[hkolln]

Originally Posted by mommy2fiveplus

Relatives will continue to think they are the best place for "thier" children, that fosters who adopt are trying to block RU, that fosters "pick and choose" the healthy "perfect" kids to adopt (like relatives don't abandon sick kids in care) and that foster parents some how see their foster children as "less" than thier bios, if they even have any.

Actually, if you do some research on ffamilies vs relatives abandoning "sick" kids or abused kids you'll find that the vast majority that do that are NON relatives...relatives have a higher percentage of keeping the kids in their homes and trying the hardest.
Maybe that's because it's easier to give up on a non relative VS a relative? I don't know but take a look at this study:
http://www.clasp.org/publications/is..._care_good.pdf

And far as being better then each other I don't think that was the reason for this thread. I think it's more that biofamilies are feeling ffamilies are not wanting to work with RU and biofamilies when they do come forward and are cleared to take the kids which causes a harder transition for the kids.

[dreamangel]

This post is really becomming a tit for tat post! Silly game.

[RobinKay]

Mommy, I think the discussion regarding care, etc. was misinterpreted by you. I posed some situations that trigger social services to move a child. Helen then posed a question—does she do what she does because she is a relative?

There were several responses from foster parents who said, no, they didn’t think so. Helen received a nice compliment personally for her care of her daughters. Well deserved, I think. It was a good discussion with lots of interesting feedback. And the general consensus was that most foster families do as much or more than relatives, because they love their foster children. I, for one, was very happy to read all those reponses.

I don’t think the sincerity or care foster parents provide in general is questioned by anyone who has posted on this thread. You don’t like it when broad generalizations are made, please don’t do that to others.

Regarding the statement that relatives have no right to question or comment on foster families and what they do unless and until they have fostered themselves—

I don’t need to be a policeman to have an opinion of how I would like the police to do their job—I want them to enforce the laws I voted into place. Someone does not have to be a teacher to know what they want for their children’s education—parents want the state curriculum taught and good communication with the teacher. I don’t need to be a doctor to know what I want for my medical care-I want research-based methods to diagnose and treat my illness. I do not need to be a politician to have an opinion on how my state and federal government is run—I am a voting citizen.

And I do not need to be a foster parent to see the problems in the foster care system. The laws that guide this system were voted into place by all citizens of this country, everyone’s tax dollars pay for it.

Originally Posted by mommy2fiveplus

I'll have to remind my friend she picked the "defective" child at Kids-R-Us to adopt, she should have watied for another to come along instead of adopting the one with medical problems. Oh, that's right, maybe I should have waited to, I'm sure some healthy child would have come along that I could have "stolen" from his/her brithfamily.

RobinKay- I realize you have a huge distaste for the actions of the ffamily that had your son, please don't think they they wanted to "keep him" because he was perfect. Many foster parents adopt children that are not perfect, perhaps it was not his athletics, smart brain or healthiness they fell in love with, maybe it was his smile, or the way that he brushed his hair back or how he looked when riding a swing. I think you judge them too harshly and put this "they only wanted him, because he was perfect and they wouldn't have accepted an imperfect child" label on them, that is wrong, for all you know they could have fallen head over heels for a drug-exposed ugly child with CP. It is not outward aspects of a child that make them "the perfect fit" for a family, Just because you love his athletic ability or his smart brain, does not mean that they "fell in love" with those same things.

I found the tone of this part of your post very disrespectful. When I have described my son’s foster family, I have been honest and based everything on their actions and statements to me. They stated to me they were not interested in adoption until they got this child. They stated they liked his athletic ability, his good performance at school, etc. When he was moved, they gave up their license, (per their supervisor). In a Christmas card, they said they were adopting a 3 yr old boy. We called to congratulate them—and fmom said, no, we just ‘put in our order” for a 3 yr old boy. There wasn’t an actual child transitioning or placed with them yet. She wasn’t kidding—they literally told the agency this is what they wanted and they were not interested in anything else. This is what I base my statements on.

