Houston Foster Parents Fight to Keep Baby With Them vs. Placing with Sibling Group
This week in Houston a battle has been brewing with foster parents, Rachel de Cordova, a civil litigation attorney who was elected to the Board of Directors of the Houston East End Chamber of Commerce in Fall 2009 and her husband Hayan Charara, a professor at the University of Houston, and CPS.
“According to court documents, the baby tested positive for cocaine when he was born, so Child Protective Services took custody.”
“”We probably pushed for them to be contacted for about two months and they finally said, ‘We’re not contacting them, there’s no reason for us to contact them, he’s great with you,’” said de Cordova.
But the couple said the child’s attorney ad litem stepped in and recommended that the child be placed with the family in Killeen, because that’s where three of his siblings live. The de Cordovas also said CPS is now recommending the same.
A spokesperson for CPS said the agency believes children belong with their siblings whenever possible.”
So let’s recap the timeline: For about two months of the six months that the child has been with Rachel and Hayan, they tried to get CPS to contact the other family. THEN the GAL and CPS saw that they made an error. THEN Rachel and Hayan started to fight for custody.
The media stories and public comments are predictable-almost all comments with the notable exceptions from adult adoptees favor keeping the child with the foster parents. Excuses include the following:
- The baby has been with the foster parents for 6 months.
- The baby has bonded with the foster parents.
- These people signed on for FOSTER to adopt not FOSTERing.
- The baby WILL be happier with the foster parents.
- One of the siblings is currently living separately from the other three.
- The foster couple is loving.
- The foster couple is infertile and have tried a long time (8 years) to have a family.
- The biological mother, who is a drug addict, feels that the child should be with this couple.
- The paternal grandmother thinks it would be good for the child to be with this couple.
Not one of these has anything to do with what is best for the child in the long term–being placed with siblings when it is possible (and it is the policy of Texas CPS as well.)
Most have to do with the adopting parents. The excuse that they were fostering to adopt is ridiculous as foster care by definition is temporary.
The most ridiculous of the excuses is that one of the other siblings is currently living separately. CPS may have made a mistake with that placement, so two wrongs do not make a right. But in reality, there is no information about the separated sibling in these stories. It is entirely possible that it is in the best interest of all the siblings for that particular sibling to be separated. Sometimes a sibling’s past abuse or predatory nature makes it in the sibling’s best interest to be separated as sad as that can be.The baby does not have that past as he was placed at six days of life.
It is also interesting that the biological family is being brought into the excuse. If they have been deemed to not be worthy to parent the child, then why does their opinion count?Their opinion only seems to count when it favors the adopting parents.
Adopting parents always have the sway of power in these situations and this couple is not the average middle class couple. They have a high standing in the community and are “connected.” Interestingly, the articles do not mention that Rachel is a civil litigation attorney or that she was influential on the Chamber of Commerce. The story tugs at the heart a lot more if the general public believes that these are innocent rubes that are fumbling through the big, bad system.They just want to be parents.
Baby Boy at Center of Legal Battle
[KHOU 6/13/11 by Courtney Zubowski]
Legal Battle Between Couple and CPS Unfolds in Harris County Courtroom
[KHOU 6/14/11 by Courtney Zubowski]
Ruling
“The judge on Thursday ruled that, since Charara and de Cordova have not been the boy’s foster parents for 12 months, they do not have a legal say in the case. However, the judge decided that Jonathan should stay with them until the trial. The judge also fast-tracked the trial, which is scheduled for August 30.”
Judge: Couple fighting to adopt foster child to keep baby until trial
[KHOU 6/16/11]
While this may seem a win for placing the boy with his siblings, dragging this case out will just intensify the “bonding” excuse for the foster parents for the next trial. The “child has been with us too long to remove” excuse in this case has a lot of similarities to the Missouri case of the Guatemalan immigrant that we reported about in January.
Interestingly when children are in foreign foster care, the other facet of the…let’s be blunt here… ECONOMIC excuse is used. Even though the child has bonded with the foster family, it is ALWAYS in the best interest to remove the kid from that home and move the child to a foreign country and teach the child a new language because long-term the child will be better off (economically of course.)
Power and the adoptive parent win in both situations.
You overlooked a very crucial "best interest" argument, made by this couple, by the ad litem (who changed her mind to support keeping the baby with the couple), and even by CPS itself, which it admitted to after questioning by the judge: that the child, at age six months, would suffer psychological trauma that would be irreparable if he were moved; moving him would cause a rift in his reality, and no kind of care would be able to keep the harm from occurring. Ultimately, too, (and this is all based on research by child psychologists, over decades, and backed up by current research as well), the current relationship (of the caregivers) is more important, and will be for some years to come, than that of the siblings. Anyhow, this is obviously controversial (whether to keep with siblings or not–and it should be clear that this doesn't always mean "reuniting" siblings, which is not the case here). In any case the point is that CPS blindly follows this "sibling policy," without looking at the specifics. I was in the court room during the hearing, and I can say this: about 90% of what was discussed hasn't been made public. So many of the opinions about this case (and probably ever other one out there) are based on a tiny portion of facts. One thing is for sure: CPS seemed to be clueless to most of the facts–its reps there admitted to never even seeing the other family; they didn't even know where they lived or how many children they had (there were either 4 or 5 children in the other home, all under the age of 5). How can the "best interest" of the child be placed in the hands of people who do not even know the most basic facts?
This is Rally. Let’s entertain some of your arguments. By your argument of moving a child after 6 months causes irreparable harm, you are implying that a child in a foreign foster home or orphanage after 6 months should NEVER be adopted domestically or internationally. Or is there some nuance that those kids should be moved? Other than economics, what would that be?In this case, at least culture, country and language wouldn’t be changed. We did not say that a transition would be easy or that it should be done without psychological support. Please cite the decades of research about the irreparable harm.
The current relationship with unrelated caregivers will be the “most important” relationship that this child has? Really? Again, cite the research on that. Siblings by their very nature of being closer in age will have longer relationships with each other than with their parents. Since you don't know the other foster parents, how do you know that they are unqualified or "less than" these foster parents?
CPS did not follow the sibling policy in the first place which is why this is an issue now. Of course they made large errors and need to be held accountable. Of course they need to have competent people evaluate the location of these siblings and ensure they are placed together-did you ever entertain the possibility that all of the siblings should move together to a third separate location? Maybe that would be best, maybe not, but you haven’t given any facts to back up that these prospective parents are “best”.
A third party should evaluate which home is best. In this case, the child was removed by the state from the biological mother and by law, they need to do their jobs.
After the GAL recommended the move, specifically what actions were taken by the foster parents? Did they fight it?When did the GAL change her mind? When did CPS change their mind and why? Why is that change of heart now correct if CPS is so incompetent? Because that favors these foster parents, that's why.
The main point we are making is that the adoptive parents use their influence and power in the “child has been with us too long to move” argument. I have no doubt that these foster parents will get to parent this child as typically judges fold to the PC decision…that doesn’t make this a just decision or what is "best" long-term.
Anonymous, can you point me to the "research" which states that being taking from the foster parents can create a rift in the child's reality…we need it for an upcoming court case. Thank you so much!
I live in canton ohio I'm in contact with a mom she use to live in houston tx Her kids are in foster care in houston tx the moved here to toledo ohio the worker in houston tx is trying to put her kids up for adoption I would like for anyone to contact me with any information she do need help / support she talk about her kids all the time I hope someone contact me so we can bring her kids here to ohio I would like for anyone to send me a e-mail kindnessohio@att.net my number is 330 249-1541 please e-mail me or call me