Adopt Domestically, Internationally, or Have another kid. I'm really torn... - Page 3

[Mom31]

Adoptive mom's are the ones who adopt the children and raise them

Expectant mom's are the pregnant women considering adoption and making an adoption plan

Birth mom's or bio moms or natural moms or original moms are the mom's who gave birth to the children who have been adopted.

However- the number of birthmom's has steadily declined over the years while the number of couples wanting to adopt has risen-  there really is no reason to worry that there will not be enough adoptive parents to adopt newborn babies in the US.

[marsupial-mom]

Originally Posted by Smithie 

I don't think there can be such a thing as an "overabundance" of potential adoptive families. More choices for birthmothers = a good thing.

Originally Posted by sk8boarder15 

I do know there are enough people for the newborns in US but that reason alone isn't a reason not to adopt. If that number goes down too much there WON'T be enough. I also know that adoptive mom's sometimes want a very spicific family and who knows, we MAY just be that family.

I agree with both of these.

Also, I know for a fact that there are NOT enough foster parents for newborns. At least not in my area.

Many adoptive parents often don't want to take the risk of a newborn from fostercare because most never become adoptable.

And many foster parents often don't want newborns because they require so much work and can't go into daycare for at least 6 weeks (longer if they have special needs).

So... if you foster-adopt a baby from fostercare, you might have a lot of "false starts" where you foster and don't get to adopt, but eventually you'll get one. And that one absolutely NEEDS you. Just something to consider.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by Smithie 

I don't think there can be such a thing as an "overabundance" of potential adoptive families. More choices for birthmothers = a good thing. Even if there are 500 families for her to choose from in the agency's database, if she envisions her child growing up with a redheaded doctor who likes to hunt duck and left-handed nurse who plays the guitar and goes to Renaissance fairs, and that particular couple didn't pursue domestic infant adopt because "babies don't need homes," then a potentially great match didn't happen and that's just too bad. 

And if there was some sort of central database that listed ALL available families for adoption, then that might make sense. But i think what some of us were talking about is how matches are generally made currently in private domestic adoption.

i dont know for sure, only what i've heard/seen in limited cases, but i think with most agencies, they only present a few families to a woman at any given time. So she might have certain basic criteria (marital status, religion, race etc) and they give her five or ten photo books/profiles to look at. If she doesnt like any of those families, they may give her more. I could be wrong, but i dont think its like a checklist where she is presented with the profiles of every single family in their database. Obviously how many options the woman has in choosing a family also may depend on the size of her agency.

"Cps workers do not do adoptions, btw."

Funny, my foster son has just been assigned a (massively overburdened) CPS social worker to select an adoptive family for him. Maybe this varies by state?

In my area, "CPS worker" is a specific job which is different than foster care worker or adoption worker. They investigate child abuse/neglect claims and are a branch of DHS. In my area, most state adoptions are done via private agencies. I know with my agency (and i suspect many others in this area) a child has a foster care worker, and it is only after TPR is that child assigned an adoption worker. It is then the adoption worker that recruits for a family for that child, does family assessments etc. This likely varies by state. But i do think in MOST places the people doing the actual adoptions are not the same people handling the foster aspect of things (supervising visits, attending court, etc) Where is your child at in the adoption process? have rights been terminated yet? I assume since he has "just" been assigned an adoption worker, then she was NOT his foster care worker. Is the state agency that handles foster care and adoption in your state actually called "CPS" ?(here the state agency is, i believe, DHS...which of course covers everything from medicaid, food stamps, etc as well as foster care and adoption. CPS is merely the investigative branch of DHS that handles child abuse complaints. ) Just curious!

[Smithie]

OK, CPS org structure question first :-) All workers here are called DSS workers (we have nothing called CPS officially, although that's the common vernacular). We have workers who are full-time home investigators (maybe that's your "CPS" worker in your state), foster caseworkers (who take on the home-investigator duties once the child is in care), and adoption caseworkers. All DSS employees. Adoption workers are staffed on a case as soon as the goal is changed from reunification to concurrent planning, and the two workers collaborate until the TPR is granted or reunification happens (typically a year or or two or even three, although it's supposed to be an 18-month max from the day the child comes into care until the day they are reunified or TPRed). I think all of this stuff just varies wildly form place to place. Staffing the case early is one thing I think my state does right - even if my foster son isn't ultimately adopted, the work that will (theoretically) be done to assess us as a potential match will be useful in getting him placed with us again the next time he bounces back into care. If it goes so far as completing an adoptive homestudy, we might even be able to get him back through the ICPC if his mother manages to cross state lines before she starts using again (which she never has, but there's a first time for everything and the very real threat of TPR has got her good and flustered this time around). 

