with.
And yet, for your own selfish reasons you did not do what “foster parents” are inteneded to do. You did not promote reunification; you did not care more for this child and his immeasurable love from his family. You cared only for yourselves. You were given proof the State Cleared and even recommends permanent placement to be given to his maternal aunt and uncle and still you fought. You attended court date after court dates where you first handed saw his family love and dedication to him and still you fought. You were aware of his biological parents’ wishes and signed designated relinquishment for him to be placed with his maternal aunt and uncle and still you fought.
This fight by you cannot be seen as heroic or you are doing this for the best interest for the child. It could only be seen as organized kidnapping. You should be seen for the villains you are, not heroic “foster parents” it’s quit unreasonable for the foster parents to fight this child you claim to love family and create this acrimonious atmosphere between yourselves and this child’s biological family. This is not a child who has no suitable family to provide permanency for him.
If that were the case then you should be commended to want to provide a loving home and family for a child where there isn’t one. But this has never been the case. You should be ashamed for doing everything in your power to attempt to take a very much loved and wanted member from a family.
All I am left to say is if you are successful, if the Judge determines our nephew is to remain with you, this will come back to bite you, regardless of the outcome. This child will be an adult longer than he is a child, he will learn the truth, and he will be shown the sacrifices happily made by his biological family to keep him with us. And he will see how you kidnapped him. His family will not be erased, his DNA will not be changed and his forever bond with our family will not be stolen forever.
Our family’s hearts are right, we love Baby R. and we want him to remain where God intended for him to be, with our family, with HIS family.
You do not have to be a parent to shudder at the word kidnapping nor do you have to be a parent to feel the pain of the loss of a child. All you need is to have a relationship with a child to know the forever ache of the mere thought of them to be taken from you. I am a parent, a proud mother of two.
I am currently experiencing and grieving a kidnapping in my family today but not of my own biological children a kidnapping of my blood related nephew. This kidnapping did not initiate the Amber Alert, the police are not searching for a criminal, and there will be no court date to see the person responsible for taking my nephew be found guilty. This story may sound like a bad Lifetime movie plot but this unfortunately is my reality, but the kidnappers in my Lifetime story are hidden and protected under the guise of “foster parent.”
My nephew was taking from his biological parents and placed into foster care in November 2007. Since that date, my sister and I have made it very clear that we love our nephew and both sought to have him placed with us. Child Protective Services (CPS) prolonged the case and placed our nephew with a foster family that have already adopted a number of foster children.
My sister was cleared by California State Adoptions for permanent placement of our two year old nephew; she and her husband were also named as defacto parent. The foster parents knew our families request and intent to have our nephew remain in our family and they not only fought us but hired their own attorney. The foster parents frustrated visitation with our family, and they unsuccessfully attempted to get a restraining order on our nephew’s biological mother. Moreover, they have done everything in there power to keep the extended biological family out of his life.
My sister and I have entered into an unbridled war with the foster parents for our nephew to remain with his biological family. His biological parents signed a legal designated relinquishment to severe there rights of their son to be specifically placed with his maternal aunt and uncle. The foster parents still would not cease in there efforts to thwart his reunification with his biological family.
Today, the only thing standing in his way of being returned to his biological loving and highly committed family is the foster parents desire to adopt him. California State Adoptions has done a complete investigation of the maternal aunt and uncle and highly recommends permanent placement and adoption by the maternal aunt and uncle. These are not foster parents who desire to help a child who does not have love or family ties; these are foster parents who out of there own selfish wishes are fighting to keep him.
This situation is not one where family did not make there presence and wishes for the child known to the child’s foster parents until the eleventh hour. The foster parents knew our families intent the entire time, and they still selfishly sought the child. These specific foster parents should be ashamed of their lack of compassion and there intent to keep this child from his natural biological family. This act by the foster parents is not praiseworthy and should not be commended; it is without a doubt malicious. They are attempting to take this child from his family who has done nothing but show love, support and the desire to have him remain in their family. The foster parents are trying to adopt a child that should not be adopted as he has a very supportive and State Approved natural family that wants him.
In the next few weeks the fate of my nephew will be decided by a Crescent City Judge. Our two year old nephew will either be permitted to be adopted as requested by his biological parents and as recommended by California State Adoptions by his maternal aunt and uncle. Or he will be left with his foster parents to be adopted. Unfortunately if the latter is to happen this case will not end there, there will be an appeal filed by our family immediately.
Baby R.’s proud Maternal Aunt Lisa
lisakturner1977@yahoo.com
Love is never a bad thing so I am letting that feeling wash over me today.
My timeline is up to date. My book is moving along. Things are good in many ways and I have much to be grateful for;)
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY!
To all of the scheming people involved in corruption everywhere.......well I had better not say it. ;) All in good time.
SAVING BABY R.
To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right. -Confucius
My purpose for writing this is not to paint foster parents as villains. In most cases they are the opposite. Foster parents our very important and should be looked at with high regards and respect by society.
They are there to provide temporary love, support and a family like atmosphere when children are taking away from their biological parents. And at times, the best place for the child to remain permanetly if reunification does not take place with their biological parents should be with the foster parents through legal adoption.
But foster parents should not fight the child’s family when the family has jumped through every hoop required by the State for proper placement especially when the State Adoptions itself recommend the placement with family.
