U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-27-2017, 07:07 AM
 
16,567 posts, read 14,005,185 times
Reputation: 20518

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by xy340 View Post
1. I think a couple should get children that they can parent. Not all couples can parents a biracial child. Trans-racial couples are not accepted everywhere (i.e. the Middle East) Not all couples can handle medically fragile children. I've seen the foster care director require couples to get RN degrees before they will approve them for foster care and then they certify the home as a therapeutic foster home. Then the foster care director get mad when they quit in less than six months. It's just not logical to place children in this way.

2. Our local foster care system has only white babies, toddlers, school age children, and teens. Our county is 97.8 percent white, minorities makeup 2 percent of our population. Age discrimination is illegal per federal law. The foster care system cannot hide behind "birth mother's choice" in regards to placement/age.

3. I think your foster care system is very different from mine. I think mine uses children to fund the local county government. More children means more federal dollars for the local government.
Regarding number 1. You seem to think every parent who wants a child should get one. That is not what adoption and foster care are for. The goal is to provide children with parents, not the reverse. It is a really important distinction. Do you understand it?

And age discrimination is not illegal when it comes to adoption. Should a 100 yr old couple be allowed to adopt an infant when they are unlikely to see it even reach school age? Is that in the child's best interest?

Same with 50 yr old parents, if there are identical set of 30 yr old parents, age should absolutely be used as a "tie breaker".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2017, 07:09 AM
 
258 posts, read 157,939 times
Reputation: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rynldsbr View Post
Your responses are interesting. I think it is interesting that you don't acknowledge the purpose of foster care is not to provide children to families wishing to adopt. The purpose of foster care is to provide a safe and appropriate environment for children while reunification attempts are pursued. Reunification is always the first priority unless it is clearly never going to be an option.


You also continue to state that it should be easier to adopt children. While I agree in theory that adoption shouldn't be more difficult than killing a child through abortion, I also suggest that any time there is an adoption, it means someone has lost their child. Taking away a child should not be easy.


Finally, what advertisements are you referring to in the foster care system? I don't recall seeing any advertisements other than an occasional billboard promoting fostering or recruiting foster parents.
We have a billboard at the entrance to town for years. They refresh it every year or so when the print starts to fade. The local radio station plays the same advertisement every Saturday at 7am for years. Granted it's a low power AM station, but it still been advertising for foster to adopt parents and there has not been a non-relative adoption from foster care in the last ten years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 07:20 AM
 
258 posts, read 157,939 times
Reputation: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Regarding number 1. You seem to think every parent who wants a child should get one. That is not what adoption and foster care are for. The goal is to provide children with parents, not the reverse. It is a really important distinction. Do you understand it?

And age discrimination is not illegal when it comes to adoption. Should a 100 yr old couple be allowed to adopt an infant when they are unlikely to see it even reach school age? Is that in the child's best interest?

Same with 50 yr old parents, if there are identical set of 30 yr old parents, age should absolutely be used as a "tie breaker".
Given the number of children in foster care, I think that if a couple qualifies for adoption (clean record, big enough home, etc) then yes they should have a child placed in their home. I don't support children sitting in the foster system and rotting.

That is illegal under current federal law. Child's best interest is not a factor. Parent's age cannot be considered. If you don't like the law, then petition Congress to change it.

So under "your system" what would be the maximum age a couple could adopt? A small percentage of women still have children in their late 40s. What about women having children via IVF/surrogacy in their 50s? Are you going to round them up and put them in jail? Your system going to have big problems with the 14th amendment; equal access and protection under the law and foster care is paid for by tax dollars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
1,539 posts, read 1,709,878 times
Reputation: 2437
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
One of my former students (active duty navy) and his military contractor wife just posted on Facebook that they adopted a beautiful baby girl. Of course she was only half white. Bummer.

