Horrorcow Susan Schofield Cabana, Cory Cabana, & Michael Schofield / Schofield Productions / @bipolarnation - A Tragicomic Tale of Psychiatric Munchausen's by Proxy

queerape

All Kinds of Gorillaz
kiwifarms.net
In my opinion there is still potential for further development of the situation even though we've lost our leaks. The case is ongoing, and at the very least I am sure that some drama will ensue once Jani turns 18 next year and can choose if she wants to still be in Susan's custody or not. I've seen threads under quiet periods for months to years until something suddenly changes and there is a flurry of activity again (qv MadThad when he got out of the clink). Cows can also resurface after being dormant for a long time. Really, the only reasons to inactive a thread include the cow is fucking dead, indefinitely committed (sexually), or going to be imprisoned for a long time.
 

Bunny at Law

kiwifarms.net
I remember it being something to that effect, yes. Or 6-8 months sounds about right.
Yes, according to federal law the state must hold a heading every 6 months for a child in foster care.
Depending on how efficient the court is and whether the parties are agreeing to the evidence presented they can stretch to 9/10 month lengths between hearings. The court will be checking on how the children are doing in care (basically making sure the state is actually caring for them), what progress the parents have made on their service plan, and what impediments to reunification remain. I would assume that since Susan is the one named in the case rather than Mike, the court will be focusing on what she needs to do to get the kids back. Mike might have a service plan he needs to complete before getting the kids too, but since he’s an out of state parent they’re more interested in ensuring visitation. If the court wanted to move them to Mike (where they’d be under Minn’s state supervision), there is a process for doing so that takes about 6 months.
It will take a minimum of 15 months before Susan’s parental rights can be terminated. However, the state probably won’t do that if they’re not going to terminate Mile’s because it wouldn’t “free them for adoption,” which is the purpose of terminating rights.
 

Poop Chute

I'm apparently Tony Robbins, ask me anything.
kiwifarms.net
Yes, according to federal law the state must hold a heading every 6 months for a child in foster care.
Depending on how efficient the court is and whether the parties are agreeing to the evidence presented they can stretch to 9/10 month lengths between hearings. The court will be checking on how the children are doing in care (basically making sure the state is actually caring for them), what progress the parents have made on their service plan, and what impediments to reunification remain. I would assume that since Susan is the one named in the case rather than Mike, the court will be focusing on what she needs to do to get the kids back. Mike might have a service plan he needs to complete before getting the kids too, but since he’s an out of state parent they’re more interested in ensuring visitation. If the court wanted to move them to Mike (where they’d be under Minn’s state supervision), there is a process for doing so that takes about 6 months.
It will take a minimum of 15 months before Susan’s parental rights can be terminated. However, the state probably won’t do that if they’re not going to terminate Mile’s because it wouldn’t “free them for adoption,” which is the purpose of terminating rights.
Honestly I just think they don't want to push it because Jani will age out soon and she'll be much more expensive for the state if her mother's rights are terminated.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Clovis and Viridian

Bunny at Law

kiwifarms.net
Honestly I just think they don't want to push it because Jani will age out soon and she'll be much more expensive for the state if her mother's rights are terminated.
Jani's entitled to stay in foster care until 21, and will likely be in state programs to some degree for the rest of her life. Right now, California and federal funds are 100% responsible for Jani and Bodhi (Michael's support payments should now be going to the state, but it's not known if that's happening yet). The only cost in terminating her rights would be to litigate the termination, which doesn't make sense to do because they would have to terminate Michael's too in order for them to be adopted.

Their long term planning for Jani is probably Independent Living, a designation for teens who do not want to return to their parent. It entitles them to stay in care until 21 and receive assistance in getting set up for adult life; Jani's special needs mean that she's probably going to age out of care at 21 and then move to another kind of group program.

Because of Bodhi's age, his goal is probably Return to Parent, but once a child is in foster care for the last 15 out of 22 months the state can move to terminate rights (doesn't mean they will though). I'd predict they'd only explore terminating rights for Bodhi if they found a family that was willing to take him permanently.
 

Bunny at Law

kiwifarms.net
It seems having your children removed, and found it justified in the eyes of the law, is not enough to snap Screech & Mong into reality.

