Today is a day for Getting Things Done.
After some delightful snuggle time in bed with the baby girl, we got up and got busy. So far today, I have:
- Started two quarts of honey infusing with vanilla beans.
- Loaded and ran the dishwasher.
- Made a double batch of whole-wheat pumpkin pancakes and some bacon for breakfast. (The extra pancakes will be quick breakfasts to send to daycare, so that counts as extra productive.)
- Washed, dried, folded, and put away all of the baby's clothes, including the huge bag of new-to-us stuff we got from my sister. It's official: The baby owns more clothes than I do. (This is probably actually not true.)
- Washed and dried the towels and am in the middle of washing a load of undies so I can stop wearing those awful backup laundry-week pairs I found shoved in the back of my drawer.
- Cleaned up the kitchen from breakfast, including unloading the clean dishes and reloading the dishwasher.
- Cut up and cooked a buttercup squash for the baby's lunches this week. (Note to self for next time: Jesus, this was a pain to try to peel, so next time cook it with the skin on and cut that shit off afterwards.)
I'm waiting for the hot water heater to recover from the laundry, then I'm going to hop in the shower. After that, we're meeting my folks and my brother and his wife and daughter at a local pumpkin farm to pick out pumpkins and pet some goats and be autumnal. The baby's wearing her new sweater and it will be perfect. Might even make some spiced cider to bring with us. Damn, today's cool, but it's only 12:30 and I'm already beat!
The worker called me yesterday to tell me two interesting things:
1. The baby's mom has expressed an interest in starting visits again, for the first time since March. The worker is not confident in the mom's ability to treat herself effectively from the disgusting skin condition (her living situation makes it especially challenging right now) so visits won't happen until the worker is satisfied on that count, but she wanted us to be prepared.
2. The worker couldn't give me any details at all, but there is something going on with the dad that might preclude our baby going to him. Like maybe ever. But whatever it is, it's the early stages of being looked into, so it might turn out to be nothing. Oh, you know, because this isn't a huge deal that made me immediately jump to OH MY GOD WE MIGHT ACTUALLY GET TO KEEP HER. Trying really hard to be patient and to not ask the worker questions she's not allowed to answer. I'm still telling myself it's most likely she won't stay with us long-term, because that is easier on my psyche.
I hope your autumn weekends are as delightful as ours!
Showing posts with label worker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label worker. Show all posts
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Home visit
We had this month's home visit with the worker today. In our county, the worker is supposed to see the child in the home every month, which for us means one-on-one face time with the worker, where she answers my ten million questions.
This week, we learned that the worker is postponing the conversation with the mom about the mom voluntarily surrendering her rights, because the mom isn't making very good choices right now, so it would be sort of hard to have that conversation without it feeling coercive (I think this is the right decision, even though it's hard for us).
The worker also told us that the grandma flat-out asked, at her attorney's urging, if the county wanted to place the baby with the grandma, and the worker told her no. This is not a surprise, but it's interesting to hear it like that in black-and-white, or whatever the auditory version of black-and-white is. (This doesn't mean the baby won't end up with the grandma, because that's up to the judge, not the worker.) The worker now wants to get us involved in a "family teaming" program the county runs, to help us build a relationship with the grandma. The ideal outcome would be that the grandma sees that the baby is well cared for and learns that she can trust us to keep our word about keeping her involved in the baby's life, and thus agree that the baby is in the right place. If that works, then the idea will be to add the mom in, and have our relationship with the grandma help the mom see that surrendering her rights would be okay.
We'll see if any of this happens. I know the grandma feels strongly about family staying together, so it's possible she won't be interested. She has not had any problems with us so far, and has been friendly and grateful for what we've done for the baby, but that might be because she's seen it as temporary.
Andy is very good at maintaining a level head and knowing it's still not likely we'll get to raise this precious awesome baby. I'm not very good at that, and I'm having a hard time stamping down the seed of hope that keeps poking up in my chest.
This week, we learned that the worker is postponing the conversation with the mom about the mom voluntarily surrendering her rights, because the mom isn't making very good choices right now, so it would be sort of hard to have that conversation without it feeling coercive (I think this is the right decision, even though it's hard for us).
