Too many kids in foster care . . .wouldn't that mean --?

Question

ok, i'm not trying to start an argument here but i need some honest and insightful views --

don't all the kids in foster care create an argument that adoption at birth is better? if these kids were adopted at birth, they would not be going through the trauma of foster care or the circumstances that led to it. wouldn't that have been better? it is my understanding that these kids are taken away for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

1) mental illness on the part of the parent

2) neglect

3) abuse

Wouldn't an adoption plan have been better for these kids so that they never ended up in foster care but rather went straight to an adoptive home?

AGAIN, i am not trying to be confrontational but what is the solution?

Answer 1

We adopted siblings from foster care. She was five and he was one year old. Before our daughter was born there was an older sibling who was placed at birth. Since we adopted our children there have been two more and another on the way. Our little girl is the only one of all nearly 6 siblings to be parented by their birth mother.

She is also the only one who "Remembers" so many things... Both the wonderful memories of the attachment (healthy or not) that she had with her mother, and the trauma, fear and confusion of living four years mostly in a shopping cart on the streets with a mother who was not able to take care of herself, let alone a child.

Today she is 10 years old. And my heart breaks everyday for the things she has lived. There is nothing that is fair or right about the start she had, and it does and will always affect her deeply.

A few months ago she was sharing stories with her little brother... She was there at the hospital when he was born, they were children who had a mother...  

Little brother, is six now and he is asking the questions, but also has his sisters stories... He asked what his mother looked like...so we decided to get the pictures out. Dad and son looked at the pictures, read the life book and talked...together.

When brother came out of his room big sister wanted to hear what he thought---and he told her that he thought she was fat and didn't have golden hair...

This comment--made mostly because until then his concept of a mother was ME and now he was seeing someone who looked very different.... This comment was devastating to his sister....

They do NOW jump in at birth when there has been a history of other children being adopted. The younger siblings of our children are now considered "relatives" and therefore when siblings are born the state is supposed to contact us and ask if we would like to consider adopting any siblings...

Due to the issues and needs of our little girl we have not been able to adopt any of the additional siblings. The first one that came along we could have taken home from the hospital with the standard Foster Care plan... with a good chance for adoption due to history....

We were unable to do this but, we were asked what our feelings about placement were and we asked that the baby be placed into a Straight adoption home, and that we wanted contact with the adoptive family if possible. The same family has two siblings now--and I am not sure about the one on the way.

I am not sure that I would agree that all children entering Foster Care should have an instant adoption plan. There are far too many ways that could lead to huge problems. It is still a fact that the majority of children who "Enter" foster care are reunited with their parent or relative (some of the adoption numbers include relatives of the child).

Not all children who enter foster care are newborns either.

If we are asking wouldn't it be better to decide at the hospital when a child is born if the parents are going to be able to do it or not?

So--who decides which newborn baby will END Up in foster care sometime before they are 18?

Is it that anyone with mental illness, or a bad resume may have their child taken at the hospital...? Or someone who is fat, or has a job we don't like...has their child taken?

Did anyone think Britney would risk her children as we have seen happen? Who would have decided that Britney was going to become an unfit mother?

What about the other parent? Even in the system with the repeat siblings there CAN BE a huge glitch in the INSTANT process--like a different biological father and all of his family members who may be willing, able and happy to take their sons child in as part of their own family...

So do we have some kind of Litmus Test for Parenting that anyone is willing to stand up and say is the right thing to do....or is this Germany 1940?

Answer 2

Your talking about a small population of the kids in fostercare that came in as infants or pre-toddler age. The main problem is how the kids end up in fostercare in the first place, that is where the problem lies. Most of the biological parents had the full intention of raising their children, so counseling on adoption would have been null. At some point some thing goes wrong drugs, abuse, mental illness, false accusations, or death that places the child into the fostercare system. Many times there is a viable family member who may be able to take in the child but due to financial reasons they are unable to. That is another problem that nees to be look at. The older children are less likely to be adopted because many of them are seen as damaged goods. I saw several kids actually in mid-adoption process who were passed by the adoptee parents due to behavioral or biological disorder. There are also babies available for adoption but many families look to infertility treatment options before adoption, or will not consider a child of unknown background due to potential problems. RAD is becoming the new worry for adoptee families among the fostercare community. Unfortunately it has resulted in some children being abandoned by their new families and returned to fostercare, its done in a legal way. Its a multi level problem, that will take generations to fix, a change in society, and financial aid.

