Stringer family adopted 6 kids at once

[EyeQueue]

Does anyone know anything about the Stringer family (Kenley and Calyn)? This article just came across my Facebook newsfeed this morning:

http://www.abc10.com/story/news/2015/12/31/couple-adds-six-their-family-years-time/78130656/

They have recently adopted 6 kids from a single sibling group, ages 2-7. Plus, they have their own bio child. It appears that they "were unsure about" having their own child, so started checking into adoption and found a 4-sibling group right before they found out they were pregnant.

She is an instructor at a public uni and he is a real estate agent, so they don't seem fundie, but I guess fundie light isn't out of the realm of possibility.

If they are truly doing it for the kids, I certainly commend them, but we've discussed in other threads (the "Jerk adoptive mothers" for one, and the Above Rubies for another) how taking so many kids at once might be a sign of "baby grabbing." The fact that they were originally planning on looking in Uganda kind of sets off an alarm bell that they might be part of this evangelical child-catching mentality that leads (in some cases) to Very Bad Things (e.g. rehoming, physical abuse, and even killing kids, as in the case of Hana Williams and others).

Any Jingerites with better Google-Fu than I have able to find out more info on these? I can't seem to find info on religious affiliation, though I did find some assorted YouTube videos, which I did not watch (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5yjihgz7WM).

[Ridiculous]

baptisThe article says they are Baptist, so fundie-light is possible. I'm not really getting that vibe, though.

[Jingerbread]

These kids are siblings who either were going to go to a home together (easier transition), or be separated.  There's nothing at all wrong here.  I thought maybe the kids were from different families instead of all being siblings.  Something really bad had to happen for them to all get taken away permanently.  This is a best-case-scenario for the kids.

[canbritam]

This actually sounds like a good adoption, especially keeping the siblings together.  But the title of this thread is misleading - they only adopted 5 siblings.  The sixth child is the baby she gave birth to.

[Koala]

Didn't read the article, but if they are siblings (and if the home is a good one), I am soooo grateful these people were willing to help keep them together.  

[alexandracabot]

I don't see anything to snark on. That's really wonderful. The alternative is the family being broken up or the children being stuck in foster care. 

[SoybeanQueen]

Yep. It's quite difficult to keep siblings together since not that many parents are willing to take more than one kid at a time. I know that our kids were about to be separated before they were placed with us, and there are just three of them. Cannot imagine how difficult it must be to find a family for 5 kids! I hope their big new family is awesome for all of them.

I wish we had more bedroom space. We would adopt another sibling group. Not willing to stack them like cordwood. :/

[Coy Koi]

Nothing in the article sounds concerning except this exchange with the 7-year-old:

“I said, ‘Our names are Kenley and Calyn, but do you know why we’re here?’ He said no and, we said ‘we’re going to invite you to come live with us. How do you feel about that?’ and he said ‘good.’”

“I said ‘Then you can call us mom and dad,’ and he said, ‘Okay.’"

I'm not trying to say this makes them bad parents or people, it's just one thing and they may be lovely people. But it does seem like it would be a pretty obvious thing you should be more sensitive about and follow the child's lead. No one handles everything perfectly, but the way you act when you meet your children for the first time is presumably something you'd want to think a lot about and read about what the experts say and what other adoptive parents say, etc. So it does seem weird that they thought that was appropriate.

[Mercer]

Adopting a large sibling group is a completely different thing than adopting a lot of unrelated children in a short period of time. The siblings are already bonded to each other, and separating them would be traumatic for them. A home that is willing and able to take all of the them is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I don't know enough about this family to have an opinion of them as parents, but I don't think the fact that they're trying to do the right thing by keeping a large sibling group together is snark-worthy. 

[Bryna]

I agree that asking the kids to call them mom and dad (on day one!) is a bit gauche. But I think I'm more concerned that the kid just went along with it. If one or more of these kids struggles with attachment issues, then they may be in for a very difficult time, with so many! But at least they seem to be doing fine at the time of the article, a year in. I definitely wish them all the best, and agree -if you have the resources, adopting a large sibling group is a great thing. It's terrible to have to separate siblings through the adoption process.

[Coy Koi]

3 minutes ago, Bryna said:

I agree that asking the kids to call them mom and dad (on day one!) is a bit gauche. But I think I'm more concerned that the kid just went along with it. If one or more of these kids struggles with attachment issues, then they may be in for a very difficult time, with so many!

Yeah, I think it would seem less concerning if the child had said no, he already has a mom, or something like that. For him to agree so readily makes it sound likely that he may have attachment issues that will crop up later.

Well, I wish this whole family the best of luck. At least these parents don't sound like the "beat the attachment issues out of them" type, so if any serious problems do arise, I get the impression that they're fairly likely to seek appropriate help.

