Finding Someone Raised Across Many Foster Placements
From the outside a childhood spent in nine homes across four counties looks like wreckage with no paper trail. It is not. The agency that moved that child kept writing in the same file the whole time, and the placements that scattered are listed in it in order. If the childhood was yours, several states now say in plain statutory language that the file belongs to you and hand it over free. That single fact reorders everything else on this page.
The Short Version
Start from the file, not from the memories. However many times a child was moved, the agency kept one running case record, and that record names the counties, the dates, the placements, the schools and often the caseworkers. If you are the person that record is about, ask for it in your own name first. Vermont wrote an explicit right for adults formerly in care into statute in 2024; Texas publishes a request form specifically for former foster youth; Minnesota’s general data-practices law gives the subject of any government record a right to be shown it. Those are the strongest routes and they cost little or nothing. If you are looking for a sibling you were separated from, the record is also where the separation is documented, because federal law has required agencies to explain sibling separations since 2008. If you are searching for somebody else who was in care, expect much less, and read the section below on what a third party can and cannot get before you write to anyone. And if the person you are hoping to find wants nothing to do with that period of their life, that is an answer, not an obstacle. Nothing here is legal advice.
Watch: Why the File Outlasts the Addresses
How a scattered placement history is reconstructed from the one record that never moved.
Short video overview
The Placements Scattered. The Record Stayed Whole.
Nine homes in six years is nine entries in one document, written by people whose job was to write them down.
The reason this search feels impossible is that the ordinary handles are missing. There is no single childhood address to work backwards from. School enrollment is broken into fragments. Neighbors remember a kid who was there for one winter. Relatives, if there are any in contact, know less than you do. Every method that assumes a stable childhood breaks on the first attempt, and people conclude from that failure that no trail exists.
It exists, and it is unusually good, because moving a child is an administrative act. Somebody had to authorize it, somebody had to record where the child went and when, somebody had to note the reason, and the funding attached to that child depended on the paperwork being right. The instability that makes the childhood hard to reconstruct from the outside is the same instability that generated a dense, dated, official record on the inside. A settled childhood in one home for eighteen years leaves a much thinner file.
What lives in a child welfare case record varies by state and by era, but the structural contents are consistent: the placement sequence with dates and provider names, the caseworker’s running narrative, court reports prepared for each review hearing, medical and dental treatment, school placements and transfers, service referrals, and correspondence. Names appear everywhere in it. Those names are the raw material of a locate, and they are far more durable than a remembered street.
What that means for the two different people reading this
Everything after this point splits along one question: is the record about you, or about somebody else?
If it is about you, you are in the strongest position anyone in this whole subject area occupies. You are not petitioning for access to a stranger’s information. You are asking for your own history, and a growing number of states have decided that framing is correct and written it into law. Your route is short, cheap and does not require a lawyer.
If it is about somebody else, the honest answer is that the confidential file is closed to you and will stay closed, and the work moves to the ordinary public record. That is a real limitation, not a formality that can be argued around, and a page that pretends otherwise would be setting you up to waste months writing to agencies that are legally obliged to say no. The last third of this page deals with that case properly.
If the Childhood Was Yours, the Record May Be Too
Four states and one federal statute, read at the issuing source. The variation between them is the whole story.
There is no national rule here, and anybody who tells you there is has not read four states. Child welfare records are governed by state statute and state regulation, and those instruments disagree with each other about who may ask, at what age, of which office, and whether the right survives the person’s eighteenth birthday. Below are four jurisdictions we read at the issuing legislature’s or agency’s own site, chosen because each shows a different shape. The other forty-six were not read, and yours will differ in the details that decide your request.
Vermont is the clearest law on this subject in the country, and it is recent. In 2024 the General Assembly added a subsection to the child welfare records statute under a heading that says exactly what it does.
Read the phrase “legitimate custodians of their own information” again, because it is doing something unusual. Most records law asks whether disclosure is permitted. That sentence asks who the information belongs to and answers that it belongs to the person it describes. The section credit line records the amendment as 2023, No. 173 (Adj. Sess.), effective June 12, 2024 – which means that before that date, adults who had grown up in Vermont’s care had no such right, while attorneys and agencies did. If you tried Vermont before 2024 and were refused, try again.