I have stated over and over, Mommy, that I realize that not all fparents are like this. I have stated over and over that I was glad to learn this from everyone on this site.

The reason I started this thread is because there are many, not all, but many like the foster parents that cared for my son. There are many foster parents who will, given any opportunity, fight the return of their beloved foster child to relatives. Sometimes it is certainly justified when the situation is not safe for the child to return—I would like to be acknowledged for supporting those posters on this site, for agreeing with them.

My purpose in posting this thread was to raise awareness and promote open discussion and communication between and among foster parents, relatives, and those who belong to both groups. I see progress as most posters acknowledge and validate each other’s point of view—that is the first step.

[mommytoEli]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

My purpose in posting this thread was to raise awareness and promote open discussion and communication between and among foster parents, relatives, and those who belong to both groups. I see progress as most posters acknowledge and validate each other’s point of view—that is the first step.

i've enjoyed reading this thread. i'd have to say most of the things i've learned about adoption have come from adoption.com. mostly from participating in threads like these. i enjoy being challenged in the way i think....sometimes i change my mind, sometimes i hold even stronger to what i believed, sometimes i learn to compromise with myself....but in the end, i feel like i walk away really knowing what it is i believe about adoption....with a glimpse of how others view the same things.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by Aminah

"A problematic history of social relationships occurring after about age three may be distressing to a child, but does not result in attachment disorder."

What are the thoughts of others?

In my experience, these kinds of moves are always distressing to kids. My son has great attachments, but just moving to Bloomington WITH me---same mom, different house--threw him into a tailspin. My friend is moving with her husband and three year olds son, and the three year old is whacking out. So I can only imagine what it's like for kids who have to do this without their parents.

That said, I'm sure a lot depends on the child's previous attachments and basic personality type.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by hkolln

She goes everywhere with me (we're actually attached to the hip!) and is treated just as my bio daughter and was treated as if a bio daughter from day one in our home! Now is that because I am related to her? How many foster parents can say they take their kids on all their family vacations?

In fact the entire summer (from end of June 2007 til school started in August 2007) I was on unpaid FMLA leave in order to be here for her during her transition. I stayed home here with her that entire summer 24/7. I did not get paid one dime! Would a foster parent do that for a foster child? Would they sacrifice for a foster child (take time off work without pay)?

You're joking, aren't you? When Aaron came as a foster child, I took off three months at half pay, and another three months at no pay. I took three months off at no pay for one of my foster daughters, too, because she needed somebody home with her. I stopped my tenure clock for a year---a move that cost me more than $10K in lost wages.

And I've taken almost all my fkids on vacation. When Aaron was a foster kid, we took him to Italy for two weeks, for goodness sake!

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

In my experience, these kinds of moves are always distressing to kids. My son has great attachments, but just moving to Bloomington WITH me---same mom, different house--threw him into a tailspin. My friend is moving with her husband and three year olds son, and the three year old is whacking out. So I can only imagine what it's like for kids who have to do this without their parents.

That said, I'm sure a lot depends on the child's previous attachments and basic personality type.

Boulderbabe--I agree with you completely.

Just to share--with my husband in the military (now retired) we took great care with every move. The boys participated by packing their own toys, choosing what to take in suitcases with them and what the movers would pack and ship. We talked about where we were going, showed pictures if possible. My husband took extra time off whenever possible.

I was told how traumatized my lil guy was when taken into care--and his teenaged sister was nearly hysterical--leaping out of the sworker's car and running with him into a 7-eleven to hide. He still does not want to talk about that time--he has freely discussed everything else.

It is so important for the adults--all the adults--in the child's life to be aware of how hard it is for these children to move.

I am very thankful for the kind, and when necessary, strong-willed foster parents who advocate for careful, well-planned transitions either to family members or to the next foster home.

[Aminah]

Originally Posted by dreamangel

Yes, my sole purpose of fostering is to adopt! You are very much mistaken when you say that families who ultimately want to adopt lead to blocking RU.

