最新杏吧原创

ST. LOUIS 鈥� Last spring, a few weeks before Easter, authorities removed three siblings from a Jefferson County home for allegations of abuse or neglect. They were hungry, needed a foster home fast. Erica Marks and her wife, Melissa Yearian, of 最新杏吧原创, got the call. On a moment鈥檚 notice, they agreed to help.

It was a tough assignment from the start. The children 鈥� ages 14 months, 2, and 7 鈥� had extensive needs.

Marks and Yearian aren鈥檛 typical foster parents, though. Both are child therapists. Yearian had even previously been a state-contracted caseworker in the , as well as a supervisor of court-appointed child advocates.

They said they did their best to provide a nurturing home. They set out carrots, half-eaten by the Easter Bunny. They wrestled with waitlists to get services covered by Medicaid and requested additional supports. They got the children into day care and school. They enforced a strict 6:30 p.m. bedtime and other boundaries. They bought a bigger house in south 最新杏吧原创 than they鈥檇 planned to have a better living arrangement.

鈥淭hey were doing so well in our home,鈥� Marks said. 鈥淢aniacs all three of them. Big personalities.鈥�

But in complex family court cases like these, with multiple stakeholders involved, there can be disagreements about what is best for children in state care. At the very least, that is what happened with the three siblings from Jefferson County, which disrupted their first placement in care.

The state safety net for vulnerable children is overburdened by societal challenges, turnover in the workforce that鈥檚 supposed to help, and an ongoing shortage of available foster parents willing to take someone else鈥檚 children into their homes for an undetermined amount of time. A foster family in Chesterfield was recently so fed up with the system they started seeking potential adoptive parents on their own, rather than wait for the court system to eventually catch up.

Marks and Yearian are on the opposite end of the spectrum. They are fighting to get their foster children back.

On Nov. 2, Samantha Richards, a supervisor at Family Forward, a state-contracted agency that does foster care case management, notified them that the children would be removed in two weeks. According to a copy of the letter, the new foster home would be closer to the biological parents and 鈥渃an provide care to all three children.鈥�

What鈥檚 more, the letter said the children were being removed for a bunch of 鈥渃ompetencies not being met,鈥� regarding: meeting children鈥檚 developmental needs, supporting relationships between the children and birth families, and working as a member of a professional team.

Marks and Yearian were stunned by the letter. Initially, they hoped it was all just a matter of poor communication. So they made calls, sent emails and requested emergency meetings. They hired an attorney and showed up in court. They filed an official grievance with the state鈥檚 Alternative Care Review Board, or ACRB, asking that the decision be reviewed before removing the children. They said they had solid evidence to address accusations made against them.

鈥淲e love all three children in our home, and we strongly believe that removing them from our care to another stranger foster placement is not in their best interest,鈥� they wrote in the grievance. 鈥淲e believe it will result in significant unnecessary trauma that could easily be prevented. We would be more than willing to collaborate with the team to meet the needs of the children and ensure continued, strong connection with their family of origin.鈥�

They said they didn鈥檛 get a response from the ACRB. On the evening of Nov. 22, two days before Thanksgiving, the children were removed.

鈥淭hey were devastated and sobbing, as were we,鈥� Marks and Yearian described in written plea for help to state officials. 鈥淲e had to pull them off of us to send them with (the caseworker). The youngest didn鈥檛 understand what was happening.鈥�

Reached by telephone, Family Forward caseworker Teresa Stein deferred questions to Richards, her supervisor, who did not respond to a request for comment. In her Nov. 2 letter to Marks and Yearian, Richards went into detail about why the children were being removed. Among the reasons:

鈥� While searching for counselors it was indicated that there was a conflict of interest due to Marks and Yearian having worked with some of them professionally in the past.

鈥� A request to have the eldest child placed separately from her siblings.

鈥� Rigid time frames to schedule visits.

鈥� Disruptions in facilitating phone calls between the biological mother and her children.

鈥� Denying home supports.

Yearian and Marks discussed the case in-depth with the Post-Dispatch and shared a stack of correspondences that lay out their rebuttals, including:

鈥� They knew three counselors but provided a list of more than 150 they reached out to and didn鈥檛 know.

