[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by hkolln

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?

[quote]because he came in through the adoption program and not through the foster care system they are not letting us adopt[quote] (From the OP--)
There's no harm at all in having the OP adopt. That's common sense--I have always advocated for children to stay in the family that takes them home from the hospital if bparents cannot parent the child. Why didn’t the OP have/do the license or whatever they needed to do to adopt instead of just foster? Is it because they would get a placement faster, more easily? Helen, BTW, there are two approved adoptive families for this child per the OP.


My point was that the OP made a commitment--to be a foster placement until child went to bparents or to the adoptive home.

I think if our (flawed) system is going to work, people have to keep their word. If you want/plan to adopt, say so at the beginning. If not, you do temp placements and not complain later when you can't keep the child. That is the problem I see--it's not the OP, it's our system overall. When foster parents do not support the social services plan, change their mind—when any of the adults making decisions for a child in “the system” it makes for serious problems and the children in the system pay for it.

Maybe everyone in the foster care system should be foster/adopt automatically. In this case, apparently the OP was only foster.

FYI--I am not cavalier about bonding or RAD--if a child didn't bond with foster parents, they are not doing their job very well, are they? RAD happens when a child is NOT nurtured in the early years and learns to NOT trust adults. A healthy, bonded five-month old can be transitioned to an adoptive home.

[snc2007]

I am curious to hear more from the OP. Where I live there is foster or adopt. A child coming into care rarely goes straight to adoption (Safe Haven would be one example.) When a foster child becomes free for adoption a committee choose the family. The foster family and any family with an adoption home study can be submitted to the committee. Usually if the foster family wants to adopt they are chosen because they have bonded but I have heard of cases where they weren't. I have never been asked at the beginning to agree NOT to be interested in adopting a foster child.

I think when this baby was placed with OP that the case became foster and the agency is now playing switcheroo. Like I said, it is rare for a case to go straight adoption and the adoptive families wait years. I hope that this case is not decided by one social worker who feels loyal to a nice family who has waited a long time for a baby. This baby already has a family.

To the OP, please find out how it works where you live. Speak to supervisors and find out if you can be considered. It is likely that the person who told you no does not really have a say in the matter. Good luck to you and your little one.

[akcskye]

I was never a "foster" parent...I mean, I technically was for the first 8 months before our adoption finalized...but we were in a foster/adopt placement, so when the kids moved in, adoption was the plan.

However, I can't see why someone that signs on as a foster parent only can't be considered to adopt a child that's been with them for a long time just because they have adoptive families waiting in line for them.

I know myself, if I was a foster parent and a child's case plan changed to adoptive, you can bet I would be definitely wanting to find myself on the list for the child as a prospective family.

To think that a foster only license should negate the long term feelings and bonding that the family has had with the child just because an adoptive family has been waiting a long time sounds a bit antiquated to me.

I mean, there ARE legal risk adoptive placements that those families waiting to adopt can take, because the risks of the child going back are much lower than a foster intake child.

Just my .02

[mommytoEli]

FYI--I am not cavalier about bonding or RAD--if a child didn't bond with foster parents, they are not doing their job very well, are they? RAD happens when a child is NOT nurtured in the early years and learns to NOT trust adults. A healthy, bonded five-month old can be transitioned to an adoptive home.

wow. while this is usually true....it is not always. biological parents of children they care for since birth who are attentive can still have children with attachment disorders. children that are cared for since birth appropriately and transitioned lovingly at a young age can still form attachment disorders. a.d. do not only come from unattentive parents not doing their job. sometimes they also come from loss and hurt a child suffers- as in when they lose their primary caregiver (like foster parents, birth parents, or both). sometimes it can not be explained. will every child experience this as a result of loss? no. but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. RAD is serious...once a child has developed it, no amount of finger pointing will cure it.

