9 Year Old Begs to go Home

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

MyBelle said:
As I best understand it, there is a law in Tennessee that allows a parent to lose parental rights because of "abandonment by incarceration" if the prison sentence is 15 years or more. That was the basis the foster parents used to get his rights terminated. However, he appealed because his sentence had been reduced to under eight years. Therefore, his parental rights could not be legally terminated.



This is a case that never should have taken 8 years to resolve. The person who paid a dear price has been the child, no doubt about it.



JMO
Click to expand...


I don't understand how the state law was used when there is a federal law in place...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Linda7NJ said:
I don't understand how the state law was used when there is a federal law in place...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I guess state law had jurisdiction. I'm not sure that there are federal laws covering actual termination of parental rights.
 
Linda7NJ said:
I don't understand how they managed to get around the Adoption & Safe Families Act...
That's FEDERAL.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ89/html/PLAW-105publ89.htm

I'm baffled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't believe they are in violation. The act mandates that states stop reunification efforts after a kid is 15 months in the system. However, in this case, TN did just that. The problem is that the appellate court there found that they improperly severed the father's parental rights under a different theory of law. No violation of the act has been cited, to my knowledge, because that's not the problem.

In addition, I don;t think the remedy for failure to follow the act, is to restore the child to the foster or adoptive parents. The remedy is a cut in federal funding to states that consistently violate the act. That's how they enforce it - through funding. And in essence, it seems like guidelines only, really.
 
MyBelle said:
I guess state law had jurisdiction. I'm not sure that there are federal laws covering actual termination of parental rights.
Click to expand...

There is. It's the act LIndaNJ cited. Here's some info on it:
The Adoption and Safe Families Act(ASFA), PL 105-89, maintains many points of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, PL 96-272, but changes the focus making states balance family preservation and family reunification with the safety of the children. Some of the biggest changes made by ASFA are the shortened timetables and new definitions. ASFA was signed into law on November 19, 1997.
Other Points or Goals of The Adoption and Safe Families Act(ASFA)


Click to expand...
 
gitana1 said:
I don't believe they are in violation. The act mandates that states stop reunification efforts after a kid is 15 months in the system. However, in this case, TN did just that. The problem is that the appellate court there found that they improperly severed the father's parental rights under a different theory of law. No violation of the act has been cited, to my knowledge, because that's not the problem.

In addition, I don;t think the remedy for failure to follow the act, is to restore the child to the foster or adoptive parents. The remedy is a cut in federal funding to states that consistently violate the act. That's how they enforce it - through funding. And in essence, it seems like guidelines only, really.
Click to expand...


The act at its core recognizes and mandates the best interest of the child.

This is what my own lawyer used as the basis for TPR for my sons adoption.

I'm gonna link a brief synopsis because I've previously linked the entire thing.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_and_Safe_Families_Act


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gitana1 said:
There is. It's the act LIndaNJ cited. Here's some info on it:
Click to expand...

But are parental rights ever terminated in federal court rather than state court? That's the piece I'm not understanding. Thanks.
 
Linda7NJ said:
The act at its core recognizes and mandates the best interest of the child.

This is what my own lawyer used as the basis for TPR for my sons adoption.

I'm gonna link a brief synopsis because I've previously linked the entire thing.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_and_Safe_Families_Act


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the act that has been violated in this case, that I can see. Not one, specific provision has been violated. Here is the Act: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...PSWgcUqdhIaKIG4vUl6KldQ&bvm=bv.68445247,d.cGU

In fact, the adoptive parents are actually petitioning to amend the Act because they feel it doesn't do enough to protect children:
Challenging federal law
Along with the court case, supporters for Hodgins are challenging the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act to "amend the Act to improve permanency for children" through a petition called "Create Sonya's Law."
As of Wednesday, the petition had 6,616 signees. They are asking Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) to co-sponsor the bill.http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...ng-friday-dickson-family-court-erred/9116573/
Click to expand...
MyBelle said:
But are parental rights ever terminated in federal court rather than state court? That's the piece I'm not understanding. Thanks.
Click to expand...

