[AngelArrow]

Robin Kay I do agree with you at some point it was only two moves, but what about Foster parents have the right before an adoptive home to adoped they foster kids? Where did that came in to play? The child already had a routine in her house plus a bond with the foster parents so why move this baby again? even if the foster parents were only certified to foster. I think that people should be entiteled to change their minds later on they is nothing wrong with that we see bp do it all the time, but that is a different topic. it is not just that foster parents fall in love with they Foster kids it is also the bond these kids have with they foster families before being moved into an adoptive home even if it is a baby . Sometimes I think we need to look at the bigger picture here instead only the small prints when it comes to kids in the foster care system.

[kxl164]

"But, what happened? The foster family would now like to change their mind, change the agreement, because they have "fallen in love" with the child. Do we have no questions about integrity, are we not concerned about what would happen if everybody in "the system" decided not to keep their word? Adoptive-only parents are trying to be upfront about their feelings-they said we can't do the foster care thing--honest about their feelings and abilities. Babies are not supposed to be a prize for the family willing to risk the most heartache."

Robinkay, this part of your post sounds as if it is stemming from resentment over your own situation. You are of course entitled to your opion and I know you said that this child should be able to stay with those taking care of him in this case; but your overall concern seems to be over "integrity" of stating what the parent will do in the beginnig of a situation that no one knows the end to.

A child shouldn't be moved if at all possible. It causes problems for the child. Foster care is inherently painful for the child, but the idea is to help the child's birthparents get control of their lives to safely parent their children.

This is not about "keeping someone's word", this is about the life of a child.

I don't know anything about the proposed adoptive family, other than they were not the foster family. They were not the ones caring for this child for the past 5 months. They are not relatives, they are not friends of birthmom, they are a family waiting to adopt. They were not the ones caring for this child, therefore (in my opinion) they are no longer the best option for this child. Yes, they are up front about what they can handle, which is perfectly fine. They couldn't handle this child's situation, plain and simple; therefore, the family that could, the family the child has bonded and lived with, should be the ideal placement for adoption in this case.

This is about a child, not about the parents. The concern for "integrity" here should be the integrity of the child and his right to permanence and a lessening of his pain. The child has the moral right not to be hurt. He may have lived with one family for 5 months and so it seems like this is his first move, but he already lost his birthmother. I don't see how the adoptive family (in this case) is more suited to caring for this child, there is no added benefit to him and only added pain.

Each case should be about the children and what is best for them. So often in foster care it is about the parents and other adults involved in the case at the expense of the children and that is wrong. I agree that there are problems. Some states, however, have recognized the problem and are trying to get away from foster and adoptive only and encourage as few moves as possible for the children. The new ideal is resource parents who would foster AND adopt the child to help attachment and lessen their moves.

The system is supposed to be child-focused. If that is achieved by moving a child to family sooner, or allowing a foster family currently caring for the child adopt, then it should be done. It should be about integrity for the child, not about what parents agreed to what at the outset of the case.

Children get hurt by moves: moving into foster care, moving from foster family to foster family, reunifiying with birthfamily, being placed with relatives/friends, moving to an adoptive family. Every moves leaves a mark, it doesn't mean they can't overcome it, it doesn't even mean it wasn't the best thing in the world to move (sometimes it is!), but each move causes pain and we should lessen it whenever possible.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by AngelArrow

Robin Kay I do agree with you at some point it was only two moves, but what about Foster parents have the right before an adoptive home to adoped they foster kids? Where did that came in to play? The child already had a routine in her house plus a bond with the foster parents so why move this baby again? even if the foster parents were only certified to foster. I think that people should be entitled to change their minds later on they is nothing wrong with that we see bp do it all the time, but that is a different topic. it is not just that foster parents fall in love with they Foster kids it is also the bond these kids have with they foster families before being moved into an adoptive home even if it is a baby . Sometimes I think we need to look at the bigger picture here instead only the small prints when it comes to kids in the foster care system.

#1 Foster parents have no right to anything regarding their foster children. They have wants, needs, desires, but no rights. I think we all know that.

#2 If you have a license, if you have made an agreement, you do not have the right to change your mind. Foster parents are not at all on the same footing legally or even morally as birthparents, so to say foster parents can change their mind because birthparents do makes no sense.

#3 I am looking at the bigger picture. In this case, the system is working pretty well. Children are limited to two moves if bparent makes an adoption plan in these kinds of cases. That is pretty good given the examples/situations on this board. But it only works if everyone cooperates, if everyone does what they are supposed to do.

Bonding is always the argument for foster parents to keep a child they want--and it's a good argument. However, if the foster parents have done a good job, and it sounds like these ones have, the child can be transitioned carefully and lovingly.

I am concerned about people using the foster care system as an adoption agency. That is exactly what is happening here. The OP volunteered and agreed to be a foster family for safehaven babies, agreed not to adopt. Now they have the cute, sweet baby, and they want to keep the baby. When stores do this to customers they call it switch and bait. Offer a product at a given price, but they are out of that, so while you're here, why not buy this other product at a higher price? So, offer to foster and not adopt, but as soon as you get a child and the calendar flips a few times, claim bonding, scream what about RAD--and adopt the child.


My point is not to be uncaring about the OP--my point is, this kind of plan does not work if the folks fostering in any way are looking to adopt. There are families out there who only want short term placements-these are the folks who could/should do this kind of situation.

In this case, I hope baby stays home, clearly he is loved and wanted, regardless of whether the OP promised to foster only.

[RobinKay]

Robinkay, this part of your post sounds as if it is stemming from resentment over your own situation. You are of course entitled to your opion and I know you said that this child should be able to stay with those taking care of him in this case; but your overall concern seems to be over "integrity" of stating what the parent will do in the beginnig of a situation that no one knows the end to. First, please do not assume that my point of view is limited to my own situation and experience. I have much more contact and experience with the foster care system than just my ds's former placements. Second, the foster parents knew exactly what the end would be for this child. Either the parents was going to take the child home, or the child was going to an adoptive family. There was no confusion, no uncertainty at any time. There was a plan in place to achieve permanency in a very timely manner.

A child shouldn't be moved if at all possible. It causes problems for the child. Foster care is inherently painful for the child, but the idea is to help the child's birthparents get control of their lives to safely parent their children.

This is not about "keeping someone's word", this is about the life of a child. So it's OK to lie if it's in the best interests of the child? How can any birthparent or family trust social services if people do not keep their word?

I don't know anything about the proposed adoptive family, other than they were not the foster family. They were not the ones caring for this child for the past 5 months. They are not relatives, they are not friends of birthmom, they are a family waiting to adopt. They were not the ones caring for this child, therefore (in my opinion) they are no longer the best option for this child. Yes, they are up front about what they can handle, which is perfectly fine. They couldn't handle this child's situation, plain and simple; therefore, the family that could, the family the child has bonded and lived with, should be the ideal placement for adoption in this case.They couldn't handle the situation? They are less deserving of adopting a child because they chose not to foster first? That makes them not the best option?

This is about a child, not about the parents. The concern for "integrity" here should be the integrity of the child and his right to permanence and a lessening of his pain. The child has the moral right not to be hurt. He may have lived with one family for 5 months and so it seems like this is his first move, but he already lost his birthmother. I don't see how the adoptive family (in this case) is more suited to caring for this child, there is no added benefit to him and only added pain. The only comparison we can make between the foster parents and the adoptive parents is that the adoptive parents told the truth about what they want from the beginning. They did not try to get a baby through a "back door" method by promising to foster, and then once they get a child, they change their mind and claim "BONDED" and now want to keep the child.

