Her father was in prison. He couldn't take care of her. Who is supposed to be taking care of his child while he is sitting in prison?
Her mother or whomever took care of her half-brothers for a start.
JMO
Her mother or whomever took care of her half-brothers for a start.
JMO
BBM. Most importantly, she doesn't want to be in foster care. It's finally over.
JMO
Has this child been appointed her own attorney besides a GAL? If not, I hope one is appointed very soon. She has a right to speak for herself.
You say that as if being in "foster care," as you put it, is automatically some unending nightmare. She's been with the same family from just before she was two to aged nine. That shouldn't be underestimated. They're the only family she's really known. I don't think any of us has the (authoritative, unbiased) information needed to offer an opinion as to what she really feels.
I know that with these things what's published is rarely the whole story, but the whole situation seems a mess, and the main guilty parties, as I see it, are social services and/or the system more generally. From the perspective of someone whose not American, so many aspects of this seem bizarre. The fact that social services would allow some sort of quasi-official fostering situation continue, by a family who weren't official foster parents and, who's only connection to the child (at that point) was that they cared for her part time at the behest of someone who was paid to care for her by the father. That they would allow this arrangement to continue to the point of adoption, then reverse that decision once the child has spent most of her childhood with the now adoptive family. They can't blame the adoptive parents for "misleading" them or "blocking;" it was their job to ensure a proper fact finding at the outset and if they were at all unhappy with the arrangement at any point, surely they could have removed her at once, as these people, pre-adoption would have had no real standing at all?
In the UK, where I'm from, social service have very many problems without doubt but as soon as the situation had been discovered the child would almost certainly have been taken into local authority care and moves would have been made for permanency relatively quickly. Once it became apparent the natural mother didn't want to know, the maternal family were (presumably) not on the scene, the father had an extensive violent criminal record and the paternal family were dysfunctional with allegations of sexual abuse, no, it would be end of story, and the child would likely be adopted, either from foster care by the official foster carers or by another family.
Reversal of adoption orders here is almost unheard of even in cases where the parents ostensibly experienced a real injustice. In one case the children had been originally removed on the grounds of what was thought at the time to be a non-accidental injury but later turned out to be due to a vitamin D deficiency. The biological parents were refused permission to overturn the adoptions:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/feb/12/child-adoption-appeal-court-ruling
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/59.html#para145
In one of the cases referenced in that ruling, which is very pertinent to this case, where the adoption order had been overturned on the grounds of irregularity the child nevertheless remained with the foster parents:
http://www.4pb.com/case-detail/re-k-adoption-and-wardship
This fact has been a source of consternation amongst some aggrieved parents' groups, but the reasons behind it are sound. It's clearly unacceptable to remove an older child from a basically stable home, the only one she's really known, to put her back with a family that's struggling, to put it at it's very kindest.
He had information about a homicide.
It sounds like he made a deal with LE to get his sentence reduced because of this information.
It's too bad, because if he sat in that prison for 15 years as he was originally sentenced to, the child would have had a chance to grow up with her adoptive family.
What exactly is he doing to earn money now?
Got to be difficult to find a job with his criminal record.
Can he actually stay out of prison?
This is ridiculous...Put the child back with the people who raised her. IMO the father relinquished his rights when he broke the law and should have spent 15 years in prison but instead spent 7.5 years or whatever, I don't care, she was the last thing on his mind as he was breaking the law. IMO if it attracts media attention then dollar signs are rolling in the minds of the people who should have cared the most about her. In other words, if you screw it up the first time then too flipping bad you lose, end of story. It's about the CHILD and nothing else should be top priority.
It's a complicated case and much misinformation is being distributed. I'm comfortable believing the court does have all the information and has made its decision accordingly. The child and her father have rights. She should have never been removed from her father's custody, he had legal and physical custody of her when some detective decided arbitrarily to call in Tennessee DCS. The child's babysitter kidnapped her and handed her off and she was handed off again.
The child's grandmother was approved by DHS in 2005 prior to the father being sentenced. The former foster parents tried to circumvent the rights of the child and the father and failed. The Court had to put an end to it.
However, Sonya never returned.
By the end of the month, McCaul went to Tennessee to collect his daughter.
But the carer's parents contacted Dickson County sheriff's department and told them they believed the father 'had a violent history' and was coming to Tennessee to take the child back.
It's unclear whether McCaul did in fact have a violent history at that point and it is also unknown whether he had harmed the infant in the past.
But Detective Amy Longtin stopped McCaul from taking Sonya back and called the Department of Children's Services.
The next month, the Dickson County Juvenile Court placed Sonya in the carer's parents' home but soon after she went to live with Kim Hodgin, a co-worker of the carer's mother, and her husband.
Read more: http://fixmoneyy2minutes.com/news/a...logical-father-Josh-McCaul.html#ixzz321HwonLe
What it 'sounds like' and what is reality are often two completely different things. He never gave up on his child. According to DHS, there is no adoptive family.
Whether he stays out of prison or not, for now his daughter and he have rights fully intact. And in America, that is the way it should be.
What it 'sounds like' and what is reality are often two completely different things. He never gave up on his child. According to DHS, there is no adoptive family.
Whether he stays out of prison or not, for now his daughter and he have rights fully intact. And in America, that is the way it should be.
So, parents who have prison records do not have parental rights? Complete strangers should be able to strip children from their families and lives forever because the parents have engaged in previous crimes?
The Court, the GAL, and child protective services are all in violation of the law because they feel the best interest of the child in this case is best served by her biological father?
I'm not following this line of reasoning at all and thankfully, the courts do not, either.
JMO