We are in serious trouble!

[Ohiogal]

Since we've determined that there is NO helping this OP, why don't we just start using her threads to chat amongst ourselves.

So how is everyone? How was the weather today?

We had a gorgeous 82 degree day. It even rained a little, which we badly needed since it hasn't rained here since Gustav "hit" on Sept. 1st.

I say "hit" because it was really no more than a bad thunderstorm, thankfully.

I hate the Ohio legislature. Been bitching to anyone who would listen all day long about the law passed in August regarding children in foster care. Oh well. No one listens to the attorneys dealing with these children. But for some reason they will listen to a few teenagers who apparently know everything.

 

[2Mistakes]

I hate the Ohio legislature. Been bitching to anyone who would listen all day long about the law passed in August regarding children in foster care. Oh well. No one listens to the attorneys dealing with these children. But for some reason they will listen to a few teenagers who apparently know everything.

Do you have a link with info. I'd like to read about it.

And I'll listen to ya. Don't have a clue what you're talking about, as I don't follow Ohio legislature. But I'll listen.

 

[Ohiogal]

Do you have a link with info. I'd like to read about it.

And I'll listen to ya. Don't have a clue what you're talking about, as I don't follow Ohio legislature. But I'll listen.

Apparently the stupid legislature decided that all children in foster care MUST go to court when the court is making decisions about permanent placement AND they also MUST be served with all paperwork regarding their CSB case as they are an interested party. I am NOT happy. What the hell are guardians for if we are still going to torture the children with going to court. Before this stupid fricking law the court had an option -- they could (oprative word was MAY) have the children come to court and speak to them. Now they SHALL consult with the child in an age appropriate manner. There are so many things wrong with that wording I can't even begin to express the stupidity but imagine a teenager of average intelligence who is wanting to go court compared to the same age teenager who is autistic and has emotional difficulties who doesn't want to go to court due to the emotional harm impacted -- the court MUST talk to both these teens and ask treat them the same because the legislature only differentiates on age.

I am pissed.

(F) The court shall give notice of the review hearings held pursuant to this section to every interested party, including, but not limited to, the appropriate agency employees who are responsible for the child's care and planning, the child's parents, any person who had guardianship or legal custody of the child prior to the custody order, the child's guardian ad litem, and the child. The court shall summon every interested party to appear at the review hearing and give them an opportunity to testify and to present other evidence with respect to the child's custody arrangement, including, but not limited to, the following: the case plan for the child, the permanency plan, if one exists; the actions taken by the child's custodian; the need for a change in the child's custodian or caseworker; and the need for any specific action to be taken with respect to the child. The court shall require any interested party to testify or present other evidence when necessary to a proper determination of the issues presented at the review hearing. In any review hearing that pertains to a permanency plan for a child who will not be returned to the parent, the court shall consider in-state and out-of-state placement options and the court shall determine whether the in-state or the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child. In any review hearing that pertains to a permanency plan for a child, the court or a citizens board appointed by the court pursuant to division (H) of this section shall consult with the child, in an age-appropriate manner, regarding the proposed permanency plan for the child.

I hate the legislature. They are defining the CHILD as an interested party so now the CHILD gets summoned to EVERY review hearing. When they passed this they must have been on crack.

 

[frylover]

i have got to ask. who is kelly? is that a name of any and all trolls? i ventured to another law advice forum (*gasp*) and saw someone calling a poster (jimmiesgirl) kelly.

i'm going to ask OP like i ask my son when he is being admonished....

OP, what exactly have you learned and what is it that you finally realize?

"Kelly" was someone who posted here. I don't know if she's been here in a while. I don't know if she ever had an legitimate legal issue/question at the beginning of her "career" or not, but she started posting under different user names, and all sorts of odd scenarios. Somene here told me that you could recognize her posts because they had NO capitalization and she was always raising oodles of children not hers (siblings, step kids, husband's siblings, boyfriend's children,, etc....) whe haD at least one dead, abusive or incarcerated parent.

 

[2Mistakes]

Apparently the stupid legislature decided that all children in foster care MUST go to court when the court is making decisions about permanent placement AND they also MUST be served with all paperwork regarding their CSB case as they are an interested party. I am NOT happy. What the hell are guardians for if we are still going to torture the children with going to court. Before this stupid fricking law the court had an option -- they could (oprative word was MAY) have the children come to court and speak to them. Now they SHALL consult with the child in an age appropriate manner. There are so many things wrong with that wording I can't even begin to express the stupidity but imagine a teenager of average intelligence who is wanting to go court compared to the same age teenager who is autistic and has emotional difficulties who doesn't want to go to court due to the emotional harm impacted -- the court MUST talk to both these teens and ask treat them the same because the legislature only differentiates on age.

I am pissed.



I hate the legislature. They are defining the CHILD as an interested party so now the CHILD gets summoned to EVERY review hearing. When they passed this they must have been on crack.

Holy hell! That is absolutely insane.

The courtroom is no place for children, except in very rare circumstances.

