Biological Mother Is Withholding Babies from Legal Guardians

[olred61]

We plan on getting a lawyer but then my next question is this: Why have emergency temporary guardianship if it can be revoked anytime with proof of drug use, abuse, neglect, abandonment, etc. Seems redundant to me to even have it if the mother can swoop right in and have it taken away without proof that she is a fit mother, or for that matter, anyone in the house is fit enough to take care of both children.

[Dogmatique]

Because the court errs on the side of caution.

Emergency petitions are granted even without a whole lot of proof, JUST because there might be a risk to the child. Keeping those temporary orders and getting made permanent though? That's a whole different kettle of fish.

It's not that Mom has to prove that she's fit. It's that someone has to prove that she's NOT fit. The fact that she still has the eldest with her, might be very telling (where is HIS father?).

- - - Updated - - -

And how involved is DHS with THIS baby? As of, right now?

[olred61]

We plan on getting a lawyer Monday morning but then I have other questions: why have an Emergency Temporary Guardianship if the mother can swoop right in and have the judge revoke it? Why would she not have to prove that she is a fit mother? And last but not least, why give us the Guardianship if we presented proof that the mother was unfit to take care of the baby, the other adults are not fit to take care of any children and the house was unsafe for the baby and the almost 4 year old. It seems redundant to me to give us the Guardianship when we provided the proof of how the child would be in danger and yet we have no rights at all, especially if the mother "takes off" with the baby? I thought the whole point to the Emergency Temporary Guardianship was to protect the child, not the unfit mother?

- - - Updated - - -

we have proven she is an "unfit" mother. DHS has backed off on the baby since we have the guardianship of her. The father of the son lives in Kansas and has had nothing to do with the son. DHS is still involved with the son because of the investigation against the mom. SHe could still lose him. and it seems to me that if she is not going to abide by the visitations stipulations that were laid out then that should be considered too. Especially if she just takes off with the baby and does not return her to us.

[Dogmatique]

So what is DHS's plan to reunify Mom and baby?

(That is their goal, as a rule)

[olred61]

So what is DHS's plan to reunify Mom and baby?

(That is their goal, as a rule)

That may be their rule generally but she has/had informed them that she was given her to us to eventually adopt.

I have been working with the DHS investigator to show we - not the mother, have gotten the shots that the baby was 2 months behind on for the baby, which DHS told the mother to do and she did not do it. I have also given the Emergency Temporary Guardianship paperwork to the investigator, the legal department and the regular DHS case worker area. I have notarized statements from 6 people about the mother' inability to take care of her daughter, how from day one we have had the baby and have had sole financially responsibility of her, the abuse that has gone on in the parent's house where they live, and the abuse by the boyfriend, etc. DHS has closed the case against the baby since we have the Emergency Temporary Guardianship for the baby. The investigation is still on going with the son.

also, the mom is not working, the boyfriend is not working and the only source of money she has coming in is TANF and food stamps, which by the way she never notified DHS that the baby was not in the house and she was using the food stamps. Again, she never provided anything for the baby.

[Dogmatique]

Notarized statements mean nothing. A statement cannot be cross-examined in court. Seriously - I know this is not what you're wanting to hear, but I think you might be in for some not-too-pleasant surprises when it all comes down to it.

Mom has obviously changed her mind (at least temporarily) about you adopting the child (she cannot make that decision herself, incidentally). The state will not force an adoption outside of extreme circumstances and, again, the goal of child services is generally - if the parent wants to be reunified - to allow the parent to be reunified with the child.

I have to ask. If you've had the baby since Day 1, how is Mom guilty of anything?

[olred61]

EW

Notarized statements mean nothing. A statement cannot be cross-examined in court. Seriously - I know this is not what you're wanting to hear, but I think you might be in for some not-too-pleasant surprises when it all comes down to it.

Mom has obviously changed her mind (at least temporarily) about you adopting the child (she cannot make that decision herself, incidentally). The state will not force an adoption outside of extreme circumstances and, again, the goal of child services is generally - if the parent wants to be reunified - to allow the parent to be reunified with the child.

I have to ask. If you've had the baby since Day 1, how is Mom guilty of anything?