Texas runs the same idea as an administrative route rather than a legislative declaration. The Department of Family and Protective Services publishes a case-records page that sorts requesters by who they are, and the first branch reads: “If you are or were a foster youth, fill out and submit the online Form 4884 – Request From Former Foster Youth For Case Records.” Note the wording – “are or were.” A separate form, 4885, handles people who were involved in a case but never in the foster care system, which tells you the agency treats those as different requests with different entitlements. The department also advises naming what you are looking for specifically, such as a birth certificate or medical records, rather than asking for everything. That page sits on the Texas DFPS site. We read the agency’s own page for this and not the Family Code, so treat it as an agency route rather than a statutory quotation.
Minnesota gets to the same place through a statute that has nothing to do with foster care. Its Government Data Practices Act gives the subject of any government data a right to see it.
That shape matters for a practical reason. In a state with no foster-specific access provision, the general public records or data practices law may still reach your file, because you are the data subject. It is worth asking a records officer under that law before concluding a state has nothing.
Pennsylvania shows the gap Vermont legislated into. Its regulation on family case records lists who gets the record on request, and the list includes “the child, if 14 years of age or older” – with an express power for the county agency to withhold information it has reason to believe would be harmful to the child, provided it records the basis for doing so in the file. The regulation says nothing about an adult who left care fifteen years ago. That silence is the ordinary situation across most of the country, and it is why the request often turns on how an agency chooses to read a provision written with a child in mind. The text is at the Pennsylvania Code and Bulletin site.
California is worth a sentence of caution rather than a claim. Its juvenile case file statute limits inspection to an enumerated list, and the relevant item is “the minor who is the subject of the proceeding” – while a different item in the same list, covering attorneys, says “a person who is, or was, subject to juvenile proceedings.” The statute distinguishes is from was where it means to, so we are not going to tell you the California adult route is settled by that text. What California does say plainly, in its foster youth bill of rights, is that a young person may view and receive a copy of their medical records at no cost until they are 26. That is narrower than the whole file, and the difference is worth knowing before you write.
The practical instruction that survives all four: write to the agency that had custody, name yourself as the subject of the record, state the years and the county, and ask under the specific instrument if you can identify one – the foster-record provision, the data practices act, the state public records law. Asking for “my file” without naming an authority is what produces the letter about confidentiality.
What the State Owed You When You Left Care
A federal list of six documents – and a seventh thing people assume is on it that is not.
Federal law conditions foster care funding on each state’s case plan meeting certain requirements, and one of those requirements concerns the moment a young person leaves care as an adult. It is buried in a definitions section, which is part of why so few people know it exists.
Count them: birth certificate, Social Security card, health insurance information, medical records, driver’s license or state ID, and proof of having been in foster care. Six. The last one was added later and is the one people find most useful years afterwards, because it is what unlocks tuition waivers, extended Medicaid and other programs that require you to prove a status nobody issued you a certificate for.
Now the correction, because it matters and it is widely misstated: the case file itself is not on that list. Medical records are. The running child welfare record – the placement history, the narrative, the court reports – is not. If you left care believing you were handed everything the government owed you, you were handed six things, and the document that actually tells the story of your childhood was not among them. That is precisely the gap the state access provisions above exist to fill, and it is why Vermont’s legislature felt the need to say out loud that adults formerly in care are the legitimate custodians of their own information.
Two more limits worth naming honestly. The clause is conditioned on the child being “eligible to receive such document,” which does real work for young people without lawful immigration status or without a qualifying record. And it is a condition on a state plan, not a private entitlement you can enforce personally by pointing at the section – the consequence of non-compliance runs between the federal government and the state, not to you. Knowing the requirement exists is still worth a great deal when you ask, because you are asking for something the agency was already supposed to have given you.
Where the Paperwork Actually Lives
The single most common reason a request fails is that it went to the right kind of office in the wrong government.
