[my2guats]

On July 15th we were placed with a "safehaven" baby that originally was going to go into an adoptive home but at the last minute the birthmom petitioned the court that she wanted him back. That is when he was placed with us and it was thought at that time that it was a 99.9% chance he was going to go back. But ..... things do change. Birthmom hasn't done any of the things she needed to and has even told dcfs that she doesn"t feel she can parent at this time. we love this little guy and would love to keep him but we don"t want to get our hopes up. anyone have any experience with this?

[kayb]

"originally placed in an adoptive home"....and then what? Did they say no? (sorry I haven't learned how to do the nice blue box with the quotes! LOL)

click on my profile and look back thru some of my posts.

My fs was for all intensive purposes, a "safe haven" baby, but because she meet with a social worker in our small town, she signed papers to relinquish her rights for him to go into a foster home until an adoptive home was approved (which was us and us)

she did not get the ID band/# like i guess she should have. probably because our little hospital is too cheap to buy them!!

We picked him up at about 24 hours. she had already been released from the hospital. and she did change her mind at about 10 days later. she tried to do the classes. no drugs, no alcohol prenatally, she was just disconnected from reality and not ready or safe enough to parent.

at about 4 months she said she would sign the relinquishment papers and asked that we be the adoptive family of her choice.

We finalized in 4 weeks!

keep in touch if you end up taking our journey. I have alot more to share with you, via PM.

KAY

[my2guats]

okay we found out yesterday that we will not be able to adopt him because our agency has another family in line. because he came in through the adoption program and not through the foster care system they are not letting us adopt. The original family that was waiting for him is going to get the opportunity to accept his refferal again and if they say no (maybe because he is 5 months already) they have another family in line. Needless to say we were very disappointed. but .... we are glad that he will be going to a home where he will be loved and cared for in the best ways. His birth mom didn't show up for court and does't seem ready to parent so it looks like it will be moving to tpr.

[MPJJJ]

Wow, it is sad when kids are just moved around like envelopes in the mail. Why not keep him in the home that already knows and loves them? Very sad. I'm sorry that this is happening to you. :::hugs:::

[RobinKay]

Originally Posted by MPJJJ

Wow, it is sad when kids are just moved around like envelopes in the mail. Why not keep him in the home that already knows and loves them? Very sad. I'm sorry that this is happening to you. :::hugs:::

He hasn't been moved around--in one place for 5 months. It was supposed to be a foster home pending return to his mother.

The OP was not an adoptive home--they knew this when they took the baby.

I know "the system" has it's faults, but for crying out loud, "the system" was responding appropriately to the mother's desire to try and parent, and is now responding appropriately and quickly to place the child with an approved adoptive home. The child is only 5 months old--I think "the system" is moving quickly for the child, and tried to give the mother time to make the right decision for her child and herself.

[kxl164]

I think that in this state, safe haven infants go directly to adoptive parents if relinquishment is final, meaning the birthparents do not come to claim the child within a specified time frame.

Since birthmom did come back to try and parent the child, he was moved to foster home because not all adoptive parents are also licensed as foster parents and most straight adoptive parents do not want the risk of foster care.

After 5 months with the foster family the child does not look like he will be reunified with birthmom. The foster parents would like to adopt him, but the state wants to move him to an adoptive home.

I do not agree with the last move, even though everything else was done in the best way possible imo.

I do not agree that a child should be moved from a family who wants to care for him because there are other families willing to adopt and this leaves a foster bed open. Even with his young age he should not be moved around if at all possible. I think continuity of care should be maintained whenever possible.

Foster parents are encouarged to adopt the children in their care if they are in need of permenence. The ONLY reason they (system) are not doing so in this case is because foster parents are rare and adoptive parents are abundant, especially when considering a healthy infant child.

Many places dual license people to foster and adopt, also to update a foster care homestudy to an adoptive homestudy is generally easy, 1 visit and 1 report; but since the "system" knows it can place this child with an adoptive family (and probably no subsidy) they will do that.

From their (system) point of view is not a bad idea: less money going out, a happy adoptive family for word of mouth support and publicity, and a foster home still willing to accept children; but it is the child who has to move and the child who loses out on the security he has built thus far after already losing his birthfamily.

It is another loss for the child and to me that should be avoided, that should be the first consideration in cases like these.

Also, I do not think straight adoptive parents should be penalized for not wanting to foster, but the needs of the child should come first. Every move is traumatic and should be lessened. Moving this child from a foster home willing to adopt, to an adoptive home just isn't the best practice for the best interests for the child in my opinion.

my2guats, I hope everything goes well and that your family continues to foster in the future!

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by RobinKay

I know "the system" has it's faults, but for crying out loud, "the system" was responding appropriately to the mother's desire to try and parent, and is now responding appropriately and quickly to place the child with an approved adoptive home. The child is only 5 months old--I think "the system" is moving quickly for the child, and tried to give the mother time to make the right decision for her child and herself.

I'm all in favor of moving the baby back to his birthmom, if she can parent. But why move him to another adoptive home, when he's *in* a home that loves him and wants to keep him? Makes no sense.

