Jump to content
IGNORED

Second Chance Adoptions


iheartchacos

Recommended Posts

On Tuesday, August 09, 2016 at 11:21 AM, katilac said:

Even if disrupting the adoption is the best choice, their Q&A is pretty insistent that it has zero bad effect on the adopted child. A selection: 

The trauma and heartbreak is confined to the first adoptive family that struggles to accept that years and years of love, and possible many thousands of dollars of therapy not to mention international adoption costs, have had no positive results and they must admit defeat.  

A disruption is much more worse and causes much more trauma. Forever family is supposed to be forever. 

Two months.....

Screenshot_2016-09-06-16-25-38-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On August 9, 2016 at 8:21 AM, katilac said:

Even if disrupting the adoption is the best choice, their Q&A is pretty insistent that it has zero bad effect on the adopted child. A selection: 

The trauma and heartbreak is confined to the first adoptive family that struggles to accept that years and years of love, and possible many thousands of dollars of therapy not to mention international adoption costs, have had no positive results and they must admit defeat.  

Holy CRAP. Oh no, the child has no trauma resulting from years of having no safe place, then having a supposedly safe forever home ripped from him, destroying any faith he'd developed that any place would ever be safe.... oh no, it's ALL ABOUT the special snowflake parents whose generosity was rejected ungratefully. The narcissism is strong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2016 at 2:21 PM, seattlechic said:

O.M.F.G.

 

I just saw the page. And dutifully reported it to the Facebooks as promoting human trafficking. What a bunch of pricks. 

Unfortunately, this is perfectly legal in most if not all states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Unbelievably, nearly every state has a 'no return' policy on foster children who are adopted' - from the FAQ

 

um, yeah. Cause they're adopted. You can 'return' foster kids but it takes a lot to go through the system and adopt, yet they didn't know it'd be permanent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IronicallyMaeve said:

Unfortunately, this is perfectly legal in most if not all states.

Makes me so incredibly sad I can't even. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people talking about no trauma from the rehoming...I wasn't rehomed but I was passed from one family member to the next for years because my parents couldn't care for me at the time and they wanted to "share the burden". I know my extended family love me but I do carry a huge amount of emotional scarring from no one ever wanting to keep me long-term and love me as their own.

I can't even begin to imagine the trauma of being told this was forever after moving from everything you know and then being moved again. Ugh. But I guess they all reconcile it as "at least they're Americans now."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Thursday, September 08, 2016 at 4:53 PM, anachronistic said:

'Unbelievably, nearly every state has a 'no return' policy on foster children who are adopted' - from the FAQ

 

um, yeah. Cause they're adopted. You can 'return' foster kids but it takes a lot to go through the system and adopt, yet they didn't know it'd be permanent?

Rehoming is very common. There's so many loopholes. I wonder if foster parents gave back the subsidy after they get rid of a adopted child. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Toothfairy said:

Rehoming is very common. There's so many loopholes. I wonder if foster parents gave back the subsidy after they get rid of a adopted child. 

It has been my experience that families who place their children out-of-home almost always fight tooth and nail to keep their adoption subsidies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mercer said:

It has been my experience that families who place their children out-of-home almost always fight tooth and nail to keep their adoption subsidies.

They do. There's so many loopholes with that. They're not even charged with a crime. They get rid of the kid, yet the checks keep coming in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia: 

Civil lawsuit

The parents of one of Fogle's victims filed a civil lawsuit against Fogle for personal injury and emotional distress.[76] Fogle filed a motion arguing that the parents are actually liable for the injuries because the parents fought and abused alcohol in front of the daughter.[76]

>_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I was just perusing Nicole Naugler's personal facebook page and came across a "share" she made that piqued my interest.

www.facebook.com/secondchanceadoptions/posts/782849215202937  

It links back to this facebook page for Second Chance Adoptions:  www.facebook.com/secondchanceadoptions/

Here is their website:  wiaa.org/2nd-chance-adoption/ 

Although it sounds like rehoming kids that have already been adopted, they say it's NOT rehoming:

"No, our Second Chance for Kids program does not ‘re-home’ a child. Instead we use a carefully regulated, legal process following all the laws of the state in which the child lives and all laws of the state in which the new adoptive family lives. New adoptive families must have a current home study and background clearances to ensure they are approved by their state of residence to parent an adopted child. During the adoption process both the placing family and the adoptive family have legal representation, and before a child can leave their original adoptive home each state must give their approval for the adoption. The adoption of the child is finalized in a recognized court just like any other domestic adoption."

I don't know...  
We've discussed several cases of rehoming children on here (mainly with fundamentalists or evangelicals), and this just sounds hinky to me, so thought I'd share.  The descriptions that are shared with the kids photos are kinda creepy too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this page on Facebook just because it makes me so intensely curious (and uncomfortable). The descriptions really do make it sound like they're selling the kids. 

There's often kids whose parents require the child to be adopted into an evangelical or Christian family. Usually comes with the qualifier "no LDS."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sassyNoz47 said:

There's a thread somewhere a couple pages back that discusses this. It's a good thread to find and read. 

