Iowa Kinship Care vs. DHS

Iowa DHS allowed biological grandparents  Karen and Marshall Burkhart custody of their granddaughter from 3 weeks of age. After living with her grandparents for more than a year and a half, DHS took custody of the girl. A legal battle continues 9 months later. On Thursday September 6, 2012, an administrative law judge will hear both sides of the story.

The grandparents are recovering alcoholics and drug users from the 1980s and 1990s. They sobered up over a decade ago.  Their medical and psychiatric doctors and psychologist who counseled them have written letters of approval for the adoption. But, that is not enough. The baby is cute, white, and ever so adoptable. The “viable long-term option” gray area is what DHS is the argument for stranger placement. They were good enough for almost 20 months to bond with, but now they are not good enough “long term.” DHS fully knew their history when their granddaughter was placed with them. Their biological son purposely terminated his rights knowing that his daughter would be with his parents.

“An adoption denial, written by DHS worker Jill Seibert, said the Burkharts had baggage from past traumas. Among the problems cited: an “inability to take accountability,” a “lack of insight of children’s need for independence” and Karen and Marshall Burkhart’s more than decade-old history with law enforcement.

Only after that decision were the Burkharts able to obtain a negative home-study report by a private contractor that led to Seibert’s decision. That home study noted several major positive steps the couple took to gain permanent custody of Michelle: completing foster and adoptive classes, finishing major home repairs, obtaining several letters of recommendation. But the private worker focused heavily on Marshall Burkhart’s mental disabilities and the couple’s past drug and alcohol addictions, and it noted that the worker simply did not believe Michelle would be safe in their care.

“It is apparent they love Michelle very much and believe they can care for her, but Michelle’s safety should come first,” the report concluded. “Karen and Marshall have not shown that they can provide a safe and stable home for an additional child, despite the progress they have made in their past challenges.” [Though they HAD been providing that for 20 months?]

Federal law encourages states to place at-risk kids with relatives, but relatives are not necessarily the first choice once a child is freed for adoption, according to Jerry Foxhoven, who heads the Drake University legal clinic.

Ultimately, decisions about who gets to adopt a child are subjective ones that must weigh a child’s best interests with prospects for long-term stability, he said.

“The legal standard to remove a child from a parent is much higher than it is to deny a child to someone who wants to adopt,” he said. “In those cases, the state is saying, ‘We want the very best people.’ ”

Hurdles

“The Burkharts say that over several weeks they fulfilled all the tasks set out for them in the plan — and many more — so they could take Michelle permanently.

They got a grant allowing them to remodel their aged home and remove the lead paint. They took foster and pre-adoptive classes. When Harms expressed concerns they might still be using drugs, they took drug tests to prove both of them were clean.

A committee for DHS also mulled their past criminal records and decided they were OK to be considered for adoption, Karen Burkhart said.

 Expectations change; Burkharts lose baby

It was clear the expectations were higher for the Burkharts after both parents terminated their rights and Michelle was freed for adoption.

Karen Burkhart worried because Harms, the adoption case worker, and his supervisor weren’t as familiar with her family as others at DHS and in town who had watched them rebound from substance abuse and become different people. Harms questioned whether Michelle should be sleeping in a crib next to their bedroom and questioned whether Karen Burkhart was taking or selling her husband’s medication.

“We didn’t get it,” she said. “I mean we were the safety house; we weren’t abusers.”

The contract worker for Four Oaks, a Cedar Rapids-based agency that performed a home study, interviewed at least nine references. Six favored giving custody to the couple; three — two human service workers and an unnamed Washington County detective who had tried to investigate family members in the past — did not, according to the home study report.

A psychologist who counseled the couple wrote a letter in favor of the adoption, saying both Marshall and Karen Burkhart had been proactive in dealing with their difficulties. So did their local physician and Marshall Burkhart’s psychiatrist. All the professionals had known the couple for years.

State rules provide guidance for DHS workers, saying adoption applications can be denied if concerns exist in a couple’s motivation to adopt, child-rearing ability, emotional stability, physical or mental health, interpersonal relationships, finances or marital relationship.

Burkhart’s lawyer, Connie Stannard of Iowa City, said she believes the state pulled the rug out from under the grandparents, who were entrusted with the baby’s care for almost 20 months. The Burkharts, she said, aren’t perfect people, but they did everything the state asked of them to keep their grandchild.”

Read the rest of the details at Adoption case questions DHS’s role with families [Des Moines Register 9/3/12 by Lee Rood]

REFORM Puzzle Piece