[Hadley2]

I have to agree on this one. I'm glad the mother had a good opportunity and tried. Now baby should stay where he is if where he is wants him. His best interest is supposed to be paramount and there is no child-based reason to move him. This is what I mean when I say that one of the downsides to the f-a system is that some public social service agencies have begun to act as if they are adoption agencies--which they are not. The children are their clients, potential adoptive parents, good people that they are, are not.

[mommy2fiveplus]

Moving hIm now is assinine (sp?), what good does that do for the child? Who cares if the foster family Knew he was likely being RU'd and it didn't happen, does that mean the kid should have to be moved again? Let the foster family, that took him no matter how long they had to love him, keep him. Don't give him back to the family that gave him up (or couldn't keep him because they were not dually licensed) because he was no longer a "SURE THING". They will get their chance with the next "sure thing" that comes along. To be honest, I think the families that take straight foster and legal risk, need to be given op to adopt in a situation like this, they deserve it and even more importantly the child does.

[lovemy6]

So this baby is going to his third home in his short little life? Can we say attachment disorder? Great system we have in place <insert sarcasm>.

[henderfive]

WOW! Lets not think of what is best for this baby that has bonded with his family for 5 months now. We must allow red tape to take first priority. I know these babies go threw attachment disorder for a while and then as time moves on luckily they don't remember this part of their life, but still it is sooo sad. I wish there was a pill that causes some of these CW and Judges to fill what attachment disorder feels like and maybe things would change.
Henderfive

[my2guats]

Wow...i had no idea so many people responded. First let me thank you for your support. Although I agree that the best interest for this baby at this time is to stay in the home he has been living in (mine). We love him so much and I can see how he has bonded to me. He follows my voice and smiles the minute he sees me. If he is upset when others are holding him I can always calm him down. Anyway, you all know how that is..... I have been trying to have a positive attitude about this move because i know that the family he goes to will be overjoyed to have the opportunity to parent such a beautiful boy. But many of you bring up such a great point. What's best for the baby? I thought the goal is perminancy right? Well, we are willing to provide that for him but the "system" says that he needs to be moved. I don't agree but am trying to prepare myself. My two children were in foster care for the first 5-6 months of their lives (living in guatemala). I am really glad to be able to care for someone elses baby the way my children were cared for. It's like coming full circle. He has been such a blessing in our lives and I just pary everyday that God will protect him.

[mommytoEli]

i hate the "but other people are in line" excuse. we fostered a baby for 3 months. then the state called and said "there were people in line" and this baby would go to one of them. i hate that. i fought it tooth and nail because there was no reason to move him...there was no reason for him to experience another loss....just to satisfy someone in line. they eventually let us adopt our son...and even agreed with us that the less moves a child experienced...even babies...the better. if the system is about what is best for the child, then the line will not matter. when we remove children to give them to people "in line", we are only doing what is best for adults. while i agree that many children do just fine with transitions, i agree more that the less transitions a child has to make, the better off they are. i am such a firm believer that if a child can be adopted by the family that has been caring for them, and that family is appropriate, then that is the best placement.

i would definitely continue to speak to my worker and get details about what is going on...i'd probably also be sure to show up at a few hearings and put in writing that i would want to be considered as an adoptive placement for this child. at the time this happend to me, i was with a private agency, and it definitely helped to speak to both them AND the social worker for the county. it took lots of calls and letters...and lots of challenges and questions.

if in the end, he goes to another family...your attitude is awesome. if you want to vent, pm me, i'll "listen."

[akcskye]

You know that is the same response I get from our SW now.

We adopted our kids at 9 and 10, and you know what she said when I said we'd like to consider adopting another child, but "birth order"?

I kid you not, these were her exact words:

"You will most likely not get a child younger than your 2 now because other people are waiting for that age group and it wouldn't be fair for you to adopt a child that age when you've already adopted once".

Okay...my kids were 9 and 10 and NO ONE wanted them because of...THEIR AGE.

Now, a 9 or 10 year old would be in birth order considering my kids are now 11 and 12...and now, all of the sudden, everyone wants kids that age???

It's not like we're asking for an infant, you know!

SHEESH!

[RobinKay]

If it works out that the baby can stay with the folks who love him and have had him from the beginning, I think that is great. I have always advocated for babies to stay with the family that takes them home from the hospital if birthparents cannot take care of them.

For argument's sake, it's interesting that this situation is exactly what one of the posters on this thread suggested on another thread--that people either foster or be adoptive homes. The reason was to limit moves--the system could almost guarantee only two moves for a child taken into care. The system is trying to do that in this case.

It seems silly to move them, yet, the original thinking was keep baby safe and cared for while bmother made her decision or whatever she needed to do. Then, if bmother said adoption plan, the adoptive family was ready and waiting. To me, it seems the system was trying to prevent the "broken heart" thing by saying-you are fostering, no matter what happens, baby is not staying with you, please be prepared for baby to move eventually. Then baby goes to adoptive parents, and that's it. ONE move-from foster to the adoptive parents.

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.


Again, in reality, it is silly not to just let the OP adopt this child--it is a silly idea to think that if you give a baby to people who want to have a family they will happily give the baby back because "their number" isn't up yet, or the right paperwork isn't done yet for them. DO the paperwork and let that child be home.