as far as getting babies in a sneaky back door kind of way.....um, i have this theory that i developed while caring for other people's children. you can have every intention in the world of only fostering a child....and then somehow, that child buries their way into your heart. in every emotional sense of the word, that child becomes yours. why? because that is how God designed parents...i think particularly mothers. it is very natural to want to continue to care for children that have been placed in your home. it is not JUST about them being cute and being a baby...trust me. when i changed my mind and decided to adopt my foster kids...that were on the adoption path, ready for adoption fairs, and had families with homestudies already interested when i was a foster only family....they were FAR from cute and FAR from little. i don't think i was being sneaky.....any one of those families could have fostered them first.....and back door? when everyone knows where the back door is, everyone knows how to use it, and everyone has equal access to it, it is just called an entrance. i think there are plenty of families that want to be adoptive only....i respect that, but they've got to know they are going to wait. in my old county, they actually told adoptive only families that....foster families typically have priority, if you want a younger baby, you have to be willing to foster first.

[hkolln]

Originally Posted by KelleyF

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.

I'm confused. Isn't that what I said??? I know not all foster/adopt situations do lead to adoption. I know cause my niece was in a foster-adopt home however the SW lied to the FP's about eligible family and that they could adopt her. They did eventually move Alexis here. So, just because you are foster-adopt doesn't mean you adopt either. And you still need to know that RU is always the main thing to expect. And as with any RU situation there is always the potential to lose the child to bio family! So, I'm confused as to why you disagree with me?

Maybe the OP was strictly a "foster" home and not a foster to adopt home. Maybe that is why they are moving the child again? I'm curious as to what was told to the FP's when they placed the child with them? And maybe if they contact the SW there and do an adoption home study and let them know their intentions they may be able to adopt this child or maybe they already had adoptive home options before putting the child in a foster only home but that didn't work out. Now the child is being moved to one of the previous adoptive homes. Maybe the OP can clarify this.

[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 disagree with the statement about not being a good idea to build your family through the foster care system. I don't see anything wrong with it because even though it can be heartbreaking at times, every foster parent knows the risks and are willing to accept them. Many people become foster parents hoping to eventually adopt.

[akcskye]

As bad as I hate the "generalization" police...this is a generalization that could damage the truths about adoption.

There are many varying degrees of foster and adoptive placements.

Foster to adopt in some states is fostering, and then if the case plan moves to reunification, they go home...if it moves to adoption, that family is it.

Foster to adopt in my state meant that we accepted a TPR'd case (or could have been one that TPR was imminent) and there was zero chance of disruption unless we all hated each other.

Straight fostering here means that you foster the child, and then the child moves to an adoptive home, UNLESS the family is dual certified to adopt, that way, if a situation like this comes up, then they have a chance at keeping the child(ren) without the "wait in line" situation previously presented here.

Not being "mean"...don't get me wrong...but if anyone new to fostering was here, didn't want them mis-informed.

Originally Posted by hkolln

So, just because you are foster-adopt doesn't mean you adopt either.

[akcskye]

If I hadn't gone through foster adopt, I wouldn't be a mom now, so I completely agree Kelley.

Originally Posted by KelleyF

I disagree with the statement about not being a good idea to build your family through the foster care system. I don't see anything wrong with it because even though it can be heartbreaking at times, every foster parent knows the risks and are willing to accept them. Many people become foster parents hoping to eventually adopt.

[mommy2fiveplus]

#1- I think the idea of only being a foster or only being an adoptive home is ludicrious. The system would end up with far fewer foster homes (any of you all who are knocking foster parents who want to adopt going to step up and foster?) and kids would end up in group homes. Where we live you can be adopt only or you can be foster/adopt. Foster/adopt in our area means you can take regular foster placements AND you can take kids that are likely to be adopted. This keeps other people from saying you "lied" about your intentions. BTW they encourage everyone to become foster/adopt or adopt only, pretty soon there will not be a straight foster option in other areas as well and I am glad. Just because you take a child doesn't mean you have to adopt but if it comes up at least you have the option with the foster/adopt license.

