Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SAHmom
I am 'one of those' adoptive parents that has our son back in fostercare. Our son, adopted at the age of 12, became violent to the other children - choking, etc - and for safety reasons we obtained an attorney and placed him as a child in need of care. We still obtain our parental rights and he is our son. We had no other choice to do this to protect our other children. The RTCs and Psych wards were always quick to release him.
|
Thanks for your post. I had wanted to mention something about this, but wasn't sure if I should. Besides the one extreme I mentioned in my last post, I also saw the other extreme at that job -- which was parents (adoptive or bio) who insisted on trying to keep their child at home even when the child clearly was not safe. On girl's mother had to be forbidden from even taking her child on home visits because the girl was so aggressive toward younger children (mom seemed willing to accept aggression against her younger son, but the girl had the cops called on her for attacking other people's kids at the park). In another case, an adoptive family kept bringing their daughter back home even though she had threatened the dad with knives, and while on the psych ward she was always talking about killing her parents. I'm glad neither of these parents chose to terminate their parental rights, but in both cases in-home placement was not appropriate.
So I guess my point is that in some cases out-of-home placement is necessary, but that adoptive parents shouldn't automatically assume they have to disrupt the adoption just because they can't keep the kid at home.