Social changes making adoption process tougher across Pennsylvania (cost, baby, birth)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What on earth are you talking about? The AFSA, which you cited multiple times, isn't a standard for just one person. It's not just for me. Furthermore, I provided links for you so that you could better understand the AFSA.
Clearly, you are not taking the time to read any of the auditors reports referencing the various states violations of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Additionally, equal access and protection under the law does not seem to register with you. Likewise, lawsuits to protect your rights and the rights of others does not seem to be on your list of priorities either.
I am glad that we can agree that children in foster care need permanency. I don't recall anywhere saying that children are immediately available for adoption. Again, the Adoption and Safe family Act clearly specify those time periods and you clearly disagree with them.
Here again, we disagree on Infant adoption. There are a few cases of Infant Adoption via Foster Care and private adoption agency. I am glad that these infants have escaped the foster care system. But that does not prove that their is a fair and just system in place that allows anyone and everyone that can pass a home-study to adopt these infants. I'm not going to rehash the audit results or our past posts. Many couples have attempted and failed to adopt these infants. The reasons for these failures relate to problems with the system not the couples. I would also agree with Busman that some problems are related to "supply and demand." But there are also many unethical and unjust problem in both the foster care system and the private adoption system.
Reforms are going to be hated by both sides. The number of childless couples are going to continue to grow. Their quest to be a family is not going to stop. The pressure on society to find a way for these couples to have children is not going away. You can hate what I'm saying, but that will not stop the message.
I never seen "same sex parents" during any of my committee meetings. Exactly where did you find me saying something like that?
I have seen numerous single parents (both single mothers and fathers) before the Citizen review Board. And many of these single parents have had their children in and out of foster care all of their children lives. I've even seen some single parents with their youngest in foster care and their oldest children aged out of foster care having children being placed into foster care.
I still believe that a family is a mother, a father and a child. I also don't think it fair to children in foster care to live their lives in foster care. I think these parents should get a year to get their lives in order to show that they can parent these children or these children should find permanency elsewhere. You're welcome to disagree with me, but I've seen too many tragedies that would have been easily prevented if the child in question have a family that considered of a mother and a father.
Speaking as a single parent to two fabulous kids who are intelligent, kind, loving, and have never had a single run in with any kind of trouble, I am VERY glad that YOU don't get to decide who gets to be considered a family. Furthermore, as an adult adoptee and a future foster parent, I am also VERY glad that YOU don't get to decide who is a good candidate to be an adoptive or foster parent, because your bias cripples your ability to see clearly.
Reforms are going to be hated by both sides. The number of childless couples are going to continue to grow. Their quest to be a family is not going to stop. The pressure on society to find a way for these couples to have children is not going away. You can hate what I'm saying, but that will not stop the message.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post because it's just more nonsense and several of us have already told you exactly why you are wrong. I'm sure we'll be doing it again with your next thread.
Here's the thing, improving the foster care system should not ever be dependent upon the desires of childless people. Some improvements may benefit prospective adoptive parents (all prospective adoptive parents, not just the childless infertile couples), like updating the ICPC. But those changes should always be made because it's in the best interests of children. The foster care system is not there to supply childless couples with children.
It would have been better if, instead of saying this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyeBright
The rule of law will protect the religious liberties of eligible groups. So private christian agencies are protected and can thus operate unethically and immorally. They can prevent LGBT families from using their private agency, they can prevent single parents from using their service, they can prevent fertile women from using their service. Take it up with the constitution. Or more immediately, you can take it up with these private agencies. I think it would be excellent if they were boycott enough so as to make it impossible for them to operate. You should not be supporting any agency that prevents adoption on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, reproductive ability, marital status, religion, etc.
You had just gone straight to saying this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyeBright
I don't need to file a lawsuit. I simply don't utilize unethical private adoption agencies. Furthermore, I support the constitution and despite my strong negative feelings for these types of agencies and even my status as an atheist, I believe religious liberties should be protected. But I also am for people exercising their right to speech and boycott where necessary. You are the one who claimed that fertile women couldn't adopt, you are the one who claimed that childless couples couldn't adopt. You are also the one who was linking to a private agency. You are the one who should be doing the boycotting.
