You are correct. However, if you stabilize children you can use best interest of children against mother. You can also seek a guadian ad lidem to protect children' s rights if mother challenges gurdianship.

A lot depends on the judge, as well.

If Pinky wanted her kids back now, after nine years, I doubt she'd have a chance no matter how clean she was.

But you never know - I shared a story about a foster couple in our church who raised a child since his birth and helped him overcome some serious medical conditions. The bio-mom wanted him back and the judge actually said she could have him IF she brought him to live with her in a rehab!!!!

So best interests of the child aren't always taken into consideration. I have a feeling that the fosters will get him back as well. Some of these judges have oatmeal for brains.

In my opinion none of the bios are fit, and the odds are they'll never get their lives together enough to be fit. Either they have longstanding mental issues or they're addicts. And if they're addicts, and if they didn't catch it early on and go into recovery, chances are they will continue in their addiction until they die or experience some kind of epiphany later in life. But by that time, their kids will have been well-established with their grandparents or foster parents and could be old enough to refuse to leave.

And when they are completely messed up from going back & forth, the judge will not take any responsibility either. Poor kids, not to mention the upheavel in the lives of those taking the kids, bonding with them, & then watching them being ripped away & put back into chaos & danger.

They act as if we WANT to spend the rest of our retirement years raising someone else's kids. JEEZE! We'd much rather be spoiling the little devils to death, then taking off for a cruise or something.

Don't they see that when we say we NEED to raise those kids that there has to be a darn good reason?

It's always up to the judge, but the judge acts on the lawyers ability to present the case for the best interest of the child. Lawyers don't like custody cases because they are usually long and most people can't afford to pay for their time. The courts are changing and grandparents are gaining respect but it takes time. In the case of the foster parents, it may seem obvious that the best interest of the child is to be with foster parents but foster parents agree to be temporary caregivers and do not have parental rights. Under some circumstances the child is qualified for adoption and if family does not want to adopt, the foster parents can. That was the basis for the Fostering Connections Act. As I have noted previously, the Constitution, the basis of our legal system, does not state anywhere that parents have the rights, but traditionally, the courts have upheld the parents rights. It is only the recent past in which the drug culture grew that we have seen the question of parental rights take precedence. Bottom line is that your lawyer must prove to the judge what is in the best interest of the child. In this case, the children are thriving under gm care and the mother is showing little interest. That will weigh heavily on the court. We were warned there was absolutely no chance we could get custody of our grandson but the bio father and his wife pursued on a path of destruction and eventually the court did remove gs from their care and gave custody to us. We lived for the next year in fear of them challenging our custody but instead gave up his rights to everyone's surprise. We did hire an aggressive lawyer who had a staff researching laws in our favor and we followed the judges orders to a T.

We are also in Mass. Bios were under the gun to provide clean screens to DCF (that day!) and so they asked us to go in for guardianship. We expected the usual 90 day thing. We walked out surprised at age 18! It's been almost 6 months, and yes, I do live in fear of her going back. I keep a log and keep in touch with DCF, even though we were granted guardianship outside of DCF. DCF was happy to pass of to us, as they knew we were competent, and would not be a burden on them. BTW, we were treated really wonderfully by DCF, and they surely acted in best interest of both girls. Let me add that we have had Dana Farber and Childrens Hospital Boston as support too, so I believe that held a lot of weight with DCF's quick decision. Also, they had 3 prior 51As against mother in the past. I have gotten and keep copies of all records, just in case we are faced with another judge. But who knows?

SaraBT wrote "They act as if we WANT to spend the rest of our retirement years raising someone else's kids. JEEZE! We'd much rather be spoiling the little devils to death, then taking off for a cruise or something.

Don't they see that when we say we NEED to raise those kids that there has to be a darn good reason?"

You said it all, SaraBT.

I can't even imagine it anymore.......having grandchildren to dote on & then give them back to responsible, loving, sober parents, & then drive on home with not one worry about having left them there...........nope, can't even picture it!!! Makes me sad, too, & makes me question myself about where I went wrong with the 1st generation & keeps me praying things will go better with round 2!!!!

Sometimes I feel so much guilt about raising my son - What did I do? But it's not all about me. He makes a choice every time he uses. That is not on me. And, does anyone else think that here is our second chance to do it right? Keep reminding myself, I didnt do it wrong the first time.

Drugs alter tha brain. No one is a perfect parent. I think media, sports figures and the entertainment business created world that enticed selfishness and drug abuse. You do the best you csn and pray they turn out alright.