I think it's lot easier to explain that these were nice people who took care of you for a while vs. no one in your (birth) family wanted you.
THAT is the line I was responding to.
I don't know where you are getting some of your comments from, in your response to me..."try before you buy"?? What the heck is THAT all about? and I don't know what you think I meant by "reaping the benefits" but what I MEANT was a family unwilling to take a child with severe emotional and behavioural issues, and then coming forward and suddenly wanting to take the child once they have begun significant healing.
You are also painting birth families with a pretty broad brush - saying that of course they can't take care of a child with special needs, since they were dysfunctional in the first place. Just because the child's birth parents are dysfunctional does NOT mean that the rest of the family is as well.
My FS was 14 years old when he came to me. I had no intention of adopting and wasn't seeking another child. I wasn't even a foster parent. I very much hoped someone in his family WOULD step forward and take him; but they didn't, so I applied to take him. His grandparents and aunt all would have been suitable placements but did not want to take him because they were not willing to do the hard work of dealing with his emotional problems. I was, so I took him. BUT MY POINT was that IF a foster parent has taken a child and worked their butts off to help the child, it is particularly tragic to then lose that child to a birth relative who wasn't willing to do the work in the first place, but now wants the "healed" child. And I am NOT saying that is what happens all the time (no, Helen - I'm definitely not talking about you, or anyone else who has been trying to get a birth relative for some time and is willing to take on all the challenges) - but it DOES happen sometimes. There have been several cases on this board of birth relatives not interested in a child with "big problems" who suddenly become interested months or years later when the child is well into recovery. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in such cases it is that process of hard work and recovery that MAKES a family, and is what makes the foster parents the child's "real" parents. And no "blood link" is more important than THAT link. Which is why your characterization of foster parents as just "nice people that take care of a child for while" irks the heck out of me. The best interests
of the child are in being with the person who has stuck by them, done the therapy and healing with them, and been there through all the hard stuff. NOT necessarily the person who shares the same DNA. There is an undertone in your post of thinking that foster parents all have some sort of "agenda", and are selfish if they want to adopt a child they've parented. This is getting rather off track, so I think we need to bring the focus back to the original poster. She is the ONLY healthy parent this child has experienced in his entire life - that makes her a heck of a lot more than "some nice person who took care of him for a while".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RobinKay
Foster parents volunteer to do this job. Is it to help the children or is it for themselves? Is the foster care system a "try before you buy" program? Is an adults need/wish for a family the primary reason for fostering?
Reaping the benefits? So it wasn't for the child, it was for the "benefits"? It surprises you a birth family could not care for a child with special needs? What kind of families do you think lose their children to social services? If they were functional, capable people, they wouldn't have lost the child in the first place.
The "right" to fulfill the desire to have a child, to have a family ends at the child's right to be reunited with their birth family whenever possible.
Too often that cannot happen, the birth family cannot care for a child. Thank goodness for the foster families in those cases.
|