Random Question re:Foster Care

[ha98ed14]

BFF and I were talking and were trying to figure out the situation with her MIL, but BFF doesn't want to ask her outright because, well, really it's none of her business. But anyway, maybe someone here will know the answer. Not that it's any of my/our business. ;)

BFF's MIL has been a foster parent for at least the last 10 years. We know she became an emergency foster parent when her own daughter (who has schizophrenia) had a baby girl. That baby girl, H, is now 10. Then about a year later MIL got two other foster children, a boy M and a girl B (not related) who were 1 & 2 years old at the time of the placement. Now they are 8 & 9. Last year, MIL officially adopted the girl, B. She has permanent custody of her granddaughter H. It's M's situation we cannot figure out.

Both B&M have been there the same amount of time. B has been adopted, so when MIL went on a cruise, BFF and her DH took the girls, H & B, for the week. The boy, M, was not allowed to stay at BFF's house. He had to go to a different foster home for the week. BUT, there are things about M's "status" that have changed. For example, when M first came to live with her, MIL was not allowed to cut his hair, so he had very long hair. Then something changed about 2 years ago and MIL was allowed to make decisions for M, so she cut his hair into a more manageable style appropriate for a boy his age. He is also allowed to go on vacations/ overnight trips with his foster mom (MIL), but not to stay with her family members (BFF) when MIL goes away. MIL has told BFF that she does not plan to adopt M because of his "issues". The things that landed him in foster care were much more traumatic that what happened to B. B's mother abandoned her at birth. M's mother neglected him severely and he was removed from her care. I don't know the specifics of his situation, just that he was neglected, it has lead to some issues for him. MIL does not plan to adopt him, but doesn't plan to give him back either. What kind of placement is that?

[lalasmama]

That's permanent foster care!

Most people assume there's "3" levels: either you're a birth parent, a foster parent, or an adoptive parent. However, there's levels of "gray" among the Foster and Adoptive parenting.

First, there's emergency shelter care. That's where you are a foster parent for kids for <3 weeks at a time, while their long-term placement (foster, or back with bio's) is being hammered out in the court. Then there's foster parents, which is generally what people assume are foster parents. They have the child for several months while the bio's are getting the needed services, then the child may (or may not) go home. In my state, a "forever plan" needs to be in place by 12 months, and carried out (generally) before 15 months, but not all states are like this. If the child can't go home, then sometimes they terminate parental rights (called "tpr" and sometimes they don't. I know, they can't have their kid back, but their rights aren't terminated--doesn't make sense to me either! So, when a tpr doesn't happen, a child may go into permanent foster care. That means the foster parent maintains foster home status (oy vey!) on a somewhat looser protocol, and the child won't be removed from that foster home unless there's a neglect/abuse finding with the perm foster home. This is the limbo DD and I live in. Her parents can't ever "earn" her back, but a tpr can't be done. She's mine forever... but still a ward of the state forever. .... There's also guardianship that's possible when a tpr hasn't been done. In some states, this may stop foster care payments (my state is one of these, which is one LARGE reason I can't do guardianship--I'm a single mom without a high paying job; I can't afford daycare for DD without the assistance). For most people, guardianship is the basic equivelent of adoption.

And then, there's the "dream" foster/adopt story: Foster child removed from bio home, placed in foster home, tpr takes place 12 months later, and a forever family is made.

[Uno-Mom]

That's permanent foster care!

Most people assume there's "3" levels: either you're a birth parent, a foster parent, or an adoptive parent. However, there's levels of "gray" among the Foster and Adoptive parenting.

First, there's emergency shelter care. That's where you are a foster parent for kids for <3 weeks at a time, while their long-term placement (foster, or back with bio's) is being hammered out in the court. Then there's foster parents, which is generally what people assume are foster parents. They have the child for several months while the bio's are getting the needed services, then the child may (or may not) go home. In my state, a "forever plan" needs to be in place by 12 months, and carried out (generally) before 15 months, but not all states are like this. If the child can't go home, then sometimes they terminate parental rights (called "tpr" and sometimes they don't. I know, they can't have their kid back, but their rights aren't terminated--doesn't make sense to me either! So, when a tpr doesn't happen, a child may go into permanent foster care. That means the foster parent maintains foster home status (oy vey!) on a somewhat looser protocol, and the child won't be removed from that foster home unless there's a neglect/abuse finding with the perm foster home. This is the limbo DD and I live in. Her parents can't ever "earn" her back, but a tpr can't be done, because they didn't harm her "enough". She's mine forever... but still a ward of the state forever. .... There's also guardianship that's possible when a tpr hasn't been done. In some states, this may stop foster care payments (my state is one of these, which is one LARGE reason I can't do guardianship--I'm a single mom without a high paying job; I can't afford daycare for DD without the assistance). For most people, guardianship is the basic equivelent of adoption.

