Fosters Children Project and DCF Home Wreckers, greedy, selfish, heartless west palm beach , Florida

My fiancs has been involved in this situation since March 2009. I dont know if you guys would be interested in doing a story or an investigation on this. His son who is 2 years old is in a foster home at the moment. The foster parents would like to adopt the baby. He was taken from the mother and the department of childrens and families have refused to place the baby with the father, for the last year he has gotten the run around and finally in April 2010 he was told that his rights were terminated and that's when I got involved in this. He was devastated to hear the news; I hated seeing him so depressed. It took me a few days to finally get a hold of someone who was able to finally give us any kind of information on this case (She was not related at all in this case). She gave me the number to a Customer relations person, she told me that he needed to contact her and that she would be able to give him the information that he needed but that his rights were not terminated yet. He called her and he was told that there was a hearing in 4 days to terminate his parental rights, and that he should go to the hearing. She also gave him the name of his Case Manager and phone number that no one else (involved in this case) in the department of children and families seemed to be able to provide us.We went to the Termination of Parental Rights hearing and all the lawyers for the Department of Children and families, the foster childrens project, and the guardian at litem, were not too pleased to see him there. We went thru this whole process he completed all his case plan on his own and out of his own pocket, complied with DCF. We had the trial finally after them pushing the trial back for three months in November and just last week we got the final order on this case which they are now appealing because the Father is to be Reunited with his son. I thought their mission statement read To protect the vulnerable, promote strong and economically self-sufficient families, and advance personal and family recovery and resiliency Shouldn't they be happy that the biological father to this little boy actually wants to father his son? Isn't that what their main goal is supposed to be to reunify children with their biological parents/family. I mean how many kids out there live in one parent homes where the other parent either doesn't care or is not interested in raising their child. Dont get me wrong i am not saying that everyone is like that but Ive been in that situation where my daughters father could give two penny's about her, he doesnt pay child support let alone come see her period. Yet he still has all his rights. So why if you have a man who is willing to take care of his son and is able to is he being denied that chance?

During the course of this whole mess, the court had granted him visitations with his child once a week for an hour, with supervision from DCF. They would give him a visit one week and then skip weeks on and off stating that the baby was on vacation or that they had staff meetings and were not able to bring the baby to his visit, etc. He has cooperated with DCF, he has tried to make things easy for them with regards to him seeing his son. He drives 30 miles out of his way to meet with them close to where the baby lives now, so that they dont have to drive that far to make it to his visits, he makes it easy by going by whatever time suits them. They want him to hold down a job but, its a little hard when there are court dates here and there and then visits to where hes not able to work during the times he should.

He still goes to work and his work has tried to accommodate all of this coming in late not coming in leaving for 2 hrs and coming back. Doesnt that show just how much he is willing to be with his son? We finally went to trial in November 2010. During this grueling 3 day trial the state and DCF and the guardian at litem, the foster childrens project all went into trial saying that the baby was not bonding with the dad when in fact the baby does call him daddy and that they consider the father to be a playmate to his son, but I ask you if you, if your visit was at a playground and you didnt get to see your son for 6 out of 7 days out of the week and all you were allowed to spend with him was one hour would you want to do anything other than to hold and play with him? I think not.

Heres the kicker the case manager under oath stated that the baby is not bonding with the father and that the father tries very hard to make the baby smile in order to take pictures, but that is not true. There are videos and the person who supervised the visits wrote on her reports that the baby was bonding well with dad, that the baby was happy etc. (isnt that lying under oath?)Also before the trial, DCF refused the father any services his lawyer advised him to do the parenting classes on his own and everything that they had recommended him to do, which he did. And yet when it came time for the trial, DCF insisted that none of the parenting classes, the drug screens and everything else that he did should be admissible in court. Well the judge decided otherwise and it was admitted into evidence. Then came the wait. On Friday December 10^th his lawyer called him to tell him that he had received the final order and that the court order stated that DCF was to increase his weekly visit from once a week to twice a week unsupervised effective immediately and that they had to submit a plan to the court to reunify the baby with the father. Well once he got off the phone with his lawyer he called the case supervisor and stated that his lawyer had received the order and that per the order his visits were to be twice a week and unsupervised effective immediately. Well come Tuesday (December 14^th, 2010) they tried to tell him that his visit for Wednesday (12/15/2010) was to be supervised and that he could only have one visit a week due to the fact that their lawyers were filling motions thru the court. Well he called his lawyer, went into the port center (their office) and asked to speak to the supervisor or the case managers supervisor. They told him no one was available. He got on the phone with one of the news channels and within minutes the case manager called and stated that his visit tomorrow would be unsupervised. The state is filling an appeal, to the court order that was given. Their reason for the appeal is that the baby (who is 2) only sees the father as a playmate. We went back to court last week for a motion to stay. And the judge granted the states motion. So his visits are back to being supervised and the case plan for reunification is to be put on hold until after the appeal. They also changed his child support order from him bringing the amount they set in good kind (clothes, food, diapers, toys, etc) or money, to only CASH now. They want the baby to be adopted. Why? The baby has a father that loves him, cares for him and wants to raise him. Why are they so persistent in having the baby adopted, by people that are not related to the little one? Arent biological parents supposed to have preference being that it is that persons child? They are saying that the adoption would be the least restrictive form for the baby. They are causing more harm to this little boy by keeping him from his BIOLOGICAL father, than if they would just let him come home