Important Updates Temporary Guardianship;***Means update

Are you going through an investigation now? Tell your story and get feedback here.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

User avatar
DesertSkye
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:59 am
Contact:

a website for free documents on guardianship

Postby DesertSkye » Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:07 am

http://www.legaldocs.com/index.htm

it is under child care authorization and then one to revoke it under child care revocation
A wretched soul, bruised with adversity,
We bid be quiet when we hear it cry;
But were we burdened with like weight of pain,
As much or more we should ourselves complain.
William Shakespeare

mdgold123
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:57 am

GUARDIANSHIP

Postby mdgold123 » Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:29 am

Legitimate question:

During your guardianship (Dazee and/or Desert) were either of you interviewed by the court where the document was signed/put into effect? TN? Were your child/children interviewed? Does age matter?

How quickly did this happen? Start to finish?

mdgold123

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:32 am

I feel you are a cps colluder and more and more I think you are a relative on a fishing expediditon.

You will get nothing at this point.

When our hearing is over and we have our granddaughter back then everyone will get everything from us. I will be putting it in an ebook on my website that I am developing free for all to use in helping them with their own cases with the cps.

However, legitimateyou feel this is it does not warrant me to answer you at this time because of my feelings toward you.

It just seems odd to me you keep pushing for this documentation and only the relatives who are concerned about our actions would do this or the caseworker.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
DesertSkye
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:59 am
Contact:

DUH

Postby DesertSkye » Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:40 am

It seems a stupid question to ask.
You know more than we do it seems.

Your questions will not get answers from us and besides you never did answer anything you were asked

And I can't see how you are being helpful at ALL

GO WHINE SOMEWHERE ELSE
Last edited by DesertSkye on Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
A wretched soul, bruised with adversity,

We bid be quiet when we hear it cry;

But were we burdened with like weight of pain,

As much or more we should ourselves complain.

William Shakespeare

Momoffor
Moderator
Posts: 1307
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:17 pm

Postby Momoffor » Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:44 am

Gold, I noticed that out of all of the posts on this board, you seem to enjoy going after any and everything that dazee and desert post about. Seems like a personal vendetta that goes much further than just these boards.

What I dont get is why they think they need to justify themselves to you everytime you start in on them.

Neither are lawyers and they are not giving legal advice so quit trying to ask them for answers to legal questions. You want legal advice about a specific state and how it works? Call a lawyer in that state and ask them.

Your digging questions about their personal case and experience are highly suspicious of what you are truely seeking.

Momoffor
Moderator
Posts: 1307
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:17 pm

Postby Momoffor » Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:58 am

HA, you posted that as I was typing up my witty response. Well said!

User avatar
DesertSkye
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:59 am
Contact:

lol

Postby DesertSkye » Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:01 am

Thanks momoffor and dazeemay
I think we are done with this nonsense!

and wasn't gold just saying on the taping post about going on and on .......... :lol:

AS GOLD SAID

on to more meaningful posts as GOLDS are certainly NOT MEANINGFUL!

:lol:
A wretched soul, bruised with adversity,

We bid be quiet when we hear it cry;

But were we burdened with like weight of pain,

As much or more we should ourselves complain.

William Shakespeare

User avatar
mrsmac
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 5:47 pm
Location: Canada

Postby mrsmac » Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:07 pm

"Gold, I noticed that out of all of the posts on this board, you seem to enjoy going after any and everything that dazee and desert post about. Seems like a personal vendetta that goes much further than just these boards."

This is exactly what Gold is doing for whatever reason.

Ive even pm'd him/her to say that Dazee & Desert are well repected on this forum and why centre them out.

Dazee & Desert, id just ignore Gold from now on. You know what your doing and what is right for you and how you wish to help others. You certainly dont need to answer to Gold when he/she doesnt appear to have legitimate concerns to address.

He/she is bound and bent to try & get personal info that is totally unnecessary and this makes his/her conduct highly suspicious, in my estimation. If they truly wanted help they wouldnt just zero in on one case/person.
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. Galations 6:2

Gary Shaw
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 2:16 pm
Location: SE Georgia
Contact:

Postby Gary Shaw » Sat Oct 01, 2005 5:59 pm

MrsMac,

Well said as usually, oh wise one.

