Cookie passes a hearing test requested by the state. Mother is flagged as a flight risk (1/16) due to comments she made about getting the baby a passport to go to the country the birthfather lives in. CPS also advises the grandmother that if she lived with Cookie’s mother and Cookie was returned to the mother, that the grandmother would be asked to leave based on her CPS case history (1/16). CPS caseworker’s supervisor returns from maternity leave (from late August through approx. 1/18).

Mother also tells me not to allow her aunt to visit with the baby without going through the mother vs. the statement she made in Nov. about allowing her to visit with the baby, but not during her only 2-hour visit (due to the stress between them). CPS says that we can continue to visit with the mother's aunt as a means of maintaining family connection because the mother is engaging in control issues. The mother doesn't let this issue go all month. We add video to the website so the mother can see Cookie laughing. Cookie is sleeping 12 hours/night at this point (she is 5 months old) and through the intermittent drug backlash episodes that had continued through the last month.

Cookie starts physical therapy through Early Intervention--1 hour/week (plus we work with her the rest of the week). Her left arm has a "frozen shoulder" making it worse than the right arm, but after 2 weeks of regular working with her she is moving the left arm (thrashing it). Cookie is seen by an orthopedist to rule out hip dysplasia as her legs don't appear to line up properly (she is cleared). Dr. warns to watch her left leg since neurological damage can affect the entire side of the body and her left arm is clearly more affected than her right one. He sees no physical interference in her shoulders and concurs that her problems are neurological. Cookie is now squawking at our son to get his attention and they are clearly bonded. I contact the Medicaid HMO for approval for a neurodevelopmental evaluation per the CPS nurse’s request (it is approved and scheduled for 4/4).

Mother is preparing for Cookie's return home "soon" buying diapers, clothing, nursery bedding, etc. Caseworker warns that is it possible that the baby could be returned by late March (1/16). CPS attempts to coordinate Early Intervention therapy sessions at the CPS office with both myself and the mother attending in preparation for potential return home. Mother is living somewhere in-county while she and her mother look for an in-county place to live together. In the meantime, local service provider starts supervising visits as some sort of therapeutic/parenting program but they are not happening at the mother's place of residence because the mother claims it is too small for visits.

I am notified of court hearing on 1/30 and advise CPS caseworker’s supervisor that I have no concerns beyond what I assume CPS and the baby’s Guardian ad Litem are not already addressing and therefore see no need to attend or send letter.

In late December there was a team meeting that I attended. I knew I'd meet Cookie's mother, and that's partially WHY I went. It was uncomfortable at first because they explained to her (for the first time) what concurrent planning was; and that Matt & I adopting Cookie was her concurrent plan. See, the way it works is that the state works the plan, and simultaneously works a backup plan. We are Cookie's backup plan. Cookie's mother had NO CLUE that this was the situation; and suddenly I wasn't the woman e-mailing her updates of her daughter in hopes of keeping them close--I was someone with an interest in keeping her child. Ick.

After the meeting I told her how bad I felt that she didn't know that, and I reassured her that we weren't out to keep her baby--that we'd never give her so much info and pictures if we were. She hugged me and seemed relieved. But I got an e-mail just a few days ago where she admitted that when she didn't hear back about the baby's hearing test that she momentarily thought that I was trying to keep the baby from her. She said it in the context of knowing how ridiculous it was, but then why say that?

As it is, during the meeting they discussed that every court date is a decision about where the baby will be. The mother took that and ran with it. They have court again on Jan. 30th and she has gone out and bought all kinds of stuff in preparation for the baby coming home--including diapers and wipes. No crib, but all kinds of other things. At the meeting she was told that she couldn't have custody of the baby if she lived with her mother. There was a substantiated claim of abuse against the mother (abuse toward's Cookie's mother, actually) that prevented her from getting custody when Cookie's mother couldn't have it. Now, Cookie's mother claims that neither she nor her mother have any clue what that claim is about. The team told her that her mother should then appeal to have the claim removed; and NOT to move in with her mother until it was removed. Meanwhile, the two have just rented a home to live in.

Cookie's mother is also trying to get her Social Security number. I gave her the head's up that she couldn't claim Cookie on her returns and she says that she knows. Apparently (through the grapevine) she is trying to get a passport to take the baby to central america where the birthfather is. So, he left in June, baby was born in August and he has made no contact with the birthmother, her family or the state. In one e-mail, the mother made reference to him coming back once the baby was back with her--so I wondered if that was her motivation for getting custody. Now I seriously wonder--since she's had no contact with him since. So she's going to take the baby there and say "LOOK! She's here and she's with me!"?? Insanity.

Then there's the situation with the mother's aunt. The mother cut the aunt out of mom's visitation with the baby. At the time, she told the caseworker (or so the cw told me) that she didn't mind the aunt seeing the baby, but she didn't want to give up any of HER time with the baby (which is only 2 hours/week) and certainly didn't need the tension between the two of them around the baby. These were absolutely respectable reasons. Well, after our meeting she found out that I visited with the aunt the day before. The aunt had a Christmas gift for Cookie. That was Dec. 27th and it's still eating at her something fierce. Yesterday's e-mail even asked how often I see the aunt and for how long. This is after telling me via e-mail that if the aunt wanted info about her daughter, she could come to the mother. I gently reminded the mother that SHE cut the aunt out--so if I were her aunt, I would be waiting for the mother to come to me. The mother conveniently chose not to respond to this. Of course, I have conveniently chose not to respond to her subsequent statements about the aunt; and have asked the caseworker if I HAVE to cut her off. The caseworker doesn't seem to think so, but we'll see.

The best is that the state only plans to follow-up on the mother for 3-4 months after she has custody. That little tidbit sent me over the edge. I typed everything up and e-mailed it to the baby's lawyer's office. The investigator called me within the hour and set up an appointment to come out on Wednesday. Honestly, all I really want is for the state to follow the mother for a full year. If they'll do that, I won't make a stink. Especially if that includes drug testing. The mother doesn't realize that she can't leave the country while the state still has supervision of her. As it is, I think that will make her nuts for 3-4 months. If it's a year that she can't go hunting for the birthfather, I think she will actually hand the baby back over.

Meanwhile, the physical therapist was here yesterday and said that Cookie definitely has hypertonia. I cried. I also wrote the whole thing up for mom, the caseworker and the state nurse. And I included the information that this is damage to the baby's central nervous system. The nurse wants a neurodevelopmental evaluation done on the baby and I already have the names from the Medicaid HMO for the local developmental neurologists. I didn't forward THAT info to the mother. But I wonder if she will realize that this COULD be a lifelong issue, or if she will, as usual, look at it like everything is going to be fine--just give her that baby so she can use her to chase down the birthfather.

Given that the baby has some physical markers for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome/Effect and now the news that she has hypertonia, I asked Matt what we would do if she were seriously disabled? If we would still want to adopt her? I seriously wondered if Matt would want to keep her (assuming it goes that route). I wondered if the problems with Graham would have Matt believe that we would be short-changing Graham in some way. I actually wondered how wise it would be myself. I had to ask Matt a few times to get a straight answer out of him. The last time I asked, he looked at her and she responded with just the happiest little smile in the world. He turned to me and said "How could we not?" I was so relieved. I never imagined loving her this much--problems and all; but I do. I can't believe that we are faced with the potential of a lifetime challenge, and not even thinking twice about it. I told Matt "We just can't manage to GET a normal kid in this house, can we?" and he said "Maybe that's our purpose."

He might be right.