[Miss Missy]

I was wondering something? Does a foster/adopt couple typically wait longer than say just a foster care couple for a placement? I was told that they try not to place a child in a foster/adopt home unless they are almost certain that, that child will be available for adoption. In otherwords, those out there to do strickly foster care and not to adopt are more likely to get a placement way before a foster/adopt couple, is this generally the case? Does anyone have any advise on that. By the way are in it for the fostercare only not to adopt. Thanks!!!!1

[HappyMomAnna]

Each state has their own rules and each county in the state has an attitude and every case worker also has an opinion and attitude about this subject...... Not too many years ago most states did NOT allow Foster Families to adopt....then when children were left in homes for years and ripped away or worese never adopted the laws were changed to allow Foster Families to be considered and often the next in line after birthfamilies....
So it depends on several issues. I will tell you what I have personally witnessed--and by no means do I say I know everything---but, I have seen many many hurt Foster to adopt families keep a baby for years and not be able to adopt for some reason or another....If you look through these threads long enough you will see this too.
There are many people who do Foster to adopt without a probelm and have adoption go without an issue.
What seems to be happening lately is that many people are Foster adopting in order to recieve an infant...... as straight adoptions infants are harder and take longer to find....
In Oregon Foster to Adopt is NOT where a child who will certainly be adopted goes and especially not a newborn. In Oregon if a child is for certain going to be placed for adoption they are placed in foster homes with families that can help with the transition. In my state the children placed into Foster Adoptive homes are the ones whos future is most unknown..... the children with a high possibility of being adopted, but still a strong possiblity of reunification, relatives, and other issues.
The children who are certain to be adopted are placed for adoption as 'legal risk' meaning there is a remote chance the adoption will not happen, but the home they are in will be their adoptive home.
I have mixed feelings about Foster to Adopt programs I have seen so many people be broken hearted after two years of loving and struggling to adopt a child and then to not be able.... I have never seen an adoptive family have the children removed... It has happened but, I have not seen it.

What is your reason for wanting to go Foster to Adopt?

[Miss Missy]

Thank you for your response. I think maybe my post was a little confusing. We are not considering foster to adopt, we are only doing this because we want to provide some stability for a newborn during the transition months. We are not going into this looking to adopt by no means. I was just wondering if placements come quicker for those families who are only looking to do foster care and not adopt? We are fixing to start our PRIDE classes next week, so we are in the beginning stages of getting licensed. I am just curious about how quickly I should expect a placement? Its seems that there are more people in foster care for the sole prupose to adopt, which is great but all I hear about is how long they have had to wait for a single placement. So, I was wondering is the wait is typically the same for those of us only in it to provide foster care. Does what I am saying make sense? Thanks again for your response. I am from Texas by the way.

[stepforone]

It seems to totally depend on the child that needs placement. Some go into care with the assumption that they will be adoptable. CWs will try to place them in foster/adopt so they aren't uprooted after a year to move to an adoptive home. Others come into care and CWs plan on them going back home after parents complete caseplan. These would try to go to foster homes. We are also in TX and got our first placement 2 months after approval - but for various reasons it took us 1 year to get approved. Good luck. We also went into this with only foster in mind but quickly fell in love with the first placement (3 day old twins) and so became a foster/adopt home in case they were available. A month after they left we got our current 3 yo because we were listed as foster/adopt and hopefully in the next few months we will win our case to adopt. Good luck. It's lots of fun!

[stepforone]

It seems to totally depend on the child that needs placement. Some go into care with the assumption that they will be adoptable. CWs will try to place them in foster/adopt so they aren't uprooted after a year to move to an adoptive home. Others come into care and CWs plan on them going back home after parents complete caseplan. These would try to go to foster homes. We are also in TX and got our first placement 2 months after approval - but for various reasons it took us 1 year to get approved. Good luck. We also went into this with only foster in mind but quickly fell in love with the first placement (3 day old twins) and so became a foster/adopt home in case they were available. A month after they left we got our current 3 yo because we were listed as foster/adopt and hopefully in the next few months we will win our case to adopt. Good luck. It's lots of fun!

[BrandyHagz]

Originally posted by HappyMomAnna
I have mixed feelings about Foster to Adopt programs I have seen so many people be broken hearted after two years of loving and struggling to adopt a child and then to not be able.... I have never seen an adoptive family have the children removed... It has happened but, I have not seen it.