Answer 3

Your question is good. I'm a former social worker. New Mexico has, at any given time, about 2000 children in foster care. The timelines for return home have been shrunk to about 12 months. Some parents can achieve a great deal in that amount of time and get custody returned to them; some can't.

For those who can't, adoption is only one of the choices. There's also kinship care, where the child is cared for by a close relative on a permanent basis. There's long-term guardianship, and the parents can return to court to have that revoked when they can prove they've made improvements in their life that will improve safety for their children. Some just won't make the needed changes, and for these families, adoption, kinship care, long-term guardianship are the only answer.

Here in NM, each child is given a concurrent plan, meaning two plans: one return home, the other adoption. Whatever happens at the end of the timeline, plans have been made on both tracks so that, whatever the decision is, it won't take too long to finalize and achieve.

Answer 4

There isn't a foster family out there who would not agree with you. I think anyone who could come up with that million dollar formula it would save us all a lot of money in the social services department.

A child IS ultimately better if they remain with their birth family as apposed to adoption, that is a fact. However, when a birth family decides they cannot or chose not to raise the child adoption is the best route to go. These are not the children we worry most about. It's the families who are under stress (financially and emotionally) that tend to snap and break years later. It's the parents who find out parenting is not as easy (or always fun) as it looks and the child did not come with a users guide. These are the ones who need to step up and seek help but they don't. They keep it all bottled up inside themselves until they snap and shake the daylights out of their whinning two year old. Then they start hitting a little too hard. Then they start beating them. These are the ones who are at risk. These are the birth (or adoptive) parents who start off with good intentions but somewhere along the way the become disenchanted and resentful. These are the children who are the highest risk.

There is no way to predict who will be a good parent and who will be an abusive parent. There is no way we can create enough social welfare programs to "fix" the problem. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying kill all of the social service programs. If used as they were originally intended, they would offer temporary help for people who genuinely need it. However, if you look at the majority of families on social services programs they are on them not just for a few months or even years but for generations on end. They don't learn the necessary skills required to be productive members of society. They know the ins and outs of the social welfare system better than most of us know our jobs. There are a few high achievers who break the cycle but not enough. I have to say I think if most people were to have to file for government aid we wouldn't know where to go or where to start. There are families who teach getting the most from social services rather than teaching their kids how to write a budget and balance a check book or apply for a job. There are people who need social services and assistance. However, it should not be something that goes on indefinately. This is part of the reason why these parents do not complete their case plans. They don't believe the system will cut them off so they don't do what is necessary.

Answer 5

But how would this work?  Most of the time the parents of these children who end up in foster care due the these issues were never even considering adoption.  Do you just call CPS and say, "Hey, I think the girl down the street will be a c**p mother, go make her relinquish?"

ETA:

The sad part is that CPS placed these children who ended up dead in care.  These people/family members/shelters had been approved by the state.  Home studies are done on family member placements as well.  When I was a state social worker, a child in another county was removed for neglect from her parents' home and placed in foster care.  The foster mother killed her by giving her alcohol in the hopes of quieting her during a temper tantrum.  The state approves these people!  How do abusers get studied and approved to care for children?  It's a frustrating and frightening scenario.

However, the parents of these never even considered adoption, so they could not have been encouraged or discouraged from an adoption plan.  How do you protect children before you even know they will be abused?  I wish there was a clear cut answer to this.  By all means it would be better if children didn't have to go through h**l.  

Perhaps schools should be teaching parenting skills.  When I was in high school, we did receive some education about this, although it certainly could have been more extensive.  It's just a thought that I'm throwing out there.  Of course, this won't end all of it, but perhaps it could end a number of these situations.

Answer 6

well i guess it depends on the parent and the parent has the right to refuse to sign the papers and have her birth baby and i think it isn't right if they just have her sign the papers without her reading the papers cause i think that the mother has every right to have that second thought and say never mind when she has the baby on her arms and you guys can't force her to sign it either and say it is something else and i think you guys should give the mother time and have her understand it and not just gather around her and tell her where to sign cause she might think it is because of the birth certificate so i think it would be up too the mother birth mother that is

Answer 7

In England they're taking babies away from parents at birth and putting them up for adoption just to boost the rates of infant adoption. Records are sealed and parents can't even tell their parents or friends why the kids were taken. Chilling stories are leaking out of families having kids snatched in the hospital for the most bogus of reasons and very few of them ever get their kids back. Maybe some of them would have ended up being abusive but I think that they should have had the chance to try being parents. If they had psychological help ever, even as kids, or are having financial problems or anything it's very likely that social workers will show up at the hospital and take the kid. If they're charged with any crime the kids are taken and even after being found innocent they're rarely given back. I don't think that this is a model we want to follow!