If I may address the “foster parents” of my nephew:
First I would say thank you, thank you for having a heart for children. Being a “foster parent” is a difficult job to say the least. But my thank you ceases there. I find it terribly difficult to praise “foster parents” who would fight a very loving, very qualified and very dedicated family for the return of our beloved family member. Our nephew is very much missed by eight aunts and uncles, ten cousins, two siblings and numerous extended family members. All who did nothing to deserve for him to be taken from us.
We have been there for him since before birth. We anxiously awaited his arrival and were ecstatic to see him take his first breath of this earth. When CPS took him from his biological parents we ALL stepped up and made it very clear we are his family and we want him to be returned to us. You were aware that we have always been here, you met us, we sent pictures of him and his cousins. We provided clothes, toys, valuable family medical information, prayers, support, love and never ending desire to have him remain in the family God blessed him with.
And yet, for your own selfish reasons you did not do what “foster parents” are inteneded to do. You did not promote reunification; you did not care more for this child and his immeasurable love from his family. You cared only for yourselves. You were given proof the State Cleared and even recommends permanent placement to be given to his maternal aunt and uncle and still you fought. You attended court date after court dates where you first handed saw his family love and dedication to him and still you fought. You were aware of his biological parents’ wishes and signed designated relinquishment for him to be placed with his maternal aunt and uncle and still you fought.
This fight by you cannot be seen as heroic or you are doing this for the best interest for the child. It could only be seen as organized kidnapping. You should be seen for the villains you are, not heroic “foster parents” it’s quit unreasonable for the foster parents to fight this child you claim to love family and create this acrimonious atmosphere between yourselves and this child’s biological family. This is not a child who has no suitable family to provide permanency for him.
If that were the case then you should be commended to want to provide a loving home and family for a child where there isn’t one. But this has never been the case. You should be ashamed for doing everything in your power to attempt to take a very much loved and wanted member from a family.
All I am left to say is if you are successful, if the Judge determines our nephew is to remain with you, this will come back to bite you, regardless of the outcome. This child will be an adult longer than he is a child, he will learn the truth, and he will be shown the sacrifices happily made by his biological family to keep him with us. And he will see how you kidnapped him. His family will not be erased, his DNA will not be changed and his forever bond with our family will not be stolen forever.
Our family’s hearts are right, we love Baby R. and we want him to remain where God intended for him to be, with our family, with HIS family.
You do not have to be a parent to shudder at the word kidnapping nor do you have to be a parent to feel the pain of the loss of a child. All you need is to have a relationship with a child to know the forever ache of the mere thought of them to be taken from you. I am a parent, a proud mother of two.
I am currently experiencing and grieving a kidnapping in my family today but not of my own biological children a kidnapping of my blood related nephew. This kidnapping did not initiate the Amber Alert, the police are not searching for a criminal, and there will be no court date to see the person responsible for taking my nephew be found guilty. This story may sound like a bad Lifetime movie plot but this unfortunately is my reality, but the kidnappers in my Lifetime story are hidden and protected under the guise of “foster parent.”
My nephew was taking from his biological parents and placed into foster care in November 2007. Since that date, my sister and I have made it very clear that we love our nephew and both sought to have him placed with us. Child Protective Services (CPS) prolonged the case and placed our nephew with a foster family that have already adopted a number of foster children.
My sister was cleared by California State Adoptions for permanent placement of our two year old nephew; she and her husband were also named as defacto parent. The foster parents knew our families request and intent to have our nephew remain in our family and they not only fought us but hired their own attorney. The foster parents frustrated visitation with our family, and they unsuccessfully attempted to get a restraining order on our nephew’s biological mother. Moreover, they have done everything in there power to keep the extended biological family out of his life.
My sister and I have entered into an unbridled war with the foster parents for our nephew to remain with his biological family. His biological parents signed a legal designated relinquishment to severe there rights of their son to be specifically placed with his maternal aunt and uncle. The foster parents still would not cease in there efforts to thwart his reunification with his biological family.
Today, the only thing standing in his way of being returned to his biological loving and highly committed family is the foster parents desire to adopt him. California State Adoptions has done a complete investigation of the maternal aunt and uncle and highly recommends permanent placement and adoption by the maternal aunt and uncle. These are not foster parents who desire to help a child who does not have love or family ties; these are foster parents who out of there own selfish wishes are fighting to keep him.
This situation is not one where family did not make there presence and wishes for the child known to the child’s foster parents until the eleventh hour. The foster parents knew our families intent the entire time, and they still selfishly sought the child. These specific foster parents should be ashamed of their lack of compassion and there intent to keep this child from his natural biological family. This act by the foster parents is not praiseworthy and should not be commended; it is without a doubt malicious. They are attempting to take this child from his family who has done nothing but show love, support and the desire to have him remain in their family. The foster parents are trying to adopt a child that should not be adopted as he has a very supportive and State Approved natural family that wants him.
In the next few weeks the fate of my nephew will be decided by a Crescent City Judge. Our two year old nephew will either be permitted to be adopted as requested by his biological parents and as recommended by California State Adoptions by his maternal aunt and uncle. Or he will be left with his foster parents to be adopted. Unfortunately if the latter is to happen this case will not end there, there will be an appeal filed by our family immediately.