I think you have misinterpreted my statement. I did not say all ff that have a primary purpose to adopt will block RU. My point was that when you allow persons to take in a child and their primary purpose is to adopt, you will have people (not all people) MUCH MORE OFTEN trying to block RU than if the intention was not to do foster care with the primary purpose to adopt. I was not attacking ff. There is a higher instance of blocking RU efforts among ff that do foster care with the primary purpose to adopt. If that doesn't apply to you, great. I don't expect you to agree with what I said, but at least you can disagree with the correct interpretation.

[Aminah]

Originally Posted by Becki_in_IN

Now that my girls are older, blood is important to them.

I think this is why so many relatives believe it is important that bfamilies be RU'd whenever possible. Children at a certain age may not find it to be very important, but as they get older, it becomes extremely important. Most people spend the majority of their life in this "older" stage. Basically, blood does matter. It matters b/c people want to know where they come from, who they are, etc. It matters, it matters, it matters...

[Aminah]

Originally Posted by mommy2fiveplus

When relatives devalue the sincerity of ALL foster parents, by saying it is only a small few that do these things for thier kids, that is when I leave the conversation.

That's unfortunate that you feel this way. Part of this forum is that we won't agree... and we have very strong opinions. But if we're not willing to have open and honest conversations like this, the lack of communication, and the misinterpretation will continue. Even if someone makes a comment that is wrong in every respect, it gives us all an opportunity to learn, discuss, and then change can occur.

Originally Posted by mommy2fiveplus

Relatives will never know what it is like to foster or see a child's best interest from that point of view UNTIL THEY DO IT. And unlike foster parents who take in all children, many relative adopters are only willing to take family.

Foster parents do not take in all children, they certainly have a choice who they take and not take, what age group they prefer, etc... You just made the same over-arching generalization about relatives that you said makes you very angry when it is done to you. How do you know that relatives are only willing to take family? Are you not a relative?

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by Aminah

I think this is why so many relatives believe it is important that bfamilies be RU'd whenever possible. Children at a certain age may not find it to be very important, but as they get older, it becomes extremely important. Most people spend the majority of their life in this "older" stage. Basically, blood does matter. It matters b/c people want to know where they come from, who they are, etc. It matters, it matters, it matters...

Not sure I agree here about "blood" If we are talking about DNA--that is not what I think is the most important. I think the family history and relationships are what matters. If a child can maintain a connection to the family someway, somehow--the adults concerned should do everything it takes to make it happen.

BTW--my dh, his sister, and my BIL are all adopted. It's my BIL who is my ds's birthfather. It wasn't "blood" like DNA were wanted to preserve, it was the love and memories lil guy had of his family.

[SAHmom]

We recently had hubby’s cousin - born in November - as a foster care placement from the time she was one month old until recently. We had to obtained an attorney and go before the judge to get her in our home…even though in the SRS manual she should have been placed here originally. And yes, I did bring the state's manual up to her. Our problem was with the agency…or rather the SW’s supervisor who refused to place her in our home. Having recently adopted and being approved ongoing for adoptions since 2001, there wasn’t a valid reason not to place her in our home once the uncle let the agency know about us. The supervisor refused to come into our home, talk to us and our children or anything. Flat out said she wasn't going to. Even the SRS supervisor couldn't believe that the supervisor wouldn't come into our home or do a homestudy. Ironically, just the year before, this agency approved us for adoption!

We were familiar with this agency due to our 17 year old a/son. Because of safety issues of him around children {he had choked his brother, etc} we placed him as a child of need of care. This was the same agency that I made several complaints on as we were not notified of our son’s case plans nor anything else regarding him. The reason the supervisor gave as to not place hubby’s cousin in our home was because we had a child as a ‘child in need of care’. Never mind that *WE* obtained an attorney and placed him there! Ironically, had we kept him in our home, they would have probably charged us with endangering our other children. Go figure! She tried to tell me that it was a policy they couldn’t, but when pressed couldn’t come up with the policy for me to view!