#2 Not all states have foster/adopt, so this OP may not have been able to say that she wanted to foster (permanent AND temp) and then adopt if the option came up, doesn't make her a nasty foster parent that "baits and switches" or doesn't have integrity, or goes back on her word, or doesn't support RU. It does make her an unfortunate foster parent that lives in an uneducated state that puts families into little boxes forcing them to conform to one thing or another instead of being flexible and doing what is in the best interest for the child.

#3 I also disagree that fostering is not a good way to create a forever family, it is a way and actually I have found it to be a satisfying and rewarding way to do so. There have been losses along the way, but there have also been gains that I would never want to part with, such as seeeing a formerly drug abusing and uneducated mom, graduate from college 2 years after getting her kids back, such as holding my baby boy and knowing that if not for me he would likely be dead because there is no way his bmother could have possibly cared for his special needs, such as seeing an unanchored child who drifted from place to place become tied to a family so strongly that he/she actually sees himself as an integral part of that family. We always knew we wanted to adopt, but because I was raised with foster care almost my whole life (my parents did foster since I was 4) I also knew how rewarding it can be to foster in the temporary sense. We wanted both, to foster and to adopt, and it has been a succesful and rewarding endevor. And a great way to add to our family, all you have to do is look at our family portrait to know that.

#4 To RobinKay, if a family has to decide to either foster only or adopt only many times situations will occur where a child has been in foster care for years and bonded with a family (they have "fallen in love" with eachother child and family, family and child). In your ideal world, that family would have to transition these kids to a new adopt only home. It is not in the kids best interest for this to happen. These kids may have started out as a simple RU with a 6-9 mos case plan, but bparents didn't complete their requirements, family didn't step up or couldn't pass a homestudy, and after extensions and allowances and parents working plan for awhile but not finishing, the kids have now been in a foster only home for 2-3 years and now because they are still young (lets say 3-6y) and very "adoptable" lets move them to an adopt only home, that is assinine (sp?). Well the same goes for this case. Plans change, the original plan was for baby to go to adoptive home, mom changes mind, baby moved from adoptive home to foster, state gives her a plan, she can't make it happen, wa-la child in care for monthes (a long time to an infant) now finally TPR is imminent and the great idea is to move the baby AGAIN, that is not a system that is doing what is in the best interest of the child.

IMO all foster homes should be foster/adopt, that way if they have a child that was originally foster but goes to TPR and they want to adopt they can have that option, they don't have to take that option if they don't want to but at least they can and not be accused of "bait and switch" or "falling in love" and changing thier minds, or using some back door method or adoption, they should not have to say from the outset whether they want to adopt or not because that desire may change from case to case, I know it has for me, there have been kids that on the first day I had them I would have told you no way could I handle them every day for the next 20 years, but ask me that same question 6 monthes later and I was crying when they left because they had become such an important part of our lives and I can't imagine the next day without them. A friend of mine started fostering because she was single and wanted to adopt a baby, she has adopted two, got married and had another and has fostered 3 babies (initial plan was RU) that she has choosen not to adopt because she felt that she wanted to continue fostering. Those babies were transitioned from her home to waiting adopt only homes after TPR. That is the way it should be, a foster home that has cared for a child and bonded with a child should have the option to adopt. It does not mean that in the future my friend will not adopt any baby that comes through her home, it just means in those cases she did not, my feelings are that she has strong protective feelings for the medically fragile ones and those are the ones she has adopted, in any case she should be the first person they ask, it is what is best for the child.

Each case needs to be looked at individually, there is no right way that will work for every child. No family should be made to decide from the outset of a case wether or not they want to adopt, it might not even be an option in the picture at the outset of the case (much like this one with the OP the plan was to RU with Bmom). That is why I am in agreement with progressive states that are encouraging all foster parents to become foster/adopt, so that permanency can be made for all children sooner. Straight foster is an anitquated system that only hurts children and families.