Anonymity seems to make weak people brave and outspoken just as ignorance does. As with CPS so with this site and any where you can run your mouth without facing the person you are attacking.

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:23 am

I am not understanding your questions and how it relates to guardianship.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:25 pm

(I am editing a previous message, to add code links, to help others look in the codes of their own states.)

Title IV-E Policy Manual

See page 9
http://www.dss.virginia.gov/files/divis ... manual.pdf

I thought Title IV-E was funding for a wide range of things which magically appears when children are taken, for paying the foster parents as well as local administrative costs.

Poor people may not know their children were eligible for financial assistance before the children were removed, but social services finds ways to get them eligible after they are removed. I don't know if they redefine the "assistance unit", or what.

I don't know if the system is driven more towards people who are poor or not poor.

But the eligibility criteria are connected to children being removed from the homes of parents, relatives, specified relatives, etc.

Also, there are time factors.

"AFDC-relatedness must be assessed based upon information within the six
months prior to or during the eligibility month. If a child is not living
with the specified relative from whose home he or she is being removed in
the month of the voluntary placement agreement or petition, the child can
be deemed eligible in the eligibility month if:
1. The child had been living with a specified relative at some time
within the six-month period prior to the eligibility month; and
2. Would have been eligible in the removal home in the month of the
voluntary placement or petition if the child had continued to
reside with the relative."

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

CASE LAW/PITFALLS OF GUARDIANSHIP/BE SURE OR YOUR GUARDIAN

Postby Dazeemay » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:14 pm

This only happens if your child/ren end up with the guardian through state custody.

In most CPS cases once you tell them the child/ren are under legal guardianship they back off. However, in one case I know, the children had to go to the guardians and sign a paper stating the parents could not visit while the case was ongoing. This case had to do with an injury.

******************************************************

Case Law Development: Parent's Must Prove Best Interests of the Child to Terminate Voluntary Guardianships
Appellate courts in Missouri and Tennessee this week decided cases in which biological parents had voluntarily consented to have family members act as their children’s guardians and the parents are now asking the court to return the children. In both cases the courts held that the best interests of the child required keeping the guardianship in place, despite the fact that the parents were now able and willing to care for their children. The Tennessee case also examined the grounds for termination of parental rights when a parent has voluntarily transferred custody of a child to a relative.

The Missouri case involved a father who, during the last year of his wife's terminally illness, had his wife's mother take in his daughters (twin 9 year olds and 3 year old). He consented to a guardianship soon after his wife’s death so that the grandmother could act on the children’s behalf. Two years later, he asked the court to terminate the guardianship as he had recovered from his grief and was ready to have the children back. The court held that, to terminate a guardianship, the court must find not only that the parent was fit, able and willing to care for the children but that terminating the guardianship would be in their best interests. The court affirmed the trial court’s finding that, while father was fit, able and willing, continued guardianship with grandmother was in the children’s best interests.

Bailey v. Schnieders, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1444 (October 4, 2005)
Opinion on the web at http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopin ... enDocument (last visited October 5, 2005 bgf)

The Tennessee case involved a mother who had given custody of her colicky newborn to her aunt while she “got her life together.” Aunt raised the child as her own and child had bonded with the aunt and thrived. Nearly 10 years later, Mother moved to regain custody. Aunt countered with a motion to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Mother had failed to prove a change in circumstances justifying modification of custody in the best interests of the child. It reversed the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights, however, because there was not clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination.

The the Matter of K.C., Jr., 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 636 (October 4, 2005)
Opinion on the web at http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCA ... CJrOpn.pdf (last visited October 5, 2005 bgf)


On the termination case, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence establishing grounds for termination of Mother’s parental rights. The court found that while Mother had failed to pay child support, the court noted that the failure, given Mother’s poor work history and understanding of her obligations did not rise to the level of willfulness required by the law.

