Concern over separating siblings

High Court Removes 4 kids from foster home:
Summit judge's decision trumped. Children likely to be placed for adoption.
Phil Trexler, Akron Beacon Journal, September 7, 2006, pg B1

Four children will be uprooted from their foster home and likely placed for adoption after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a Summit County judge should not have placed them indefinitely in foster care.

In a 5-2 ruling, the Supreme Court found that a judge didn't have the authority to place the children with a foster parent without the approval of the county Children Services Board.

The ruling overturned an Ohio 9th District Court of Appeals decision, which had allowed the children to stay at the home without being adopted. CSB attorneys had appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. "

"This is a horrible decision, not just for these kids, it's horrible for kids across the state," said Akron attorney Charles Altwies, who represented the children. "In this case, the kids will be broken up as a family and put in the wind forever and will probably never see each other again. This was a situation where a judge heard the case and made a decision based on what he believed was in the best interest of the children, not the best interest of the state or the CSB. And the Supreme Court said he couldn't do it."

Attorneys for the children and their natural father wanted the children to remain together with a foster mother. They feared an adoption would likely separate the siblings.

In 2005, visiting Juvenile Court Judge K. William Bailey agreed and placed them with the foster mother in western Cuyahoga County.

CSB officials wanted custody in order to have the children placed for adoption.

The foster mother, identified in court papers as a woman in her late 50s, did not want to adopt the children because of her age.

The four children, who range in age from 8 to 13, were removed from their home in the spring of 2003 and placed with CSB.

According to court papers, their parents were drug addicted, their home was without utilities and they had very little food to eat. The children had been living with the foster parent for about 2 1/2 years.

"This is a great decision for children because no longer will they be in a 'foster care drift' for extended periods of time. Instead, they will get into a permanent home as soon as possible," said Philip Bogdanoff, an assistant county prosecutor who argued CSB's case before the Supreme Court.

In their ruling, the Supreme Court cited a 1988 state law designed to protect children from drifting, or being moved indefinitely between foster families.

" . . . Although life with the foster mother in this case appears to be a loving and enriching one, the relationship lacks the permanency envisioned by the legislature," Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton wrote.

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer was joined by Justice Alice Robie Resnick in dissenting. The justices found that part of Ohio law allows a judge to place a child without a request from child service agencies.

"When a child is originally adjudicated abused, dependent or neglected . . . a children services agency is often in the best position to determine whether a permanent placement is necessary. By the time modifications or terminations of initial orders are necessary . . . (a judge) is in the best position to determine whether a permanent placement is in the best interests of the child."