Dad has multiple felony convictions and was in jail for shooting someone in the head. If they did a home study at the time they may have found that his home was unsuitable for children in DCYF custody. I think there's a difference between the state getting involved based on unproven allegations when there is no active abuse against a child being alleged and when DCYF is responsible for the well-being of a child in their care and they intentionally place a child in the care of a violent person. IYKWIM
So very tragic...
It seems to me (after following numerous child cases) that there's a well-documented, long practice in use across the country where drug, alcohol, addicted parents, and/or substance abusers, are systematically deemed
unfit by the Court to act as custodians of their children.
The same practice also allows for a "case plan"-- to include rehab, to retain or be reunited with one's children-- but failure to complete the plan also results in the loss of your children as ordered by the Court.
(And repeated failure at completing the case plan results in permanent loss of your child).
In the shooting incident, it's my understanding that evidence provided that AM had a gun and while struggling with his heroin dealer, the gun went off, bullet hit the dealer in the chin, exiting near his temple. Minutes later, AM was also shot by the dealer's brother, and AM fled the scene.
Here we have a man that is both unfit to parent by drug abuse and violent criminal activity. IMO, this should have been a no-brainer for DCYF and the Court.
And
if the Court gave AM the benefit of the doubt that he was somehow fit to parent Harmony, both the parent and child should never have been reunited without a safety net for the protection of the innocent child (reunification overseen by DCYF and monitored by the Court).
MOO
