So, Cookie's mom relapsed... A. GAIN. She fell and she fell hard like she always does. Because both of mom's children have a partial custody agreement (Cookie with the former foster parents and the baby with his biological father), both kids went off to their other "parent" before CPS could remove them (they were investigating).

I apologize for the delay in posting this. Life has been insanity and we actually left from the court hearing to fly to another state for relocation nonsense.

We into the last hearing with the state looking to do a "monitored return" (where they return the child and "watch") of Cookie to her mom THE NEXT DAY after having had 2 overnight visits--both in the last week (after the foster mom raised heck when they told her they were returning Cookie and she hadn't had ANY longer and/or unsupervised visits). The CASA (advocate) was not "for" the return. Nor was Cookie's lawyer. Actually, neither was her mother: she knew she couldn't handle it with a 3-week old baby. She made these comments to the foster mother.

Our lawyer's plan was to ask for "possessory conservatorship"--which would give us court-ordered visitation and access to Cookie's medical, daycare, education, psychological, etc. (any confidential) records just like a parent's access so that we could monitor how she was being cared for (and call it in to CPS if need be). Pretty much, Cookie would go home and WE would wind up babysitting the mother. First, tough to do from 1500 miles away; and second, doubly tough to do with a woman who won't even look at us. The conservatorship would also mean that if Cookie was removed, she wouldn't go into foster care--she'd come immediately to us.

None of this was what we wanted. And furthermore, if she were removed again, we wanted her with her current foster parents--not us. They want to adopt her. We just wanted to make sure she was safe and not with mom without supervision. Ever.

We got our lawyer in a room with the foster parents and made everyone's intentions clear--showing him that we were all on the same page that Cookie should be adopted by them and that they were willing to be conservators. In fact, they had been waiting for Cookie to be in their home for 1 year (which would happen in 3 weeks) so that THEY could enter the battle to keep her from mom, too. With all of this, our lawyer went and negotiated that Cookie would be transitioned back to her mom for a full return on June 1st. The current foster parents would be possessory conservators (which doesn't expire--it requires an "order to modify" be filed with the court) and the mother would be restricted to living in the county they currently live in (which has a MUCH harsher CPS judge) or one of the contiguous counties as long as Cookie is with her and/or transitioning to her. If she wants to up and move out of state to live with her mom (or anywhere else) she has to hire an attorney and take it to court... and the conservators can object.

Everyone agreed, of course. Mom is happy that she won't be blindsided with a quick and untransitioned return--not to mention getting us out of it. CPS is thrilled because they're out of it. The foster parents are glad because it gives them legal standing in Cookie's care and she will go directly to them if something happens without foster care issues. We're happy because someone that the mother will actually interact with (but also won't get sucked into her crap) will have an eye on Cookie and regular visitation--and will allow us to see her as well.

I should note that this was not the usual judge. It was a new guy. We liked him and when our lawyer wasn't in the room and mom's lawyer tried to get him to hear the case anyway, the judge shut him down. ;)

Our lawyer said it wouldn't have been possible if we hadn't had intervenor status and been showing up because then nobody would've been there for CPS to "appease" with conservatorship. The foster parents wouldn't have had the legal standing yet to do anything on Cookie's behalf and if they got the monitored return, they'd have never GOT legal standing. So our involvement resulted in what we ultimately wanted: Cookie will never be with her mother without supervision/someone looking over her shoulder. At least there is now the added bonus of her maintaining a bond with the people she would automatically go to if mom screws up (which everyone knows is a matter of time).

*whew*

The story will continue until Cookie has permanency. Even if she goes back to mom, I will update you with what I get from the conservators through their visitation and review of the information.

Thanks to everyone that has helped and supported us in whatever way... thoughts, prayers, donations, etc. We really can't thank you enough.

As the prospect of a trial grows closer the fundraising continues. If you enjoy cooking, know someone who does, have a gift to get or need to do Mother's (or Father's) Day shopping... please check out our Pampered Chef fundraiser!

To place an order:
1. Go to http://www.pamperedchef.biz/hrdevantier
2. Click on the link at the upper right.
3. Enter The Cookie Cause in the first field as your host/organization name.
4. Click on the link to the cause event and then shop the online catalog.

You can also donate via PayPal to thecookiecause@yahoo.com

ANYthing helps--no matter how small!

Court in February didn't go very well for the birthmother. To be honest, I was shocked. Cookie's lawyer stood up with a LIST of issues and was FINALLY trying to hold the mother accountable for them. The fact that she didn't have housing, didn't have a job, refused to go to housing that would've allowed her to start extended/unsupervised visits with Cookie, and lack of transportation were all covered. The mother still had no job, no housing (she claimed to be moving in the day after court) and no transportation... 11 months into the case.

With all of this, CPS said that they intended to reunite Cookie with her mother for a "monitored return" (where they put Cookie back with mom and watch them closely) at the March hearing. Every human being in the room except the birthmother was stunned. The birthmother was due to give birth to another child within a week or two and said that she couldn't work for 6 weeks beyond that... putting even the POSSIBILITY of a job well past the next hearing.

So in four weeks, mom had to have housing and stay clean... oh, and have another baby and adjust to that... then take custody of Cookie again.