Each case should be about the children and what is best for them. So often in foster care it is about the parents and other adults involved in the case at the expense of the children and that is wrong. I agree that there are problems. Some states, however, have recognized the problem and are trying to get away from foster and adoptive only and encourage as few moves as possible for the children. The new ideal is resource parents who would foster AND adopt the child to help attachment and lessen their moves. You and I are in total agreement here-I hope this will become a nationwide practice.

The system is supposed to be child-focused. If that is achieved by moving a child to family sooner, or allowing a foster family currently caring for the child adopt, then it should be done. It should be about integrity for the child, not about what parents agreed to what at the outset of the case. That I cannot agree to at this time--too often the adults get what THEY want by claiming it's what's best for the child. "The system" is not child-focused, it is a public adoption agency

Children get hurt by moves: moving into foster care, moving from foster family to foster family, reunifiying with birthfamily, being placed with relatives/friends, moving to an adoptive family. Every moves leaves a mark, it doesn't mean they can't overcome it, it doesn't even mean it wasn't the best thing in the world to move (sometimes it is!), but each move causes pain and we should lessen it whenever possible.Yes, and that is what social services was trying to do in this situation. A baby this age with healthy attachments can be transitioned carefully to a a permanent home, as long as the foster parents help and support this.

If the OP wanted to adopt, they should have said so at the beginning, and not try to circumvent the process.

[KelleyF]

[quote=RobinKay
I am concerned about people using the foster care system as an adoption agency. That is exactly what is happening here. The OP volunteered and agreed to be a foster family for safehaven babies, agreed not to adopt. .[/QUOTE]

Why are you concerned about that? What difference does it make how fovever families come to be? Yes, many foster families are also willing to adopt. That is so much more benifiecial to the well being of the children.

Also, just because they agree to foster doesn't mean they agreed not to adopt.

[Robbin]

My hubby and I went into foster care ONLY wanting to foster. We both agreed no adoptions. Hubby compared us to a garage. They'll come in, we'll "tune" them up, and they'll move on. Both of us totally agreed to that. We fostered for several years, numerous children, some returned to family, some adopted. That was all we ever intended.

HOWEVER, when our foster son went up for adoption, we both said, "NO, we want him". It was not planned or intended. It came from our hearts. It was not a back door way to adopt. You cannot control what your heart does.

The "contract" is not as simple as I will do this, the agency will do that. You cannot forget how love enters into this equation. Foster parents, are by definition IMO, willing to open their hearts to loving children not theirs by birth, and there is always the "risk" that they will fall in love with the baby/toddler/child and not want them to leave.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by KelleyF

Why are you concerned about that? What difference does it make how fovever families come to be? Yes, many foster families are also willing to adopt. That is so much more benifiecial to the well being of the children.

Also, just because they agree to foster doesn't mean they agreed not to adopt.

I think you need to read all the posts before you make a comment.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by Robbin

My hubby and I went into foster care ONLY wanting to foster. We both agreed no adoptions. Hubby compared us to a garage. They'll come in, we'll "tune" them up, and they'll move on. Both of us totally agreed to that. We fostered for several years, numerous children, some returned to family, some adopted. That was all we ever intended.

HOWEVER, when our foster son went up for adoption, we both said, "NO, we want him". It was not planned or intended. It came from our hearts. It was not a back door way to adopt. You cannot control what your heart does.

The "contract" is not as simple as I will do this, the agency will do that. You cannot forget how love enters into this equation. Foster parents, are by definition IMO, willing to open their hearts to loving children not theirs by birth, and there is always the "risk" that they will fall in love with the baby/toddler/child and not want them to leave.

In your case he came up for adoption--and you said yes. That is wonderful, I am very happy for your ds and for you. You always had the option to adopt, just chose not to do that.

In this case, the child is not available for adoption by the OP--that was clear at the beginning, there was no confusion, there was a plan in place. Bparent or adoptive family. No multiple moves, no "bouncing around the system". OP did not come into this situation as a possible adoptive home--by their choice.

