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.
"No matter where they go, unless they're super lucky, they're going to be in for a long wait," Johnson said. "They're going to be in a slow, painful process for foster care or in this massive competition for the limited number of healthy infants — and that's where the situation is ripe for fraud. There are so many families who want to adopt, and so few options for them."
Ms Siegel makes an excellent point, because children come first.
Deborah Siegel, a professor of social work at Rhode Island College, says the lower numbers aren't necessarily a cause for regret.
"If we can avoid adoption by keeping children embraced in stable, safe families, everybody's better off," she said. "But that's hard for the people waiting to adopt."
Towards that effort, folks who want to experience parenting and helping children can mentor these families and foster their children.
Ms Siegel makes an excellent point, because children come first.
Deborah Siegel, a professor of social work at Rhode Island College, says the lower numbers aren't necessarily a cause for regret.
"If we can avoid adoption by keeping children embraced in stable, safe families, everybody's better off," she said. "But that's hard for the people waiting to adopt."
Towards that effort, folks who want to experience parenting and helping children can mentor these families and foster their children.
Good luck with that.
Perhaps you can preach to the infertile couples some more, I'm sure that will have them lining up.
I mean it cannot mean reforming foster care to prioritize getting those children out of the foster care system faster so then can be adopted by age 5.
If the child's parent is incarcerated, recovering from an addiction, homelessness, it may take some time until the family is stable and can prove the welfare of the child is best with them. With the right resources, the child can have their temporary home, trustworthy adults, predictable meals, etc, and then be reunited. The reform would be about the right resources and making sure the child is nurtured always, because adoption is a permanent solution to temporary problem (except abuse and child endangerment activities, obviously).
If the child's parent is incarcerated, recovering from an addiction, homelessness, it may take some time until the family is stable and can prove the welfare of the child is best with them. With the right resources, the child can have their temporary home, trustworthy adults, predictable meals, etc, and then be reunited. The reform would be about the right resources and making sure the child is nurtured always, because adoption is a permanent solution to temporary problem (except abuse and child endangerment activities, obviously).
Let me quote this article again:
Quote:
"Mrs. Bevin also saw first hand what they consider an over-complicated adoption process. She was a nurse and watched adoption after adoption fall through after the Department for Community Based Services were called. "The story that sticks with me the most is we had a mom who was a nurse, the dad was a doctor, and the biological mom was a drug addict. It (the adoption) was all done. DCBS stepped in, took the child and ended up putting it back with the mother. By the time I ended up in the emergency room, I was treating that child for abuse, sexual, physical, emotional. It was horrible."
The Bevins hosted a foster care forum last month, asking state leaders to re-think the foster care system. They want those in charge to stop trying so hard to get kids back with birth parents when birth parents aren't measuring up. "We need to come up with a smarter, better way to use common sense and do what is best for the child, period," Governor Bevin said.
"Their tale is sadly familiar. High turnover among unhappy foster parents is putting more stress on an already strained system and hindering the state’s ability to care for its most vulnerable children. Too often, the state’s program drives away its own foster parents."
I don't think a majority of couples are interested in becoming temporary parents to these children. I also don't think these children have the time for their biological parents to get their act together to be able to parent them. I believe that is the message both articles are trying to convey to the public. Your reform "about the right resources and making sure the child is nurtured always, because adoption is a permanent solution to temporary problem (except abuse and child endangerment activities, obviously) is NOT working! The system is breaking down. The children are continuing to experience abuse and foster parents are fleeing the system. Perhaps another approach should be looked at.
There are many success stories and the nature of media is not to report those. Google searching mines media, hence articles will be negative, just about every time one thinks they're trying to research a topic.
Yes, reform is necessary. That reform is not rigging the system because one thinks they're entitled, which appears to be your agenda. It is only about the child's welfare.
There are many success stories and the nature of media is not to report those. Google searching mines media, hence articles will be negative, just about every time one thinks they're trying to research a topic.
Yes, reform is necessary. That reform is not rigging the system because one thinks they're entitled, which appears to be your agenda. It is only about the child's welfare.
