As far as my efforts to obtain information are concerned, I will spend most of my time conducting interviews. On this note, I will interview DCCP workers, parents’ attorneys, Law Guardian’s Attorneys, Deputy Attorney General and the children. In these endeavors, however, it is fundamentally the importance to put into consideration that, the information that I will obtain will not be assessed autonomously. A conclusive information will be my targeted issue under due consideration. Apart from the interviews, look forward to obtain my information form, collaborating evidence as it regards my study. In essence, substantiating my information will be the in thing for the purposes of coming up with a well expressed report.
Research on medication that can be beneficial may include the research on the medical conditions of the children. The key matters in this regard, if it is established that medical reports brought on bought on the plausibility that the health of children was not up to the expected standards, such in of formation will be of great significance in establishing and determining the extent care provided to the children. On the other hand, if it is established that, children can fail to thrive, or failed to thrive in the event of its happening, such information will greatly support my research. As a result, my research will greatly be developed.
In my opinion, I think the children should not be removed from the S family because it had lived to the provisions that dictate the functionality of adoption centers and organizations. Had it been identified that the family was in any case in the extreme violation of the rights of the children, no opposing grounds would have been devised to offer a contra opinion on the issues at hand. As a matter of fact and cogency, it should be identified that, the family was not negligence in the duty of care that was at its discretion. They did everything that a reasonable host family could have done it been at its scope.
Brooklyn should not be returned to family S. In this case, Brooklyn had a specialized medical condition that could not work well with the position of family S. In this instance, family S had other children to guard and offer to aid services. In essence, she should not be returned to family S. Family S had further tried their level best in ensuring that the medical condition of Brooklyn was in order. Returning Brooklyn to them will be as good as returning the family to past disadvantaging instances.
Brooklyn was in a position to live with any foster family because, besides her tender age, she was well conversant with the environment and could easily be well identified with. In order to boost the pre-adoptive placement, it should be established that, conditions have to be devised so as to act as trail blazers that would guide any ensuing obligation as it relates to adoption. The adoption Act should be revised so as to be accommodative of specialized issues that regard to exceptional instances that may arise and appear to be beyond the scope of the provisions in phase.
In the event the children were strictly bonded with the S family, it will follow that, the children will refer to the family S as their secondary matrimonial home. In this regards, family S acquires the same inherent rights as those that could have accorded to the legitimate mother of the children. When another family wanted to center stage the adoption of the children, there would be a smooth transition. The emblements of adoption dictate that, you cannot adopt a child from someone or an organization that does not legally have such an effect. A smooth transition refers to a transition that is on a clean slate. A transition that is followed by legal implications on the aspects and categorizations of illegalities should not be a given a scope.
The permanent plan that should be regarded in as far as the reunification of the children with their mother should be on the context of, it must be proved that their mother recovers from her position. In this case, they should only be allowed to go back to their mother once she is released on conditions that she will have changed and gone back to the normal societal aspects. It is unreasonable if a ruling is devised that, the children who are of a good number not worth disregarding, are taken back to the protection schemes of a mother who can better be defined as a social misfit. On the other hand, the adoption by the S family should be along the ground that, the S family establishes its willingness to take due care to the children. They should show their intentions by keying into a well written contract dealing their intentions. In the efforts to find another pre adoptive home, permanent solutions that should be given a forehand are on legality instances. Some families use the position of adopting children while their sole interests are intricate in individualistic motives and intentions. For this case, it must be held that, the new adoptive home should have real aspects that facilitate aid to the children. In the real side of having a better serviced home, it should be brought to book that, the home should have a reputation that enhances absolute development and provision of services to the children.
I order to come to a reasonable conclusion on whether Brooklyn was suffering under the arms of the foster family, medical practitioners can better abet and aid us in this. Medical information entails the study of his past medical conditions. From this source, it is clear that, a possibly true position will be defined.