Adopted kid not working out?/Re-Homing Child (Merged Thread)

[thoughtful]

Here is another case where disruption would have been a good thing, but the adoption should probably not have gone through in the first place. If they don't accept a plea bargain, the next big case to go to trial is the Barbours in October. A Deputy Attorney General and his wife adopted two Ethiopian children through a "Christian agency" and abused them severely. As with Hana, Pearl methods of discipline were used by the Barbours. Both children are alive, but the little girl was blinded and paralyzed due to severe head injuries.

Trigger warning for the link. This is another horrible case:

reformtalk.net/2012/10/06/how-could-you-hall-of-shame-prosecutor-douglas-barbour-and-kristen-barbour/

Anyone in PA who could go to court to show support for these two little ones and report on what happens?

Or eastern Ohio, since Pittsburgh is very far west in PA.

[Nootbar]

I think it's disgusting when people do this to dogs. "Rehoming" - someone should rehome these adoptive parents' assholes. Human beings are not disposable, fungible, nor a commodity. I HATE to say it should be harder to adopt but maybe it should. Harder to adopt and procedurally impossible to pull something like this...

[paganhomeschooler]

I'd go if I could. The 'burgh is about a 3-1/2 hour drive or so for me. I couldn't take my son to something like that, though, and we don't let the oldest one babysit yet. In fact, I don't think she's ever been left in charge of the youngest for anything longer than us driving around the block to test the brakes or something like that. He rides the bus with my other daughter, but I don't like to have him getting on/off the bus unsupervised. It's not the girls' responsibility to make sure he's safe. (Hi Duggars....why don't you try that some time???) I'm already panicky that I've got to make a fabric/cheese run to Amish Country on Monday, and I might not make it back in time between getting them on the bus in the morning and being home in time to get them back off when they come home.

[chaotic life]

One of my friends told me yesterday that an acquaintance suggested she rehome her daughter because she was in a particularly difficult phase.

The last time I spoke to my own grandmother was eight months before Micah died. We went through a string of scary hospitalizations and after one of the worst she sent me a FB message to demand to know if I was getting rid of him because he was so inconvenient. My last words to her were to tell her that he was my SON and he doesn't stop being my son simply because he got sick and was in the hospital, therefore he would ALWAYS come back home when he was well enough to be out of the hospital because this is where he belonged.

The one good thing that happened by my newest son showing up in the middle of Micah dying was that he got to see FIRST HAND that we do NOT get rid of children in this house. They don't come much harder to deal with than Micah did (nothing quite like a savant with lots of bodily fluids to turn into weapons) and dying was messy and ugly and scary to that poor baby. My son had the police called on him before he was thrown away (for refusing to share a library book with a younger sibling--I kid you not). It was comforting for him to see that there was nothing you could do in this house that we did not fight FOR YOU.

[Peas n carrots]

I know you can't ignore many of the kids in the article have issues, but I can't help to wonder how much is blown out of proportion, based on some of CL's experiences? I just don't think many of these parents don't do enough leg work on their end.

I'm a mere adoptee lite and I never experienced the trauma so many international and foster system adoptees have experienced. What I do understand is so often the adoption triad is about the adoptive parents, and not the kids. We are supposed to be forever grateful for the charity we've been shown by the merciful adoptive parents. It's also like adoptees are supposed to be these blank slates that the adoptive families so graciously imprint their values. It just doesn't work that way, especially with older kids.

Just curious, but CL had you ever seen cases of people re-homing bio kids, or was it all adoptees?

[SoybeanQueen]

It was comforting for him to see that there was nothing you could do in this house that we did not fight FOR YOU.

I'm glad he was comforted by that. My kids have been with us for 2.5 years, and I think it will be a few more years before they truly believe we won't give up on them because their previous family sent them away with no warning. They had been with that family for 4 years. I'm guessing we have at least that long until our kids feel truly safe, but they've made outstanding progress in the meantime.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Just curious, but CL had you ever seen cases of people re-homing bio kids, or was it all adoptees?

That's what I'm curious about too. It's what I was getting at when I mentioned that adoptive kids are just as much your kids as biokids - not that the situations are the same experience wise or human relationship wise necessarily, I get (intellectually, as an outsider) that there are serious issues that shouldn't be minimized, and I certainly don't intend to glibly say "love conquers all" or similar, but I'm just talking LEGALLY.

