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.
1. adoptions occur from social services. (Fost-adopt)
2. parental rights were not terminated early enough. (Children are angry, older, and have been through many attempts at reunification, multiple faster homes, and abuse, with an outcome of RAD.
3. adoptions are open.
Tragic for the parents, confusing for the children. Why we adopted outside of the country.
I blame this on social workers who are under the false impression that children need contact with abusers,
Total BS. Where is your data to support your claims? Total and utter BS...again.
I hear occasional stories like this pop up on the internet and none, however, in my real life. I do hear lots of stories about random 18 year olds running away, dropping out of college, not talking to their parents anymore, ect. Such is life; 18 is a crazy age.
Total BS. Where is your data to support your claims? Total and utter BS...again.
Well, most recently, last September, when we took a pre-adoption class given by a woman with an MSW in social work by an licensed adoption agency in our state.
We were told that children who experienced multiple care givers (i.e. foster parents, step parents, grandparents, mom's boy friends etc) were highly likely to gravitate back to their family of origin when they reach the age of majority.
This puts them at a greater risk of RAD. Numerous attempts at reconciliation, render the child increasingly traumatized.
Further, we were taught that more children adopted out of foster care at age 10 or older, do this than do not. In fact, we were told to expect it. It was after this information, as well as other information, that we decided not to adopt through foster care.
How common is this? My mother (a social worker) has worked with several families who raised children (say from age 7ish or up) who as soon as they turned 18, went back to their families of origin and cut ties with their adopted families. The children were often troubled, but the situations were generally happy and seemed successful.
and my mother feels strongly he will return to his FOO as soon as he can. It breaks my heart to think of how heartbroken my BIL and SIL would be. THey still aren't speaking to us, but I still don't want them to be hurt like this.
I was wondering how often this happens or if anyone has any stories about it.
I don't know how common it is, and from the other info you provided it seems there are some kinds of special circumstances in your relatives' situation, but re: the topic in general, I think it stinks. When a couple (or individual, for that matter) adopts a child, they should be more than long-term 'babysitters.' Adoption is meant to make the child a part of your family, as if he/she were your own child.
And for a kid, years later, to basically say 'F* U, I want my 'real' mother/father/parents,' I don't think that's o.k at all.
I'm sure some will disagree with me, but I believe the general method from waaay back was better for everyone concerned: in most cases, children were never told, which gave both kids and adoptive parents a sense of security. Much later, it became a debate when kids had genetic conditions and needed their birth parents' medical info. But even that's quite a stretch from the way it is these days.
Obviously, though, I wouldn't know about adopting older children; I never knew of any kids in that type of situation.
Well, most recently, last September, when we took a pre-adoption class given by a woman with an MSW in social work by an licensed adoption agency in our state.
We were told that children who experienced multiple care givers (i.e. foster parents, step parents, grandparents, mom's boy friends etc) were highly likely to gravitate back to their family of origin when they reach the age of majority.
This puts them at a greater risk of RAD. Numerous attempts at reconciliation, render the child increasingly traumatized.
Further, we were taught that more children adopted out of foster care at age 10 or older, do this than do not. In fact, we were told to expect it. It was after this information, as well as other information, that we decided not to adopt through foster care.
"you were taught"...could we get some cold hard facts instead of just your adoption bias for once?
"you were taught"...could we get some cold hard facts instead of just your adoption bias for once?
It is "fact" when someone speaks from firsthand experience, which Sheena did, unless someone is lying or has misunderstood or has made an honest mistake. And, it seems to me that in reading Sheena's posts, that she certainly was open to adoption until she learned some things that did not please her. That is her (and everyone else's) right -- to refuse to adopt if she, he, or they decide that adoption is nor right for them. At least she was willing to look into it, which many people are not.
My husband and I adopted from Human Services, as I have stated earlier, and the social workers did tell us from the very first (starting with pre-adoption seminar and repeatedly throughout our entire adoption experience) that adopted kids did not always bond with their adoptive parents, and that many did, in fact, return to their biological families as soon as they could. I would think that in saying this, they would have many cold hard facts, including statistics, to back up this assertion.
Anyway, why would those social workers in DHS Adoptive Services tell prospective adoptive parents something that wasn't true that might very possibly discourage people from adopting, when a big part of their job is to try to find people to adopt those kids whose biological parents can't or won't take care of them properly. Does that make sense?
Last edited by katharsis; 08-22-2015 at 10:26 AM..
