Is legal guardianship a viable option in foster care?

monkeykitty83

Most states and provinces don't consider it a viable option, and don't make provisions for it. In most places I know of, strangers really can't do that, as one could in a kinship placement.

Personally, I think it could be a viable option if changes in the law would provide the children of guardians equal-priority access to insurance and healthcare, equal rights of inheritance, and make guardianship agreements not necessarily immediately expire at age 18-21 with no provision or transition for the child-now-adult.

I think that children who are old enough to state an opinion should have the CHOICE of adoption or guardianship.

Some kids want to preserve their legal identity and sole parental relationship to their blood family, and permanent guardianship would be ideal for those kids, so they'd still have stability without legal adoption.

Other kids really want to be adopted, especially after spending a long time in foster care. They want a mom and dad. They want people to call family, not just guardians. They may not be able to feel truly secure without a legal parental relationship. (I've heard this from quite a number of long-term foster kids throughout the years-- they want actual adoptive parents.) For those kids, adoption would be the better option.

I don't think adoption versus guardianship has a one-size-fits-all answer. I think legal changes are needed to make guardianship a more viable possibility, and to give children raised by guardians equal legal rights as biological children of the parents and adoptees have.

But I think ultimately, the child should have the final say in whether to have adoptive parents or guardians. I think the best way to make the child's experience as healthy and positive as possible is to give the child a CHOICE, rather than adults dictating either way about adoption OR guardianship.

Gaia Raain II

At present, at least in my state, this is not a viable option for most kids. That's not to say it shouldn't be.

The benefits, beyond the child's identity remaining intact, is that their records are never sealed (which isn't a concern in Oregon anyway, but in most states it still is a concern), that they are not made to live a legal fiction (i.e. it is legally recognized that the people they are living with are not the people who created them), and that there would (I assume) be ongoing supervision of the family (thereby making abuse and neglect less likely). I would assume that if a family had legal guardianship, rather than just fostering, they would not be bouncing the child around, and I don't see any reason for the child to stop being a part of this family at 18. Guardianship would be as permanent as adoption, just without the OBC, identity, and rights lost to the child.

The reason this is not a viable option right now is simply because that's not the way it's done in our state (or in most states). Most people who want to care for children who need caring for, want that legal fiction in place. They don't actually lose anything (except maybe some privacy...but if it's in the best interests of the child, why would privacy stop someone from helping a child?), but the idea that the child isn't "theirs" makes it less palatable for many prospective parents. So, to your question of how many PAP's would consider this as an option, I'd have to say very few.

I think that if a large, vocal group of prospective parents were to bring this idea to the table, and keep it in the public eye for an extended period of time, this would eventually become the norm. Right now, in order to find suitable homes for the children who need them most, the state must cater to some of the desires of adopters, namely the legal fiction that they created the child. (I understand that this isn't the reason that legal fiction of adoptees having been birthed to AP's happened in the first place, but that is one of the reasons it is still in place today).

Oh, and I don't see any reason why kids can't call their guardians mom and dad, unless they choose not to.

Permanence is permanence, whether it's named "adoption" or "guardianship".

cruzgirlz3

We are related to the two kids in our care so our situation is a bit different. We have weighed our options if our kids' father loses his parental rights. In our case, we have decided that we would pursue legal guardianship. Our children's mother is deceased and we feel it would best honor her. We feel it also honors their connection to their father's family, the grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles all who are still involved in their lives AND with whom they share their last names. We feel our kids would need that connection and, our roles as aunt and uncle would not change, they would just have the security of knowing we have made a lifelong commitment to them. If they had no family, I could see pursuing adoption as a way of providing that security for them. But, generally, if a child already has a family in addition to their foster family, I lean toward guardianship as it does not erase those ties.

opedial

I would not do guardianship unless it was a child I knew previously. I would either be a foster parent, or a parent, not the halfway road. Too much emotion to be had if three years down the line mom comes back and challenges the guardianship.

Guardianship to me is like kinship adoption, where the mom won't give up the rights, but is not able to raise the child. This is where I think guardianship comes in.

But I know it is selfish to say, but if I am raising children as my children with all legal responsibilities, I want them to legally be my family.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: