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.
[quote=UserName14289;42241804]I don't know you from Sam, but I am going to be very frank and say that you have zero idea what you are talking about. I hadn't intended to waste any more energy on this thread since it's so absurdly wrong on so many levels that I'd be here all day correcting them, and no one has time for that, especially a mom.
So did you read the white paper or not? It's kind of hard to understand what you are saying. 1. It appears you did not adopt a child because you got pregnant. Congratulations! So are you agreeing with me on that point or not? 2. I don't understand your position on inter-state adoption. Are you saying you disagree with the issue raised in the white paper or not? 3. Do you have solutions to the issues raised in the white paper? 4. Does your friend who works for a local adoption agency have solutions for the issues raised in the white paper? 5. Does your friend that raised eight (8) adoptive children have solutions for the issues raised in the white paper or the issues presented by PA newspaper?
]
So did you read the white paper or not? It's kind of hard to understand what you are saying. 1. It appears you did not adopt a child because you got pregnant. Congratulations! So are you agreeing with me on that point or not? 2. I don't understand your position on inter-state adoption. Are you saying you disagree with the issue raised in the white paper or not? 3. Do you have solutions to the issues raised in the white paper? 4. Does your friend who works for a local adoption agency have solutions for the issues raised in the white paper? 5. Does your friend that raised eight (8) adoptive children have solutions for the issues raised in the white paper or the issues presented by PA newspaper?
Sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought your purpose in presenting the link to the white paper was to prove your point that as a childless but fertile woman, you were denied the right to adopt -- which as far as I and many other people have said, is simply not true, or at least to the best of our knowledge. You had written:
"Originally Posted by xy340
We tried to adopt. We were told that we were not eligible due to me being able to have children."
. . . and then when UserName responded to and questioned the above statement, even bolding it to be sure that you would understand to what she was referring, your replied with the link to the white paper, which he read and said that found nothing regarding childless, fertile couples not being permitted to adopt.
Again, no one, I think, disagrees with your position that the foster/adopt system is SERIOUSLY flawed. It is just that some of us are disputing your claim that at least some people, including you are your husband are being denied the right to adopt [only] because you are childless and fertile (either because of one or both conditions).
P.S. And, yes, I also read (actually I scanned it, but it was a good scan) the white paper you linked, also, and I thought it made some very good points -- but I did not see anything in it about chilldless, fertile couples being denied the right to adopt.
Last edited by katharsis; 12-11-2015 at 06:30 AM..
Sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought your purpose in presenting the link to the white paper was to prove your point that as a childless but fertile woman, you were denied the right to adopt -- which as far as I and many other people have said, is simply not true, or at least to the best of our knowledge. You had written:
"Originally Posted by xy340
We tried to adopt. We were told that we were not eligible due to me being able to have children."
. . . and then when UserName responded to and questioned the above statement, even bolding it to be sure that you would understand to what she was referring, your replied with the link to the white paper, which he read and said that found nothing regarding childless, fertile couples not being permitted to adopt.
Again, no one, I think, disagrees with your position that the foster/adopt system is SERIOUSLY flawed. It is just that some of us are disputing your claim that at least some people, including you are your husband are being denied the right to adopt [only] because you are childless and fertile (either because of one or both conditions).
P.S. And, yes, I also read (actually I scanned it, but it was a good scan) the white paper you linked, also, and I thought it made some very good points -- but I did not see anything in it about chilldless, fertile couples being denied the right to adopt.
This white paper talks about a number of system barriers related to foster care. IMHO, it generalizes the issues. It does this in the hope that that no ones will criticize these obvious serious problems in the foster care system. It's a good paper when talking to people who basically state that there are no problems at all with foster care. We seem to get a steady stream of these posters on this forum. :-)
I kind of agree with what Dawn is trying to say, but that really isn't the case in foster care. If we refer back to the white paper, it documents 28,000+ children aging out every year in foster care. Quicker permanency hearings would really help here and silence critics like me. And yes, I think adoption would be the majority of the permanency goals. I also think infants should be placed into adoptive homes between their 12 and 14 months of life, versus 96 months as it stands right now on average. I think we give too many chances to drug addicts to turn their lives around and it really hurts their children.
P.S. We have several biological children. We have several friends that are childless.
Last edited by xy340; 12-11-2015 at 06:45 PM..
