Bio kids & fostering.

[HeatherAtHome]

It just dawned on me that this might be a good place to ask this question.

I've been wanting to be a mother forever. I've been wanting to foster for goodness.... 3 years now? As in, we actually made the call to start the process but life happened and we had to put it off. After 11 years together, DH and I are at the point where we're just about ready to really get into this parenting thing. (Still some DIY renovations to be done on our home, but we can see the end in sight!)

I've always thought that I would be TOTALLY fine with just fostering and possibly adopting someday if a child in our home became available. I've been doing a lot of thinking though lately. I'll be 30 soon and while I love the idea of fostering and/or fostering to adopt, my heart is a little torn over the idea.

I see fostering as giving kids love and a safe home while their parents/caregivers get things together. I'm fine with sending them home when it's time. I'm just afraid that after waiting so long to be a mother, I'll still feel like I'm not really a mother. If we have our own bio kid first, and temp increased our family through fostering, I could see it as enjoying one on one time with our own little one when fks go home. Without having bio kid and just going with fostering, there would be a lot of sadness when our home is empty... sort of perpetuating the belief that I'm not a "real mother". Do you know what I mean?

So now I'm thinking about having a bio kid first, but I don't want to put off fostering again (it's already been put off 3 years!) so what about doing both? Are there any rules against this (yes, I'll have to check local laws, but in general) and what about the day to day part of it? Doable? I've been planning on fostering kids aged 4 and under, and would be a SAHM.

Has anyone else gone through this before?

ETA: If you've been reading along, you'll notice I changed my wording at least 3 times! I hate talking about stuff like this, I feel like it always comes out wrong and people misread my intentions.

[greenmamapagan]

Yes, you'll have to check local laws. Here our youngest needs to be two before we can foster.
My personal advice would be to TTC first, you never know what lies down that path.

[Smithie]

I, myself, wasn't open to this risks of foster-to-adopt (or even the CONCEPT of fostering, really) until I was a biomom 3x over. That's what it took for me to be able to welcome a child that I would parent but might not get to keep.

In your shoes, with your long history of wanting to foster - I think you might want to talk to somebody about the foster-adopt program in your state, and whether it is a good fit for you and your DH. Really, you have a rare set of gifts to give as a foster parent. If there's a way that you can be matched with an initial foster child who MAY go back to birthparents and but LIKELY will not and would benefit greatly from a mother who could celebrate either outcome wholeheartedly... that's just an awesome thing.

And in my state, they don't seem to give a good goshdarn if you are TTC or have an infant. So that probably varies a lot by state. TTC while simultaneously doing your homestudy is really not a bad plan if your state will allow you to take placements with no regard to any reproduction you may have recently done.

[Sierra]

I am in different shoes than the previous posters, or at least one of them. My only living children arrived via foster-adopt. First we got into fostering before we were ready to try for a pregnancy. We took in a teen as a "permanent placement," and when he left, we did respite/short-term care for a little while. Then when it came time to make a choice again, we made plans to foster and ttc at the same time and see whether we got a placement or got pregnant first (once one happened, we planned to stop the other, though it didn't turn out to work out that way exactly as each ended up being more complex than we anticipated).

However, due to secondary infertility I have not been able to get pregnant. So we've just kept on fostering, and then finally, we adopted twice. We do plan to have more children several years down the road, and I have no preconcieved notions this time about whether I will get pregnant or whether we will adopt again.

ttc is an emotional roller coaster just as fostering is. It is really hard. But having your home empty between placements for me personally is a breather-opportunity from the struggles of parenting and not as hard as getting negative pregnancy test after negative pregnancy test. In terms of having issues around "not being a mom," fostering had an unintended therapeutic effect with some traumas thrown in, and ttc was traumatic with no therapeutic benefit.

[MissinNYC]

I really wish, in retrospect, that I had fostered before having bio-kids. It's really in the foster kids' best interest, I think. If you do FC first, you'll have more emotional energy to foster, more time to be with the kid one-on-one, etc. Then if you end up adopting, the child would have time to attach to you and get comfortable, and then if you had bio kids, birth order would be preserved.

That's my vote. Think about what's best for the kids, not you.