What is your reason for wanting to go Foster to Adopt?

HappyMomAnna,

I have a real quick question...several times, I have seen you ask why someone is wanting to foster to adopt, yet in your signature, you state you advocate for the waiting child...just to clear up any confusion on my part...can you explain why your posts seem to cast a negative light on adopting thru the system, yet your signature states you advocate for this type of adoption? I just want to make sure I am not reading something wrong...

Thanks!

[HappyMomAnna]

In Oregon and as far as I can tell most other states there are two different programs through the State. There is the Foster to Adopt program where by a family agrees to Foster and is Open to the idea of adoption if the child's plan is changed to Adoption and The Foster Family wants to adopt.

There is also straight Adoption where by the family asks to be considered for children who are Already WAITING to be adopted and no one else has decided to adopt that child. The families do need to be certified Foster Homes during the time after placement and until the adoption is final.....

To me the difference is that the children in a straight adoption have been told by their caseworker and Foster Families that the Forever Family is being looked for and when the kid helpers find them they will get to go home with their new family.

When a family goes through the straight adoption the odds are very slim that the placement will be disrutped and when you meet the child/children it is a meeting forever.....

The difference to me is that a family going straight adoption has no obligation to work toward reunification and generally no requirement to arrange for birth family visitations. The Family meets their child the same way you would a birth child.... Hello this is your little girl or boy. You birng you child home with nearly full certainty that the adoption will be final and at placement point you are sure to be the only family this child can be adopted into...... The process goes faster because there is no one else in the game and finalization is really only about the paperwork being processed through the state and signed by the judge.

On the other hand Foster to Adopt programs generally place children with a future that is not as clearly defined as an adoption. The goal is generally still reunification with a real chance it might lead to adoption...... But, there may still be issues such as searhing for a birth father, or other relative, and the state may not have fully decided that TPR is going to happen. In this case a Foster Family is still working for reunification and all that goes with it. There is a period of time which could be over a year that the adoptive family is not sure they will be able to adopt. The children can not be told this is their forever home and the parents cannot be sure this child will be adoptable....

In straight adoption is is very rare to disrupt and usually finalizes within a year or so. With Foster to adopt there is a much higher rate of disruption, more risk to falling in love with a child and far more legal work to take care of.

I advocate the Adoption of Waiting Children because there are thousands of children waiting in Foster Homes with Foster Families who are taking care of them until their Forever Family can be found....... These children go to sleep knowing the Foster Family is a temp placement and that everyone is looking for the new mom and dad...... They know that they will not stay in this home...they have a lot of anxiety and hope. The longer they wait the harder it is on their self esteem and these children often start to feel they are bad, ugly or not worth loving.....

Yes, the Foster to adopt program does lead to placement of more newborns and infants.....and often the Foster Family does achieve adoption.....but, often they do not.

My position is that if a family would like to adopt there are thousands of children who WAIT and wonder as time passes and they age. If a family knows they can love a child sight unseen and unconditionally then it is very possible to have healthy children and sibling groups placed and the first meeting you can call your child your child.......

I am not aggainst the Foster to adopt program in general. I believe it is a great program when a child has been in the same home for a long period of time and bonded. I am not supportive of the Foster to adopt progam as a loophole to achieve adoption of a newborn because I have watched so many families be hurt by spending two-or -three years loving a baby and working toward adoption only to have it disrupt.

My opinion is that if a family wants to adopt then it is in everyone best interest to use the adoption of a waiting child method. If a family can be open minded and support the outcome no matter what it ends up being then Foster to Adopt is okay. I just hate seeing so many Foster To Adopt families in tears after years of love and some aunt from someplace decides she will raise the child.... or reunification is decided. I also hate to see so many children in the Waiting Game for so long and believe these children are equally as lovable as those who are in Foster to Adopt homes and never listed as a Waiting Child......

It really does end up being the Adoptive Families choice. Some people are able to do the kind of loving it takes and not suffer horribly over a disrution. I feel other famlies are choosing Foster to Adopt because they are not fully aware of the risks they take and they believe the children are coming into their homes under the same circumstances as an adotion placement. It really boils down to the kind of family doing this job. I have known many Foster to adopt homes where the adoption was not a goal but, and option and these families tend to do better emotionally. I just worry about the families who only want to adopt and believeing this route is the only way to achieve adoption, they are often hurt when they have to let three or four children move on before an adoption actually takes place.

