[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by stevenstwin

I think it's lot easier to explain that these were nice people who took care of you for a while vs. no one in your (birth) family wanted you.

THAT is the line I was responding to.

I don't know where you are getting some of your comments from, in your response to me..."try before you buy"?? What the heck is THAT all about? and I don't know what you think I meant by "reaping the benefits" but what I MEANT was a family unwilling to take a child with severe emotional and behavioural issues, and then coming forward and suddenly wanting to take the child once they have begun significant healing.
You are also painting birth families with a pretty broad brush - saying that of course they can't take care of a child with special needs, since they were dysfunctional in the first place. Just because the child's birth parents are dysfunctional does NOT mean that the rest of the family is as well.
My FS was 14 years old when he came to me. I had no intention of adopting and wasn't seeking another child. I wasn't even a foster parent. I very much hoped someone in his family WOULD step forward and take him; but they didn't, so I applied to take him. His grandparents and aunt all would have been suitable placements but did not want to take him because they were not willing to do the hard work of dealing with his emotional problems. I was, so I took him. BUT MY POINT was that IF a foster parent has taken a child and worked their butts off to help the child, it is particularly tragic to then lose that child to a birth relative who wasn't willing to do the work in the first place, but now wants the "healed" child. And I am NOT saying that is what happens all the time (no, Helen - I'm definitely not talking about you, or anyone else who has been trying to get a birth relative for some time and is willing to take on all the challenges) - but it DOES happen sometimes. There have been several cases on this board of birth relatives not interested in a child with "big problems" who suddenly become interested months or years later when the child is well into recovery. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in such cases it is that process of hard work and recovery that MAKES a family, and is what makes the foster parents the child's "real" parents. And no "blood link" is more important than THAT link. Which is why your characterization of foster parents as just "nice people that take care of a child for while" irks the heck out of me. The best interests of the child are in being with the person who has stuck by them, done the therapy and healing with them, and been there through all the hard stuff. NOT necessarily the person who shares the same DNA. There is an undertone in your post of thinking that foster parents all have some sort of "agenda", and are selfish if they want to adopt a child they've parented. This is getting rather off track, so I think we need to bring the focus back to the original poster. She is the ONLY healthy parent this child has experienced in his entire life - that makes her a heck of a lot more than "some nice person who took care of him for a while".

The original poster had little ones since birth. A relative has come forward. IMO, no, the foster parents do not have the same standing as the foster parents in court. Children have a right to stay in with their birth family whenever possible.

Often foster parents are not aware that a heartbroken relative has been struggling with social services for months and months, not even allowed to visit or communicate (in my case) with the child. It's a broken system and many times many hearts are broken, not just foster parents.

As I have said before, each child is unique, each family's case is different. For your 14 yr old, I am very glad for the child that you were there. Are you sure these people were just selfish and didn't want to do the work? Is it possible there was family opposition and infighting regarding taking this child which delayed the relatives coming forward? Regardless, at age 14, he needed you, he needed permanancy. You may have shared your final outcome on this site--I am sorry I don't recall it right now. Buttascotch is another fparent in that situation, and I am glad for her that the children are hers now forever. It was right for them, and wonderful for her.

There certainly was infighting and other problems in my family regarding our lil guy--he was five when taken into the system and 6 1/2 when we finally got him placed with us. We struggled from the beginning to help him, but between family accusing us of "stealing" lil guy and the ICPC--it was a nightmare. Then his foster family started with us--their attitude is why they have no contact with our son, and that was painful for them I am sure, perhaps is even still painful now, two years later.

Stevenstwin, the system is broken, that is something I think you and I can agree on. The foster parents come in and offer their hearts and home and too often are dismissed from a child's life. It's not right.

The issue of a child "bonding" is complicated--it needs to happen for a child to thrive. There is much research that shows children are successful when raised within their birth family, so the system tries to make that happen whenever possible. It's not always possible, as you well know. It is also every child's right to be raised by their birth family.