Just for clarity, your posts seem to think that people are entitled to adopt the exact children they want, and they fact they cannot is indicative of a flaw in the system. I was just wondering if that is indeed your position or if that is a misreading on my part. Thanks.
Yeah, total bummer. When we adopted our daughter (again, DAMN, only "half white"...joking...) my husband was in the military and deployed frequently. We had zero issues adopting her. 4 week wait. Did we get lucky? Probably. The system worked as it should; a pregnant mother in hard times made a decision and fortunately for us, we were open to whatever God had planned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
1,539 posts, read 1,709,878 times
Reputation: 2437
Quote:
Originally Posted by xy340 View Post
We have a billboard at the entrance to town for years. They refresh it every year or so when the print starts to fade. The local radio station plays the same advertisement every Saturday at 7am for years. Granted it's a low power AM station, but it still been advertising for foster to adopt parents and there has not been a non-relative adoption from foster care in the last ten years.
That sounds like a successful foster care system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 07:56 AM
 
258 posts, read 157,939 times
Reputation: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmeck View Post
That sounds like a successful foster care system.
On average 100+ children average age out of the system every year. They proceed from the foster care system directly to the sheriff's jail with six months.

I wonder what the outcome would be if they were adopted and had families to provide support systems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 08:06 AM
 
258 posts, read 157,939 times
Reputation: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmeck View Post
Yeah, total bummer. When we adopted our daughter (again, DAMN, only "half white"...joking...) my husband was in the military and deployed frequently. We had zero issues adopting her. 4 week wait. Did we get lucky? Probably. The system worked as it should; a pregnant mother in hard times made a decision and fortunately for us, we were open to whatever God had planned.

Yes, I think you were. I does not sound like you did not experience any of the military issues.

- you unstable, you husband is never home
- you cannot get a child abuse registry report from all the ports your husband worked at. Why not?
- what do you mean that Iraq does not have a child abuse registry?
- what do you mean that the sheriff's office in Iraq was blown up?
- No ones travels that much.
- We are going to have fingerprint, background check and run child abuse registry checks on everyone on the destroyer.
- You cannot have guns in your home or at work!

Honestly, I don't get why the system acts like this, but unfortunately it does.

I'm glad your adoption had zero issues. I just want more adoptions to mirror your adoption. My point is that they don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 07:13 PM
 
16,567 posts, read 14,005,185 times
Reputation: 20518
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmeck View Post
Yeah, total bummer. When we adopted our daughter (again, DAMN, only "half white"...joking...) my husband was in the military and deployed frequently. We had zero issues adopting her. 4 week wait. Did we get lucky? Probably. The system worked as it should; a pregnant mother in hard times made a decision and fortunately for us, we were open to whatever God had planned.
I was being sarcastic too, sorry it wasn't clear. My daughter is also only half, otoh, as she is a bio kid so I suppose I chose that too.

I bet you have an awesome family, everybody sounds lucky to have found each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 07:33 PM
 
16,567 posts, read 14,005,185 times
Reputation: 20518
Quote:
Originally Posted by xy340 View Post
Given the number of children in foster care, I think that if a couple qualifies for adoption (clean record, big enough home, etc) then yes they should have a child placed in their home. I don't support children sitting in the foster system and rotting.
As a foster sister, I can tell you that my foster siblings did not "rot" and shame on you for saying such a thing. I had two foster siblings, one came on and off from the time he was 8, the other for a couple of months. The last was only with my parents for a few months because his mom ended up homeless, and had a health crisis. Six months later he was back with his mom and he was never removed again. The one who was with us off and on was with us for the same reason many kids are in foster care, he had a parent with a drug problem. She loved him, and when she was clean she was a good parent. She did her best, it just wasn't always good enough and we were his soft place to land. And that is certainly not rotting. Btw, they still maintain a relationship with my mother some 30 years later.

Quote:
That is illegal under current federal law. Child's best interest is not a factor. Parent's age cannot be considered. If you don't like the law, then petition Congress to change it.
You appear to be saying a child's best interest is not a factor in picking adoptive parents. Please cite which federal law you think says this.


Quote:
So under "your system" what would be the maximum age a couple could adopt? A small percentage of women still have children in their late 40s. What about women having children via IVF/surrogacy in their 50s? Are you going to round them up and put them in jail? Your system going to have big problems with the 14th amendment; equal access and protection under the law and foster care is paid for by tax dollars.
I don't have a system. I am talking about the system in place. There are more people who want to adopt infants, particularly white ones, than there are infants available. You appear to think a deli ticketing should apply. And infants should be handed out first come first serve. Foster-adopt always takes into account the best interest of the child.