Additionally foster is not "promising to do the temp thing", fostering is taking in a child and providing the things that the former caregiver could not or would not, it is loving a child that desperately needs it and advocating for what is best for the child, even if that means hurting yourself or making it known that the "plan" that other people may have for this child is not in his/her best interest. I have been known to advocate for a bparent that the agency wants to give up on and have "blocked" RU (by telling the GAL and Judge my concerns) with family that is not suitable or safe to take the child. My "contract" is not with the agency but with the child, they are my higher concern, the agency can take care of itself and is often to busy to see things that I think are completely obvious. If this foster parent wants to adopt and the agency wants to move the child to another home without any beneficial reason for the child, then I hope she fights it tooth and nail, because she signed up to help children not hurt them, unnessasary moves HURT.

[akcskye]

Everything was great, except for this.

I am not knocking foster parents, but I know for darn sure I couldn't be a foster parent, even though I am an adoptive parent.

It takes a special type of person to give so self-lessly.

Myself, anyone or anything that comes into my home with a need is going to have a hard time leaving. I guess that explains why I'm having a hard time placing the 12 kittens that have been born in my house over the last few months when I took in 3 pregnant strays.

Point being...it's not a "step up" issue...foster parents are awesome, but they aren't Gods worthy of more praise than someone who "just adopts". We all foster and adopt for our own reasons, and IMO, one is no "better" than the other.

Those of us who choose to adopt only know what they can and cannot handle, just as those who foster only know the very same thing.

That's what I took from the tone...if that's not what was intended, I apologize.

Originally Posted by mommy2fiveplus

(any of you all who are knocking foster parents who want to adopt going to step up and foster?)

[mommy2fiveplus]

That is not what was intended.

I do not believe that fosters are better than adopt only.
I do not believe that myself or any other foster parent is a god. I do not believe that we are worthy of more praise (or any for that matter) than someone who "just adopts" and actually I don't think I would ever say "just adopts" because it is not an insignificant thing, adopting.

I do bleieve those who do not want to foster should not say that fosters who want to adopt, should go the adopt only route, there would be many fewer foster homes and it seems that people who say this about fosters (not you but others) are not willing to fill the hole in the system that a mass exodus of foster families would create.

I do believe that children should not be removed from one home and placed in another just because an adopt only home has been on a list for "x" amount of time and it is "thier turn".

The comment you disagreed with was directed at people who said that foster parents should not adopt or complain when a child is moved to an adoptive home, they should just be foster or adopt. If you did not say that it was not meant for you.

[akcskye]

Oh, I completely understood and agreed to everything else...just not that one statement.

So, we're good.

Originally Posted by mommy2fiveplus

That is not what was intended.

I do not believe that fosters are better than adopt only.
I do not believe that myself or any other foster parent is a god. I do not believe that we are worthy of more praise (or any for that matter) than someone who "just adopts" and actually I don't think I would ever say "just adopts" because it is not an insignificant thing, adopting.

I do bleieve those who do not want to foster should not say that fosters who want to adopt, should go the adopt only route, there would be many fewer foster homes and it seems that people who say this about fosters (not you but others) are not willing to fill the hole in the system that a mass exodus of foster families would create.

I do believe that children should not be removed from one home and placed in another just because an adopt only home has been on a list for "x" amount of time and it is "thier turn".

The comment you disagreed with was directed at people who said that foster parents should not adopt or complain when a child is moved to an adoptive home, they should just be foster or adopt. If you did not say that it was not meant for you.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by mommy2fiveplus

In your ideal world, that family would have to transition these kids to a new adopt only home.

IMO all foster homes should be foster/adopt, that way if they have a child that was originally foster but goes to TPR and they want to adopt they can have that option, they don't have to take that option if they don't want to but at least they can and not be accused of "bait and switch" or "falling in love" and changing thier minds, or using some back door method or adoption, they should not have to say from the outset whether they want to adopt or not because that desire may change from case to case, I know it has for me, there have been kids that on the first day I had them I would have told you no way could I handle them every day for the next 20 years, but ask me that same question 6 monthes later and I was crying when they left because they had become such an important part of our lives and I can't imagine the next day without them.

