Hellobee

I’m not really comfortable writing anything specific about the court process for T, but I thought it might be interesting to go into a little bit more detail about the process of hearings that occur when CPS becomes involved in a child’s life. The process varies from state to state, but this is the general flow of how things work in California.

When CPS (Child Protective Services) gets a call that warrants their attention, they investigate the situation. If they determine the child needs to be removed from the home, they do so and the child goes to a licensed foster home. It’s not all or nothing. There’s something called “family maintenance” where the child remains in the home, but CPS is involved on a regular basis to supervise and help make sure everything goes well. However, once the child is removed from the home, the juvenile dependency process goes into effect.

This is a simplified flowchart illustrating the basic process of Dependency Court.

First, a petition must be filed within two business days of the removal of the child. The petition states why the child is removed, and why the dependency process is required. Once the petition is filed the first hearing happens within three business days of removal. This is the Detention Hearing. At this first hearing, separate attorneys are appointed for the biological parent(s) and the child. If the court determines that CPS did not have a valid reason for removing the child, he or she may be released back to the home. If this doesn’t happen and the child is ordered to remain in foster care, services are ordered. A visitation schedule is often arranged as well as counseling, drug testing, parenting classes, or other appropriate services.

After the detention hearing happens, a Jurisdictional Hearing is scheduled within 15 days. At this hearing the court determines whether the allegations of neglect or abuse are sustained by the evidence presented and if they are sufficient to warrant state intervention on behalf of the child. Often combined with the Jurisdictional Hearing is the Disposition Hearing. This is where the longer term living arrangements for the child are decided, as well as the reunification services offered to the parent(s). Basically a plan is solidified for the next six months with the end goal (nearly) always being family reunification.

After these initial hearings, all of which should happen in the first couple of months the child is in foster care, there are Review Hearings scheduled every six months. At these hearings, the court decides if: a) the biological parent has resolved the issues that led to the child being removed from the home and followed the plan as ordered. If this is the case, reunification may happen at this point. b) the biological parent needs more time to completely resolve the issues. In this case another review will be scheduled in six months. c) Reunification is not likely to happen because the biological parent has not followed the plan. In this case proceedings toward another permanent option may begin.

Now of course, this is all just a basic overview of the Juvenile Dependency Court system. I still have a lot to learn about how it all actually works in a real case. I do know that there are always exceptions, changes to the plan, and it’s always more complicated than it sounds. Our social worker has given us some information on how things are generally handled. Infant cases, she said, are generally moved toward permanency (either adoption or reunification) more quickly than with older kids. The court recognizes that valuable attachments are being formed by infants in foster homes, and that it is in everybody’s best interest to move the process along in one direction or another. Older kids can unfortunately spend years in the foster system without a permanency plan. This is when the system can become really detrimental for kids.

We are encouraged to attend all of T’s hearings during this process. We have already learned that things can be delayed significantly, so we are not taking the timeline too seriously. In attending these hearings, we show the judge that we are invested in T’s future, which will serve us well if the case does go to adoption. It will also allow us access to firsthand information about his case. The downside is that we lose our anonymity and his biological mother will now know who we are. We both feel that this is a small risk and a small price to pay (and it could be argued that it’s not even a price, really, but a benefit if everyone knows each other-it makes us all more human) for information and to be truly invested in his future.