Surely it will help for there to be more resources for any parents that are at the end of their ropes for whatever reason, I know by me I see ads for crisis nursery and whatnot on the bus (not that that's sufficient either), but... reading that Reuter's article (quite the wtf article there) I couldn't help but wondering how people are thinking it's okay, responsibility wise, to just sign off your kids (because yeah, YOUR kids) to strangers because they aren't as attached, or whatever. It's a responsibility thing.

I suppose I should just be thankful that I don't know that mental state they must have reached, but...? At the least it seems to me that they should endure the state looking into things if that's what has to happen, and relinquish those kids into an official system with at least SOME safeguards. (Though of course one of the women in the article wouldn't do that because then likely her other 9 adoptive kids would be taken away and she was making money off of them, I just can't imagine...)

[slickcat79]

Trigger warning for the link. This is another horrible case:

reformtalk.net/2012/10/06/how-could-you-hall-of-shame-prosecutor-douglas-barbour-and-kristen-barbour/

Anyone in PA who could go to court to show support for these two little ones and report on what happens?

If they are at the Allegheny County courthouse, I'll go. It's only 2 blocks from my office and we have an hour lunch. I can't seem to get the courthouse calendar function to work for me, but I'll try to find some more information about the proceedings.

[chaotic life]

Yes, people get rid of biological kids too. It's not uncommon for teens to end up on couches informally. One of my best friends in college was bounced into multiple group homes and military schools from age 12 until she went to court and got emancipated. Her only crime was that she looked too much like her dead mother and her step mother wanted her gone.

[ladyaudley]

Ugh, i'm just reading the report. An ex-bf of mine went to the boys' boarding school that the guy who runs the FB group works at. Too close for comfort.

[Rachel333]

I'm just thinking of a woman I met with two biological children who found out that her older son had been raping her younger son. She was of course very angry with him and immediately separated the boys, saying that they were not going to be living together ever again (the older one went to a treatment center for teenage sexual offenders and then I believe the plan was that he would live with an aunt), but one thing she kept saying is that he's still her son and she still has a responsibility to him. And then there are all these people getting rid of their adopted children for much less. Obviously the experience of adopting a child will be much different than birthing one, and I'm sure there are situations where re-homing really is best, but you're still making a commitment to a child, aren't you? I also just can't imagine what that would do to a child to be rejected by their new parents.

I knew another family who adopted an older boy from Russia, fairly naively thinking that love would be enough. He turned out to have some fairly severe emotional issues, as I'm sure many of those kids do, but they too kept saying that he's still their son even if he never lived with them again. He lived in a residential home for a while and then they helped him go to college. Last I heard he was doing really well in the military; I think the structure there really suited him.

[Sola]

I think you are being naive about this. Not in a bad/insulting way, but this idealism is probably at work in some of the families that implode with adoption as well.

Adoption is *not* the same as birthing.

Adoption often comes with unique issues to adoption, faced by both the adoptees and the adoptive parents. The idea that love conquers all is extremely damaging even with biokids (for example, people often think that if they don't feel super bonded to their expected child in the womb or right after birth they must be monsters...but that is unfair and untrue...some perfectly normal people do take some time to bond post-birth!).

To say there is no difference between an adopted child and ones born in the family is a lie. It's a lie that many times is told in a well meaning sense, but can be hurtful to the adoptee as well. Difference does not mean less love and less wanted and less a part of a family. But to deny that there ARE some fundamental pragmatic differences is part of the dissonance that many (even non-angry) adoptees experience at some point growing up.

And yes, some people relinquish/institutionalize their biological children if there is severe mental illness or special needs.

I agree with the previous poster that the real solution (harder than pointing the finger at any one category of people) is to ensure that there is adequate funded and accessible support for ALL families experiencing mental health/adjustment issues, especially severe ones. No matter where the child came from.

And yes, we need to have reform and more regulation in the adoption industry. I'm a biracial adoptee who was placed with a good christian white abusive family. I have a dog in this fight, a big one, on a lot of different fronts. I too am glad these dangerous practices are being brought to light. Unfortunately the adoption industry lobby is very rich. They've suppressed many regulation attempts, and are part of the reason why screening, ect. is extremely lax (IMO). The public is sympathetic to upset potential adoptive parents who feel miffed that their 'privacy' is being invaded by a social worker screening them/their family/asking personal questions; IMO people who can't get over that should be automatically disqualified from adoption...because they might have to deal with a whole hell of a lot more uncomfortable things from within the family later on.

You're missing my point. Yes I know that quite frequently adopted children have severe issues. My point isn't that the children are the same, its that how we treat those children should be the same. Legally adopted children have the same status as biological children, but these people who re-home these kids conveniently forget this. If your biological child has severe issues you get hem help, you put them in therapy, what you don't do is re-home them like unwanted puppies on craigslist. The same should apply to adoptive kids.

