Found Alive OH - Rainn Peterson, 2, North Bloomfield, 2 Oct 2015 - #2

[tamild]

:twocents: I'm not real sure what facts about custody are in dispute, but Brandi spoke of waiting for paperwork and having her children brought to her at her new home. It's my guess, and it's just a guess, that Brandi was working under a voluntary case plan prior to Rainn's disappearance...that means that the court wasn't involved in custody at that point, even though, under such a voluntary plan the children were voluntarily in the temporary custody, NOT legal custody, of the grandparents. Now that a court hearing has been held, the grandparents DO have legal temporary custody.

 

[Betty P]

:twocents: I'm not real sure what facts about custody are in dispute, but Brandi spoke of waiting for paperwork and having her children brought to her at her new home. It's my guess, and it's just a guess, that Brandi was working under a voluntary case plan prior to Rainn's disappearance...that means that the court wasn't involved in custody at that point, even though, under such a voluntary plan the children were voluntarily in the temporary custody, NOT legal custody, of the grandparents. Now that a court hearing has been held, the grandparents DO have legal temporary custody.

That's been my impression, too, from the news reports. She mentioned having gone through home visits from CS, etc. and was awaiting final paperwork to have custody when Rainn disappeared from the GGP's. I assume this wouldn't have happened if she hadn't passed muster to take custody.

From the interviews with the head of CS, it seems they felt that, due to the traumatic experience, it would be better for Rainn to return to the GGP's home because its a familiar, comfortable place for her. She's probably been living there for several months to a year, since Brandi moved back to the area from Cleveland.

It really seems the best decision, overall, to allow her time to recover. She's back to her own room, her brothers, her own toys, all the people she's familiar with while under supervision from CS. What happens in the future will depend on what's in her best interests, JMO. I'm sure she'll be glad to get home again!

 

[tamild]

That's been my impression, too, from the news reports. She mentioned having gone through home visits from CS, etc. and was awaiting final paperwork to have custody when Rainn disappeared from the GGP's. I assume this wouldn't have happened if she hadn't passed muster to take custody.

From the interviews with the head of CS, it seems they felt that, due to the traumatic experience, it would be better for Rainn to return to the GGP's home because its a familiar, comfortable place for her. She's probably been living there for several months to a year, since Brandi moved back to the area from Cleveland.

It really seems the best decision, overall, to allow her time to recover. She's back to her own room, her brothers, her own toys, all the people she's familiar with while under supervision from CS. What happens in the future will depend on what's in her best interests, JMO. I'm sure she'll be glad to get home again!

Oh, I don't know about all of that. IMO, this is a little more than just about the best interests of Rainn because of the trauma of being missing. See, in order for Children's Service to intervene in the way they did once Rainn was found, they had to file a complaint, and they had to back that up with evidence in front of a judge. They had to show evidence of abuse or neglect, and it's clear that whatever the issue was, it certainly wasn't anything the GGP did. My guess, and again, it's just a guess, that there were issues with Brandi uncovered in the investigation of Rainn's disappearance that led to the intervention.

 

[ILOKAL]

:twocents: I'm not real sure what facts about custody are in dispute, but Brandi spoke of waiting for paperwork and having her children brought to her at her new home. It's my guess, and it's just a guess, that Brandi was working under a voluntary case plan prior to Rainn's disappearance...that means that the court wasn't involved in custody at that point, even though, under such a voluntary plan the children were voluntarily in the temporary custody, NOT legal custody, of the grandparents. Now that a court hearing has been held, the grandparents DO have legal temporary custody.