[ladyjubilee]

Where exactly do you find the statistic that straight adoption is less likely to disrupt? I'm not familiar with any studies which have specified the type of adoption, other than the broad foster adoption heading.

[BrandyHagz]

So, you agree with foster to adopt, as long as TPR has already been achieved?

So, where does that leave the other children? Your saying they shouldn’t be placed with prospective adoptive parents, simply because their parents retain parental rights?

This doesn’t seem right…

[HappyMomAnna]

I am saying that it is up to the Family to decide..... I am saying that if a family is able to emotionally deal with this kind of situation then more power to the family who wishes to provide a Foster to Adopt home.
I am also saying that there are thousands of children who WAIT who are not being adopted by their Foster Family..... Not many people are fighting over these children and few people are willing to speak for them. I choose to speak for these children who fall asleep knowing their Foster Families are not going to adopt them.
I speak for those of us who believe it is possible to love a child sight unseen and unconditionally without meeting them first. And I speak for many of the Foster to Adopt families I have met who were not well aware of the difference in these two methods of adoption.

Where does my opinon leave the children who have not been listed as WAITING children? My opinion leaves them in a Foster Home that is working toward reunification and open to the chance of adoption should that end up being the plan. I would much rather have these children in that situation then on the WAITING LIST.....but as long as one child is on the waiting list my 'calling in life' is to speak on their behalf....If my voice might be heard by one family who is willing to love before knowing a child then I have met my goal and one more child might be placed and removed from the list of those WAITING.

This is very personal and this is what I have been asked to do in my life.... not by God although He is a part of it.....but, by my Uncle Eddie who was left in an orphanage and NEVER chosen to be someone's child. My Uncle Eddie who was asked to leave the only home he ever knew when he turned 18. A man who lived his life with no one to invite to his wedding--no one to share the joy of being a father--and no family to share life with. A great man who lived in an orphanage with a sign over the front door that read.... "The Home of No Body's Boys"

[BrandyHagz]

I understand your motivation, and I am sure your uncle appreciates your advocacy very much.

While I was never an “orphan” I do understand what your uncle went thru, and is living thru now.

I just wanted to make sure I was understanding your position correctly…and now I do.


So, I take it that Anna was a waiting child?

[HappyMomAnna]

Each state keeps these stats...although they are often difficult to seperate due to the fact even in Straight Adoptions the family is certified as a foster family....

Each state does however keep stats on the Adoption Disruption rate and In Oregon it s less then 3%. These rates are based on Adoption Placements. It takes little time to uncover the fact that in most cases of Foster to Adopt the (disruption rate) ~~~~corrected terms: FOSTER TO ADOPT PLAN CHANG (if that number was ever actually counted) is far more then 3% in fact many Foster to Adopt families have a 3% (disrution)~~~~~CORRECTED TERM: PLAN CHANGE rate in their own situation before any child is actually adopted. The number of children in a Foster to Adopt home that are adopted is hard to determine...... as until the Adoption plan is actually made the children are not even listed as adoptible....

Read the threads just on this fourm and see how many Adoption Placements through the state end up disrupted by no wanting of the adoptive family...... Read the Threads in this fourm and see how many heartbroken Foster to Adopt families there are who wanted to adopt but were not able....

Usually, you will notice that the straight adoption disruptions are families who have found the children to have more issues then they were led to believe....usually an adoption disruption happens because the adoptive family decideds to disrupt and rarely is it due to the fact that the State disrupts...

Each state is working very hard to reduce this rate of disruption and provide better education and resources for adoptive placement families..... But in the end the families who Foster to Adopt are not counted as adoption disruptions because the placement was Foster with possible adoption and therfore a change is not considered as an adoption disruption...even if it feels that way to the Foster Family.

Does this make sense to you? It is very difficult to explaine and it really is a numbers game. The number is hard to determine accross the US because the statistics are not kept in a uniform manner. It is nearly impossible even for the States to determine just exactly how many foster families deeply wished to adopt and did not? Simply because until the Adoption Plan has been made and the placement changed from Foster to Adoption the stats are not kept. The children in the Foster placement are simply recorded as Foster placement...under those stats there are many Foster Families who badly wanted to adopt and that info simply is not talled in the same way.....