[EyeQueue]

OK, great! Thanks for chiming in, everyone. I'm glad this is looking good for the sibling group. I guess I'm a bit quick on the draw, since I've been reading a lot in the "child grabber"/adopting-as-a-mission-from-Gawd/gotta-catch-'em-all threads.

I was thinking in terms of the sheer volume of kids being an issue, but breaking up a sibling group is not desireable. Hopefully, if things get difficult this couple will avail themselves of community resources/help (unlike Kimi in the Jerk Adoptive Parents thread, and others we have discussed).

I wish this family and these children all the best, and good on this couple for opening their home to them.

[Mama Mia]

EyeQue, I understand it's easy to start seeing bad behind every corner if you start falling down some of these dark holes - but finding a family to take an entire set of 5 siblings is practically a miracle!  In fact, when people talk about all the adoptable children in foster care , what they often don't realize is that virtually  all of those kids fall into one or more of three groups : severe disabilities, teens and 3+ sibling groups. 

Keeping all the kids together is, IMHO, the most important factor in finding a home for sibling groups. It would be better to place a group of five with marginally competent parents in an overcrowded house ( not the case with this family, they seem to be doing fine ) - than to place  each child individually in separate homes with ideal parents with perfect homes.

 This is because large sibling groups who have ended up not only in foster care - but to the point of having parental rights terminated -- have likely been operating as their own very tight family system for a long time. Not just like average siblings who would be devastated if taken from each other . But more intense, as the biological parents have generally not filled that role and are seen by the kids as a benign  but neglectful presence at best , or a monster to hide from at worst. The older kids are typically the real parents. To a degree that almost makes Michelle Duggar look like  Mother of the Year . And are often extremely bonded to each other, even if they have little attachment to mom or dad.

 On first glance I don't think introducing themselves as " mom and dad" is the best way to go. But it's very possible that the case worker shared with them that the oldest little boy had been saying how much he wanted a real mom and dad to take care of the family. Or other information that made it appropriate. I don't think , just on the surface, that the child's readiness to accept mom and dad on first meeting means he might have difficulty attaching. Those terms , and the people who fulfilled them, likely just don't have the emotional resonance they do with most people. He is likely very attached to other people - it's just his siblings, not his biological parents. The hardest part in their adjustment was likely  getting the oldest kids to relax and just be kids, instead of mini- caretakers.  I really liked that the parents didn't talk about any adjustment  struggles , or details of why the  kids were placed, or any kid specific challenges  in the article , but just talked about usual large family  chaos. That seems much more respectful of the kids. Especially school aged kids whose classmates might  see/ hear of it.  

The really sad part is that the biological mom will very likely go on to have many more children, who will likely end up in the exact same situation. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if in five years  this family had adopted another 3 of the siblings.

 

 

[alexandracabot]

8 hours ago, Coy Koi said:

Yeah, I think it would seem less concerning if the child had said no, he already has a mom, or something like that. For him to agree so readily makes it sound likely that he may have attachment issues that will crop up later.

I don't think we can or should speculate on, much less diagnose, attachment issues based on a single interaction described in a newspaper article. Come on. 

[Jana814]

I think what this couple did is wonderful. I don't get a Fundie or Fundie-lite vibe from them. 

[Coy Koi]

3 hours ago, alexandracabot said:

I don't think we can or should speculate on, much less diagnose, attachment issues based on a single interaction described in a newspaper article. Come on. 

Well, I'm certainly not diagnosing anything, just idly chatting, really. The parents also said foster care wasn't a good experience for the kids, so it sounded like these kids may not have had the opportunity to attach to adults before. But it's true, I wasn't taking into consideration that they probably did attach to each other, which would put them in a much better position than if they hadn't attached to anyone.

[elliha]

Adopting a sibling group is the only time I think it is OK to adopt more than one child at the time. If you want to adopt children I think you should have at least one year between each time you welcome a child. That way they get at least as much time as a bio kid would get before you get a sibling. Ideally I think 2-3 years is better but I understand that there might be things like age restrictions that might mean you cannot wait that long.

 

[Mercer]

11 hours ago, Coy Koi said:

Yeah, I think it would seem less concerning if the child had said no, he already has a mom, or something like that. For him to agree so readily makes it sound likely that he may have attachment issues that will crop up later.

I think it's important to bear in mind that a lot of kids will be hesitant to address an adult stranger with what might be perceived as a defiant attitude, especially in a situation where the child feels intimidated. The kids were unsure of these grownups and may not have felt comfortable contradicting them at first meeting, regardless of their actual feelings about the matter. It's possible the child does have attachment issues which will come out in future interactions, but just looking at this one exchange I would suspect that the child would have agreed to anything the adult said just for the sake of keeping the peace until they're more sure of how the adult operates. 

