There is this 2 year old girl that 3 families have tried to adopt. The father skipped town and the mother has a drug problem. She ends up in jail frequently and when released the judge gives the little girl back to her. She is not a very good mother and these families trying to adopt, give her clothing and babysit while the mother goes out on dates. The dating she does, and the welfare checks are the mother's only way to make a living, and the court keeps giving the girl back to the mother, every time there is a problem with her dates. When my neighgor babysits, the little girl plays with our dog and it breaks my heart to see what is happening. She knows her mother's dates as uncles, and asks why her mother can't wake up, some mornings, and why her mother has to go away on so many trips. Am I wrong, thinking that these judges should be tared and feathered and run out of town on a rail? They are playing *** with a 2 year old girl.
Adoption
- Thread starter Louie's gone fishing
- Start date
- Status
This is a sin. The system is shameful.
It takes an awful lot to take a little girl from her mother. Sure the system seems broken in this case. But in many others, keeping a child with the mother works.
In many parts of the country judges still have the attitude that a child is best off with her parent(s), especially the mother, no matter how bad she is. Ask men's rights groups about that attitude (a topic for another thread). There have been plenty of repugnant cases in recent years where a mother gave up a child for adoption, changed her mind months or even years later, and got the child returned (per a judge) from the adoptive parents.
We also have the current fad for "open" adoptions, which essentially means that the birth mother is still involved and shares custody arrangements with the adoptive family. This helps set the stage for the scenario in the last sentence of the previous paragraph, because it essentially means that the adoption is never quite "final".
If you wonder why so many couple adopt foreign children and spend thousands to travel overseas to do it, here is why. If you know you'll have to spend thousands to adopt anyway, and the odds are good that you might have to return a US-born child to its mother some time down the road and waste all the money you spent, you might as well get a child from overseas with the same money to ensure that the adoption is permanent. Sad.
We also have the current fad for "open" adoptions, which essentially means that the birth mother is still involved and shares custody arrangements with the adoptive family. This helps set the stage for the scenario in the last sentence of the previous paragraph, because it essentially means that the adoption is never quite "final".
If you wonder why so many couple adopt foreign children and spend thousands to travel overseas to do it, here is why. If you know you'll have to spend thousands to adopt anyway, and the odds are good that you might have to return a US-born child to its mother some time down the road and waste all the money you spent, you might as well get a child from overseas with the same money to ensure that the adoption is permanent. Sad.
Al, that's understood. Foster care is shameful as well.
Children who had not asked to enter this world, are too often dismissed as an afterthought.
This is part of the changing culture. This is sinful.
I'm not changing my mind about this one. Many child bearers are selfish cretins.
Children who had not asked to enter this world, are too often dismissed as an afterthought.
This is part of the changing culture. This is sinful.
I'm not changing my mind about this one. Many child bearers are selfish cretins.
What makes me sad is there is alot of single moms out in socity trying to make it and have no intent to find a decent guy,get married and go on from that point on,women dont seem to need a husband anymore,lots of guy haters,thats why Im 48 and STILL single.BL
Groucho and Dan, you have touched upon an interesting conundrum. At least one legal scholar has said in recent years that it makes little legal sense to require de facto licensing for adoptive parents but not for parents having children the old-fashioned way, especially in the wake of so many examples of abuse, neglect, and just plain poor parenting as with Louie's post. That comment came after an academic, Jack Westman, proposed licensing all parents in a book that came out in 1994. He estimated the cost to society for each abused and neglected child at as much as $3 million because of wasted potential, unproductivity, and crime over that child's lifetime.
Westman, in turn, had proposed that licensing most parents should be as simple as getting a driver's license provided that (1) the parents were at least 21, (2) the parents were married to each other, (3) the parents could show that they were self-supporting, (4) neither had any felony convictions, and (5) both had taken a parenting class, which could be given in high school. In other words, for those who met those criteria getting licensed would be easy. They would sign a contract agreeing not to abuse and neglect the child, and violation would therefore constitute breach of contract with civil penalties.
Others would have to take various steps to prove fitness to keep children after having them, and obviously the whole proposal opens huge cans of worms that I won't get into, which would quickly make this thread political. But I see no real problem with Westman's proposal to license natural parents using those criteria and maybe adding a requirement that both parents be able to pass random drug testing during pregnancy and while the child is an infant.
I've seen far too many children put through the wringer because of bad natural parents. And just a closing thought: everyone today rails against the idea of child labor as was common 100 years ago, with children as young as 6 working in hazardous factories for 12 or more hours a day. What everyone forgets is this: were the companies operating the factories just grabbing the children off the street and making them work? No. The children's parents were sending them to the factories to earn money that the parents then spent. Just to support the family would be bad enough, but in parts of the country, certain parents were notorious for putting their kids to work to support daddy's drinking or opium habit. Children are not always best off with their natural parents.
I also knew of a number of older people whose parents forced them (long after the bad old days of really young children doing child labor) to drop out of school after the 6th or 8th grades to go to work for money for the parents, thereby shortchanging these children's future as adults as society changed over the years. Typically, this would be to work on the family farm or some such. Yeah, I know, we're judging events of the past by today's standards, but even then, many people found these practices questionable or repulsive. And there isn't a lot of difference between these examples and your average crack mom of today forcing her young children into turning tricks to support mommy's drug habit. It's a difference of degree, not of kind.
Westman, in turn, had proposed that licensing most parents should be as simple as getting a driver's license provided that (1) the parents were at least 21, (2) the parents were married to each other, (3) the parents could show that they were self-supporting, (4) neither had any felony convictions, and (5) both had taken a parenting class, which could be given in high school. In other words, for those who met those criteria getting licensed would be easy. They would sign a contract agreeing not to abuse and neglect the child, and violation would therefore constitute breach of contract with civil penalties.
Others would have to take various steps to prove fitness to keep children after having them, and obviously the whole proposal opens huge cans of worms that I won't get into, which would quickly make this thread political. But I see no real problem with Westman's proposal to license natural parents using those criteria and maybe adding a requirement that both parents be able to pass random drug testing during pregnancy and while the child is an infant.
I've seen far too many children put through the wringer because of bad natural parents. And just a closing thought: everyone today rails against the idea of child labor as was common 100 years ago, with children as young as 6 working in hazardous factories for 12 or more hours a day. What everyone forgets is this: were the companies operating the factories just grabbing the children off the street and making them work? No. The children's parents were sending them to the factories to earn money that the parents then spent. Just to support the family would be bad enough, but in parts of the country, certain parents were notorious for putting their kids to work to support daddy's drinking or opium habit. Children are not always best off with their natural parents.
I also knew of a number of older people whose parents forced them (long after the bad old days of really young children doing child labor) to drop out of school after the 6th or 8th grades to go to work for money for the parents, thereby shortchanging these children's future as adults as society changed over the years. Typically, this would be to work on the family farm or some such. Yeah, I know, we're judging events of the past by today's standards, but even then, many people found these practices questionable or repulsive. And there isn't a lot of difference between these examples and your average crack mom of today forcing her young children into turning tricks to support mommy's drug habit. It's a difference of degree, not of kind.
I'm familiar with the case of the little girl lost, that Louie is talking about. One of the families is being drilled about their financial status. It appears that they bounced several checks a year ago. And do you want to know why. He was called up to go to Iraq, and the drop in pay caused him to sell his car, and send his wife to work for a year, because of the drop in pay. So, here he is getting shot at, he acutally saw combat carring a gun, defending our country and it has caused him problems while trying to adopt a little unwanted girl. He did make good on those checks, returned to civilain life, and went right back to work. And someone in an office is pointing the finger at him and making him dance for the chance to do something wonderful in his life and the life of a little girl. Last conversation with him sounds like he failed the financial responsibility requirements. He's good enough to get his hind end shot off and pay taxes and have a good job but not good enough for a system that is more important than the people it is supposed to serve.
Agreed. I am coming from a different perspective here though. Many feel that the Government is trying to take their guns away-they are worried sick about it.
But some of these same people (not you) think its a good thing if its easyier for the Government to come in and take a child away if the Government deems that the child is not raised "properly". Who is to say what is "proper". And do we want this sacred right of a parent to raise his child to be put under the eye of the Government to take the child away (just like taking guns away).
The reason I am sensitive here is bc my daughter went thru a divorce and the Husband remarried. He didn't want to pay child support. He made all manner of investigations and accusations to thet the judge to take the children from my daughter. All of the accusations were false. My daughter believes in corporal punishment. He said she spanked a child..Police came and daughter said "I believe in spanking"...Big deal.
Bottom line...all children stayed with a wonderful mother bc the courts take the matter of a parent/child relationship seriously.
Do we want the ability of an outsider to look at a parent and go to the courts/Government to take away a child from its parents? I don't. I want to raise the child as I see fit..without the Government.
If the child is physically abused harmed..different story. But there better be a very, very, very high standard here.
I would love epolk to weigh in here
When this little girl asks why she has so many uncles and why do they come over just to spend the night and then leave again, what can your answer be? Often, when asked were her mommie is, she will tell you, mommie is sick and has to go away for a while. This little girl is left with the babysitter for days on end, and last time two weeks. She wears clothes that the babysitters give her. They also cut her hair and play games with her when she can't wake mommie up, in the morning. This year, mommie forgot her birthday. We had a party for her and mommie went out on a date. And mommie keeps custody of the girl, because mommie has her rights.
Has she been harmed?
Well, let me see, when mommie goes to all three babysitters because she forgot which one has her girl, or she buys beer instead of milk because her last date did not pay-up or the little girl is being told that every guy that comes over for the night is an uncle, or the school calls babysitters up to pick her up after school because mommie is not awake yet, you tell me.
Interesting topic. I am not very knowledgeable about oil- hence my first post after being a member for a while. However, I work in the foster care system in the great state of Pennsylvania and have more first hand experience on these topics then I like to admit. I also have foster children. The situation the OP stated should not (if the system follows its own rules) happen in PA. Counties (each county is responsible for its own children) have an obligation to attempt to reunite a family. This involves counseling to bio-parents, supervised visits, housing support etc. in an attempt to save the family. Most studies indicate that children staying with a "bad" parent do better than a child being moved to "good" parents. However, children without any real permanancy are the victims. Therefore, bio-parents have 12 months to get their act together. If they fail to make any improvements, then the courts can begin the adoption process and seek termination of parental rights. Within 18 months a permant goal should be in place- adoption, reunification or permanent foster care (for children over 14yo who do not want to be adopted). Therefore, all children in PA's system should have a permanent home within 18 months of being removed from mom and/ or dad. Now that is the "how it should work." All that said, I have a 16yo who has been in the system for 11 years through multiple homes and the county is just now seeking to terminate her mom's rights at her request so (YHWH willing) my wife and I can adopt her. I also have a 14yo and 12yo who's mom's lawyer has argued that they have not done enough to help her so they have been in my home for 2.5 years already. Meanwhile, it is the children who suffer the most because of the conflicted loyalties between the people who truly take care of them and the people who their hearts will forever be bound to no matter how cruel or unusual the prior life was. I think PA has a decent system in place, it just needs to be followed. I see too many bio-parents retain rights and continue to emotionally and mentally abuse their children because a judge or a county does not have the courage to stop it. It is a complicated, emotional issue that is not and will not be easily solved.
ref
ref
- Status
