What Is Braelynn's Adoption?

In Attorney General v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, 394 Mass. 624 (1985); Guardianship of Anthony, 402 Mass. 723 (1988), “The Court cannot exercise the function of the executive branch of the government by ordering the agency to fulfill certain obligations in a specific manner”. However, if an agency has failed to act in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory imperatives, the court may find that said agency has abused its discretion, as measured by the arbitrary or capricious test. Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602, 614 (1985). The most important and apparent DCF’s abuses of discretion in this case is by removing the child away from her best comfort place, where she has been nursed by her natural mother. DCF possessed the legal custody of the child in this case, and decided to entrust the child to be housed at the prison facility, where the child’s mother is also housed. DCF considered that, according to its rules, regulation and professional practices, it was its best decision, best placement and best interest of the child.

(c) If the child is actually residing with a grandparent in a stable relationship, whether the court has awarded custody or visitation to the grandparent or not,

A report was received on 06/05/2017 alleging that the mother (Hermionne) left Ashante (C-V 17) with a non-relative since 02/2017 without any legal rights. According to the report, the mother refuses to take her child back home and will not engage with Ms. Aarons (caretaker) to provide legal documentation for the child to be enroll in school and taken to a Primary Care Physician. Ashante has not been is school for the past 4 months and are unable to enroll in school without paperwork. According to the report, Ashante self mutilates her arms, and the mother refuses to get counseling. The report indicates Ashante was to follow-up with a Cardiologist for a chest pain and the mother refuses to take her to the doctor.

Client’s parents were never married and ended their relationship when her mother was still pregnant with her. The client has 6 siblings. She has not had contact with her father and does not know where he is located. Her mother has refused to discuss him with her. Her mother has had several different live-in boyfriends. Client and her siblings have been in foster care on

The Racine’s were granted adoption of Leticia at trial, only to lose her in the Court of Appeal, wherein she became a ward of the Court. At this time, the Racine’s were given custody of Leticia with the notion that Mrs. Woods would thus apply for custody or access. The Racine’s appealed to the Supreme Court and Mrs. Woods cross-appealed. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Racine’s, which resulted in the reinstatement of the adoption order.

Mr. Simpson, a minor resident of California, is seeking to inherit from the estate of Mrs. Sweeney, decedent and resident of California at time of death, under the doctrine of equitable adoption. Mrs. Sweeney is the widow of Sam Sweeney (hereinafter called “Mr. Sweeney”), and the mother of Hannah Sweeney (hereinafter referred to as “Hannah”), the biological daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sweeney (hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Sweeney’s”). Simpson interview, pg 3. In 2008, the Sweeney’s obtained formal custody of Mr. Simpson from the San Diego, Superior Court in California. Id. at 7. Mr. Simpson was eight at the time of obtaining custody. Id. at 4. The custody agreement awarded sole custody of Mr. Simpson to the Sweeney’s. During the time Mr. Sweeney was alive, Mrs. Sweeney attempted to talk Mr. Sweeney into formal adoption of Mr. Sweeney numerous time to no avail. Id. at 4. Mr. Sweeney did not believe in formal adoption of children, but nevertheless he continued to care for Mr. Simpson as he was his own child. Id. Mrs. Sweeney also spoke with an attorney about adoption while Mr. Sweeney was still alive. Id. at 5. During this time the Sweeney’s fed, clothed, and provided a home for Mr. Simpson without the financial support of others. Id. at 6. Mr. Simpson also went on vacations and took part in events, such as family pictures, that would form a familial relationship, and Mrs. Sweeney wore a “mothers ring” with Hannah’s and Mr.

29) Plaintiff was order to be ready to come to work with 24 hour notice. This gave the Defendant no opportunity to see the Plaintiffs minor child. Children need fathers.

Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602. This is not the situation in the present case. There is no evidence that Stephanie has been diagnosed with any emotional or behavioral issues, which would warrant DCF’s removal of Stephanie from her mother’s care, and placing her into an alternative placement. Id. It is a well-known presumption that a child’s interests are generally best served if the child is able to remain with his or her natural parents. Petition of the Department of Public Welfare to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 421 N.E. 2d 28

This claim allowed the agency to seize the mother’s baby when she gave birth prior to the initial case being disposed of, despite there being no actual evidence that she would neglect the baby. Throughout the entirety of dealing with the agency I had been helping the mother through the emotional turmoil. My own involvement led to emotions from years before rekindling between the mother and myself, and leaving us believing that the baby which was removed may have been mine. We went through everything together as if I were the father, until paternity testing revealed that I was not. Despite learning of the paternity results; I was already emotionally bonded to both the mother and the child. Because of the extremely emotional state of things, it took quite some time before we returned to not being intimate & ultimately we did conceive our own child before reaching that point. During the time they had her second child in custody, the mother lost the apartment we had gotten her through State Assistance because “there was no children in the home”. The loss of her apartment gave the agency the final strike to use against her in court, and they petitioned the court for Termination of Parental Rights. It was this course of events that prompted

A mandate of the AFSA is that juvenile court judges terminate parental rights of biological parents who fail to reunify with their children. The law also states that parental rights should be terminated for parents whose children are in foster care for fifteen months within the last twenty-two months. According to the ASFA act once parental rights are terminated, children can longer return home to their biological parents and the parents are no longer entitled to rights meaning they no longer carry rights to the child. The juvenile court judge now will act as the parent of the children until they are placed up for adoption. ASFA gives state courts the option to allow juvenile court judges not to terminate parental rights in certain circumstances. One circumstance occurs when a child is in kinship care home placement. Juvenile courts usually do not terminate parental rights when children have long-term placement with relatives. Another situation would be when parental rights cannot be terminated is when the existing evidence that termination of parental rights are not in the best interest of the child. The determination of compelling evidence is at the discretion of the juvenile court judge. Last when a child welfare agency fails to provide services to the families for the safe return of the child to his/her biological

Ms. Henderson notes that during the assessment process Aunika was placed with her for an evening, but was then removed and placed into foster care. She reports being confused by this decision, as her nephew, the son of her fiancé, was able to stay in the placement at her home with her and his biological father, Glenn Stillmen. I discussed with Ms. Henderson the difference between placing a child with a legal parent, which I clarified with her, Mr. Stillman is, and placing a child with a relative, which would be what the placement between she and Aunika, would be. I clarified further, that with a relative placement there are certain certification requirements that must be reached in order for the child to reside there, while they are a ward of the courts and DHS Child Welfare is charged with their safety. She seemed to understand this and asserted that she would like to be a placement option for Aunika and that she would like information regarding doing this. At this time I

Procedural History: Plaintiff filed for divorce on January 2013 and sue for custody or visitation right to the child in Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The Supreme Court determined without a hearing that the plaintiff lack standing because she was not the biological or adoptive parent of the child and gave sole custody to the defendant. The Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division.

The case I found is Baltimore v. Ill. Dep’t of Child & Fam. Serv., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31644 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2011). In this case, Baltimore had custody of his three minor children. Id. at 2. On March 4, 2009, Baltimore claims that DCFS took his children from school and put them in protective custody without notifying him. Id. DCFS took the children because the Plaintiff’s fiancée was previously in an abusive relationship, which required an investigation. Id. The Plaintiff believe the allegations were false, but DCFS found a complaint against the Plaintiff for “improper touching.” Id. at 3. After the children were taken, the Plaintiff visited them in foster care and got a layer to fight to get his children back. Id. Plaintiff got full custody rights on May 21, 2009. Id. The Plaintiff wants “relief that DCFS cannot put his children in protective custody again without conducting a due process hearing or having a good faith belief that the children are in danger of abuse or neglect. Id. Defendants want to dismiss the claims made by the Plaintiff. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff must give reasons as to why he believes DCFS may contact him in the future. Id. at 12. The Court found that the Plaintiff lacked reason for standing and dismissed the Federal claims by Plaintiff against the Defendants. Id. at 14. Defendants argue that since the Federal claims are dismissed the State claims should be too. Id. The

I, Dexter Leak, the father of Dereon Landrum Leak would like to ask the court for full custody of my son. I have noticed an overall decline in his quality of life and well-being; while in my care he has a productive and active lifestyle he gets the love, attention, and consistency that’s needed. At this time, my son’s future and well-being is of the up most importance for my wife and I. Dereon has purpose within our family he likes to feel included, he enjoys the simple things like bonding, watching movies, playing with his siblings, family outings, vacations, and helping around the house whether it’s cooking cleaning or yard work. Family is very important to Dereon; he has a younger brother through Jazzmine that he loves and cares for. I understand

     According to many the custody of a child should be determined with the best interest of the child in mind. However, it is not easy for a