Adoption and Safe Families Act Tears Family Apart
by Laurie Frisch

Clayton, MO (PRWEB) October 23, 2004 -- In 1999, Sonja De Vivo’s parental rights to her daughter Alexandra were terminated.

The state of Missouri after finding no fault with the Mother severed all contact between her youngest 3 year old daughter Alexandra and the rest of the family.
Alexandra's 7 year old brother and 15 year old sister were still allowed to live with their Mother. (S.D.)

De Vivo said, “Alexandra was removed from the custody of my ex-husband after he admitted to ‘unspeakable acts’ ”. Despite her mother’s pleas, Alexandra was not returned to her care but kept in foster care.

Why was Alexandra not given to her mother after being removed from her father’s care? “The father openly admitted to his wrongful and inappropriate acts as the courts continued to leave her in his care, even after the courts were informed by the detectives of having evidence of the father fabricating allegations only to harass the mother. The report also revealed the inapropriate acts committed towards the child, which would be the ultimate reasoning used to kidnap her into the system after leaving her in his care and custody for months at a time by giving him a child order of protection which prohibited the mother from protecting her daughter. While the courts knew of the fathers mental state, they continued to allow him to make false hot line calls on a daily basis, allowing him more freedom to hold on to her. He knew just how to do it, make the calls and then go immediately afterwards and get a restraining order. The calls were made sometimes one right after another with different and multiple claims of wrongdoing that were fabricated. The false allegations were evaluated as being delusional and outlandish by the court appointed psychologist, still the courts refused to release her from the system, as they continued to use her for the means of collecting federal funds. (S.D.)

De Vivo agreed to every requirement placed on her, hoping to get her daughter back. As time dragged on, she recounts: “It surprised me how often cancellations were made. Both attorneys from both sides canceled and re scheduled, the judge canceled and re scheduled, the guardian ad litem (GAL) canceled and re scheduled. While in the end, the time law would be used to terminate.(S.D.) Everybody participated in recommending adoption, not one person stood up for what was right. I have two older children and they didn't seem to be at all concerned about leaving them in my care. I didn't know then about the time law that after 15 months in the system the parents rights may be terminated and the child adopted.

The 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act allows states to terminate parental rights and find an adoptive family if a child has been in foster care for 15 months or longer.

According to De Vivo: I owned my own house when all of this started. But the court appointed guardian ad litems both demanded pay, and even though I made the payments within the time frame requested, following receipt of payment and unknown to me they both had liens on my house. In the end, they would say, "Mother lacked adequate housing" in order to terminate my rights. The Judge placed so many demands on me, that I lost jobs and pay. With the resulting drop in finances, along with the financial demand to satisfy the Guardian Ad Litem's, I was forced into selling my house that I owned for seven years. They caused the children to loose their very first home. As they took the money that I would use to pay the mortgage, the Guardians would make false claims of working on behalf of the children's best interest, while placing liens on the home that the children lived in. (S.D.)

Thank you for helping me battle the adoption and safe families act 1 2 3 4 5

I had completed all counseling and even went beyond the requirement. My counselor at the time told me that I was finished and really did not need to keep coming back and that she would do a telephone counsel with me if I wanted to. Later in the court room the GAL kept pressuring the counselor to say that I was not finished. She kept demanding and saying things to the effect that because Ms. De Vivo called you on the phone that she was not showing up for her counseling, correct? Then she would get the counselor to say yes for the record and using that as a means to say I was not finished.

They all knew what questions would be asked in court and each individual had set up situations to create a story for their testimony. No one prepared me for what would happen and the questions they would ask in court.

The statement that I was unable to set age-appropriate boundaries and meet the behavioral and emotional needs of my daughter was made based on testimony by the social worker who defined her interpretation of that statement while under oath, that can be read from the transcripts that I have in my possession, that she didn't believe I knew my daughter, by then 5 years old, was to begin kindergarten. Of course I know what age a child goes to kindergarten, they knew I had already placed my other two children in grade school and one of them in high school and then college. ” The Director of Social Services fully supported this outlandish reasoning for terminating my rights, by submitting a letter indicating that this was perfectly O.K. by her, and that this was the ultimate reason why the Judge terminated my rights. This is a letter I also have in my possession. ( S.D.)