| Who holds it | What it contains | Who can normally ask |
|---|---|---|
| County child welfare agency (in county-administered states) | The running case record: placement sequence and dates, caseworker narrative, provider names, service referrals, correspondence | A list set by state regulation. Pennsylvania’s names the child at 14 or over, and lets the county withhold what it believes would be harmful if it records why |
| State department (in state-administered states) | The same record, held centrally, which is why a Vermont or Texas request goes to one address regardless of where the placements were | Vermont: any adult 18 or over who was in care as a minor, at no cost. Texas: former foster youth, via the department’s own request form |
| Juvenile or dependency court | Petitions, hearing reports, review findings and orders – often the clearest chronology of why each move happened | A statutory list. California’s names the minor who is the subject of the proceeding; access for others generally requires a court order |
| School districts across the placement counties | Enrollment and withdrawal dates, transfer paperwork, and the address on file at each point – a parallel timeline that is easier to obtain than the case record | The former student, through the district registrar, under the district’s own records procedure |
| The open public record, once you have names and dates | Current addresses and contact routes for the people the file namesWhere we fit | Anyone with a lawful purpose – this is the part that does not depend on a confidential file at all |
Why the file may sit in more than one place
Children in care cross county lines routinely, and sometimes state lines. Whether that fragments the record depends on something most people never think to check: whether the state runs child welfare centrally or through its counties. The difference is visible in the legal instruments themselves. Pennsylvania’s regulation directs the request to “the county agency” and gives the withholding decision to the county. Vermont’s statute directs it to the Department and the Commissioner. In the first arrangement, a childhood spent in three counties can mean three separate requests to three offices that have never spoken about you. In the second, one letter reaches the whole history.
If you do not know which arrangement applies, ask the state department first anyway. Where the state holds the record, you are done in one request. Where the counties hold it, the state office will usually tell you which counties held custody and when, and that answer alone converts a vague search into a short list of addresses to write to. The court is a useful parallel: a dependency case is docketed in the county with jurisdiction, and the docket entries are a chronology even where the underlying file is confidential.
Do not skip the schools. School records are the least protected and most obtainable part of a scattered childhood, they carry dates and addresses, and they frequently name the adult who enrolled the child. For anyone trying to reconstruct where a person actually lived and when, an enrollment history is often more immediately useful than the case narrative, and it arrives faster.
Siblings, and the Duty Congress Wrote in 2008
The most common reason anyone runs this search – and the part of the law that has moved most in twenty years.
Most people who write to us about a childhood in care are not looking for a parent or a foster home. They are looking for a brother or a sister they were placed apart from, sometimes at the moment of removal, sometimes after a placement broke down and only one child moved. It is the search that carries the most weight and the fewest handles, because a young sibling separated early may not have your surname, may have been adopted under another one, and may remember less than you do.
The law changed in your favor, at least on the going-forward side. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 added a sibling condition to the federal state plan requirements.
The operative word for a searcher is documents. Twice in that provision, a state that separates siblings or suspends contact between them has to write down why. That documentation lives in the case record. It is one of the most reliable things in the whole file, because the agency’s federal funding position depends on it existing – and it is frequently the single page that names your sibling, names the placement they went to, and dates the split.
States build on that in their own way. California’s requires the county agency to make a diligent effort to place siblings together and to develop and maintain the relationship; where they are not placed together, the worker must explain why and what efforts are being made. Suspending sibling interaction there requires a finding by clear and convincing evidence, and the reasons must be re-examined at every periodic review hearing until interaction can safely resume. The statute also lets someone who wishes to assert a sibling relationship with a dependent child petition the juvenile court, and defines sibling broadly – related by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent. That text is at California’s official legislative information site.
California also requires the county placing agency, to the extent practicable, to convene a meeting before an adoption is finalized about whether to voluntarily execute a post-adoption sibling contact agreement. There is a detail in that provision worth pausing on: the agency does not have to convene the meeting if the child asks that it not occur. A legislature that wanted sibling relationships preserved still wrote in the child’s veto. That is the correct instinct and it is the instinct this page is built around.
What that means if the separation happened decades ago
If your placements pre-date 2008, none of the federal duty applied to your case, and the documentation may be thinner. What usually survives anyway is the removal petition and the early court reports, which typically list every child removed from the household – because the case began as a family matter before it became several children’s separate cases. That first document is often the one that tells an adult, for the first time, how many siblings they actually had.
On the mechanics of turning a name from that page into a living person, that is ordinary records work, and we set the sibling version of it out in more detail in our guide to finding a foster sibling after aging out. Where the sibling was adopted rather than reunified, the trail changes character entirely at the finalization date and picks up under sealed-record procedure instead, which is set out in what a closed adoption seals and what it leaves reachable.
One caution about the tools people reach for first. Reunion registries and consumer DNA testing are both genuinely useful and both are passive: a registry connects you only if your sibling also registers, and a test matches you only if your sibling also tests with a service that shares results with yours. Neither is a search. They are worth doing on day one because they cost little and occasionally resolve everything, and they are not a reason to postpone the record request.