[HeatherAtHome]

Originally Posted by MissinNYC

I really wish, in retrospect, that I had fostered before having bio-kids. It's really in the foster kids' best interest, I think. If you do FC first, you'll have more emotional energy to foster, more time to be with the kid one-on-one, etc. Then if you end up adopting, the child would have time to attach to you and get comfortable, and then if you had bio kids, birth order would be preserved.

That's my vote. Think about what's best for the kids, not you.

I don't mind this plan, but I'm months away from being 30 and I'm starting to FEEL it. I have gray hair! I'm going to be an OLD mother, no matter which way you look at it. I've never heard of someone fostering and adopting right away, I've heard it can take years. So by the time we go through all that and then TTC, how old will I be? I feel like I'm running out of time. Personally, I don't think I'd TTC past 36. (I'm having trouble breathing now! 36 is only 6.5 years away and looks really close to 40-omg I'm getting old.) Where was I? Yeah, I worry about running out of time/difficulty in getting PG if waiting etc. Must do a lot of thinking on this.

But why does being alone with fp automatically = being better for the fk? Maybe they'd appreciate have brothers and sisters around, being part of a family. (Not that I know anything, just curious).

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by HeatherAtHome

But why does being alone with fp automatically = being better for the fk? Maybe they'd appreciate have brothers and sisters around, being part of a family. (Not that I know anything, just curious).

I've done both.

After we adopted ds (who was with us since birth and was adopted at 13 months), we kept fostering. That's how dd arrived (she came at 6 months, but we didn't adopt her until she was three years old).

Yes, often kids do appreciate and have an easier time connecting with other children in the home. It can definitely help ease the transition, even as there are conflicts between children too in the adjustment.

BUT, on the other hand, honestly *I* was a better FOSTER PARENT when we were taking only one placement at a time and sticking to just having foster kids in the home. Fostering at times is REALLY hard work and requires a LOT of focus and emotional energy...focus and emotional energy you don't necessarily have at your beck-and-call when you've got other kids. Not to mention how important that one-on-one time is for many foster kids, and how hard it is to come by when you have other children.

You might be different, but I wouldn't count on it. I was really involved in my foster parent community for a number of years, and have thus known lots of foster parents pretty well...both those who only fostered (some of whom were "empty nesters" with grown children) and those who fostered while having other (bio or adopted) children still at home. Few of us are exceptions to the experiences of most of us.

[Sierra]

P.S. These days, 30 isn't an old mother . If you have your first sometime in the next 5 or 6 years, you are still a spring chicken. Most folks are having kids later in life. It's a demographic fact.

[queenjane]

If i were in your shoes, i wouldnt wait to foster.

Once i got my license, i was placed with a child right away, so you probably wouldnt wait months or a year for a placement (adoption is different of course)...you could help alot of kids in the amount of time it takes to conceive and give birth (depending on how long a placement stays of course)...my fear would be if i waited, that it would be years and years before i fostered. By fostering now, you'd give the FC time to settle in before adding a baby, whereas if you were thinking of having a baby then fostering soon after, that might be overwhelming, to start with a new kid right when you are getting used to a new baby.

Thirty is NOT "an old mother" LOL. I get that there might be a biological clock situation but you have awhile yet! My son was placed with me when i was 35 and i felt alot more prepared to parent than when i gave birth at age 23.

[MissinNYC]

Originally Posted by HeatherAtHome

I don't mind this plan, but I'm months away from being 30 and I'm starting to FEEL it. I have gray hair! I'm going to be an OLD mother, no matter which way you look at it. I've never heard of someone fostering and adopting right away, I've heard it can take years. So by the time we go through all that and then TTC, how old will I be? I feel like I'm running out of time. Personally, I don't think I'd TTC past 36. (I'm having trouble breathing now! 36 is only 6.5 years away and looks really close to 40-omg I'm getting old.) Where was I? Yeah, I worry about running out of time/difficulty in getting PG if waiting etc. Must do a lot of thinking on this.

But why does being alone with fp automatically = being better for the fk? Maybe they'd appreciate have brothers and sisters around, being part of a family. (Not that I know anything, just curious).

As to the first part, I don't think 30 is old by any means, to be a mom!

No, it's not usually a quick process, foster care and adoption. But if you are open to slightly older kids (which you can do with no little ones in the house), and took, say a 4-6 year old, adoption would be faster. You could also take a placement and then TTC once s/he's been there for 6 months or so and settled in.