“After it was all over, the termination papers stated that there was no evidence that the mother has abused any child that she has in her custody or the child in the courts custody, there was no evidence of drug abuse, there is no evidence that any other person did anything wrong that the mother knew about or should have know about. They proved only one thing I had actually done wrong: One late child support payment for the foster care. But all the money had been paid in full.”

“I was later told that $4000 went to the governors pool treasury when my daughter was adopted.”

The $4000 De Vivo is referring to is a federal incentive provided to get children adopted out of foster care. The 1997 Adoptions and Safe Families Act provides a $4,000 bonus for each child placed in an adoptive home, and an additional $2,000 for a "special needs” child. On Dec. 2, 2003 President Bush signed legislation increasing the bonus by $4,000 for children adopted at age 9 or older.
Said De Vivo: “I’m not sure the bonus was their only incentive. They were making money off her anyway while she was in foster care.”

Adoptions have increased 57% since passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. In the year prior to ASFA, 31,000 children were adopted. In fiscal year 2000, more than 45,500 children were adopted. Many states had instituted reforms to increase expediting children into permanent placements even before the federal statute. In fact, in the five years between 1995 and 2000, adoptions increased 89%, averaging an 8-12% increase per year. In 1999 during the period that all states were beginning to implement ASFA reforms, the number of adoptions increased 29%.

“When I told the Judge that the guardian placed a lien on my house, I remember looking at one of the guardians and her beginning to laugh about it. A sheriff that sits in the back of the court room in a corner raised a newspaper above his face while he was uncontrollably snickering and laughing. My impression was that he was so amused by how ridiculous the testimonies of the social worker and the CASA Worker were. The social worker committed perjury under oath while the Judge clipped his nails and allowed her to continue on to terminate my rights. She lied about and admitted lying about ‘who told her what to do’ but she did say that person is in Jefferson City. It may be a coincidence, but Jefferson City is where our governor is.”

De Vivo has tried contacting the press repeatedly in the years since. She says: “This is the least talked about subject in the news. I hear the head of social services once in a while on the radio present their side of the story but do you ever hear a mother on there, or a parent?”

When De Vivo attempted to contact the governor her call was forwarded to social services.

It has long been known that separation from family has ill-effects on children.

In “Uphold Rights of Parent and Child” published in The Child, Vol 13, No. 2, August 1948, Inez M. Baker (Parish Supervisor, Children’s Division, Orleans Parish Department of Public Welfare, Louisiana) wrote this: “Except in the rarest cases of physical danger we might go so far as to say that no home is better than (a child’s) own. It is our responsibility to help him use it….We know what separation means to children; that it is akin to death and carries with it anger , disillusionment, despair and a deep sense of ‘badness’ ”.

The effect on children separated from adopted-out siblings is rarely publicized. De Vivo recounts: “I think it is even worse for the kids than for the adults. My son Jacob, a close sibling to his youngest sister, often spoke of how he was going to take care of his sister when she started kindergarten, but they never returned her. I think he suffered deeply. He sat on the couch and cried about it, now I think its just grown into a silent anger that he holds within. He does talk about it, but the only thing he will really say is ‘they lied’ the courts made stories up. He still asks ‘Mom are you going back to court and are the courts going to give her back?’ All I can say is I am trying.”

The internet is full of information and books on how to handle social services, family rights and children’s rights contacts in various states, what to do when Child Protective Services comes to your door, how to fight false allegations and restraining orders, how to find the right lawyer or defend yourself, how to prepare children in advance for their own protection.

Association with one’s family is a human right. Being educated about the realities of the “system” might help you to retain that right.

Note: The names of the children have been changed for their protection.

Note about the writer, Laurie Frisch who did a wonderful job writing this case story.

Just an extra note to her readers, that since the writer Laurie Frisch first wrote the details of this story, new information may have surfaced since the last writing date.

The Mother has added new information to some parts of the story, usually a sentence or two on some paragraphs.

The Mother wrote her initials following anything that she may have added that would be an addition to the paragraph that was written by Laurie Frisch.