Baby R.’s proud Maternal Aunt Lisa
lisakturner1977@yahoo.com
Monday, July 12, 2010
Cup of Joe for a Joe
This is BY FAR one of the best things that I have EVER done, the best $20 I have spent!
www.greenbeanscoffee.com
I was able to send 10 cups of joe to our troops. In return I was given 7 thank you notes, to date. What a wonderful way to thank our service members!! It was easy and only took a few minutes to let them know that we remember and pray for them. Please check it out.
www.greenbeanscoffee.com
I was able to send 10 cups of joe to our troops. In return I was given 7 thank you notes, to date. What a wonderful way to thank our service members!! It was easy and only took a few minutes to let them know that we remember and pray for them. Please check it out.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Nancy Schaefer, former Senator on CPS...................................
http://www.eagleforumofga.org/articles_and_alerts.php?filter=6
Just copy and paste the link to read what a former Senator said.........wow! It makes my blood BOIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone needs to STOP them now..........that someone is me, you, and every other American who loves a child.
This is REAL folks! I wish that it hadn't taken my nephew being detained from his parents and denied his family for me to see it. BUT I see it now.
Just copy and paste the link to read what a former Senator said.........wow! It makes my blood BOIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone needs to STOP them now..........that someone is me, you, and every other American who loves a child.
This is REAL folks! I wish that it hadn't taken my nephew being detained from his parents and denied his family for me to see it. BUT I see it now.
Martin Luther King Jr. Quotes........................
•"A right delayed is a right denied."
•"Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them."
•"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."
•"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."
•"I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land."
•"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live."
•"I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law."
•"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."
•"Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase."
•"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
•"If you lose hope, somehow you lose the vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you to go on in spite of all. And so today I still have a dream."
~~~~~Wow is all I can say.~~~~~~~
•"Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them."
•"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."
•"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."
•"I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land."
•"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live."
•"I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law."
•"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."
•"Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase."
•"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
•"If you lose hope, somehow you lose the vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you to go on in spite of all. And so today I still have a dream."
~~~~~Wow is all I can say.~~~~~~~
Monday, January 11, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Parental Rights
ParentalRights.org
P.O. Box 1090
Purcellville, VA 20134-1090
Phone: 540-751-1200
Email: info@parentalrights.org
Check out their site and read the proposed Parental Right Amendment!!! Boy do we NEED it!!! Thank goodness people are becoming more aware.
Let your voice be heard.
P.O. Box 1090
Purcellville, VA 20134-1090
Phone: 540-751-1200
Email: info@parentalrights.org
Check out their site and read the proposed Parental Right Amendment!!! Boy do we NEED it!!! Thank goodness people are becoming more aware.
Let your voice be heard.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Avatar awakens strong feelings.
WOW the new movie AVATAR is wonderful!!! ;) What an amazing film to watch. The special effects are awesome to watch and the storlyline is well written. I easily fell in love with the believable characters and definitely rooted for the GOOD GUYS!
AND just WHO are the good guys? Is it the ALIEN humans trying to STEAL and take over the planet's resources OR is it the native people on the planet who try to defend themselves? Are the humans who turn on their OWN doing the right thing?
So many questions..........I know my answers.
I was vividly reminded of the Indians and their struggle for their land and lives when the white man (ANY men) came to claim their land! It was very sad and heart wrenching to watch and imagine the individual stories. People died and all they wanted to do was to KEEP their way of life and protect their people...children! hmmmm?
Many things remind me of these tragic times in our history. Funny how Avatar brought it to life tonight for me. I am SO sad for the people who have been wronged in this way.
I HOPE if I were there during ANY of those times, I PRAY that I would be one who would STAND up and fight for the good guys! AS I STAND now and fight for relative's rights to KEEP their family members / children!
The Indians, Slaves, Segregated, Jews..........the list is not a short one. The suffering is unimaginable! The pain is endless and no words can describe the feeling of loss.
Stolen children, land, lives.........when will it stop? When?
NEVER ever forget that just because someone says it is LEGAL or the NORM, does not make it OK to take what does NOT belong to you!
Stealing is not OK. Blood ties cannot be broken. A piece of paper does not make or break you. Children are not a commodity and cannot be sold to the highest bidder; no matter their color, race, or background.
Stealing a child does not make you a parent. Rehoming a child does not make you a doer of good deeds!! Remaining quiet and NOT helping these children return home does not make you neutral.........it makes you an accomplice!
Things WILL change............
AND just WHO are the good guys? Is it the ALIEN humans trying to STEAL and take over the planet's resources OR is it the native people on the planet who try to defend themselves? Are the humans who turn on their OWN doing the right thing?
So many questions..........I know my answers.
I was vividly reminded of the Indians and their struggle for their land and lives when the white man (ANY men) came to claim their land! It was very sad and heart wrenching to watch and imagine the individual stories. People died and all they wanted to do was to KEEP their way of life and protect their people...children! hmmmm?
Many things remind me of these tragic times in our history. Funny how Avatar brought it to life tonight for me. I am SO sad for the people who have been wronged in this way.
I HOPE if I were there during ANY of those times, I PRAY that I would be one who would STAND up and fight for the good guys! AS I STAND now and fight for relative's rights to KEEP their family members / children!
