[kxl164]

"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. First, please do not assume that my point of view is limited to my own situation and experience. I have much more contact and experience with the foster care system than just my ds's former placements.
-- I was saying how it seemed to me. I didn't say it was your only experience, just how it appeared to me where this resentment was coming from. If I was wrong, so be it.

Second, the foster parents knew exactly what the end would be for this child. Either the parents was going to take the child home, or the child was going to an adoptive family. There was no confusion, no uncertainty at any time. There was a plan in place to achieve permanency in a very timely manner.
--Nothing that the OP said stated this. The OP thought the child was going to birthmom. 99% sure the child was going to birthmom, not to adoptive parents. Over and over foster parents are asked to adopt, they hoped to be able to adopt him, then they learned that he would go to adoptive parents not to them. There WAS confusion.

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. So it's OK to lie if it's in the best interests of the child? How can any birthparent or family trust social services if people do not keep their word?
--No one is saying it is OK to lie. But is it OK to change your mind. It is OK to look at the way the child fits into your family and say why in the world would have this child move if he/she needs an adoptive home and say now that the child is available for adoption we would like to adopt. That is not only, not lying, that is understanding your own feelings and is considered an ideal situation for the 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.They couldn't handle the situation? They are less deserving of adopting a child because they chose not to foster first? That makes them not the best option?
-- Yes. If they couldn't be a foster parent to this child when birthmom was trying to work to keep him and he had time to bond with another family then they are not the best option for THIS child. I'm not saying all straight adoptive parents are less deserving of adopting than foster parents, I'm saying this child deserves the stability afforded to him by his foster parents and shouldn't be moved since the foster family wants to adopt and already has a relationship with the child.

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. The only comparison we can make between the foster parents and the adoptive parents is that the adoptive parents told the truth about what they want from the beginning. They did not try to get a baby through a "back door" method by promising to foster, and then once they get a child, they change their mind and claim "BONDED" and now want to keep the child.
-- The foster parents are not trying to find a "back door" to adopt. They didn't expect this child to become available for adoption. It was UNEXPECTED. Now that he is becoming available they would like to adopt him. How is that changing their mind? How is that any different from any other foster care situation that goes to TPR? Again, no one is saying that straight adoptive parents are less worthy or should be penalized for not wanting to foster, BUT the child's needs should come first and not moving is best. Being bonded is a HUGE DEAL for any child and is the foster family is willing to adopt then that should happen, that is the ideal, that lessens trauma for the child. It is best for the CHILD to remain with the parents he is bonded to. It isn't a "claim" it is real.
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. You and I are in total agreement here-I hope this will become a nationwide practice.

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. That I cannot agree to at this time--too often the adults get what THEY want by claiming it's what's best for the child. "The system" is not child-focused, it is a public adoption agency
--I don't understand your point here. The "system" is not a public adoption agency, part of it is. It is a way to help families remain connected, when that cannot happen then it becomes a way to help the child find permanence. Adults don't just get their way by claiming what is best for the child. My sons birthfamily didn't get them back by just claiming it was best for them. It seems to me that you mean that foster families get to keep(adopt) their foster children by claiming they are bonded instead of the children moving to adoptive only families. There is nothing wrong with that. A child should remain where they are loved and well cared for whenever possible and it is in their best interests. In this case, it is a foster family or an adoptive family. Foster family cared for the child for 5 months, adoptive family are strangers to the child. It is not a hard decision about what is best to me in this 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.Yes, and that is what social services was trying to do in this situation. A baby this age with healthy attachments can be transitioned carefully to a a permanent home, as long as the foster parents help and support this.

If the OP wanted to adopt, they should have said so at the beginning, and not try to circumvent the process.
--NO that is not what social services is trying to do. Social services is moving a child from a loving home to an adoptive home for NO REASON. I haven't heard one good reason why anyone would do this. There is no reason to move this child to another home that is best for the child. Just because a baby can be transitioned into an aoptive home doesn't mean they should be.

The OP is a foster family, willing to help families heal. They never said they were unwilling to adopt, they just put themselves out there first to help reunite families. If they said they would be willing to adopt at initial placement then the agency could/would have moved the child because it would them seem that the foster family didn't support reunification which was the plan at the time. They are not trying to circumvent the system, they are working as part of the system and their role is to provide a home for a child in need. Now that the same child needs a permanent home and they are willing to provide it that is not circumventing the system, that is working with the system in the ideal way.