Deseret News | Reader comments: Grandmother contests DCFS policy

Reader comments
Grandmother contests DCFS policy

no intention | 9:28 a.m. May 4, 2008

Clearly DCFS had not intention of ever allowing the child to be with its grandmother. Otherwise, they would have immediately informed her of the background check requirement and initiated its completion if only to rule grandma out.

Which begs the question, how did DCFS come to allow her to shelter the child in the first place if there was no background check? Either the rule doesn't (didn't) exist or they are making it up as they go along.

Either way, shame on them for this.

BBKing | 9:29 a.m. May 4, 2008

DCFS has a horrible track record!

Good for her | 12:10 p.m. May 4, 2008

I, for one, hope she wins the suite. DCFS needs to be knocked down a dozen steps or so. The have a bad record and need to be held accountable.

Comments continue below

One side of the story | 3:27 p.m. May 4, 2008

How about we get the full story before we judge. My sister works for DCFS in another county and her job has to be one of the most heart breaking jobs out there. If you all think you can do a better job or change the way things work you might want to consider trying to change the laws instead of sitting on your butts reading one side of the story and judging.

the other side of the story | 10:33 p.m. May 7, 2008

there is another side to this story. DCFS's job is to do what's in the best interest of the child, not what's in the best interest of the mother, father or even grandmother. Obviously the grandmother is not going to tell you in this story if there were problems or situations with her home, that prevented her from having permanent custody. Maybe if the child had already formed secure attachments with the foster parents, the grandmother waited too long to do something about it.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.