The Indians, Slaves, Segregated, Jews..........the list is not a short one. The suffering is unimaginable! The pain is endless and no words can describe the feeling of loss.
Stolen children, land, lives.........when will it stop? When?
NEVER ever forget that just because someone says it is LEGAL or the NORM, does not make it OK to take what does NOT belong to you!
Stealing is not OK. Blood ties cannot be broken. A piece of paper does not make or break you. Children are not a commodity and cannot be sold to the highest bidder; no matter their color, race, or background.
Stealing a child does not make you a parent. Rehoming a child does not make you a doer of good deeds!! Remaining quiet and NOT helping these children return home does not make you neutral.........it makes you an accomplice!
Things WILL change............
Friday, January 1, 2010
Article: Applying The Goldman Standard To Foster Care
http://nccpr.blogspot.com/2009/12/applying-goldman-standard-to-foster.html
The above link is to an article that I found SO very interesting!
I am quite happy that this man has his son back. I am saddened that it took so VERY long and SAD that this is NOT what happens every day in America when relatives FIGHT CPS or State Adoptions for THEIR nephews (relatives)!
Even if the child lives with you for the first 10 months of his life (along with his mother),
then they move out of town,
he is detained at 17 months of age,
within hours YOU contact CPS and request both temporary & permanent placement,
YOU follow up with WRITTEN request,
YOU send history & medical information for his welfare to agency,
YOU keep calling & sending letters, gifts, photos, etc.,
YOU request an application,
THEY take 7 months to approve you for relative placement,
THEY never notify you of rights & court dates,
YOU ask for visits,
YOU drive multiple times (12 hrs. one way) for visits & court,
YOU retain an attorney,
YOU ask what ELSE you can do to receive placement,
THEY place child in fost/adopt home,
THEY don't tell court OR minor's counsel about YOU at ALL,
YOUR attorney notifies court & minor's counsel you EXIST,
NEPHEW'S PARENTS ask to sign over rights to YOU to adopt,
THEY deny, stall, lie............FOR MONTHS (5 months denying FAMILY CODE 8700(f)),
YOU ask for an application for an adoptive home study,
THEY DENY you one,
YOU track down nearest State Adoptions and ask for application,
THEY (Fresno;) allow you to apply!!! ;) ,
THEY (Fresno;) approve your adoptive home study,
THEY frustrate visitation and PERJURE themselves in court,
THEY finally allow PARENTS to sign their designated relinqishments 8700(f),
YOU complain to their superiors & ombudsman,
THEY mostly ignore you,
THEY name you PAP's (Prospective Adoptive Parents),
YOU watch in court as they SAY they signed assessment but don't AGREE with it,
THEY keep child with foster parents,
APPEALs are filed,
APPEAL is won in our FAVOR & published,
THEY STILL keep nephew and frustrate visits...........
...........to be continued!!!!!!
The above link is to an article that I found SO very interesting!
I am quite happy that this man has his son back. I am saddened that it took so VERY long and SAD that this is NOT what happens every day in America when relatives FIGHT CPS or State Adoptions for THEIR nephews (relatives)!
Even if the child lives with you for the first 10 months of his life (along with his mother),
then they move out of town,
he is detained at 17 months of age,
within hours YOU contact CPS and request both temporary & permanent placement,
YOU follow up with WRITTEN request,
YOU send history & medical information for his welfare to agency,
YOU keep calling & sending letters, gifts, photos, etc.,
YOU request an application,
THEY take 7 months to approve you for relative placement,
THEY never notify you of rights & court dates,
YOU ask for visits,
YOU drive multiple times (12 hrs. one way) for visits & court,
YOU retain an attorney,
YOU ask what ELSE you can do to receive placement,
THEY place child in fost/adopt home,
THEY don't tell court OR minor's counsel about YOU at ALL,
YOUR attorney notifies court & minor's counsel you EXIST,
NEPHEW'S PARENTS ask to sign over rights to YOU to adopt,
THEY deny, stall, lie............FOR MONTHS (5 months denying FAMILY CODE 8700(f)),
YOU ask for an application for an adoptive home study,
THEY DENY you one,
YOU track down nearest State Adoptions and ask for application,
THEY (Fresno;) allow you to apply!!! ;) ,
THEY (Fresno;) approve your adoptive home study,
THEY frustrate visitation and PERJURE themselves in court,
THEY finally allow PARENTS to sign their designated relinqishments 8700(f),
YOU complain to their superiors & ombudsman,
THEY mostly ignore you,
THEY name you PAP's (Prospective Adoptive Parents),
YOU watch in court as they SAY they signed assessment but don't AGREE with it,
THEY keep child with foster parents,
APPEALs are filed,
APPEAL is won in our FAVOR & published,
THEY STILL keep nephew and frustrate visits...........
...........to be continued!!!!!!
State Ombudsman Grievances
California State Ombudsman for Foster Care
Karen Grace-Kaho
California Department of Social Services
744 P Street, M.S. 9-025
Sacramento CA 95814
(916) 651-6560
(916) 651-6568 FAX
Toll Free 1-877-846-1602 E-Mail: fosteryouthhelp@dss.ca.gov
Website: www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov
Karen Grace-Kaho
California Department of Social Services
744 P Street, M.S. 9-025
Sacramento CA 95814
(916) 651-6560
(916) 651-6568 FAX
Toll Free 1-877-846-1602 E-Mail: fosteryouthhelp@dss.ca.gov
Website: www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov
Child Welfare Services Program
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/ord/entres/getinfo/pdf/cws1.PDF
The above link is the the Child Welfare Services Program.
