[embuck]

I don't understand the logic that adopting kids is any less helpful to the child than only fostering them.

It is unfair to comment that a person who would love to adopt a child from CPS is more selfish than those who would just like to foster the child, in turn "helping" the child. As though fostering is the only true "help".


Like the above person said, all kids need stable loving homes and for me, adopting from CPS, even though my main goal is to adopt and not foster, is to benefit not ONLY me and my husband in growing our family, but the child involved. Why not open your homes forever to a child that needs one?

Don't we all sort of need one another? Foster, adoptive parents and children and bio families. In one form or another?

[RobinKay]

[i]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.[/

There will always be the questions, that is true. But when I can take my son to see his sisters, when he can visit his bparents, when he can see his cousins and his grandmother and grandfather--that is better than an adoption outside the family. When I can personally explain and answer all the questions because I know all the family members, that is better. My son has a better chance to grow up emotionally healthy.


Again, I am saying that if possible and safe, a child should go home to his/her family. When it's not possible, thank goodness for the foster families.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by embuck

I don't understand the logic that adopting kids is any less helpful to the child than only fostering them.

It is unfair to comment that a person who would love to adopt a child from CPS is more selfish than those who would just like to foster the child, in turn "helping" the child. As though fostering is the only true "help".


Like the above person said, all kids need stable loving homes and for me, adopting from CPS, even though my main goal is to adopt and not foster, is to benefit not ONLY me and my husband in growing our family, but the child involved. Why not open your homes forever to a child that needs one?

Don't we all sort of need one another? Foster, adoptive parents and children and bio families. In one form or another?

If you get licensed to build your family, nothing wrong with that, absolutely nothing. But do acknowledge you have an agenda, you are looking to meet your needs as well as a child whose family is in crisis.

If someone is doing straight foster, they do not have the personal agenda of wanting to build their family.

It's not a judgement about who is a better person, it is just a statement of fact.

[mommytoEli]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

[i]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.[/

There will always be the questions, that is true. But when I can take my son to see his sisters, when he can visit his bparents, when he can see his cousins and his grandmother and grandfather--that is better than an adoption outside the family. When I can personally explain and answer all the questions because I know all the family members, that is better. My son has a better chance to grow up emotionally healthy.


Again, I am saying that if possible and safe, a child should go home to his/her family. When it's not possible, thank goodness for the foster families.

i will give you that

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by mommytoEli

i will give you that

I appreciate you and everyone else listening to my point of view.

I don't know where our country would be without our foster parents--and the system is set up to break their hearts over and over. It's not fair, it's not right--but the end result is healthy children. Not all the time, but as often as caring people like the posters on site can make it happen!

[xxsurroundedbyxy]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

If you get licensed to build your family, nothing wrong with that, absolutely nothing. But do acknowledge you have an agenda, you are looking to meet your needs as well as a child whose family is in crisis.

If someone is doing straight foster, they do not have the personal agenda of wanting to build their family.

It's not a judgement about who is a better person, it is just a statement of fact.

I am foster only. However, if a child came into my care whose parents had rights terminated and that child seemed like a "fit" I could still adopt by filling out some simple paperwork to become foster-adopt.

I, as foster only, am no different than any other type of foster home out there. I am no more "helpful" nor do I feel like they have an agenda whereas I do not.

The "try before you buy" theory is ridiculous, but I see your point. You're right. Your wrong in your delivery, but in the big scheme of things you are correct. ...We are NOT this child's family, but we ARE willing to take them in at 2am not knowing ANYTHING really about this child. Were you expecting us to decide at that time whether or not we would adopt if it came to that? Impossible. Sometimes we don't even know their name or correct age or what abuse they have suffered......but you want us to decide yes or no right then so that it doesn't appear later to be a "try before you buy" scenario???

Can't be done. However, after several months and possibly years, that child has become a part of our family--not genetically--but a part of the family none the less. But if you think that 6-7 months later and I opt not to adopt that child makes me a "try before you buy" person, you are SO WRONG. How could I possibly have made that decision that first night or even first week? That child was an emotional wreck.....and I had to decide then as not to appear to be leasing to own?? I have to know my limitations and what I can deal with, I have to see if my other children accept this child and if they can behave like siblings, I have to know that this child will not try to harm my own children or the other way around, and I have to see if this child appears to attach to us and love us the way we love them before deciding all that.

The other side of that is, like me, I go into every placement with NO intention of adopting (that's why I am foster only)....but 6-7 months later I may decide that this child is a "perfect fit" for my family and we can see having them in our lives forever. I couldn't have decided that the first night and if TPR doesn't happen it won't even be an issue.

