Re: Beth 15/22 rule and adoption pressure oddities

[Kane]

On 1 Nov 2003 19:04:57 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

>Beth wrote
>> Partly this is because there aren't any specific
>> time limits attached to kinship care (or at least,
>> I'm not aware of any) and partly this is due to
>> the fact that most people

Bull****. Some do and some don't. And some adopt children no one else
in the world wants. This slander of foster parents is nothing but
ignorant crap. Foster parents adopt AIDS infants, FAE and FAS
children, children with birth anomolies, children so enraged at the
rape and brutality their own parents visited on them they can expect
to spend a great deal of their lives in therapy trying to heal and
recover, and the foster parent will love them unconditionally
throughout it all.

Foster parents who adopt even die at the hands of the children no one
else wants, and foster parent who adopt are the only family that
visits the adult adoptee in jail where they sit on death row.

>> who foster infants and
>> toddlers are doing so primarily in the hopes of
>> being able to eventually adopt the children.
>
>Beth, You are right about the 15/22 rule

Bull****. You ignorant crackers know **** except what you dream up.

>but even
>though the law exempts kinship care from the 15/22
>rule,

R R R R ... you don't even know what the 15/22 law pertains to.

>the nitwits actually tried USING it. :)

They are required by law, both federal and state, to inform the
parent(s) in the first meeting of the 15/22 law and what is called in
some states, Concurrent Planning." Adoption is only ONE of the options
involved.

>Chalk that up to more caseworker ignorance of their rules.

Still babbling before thinking, eh? No, the 15/22 rule is NOT exempt.
In fact you have it entirely wrong. The 15/22 rule IS NOT ABOUT
ADOPTION. It is about a permanent plan for the child, which may or may
NOT include adoption.

In fact it is as much a plan and a limitation to return the child HOME
as it is any other plan. Stupid ****s.

In any 22 month period where the child has been in out of home care
for any 15 of those month CPS MUST have and initiate A PERMANENT
PLAN...with adoption being only ONE of those things CPS must do.

Here are the options as I understand them from my CPS contacts:

1. They must return the child to the bio parents custody,

or

2. They must place the child with a guardian but the child remains in
state custody,

and or

3. They must legally free the child from their parent(s) by either
voluntary relinquishment of said parents, or legal judicially
terminated parental rights...the infamous TPR. And then they may
recruit, in fact they must, for adoptive parents...who can be related
or non-related.

in 1 and 2 said termination of parental rights is NOT required, of
course.

The level of ignorance that you and your cohorts spout in this ng is
unbelievable, but of course it suits your purposes to NOT know the
facts.

Just like you and the Plant spouting that all states have failed their
ASFA "audits" when there is no such thing. It's a DHHS "assessment" as
the feds term it. And they didn't fail in all parts of said assessment
but in one or more of the seven required areas.

>Also, while the drive for adoption might be a big
>difference between most kinship care and Foster
>Adopters, in our case, the wish to adopt the child
>was the motivation for the Prozac grandma to
>initiate the entire case.

My hunch is they mentioned the 15/22 rule to the mother so she would
be fully apprized of her rights (as is required by state and federal
law) not some malicious attack on you or the mother. It is the law the
parent(s) must be informed very early in the process that they have
only 15 months out of 22 to get their act together...like kicking a
good for nothing little girl showering twit out of the housetrailer.

>DHS is using the obsessive grandmother as a patsy.

Bull****. ASFA requires that relatives be considered. There is NO law
they have to be used, but that they be considered if they are
available and capable. That is the law.

I can tell you which way the wind blows though just from what you
said. They'll keep her with grandma until she is no longer fit...but
you forget one thing, or are carefully avoiding it.........GRANDPA
STILL IS AVAILABLE AND ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS GET AN EXCEPTION FOR
BUSTING YOUR STUPID FACE. I don't think that's going to be hard to
convince a judge, considering his reason for taking you down, you
lowlife scumbucket.

Why don't you write the judge yet another brilliant letter and invite
him or her to come visit this ng and see what you have written? Then
you'll never have to worry again about the little girl busting up your
soft berth.

>We know that kinship care is usually a great asset
>to support the parents,

You don't know ****. More often the grandparent is the OTHER parent's
parent and has turned in the drug guzzling low life daughter-in-law or
son-in-law to save the children's lives. They later will allow contact
under only the most controlled circumstances, including demanding a
current clean **** test.