The family changed their minds. They did not keep their word--and are now using the "child is bonded to us, knows only us" argument. Hello, that was the plan, that the child should only have this one placement until ru with bparent or transition to adoptive home.

Foster parents know they love children-why else would they do this? "Falling in love" with a child is not a good reason to not keep your word, not support the social services plan/goal. If we just go with the foster parent's emotions in every situation, how can this support system for the birth families work/survive? Every child placed in to care would lose their birthfamily and be adopted by the foster family.

I think it's a sneaky, backhanded way to get a baby. Promise to do the temp thing, and then change your mind, claim "bonded" and concerns about RAD. I have concerns about people who would do something like this.

[KelleyF]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

Why am I worried about it? If you have to ask that question, nothing I can say will explain it to you.

LOL. I didn't think so.

[kxl164]

"Robinkay, this part of your post sounds as if it is stemming from resentment over your own situation. You are of course entitled to your opion and I know you said that this child should be able to stay with those taking care of him in this case; but your overall concern seems to be over "integrity" of stating what the parent will do in the beginnig of a situation that no one knows the end to. First, please do not assume that my point of view is limited to my own situation and experience. I have much more contact and experience with the foster care system than just my ds's former placements.
-- I was saying how it seemed to me. I didn't say it was your only experience, just how it appeared to me where this resentment was coming from. If I was wrong, so be it.

Second, the foster parents knew exactly what the end would be for this child. Either the parents was going to take the child home, or the child was going to an adoptive family. There was no confusion, no uncertainty at any time. There was a plan in place to achieve permanency in a very timely manner.
--Nothing that the OP said stated this. The OP thought the child was going to birthmom. 99% sure the child was going to birthmom, not to adoptive parents. Over and over foster parents are asked to adopt, they hoped to be able to adopt him, then they learned that he would go to adoptive parents not to them. There WAS confusion.

A child shouldn't be moved if at all possible. It causes problems for the child. Foster care is inherently painful for the child, but the idea is to help the child's birthparents get control of their lives to safely parent their children.

This is not about "keeping someone's word", this is about the life of a child. So it's OK to lie if it's in the best interests of the child? How can any birthparent or family trust social services if people do not keep their word?
--No one is saying it is OK to lie. But is it OK to change your mind. It is OK to look at the way the child fits into your family and say why in the world would have this child move if he/she needs an adoptive home and say now that the child is available for adoption we would like to adopt. That is not only, not lying, that is understanding your own feelings and is considered an ideal situation for the child.

I don't know anything about the proposed adoptive family, other than they were not the foster family. They were not the ones caring for this child for the past 5 months. They are not relatives, they are not friends of birthmom, they are a family waiting to adopt. They were not the ones caring for this child, therefore (in my opinion) they are no longer the best option for this child. Yes, they are up front about what they can handle, which is perfectly fine. They couldn't handle this child's situation, plain and simple; therefore, the family that could, the family the child has bonded and lived with, should be the ideal placement for adoption in this case.They couldn't handle the situation? They are less deserving of adopting a child because they chose not to foster first? That makes them not the best option?
-- Yes. If they couldn't be a foster parent to this child when birthmom was trying to work to keep him and he had time to bond with another family then they are not the best option for THIS child. I'm not saying all straight adoptive parents are less deserving of adopting than foster parents, I'm saying this child deserves the stability afforded to him by his foster parents and shouldn't be moved since the foster family wants to adopt and already has a relationship with the child.