If you are dealing with an agency, you should know their rules and regulations!
Don't let them use your ignorance against you to keep your relatives. If you don't hold them accountable then no one will.
The above link is the the Child Welfare Services Program.
If you are dealing with an agency, you should know their rules and regulations!
Don't let them use your ignorance against you to keep your relatives. If you don't hold them accountable then no one will.
Family Code Section 8700
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 8700
8700. (a) Either birth parent may relinquish a child to the
department or a licensed adoption agency for adoption by a written
statement signed before two subscribing witnesses and acknowledged
before an authorized official of the department or agency. The
relinquishment, when reciting that the person making it is entitled
to the sole custody of the child and acknowledged before the officer,
is prima facie evidence of the right of the person making it to the
sole custody of the child and the person's sole right to relinquish.
(b) A relinquishing parent who is a minor has the right to
relinquish his or her child for adoption to the department or a
licensed adoption agency, and the relinquishment is not subject to
revocation by reason of the minority.
(c) If a relinquishing parent resides outside this state and the
child is being cared for and is or will be placed for adoption by the
department or a licensed adoption agency, the relinquishing parent
may relinquish the child to the department or agency by a written
statement signed by the relinquishing parent before a notary on a
form prescribed by the department, and previously signed by an
authorized official of the department or agency, that signifies the
willingness of the department or agency to accept the relinquishment.
(d) If a relinquishing parent and child reside outside this state
and the child will be cared for and will be placed for adoption by
the department or a licensed adoption agency, the relinquishing
parent may relinquish the child to the department or agency by a
written statement signed by the relinquishing parent, after that
parent has satisfied the following requirements:
(1) Prior to signing the relinquishment, the relinquishing parent
shall have received, from a representative of an agency licensed or
otherwise approved to provide adoption services under the laws of the
relinquishing parent's state of residence, the same counseling and
advisement services as if the relinquishing parent resided in this
state.
(2) The relinquishment shall be signed before a representative of
an agency licensed or otherwise approved to provide adoption services
under the laws of the relinquishing parent's state of residence
whenever possible or before a licensed social worker on a form
prescribed by the department, and previously signed by an authorized
official of the department or agency, that signifies the willingness
of the department or agency to accept the relinquishment.
(e) (1) The relinquishment authorized by this section has no
effect until a certified copy is sent to, and filed with, the
department. The licensed adoption agency shall send that copy by
certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight courier or
messenger, with proof of delivery, to the department no earlier than
the end of the business day following the signing thereof. The agency
shall inform the birth parent that during this time period he or she
may request that the relinquishment be withdrawn and that, if he or
she makes the request, the relinquishment shall be withdrawn. The
relinquishment shall be final 10 business days after receipt of the
filing by the department, unless any of the following apply:
(A) The department sends written acknowledgment of receipt of the
relinquishment prior to the expiration of that 10-day period, at
which time the relinquishment shall be final.
(B) A longer period of time is necessary due to a pending court
action or some other cause beyond control of the department.
(2) After the relinquishment is final, it may be rescinded only by
the mutual consent of the department or licensed adoption agency to
which the child was relinquished and the birth parent or parents
relinquishing the child.
(f) The relinquishing parent may name in the relinquishment the
person or persons with whom he or she intends that placement of the
child for adoption be made by the department or licensed adoption
agency.
(g) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), if the relinquishment names
the person or persons with whom placement by the department or
licensed adoption agency is intended and the child is not placed in
the home of the named person or persons or the child is removed from
the home prior to the granting of the adoption, the department or
agency shall mail a notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the birth parent signing the relinquishment within 72
hours of the decision not to place the child for adoption or the
decision to remove the child from the home.
(h) The relinquishing parent has 30 days from the date on which
the notice described in subdivision (g) was mailed to rescind the
relinquishment.
(1) If the relinquishing parent requests rescission during the
30-day period, the department or licensed adoption agency shall
rescind the relinquishment.
(2) If the relinquishing parent does not request rescission during
the 30-day period, the department or licensed adoption agency shall
select adoptive parents for the child.
(3) If the relinquishing parent and the department or licensed
adoption agency wish to identify a different person or persons during
the 30-day period with whom the child is intended to be placed, the
initial relinquishment shall be rescinded and a new relinquishment
identifying the person or persons completed.
(i) If the parent has relinquished a child, who has been found to
come within Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or is
the subject of a petition for jurisdiction of the juvenile court
under Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to the
department or a licensed adoption agency for the purpose of adoption,
the department or agency accepting the relinquishment shall provide
written notice of the relinquishment within five court days to all of
the following:
(1) The juvenile court having jurisdiction of the child.
(2) The child's attorney, if any.
(3) The relinquishing parent's attorney, if any.
(j) The filing of the relinquishment with the department
terminates all parental rights and responsibilities with regard to
the child, except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h).
