RE: CONCERNING LAWS/POLICIES/PROCEDURES; MUCH NEEDED CHANGES WITHIN DEPENDENCY (CHILD WELFARE) CASES WITH FOCUS ON CASE PLANS, APPROPRIATE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT LOCATION AND JURISDICTION LOCATION FROM THE PARENT(S) HOME AND CONCERNS REGARDING PARENTS INVOLVED IN SUCH CASES THAT HAVE ANY SORT OF VALID DISABILITY.  

 

I am writing with much concern and unfortunate experience with the dealing of issues that I am further bringing to light herein regarding Dependency civil (child welfare) Case Plan contracts and appropriate placement and it's location of children in foster care from their parents and in regards to State/Federal funding associated with said subject matters.  

Background: my child was taken from my custody a little over a year ago on child abuse allegations that were later concluded as unfounded, no suspects, no arrests and no evidence in light of this case (because the entire case is based on false allegations) I denied the allegations at the arraignment hearing and have denied the allegations without fail, however, I agreed to a case plan with the understanding that the case plan was to help my child and I and absolutely had no knowledge that the case plan follows a consent to allegations and that my child would continue in foster care and my child and I would remain under supervised visitations that are unreasonably limited and restricted for no legitimate reason. 

On the day of the case plan acceptance hearing, apparently both my then, court-appointed attorney and the department attorney discussed a consent plea to certain allegations right before going in front of the judge without discussing directly to me if I understood the particular allegations against me connected to the case plan acceptance and the case plan lacks any of this information as well. If I would have known this, then I would have continued to trial as that directly mislead the Court and the case plan all together without my true consent and understanding.

The case plan is a completely invalid contract and it misleads Florida -State/Federal funding because it's based on inaccurate information, it's empty of detailed information needed to understand the plan, it's empty of the alleged allegations I didn't even consent to, it's empty of explaining my child remaining in foster care and supervised visits will remain at a "unreasonable" limited and restricted parent-child bond and time together, the plan "outcomes" are based on lack of evidence and wrong information that essentially leads into unnecessary task/providers that take from state/federal funding. The case plan lacks service locations (EX: The provider Baycare is location at: Address, City and State information and walk in's are accepted on Thursday's on a first come first serve basis from 9:00am to 12:00pm) and the cost associated with provider and in the event the parent becomes ineligible for TANF assistance that the parent will have to take over the costs, the case plan should include the full cost for the service/provider and explanation of who pays and income guidelines for parent involved in case plan receiving TANF assistance. The frequency of services is also completely blank on my case plan - the case plan does not provide information associated with the frequency of services (EX: parenting classes can last up to 8 weeks and will require participation once a week from 3:00pm to 4:00pm every Monday), my case plan also establishes a clear basis of fraud, etc.,with a very expensive and unnecessary evaluation that was hand written and white out a previous task on the case plan without my consent by the department attorney and then filed with the court (fully consistent typed up case plans will eliminate this issue) etc.

My Court filed case plan is a PERFECT example of a extremely poorly drafted child welfare Case Plan that not only was drafted by the case management agency - agent to State of Florida DCF, then reviewed and approved by the DCF department on this case but it was also accepted by the Judge. (With observations, I assume personal connections prevail over law and poorly drafted case plans by the county who has Jurisdiction for this case I am involved in.) 

In order for a case plan to not be misleading and to be understood, it should include all relevant information, be explicitly detailed (sort of like a corporate lease with a tenant on an apartment) this needed change will assists with organizing the child welfare system since case plans are important contracts that belongs the subject child(ren) involved in such a sensitive case. Also, parents who have any sort of Federal recognized disability will also benefit even more from this much needed change. 

Changing laws with much details within the State of Florida Chapter 39 statutes concerning case plans and implementing policy changes will also help with audits. It will help with children and parents with better via reunification efforts and what's expected with much needed relevant details within the case plan contract. This will also help parents gain some trust within the child welfare system and the same with Federal agencies such as United States Department of Health & Human Services and The Department of Justice, this will also reduce appeals with the Appellate courts, etc. 