And then, there's the "dream" foster/adopt story: Foster child removed from bio home, placed in foster home, tpr takes place 12 months later, and a forever family is made.

:yeahthat:

In my state there is another slight shade of grey where a child is technically available for adoption (parental rights are fully termed) and in a permanant home. However, the child's team including the foster parent may choose to keep it permanent foster rather than adopt.

This could happen for various reasons. One family I know chose that route because the child had pretty severe disabilities that needed expensive interventions. The child got a higher level of financial support from the state when they were fostered. They were eager to provide all the love, time and effort it took to raise this child as their own, but with modest means they needed the extra funding level for the expensive services. Kind of like Lalasmamma's guardianship dilemma, but slightly different.

(BTW that's a family I know personally, not professionally, or I wouldn't talk about them here! :))

Lallasmamma, I didn't know about the guardianship option. I wonder if that varies state by state. I really feel for you - I understand that special aspect that comes with a legal adoption. But it's obvious to all of us here that you really are the most amazing "forever" home situation. I'm not a foster parent but I work with kids in the system - I have this gut feeling of overwhelming gratitude when I spend time with good foster parents. Makes me kinda choked up sometimes!

[ha98ed14]

So, when a tpr doesn't happen, a child may go into permanent foster care. That means the foster parent maintains foster home status (oy vey!) on a somewhat looser protocol, and the child won't be removed from that foster home unless there's a neglect/abuse finding with the perm foster home. This is the limbo DD and I live in. Her parents can't ever "earn" her back, but a tpr can't be done, because they didn't harm her "enough". She's mine forever... but still a ward of the state forever. .... There's also guardianship that's possible when a tpr hasn't been done. In some states, this may stop foster care payments (my state is one of these, which is one LARGE reason I can't do guardianship--I'm a single mom without a high paying job; I can't afford daycare for DD without the assistance). For most people, guardianship is the basic equivelent of adoption.


So when Lala has a field trip, do you sign the permission slip, or it has to be signed by the state/ state's representative/ case manager?

Also, if I can totally butt into your business, how can you move out of your current state of residence if DD is a ward of that state? Going by your siggy, I think you are related to Lala b/c it says "First non-family foster placement".

Sorry, you're free not to answer any of this, obviously. It's none of my beeswax; I just think it is interesting. But what you describe about the payments makes sense. M needs counseling and therapy. If MIL adopts him, she would have to pay for it out of pocket and even though she has insurance, I don't think she can afford it given that she is also paying for H & B. As long as M remains a ward of the state, his medical and counseling is covered.

[Uno-Mom]

Both B&M have been there the same amount of time. B has been adopted, so when MIL went on a cruise, BFF and her DH took the girls, H & B, for the week. The boy, M, was not allowed to stay at BFF's house. He had to go to a different foster home for the week.

My totally ignorant guess would be that the little boy has some sort of emotional or developmental disabilities that require specialized, therapeutic care from a certified provider. Either that, or this other foster family is a regular respite provider and the kiddo is more comfortable going to their home because he's used to it.

The other foster home is probably his respite provider - there are some families who take more challenging kids for a weekend or a week to give their regular families a much-needed break.

[lalasmama]

:yeahthat:

In my state there is another slight shade of grey where a child is technically available for adoption (parental rights are fully termed) and in a permanant home. However, the child's team including the foster parent may choose to keep it permanent foster rather than adopt.

This could happen for various reasons. One family I know chose that route because the child had pretty severe disabilities that needed expensive interventions. The child got a higher level of financial support from the state when they were fostered. They were eager to provide all the love, time and effort it took to raise this child as their own, but with modest means they needed the extra funding level for the expensive services. Kind of like Lalasmamma's guardianship dilemma, but slightly different.

(BTW that's a family I know personally, not professionally, or I wouldn't talk about them here! :))

Lallasmamma, I didn't know about the guardianship option. I wonder if that varies state by state. I really feel for you - I understand that special aspect that comes with a legal adoption. But it's obvious to all of us here that you really are the most amazing "forever" home situation. I'm not a foster parent but I work with kids in the system - I have this gut feeling of overwhelming gratitude when I spend time with good foster parents. Makes me kinda choked up sometimes!

Interesting--I hadn't ever considered that a foster parent would choose perm foster care over guardianship :) However, financially, it makes complete sense! DD has special nutritional needs that cost about $150/mo. The state, if we persued guardianship, would pay for the special nutritional needs, but nothing else. Apparently last year they ended adoption assistance and guardianship assistance in 99% of cases...

