|
To casey03: Sounds like a hard situation. I hope the best for the child, whatever that may be, and that if there is pain in the outcome for you or others, that there will be some kind of comfort in the end. The answer to your question is that it depends on the cw, the county/district practice, the court practice, state law, and local legal interpretations of that law. Of course, it also may depend somewhat on the relatives.
Over all that, there is a presumption in international, national, and state law that the child has an inherent right to be raised by family when possible and that the child's best interest lies in that right. Against that, there can be all kinds of different exceptions made for different reasons.
To everyone: No matter what happens, the child will suffer a loss.
The general argument is over whether one loss carries inherently more weight than the other. The law says it does. I am told by therapists and other such that research supports that presumption.
In specific cases, courts are supposed to determine which loss is greater or more harmful in the long term. In real life, ss agencies and courts sometimes do try to make reasoned judgments and sometimes simply fall back on formulas. More often, I would bet it is some combination of the two.
To everyone: No adult except the parents or guardians has "rights to" a child. Children are no longer property; even a parent's or guardian's "rights" are tied to and limited by the authority they must have to be able to fulfill their much weightier duty to provide for and protect the child.
So, legally, it is the other way around. Children have "rights to" certain adults, including extended family. I think it is fair to say that this one major point of Robin's has not been heard, addressed directly, or even disagreed with directly; just ignored.
The real argument is not over whether a child has a right to be raised by family--he/she absolutely does--it is over when the child's right to family and family integrity and the benefits the child derives from those rights do or don't outweigh the benefits of an undisrupted attachment to others.
That I think has to be a case-by-case judgment.
Robin's other main point is likewise getting lost in the emotional shuffle: I don't think she is saying fps should never adopt or that wanting to adopt is a bad thing in itself. She is saying that when that desire alone blinds the fps to the child's best interest--when it "gets in the way"--thereby derailing or trying to derail RU with parents or family, it is a problem.
I think she has several times acknowledged that it is human and understandable when this happens, but the fact that it sometimes does happen--and I think we can honestly say we've seen it on this board on the part of some posters and in the stories of others--is a problem.
On another topic, as for ICPCs, I would like to point out that domestic infant adoption ICPCs go through in DAYS. People are outraged, in fact, when they take more than 3-4 days. Even after a homestudy, when required, is completed, it still takes fc ICPCs MONTHS to complete. There is no good or reasonable explanation for that difference.
|