Reason: I cannot type
This white paper talks about a number of system barriers related to foster care. IMHO, it generalizes the issues. It does this in the hope that that no ones will criticize these obvious serious problems in the foster care system. It's a good paper when talking to people who basically state that there are no problems at all with foster care. We seem to get a steady stream of these posters on this forum. :-)
I kind of agree with what Dawn is trying to say, but that really isn't the case in foster care. If we refer back to the white paper, it documents 28,000+ children aging out every year in foster care. Quicker permanency hearings would really help here and silence critics like me. And yes, I think adoption would be the majority of the permanency goals. I also think infants should be placed into adoptive homes between their 12 and 14 months of life, versus 96 months as it stands right now on average. I think we give too many chances to drug addicts to turn their lives around and it really hurts their children.
P.S. We have several biological children. We have several friends that are childless.
Okay, so you DO have biological children. Sorry for my mistake in thinking that YOU were childless.
Anyway, the above articles you linked do not say that there are any actual policies in effect that actually prohibit childless but fertile couples from adopting, right?
Okay, so you DO have biological children. Sorry for my mistake in thinking that YOU were childless.
Anyway, the above articles you linked do not say that there are any actual policies in effect that actually prohibit childless but fertile couples from adopting, right?
I've seen both articles used by social workers as justification to prevent childless couples and couples with children from adopting.
Single parents are no longer stigmatized, which may or may not be a great thing, depending on your personal opinion. Extended families are more willing to take on the role of support team for younger or less prepared prospective parents, which is a good thing. I also think there are a few cultural or societal issues that the article dances around but does not address.
Government has stepped in and offers more financial support in the form of social welfare, making it possible for the ill-prepared or less capable to keep the children that previously would have been placed for adoption. Society as a whole is now paying for the subsidies that make it possible for children to be left in the birth parents care.
Culturally, America has lowered the standards for parenting to a point where feeding and providing a roof are accepted as the minimums, and (subsidized) day care and educational systems are expected to take up the slack where parents used to have a greater role in training, teaching, and developing their children. Birth to three, early childhood, pre-kindergarten, and other systems are now expected to take on a greater role in the development of the children where in generations gone it was more dependent on the parent(s).
While many may want to debate the pro's or con's of these changes in society, they have had a direct impact on the number of children available for domestic adoption. In the meantime, the warm and fuzzy image of American home life is no longer what international leaders see as a likely outcome in USA when they consider making children available for adoption from other countries. With the demise of the traditional family unit here, many countries no longer see children adopted into the US as the same fantastic outcome it once was viewed as.
The notion that adoptive parents are not being subsidized in anyway is just not true. Subsidies for adopted kids (and as pointed out in the article above more and more kids qualify for these subsidies all the time) include tax credits, medical insurance, our right cash benefits and these can be had at both the state and federal level.
Meanwhile the average teen mom cannot get cash benefits and will only get Medicaid.
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.
You have zero business stating your opinion as fact. You do not get to define what is or is not a family for anyone else and the fact that you think you do is at a minimum scary.
My father died when my sister was a toddler, we were and are still a family. One of my own child's best friends lost both parents during 9-11 and was raised by her grandmother and aunt. They were also a family. Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
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.
If you really want to go here we can include the studies showing the negative outcomes for adopted children. Would you like to see them? Because when you control for socioeconomic status, nontraditional but still biological families have better quantifiable outcomes for many measures than adoption.
So if your opinion is correct, then why are their so many single parent families in foster care? I'm sure there are exemptions to every rule, but there are large numbers of single parent families that have great difficulties.
Because there is a strong correlation that is likely causative between socioeconomic status and likelihood of a child being placed in foster care. There is also a strong correlation between single parent status and socioeconomic status. But that is easily disproven as the causative against by controlling for socioeconomic status, when that is done single parents are no more likely to have issues with foster care than married parents.
You have zero business stating your opinion as fact. You do not get to define what is or is not a family for anyone else and the fact that you think you do is at a minimum scary.
My father died when my sister was a toddler, we were and are still a family. One of my own child's best friends lost both parents during 9-11 and was raised by her grandmother and aunt. They were also a family. Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
Amen. My own family is non-traditional as well, due to an ill, and often hospitalized, mother when I was a child. That doesn't make my family, and the people that stepped in to help fill her shoes (my grandmother and aunt, too), any less of a family. In fact, if you ask me, it's a large reason why we're so tight compared to so many other families I know.
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.