Thankfully, DD understands none of this. She just knows she's got a first mom, and her forever mama. And no matter what the state calls it, and what rules we live by, we're forever, which is all she and I need! :heartbeat:

[Melanie]

I have heard cases where the child has an illness and if they are a foster child the state pays for medications that the family couldn't otherwise afford, but the family plans to raise the child permanently. I would wonder if this would extend from medications to therapies as well...

[lalasmama]

So when Lala has a field trip, do you sign the permission slip, or it has to be signed by the state/ state's representative/ case manager?

Also, if I can totally butt into your business, how can you move out of your current state of residence if DD is a ward of that state? Going by your siggy, I think you are related to Lala b/c it says "First non-family foster placement".

Sorry, you're free not to answer any of this, obviously. It's none of my beeswax; I just think it is interesting. But what you describe about the payments makes sense. M needs counseling and therapy. If MIL adopts him, she would have to pay for it out of pocket and even though she has insurance, I don't think she can afford it given that she is also paying for H & B. As long as M remains a ward of the state, his medical and counseling is covered.

No problem, ask away! I will almost always answer. I think foster care needs to be much more transparent than it is!

Moving out of state is easier for us than for a lot of people. There's a form called an... ICPC? IPCP? IPIC? I can't remember :) I'm too lazy to go look at the name of the form, LOL. At any rate, we fill it out, the caseworker approves it, and then the county where we move to will then be a courtesy case worker and certifier. We already have a similar set-up, just need to move it from in-state to out-of-state. Because we are permanent care, I swore to parent her as I would any naturally-born-to-me child. So if that means we need to move for our family's support, they will approve it easier than if she wasn't a perm foster child.

For most things, I can sign, assuming it doesn't take her across state lines. Annoyingly, I live on a state border, and my dad lives 20 miles away, on the other side of the border. We have to have a Consent to Travel for that 20 miles, but we can go 450 miles south, and don't need permission. Go figure! .... So, I can consent to her going on a field trip. I can consent to the school seeking emergency care for her. But I can't give the okay for anesthia (sp?). That requires DHS approval. Otherwise, I am authorized to act as her custodial parent... until we get too close to the border! :rotflmao:

My state has some nice foster care features for counseling and medical care. In DD's case, she has better medical insurance than I do! It's through the state, and it's medical-dental-mental health-prescriptions. That's completely normal for foster care children in my state. No copays for anything other than OTC medicines like Motrin (which is $3). I have no idea how much typical counseling costs any more, but I know I'm thankful that the state is paying for it. They also pay, without fussing, for the therapies DD needs (OT, nutrition visits and supplements, etc).

[american_mama]

I find ths fascintng, and lalasmom, you are a wonder at explaining this all so cleearly. My sister is friends with someone who fostered and then adopted a large sibling group that had been abused. Two of those children live, either year-round or perhaps just for the summer, at a special camp for kids who experience that kind of trauma. I think the state pays for it, even though I think the family has legally adopted the children. Does that seem likely to anyone? This is in Maryland. I could have gotten the facts wrong, of course.

I was glad to hear that the family had assistance to pay for these kids' needs, because with a family of eight kids (six from the foster/adoption route), it would have been hard otherwise. It seemed like a good way to not let finances prevent a family from adopting a foster child.

[sariana]

Hmm, I'm no expert on any of this, but I can share some of what happened with my parents and my brother.

My brother B came to live with us when he was 13 months old. At that time his birth mother had not relinquished her rights. I think my parents intended for it to be a temporary placement, but the years went by, and B continued to live with us.

At some point his birth mother gave up her rights. The state allegedly could not find the birth father.

But that was not the end of it. Birth Mother was a Tlingit American Indian (I hope I got that right), and so B was a member of the tribe. Because of the unique status of American Indians, they also had a "right" to him. They had to sign away their rights before he became "adoptable." That took more time and paperwork. Then the state had to search for a suitable American Indian family (which we are not). Apparently they couldn't find one, but even more time elapsed.

When B was maybe 12 or so, my parents finally became his guardians. I am not sure about this part, but I think that was B's choice because he wanted to keep his own last name or something. (I was no longer living at home at the time, and my access to what was going on was sketchy.)

So maybe M has some sort of similar situation (another "party" involved in his custody). The hair issue makes me wonder about religious affiliations or something.

As far as I know, had B not ever become adoptable, my parents would have remained his foster parents until he reached adulthood, his "permanent foster parents," I guess.