[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by kxl164

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.

It is not wrong to change your mind. That is not what I said.

I said it is wrong to deliberately say "I am only interested in fostering" with the intent to have a child placed with me sooner than if I say I only want to adopt. That is "playing the system", not changing your mind and putting a child's needs first. Maybe the OP did that, maybe not. Regardless, I see that could be a systemic problem and wanted to discuss it on this thread.

I have concerns about giving a helpless child into the care of anyone who is so focused on their own needs and desires for a family they are willing to use loopholes and risk the child's emotional health--they may cause a child to be moved or make it harder for the child by not supporting the transition when social services says no, we have a pre-approved adoptive home. Again, I am not talking about someone changing their mind, I mean someone who deliberately goes into the situation knowing foster only will get a child more quickly, and once they have a child, and the child bonds, their position is strong to keep the child.

I really should have made that more clear in my previous posts.

My posts, after the first one, was to discuss how this kind of situation came about. Why was there a situation where, due to paperwork, a child was going to be moved?

Was it because the foster parents said "only foster" hoping to get a child sooner? And then later, say "don't move the baby because he/she is bonded"? Deliberately planning to do something like that is deceitful and wrong.

I questioned the situation, I questioned the system that would set up a family to be in this situation, would allow a "loophole" like this to exist. Who would want to give up a baby they cared for if it was available for adoption? I don't think anyone who has read this post would want to do that.

BTW, just want to say that we have gotten away from the original OP question--and I think everyone felt the child should stay in this loving home.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by 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.

If I misread OP posts, and I did go back to check, my apologies. It won't be the first time I have been wrong!

I know you know I don't believe in children being bounced around the system--that is why dh and I have our third son! We wanted things to work out with bparents, but could not let him stay in the system once he'd been moved from one home to another, regardless of the need for him to be in the same state for visits--

thanks again for your responses--I have missed reading your posts lately

[AngelArrow]

Overall, who cares anyhow on who is what and who is'nt as longest the kiddos are safe that is what should matter in the end adoptive home or foster home. Everybody should be entiteled to have an opinion and have choices on how to become a family.

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by AngelArrow

Overall, who cares anyhow on who is what and who is'nt as longest the kiddos are safe that is what should matter in the end adoptive home or foster home. Everybody should be entiteled to have an opinion and have choices on how to become a family.

I care very much about whether helpless children are placed with people of good character and values. Telling the truth is a mark of good character. Finding ways around any system or situation to get what you want is wrong.

I have no problem with adoption--my ds was adopted, as was dh, his sister and brother. My sister-in-law was also adopted. We have many friends who were adopted and/or had their family through adoption.

Having children through adoption is not a right, it is a privilege, IMHO.

[kxl164]

RobinKay I understood what you meant.

You do not know what is in someone's mind.

You say it is wrong to agree to foster when you really want to adopt in order to get a younger child or a child more quickly. You say people should be up front and honest about their agenda and not try to manipulate a situation just to keep a child.

I agree that people should be honest. But I think you are mixing up up hope with a goal. It is not wrong to foster a hope of adoption while fostering a child.

There are very few times when a foster family even has the chance to manipulate a situation, and if it does occur it is usually coming down to a decision between a foster family and kinship family placements or straight adoptive parents.

It is never between birthparents and a foster family. (Which is what foster care is really all about.) The system isn't set up that way. If a birthparent complete thier program the kids go home. The ONLY times a decision about placement can occur which would look at the foster family vs. someone else is a kin or kith placement, or between the foster family and an adoption by non-relative placement.

Your point, if I am understanding you correctly, is that if those foster parents who have a child and did not say at the outset they would like to be adoptive parents and were just trying to put themselves in a positition to have a child placed with them sooner or get a younger child then they should lose that child for lack of honesty.

Why?

You say it is because it is wrong and dishonest to do so.

I say that even if they did it is still better for the child to remian in an appropriate and loving home.

