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.
Tell me again how average childless couples can adopt especially when competing against Hollywood?
Quote:
She hired David Ellis, a law*yer whose Brentwood firm, Adoptions First, has worked with The Beach Boys' Brian Wilson, Jeffrey Tambor and Howie Mandel. Ellis found a 20-year-old Texas woman who already had two children and was seven months pregnant. "She seemed very certain," says Speciale. "She was really poor and didn't have a job. Her boyfriend was in and out of jail." On her second trip to Texas, Speciale flew back to L.A. with the mother, who never had been on a plane, and her two little boys.
Relocation is not uncommon among Ellis' clients: "Once they get here, they get terrific medical care. It increases the success rate substantially — the birth mother is isolated from a negative environment," i.e., unsupportive family members. Speciale put the mother and her children up in a Manhattan Beach hotel and hired professional birth-mother companion Darcy Hall at $35 an hour. Hall kept the family of three entertained — at the beach, out to lunch — while Speciale shot episodes of a reality show. But by the time the mother went into labor with Speciale's gynecologist at Cedars-Sinai, they had bonded, says Speciale: "It was like I had three children, and one of them was a pregnant teenage girl."
Wealthy, well-connected people using their money and their connections to jump to the head of the line and obtain the things they want. This is about as surprising as learning that the sun rose in the east this morning.
If we really want to increase the numbers of adoptions (not just by celebrities but by "normal" people) the way to do it is to reform the laws that put "family" (and in some cases, I use that term VERY loosely) reunification above any other consideration, most certainly including the best interests of the child. There's not much we can do about international adoption, as it's the laws and policies of the sending countries that affect the "supply." But at the least, it would be helpful to cut back on some of the red tape that surrounds the process.
The "best interest of the child" is very subjective, depending on the preferred specialist you are speaking with at the moment. The reality is there are too many factors that play into the definition to make it a conclusive statement.
Average childless couples can increase their odds greatly if they are willing to consider foster care, or are willing to adopt outside of the preferred infant demographics. There are thousands of really amazing children looking for love across the country - and world - that are often overlooked by prospective parents that only open their mind to infant adoption.
Average childless couples can increase their odds greatly if they are willing to consider foster care, or are willing to adopt outside of the preferred infant demographics. There are thousands of really amazing children looking for love across the country - and world - that are often overlooked by prospective parents that only open their mind to infant adoption.
I've observed via my husband's practice that many in the foster care arena believe this. For some reason I don't understand they don't see the damage that foster care does to infants and toddlers. The multiple foster homes, multiple case workers, and no permanency in their lives. I also see the numerous childless couples that really need to adopt an infant. Not a school aged child, not a middle school-er, not a high school student or a 21 year old adult. But once they adopt an infant they would be more open to adopting a older child. But until they adopt an infant, shaming, guilting them into adopting older children isn't going to be very effective. This is a hard-wired instinct and it's especially strong in the childless. I think it would be a much more effective to reform the foster system to place children more quickly than trying to shame/guilt people into adopting older children.
I've observed via my husband's practice that many in the foster care arena believe this. For some reason I don't understand they don't see the damage that foster care does to infants and toddlers. The multiple foster homes, multiple case workers, and no permanency in their lives. I also see the numerous childless couples that really need to adopt an infant. Not a school aged child, not a middle school-er, not a high school student or a 21 year old adult. But once they adopt an infant they would be more open to adopting a older child. But until they adopt an infant, shaming, guilting them into adopting older children isn't going to be very effective. This is a hard-wired instinct and it's especially strong in the childless. I think it would be a much more effective to reform the foster system to place children more quickly than trying to shame/guilt people into adopting older children.
You paint with a broad brush. The fact is there is no generalization that applies. We had many kids in our home that only had one foster home, one case worker, and were successfully reunited with family. The fact is, a majority of foster cases are not as seen on the 9 pm news with cages and starvation. Most are actually settled with some counseling, care, and resolving underlying issues that made the home unsafe. We only provided a temporary place where kids were safe and loved.
Additionally, I have never shamed or guilted anyone into foster care and think that your statement is not only assumptive, but downright absurd for anyone who knows me. I only suggest that people may want to consider it as an option if they know nothing about it. I wanted nothing to do with it initially and was literally pacifying my wife's passion for children until learning what an amazing way it is to help out kids in need.
