Are parents who lose kids to foster care treated different than those who relinquish at birth?

Question

Are parents who lose kids to foster care treated different than those who relinquish at birth?

Answer 1

I don't know that there's any way to answer this question with any kind of accuracy.  There are those who condemn people who lost their children to foster care as addicts, abusers, prostitutes, horrible people, waste of space, etc.  There are those who condemn poor, unmarried, young women as unworthy of children, stupid, etc.  There are those who are very understanding of those who have both lost, and relinquished their children.  Some people understand how hard it must be to lose your children because it seems that the barriers in life are insurmountable, while these same people can't fathom purposely handing your child to another person.  Then, there are those who believe that making the choice to give up your child is a loving act, while having your child removed by DHS is despicable and automatically makes one unworthy.  I don't think there is a big enough number of any of these groups to be able to say, "this is how society treats this type of person".  Either way, it's too common for people to be judgmental of first parents.  It's too easy to believe that all first parents fall under one category, and condemn them without first finding out the reality of their individual situation.  And really, no matter what the situation is, it's not helpful to condemn them anyway.  It's not like they're going to hear someone saying, "you're a horrible person" and they're suddenly going to go, "oh yeah, you're right!  I'm going to go make myself a better person right now!"

Answer 2

Neither are treated well by society.  The only difference is that the mother who loses her kids to foster care has a greater chance of getting them back.

Answer 3

I know I am.

As soon as I make mention of the fact that my son was adopted through foster care the allegations and stereotypes come out. I must be an abusive, alcoholic, crack smoking wh*re. I am not of these things and never have been, I was merely a young woman unable to access community resources and struggling to parent as effectively as I wanted to. I asked for some help and lost my child to the system... not that I expect anyone to believe that since I am just a crack-wh*re birthmother and I have no morals or values.

Answer 4

Hmmm, this is an interesting question. I'm not sure there is any definite answer. Depending on who you asked at the time, some people look on a young mom who wants to give her baby a chance, as a selfless hero; while a mom who has her children forcibly taken by CAS is looked at as a monster, no questions asked. Or the young woman can be seen as callous and cold and she obviously "gave up the kid so she can party", while  the mom who had her kids removed by CAS just needed some help, but instead the big bad CAS took her kids from her. From what I've seen and heard, I honestly believe that people would be more inclined to show compassion to the mom who relinquished at birth over the mom who lost her children to foster care. I personally believe people should be treated for who they are and not by a label. There are good and bad people in every situation, but I think most people hear foster care and automatically translate that to abusive, drug addicted scumbags. And using Andraya as an example, obviously that is not always the case, as some moms (or most moms) desperately love their children and are just trying to do the best they can.

Answer 5

Yes of course they are.  Parents who lose their children to CPS have done so because of abuse or neglect while a birth mom who "chooses" to give her baby up for wanting what is best for her baby is doing it out of love.  Two completely different situations.

Answer 6

I think so. It seems that parents who choose to relinquish are often seen as unselfish for their choice; whereas those whose children are adopted thru foster care have often already been judged as not capable and are forced. Many fight for their children to be returned only to have others judge that they are not fit to be a parent.

Answer 7

Well, um....YEAH!  Because parents who lose their children to foster care are generally child abusers or at least neglectful of their children.

Parents who relinquish at birth make a choice to place their child into the care of someone else.

Parents who have their rights terminated when reunification efforts fail (and I'm sorry to say, they usually do) have a no contact order placed in the termination order by the judge.  This means that the adoptive parents are not allowed to allow any contact until the children are 18.  If the birth parents attempt contact, they are in violation of a court order and can be arrested.

In relinquishment, it is up to the adoptive parents if contact will continue.

ETA: Love all the thumb's down so typical on this site!

Yes, there are unfortunate situations where a parent is just in need of help to parent and loses their child.  However in my state, the state bends forwards, backwards and sidesways, often at the expense of the children to attempt unification.

I have 16 case files on my desk right now.  3 different sets of parents.

