[excited2adoptsoon]

My FD is almost 2 months old now and I've had her since birth. Biomom calls almost every day and has weekly visits. Not sure if RU will continue. Bio mom mentioned to me that she'd like my FD to get her ears pierced as soon as possible. She has another daughter adopted and that adoptive mom agreed to her request with her other daughter (it's open adoption). I FOR SURE will tell the social worker if she is persistent about this - as I don't want to do it for a long time. FD is just too young IMO. Second request is that she wants to plan a baptism. She is catholic and I am not, but I'm not against this at all. I'm just not sure if it's something I should consider or not. She has many other kids and they are all in foster or adoptive homes and they have all been baptised.

How do you guys feel on these two things? If we do adopt, I do plan on keeping it open assuming it goes ok. Again, I will definitely talk to the SW about these two things but wanted to see some fosterparent insight here first.

Thanks in advance.

[craftingmama]

well quite frankly, i feel she is the child's parent and has the say so. I understand why she wants the babies ears pierced, I did my dd's as early as possible. don't know what culture she's from but hispanic cultures I believe like to do this. if we have to check with birth parents about haircuts, i'd be willing to bet she will have a HUGE say so in these matters, since after all, she is the mom.

[kxl164]

I'd talk with the SW.

Personally, if she set up an appt. with the doctor with the SW'ers permission for the earrings, then maybe... but since you will have to be the one to care for the child's ears I think you should get to have a say. I don't see anything wrong with everyone saying, as soon as she is back with you then feel free to pierce her ears, until then, No; because it isn't necessary and it will cause the child pain, but I suppose that is the arguement to get them done ASAP too.

As for the baptism, again if she sets it up and the SW is fine with it then I don't see a problem. I'm sure a priest or deacon would possibly even come to a visit with her and do a private Baptism there. If she wants one on a Sunday, then as long as there was someone from the agency along with you both there I don't see it as a problem, but it would be up to her to set it up, do the trainings required, find godparents.... not you.

I would argue against the ear piercing since I don't see that as necessary and something that could cause pain/harm to the child, but I would be fine with the Baptism because to me that is culture/religion and something that won't hurt. I know, to some, ear piercing is culture/religion too, but since there is the whole pain and after-care aspects it feels different to me.

[Yash]

Excited,

I don't know if you have any real say in these decisions. If they bother you, then I would talk to the CW.

[RavenSong]

I don't think you have any say over baptizing the baby. Unless and/or until TPR happens, baby's mom is the only one who can make that decision. Most Catholics place a huge amount of importance on the sacrament of baptism for infants. In fact, many Catholic birthmothers from the "closed era" of adoptions first had their babies baptized before signing the relinquishment papers.

As far as the ear piercing goes, is the child hispanic? A lot of Latinos have their infants' ears pierced. I think there's a good chance, though, that the SW can talk her out of it for now.

[craftingmama]

well actually, the ear peircing thing can be cultural as well, KXL. as for aftercare, it is minimal, i would put the cleaner on when changing diapers which is a great time to remember to do it. as for pain, it's minimal and doens't last and as for the docs office, why? as long as the child has had her shorts, specifically dtap, it's perfectly safe.

[Hadley2]

She is talking about putting holes in a baby. Holes in a baby for whom she does not have legal custody and whose future is uncertain. Cultural or not, decorative or not, I'm not judging, but bottom line it is by definition an unnecessary mutilation. It does require aftercare, and I know from my dd's experiences (at older ages) that some individuals are particularly susceptible to metals in the body, etc. I don't see why an fp should be responsible for that. Personally, I do not think it is something the parent should be able to dictate when she does not have legal custody of her daughter. That said, social services will make that call.

Baptism is entirely different, it does not involve mutilating the body. If we honored every cultural/religious tradition, then we would have female circumcisions and that isn't happening, either. Less extreme, scarring isn't happening, either, and that is traditional in some cultures, too. I do not mean to equate ear piercing with circumcision or scarring except that all are medically unnecessary mutilations of the body.

Or, if you stick with piercing, suppose the mother wanted her lip pierced, or eyebrow, or navel. What's the difference, really? But who would think that would be something she could dictate? Probably not many.

What I do know is that you cannot be ordered to get it done or to have a baptism done, for that matter. If social services wants to provide the parents the opportunity to make decisions in those matters, then social services must facilitate getting it done, not you. If you want to facilitate a baptism, then fine. Be sure, though, that if birthfamily attends, social services has approved and is providing proper supervision just as for a visit. If you don't want to be involved, though, you don't have to beyond making the child available to social services for transport.

