Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Frustrating meeting this afternoon
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dreamer" data-source="post: 20309" data-attributes="member: 1697"><p>I am not sure I understand these things. </p><p>you said</p><p>"At that point, wm's court appointed guardian ad litem (it's a law, though unnecessary in our case), asked me what the time frame was for wm's reunification."</p><p>So, the court appoints a guardian ad litem? You do not hire one or choose one? Do kt and wm have the same one or different ones? What is the role of a GAL? Why would one not be necessary? But, it is a law that he have one? (is that correct?) </p><p></p><p>Then- "wm's guardian insisted that there must be a reunification plan. The court insisted on it. Again, mental health case manager answered & said, in our case, things were flexible. Guardian continued to insist that I answer with a definitive time line"</p><p></p><p>So, is it the court insisting on a definitive time line? The GAL is just the messenger? </p><p></p><p>and "He also explained that guardian hadn't read all the paperwork on kt & wm; the complexity of the situation. That her mind was set as this is the law. Children are not to linger in foster care"</p><p></p><p>I understand that the GAL should read the entire file, but this stuff right here, it sounds clear.....if this is the law....The GAL did not create the law. The GAL does not need to read the files to say this is in violation of the laws. </p><p>If you set a timeline is it then set in stone and unchangeable no matter if goals are reached, and conditions for reunification met or not? </p><p>Sounds to me like the GAL is wanting to know that um....the treatment plan is working towards some ultimate goal eventually for reunification? It is one thing to have a plan and goals and they do not come to fruition, but it is another thing if nothing at all is being done and no goal in place at all. </p><p>To me it sounds like the GAL is taking his (her) role seriously in trying to make sure the law is followed, and that what is best for WM is done, which I thought thats what a GAL was for? Not what is best for anyone else, but for wm. Sure having a GAL for wm might throw a wrench into the works, but....sounds like the GAL is taking the role seriously. </p><p>Couldn't a tentaive timeline be drawn up, with goals to work towards. With conditions to be met before reunification can take place? Would that satisfy the technicalities of the law and the GAL and the court?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dreamer, post: 20309, member: 1697"] I am not sure I understand these things. you said "At that point, wm's court appointed guardian ad litem (it's a law, though unnecessary in our case), asked me what the time frame was for wm's reunification." So, the court appoints a guardian ad litem? You do not hire one or choose one? Do kt and wm have the same one or different ones? What is the role of a GAL? Why would one not be necessary? But, it is a law that he have one? (is that correct?) Then- "wm's guardian insisted that there must be a reunification plan. The court insisted on it. Again, mental health case manager answered & said, in our case, things were flexible. Guardian continued to insist that I answer with a definitive time line" So, is it the court insisting on a definitive time line? The GAL is just the messenger? and "He also explained that guardian hadn't read all the paperwork on kt & wm; the complexity of the situation. That her mind was set as this is the law. Children are not to linger in foster care" I understand that the GAL should read the entire file, but this stuff right here, it sounds clear.....if this is the law....The GAL did not create the law. The GAL does not need to read the files to say this is in violation of the laws. If you set a timeline is it then set in stone and unchangeable no matter if goals are reached, and conditions for reunification met or not? Sounds to me like the GAL is wanting to know that um....the treatment plan is working towards some ultimate goal eventually for reunification? It is one thing to have a plan and goals and they do not come to fruition, but it is another thing if nothing at all is being done and no goal in place at all. To me it sounds like the GAL is taking his (her) role seriously in trying to make sure the law is followed, and that what is best for WM is done, which I thought thats what a GAL was for? Not what is best for anyone else, but for wm. Sure having a GAL for wm might throw a wrench into the works, but....sounds like the GAL is taking the role seriously. Couldn't a tentaive timeline be drawn up, with goals to work towards. With conditions to be met before reunification can take place? Would that satisfy the technicalities of the law and the GAL and the court? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Frustrating meeting this afternoon
Top