Let me ask you, RobinKay, what would have happened if you had had TWO relatives in foster care needing an adoptive home and could only have taken in one because of their proximity in age? Would you have visited with both to see which would fit into your already formed family the best and if they even like you? Would you have looked at their medical/emotional needs and decided what you could manage? Or would you have looked at a piece of paper with simply their name and age, assumed the info was correct, and chosen one? Because there is a sea of children out there needing a loving home, but I cannot accept just whatever the cw brings to my door. You had a specific child, a relative, in mind. One you may have already known. The rest of us don't have that luxury.

I think if you have never fostered you really have no right to make assumptions about it. You truly have no idea. And as an elementary teacher myself, I know that you may think seeing these families in your building gives you some insight....it doesn't.

You have every right to comment on the hardships of doing a relative adoption, of being given bad advice from a sw, of fighting a foster family who also loved the child.....but do not start insulting the lot of us. I would hate to see what the country would be like without us.

Kim

[mommy2fiveplus]

RobinKay

I am an adoptive parent of both a relative and another son that was first my foster-son. I seemed to fare a bit better than you in the animosity department. I think that I have the unique position to view this from both angles.

I am saddened that you feel I (and many other foster/adopt parents) choose this path to "try it before you buy it". I choose this path because I watched my parents foster for 20+ years and I fell in love with family and fostering. Believe it or not the foster-brothers that returned to bfamily are just as much my brothers as the ones my parents adopted and just as much my bio bro.

Your situation seemed to turn you against foster families, if you were not already suspicious of them. Your posts seem to indicate we are "child-snatchers" and determined to thwart the bfamily at every attempt to be a part of the child's life. That MAY have been YOUR story, it is not mine! I encourage my son's (the relative) former foster parents to be a part of his life just as I encourage my other son's (not-relative) family to be a part of his life, in a manner that is safe. He will always know his bfamily as much as is safe and I know other foster families that do as much for thier adopted children. Few bfamilies, maintain the connection the children had with the foster family, despite strong bonds being formed and in some cases (such as babies) entire lives being lived with foster families.

IMHO, I think that your situation and opinions are hampered by lack of experience and as such you are offending people such as myself and other foster parents with your inflammatory comments.

Many of your accusations (and that is what they are) against foster parents can be just as readily applied to bfamilies.

I am a proponent of relative adoption, I feel as if familial heritage can play a huge part in a child's self-image. If foster and bfamilies would work together more often, instead of pitting themselves against each other in battle for ownership of a child, a strong bond that is created during long-term foster care could coexist with extended family involvement. Foster-parents could raise the children that recognize them as Mom and Dad and the child could have strong connections to extended bfamily.

In cases where a suitable relative comes forward (and from experience that is no easy task, when you are fighting the rest of your family) within a short (say 6 mos or as soon as you know the child is in care) time, the foster parents should be informed and immediate vistation should be established.

I would NEVER agree that bonding or DNA would play any significant role one over the other. Every case is different and needs to be judged on its own merits and what is in the best interestof the child. Just becasue a responcible and suitable relative comes forward does not mean that relative placement is best for the child if they have spent 2 years with a foster family and are only 3 years old. Likewise, a 9 mos old (placed at birth) that has bonded with his or her foster family and the relative has been involved with the case since say 6 mos old, that infant should bond appropriately with a new caregiver (relative) if normal bonding was established the first time. In each case the family that ends up raising the kid should have strength to put aside any negative feelings toward the other so that they can allow the child to maintain a healthy relationship with a previous caregiver or extended family. Can You say you have done this? I can.

Until the squabbling between foster and bio families is put aside (and only the adults can do that) the child will never be put first.

Some of this may have offended you but I just wanted to make sure "you were hearing me", you do not however have to "agree with me".

[spicedmama]

As a recent "graduate" of MAPP, I sometimes find it difficult that folks forget that the purpose of foster care is to have a safe haven for the child to be placed while the adults work on REUNIFICATION. If reunification is not appropriate then it's biological family placement, and/or foster/adopt. I am very surprised to hear about the Florida law because anyone who has struggled with and through the ICPC process knows that 6 months is a drop in the bucket. It's nothing. ICPC is a very long process, and the biological relatives who fight through it's maze are amazing folks. And believe me, they fight. I think it's as bad as natural childbirth. It's awful. In the time it takes for the ICPC to be finalized I would want the child to bond with their foster family. We were taught in MAPP that they should bond with you, but foster parents should not forget that they are foster and that the child was placed in their homes to be cared for until they can be REUNIFIED with their biological families. (I am speaking about foster only families).

