More Grandparents Screwed Over By CPS/DCYF and The Court's

Grandparents saddened by custody battle
By HAYLEY COX
Herald Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, January 9, 2010 9:12 PM CST

Ninfa and Ubaldo Ochoa are devastated by the thought they may never see their grandson again.

Their grandson, Sean, who recently turned 3, lives with foster parents who want to adopt him. But the Ochoas believe he would be better off with family.

"It’s been so hard without him," Ninfa said. "Maybe there’ll be a miracle and we can get Sean home."

Child Protective Services removed Sean from his mother’s care after domestic violence within the family. Sean lived in a foster home for several months. After a home study returned with positive results, Sean came to live with his grandparents in Lockney in September 2007.

"When we remove a child, the first thing we look for is family members (for the child’s placement)," said CPS spokesperson Greg Cunningham. "If we can find an appropriate place (with family), that’s more likely to be a successful placement."

The parents voluntarily relinquished their rights to Sean in January 2008. Ninfa met with an attorney, Barbara Adams, who reportedly told her it would be fine for the mother to visit with Sean as long as Ninfa was there to supervise. In reality, though, the court had ordered that the parents were not to have any contact with Sean unless CPS was notified and present.

In February 2008, Ninfa and her grandson went to Wal-Mart in Canyon to shop for a wedding present. While there, she bumped into her daughter, Sean’s mother, who stopped to talk. A CPS caseworker must have seen them together, Ninfa said.

Later that day, Ninfa received a call from CPS asking her to come to the CPS office. When she did, they removed Sean from her care, placed him in foster care and approved him for adoption.

"He was looking very scared (when CPS took him)," Ninfa said. "This doesn’t seem to be in his best interest."

The Ochoas filed a petition within Floyd County requesting guardianship of Sean in March 2008. In August of that year, an associate judge denied the Ochoas’ request. The Ochoas appealed the decision, expecting to get a hearing within 30 days. But because of scheduling conflicts, the trial was delayed until December 2008.

"The law says on any type of termination case the court should hear those cases as soon as possible," said Lubbock attorney Jaime Lopez, who represents the Ochoas. "You don’t want the child stuck in foster care or leave them in limbo."

By the time the appeal was heard in court, Sean had been with the foster parents for almost a year. The foster parents sought adoption of Sean, arguing that it would be detrimental to remove him from their care after so long. A CPS caseworker also testified that Sean had bonded with his foster parents

"That delay (in hearings) is what gave them the benefit," Lopez said.

According to Lopez, the judge also didn’t want to put the Ochoas in the position of choosing between Sean and their daughter, since he can have no contact with his birth mother. The appellate judge issued a ruling in January 2009, agreeing that Sean should remain with the foster parents.
(Dot-We were told by the Director of DCYF in NH that we chose our dying daughter over our grandson. After receiving much warranted medical care she survived. We were then asked by the crude Director why she isn't dead."


"What did I do so wrong?" Ninfa said. "I don’t see how they can claim we’re dangerous. They (CPS and the courts) all make up their mind what they already have planned. They probably had the adoptive parents lined up."

Cunningham, the CPS spokesperson, said the agency does not make adoption decisions.

"It’s important to note that CPS does not make final decisions," Cunningham said. "We make investigations and recommendations, but in the end it’s the court’s responsibility to make that decision."

The Ochoas filed another appeal with the Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo, which issued its consenting opinion in October:

"Given the instances of Appellants’ failure to follow the safety plans adopted for the child, their inability to recognize the danger presented to the child by parental contact, as well as the prospective plans for the child, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision to not appoint Appellants as managing conservators or to order possession or access was arbitrary, unreasonable, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles."

The next step for the Ochoas would be to take the case to the Texas Supreme Court. Their attorney discouraged that, however, saying the supreme court would most likely not reverse the decision.

As a result, Ninfa and Ubaldo may never see their grandchild again.

"If (the foster parents) do adopt him, they’re calling him Jack and taking him to Florida," Ninfa said. "He has a brother that he’ll never meet."

(Contact Hayley Cox at hcox@plainviewdailyherald.com or 806-296-1352.)

http://www.myplainview.com/articles/2010/01/09/breaking_news/doc4b49429bac9c5683062075.txt