(k) The department shall adopt regulations to administer the
provisions of this section.
8701. At or before the time a relinquishment is signed, the
department or licensed adoption agency shall advise the birth parent
signing the relinquishment, verbally and in writing, that the birth
parent may, at any time in the future, request from the department or
agency all known information about the status of the child's
adoption, except for personal, identifying information about the
adoptive family. The birth parent shall be advised that this
information includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) Whether the child has been placed for adoption.
(b) The approximate date that an adoption was completed.
(c) If the adoption was not completed or was vacated, for any
reason, whether adoptive placement of the child is again being
considered.
SECTION 8700
8700. (a) Either birth parent may relinquish a child to the
department or a licensed adoption agency for adoption by a written
statement signed before two subscribing witnesses and acknowledged
before an authorized official of the department or agency. The
relinquishment, when reciting that the person making it is entitled
to the sole custody of the child and acknowledged before the officer,
is prima facie evidence of the right of the person making it to the
sole custody of the child and the person's sole right to relinquish.
(b) A relinquishing parent who is a minor has the right to
relinquish his or her child for adoption to the department or a
licensed adoption agency, and the relinquishment is not subject to
revocation by reason of the minority.
(c) If a relinquishing parent resides outside this state and the
child is being cared for and is or will be placed for adoption by the
department or a licensed adoption agency, the relinquishing parent
may relinquish the child to the department or agency by a written
statement signed by the relinquishing parent before a notary on a
form prescribed by the department, and previously signed by an
authorized official of the department or agency, that signifies the
willingness of the department or agency to accept the relinquishment.
(d) If a relinquishing parent and child reside outside this state
and the child will be cared for and will be placed for adoption by
the department or a licensed adoption agency, the relinquishing
parent may relinquish the child to the department or agency by a
written statement signed by the relinquishing parent, after that
parent has satisfied the following requirements:
(1) Prior to signing the relinquishment, the relinquishing parent
shall have received, from a representative of an agency licensed or
otherwise approved to provide adoption services under the laws of the
relinquishing parent's state of residence, the same counseling and
advisement services as if the relinquishing parent resided in this
state.
(2) The relinquishment shall be signed before a representative of
an agency licensed or otherwise approved to provide adoption services
under the laws of the relinquishing parent's state of residence
whenever possible or before a licensed social worker on a form
prescribed by the department, and previously signed by an authorized
official of the department or agency, that signifies the willingness
of the department or agency to accept the relinquishment.
(e) (1) The relinquishment authorized by this section has no
effect until a certified copy is sent to, and filed with, the
department. The licensed adoption agency shall send that copy by
certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight courier or
messenger, with proof of delivery, to the department no earlier than
the end of the business day following the signing thereof. The agency
shall inform the birth parent that during this time period he or she
may request that the relinquishment be withdrawn and that, if he or
she makes the request, the relinquishment shall be withdrawn. The
relinquishment shall be final 10 business days after receipt of the
filing by the department, unless any of the following apply:
(A) The department sends written acknowledgment of receipt of the
relinquishment prior to the expiration of that 10-day period, at
which time the relinquishment shall be final.
(B) A longer period of time is necessary due to a pending court
action or some other cause beyond control of the department.
(2) After the relinquishment is final, it may be rescinded only by
the mutual consent of the department or licensed adoption agency to
which the child was relinquished and the birth parent or parents
relinquishing the child.
(f) The relinquishing parent may name in the relinquishment the
person or persons with whom he or she intends that placement of the
child for adoption be made by the department or licensed adoption
agency.
(g) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), if the relinquishment names
the person or persons with whom placement by the department or
licensed adoption agency is intended and the child is not placed in
the home of the named person or persons or the child is removed from
the home prior to the granting of the adoption, the department or
agency shall mail a notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the birth parent signing the relinquishment within 72
hours of the decision not to place the child for adoption or the
decision to remove the child from the home.
(h) The relinquishing parent has 30 days from the date on which
the notice described in subdivision (g) was mailed to rescind the
relinquishment.
(1) If the relinquishing parent requests rescission during the
30-day period, the department or licensed adoption agency shall
rescind the relinquishment.
(2) If the relinquishing parent does not request rescission during
the 30-day period, the department or licensed adoption agency shall
select adoptive parents for the child.
(3) If the relinquishing parent and the department or licensed
adoption agency wish to identify a different person or persons during
the 30-day period with whom the child is intended to be placed, the
initial relinquishment shall be rescinded and a new relinquishment
identifying the person or persons completed.
(i) If the parent has relinquished a child, who has been found to
come within Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or is
the subject of a petition for jurisdiction of the juvenile court
under Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to the
department or a licensed adoption agency for the purpose of adoption,
the department or agency accepting the relinquishment shall provide
written notice of the relinquishment within five court days to all of
the following:
(1) The juvenile court having jurisdiction of the child.
(2) The child's attorney, if any.
(3) The relinquishing parent's attorney, if any.
(j) The filing of the relinquishment with the department
terminates all parental rights and responsibilities with regard to
the child, except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h).
(k) The department shall adopt regulations to administer the
provisions of this section.
