February Story of Hope: Luis
Advocate Impact Story
Luis was 4 years old when he had to be removed from his mother by CPS. A neighbor notified the police that the child was playing by himself outside and was almost struck by a car. When the police/CPS investigated the situation, they found his mom in a situation where she was clearly unable to continue to care for her child. It was later discovered that mom had a previous CPS and criminal history. The father was not in the picture at that time.
Due to these circumstances Luis had to be removed by CPS and placed with his maternal aunt and uncle. At the removal hearing the judge granted temporary custody to the state. Two months after the legal case started CASA was appointed to the case. Kathleen ‘Kitty’ Lange was the CASA volunteer assigned to advocate for Luis’ best interests. The first court hearing CASA attended was the six-month hearing and things were not going well from the parents’ perspective. Mom had not engaged in any of the services, other than visitation, and had either tested positive for drugs or no-showed to most of her drug tests. The father was just going to start therapy six months into the case and had not even provided proof of employment or residence. The child was doing very well in his relative placement, but unfortunately the placement informed CASA that they were not able to commit to provide long-term placement for the child.
When Kathleen observed parent/child visits she noticed that there was indeed a bond between mother and child. She also noticed that father and child also displayed a strong bond and fortunately the father had tested negative on all of his drug tests. She started to communicate with the parents and expressed to them the importance of that bond and to use that bond to motivate themselves to turn their lives around and regain custody of their child. All parties communicated to the parents that since the relative placement was not going to be permanent, if they were not successful in their services, their child could end up in foster care.
This reality lit a fire under the parents, especially Mom. She started engaging in all of her services and started testing negative on all her drug tests. A year after the case was open and when it was time to go to trial, instead of a termination (which seemed likely six months earlier) the judge ordered the child to be placed with the mother. Kathleen had cultivated such a positive relationship with the parents that she even convinced them of the importance of co-parenting. Sixteen months after the legal case started the court was dismissing the case and Luis was successfully reunified with his mother, with liberal visitation and joint custody with his father. It was a very unlikely outcome early in the case, but Kathleen conveyed to the parents early on that she was not going to give up on them. With their eventual efforts they demonstrated that they did not give up on themselves either or their relationship to their child and Luis was able to obtain permanency with his biological parents.
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.
Alice Babine
