Damage to a child after being placed?

Question

How much damage is done to a child after being placed and then taken from the only parents he/she has ever known to be returned. I do not understand see "best interst of the child" in this theroy. I am actually looking for real explinations not snotty remarks.

Taking a child from aparents after being placed I would think would double any trama to the child. I mean it would then be taken from 2 mothers not just one.

Returning the child does not undo the trama done when the child was placed to begin with.

To me when I hear this I hear in the birth mothers best interst and that is not always the same as the childs.

Please Explain.

Answer 1

It really depends on the child I think. how it will go through life. Because I was adopted at the age of 3yrs old. And I still don't know my bio-parents to this very day. And I'm now 35yrs old andbeen wondering about my parents since I was 7yrs old. I mean all I know about both is my mother is korean and my father was a soldier. So the child could go through life with out no problems then there could be where the child really wonder about the parents

Answer 2

I guess if everyone straight up loves the baby and wants whats best, then why couldn't it be made a smoother transition. If my son's b-mom changed her mind (which is something I was prepared for) I would have been greatful if she would let me help her care for him, until she got his routing and showed her how to use his equipment. It doesn't have to be a one day move, but rather a transition.

I saw a show (I think it was "an adoption story") where the mom when to the country the stay with the baby and learn about her and be supervised by foster prarents. Ther are frequent visits and after a month if the child got comfortable with her, they got to come back to the states. It could be similar to that.

I've also read situations where a b-mom changed her mind and the PAPs kept all the clothes and baby things just to be spiteful. The things belong to the baby, not the parents.

Answer 3

The case you are talking about had nothing to do with a birth mother changing her mind. It had to do with a misunderstanding by both of the parties involved. I wish something could of been worked out between the Hee's and the Baker's, instead of this case ending up in court. Ultimately Ana is the one that was the most hurt. Which is very sad.

Once a child is placed and has been raised for some time by a parent(s), then yes there would be another tramua on the child because they are being removed from parent(s) that they have only known. To begin again with a new family could be hard on the child.

That is why counseling should be provided for the biological mother, to ensure that this is the decision that she wants. It needs to be stressed to her the emotions she might expect from relinquishing her child. Counseling also needs to be provided for the adopted parent so that they can be prepared just in case the adoption fall though.

Adoption is a very emoitional issue for all involved. So all need to be prepared for the journey that they undertake if they choose to adopt or relinquish a child.

Answer 4

what i find interesting is why the initial separation from a n-mom or adopting from another country of origin is considered less traumatic then returning a child to the bio-family?

in my opinion, i think the harm comes into play when we set up a system that makes parenting (or reversal of relinquishment/changing minds) more damaging than removing children from their natural mothers.  

do i believe damage is done?  absolutely.  but i think the damage was done initially when the child was taken away from his/her mother who (judging from her desire to parent) was not 100% ccomfortable with placing her child. yet most likely was told by others that she had no other choice but to give up her child. i wonder who's interests were served by that?  i venture to say, not the child's...and definitely not the b/f/n mom's

but we really don't care about that now, do we?

Answer 5

Some people feel that biological ties are ALL that matters. And that "love" conquers all. That as long as you have the same DNA as the child, everything will be fine if said child is ripped out of it's parents arms and placed back in strangers arms, because hey, they are biologically related!

Answer 6

Very little according to studies.  The newborn child 'knows' the biological mother far more than another caregiver even as much as a year later.  

In the long run, it is in the child's best interests to remain with his/her parent if that parent is fit.  Abandonment issues affect an awful lot of adoptees, even when they are in happy a-families.

Answer 7

I don't know for sure however, I was in foster care for three months while the agency terminated my firstmother's rights (they feared she would change her mind).

My adoptive mom said I had no problems transitioning from foster care to my adoptive home.  I didn't see my foster parents again until I was sixteen and they came to a party my mother was having.  I spent three months with them as an infant and I didn't have any attachment to them whatsoever.  And they were and are by all accounts nurturing, loving people.  they told me at the party that I was one of their favorite foster children because I was so happy but it didn't really mean anything to me.

And yet I spent the first three days of my life  in hospital with my first mom and did not see her again for over thirty years and we still have a very strong bond.  I have no explanation for it but that's what my experience has been.

Edited to say:

I see no difference between transferring a child at three months from foster care to an adoptive placement  and transferring a child from a potential adoptive placement back to their bios.  Other than a genetic connection of course.

Transitioning infants is a common practice in adoption even today.  it is interesting that their seems to be a negative connotation only when first families are involved.

There are cases out there of children who have been returned to their biological families with little difficulty.  And many who refuse to speak of their adoptive parents even as teenagers other than to say they wish them the best.  Baby Jessica and Baby Richard are two cases of children who were transitioned back from their would be adoptive families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Jessic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Richar...

There is also the very sad case of Anna Mae He who's would be adoptive parents kept her unlawfully from her biological parent for almost eight years and even went so far as to pay her to respond negatively against her biological parents in court.  Here is a recent article on how she is faring now that she has finally been returned to her parents:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/200...

Answer 8

"I'm sorry I was talking about infant adoption when a birth mother changes her mind months or even a year after the child has been placed not foster care."

This doesn't happen.  I'll say it again:  This.  Does.  Not. Happen.  I challenge you here and now to find me one case, just one, where a birth parent suddenly appeared out of nowhere to successfully disrupt a legal and finalized adoption and take the child back.  That's not what happened in the He case, the Baby Richard case, or any other of the highly publicized cases we hear about.  These contested cases are all cases in which there was no legal adoption and the PAPs decided that if they held onto the kid long enough, they would become "the only home the child had ever known" and would get to keep a child they had no legal right to.  

I'm from Memphis too, and I find the Bakers' actions deplorable.  They never had a legal right to Anna Mae, and we may never know how much damage their actions--and theirs alone--did to her.  She was not repeat not an adoptee.  

I am not being snotty here.  I am being outraged and appalled.

ETA:  I repeat:  Find me one case where a legally finalized adoption has been disrupted in this fashion.  If it's so easy, you should be able to produce the links pretty quick.

Answer 9

contary to popular belief...social workers only remove children from their parents as a last resort.  I agree that it is very harmful emotionally for a child. And returning them is sometimes even worse.  Strangely enough, even if the child is very abused by parent, the child usually still wants to stay with parent if they had a choice.  But as children they don't understand.   There is no easy answer.      I am a foster mom of 2 and took a few classes on this very subject.