Opinion ID: 1927603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The parents are unable or unwilling to eliminate the harm and delaying permanent placement will add to the harm.

Text: We must emphasize that what is at stake here is not that a parent lacks the financial wherewithal to elevate the child's intellectual stimulation. The Supreme Court of California has put it thus: It is true that [the natural mother] was poor, but the hallmark of an effective parent has never been the parent's bank account. Children can be and are loved and nurtured in poverty-stricken families and deprived and neglected in affluent homes. In our view, this record simply demonstrates an extreme case of deficient parenting. In re Laura F., 33 Cal. 3d 826, 837, 662 P. 2d 922, 929, 191 Cal. Rptr. 464, 471 (1983) (en banc). In referring to the parents' role, we are not concerned here with what may be called inadequate parenting. [8] Hence, a court should focus upon whether, within this setting, the parents are giving the child the nurture and affection that money cannot provide. A court analyzing the ability of the parents to give their children care should not look at the parents to determine whether they are themselves unfit or whether they are the victims of social circumstances beyond their control; it should only determine whether it is reasonably foreseeable that the parents can cease to inflict harm upon the children entrusted to their care. No more and no less is required of them than that they will not place their children in substantial jeopardy to physical or mental health. There is a natural tendency to want to continue working with the parents to restore the family unit. How long a court should be willing to wait, however, depends in part on the age of the child. In re Welfare of Hall, 99 Wash. 2d 842, 850, 664 P. 2d 1245, 1250 (1983) (en banc).