Rep. Harris & wife rehome adopted children Now with Exorcism

[ThisOlGirl]

I'd like to know who this social worker was that told them they wouldn't help them and threatened to charge them with abandonment. I'd also like to know who these therapists doctors and such are that told them to give their children away. Something should be done about these people.

Oh yeah. They probably don't exist.

[Walking Cat Bed]

I'd like to know who this social worker was that told them they wouldn't help them and threatened to charge them with abandonment. I'd also like to know who these therapists doctors and such are that told them to give their children away. Something should be done about these people.

Oh yeah. They probably don't exist.

I suspect you're on to something.

And that the threat these little girls posed was less "we fear for our lives because these formerly sweet children are now EVIL!!!" and more "once we owned them and started beating them like god Michael Pearl intended, they stopped being so sweet and compliant and we didn't want to deal with it".

[Burris]

I am not defending these people in any way, shape, or form, but let me tell you a story from my own life....

I agree with the others here: There is a difference between what you did and what the people under discussion here (including a state representative, apparently) are doing.

-- You worked through the system rather than outside of it.

-- You sound as though you put the best interests of the child first in how you treated her when she lived with you and in how you approached the difficult task of finding the most suitable placement for her.

Biological parents might have to consider a group home or other outside placement for a child who consistently behaves in a manner dangerous to herself or to others. Those who are unable to access the resources they need to help a child with those kinds of disabilities could end up resorting to desperate measures.

It's not an enviable position. I suspect no other person would want to face the same difficulties the child, you, and your family faced.

Hopefully the potential backlash against the practice of "rehoming," as described here, doesn't have a negative impact on those families that had no choice but to place children - biological, adopted, or fostered - in another environment better suited to their needs.

[older than allosaurs]

I can imagine that the Harrises got some pushback from DHS about wanting to disrupt an adoption that had just been finalized, particularly after DHS had already removed the oldest, strongest and most disruptive of the sisters. A caseworker might have told them that 1) a few months of therapy is only the beginning of the work you need to do with traumatized kids who have already lost their mother, their home and their older sister; 2) a 3 and 6 year old are not life-threatening, no matter how unpleasant it may be to hear blood curdling pronouncements; 3) pets who are small enough to be squished by a little kid shouldn't be left alone with any little one, never mind one who has already been abused. Duh. None of those behaviors during the first year in a placement strikes me as the kind of thing that makes you give up, especially if you know enough about child development to run a preschool for disadvantaged children.

It is inconceivable to me that the Harrises weren't told in their adoption prep that they were likely in for a long hard haul with those girls. So yeah, if DHS said that sounded like abandonment, they had a point.

I have heard of families being told they will face abandonment charges if they return children to the state. I have no idea how often that actually happens and under what circumstances.

One of our memories of the early years makes me smile now: Our younger daughter, who was indeed a violent little thing at the beginning, also had delayed speech and articulation problems. When she told us--often--"I hate you," it sounded like a sneeze--"iachoo." We learned to say Gesundheit, tell her we loved her, and life went on. Good practice for the teenage years.

--edited because I wasn't making sense the first time--

[KateFowler]

This reminds me of that Law and Order: SVU that was on last year or the year before that about the rich woman who gives her adopted son away to a "Christian couple" who turn out to be child pornographers. At the time I thought it was a bit over the top, but now I'm wondering if such instances are more common that I'd like to believe. :( :shock: "Rehoming" is the perfect way for pedophiles to obtain victims, or alternately for people looking for unpaid domestic labor, since no one knows the child in question exists and no one is actively looking for him/her. Hopefully, the outrage will be such that rehoming can be made illegal.

The vile practice of Rehoming is scarily common among the "orphan saving" Evangelical Christian cohort. Rehoming is awful and should be illegal -- and that SVU episode was (probably) based on Megan Twohey's devastating Child Exchange piece (for which she deservedly won a Pulitzer Prize).

While many ‘rehoming’ groups got shut down in the wake of Reuters Child Exchange investigation, new ones have popped up to take their place.

