Why would the court take this 3 year old boy from the only family he has ever known, since birth, now; from a home where he is thriving, healthy and happy?
Because a new Guardian ad Litem claims the original placement did not meet the Family First Act’s protocol. (More on what that means in a moment.)
Chad and Katia Thompson of New London, Minnesota, have been forced to give their foster son, who has been with them for the past three years, to the child’s biological uncle.
What is currently happening to the Thompson family (most importantly, their foster son) is NOT what the Family First Act was meant to do. The intent of the Family First Initiative is to place children in the care of biological family members whenever possible when their parent initially loses custody.
This offer to blood relatives (or “Tier 1” relatives) normally happens initially, at the start, not three years after the child has established trust and security with a stable loving family like the Thompsons.
To be clear: For the last three years, from birth until now, this sweet boy has only been with the Thompsons. They have been the ones to put him to bed each night, kiss his owies, make his meals and nurture him, free of daily strife and fears in an unstable home.
This sweet boy has only had occasional visits with the uncle; visits that Chad and Katia feel did not go well as evidenced by the dysregulation noted after said visits, along with many tears and the child saying he did not want to go back there; that he wanted to STAY HOME, even from these short VISITS.
Important note: When this sweet boy was born, the same uncle was found to be “not credible” as a potential guardian after a 6 and a half day court trial.
The concerns about the visits and their aftermath were passed on to the new Guardian ad Litem in five emails. The Thompsons never received a response to those emails. Later the Guardian ad Litem said that on a scale from 1-10 she considered the Thompson’s concerns only a 3, because she has kids that bang their heads on cribs and foster families send her pictures with goose eggs and that wasn’t the case here. (Read that again. He was traumatized, but she did not feel he was traumatized enough.)
So again. What happened? Why now? Why is this changing?
The new Guardian ad Litem was given this case and despite TWO previous Guaridan ad Litem’s opinions that sweet boy should be with the Thompsons and not the uncle, the new Guardian ad Litem decided that the Family First Act itself is more important than the best interest of the child. She is stating that the agency did not follow the right procedure in offering all blood relatives custody at the beginning, so the offer was made recently, and the uncle took it. And now DCYF testified saying that even if the court orders the adoption with the Thompson’s, she would not approve it, and would contact the Attorney General for an appeal.
So with very short notice, the Thompsons were told they needed to have all of sweet boy’s belongings packed and ready by this past Wednesday, for him to be picked up and moved to his uncle’s house.
It may make a person think there must be good reason for this GAL strong opinion, and the judge’s decision, but there is not. The Thompsons have done nothing to endanger their son, and never would. They have done nothing but parent him with informed care for his needs as a child in foster care, with every effort to care for him in healthy ways, including focusing on his inherent need to know his siblings (in another home) and making those visits possible. Now that he has been moved to his uncle’s house, those visits will not happen.
Another important note: Even though the court order was, “The Agency shall conduct a well-planned, well-coordinated, trauma-informed transition of the child to the relative’s home,” NONE of that was done! 45 minutes after the order was filed, the Thompsons received an email from CCFS Supervisor that all of this would happen very quickly.
Let me be clear. EVEN IF there was some sort of protocol missed; a ‘T’ not crossed, an ‘I’ not dotted…THIS UPHEAVAL WILL CERTAINLY CAUSE UNNECESSARY TRAUMA FOR THIS SWEET BOY.
Sure, the Family First Act may be well-intended and may serve many children and families in positive ways, BUT let’s not forget (and I’m no conspiracy theorist but it should be noted) that agencies are given more money if they place children in homes with biological family members. Maybe this new GAL has been told to look at her cases in light of the Act, I don’t know? I’m only saying it makes NO sense that a trained professional would conclude that this is GOOD for the Thompson’s sweet boy, especially now.
Let’s not forget that there are always holes in our system that make it necessary to look at the best interest of each unique situation and child individually, not only through the lens of a Statute or Act. And certainly not through the eyes of a GAL that started in November and has only visited the Thompson home one time, for 47 minutes, without meeting extended family, sweet boy’s big sister, or the three biological sisters that live elsewhere that he is able to spend time with because of the Thompsons.
Can you imagine his pain, confusion and sorrow after being pulled away from his mom and dad, sister, friends and relatives on Wednesday?
You can help. Please use the information below to contact “the powers that be” on behalf of this sweet boy who will most certainly be traumatized by an abrupt removal from the only loving, consistent, healthy environment he has ever known. The Thompsons ARE his first family. The love and care that has surrounded him through Chad and Katia and his entire community is what true family is all about: acceptance, unconditional love, education, FUN, health, attention, and everything else a sweet boy could possibly need.
Sometimes the Family First Act fails children. This case is proof of that.
LOVE THEM FIRST. #lovethemfirst
Please share this post, and email or call any or all of these numbers (script below). Thank you!
1. Shireen Gandhi — Interim Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services
651‑431‑2907
2. Rep. Carlie Kotyza‑Witthuhn — Co-Chair, House Children & Families Finance & Policy Committee
651‑296‑7449
3. Rep. Nolan West — Co-Chair, House Children & Families Finance & Policy Committee
651‑296‑4226 (State Office)
4. Sen. Melissa H. Wiklund — Chair Senate Health & Human Services Committee
651‑297‑8061 (St. Paul office)
5. Senator Andrew Lang
Represents Senate District 16, covering Chippewa, Kandiyohi, Meeker, and Renville Counties
(651) 296‑4918
Email: sen.andrew.lang@senate.mn.gov
6. Representative Scott VanBinsbergen. Represents House District 17A, which includes Chippewa and Swift Counties
Scott VanBinsbergen
651 ‑ 296 -4344
Email: rep.scott.vanbinsbergen@house.mn.gov
7. Governor Tim Walz:
Main Governor’s Office (St. Paul):
(651) 201‑3400
Toll-Free (MN): (800) 657‑3717
8. Also Representative David Baker, the Kandiyohi County state rep.
(651) 296-6206 or Toll-Free: (888) 727-4551
Email: rep.dave.baker@house.mn.gov
A sample phone and/or script could be the following. Please consider adding in more pertinent details if you wish:
Hello, my name is [Your Full Name]. I’m reaching out because I’m deeply concerned about a child welfare case decided by a judge from Chippewa County.
A 3-year-old boy is being removed from the only family he has ever known to be placed with a biological relative who does not have an established relationship with him. This decision, made under the “Family First” initiative, is not in the child’s best interest and seems to be based on a protocol error that has nothing to do with what is best for him right now, today.
While I understand your office cannot directly reverse court rulings, I’m asking if you can help by elevating this case to the related oversight agencies for review, or support our efforts to reconsider the placement decision based on the child’s emotional well-being.