"try before you buy" is what I see on this site--people who want children so they go into foster-adopt. If it doesn't work out, they can give that child back to the system to try another family. Bio families do not have that option. When it DOES work out, of course the foster family "falls in love" with the child and wants to be able to fight to keep him/her. I thought the foster system was to help children and families in crisis--my eyes have been opened going through the process and reading on this site.

Bottom line--no matter how much foster parents do for the foster children, they are foster children until TPR is granted and the adoption is final.

[twinflana]

I do know of a foster family that won over the birth family because the child was with the foster family for over a year. However, the aunt did not express interest until the child had been in care for a year. So the judge questioned where she was all that time.

I personally went into fostering to help a child in crisis. I did not go into fostering to adopt any of them. I did wind up adopting 2 boys but in both cases there were no relatives that wanted them. Yes there are many foster parents who want to help the children and only consider adoption after they have fallen in love with the child and just can not dream of giving that child up. Sometimes our hearts do things that goes against what our brains tell us are right. If the aunt of my 2nd son had decided to adopt him I would have supported that because we only had him for 2 months at that point, however she decided not to and we now have a great relationship and stay in contact. I love that Florida passed a statute that a foster parent has rights over any relative except grandparents once that child has been with them for six months.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by twinflana

I do know of a foster family that won over the birth family because the child was with the foster family for over a year. However, the aunt did not express interest until the child had been in care for a year. So the judge questioned where she was all that time.

I personally went into fostering to help a child in crisis. I did not go into fostering to adopt any of them. I did wind up adopting 2 boys but in both cases there were no relatives that wanted them. Yes there are many foster parents who want to help the children and only consider adoption after they have fallen in love with the child and just can not dream of giving that child up. Sometimes our hearts do things that goes against what our brains tell us are right. If the aunt of my 2nd son had decided to adopt him I would have supported that because we only had him for 2 months at that point, however she decided not to and we now have a great relationship and stay in contact. I love that Florida passed a statute that a foster parent has rights over any relative except grandparents once that child has been with them for six months.

I agree children should not have to wait. It scares me that Florida passed that law--an ICPC takes so long. We loved our young relative but could not do anything until that process was completed. The social worker did not want us to have contact until it was completed, and in court we looked bad due to lack of contact.

Each case is so different, each child so precious. I am glad things worked out for your little ones.

[stevenstwin]

I absolutely agree with you about the system being broken - I'm sure you won't find anyone on either side that would dispute that. Just to give you a little more info on my FS, no, there was no family opposition or infighting. When his mom died, sadly there was no one willing to take him except for one very unhealthy uncle. By the time he was 14 the healthy members of the family would not taken him because "he's too messed up". Really, they were right - he was WAY beyond what most people could/would take on at that point. But his mom died when he was 6, so it's a crying shame they weren't there all those years in between...the family flat out refused to take him at that point, although they DID petition the court NOT to allow the uncle to have him (but the judge gave him to the uncle anyway). It would have actually been much better if he'd been adopted at age 6. Now, the younger SIBLINGS....THEY were adopted by family after being if foster care for a year and a half. And it is an admitted fact that the family was only willing to take them because "they aren't messed up yet" - which they are, but I digress...Anyway, that's our situation and each one is different.

Originally Posted by RobinKay

"try before you buy" is what I see on this site--people who want children so they go into foster-adopt. If it doesn't work out, they can give that child back to the system to try another family. Bio families do not have that option.