Second Chance Adoptions posts ‘free to any home’ ads for adopters who tire of their (usually internationally adopted) kids:

http://Facebook.com/secondchanceadoptions

Ethically-challenged adoption “ministry†Reece’s Rainbow is a virtual clearinghouse of rehomings and “accidental†child deaths:

REHOMINGS

Renee Garcia got tired of little Ukrainian Kellsey (with Down Syndrome), so kicked her to the curb:

myspecialks.com/2013/02/the-stormy-side-of-rainbow.html

Autumn Winkle adopted Ukrainian Bogdan & Yuri, but quickly tired of the latter – so kicked him to the curb too!:

noknots.blogspot.com/2011/10/story-you-have-been-waiting-for.html​

allabouttheenskats.blogspot.com/2011/07/theres-new-kid-in-town.html

Mark and Edna King sent Ukrainian Natasha back to Ukraine (on a ONE-WAY ticket!) when she was all of 17 years old – they tired of her:

newlivesnewloves.blogspot.com/2013/07/turning-18-and-going-back-to-ukraine.html

These folks adopted FOUR Ukrainian teens and REHOMED THREE within the year – one after all of seven weeks (!):

followinghiscall.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/taken-hostage-or-testing-our-love/

Tom and Kari Reilly tired of little Ukrainian Victor & exiled him to ‘crisis respite’ indefinitely:

somewherebehindthemorning.blogspot.com/2012/08/9-weeks-home.html

Carrie and Alan Fitch tired of the two Ukrainian teens they adopted:

findingthea.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-d-word.html

The Earlywine family adopted and disrupted 2 Ukrainian kids with special needs inside SIX MONTHS:

reecesrainbow.org/11094/sponsorearleywine

[Chowder Head]

I am physically ill from reading some of these link. I just cried looking at that horrid Facebook page.

[dianapavelovna]

"We were failed by DHS." Whatever you say buddy.

God, this guy looks and sounds exactly like I would expect.

Fucking vile. It must be so, so painful and devastating, Rep. Harris, just like being raped by your new dad after you were told you were going to live with your last mom and dad forever after you were taken from your family and put through the wringer that is foster care because a family member raped you. When you were six or younger.

He's obfuscating the shit out of everything, but I'll just comment on two things.

1.) "We were not prepared for children with severe, undiagnosed RAD."

Scary scary RAD is thrown around by a lot of shady adoptive parents as a reason they had to DITCH THE KIDS, for THEIR SAFETY. The clinical, evidence-based diagnosis of RAD in the DSM V (and DSM-IV-TR) is not associated with violent, aggressive behavior. Children with RAD tend to be either unusually clingy with caregivers or unusually detached from them. So, not trying to murder them. Dr. Jean Mercer does a lot of excellent debunking of this at her blog. See posts like this, this, and this, and plenty more.

2.) "When Harris and his wife contacted the human services department, he said a current employee told them DHS would pursue abandonment charges if they tried to return the girls to state custody."

First, I feel that referring to "abandonment charges" implies criminal prosecution, and DHS can't do that. I don't know the ins and outs of Arkansas' system and policy, but returning the girls to state custody could result in an allegation of abandonment against the Harrises. The allegation may or may not be validated based on statutory language and the parents' specific actions. But even a validated allegation is not an indelible mark. In a case I'm aware of (although I should note it was not in AR), adoptive parents returned a child to custody and the allegation against them was validated. They appealed it, and it was overturned. And criminal charges? Hahahahaha okay sure.

Also - there is a big difference between calling CPS and saying, "we swear we've tried everything with these kids but they're terrible so come pick them up now" and calling CPS and saying, "we are completely overwhelmed and don't know where to turn next - please help us get the girls the help they need." It's not noted which approach Harris and his wife took. But a family's attitude and intentions definitely influence how things unfold.

And, Rep. Harris, in case you didn't get the point, I don't give a fuck about your "heartbreak." I don't know enough to know if DHS failed those girls, but there is no doubt that you did.

[Mama Mia]

I wonder how often this happens with biological children? Legally, once an adoption is final, there is no difference in status between biological and adopted children. So are there many cases of ' re- homing' difficult biological kids?

