Long Overdue Updates

The Hodgins have finally been told to give up and go home.  During a more recent hearing, a judge basically told them it was over.  Tennessee does not hold jurisdiction and DCS no longer is involved.  Sonya gets to remain with her dad, where she belongs and where she should have been from the very beginning when the Hodgins slyly had her placed in their home.

The Hodgins - of course - refuse to acknowledge that it's over.  This last ruling was a death blow to their case (if they even had one, really).  Twitter is alive with the rantings of their more psychotic supporters and the PR firm, Trio, appears to have backed out completely.

They're in the death throes.  Rather like muscle spasms one has after death, the final electrical impulses that cause a stir here or there.  The more tenacious Hodgin supports bring little blips to the radar, maybe enough to catch your eye, but gone just that quick.  Sometimes you catch the movement, sometimes you don't.  Supporters are backing off from their support page on Facebook.  People are realizing the lies spoon fed to them by the Hodgins, Trio and the die hard supporters and apparently are not taking kindly to being duped.  

This case is coming to a close for good and the Hodgins are finally realizing their small town connections and mentality can't win them back the child they attempted to steal.  It is a victory for Sonya.  A victory for her family.

In the Bring Layah Home case, a court reversed the adoption and the Norwoods returned back to their brood with their tails between their legs.  Legal documents showed that they never even served the mother properly and that alone was the death blow for their case.  And while apparently it is legal to forum shop for adoption in Alabama, it doesn't protect them from the parents and Children's Services from appealing and fighting back.  It doesn't mean the adoption will stick.

Further research into the Layah case revealed that Layah was born to an underaged mother who herself was also in foster care.  Given the confidentiality of the case, I do not know what led to the mother and child being separated (there is some implication that the mother's age was used against her), but the Norwoods pretty much did everything in their power to cut the mother out and give them some legal standing and attempt the adoption based on abandonment and lack of substantial contact between child and mother.

Foster dad Norwood is now attempting to get a law passed that will allow foster parents to undermine parental rights and Children's Services if they end up with a child they'd like to adopt.  From what can be seen, nobody is biting on this law.  I visited the web page http://travisnorwood.com/park-act/ to review the PARK act and see what changes the Norwoods were pushing for.  Easy enough to see that it's nothing more than a feel-good law, something that an unsuspecting public might get on board for without realizing the implications.  

Section I covers involuntary TPR.  Under normal circumstances (in most states), once a parent is involuntarily TPR'd by Children's Services, they often lose custody and parental rights to any subsequent children born, regardless of the parent's age at time of TPR or how much time has passed since.  I think Part I of the PARK act is to suck in the public at large.  Norwood specifically covers involuntary TPR of minor parents.  Basically, let non-related caregivers take your kid and sever your rights, but maybe in 5 yrs when you're an adult, they'll allow you to have kids of your own (though I'm sure this attitude will change if they want their little ill gotten adoptee to have a blood sibling).

(Norwood's additions are in red)

The above pictured snip is the only part of the law change that actually makes any level of sense.  I don't think a parent should be involuntarily TPR'd for subsequent children nor should Children's Services even involve themselves if said parent was a minor at time of the first TPR (barring actual extreme abuse or failure to protect - i.e. knowingly allow someone else to abuse child).  But I will say that I do have an issue holding a 14/15 yr old mother to adult parent standards when it comes to case plans set up by Children's Services.  But seriously, why should a mistake made at 16 yrs old be held against you as an example of being an unfit parent when you decide to have another child at, say, 25 or 30?  I do find it interesting that Norwood addresses this specifically.  Particularly since he and his wife attempted to snatch up a child of an underaged mother and involuntarily terminate her rights. 

Before people jump down my throat and try to claim I support abuse, let me be very clear - I do not.  Typical reasons a minor parent may lose their child to foster care usually are due to poverty and lack of proper parenting resources.  Often times, because they are held to adult standards in regards to case plans, they fall short because of lack of funds, lack of transportation and lack family support to help them get their child back.  So, often times, their case has stretched on for a length of time and due to the hoops Children's Services has placed upon them, they are unable to maintain a meaningful relationship with their child.  Children Services moves in to terminate their parental rights and that is that.

Section II is where things go wrong.

Let's discuss shall we?  Six months may seem like a long time, but it is not.  Imagine your child is removed from your care.  You're just a kid yourself.  You might only have a part time job.  You're in school.  Your child is in a foster home hours away and you have no means to get there.  Add to this all the parenting classes and therapy sessions you're told you have to take.  Buses take time.  Cost money you do not have.  So you have to take time off work and school to make all these appointments, sometimes missing them due to transportation scheduling conflicts.  You miss visitations due to the same or the visiting sessions conflict with another appointment they insist you attend.  Missed visits, classes and appointments are used against you.  Now you are deemed uncooperative with the case plan and failing to maintain a substantial relationship with your child.  And if the foster parents want your child, chances are they will make any contact with the child as difficult as possible.