But on this part I REALLY do have to disagree with you. I've truly never seen anyone doing that here, and I have to say that if it does happen, it is just as easy for the birth family to do. You can see in the situation with my son that is exactly what the family was doing - selectively choosing which ones were too messed up- and before an adoption is finalized, THEY can still change their minds and give a child back as well. I wouldn't fault anyone in that situation, since some children really, truly are too damaged to function in a family situation. Heck, go over to the Special Needs Adoption forum, and you'll see that there are even people who HAVE adopted and then been forced to place a child in a treatment center, or therapeutic foster care, etc. Since they have to pay (often thousands of dollars per month) out of pocket for that, obviously they would not unless the child was truly a danger to himself and the rest of the family. If you can point out any real example of "tire kicking", where a fost/adopt family took in a child and then gave him back for frivolous reasons, I'd be very, very suprised. Here's another twist on that- Foster-Adopt families are often more prepared to deal with the big issues, going into it with eyes wide open. I wouldn't be suprised if there are more RELATIVE adoptions where someone takes on a child out of a sense of family obligation, and finds they are in for much more than they had originally thought.

[casey03]

"try before you buy" is an unfair statement. Foster parents submit themselves to alot of things and to say that is an insult. Transporting, visits, schedule disruptions, holiday disruptions, children's emotional issues, etc, etc, etc. However, we do it all for the kids because they deserve more than we could ever possibly give. They did not ask for any of the things that they have been subjected to.

I must also say that I have a hard time believing that another person is more suitable to raising and loving a child simply because they share the same DNA.

[RobinKay]

Transporting, visits, schedule disruptions, holiday disruptions, children's emotional issues, etc, etc, etc. However, we do it all for the kids because they deserve more than we could ever possibly give. They did not ask for any of the things that they have been subjected to.


Bio families don't do all that, once they get them back?


"try before you buy" comes directly from my personal situation. Fp said to us they did not intend to adopt, ever, until our lil guy came along. Then they "fell in love" and decided everyone in his birth family was unfit--I base that on what they said to us and how they treated us--they did not support him seeing his bio sister, who was also subjected to the foster system and a minor. They "tried" this child and decided, on their own, to keep him although the plan was ALWAYS reunification, he was never available for adoption.

Seriously, how many foster parents on this site are fostering just to help kids, and how many are looking for children to adopt? Foster parents may not "give the kids back" routinely, but the option is there. The option is also there to not take a placement in the first place when called by social services.


I have agreed over and over--it is unfair and hurtful to lose a child you are raising. I feel I am not being heard when I state that it is the child's right to be with their family whenever possible. I do not say that DNA makes you a better parent, I say being raised by the bio family (when it is possible,) keeps the child from asking "why didn't anyone in my family want me?" as they grow up.

[stevenstwin]

Robin, I think you are misinterpreting "Not being agreed with" with "not being heard". We HEAR you just fine- but I, for one, don't agree. And I reallly DO think the "try before you buy" thing is rude and insulting. You DID say you've heard it right here on this site, but have not given evidence to support that. Furthermore, the situation you describe in this post doesn't fit that either. The foster parents in your son's situation don't sound like they were "tire kicking" - intentionally taking a child with the view of deciding whether or not they wanted to keep him!. It sounds like they went in with the intention of reunification, and then changed their minds for whatever reason - whether it be because they saw things in the bio family that concerned them, or just because they lost their judgement. Either way, they do NOT appear to have been treating the child as "disposable" which is certainly the implication in "try before you buy". And I'm not necessarily agreeing with their point of view either - obviously the judge prevailed in your case. Mind you, if what I'm *hearing* here came across to them, they might have felt that you had a negative and condescending attitude toward foster parents. You do seem to be quoting peoples words out of context in this discussion in order to make your case....I don't see anywhere in the above poster's comment where she implies that bio families DON'T do all that. She was merely pointing out that foster parents DO all that without necessarily having an "agenda" which is what you seem to be accusing us of - again, painting whole group with a very broad brush.
Personally, I will never, EVER, agree that a relative is better JUST because they are a relative. There has to be better reasons than that! And I stand by my opinion that all other factors being EQUAL, the child should stay with whomever they are bonded with. If you want me to put a time frame on it, than I'd say whoever they've spent the majority of their life with, since one year could be an entire lifetime to a baby, and only a small part of the big picture with an older child.

ps - oh yes, you argue that foster parents have the option of sending a child "back" or refusing a placement in the first place. SO do kinship placements, so I really can't see why that point is relevant. No one, related or not, is ever "forced" to adopt a child, so the playing field is pretty level on that point.