I would imagine there's not as many instances, because there would be that initial bonding that would mean you don't just give away your 4 year old for acting like a 4 year old. It would definitely be much " easier" to give away a ten year old you've only known a short time. ( well except that one story where they adopted a newborn and gave him away 4 years later) . And I imagine that extended family is more likely to step in and take over care of a child they have known since birth. Plus, I'm sure, greater social stigma for biological parents. Teens, I know from taking in several, are often bounced from home to home among friends if the parents throw them out or are unable to cope.

But I wonder if there are some pre-school to tween age children who are just handed off to strangers?

The whole thing is awful. some of those family stories -- where the kids were just not " fitting in"??? Wow.

[doggie]

I doubt you will find fundies giving their children away they are gifts from God. Adopted children are a mission. Now they have no problem beating then or kicking them out.

[Mama Mia]

I doubt you will find fundies giving their children away they are gifts from God. Adopted children are a mission. Now they have no problem beating then or kicking them out.

From reading the stories though it doesn't sound like it's just fundamentalist families this happens with. It seems to be a range of people who adopt and then " re- home" their kids. I don't think it's well enough known or tracked to have statistics though. How many kids total ? 100? 1000? 10,000? It's so bizarre there's this underground group just trading children around.

On two separate occasions I raised other people's kids for a bit -- and there was virtually no paperwork required. The first time it was a five year old niece whose mother was suffering from severe mental illness and was in and out of the hospital. The little girl had been through, and seen , an awful lot of bad things. I was very young, and had a toddler and was pregnant when she came to stay for " just a bit" . It was really, really hard! I had never understood how people could want to smack a kid until I dealt with her. I didn't smack her. But she threw worse tantrums than my two year old, lied compulsively, couldn't focus. Of course alternated between being super clingy and super aggressive. Had a really hard time with other children. Took sooooo much patience. I think we did a good job with her. I loved her very much. But it was tough. Basically all we had was a note authorizing us to act as her guardian. It may have been notarized. And we had her medi- acid card. Eventually her mom was stable enough and wanted her back, which was also very, very hard.

Years later a teen- age friend of my daughter had moved out of state. She came down for a " visit" of a month. She came with a note authorizing us to act as her guardian. She stayed until College 2 years later.

We also had various " throw -away" older teen age boys who stayed off and on when my rougher younger kids were teens. It felt like a group home sometimes. When I was growing up my parents would take in various friends of ours who were homeless or kicked out. My husbands family was the same way.

I just can't imagine going to all the work and wait and expense and anticipation of purposefully adopting a child -- and then either deciding they weren't " good" enough within a year. Or even worse, raising them for years and years and just dumping them.

I understand sometimes there are extreme cases where a different placement or therapeutic residential treatment might be the only option. But the frivolous reasons some of these people give! It's mind blowing.

Eta: Good Lord, I just read where Rep. Harris gives the reason that they had to give away the 3 and 6 year old girls was for the safety of his biological children. This sounded questionable, but I assumed he was talking about infants or toddlers --- but no, he's talking about teen- age sons!! What on earth could a 3 and 6 year old do to threaten their safety? The only thing I can think of that they realistically couldn't protect themselves from is being stabbed -- but you shouldn't have sharp knives around kids that little anyway. Just ridiculous

[Four is Enough]

Harris' story definitely doesn't add up. However, I believe that DSS does occasionally threaten people with dire consequences if a family tries to "give back" a child after the child has been adopted. The threat of removing the adoption subsidy OR the threat of making the family repay all the monies paid them during the adoption process and home placement generally sets a family back.

Let me just say that in my state, only special needs children receive an adoption stipend, or subsidy, and/or medical insurance from the state.

My two youngest were considered "special needs" because, simply, there were two of them and the state wanted to place them together. But children with special needs can be any physical issue from diabetes or brittle bone disease, to emotional problems such as our former foster daughter. What is known about the child is disclosed in as much detail as available, and there is no excuse for the family to renege on their responsibility to that child. I can't believe that the Harrises didn't know anything about their children's issues. It's more likely, as another poster has said, that the children merely didn't go along with the program as the Harrises set down, fought, and were punished.