I think it's usually better to have a FK be the only kid because many of them have endured trauma. Kids are removed from parents for neglect and/or abuse only, and so necesarily have gone through something hard. One-on-one time can be really helpful in helping to heal the trauma and bond as a family unit.

[Polliwog]

Another 30 isn't anywhere close to being an older parent. I'll be 43 next month and my kids are 6 and 3 1/2. I may even add a baby to our family (foster and/or foster/adopted.)

I have found that my friends who've fostered really young children tend to adopt faster (if the cases have gone to adoption) than those who've fostered preschoolers and up. Pavi's been with me for almost three years but I've been 99% sure that I was adopting her for almost that long and I asked social services to delay her adoption for a while.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by Polliwog

I may even add a baby to our family (foster and/or foster/adopted.)

I have found that my friends who've fostered really young children tend to adopt faster (if the cases have gone to adoption) than those who've fostered preschoolers and up. Pavi's been with me for almost three years but I've been 99% sure that I was adopting her for almost that long and I asked social services to delay her adoption for a while.

My first baby, placed at three weeks old, TPR at just under 4 months old, adoption finalized at just under 11 months old. Second foster child went to relatives after two months. Third foster child placed at 16.5 months old, TPR trial started about three months after placement, the trial was dragged out so TPR didnt happen until 8 months after placement. I expect we'll finalize on fs and 8 yo fd by the end of the year.

With babies, they tend to TPR more quickly, whereas with older kids, i think they give more chances as they view there being more of a relationship with the bparents and children. With babies, they know time is so important, i know here they are leaning toward TPR by one year in care.

[HeatherAtHome]

Originally Posted by Sierra

P.S. These days, 30 isn't an old mother . If you have your first sometime in the next 5 or 6 years, you are still a spring chicken. Most folks are having kids later in life. It's a demographic fact.

Yes, well, geographically speaking, I am. It seems like every big community event that I go to there are former classmates with kids almost as tall as they are! It just seems like around here, people have kids in their early 20's unless they actually went on to college/university in which case they have a real CAREER while I just have that empty decade of nothing.

I will say though that after being around some young mothers, I do see that it was sort of nice to have that time to 'find myself' and really understand what I want out of life, what's important to me/us and to gain more confidence in who I am. It seems like when you go straight from school into having kids, you don't have that breathing space to just be. That you're always pulled in different directions and aren't even able to hear yourself think. (At least that's what young mothers tell me).

Another thing that makes me sort of hesitate when it comes to fostering/feel like it would take forever is that I keep calling and never get an answer. Three years ago when we decided to foster, I had to call for 2 months before I really was able to speak to someone and get questions answered about how it all works.

Now, I was thinking we're just about ready and called the end of May then again the end of June. Nobody calls me! I would have to commit to calling once a week and really pushing to get someone on the phone. I haven't done that because we were busy doing renovations while DH was on vacation. In a couple weeks once our house is a little bit more in order, I'll start playing phone tag again.

[quantumleap]

Ok, we've learned first hand that Canada does NOT have a universal system by any stretch of the imagination, and since you're in the land of "different" (no offence, seriously. my family is quebecois, it's just the whole seperate legal system, etc), it may be even more different. *But*, I'm guessing that some things are going to be similar. I think PQ requires PRIDE training, or something like it, which is a several weeks long foster/adopt training program only offered once or twice a year. Then there are the novels you have to write, the criminal records checks, the novels your friends have to write as references, the home visits, etc, etc, etc. It can and will take months.
You know you want to foster. Get the ball rolling. Even if you do wind up deciding that you would rather birth a babe before fostering, you will at least have jumped through all the hoops and have the *option* of fostering.

