Quantcast

Comments about ‘Committee endorses kinship care law changes but puts two other child welfare measures on hold’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 25 2012 11:13 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
K
Mchenry, IL

I hate to say the grandmother sleeps at least 6 hours with no mom visiting and no DCFS caseworker in the house every night. Why on earth would gram lose custody or taking a nap while the child was in the presence of 2 other adults. Or even none? A pregnant mom can't fall asleep watching her toddler play on the living couch for 20 minutes?

jrgl
CEDAR CITY, UT

In my work, I come in contact with parents and Grandparents involved with DCFS. I've been rather appalled by the high number of these cases that end quickly with the children put up for adoption and parental rights terminated. Many families involved with DCFS do not have much money to pay lawyers to help. The rules are onerous, especially for Grandparents & I doubt even I could qualify for "kinship care". The pendulum has swung too far and too many children are in foster care or adopted out. Utah has got to put more money & time into family reconciliation. It would save the state money overall for foster care. I will say there are cases where there is serious abuse and swift action is needed, but over the last decade I've seen more heart wrenching cases that were patently unfair to the children, parents & extended family. I have watched people be destroyed. I'm so happy these two Representatives tacked this issue & that two bills were passed. This is much needed!

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@ K: From what I understand the problem was not that the grandmother was sleeping, but that she fell asleep while the child was having visitation with the child's mother - the mother is not deemed to be a "safe" adult and so the visitations are supposed to be supervised - the grandmother fell asleep during this and thus exposed the child to potential harm.

Here is where the bull comes in, however: the caseworker was there and was able to supervise the visit - as a matter of fact, it is probable that the whole reason she was there is because it is her responsibility to supervise the visit, not the grandmother's. The grandmother should have been able to do what ever she wanted (within reason) during that time frame.

It is my understanding that the custodial adult alone cannot provide the supervision required during supervised visitations - a "neutral" (notice the quotes) party must be there.

This was a totally ridiculous call on the part of DCFS - the worst that should have happened is the already established rules should have been followed requiring another adult to be there during visitation.

If the grandmother was

K
Mchenry, IL

Totally agree. It was the DCFS department required to provide the supervision. Still a grandma falling asleep day or not is not imminent threat of harm. In fact moving child from home to home and back again IS harmful to the child. I'm glad they are seeking better guidelines on this.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments