Meeting statutes for foster care

[garryc]

The ORC requires all firearms to be secured or rendered safe. I put all the guns in safes. The guns I could not get in are all bolt action and I secured the bolts in the safe.

What about the one I carry? Since you can't have actual and constructive possession at the same time, is on my person considered secured?

 

[Pahoo]

YES, but don't ask

is on my person considered secured?

It is but don't ask "them" this as it will confuse "them" and you may not like the answer.. ....

This has come up before and what they are primarily concerned with, is the kids finding the one yuo keep under the bed. .....

Be Safe !!!

 

[9x18_Walther]

The following is from Chapter 5101:2-7 Foster Care of the Ohio Administrative Code.

(F) A foster home shall comply with the following requirements regarding weapons:

(1) The following weapons kept on the grounds of or in a foster home shall be stored in an inoperative condition in a locked area inaccessible to children:​

(a) Firearms.
(b) Air rifles.
(c) Hunting slingshots.
(d) Any other projectile weapon.​

(2) All ammunition, arrows or projectiles for such weapons shall be stored in a separate locked space.
(3) Any foster caregiver who is also a law enforcement official and can document that their jurisdiction requires them to have ready and immediate access to their weapon shall be exempt from the requirements of this paragraph.​

I would assume that you can not carry in your house under this law since the ammunition alone is required to be locked up and the handgun must be rendered inoperable. The real question is whether or not this applies to a firearm and ammunition stored on your person.

 

[Limnophile]

Reads to me, if garry resides in OH, he needs to unholster his pistol, render it inoperative, and lock it up upon coming home -- unless he can meet the LEO exemption.

 

[9x18_Walther]

Reads to me, if garry resides in OH, he needs to unholster his pistol, render it inoperative, and lock it up upon coming home -- unless he can meet the LEO exemption.

I guess the real question is whether the law applies to a handgun on your person. I assume that being a LEO allows you to have a loaded handgun in a quick access safe (off your person).

 

[T. O'Heir]

Suspect it depends on what an ORC is. Pretty sure it's not a fictional humanoid creature that is part of a fantasy race akin to goblins. Or the Ontario Racing Commission. snicker.
You'd really have to ask your "ORC" for a definition of 'secured'. Even at the risk of confusing them. My experience with low level civil servants indicates it's usually best to tell them nothing. Doing so let's 'em use it against you.

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

Isn't the ORC the Ohio Revised Code?

By analogy to ORC 2923.16(C), secured means secured to something other than your person. Referring to vehicle transportation secured to a rack.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Different state, but when it comes to kids, definitions are whatever the social worker(s) say they mean.

Several years ago my late wife and I adopted her granddaughter. As part of the adoption process, we had to go through the whole home study routine, which is a LOT more than a single visit to see if the countertops are dusted and the toilet bowls are clean. What I found was that the social worker made up "laws" on the fly.

She was freaked out that I own guns, but she finally accepted that I'm a veteran and not a rabid, mad dog killer. But, all guns had to be locked up. (That's state law if there are kids under 16 in the house, so no problem.) All AMMO had to be locked up. That's NOT state law, and I told her so. "Well, that's our rule," she said. So I had to get a steel, half-height office storage cabinet that I could lock ammo in.

She told us "the building code" required a carbon monoxide detector. That's my profession, so I knew the code only requires CO detectors for new houses, not 60-year old houses, and I told her so. "Well, WE require it," was the answer.

And so it went.

Basically, it seems you have to surrender a lot of constitutional and civil rights to become an adoptive or foster parent.

 

[Skans]

When the country runs into a shortage of adults willing to provide foster care or adopt children because of the bureaucratic nonsense, then the "laws" will change. Supply and demand. Right now, there must be a sufficient supply of adults willing to put up with nonsense - so the parentless children's gatekeepers get to flex their regulatory muscle.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Aguila, I have a neighbor who went through the same process, the rules seemed to be constantly changing and newly invented each review. She got some relief by asking for all requirements to be in writing, signed by the case worker, but even that does not stop some people.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Aguila, I have a neighbor who went through the same process, the rules seemed to be constantly changing and newly invented each review. She got some relief by asking for all requirements to be in writing, signed by the case worker, but even that does not stop some people.

