Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Placement And Visitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Indiana placed with maternal grandmother; Saint Francis cites visitation disruptions and sibling separation
Summary
The permanency specialist said Indiana is living with her maternal grandmother, whose home Saint Francis supports as a legal‑risk placement; sibling visits have been frequently missed because of transportation barriers and the agency is pursuing adoption as the permanency goal for Indiana.
The court heard testimony about current placements and visitation arrangements for the three children in the cases. Tiffany Brown, permanency specialist for Saint Francis Ministries, said Indiana is placed with maternal grandmother Lashonda Walker and that maternal grandmother has been cooperative and protective.
Brown said Indiana’s behavior has shown school‑based problems that previously led to more intensive services, and that Saint Francis has identified a legal‑risk adoptive placement and is seeking adoption as the permanency goal for Indiana with a concurrent plan to explore relative kin adoption with grandmother. "For permanency, unrelated adoption concurrent with relative kin adoption," Brown said when asked about the goal in Indiana’s case.
Brown testified that the younger two children remain in Lubbock, that sibling visits were scheduled weekly on Thursdays but have often been missed because transportation requests could not be met, and that Saint Francis is trying virtual visits as a temporary solution. She told the court the agency had identified a potential adoptive/legal‑risk placement and requested a court order to proceed if appropriate. The court admitted family‑placement and status hearing orders documenting those goals and placements.
During argument, counsel for Cameron Shelton asked the permanency specialist to allow Shelton supervised visits; Brown said she opposed supervised or virtual visits for Shelton at this time because Shelton had not provided recent drug‑screen evidence and the agency could not assess risk without testing results.
Why it matters: Placement with a relative can affect decisions about visitation, reunification and whether reunification or adoption is the preferred permanency route. The court will weigh the agency’s recommendation against the parents’ efforts and evidence presented in the continued hearing.
Next steps: The court will review the admitted evidence and the agency’s placement recommendations when the hearing resumes Feb. 4.