鈥� They asked to only temporarily remove the eldest child from their home for the safety of her younger siblings; once her medication was adjusted, it was no longer an issue.

鈥� They wanted a later bedtime but the children were 鈥渕iserable鈥� the next day if they didn鈥檛 get 13 hours of sleep, writing: 鈥淭his is common for kids who have experienced trauma 鈥� they sleep way more than expected or way less.鈥�

鈥� Marks and Yearian hotlined a team member twice who was responsible for transporting the children to parental visits. They were concerned about improper car seats.

鈥� Even though telephone calls weren鈥檛 court-ordered until Nov. 9, Marks and Yearian facilitated calls with the mother on Tuesday nights, but that 鈥渨e became uncomfortable continuing to supervise calls because it required us to tattle on mom about different things.鈥�

鈥� They were participating in home supports.

No help from state

Marks and Yearian continue to fight the removal, hoping it will be reversed. They鈥檝e amassed several letters of support, ranging from a second-grade teacher who didn鈥檛 want the eldest child pulled out of school because of successful interventions there, to service providers to fellow social workers.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to toot our own horn,鈥� Yearian said. 鈥淲e are actually pretty well-respected in our fields.鈥�

While working on her master鈥檚 degree in social work at Columbia University in New York, she said, she was taught and encouraged to hold people accountable. Marks, who earned her master鈥檚 in social work from 最新杏吧原创 University, said she also doesn鈥檛 hesitate to step on toes to better advocate for people in need, including herself.

In a Dec. 12 letter to a top administrator at the Missouri Department of Social Services Children鈥檚 Division, Marks argued that they鈥檝e been discriminated against, defamed and not taken seriously in court.

鈥淢y wife and I fought tirelessly to get the children into all the services they needed, without help from their caseworker,鈥� Marks wrote in the detailed letter to Children鈥檚 Division Deputy Director Teri Armistead, head of state foster care.

Armistead responded with a kind note saying others would follow up soon because she was leaving Children鈥檚 Division. Armistead said her replacement, Angie Swarnes, or Lauren Masterson, unit manager over foster parent recruitment and licensing, or Regional Director Pam Alston would look into the matter and respond.

One week passed without further response. On Dec. 19, Marks and Yearian reached Children鈥檚 Division Director Darrell Missey. A former family court judge in Jefferson County, Missey told them by email that he was sorry for their struggles but doesn鈥檛 get involved in the details of particular cases. He said he did read their description of events, and encouraged them to continue to work with an attorney on the matter.

鈥淎s I explain to people, these cases are before courts which are designed and equipped to handle such disputes,鈥� Missey wrote. 鈥淵ou have a lawyer and have addressed the issue with the court. As such, I would be powerless to accomplish anything contrary to that court order. Further, any issues regarding the court鈥檚 order could be addressed through the legal system, not through the hierarchy of the agency.鈥�

Marks and Yearian aren鈥檛 convinced there was a court order to remove the children. They said they haven鈥檛 been shown one despite their attorney鈥檚 requests.

Associate Judge Shannon Dougherty declined to comment by phone about the ongoing case in her court in Jefferson County. Asked, more broadly, if same-sex foster parents face more obstacles for placement than traditional families, she said: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 look at anything other than if somebody is an approved foster parent and if they are appropriately doing their foster parent duties.鈥�

William Dodson, guardian ad litem, or an attorney representing the best interests of the three children in question, also would not comment on specifics of the case because it involves personal information about minors. More broadly, he said, he hadn鈥檛 witnessed bias toward same-sex foster parents in Jefferson County.

Dwindling hope

Marks and Yearian haven鈥檛 given up.

鈥淲e really just want the kids back,鈥� Yearian said. 鈥淥ur hope is dwindling.鈥�

Yet the car and booster seats remain in place. Three stockings hang from the staircase of their home in south 最新杏吧原创.

鈥淲e had a full Christmas ready for them,鈥� Yearian said.

The eldest was to get a new television. A new soccer goal was ready to be put up in the backyard for the middle child. A toy veterinarian play set for the youngest.

They said Family Forward has called seven times to see if they can take on more foster children who need a home.

鈥淲e are in the grieving process,鈥� Yearian said. 鈥淲e need time to recover from this.鈥�

To learn about becoming a foster parent in Missouri, go to