But what "relief" is it, really, if they put their extra-legal demands in writing? In my case, the state law is clear: firearms have to be locked up or have trigger locks. There is no legal requirement for ammunition to be locked up, but the social worker required it anyway. Same with the CO detector. I was working as a municipal building official at the time, so I KNEW what the code required ... and it was NOT retroactive to 65-year old houses. That didn't stop the social worker from requiring one.

The only real relief will come if we reach the point suggested by Skans -- when there are more children needing homes than there are homes available. We ain't there yet ... there are lots and lots of anti-gun folks who are waiting to become adoptive or foster parents.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Agulia, up here the letter required review by a supervisory level above the writer, and they were a bit adverse to their folks just 'winging' it without authority of regulation or law.

They can require compliance with regulation and law, not personal desires. Even where 'and other requirements as may be needed' is official language, that still doesn't allow for onerous requirements that have no demonstrated public necessity. They can be challenged on such things, and can win or lose on the merits.

 

[Skans]

They can be challenged on such things, and can win or lose on the merits.

Who pays the legal fees when the legal challenge against this kind of nonsense succeeds? The government? I don't think so. So, the liberal social workers can screw with you all day long about having guns, ammo, toy guns, poptart guns and thinking about guns with no penalty whatsoever. If they win...they win. If they lose.....they win. The laws have no teeth.

 

[44 AMP]

For me (and I'm NOT a lawyer), the operative word in the quoted law would be "stored".

A gun on your person is not "stored". therefore, requirements for locked storage cannot apply. But, that's just me...

Adoption agencies can require what ever they want, over and above existing laws. They aren't looking at you simply for compliance with the laws, they are looking at you to see if you meet their standards, which, as you have seen are much different from actual law.

There is nothing in law about how much money you have to make, or how clean your house has to be, etc., but there is in their standards.

Adoption is a privilege, not a right. The only place the law enters into it is the fact that the law gives them (the agency) the authority to make the decision.

I have no idea if there is a "surplus" or a "shortage" of people wanting to adopt, either way, I don't see them changing their rules. They might bemoan the lack of "suitable" or "qualified" parents, based on their standards, but they are very unlikely to change their standards so more children might be adopted. If they don't approve you, the child just stays in foster care, and to their mind, is no worse off than before.

Essentially it seems to me that your argument is "I comply with the laws, that should be good enough", and theirs is "You must meet our standards (which are "tougher" than the law) or we won't give you one of our children". And, apparently they have the legal authority to do so.

To over rule their decisions, you would have to win in court. Good Luck with that.

 

[Skans]

Adoption has become such a huge boondoggle that I have no intention of ever being scrutinized by any adoption social agency. At one time I really considered adopting a child. I'm sure my gun collection would automatically disqualify me and I'd just end up getting in an argument with a 27 year old social worker. To heck with it! There will come a time where society will be desperate for families willing to adopt children and not enough families willing to spend the time, money, emotional energy, and subject themselves to government ridicule just to get the "privilege" of raising someone else's child.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Adoption agencies can require what ever they want, over and above existing laws. They aren't looking at you simply for compliance with the laws, they are looking at you to see if you meet their standards, which, as you have seen are much different from actual law.

There is nothing in law about how much money you have to make, or how clean your house has to be, etc., but there is in their standards.

Adoption is a privilege, not a right. The only place the law enters into it is the fact that the law gives them (the agency) the authority to make the decision.

You are correct, of course. And if they were honest in presenting their requirements that way, people would then be free to make informed decisions about how much bureaucratic bovine excrement they're willing to put up with to adopt a child.

My experience, however, was that all their irrational demands were initially put forth as being required by "the law" or "the code." It was only when I pointed out that I worked with those laws and those codes every day and I knew they didn't have any such requirements that the social worker 'fessed up and said, "Well, those are OUR requirements."

Right. Why didn't you say so?