Chapter 22 - THE GUARDIANSHIP FIGHT
Reena changed her mind.
Not entirely.
She agreed Peter could remain guardian while she was incarcerated.
She would not agree “permanent.”
Her fear:
Permanent means never.
Her lawyer explained review possible but difficult.
She wanted temporary guardianship with reunification hearing six months after release.
CPS wanted longer stability.
The children’s attorney/guardian ad litem recommended permanent guardianship subject to future modification only on strong showing.
Why?
Drew’s anxiety around uncertainty.
Lily’s developmental need for stable caregiver.
Reena’s progress real but untested outside supervision.
The court scheduled contested permanency hearing.
There it was.
Final family climax moving toward Chapters 24–25.
Before that, Reena began weekly video calls from facility.
Supervised/monitored.
Drew participated every other week.
Lily almost every week.
Sometimes five minutes.
Sometimes none.
Reena respected when they ended.
Good.
Then she made one mistake.
Drew said:
“Uncle Peter says Dad tried to help us.”
Reena’s face changed.
“I don’t want you hearing one-sided—”
The monitor stopped.
“Reena.”
She closed eyes.
“You’re right.”
Then to Drew:
“That’s adult history. I’m sorry.”
Quick repair.
Good.
No perfect transformation.
Then she wrote me through lawyers:
Please stop telling them Aaron was trying to take them from me.
I responded:
I told Drew only that Aaron raised concerns about basement and sought legal advice, after Drew asked. Therapist approved. I have not told children he was trying to “take them.”
Precise.
She replied:
Understood.
No fight.
Progress.
Then my own mistake.
I told a friend at barbecue:
“Reena’s in prison because she locked them downstairs.”
Drew overheard.
He said:
“Jail not prison?”
Facility was county/state? Sentence 22 months maybe state correctional. Semantics.
More important:
He heard adults talking case.
I apologized.
“You’re allowed talk.”
“Yes, but not where you have to listen.”
He shrugged.
Then:
“I know.”
Kids know more than we think.
Still.
Then Lily started preschool full-time.
First week, teacher closed classroom door.
Lily cried.
Teacher opened, let her stand near door.
Gradual.
By month two:
Fine.
Then fire drill.
She panicked at alarm.
Not basement-specific.
Trauma.
Support.
No lifelong symbol.
Then Drew ran again.
The orthopedic doctor cleared full activity.
He sprinted across soccer field.
I cried behind sunglasses.
He came back.
“Why crying?”
“Allergies.”
“You don’t have allergies.”
“Run.”
He laughed.
Then he joined a recreational soccer team.
First game, he fell.
I almost ran onto field.
Coach beat me.
Drew got up.
Scraped knee.
No fracture.
He looked toward me.
I raised thumb.
Not:
Are you okay?!
He kept playing.
Our nervous systems learned too.
Then Aaron’s birthday.
We made pancakes.
Drew asked:
“Would Dad be mad Mom in jail?”
“I don’t know.”
“What would you be?”
“Sad.”
“Not mad?”
“Both.”
He nodded.
“Me too.”
Complex emotions allowed.
Then permanency evaluation.
Home stable.
Peter cooperative with maternal family.
Reena improving.
No safety concerns with Peter.
Children attached.
Recommendation permanent guardianship.
Reena’s attorney argued:
She should not lose realistic path to reunification solely due incarceration and past conduct if she is rehabilitating.
Good argument.
The judge would weigh.
Then Reena’s own therapist wrote:
Reena increasingly acknowledges harm but continues to struggle with relinquishing control and fears children’s bond with Peter will replace her.
Important.
The old issue.
Not unlike Lorraine? Different story, but control.
Could she accept:
Peter is guardian and I am still Mom?
May you like
That would determine whether she chose children’s stability over her need to reclaim title.
The hearing approached.