Case A. Drug addict, 11 children total, three born addicted to drugs, 2 children with severe handicaps as a result of mother's drug use. Father's are AWOL (of course, that is ok because they are just dads right?)

Case B. Both parents drug addicts, 2 of 2 children born addicted to drugs.

Case C. Children suffered severe neglect and abuse at the hands of a mentally ill and no compliant father and a mother that just left them with him and went to California.

That's right now.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but in ten years I have never seen a child pulled just because the mother needed services.  I have reunified several families when that was my role, and if I had to, I drove them to stores to get the things they needed.

I never said anyone was a "crack head w***e with no values."  

Also, parents who lose their children to foster care usually have services, those services are usually not available to struggling birth parents..if they were they may not choose adoption in the first place!

Answer 8

It's probably true that "society" treats parents who lose their kids to foster care differently than those who relinquish at birth.  Parents who lose to foster care usually have NO CHOICE--their kids are removed from their homes for the children's protection or need for care.  Parents who lose to foster care can sometimes get their kids back by doing whatever is diretced of them by the agency who removed them.

Parents who relinquish at birth make a conscious decision to do so for reasons all their own.

Answer 9

In most cases the parents who lose their kids are treated with less respect because they have normally neglect or abuse the child in various forms.

The other mothers do maintain more respect because they are admitting they are not able to care for the child.

ML

Answer 10

Well I know someone, and this is just her, I don't know what it's like everywhere, and her and her boyfriend lost their kids to foster care because the dad physically and sexually abused them(I didn't find out about this until the dad was arrested and the kids were put in the system)and the mom was a drugee and emotiontly abused them. They were caught by a friend's mother. She had noticed that the kids were bruised and bloody one day so she went over(she had never been to the house as no one never visited, the kids went to play at the other friend's houses)and opened the door and immeaditly ran back home and called the cops. She told me the house was a compleete mess, two of the kids were being beaten, one was bleeding and the other(a baby)was crying and the mother was ignoring her. The parents were both put in jail and the kids went to stay with friends. Now they were adopted by their foster parents.

The mom was released from jail a year ago and yes, people treated her VERY differently. She can't get service in most stores because everyone will glare at her and she has recently sold her house because she can't deal with the pain of her new reputation.

And on the other hand, I have a friend that gave her baby up for adoption at birth. And at first people were mean to her but slowly it stopped.

So with the people I know yes, but I don't know about everywhere else!

Answer 11

No, no matter how an adoption takes place, the mother is later considered to be an abuser or a heartless abandoner.  

Sure, if its a "voluntary surrender" (a complete joke as MOST are not voluntary but are coerced) then a few people will call her "selfless" or "heroic" but the same people will say "I could never give up my baby" and "Your child has a mother already so leave him be" and "You gave him up so you can't expect any contact and yes he should be angry at you!"  

No matter how a mother is separated from her child:  by legal abandonment thru an adoption agency or thru child protection actions, society still will shame and blame her for being heartless and/or unfit.  The idea of a mother "throwing away her child" goes against the basic human need to know/understand that families are permanent -- it is abhorrent to most people.

Answer 12

I would say, yes.

Almost ALL First Parents are treated as "less than" at some point. Many people do not view us as human beings with feelings, thoughts, personal issues, souls, faces, families, hearts, etc. simply because we do not have possession of our child(ren) NO MATTER THE REASON. (Yes, there are millions of acceptions who treat us just like everybody else and see us for the people we ARE. Thank you!)

The biggest difference in treatment I see between the two "types" is this:

Most parents who place at birth are told "how wonderful/loving/selfless/angelic/heroic... etc. they are at some point (whether or not the speaker really means it) and many are still subjected to "the nastiness" anyway. Sometimes these parents are later degraded and insulted by the very people who previously called them saints. Others, whose adoptive situations may be full of respect and mutual and genuine fondness are STILL subjected to "the nastiness" by strangers, media, etc.