That is just crazy. I completely understand you feeling the way you do. Especially because of what you do for a living and how closely you work with these children.

 

[Ohiogal]

Holy hell! That is absolutely insane.

The courtroom is no place for children, except in very rare circumstances.

That is just crazy. I completely understand you feeling the way you do. Especially because of what you do for a living and how closely you work with these children.

But apparently the Youth Advisory Board in Ohio (made up of teenagers who are/were in foster care aged 14 to 23 from about six counties out of 88) decided that they wanted the right (they already had the damn right if they knew the law) and the legislature decided to make it mandatory for ALL children. ALL CHILDREN. Which you know the definition of a child? Anyone under the age of 18.

ARRGGH! Now I am a GAL for quite a few children and I get to deal with this bs. Spent a couple hours today trying to figure it all out and what it means for my kids. FREAKING FRACKING FOOLS!

 

[2Mistakes]

But apparently the Youth Advisory Board in Ohio (made up of teenagers who are/were in foster care aged 14 to 23 from about six counties out of 88) decided that they wanted the right (they already had the damn right if they knew the law) and the legislature decided to make it mandatory for ALL children. ALL CHILDREN. Which you know the definition of a child? Anyone under the age of 18.

ARRGGH! Now I am a GAL for quite a few children and I get to deal with this bs. Spent a couple hours today trying to figure it all out and what it means for my kids. FREAKING FRACKING FOOLS!

Damn, so even small children are being brought into this?

THAT is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER heard.

Don't they realize that you guys, the GALs, are the children's voices? That that's what you are there for? To protect the kids and speak for their best interests?

I couldn't imagine being a child already in the foster care system (so obviously my life hasn't been so great up to that point) being dragged into court for a proceeding that I most likely won't understand. That would scare the hell out of me.

My heart goes out to all the kids who are going to have to go through that.

And to you, whose job it is to protect these kids.

I don't know you IRL, but I'm sure you do a tremendously awesome job. I don't know how things work there, but here, there is a short list of court-approved GALs. The court will appoint from that list. And those GALs are paid next to nothing for their GAL services. 7 years ago, they couldn't be paid more than $500 per case. And they spent countless hours on cases.

Keep your head up, OG, and just keep doing that great job that you do.

 

[Ohiogal]

(F) The court shall give notice of the review hearings held pursuant to this section to every interested party, including, but not limited to, the appropriate agency employees who are responsible for the child's care and planning, the child's parents, any person who had guardianship or legal custody of the child prior to the custody order, the child's guardian ad litem, and the child. The court shall summon every interested party to appear at the review hearing and give them an opportunity to testify and to present other evidence with respect to the child's custody arrangement, including, but not limited to, the following: the case plan for the child, the permanency plan, if one exists; the actions taken by the child's custodian; the need for a change in the child's custodian or caseworker; and the need for any specific action to be taken with respect to the child. The court shall require any interested party to testify or present other evidence when necessary to a proper determination of the issues presented at the review hearing. In any review hearing that pertains to a permanency plan for a child who will not be returned to the parent, the court shall consider in-state and out-of-state placement options and the court shall determine whether the in-state or the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child. In any review hearing that pertains to a permanency plan for a child, the court or a citizens board appointed by the court pursuant to division (H) of this section shall consult with the child, in an age-appropriate manner, regarding the proposed permanency plan for the child.

This is the law above. I quoted it a few posts back. But it states in an age-appropriate manner. Which means nothing about anything else with the child. It also uses the word SHALL. Shall means MUST --- not judicial discretion but MUST. ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH! And defines interested party to include the child. CHILD is an interested party who shall be required to testify or present evidence and given notice of all review hearings and consulted about permanency plans and.... read the law. NOT happy. NOT happy at all. Stupid statute. Stupid stupid stupid.

Definition of a child: Under the age of 18. From newborn to the age of 18. Imagine 3 year olds being summoned. FREAKING FRACKING FRUCKING.... okay time to quit ranting.

 

[2Mistakes]

Hey OG, why don't you tell us what you really think?

 

[Ohiogal]

Hey OG, why don't you tell us what you really think?

I am saving that for when I am told I have to bring one of my charges in due to this inane law.

 

[>Charlotte<]

I thought you had to be mistaken, OG. I was going to point out that you had to have missed something because there's no way they could, for instance, expect a three year old to be included. And then I read the last paragraph of your last post. That is just astoundingly stupid. Astonishingly stupid. Stupendously stupid. Fifteen pounds of stupid in a ten pound bag. It can't possibly last long before it's repealed. Can it???

 

[2Mistakes]

It can't possibly last long before it's repealed. Can it???

Common sense and logic would dictate that it can't. But we've all seen stranger things happen.

I really have to wonder if our law-makers are in the back room getting high when they pass laws sometimes.

 

[>Charlotte<]

I really have to wonder if our law-makers are in the back room getting high when they pass laws sometimes.

Well from what OG said it sounds like they're getting high while their teenaged children pass the laws. Have mercy.