So often I see so many questions fps have re what the parents want them to do. We do not work for the parents. We are in loco parentis, without legal custody or rights of guardianship, for the children and we answer to social services, which has legal custody and rights of guardianship of the children; we don't answer to the parents in any way. I don't mean to disrespect the parents or not honor them, but they really do have to and should have to go through social services for their requests--we have no way of knowing the background or context of anything they say they want or anything they do and if it hits the fan, we should not be the ones left holding the bag. (sorry, ykwim). Redirect them and their requests to social services; if you get in the middle, social services will sometimes be all too happy to abdicate responsibility and put it on you. Some parents have already talked to social services, been refused, then try to manipulate the situation by playing on the good nature and sympathy of the fps. However it happens, it's not a good thing for anyone in the long run for the fps to start taking on decision making that belongs in the hands of the legally responsible party--social services.

[stevenstwin]

I know the ear piercing thing is cultural, BUT a friend of mine had an experience that scared the heck out of me. She pierced her baby's ears, but somehow one of the earrings came out and the baby put it in her mouth. She CHOKED so badly she stopped breathing! Thank God they were RIGHT THERE, but they had to call an ambulance, and the doctor was very stern with my friend telling her she almost lost her daughter and that this was not the first time he'd seen this! For that reason, I would be very reluctant to pierce a baby's ears.

[stevenstwin]

Originally Posted by Hadley2

Baptism is entirely different, it does not involve mutilating the body. If we honored every cultural/religious tradition, then we would have female circumcisions and that isn't happening, either. Less extreme, scarring isn't happening, either, and that is traditional in some cultures, too. I do not mean to equate ear piercing with circumcision or scarring except that all are medically unnecessary mutilations of the body.

But that is where it gets REALLY hard to draw the line, isn't it? For instance, what if the child is male and the family is Jewish and the parents want the baby circumcised for religious reasons? Most of society considers that acceptable, and I assume that any Social Worker would support that, just as they would support a baptism. I personally consider circumcision to be "mutilation" and would never, ever have it done to my sons - but obviously that is a value judgement and LOTS of people circumcise for a variety of reasons - including religion. I think you will find that ear piercing is the same - SOME people may consider it "mutilation" while others certainly would not, and might be quite offended by that descriptor. Although I wouldn't pierce a baby's ears for safety reasons, I guess I DON'T consider it "mutilation"' since both my girls had it done by the time they were in Kindergarten. I think that since both scarring and female genital mutilation are clearly illegal in this country they are in a whole different category, so of course parents would have no right to request them.

[sergekel]

I think that #1, yes....until TPR happens, this IS the mom's child.

With that said,#2, I don't see how YOU have the responsibility to carry any of this out.

I think you should politely tell the mom to go through the SW. The mom is the mom, but the state has actual custody. I think the mom and the SW should make all the arrangements and provide all transportation, etc...

Our role as foster parents is to care for the child. Yeah, you will be responsible to CARE for the ears, etc...and to that end, I think you have the right to express your concerns in this area.

My concerns as a foster parent in this situation would be infection of the ears (if they get infected...will YOU be blamed??) Allergy to the metals in the earrings...we are a hispaic family and we had our daughter's ears pierced early. Hypoallergenic or not, she had a reaction and couldn't wear earrings for many, many years afterwards.

Someone mentioned choking...which is a real concern. Again, who is going to be held responsible for this?? Are you as the foster parent supposed to moniter the child 24/7 to ensure she doesn't choke on the earrings???

As far as boys being circumsized....I would also ask the parent to arrange that through the SW. One other thing is that here in NC, Medicaid won't pay for that anymore cause it has been deemed medically unnecessary. The parents would have to shell out the couple hundered dollars in cash. Then there is the concern over complications and infection, etc....and again, WHO is responsible for THAT???

Good luck!!

[kxl164]

Originally Posted by craftingmama

well actually, the ear peircing thing can be cultural as well, KXL. as for aftercare, it is minimal, i would put the cleaner on when changing diapers which is a great time to remember to do it. as for pain, it's minimal and doens't last and as for the docs office, why? as long as the child has had her shorts, specifically dtap, it's perfectly safe.

Well I said that is could be cultural "I know, to some, ear piercing is culture/religion too, but since there is the whole pain and after-care aspects it feels different to me."

I'm not going to judge for a child what type of pain is minimal or not.

As for aftercare, that is a real concern. It may not be to some, but it is to others and the FP would be responsible, not the birthmom.

Although they do not recommend ear piercing, our peds requested that if we were going to pierce our daughters ears that we bring them into the office to get it done because they want to be sure things are sterile and safe and that the child is ok. They do not recommend a place like Piercing Pagoda until age 5.

Again I suggest the OP talk the SW.

[elizabeth_ann]

I can't talk about the pierced ears, but as a Catholic, I know that baptism is *really* important to us .

