[Linny]

Okay...part of the reason I started this, is because there's not been any activity in such a long time; and, because I find this ruling offensive and prejudicial.

I don't know what the ruling is in other states, but in ours....the 'system' has the right to decide how many children a family may adopt. While that may not sound like such a big thing to some; I find it offensive.
I understand that the numbers may be changed if a family is adopting sibs.....but otherwise, regardless of the room, the family is only allowed to adopt eight children living in their home at the same time.

However, keep in mind, that if I chose to give birth......I could have as many children as I wanted. Keep in mind, that even if I had children removed from me, I have a good chance of keeping the child I would be giving birth to---regardless of how many I have had removed, or how many I have had.

I'm not trying to be judgemental in the previous comments; but I find it offensive and just plain wrong, that an adoptive family---who has been through the wringer in trying to 'prove themselves' through clearances, hours of education and 'keeping their home as someone else dictates'........is NOT allowed to have more children in their family! I understand that they would need to prove 'enough room'...'enough of many things'. (But also keep in mind that those giving birth, don't have to do this.)

Just something that's bothered me for some time......any comment?

Sincerely,

Linny

[mj77]

Hi Linny,
I want to offer you another insight that I hope will help. Our state of Oregon, my understanding is that they will allow up to 8 children total (bio with adopted or just adopted) when concidering placing for adoption. You can concieve all you want, but the state doesn't want to place that many in one home. So if a family had 5 bio-kids living in the house, our state might cap their home at 3 adoptees. Also each case worker here gets the right to determine how many children they feel you are able to adopt and how long you might have to wait between adoptions. I found this a bit agravating but can understand. I think this also has to do with many families out there that aren't meeting the full needs of some of the kids they have already. The state perhaps feels an obligation to make sure these kids who've had a tough start in life don't get lost in a family. There are also--and I know it's hard to believe--families that keep adopting for the income of subsidy. The more needs the children have, the more money they get, and there is the potential for a lot of money at the expence of not only tax payers, but the children being unnessisarily labled. Unfortunately, there have been too many cases with adoptive families neglecting their children placed by the state agency. I know great parents out there that can parent many children. They are special people. Unfortunately because of the liablity on the state (being sued constantly) they have to protect themselves. I hope that makes sense. Much of it is just my beliefs of why they have a cap.

MJ

[Liepolds]

in the state of Michigan in 1970, families were only allowed to adopt 2.

My parents always dreamed of having 4, but, at that time it was not allowed. I see in the previous poster that their state is 8, so, I guess it is better now than then.

Kim

[kllee4]

While I don't personally agree with limiting the number of children you can have in the home, I do see why they feel the need to have some restrictions. I have a big family already with 4 boys and we have been discussing up to 2 more, however, if the current children that I am caring for are being neglected in a sense (even if its just because I don't have enough time for each one or they are truly not having their needs met) then I can see a CWs concern but this should be done on a case by case basis, not a general ruling.

While one family may be comfortable providing for 2 children, another may be able to do a wonderful job raising 10. Whose to judge? Especially since in larger families, the children can learn so much from one another AND the much older children in their teens can be a big help to the younger children. It wouldn't be reasonable to have someone adopt 8 once-year-old either, so I beleive that a case by case basis is needed instead of a dead set rule on one number.

[lucyjoy]

I'm against the limit. My state allows up to six children meaning if there are 4 here, we can add 2. However, that only applys to state adoptions. Private adoptions are done differently. There is no reason to regulate this way. Home studies are done for a reason. The case worker could determine if she felt too many children would overwhelm a family. None of my children have ever been neglected here. All 9 were taken care of and none were attention deprived.

[Hope4myson]

Currently my states limit is 6. While I can see your point about not wanting the state to limit how many people are in your family I can also see the absolute need for it. First of all anytime a child is placed in a home by the state and something bad happens to that child it is the state that comes under fire. They are held accountable. It will be them answering the questions of "why" they allowed it. And also as horrible as it sounds there are people who are collecting stipends from the state for each child who see their child as just a paycheck. You have to keep that system in check as well. While most people who adopt from the state are not doing this you have to admit there are and always will be people who do.

[lucyjoy]

An absolute need to limit? Really. So that would make it okay to stop bparents from having kids if they abused them, right? How about drug addicts? If they have so many drug addicted children then it would be neglectful not to stop them from procreating right?

The government has no right to do any of those things. Nor should they decide a family size based on some number they pick. Each case should be individual decided and not based on the family situation not on some preselected number.

I also don't know any parents getting rich off of state subsidy. The amount paid to parents is very minimal.
Yes, there are cases where bad parents slip through the system and children die. It's horrible. But limiting the number of children allowed in all adoptive homes isn't going to change that at all.

[shoeshopping]

I also don't know any parents getting rich off of state subsidy. The amount paid to parents is very minimal.

One building away from my apartment is a woman who has one bio-daughter who is 12. The woman also cares for five other children younger than the bio daughter (ranging from 3 to 11) mainly for receiving the subsidy. She stuffs all of these kids into a tiny 3 bdrm apartment just to have the extra money to take to the casino while the 12 year old babysits at night.