It gets worse.  Check out Section III.

Norwood is pushing to change the laws in regards to where foster parents stand in a dependency case.  He wants them to have rights equal to that of the parents fighting to have their children returned to them.  The current laws allow them standing in the sense that they are notified of court hearings and kept in the loop regarding the case plan surrounding the child.  But unless Children's Services is willing to allow them more leverage, they cannot fight the parent for custody of the child.  Norwood's changes would allow them to do just that.

On to section IV.

Yeah, let's shrink down the window a parent has to fight TPR.  

Section V:

Norwood wants to ensure extended family has zero chance of getting the child.  Now don't get me wrong, there have been cases where extended family waited a great length of time before intervening in permanent placement.  The most often cited reason is hope that the parent works harder for the return of the child or they were incapable of taking the child in when the child first went into care.  Sometimes, family cannot be found right away due to estrangement from the child's parent.  This should never be a reason to disallow extended family to step in, regardless of how long child is in the foster placement.  There have been situations where extended family is working to ensure they can take the child in and it does take time.  A larger home, remodels to ensure the house can pass a safety inspection, etc.  

In a lot of situations, I've discovered that sometimes Children's Services themselves are the ones making the effort to cut the extended family out.  Falsifying documents, lying in court hearings or not even bothering to mention that there is family willing to take the child in.  My own family was put through this not too long ago when a young relative was in state care in another state.  The social workers involved claimed nobody in our family was willing or able to take my young relative, even though my family filed all the necessary paperwork and there was email documentation showing we wanted my young relative placed in our care.  Social workers told a judge nobody was willing or able, but told our family that since one family member worked for Children's Services here in my state, we had an unfair advantage and knew the loopholes.  Fortunately, this young relative is now in my family's care and is thriving.  

Section VI of the PARK act is lengthy, but frightening all the same.

So you allow foster parents standing to interfere with reunification, cut out extended family and you have a case of a child who is now being forced to bond with strangers.  Sometimes foster parents get attached immediately to their young ward and encourage the child to refer to them as mom and dad.  Sometimes the child is completely unaware of the fact that the couple caring for them are not their parents.  If the foster placement makes contact with the parents and extended family difficult, the child often does bond to the foster parents.  Norwoods wants the court to recognize this bond, even if forced through isolation from the child's family.  

Interestingly enough, the Hodgins more or less attempted the same thing in Tennessee.  And they succeeded for a great many years before the state finally said enough was enough.  Norwood's suggested revisions to the current Alabama laws would allow future Norwoods and Hodgins the ability to take in a child as a foster placement and as long as they can hold onto the child and limit familial contact, give them the chance to claim the child as their own.  

I am fully aware that there are some situations that warrant foster adoption.  I do believe certain situations do justify TPR as quickly as possible.  But I also believe that extended family should be given first choice barring documented abuse or lack of interest in taking child.  If extended family wants the child, but will need time to provide a suitable home, time should be given and any and all effort should be made for the child to have a relationship with family.  Uncooperative foster parents should be penalized and the child removed from their care immediately, regardless of how long child has been in their care.  But if the parents make no effort to regain custody of their child and family cannot be located or is unwilling to take in the child, every effort should be made to provide permanency to the child.  Six to twelve months is too short of time for this to happen, though.  Sometimes the parents are estranged from family for reasons of their own doing (lifestyle choices family disagrees with, drugs, etc).  Situations like these are common.  The parents make no effort to comply but due to selfish reasons, do not want family to have the child and may be unwilling to provide names to Children's Services.  This should not be reason enough to disallow extended family the chance to take the child in.  It is not terribly difficult to figure out who is related to who with some basic search tools.  Hell, I can run my own name in a basic Google search and not only does my ex husband come up as a relation, but my mother, stepdad, brother, father and my late ex-in-laws.  My mother and I haven't shared a same last name since I was 8 yrs old when she married my stepdad and my name changed via marriage over a decade ago.  If Google can pull up all this information running my current name no doubt Children's Services can do the same with the parent refusing to provide family information.

Foster parents/potential adoptive parents should not be allowed to get an adoption finalized when the child is not even in their care.  I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what state would even consider such an adoption legal.  In regards to the Norwoods' specific case, they managed to push an adoption through to a child who was not even in their care.  Layah had been removed from their home and placed with extended family.  The Norwoods were able to get the adoption approved several months after her removal.  I'm not 100% sure what laws support this, honestly.  When most of the laws point out that the child must be in the pre-adoptive home for a period of time before an adoption can even be finalized, it makes me wonder just how the Norwoods were able to get their fraudulent adoption finalized when the child involved was not even in their care.  I do know that the judge involved with Layah's dependency case was not happy with their actions and issued a restraining order against them to keep them away from Layah while the case played out in the courts.  It makes me think they did indeed violate their foster parent contract and possibly even some laws in getting that adoption.  