Six Ways These Searches Lose a Year
Every one of these is recoverable. Every one of them has cost somebody months first.
Writing to the wrong level of government
In a county-administered state the state office does not hold your file; in a state-administered one the county has nothing. Pennsylvania’s regulation names the county agency, Vermont’s statute names the Department. Establish which arrangement applies before you post anything.
Asking for “my records” with no authority named
An unattributed request gets read as a general inquiry and answered with a confidentiality letter. Name yourself as the subject, give the years and county, and cite the instrument – the foster-record provision, the data practices act, the state public records law.
Accepting an old refusal as permanent
Vermont’s adult access right did not exist before June 2024. A state that said no to you years ago may have legislated since, and agencies do not write back to tell you the law changed. Re-ask, in writing, citing the current provision.
Assuming an old file is gone
Retention is set by state and we are not going to hand you a number we have not read. What we will say is that agencies routinely hold decades-old records and that people conclude otherwise without asking. Ask before you decide it was destroyed.
Skipping the schools
Enrollment and withdrawal records are easier to obtain than a case file, give you dated addresses across every placement county, and often name the adult who enrolled the child. They answer the “where was I actually living” question faster than anything else.
Making contact before deciding what you want
A first message that has not settled what it is asking for tends to ask for everything at once. Work out in advance whether you want information, an acknowledgment, or a relationship – and what you will do if the answer is no to all three.
Searching for Someone Else Who Was in Care
Shorter, harder, and worth reading before you spend a stamp. The confidential file is not going to open.
Everything above turns on the requester being the subject of the record. Take that away and the position reverses. Child welfare records are confidential by design, the statutory lists of who may inspect them are short and closed, and none of the states we read include “a person looking for someone who was in foster care.” You are not going to get another adult’s case file, and no amount of good faith in the reason changes that. Anyone offering to obtain one for you is either mistaken or describing something unlawful.
That does not leave you with nothing. It leaves you with the ordinary public record, which is where almost every successful locate of this kind actually happens. What you can work from:
- What you already hold. A name as it was spelled then, an approximate date of birth, the county, the years, the name of a foster parent, a school, a caseworker, a group home. Any two of these together are usually enough to start.
- Name changes. A child placed young and later adopted may carry a different surname. Where an adoption was finalized, the trail changes character at that date, and the question becomes an adoption-records question rather than a foster-care one.
- The adult public record after 18. Once a person leaves care they generate the same records everyone else does. That is the trail, and it is a trail our work runs on.
- Court files. Dependency proceedings are confidential, but a docket may still confirm a case existed in a county in a period, which narrows where the rest of the paper sits.
There is a category of request here that deserves separate treatment: a former foster parent or caregiver who wants to know a child turned out all right. That impulse is decent and we hear it often. It is also the request most likely to land badly, because the adult on the other end may associate that period with the worst years of their life, and an unexpected message from someone connected to it can be genuinely destabilizing. If that is you, the honest advice is to make yourself findable rather than to go looking – register your current details with the placing agency, keep an old email address alive, and let the approach come from the person who gets to decide whether it happens. If you have already resolved to search, the practical mechanics are set out in our guide to reconnecting after aging out, which is written from the other direction and is worth reading precisely for that reason.
Where all you have is a fragment – a first name, a face, a street, a year – that is its own discipline, and we treat it as one in our guide to finding someone who only existed in your childhood memory. And where the obstacle is living relatives who know the answer and will not say, that is a different problem again, covered in what to do when a family will not give you information.
What We Do After the File Runs Out
The record request is free and we would rather you ran it first. We start where it stops.
We ask what the paperwork already gave you
Which agency you wrote to, what came back, what was redacted, which counties and years are established. If a free records route is still open to you and you have not used it, we say so and you keep your money.
We turn the names in it into current identities
A foster parent’s name, a group home, a school, a sibling’s given name and rough age. We build documented current identities from public and lawfully licensed sources, and every conclusion carries the record it rests on.
We locate, and we state our confidence plainly
A current address and contact route where the sources support one, with the uncertainty written down rather than smoothed over. From a solid starting point that usually comes back within 24 hours. Where the record set will not carry a confident answer, that sentence is what you get instead.