I think it is one of the saddest things I have seen because with the amount the mother brags about getting (over 5 grand), she could easily afford a bigger apartment but chooses not to. I have seen them running in the streets with no supervision, breaking windows, throwing stuff off their balcony, etc. The woman is so overly medicated but she has caused her own stress, I believe, because she does not do it out of love or caring for the children that she is responsible for. She does it for the subsidy.

I don't think there should be a cap on the number of children because I honestly feel you cannot put a cap on the # of children you can love and care for. But I *do* think there should be more regulations regarding living requirements/space requirements, mental health issues, etc. JMHO.

[Dmommab]

I definately see both sides BUT surely an adoption caseworker who was visiting a home would be able to tell several things . #1 if the family is doing it for the subsidy or not #2 if the family could handle more children or not. I currently have 3 bio children, legal guard of a 5 year old and have adopted 3 more. When we applied to adopt the last 2 (who had already been in our home for 2 years in foster care) there was "question" as to whether we could handle that many children????????????? We'd been doing it for 2 years!!!!!! HELLO???? My bio children are 23, 20 & 15 so they are not "babies". The 23 year old just graduated from college & recently got a job teaching junior high - she will be moving out soon. The 20 year old goes to college full time & lives with her boyfriend "most" of the time. The 3 older girls are A LOT of help to me. According to the state I'm still licensed to foster 2 more but if I wanted to adopt they would question it. WHY? If I can't handle them forever I can't handle them temporarily. It should definately be a case-by-case decision as there is no "limit" that works for everyone. As far as doing it for the subsidy I don't know where these people live but I get only $800 for 3 children a month after adoption so I'm definately not doing it for the money. LOL

[Linny]

Also going along with Lucy once again (thanks Lucy...you put it out there sooo well!).......I have to also add:
"What about the bioparents who have baby after baby, don't take care of them....OR the bio parents who have baby after baby----only to put them on SSI to 'get so much money per child'????

And believe me, it can be very easy to qualify a child for SSI sometimes. Does anyone check up on these parents?????
I believe it should be based on an individual case by case basis....but even then, if you're unfortunate enough to get a cw'er who doesn't believe in large families....you're out now, aren't you? (Just like the cw'ers I've known who don't believe in placing AA babies with CC couples...not even after all other resources have been exhausted.)

Linny

[Hope4myson]

I do apprecaite the subsity that I do get. But if I had six kids getting the same amount I would net over $4,000.00 a month. I don't think it's very difficult for some people to see that as an incentive and maybe take on more kids then they could handle. It sure would be nice if I could quit my job and stay home with babies all day but children are not currency. I think children need to be protected from an over crowded home. When I see these homes on tv with dozens of children and the parents be held up as saints it makes me sick. There is NO way you could give a child all the attention and time they need with that many kids in the home. If all a child needed was a place to sleep and three meals a day then we should just open up the orphanges again.

[Linny]

When I see these homes on tv with dozens of children and the parents be held up as saints it makes me sick. ---Hope4myson

In some cases, it may be that the children are not getting the attention they need.....but I assure you, having observed many large families (not my own, unfortunately.....mine are too spaced out in age for this...)......I can tell you that there is a bonding, teaching, respect and 'pull it togetherness' that cannot be found easily in many other families.
I don't think everyone can handle lots of children......but there are many that can. My point is just because they're adopted, shouldn't automatically make the difference, that's all.

Sincerely,

Linny

[lucyjoy]

Hope4myson-I find your post extremely insulting and I can assure you, subsidy for 6 kids where I live would not be that high in most cases.

My children receive far more then a place to sleep and 3 meals a day. I find individual time for my kids. I even home schooled many of them do to their special needs.
I spend a great deal of time interacting with my children.
They do learn to share more, they do bond with each other. I cannot believe you would suggest that large famlies neglect their children simply because they are large. I love my children and they are all 9 very well cared for. If I took 10 more, I wouldn't love those 9 any less nor would I neglect them. I am so stunned that you assume just because kids are in large families that they aren't getting enough attention. I was raised in a large family as were many of my friends.

And the subsidy money? Much of it went directly to specialized services for my childrens education or developmental disabilities. I assure you, we joke alot about ice cream but we're not sitting on our butts eating bon bons and ignoring our children.

[Dhewco]

Just to interject here, I don't think she's talking about SIX kids. There have been, on TV and in PEOPLE, reports about adoptive/bio parents that have a dozen or more kids. THOSE are who she's referring to, I think. I don't even think nine or ten is bad. But the magazine recently had a set of parents with 23 kids...if I'm not mistaken. several of them were physically disabled special needs, too. I'm talking Down's syndrome.

Many people would find it hard to believe those kids are getting what they need. But the picture made them look happy.

David

[lucyjoy]

I know a mom with 15 children, some of whom are disabled. They are very well taken care of and extremely happy. Decisions about size need to be made on a case to case basis.