Answer 8

There are truly bad parents out there, but like Laurie said, how do you know that?  How do you know that my first mother would have abused me and neglected me?  She wasn't mentally ill and she wasn't on drugs.  If she kept me would I have ended up in foster care?  Do you think the thousands of babies that are adopted every year would have ended up in foster care if they weren't?

I don't think that there is a "bad parent gene" that you can test for.  You would be so mad if someone assumed you wouldn't be a good parent.  

Children ending up in foster care has nothing to do with adoption.  (Unless they ended up there because an adoption didn't work out)  Children are in foster care because our society is messed up.  People care more about making money than they do about helping people who need it.  Corporations run this country, not our government.  It's all about making a profit.  Maybe if those parents got support, parenting classes, employment services, health care, affordable day care etc., etc.. they would be able to function better in society.  We should be working on strengthening families, not tearing them apart.  Maybe if we helped each other instead of looking down on people there would be less children in foster care.

Answer 9

My daughter was taken from me...I had a drug problem... She stayed in foster care for 18 months. I got treatment. If this hadn't happened, I would still be doing all of those horrible things. I know that my daughter was put through alot, but a mother's bond is still stronger than anything in the world. She was very young when all of this happened, but the effects are still there and I help her deal with them daily. She had a family that wanted to adopt her but I still believe that her place is with me, her mother. They were really good good people, dont get me wrong, but her place is with me. I must close by saying that I went through 18 months of residential treatment, not just 90 days. It was intense and I needed something like that to change every part of my life. She lived there with me for 6 months to help with any parenting issues that popped up. I have been clean now for 2 1/2 years and on my own for 1 year, still drug-free.  Now if 1 parent out of all of them gets help and does what is necessary for their children, then wasn't it all worth it?

Answer 10

Why yes this is an excellent question - keep in mind - all of the foster children that I have had in my house (not a lot - only three) they were all taken after birth - the youngest was taken at 6 months and don't forget drug abuse as one of your "reasons".

Answer 11

Not to answer for Addie, but do you know how much people get on public assistance?  Do you think that it is enough to raise a family?  

If those parenting and other support programs are so readily available why are mothers giving up their babies?

Why aren't mothers being referred to those programs instead of being told they should give up their baby because it will be too hard to raise it, and the baby will be better off?  

If the aid that is available is good, why wouldn't they use it?

**************************************...

I am not saying that they should live a plush life on public assistance.  It should be a temporary solution for people, the parenting, job coaching etc. programs should be preparing them for work and to take care of themselves.

Do you think that only young mothers relinquish their babies?  Have you not heard the stories of married couples and mother's who have a child already, giving up their children because they don't think that they can take care of it?  And why should young mothers get off the hook?  If they are old enough to have s*x, they should be old enough to deal with the consequences.  Instead they will have to live with the pain of giving up their child for the rest of their lives.  I guess that's better.  Or maybe you think that life is like it is in the movies and a teen will be just like Juno, call her baby "it", make jokes about babies from China coming with a free ipod and be totally okay with giving her baby away and just move on like nothing ever happened.

Answer 12

We've done foster care for a number of years now and in my state (Minnesota) we have what is called adoption option. When a newborn is placed in foster care and there are previous TPR's that infant is placed in the adoption option program so that if the child becomes available we have the right to adopt. That way we are the only family the child knows. We also have adopted a Safe Haven baby. Which are totally different circumstances. Mom left a note telling our daughter that she loved her and that she wants her to have the best life she could have. She loved her enough to let her go unlike a lot of parents dealing with foster care. Most think they haven't done anything wrong. It's not wrong to leave your child home alone for 15 hours with no food and stuck in a crib. It's not wrong for your abusive boyfriend to beat on your child when he's done beating on you.

Our system offers the birth parents all kinds of chances. From rehab to economical assistance. From help with housing to WIC and welfare. The chances some of these parents get are crazy! I had a placement last for almost three years because mom kept getting chance after chance. Finally they split the kids up and one went with a sister and the other went to his father. Not the best for the children who should have stayed together but better than staying in the system. Here they are trying to get kids in a placement where they will stay and be adopted if it needs to happen that way.