Which sort of leads into my next point... I wouldn't want a woman dealing with an unplanned pregnancy to be caught up in this system that is designed to offer adoption only as a latch-ditch remedy for uncorrectable problems. She shouldn't have a government social worker assigned to her. She shouldn't have a case plan. She shouldn't have to appear in court. And she SHOULD have the right to select the parents of her child - which is obviously not how the state handles matters when the birthparents have been TPRed. I don't support the unification of the public and private systems - the needs and capacities of the participating birthparents are just radically different. 

A national database of private-adoption potential families? I see nothing wrong with that idea. If I were a birthmother, I'd certainly like the ability to see every single possibility out there. But as long as agency workers are honest with birthmothers about how what they have to offer ("we have 200 waiting families right now, we'll offer you 5 books at a time to consider") and will show them as many potential matches as they want to see, I think that's sufficient for an ethical adoption to take place. Regardless of how the private adoption system organizes itself, I can't see anything wrong a family signing up as potential parents. It's wrong to think that you are owed a baby, or to be angry if birthmothers don't choose you. But making the offer is always OK, and if you get chosen by a birthmother, then you were right to sign up because *you were the people she was looking for*. Just MHO. 

[APToddlerMama]

Originally Posted by Smithie 


Which sort of leads into my next point... I wouldn't want a woman dealing with an unplanned pregnancy to be caught up in this system that is designed to offer adoption only as a latch-ditch remedy for uncorrectable problems. She shouldn't have a government social worker assigned to her. She shouldn't have a case plan. She shouldn't have to appear in court. And she SHOULD have the right to select the parents of her child - which is obviously not how the state handles matters when the birthparents have been TPRed. I don't support the unification of the public and private systems - the needs and capacities of the participating birthparents are just radically different. 

A national database of private-adoption potential families? I see nothing wrong with that idea. If I were a birthmother, I'd certainly like the ability to see every single possibility out there. But as long as agency workers are honest with birthmothers about how what they have to offer ("we have 200 waiting families right now, we'll offer you 5 books at a time to consider") and will show them as many potential matches as they want to see, I think that's sufficient for an ethical adoption to take place. Regardless of how the private adoption system organizes itself, I can't see anything wrong a family signing up as potential parents. It's wrong to think that you are owed a baby, or to be angry if birthmothers don't choose you. But making the offer is always OK, and if you get chosen by a birthmother, then you were right to sign up because *you were the people she was looking for*. Just MHO. 

Smithie, I said I'd let you have the last word and I'm going to but I just want to point out that your understanding of the system is flawed which I point out only because you're constantly claiming things that aren't true and I think it would be unfortunate for people to be misinformed.

Just last week a family member of mine who had their child removed by CPS, had been reunified with the child after a couple years, parented the child for three weeks and with a still open CPS case decided to make an adoption plan. The state permitted her to do this WITH a private agency even though he state was forced to take legal custody back from her and ultimately she signed over legal guardianship as well. She reviewed profiles, met with two families, and chose the family for her child. The state and private agency worked beautifully together and it was wonderful for her to be able to choose the family for her child. There is NO reason private agencies can't work with public systems to bring children and families together and it does happen.

[queenjane]

Which sort of leads into my next point... I wouldn't want a woman dealing with an unplanned pregnancy to be caught up in this system that is designed to offer adoption only as a latch-ditch remedy for uncorrectable problems. She shouldn't have a government social worker assigned to her. She shouldn't have a case plan. She shouldn't have to appear in court. And she SHOULD have the right to select the parents of her child - which is obviously not how the state handles matters when the birthparents have been TPRed. I don't support the unification of the public and private systems - the needs and capacities of the participating birthparents are just radically different. 

I'm a little confused...did someone suggest that a woman planning to place her infant for adoption should have to go through the state foster care process instead? I missed that on this thread but its long and i didnt go reread.

[APToddlerMama]

Originally Posted by queenjane 

I'm a little confused...did someone suggest that a woman planning to place her infant for adoption should have to go through the state foster care process instead? I missed that on this thread but its long and i didnt go reread.

I've been wondering this too. Coordinating and networking shouldn't have to mean birth mothers losing control of their adoption plans and I cannot find where anyone suggested it either.