We first fostered when I was pregnant with #1. It was great in many respects, not the least of which being that we did focus entirely on those kids with no other demands made of us. They had issues that our bio children will (hopefully!) never have (FASD, food trauma, speech disabilities due to a complete lack of oral care, attachment, etc, etc), and as such, they required a sort of care and attention that is completely different from that required by our bio kid(s). So, they benefitted.
They also were at a disadvantage because although I am the oldest of several siblings, the oldest of a large number of cousins, have extensive experience caring for and teaching children in a variety of situations and for a variety of durations, it is NOT the same as being a parent. We made a lot of mistakes with our foster kids, because we simply didn't have the tool box that came as we parented our bio child. I'm sure we would have eventually learned, but fostering is like jumping into the deep end, not the gradual wading in that comes when you birth a babe and start at the logical beginning!
Now, as we go through the insanity of getting approved to foster in our new province, we're thinking of fostering a little differently. Where we were open to most placements before, we have radically limited what sort of placement we're willing to accept now. We have children in our home now, and their health (mental, physical, emotional...) comes first. So, we're no longer willing to accept a lot of challenges. ie: we feel equiped to handle the challenges of parenting a child with FASD these days, but not the challenges that come as they are older. So, a child with FASD would "fit" in our family, but not if they are pre-teens or older. It feels awful to place these limitations on things, but for now, it's how it needs to work. I guess, before, we were happy to completely adjust our family (just dp and I and the foster kids) to best nuture and suit the foster children. Now, we are looking for a situation where necessary adjustments are more minor because we need to respect the needs of the child(ren) who already live with us. It sounds harsh, in a way.
In the end though, having children who are established in your family (however that comes about) changes how much you are able to adapt to new children.
I'm totally babbling here. I guess I'm just trying to say that your experiences will be different depending on whether or not you choose to have bio children first. Both can be good, both can have challenges. It's just something to be aware of.
Also, foster kids can/do benefit from siblings without you providing said sibling. Many, many placements are for sibling groups, and most times, unless you live in a shoebox, you will be approved for placement of more than one child.

Having dealt with infertility, I would NOT be waiting too long to ttc in your shoes. If you know you want to carry and birth a child, I think you need to be sure that you CAN do that if you choose to wait a few more years (ask for a basic fertility workup for both you and your partner, for example). We're young and healthy, and it still took us three years to have a baby. It would have been much, much longer too if we hadn't had some awesome friends who stepped in. My opinion is totally coloured by my experiences, so take it with a grain of salt!

Best of luck to you guys as you sort this all out. Call a social worker though. You can at least find out what the average wait times are from initiation to completion. Also ask about if foster-adopt is even an option in your province. Where we used to live, it was a completely seperate system. You could foster a child from birth to age three, TPR goes through, and then the child goes on to the adoption list. Whoever is ahead of you gets the child (a large number of people!). Seriously. Some kids are in foster care until they age out, so you get to "keep" them, but foster-adopt as it exists in the US is not an option in more than one province that I know of.

[tiffani]

ttc and foster/adoption are both totally unpredictable, so stop trying to plan it all out and get moving! I'd go for both and just see where life takes you.

best wishes!

[Polliwog]

Tiffany!!!!! Where have you been? What's the status of your adoption? Are you still in NZ???

[HeatherAtHome]

Originally Posted by MissinNYC

That's my vote. Think about what's best for the kids, not you.

This has stuck with me over the past week. It bothered me but I couldn't quite put my finger on why. At first glance, it sounds reasonable... but

-it implies I'm supposed to completely put MY life on hold, that *everything* becomes about the kids (and I don't exist as a person anymore, merely as a caregiver)

-it assumes that "the best thing" is to have complete one on one attention from a mom. Maybe the best thing is a happy mom? And maybe a happy mom is someone who's life doesn't *completely* revolve around their child? Maybe it's someone who isn't looking for this kid to fill a void? To be their all?

-maybe the wear and tear on my heart of kids constantly coming and going would lead me to burn out quicker? Not last so long in fostering... which means helping less kids. (Although yes, I believe in quality, not quantity) Maybe I need my own bio kid to be that 'constant' for me.

If I already had bio kids and came on here asking about fostering, nobody would say "sorry, you already have kids in your home, I don't think you'd be a good foster mom" (unless there are specific reasons etc)

If I wanted to open my house to MORE foster kids at once, in general, nobody would say "sorry, you already have kids in your home, I don't think you'd be able to foster more"

If I was looking at a sibling group, in general, nobody would say "I think you should split them up as fk always need one on one attention".

It sort of sucks that because I plan things out ahead of time I get the old "think of what's best for the kids" guilt trip instead of having the freedom to choose how to build our family. Not that I prefer giving birth over adopting (still on the fence and haven't made a decision).

