Then get a lawyer for the kids! This is different than a lawyer for you. This lawyer is solely interested in the well being of the children. Some places these lawyers are free because they are working for minors. Check around for places where a lawyer will take this kind of case at a reduced rate if necessary.
Greetings, dear LadyLee... and peace to you! I do not mean to diminish what you are saying here but what you're suggesting while coming from a place of true concern, I am sure, is really un-doable. For a couple/few reasons:
1. Currently, dear Lola hasn't been approved to be a foster parent for these children. Even if she is, there is no guarantee she will be given these particular children (there's a LOT that depends on that, including input from Roxy and her mother, etc.). Even so, I can't see where she's indicated that the kids are already in the foster care system. Her statement "IF something happens, maybe they will allow us to have the babies..." indicates to ME that they are not. Not yet. And THAT can take some time, too. In the meantime...
2. I also don't get the impression that Lola is actually family, as that word is defined by government. Roxy is Lola's sisters' step-dad's neice. I could be wrong but I don't see the BLOOD relation. If not, what does that mean? It means that Lola doesn't have "standing" to get/or request a lawyer for the kids. She isn't really even an "interested party." Her only option, therefore, would be to report her concerns to CPS (which she says she has already done, to no avail), or to the County (if and when the kids DO go into foster care, in which case attorneys will automatically be appointed for them).
3. If the lawyers represented the kids, Lola couldn't pay them. Why? Because that would create a "relationship" between Lola and the lawyer, which would be a "conflict." Rather, the lawyer would have to be state-paid. To get a state-paid lawyer for the kids, again, the County would need to be involved.
Let the lawyer and the court know you are willing to be take custody of the children and she can have visitation - preferably supervised if drugs or alcohol is an issue.
Again, Lola doesn't have standing... to get a lawyer or talk to the court. Therefore, dear Lola can't "let the lawyer... OR the court"... know anything, including that she's willing to take custody. Indeed, it's highly likely that she wouldn't be given custody if some other blood relation stepped up (that is usually the County's first choice). Even if she was approved to become a foster parent, and even these kids' foster parent, the chances that she would speak with a lawyer are slim to none. With a judge is even slimmer. Rather, she would have to give her report to the Social Worker assigned to the children, who would work with and consult with the lawyer, who would give THEIR recommendation to the court.
Dear ones, I GET it that everyone believes "something needs to be done." I GET the frustration: dear Lola's and everyone elses. What I'm NOT getting, however, is that any of the "well, I'd just slap her into righteousness" responders have really ever dealt with anything like this before. A Roxy... OR the foster care system. And if that is true, I must say that I can't see where giving UNREALISTIC advice is of any benefit.
Dear ones, putting three more children into the U.S. foster care system is NOT going to make this problem better. It's going to make THREE MORE CHILDREN WHO HAVE CHILDREN BY THE AGE OF 15. At least. IF, however, someone goes back and NIPS THE PROBLEM IN THE BUD (i.e., get to ROXY... and turn HER around so that SHE, in turn, can possibly save her children from the same life SHE has undergone)... ALL of them might stand a chance. Including her.
What everyone is forgetting is that even if dear Lola becomes a foster parent... and gets these very children... the likelihood that they will STAY with her, until they are 5, let alone 10... let alone 15... is... slim... to... none. They will, at some point, be returned to their mother (who will be in what status by that time? Better? Seriously?? Under these circumstances??) ... or passed on to some other foster home. The primary goal of foster care, after care of the children... is REUNIFICATION OF THE FAMILY. WHAT "family", I ask you... will these children ultimately end up with?? Unless dear Lola is willing and able to ADOPT them (through which ever greater hoops must be jumped, including an attempt to get the consent of all the parents involved, as well as other blood relatives, the first of which is highly unlikely, unless Roxy is currently on drugs or incarcerated; otherwise, they WILL go back to her)... she is merely only looking to put a band-aid on a wound that truly, TRULY... needs a full SUTURE. At least 10 stitches. Dear ones, a band-aid isn't going to stop this "infection."
I think some here need to know this information, which I refrained from posting because it really shouldn't be about this. But:
1. Minors... and Roxy IS A MINOR... aren't given WIC, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, Section 8, CalWorks, TANF, AFDC, GA, or even Social Security/Supplemental Security. All of these are given... to the GUARDIAN(S) of such minors, on behalfof such minors. So, here, for example, since Roxy has children, whatever benefits SHE qualifies for as a result... GO TO HER GUARDIAN. Because SHE... IS A CHILD. And for now, it appears that her "guardian" is... HER MOTHER. Who... given what dear Lola has shares here... most probably takes the check, stamps, whatever (which is WHY she wanted Roxy to live with her), and uses them for her own benefit (and probably the current boyfriend/baby's daddy, whathaveyou). Which is why ROXY... has no money... and cannot care for herself or her children.
2. IF, however, Roxy... and her children... lived with Lola... as their foster parent... not only would Roxy benefit from the EXAMPLE... but dear LOLA would receive funds from the state... to care for them all. For Roxy. And for each of her children. Then, dear Lola wouldn't HAVE to go into her own pocket to help this little family - the STATE would pay for it. And it ain't necessarly a small amount, either. In California, it's approximately $750... PER CHILD... PER MONTH. So, you have Roxy... who is a child... plus her two children... which equals $2,250. BUT... because little Roxy IS PREGNANT... there would be funds for that, too. SOOOooo... the State (for example, California) would pay dear Lola, as foster parent... about $1,100 for Roxy. With the two children, that's $2,600 a month. BUT... that does NOT include... FOOD STAMPS... WIC... and MEDI-CAL... which (in California), would be approximately $800 (food stamps)... $400 (WIC)... more... and, well, you can't measure the value of the medical/dental.
Ah, nevermind. I guess it's much easier to say "I say, look after the babies, dear Lola, and let Miss Roxy fend for herself." Sounds to me, though, like that's been the problem all along: no one cared enough about the child, Roxy, to fend FOR her. Even now. Nope. She's done in... "tainted" goods. Ain't no more salvation for her. Well, it looks to ME likes she gets THAT... if nothing ELSE... and so she's doing the best she can... to fend for herself.
And, again, it's a disaster. And it will continue to be, for probably several generations more. Her mother is a "walking disaster," and she's headed that way, if she hasn't already arrived. I don't believe she has. But if no one convinces HER that she hasn't... her children are 99% likely to become walking disasters, too.
But, then, that's how it should be, right? Because, of course, we AREN'T, after all... our brothers' keeper, are we?
Well, I'm just going to have to bid you all peace and, if possible, larger hearts. Because the Roxy's of this world... and their children... need it. And as a result, so do we. Because their "disasters" really do affect us all, sometimes catastrophically... sooner or later. One way or another.
A slave of Christ,