[ladyjubilee]

A child being reunited with the birth family isn't a "disruption" though. In fact, disruption is defined as, "Regarding the stage of the adoption, disrupted adoptions are those that involve a child who was formally placed for adoption -- including signing of adoption placement papers (but the legal proceedings are continuing). The period of risk of disruption involves the period from placement through the legalization of the adoption." (Barth, R. P. In Adoption Factbook III ). Which means that with legal risk and foster/adoption when the child is reunited with the birth family there is NO disruption. The child was not 'formally placed for adoption". The state doesn't "disrupt" adoptions (unless they find reason to remove a child for things like abuse fore the finalization.)---in fact, the problem most of the family's who've posted here have indicated is that the state often tries to prevent the disruption at all costs. Its not honest to say, "With Foster to adopt there is a much higher rate of disruption", because its not a disruption. All of which means there is no reason for foster/adopt statistic to be included in "disruption" or "dissolution" statistics.

((Incidentally, the definition also means that "straight adoption" placements that have not reached the point of signing the initial paperwork are also not counted towards the statistics, nor are situations where families resort to out of home placements.))


The latest figures I'm aware for suggest around 13% of all adoptions of children 13-15 disrupt (again, that is means children formally "placed for adoption".)

More, it's a bit specious to argue that children who are legally free (and remember even children in non-adoptive placements who are legally free must be listed as available for adoption, even if in reality they aren't) are somehow more in need of potential adoptive placement than those entering the system and being placed in a legal risk placement. The argument boils down to saying, "We need to get child x out of this situation....and to do it will put child y in the spot that child x was in." Waiting until a child is legally free means that child goes for YEARS in limbo. Instead of placing them in a home, that may become their forever home, they have to be placed in a straight foster home, then moved to the adoptive placement years later??? So instead of having to face loosing 1 family they lose 2. But then added to the problem, is that the more placements a child has, the more likely the child's permanent placement will disrupt.

Now, it seems that the issue is whether the potential aparents will be be hurt if the child is able to go back to his/her family. Perhaps. Of course, there is also the very real possibility that those same parents will be hurt by a true disruption. Statistics show that for some groups the disruption rate can be as high as 53%. Unfortunately, that group includes many of the same children who are "waiting"---the same children who've moved from home to home to home.

Now, me personally, I'd rather take the risk that I would be hurt, and that my child was returned to his/her parents, than to think that because someone like me didn't want to take the risk my child had more placements than absolutely necessary. But then, I don't much see the difference between a child labeled "waiting" and a child who within months may well be labeled "waiting".

[HappyMomAnna]

All of which means there is no reason for foster/adopt statistic to be included in "disruption" or "dissolution" statistics.

And this is part of the point I want to make----we do not know how many Foster to adopt families do not achieve adoption when that was what they wanted because these numbers are not counted.....

In Oregon the adoption disruption rate is less then 3% partly because the Adoption program is so proactive in education and support, In addition all families wanting to Adopt or Foster to Adopt are funneled through the same central caseworker--where an attempt is made by the state to discover the desire of the family.

And furthermore nearly every adoptive placement in Oregon is "legal risk" and the disruption rate considers these placements as well....... so I believe it is possible to offer families better from the state and I still believe we have no way to measure the number of Foster Familiies who have wanted to adopt, thought they had the chance to adopt and ended up hurt.

[ladyjubilee]

So why did you say, "With Foster to adopt there is a much higher rate of disruption"? And if Oregon's placements are all legal risk, then they are all foster/adopt. (The definition of legal risk is "Placement of a child in a prospective adoptive family when a child is not yet legally free for adoption. Before a child can be legally adopted by another family, parental rights of his or her birth parents must be terminated. In a "legal risk" adoptive placement either this termination of parental rights has not yet occurred, or it is being contested. In some cases, termination of parental rights is delayed until a specific adoptive family has been identified" and note that foster/adopt is " also called legal-risk adoption" see http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/r_gloss.cfm#l]niac . Which creates a circular argument. You say Oregon only does legal risk placements (aka. foster/adopt) with a 3% disruption rate.....but that foster/adopt (aka. legal risk) has a higer disruption rate.

More you haven't explained why one would be better than the other (or better than itself since its the same thing) when 1) it reduces the number of placements the child must endure and 2) foster/adopt parents are specifically warned through out training....and retraining...that legal risk placements are just that---legal risks.