Please don't blast me on this, I'm really a nice person! Who cares about others! Who would be willing to sacrifice a lot to help those in need. The above comment just doesn't sit well with me for some reason.

[HeatherAtHome]

Selkat, love your lovely long post! You are right, I so live in the land of 'different'. Last time around when we met a social worker, we were told that they hardly ever offer training in english and maybe what he would do is offer us one on one training with him, although I'm not sure how he would have found the time. He seemed so busy and was the only english worker in his area. We moved since then (not far, but it put us in another area) and again, there's only one english worker here. Not sure how training would go as this person NEVER actually called me back... so I'm info-less.

I'm sure we would have eventually learned, but fostering is like jumping into the deep end, not the gradual wading in that comes when you birth a babe and start at the logical beginning!

Yes, exactly. Plus, like you said, these kids will probably have more issues meaning the 'deep end' is actually "deeper".

I guess I'm just trying to say that your experiences will be different depending on whether or not you choose to have bio children first. Both can be good, both can have challenges. It's just something to be aware of.

Exactly. I'm also guilty of thinking things through too much and never taking action for fear of making the wrong decision! I sort of feel like I should just jump in and do both... see what happens.

Wait times... last time around we were told it's roughly 1 year to become licensed. (I feel like it would be at least a year, what with the language issue). I guess I feel that I would have more control over the situation if I would just have my own kid.

Here, I believe we were told that fostering and foster to adopt are two separate systems... but when I was in my teens, a friend was in a foster home. Her FM did straight fostering and had 2 little girls (siblings) for 2-3 years and when they came up for adoption, they were able to adopt.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by HeatherAtHome

Here, I believe we were told that fostering and foster to adopt are two separate systems... but when I was in my teens, a friend was in a foster home. Her FM did straight fostering and had 2 little girls (siblings) for 2-3 years and when they came up for adoption, they were able to adopt.

The foster home is almost always the first choice to adopt (the exception might be if there are interested relatives)...so its not that fostering means you CAN'T adopt. Usually, when they say "fostering and foster to adopt are seperate" what they mean is you dont have to do regular fostering in order to adopt. I'm not familiar with Canada, but i know that here in MI, you DON'T have to have a foster license in order to adopt a legally free child. They have "foster care workers" and "adoption workers" etc. But that does not mean that foster parents can't adopt! (And in the vast majority of cases, they DO.) MI just recently changed things so that the foster homestudy and adoption homestudy can be a dual homestudy, or something like that, which was supposed to streamline the process.

I think sometimes there is a confusion of terms...some people, when saying "foster to adopt" mean "fostering with the hope of adopting if the child becomes available" and others mean "fostering a legally free child who is placed in my care with the sole purpose of adoption by me when the pre-finalization waiting period of six months is over." Those are two VERY different things, in terms of risk.

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by queenjane

I think sometimes there is a confusion of terms...some people, when saying "foster to adopt" mean "fostering with the hope of adopting if the child becomes available" and others mean "fostering a legally free child who is placed in my care with the sole purpose of adoption by me when the pre-finalization waiting period of six months is over." Those are two VERY different things, in terms of risk.

I think the "confusion" in terms is partly a result of states varying in how they use the term.

Some states have formal "foster-adopt" programs. Those that do have varying definitions of what that means. For example, in the state where we foster-adopted, it meant that we had two homestudies: one for foster, and one for adopt, so that we were "adoption ready" should one of our fosterlings become legally free for adoption. It was basically a way for the state to speed the process for families once a child became legally free and the foster family wanted to adopt.

It also meant that there was a notation in our file that we were willing to adopt, and that the adoption workers in addition to the foster workers were familiar with our file. But it didn't mean that they only called us about children who were legally free or likely to become legally free. We got called about both kinds of cases, and we got to decide for ourselves when we felt like we wanted to foster when there was a good chance it was straight-fostering, and when we wanted to foster only in cases that were more likely to lead to adoption.

In other states, it means other things. And in some states, the term "foster-adopt" is not used formally, and foster parents who use it are discouraged from doing so. In MA, for example, the system is similar to our old state, but they don't use the term "foster-adopt," and when I used the term, a worker "schooled" me.