Each case needs to be looked at individually, there is no right way that will work for every child. No family should be made to decide from the outset of a case wether or not they want to adopt, it might not even be an option in the picture at the outset of the case (much like this one with the OP the plan was to RU with Bmom). That is why I am in agreement with progressive states that are encouraging all foster parents to become foster/adopt, so that permanency can be made for all children sooner. Straight foster is an anitquated system that only hurts children and families.

First, I said in every one of my posts that the child should stay where he is.

I also said foster only or adopt only is something that needs to change--to limit moves, any foster placement should also be a possible adoptive placement.

I read the posts, and I gathered that the OP was the only placement so far with this child due to possible RU. Did I misread that?

I made the point that if someone went into a system as foster only because they might possibly get a baby or a child sooner with the idea that then they can bond and try to keep them--if that was the plan, that is wrong.

If you want to adopt a child, I think it is the right thing to say that up front. Not a particular child, I know the family needs to get the know the child in some cases, but be upfront if that is your ultimate goal.

Don't say--we'll only foster, we'll only take temp placements--if your goal is to build your family through adoption.

I did not put forth the idea orginally to have foster only and adopt only homes to limit moves. It was another poster on another thread--and I believe it was a poster who participated in this thread, and it amazed me that now that poster thinks it's a bad idea.

It's hard enough on children in foster care--it gets worse if the adults in the situation are not truthful or try to circumvent the system.

Mommy, I have great respect for your opinions and your experience. thank you for responding to my thoughts

[mommy2fiveplus]

Sorry RobinKay, I must have misunderstood your post, I thought you were supporting foster only and adopt only homes, my mistake.

And I do believe the baby was first placed with the adoptive home then moved to the foster home when the bmom changed her mind, I could be wrong though.

[kxl164]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

I made the point that if someone went into a system as foster only because they might possibly get a baby or a child sooner with the idea that then they can bond and try to keep them--if that was the plan, that is wrong.

I disagree. It is not wrong. It is not wrong to change your mind, if you indeed did change your mind. It is not wrong to go into fostering with the hopes of adoption and not say anything at first, it is a hope, not a goal. If you say your will foster only and really want to adopt, so what, it doesn't hurt anyone and it most certainly doesn't hurt the child. It HELPS the child stay in a permanent home sooner. It is not circumventing the system, it is being a part of the system in hopes to build your family.

Why would it bother you so much for someone to change their mind, or for someone to hope for one thing but agree to another? It is a hope, not a given. Why shouldn't people foster only then be given the opportunity to change their minds? Why shouldn't people agree to foster when they really want to adopt? You call it a lie, I call it a hope. Is it semantics?

I agreed to foster. My husband wanted to foster, I hoped to adopt. I hoped. I hoped that we wouldn't have to say goodbye to a placement, but I prepared myself to do it because I was a foster parent first, a hopeful adoptive parent second. Are you calling me a liar, because I had hope for an adoptive placement stemming from a foster placement? I certainly don't think I am, I think I am human, who did what I was asked to do. And then when my children needed an adoptive home I was more than happy to provide it. It wasn't a lie, it was a hope.

I also said I didn't want to take autistic children. My son is PPD-NOS, should I have given him back? I said up front that it wasn't what I wanted, so did I lie and hurt someone by agreeing to adopt him?

Life is not so black and white.

Hoping to adopt is not wrong. Saying you will foster while secretly hoping to adopt is not wrong. Almost every baby who comes into our county is straight reunification. The county workers told us that if we wanted a chance at a baby to be willing to foster and support reunification while hoping to adopt. Know that reunification will probably be happen, but hope to adopt. But then again our county is more progressive and now (after I was licensed) ONLY licenses people as Resource parents, all parents are dual licensed because PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR MINDS so often. It just cuts down on paperwork for them.

It isn't circumventing the system, it is helping the system work better for the good of the children. We were told in trainging my SW'ers to "help" them find permanence for children faster by (in your workds) circumventing the system this way.... then the "the system" changed its policy for the good of the children.

If you really think it is a problem then urge your local dept. to change its licensing policy. Change the policy for the good of the children, don't try to ask people to conform their hopes into a black and white senerio that doesn't meet the child's needs or their hopes.