Originally Posted by RobinKay

Transporting, visits, schedule disruptions, holiday disruptions, children's emotional issues, etc, etc, etc. However, we do it all for the kids because they deserve more than we could ever possibly give. They did not ask for any of the things that they have been subjected to.


Bio families don't do all that, once they get them back?


"try before you buy" comes directly from my personal situation. Fp said to us they did not intend to adopt, ever, until our lil guy came along. Then they "fell in love" and decided everyone in his birth family was unfit--I base that on what they said to us and how they treated us--they did not support him seeing his bio sister, who was also subjected to the foster system and a minor. They "tried" this child and decided, on their own, to keep him although the plan was ALWAYS reunification, he was never available for adoption.

Seriously, how many foster parents on this site are fostering just to help kids, and how many are looking for children to adopt? Foster parents may not "give the kids back" routinely, but the option is there. The option is also there to not take a placement in the first place when called by social services.


I have agreed over and over--it is unfair and hurtful to lose a child you are raising. I feel I am not being heard when I state that it is the child's right to be with their family whenever possible. I do not say that DNA makes you a better parent, I say being raised by the bio family (when it is possible,) keeps the child from asking "why didn't anyone in my family want me?" as they grow up.

[hkolln]

I have to say something on the "try before buying" statement (Of which I want to make it clear I never agreed with that negative statement but I have an example). Our nieces previous foster parents had no issues with moving any of their previous foster kids to be adopted except for our niece. I asked the CASA worker why that was...why they did not fight for the other kids and her response was "Because they didn't feel it was a "perfect" fit for them but feel your niece is." Well that's all and good...however the point being we were interested family doing what we could to bring her home with us...it wasn't our fault the ICPC took 8 mos...it wasn't their fault either. But as a foster parent you have to understand that in some situations there is responsible, stable family members. Of course there are not for every child and those children deserve to be raised in a loving, stable environment. My thing was with them was why won't they focus their efforts on a child that has NO family and nobody?! I felt very offended that they would fight us in court with an attorney after we were involved for SO long...and doing SO much. It was very insulting to us. Like they were trying to make a point that we were UNFIT to parent our niece and they were better when her biomom couldn't.

Now I don't let that get to me or affect our niece. I wanted her to see a positive transition and also us positively relating...and that was why I continue contact. It's hard and adults can put their emotions aside for the best outcome for the kids..no matter what that is. It's just sad when the adults get so stuck in what is right for THEM and not what is right for the CHILD. I have dealt with it alot lately and it's so hard to stay positive but I do. I want our niece to know we love her and they love her and that's great....there is NOT enough love to go around.

And as for the 6 month rule here in Florida...that too is scary considering ICPC's take forever. I know there is a US statute stating family should take precendence over foster parents however it's not looked at by alot of Judge's. Then the states all determine their own laws regarding that too...and it's written with so much interpretation it's hard to decipher. Our attorney actually felt we may lose the fight for our niece...and I felt bad knowing I had to fight for a relative.

In the end we all need to figure out what is the best thing for the children involved. That to me is the most important thing.

[committedsoul]

As most people know, in my case, I knew of JD since birth...

I didn't get him until just after he turned 3...

There was SOOOO much fighting within my family it was CRAZY!!!

From this person to that person to this and that... and you know what??

Nobody get him but me!

It was me that spent nghts at the hospital with him when he was first born and sick. It was me who stayed at the hospital so he wouldn't be alone... it was me... not any of my other family members... yet when it came down to it, nobody wated him, but nobody wanted me to raise him either...

It's like that some times...

His grandmother (my aunt) does not speak to me to this day...

His mother (my cousin), however, signed an identified surrender for me to adopt.

