I am the Pediatrician who had to admit a child with pneumonia. Now the child was in foster care ,but the mother still had legal custody. So in effect, the mother had to give consent for us to admit the child even though she was barred from visitng him in the hospital. Does that make any sense? Anybody involved in the foster care system/ Department of Social services care to respond?
2006-12-13 16:36:37 · 6 answers · asked by pedidoc43 3 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
Although it does not make a lot of sense, this is how it works: The legal system has not yet terminated the rights of the biological mom, so she is still the guardian of the child until such time that a TPR or Termination of Parental Rights hearing occurs. As a result, there is no one else who has the right to make medical decisions for the child. This is the case even though she is not allowed visits because someday the child may go back to live with her and she will still be the child's mother.
2006-12-14 00:23:50 · answer #1 · answered by wisegirl1204 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I never understood it myself. My mom left us alone for days at a time to score drugs and get pregnant from guys she met in bars, but when social services came to take us away she fought for 4yrs before giving up custody. In that time she had three more kids. And they let her tie us up in the system for that long even though she had no job or home most of the time and never got off drugs or left the boyfriend who beat us. So for four years we suffered at the though having to go back to live with her. It was pretty much hell and ruined what would have been the beginning of the healing process. I don't really think the child best interest is served a lot of the time, it seems more like catering to the parent so they don't face the accusation of " the big bad government stole my kids while I was out getting high and pregnant"
2006-12-14 01:27:21 · answer #2 · answered by Sugarshots 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My parents are foster care workers, and if the child was takin away because of neglect or what not then the parent still have parental rights they are just a warden of the state they live in, but i dont see why she had to give consent, unless it was to be billed on her insurance and not to medicaid...i know that a boy that my parents cared for had been takin away because of abuse to him and his siblings,but he still got to go for visits...my dad picked them up from a visit the one time and the one boy had a droggy look to him, like he was drunk, upon returning home the boy fell to the floor and went into convulsions, it turns out the boy and his 2 brothers said later that their dad had hit him in the head with a hammer and has banging his head on the floor while at their weekend visit, but they didnt have to have a parents consent to admit him to the hospital, but then again a skull fracture is a lot different than pneumonia, it probably depends on which state you live in and the severity of the reason why the child was taken away, if it was abuse then she wouldnt be allowed to visit, also some cases state that the parent can not have any contact with the child unless at the supervised/unsupervised visit
2006-12-14 03:07:54 · answer #3 · answered by gabbi_gurl_2003 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the mother is still legal guardian of the child so even though she may have been barred from seeing her in the hospital, she may have set visitation times.
2006-12-14 00:44:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't make any sense but that's our fantastic legal system in the USA
2006-12-14 00:38:37 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is government for you! Sorry but that is how it is..
2006-12-14 03:02:40 · answer #6 · answered by MissChatea 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