It has to take place in a Church unless there's a life-or-death crisis (as in, the baby is dying imminently), so she can't call a priest and have it done at home. Basically, that's because baptism seals the child as one of God's children in community with the rest of His believers, so it's important that it take place in the community (i.e., in Church).

It could be a great way, if the situation is one that this is a good idea, of getting closer to the birthmom. You can and should be involved! While, as a non-Catholic, you can't be a godmother, you can be there for the baptism, help out, and shouldn't segregate yourself from it!! I'd encourage you to be there. It would mean a lot for birthmom and baby, and if you end up adopting baby, it would mean a lot later in life that you shared this important milestone.

Catholic baptism, other than a few prayers, is exactly the same as any other Trinitarian (Baptist, Lutheran, etc) baptism. It's recognized as valid by those other denominations, I believe (at least, we recognize theirs as valid, so I would assume vice-versa).

[stevenstwin]

Perhaps my own experiences have made me cynical, but I can't imagine that most bio parents would WANT the foster parents involved. It seems to me that the majority are pretty antagonistic toward the foster parents, although I know there are a few on this board that have a good relationship. I know for a fact that I would not have been welcome at anything involving A's parents. They objected to having to see me drop him off and pick him up at visits!

Originally Posted by elizabeth_ann

I can't talk about the pierced ears, but as a Catholic, I know that baptism is *really* important to us .

It has to take place in a Church unless there's a life-or-death crisis (as in, the baby is dying imminently), so she can't call a priest and have it done at home. Basically, that's because baptism seals the child as one of God's children in community with the rest of His believers, so it's important that it take place in the community (i.e., in Church).

It could be a great way, if the situation is one that this is a good idea, of getting closer to the birthmom. You can and should be involved! While, as a non-Catholic, you can't be a godmother, you can be there for the baptism, help out, and shouldn't segregate yourself from it!! I'd encourage you to be there. It would mean a lot for birthmom and baby, and if you end up adopting baby, it would mean a lot later in life that you shared this important milestone.

Catholic baptism, other than a few prayers, is exactly the same as any other Trinitarian (Baptist, Lutheran, etc) baptism. It's recognized as valid by those other denominations, I believe (at least, we recognize theirs as valid, so I would assume vice-versa).

[ca-bigsister]

While, as a non-Catholic, you can't be a godmother

Hi,
I'm not an expert on Catholicism because I'm not a Catholic, but my I am the godmother to a Catholic boy. I was able to be the godmother because the godfather is Catholic. We were told at least one godparent has to be Catholic. I had to go to classes - Sacrament of the Baptism Classes - but so do Catholic parents and godparents (at least that's what we had to do at two Catholic Churches in CA). I'm not trying to get into a debate because like I said I am not Catholic, but I am a godmother to a Catholic boy and it was done in a Catholic Church by a priest.

If the biomom would allow you to be a godparent, wow that would be great. But she'd probably want a close family member. I did have to go to classes, and so did the Catholic godfather and the parents.

For my own FD, I would support her religion. Her mother's family is Jewish and I tried to get her to have a Bat Mitzvah but she did not want to go to Hebrew school. (I am not Jewish).

[excited2adoptsoon]

I think this might be our ideal situation. I am a person that embraces all religions and I'd absolutely love to be a part of it. But I will support the baptism even if she doesn't want us to be a part of it. My stepkids are Catholic and I worked for years at a catholic university so it's not all new to me.

The birthmother does like me so far (she acts like she does anyway). She mentioned she is very happy with the fost/adoptive mom of four of her other kids - they've been there a couple years and have been adopted. I think the biomom just wants to make sure her kids are in a good home if she can't have custody.

The ear piercing, I didn't realize was such a cultural thing. I will talk to the SW about that. I'd feel better waiting till the child is 1 yrs old but I realize it's not my decision.

Thanks for the input all!

Originally Posted by elizabeth_ann

I can't talk about the pierced ears, but as a Catholic, I know that baptism is *really* important to us .

It has to take place in a Church unless there's a life-or-death crisis (as in, the baby is dying imminently), so she can't call a priest and have it done at home. Basically, that's because baptism seals the child as one of God's children in community with the rest of His believers, so it's important that it take place in the community (i.e., in Church).

It could be a great way, if the situation is one that this is a good idea, of getting closer to the birthmom. You can and should be involved! While, as a non-Catholic, you can't be a godmother, you can be there for the baptism, help out, and shouldn't segregate yourself from it!! I'd encourage you to be there. It would mean a lot for birthmom and baby, and if you end up adopting baby, it would mean a lot later in life that you shared this important milestone.

Catholic baptism, other than a few prayers, is exactly the same as any other Trinitarian (Baptist, Lutheran, etc) baptism. It's recognized as valid by those other denominations, I believe (at least, we recognize theirs as valid, so I would assume vice-versa).