And even in those cases where everyone IS related, they often turned
their own son or daughter in and demand the same thing...a **** test
and other requirements.

You know ****.

>but in our case kinship
>care of the child was a reward or payoff

What "reward or payoff" was involved? The massive foster or adoption
subsidy? R R R R R

>to the
>obsessive

If anyone is obsessive it's you towel boy.

>and very feeble false accuser Prozac grandma.

What did she accuse the mother of, ditwad?

Why is it you keep avoiding mention of Grandpa? Scared?

R R R R R

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Kane:
The 15/22 month rule is for going for TPR.
Caseworkers were using 15/22 as basis IN TPR,
until that was shot down in several places.
The racket was they would DELAY DELAY DELAY
and then use that time against the parent.
Parents and courts pointed to fact that parents
are not the ones making the delays.

Iowa law/policy states that 15/22 is not
an issue in kinship care cases.
Ours is a kinship case but they did anyway.
And in other states 15/22 was struck down as
an issue to justify TPR in and of itself.

Beth:
We understand that kinship care is usually
a benefit, but in our case it is perverted
to offer the Prozac obsessive grandma the
reward she seeks (the child).

This creates a super adversarial situation
where the kinship caretakers worked to
enhance extend and contribute as much garbage
as they could to the witch hunt.

The grandparents actually intended to "take"
and keep the child long before the removal, and
they tried using a false accusation as a pretext,
ya gotta wonder why such feeble grandparents
would be so selfish as to do this to the
grandchild they obsess about?

But CPS and they have similar selfish needs
and don't care how they hurt the child.

[Ron]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Kane:
> The 15/22 month rule is for going for TPR.
> Caseworkers were using 15/22 as basis IN TPR,
> until that was shot down in several places.
> The racket was they would DELAY DELAY DELAY
> and then use that time against the parent.

The 15/22 rule only requires that HHS BEGIN the TPR/Permancy process at one
of those marks. Are you saying greg that a normal, or near normal, human
cannot make the needed changes in 15 months?

> Parents and courts pointed to fact that parents
> are not the ones making the delays.

The "delays" are most often perpetrated by the inaction of the bio parent.
I have see this many times. Like you, they don't believe that they need to
change things, or that HHS will not TPR, or that by some miracle their
attorney will find the "silver bullet" that brings the children home. All
to often the children are lost to the system simply because the bio parent
refuses to take action to fix their own problems. Just like you greg.

> Iowa law/policy states that 15/22 is not
> an issue in kinship care cases.

15/22 is an issue in ALL cases. Simply because it it a federal law.
Permancy is the goal, and TPR is only one option available to reach that
goal.

> Ours is a kinship case but they did anyway.

They all do greg.

> And in other states 15/22 was struck down as
> an issue to justify TPR in and of itself.>
> Beth:
> We understand that kinship care is usually
> a benefit, but in our case it is perverted
> to offer the Prozac obsessive grandma the
> reward she seeks (the child).

Maybe her motivation is to keep the child out of your hands. Prozac would
have nothing to do with that.

> This creates a super adversarial situation
> where the kinship caretakers worked to
> enhance extend and contribute as much garbage
> as they could to the witch hunt.

Not much of a hunt. You admit your actions quite freely, you have
ignorantly provided the state with all the data they need.

> The grandparents actually intended to "take"
> and keep the child long before the removal, and
> they tried using a false accusation as a pretext,
> ya gotta wonder why such feeble grandparents
> would be so selfish as to do this to the
> grandchild they obsess about?

Removing a child from an abusive situation is a responsible action.

> But CPS and they have similar selfish needs
> and don't care how they hurt the child.

The harm caused by her placement in care is less than the harm you have
already caused her, and continue to cause. Thats the standard greg, or
didnt you know that.

Ron

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Kane:
> The 15/22 month rule is for going for TPR.

No, the TPR has to conform to the 15/22 rule. As do other aspects of
the case. The purpose of the 15/22 also includes the option or
returning the child home, or placing the child, sans termination of
parental rights, in a permanent situation, such as a guardianship
(with the state retaining legal custody until the child reaches their
majority) or in long term foster care. All it takes is for the court
to agree...in other words, to make the case...that IS why they are
called "caseworkers" Greegor.