[stevenstwin]

I struggle with calling it "reunification". Reunification means going BACK to their birth parent(s). Going to a relative who has a blood link but may not even know the child is NOT "reunification" at all, at least not according to the dictionary. Of COURSE I always support reunification when possible, but I don't think that necessarily includes going to someone else just because they are related. I know in the case of my FS, I was told that blood relationship really didn't make much of a difference at all...and he was placed with me in "kinship care" simply because I had a pre-existing relationship with him.

Originally Posted by spicedmama

As a recent "graduate" of MAPP, I sometimes find it difficult that folks forget that the purpose of foster care is to have a safe haven for the child to be placed while the adults work on REUNIFICATION. If reunification is not appropriate then it's biological family placement, and/or foster/adopt. I am very surprised to hear about the Florida law because anyone who has struggled with and through the ICPC process knows that 6 months is a drop in the bucket. It's nothing. ICPC is a very long process, and the biological relatives who fight through it's maze are amazing folks. And believe me, they fight. I think it's as bad as natural childbirth. It's awful. In the time it takes for the ICPC to be finalized I would want the child to bond with their foster family. We were taught in MAPP that they should bond with you, but foster parents should not forget that they are foster and that the child was placed in their homes to be cared for until they can be REUNIFIED with their biological families. (I am speaking about foster only families).

[mommy2fiveplus]

Stevenstwin

I have to agree with you, I wouldn't call what happened in my son's case reunification. I had met the child ONCE before he was taken into care from his bparents (my cousin) at the age of 13 mos. I had the luck of being the person his bparents called first for advice(since I am familiar with the system), so I knew from the beginning that he had been placed, this does not happen for many birth extended families. I let the social workers know right away that I was an interested bfamily (I am not sure I would have if I thought that there was anytrue chance at reunification w/bparents). After one month w/the first foster family, they asked for him to be moved "because they felt he was getting to attached" they were very new to the system and I don't fault them at all for being scared of loss. He arrived with me and after 2 years of failed RU with bparents we adopted him.

I would not call our situation a bio family RU so much as a returning him to his bio-extended family so that he could be rasied with initmate knowledge of his familial heritage (the good and the bad) and frequent (weekly) exposure to positive biofamily influences such as his paternal grandparents and great-grand parents as well as great-aunt (my mom) who is now grandma. I do not really think that I am a better parent than those foster parents or that I will be able to better raise him, I simply have the advantage of giving him what they could give him (a loving supportive and nuturing home) AND a direct and frequent access to the people that ultimately resulted in his being born (meaning the generations that came before him). I also have the option of allowing him access to his bio parents (probably never his mom, but possibly his dad) if they ever clean up thier act. Because of tensions between foster and bio families and foster families overall lack of knowledge of all possible extended family (not of thier fault) foster families often cannot provide these links that are so important for development of self-image. Some foster parents can, and I have witness some really great open adoptions through foster care, but it just doesn't happen often enough.

IMHO each family has it's own "language" and sometimes it is hard for a foster family or bio-family to learn the "dialect" of the other family to allow for good communication. So it may not be reunification with a certain person so much as reuinification with the "dialect" that is inherently in thier make-up.

[xxsurroundedbyxy]

Mommytofiveplus:

Beautifully put.

Kim

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by spicedmama

As a recent "graduate" of MAPP, I sometimes find it difficult that folks forget that the purpose of foster care is to have a safe haven for the child to be placed while the adults work on REUNIFICATION. If reunification is not appropriate then it's biological family placement, and/or foster/adopt. I am very surprised to hear about the Florida law because anyone who has struggled with and through the ICPC process knows that 6 months is a drop in the bucket. It's nothing. ICPC is a very long process, and the biological relatives who fight through it's maze are amazing folks. And believe me, they fight. I think it's as bad as natural childbirth. It's awful. In the time it takes for the ICPC to be finalized I would want the child to bond with their foster family. We were taught in MAPP that they should bond with you, but foster parents should not forget that they are foster and that the child was placed in their homes to be cared for until they can be REUNIFIED with their biological families. (I am speaking about foster only families).

Thank you for your clear thoughts.

I wish to share that my son has no bio connection to dh or I. My dh was adopted, his sister was adopted, and his brother was adopted. My sister-in-law (my brother's wife) was also adopted.

We did not want to have our lil guy lose his family--the people who have loved him all his life. Yes, the foster family loved him for the year he was there, but we all have loved him since birth, and he loved all of us. A very sweet moment was when we were unpacking his things, and he still had an elephant kite dh brought him from Thailand--very fragile, yet lil guy had it for over three years and it traveled with him from one foster home to another. That one detail---it was such an emotional moment--- we did the right thing, he is in the right place.

