No, because that’s just an excuse to re-home children. The argument needs to be “is the bio-home safe for the child”? Not, which home is better. We must default to keeping the kids with the bio-home, even if another home is “better”, it’s not good enough.
I was taken from my parents by CPS when I was a kid. The other commenter is correct, it’s “is their home safe” not “is their home safer”. The latter is waaaay to subjective when we’re dealing with people’s children.
That is exactly how child welfare cases work. Is the bio-home safe for the child is the base line litmus test for ‘which location is better’ because you absolutely-must-have equitable and fair standards that aren’t subjective under the whims of individual welfare case workers who are themselves human beings with their own flaws that may sway them towards biases that are unrelated to a child’s welfare.
‘Which location is better’ is an open ended subjective concept without a defined contextual standard. The biological home being safe is where that standard must begin and it is entirely reasonable for it to be weighed in favor of from the outset of such a consideration.
I’ve BEEN IN COURTROOMS. WITH THESE LAWYERS. IVE HEARD THEIR ARGUMENTS AS A PART OF MY WORK. You do not know what you are talking about. At all. Full stop.
I believe what he is mentioning is the specific type of case brought up in the article called an “intervenor” where a foster family can still get rights at least in Colorado after the biological family has already been declared safe.
The “lawyers” I believe he’s mentioning is the lawyer Einrich and specialist Baird mentioned in the article as being pro-intervenor.
I am not in this field, like at all, so if I’m mistaken please correct me.
No, I understand the article, but he’s trying to conflate it to being more than one lawyer, and one shitty social worker and pushing it as fact. That’s what is foolish.
In the grand majority of states this isn’t a thing, and family reunification is always the number 1 goal.
What bothers me about the article is where is the parents lawyer? Or the lawyer for the child? Often every party gets representation in family court for reasons like these two clowns in this article.
No, because that’s just an excuse to re-home children. The argument needs to be “is the bio-home safe for the child”? Not, which home is better. We must default to keeping the kids with the bio-home, even if another home is “better”, it’s not good enough.
But that isn’t how it works in child welfare cases. They only care about which location is better for the child.
I was taken from my parents by CPS when I was a kid. The other commenter is correct, it’s “is their home safe” not “is their home safer”. The latter is waaaay to subjective when we’re dealing with people’s children.
That is exactly how child welfare cases work. Is the bio-home safe for the child is the base line litmus test for ‘which location is better’ because you absolutely-must-have equitable and fair standards that aren’t subjective under the whims of individual welfare case workers who are themselves human beings with their own flaws that may sway them towards biases that are unrelated to a child’s welfare.
‘Which location is better’ is an open ended subjective concept without a defined contextual standard. The biological home being safe is where that standard must begin and it is entirely reasonable for it to be weighed in favor of from the outset of such a consideration.
Yet that is the argument these lawyers are forcing a judge to make. Safe vs Safer.
This is wrong and misinformation.
No, that is actually the argument the lawyers are making.
I’ve BEEN IN COURTROOMS. WITH THESE LAWYERS. IVE HEARD THEIR ARGUMENTS AS A PART OF MY WORK. You do not know what you are talking about. At all. Full stop.
I believe what he is mentioning is the specific type of case brought up in the article called an “intervenor” where a foster family can still get rights at least in Colorado after the biological family has already been declared safe.
The “lawyers” I believe he’s mentioning is the lawyer Einrich and specialist Baird mentioned in the article as being pro-intervenor.
I am not in this field, like at all, so if I’m mistaken please correct me.
No, I understand the article, but he’s trying to conflate it to being more than one lawyer, and one shitty social worker and pushing it as fact. That’s what is foolish.
In the grand majority of states this isn’t a thing, and family reunification is always the number 1 goal.
What bothers me about the article is where is the parents lawyer? Or the lawyer for the child? Often every party gets representation in family court for reasons like these two clowns in this article.
This is wrong and misinformation.