The second quote simply expresses your disagreement with private Christian adoption agencies, and says that while you don't agree with their views, you understand that they are protected by the Constitution -- a perfectly fair, reasonable position to hold. But your first quote, I found it to be insulting and offensive against Christian believers who seek to be guided by their faith while working to promote adoption. What you would call "unethical" and "immoral" is nothing more than these groups living out their faith in their chosen field, and it's not very nice to use such insulting terms against them.
Last edited by bus man; 12-04-2015 at 07:30 AM..
Reason: clarify which poster I was quoting
I still believe that a family is a mother, a father and a child. I also don't think it fair to children in foster care to live their lives in foster care. I think these parents should get a year to get their lives in order to show that they can parent these children or these children should find permanency elsewhere. You're welcome to disagree with me, but I've seen too many tragedies that would have been easily prevented if the child in question have a family that considered of a mother and a father.
The research that I have seen indicates that children being raised in two-parent, opposite-sex households do better, overall, than those who are raised by single parents or same-sex parents.
My purpose in saying this is not to start a flame war; it's not to deny that some single parents do a better job of parenting than some two-parent families do; it's not to say that same-sex parents aren't capable of being good parents; it's not to insult or offend anyone who disagrees; and it's not to denigrate anyone here who is in a different circumstance and yet is still being a good parent. And I do believe in the concept of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and as a general rule, I would think that a child would do better with a single parent than with no parent at all (i.e. a foster situation).
My purpose in saying this is simply that, given the generality that parenting by a married opposite-sex couple is overall "better" than the alternatives, I see nothing at all wrong or improper about showing a favoritism towards such couples when deciding with whom to place children for adoption.
It would have been better if, instead of saying this:
You had just gone straight to saying this:
The second quote simply expresses your disagreement with private Christian adoption agencies, and says that while you don't agree with their views, you understand that they are protected by the Constitution -- a perfectly fair, reasonable position to hold. But your first quote, I found it to be insulting and offensive against Christian believers who seek to be guided by their faith while working to promote adoption. What you would call "unethical" and "immoral" is nothing more than these groups living out their faith in their chosen field, and it's not very nice to use such insulting terms against them.
When it comes to the well-being of children, especially those who have experienced loss and trauma, I'm not in the business of being nice about unethical or immoral practices. International adoption agencies have been particularly plagued with unethical and immoral practices hiding behind a religious banner in order to subvert the laws others are subjected to. There are plenty of religiously affiliated adoption agencies that do not practice unethically or immorally and do not engage in gross discrimination.
The OP is spreading false information and seems to be angered because a single agency she was working with prevented a whole bunch of people from adopting and she's blaming the counties instead of the true culprits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
The research that I have seen indicates that children being raised in two-parent, opposite-sex households do better, overall, than those who are raised by single parents or same-sex parents.
The OP is spreading false information and seems to be angered because a single agency she was working with prevented a whole bunch of people from adopting and she's blaming the counties instead of the true culprits.
I would disagree. It appears you don't care what federal audits say. You don't care what studies say. And you don't feel that you have to follow federal law. You only follow your personal agenda.
I cannot support that and I will fight that. I have friends in Georgia and I know they are not big fans of DFCS. Especially directors that:
The research that I have seen indicates that children being raised in two-parent, opposite-sex households do better, overall, than those who are raised by single parents or same-sex parents.
My purpose in saying this is not to start a flame war; it's not to deny that some single parents do a better job of parenting than some two-parent families do; it's not to say that same-sex parents aren't capable of being good parents; it's not to insult or offend anyone who disagrees; and it's not to denigrate anyone here who is in a different circumstance and yet is still being a good parent. And I do believe in the concept of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and as a general rule, I would think that a child would do better with a single parent than with no parent at all (i.e. a foster situation).