No. The federal law is supposed to be implemented by states but if it is not, the only remedy is: 1. Cut certain extra federal funding. 2. The parties can appeal based on the federal law.

Note that from what I can tell, the family has not alleged a violation of federal law in this case. Instead, they are requesting the law be amended to prevent situations like theirs.
 
Linda7NJ said:
Ah....I found information on incarceration & TPR changes individual
States enacted or amended the ASFA

http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/11-Zavez-Book-2-Vol-33.pdf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's terrible that exceptions are made for incarcerated parents, like being in prison is not their own fault! Incarceration should not be an excuse. IMO
Click to expand...

Most states do not allow an exception for incarcerated people. The article actually states terminations have risen 18% among the incarcerated due to the Act. However, a couple states have determined that incarceration alone cannot be the sole reason for termination. There have to be other factors as well, which is pretty easy to meet in most cases of a criminal parent.
 
gitana1 said:
Most states do not allow an exception for incarcerated people. The article actually states terminations have risen 18% among the incarcerated due to the Act. However, a couple states have determined that incarceration alone cannot be the sole reason for termination. There have to be other factors as well, which is pretty easy to meet in most cases of a criminal parent.
Click to expand...

I see Nebraska is one of those states which won't allow incarceration as the sole reason and that's where the father lives. Why didn't the State pursue placement of the baby with her biological mother when the guy first went to prison? She didn't give up her parental rights until later but I think I read an article that both bio parents lived in Nebraska where the baby was born. I can't figure out how it ended up in Tennessee court if the bio parents were both in Nebraska. Isn't there a federal law about child custody jurisdiction?
 
Sonya's lawyer has reported that she wants to stay with her father she wants no more of this media and nothing to do with the Hodgins. Hodgins reply don't care will try and adopt still
http://wdkn.com/sonyas-reps-say-she...rents-hodgins-file-new-petition-for-adoption/
The court-appointed attorney and guardian for 9-year-old Sonya McCaul said the girl is upset with her former foster parents for sharing a recorded telephone conversation with the news media and &#8220;wants absolutely not to come back to Tennessee at this point.&#8221; <modsnip>

No hearing has been scheduled on the Hodgins&#8217; latest petition to adopt Sonya and a July 10 hearing is scheduled on their appeal of the juvenile court ruling on custody.
 