This is about a child, not about the parents. The concern for "integrity" here should be the integrity of the child and his right to permanence and a lessening of his pain. The child has the moral right not to be hurt. He may have lived with one family for 5 months and so it seems like this is his first move, but he already lost his birthmother. I don't see how the adoptive family (in this case) is more suited to caring for this child, there is no added benefit to him and only added pain. The only comparison we can make between the foster parents and the adoptive parents is that the adoptive parents told the truth about what they want from the beginning. They did not try to get a baby through a "back door" method by promising to foster, and then once they get a child, they change their mind and claim "BONDED" and now want to keep the child.
-- The foster parents are not trying to find a "back door" to adopt. They didn't expect this child to become available for adoption. It was UNEXPECTED. Now that he is becoming available they would like to adopt him. How is that changing their mind? How is that any different from any other foster care situation that goes to TPR? Again, no one is saying that straight adoptive parents are less worthy or should be penalized for not wanting to foster, BUT the child's needs should come first and not moving is best. Being bonded is a HUGE DEAL for any child and is the foster family is willing to adopt then that should happen, that is the ideal, that lessens trauma for the child. It is best for the CHILD to remain with the parents he is bonded to. It isn't a "claim" it is real.
Each case should be about the children and what is best for them. So often in foster care it is about the parents and other adults involved in the case at the expense of the children and that is wrong. I agree that there are problems. Some states, however, have recognized the problem and are trying to get away from foster and adoptive only and encourage as few moves as possible for the children. The new ideal is resource parents who would foster AND adopt the child to help attachment and lessen their moves. You and I are in total agreement here-I hope this will become a nationwide practice.

The system is supposed to be child-focused. If that is achieved by moving a child to family sooner, or allowing a foster family currently caring for the child adopt, then it should be done. It should be about integrity for the child, not about what parents agreed to what at the outset of the case. That I cannot agree to at this time--too often the adults get what THEY want by claiming it's what's best for the child. "The system" is not child-focused, it is a public adoption agency
--I don't understand your point here. The "system" is not a public adoption agency, part of it is. It is a way to help families remain connected, when that cannot happen then it becomes a way to help the child find permanence. Adults don't just get their way by claiming what is best for the child. My sons birthfamily didn't get them back by just claiming it was best for them. It seems to me that you mean that foster families get to keep(adopt) their foster children by claiming they are bonded instead of the children moving to adoptive only families. There is nothing wrong with that. A child should remain where they are loved and well cared for whenever possible and it is in their best interests. In this case, it is a foster family or an adoptive family. Foster family cared for the child for 5 months, adoptive family are strangers to the child. It is not a hard decision about what is best to me in this case.

Children get hurt by moves: moving into foster care, moving from foster family to foster family, reunifiying with birthfamily, being placed with relatives/friends, moving to an adoptive family. Every moves leaves a mark, it doesn't mean they can't overcome it, it doesn't even mean it wasn't the best thing in the world to move (sometimes it is!), but each move causes pain and we should lessen it whenever possible.Yes, and that is what social services was trying to do in this situation. A baby this age with healthy attachments can be transitioned carefully to a a permanent home, as long as the foster parents help and support this.

If the OP wanted to adopt, they should have said so at the beginning, and not try to circumvent the process.
--NO that is not what social services is trying to do. Social services is moving a child from a loving home to an adoptive home for NO REASON. I haven't heard one good reason why anyone would do this. There is no reason to move this child to another home that is best for the child. Just because a baby can be transitioned into an aoptive home doesn't mean they should be.

The OP is a foster family, willing to help families heal. They never said they were unwilling to adopt, they just put themselves out there first to help reunite families. If they said they would be willing to adopt at initial placement then the agency could/would have moved the child because it would them seem that the foster family didn't support reunification which was the plan at the time. They are not trying to circumvent the system, they are working as part of the system and their role is to provide a home for a child in need. Now that the same child needs a permanent home and they are willing to provide it that is not circumventing the system, that is working with the system in the ideal way.

[KelleyF]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

I think you need to read all the posts before you make a comment.

Yes, I read ALL the posts. There is nothing wrong with trying to build your family through the foster care system. Many of these children would have no where to go if it weren't for foster families open to adoption. It's a wonderful thing.

