Story of Hope: Louis Lendman

Story of Hope: Louis Lendman

Louis Lendman is currently advocating for a teen in care, Elliott, and has been an incredible asset to his case thus far. Louis has only been assigned to this case for a short time, but has already had to testify in court, be present for multiple staffing’s, and attend last-minute meetings. Before signing onto the case, Louis was aware of a few obstacles that needed to be overcome; including multiple behavioral incidents, placement disruptions, and pending juvenile charges, but Louis did not let these obstacles deter him from taking on the case. Louis has been this child’s voice on several occasions and confidently expresses Elliott’s wants and needs. This case has needed more attention and advocacy than most, but with Louis’ determination, commitment, and empathy, he is a perfect fit for this role. 


Due to the distance of placement, Louis is only required to see Elliott every other month. However, since Elliott was having several behavioral incidents, not engaging in treatment, and has minimal familial support, Louis has gone above and beyond visiting Elliott every month to ensure that Elliott knows he is not alone. During his visits, he actively listens to Elliott and provides support and guidance when needed. Louis has had to have very candid conversations with Elliott and has to explain the potential consequences of misbehaving and not engaging in therapy. Elliott is receptive to Louis’ guidance, and even if Elliot’s behaviors improve only for a short time, Louis continues to show Elliott empathy and highlights Elliott’s strengths to hopefully motivate Elliott to make these behavioral improvements more long-term. After each visit with Elliott, Louis provides a summary of how his visit went and ensures that I, the caseworker, and Elliott’s ad litem have the most up-to-date information along with any improvements or concerns. With Louis’ exceptionally detailed documentation, we all feel as if we were present for his visits with Elliott.


Unfortunately, Elliott’s family has not been able to provide him with consistent support; missing family days, missing phone calls, and not engaging in family therapy. This has been discouraging to Elliott, but Louis and I have had many conversations on how to broaden his support network. This case has been referred to our Collaborative Family Engagement Team and we have had meetings where Louis is able to articulate Elliott’s needs empathetically and professionally, and Louis does not hesitate to provide possible solutions or ideas that can assist Elliott while he is in care.

   

Due to Elliott’s behaviors and lack of engagement, his placement has given him a 30-day notice. In an attempt to salvage this placement, several placement disruption meetings have been held, and Louis provided pertinent information that he has gathered from his visits and conversations with Elliot, placement staff, therapists, and Elliott’s parents. In the initial meeting, we agreed that the following week an in-person meeting would be held with Elliott to hopefully encourage Elliott to make necessary changes in order to remain at his current placement. Louis, without hesitation, cleared his schedule and was present for that meeting. Also in attendance were Elliott’s probation officer, the facility’s program director, Elliot’s ad litem, the CPS Caseworker, and Elliot’s mother, father, and stepmother. The CASA supervisor was also able to attend this meeting and witnessed firsthand the rapport and supportive relationship Louis has established with Elliott. 


Even though the placement is proceeding with discharging Elliott, the CASA supervisor is confident that Louis will adapt and continue showing up for Elliott in order to ensure this transition will be as smooth as possible. CASA is so grateful for all Louis has done, is doing, and will do. However, more importantly, Elliott is equally, if not more, grateful for Louis and his constant support thus far.



By bfines December 10, 2025
Jimmy and Mary Young eagerly began their second case in August 2024. The children—Chris, 11; Emily, 9; and Sofia, 7—were in the care of the Department due to neglectful supervision by their mother, who struggled with alcohol dependency and depression. She had left the children unattended to travel to Port Aransas to drink and go fishing. In addition, the home environment was observed to be in disarray, with minimal food, posing a risk to the children’s well-being. The mother was arrested on three counts of abandonment of a child. The children’s father had passed away from cancer a few months earlier, in March 2024. The children were initially placed with their grandmother, who decided after a few weeks that she could not care for them. They were then placed with an uncle, who gave notice within two weeks. Subsequently, the children were placed together at Boysville, where they remained for the duration of the case. Although the children had already experienced two moves in just one month, the Youngs were optimistic about their placement at Boysville. The children from Jimmy and Mary’s first case had also been placed at Boysville, so the Youngs were familiar with the facility and had established a good rapport with the staff. From the beginning, Mr. Jimmy introduced himself to all parties involved in the case, exchanged phone numbers with the caseworker and the children’s attorney, and maintained close communication with them during the children’s moves. Once the children were placed at Boysville, Mr. Jimmy contacted the case manager and counselors there to inquire about setting up therapy and enrolling the children in school. The Youngs advocated for transportation to and from school, and the children were approved to ride the school bus. They also recommended bereavement therapy to help the children cope with the loss of their father. Mr. Jimmy learned about a summer camp at the Children’s Bereavement Center, made a few calls, and successfully registered the children to attend. Throughout the duration of the case, the Youngs visited the children monthly, maintained close contact with the CPS caseworkers, updated the children’s attorney after visits, and remained in frequent contact with the children’s therapists and teachers. They advocated for tutoring and addressed behavioral concerns with the children’s therapists. The Youngs documented everything in Optima, wrote court reports, and attended several CASA training courses to stay informed and further their knowledge of child welfare. They also chose to attend court in person to maintain face-to-face contact with the judge, other parties on the case, and the children’s mother. One particularly notable aspect of this case was the Youngs’ consistent communication and engagement with the children’s mother. After their initial meeting, the Youngs maintained regular contact with her, inquiring about her progress in services, employment, and housing. They frequently encouraged her to continue and complete her services, checked in after court hearings, and provided moral support—offering her hope. During the previous Christmas, Jimmy and Mary sent the mother a recording of the children singing Christmas carols, delivered messages from the children, and shared photos of special events. During phone calls or family visits, they listened patiently, giving her space to express herself. Within a few months, the mother opened up to them about the children’s father and his cancer diagnosis, sharing how it was discovered and discussing his passing. As the mother continued working on her services, Jimmy and Mary cheered her on, reminding her that her efforts were for the sake of reuniting with her children. At the merits hearing in September, the Youngs, in agreement with CPS, recommended an extension to allow the mother more time to maintain sobriety, begin extended visits with the children, and possibly start overnight, unsupervised visits. The extension was granted, as the mother had completed all her services and maintained stable employment and housing. Weekend visits began, and by late September, the mother continued testing negative for substances. The children were placed with her on a monitored return. Jimmy and Mary visited the children in the home for the following two months, providing CPS, the children’s attorney, and the court with very positive feedback. The children were happy, thriving, and their needs were being met. The Youngs provided their final recommendation of reunification in court in late November, and the judge granted reunification, dismissing CPS from the case.  It was the Youngs’ consistent communication and encouragement toward this young mother that led to the successful reunification. They followed up after hearings, facilitated communication between the mother and caseworkers when the relationship felt strained, and provided the mother the opportunity to share her perspective without judgment—all while encouraging her to do her best for her children.
By bfines December 10, 2025
Alice Babine
Show More