We spent $750 to do something that this agency should have done in the first place. I was on the ‘other side of the fence’ as an adoptive parent, but with what this particular agency/Sws/Supervisor has done over the last few years, I have had my eyes opened more than once. Even with the judge’s order {AND the SRS attorney's recommendation} that the agency place the child in our home, the Supervisor still took her time. I later learned that this same Supervisor was interested in adopting. What do you think I thought when I heard this from no other than her own brother-in-law! Strangely, this is the SAME agency that not even a year before emailed me to adopt two teenage siblings with major emotional issues, but yet, this supervisor didn't want to place a healthy baby in our home. What does that tell you?

As for relatives not coming forward right away, we had no contact over the years with this uncle due to his past lifestyle. He didn’t name us the day the baby was taken as he was embarrassed. The baby was taken because b/mom had previously had three children taken and TPR on. Uncle had no idea. We, on the other hand, had no knowledge about the baby's birth due to the uncle's age and him never fathering biological children ever. Long story... I guess what I am trying to get across is…well, every situation is different, but in our case, it definitely showed me another side to all of this.

[Aminah]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

Not sure I agree here about "blood" If we are talking about DNA--that is not what I think is the most important.

I believe the reference to "blood" and "DNA" would be one in the same. Just another way to refer to the same concept.

[Aminah]

Originally Posted by SAHmom

The reason the supervisor gave as to not place hubby’s cousin in our home was because we had a child as a ‘child in need of care’.

Unfortunately, this doesn't surprise me (and I wish it did).

Before my sister was able to adopt my nephew, she was being blocked by the agency b/c the SW felt the child should be in a two parent home (my sister wasn't married at the time). The agency failed to mention they placed the child in an adoptive home at the start of placement hoping the ff would adopt (w/o consulting any bfamily).

You know, I think these threads and complaints should be a lesson to all of us. We all should be advocating and questioning the agency. We (bf and ff) need to stop accepting the agencies actions w/o proper explanations.

All the bfamilies that are on here need to make sure they share any information they have learned w/ family and friends so that they are equipped if any member of their family is placed in care. Ffamilies need to question the agency more in regards to their searches for relatives and how communication can begin w/ bfamily right away. Relatives are being placed in care w/o proper searches done.

I think it's great that there are fost/adopt home in place. It leads to permanency quicker when relatives are not an option. However, I think the lines of communication need to be established between the two sooner (if possible). If ffamily and bfamily are communicating sooner (even if via email only), the agencies will have a harder time giving one-sided stories to any party.

[dreamangel]

Originally Posted by Aminah

I think you have misinterpreted my statement. I did not say all ff that have a primary purpose to adopt will block RU. My point was that when you allow persons to take in a child and their primary purpose is to adopt, you will have people (not all people) MUCH MORE OFTEN trying to block RU than if the intention was not to do foster care with the primary purpose to adopt. I was not attacking ff. There is a higher instance of blocking RU efforts among ff that do foster care with the primary purpose to adopt. If that doesn't apply to you, great. I don't expect you to agree with what I said, but at least you can disagree with the correct interpretation.

Below is what u originally said when I posted....

Originally Posted by Aminah
Unfortunately, there is a shortage of fp's. I truly believe that families that do foster care w/ the primary reason to adopt ultimately leads to fp's trying to block RU.

Sorry Aminah, but there is no way in this post did you mean only "some" foster families and not "all". While u posted that I misinterpreted your post I believe I didn't. You clearly stated that u "truly believed that families that do foster care with the promary reason to adopt ULTIMATELY leads to FP's trying to block RU". Now, if u meant only some ff then it should have gone like this....

In my opinion there are ff out there that have proved to block RU. Now, that is not saying all ff but, there are some that have a track record of trying to make RU much more difficult than it needs to be.