LCoastMom--Yes, it is heartbreaking. I advocated for adoptive children and their families in Far Northern California (north of Sacramento primarily) for NACAC from 1994-2006. Things were a mess. I was even called to SF once to be interviewed by the feds on several counties which were being investigated. California has a county based DHS system, rather that the state based system which Oregon uses. Some counties were literally awful!! Funneling funds into other agencies, doctoring the books concerning visits and complaints, never returning calls. Quite a number were taken over by the state until they cleaned up their act.
It's interesting when you look at the dates of Jeanette's time in CA foster care as so much was changing, specifically because of these issues. This was the decade of the advent of the Inter-jurisdictional placement Act (a requirement to look beyond county and state borders for possible families for adoptive placement), the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (which leveled the field for families to adopt children of all races), concurrent planning, and the regulations on keeping sibling together.
I have the saddest feeling that poor Jeanette was just behind the curve of changes. I also think that her brothers must have been placed separately from her. That was common at the time. My guess is that they went to a home which advocated for them. It just seems odd to me that DHS allowed this reunification to drag on for 5 1/2 years. I have my own theories (DHS makes money on foster care--far more than with adoption or return of the child) but it still seems excessive. This is exactly why judges must now follow a set timeline concerning termination of parental rights. And even still, the parents' attorneys will often be allowed extensions. It really angers me.
But returning a little 6 1/2 year old girl to an unstable woman who had a toddler she was most likely bonded to was crazy. I'm really hoping that both states trace this case back and investigate just how and why this occurred. This seems to be known as an Oregon case. But it's a California case too.
It's interesting when you look at the dates of Jeanette's time in CA foster care as so much was changing, specifically because of these issues. This was the decade of the advent of the Inter-jurisdictional placement Act (a requirement to look beyond county and state borders for possible families for adoptive placement), the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (which leveled the field for families to adopt children of all races), concurrent planning, and the regulations on keeping sibling together.
I have the saddest feeling that poor Jeanette was just behind the curve of changes. I also think that her brothers must have been placed separately from her. That was common at the time. My guess is that they went to a home which advocated for them. It just seems odd to me that DHS allowed this reunification to drag on for 5 1/2 years. I have my own theories (DHS makes money on foster care--far more than with adoption or return of the child) but it still seems excessive. This is exactly why judges must now follow a set timeline concerning termination of parental rights. And even still, the parents' attorneys will often be allowed extensions. It really angers me.
But returning a little 6 1/2 year old girl to an unstable woman who had a toddler she was most likely bonded to was crazy. I'm really hoping that both states trace this case back and investigate just how and why this occurred. This seems to be known as an Oregon case. But it's a California case too.