Most parents who lose their child to CPS/DSS are immidiately branded as junkie/selfish//neglectful/heartless/dem... etc. no matter what the circumstances of the situation. Even GOOD parents who have gone to CPS/DSS for HELP because they NEEDED it (like the are SUPPOSED TO!) are treated with distain and disrespect, sometimes by the very agencies and people who are SUPPOSED TO HELP THEM!! The most unfair are the situations where poor and disadvantaged but GOOD AND LOVING parents ask for HELP and are vicimized by the system that is supposed to PROTECT their families by having their family torn apart. I myself have witnessed this happen because the children were "highly adoptable" due to their color, age, health and development all being "desirable". These kids are well mannered, clean, polite, age appropriate, have not been abused or neglected and are on or above developmental "targets & milestones" BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS LOVE THEM AND TAKE GOOD CARE OF THEM. Their only mistake THEY made was to ask for help because Dad lost his job or Mom got cancer or they just don't have any support and are having trouble making ends meet. I am NOT talking about REAL abusers or neglectful parents. (Some REAL abusers ALSO have extenuating circumstances as well, many times REAL abusers and neglectful parents - the truly monsterous ones, were even victims themselves once. Abuse is often a cycle. I AM NOT EXCUSING THIS BEHAVIOR, merely saying that most people have reasons for why they have issues.  Even if a parent TRULY deserves a TPR, they are still people who have/are suffer/ing and that is how they got there in the first place. Most parents who lose a child to CPS feel hopeless, helpless, beaten, guilty, horrible, bad, sad, etc. - only the real monsters don't feel it and they are in truth, pretty rare dispite what the media says. It is a shame that the MAJORITY of First Parents of Foster Children are treated as though they are like the beasts who really DO lack hearts.

The ONLY "type" of First Parents who are rarely "devalued" at some point are the First Parents of Orphans. Most people actually feel sorry for them. Usually if a deceased First Parent is spoken poorly of it is in hushed tones and well deserved and still most people feel as though it is rude to speak ill of the dead. It seems DEATH is the ONLY way to lose a child to Adoption without being degraded, put down or thoughtlessly judged.

Discrimination:

"...the prejudicial treatment of a person or a group of people based on certain characteristics." - Wikipidea

"The act of discriminating.

The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice" - American Heritage

"3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment " -Mirriam Webster

NO stereotype is true in ALL cases or even MOST cases. Too many people are quick to judge (or manipulate) others who have lost a child to adoption without understanding either the PERSON and their lives or Adoption itself. First Parents are treated awfully by more people than any other part of the "triad" and often with out good cause. It is one of the FEW things that people have no problem slinging nasty comments, assumptions and insults about vocally and viciously - not just on this board, but in the general public. IMO, First Parents are treated with as much, if not more, distain than victims of racist or sexist slurs. I think it is fair to say all members of the "triad" have experienced discrimination in some form.

I will go on to add, that IMO, the term "birthmother" qualifies, by definition as a SLUR, equal in damage to racial, religious, ethnic, etc. ephathets.

Slur-

"1 a: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo : aspersion b: a shaming or degrading effect : stain, stigma" -Mirriam Webster

"to cast aspersions on; calumniate; disparage; depreciate: The candidate was viciously slurred by his opponent.

8. a disparaging remark or a slight: quick to take offense at a slur.  

9. a blot or stain, as upon reputation: a slur on his good name.  " - Dictionary.com

When people forget to look at another person as a HUMAN BEING is causes all kinds of issues. ALL of us are HUMAN BEINGS, even First Parents, Adoptive Parents, Adoptees, Biological Familes, Prospective Adoptive Parents, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, Europeans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. ANYTIME we forget to see the PERSON behind the category, we run the risk of being disrespectful. We would all be wise to spend less time Judging, categorizing, cliquing, lumping, disrespecting, hurting, and hating and more time KNOWING each other, being respectful, compassionate, helpful, kind, caring, loving and supportive. Maybe we could get some REAL goodness and changes done then!

Sorry for the legnth. This is just a subject that bothers me ALL over - not just in Adoption. I want the world my children to inherit to be one of peace, equality, respect, compassion, strength, intelligence and love. We have a long way to go.