[annelizly]

I wanted to say that with all of the terrible news of starved and murdered foster children and adoptees. with all the news of failing foster care system, i was wondering if anyone here would think that a "orphanage" situation would be better than foster care system? I don't of course mean the sterile, institution type, but possibly something more modern and caring like a private school setting? couldn't possibly cost us more money as a country
anyone see benefits or negatives to this?

[6boysrus]

Well Boy's town is what first comes to mind.. and it is still in existance.

I think in todays world.. the foster care system is preferred because in the long run, children benefit greatly from being in a "home" setting rather than an institutional setting.

However here are many boarding schools for boys only, girls only. Many are private and not publicly funded and are usually through the Catholic Church or another Christian outreach program.

Im going to have to give this some thought as to think about the plus/ vs minus sides of it..

Are you thinking of starting one?

Yvonne

[FadedCoke]

kinda like a group home? i dont kno if that would be such a great idea.. in any sense that its meant as.. n in those settings children arent so free to do normal things thats needed to be learned through normal socializing..

[LuckyDog]

Originally Posted by annelizly

i was wondering if anyone here would think that a "orphanage" situation would be better than foster care system?

My initial reaction is vigorous no. Sure, I have a few extra challenges in my life because of my adoption, but I think that if I was raised in some sort of institutional setting, I'd would have had a lot more trouble than I did.

Think about this from the adoptee's perspective: Adoption presents the opportunity to bond to actual parents and be nutured in a loving home. The child may have some trouble attaching and may have some struggles along the way, but it is far better than the alternative; no bond, no attachment, no nuturing, nothing. And if you think that adoptees struggle with a sense of identity, just imagine how much they would struggle if they had been institutionalized.

Nothing can take the place of loving parents, no matter how well it's dressed up.

[BrandyHagz]

As an adoptee who grew up in a group home, I have to say no.

Even tho I had what they called a "Sponsor Family" to take me places on the weekend and do things with me...it was nothing like growing up in a family household. I think, had I grown up within a family, I wouldn't have spent much of my twenties trying to figure out how to be a parent, a partner and a friend...

[annelizly]

oh no! I didn't mean group home instead of adoption! I think adoption is best. I meant instead of foster homes. or at least instead of some foster homes. just a temp. stop for children needing adoption, or a safe place for kids whose parents won't parent and also won't give up custody.

[6boysrus]

Ann..

You mean like a safehouse for kids? I must have misunderstood you too..

But like the case in Florida recently.. those kids were isolated so they couldnt reach out to anyone. They were abused so badly that even calling 911 was not known.

I dont see how it could work.. if the kids are under constant control of the abusive parents then they have no way of communicating with the outside world or for that matter even with a social worker. When the social worker comes in, they are told to behave and keep their mouths shut or they will face severe punishment.

Now these are kids we are talking about.. think about all the adult battered women out there who live under such fear.--Many times for years on end..

It would be VERY VERY difficult to get these kids out or at least for the kids to make the initial contact..

Dont you guys think?

Yvonne

[79nic]

Well, some foster kids do live in residential group home settings...

But as far as it being a first choice, no, not a good idea IMO. I would think the already-high rates of attachment disorders/issues for kids in foster care would be even higher, if we just sent them all right to group homes, rather than to foster families...

[spaypets]

The vast majority of foster parents are good people--we only hear about the horrible cases. And group homes are in no way immune from abuse--often child on child.

As the mother of a child who spent her first 18 months in a well run orphanage (and is amazingly well adjusted), I can tell you that no institution is a substitute for parents. Yes, my daughter was lovingly cared for, but it simply isn't the same as having a parent who's opinion you value. Furthermore, one of the reasons my dd is well adjusted is that she had the same caregiver because the country she was from is exceptionally poor and the job at the orphanage is valued. That would not be the case in the US and staff turnover alone would be damaging.

Children behave because they care what their parents think of them--some staff member isn't going garner that same respect.

[spedteacher06]

Another issue that we need to look at is the foster care system itself. I wonder how much of the problems foster children have are the result of the HOMES they were in or being a product of the system itself. I've often wondered why, if a foster home is working for all parties, why the child must be constantly shuttled from home to home, carrying all their worldly belongings in a shopping bag or suitcase? How can a child establish bonds when they're being moved periodically by the system and never feel like they own more than the contents of a shopping bag or suitcase?

We might see that foster and adopted children shared many more of the same feelings and problems if they were allowed to stay in good foster homes until they were adopted or they moved out. I'm sure that, although instructed not to have stong feelings for the children, many foster parents grow to love thier foster children as if they were thier own. Perhaps more good families would sign on to be foster parents if they could hold onto their foster children and really parent them. The pain may be worse if the child is eventually adopted for all parties, but perhaps the children wouldn't be sacrificed in the process.

I often wonder if there were some type of transitional period, where the child was allowed to make a gradual change from foster family to foster family or adoptive family, the problems may also be reduced. Perhaps the transition wouldn't be so painful if this transition were possible. I'm sure that allowing the child to continue to have contact with people from his past would also help ease the transition and be more natural. I'm not sure how aparents would feel, and I'm sure this would be especially difficult if the transition period was done between a bparent and an aparent, but there has to be a better way than the system is now....if the system was as good as they think it is, then why do so many of us share the same feelings of loss, not feeling connected or bonded, and missing pieces?

Anne