[Smithie]

In my state, APToddlerMama, that would not be allowed. This is an unconditional-surrender state - if DSS takes custody of your child, you may not give up your rights contingent upon a specific family adopting your child. It's not that I'm wrong or that you're wrong - it's that things work very differently in different places. And in the case of your relative, WOW, I'm glad things don't work that way here. Two years in care and three weeks with biomom, then biomom picks out a family? I'm sure they were lovely people and all, but wow. I want the people who have been working the case for two years to select an adoptive family, not the mom with serious problems who has been reunified for three weeks. No disrespect to your family member, I am sorry for her trouble. But I really don't see how the state could simultaneously determine that she was unfit to parent, and the best person to select an adoptive family. 

I'm a little confused...did someone suggest that a woman planning to place her infant for adoption should have to go through the state foster care process instead?

If we're talking about pregnant women having access to potential adoptive families that have been licensed through state agencies, then yes, that's what's being suggested. State-funded homestudies can't be used for private adoptions and for darn good reason - that pool of adoptive parents is intended for children coming out of the foster system. Older kids, drug-exposed, sibling groups, special needs, etc. etc. The states provide adoption services at no cost because that's what they need to do to line up families for adoption from foster care. Should the states start doing a better job working together and matching children in care with waiting families through the ICPC? Yup. But licensing people who will then go and adopt a newborn through a private agency? That's not what our tax dollars are paying for. People who want to adopt privately need to cover their own expenses - and as you have pointed out, there is certainly no shortage of people who are willing and able to do so. 

[Smithie]

Thinking about this a little more - maybe there's a way to set up a program where waiting families in the public system who were selected by birthmothers in the private system could compensate the state for its sunk costs? Sort of "selling" their homestudy to the agency, so that the match is made and the state is not left having wasted a lot of resources on a family that didn't end up providing a home to a child in state custody? 

I really do like the idea of birthmothers being able to see every single possible family out there. It just bugs the heck out of me to think of the massively underfunded public system losing their potential adoptive families to the private system. They don't have enough families to start with, and if they homestudy people who are actually planning to adopt elsewhere - well, in my state at least that would be a disaster, if the state became known as a source of free homestudies for people whose actual goal was private adoption. 

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by Smithie 

Thinking about this a little more - maybe there's a way to set up a program where waiting families in the public system who were selected by birthmothers in the private system could compensate the state for its sunk costs? Sort of "selling" their homestudy to the agency, so that the match is made and the state is not left having wasted a lot of resources on a family that didn't end up providing a home to a child in state custody? 

I really do like the idea of birthmothers being able to see every single possible family out there. It just bugs the heck out of me to think of the massively underfunded public system losing their potential adoptive families to the private system. They don't have enough families to start with, and if they homestudy people who are actually planning to adopt elsewhere - well, in my state at least that would be a disaster, if the state became known as a source of free homestudies for people whose actual goal was private adoption. 

Now i'm going to have to go read the whole thread because i'm not remembering where anyone said people should be able to get a free homestudy from the state then go adopt privately.

Your first paragraph though....this routinely happens here. We use private agencies for most of our state adoptions here (at least in my county and several others in MI, i can't speak for the entire state) not "DHS"...but private agencies that have a contract with the state to place state kids. Some of these agencies, like the one i used, do not generally do private/direct placement adoptions, but other agencies such as Catholic Social Services, Bethany, Lutheran Adoption Services, and many others do both (and often international as well)...its my understanding that if you start out in the "free homestudy" program you can simply "purchase" your homestudy to adopt privately. In fact i know someone who is going to be fostering and was told by the agency that if they foster for a period of time (one year i think) the agency will then allow them to use the homestudy (recently streamlined here to allow for one homestudy for both foster care and adoption i think) to adopt privately if they wish(without paying an additional homestudy fee. )

If i understand correctly, in my state if a mom has had prior children TPR'd the state essentially "owns" all future children, in that they can apprehend the new infant at birth. If the mom makes a private adoption plan the state COULD, i believe, intervene and prevent that. I would imagine thats a case by case basis. What the optimal scenario would be, is that the bmom keeps the county in the loop about her plans. They may not think a mom whose decision-making skills were so poor she made bad choices in parenting her children should be the one to choose a new family. They may want to keep sibs together, etc etc. Or they may be happy not to have to spend resources finding a placement for new baby or going through the court process no matter how short (when my first adopted child's bmom said she did not seek RU, TPR occurred before he was four months old. a mom doesnt HAVE to work a plan if she doesnt want to. She can sign baby over.) It should be worked out beforehand to avoid some sort of hospital "fight" over the baby. But i have heard (online) of potential/matched adoptive parents showing up only to have the infant apprehended by the state instead.