Aunt also argued the alternative ground of “persistence of conditions.” Mother argued that the language of the statute indicated that this provision should only apply when a child has been removed by the department of children’s services for abuse or neglect. The appellate court disagreed, holding that “persistence of conditions” grounds can be used to terminate parental rights even in a case where transfer of custody was voluntary, so long as that court order granting that transfer contained findings of abuse, neglect or dependency. While the court, in granting the transfer to Aunt, had made findings of neglect, the appellate court found that there was not clear and convincing evidence that mother’s current conditions were such that the child would be at risk of abuse or neglect if returned to mother. Nonetheless, the court emphasized that, while it was reversing the termination, it strongly affirmed the trial court’s decision that child remain with Aunt.


October 7, 2005 in Child Abuse, Custody (parenting plans) | Permalink

September 30, 2005
Last edited by Dazeemay on Tue May 16, 2006 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:32 pm

Another case.

Well, from looking at this I believe that one has to put in his/her guardianship papers that when the parents want to terminate then they can and the guardian/s will then have to return the child.

Note again this is only when you have to send the child/ren to the guardian. So to be on the safe side if your child/ren have gone to them you must have a clause in there stating that when the circumstances surrounding your decision of guardianship has ended then the child/ren must be returned.
*************************************************
Case Development: California Court Upholds Constitutionality of Best Interests Test as Sole Criterion for Terminating Guardianships
As discussed in prior Family Law Prof Blog case law developments, many state laws allow courts to deny terminating a minor guardianship and returning the child to the biological parents where such a change would not be in the best interest of the child. The California Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of this standard, citing a number of United State Supreme Court decisions in paternity cases for the principal that parents in these cases have fewer constitutional rights than parents in an intact family.

In this case, minor's parents had placed their daughter with Aunt and Uncle while they resolved violence and alcohol issues. Seeking to terminate the guardianship, the parents argued that the law's use of the minor's best interest as the sole criterion for termination of the guardianship violated their constitutional rights as fit parents to have the sole care, custody and control of their child.

The California Court of Appeals disagreed, upholding the trial court's dismissal of parent's petition to terminate the guardianship. The court concluded that "Here, although the parents had a biological link to the minor, they relinquished their day-to-day parental relationship with her when mother voluntarily placed the minor with the uncle and aunt because the parents were unable to provide adequate care for her. Then, the parents did not oppose having the uncle and aunt named to be the minor's guardians. Because the parents were no longer participating in the day-to-day parenting of the minor, they were not entitled to the constitutional protection afforded to parents who are acting in that role."

Guardianship of L.V., 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 154 (February 7, 2006)
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:56 am

I will try to periodically add each states laws concerning Temporary/Standby Guardianship if they have any. This will take some time to do. Because there is so much controversry over guardianship I feel it is worth the time and effort to keep abreast of it all.

All states have laws about Court Guardianship and Standby Guardianship is included in some of these laws. Many states do not address Standby Guardianship laws and some address Temporary Guardianship.

As of today, April 6th, 2006, I do know that a Temporary Guardianship works in the majority of cases. Again it all depends on your state laws if they have any and most of all the judge.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
DontBiteMyNose
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:00 pm
Contact:

Postby DontBiteMyNose » Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:04 pm

Dazee, you probably touched on this, but, let's say for instance the goons attempt to get me and I do a guardianship here in my State. Let's say I want my parents to be the guardians but, they live in another State. Do I have to have my parents go with me in MY state to get it notorized or can I do it in the State they're in and it'll be reciprical?

Thanks.
bcbc films
bcbcfilms.8m.com

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:39 pm

You can do the guardianship in your state and have it notarized in your state. They do not have to be where you are or be there. Just send it to them in the mail.

In fact when my daughter did hers for the other two grandchildren she just wrote it up on a piece of paper as the uncle dictated it to her. That was our first introduction to guardianship. When she did the revocation she used this site.

ttps://www.legaldocs.com/docs/rev_child1.mv

The judge in the other state recognized both.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

trinity699
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:07 pm

what to do with Temporary Guardianship?