The approach stays yours
We do not make contact, pass on a message, or tell anyone you are looking. First contact between people separated by a childhood in care is not something a research firm should be doing on somebody’s behalf, and we will not.
The Refusals We Honor, and the Work We Turn Down
Set out at length, because on this subject a boundary stated vaguely is worse than none at all.
We are a public records and skip tracing research firm, working since 2004. . We run no surveillance, we watch no houses and we knock on no doors. Every file we open runs on a stated purpose the law permits, and we establish yours at intake rather than reconstructing one afterwards; where a source is regulated, such as motor vehicle data under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act or financial identifiers under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, we use it only where a permitted use genuinely applies and we record which one. We do not use pretext. Nobody here telephones a county agency, a school, a church or a former caregiver pretending to be a relative, a caseworker or an attorney to get a document loose, and we will not talk you through doing it either. We do not reach into private financial account contents – no balances, no statements, no transaction histories – and we do not obtain medical records. A confidential child welfare file is closed to us in exactly the way it is closed to you; we have no back channel into one and we would not sell you access to something we cannot lawfully touch.
We are not a consumer reporting agency, and nothing we produce is a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. None of it may be used to decide anything that statute governs – employment, tenant screening or housing, credit, insurance underwriting, a professional license or a government benefit. Those decisions belong to a consumer reporting agency operating with the disclosure, authorization and adverse-action machinery the Act requires. Where that is what a request actually needs, we decline it and explain why rather than quietly doing the work under a different label.
Now the decline that this page exists to make properly. A childhood in foster care usually means a child was removed from somebody, and that somebody is sometimes the person now trying to find them. We take that seriously as a live risk rather than an edge case. A request framed as reconnecting with a child, a niece, a grandchild or a sibling can be exactly what it says, and it can also be a parent whose rights were terminated looking for an adult who has spent twenty years not being findable. So a search of this kind gets more scrutiny at intake, not less, and we ask questions that will feel intrusive: who you are to this person, when you last had contact, why it ended, whether any protective order or no-contact provision has ever existed, whether the person or an agency has previously refused contact. Where the answers suggest that finding this person would put them in danger, or that the search is a route around a refusal already given, we decline the work, we do not explain our reasoning in a way that helps the request be re-framed, and we do not refer it to anybody else. Someone who is hard to find has often arranged their life that way on purpose, and the fact that a childhood was documented by the state does not make the adult public property. If you are the person who does not want to be found and you believe you are being traced, speak to a victim services advocate or ask your state about its Address Confidentiality Program.
And the boundary the whole page rests on: a person who was raised in care owes nobody a relationship with that period of their life. Not a sibling, not a former foster parent, not a caseworker who remembers them, not a relative who says they always wondered. Some people who grew up in the system want every name in the file and will read all four hundred pages in one sitting. Others want none of it, have built a life that does not reference it, and experience an approach from that era as an intrusion rather than a gift. Both are complete and reasonable positions, and neither owes the other an explanation. If your search reaches someone and the answer is no, the search has finished – it has not stalled. We will not help anyone treat a refusal as a first offer. Everything on this page is general information rather than legal advice, records law is state law and it moves, and where you need a ruling rather than a records search, ask a lawyer or a legal aid organization in the state that held custody.
The People Who Write to Us About a Childhood in Care
Six recurring situations, and they want quite different things from the same file.
Adults who aged out
Reconstructing their own history from a file they were never handed at discharge.
Separated siblings
Often the only two people who remember the same house, now with different surnames.
Adoptive and kinship parents
Holding a partial file and a child who is starting to ask questions it does not answer.
The next generation
Adult children of someone raised in care, asking a question their parent never could.
Advocates and legal aid
Assembling a placement chronology for a benefit claim, a tuition waiver or a proceeding.
Genealogists at a dead end
A family line that stops at a child who appears in one census and no family thereafter.
The fourth group is the one that surprises people, and it is growing. An adult whose parent grew up in care often inherits a blank where a family history should be, and the parent may have died before the state provisions above existed. Vermont’s provision runs to the subject of the records, so it does not solve that case – but a probate file, a death certificate and the school records from the placement counties frequently do more than expected, and they are open in ways a case file is not.
