Posted on 03/21/2002 8:08:04 AM PST by mombonn
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:21 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Isn't it possible that the state of Connecticut has too heavy a hand in determining the fitness of prospective parents (i.e., over-regulation)?
Actually, I have never asked them about sexual orentation however, I know that they both date women at UT.
BTW-After hearing some of the details of the Andrea Yates case my youngest wrote in an e-mail "They should not let straight people raise children."
No, I really don't think so. Let me explain why. The majority of the TPR'ed kids have been either physically/sexually abused or severely neglected. (TPR = Termination of Parental Rights). In order to deal effectively with the residual emotional effects of this abuse, prospective parents need to know what to expect and the best way to deal with it. Hording of food, parentification, learning disabilities, failure to bond, early sexualization, fetal alcohol syndrome and its aftermath, fetal drug addiction and many other charming problems come with the kids. And if they are REALLY lucky, they'll have none of the biggies.
Try this exercise to get a feel for the mindset of the foster kid. Write down your favorite person, your favorite toy, your favorite sibling, your favorite class in school, your favorite teacher, your favorite friend. Now rip up that piece of paper because you will probably never see any of those people or things again. Now move from place to place, school to school, every six months for the next three years. You never really belong. Now, imagine some nice young couple coming into your life, calling themselves your parents and telling you that everything was going to be okay. They smile a lot but you see the fear in their eyes.
Do you trust them or do you test them?
Wimps wash out in the state run courses for a very good reason. People who want a child to fulfill some need in THEIR lives are identified and gotten rid of as nicely as possible. You have to be there to provide unconditional love and stability to a child who is going to spend at least six months testing you, trying to break you, doing everything possible to prove that you are just like ALL THE OTHERS, before they can trust you enough to love you back.
Nope, in this case, heavy-handedness really is called for. Only the tough can parent kids who were in the system. Its a calling, I think.
At the time we were going through our preparatory classes, Kristine Ragaglia had been appointed commissioner of DCF. She had a mandate to improve the foster care situation, which I'm sure you remember, was abysmal. She needed success stories, immediately. X42 had recently announced initiatives to reduce the amount of time that kids spend in the foster system to a year or less before making them available for adoption. Prior too that, the emphasis had always been on keeping the family together regardless of how bad the parents were. Kids languished for years in the "system" while their crackhead parents went from rehab to the street and back again and again.
My wife and I had a number of qualifications that were rare in the general population. We were counsellors for years at a summer camp put on by our church for kids in the Foster care system. We had been Special Olympics coaches for years and had worked closely (and successfully) with mentally challenged athletes. We had an excellent support group in that we come from large families with many aunts, uncles and cousins close by. We were active members of a strong church that the social workers were very familiar with. Above average in income, education, community involvement. In short, we met DCF's stated critical success factors. We also were very open about the number, race, age, sex and mental acuity of the children we would consider for adoption. We weren't after the proverbial white infant.
At the same time our training and homestudy was going on, a foster home was being closed down and two young brothers with special needs were going to be cut loose. They had just been TPR'ed and were probably going to be split up due to the limited number of foster homes that would accept sibling groups.
It was a good match and has worked out, with a lot of hard work, love and support from family and friends.
With regard to your not questioning the ingenuousness of my comments, I thank you. All too often, one must have their BS meter on high alert on FR, particularly when discussing something of import with someone you aren't familiar with.
These particular qualifictions were not ours. We had an excellent support group in that we come from large families with many aunts, uncles and cousins close by.
We did not come from large families on either side but there would gave been one set of living grandparents and at least a couple of aunts and uncles and cousins that would be close by.
We were active members of a strong church that the social workers were very familiar with.
Alas our particular church was not social worker approved nor were we very active but that may have nothing to do with it.
Above average in income, education, community involvement.
These qualifications we met.
In short, we met DCF's stated critical success factors.
We also were very open about the number, race, age, sex and mental acuity of the children we would consider for adoption.
We specified that we could not handle profoundly handicapped children. That is a child who was probably going to need institutionalization for his/her entire life. Noe could we commit our hearts and souls to a child under a sentence of death from disease. We have friends who adopted a baby with HIV and the agony they went through over that child's life is not something we could sign on to up front. had anything happened to any child in our care then we would have dealt with ot but the up front knowledge going in was too much risk. We were open to any child of any race who could grow to become independant. We would have been delighted with two or even three siblings.
We weren't after the proverbial white infant.Neither were we.
IN short I do congratulate you on your good luck and the timing of your adoption with the need for DCF to get a few success stories to improve their image. Knowing several couples who are still waiting after years who IMHO would make exellent parents I maintain my opinion of DCF and the way they allocate children.
This original piece was about homosexual adoptive parents. The canard about a shortage of adoptive parents is just that unless one talks about those children who are very profoundly handicapped or ill but these are not the children going to homosexual parents. They are getting the proverbial white infants and the waiting list of hetero sexual couples who would otherwise be qualified grows. The real problem is that children are still being harmed by the system. Due to the fact I am now a widower I freely admit i am not probably the best choice for an adoptive parent but I would still at least give a child a home where he or she would be nutured, loved and supported. Once more I congratulate you on your family.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Good. Such parents are using the kids, even if they do love them.
Either the author isn't a parent or they have mush for brains!!!
Children are NOT better off in an abnormal, deviant relationship that rarely lasts!!! It's time these homosexuals stoped lying to us and themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.