Postby trinity699 » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:32 pm

Sorry if I'm too impatient to scroll through all the responses, but what I want to know is when I get the Temp Guardianship/Power of Attorney executed and notarized, do I have to file it with a Court? My husband's kids already have an open case with a court in another county (from the Divorce) but my child does not have an open case.

We live in a different county than where my husband's kids case is.


Thanks!
~Trinity

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:50 pm

You do not have to file it with the court.

Also be sure you have your revocation ready and all you will have to do with it is add your date and notarize it.

The reason for this is if you suddenly find out you do not want to go with the person because they have changed towards you or you have changed towards them you can simply give them the revocation. Then you can do a new one with whomever you feel comfortable with.

Always be sure to check on guardianship updates because once they get the clue that we know what to do to prevent them from coming for the child/ren legislation is sure to come about.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

Mistchf
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:11 am
Contact:

Postby Mistchf » Thu May 04, 2006 8:03 pm

I am posting here only because I read a post of a CA CPS worker and what she posted was not correct, or at least it wasn't in my case. I filed for Temp Guardianship twice, at the same time filing for Perm. CPS does the guardianship study in my county, and they did 2 on me. The Temp guardianship did not even consist of a hearing, it was granted on the face of the report made. Maybe it's different in different parts of CA but this is how my guardianships went. And CPS was involved both times.

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Thu May 04, 2006 8:12 pm

That is what is hard for the cps workers to understand. They only know it through the court system, but fail to recognize that temp guardianships have been done for years without the court system and that it is legal.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Tue May 16, 2006 12:19 pm

Mistchf,

I forgot to say that it was because you "filed" that they were involved.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

leighahh
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:51 pm
Contact:

help

Postby leighahh » Wed May 17, 2006 7:37 am

ok i have a question is it possible for the parents of an unborn child to sign a temp. gaurdianship paper so that dcfs can not take the baby from the hospital for no reason?

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Wed May 17, 2006 8:05 am

I sent you a PM.

Yes, you can by all means.

Even if a persons rights were terminated to other children they will say you cannot have your baby, but there is a case law saying they can't do this.

So if your rights were terminated at anytime I will give you the case law to put with your guardianship papers.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Thu May 18, 2006 8:43 am

Federal HHS (Health and Human Services) Report on Relative Caregivers

Shows terminology which may be useful in researching temporary guardianship for a particular state.

Also shows that there is a wide variety of terminology and policies in states and localities. This is making it hard to research Temporary Guardianship for each individual state. But this federal report may be helpful to show the widespread use of Temporary Guardianship and some of the issues involved.

Here is the link and some quotes.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/child-only04/


Introduction
Children who enter relative care do so as a result of serious disruption in their parents' ability to care for them. Under such circumstances, relative care is believed to be preferable to either parental care or foster care with nonrelatives.

---------

Children who enter relative care do so as a result of serious disruption in their parents' ability to care for them. Under such circumstances, relative care is believed to be preferable to either parental care or foster care with nonrelatives.

------------

Because relative, or kinship, care has many forms, it is helpful to think of it as a continuum of interventions and support (Boots and Geen, 1999). At one end are private kinship care families, with no contact at all with the child welfare system and contact with the TANF system through a child-only grant if pursued and received. These situations usually occur when a parent arranges for a relative to care for a child for an extended period of time on an informal basis. In the middle of the continuum are voluntary kinship care arrangements, in which families are known to the child welfare system, but the child has been placed in the relative's care by the parent rather than through public agency custody. While these children are not formally a part of the child welfare system, some may be receiving support services. Both private and voluntary kinship arrangements are also known as informal kinship care, existing outside the legal authority of the child welfare system (Gleeson, 1999).

At the other end of the continuum is kinship foster care, in which relatives are caring for children in state custody and receiving ongoing attention from the child welfare system. Depending on state practice, these caregivers may receive either foster care payments or TANF child-only payments. Kinship foster care is also known as formal kinship care.

