Saturday, June 5, 2010

"Shack'in Up" Placement

This was written to Denise by a reader. I thought some would be interested in it because it brings up another issue.

"Ms. Denise Revels Robinson, I am witting concerning my granddaughter, __________. She’s been living with what children services in Tumwater, WA. call a “suitable placement.” I do not believe that Ms.______ and her Boyfriend are suitable. They teach my granddaughter her A, B, C’s and 1, 2, 3’s and to call them mommy and daddy. It is inappropriate for Ms. ______ and her Boyfriend to encourage my granddaughter to call them “mommy and daddy.“ They are not teaching her morals and healthy family values. Kim G. stated to me that C.P.S. has no policy against a child being placed in a live in fornicating situation, but I do. My granddaughter needs to be placed with her secure, stable and loving biological family. We will teach her all she needs to know, plus good morals and values. Ms. ________ and her boyfriend have befriend C.P.S. Kim G. The recommendation will be that my granddaughter remain with her “suitable placement” permanently, no matter who I write to express my concerns. That‘s what she told me. My granddaughter has the right to spend the rest of her life with her biological family and not living in sin with girlfriend “mommy” and boyfriend “daddy.“ I want my granddaughter out of that shack ‘ n up, no morals or values, fornicating place and put with her family. Ms. Robinson, I am again requesting to speak with you."

Thank you,
(I removed the name. PR)

(Dear Readers: It has been my experience that there are certainly many things left out of consideration. The federal government has a much better system that it uses with tribal placements. Assuming that a child needs to be taken...there can and should be considerations of heritage and ethnicity. Many of the children go back to relatives and should not have family values undermined. Shouldn't there be respect for the teachings of the family? Why are non-tribal children not afforded the protections that tribal children have through federal law?)


Anonymous said...

In this state, Christianity is considered a nuisance along with morals and values unless it benefits the state directly. The reason for this is Christians just aren't getting involved in politics like they should be. There is a strange absence of the conservative base in strategic decision making locations.

The churches and church members need to become educated about this. They often are very deceived and support the government position on child removal and adoption. On the other hand, they support family biblically.

To support "Caesar" in the destruction of the family goes against biblical principals but "Caesar" keeps them focused on specific instances of abuse while failing to paint a complete picture of court activities.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ms. Roach and to this reader:

I wholeheartedly agree. My poor father didn't say much to me but I do recall him saying "get married" and I was just sitting on a porch with a boyfriend. This sounds like playing "pretend house" to me. No matter how poor we were; we still had morals and family values and that is what this is about. If you want a family you get married and you sacrifice. That is the only way I have ever known life to be. Gina Goodyear

Anonymous said...

Though it is rarely acknowledged or followed by CPS, RCW 13.34.260 already requires that cultural and religious heritage be considered in placements:

"In an attempt to minimize the inherent intrusion in the lives of families involved in the foster care system and to maintain parental authority where appropriate, the department, absent good cause, shall follow the wishes of the natural parent regarding the placement of the child with a relative or other suitable person pursuant to RCW 13.34.130. Preferences such as family constellation, sibling relationships, ethnicity, and religion shall be considered when matching children to foster homes."

Of course, we all know who gets to define "good cause"....

Anonymous said...

CPS expects their foster exploiters to practice "Parental Alienation."

Anonymous said...

Another thing that the Indian child welfare act provides for is a higher standard of proof in termination trials.
Treaty or no treaty double standards in trials = discrimination. Anything that affects a childs entire life should be with the highest standard of proof! How about it! Maybe a good Bill for the next session. I am sure you will still be in office! The budget should not be an obsticle when it involves childrens lives. Besides our attorney generals are paid a salary anyway so this should not cause an increase in their costs.