While i totally get the argument that a bmom should be able to keep her child out of "the system" and pick new parents of her choosing, i admit i'd be pretty well devastated (for myself AND my children) if a sibling was born and adopted out to another family instead of to us when we are ready, willing, and able to welcome that family member into our home. And my gut instinct is to say "yknow what...you burned your first child, abandoned the one i adopted (in the case of one of my kids) or you neglected your oldest for years resulting in a host of emotional problems  (in the case of my other two) so no, you dont get to decide the fate of a new baby." i can TOTALLY see the opposing argument but its still i how *feel.*

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by Smithie 

(I have no quibble with people doing private domestic infant adoption, BTW. I'd rather have the moral discomfort of money changing hands as part of an adoption than have all adoptions go through the government. Birthmothers who've done nothing wrong do not deserve to have to deal with a state agency in order to place their child, and I don't think government involvement would produce better outcomes for infants who are being placed.) 

I looked for anywhere anyone on this thread said moms should have to go through the state, and i couldnt find that. Maybe i overlooked it.

However, Smithie, this quote of yours i think is where maybe miscommunication is happening. When i talk about money, and the big business of adopting, i'm not talking about the free state system vs an expensive private adoption. Those arent the only two choices.

There ARE families wanting to adopt special needs infants (in fact, special needs children of all ages really...plenty of older kids who disrupt out of adoptions are placed privately with new families) who for whatever reason do not wish to work through the state/foster care (whether its due to the long wait, or maybe they no longer meet their state foster limits for family size or some such thing) and those families may seek a lower-cost PRIVATE adoption. There ARE agencies that work on a sliding-scale, or have subsidized programs or flexible options for paying. Spence-Chapin, for example (in NY) has a program called ASAP (if i recall the name) which places SN infants. This is not foster care adoption. Its private. They regularly post babies who may have alcohol exposure, significant med. issues, strong risk for mental illness etc. And there is *competition* for those babies (because often parents who are leaving the foster care adoption system, or have several other SN kids at home cant afford to pay $30K for an adoption.) It saddens me that because there is such a profit aspect to many adoptions, a SN infant that would be matched instantly through Spence Chapin (just an example) might wait and wait with a private agency somewhere else because they either dont know how to get the info to the right "audience" or they arent willing or able to reduce fees enough to make it affordable for those people who are wanting to adopt that child. That has nothing to do with a woman "having to deal with a state agency." if thats what you meant by that paragraph.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Originally Posted by queenjane 

 It saddens me that because there is such a profit aspect to many adoptions, a SN infant that would be matched instantly through Spence Chapin (just an example) might wait and wait with a private agency somewhere else because they either dont know how to get the info to the right "audience" or they arent willing or able to reduce fees enough to make it affordable for those people who are wanting to adopt that child. That has nothing to do with a woman "having to deal with a state agency." if thats what you meant by that paragraph.

That's one thing I liked about working with the consultant that we used.  She had her name out to a large pool of private agencies that normally did healthy newborn adoptions.  Our consultant had a large pool of families (like us) who were willing to step into less than ideal (healthwise, exposure, etc) situations and the agencies would contact her when they didn't have adoptive families that would match birthmoms who came in.  Not exactly as good as a nationwide database or some such thing, but it certainly worked well for both the families involved and the birthmoms who instead of having only 1-2 potential families to look at, now had many to pick from.

[Smithie]

Some of these agencies, like the one i used, do not generally do private/direct placement adoptions, but other agencies such as Catholic Social Services, Bethany, Lutheran Adoption Services, and many others do both (and often international as well)...its my understanding that if you start out in the "free homestudy" program you can simply "purchase" your homestudy to adopt privately. In fact i know someone who is going to be fostering and was told by the agency that if they foster for a period of time (one year i think) the agency will then allow them to use the homestudy (recently streamlined here to allow for one homestudy for both foster care and adoption i think) to adopt privately if they wish(without paying an additional homestudy fee. )

See, this what I love about message boards. I was driving around doing all my errands today, thinking "how could that work? how could foster-adoption and public adoption and private adoption consolidate their waiting families for informational purposes, without further burdening the public system?" and I come home and find out that in Michigan they have found a way. Or at least the start of a way. Streamlined homestudies, wow. Even though my first homestudy was done by state, my second homestudy starts from scratch and is also done by that state. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they can even get my fingerprints from one department to the other ;-) And the "earn your homestudy through fostering" model would be such a godsend to so many people I know here, who are either pursuing private adoptions they can't really afford or fostering infants long past the point that they would have stopped if it were not their only path to parenthood. 