Answer 13

Yes! adoption at birth for the children who are neglected and abused would have been better for them. Assuming they really were neglected and abused. ( as you can see from hopesboy, he wanted nothing BUT to stay with his mother, and was removed because she had mental illness. But she was raising him and doing good it appears, although I haven't read the book , so I could be wrong about the good, we'll see )

however, the problem becomes, how do you predict an abuser? we can't remove children on a predcition of abuse, because what if we're wrong? and how do you predict an abuser if they haven't been an abuser already? how do you predict someone will harm their child. And you can't remove children due to a parents mental illness like bi-polar disorder, because I know some great parents who manage their illness and raise incredible children. We can't sterotype abusers and remove their children PRE-abuse kwim? does that make sense?

Unfortunately, some studies I have seen, point to abusers or neglectors or people with mental disorders ( dumpster baby dumping mothers ) aren't in the "stable" state to even know that they're unhealthy enough to not care for their children. These aren't the people to utilize baby safe haven places, or to think of an adoption "plan" before hand, but these are the people we all "wish" would right?

How do you prevent abuse in a person who has never abused? how do you determine that it will happen or work towards preventing it from occouring?

I have dangled this idea in my head for a while, and don't have it completly done, but it would be wonderful if there was a way to require family parenting classes to pregnant women.  Many abusers were abused growing up. They don't know any different. if we as a society could somehow intervene and break the cycle of abuse before they become parents, by healing society and teaching family values and the importance of attachment parenting and how to be a good parent, we may have less children being removed from their homes and placed into foster care.

I guess the only way to "prevent it" would be to intervene ahead of time and work on breaking the cycles and healing the abusers before they become parents.

Answer 14

The pregnant women that 'think' about adoption - are not the one's that a child would be taken from - down the track - for abuse or neglect.

There have been oodles of young women having children throughout history - and they've coped very well. Being young and short of money are not good reasons to relinquish children - from a mental health stand-point for the child. Youth can be grown out of - and there are ways of obtaining more money.

If infant adoption came to a stand-still - then there would be a lot less children in foster care - as those that wanted to adopt would not have a choice.

Answer 15

Good point! Alot of women are discouraged from creating adoption plans especially on this site and that is so sad to me.

Answer 16

Children who are voluntarily relinquished at birth come from a completely different set of circumstances than children who end up in foster care.  

Children relinquished at birth, generally speaking, have mothers who care a great deal about their child's future, and usually want what is best for their offspring.  Unfortunately, these mothers are usually convinced that what is "best" is to plug their child into a home that isn't truly "theirs", when their biological mother, with some help, would probably be able to care for her own child.

Children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care generally come from mothers who have mental illness or addiction issues, and are unable to care for their child.  However, most of these mothers do not KNOW that they are not able to care for a child.  Their minds are not functioning properly, and neglect and abuse seem to these mothers to be the "right" thing to do.  (I know, I came from an abusive home - my mom still tries to convince me that physical and mental abuse are the "right" way to raise a child.  She thinks I'm an idiot for reading all these books and trying to learn how to raise a child without violence.)

If the mothers who are mentally ill and/or have addictions had the ability to understand what parenting means, what children actually need, and if they could understand their own limitations and needs (i.e. what they would need in order to parent their child), then these kids wouldn't end up in foster care, either.

Children voluntarily relinquished at birth don't need foster care.  Generally speaking, what they need is a mother with a little more confidence, and the support of family, friends, and community.  What they need is their mothers, not a substitute.  Kids in foster care have very, very little in common with these babies.

I hope that didn't sound condescending.  It wasn't meant to.  :-)

Answer 17

No Gomer, it doesn't.

It does mean when PAPs whine about how hard it is to adopt they are full of ****.

A! OK!

I

Answer 18

It would be great if we knew who would need it from the start. I think parenting classes should be a requirement in school or at least before a baby arrives. If they did this, I think there would be less problems.

You could also say, what if because a person met X criteria, that means they would not be a fit parent. Does this mean a child should be taken & never have the chance to be with their biological mom & dad? Some people change for the better & yes some don't.

Answer 19

yes if its at bith or they give up the rights to the child

Answer 20

there are many more reasons that kids are taken out of there homes and the reason that reunification with the natural parents is first priorty is because the court system always likes to see grown children back in the homes with their parents depending on the situation every situation is different. there are a lot of situations that it is best for children to be with adoptive parents from day1 just to keep them from all of the heart ache that they will incure in the future in a bad situation.