That's correct. Brandi had legal custody of Rainn and her 3-yr old brother at the time of Rainn's disappearance although they were living with the GGPAs. Children's services placed Rainn in its custody after the disappearance. Then there was a "shelter hearing" at which time an agreement was entered into by all parties (as I understand it) that the children would temporarily live with the great grandparents and they would also have legal temporary custody. IMO

 

[ILOKAL]

Oh, I don't know about all of that. IMO, this is a little more than just about the best interests of Rainn because of the trauma of being missing. See, in order for Children's Service to intervene in the way they did once Rainn was found, they had to file a complaint, and they had to back that up with evidence in front of a judge. They had to show evidence of abuse or neglect, and it's clear that whatever the issue was, it certainly wasn't anything the GGP did. My guess, and again, it's just a guess, that there were issues with Brandi uncovered in the investigation of Rainn's disappearance that led to the intervention.

I don't remember where the article is (it's on WS though) that said children's services took over custody of Rainn as SOP in missing children cases. To do so, the state requests an emergency ex parte order and the judge issues the order then sets it for hearing within 72 hours. No "evidence" beyond best interests of the child need be shown under those circumstances to get the emergency order. It had nothing to do with Brandi. IMO

 

[ILOKAL]

Brandi said that to a reporter but it was not true, AFAIK. The GGP's had temporary custody because last year the baby was left in a car under negligent drug related circumstances. She was charged with child endangerment and drug charges.

Just curious about where you found information that says Brandi left Rainn in a car, because I haven't read that?

 

[tamild]

... It had nothing to do with Brandi. IMO

Okay, but I'm basing my opinion on what how this reads: https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/R...eaing-with-Children-Services-Caseworkers.aspx

Q: What happens if a complaint is filed against me?
A: A hearing must be held within 72 hours after a complaint is filed. This first hearing is a called a shelter care hearing. At this hearing, the agency must prove to the court that your children should not be returned home. Within 72 hours after the complaint is filed, an adjudicatory hearing must be scheduled. The adjudicatory hearing is a trial at which the agency must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the allegations in its complaint are true and rise to the level of abuse, neglect and/or dependency. If your children are found to be abused, neglected or dependent, the court will schedule a dispositional hearing where a case plan will be adopted and the temporary placement of your children will be determined.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand all of this. It's my understanding that Brandi went into that hearing with the intent to get her children returned to her, correct? Brandi was also complaining that she had not been given access to Rainn, even though GGM had. GGM also spent the night with Rainn the night before the hearing, and the GGP went into the hearing saying that they expected the children to be placed with them. I'm not sure how this WOULDN'T have *everything* to do with Brandi.

 

[MsMarple]

Maybe some of the confusion over custody came from this:

"I have full custody of both of my children. I was granted full custody a couple months ago in court. Children's services says they're retaining custody of her as of last night. (They) won't let any family there. She is there with children's services and hospital staff."

"It's not fair, something needs to be done. This is why I'm going public. Before my daughter went missing, children's services came to my home. They made sure that there were no hazards to my children. They made sure everyone would be fine and they told me they'd send papers in the mail in just a few days and possibly get my kids and bring them here. They are saying that it's not them, that it's the police officers asking."

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/loca...om-they-wont-let-me-see-my-daughter/73390198/

Brandi said that she was given custody a couple of months ago but she also said that she was waiting for papers from children's services to "possibly get my kids and bring them here." I took "here" to mean her new apartment so I wondered if there was some sort of prior arrangement whereby she was given custody with a stipulation that she and the children would reside with her grandparents.

That kind of makes sense given that in August 2014 she was charged with heroin possession and child endangerment. The child endangerment charge was dropped after she pled guilty to the drug charge and paid a fine. So it's possible that children's services became involved at that time and came up with a safety plan but now that she was looking to move out of her grandparents' house and live on her own there may have been a reevaluation going on.

The other incident that may have impacted the court's decision could be from this past June when she became disoriented after a fight with her grandmother and had to be taken to the hospital. I don't think she was arrested at that time but children's services may have been given a copy of the report.

So I don't know exactly what's going on and it's unlikely children's services will share the full story with the public. In any case the court decided that Rainn and her siblings will be better off back with her great-grandparents for now. But that's only temporary. Hopefully Brandi will do whatever it takes to convince them and the courts that she's ready to take on the responsibility of parenting her children. I agree that they are better off with her than an elderly couple - if Brandi can show that she's up for it.

http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/oct/07/temporary-custo/

 

[blue22]

That was stated in a MSM article.