As for bio parents, if they can have a child in their 50s more power to em. It is in the best interest of children to remain with their bio parents, even if they are older. But again, between identical couples in their 30s vs 50s, it is in the best interest of children to have the parents more likely to live until they are adults.

And who said older people couldn't foster? My mother was in her 40s when she became a foster parent. The problem is you think foster care is some sort of hidden cache of babies for those who want them. That was never the purpose of the foster system.

So your older friends are welcome to enjoy their equality under the 14th and become FOSTER parents. But that doesn't mean foster care has to supply them with an adoptable white infant. They don't have to supply anyone if any age with any adoptable anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 08:26 PM
 
258 posts, read 157,939 times
Reputation: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
As a foster sister, I can tell you that my foster siblings did not "rot" and shame on you for saying such a thing. I had two foster siblings, one came on and off from the time he was 8, the other for a couple of months. The last was only with my parents for a few months because his mom ended up homeless, and had a health crisis. Six months later he was back with his mom and he was never removed again. The one who was with us off and on was with us for the same reason many kids are in foster care, he had a parent with a drug problem. She loved him, and when she was clean she was a good parent. She did her best, it just wasn't always good enough and we were his soft place to land. And that is certainly not rotting. Btw, they still maintain a relationship with my mother some 30 years later.



You appear to be saying a child's best interest is not a factor in picking adoptive parents. Please cite which federal law you think says this.




I don't have a system. I am talking about the system in place. There are more people who want to adopt infants, particularly white ones, than there are infants available. You appear to think a deli ticketing should apply. And infants should be handed out first come first serve. Foster-adopt always takes into account the best interest of the child.

As for bio parents, if they can have a child in their 50s more power to em. It is in the best interest of children to remain with their bio parents, even if they are older. But again, between identical couples in their 30s vs 50s, it is in the best interest of children to have the parents more likely to live until they are adults.

And who said older people couldn't foster? My mother was in her 40s when she became a foster parent. The problem is you think foster care is some sort of hidden cache of babies for those who want them. That was never the purpose of the foster system.

So your older friends are welcome to enjoy their equality under the 14th and become FOSTER parents. But that doesn't mean foster care has to supply them with an adoptable white infant. They don't have to supply anyone if any age with any adoptable anything.
Again, our foster care system is very different. My county's foster care system has a big problem with generational poverty. And the county has no clue how to break this cycle and I'm not sure they want to. This is especially true of sixteen families I'm currently researching for my husband. The female children of these families have had at least four generations of children in foster care with the fifth generation entering foster care as we speak. Again, I have to restate that the purpose of foster care is temporary. It should either put the family back on it's feet in a timely manner(reunification) or create a permanent placement for the child.(adoption) The child should not spend a lifetime in foster care. Nor should generations of the same family spend generations in foster care. So, unfortunately, in our county's foster care system we have children rot in care. (Forgotten, abused, and used by the county to extract as much federal monies as possible.) Then they are placed on the street at age 18 without any skills, education, or future. And to make matters worst, their children will end up right back in foster care to repeat the cycle.

In reference to your comments on Age Discrimination: I would refer you to 45 CFR Part 90 - Nondiscrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance and 45 CFR Part 91 - Nondiscrimination on the basis of age in programs or services receiving HHS financial assistance. Foster care programs don't want to loose federal funding.

In reference to about "your system," clearly you want to foster care system to conform to your preferences. Couples aged 30 are preferred over couples aged 50. Couples that will accept mixed race children are preferred of couples that will only accept white children. Clearly you have a system. You fail to provide solutions to problems like the National Association of Black Social Workers and other groups that opposed white couples from adopting mixed race children or African American children. You also failed to provide solutions to the Indian Child Welfare Act and all the various blood quorum laws that some Indian tribes have and other don't.

I also don't understand your comments that you should NOT foster-to-adopt, but only be foster parents. There are two programs. Paid for by two separate buckets of federal dollars. Couples are welcome to choose which programs they want to be part of. Why are you restricting their choice? Also, my county's foster care program does not have any minorities in it's program, why complain about it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:52 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top