It is "fact" when someone speaks from firsthand experience, which Sheena did, unless someone is lying or has misunderstood or has made an honest mistake. And, it seems to me that in reading Sheena's posts, that she certainly was open to adoption until she learned some things that did not please her. That is her (and everyone else's) right -- to refuse to adopt if she, he, or they decide that adoption is nor right for them. At least she was willing to look into it, which many people are not.
My husband and I adopted from Human Services, as I have stated earlier, and the social workers did tell us from the very first (starting with pre-adoption seminar and repeatedly throughout our entire adoption experience) that adopted kids did not always bond with their adoptive parents, and that many did, in fact, return to their biological families as soon as they could. I would think that in saying this, they would have many cold hard facts, including statistics, to back up this assertion.
Anyway, why would those social workers in DHS Adoptive Services tell prospective adoptive parents something that wasn't true that might very possibly discourage people from adopting, when a big part of their job is to try to find people to adopt those kids whose biological parents can't or won't take care of them properly. Does that make sense?
Thank you. The social workers have an interest in finding homes for these children. However, everyone I have known who has taken pre-adoption classes has been told the same thing.
That bonding may or may not occur because of previous trauma, neglect and abuse, and that in their experience, at or around 18, many children migrate back to their families of origin.
I have taken these classes twice, actually. Once in another state, which lead to our adoption from Korea. Most recently 20 years later, in another state. We were hoping that things had changed - that terminations occurred earlier, rather than later. Or that we would be helped to find a child motivated to be adopted. Just one. We were honestly told that most of these children were ambivalent or negative about adoption.
We as a couple, know that we can not handle that.
As a person who has volunteered for a hosting program, and facilitated the adoptions of many orphans from Ukraine, we found the American children to be in stark contrast to the Ukrainian kids.
We know of many people who adopted ten years ago, who have children who are doing just fine, and have bonded and attached to their parents.
This does not seem to happen frequently in American adoptions from foster care. In fact, it appears to be the exception to the rule.
1. adoptions occur from social services. (Fost-adopt)
2. parental rights were not terminated early enough. (Children are angry, older, and have been through many attempts at reunification, multiple faster homes, and abuse, with an outcome of RAD.
3. adoptions are open.
Tragic for the parents, confusing for the children. Why we adopted outside of the country.
I blame this on social workers who are under the false impression that children need contact with abusers,
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird
Total BS. Where is your data to support your claims? Total and utter BS...again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird
"you were taught"...could we get some cold hard facts instead of just your adoption bias for once?
Kindly provide evidence to support your contention that what sheena12 was told by her social workers is incorrect. And if you could employ a more civil tone than you have heretofore used on this thread, that would be a very nice bonus.
Kindly provide evidence to support your contention that what sheena12 was told by her social workers is incorrect. And if you could employ a more civil tone than you have heretofore used on this thread, that would be a very nice bonus.
I didn't make the original claims and I am sick and tired of specific people slamming one type of adoption because it doesn't suit them when it suits many many people. Its damaging to the process of adoption. This is as civil as I get when I see blatant misrepresentations over and over that could press people into not following through with plans to adopt the most needy of all children.
Upthread, you insisted (quite rudely, IMO) that another poster provide data to support her assertion that foster-to-adopt has some troublesome aspects to it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird
Total BS. Where is your data to support your claims? Total and utter BS...again.
Despite your hostile tone, the poster politely responded and offered information from what I would consider to be a very credible source:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12
Well, most recently, last September, when we took a pre-adoption class given by a woman with an MSW in social work by an licensed adoption agency in our state.
We were told that children who experienced multiple care givers (i.e. foster parents, step parents, grandparents, mom's boy friends etc) were highly likely to gravitate back to their family of origin when they reach the age of majority.
This puts them at a greater risk of RAD. Numerous attempts at reconciliation, render the child increasingly traumatized.
Further, we were taught that more children adopted out of foster care at age 10 or older, do this than do not. In fact, we were told to expect it. It was after this information, as well as other information, that we decided not to adopt through foster care.
And yet, instead of refuting a single thing that she said, you simply complained some more:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird
I didn't make the original claims and I am sick and tired of specific people slamming one type of adoption because it doesn't suit them when it suits many many people. Its damaging to the process of adoption. This is as civil as I get when I see blatant misrepresentations over and over that could press people into not following through with plans to adopt the most needy of all children.
If you wish to defend foster-to-adopt, or refute some of the claims made by the social worker referenced in a previous post, then by all means do so. Thus far, you have not offered any information to contradict what has been posted on this thread, nor any information to affirm foster-to-adopt as a viable option for those who may be considering it. All you've offered is name-calling and a hostile tone. This does not support your cause, and reflects poorly on you.
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.