Foster parents are foster parents first. Their job is to help reunify families. When it comes to adoption then things change. You think it is wrong to foster in hopes to adopt, or say you will foster while really wanting to adopt. I say it isn't and that is exactly why more and more agencies are dual licensing people.

You think children shouldn't be with parents who are decietful. Again, I don't think you know what is in someone else's mind. It may appear that they are trying to manipulate the system when in fact they aren't and they DID change their mind. It may appear that someone is trying to get a placement faster by agreeing to straight foster, but often times people are encouraged to foster (by social services) for that exact reason.

I don't agree with people being dishonest, but in foster care things are constantly changing. Maybe they weren't being honest with themselves and were really hoping to adopt but didn't recognize that fact, maybe they did "fall in love with a child" and changed their minds, or maybe they were out to try and adopt sooner and if they were, and it means one less move for the child, then the child benefits by being with a loving family who was willing to foster first in the hopes of adopting.

For whatever reason a foster family goes in fostering and then wants to adopt, for whatever reason.... the child still benefits by staying in a loving home with people they know, it is the adults who have to adjust themselves.

Maybe I just don't think peple are as deceitful as you do, I haven't been in your shoes. I have seen foster only parents adopt to the mutual joy of everyone involves. I have seen straight adoptive parents get a placement of a child from a foster home again to the mutual joy of everyone. I have seen people change their minds and I have had long conversations with people at social services about dual licensing. Here, dual licensing was promoted to make things easier for people who change their minds, and to help families who fostered in hopes to adopt do so.

[CladdaghGal]

I have only read the first page (and I am pretty new to the forum) but I did not know the choices were foster-only or adopt-only? Is this a state wide thing? From what I understood, your chances to adopt are better if you foster first. Now in this case it eliminates you if you foster? I don't understand this (nor do I agree with it!) ...

[RobinKay]

kxl164--

your post was heartfelt, and I think we agree. Of course people change their minds--I never said that was wrong, never said it didn't or shouldn't happen.

I also supported the OP in keeping the child.

My points were for discussion--and I am quoting myself here-

"I said it is wrong to deliberately say "I am only interested in fostering" with the intent to have a child placed with me sooner than if I say I only want to adopt. That is "playing the system", not changing your mind and putting a child's needs first. Maybe the OP did that, maybe not. Regardless, I see that could be a systemic problem and wanted to discuss it on this thread."


I think there are people intelligent enough to figure out ways around the system to get a child sooner, and there are people who want a child badly enough to do that. Then, once a child is with them, of course it is a risk to move a child who has bonded to caretakers. I think there are people who count on that, and are willing to use that concern to keep a child. I have concerns about the character and values of someone who would do that to have a child.

I supported the idea of dual licensing in all my posts.

I appreciated your kind and gentle tone as you made your points. I learn so much from folks like you who not only help our nation's children in foster care, you take the time and effort to educate folks like me who come to this site to learn and share. Thank you again.

[akcskye]

It varies from state to state.

In my state, we have foster only, adopt only, and foster adopt.

Foster only and adopt only, self explanatory. You either are ONLY a foster parent or ONLY an adoptive parent.

Foster to adopt is where the foster family is dual certified to foster and adopt (legally has to be if you take in a legal risk placement who hasn't had rights terminated), they can foster first, and be "first in consideration" for the child they have if the case plan moves to adoption.

We were foster to adopt, but our case was "Legally Free", so even though in all technicality, we were "foster parents" before finalization, our placement was just like an adoptive only placement...because the kids even got to use our last names and were never known by another to anyone who knows them now.

Hope that helps clarify.

Originally Posted by CladdaghGal

I have only read the first page (and I am pretty new to the forum) but I did not know the choices were foster-only or adopt-only? Is this a state wide thing? From what I understood, your chances to adopt are better if you foster first. Now in this case it eliminates you if you foster? I don't understand this (nor do I agree with it!) ...

