[kxl164]

"But, what happened? The foster family would now like to change their mind, change the agreement, because they have "fallen in love" with the child. Do we have no questions about integrity, are we not concerned about what would happen if everybody in "the system" decided not to keep their word? Adoptive-only parents are trying to be upfront about their feelings-they said we can't do the foster care thing--honest about their feelings and abilities. Babies are not supposed to be a prize for the family willing to risk the most heartache."

Robinkay, this part of your post sounds as if it is stemming from resentment over your own situation. You are of course entitled to your opion and I know you said that this child should be able to stay with those taking care of him in this case; but your overall concern seems to be over "integrity" of stating what the parent will do in the beginnig of a situation that no one knows the end to.

A child shouldn't be moved if at all possible. It causes problems for the child. Foster care is inherently painful for the child, but the idea is to help the child's birthparents get control of their lives to safely parent their children.

This is not about "keeping someone's word", this is about the life of a child.

I don't know anything about the proposed adoptive family, other than they were not the foster family. They were not the ones caring for this child for the past 5 months. They are not relatives, they are not friends of birthmom, they are a family waiting to adopt. They were not the ones caring for this child, therefore (in my opinion) they are no longer the best option for this child. Yes, they are up front about what they can handle, which is perfectly fine. They couldn't handle this child's situation, plain and simple; therefore, the family that could, the family the child has bonded and lived with, should be the ideal placement for adoption in this case.

This is about a child, not about the parents. The concern for "integrity" here should be the integrity of the child and his right to permanence and a lessening of his pain. The child has the moral right not to be hurt. He may have lived with one family for 5 months and so it seems like this is his first move, but he already lost his birthmother. I don't see how the adoptive family (in this case) is more suited to caring for this child, there is no added benefit to him and only added pain.

Each case should be about the children and what is best for them. So often in foster care it is about the parents and other adults involved in the case at the expense of the children and that is wrong. I agree that there are problems. Some states, however, have recognized the problem and are trying to get away from foster and adoptive only and encourage as few moves as possible for the children. The new ideal is resource parents who would foster AND adopt the child to help attachment and lessen their moves.

The system is supposed to be child-focused. If that is achieved by moving a child to family sooner, or allowing a foster family currently caring for the child adopt, then it should be done. It should be about integrity for the child, not about what parents agreed to what at the outset of the case.

Children get hurt by moves: moving into foster care, moving from foster family to foster family, reunifiying with birthfamily, being placed with relatives/friends, moving to an adoptive family. Every moves leaves a mark, it doesn't mean they can't overcome it, it doesn't even mean it wasn't the best thing in the world to move (sometimes it is!), but each move causes pain and we should lessen it whenever possible.