While i totally get the argument that a bmom should be able to keep her child out of "the system" and pick new parents of her choosing, i admit i'd be pretty well devastated (for myself AND my children) if a sibling was born and adopted out to another family instead of to us when we are ready, willing, and able to welcome that family member into our home. And my gut instinct is to say "yknow what...you burned your first child, abandoned the one i adopted (in the case of one of my kids) or you neglected your oldest for years resulting in a host of emotional problems  (in the case of my other two) so no, you dont get to decide the fate of a new baby." i can TOTALLY see the opposing argument but its still i how *feel.*

And I feel with you. I don't know what the right answer is there, when a mom has hurt previous kids and had them taken into care. I can see the argument on both sides.

But I feel strongly that a woman who has never had any contact with CPS/DSS/DHS/whatever they call it in your neck of the woods does not deserve to be on their radar just because she's pregnant and making an adoption plan. I think there's a place for private adoption in this country, and probably always will be. But even a private-adoption database that totally left the public sector out of it would be a huge gain over the current system. 

[APToddlerMama]

Originally Posted by Smithie 

In my state, APToddlerMama, that would not be allowed. This is an unconditional-surrender state - if DSS takes custody of your child, you may not give up your rights contingent upon a specific family adopting your child. It's not that I'm wrong or that you're wrong - it's that things work very differently in different places. And in the case of your relative, WOW, I'm glad things don't work that way here. Two years in care and three weeks with biomom, then biomom picks out a family? I'm sure they were lovely people and all, but wow. I want the people who have been working the case for two years to select an adoptive family, not the mom with serious problems who has been reunified for three weeks. No disrespect to your family member, I am sorry for her trouble. But I really don't see how the state could simultaneously determine that she was unfit to parent, and the best person to select an adoptive family. 

I'm a little confused...did someone suggest that a woman planning to place her infant for adoption should have to go through the state foster care process instead?


If we're talking about pregnant women having access to potential adoptive families that have been licensed through state agencies, then yes, that's what's being suggested. State-funded homestudies can't be used for private adoptions and for darn good reason - that pool of adoptive parents is intended for children coming out of the foster system. Older kids, drug-exposed, sibling groups, special needs, etc. etc. The states provide adoption services at no cost because that's what they need to do to line up families for adoption from foster care. Should the states start doing a better job working together and matching children in care with waiting families through the ICPC? Yup. But licensing people who will then go and adopt a newborn through a private agency? That's not what our tax dollars are paying for. People who want to adopt privately need to cover their own expenses - and as you have pointed out, there is certainly no shortage of people who are willing and able to do so. 

I am going to ignore all the judgements in your reply which were really unnecessary and just provide clarification. She worked hard to have her child placed back in her home. There were numerous (appropriate) conditions she had to meet related to her own mental health, substance abuse, parenting classes, etc. She had never parented any of her children however, and within a short amount of time realized she wanted to make an adoption plan. Her county had not closed out her CPS case because they don't do that while providing ongoing safety services to regularly check on the welfare of her child based on their history. So, she called her worker, said she wanted to make an adoption plan, the worker tried to convince her not to, but ultimately she explained it was not safe for the child to stay (which it wasn't). The worker put the child in a temporary foster home, county took legal custody, and worker matched her with a private agency. She chose the family, met with them several times, signed guardianship over to the state. The private agency will supervise the placement and the county must also do so as well (or maybe the state...not sure what they worked out), until finalization.

Boom. It can be done. Unlike you, I am grateful her worker and the system allowed her to make an adoption plan. She loves her child dearly and desperately wanted what was best for him. Why the bleep should the county or state choose the family? Licensed social workers approved he pool of applicants. That should be good enough. There was not a dry eye in court at her status hearing when she explained her intentions. Everyone was on board with giving her the autonomy to choose. If she was a good enough mother to have the county reunify her with her child, she is a good enough mother to choose her adoption plan.