8701. At or before the time a relinquishment is signed, the
department or licensed adoption agency shall advise the birth parent
signing the relinquishment, verbally and in writing, that the birth
parent may, at any time in the future, request from the department or
agency all known information about the status of the child's
adoption, except for personal, identifying information about the
adoptive family. The birth parent shall be advised that this
information includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) Whether the child has been placed for adoption.
(b) The approximate date that an adoption was completed.
(c) If the adoption was not completed or was vacated, for any
reason, whether adoptive placement of the child is again being
considered.
Article from Salem-News.com by Neal Feldman (Interesting view)
Nov-17-2007 14:11
Oregon Human Services: Today's Gestapo?
Commentary by Neal Feldman Salem-News.com
Is it in a child's best interests to always be placed in a family that is more affluent?
Image of Gabriel Allred
constitutionallyright.com
(SALEM, Ore.) - No wonder Gestapo CPS continues to get away with the attacks on families that it constantly perpetrates. There is clearly a very vocal contingent in this country to whom the concept of family and blood relations are meaningless.
This is the "Best Interests of the Child" crowd ... but of course what is REALLY in a given child's best interests are entirely up for debate.
Is it in a child's best interests to always be placed in a family that is more affluent? If so then all children of families on welfare or in the lower income brackets are up for grabs to any parents who want to adopt them if these adoptive parents are more affluent than the family the child is currently with. That would be an extremely perilous road to start down.
The current case celeb in the news is that of 2-year old Gabriel Allred, born in Oregon to a drug addict mother and sexual predator father. DHS in this case rightly terminated the parental rights in one of the rare cases that the parents were actually abusive and harmful to the child. And again in one of the rare instances DHS is uniting the child with its blood family, in this case a grandmother in Mexico.
But the foster parents, Steve and Angela Brandt of Toledo, Oregon, southwest of Salem near the coastal town of Newport, who have admitted they became foster parents for Gabriel in the hopes of adopting him, are fighting this every step of the way, and they have no small number of supporters.
To put no dull point on it these are kidnappers. They are holding this child hostage to their needs and wants. They could not care less what is 'in the best interests of the child'.
Far too many people become foster parents not to provide safe temporary homes for the kids placed in their charge but in a deranged form of meat market as they seek kids to steal for themselves.
Such fosters routinely undermine reunification and drag separation out as long as they can so that they can claim to have 'bonded' with the kids and to put forth this claim as justification to terminate the rights of the real parents so that the fosters can then adopt.
Story continues below
This is why I favor a law barring any foster parent from ever adopting a child that was placed in their care. It would eliminate the meat market aspect entirely.
If a kid's parents lose custody and the kid goes up for adoption so be it... to anyone but those they were in foster care with. It is far too great a temptation for fosters who wish to adopt their charges to undermine reunification to their own benefit. And this happens with far more regularity than most would comfortably like to believe.
They argue that they are the only family he knows. In the case of little Gabriel, it is quite true since he is only 2-years old and they have gone to great lengths to make sure this was the case. But just because some kidnapper snatches an infant and holds them for a couple years we do not let them keep the kid 'because they have bonded'. Gabriel is 2-years old. He will bond to the grandmother too.
Supporters of the Brandts have accused the grandmother of only wanting the $375 per month taxpayer provided stipend, but it is interesting to note that the grandmother was entirely unaware of this stipend when she sought custody of the boy the moment she learned of his situation. And yes he was several months old when she finally learned of it because she is not a mindreader and to my knowledge has never claimed to be. And why are the Brandts not accused of 'just being in it for the check'? It seems quite the one sided argument.
But as the saying goes... those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
We seem to have learned nothing from the media circus that was Elian Gonzalez.
He, too, had blood relatives, in this case his Cuban father wanted his son back. and after years of orchestrated BS on the part of the would be kidnappers of Elian he was, eventually, at gunpoint, returned to his father.
Will we need to send in SWAT teams to get Gabriel too?
And we have Senator Gordon Smith and Governor Ted Kulongoski, proving that neither political party respects the concept of family rights, trying to force DHS to do that which its own rules preclude it doing - placing the child in a family other than blood relations if an acceptable blood relation is willing to take in the child.
Government officials doing their able best to interfere in private family matters and in the process trampling their entire concept of family rights.
Does the name Terri Schiavo not still ring in peoples' ears? Another case where government officials, and others, sought to step into personal private family matters where they had no legitimate business doing so. That case was in Florida. This case is in Oregon.
Different stage, different players, same old anti-family song and dance.
Gabriel is a US citizen by birth, with dual citizenship (he is also a Mexican citizen) If placed with the grandmother when he is an adult he will have every right, if he so chooses to exercise it, to re-enter the US.
But as a 2-year old child he belongs with his family. And in this case his family is his grandmother in Mexico. It most certainly is not the babysnatching Toledo couple Steve and Angela Brandt.
In one of the rare instances Gestapo CPS actually has it right and should be allowed to do what its own rules state it must do without politically postured interference from outsiders who seek only to turn this case into another media circus.
If Steve and Angela Brandt want a kid why don't they have one the old fashioned way instead of trying to steal a child from another family?
Much is made of the mother and father of Gabriel supporting the Brandts. Hmmmm... a crack whore and a predatory sexual deviant deemed unfit to be parents and stripped of all rights regarding Gabriel. Why should anyone care a whit what they think? If they had even half a clue the entire situation would not exist.