Susan hasn't changed one bit. And never will.

I would not be surprised if the court decides to terminate the reunification process.
Unless Susan or Michael goes 6 months without contacting DCFS or the children, the state can out terminate the reunification process until the children have been in care for 15 of the last 22 months. They don’t just get to decide someone is too big of an asshole to be worth an attempt (unless they have been convicted of severe abuse, which I do not believe is the case here).
 

KeepHopeAlive

Snarkiness-It's what's for breakfast.
kiwifarms.net
Unless Susan or Michael goes 6 months without contacting DCFS or the children, the state can out terminate the reunification process until the children have been in care for 15 of the last 22 months. They don’t just get to decide someone is too big of an asshole to be worth an attempt (unless they have been convicted of severe abuse, which I do not believe is the case here).
So let's say Susan was given 10 things to complete before a certain date and she only completes 4 or 5 things (yes I know, being hypothetically optimistic there). What could/would happen then? Given another chance? And if she fails to comply within that time frame, what then? When/how do they act if she fails to complete the tasks?
 

Bunny at Law

kiwifarms.net
So let's say Susan was given 10 things to complete before a certain date and she only completes 4 or 5 things (yes I know, being hypothetically optimistic there). What could/would happen then? Given another chance? And if she fails to comply within that time frame, what then? When/how do they act if she fails to complete the tasks?
When someone is found to have neglected/ abused a child, the judge gives them orders in order to rehabilitate them as parents. In this example, let’s say Susan was ordered to:
1) comply with DCFS supervision including announced/unannounced visits (standard);
2) comply with a psych evaluation and any recommendations; and
3) Take a course for parenting children with special needs.

This is her “service plan,” which is what DCFS is required to help her complete. She also has a right to visitation with both kids, although the state won’t force a teen to visit.

Every 6 months, the court has a permanency hearing, which is meant to check in on:
A) Susan’s compliance with the service plan;
B) how visitation is going and if it can be less restrictive (i.e. from supervised to short periods of unsupervised);
C) How the children’s needs are being met in care and whether the state is doing everything it needs to for them; and
D) What the permanency goal for the child will be for the next 6 months.

Let’s say Susan refuses to do 1-3. At that hearing, DCFS has to show the judge that they’ve been trying to get her to do so (making referrals for evaluations and classes, going to her house, calling her). Susan then has to explain to the judge why she isn’t complying and the judge can issue new orders that are supposed to get her to comply (DCFS has to work around her schedule, find classes that happen on weekends, etc).

Let’s say by hearing #2, she did 1 and got the evaluation but refuses to comply with treatment. More orders are issued.

Reunification doesn’t happen on a fixed timeline, and people can spend years and years trying to get their kids back before they have their rights terminated.

Although DCFS can move to terminate rights after 15 months, that is extremely unlikely in this case because the Michael’s rights would also have to be terminated in order for the kids to be adopted, and California has no jurisdiction to do that (as far as I know).

If Susan was found to have Secerely Abused the kids or to suffer from a mental illness or disability that prevented her from parenting for the foreseeable future, DCFS could request that the court waive reunification efforts, but that doesn’t start the termination process. Ditto if she goes without contacting DCFS for 6 months.

All children are entitled to stay in foster care until they are 21, I don’t know what Jani’s disabilities qualify her beyond that. But the process is the same except that her goal will be Independnt Living (or the equivalent of what she can manage) instead of returning to Susan. She also doesn’t have to visit if she doesn’t want to.
 

Pimpkin Pumpkin

Problematic af.
kiwifarms.net
It seems having your children removed, and found it justified in the eyes of the law, is not enough to snap Screech & Mong into reality.

Susan hasn't changed one bit. And never will.

I would not be surprised if the court decides to terminate the reunification process.
Do you have any more specific examples?

Since Crazy Susan went mostly silent, I’ve been really curious as to what she’s been posting on Facebook. Assuming she’s been posting on Facebook. And not just scrawling her batshit lunacy on the wall in her own shit. Which, at this point, I’d believe from her.

There’s no way her narc rage would let her just sit quietly for this long.
 

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino