[Katey]

I do not have an answer back from my agency yet, but ...
Our state (CA) requires that all foster / pre-adoptive families have current infant / child / adult CPR. DH and I have been certified since 2002 and have always met this requirement. In June, we were in a very bad accident (aren't drunk drivers the pits!) and right now, due to injuries (broken bones and a healing collapsed lung) we are unable to complete the training (we can eventually, just not now). Our yearly CPR certification was due in July (post accident). We have three adult biological children ages 19, 23 and 25 who live at home while attending college. They have offered to get the certification to keep us "legal" pending our healing process. I asked our agency if they would allow this so that we can keep our licence current. Does that sound reasonable to people? Has anyone run into a similar problem? If yes, how did you handle it?

Katey and DH

[Barksum]

Seems reasonable to me...but you ARE dealing with a govt. agency, so who knows. (ok, sorry for the sarcasm!)

I would think that your cw would look at your individual case and recognize your willingness to comply with the requirements and would want to continue to work with you through your healing process. The only thing I can think that they might do is to opt to forestall placing a child with you until you are more physically able. (But then, I know of foster and adoptive parents who are quad/para palegics (sp?) so I'm wondering about even that!)

[rindava]

but I can't see any agency around here approving you until you got better any way....I'm not saying I think you shouldn't get to, I am just saying that the way thing are going here that is what they would say.

But, you never know.

Good Luck!!!

[Katey]

We already have an approved homestudy and our fost / adopt licence was last updated in March 2005 so is not expected to expire until March 2006.

I actually brought up the CPR with the agency and asked if they would, temporarily allow our 3 adult children to fill the need.

Rinda, would you imply that paraplegics or quadraplegics cannot be parents because they cannot do manual CPR? When my biological kids were small, I was hospitalized for a week with bilateral pleurisy and my husband worked 2 jobs, do you feel that our children should have been removed from the house until I was better (my youngest was 13 months old at the time)?

I have been a parent to my biological children for over 25 years, I do not remember God giving me time off from parenting for illness or injury in all that time. Nor do I remember anyone implying that my children should be removed.

Keep in mind, that people have biological children every day, good parents and not so good, without knowing CPR. Since I was a nurse, licensed in both NY and NJ before I had children, I may have had more knowledge than some, but I can assure you that my FA / CPR certification was not current when I had my children and we (DH and I, married over 28 years) seem to have done alright with our 3. They are now 19 (20 in November), 23, and 25. All work and attend college full time. They live at home to save money. I find your idea that an unanticipated accident could make us inadequate parents.

But, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Katey

[dadfor2]

katey,

Our state (CA) requires that all foster / pre-adoptive families have current infant / child / adult CPR.

if this is written down, just as you said it, i dont think it will be a problem...

'families'...would be the catch word...it didnt say 'parent'

but i could be wrong, but its is not a requirement where i live.

[rindava]

I think there are many, many families both older and younger and single parents and people who have disabilites who would probably make wonderful parents for the children rotting in foster care in my state, but they are over looked because of social workers who think they are God or something....

For some reason around here it seems the local pediatric nursing home can do a better job of rasing a child with severe medical needs then a family and that children are better off in a group home with a bunch of other children then with a large adoptive family (apparently 5 children total is what the limit is aroud here now for all private agencies, the state's limit is 4 per single parent and 8 per married husband and wife couples) In the view of social workers around here....and God forbid one of your children have some kind a special need or RAD, because if you were really a good adoptive parent they wouldn't be like that.....

You should see what they have done to some families with very minior mental health issues, etc...

I think if the person has a clean record and is really willing to parent one of these children they should be given a chance.

Indy's family would not exisit where I live. Those people, the Silcocks, in CA, that wouldn't happen here either. And I think that is really sad. Any kind of supportive family is better then none at all.

So, I'd approve you and I don't see the big deal about CPR anyway.....but I was trying to say the delightful SWs around here wouldn't.