[KelleyF]

Here in RI, you are either foster only or foster/adopt. There is no adopt only since "anything" can happen..so they say. However, even if you are foster only, you will always get first priority to adopt if the case goes that way. Anyone who has any kind of realtionship with the fc gets put to the top of the list, even if not related. Any kind of "bond" is considered best for the child. I have a friend who chose not to adopt her fs and freinds of hers, who were never foster parents, ended up adopting him. They called the cw and told them they were interested and because the fc knew them well the judge put them to the top of the list when considering adoptive homes. The judge ordered them to take some classes but the fc was placed with them before the classes started. I was pretty shocked.

[my2guats]

Okay, I'm the original poster so I think I'll make some clarifications. We are a foster home but we are also a foster/adopt home. When we were given the opportunity to care for this child it was 99% he was returning to birth mom within 3 months.
Once birth mom didn't follow through with things she needed to do to regain custody they began talking about "if the judge TPR." At that point we asked where he would go and we were told up front that he would go to the family that he was orignally reffered to.

So... yes they were honest and we knew there was a slim chance we would get to keep him.

He started off in a well baby home. he was there from one week old to 10 weeks old. Once it looked like he wasn't going to be transitioned straight into an adoptive home that family said that he needed to be moved because they were not able to do long term care (the next 3 months) that's when we got him.

When we signed up for foster care we decided that we would foster to foster (when kids go back to bio family) and foster to adopt (when kids have PRT). We want to help children who need support and if those children are ever in need of a permenant family we want to be that too.

So i guess what I'm saying is because this was an unusal case we weren't as prepared to foster a baby that would then go into an adoptive home. For us the kids would either go home or be adopted by us. Does that make sense. So i don't think we changed our minds. We know we want to grow our family as the Lord has willed (not using foster care as an adoption agency) but maybe through foster care. There is such a need.

All that being said...... the baby is what matters most and we just want the best for him. This will be his 3rd placement, 4th if you count birth mom's tummy and he is only 4 months old.

At one point the case worker did say that if TPR really does happen she would talk to her supervisor about us adopting since we were willing and able. I guess the supervisor told her no that he is to go to a waiting family so that was what was hard to hear. Even if this original family says no the agency will go down the list of their waiting couples until they find a family that says yes. That's where i get upset. We have already said yes. In the end the Lord's will be done.

[MommyAlysia]

Originally Posted by my2guats

Even if this original family says no the agency will go down the list of their waiting couples until they find a family that says yes. That's where i get upset. We have already said yes. In the end the Lord's will be done.

That just seems so wrong to me. That poor baby. As someone who would love to eventually adopt a baby like you described, I can't imagine taking him from the only true home he has ever known when there are already parents there willing and wanting to parent.

ETA: Is TPR a long way off still? Maybe by the time it goes through you can get a bonding study done?

[snc2007]

We're here to support you. Please keep us posted. And best wishes for you and your family.

[mommytoEli]

again, i hate that list. i am so sorry. please let us know what happens and you can vent anytime. feel free to pm me to vent if you need to...i'll listen.

[aclee]

If the social workers knew that he would go to the original family if bmom did not work her plan they should have placed the baby with a foster family that they knew would not want to adopt. To me, the whole point in placing an infant with a family that is foster to adopt is in hopes of one less move for the baby...which is such a positive thing. In MA, it is straight adopt, or straigh foster, with foster parents getting first "choice" to adopt when the child becomes available. One SW I spoke with said they were in need of two "types" of families. "Foster" families accepting infants that were at risk of staying (and they knew the family would adopt) or Adoptive families that were willing to take high legal risk babies. Those two things...basically the SAME! They said they had plenty of families wanting babies that were TPR'd, or VERY low legal risk, and they had plenty of families not interested in adopting that would take only infants...they want the middle group that would be interested in adopting infants, but would also love and care for infants that could be returned to their parents. That's where we would be. Foster parents to babies only, whom we MIGHT (if they were minorities) be open to adopting if they were TPR'd...

Best of luck to you and your family...

[RobinKay]

Thank you for sharing this information with this site. It must be a very painful situation, and I offer my sincere apologies if I made you feel worse.

I will pray the court has the wisdom to let this baby stay home--home is with you and your lovely family.