I have said all over this site--infants, toddler, little ones who have only known their wonderful foster parents--of course that is where they should be when bparents take years to get their act together. No child should wait that long, and that family bond is there with the foster family. Congratulations, let us all wish you a happy family birthday, the adoption should happen for you.

One poster mentioned elementary school--I assume that person looked at my page. It has been said I made assumptions, I painted with broad strokes, I have no right to say anything about foster parents because I have not fostered. Don't then assume that I have a class and see children walking up and down halls and that is all I know of foster/adopted children.

My job at an elementary school is to work with foster families, surrogate parents, therapists, social workers, the Dept. of Health, etc. etc. I sat at the table with a bio family as they cried and said they had to give up their niece, the RAD was too much. I have listened to social workers tell me in disgust about bparents calling them "Come pick up my kids I don't want them anymore". I sat at a table with a foster mother, a card-carrying member of the "I hate birthmom club" and I declined to join. I also am privileged to know a true guardian angel on this earth, a foster mother of a darling special needs boy, and I celebrate that her adoption will be final very soon. Right now the majority of our preschool children are foster/adopted children, and I facilated the evaluations and meetings for every one of them.

Yes, "try before you buy" is a harsh statement. Got a lot of reaction, didn't it? And some folks said it's true, not nice, but true. Interesting that it's OK to say things like "relatives who come out of he woodwork" or "relatives who show up at the last minute" as though they just woke up one day and said "Oh, shoot, I forgot, I have to go get that kid".

Folks, rarely on this site does a foster parent acknowledge that once a child is taken into foster care it is very difficult to get them back out. Add in living in another state--and we have the situation where the "we have bonded with our foster child, we can't imagine living without him/her" thing happens.

That is my objection. Having a child, particularly a child that has memories of his/her family, adopted outside the family because a calendar shows X amount of time has passed and/or because the foster family has "fallen in love".

It's one more thing to ask of foster families--please leave room in your heart for the love and memories your older foster child has for his/her family. And let this child know it's OK to go home when it's time, whether home is with a birthparent or with the relative.

[spicedmama]

I think for those that have a problem with the word "Reunification," then you must address that while in your Foster Care Training, because it's a word that is used quite often. You can't dismiss it because now you have a child in your home that you have bonded it with, (and good for you because that is your job as a foster parent). And those of us who have had Foster Care training, (i.e. MAPP, etc.), you know that "Reunification" is used in conjunction with BIOLOGICAL FAMILY, (be it parents, and/or "kin"). For those children who are to be placed with biological family and/or "kin" who have possibly had very little contact with the child, and you, (the foster parent), have had the most time with the child, you are still responsible for knowing your place as a FOSTER family. You know when going into this position that FOSTERING is temporary, (and again, I am talking about foster only families). Why not try and seek to build a relationship with the "kin" so that you can continue to remain a part of the child's support system. And, if it so happens, (and it does), that the "kin" does not want a relationship with you then, we must accept that that is a part of FOSTERING too.

[spicedmama]

As a side note, I think we are all special folks. We open our homes and hearts to strangers. In my case, I am considered a potential relative placement within our foster care system, and the children are in another state. Their mother has lost custody of both of her children, and she is not "working her plan." As a potential relative foster placement I have already begun the process of opening up my home to "the system." I do this because of the love I have for my family and those family members who came before us. We (I) am/are extended family. I would hate to think that I may have to "fight" with the currently fostering families for these children, (they live in different foster homes), whom I have advocated for from the moment I knew of the circumstances. And yet, I know that it can happen and has happened to others.

[KelleyF]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

It is very clear that many people (certainly not all) become foster parents with the idea of adopting. They have a personal agenda, there is no altruistic motive of caring for children in crisis.

.

Now THAT is a very biased opionion. That is completely untrue. While I think that may be the case in very FEW instances, the main concern of most fp's is to help the child in crisis. Yes, many fp's are willing to adopt, but first and foremost we are in the buisness of reunification and helping children get through an extremely difficult time in thier lives. If nothing else, you can't possibley ignore the fact that these children are extremely loved and cared for by their fp's. I have only heard positive things from this board about helping a bio family who is working thier plan and trying to do what is best for their child. Unfortunately, there are many bio's who are not and it is our job as fp's to try and protect our fc from a potentially dangerous situation. We owe it to the children!

Originally Posted by RobinKay

It is very clear that many people (certainly not all) become foster parents with the idea of adopting. They have a personal agenda, there is no altruistic motive of caring for children in crisis..

Also, I am foster only, not foster/adopt, and I do have a personal agenda. I have an altruistic motive to care for children in crisis!