I am in very close contact with the family that raised him after he was released from the hospital into a medically fragile home. We are spending 4 days with them in 2 weeks.

ICPC for me took about 3 months, but thats because I was already an fp and I PUSHED them to get it done.

[hkolln]

Originally Posted by casey03

I must also say that I have a hard time believing that another person is more suitable to raising and loving a child simply because they share the same DNA.

I have to agree here. DNA does not make a person a better parent...there is other factors to consider. If a responsible, stable and cleared family member comes forward within reasonable time (Not a year or even 6 months later!) then they should have the right to parent their relative. Once that is resolved and they are cleared then the foster family should help the child transition in a positive manner...and not fight the relative or go about it in a negative way. It's not about who wins, it's about the child...

[Piratedogmama]

RobinKay,

Just wanted to chime in here regarding the comment about how many parents are here to help kids vs. to adopt them. Our state offers two options for potential foster families... a foster program and a foster-adopt program. So for those families in the foster-adopt program the cw, social workers, etc. are aware upfront that the foster-adopt family would like the opportunity to adopt or be open to it if the need arises. If we decide to become a foster-adopt family we would like to take placements that have concurrent planning...that is the way it is with the foster-adopt families in our state that we have talked with.
We are still in the process of weighing our own abilities to cope with the system and are struggling to make the best decision for not only us, but any child that would be in our home in the future for however long that may be. We want to help little ones in need but yes, if it worked out and we had the opportunity to adopt a child that was in our care and needed a safe, loving home I would imagine we would be thrilled. Likewise, if RU were the outcome, we would need to be able to support that.

Yes, I want to help children but also since it is an option where I live I want to be a foster-adopt household vs. a foster only household. This is just my two cents. Every situation is different. Children in general deserve a safe, loving, nurturing, stable, structured home in my opinion and that may or may not be with bio family members or a foster or foster adopt family.

Best wishes.

[stevenstwin]

Originally Posted by hkolln

I have to agree here. DNA does not make a person a better parent...there is other factors to consider. If a responsible, stable and cleared family member comes forward within reasonable time (Not a year or even 6 months later!) then they should have the right to parent their relative. Once that is resolved and they are cleared then the foster family should help the child transition in a positive manner...and not fight the relative or go about it in a negative way. It's not about who wins, it's about the child...

And I hope, Helen, that you know I support you 100%, and totally think that your soon-to-be daughter is in the right home for her and very lucky to be there. I do absolutely believe that her foster parents acted inappropriately, although I know I was one of the original ones questioning you about why you were moving her, before I understood the whole story.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by hkolln

I have to agree here. DNA does not make a person a better parent...there is other factors to consider. If a responsible, stable and cleared family member comes forward within reasonable time (Not a year or even 6 months later!) then they should have the right to parent their relative. Once that is resolved and they are cleared then the foster family should help the child transition in a positive manner...and not fight the relative or go about it in a negative way. It's not about who wins, it's about the child...

thank you--I agree with so much of your post.

Unless and until there are laws in place to get things like ICPCs done quickly, I am hesitant to say the relative cannot raise a child if the child has been in foster care for six months or a year. It is all about paperwork and databases-that's all. The holdup for us was a clerk mailing one piece of paper to the wrong office. No one caught it until I called and raised a huge fuss. Just think, our lil guy would have been raised by the fp just because of one piece of paper---nothing to do with dh and my ability to parent. Clearly, from my posts I am still angry and resentful.

Additionally, we should all be aware that bioparents who are struggling aren't likely to make needed changes in six weeks with a few classes. True behavior modification is very difficult and takes a long time. Sometimes bparents just can't make the needed changes; thank goodness for the dedicated fparents in those cases.