When they discussed her inability to provide transportation, the judge asked her if she had a license. She said "Not in this state". The new advocate noted that she didn't have a license in my state, either. Well, the mother's lawyer got nasty and said "Well she's HERE, not there". But the point was that the mother alluded to having a valid license elsewhere that she simply had to transfer over--and that was NOT the case. When asked how she would take Cookie to various appointments, she said that she had friends that would drive her and public transportation (which is close to non-existent there).

Finally, Cookie's lawyer said "Your honor, I know we can't take children from parents because the parents are poor, but..." Remarkably, the mother blamed the "attack" on the new advocate--who barely said a word, but called her out on the license.

Then the subject of how my family stood in the case came up. Apparently, we may not have the kind of standing we thought we did; but our lawyer is looking at what exactly was signed by the court. We have intervenor status, but there is question about whether we have an open case against the mother once CPS closes their case. Honestly, it doesn't change the fact that we can file a motion for a trial.

I know that the mother had the baby within the week after court. I also know that the housing she was supposed to enter STILL wasn't ready for her as she was in the hospital awaiting discharge. It's been a week and nobody has yet been able to confirm where she and the new baby are living.

Oddly, nobody asked for an extension of the case in February. But it was noted that if they reunited Cookie with mom in March--it would automatically extend the case.

Our lawyer spoke to mom's lawyer about negotiating with us. I know that her lawyer approached her about allowing us visits during some holidays and taking Cookie for summers. I'm pretty sure that all fell on deaf ears.

I've already booked the trip for March. It's the one hearing I know they're having.

Cookie is really doing well. And she looks wonderful. She continues to have therapy; but she's an incredibly sickly child. She's certainly a handful. And given her reaction to our youngest daughter (who was 15mo when Cookie visited) I can't imagine this mother being able to manage a newborn with Cookie.

That's all I can really say at the moment.

Of COURSE Cookie's mom is moving into housing tomorrow... the last business day before what would be the last court hearing. Still no job or transportation, but the housing she wanted.

I honestly have to wonder if anyone will mention that she could've been having unsupervised visits for the last 2 months if she would've agreed to go to a different housing situation that would allow her children rather than hold out for one with fewer restrictions. The one she could've had 2 months ago would've meant not seeing her boyfriend (not the father of the soon-to-be-born baby) for the first 30 days and not speaking to him more than 5 mins/day. That wasn't really worth moving forward with seeing her daughter more. With this housing, she can see him whenever she wants and has nobody to answer to.

Of course, the judge seemed very firm that he wanted unsupervised visitation to start before this hearing. I wonder if everyone's going to agree to extend the case. Because, ya know, mom needs more time and is "making progress". Ugh...

Mike and I are looking at selling the car to finance a trial. We'll wait until after the hearing to see if they're going to extend the case (and therefore push out a potential trial date) or not.

I leave on Monday for court on Tuesday and then return on Wednesday.

We'd appreciate being put on any prayer chains you can put us on in the hopes that Cookie's case will not be extended and she will have permanency and stability with the next hearing.

CASA is "Court Appointed Special Advocate" and they are often the most objective voice in court. Cookie's former CASA either retired from it or moved elsewhere back in December I think, but the new one came to meet with Cookie's current foster parents yesterday and she sounds very on top of things.

She hadn't yet read through all the notes left to her, but she said she's not a "burnt out" worker and will read through the whole thing. She's also going to talk to Cookie's mom face-to-face and she's likely to call us (the last one did, but it took her forever to get around to it).

So that's promising!

In the meantime, I need to make my flight arrangements for the Feb. court hearing... which is the day before my birthday.

We flew back to Texas yesterday and I came home early today. It was every bit as easy as the trip out. Cookie is high needs, but really--a very good child. She just has insecurities that might make someone who is not really committed to her very frustrated. Thankfully, we are. And her current foster parents are, too. They offered to come pick her up at the airport (a nearly 3 hour drive one-way) to save me from having to do it only to turn around and drive back (plus pay for a rental car).

It's a huge worry off of our shoulders that her foster parents missed her so much. We worried that with Cookie being so high needs that they might be relieved to "have their life back" so-to-speak... but they really weren't. I think if they had, we'd have worried about how their patience might be with her upon her return. It's a huge blessing. In fact, Cookie being gone from them really opened their eyes to a lot of ways that she impacts their lives and how accustomed they are to her being there. We had asked them from VERY early on if they would adopt her (because we were focused on keeping her out of mom's sole custody more than having her in our home) and they had said they truly were not in this to adopt. Of course, they hadn't had her very long, either. But I think at this point they are so well bonded to her that it's worth asking them again. They've been nothing but supportive, and they've said before that if we COULDN'T or WOULDN'T take her with us and she was going to go to a stranger--they WOULD keep her with them. But they were always very much "for" our having her with us. I think it's something I will ask them again at the next court date when I see them in person. They have always been about what's best for her, and we all know that disrupting her from a loving home that she IDENTIFIES as home is NOT what's best for her.

And on the way to the airport, Mike shared with me some of his thoughts. He said that it was kind of cute to hear her call us "mommy" and "daddy" all the time; but that it made him incredibly sad and hurt that those are interchangeable terms to her--that they don't hold a special and sacred place in her heart. They're just "what you call the person who takes care of you most". OMG, when he said that my eyes started swelling.

This beautiful child. This very beautiful little girl who has endured so much in her little life. We love her so much. We just want this to end.