We wanted to adopt from US foster care but... (infant, birth, options)
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.
A thumbs up that I wish I did not have to give. I'll add Alabama. Already tried Florida, NY. NJ. PA. CA and Ohio.
They keep trying to reunite these kids with people who don't care about them - or care about the money they get from having them.
By the time they are available, age 10 is on the young side. Try 12. Try 17. I am not being mean but I can't adopt a child who is taller than my wife and daughter and likes to set fires and hurt animals. This is scary.
ALL states seem to favor the birth parents. This system needs to be re-worked.
CA does have younger kids, but they hardly ever make it to the website "stage". Only a fraction of the kids in CA who are more or less "available" for adoption make it on the website, and one of the big reasons is that kids here are not legally available for adoption until they're already in their adoptive home. Technically all cases are considered legal "at-risk" cases, and they are more protective of the kids because of this. (I'm not supporting CA or the terribly system here but just explaining this issue.)
Both of my children were adopted out of foster care (AL). One came to us at 8 months, the other came straight from the hospital after a 28 day stay in the NICU.
So, the child at 8 months was free for adoption as was the other one and 28 day one, free for adoption the day they arrived? And, this was from the State agency? I guess the mother must have relinquished as even in the case of drugs, I think they still try to work with the birth mother so that she can keep the baby. I am just feeling that there must have been a "special" circumstance involved.
So, the child at 8 months was free for adoption as was the other one and 28 day one, free for adoption the day they arrived? And, this was from the State agency? I guess the mother must have relinquished as even in the case of drugs, I think they still try to work with the birth mother so that she can keep the baby. I am just feeling that there must have been a "special" circumstance involved.
I think they do, also. I think they work with the mother - no mater what. Also, there is no mention from anyone if contact was a requirement of the adoption.
Another poster said that this was "legally at risk children" - in other words, the state was still looking to reunite the child with their mother. So, you could have a baby for a year and then they are working towards reunification.
Once again, the adoptive parents are not considered at all. We don't want a "gold medal" because we want to adopt. However, some thought to our feelings would be nice.
I think the bio-mom is above the child also. The only person in the "adoption triad' who has screwed up at all, by any standard - is the one who is getting the "kid glove treatment".
So, the child at 8 months was free for adoption as was the other one and 28 day one, free for adoption the day they arrived? And, this was from the State agency? I guess the mother must have relinquished as even in the case of drugs, I think they still try to work with the birth mother so that she can keep the baby. I am just feeling that there must have been a "special" circumstance involved.
I didn't say that. My first child was placed with us in foster care at 8 months of age. Her eventual adoption was finalized when she was two. My second child was placed with us at birth. His eventual adoption was finalized before he was two. No rights were ever relinquished by the parents. What sort of "special" circumstances do you think must have been involved?
I didn't say that. My first child was placed with us in foster care at 8 months of age. Her eventual adoption was finalized when she was two. My second child was placed with us at birth. His eventual adoption was finalized before he was two. No rights were ever relinquished by the parents. What sort of "special" circumstances do you think must have been involved?
I guess that these were unique situations. You still don't mention if contact with your children's families are mentioned.
Maybe things like this happen - once in a blue moon. The norm in most foster adoption situations is a child who has been hurt terribly in many ways and is a pre-teen or teen. And, most of these adoptions will still require the adoptive parents to have contact with some biological relatives - who are usually unsavory.
Remember, this isn't 30 years ago when there was still a stigma attached to a 15 year old becoming pregnant and keeping their baby. Many grandparents today are overjoyed by this prospect. - I would not be one of them, but that's another subject.
When un-wed mothers relinquish it's usually through a private agency where they get to pick the parents. And it's an open adoption. Most middle class girls go through a private agency, not social services.
These children, available through social services, are, by and large are from severely dysfunctional situations filled with violence, sexual exploitation, substance abuse and chaos.
That's why the kids are taken away.
I'm not being a snob, but as a husband and father I have my own family to protect. I have standards when it comes to people I want to have a cup of coffee with - and certainly let in my home. I would not want either.
Once adopted, we would want our values to become those of our newly adopted child. How can they when they are still seeing their families of origin?
So, the child at 8 months was free for adoption as was the other one and 28 day one, free for adoption the day they arrived? And, this was from the State agency? I guess the mother must have relinquished as even in the case of drugs, I think they still try to work with the birth mother so that she can keep the baby. I am just feeling that there must have been a "special" circumstance involved.
This is ridiculous. Of course they are not "free for adoption" at the time they arrive? There are legal requirements that must be met so the bio parents cannot claim they are forced or were not represented in the process. If you want immediate availability to infants for adoption without any challenges or delays, you are going to be disappointed forever.
We adopted two children (separately) in WI through foster care system, both came to our home straight from the hospital. Bio parents were not capable of caring for them, period. No horrific abuse. No drug addictions. No dramatic or bizarre stories to relate. Simply not capable to raise them so they needed to be placed out of home. Even though they arrived straight from the hospital, the adoption was not final for almost five years for one and two and a half for the other.
Foster parents will get the first option to adopt in most cases. Number one, it is less traumatic to move the children another time once they are in the foster home. Secondly, why wouldn't the agency place with a family they know and work with and that has been willing to take in the children without prejudging them in the first place?