If the goal is to reunifiy, please be positive about it and help the child. The broken hearts of fp and ff are awful- I get that--but it's not about you, it's about the child. The child has the right to be raised by birth family when it is possible and when it is safe for the child physically and emotionally! Help the child with the transition, let them know this is a good and positive thing to go home. Support the child with your love for them and your respect for the new family.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by Piratedogmama

RobinKay,

Just wanted to chime in here regarding the comment about how many parents are here to help kids vs. to adopt them. Our state offers two options for potential foster families... a foster program and a foster-adopt program. So for those families in the foster-adopt program the cw, social workers, etc. are aware upfront that the foster-adopt family would like the opportunity to adopt or be open to it if the need arises. If we decide to become a foster-adopt family we would like to take placements that have concurrent planning...that is the way it is with the foster-adopt families in our state that we have talked with.
We are still in the process of weighing our own abilities to cope with the system and are struggling to make the best decision for not only us, but any child that would be in our home in the future for however long that may be. We want to help little ones in need but yes, if it worked out and we had the opportunity to adopt a child that was in our care and needed a safe, loving home I would imagine we would be thrilled. Likewise, if RU were the outcome, we would need to be able to support that.

Yes, I want to help children but also since it is an option where I live I want to be a foster-adopt household vs. a foster only household. This is just my two cents. Every situation is different. Children in general deserve a safe, loving, nurturing, stable, structured home in my opinion and that may or may not be with bio family members or a foster or foster adopt family.

Best wishes.

thank you so much for your kind, thoughtful input. I have learned from so many patient, kind people on this site. Our experience was very negative, but overall I think there are more positive outcomes between and among foster parents and relatives who are adopting children.

[mommytoEli]

Seriously, how many foster parents on this site are fostering just to help kids, and how many are looking for children to adopt?

i was. 5 times. many of my fost/adopt friends ARE in fact people who become foster parents as a form of community service...to help children in our community, and only adopted children because the children they had been caring for needed a family and the family was open to adopting. that being said, i also know families who did in fact go into it looking to add to their family. they were still amazing foster parents who helped many children along the way. none of them were "trying before buying" they were helping many many families reunify before caring for children who did need a forever home. i know of no one personally who has ever "tried out" a kid and said nevermind.

They "tried" this child and decided, on their own, to keep him although the plan was ALWAYS reunification, he was never available for adoption.

one of the children i ended up adopting came to me for what was only to be one week. he was to be RU'd with family. i "tried" him for about 30 minutes before i realized i was in love with him, and that in my heart i wanted to keep him FOREVER...even though we had NOT planned on adoption at that time. he wasn't available for adoption for the first 3 months i had him. but you better believe that i thought of him as my own. i don't fault myself for this. if family would have been able to care for him, more power to them, but by the time the courts, not me, decided they were unfit to parent, i was already prepared to parent this child forever. a foster family deciding to keep their foster child is not inherantly evil. wanting to continue to raise a child that you have been loving as your own is pretty normal. we should be thankful there are foster families who love these children this much.

Foster parents may not "give the kids back" routinely, but the option is there.

the option is actually there for all parents. some parents make adoption plans. some paernts abandon children. some parents give them to relatives to raise. all parents may not give kids to someone else often, but the option is there. why fault just foster parents?

The option is also there to not take a placement in the first place when called by social services.

yeah....but then where are you gonna put all the kids removed from their homes? if all the foster parents, even those doing so in hopes of adoption, were to start saying no to all the placements they didn't think would pan out, where would all the children live? i actually got my first placement through an ffa after the county exhausted their list of parents and no one would take my child in. the hospital was trying to kick him out the door, and he was destined to spend the night in the social services office. how many more people needed to say no to this innocent child?

I say being raised by the bio family (when it is possible,) keeps the child from asking "why didn't anyone in my family want me?" as they grow up.

i think it is USUALLY, but not always, in the best interest of the child to be raised by family members. but even when it is best, and it is accomplished, i don't think it will necessarily stop them from asking this question. bc they are still going to want to know why their parents didn't want to raise them, or their sister, or their grandparent, why did it have to be this obscure aunt, or the parent of my half brother? being a relative will not exempt us from these questions.