By the way...what state are you in Smithie? I don't want to post hers because of privacy even though I am being careful to conceal her identity but I think she actually may be in your state. pm me if you wish.

editing for language.

[Smithie]

I don't think she can be in my state, because as I mentioned above we have no organization that is referred to as "CPS." But maybe you're also using the vernacular. 

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that your relative found a way to place an older child who'd been in care without going back to court to have her rights terminated. Good for her for asking to have it done, and good for her worker for hammering out a deal that followed the law and made everybody happy. But as you say, she had never parented the child. As an adoption worker dealing with a person with major ongoing issues who had never parented the child in question, I'd be a heck of a lot more interested in the feedback of the foster parents and the original caseworker. Placing a traumatized toddler is not like placing an infant - it really is a job for people who have a lot of experience with adoption, not a mom with serious ongoing issues. The goal isn't to make the mom feel good. The goal is to pick the best placement for the child. I hope there was a really good reason that s/he wasn't returned to the foster family, not just because the mom had other ideas. Assuming that breaking the parent/child bond with the foster parents was necessary for some good reason, I don't mind what happened. Now that you've given more information, it is more clear that the state DOES have the power to intervene if the mother made a poor choice about placement. 

 If she was a good enough mother to have the county reunify her with her child, she is a good enough mother to choose her adoption plan.

I don't even know what to say to that. It is clear that this RU was a bad idea. Your troubled relative should not have been the one to realize that her child was in danger. Caseworkers are overburdened, mistakes get made, nobody's perfect etc., and I'm glad there was a good outcome. But no, having the county reunify you with your child is not a sign that you are a "good enough" mother. Maybe you're a fantastic mother who should never have had your children taken away. Maybe you're a total trainwreck who held it together long enough to fool a worker and a judge and your child are in terrible danger the minute they're back in your care. The system is very broken, as your relative's case indicates. 

[queenjane]

Smithie, do no private agencies place foster children in your state? (Like the ones i mentioned, Catholic SS, LAS, etc...) Do those agencies only do private infant adopton then? Just curious!
 

[Smithie]

Private agencies do license foster families, but the child's caseworker is always directly employed by DSS and he/she makes placement decisions, selecting from a list of families offered up by the agency. (That's how I got my current placement - his DSS worker in another county wanted to get him out of the orphanage, so she called my agency, and my agency recommended the match.) The entire adoption process is handled solely by DSS, no private agency involvement. I'm not claiming that this is the best system - merely the one that I've got. One thing I do like about it the centralized adoption model is that there is a statewide database of parents that the adoption workers use, and they're very willing to move a kid from one end of the state to the other if the best family for that child is far away. Theoretically they are also supposed to be using national databases to make matches, but ICPC is not highly regarded - extra work and the prevailing sentiment is that in-state adoptive families should be used to provide homes for in-state kids. 

[APToddlerMama]

Smithie I'm dying to know what state you're in. I know you posted it before when you linked a story about your foster children in a news article.

As far as the county reunifying--that was foolish on their part. However, there you go again making assumptions with the foster family thing. Foster dad sexually abused the child. THIS was part of why mom felt in over her head parenting. I won't go into details but not a lot of people would be successful parenting this child, myself included and I have a billion more resources than she did. I'm glad to hear though that you have a really good handle on who all the decision makers should have been in this scenario. Next time maybe the county can consult with you when making permanency plans.

[Smithie]

Whoah. Calm down. I said that I hoped there was a very good reason that the foster parents weren't given first priority in adoption. Sexual abuse is a very good reason. But you really think it makes sense for your relative, with the best of intentions but no experience, to pick a placement for a child who had been that severely damaged? I can't agree.


Also, I have never posted a news story about any of my foster children. I once posted a story about a meth-lab bust here in the great state of South Carolina. I got a call about one of the kids they pulled out of that hellhole, but he ended up being placed with kin.

[APToddlerMama]

Smithie. The agency only provided her with profiles of families capable of meeting her child's needs. They supervised multiple pre-placement visits. Mom doesn't have "ongoing issues" rather she lacks he capacity to provide the child with a safe environment in which to have his many needs met. Needs which in part were created by the system.

I see this only as a win-win (with the caveat that of course there is huge loss due to the nature of adoption.). Mom wanted to make an adoption plan. She got to do that. Child is in a loving and safe home with parents who can meet his needs. County did their job in ensuring this child is in a loving environment with people who can meet his needs. I get the sense you're arguing just to argue so I'll leave it at that and once again give you the last word. Have at it.