Send Gabriel to the grandmother. If she has any sense she will get a restraining order against the Brandts keeping them from having any contact with Gabriel ever again. In 2 years Gabriel will have entirely forgotten them as he bonds with his real family.
As it should be.
Oregon Human Services: Today's Gestapo?
Commentary by Neal Feldman Salem-News.com
Is it in a child's best interests to always be placed in a family that is more affluent?
Image of Gabriel Allred
constitutionallyright.com
(SALEM, Ore.) - No wonder Gestapo CPS continues to get away with the attacks on families that it constantly perpetrates. There is clearly a very vocal contingent in this country to whom the concept of family and blood relations are meaningless.
This is the "Best Interests of the Child" crowd ... but of course what is REALLY in a given child's best interests are entirely up for debate.
Is it in a child's best interests to always be placed in a family that is more affluent? If so then all children of families on welfare or in the lower income brackets are up for grabs to any parents who want to adopt them if these adoptive parents are more affluent than the family the child is currently with. That would be an extremely perilous road to start down.
The current case celeb in the news is that of 2-year old Gabriel Allred, born in Oregon to a drug addict mother and sexual predator father. DHS in this case rightly terminated the parental rights in one of the rare cases that the parents were actually abusive and harmful to the child. And again in one of the rare instances DHS is uniting the child with its blood family, in this case a grandmother in Mexico.
But the foster parents, Steve and Angela Brandt of Toledo, Oregon, southwest of Salem near the coastal town of Newport, who have admitted they became foster parents for Gabriel in the hopes of adopting him, are fighting this every step of the way, and they have no small number of supporters.
To put no dull point on it these are kidnappers. They are holding this child hostage to their needs and wants. They could not care less what is 'in the best interests of the child'.
Far too many people become foster parents not to provide safe temporary homes for the kids placed in their charge but in a deranged form of meat market as they seek kids to steal for themselves.
Such fosters routinely undermine reunification and drag separation out as long as they can so that they can claim to have 'bonded' with the kids and to put forth this claim as justification to terminate the rights of the real parents so that the fosters can then adopt.
Story continues below
This is why I favor a law barring any foster parent from ever adopting a child that was placed in their care. It would eliminate the meat market aspect entirely.
If a kid's parents lose custody and the kid goes up for adoption so be it... to anyone but those they were in foster care with. It is far too great a temptation for fosters who wish to adopt their charges to undermine reunification to their own benefit. And this happens with far more regularity than most would comfortably like to believe.
They argue that they are the only family he knows. In the case of little Gabriel, it is quite true since he is only 2-years old and they have gone to great lengths to make sure this was the case. But just because some kidnapper snatches an infant and holds them for a couple years we do not let them keep the kid 'because they have bonded'. Gabriel is 2-years old. He will bond to the grandmother too.
Supporters of the Brandts have accused the grandmother of only wanting the $375 per month taxpayer provided stipend, but it is interesting to note that the grandmother was entirely unaware of this stipend when she sought custody of the boy the moment she learned of his situation. And yes he was several months old when she finally learned of it because she is not a mindreader and to my knowledge has never claimed to be. And why are the Brandts not accused of 'just being in it for the check'? It seems quite the one sided argument.
But as the saying goes... those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
We seem to have learned nothing from the media circus that was Elian Gonzalez.
He, too, had blood relatives, in this case his Cuban father wanted his son back. and after years of orchestrated BS on the part of the would be kidnappers of Elian he was, eventually, at gunpoint, returned to his father.
Will we need to send in SWAT teams to get Gabriel too?
And we have Senator Gordon Smith and Governor Ted Kulongoski, proving that neither political party respects the concept of family rights, trying to force DHS to do that which its own rules preclude it doing - placing the child in a family other than blood relations if an acceptable blood relation is willing to take in the child.
Government officials doing their able best to interfere in private family matters and in the process trampling their entire concept of family rights.
Does the name Terri Schiavo not still ring in peoples' ears? Another case where government officials, and others, sought to step into personal private family matters where they had no legitimate business doing so. That case was in Florida. This case is in Oregon.
Different stage, different players, same old anti-family song and dance.
Gabriel is a US citizen by birth, with dual citizenship (he is also a Mexican citizen) If placed with the grandmother when he is an adult he will have every right, if he so chooses to exercise it, to re-enter the US.
But as a 2-year old child he belongs with his family. And in this case his family is his grandmother in Mexico. It most certainly is not the babysnatching Toledo couple Steve and Angela Brandt.
In one of the rare instances Gestapo CPS actually has it right and should be allowed to do what its own rules state it must do without politically postured interference from outsiders who seek only to turn this case into another media circus.
If Steve and Angela Brandt want a kid why don't they have one the old fashioned way instead of trying to steal a child from another family?
Much is made of the mother and father of Gabriel supporting the Brandts. Hmmmm... a crack whore and a predatory sexual deviant deemed unfit to be parents and stripped of all rights regarding Gabriel. Why should anyone care a whit what they think? If they had even half a clue the entire situation would not exist.
Send Gabriel to the grandmother. If she has any sense she will get a restraining order against the Brandts keeping them from having any contact with Gabriel ever again. In 2 years Gabriel will have entirely forgotten them as he bonds with his real family.
As it should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)