 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Nathaniel B.11/6/2002
and had been married three times. Appellant's prior two marriages, ending in 1976 and 1997 respectively, were characterized by domestic violence and abuse. Her husband's first marriage ended "due to his mother-in-law," and his second ended in the death of his wife who had been plagued with substance abuse and mental illness. His daughter from his second marriage had a child in foster care who was adopted. He had been unable to care for the child himself due to his second wife's mental illness.
According to the evaluation, appellant has a full-time job and suffers from asthma. Her husband is on disability due to a back injury and also suffers from depression and epilepsy, for which he is prescribed medication. He is currently not licensed to drive, but his license may be reinstated if his seizure medication adequately controls his condition over the next six months. Neither appellant nor her husband themselves have a history with Child Protective Services, although each has a child who does. At the time of the evaluation, the LiveScan had not been completed so the criminal history of the couple had not been verified.
The evaluation further stated that appellant and her husband were able to articulate a plan for child care and appropriate discipline and were interested in adopting the minor. Appellant did not understand why the minor's half-siblings had not been placed with her after she took them to the receiving home to protect them from her ex-husband's abuse, and felt she was never evaluated for placement. Appellant believed the minor would be safe in her care since she was no longer in an abusive situation.
The adoption worker reported the LiveScans were completed and no criminal record found for either appellant or her husband. The adoption worker indicated appellant apparently was ruled out for placement due to her history with the minor's half-siblings. The social worker then informed appellant the minor would not be placed with her, located a new placement, and moved the minor to his current home prior to the dispositional hearing without waiting for the court to determine whether the relative placement was appropriate.
According to the adoption worker, appellant never sought placement or adoption of the half-siblings but did promptly contact the adoptions worker when this case was assigned after the dispositional hearing to request evaluation and placement. The adoptions worker explained to appellant and her husband that they previously were ruled out for placement.
The adoptions worker noted that, according to the case history, appellant had relinquished the half-siblings because her former husband was abusive and she could not care for them safely. The same year, appellant divorced her former husband after 18 years of marriage. However, appellant did not participate in services to reunify with the siblings, visited them only sporadically during their dependency and currently does not visit the half-sibling who remains in guardianship. The adoptions worker was concerned about appellant's motive for placement and permanency with this child given her history with the half-siblings. She noted that, while appellant stated she was "more or less the mother" for the half-siblings, appellant did not demonstrate a parental commitment to them when she could have. The adoptions worker, as did the social worker, continued to recommend against placing the minor with appellant and observed the only change of circumstances from the half-siblings' case was that appellant had a new husband.
Appellant and her husband participated in all five scheduled supervised visits with the minor. Their interaction with the minor was positive.
At th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|