I just looked over the last 4 pages of QFoS and found "Fundie Adoption Bloggers".  Is that the one?
If this needs merging, I'm down for that. ;)  

ETA:  Found the thread you're talking about...

Can a mod merge or delete this thread?  Sorry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2016 at 8:03 AM, Tim-Tom Biblethumper said:



www.facebook.com/secondchanceadoptions/posts/782849215202937  

It links back to this facebook page for Second Chance Adoptions:  www.facebook.com/secondchanceadoptions/

Here is their website:  wiaa.org/2nd-chance-adoption/ 

,<snip.>

I went to the website and am sorry. This is about the saddest thing I've heard of.  Haunting. 

Later:  I took a big gulp of wine and went to their FB page and somehow feel a bit better. There are many children there that have found new homes.  That does not mean I would not like to throttle the adults that couldn't make it work.  Maybe I'm being too judgmental, maybe sometimes it just does not work...idk...damn shame it happens but good that through FB some of the children "rehomed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.  In my opinion, adopting a child is no different than giving birth to a child.  That is now your child and you are responsible for raising him/her.  These idiots wouldn't "re-home" their bio kids, it shouldn't be allowed with adopted kids either.  The child is your's.  Find a way to make it work.  End of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me so sad. One of the Facebook comment from the agency that the little boy was being given up because the mom has cancer. I don't get why that means you have to give away your child. Find a family member living nearby to care for them if you're unable to, sure. Give them up entirely, to be sent who-knows-where? No way. And I guaran-damn-tee they would NOT be giving away a bio kid in the same circumstances.

Another post said the kid had to go to a family who would go to church regularly and teach him about Jesus, but no LDS, Catholic, or Jehovah's Witnesses. So you're cool with handing off your kid to strangers as long as they're the right kind of Jesusy? 

Something that really really bugs me is the fact that they don't say the state or even the part of the country where the child is currently living. Wouldn't it reduce the stress and disruption on the child to at least attempt to keep them in the same region? I mean, imagine they're living in North Dakota and a family in Florida adopts them. Not only are they leaving everything they know and care about AGAIN, but they're having to adapt to an entirely new climate! Plus there's travel. How does that even work? I've heard of rehoming stories where they met in a parking lot and handed off the kid and never saw or heard from them again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, CrazyLurkerLady said:

This makes me so sad. One of the Facebook comment from the agency that the little boy was being given up because the mom has cancer. I don't get why that means you have to give away your child. Find a family member living nearby to care for them if you're unable to, sure. Give them up entirely, to be sent who-knows-where? No way. And I guaran-damn-tee they would NOT be giving away a bio kid in the same circumstances.

Yeah, exactly. A cancer diagnosis is certainly a very difficult situation, but you don't just start giving your kids away on the internet when things get difficult. It would never occur to someone to hand off their biological child to strangers when they get sick; an adopted child shouldn't be any different. 

Whether they became a parent through adoption or birth, they are the parent and they need to figure something out! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

this is by far one of the saddest threads in a forum  I ever encountered I have shed some tears :(( . In my well regulated country it takes years of social services visits, psychologists , and mental evaluations to even be allowed to adopt a kid ... how can this be true ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 11:04 PM, CrazyLurkerLady said:

This makes me so sad. One of the Facebook comment from the agency that the little boy was being given up because the mom has cancer. I don't get why that means you have to give away your child. Find a family member living nearby to care for them if you're unable to, sure. Give them up entirely, to be sent who-knows-where? No way. And I guaran-damn-tee they would NOT be giving away a bio kid in the same circumstances.

Another post said the kid had to go to a family who would go to church regularly and teach him about Jesus, but no LDS, Catholic, or Jehovah's Witnesses. So you're cool with handing off your kid to strangers as long as they're the right kind of Jesusy? 

Something that really really bugs me is the fact that they don't say the state or even the part of the country where the child is currently living. Wouldn't it reduce the stress and disruption on the child to at least attempt to keep them in the same region? I mean, imagine they're living in North Dakota and a family in Florida adopts them. Not only are they leaving everything they know and care about AGAIN, but they're having to adapt to an entirely new climate! Plus there's travel. How does that even work? I've heard of rehoming stories where they met in a parking lot and handed off the kid and never saw or heard from them again. 

I saw this post. I personally know a caseworker trying to work with the agency. However when the caseworker said she'll find a family for two sisters the family said they wanted to keep one then rehome the other because she is too angry 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My heart breaks. It just breaks. These are children who can not, could not, and will not be able to help their situations, being passed along because they are not the right kind of "doll" that their adoptive parents thought they would be. Parenting is hard. Period. I feel like most of these are people who thought it would be a cake walk, bringing in children, and then saying, oops, no wrong. Sorry. Can't do this. The one that is absolutely breaking my heart right now is the 11 year old who has been with her family for 10 years. You have had that precious girl since she was an infant and now you're just going to be like, no thanks. She's not for me. How dare you! Like how do you sleep at night.  That right there is nothing but human trafficking, I don't care what anyone has to say about it.  Shameful. I hope her people and frankly all the people giving up their adoptive children in that organization are done trying to be parents. It is clearly not for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kid was adopted.  I couldn't get through this thread let alone keep reading that site.  Makes me all stabby. :my_angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.