and the clouds part...

...and there are silver linings all around.

It's been a wacky week. Most of the wackiness started on Veteran's Day, of all days. But the events are for a different post.

The week has ended with an exoneration.

Today I was half-heartedly scraping paint off of windows at a friends rental, when my husband called. He had received the mail. Now, this is not ordinarily great news. It's usually bills, overdraft notices, and magazines (somehow, they've gotten our address). But today was unusual; there was an envelope from the State of Kansas, Department of Administration, Office of Administrative Hearings.

James explained that he did not want to open it. Certainly not alone, so he called me. I held my breath and sat down.

James began reading...and read...and read....and read. Most of it was highlighting the results of the hearing officer's opinion from the hearing in April. The important words...

"The Committee also finds that this is a difficult case, but based on the totality of the circumstances, although the appellants actions meet the definition of emotional abuse, they are not a danger to children as a whole and therefore their names should not be placed on the Registry. The decision of the presiding officer is reversed."

Now, I do not agree with the entire paragraph, but I certainly cannot argue with a committee that reverses a finding causing me/us to win the appeal. I like the "not a danger to children as a whole". What does that mean exactly? That we're only a danger to children in parts?

I also have the same arguments in their Findings of Fact. Their finding are not fact. Their findings are based upon SRS fiction and the lies of a 17 year old punk. We were at our end with this girl. No one was ignorant of her needs, we were just flat tired of her game. She turned 18 on November 3. The game is over.

Interestingly, Amanda stayed in the system for a solid year, causing problems the entire time. We would hear whispers and receive looks during various court hearings. There was a standard hearing scheduled for November 5, two days after she turned 18. Miraculously, the judge signed an order terminating her case on November 3, her birthday. This never happens. NEVER. A Child in Need of Case case is not summararily dismissed because the child turns 18. The court has jurisdiction over child until the age of 21, 23 in certain instances. AND, she was still on probation. My understanding was the probation was extended until January 2009.

I learned last week that this termination was rushed through because St. Francis had no idea where the girl was. Consequently, they wouldn't be able to produce her for a court hearing. Our fine system at work. At least they took the steps to get her a GED. I see a great future in food service and public welfare on her horizon.

No matter. That door is now shut. I'll gather my cubic foot box of documentation and place it in safe storage. My daughters can burn it when I'm dead.