I have found out that once CPS starts a termination they don't look back. It seems to me that if facts are presented that it would be OK to change your mind. Apparently, not.
Harry Potter's rules to Quidditch are, I think, hard to understand. But, like any game...once you "get it" it all clicks in and you instinctively know the rules. In basketball, when you learn you can't "double-dribble" then you pretty much don't do it!
The rules to child placement are hard to understand. You think the playing field should be built on logic and fairness. It is not.
No situation is righted or "credit" given the family if there has been an error or wrongdoing on the part of the state. The way the game is played...only points can be taken away. And, only the state has the power to take away points.
There is no accountability. (Where is the referee?) If Judge Schaffer believes that the mother writes nasty blogs, and the mother does not write blogs...who told the judge that the mother writes blogs? Is there no whistle blown during foul play?(There seems to be no interest in asking who provided false information to the judge. God help us if she made it up. I do not believe she did.)
If the family plays two "Very Positive In-home Study" cards...how is it that the other team can legally maneuver around that play? It should be a double trump card, "Families First" and all.
Are there penalties when the CASA, CPS, the AG, and the court do not place within the family? No. That is not how the game is played. We know that Judge Schaffer did not know about at least one of the in-home studies. Is there any repercussion within the department when an employee, or an AG, or a CASA fails to inform the judge of potential relative placements? Apparently, not. No points for the family here.
When CPS hides from the judges the fact of a positive relative in-home study in another state...shouldn't someone be accountable for withholding information that might be important for the well being of the child? There is no penalty box in this game (except for the grandparents and the senator).
The state ignores rules: Point for the state.
Families complain: Point for the state.
Example of a special play card to be held and used at will by the state: The "Poor Foster Woman" card." (foster woman waiting for the termination...she is going through hell with the terrible wait and all..point for her). Oops, and another negative point for the family for the suffering of the foster woman.
Ask your State Senator for help: Negative 10 points.
Have a reporter cover the story: Game called! Enough of this. Take the prize (a three year old) and go home.
I asked the department why they kept the information of the positive relative placement to themselves. They said it was their policy to only mention family placement possibilities after termination. Does the legislature have to create law to have the department implement legislative directives? If the state can't follow rules set by the legislature then someone should be fired. This is real life here.
If the mother doesn't follow a directive a child can be taken away. If the state does not follow a directive...nothing happens. (This is why the department needs citizen over-sight...they can not govern themselves.)
In the case of the Stuth's granddaughter, the aunt and uncle in North Dakota had such a study done. WA held the information for months. I, myself, in a statement I read to the judge, informed the court about this positive study. The department told me later that they only give this information to the judge AFTER termination.
Senators Hargrove and Stevens may be right. They have worked these issues for years. If you want to win at this game, sell your house and get a good lawyer. If you are in this game...you have to be rich to win. This discrimination is against white, blond, non-drug affected, young (no memories if you get them soon enough) children and their low income single mothers.