My purpose in saying this is simply that, given the generality that parenting by a married opposite-sex couple is overall "better" than the alternatives, I see nothing at all wrong or improper about showing a favoritism towards such couples when deciding with whom to place children for adoption.
I just wish that I could rep you again.
So many times, it seems to me, people will become very angry when someone expresses a viewpoint different from the one they hold. Just because someone thinks that Opinion A is better than Opinion B, much too often the person with Opinion B is too quick to take personal offense and leap to often wrong conclusions about what the "Opinion A person" thinks in addition to what s/he actually said or wrote.
In short, I just think that if everyone could just stick to what was actually stated and not try to "read between the lines" or try to pin motives and/or additional opinions onto what someone actually said, I think it would lead to more meaningful discussions -- which, in this thread, is simply whether or not the changes in society (meaning a more tolerant society) are making it tougher for some people to adopt and especially as this pertains to babies. And, yes, I do agree that that is true because I don't think that there is any question that more babieswere available for adoption 60 years ago.
As to your opinion, bus man, that married heterosexual couples make the best adoptive parents, all other things being equal, I do agree with that. However, as you and others have pointed out, I am sure that there are probably thousands and thousands of single people, heterosexual or not, who would make MUCH better parents than many married heterosexual couples. I think the fact that there are thousands of children who had previously been living with their married heterosexual parents before being removed from them and placed in foster care proves that.
Again, though, I cannot say it enough that, in my opinion, the best parents for a child are a caring, loving, financially stable married couple who are also the child's biological parents. If people would choose not to procreate until they were able and willing to properly care for and love a child, the foster care system would not be such a mess, and thousands of children would not now be suffering as a result. Also, people who "pooh-pooh" the emotional and perhaps biological bond of older adopted children to their birthparents are, imo, simply delusional. As has been stated in innumerable blogs of children who were even adopted as newborns, the loss they have experienced is real, although it is also true that many of these children say they do not feel that loss at all. (I don't know why some children are more at ease with the fact that they were adopted than others do. It would be very interesting, I think, for someone to do an in-depth study about that to help both adopted children and their adoptive parents.)
P.S. The reason I think that a two-parent (or at least a two-adult) household is better is ONLY because of my personal experience with my adopted children and from what I observe of single moms. I honestly don't know how I could have survived my children's childhood if it were not for my husband being there to give me a break now and then, even if it was only for an hour to do the grocery shopping in peace. Children, -- and not just adopted children either! -- can be very "challenging", and just having another adult living with you who knows what you are going through, to whom you can vent without being judged -- well, words cannot describe how truly invaluable and priceless that is.
Last edited by katharsis; 12-04-2015 at 09:41 AM..
As to your opinion, bus man, that married heterosexual couple make the best adoptive parents, all other things being equal, I do agree with that. However, as you and others have pointed out, I am sure that there are probably thousands and thousands of single people, heterosexual or not, who would make MUCH better parents than many married heterosexual couples. I think the fact that there are thousands of children who are now in foster care even though their parents were a married heterosexual couple proves that.
I can't rep you again either, but thank you. I'm glad that you said all other things being equal, because I think that's a key component about any discussion about which kind of parenting is "better" than which other kind. If you hold constant every other variable, then I would say that a married heterosexual couple is the best situation in which to raise a child. But I think each and every one of us would agree that all other things are NOT always equal. SOME married heterosexual couples are horrible parents. SOME single mothers or unmarried gay couples are fantastic parents. Exceptions (even a large number of exceptions) to a generalized truism do not necessarily negate that truism.
In the same vein, I would assume that some foster care systems are better than some other ones, and some adoption agencies are better than some other ones. I don't think that someone's bad experience with one system or one agency negates someone else's good experience with another system or agency, or vice versa.
When it comes to the well-being of children, especially those who have experienced loss and trauma, I'm not in the business of being nice about unethical or immoral practices.
You and I apparently hold a difference of opinion when it comes to what constitutes "immoral." But as I said, I don't want to engage in a flame war, so I'll leave it at that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