- - - - - --

It is important to note that terminology for these arrangements varies among authors and disciplines. The distinctions among these groups reflect the various circumstances leading to the nonparental placement, as well as policy variations across state and local jurisdictions.

2.4 Informal and informal relative caregiving arrangements

At one end are private kinship care families, with no contact at all with the child welfare system.

4.3.1 Formal and informal kinship care
...However, many relatives avoid contact with child welfare agencies for fear that children might be placed in nonrelative foster care.

Many relative caregivers participating in focus groups described serious maltreatment situations from which they had removed children. They reasoned that the care they provided was keeping these children out of the foster care system, and questioned why they received so much less financial support and fewer services than foster parents. A few described contacting child welfare agencies and being told that because the children were safely in the care of relatives and not currently being abused or neglected, the child welfare agency had no authority to provide services to them. Some child welfare agencies offer services to children in informal relative care on a preventive basis, such as family preservation services available in Maryland. However, few relative caregivers said that they would voluntarily approach the child welfare system, even for desperately needed services. They worried that if "the system" became involved they might lose custody of the children due to their age or the condition of their homes.

4.3.3 Collaboration between TANF and Child Welfare Agencies

While child welfare and TANF agencies were located within the same parent agency in all states visited, the extent of collaboration varies substantially across and within states.

(one place) Workers frequently communicate about cases that are seen by both agencies, either concurrently or at different times.

Computer systems in Oklahoma and Washington allow some information sharing across child welfare and TANF agencies

4.4.6 Custody and Permanency
Custody arrangements for children in informal kinship care vary. Children in formal kinship care are, by definition, in the custody of a public child welfare agency. For informal kinship care, none of the states visited require relative caregivers to have legal custody of children for whom they are caring. Relatives can establish voluntary custody fairly readily if the child's parent is available to provide written consent to the caregiving arrangement. This process establishes their authority to make routine decisions on the child's behalf.
- - - - - -

Although most relative caregivers intend to raise children until adulthood (Edelhoch, Liu, and Martin, 2002), many caregivers are reluctant to adopt these children for a variety of cultural and interpersonal reasons. Because of the preference given to placement with relative caregivers, states are not required to pursue termination of parental rights and adoption for children in kinship care (DHHS, 2000).

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Thu May 18, 2006 9:25 am

Contains article:

RELATIVES CARING FOR CHILDREN

CHARTING THE LEGAL OBSTACLES


Gerard Wallace, J. D.

http://www.grandparentsforchildren.org/news.htm

"This article examines the legal obstacles facing relative caregivers of children. All states have laws governing non-parental care of children, but lawmakers have yet to comprehensively address the burdens of unanticipated child rearing by relatives. This report outlines two major areas where laws need to be specially tailored for relative caregivers: the opportunity to care and enabling caregivers to care. The chart below catalogs obstacles to relative caregiving by juxtaposing five elements (recognition, authority, security, financial assistance, and resources) next to the various legal status options available to caregiving kin (informal custody, legal custody, guardianship, kinship foster care, and adoption) and shows that eighteen of the twenty-five categories can present obstacles."

- - - - - -

STATE LAWS DIFFER

In attempting to understand the obstacles faced by kin who want to care for children, we were confronted with the inconsistencies of state statutory, regulatory, and case law (not to mention intra-state inconsistencies). Some generalizations are possible. All states protect parental autonomy; all states attempt to empower non-parents to care for children; and all states try to use kin to care for children who are abused or neglected. Almost all states prefer placement of children with kin; some states offer foster parent certification to kinship caregivers; and some offer other alternatives, often funded by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) dollars. But the implementation of individual state policies is rife with incongruities, inequities, and ineffective practices.

- - - - - -

"INFORMAL CUSTODY

Relative caregivers who do not have court orders governing the care of children are considered “informal caregivers.” This term is also used by child welfare workers to refer to all non-foster care kin caregivers (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). Relatives who are informal caregivers have the greatest difficulty obtaining recognition, authority, security, financial assistance, or resources of any kind."


Return to “CPS Investigations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests