LA Foster Care Workers Take Donations Intended For Children

[BarTopDancer]

Sadly he has a point (not that I am saying we should).

It is easier to adopt from overseas then it is from the US. And there is less risk of the birth parents fighting it/wanting their kid back.

On an interesting side-note, one of our VPs adopted a child from here (OC, CA) last month. He lives in England. He said it was easier to adopt from the US then from the UK. They were out here for a month handling paperwork (it wasn't supposed to be a month but the fires put a kink in the schedule).

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

It is easier to adopt from overseas then it is from the US. And there is less risk of the birth parents fighting it/wanting their kid back.

And I say that this a good thing for kids in the US and less so for kids overseas.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

And I say that this a good thing for kids in the US and less so for kids overseas.

Not when the kids are in and out of care because their parents can't get their act together. When I was majoring in Social Work there was a lot of focus on kids who were removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect, drug abuse by the parents, etc.. The foster parents wanted to adopt them but were blocked every step of the way by the birth parents cleaning up their act long enough to stop the adoption process, and then as soon as it was stopped they would go back to their old ways. Those kids had homes who wanted to raise them permanently but because of the parents they were shuffled back home, then back in to care, back home, back in to care. It's not uncommon.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Not when the kids are in and out of care because their parents can't get their act together. When I was majoring in Social Work there was a lot of focus on kids who were removed from their homes due to abuse, neglect, drug abuse by the parents, etc.. The foster parents wanted to adopt them but were blocked every step of the way by the birth parents cleaning up their act long enough to stop the adoption process, and then as soon as it was stopped they would go back to their old ways. Those kids had homes who wanted to raise them permanently but because of the parents they were shuffled back home, then back in to care, back home, back in to care. It's not uncommon.

But is it better for the child to be with their parent where possible or instantly shuffled off to some stranger as soon as Mom and/or Dad have a glitch in life.

There is no clean delineation as to when it the perfect time for the child to be removed from the parents permanently. Many parents are able to get their act together. The best thing for a child (very generally speaking) is to be with the parent.

With this in mind, I stick with my original statement.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

But is it better for the child to be with their parent where possible or instantly shuffled off to some stranger as soon as Mom and/or Dad have a glitch in life.

There is no clean delineation as to when it the perfect time for the child to be removed from the parents permanently. Many parents are able to get their act together. The best thing for a child (very generally speaking) is to be with the parent.

With this in mind, I stick with my original statement.

I would generally agree with that statement. The cases I was referencing had the child going from foster home to unstable bio home, foster home to unstable bio home over and over again. Yes, it is usually best for the child to be with their parents. But not all parents should have custody of their kids. Parents who abuse and neglect their kids, have their kids removed, 'straighten up their act' only long enough to stop their kids from being adopted then start abusing and neglecting the kids again as soon as they get them back (repeat process numerous time) should not be able to do that to their kids.

It's scary and sad what happens to a kid who is bounced in and out of care, then ages out with no stability in their lives.