The First Call: Questions to Ask Iowa KidsNet

I had mentioned in a previous post that during our PS-MAPP class, I had put together a list of questions to ask when we got our first phone call. Since Lovebug was an emergency placement that was only expected to stay for a few days to a week, I didn't end up using the sheet for her call. And since we're only ready for one little at this point, I haven't used the questions since.

But none-the-less, I think they are useful. I have a copy on my computer at work, on my Google drive (which I can access from my phone) and a printed copy in our family binder (more on that soon).

Here's the list of questions Dan and I decided were important to know in advance, when possible. Keep in mind, when children go into care (especially if it's an emergency removal), they don't always have all the answers to these questions. They will give you whatever information they have, when you ask the questions. There are some things, like race/ethnicity, that you must ask, if it matters to you. Discrimination laws prevent them from stating that information outright.

Name

Age:

Sex:

Age/DOB:

Race:

Legal Status:

Reason for Removal:

If abuse- what kind of abuse, severity:

Previous Placements or Parents History with DHS:

Siblings- How many, ages and status:

Physical Disabilities or Special Needs and Services Provided: 

Social Delays/Disabilities and Services Provided:

Dietary Needs: 

Health Needs (allergies, medications, etc.): 

Permanency Plan/Expected Length of Stay: 

Details on Visits with Birth Parents/Social Workers (supervised, length and frequency, child’s reaction, ect): 

Expectations with Birth Parents: 

Are they attending daycare- where and when: 

Is there anything I’ve forgotten that would be important to know for caring for this child: 

Hope this is helpful for someone! Soon I'll be compiling a section for tools on this blog, and it will include things like this, our Family Binder, organizing Lovebug's paperwork, etc. Come back soon and check it out!

Baby Veronica: My Take

Disclaimer: I don't have experience with ICWA, or full-blown adoption, even (yet). All I know is what it feels like to want to be a parent, to be gifted that opportunity, and to fear that it will be taken away from me. It is with that knowledge that I comment on this story.

Have you heard about Baby Veronica? I'm going to give you a run-down of the case (which has been ruled on by the Supreme Court already), as I understand it.

Baby Veronica (Baby V) was conceived by a woman and a man out of wedlock. Birth dad signed away his rights, and birth mom ultimately felt it was best that she be placed up for open adoption. Birth mom found a couple who were more than willing to involve birth mom in Baby V's life, and Baby V went to live with adoptive parents.

Before the adoption was finalized, birth dad reappears. He wants Baby V back, and says that he never would have signed his rights away if he had known that birth mom was going to give her up for adoption. The South Carolina court system ruled in favor of birth dad, and sent Baby V to live with him at the age of 2.

How? Well, he capitalized on a law designed to protect the rights of Native Americans, and to keep Native American children in touch with their culture (Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA). He claimed that because he was part Cherokee, so was Baby V, and she should remain with her Cherokee family. Birth father, who had never practiced his Cherokee roots, or belonged to a tribe, sent his blood in to be tested, and also Baby V's. Baby V's results said she was 3/256th's Cherokee.

The adoptive parents have fought, hard, for two years. At the South Carolina court, the ruling was overturned on appeal, and Baby V was ordered back to her adoptive parents. The fight continued to the Supreme Court, and a ruling was issued in June, again ordering Baby V back to her adoptive parents.

But still, Baby V has remained on Cherokee land, protected by Cherokee marshals, in Oklahoma. Her birth father was arrested in August for "interference with custodial acts". But still, Baby V remains in his custody. Yesterday, the Oklahoma courts ruled in favor of birth dad, and has ordered an emergency stay to keep Baby V where she is.

As you can probably sense, I side with the adoptive parents on this one. I can't say if I would feel differently if birth father was a practicing member of the Cherokee nation, and had been his whole life. But the way ICWA has been used in this case is really disturbing to me. It's almost as if the law is being used in the exact opposite way it was intended, and has stripped a child from a home she knew and loved, only to be catapulted into a tug of war.

As a future adoptive parent, I can assure you this is one of my worst nightmares. As a foster parent, I recognize the primary goal of reunification, and support it when it's possible. There are parents who make mistakes, who truly want and love their children, and who do whatever it takes to get them back. But when reunification isn't possible, and adoption is the next best option, why is blood more important than the home a child has grown up in?

This question hits home for me, as we inch slowly closer to signs of adoption. Now, instead of "when is Lovebug going home?", our questions tend to be more like "do you think they will find some distant relative and decide that person is a better fit than us?" I can't imagine spending two years raising Lovebug, going to adoption, and then being told that an aunt or uncle, who's never spent time with this child or called to check in, or requested a visit at all, is being chosen over my family to adopt the baby I love.

I have no doubt that Baby V's birth father loves her, and at this point, knows her well and she probably loves him too. But just because his heart pumps blood that matches hers, doesn't mean the adoptive parents' hearts are pumping less love because their blood doesn't match.

-Jenn