The place you and the phony reformers fall on your own swords, Whore,
is that you try to take a simple fact and rework it to fit your own
bias and or goals, limiting it from the facts...which tend to be a bit
more complex, and NOT calcualted to allow ****heads like you to sue.

> Caseworkers were using 15/22 as basis IN TPR,

Yep. What is their name again?

> until that was shot down in several places.

Goody. Is the child home with her mother?

> The racket was they would DELAY DELAY DELAY
> and then use that time against the parent.

R R R ... sure, Greegor, that's it. The "time" is not the only factor
considered by the court. It is one small part. I've seen case after
case in court fall by the wayside based on the time argument. Recently
saw a case where foster parents had two children in their care, and
very well cared for they were too, for over three years. Got them as
tiny tykes, one an infant, the other a toddler. Dual
citizenship..Mexican and US.

The children were sent to a poverty stricken region of Mexico. The
fosters were crushed but their attorney's "time" argument failed on
the father and grandmother in Mexico (the father had barely seen
either child..and the grandmother NEVER had) being willing to take
them, and wanting them.

Can you imagine how much those foster parents loved those two
children? But the court upheld exactly what you liars claim courts
don't do...the rights of the parents and relatives to the child.

Crock of **** asshole liars.

> Parents and courts pointed to fact that parents
> are not the ones making the delays.

Sure...just like you. They just come up with strange Motions to the
court. Refuse to kick out the good for nothing little girl showering
boyfriend and demand monies from the state for storage of said
boyfriends ****.

I'm sure it can get even more creative than you do. You are such a
stupid twit.

> Iowa law/policy states that 15/22 is not
> an issue in kinship care cases.

Post it please. It would be in violation of federal law. I'd like to
see their workaround wording....assuming you are telling the
truth...and you are of course, you always do.

> Ours is a kinship case but they did anyway.

"Ours?" You are now related to the child by blood or legally? When is
the adoption final, or is the mother your sister?

> And in other states 15/22 was struck down as
> an issue to justify TPR in and of itself.

Incorrect application of the 15/22 law was struck down, not the
federal law,
ASFA. It may come to that, and frankly I'm for changing it.

Attempts to circumvent the judicial are epidemic, the three strikes
law is typical. Cases aren't tried on their merits but on some
prosecutorial favoritism of a law.

Some families can make it and get their children back with proper
services, and some can never have them removed with the instituting of
proper services. CAPTA started the ball rolling and ASFA knocked down
nearly all the pins, for familes.

And YOU, you self indulgent little creep, are trying to make hay off
the backs of the parents caught up in the debacle.

> Beth:
> We understand that kinship care is usually
> a benefit, but in our case it is perverted
> to offer the Prozac obsessive grandma the
> reward she seeks (the child).

The child could have been home a year ago easily.

> This creates a super adversarial situation
> where the kinship caretakers worked to
> enhance extend and contribute as much garbage
> as they could to the witch hunt.

NO! YOU created the adversarial situation by being there.

> The grandparents actually intended to "take"
> and keep the child long before the removal,

Yes. And you've clearly stated why, and grandpa put the exclaimation
point to it with his fist in your face.

> and
> they tried using a false accusation as a pretext,

Which "false accusation" was used as a pretext? And you don't have to
put "false" in front of "accusation." The word stands alone.

> ya gotta wonder why such feeble grandparents
> would be so selfish as to do this to the
> grandchild they obsess about?

Grandpa was "feeble?"

You must be some weanie to not be able to stand up to the punch of a
feeble grandpa.

What is he doing to the grandchild, except keeping her out of the
hands of a pervert water sportsmen?

> But CPS and they have similar selfish needs
> and don't care how they hurt the child.

Well, unless they are poor, they are not likely bringing in the IV-E
monies to the state so what would be the state's selfish needs?

For that matter do you consider grandparents that wish to protect
their grandchildren as being selfish?

I'd say g'pa is a hero of the best kind. He had to know the cost of
smacking you in the head. Yet out of love for and fear for the safety
of his granddaughter he risked it. No doubt he has an assault charge
against him, but hey, if you were showering my granddaughter you'd be
lucky to be just suckin' dinner through a straw for a few months.

So tell us. Would the child be home with mother if you had left when
the child was removed?

Kane