What We Will and Will Not Promise
Nobody can promise you a reunion, and a firm that does is selling you somebody else’s decision. What we can promise is that we will tell you at the start whether a free records route is still open, because a fair number of the people who write to us should be posting a letter to a state department rather than hiring anyone. When there is work worth doing, every conclusion arrives attached to the record that supports it, and where the sources will not carry a confident answer you get that in a sentence instead of a hedge dressed up as a finding.
Questions From People Who Grew Up in Care
Can I get my own foster care records as an adult?
In some states, plainly yes. Vermont added a provision in 2024 requiring that Department records be disclosed at no cost to a person who is the subject of them, is 18 or over, and was in foster care as a minor – under a heading that calls adults formerly in care the legitimate custodians of their own information. Texas DFPS publishes Form 4884, “Request From Former Foster Youth For Case Records.” Minnesota’s Government Data Practices Act gives the subject of any government data a right to be shown it without charge, with no age or foster-care condition attached. Elsewhere the position varies and some regulations are written only with a child in mind, so name the instrument you are asking under.
Who do I write to, and what should the letter say?
Write to whichever government actually held custody: the state department in a state-administered system, the county agency in a county-administered one. Pennsylvania’s regulation names the county agency; Vermont’s statute names the Department. Say who you are, that you are the subject of the record, the years you were in care and the counties involved, and name the authority you are relying on. Ask for the placement history and court reports specifically as well as the file generally. A request that just asks for “my records” without an authority tends to come back as a letter about confidentiality.
How do I find a sibling I was separated from in foster care?
Start with your own case record, because the separation is documented in it. Since 2008 federal law has required a state plan to provide that reasonable efforts be made to place siblings together, and that where they are not jointly placed the state provide frequent visitation or other ongoing interaction – in each case unless the state documents that it would be contrary to a sibling’s safety or well-being. That documentation requirement is what puts your sibling’s name, placement and the date of the split on paper. Registries and DNA testing are worth doing on day one and are passive: they connect you only if the other person also joins or tests.
Can I get someone else’s foster care file if my reason is good?
No. Child welfare records are confidential and the statutory lists of who may inspect them are short and closed – courts, parties, attorneys, the agency, and the person the record is about. None of the states we read include a member of the public looking for someone who was in care, however sympathetic the reason. Anyone who offers to obtain one for you is mistaken or describing something unlawful. What is available to you is the ordinary adult public record the person has generated since leaving care, which is where locates of this kind actually succeed.
What documents was I supposed to be given when I aged out?
Federal law conditions a state’s case plan on a young person not being discharged at 18 without six things, if eligible to receive them: a certified copy of the US birth certificate, a Social Security card, health insurance information, a copy of their medical records, a state driver’s license or ID card meeting the REAL ID Act, and official documentation proving they were previously in foster care. That last one is what proves your status for programs later. Note what is not on the list: the case file itself. Medical records are covered; the running child welfare record is not.
My placements crossed county lines. Is the file in several places?
It depends on whether that state runs child welfare centrally or through its counties, and the legal texts show it. Pennsylvania’s regulation directs requests to the county agency and gives the county the withholding decision; Vermont’s statute directs them to the Department and its Commissioner. In a county-administered state a childhood across three counties can mean three separate requests. Ask the state office first regardless: where it holds the record you are finished in one letter, and where it does not it can usually tell you which counties had custody and when.
How far back do these records go, and could mine be destroyed?
Retention is set state by state and we are not going to give you a figure we have not read at the source, because a wrong number here stops people from asking at all. What we will say is that agencies commonly hold records going back decades, that a closed private agency’s files usually transfer rather than disappear, and that most people who assume their file is gone have not actually asked. Send the request. A refusal or a “no record found” is information you can act on; an assumption is not.
What if the person does not want to hear from me?
Then that is the answer, and it is a complete one. Somebody raised across many placements may associate that entire period with the worst years of their life, and an approach from it can be genuinely destabilizing rather than welcome. That applies to siblings and to former caregivers alike. If you are a former foster parent hoping to hear that a child turned out well, consider making yourself findable instead of searching – register your details with the placing agency and let the approach come from the person entitled to decide whether it happens. We will not help anyone treat a refusal as an opening position.
Have a Name From the File, a County and a Year?
That is the point where records work earns its fee, and we will say so plainly if a free request should come first instead. Send us what the file, the school records or the court docket gave you, or put the situation to our team – and if you want the wider service this sits inside, it is our skip tracing and public-records research.
Start a locate