Furthermore, there needs to be a huge change with Jurisdiction location and appropriate Foster Care placement and the actual location from parent(s) involved in civil dependency cases going towards trial and also those parents involved in reunification.

Prove in point regarding the case I am currently involved in as I am the mother and my child's placement remains in Foster Care. My child's 2nd foster care placement was placed in a overcrowded foster home with half of the children being males while my child's alleged reason for removal was largely due to sexual abuse allegation, although, those allegations resulted with an unfounded result and was stricken from the record, the allegations were the valid reason for my child's removal and cause was found and therefore, my child should have never been placed in a foster home with several boys living in the home. In fact, there was also a safety concern between my daughter and a older foster boy in the home -- in which case, caused me to raise the issue in a court hearing myself before something serious would happen with this older boy bullying my much younger daughter. Of course, cover ups occurred in this process and my child was ultimately moved but was moved in a foster home much further away from the same address I lived in since day one of this relevant case making it that much harder towards effective reunification efforts with the substantial distance being a barrier for both my child and I.  

I should also state, no home study or safety plan was conducted on my home, in fact, no one has visited my home in relevance and the safety plan is fabricated and dishonest leading to unnecessary foster home placement without any services offered to me that would place my child with me when that legitimately should have occurred several month ago but has not. 

Much needed changes and laws should be made with Jurisdiction via transferring the Jurisdiction/Venue and child's foster care placement (if foster care is necessary) to the Courthouse in close proximity to the parent's home and/or employment and placing their child in a appropriate home in the Jurisdiction close to the parents home as well for those parent(s) involved in child welfare trial proceedings or reunification goal and case plan. Currently, my child's "unnecessary" foster care placement is 150 miles round trip from my home address and the Jurisdiction is 73 miles round trip from my home address and the case plan requires participation between my child and I both and it also promotes child-parent bond and encouraging parent's real involvement in their child's school, doctor's visits, birthdays, holidays, visits in general, foster caretakers in a reasonable close proximity to the biological parent(s) involved in trial or reunification via dependency aka child welfare case. 

Furthermore, for parents who are involved in trial proceedings or reunification proceedings and have any sort of disability - it creates a huge barrier and confusion for most parents whom have a disability (and without a disability) but, it increases barriers when a case plan is poorly drafted and vague and causes confusion and more increased workload on their case managers, causes delays in the courts, etc., as it also causes a huge barrier and against trial or reunification when a court has jurisdiction and/or a child is placed a unreasonable distance from their parent's home like it's happening in my case.   

I would be more then happy to use the child welfare case concerning my child (I am the only parent involved in the case) as a example of a much needed change within case plans and appropriate foster care placements and it's location including the Jurisdiction location from the parent(s) home of where the child is set to live in with their parent(s). 

I am hoping to establish new laws and procedures/polices requiring Dependency Case Plans to be fully typed up excluding signatures and properly drafted with very detailed relevant information including the parent's plea and detailed allegations to what the parent is consenting to in full. A properly and appropriate understand case plan will also be easy to reference to and reduce a lot of unnecessary confusion and headaches. 

I am hoping to establish new laws and procedures/policies requiring children placed in foster care to be placed according to their special needs without fail and allegations surrounding them whether the allegations are true or not; extra caution should be taken with placement of children and avoid what a placement foster care mistake with my daughter that could have ended a lot worse by that poor decision choice if I didn't personally raise the issue on the record in Court. Furthermore, children should be required to be placed in foster care only when it's absolutely necessary but when they are - they should be placed in a appropriate foster home in reasonable close proximity distance to their biological parents involved in trial and/or reunification.

A Jurisdiction or venue transfer should be required with the closest courthouse to the biological parent(s) towards reasonable efforts for the child-parent relationship to be maintained or be encouraged to grow and allow the opportunity to be a active parent without the distance barrier as they should be. You cannot get back time with your kids as time passes and they grow. That is an issue within my case that my child and I are currently experiencing. 

Please reach out to me if you are of authority to make decisions, changes within the laws, DCF policies/procedures if you'd like to review any part of relevant and valid issues pertaining to this case; for an example of necessary changes needed, please let me know. Thank you.