[KelleyF]

[quote=RobinKay]

The family changed their minds. They did not keep their word--and are now using the "child is bonded to us, knows only us" argument.
I"m sorry you don't feel bonding is important for the fc. They agreed to take in a placement that the intended adoptive family wasn't willing to do. Situations change. This OP never said anything about "giving her word" she wouldn't be interested in adopting if it went that way. They just said yes to a baby that needed a home.

If we just go with the foster parent's emotions in every situation, how can this support system for the birth families work/survive? Every child placed in to care would lose their birthfamily and be adopted by the foster family.

You're way off base here. We are not talking about birth families. This is a non birth/relative home. (oh wait, you're a relative placement..)

I think it's a sneaky, backhanded way to get a baby. Promise to do the temp thing, and then change your mind, claim "bonded" and concerns about RAD.

Bonding and RAD are very serious issues. You should probably do some reasearch on this before assuming that bonding isn't important. There is nothing sneaky or backhanded about loving and wanting to raise a child that you have "bonded" to, and he to you. Don't underestimated the importance of bonding.

I have concerns about people who would
do something like this.

I have serious concerns about where this anger is coming from. It is quite obvious that this is much more personal than this particular situation. I pray that you find peace. May the lord be with you in your time of need.

[hkolln]

Originally Posted by KelleyF

There is nothing wrong with trying to build your family through the foster care system. Many of these children would have no where to go if it weren't for foster families open to adoption. It's a wonderful thing.

I'm sorry I have to respond to this. I don't think becoming a foster parent to build your family is a good plan. It's not always that the kids stay with you as there is RU with bparents or relatives first. Nobody should become a foster parent to grow their family or they will get their hearts very hurt!

BUT if the child has nobody to turn to and no family to take them in then I think it's awesome that foster parents are able to say "I wish to adopt this child." I think that is great! Kids need to know they belong somewhere. So, if you have a child that goes to TPR and adoption then I feel the child should stay put as long as the home is a nuturing, stable, and loving home. Why move a child if you don't have to? That is just rediculous! I would think leaving the child in a home where he/she has bonded would be the best for a child. And it would also save alot of time and money for DCF to look for an adoptive home!

As for the OP adopting the child...I don't see what harm that would do? Maybe I'm missing something? As long as there is no RU in the future and no qualified family available why shouldn't they be the first people to adopt? The child has been with them and bonded with them? I would hope they would think moving him would be more detrimental in the long run. Maybe the OP can get an adoption home study done and become foster to adopt (if that is possible?). I just don't see how moving him would benefit?

[irelady10]

In my state they have something called fost/adopt.
Children who may need a permanent home are placed in fost/adopt homes. These foster parents are committed to adopting the child if he needs a permanent home. I am gaining a forever son through fost/adopt. I am committed to this child, no matter the outcome of his case. Some people on this thread see this as wrong? I really don't understand this. How is loving a child and being committed to his future wrong? Why is it wrong to want to grow your family through fost/adopt- of course there will be pain when a child leaves, but if you enter the world of fost/adopt with your eyes open, you are well-aware of this possibility, and in the end, you gave the child a huge gift while he was with you.

[KelleyF]

Originally Posted by hkolln

I'm sorry I have to respond to this. I don't think becoming a foster parent to build your family is a good plan. It's not always that the kids stay with you as there is RU with bparents or relatives first. Nobody should become a foster parent to grow their family or they will get their hearts very hurt!

I actually do agree with you to a point. I agree that it can be vey hard on the heart. It is difficult to say goodbye to a child that you have grown to love and have had a trusting, loving, nurturing relationship with. It can be heartbreaking. But, every foster parent knows the risks, loves unconditionally, and supports RU as the main goal. The fact is, that many kids don't go home to their bio families, for whatever reason. And yes, there are many foster parents that foster until their forever child comes into their lives. Hence the term foster/adopt. RU is always first and foremost for all foster/adopt homes but they are still hoping to build thier families. Nothing wrong with that at all.