What a mess


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
PaulaSB said:
Sonya's lawyer has reported that she wants to stay with her father she wants no more of this media and nothing to do with the Hodgins. Hodgins reply don't care will try and adopt still
http://wdkn.com/sonyas-reps-say-she...rents-hodgins-file-new-petition-for-adoption/
The court-appointed attorney and guardian for 9-year-old Sonya McCaul said the girl is upset with her former foster parents for sharing a recorded telephone conversation with the news media and &#8220;wants absolutely not to come back to Tennessee at this point.&#8221; During a custody status review hearing in Dickson County Juvenile Court Wednesday, Hilary Duke and Jennifer Honeycutt, the guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem for Sonya, respectively, told Judge Andy Jackson that in phone calls with Sonya she told both of them she is very happy living with her father, John McCaul, in Nebraska and expressed very clearly that she does not want to return to Tennessee even for visitation. They had reported at a May hearing that Sonya was interested in visiting Kim and David Hodgin, her former foster parents in Dickson. But Duke said a teacher at Sonya&#8217;s school in Nebraska asked her about a recorded phone conversation that the Hodgins allowed to be played during an interview on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN. Duke said up to that point, there was no indication that Sonya was aware of the media and social media firestorm that has been touched off since she was returned to her biological father in January. She said Sonya reported being embarrassed because her friends were nearby and overheard the teacher question her about the program. Duke and Honeycutt reported Sonya doesn&#8217;t like that a private phone call was shared with the media and is very upset with the Hodgins and repeated her request that personal items from her room in Dickson be sent to her in Nebraska. With the Hodgins and their attorney present at Wednesday&#8217;s review, Jackson said because they have filed an appeal in Dickson County Circuit Court of his ruling last month on a petition to modify the custody order, he no longer has jurisdiction over any matters other than continuing to review the current Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children arrangement between children&#8217;s services departments in Tennessee and Nebraska. Jackson also acknowledged that the Hodgins have filed another petition in Dickson County Chancery Court to terminate McCaul&#8217;s parental rights and seek to adopt Sonya again. Oklahoma attorney Kendall Sykes, who is part of the Hodgins&#8217; legal team, said the Tennessee Court of Appeals&#8217; decision to overturn the Hodgins&#8217; original adoption of Sonya was based solely on a procedural error instead of whether there was a statutory basis for terminating the father&#8217;s rights. McCaul&#8217;s rights were terminated because he was sentenced to prison for more than 10 years and Sonya was under the age of eight, which under Tennessee law is automatic reason for termination. The termination and subsequent adoption were overturned after McCaul&#8217;s sentence was reduced to seven and a half years. But Sykes says in a statement that there is no language in the statute that the parent has to actually serve more than 10 years, only that he receive a sentence of more than 10 years. Sykes also asserts that there is no requirement that a petition to terminate rights has to be filed while the parent is incarcerated, so on June 6 the Hodgins filed a new petition to terminate McCaul&#8217;s parental rights and seek adoption of Sonya based on the fact that McCaul did receive a sentence of 15 years. &#8220;Despite the ruling of the appellate court as well as the series of heart-breaking events that have occurred since Sonya&#8217;s removal from her childhood home by order of the juvenile court on Jan. 29 with absolutely no transition period in place, it is evident the Hodgins have always had a viable ground to petition for the termination of the biological father&#8217;s parental rights, clearing the way for the chancery court to grant their currently pending adoption petition,&#8221; Sykes says in the statement. Outside the courtroom following Wednesday&#8217;s status review, David Hodgin said it is the state&#8217;s legal system that has failed Sonya and caused the anguish both sides are experiencing. Hodgin said he and his wife have been sending Sonya&#8217;s personal items to her and the fact that she keeps requesting them indicates they are not being given to her in Nebraska. Hodgin pledged that he and his wife will never give up fighting until their daughter is returned home to Tennessee. No hearing has been scheduled on the Hodgins&#8217; latest petition to adopt Sonya and a July 10 hearing is scheduled on their appeal of the juvenile court ruling on custody.
Click to expand...




"But Duke said a teacher at Sonya&#8217;s school in Nebraska asked her about a recorded phone conversation that the Hodgins allowed to be played during an interview on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN."

What a freakin' so-and-so. How stupid can one person be? And within earshot of her friends?!
 
PaulaSB said:
http://www.wkrn.com/category/175880...rt=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=10281225

Video says that the Hodgins don't believe what the child has said and is ignoring what she wants. They don't agree so they don't care.
Click to expand...


I actually find it very hard to believe too.

Her ex-adoptive parents should be her psychological parents.
For the child to make such an abrupt break from them defies logic. Unless she was never bonded on the first place and suffers from attachment issues.
All IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
PaulaSB said:
http://wdkn.com/sonyas-reps-say-she...rents-hodgins-file-new-petition-for-adoption/
Click to expand...


From the above link:

"Hilary Duke and Jennifer Honeycutt, the guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem for Sonya, respectively, told Judge Andy Jackson that in phone calls with Sonya she told both of them she is very happy living with her father, John McCaul, in Nebraska and expressed very clearly that she does not want to return to Tennessee even for visitation."

A couple of questions immediately come to mind.

What were Sonya's exact words, and what were the exact questions she was asked?