In regards to the private adoption front, Trent Reicks case has had little to no information due to the gag order judge Xollie Duncan put on him.  For those who are unfamiliar with this case, Trent's daughter was surrendered for adoption behind his back.  Trent did everything required of him to protect his rights to his daughter but the kidnappers happen to be lawyers (female kidnapper a deputy prosecutor) and the judge who finalized the fraudulent adoption also happens to be a friend of theirs.  They terminated Trent's parental rights using the excuse of "unreasonably with-holding consent".  Again, let me point out that he did what was required of him to establish rights, but because he refused to consent to the adoption, the Morris's and Duncan made up their own reason to TPR him.  I do know he is appealing and fighting the illegal adoption, but as for any legitimate updates in the case, I have none due to Duncan's gag order.  No doubt the kidnappers and Duncan issued the gag to protect their own asses.  Can't have the world knowing they kidnapped a baby and used their positions to do so.  And while I have posted this before, I feel a refresher is necessary.

Here are the kidnappers who are posing as the baby's parents:

 And here is their judge friend and accomplice, Xollie Duncan, who made up a reason to terminate Trent's rights to his daughter:

 



















I hope Trent is able to get his daughter back and throw these kidnapping pieces of shit into prison.  They used their government positions to take a child who was not available for adoption from a father who has done everything required of him, plus some.  Due to the unlawful gag order, Trent is unable to bring his daughter's kidnapping to the media's attention.  Well, seeing that all the above information was made public before the gag, including the above pictures, I consider outing them publicly as fair game.  I know Trent did what was required of him and I know he was TPR'd under fraudulent grounds.  I know that he is appealing.  This information was public before the gag.  I do not know what is currently happening with his case.  I do hope he is still fighting back.  Bring the kidnappers to justice.

I'm sure there are those who read this blog and think I'm against adoption.  I suppose it's easy to come to such a conclusion reading some of the entries.  But if one take the time to really read all of the entries, you will notice there is a theme.  Every case mentioned is either an illegal adoption or unethical adoption.  Just because a court supported it does not mean it is legal.  Veronica's adoption was illegal and violated federal laws (regardless of what others claim) and yet the courts of two states and a federal court ruled she go to the kidnappers, Sonya's imprisonment with the Hodgins was illegal even though the courts never acted to remove her for years.  Layah's adoption was illegal.  Trent's daughter's adoption is illegal.  All of these cases highlight what is wrong with adoption, both private and through foster care.  

For those just now tuning in, I started this blog in the wake of Veronica Brown's fraudulent adoption to the kidnapping Capobiancos.  I wanted to make sure that Veronica would find the truth behind her kidnapping and enslavement.  Wanted to make sure the public was aware of what really was happening and not just the media releases (which always side with the adopters).  I cannot be more clear.  I am not against adoption.  I am against unethical and illegal adoption.  If the father is purposely cut off and not served properly, you are a kidnapper.  If you undermine Children's Services and try to or succeed in pushing an adoption through when reunification is on the table, you are a kidnapper.  If your attempted kidnapping is made public, chances are you will end up named in this very blog and your crimes exposed to the public.  It will not matter to me how long you've been trying to become parents.  It will not matter to me how attached you are to the baby you smuggled into your home under shady means.  If you are fighting a fit father or fighting reunification, you are nothing more than a kidnapper and will be outed as such. 

**blogger's note**
There is currently another dependency case that may very well go in the direction that Layah's case almost went in.  15 yr old Keymani is the mother of 6 1/2 month old Sincere.  Last month, Keymani learned that Children's Services was planning on splitting her and her baby up into separate foster homes.  Not because they questioned her ability to care for her son, but because apparently the home they were in together was temporary and social services felt the only option was to place the infant into a separate home.  Keymani fled with her son when she learned they planned to split them up and now they are in fact separated.  Keymani was moved to a group home and Sincere was placed in a different foster home.  Restricted to supervised visits.  

Keymani, to my understanding, has done no wrong.  She has committed no crimes other than attempting to flee with her son to avoid separation.  Yet, because she is a foster child, her own child immediately becomes a ward of the state and subject to whatever Children's Services wants.  As a foster child, Keymani has no right to her own child and their fate is at the whim of the social workers involved in their case.  

A recent update on their support page indicates that extended family is working to become placement options for one or both.  Being a minor in foster care should not strip her of her right to have a say over her own child nor should the state have the right to split them up when no abuse/neglect was actually found.  And in no way should this young mother be penalized for acting on impulse and running in an effort to keep her and her son together.  Honestly, part of me suspects someone has their eyes on Sincere.  When more information comes in, I will update on this case.