I would have to disagree. Society cannot favor one group over another and dismiss one group by calling them names. Clearly there are some couples that make great parents and others that are not cut out to be parents. Dismissing childless couples by calling them "entitled" is pointless considering how many children are injured or killed in foster care or how many children age out of foster care due to unreasonable and over-complicated adoption process.
Reunification at any costs, which appears to by your agenda, is not in the best interests of the child.
If the child's parent is incarcerated, recovering from an addiction, homelessness, it may take some time until the family is stable and can prove the welfare of the child is best with them. With the right resources, the child can have their temporary home, trustworthy adults, predictable meals, etc, and then be reunited. The reform would be about the right resources and making sure the child is nurtured always, because adoption is a permanent solution to temporary problem (except abuse and child endangerment activities, obviously).
While I agree with this much of the time, the challenge is finding the right balance between the needs of the child and the moral, legal, and inherent biological rights of the birth parents. The process is long and arduous, both for the family in turmoil, the social and legal system workers, and for the foster providers. There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to issues that include mental health, intellectual capability, dependencies, financial hardships, or any of the other causes that lead a family to fail.
Your debate partner here will challenge that the system is beyond repair and that the concept of long-term foster care is outdated and does not offer any real success. I propose that it can be successful, and is successful in many cases. We fostered dozens of children, and most were returned successfully to their families with the right resources in place to handle the underlying problems. We adopted two, and had a couple returned to what we felt were less than desirable situations. The judge/court holds that authority and when the mandate is given, you must comply.
The reality is, it is difficult. There are no absolutes and the judgment of care providers, social workers, and legal entities all play a role in the process and the outcomes. In the meantime, foster parents are needed across the country, as are social workers and care providers who will advocate for the children - sometimes at odds with the legal system or the process in place. For those who have the ability, we need to encourage each other to work to make the system better, and do what we can to assist the children in need.
I feel for childless couples who want to adopt a healthy infant. I truly do. However, as long as the government encourages young and/or unfit single mothers to keep their children and supports them financially, nothing will change. I personally know of three such mothers -- all of them white, btw -- who have had a combined total of eleven children and who continue to live off of mostly off job-holding citizens with no sign of improving their situation. This situation benefits NO ONE -- not the mothers, not their children, and certainly not anyone else (unless it is people like social workers and DHS bureaucrats who would not have jobs if everyone were healthy, responsible, and self-supporting.)
However, in the case of older children (meaning any child who is not actually an infant) who have already bonded with their birth parents, I do think it is best that they stay with their birth parents if they are probably not in any danger. The emotional trauma to them is just too great. (As the adoptive parent of two children who came into our home at the ages of three and five, I speak from experience.)
In short, I think that birth control should be more heavily promoted and used, but if that fails and a parent is not able or willing to provide for the child without taxpayer assistance, then adoption should be pursued in MOST of these cases.
I feel for childless couples who want to adopt a healthy infant. I truly do. However, as long as the government encourages young and/or unfit single mothers to keep their children and supports them financially, nothing will change. I personally know of three such mothers -- all of them white, btw -- who have had a combined total of eleven children and who continue to live off of mostly off job-holding citizens with no sign of improving their situation. This situation benefits NO ONE -- not the mothers, not their children, and certainly not anyone else (unless it is people like social workers and DHS bureaucrats who would not have jobs if everyone were healthy, responsible, and self-supporting.)
However, in the case of older children (meaning any child who is not actually an infant) who have already bonded with their birth parents, I do think it is best that they stay with their birth parents if they are probably not in any danger. The emotional trauma to them is just too great. (As the adoptive parent of two children who came into our home at the ages of three and five, I speak from experience.)
In short, I think that birth control should be more heavily promoted and used, but if that fails and a parent is not able or willing to provide for the child without taxpayer assistance, then adoption should be pursued in MOST of these cases.
So, take away kids because the parents are poor? You really think that's a legitimate reason to remove a child from their biological parents?
Would you like to re-institute workhouses as well?
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.
