Robin, I think you are misinterpreting "Not being agreed with" with "not being heard". We HEAR you just fine- but I, for one, don't agree. And I reallly DO think the "try before you buy" thing is rude and insulting. You DID say you've heard it right here on this site, but have not given evidence to support that. Furthermore, the situation you describe in this post doesn't fit that either. The foster parents in your son's situation don't sound like they were "tire kicking" - intentionally taking a child with the view of deciding whether or not they wanted to keep him!. It sounds like they went in with the intention of reunification, and then changed their minds for whatever reason - whether it be because they saw things in the bio family that concerned them, or just because they lost their judgement. Either way, they do NOT appear to have been treating the child as "disposable" which is certainly the implication in "try before you buy". And I'm not necessarily agreeing with their point of view either - obviously the judge prevailed in your case. Mind you, if what I'm *hearing* here came across to them, they might have felt that you had a negative and condescending attitude toward foster parents. You do seem to be quoting peoples words out of context in this discussion in order to make your case....I don't see anywhere in the above poster's comment where she implies that bio families DON'T do all that. She was merely pointing out that foster parents DO all that without necessarily having an "agenda" which is what you seem to be accusing us of - again, painting whole group with a very broad brush.
Personally, I will never, EVER, agree that a relative is better JUST because they are a relative. There has to be better reasons than that! And I stand by my opinion that all other factors being EQUAL, the child should stay with whomever they are bonded with. If you want me to put a time frame on it, than I'd say whoever they've spent the majority of their life with, since one year could be an entire lifetime to a baby, and only a small part of the big picture with an older child.
ps - oh yes, you argue that foster parents have the option of sending a child "back" or refusing a placement in the first place. SO do kinship placements, so I really can't see why that point is relevant. No one, related or not, is ever "forced" to adopt a child, so the playing field is pretty level on that point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RobinKay
Transporting, visits, schedule disruptions, holiday disruptions, children's emotional issues, etc, etc, etc. However, we do it all for the kids because they deserve more than we could ever possibly give. They did not ask for any of the things that they have been subjected to.
Bio families don't do all that, once they get them back?
"try before you buy" comes directly from my personal situation. Fp said to us they did not intend to adopt, ever, until our lil guy came along. Then they "fell in love" and decided everyone in his birth family was unfit--I base that on what they said to us and how they treated us--they did not support him seeing his bio sister, who was also subjected to the foster system and a minor. They "tried" this child and decided, on their own, to keep him although the plan was ALWAYS reunification, he was never available for adoption.
Seriously, how many foster parents on this site are fostering just to help kids, and how many are looking for children to adopt? Foster parents may not "give the kids back" routinely, but the option is there. The option is also there to not take a placement in the first place when called by social services.
I have agreed over and over--it is unfair and hurtful to lose a child you are raising. I feel I am not being heard when I state that it is the child's right to be with their family whenever possible. I do not say that DNA makes you a better parent, I say being raised by the bio family (when it is possible,) keeps the child from asking "why didn't anyone in my family want me?" as they grow up.
|