How is she not guilty of abandonment? How is she not guilty of fraud with the food stamps and TANF for the baby? What about endangerment to a child when they fight and the boyfriend or dad get physically and verbally abusive? What about drug abuse? Just because we have had the baby in a safe enviroment doesn't mean she isn't guilty of doing anything wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as changing her mind, its not that she changes her mind, she just doesn't like something we say and then she throws a temper tantrum and takes the baby. And how are we, the people concerned for this baby guilty if doing any thing wrong? It seems to me that it is being implied that we are the ones at fault here not the mother. I know we aren't wrong and at least I can say I fought for this little girl and i can tell her that if she is alive when she is older, because that is how much we fear for her live and her brother's life. How are we wrong for that?

- - - Updated - - -

As far as changing her mind, its not that she changes her mind, she just doesn't like something we say and then she throws a temper tantrum and takes the baby. And how are we, the people concerned for this baby guilty if doing any thing wrong? It seems to me that it is being implied that we are the ones at fault here not the mother. I know we aren't wrong and at least I can say I fought for this little girl and i can tell her that if she is alive

hen she is older, because that is how much we fear for her life and her brother's life. How are we wrong for that?

All the people who submitted the statements are willing to go to court by the way

[Dogmatique]

EW

How is she not guilty of abandonment? How is she not guilty of fraud with the food stamps and TANF for the baby? What about endangerment to a child when they fight and the boyfriend or dad get physically and verbally abusive? What about drug abuse? Just because we have had the baby in a safe enviroment doesn't mean she isn't guilty of doing anything wrong.

She has not abandoned the child - YOU have guardianship! The fraud is meaningless when it comes to deciding whether or not she's fit to parent. But that didn't answer my question and there is a reason why I was asking.

You said - stated quite clearly - that the baby has been with YOU since Day 1. So again - if you've been that child's ONLY caregiver since that day, how is Mom guilty of neglect or abuse? She's not ordered to pay support, so that can't be used against her. Drug abuse? It's not endangering the child, is it?

Fighting? Parents fight. ALL the time. I'm not saying that Mom is perfect, or even a decent parent. What I'm saying is that I don't think you're really grasping how difficult it is to have a parent proven unfit by LEGAL standards. Specially when the child hasn't actually been in that parent's care!

- - - Updated - - -

As far as changing her mind, its not that she changes her mind, she just doesn't like something we say and then she throws a temper tantrum and takes the baby. And how are we, the people concerned for this baby guilty if doing any thing wrong? It seems to me that it is being implied that we are the ones at fault here not the mother. I know we aren't wrong and at least I can say I fought for this little girl and i can tell her that if she is alive when she is older, because that is how much we fear for her live and her brother's life. How are we wrong for that?

Come on, nobody is saying you're in the wrong. I DO think you're going to be in for what might end up being a truly horrible reality check when all is said and done, but nobody is going to criticize you for stepping up when Mom didn't.

But look at your posts again.

- - - Updated - - -

They're willing to go to court and say what? "Mom did pot six days a week for six weeks". "Was the child in her custody at the time?" "No, your honor". "Fine let's move on".

I'm sorry - I know this is really difficult for you. But I don't want to lie to you, nor do I want you wandering away with hope that somehow the court is just going to automatically terminate her parental rights.

That's not going to happen.

[olred61]

I don't need a reality check, I always expect the worst, especially from this mom! I am ending this now because this has been nothin.g but negative against us. We had enough proof to prove to the judge she is unfit. But I guess people who don't have legal custody of a child can do anything they want, even kidnapping them. I am really sorry I came to this website. I was asking for help and I feel like my husband and i were made out to be wrong, unfit and the criminals.

[Dogmatique]

Are you kidding me?! Hon, my heart is BREAKING for you! I KNOW what this is like!

I know you're overly defensive, and if that makes me the bad guy, that's fine - blame me, please! But seriously, nobody made you out to be wrong, unfit or criminal.

Not. One. Person.

I pray for this child, but I also recognize the legal reality. And that is that Mom - if she's not legally unfit (and if she was, the courts would likely have stepped in before now) - has a better-than-good chance of eventually getting her child back.

I'm sorry.