As foster parents we did receive preferential treatment when infants came along that were going to be available for adoptions since the agency knew us and knew we were going to be able to deal with the 2.5 year process as well as making a good fit with the prospective child(ren). That is a reality, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
You paint with a broad brush. The fact is there is no generalization that applies. We had many kids in our home that only had one foster home, one case worker, and were successfully reunited with family. The fact is, a majority of foster cases are not as seen on the 9 pm news with cages and starvation. Most are actually settled with some counseling, care, and resolving underlying issues that made the home unsafe. We only provided a temporary place where kids were safe and loved.
Additionally, I have never shamed or guilted anyone into foster care and think that your statement is not only assumptive, but downright absurd for anyone who knows me. I only suggest that people may want to consider it as an option if they know nothing about it. I wanted nothing to do with it initially and was literally pacifying my wife's passion for children until learning what an amazing way it is to help out kids in need.
As foster parents we did receive preferential treatment when infants came along that were going to be available for adoptions since the agency knew us and knew we were going to be able to deal with the 2.5 year process as well as making a good fit with the prospective child(ren). That is a reality, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
I'm glad to hear that your foster care unit achieves permanency so quickly. I don't believe that is the case in a majority of the cases I've seen. It's good to know that at least one program is working as it should. Phrases like "your adoption wait time will be long" have never struck me as constructive. I've also sure that phrases like "preferential treatment" will never be well received by childless couples. Buying into programs either via large amounts of fees/expenses or by being resources for state foster care units are not going to endear childless couples to any adoption programs. I just don't see them thrilled to be told that they have to be a foster resource for years in order to perhaps get a chance to adopt an infant. I mean exactly how many loses do they have to endure before they are judged worthy to adopt? I applaud you for caring for our nation's most vulnerable children.
I've observed via my husband's practice that many in the foster care arena believe this. For some reason I don't understand they don't see the damage that foster care does to infants and toddlers. The multiple foster homes, multiple case workers, and no permanency in their lives.
I also see the numerous childless couples that really need to adopt an infant.
Not a school aged child, not a middle school-er, not a high school student or a 21 year old adult. But once they adopt an infant they would be more open to adopting a older child. But until they adopt an infant, shaming, guilting them into adopting older children isn't going to be very effective. This is a hard-wired instinct and it's especially strong in the childless. I think it would be a much more effective to reform the foster system to place children more quickly than trying to shame/guilt people into adopting older children.
No, they don't NEED to adopt an infant. They WANT to. No one NEEDS to have a baby, adopting a healthy white infant is not some sort of right.
And some of those school age children came into foster care when they were infants and toddlers, but because there was something "wrong" with them (minority, drugs in their background, possibly some special needs) they become elementary aged children still in foster care. People who want to adopt a perfect, healthy, newborn who will look like them need to get off the idea that they can special order their child. It's sad and it's sick and it actually leads to the types of situations where the highest bidder gets the kid.
No, they don't NEED to adopt an infant. They WANT to. No one NEEDS to have a baby, adopting a healthy white infant is not some sort of right.
And some of those school age children came into foster care when they were infants and toddlers, but because there was something "wrong" with them (minority, drugs in their background, possibly some special needs) they become elementary aged children still in foster care. People who want to adopt a perfect, healthy, newborn who will look like them need to get off the idea that they can special order their child. It's sad and it's sick and it actually leads to the types of situations where the highest bidder gets the kid.
Good luck convincing them of that. The US Foster Care System relies on the good will of others. Keep preaching at them. Keep attempting to shame them. I wonder what will happen to your success rates? I believe that the percentage of children needing adoption is 40% to 60% depending upon the quality of the foster care system. The number of children in foster care rose this year. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default...rsreport22.pdf) The foster care system is going to have to do a better job of creating a permanency plan for these children. If they want to attract more childless couples to the foster care system, that means more infants and toddler adoptions.
No, they don't NEED to adopt an infant. They WANT to. No one NEEDS to have a baby, adopting a healthy white infant is not some sort of right.
While one does not have a right to adopt a healthy white baby, neither does anyone have an obligation to adopt an unhealthy minority child. And trying to shame would-be adoptive parents into taking someone that they really don't want is not in anyone's best interests.
While one does not have a right to adopt a healthy white baby, neither does anyone have an obligation to adopt an unhealthy minority child. And trying to shame would-be adoptive parents into taking someone that they really don't want is not in anyone's best interests.
I'm not trying to "shame" anyone. I'm saying if you can't special order exactly the child you want, maybe you shouldn't be a parent.
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.