CPS has simply never said all the reasons surrounding why the children are not in the mother's custody. That can't. We aren't privy to all the details surrounding Brandi and the children, and likely never will be. CPS can only give only give very vague statements about these situations, and we never know true reasoning.

IMO, they simply aren't going to give custody to Brandi any time soon. It makes no sense. Just last year she was arrested on endangerment and drug charges. She has a history of domestic disturbances with her husband. And it was just three months ago, that she was delusional and had to be taken to the hospital. One year off possessing heroin charges and three months after being delusional in a cop car, is not long enough to become stable from the situation and raise multiple children. IMO, she has a whole lot to prove and that cannot be proved in three months. She was granted visitation, and I think that's appropriate. We DO know some facts in this case, regarding Brandi. And IMO, Rainn suffering this trauma is only part of the reason why she is not with Brandi.

 

[tamild]

I don't remember where the article is (it's on WS though) that said children's services took over custody of Rainn as SOP in missing children cases.

I found this:
At the same time, Trumbull County Children Services Executive Director Tim Schaffner told WKBN the agency is working with law enforcement, as it does with any case involving children.

“We pretty much follow their lead during a crisis. At times, we may be asked to take temporary custody until close, safe family members are cleared by police in order to assume custody of the child,” he said.

And this:
On Monday afternoon Brandi Peterson was permitted to visit her daughter for the first time since a lone searcher found the little girl in a field about a half mile from where she disappeared.

The visitation was only allowed under the supervision of officials from Trumbull County Children’s Services.

When asked if that was standard protocol under such circumstances, Children Services would only tell 21 News that each case is handled on an individual basis.


I'm still looking, though!

 

[jjenny]

To me, it's bizarre that custody is left with the people who are elderly, after the child already went missing and could have died from the elements. How are people so elderly are going to look after a child so young to ensure the child doesn't go missing again? That's the question I have about this whole situation.

 

[blue22]

To me, it's bizarre that custody is left with the people who are elderly, after the child already went missing and could have died from the elements. How are people so elderly are going to look after a child so young to ensure the child doesn't go missing again? That's the question I have about this whole situation.

I think they are with them, because this is an isolated incident that the police have determined they weren't responsible for. The children are already with them, they want to keep them with family, and there is no better alternative. IMO, clearly Brandi is not a good alternative. The dad of Rainn has said he is not fit to parent. I don't actually know anything about the other family (not trying to suggest we sleuth them,) but I figure there has to be a reason the children weren't placed with them. I really do think this is a case of not wanting to put with foster parents who are strangers, and they are the best alternative.

 

[jjenny]

But how does a 2 year old go missing and no one is responsible for it? If she took off on her own, shouldn't somebody have been watching her? And how are elderly people going to take care of very young minor children? It makes no sense to me. If mother isn't fit for custody, seem like other arrangements should be made.

 

[bluesneakers]

I think they are with them, because this is an isolated incident that the police have determined they weren't responsible for. The children are already with them, they want to keep them with family, and there is no better alternative. IMO, clearly Brandi is not a good alternative. The dad of Rainn has said he is not fit to parent. I don't actually know anything about the other family (not trying to suggest we sleuth them,) but I figure there has to be a reason the children weren't placed with them. I really do think this is a case of not wanting to put with foster parents who are strangers, and they are the best alternative.

I think keeping families together rather than foster care or adopting out is typically one of the main goals for children's services, and parents of all ages have had kids wander outside or go missing.

 

[AmyPond]

But how does a 2 year old go missing and no one is responsible for it? If she took off on her own, shouldn't somebody have been watching her? And how are elderly people going to take care of very young minor children? It makes no sense to me. If mother isn't fit for custody, seem like other arrangements should be made.