The worker also told us that the grandma flat-out asked, at her attorney's urging, if the county wanted to place the baby with the grandma, and the worker told her no. This is not a surprise, but it's interesting to hear it like that in black-and-white, or whatever the auditory version of black-and-white is. (This doesn't mean the baby won't end up with the grandma, because that's up to the judge, not the worker.) The worker now wants to get us involved in a "family teaming" program the county runs, to help us build a relationship with the grandma. The ideal outcome would be that the grandma sees that the baby is well cared for and learns that she can trust us to keep our word about keeping her involved in the baby's life, and thus agree that the baby is in the right place. If that works, then the idea will be to add the mom in, and have our relationship with the grandma help the mom see that surrendering her rights would be okay.
We'll see if any of this happens. I know the grandma feels strongly about family staying together, so it's possible she won't be interested. She has not had any problems with us so far, and has been friendly and grateful for what we've done for the baby, but that might be because she's seen it as temporary.
Andy is very good at maintaining a level head and knowing it's still not likely we'll get to raise this precious awesome baby. I'm not very good at that, and I'm having a hard time stamping down the seed of hope that keeps poking up in my chest.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Visit update
So the baby did in fact have her visit yesterday. The mom had a document saying she was cleared of the skin stuff, and apparently the dad showed up (40 minutes late into an hour-long visit) with a similar document, so the worker couldn't really prevent it.
The worker and I talked for about twenty minutes this morning about the situation. The county's hands are tied, because the original paperwork I got from the doctor only specified that the parents needed to be treated to resume visits, they can't legally require all of that other fun stuff before visits resume. (The worker, wisely, did not suggest that I should have asked the doctor for different requirements.) According to the parents, they have both been treated and that was all the doctor said they had to do for visits to resume. If the county changes the requirements after the parents have documents indicating they've met said requirements, that looks bad in court - and it's in the county's best interest (and the baby's) to not look bad in court.
The worker was very sympathetic and understanding, and told me repeatedly that she'd be making the same phone calls I was if she were in my shoes. (I used some of Thorn's excellent advice and made sure it was clear that the baby was my main concern, and how much calmer she is now that she's healthy and all.) She also pointed out that, as much as we don't want a reinfection, if that were to happen, the county could then impose more stringent requirements (and require proof) before visits resume again.
So now we're basically waiting for her to get reinfected. Ugh. Not a good plan, but really the only one we've got. We do know that the symptoms will show up much more quickly once you've had the issue already (like in a few days instead of several weeks), so we'll be keeping a very close eye and bringing her to the doctor at the first indication that there's a reinfection.
New poll: Is it a better idea for us to be fanatical about avoiding reinfection, or should we chill out a little and let it happen again so the new requirements can go into effect?
The worker and I talked for about twenty minutes this morning about the situation. The county's hands are tied, because the original paperwork I got from the doctor only specified that the parents needed to be treated to resume visits, they can't legally require all of that other fun stuff before visits resume. (The worker, wisely, did not suggest that I should have asked the doctor for different requirements.) According to the parents, they have both been treated and that was all the doctor said they had to do for visits to resume. If the county changes the requirements after the parents have documents indicating they've met said requirements, that looks bad in court - and it's in the county's best interest (and the baby's) to not look bad in court.
The worker was very sympathetic and understanding, and told me repeatedly that she'd be making the same phone calls I was if she were in my shoes. (I used some of Thorn's excellent advice and made sure it was clear that the baby was my main concern, and how much calmer she is now that she's healthy and all.) She also pointed out that, as much as we don't want a reinfection, if that were to happen, the county could then impose more stringent requirements (and require proof) before visits resume again.
So now we're basically waiting for her to get reinfected. Ugh. Not a good plan, but really the only one we've got. We do know that the symptoms will show up much more quickly once you've had the issue already (like in a few days instead of several weeks), so we'll be keeping a very close eye and bringing her to the doctor at the first indication that there's a reinfection.
New poll: Is it a better idea for us to be fanatical about avoiding reinfection, or should we chill out a little and let it happen again so the new requirements can go into effect?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)