[mommy2fiveplus]

#1- I think the idea of only being a foster or only being an adoptive home is ludicrious. The system would end up with far fewer foster homes (any of you all who are knocking foster parents who want to adopt going to step up and foster?) and kids would end up in group homes. Where we live you can be adopt only or you can be foster/adopt. Foster/adopt in our area means you can take regular foster placements AND you can take kids that are likely to be adopted. This keeps other people from saying you "lied" about your intentions. BTW they encourage everyone to become foster/adopt or adopt only, pretty soon there will not be a straight foster option in other areas as well and I am glad. Just because you take a child doesn't mean you have to adopt but if it comes up at least you have the option with the foster/adopt license.

#2 Not all states have foster/adopt, so this OP may not have been able to say that she wanted to foster (permanent AND temp) and then adopt if the option came up, doesn't make her a nasty foster parent that "baits and switches" or doesn't have integrity, or goes back on her word, or doesn't support RU. It does make her an unfortunate foster parent that lives in an uneducated state that puts families into little boxes forcing them to conform to one thing or another instead of being flexible and doing what is in the best interest for the child.

#3 I also disagree that fostering is not a good way to create a forever family, it is a way and actually I have found it to be a satisfying and rewarding way to do so. There have been losses along the way, but there have also been gains that I would never want to part with, such as seeeing a formerly drug abusing and uneducated mom, graduate from college 2 years after getting her kids back, such as holding my baby boy and knowing that if not for me he would likely be dead because there is no way his bmother could have possibly cared for his special needs, such as seeing an unanchored child who drifted from place to place become tied to a family so strongly that he/she actually sees himself as an integral part of that family. We always knew we wanted to adopt, but because I was raised with foster care almost my whole life (my parents did foster since I was 4) I also knew how rewarding it can be to foster in the temporary sense. We wanted both, to foster and to adopt, and it has been a succesful and rewarding endevor. And a great way to add to our family, all you have to do is look at our family portrait to know that.

#4 To RobinKay, if a family has to decide to either foster only or adopt only many times situations will occur where a child has been in foster care for years and bonded with a family (they have "fallen in love" with eachother child and family, family and child). In your ideal world, that family would have to transition these kids to a new adopt only home. It is not in the kids best interest for this to happen. These kids may have started out as a simple RU with a 6-9 mos case plan, but bparents didn't complete their requirements, family didn't step up or couldn't pass a homestudy, and after extensions and allowances and parents working plan for awhile but not finishing, the kids have now been in a foster only home for 2-3 years and now because they are still young (lets say 3-6y) and very "adoptable" lets move them to an adopt only home, that is assinine (sp?). Well the same goes for this case. Plans change, the original plan was for baby to go to adoptive home, mom changes mind, baby moved from adoptive home to foster, state gives her a plan, she can't make it happen, wa-la child in care for monthes (a long time to an infant) now finally TPR is imminent and the great idea is to move the baby AGAIN, that is not a system that is doing what is in the best interest of the child.

IMO all foster homes should be foster/adopt, that way if they have a child that was originally foster but goes to TPR and they want to adopt they can have that option, they don't have to take that option if they don't want to but at least they can and not be accused of "bait and switch" or "falling in love" and changing thier minds, or using some back door method or adoption, they should not have to say from the outset whether they want to adopt or not because that desire may change from case to case, I know it has for me, there have been kids that on the first day I had them I would have told you no way could I handle them every day for the next 20 years, but ask me that same question 6 monthes later and I was crying when they left because they had become such an important part of our lives and I can't imagine the next day without them. A friend of mine started fostering because she was single and wanted to adopt a baby, she has adopted two, got married and had another and has fostered 3 babies (initial plan was RU) that she has choosen not to adopt because she felt that she wanted to continue fostering. Those babies were transitioned from her home to waiting adopt only homes after TPR. That is the way it should be, a foster home that has cared for a child and bonded with a child should have the option to adopt. It does not mean that in the future my friend will not adopt any baby that comes through her home, it just means in those cases she did not, my feelings are that she has strong protective feelings for the medically fragile ones and those are the ones she has adopted, in any case she should be the first person they ask, it is what is best for the child.

Each case needs to be looked at individually, there is no right way that will work for every child. No family should be made to decide from the outset of a case wether or not they want to adopt, it might not even be an option in the picture at the outset of the case (much like this one with the OP the plan was to RU with Bmom). That is why I am in agreement with progressive states that are encouraging all foster parents to become foster/adopt, so that permanency can be made for all children sooner. Straight foster is an anitquated system that only hurts children and families.

Additionally foster is not "promising to do the temp thing", fostering is taking in a child and providing the things that the former caregiver could not or would not, it is loving a child that desperately needs it and advocating for what is best for the child, even if that means hurting yourself or making it known that the "plan" that other people may have for this child is not in his/her best interest. I have been known to advocate for a bparent that the agency wants to give up on and have "blocked" RU (by telling the GAL and Judge my concerns) with family that is not suitable or safe to take the child. My "contract" is not with the agency but with the child, they are my higher concern, the agency can take care of itself and is often to busy to see things that I think are completely obvious. If this foster parent wants to adopt and the agency wants to move the child to another home without any beneficial reason for the child, then I hope she fights it tooth and nail, because she signed up to help children not hurt them, unnessasary moves HURT.