the child to his natural parents.” Id. at 846-47, 97 S.Ct. 2094. Here, there was no such tension. K.L.’s natural parents wanted the Blacks to raise her, and in fact terminated their parental rights in expectation of the Blacks adopting K.L. The Blacks’ goals and the natural parents’ goals were in harmony. Given that lack of tension, in addition to the multiple ties that the Blacks had to K.L. — they are her blood relatives, they were her foster parents, they were in the process of adopting her, and they had raised her practically since birth — it seems at odds with reality to conclude that they did not have any liberty interest in their relationship with her. Other courts have also found a liberty interest in foster parents who had stronger ti pecanoe Cnty., 600 F.2d 693 (7th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). The Rivera court also noted that the children
holding foster parents not liable for willful act of their foster child holding there is no protected liberty interest in maintaining the foster family relationship holding that there was no liberty interest for the typical foster parents in question recognizing that foster parents do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a continued relationship with their foster child holding the foster parent did not possess a liberty interest in her relationship with the foster child