Kids aren't zombies or robots. They are vibrant human beings, and they have rights. This family, and all the others who "send back" a child because they don't fit with their agenda, deserve punishments of their own.

Even foreign adoptions. Yes, those kids have problems, but they are well documented, and treatment is well documented... so they should make themselves aware of what theyre' getting into, before they sign the papers.

[KateFowler]

I can't believe that the Harrises didn't know anything about their children's issues. It's more likely, as another poster has said, that the children merely didn't go along with the program as the Harrises set down, fought, and were punished.

The two little girls lived with Harris for more than six months before the adoption was finalized. Harris KNEW!

Those kids were all of 3 and 6 yo when they moved it -- a 3 yo toddler LITERALLY isn't capable of "pretending" to be okay and then "losing it", like a switch has been flipped on the day they adoption is finalized. Even a healthy, non-abused, non-traumatized lacks the self-control to do that!

Kids aren't zombies or robots. They are vibrant human beings, and they have rights. This family, and all the others who "send back" a child because they don't fit with their agenda, deserve punishments of their own.

Even foreign adoptions. Yes, those kids have problems, but they are well documented, and treatment is well documented... so they should make themselves aware of what theyre' getting into, before they sign the papers.

My baby sis was often a danger to herself and others as a kid -- she was diagnosed with a severe mental illness in grad school. Our parents got her HELP. She wasn't bad... just terrified and very, very sick. (She spent a lot of time in-patient, takes meds daily and is now college-educated, gainfully employed and all-around amazing at almost 30!).

All else aside, quietly REHOMING a "problematic" kid (let alone Rehoming them with a pedophile!) does not "cure" or "fix" that kid --- they just end up being mentally-ill-with-scary-dangerous-behaviors so place else!

[Four is Enough]

All else aside, quietly REHOMING a "problematic" kid (let alone Rehoming them with a pedophile!) does not "cure" or "fix" that kid --- they just end up being mentally-ill-with-scary-dangerous-behaviors so place else!

Amen and Amen!

[Burpies]

I wonder if Harris means the boys couldn't protect their 'moral selves' from the girls? Like they tantrum and strip in front of the boys, and the boys would see the girls naked, or from being molested and raped the 6 year old exhibited some inappropriate sexual behavior that the boys were privy to. Or, what I feel might be likely considering the rehoming of the previous girl, is maybe the boys find young girls tempting, and that's why they needed to rehome the girls. That he rehomed them to a pedophile is not a big deal, because his boy's moral and mortal souls are safe. Idk. Something more to the story is going on.

[Mandysue]

I fixed the list on the bus for them, to better reflect Harris' views and priorities.

He didn't sell the kids, the kids were a GIFT!! :?

He still got a stipend check from the state, but he sent it to the new family to help them out.

[artdecades]

While I agree with everyone that the "threats" from the DHS are probably bogus, I do think there was some pressure from them, as their should be. This whole things seems like he is claiming to be the victim because the DHS would have held them responsible for their actions.

Secondly, who wants to bet that the therapy/counseling was only of the religious kind? I don't believe for a second this guy went to a trained and knowledgable child trauma specialist who told them to sell the kids.

[KateFowler]

I wonder if Harris means the boys couldn't protect their 'moral selves' from the girls? Like they tantrum and strip in front of the boys, and the boys would see the girls naked, or from being molested and raped the 6 year old exhibited some inappropriate sexual behavior that the boys were privy to. Or, what I feel might be likely considering the rehoming of the previous girl, is maybe the boys find young girls tempting, and that's why they needed to rehome the girls. That he rehomed them to a pedophile is not a big deal, because his boy's moral and mortal souls are safe. Idk. Something more to the story is going on.

There has to be. Given their biological sons were in their TEENS when the 5 and 2 year olds moved in as Foster kids, surely locks on the boys doors would've adequately "protected" the boys from the tiny little girls.

