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."
(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?)