I guess that these were unique situations. You still don't mention if contact with your children's families are mentioned.
Maybe things like this happen - once in a blue moon. The norm in most foster adoption situations is a child who has been hurt terribly in many ways and is a pre-teen or teen. And, most of these adoptions will still require the adoptive parents to have contact with some biological relatives - who are usually unsavory.
Remember, this isn't 30 years ago when there was still a stigma attached to a 15 year old becoming pregnant and keeping their baby. Many grandparents today are overjoyed by this prospect. - I would not be one of them, but that's another subject.
When un-wed mothers relinquish it's usually through a private agency where they get to pick the parents. And it's an open adoption. Most middle class girls go through a private agency, not social services.
These children, available through social services, are, by and large are from severely dysfunctional situations filled with violence, sexual exploitation, substance abuse and chaos.
That's why the kids are taken away.
I'm not being a snob, but as a husband and father I have my own family to protect. I have standards when it comes to people I want to have a cup of coffee with - and certainly let in my home. I would not want either.
Once adopted, we would want our values to become those of our newly adopted child. How can they when they are still seeing their families of origin?
Your gross generalizations and broad brush assessments are sad as well as inaccurate for the most part. You do come across as a snob and it is truly unfortunate that you do not appear to be able to love the children without strings and conditions attached.
Adoption isn't simply "shopping" for a child and a situation that you find acceptable. It is supposed to be an opportunity to love a child that needs care and compassion. Your designation of parents as "unsavory" and people that you do not want in your home is enough of an indication in my opinion that you are not a candidate for adoption through social services. You will be best served by an elite agency, finding the right little teen embarrassed by her pregnancy, to provide you with the perfect child. Perhaps your payment to their inflated fee structure will pay enough to ensure a child of good standing to fit your perfect little life. Good luck.
Your gross generalizations and broad brush assessments are sad as well as inaccurate for the most part. You do come across as a snob and it is truly unfortunate that you do not appear to be able to love the children without strings and conditions attached.
Adoption isn't simply "shopping" for a child and a situation that you find acceptable. It is supposed to be an opportunity to love a child that needs care and compassion. Your designation of parents as "unsavory" and people that you do not want in your home is enough of an indication in my opinion that you are not a candidate for adoption through social services. You will be best served by an elite agency, finding the right little teen embarrassed by her pregnancy, to provide you with the perfect child. Perhaps your payment to their inflated fee structure will pay enough to ensure a child of good standing to fit your perfect little life. Good luck.
I saw nowhere in Warren Zee's post any indication that he could not love whatever child he adopted. His issue is not with the children, but with their birth parents. And I agree with him. I don't want the birth parents in our lives. If one has adopted a child who had to be legally removed from the home of his birth parents, it's not because the kid sang too loud in the bathtub; it's because the "parents" were unfit to raise a kid. And given how much it takes for someone to be declared to be an unfit parent, I certainly wouldn't want someone like that having a say-so in the upbringing of my kids, either.
To be sure, not all birth parents are evildoers. I've never met the birth parents of my two kids, but from what the adoption agency told us of them, they sound like good, decent people. At some point, I would enjoy meeting them (assuming, of course, that they would be amenable to meeting me). But not now. Not while my kids are young and my wife and I are raising them according to our own customs, traditions, values, etc. We have no desire to parent by committee, and for this reason we pursued a closed adoption.
I think they do, also. I think they work with the mother - no mater what. Also, there is no mention from anyone if contact was a requirement of the adoption.
Another poster said that this was "legally at risk children" - in other words, the state was still looking to reunite the child with their mother. So, you could have a baby for a year and then they are working towards reunification.
Once again, the adoptive parents are not considered at all. We don't want a "gold medal" because we want to adopt. However, some thought to our feelings would be nice.
I think the bio-mom is above the child also. The only person in the "adoption triad' who has screwed up at all, by any standard - is the one who is getting the "kid glove treatment".
That's not at all what I was saying. CA doesn't terminate parental rights until the child is already in the adoptive home and has been in said home for at least six months. It doesn't at all mean that they are still working toward reunification, though. They only do it to prevent adults who have no legal parents because of having parental rights terminated and not getting adopted.
I think they do, also. I think they work with the mother - no mater what. Also, there is no mention from anyone if contact was a requirement of the adoption.
Another poster said that this was "legally at risk children" - in other words, the state was still looking to reunite the child with their mother. So, you could have a baby for a year and then they are working towards reunification.
Once again, the adoptive parents are not considered at all. We don't want a "gold medal" because we want to adopt. However, some thought to our feelings would be nice.
I think the bio-mom is above the child also. The only person in the "adoption triad' who has screwed up at all, by any standard - is the one who is getting the "kid glove treatment".
Not true.
Both of the children I fostered had no contact with their bio parents and none was ever recommended.
As a matter of fact it was discouraged.
In both cases, parental rights had been terminated while the kids were in previous foster homes and there was no expectation of reunification whatsoever.
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.
A thumbs up that I wish I did not have to give. I'll add Alabama. Already tried Florida, NY. NJ. PA. CA and Ohio. 
Wow!
