[kmcgraw37]

Happy Holidays everyone!

I live in LA county in CA. My husband and I are in the process of becoming licensed Foster/Adopt Parents with the county. We have everything done, paperwork, fingerprints, license with the state, ect. We are waiting for our CW to start and complete our home study. A big step I know.

I work at my daughter's pre-school as a Two year old teacher. There is a mommy there who adopted their son D from San Diego County. He is a relative placement. D now has a 3 month old 1/2 brother up for adoption in San Diego county. When I told her we are wanting to adopt she was excited, she is 60 and can't take another baby. If he was with us, he would know her and his 1/2 brother. She called the baby, A's, CW, she said great but San Diego County will not allow this, they want him adopted in San Diego county. Now D's mom has said she will take the baby as a Foster placement just to get him into LA county and then try to get him to us somehow. Buck the system!
Is this even possible?

I know it is supposed to be in the best interest of the child, but it dose not seem that way.

Any thoughts or experiences are welcome!
Kathryn

[MomInCorazon]

It's *possible* but given that you only work with this woman DCF might not consider that a strong enough bond (i.e. reasonable expectation that you would stay in touch, that the brothers would truly grow up knowing one another, etc.). Another negative is that infants are very desirable so it is likely a current prospective adoptive family would get him before you who are still waiting for your home study to be completed. Personally I wouldn't get your hopes up.

On a side note, if D and A are the boys' real names, you should edit your post to remove those. We use nicknames (Pumpkin, Chubbs, etc.) for our kids here to protect anonymity.

Best of luck as you start this adventure!

[soldoutforjesus]

it's not likely and it's not fair. others are waiting for an adoptive placement for years. they should get a baby before someone just starting. i'ts typically not done the way you describe. normally if the relative can't be the adoptive resource then they find a foster family and staff for adoption. that's the only fair way to do it, honestly.

[kmcgraw37]

On a side note, if D and A are the boys' real names, you should edit your post to remove those. We use nicknames (Pumpkin, Chubbs, etc.) for our kids here to protect anonymity.


I should not have done that, it slipped my mind. I won't do it again. I know this is a far fetched long shot and probably won't happen but I wanted feed back.

[TemporaryMom]

I would not get your hopes up, but the answer probably varies greatly dependent on your local and state administration code/law. The primary goal is to keep siblings together. So, if your colleague decides she wants the baby, then it is probable that they will let her have him. But if they get wind of, and it seems like they will, her intention of only taking him to somehow try to get him to you, that could ruin it for her. Their goal is NOT to satisfy the needs of the adoptive parents. The goal is to find the RIGHT adoptive family for the needs of THAT child. You'd be entering a very slippery slope of trying to get the friend to give you permanency on that child.

If your friend really wants to keep sibs together, and I think that is great when it can happen, then she should pursue placement. But what you are suggesting doesn't give any guarantees to the sibling relationship and may not be legally a possibility.

Based on what you have said, it seems pretty straight on that they will want to keep him in San Diego. If he is in a foster family now, are you even sure that they aren't the selected adoptive resource? Many counties have rules that even if they plan to place the child permanently with the foster family, they still are required to legally "recruit" adoptive resources. For some, that means putting them out on photolisting sites. I have even seen some examples where the foster family ended up NOT being chose as the adoptive resource.

I'd really not get your hopes up about this one. I am sorry to say.

[kmcgraw37]

Soldoutforjesus,

I do not know you, you do not know me. Your post caught me off gaurd as bitter and rude. The precious baby is not an easy placement because he has a gene that gives him a 50/50 chance of having a horrible disease. This would not be desirable to a lot of people. I didn't mention it because it does not matter to me.

In your response it seems 'first come, first serve' I am new and I know that is not really true. Some people wait a long time, some people don't. Is it fair, no but it's true. It would not be fair to keep the baby in San Diego so they don't loose their funding either but that is what they are trying to do.

What is your problem?

[shy_bear]

Originally Posted by soldoutforjesus

it's not likely and it's not fair. others are waiting for an adoptive placement for years. they should get a baby before someone just starting. i'ts typically not done the way you describe. normally if the relative can't be the adoptive resource then they find a foster family and staff for adoption. that's the only fair way to do it, honestly.

I totally disagree with what you are saying!! We waited four months for our 4th daughter. A newborn, healthy, placed as an adoptive placement from her county. We are with a private agency and there were tons of other families from our agency and I am sure the county who had been waiting longer than we did!!! I am a firm believer in everything happens for a reason and our baby was meant to be our daughter.
To the OP, I would put your name in, keep calling everyone involved in the case such as the cw, GAL, CASA. It never hurts to try!!!

[kmcgraw37]

Shy Bear,

Thank you!