BTW I don't consider putting a child in a therapeutic school as the same thing.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Bumping the thread just to mention that the local talk show "Focus" on WILL-AM radio (AM 580 from Urbana, IL) will have a show on this "Private Rehoming" at 10 AM CDT Wednesday September 18th:

This hour on Focus, host Jim Meadows talks with reporter Megan Twohey about her series “The Child Exchange,†which ran last week in Reuters. In it, Twohey investigates “private re-homing,†a process by which an adoptive family can legally hand a child over into another adult’s care without involving adoption officials or government agencies.

This hour, we’ll talk with Twohey about a central Illinois woman who had her children taken away by social services for being an unfit parent but was still able to adopt children legally through a chat group on Yahoo. We’ll find out how parents are able to transfer custody legally without state officials knowing what’s going on, and we’ll talk with Twohey about what has happened to a few children who have been unofficially re-homed through internet custody transfers.

Maria Gocke, Director of Adoption at Illini Christian Ministries, also joins us this hour on Focus. We’ll talk with her about why adoptive families sometimes try and find their adopted children new homes and what types of rules are in place to protect those children from being abused and neglected.

The station streams live over the internet but also archives the local shows, so it should be available as a podcast/mp3 download after it airs.

I read the Reuters articles online that were posted upthread. The "central Illinois woman" was doing her thing in and around Danville and small towns nearby, not so far from where this station is, so I kinda wonder if there will be any local angles.

[javafriend]

This broadcast is in my area. I don't have to work today so I can listen and comment back here if there is anything interesting.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Here is an article from an adoptive mom, kind of a rebuttal:

Lastmom.com/problems-with-reuters-series-on-re-homing-adopted-children-a-k-a-adoption-disruptions/

[javafriend]

I listened to the broadcast on 580. Nothing new was said. I was impressed by the articulate reporter from Reuters and a little disappointed in the host Jim Meadows. I usually like him but I felt like he wasn't well prepared enough for this story. During the first half hour, he seemed to be focused on how difficult foreign adoptions can be rather than the horrible fact that people were off-loading unwanted kids through internet ads like they were used cars instead of human beings.

The other participant in the program was a representative of a local Christian adoption agency. She talked about the difference between agencies that were Hague certified and those that weren't. Essentially, the Hague certified adoption agencies are required to have many more checks and balances in place to screen and assist adopting families. Her agency is Hague certified and she was very critical of internet rehoming.

There was no mention of a connection to fundie Christians who adopt from questionable agencies with the assumption that their adoptees will immediately fit into their rigid lifestyle. I would love to know how many of these internet ads for kids come from fundie families who adopted for Jesus.

[2xx1xy1JD]

There desperately needs to be:

1. Mandatory standards for educating potential adoptive parents about challenges that can arise, esp. with older children or children who have experienced various traumas.

2. Good, accessible resources for all parents who encounter problems, without labeling the parents as unfit.

3. New laws that make it impossible to transfer custody/guardianship without adequate background checks. Even if it is done on consent, transferring custody/guardianship to a non-parent should require more than a Power of Attorney - it should require a court order which can only be made after the background checks are completed.

As I mentioned in another thread, the laws in my province changed to require mandatory background checks after some hideous cases where children were killed. Google "jeffrey baldwin inquest" - this is a coroner's inquest that is currently going on, and the details are just horrific. The poor boy was starved and tortured to death by his grandparents, but neither the courts nor Children's Aid officials ever checked the background of the grandparents before placing the boy with them. If they had, they would have discovered past assault charges and the suspicious death of a baby 20 years earlier.

[dianapavelovna]

Here is an article from an adoptive mom, kind of a rebuttal:

Lastmom.com/problems-with-reuters-series-on-re-homing-adopted-children-a-k-a-adoption-disruptions/

I agree with the first commenter - she totally missed the point. There are lots of parents and families who wear themselves to the bone trying to help their adopted children and get them appropriate treatment and care. In some cases, disruption can be in the child's best interest. The families profiled in the Reuters series were careless, selfish, and reckless. I remember it was stated about one family that they "tried therapy, but it was too expensive." That creepy woman who was profiled and had taken in so many children stated that she could go online and have a kid in her home within days. That's not right, it's not responsible or acceptable, and the people who do that to their children deserve prosecution much more than any parent who ends up surrendering their kids to CPS.