Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Relative Placement Options

Join other parents who's children have been abducted by child protection services for the purpose of supplying children to childless couples in the community.

is another option this would allow the mother to transfer custody and the TPR would go away. The TPR has maltreatment on the mothers record. She is a CNA and cannot work as a CNA because of the two 15 minute time periods she left her children home alone. Ever since she was young she dreamed of becoming a nurse and she starts school in two weeks for nursing. She will be forced to drop out with maltreatment on her record. The transfer of custody allows her to stay involved in her children's lives daily. She can also earn custody back from AB who has raised four children of her own and has no personal desire to destroy the lives of a mother and trauma survivor and the three children to meet personal needs. AB is able to recognize that education is a simple problem to fix and not a sufficient reason to take children from their parent. Had the county offered some kind of education to the parent rather than the foster parents this could have been corrected. The children have not improved because their mother is loving nurturing and kept a clean house and clean kids with plenty of food. She was rated by parent specialists as a zero risk to ever abuse but needed education.
Mom also has Complex post traumatic stress syndrome which is the result of prolonged abuse in captivity with no viable means to escape.  She wants to get treatment for this and needs support from her family while she does this. Dismantling her family to supply children to a childless couple is unethical and immoral.

Cari Krenik has informed the attorney that she is only interested in terminating the mothers rights. She is not willing to listen to why a transfer of custody is in the best interest of the children. This I am sure is about  the unstable foster parents adopting the children. She is not willing to consider relative placement in violation of federal law and said AB can get an attorney and fight to adopt the children in family court.

The fact that Carie has not conducted a a relative search background check is evidence of her trying to manipulate the situation to help the unstable foster people shopping for children who were never abused.

PREDICTION : County Retaliation To AB will likely remain ongoing. The county is retaliating because she has asked questions about fair treatment and the reunification process. She is the only one who seems to be mentioning the best interest of the child and the best interest of the family.
There is anticipation the county will use some delay strategy or try to dirty up a back ground check.  That is why I willingly submitted my own back ground check on AB to make sure that the county can be sued for tampering. It is my understanding that Carie Krenik has all ready started screwing with the back ground check by delaying appropriate procedure. She had a lawyer send a letter explaining that she is not willing to consider or uphold Minnesota state law. She has however submitted a non relative background search despite the fact that AB meets the definition of a relative under   Minnesota state law.

Family members are the first placement consideration for children who are not able to live with their parents or guardians. Relative, as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, section 260C.007, subdivision 27is a person related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption, or an individual who is an important friend with whom the child has resided or had significant contact.
The majority of children placed in family foster care or pre-adoptive families in Minnesota are not living with adults to whom they are related, or with whom the child had a significant relationship with prior to entering foster care.

The responsible social service agency must consider placement with a relative without delay Conduct a reasonable and comprehensive search lasting up to six months, or until a fit and willing relative is identified consider a relative as a placement resource for any subsequent placements, even if the relative declined to care for the child at the beginning of the placement.

Consideration of relatives when the agency is no longer considering reunification as the permanency plan for the child, such as in the case of: Transfer of permanent legal and physical custody Adoption Long-term foster care, when appropriate.

In order for MINNESOTA to receive Federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance, Federal law under title IV-E of the Social Security Act requires that they "consider giving preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining placement for a child, 

provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards."1 Title IV-E further requires States to exercise due diligence to identify and provide notice to all grandparents and other adult relatives of the child (including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents), that the child has been or is being removed from the custody of his or her parents, explains the options the.