[Mommy2NoneHopefully1]

I disagree with first come first serve. To have the child placed where he won't know he 1/2 sibling just do he can stay in a certain county. I waited 8 months for my son & I would rather wait for him again then get the first baby that came along. These are kids lives.

[TemporaryMom]

Originally Posted by kmcgraw37

Soldoutforjesus,


In your response it seems 'first come, first serve' I am new and I know that is not really true. Some people wait a long time, some people don't. Is it fair, no but it's true. It would not be fair to keep the baby in San Diego so they don't loose their funding either but that is what they are trying to do.

You are right, I don't agree that it is a first come, first serve either, or I wouldn't have my Chubbs. But, again, the agency picks the BEST family for the child, not the best child for the family.

As a side note, if he is being placed as a pre-adoptive placement, then that is different than a foster placement, so they may allow it pending your licensing, depending on how far into your homestudy you are. But, I would still NOT get your hopes up. I know first hand how hard that is. I tried for a 17mo old over the summer that I thought for sure was "meant to be with me." So many odd things happened with that situation, but I was not the right family for that little boy, and was not picked. But a month later, I got Chubbs. So you just never know how things will work out.

Put your hat in the running but don't expect that just because he has a medical condition, or potential medical condition, that will sway other families from petitioning for him as well. You'd be amazed what families will accept in order to have their forever child.

[TemporaryMom]

Originally Posted by kmcgraw37

Soldoutforjesus,


In your response it seems 'first come, first serve' I am new and I know that is not really true. Some people wait a long time, some people don't. Is it fair, no but it's true. It would not be fair to keep the baby in San Diego so they don't loose their funding either but that is what they are trying to do.

I don't agree that it is always a first come, first serve either, or I wouldn't have my Chubbs. But, again, the agency picks the BEST family for the child, not the best child for the family.

As a side note, if he is being placed as a pre-adoptive placement, then that is different than a foster placement, so they may allow it pending your licensing, depending on how far into your homestudy you are. But, I would still NOT get your hopes up. I know first hand how hard that is. I tried for a 17mo old over the summer that I thought for sure was "meant to be with me." So many odd things happened with that situation, but I was not the right family for that little boy, and was not picked. But a month later, I got Chubbs. So you just never know how things will work out.

Put your hat in the running but don't expect that just because he has a medical condition, or potential medical condition, that will sway other families from petitioning for him as well. You'd be amazed what families will accept in order to have their forever child.

ETA: Oh, and I would not get so upset about people's post. You are new here. You will not last long if you take offense to blunt comments. Some people are more "to the point" with their comments, and some (like me) tend to be flowerly and take fiver hours to make one point. But this place is an immense place of support, if you accept it. Soldout wasn't trying to be rude, she was trying to be factual, and her comments, even if they seemed rude to you, were right on. In many areas, it will matter who has been waiting longest for a child. In fact, that was one factor in why I was chosen for Chubbs. He wasn't even vetted out among other families. The AW knew that I was heartbroken over losing my girls of 2 years, and that I wasn't even able to pursue an adoption during that 2 years because of our agency licensing policy, and that I didn't get picked for the other baby. Since I happened to be also licensed for fostering, and he had to be placed as a foster child, that AW called my foster worker to find out if I'd consider a newborn, which was out of my desired age range.

So, in my case, Soldout's comments are almost accurate. I'd been waiting almost 2.5 years for a forever child. But ultimately, I was picked not for how long I waited, but they knew as soon as they got him that I was the right family for him.

[soldoutforjesus]

I don't hav ea problem. I have an issue with people trying to circumvent the way the process works and trying to get one over on the caseworker. they look for the best home for the child,not the home that wants the child. you might not be the best choice. by all rights it should go through a staffing where teh BESt FAMILY is chosen.

[kmcgraw37]

Soldoutto,

D's mom is the one with the master plan. I do not believe in manipulating situations for my benefit. I am not encouraging her to do what she is planning. She is this babies only relative that is not dying or in an institution. She feels stuck and helpless and wants the babie close to her but knows she is unable to care for them. I do not blame her for feeling that way. To her I seemed like a solution to the issue, but the county is not going to see it that way. All I want is what is right for the child, whomever that may be.

Happy Holidays

[momraine]

I edited the original post to remove the kids names. It's a holiday and the mods want to spend time with our families so lets keep it friendly and supportive OK?

[Larue]

As the other posters mentioned, I think it is likely they will look for a foster-adopt placement in the baby's county. I'm sure your co-worker feels bad having to to say no to being placed with her son's half-sibling. I would be pretty torn about that that too.

Also, wanted to mention we were placed with our now 2-year old DD as a newborn 2 weeks after being licenced, although other families licenced through our Agency had been waiting much longer, because we were the best fit for her.

Best wishes in your journey!