Was John McCaul present as Duke and Honeycutt were talking to Sonya on the phone?

We have a little girl who is taken (rightly or wrongly) from the only parents she knew, living on their farm and riding horses. She goes to live with her bio father in a 500 sq foot house. And she has no desire to go back, not even to visit.

It is possible that she is happy - in that anything that is logically and physically possible is possible.

But here we are getting towards improbably claims that require a great deal of evidence. Indirect quotes such as above are not very strong evidence.

And even if what the ad litems are saying is substantially true, what does it mean? Does it mean that Sonya is genuinely happy because bio parents are always better than adoptive/foster parents? Or has she been manipulated/lied to by JM?

At the same time, McCaul's supporters totally discount Sonya's phone call, in her own voice, claiming that she made up the mold and the cigarettes at Hodgin's urging - who 'obviously' planned this in advance. (Whether it should have been given to the media is a separate question from whether or not it should have been taken at face value.)

So far, just on the balance of probabilities, are lean towards JM's supporters being far less honest than Hs' supporters.
 
Sven Mjolnir-Cohen said:
From the above link:



"Hilary Duke and Jennifer Honeycutt, the guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem for Sonya, respectively, told Judge Andy Jackson that in phone calls with Sonya she told both of them she is very happy living with her father, John McCaul, in Nebraska and expressed very clearly that she does not want to return to Tennessee even for visitation."



A couple of questions immediately come to mind.



What were Sonya's exact words, and what were the exact questions she was asked?



Was John McCaul present as Duke and Honeycutt were talking to Sonya on the phone?



We have a little girl who is taken (rightly or wrongly) from the only parents she knew, living on their farm and riding horses. She goes to live with her bio father in a 500 sq foot house. And she has no desire to go back, not even to visit.



It is possible that she is happy - in that anything that is logically and physically possible is possible.



But here we are getting towards improbably claims that require a great deal of evidence. Indirect quotes such as above are not very strong evidence.



And even if what the ad litems are saying is substantially true, what does it mean? Does it mean that Sonya is genuinely happy because bio parents are always better than adoptive/foster parents? Or has she been manipulated/lied to by JM?



At the same time, McCaul's supporters totally discount Sonya's phone call, in her own voice, claiming that she made up the mold and the cigarettes at Hodgin's urging - who 'obviously' planned this in advance. (Whether it should have been given to the media is a separate question from whether or not it should have been taken at face value.)



So far, just on the balance of probabilities, are lean towards JM's supporters being far less honest than Hs' supporters.
Click to expand...


Why isn't this child in individual therapy ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
These attorneys interviewed this child by phone and just assume it's all on the up and up?
If they really wanted to know what the child wanted, she should have been interviewed away from bio dad.
 
Linda7NJ said:
Why isn't this child in individual therapy ?
Click to expand...

One of the news items on the topic had Ms. Duke mention that Sonya is getting counseling. (That is a vague term - someone with a two year diploma in social work can provide what can be described as counseling. So can a pediatric psychiatrist. The quality of the counseling, I suspect, will be different.)

I normally assume that news reports are omitting important parts of the story. However, JM's supporters insist that Ms. Duke is fully capable of speaking for Sonya - without challenging any descriptions of how Ms. Duke came to know what Sonya wants. So it does seem to be the case that the ad litems knowledge comes solely from talking to Sonya on the phone.

Here is another item

"The guardian said Sonya has “good days and bad days,” and wants to come back to Tennessee, but doesn't want to be involved in any more litigation. “She wants to come back but is conflicted,” the guardian said. “I believe she loves both families.” "

From https://www.facebook.com/WDKN1260AM/posts/10152065057946482 (WDKN 1960AM Radio) - This is from April 2nd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 101 more.
Total: 2,453 (members: 102, guests: 2,351)

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
2,351
Total visitors
2,453
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,803
Messages
18,130,135
Members
231,145
Latest member
alicat3
Back
Top