Also, Harris said one of the girls killed a family pet ... um, who left kids UNSUPERVISED with pets? My dog is the friendliest, sweetest retriever ever but I was VERY cognizant of the fact my kids needed to be closely supervised near him when they were small. 2 year olds can be grabby.

[older than allosaurs]

Another detail that should not go unchallenged is Harris's assertion that international adoption requirements are stricter than those of DHS. That was part of his rationale for handing his girls over to the Francis family without DHS involvement.

There may well be more paperwork, due to visa and immigration requirements, and some international agencies are committed to due diligence. But many are about the money, or the salvation of souls, or both, and care not a whit about the qualifications of their adopters beyond their wallets and their bibles. Start digging around and it becomes easier to see where the easy-come-easy-go rehoming subculture comes from.

[Walking Cat Bed]

There has to be. Given their biological sons were in their TEENS when the 5 and 2 year olds moved in as Foster kids, surely locks on the boys doors would've adequately "protected" the boys from the tiny little girls.

Also, Harris said one of the girls killed a family pet ... um, who left kids UNSUPERVISED with pets? My dog is the friendliest, sweetest retriever ever but I was VERY cognizant of the fact my kids needed to be closely supervised near him when they were small. 2 year olds can be grabby.

I'm assuming that the "killed a family pet" claim is as true as anything else they're claiming. My theory is that the kid in question didn't physically prevent the pet from running into a road or something like that.

[Burpies]

Yeah, no, everybody's right. I forgot about the family pet. But really, I have a three year old who loves our cats, who could very easily kill them with hugs and love if we weren't watching. That's not necessarily an indication of a problem with the child. Watch your kids around the pets.

[SunnyAndrsn]

I read the story, and the Reuter's piece. It's horrifying, but can I say I'm really surprised? No one, and I mean NO ONE can prepare for what life is like with a child with reactive attachment disorder. My husband and I had four with the diagnosis, and looking back, a a fifth that was undiagnosed with RAD. These children are extremely difficult to live with, and it takes a infinite patience and creativity to parent them. Parenting them well is another ball game.

I won't say that we were experts, but we have a lot of experience. Enough to know that after the child we adopted turned 18, we were done with fostering. The system is under-educated to help foster and adoptive parents, and it's only because we were too stupid to give up that our kids made it. When we would look for resources to help us help them, we were met with blank stares. The county workers didn't know what to do, and the county appointed therapists were not qualified to help us and the children either.

We were able to connect with an amazing therapist, and the year we worked with him was by far the best year of our son's life with us. We didn't connect with this therapist because of DHS though. Again--and I can't stress this enough--they had no idea what they were doing in regards to finding proper help for children with RAD.

I would never do it again though. If you came and asked me today to adopt or foster another child with RAD, I wouldn't do it.

I don't have a point, it's just that stories like this bring up a lot of memories. We felt mis-understood. I remember stares at Disney World, when our foster son had a meltdown. He was 14 at the time, and was throwing a tantrum worthy of a 2 year old. Rules that we had to have in place that seemed unreasonable for their ages.

I remember my son smashing glass into his carpet and catching him physically abusing our dog. I remember talking to a friend who was considering adopting an 11 year old, but decided against it after she found butcher knives in her toddler's crib, put there by the 11 year old.

So many hurting children, so few adults equipped to handle it. So many ignorant idiots adopting them and making the problem worse.

[Mama Mia]

There are some parts of his story I don't question. But I am completely appalled at his response.

It is, in my experience, very, very common for children who have been in foster care, or homeless, or exposed to violence or any other significant on- going trauma and chaos to only act- out and fall apart after about six months. Even if they had been reunified with their biological parents, or had never left them in the first place. Interestingly, it's also really common for parents who have been through a lot to start self- sabatoging at around six months of stability. So I think it's possible he, and the case workers, weren't aware of the extent of the issues that would arise. And it's very possible that the younger girl followed her sisters lead in everything -- including emotions and behavior. That's not uncommon for close siblings in just everyday life. But would likely be hugely magnified if the sibling bond is the only one they had.