Unfortunately accidents do happen. If this was an isolated incident then I don't think anyone needs to be punished for it or whatever. Children can be escape artists. It really only takes a second for one to sneak away. I know that I just have 1 child and he never leaves my sight. But if I had a 2, 3, and 4 year old...yeah...it's terrifying to think how quickly one could sneak out. Do I think the grandparents took every precaution? No, probably not. But many people don't. I know a lot of parents who think we go overboard with the precautions we take. But I'm probably more paranoid than most.

 

[Mollyandme]

But how does a 2 year old go missing and no one is responsible for it? If she took off on her own, shouldn't somebody have been watching her? And how are elderly people going to take care of very young minor children? It makes no sense to me. If mother isn't fit for custody, seem like other arrangements should be made.

CPS will always try to keep a child with family and siblings if they can. In regards to a 2 year old going missing, you can take every precaution necessary and accidents can and do happen. Believe me when I tell you that we have child proofed our house to the point where I have trouble getting the front door open, but my 2 year old escape artist opened the door right in front of me while I was changing my youngest in the same room and was out the door and into the street behind our house by the time I got down the driveway. If I happened to run in the kitchen grabbing a bottle for my infant when this occurred, who knows how much further he would have gone. Does that mean I should be held responsible and lose custody?

I do hope that CPS has helped the family further toddler proof the house where necessary. When I worked in child welfare we had a specific program where we had babysitters the children could go to that were paid for by the state (not subsidized day care, this was specifically for child welfare and the babysitters were paid as a caseworker would be). I wonder if this county in Ohio has anything similar to give the ggp's a break during the day.

 

[blue22]

But how does a 2 year old go missing and no one is responsible for it? If she took off on her own, shouldn't somebody have been watching her? And how are elderly people going to take care of very young minor children? It makes no sense to me. If mother isn't fit for custody, seem like other arrangements should be made.

Kids escape their homes innocently everyday. Fortunately, it does not usually end up with them being missing long. Unfortunately, sometimes even if rarely...it does. I'm a parent and I am more eagle eye than most, and one of mine is a crazy escape artist. It's possible that all they need is more baby proofing and help organizing their time for meals and such when they are busy in the home. All some people need is direction and practical advice for something never to happen again. I really think they are those type of people. (JMO.)

 

[Mollyandme]

Kids escape their homes innocently everyday. Fortunately, it does not usually end up with them being missing long. Unfortunately, sometimes even if rarely...it does. I'm a parent and I am more eagle eye than most, and one of mine is a crazy escape artist. It's possible that all they need is more baby proofing and help organizing their time for meals and such when they are busy in the home. All some people need is direction and practical advice for something never to happen again. I really think they are those type of people. (JMO.)

I agree. Hopefully CPS will help them or point them towards the right resources if they need help in any of these areas. I know CPS is known for either taking kids when they shouldn't have or not removing them and then something bad happens, but there are units in each child welfare agency that are responsible for helping families manage these tasks or referring them to and following through with other service providers in the community who could help. Again, how well this is executed depends on each caseworker and agency. Sorry for the CPS rant but it's one area I know way too much about from my old job.

 

[nannymo]

But how does a 2 year old go missing and no one is responsible for it? If she took off on her own, shouldn't somebody have been watching her? And how are elderly people going to take care of very young minor children? It makes no sense to me. If mother isn't fit for custody, seem like other arrangements should be made.

My brother and his wife are in their early 70's and they keep their 6 grandkids all the time. Their grandkids are somewhat older than these (10 to 14) but they are certainly capable of keeping 3 young ones. Is it easy? No. Taking care of 3 young ones is never easy, but I truly believe some people in their 70's are much more capable, patient and responsible than a lot of people the parents age. Some 70 year olds are more fit and active than a lot of 40-50 year olds. Children go missing from younger people all the time. These grandparents age has nothing to do with a child getting out of someone's site and going missing. Those of you who post regularly on Websleuths know that also. Too many cases here with young parents to lay the blame on the grandparents just because they are old. JMO

 

[jjenny]

The child was with grand grand parents when she went missing. How can people in their seventies run after a 2 year old all day?