I also don't doubt the girls could have posed SOME harm and threat. But there is nothing that shouldn't be controllable with some safety protections. My first job out of college was at a group home for severely emotionally disturbed teens. The boys would sometimes have very violent outbursts. So we did things like have ALL sharp things locked up. And heavy objects that could be used as weapons -- baseball bats, rolling pins, etc. we would have the dressers bolted to the wall so they couldn't be thrown. Folding chairs because they caused less damage if hurled. And on and on. If a kid went out of control we'd have procedures to follow. Like all the other kids would go in their rooms and lock the doors ( staff had keys) I can't imagine that if I, as a 25 year old woman , could handle a half dozen grown, strong males with known violent tendencies-- that this family couldn't make their home safe enough for two little girls.

I'm not trying to minimize any of the horribly hard and difficult experiences people have lived with. I'm just shocked this guy, and many of the others in the stories, had such unreasonable expectations. And so few coping skills.

[KateFowler]

I read the story, and the Reuter's piece. It's horrifying, but can I say I'm really surprised? No one, and I mean NO ONE can prepare for what life is like with a child with reactive attachment disorder. My husband and I had four with the diagnosis, and looking back, a a fifth that was undiagnosed with RAD. These children are extremely difficult to live with, and it takes a infinite patience and creativity to parent them. Parenting them well is another ball game.

Having 5 adopted kids with extraordinarily high needs special needs is, umm, less than ideal -- and is a place where some sort of federal standards for homestudies are desperately needed to save well-intentioned potential adopters from themselves, ie their own bad judgment.

Because unless those 5 kids with RAD are big sibling group (ie adopting them together so they can stay together makes sense), the social worker/judge/etc who signed off on placing so many high unrelated, high needs their license revoked. Any kid up for adoption has been ABANDONNED st least once and deserves the very best shot at a successful adoption. It is NOT in the child's best interest to be placed in an incredibly high risk situation!

There are a LOT of rehoming that probably could've been avoided simply by not letting adopters do STUPID THINGS, like:

- Lindsay Crappo SIMULTANEOUSLY adopting 5 (!) unrelated, out of birth order Haitian kids, on top of her 2 kids + 2 Foster kids. Two Haitians got rehomed, another sent to unlicensed "crisis respite" & many remaining kids were sexually abused by their siblings due to lack of supervision

Homeasoftplacetofall.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-friday-we-had-to-call-child.html

- Letting Annie Kitching adopt AGAIN after her a/daughter accused a/dad, a/brothers and foster brother of sexually abusing her; Foster son removed by CPS for cause; a/son committing suicide at 17; letting said Foster son move back in the day he turned 18 AND being on the MI CPS Bad Parent list.

Reformtalk.net/2012/11/06/how-could-you-hall-of-shame-russian-adoptee-death/

A lot of rehomings could be avoided by prohibiting high-risk adoptions (simultaneous afoption of unrelated kids, letting folks with 15 kids adopt a 16th, requiring the adopted kid to be home a FULL year before starting another adoption, out of birth order adoptions, etc) in the first place!

[Rainytown]

I would never do it again though. If you came and asked me today to adopt or foster another child with RAD, I wouldn't do it.

Thank you so much for all you did to help your foster children. You went out of your way to do whatever you could to help, and I wish things had been different.

The following is my opinion: I don't think Rep. Harris' foster children have RAD. Or, let's put it this way: I'm betting they don't. I think he found a diagnosis from Dr. Google and thinks it makes him look good to throw it around. After all, HE'S the victim here!

Again, my opinion. And my heart breaks for those victimized little girls.

[KateFowler]

It appears that Justin Harris and his wife are big fat liars -- much of what they said at yesterday's press conference was NOT true:

http://m.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/arch ... tin-harris

Harris had been advised of the girls needs prior to adoption, CPS advised against his family adopting them but he pulled rank/strings to adopt them, he did NOT spend 2 years "trying" to get help for them (they lived in his home for < 12 mos total) and that the head of CPS, Cecile, was aware he'd REHOMED his girls.

Cecile was the head of CPS who pulled string to let him adopt them in the first place!