Saying a fairly neutral "Okay" to an adult's suggestion is very different than the child initiating the conversation and is even quite different than more enthusiastic agreement from the kid.

[Coy Koi]

6 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

On first glance I don't think introducing themselves as " mom and dad" is the best way to go. But it's very possible that the case worker shared with them that the oldest little boy had been saying how much he wanted a real mom and dad to take care of the family. Or other information that made it appropriate.

Is there anything that could really make it appropriate, though? Less inappropriate, perhaps, but no matter what the caseworker told them, it still seems like a bad idea to me. What's the rush? Why not talk to the kid and find out his feelings from him?

Maybe the actual meeting went a little differently and the parents were just being concise, but even in that case, you'd think they would realize that at very least they're giving the impression of being insensitive. Like I said originally, I'm not trying to overemphasize this one thing, but I just can't think of a scenario where it would be okay. Would anyone here who has adopted an older child ever, under any circumstances, tell the child to call them Mom or Dad within seconds of meeting them? I'm seriously asking, not trying to make a point. I'm not an expert and maybe there's something I'm not understanding.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Its good that the siblings were able to be kept together  That's the best case for them, better than them being separated

[EyeQueue]

@Mama Mia: Thank you for bringing this perspective, since several of these issues I had not taken into account. I agree that it can be too easy to start painting everyone with a broad bush when you look so much at the "bad apples."

I figured it was difficult to have special needs children adopted, but I did not know that sibling groups of 3+ were one of the biggest needs. It totally makes sense that it would be so important to not disrupt those bonds between the children holding out for the "perfect" family. In that case, as you point out, I can see how even a Michelle Duggar-type situation would be preferable to bouncing around from foster family to foster family--sometimes split up.

[Four is Enough]

I agree that adopting a sibling group is vastly different than simple baby collecting. When we were in our foster-to-adopt program, we met a family who (ultimately) adopted SEVEN children from the same mother. First four, then twins, then another. They had a lot of help from the state. Typically a sibling group, just by virtue of being more than one, are considered "special needs" and there is a stipend and state insurance involved for the children, usually until 18, but available until 21 if the child is proven to be in school, trade school, or college. Believe me when I tell you the stipend HELPS, but does not solve many money issues. That family was a family of saints.

ETA: Mama Mia said:

Quote

is is because large sibling groups who have ended up not only in foster care - but to the point of having parental rights terminated -- have likely been operating as their own very tight family system for a long time. Not just like average siblings who would be devastated if taken from each other . But more intense, as the biological parents have generally not filled that role and are seen by the kids as a benign  but neglectful presence at best , or a monster to hide from at worst

and this was certainly the case of Children Three and Four. 18 months apart full siblings, and they were so close it was like having identical twins. They still have an incredibly strong bond, but as they've matured, they've separated a bit more normally, as siblings. I will, however, never forget Child Four, standing on the steps of her school for first grade, crying out Child Three's name as he was led into his second grade classroom.

[Mama Mia]

4 hours ago, Coy Koi said:

Is there anything that could really make it appropriate, though? Less inappropriate, perhaps, but no matter what the caseworker told them, it still seems like a bad idea to me. What's the rush? Why not talk to the kid and find out his feelings from him?

Maybe the actual meeting went a little differently and the parents were just being concise, but even in that case, you'd think they would realize that at very least they're giving the impression of being insensitive. Like I said originally, I'm not trying to overemphasize this one thing, but I just can't think of a scenario where it would be okay. Would anyone here who has adopted an older child ever, under any circumstances, tell the child to call them Mom or Dad within seconds of meeting them? I'm seriously asking, not trying to make a point. I'm not an expert and maybe there's something I'm not understanding.

Would I introduce myself as " mom" after first meeting a kid? No. But there's a fair amount of statements I've made to my kids that I wouldn't say in retrospect. Maybe they were just over eager, maybe it slipped out, maybe they were misquoted, maybe they were just trying to paint a vivid picture - or the author of the article was. There was some other statement in the article that seemed like an edit failure, maybe this was too ( Internet is being too slow to go back and look right now ) . In a previous life I would occasionally have to give these kind of feel good  stories to local media  ( actually often involving Kids who had been in foster care).  The resulting story ALWAYS got something wrong. Or maybe the parents just  screwed up.  If that's the biggest  mistake they make in parenting - THAT would be newsworthy lol 

[Rebelwife]

This family is local to me; the original article ran in our paper a few days ago.  The church they attend is a typical southern Baptist Church (although the website doesn't specify that they are members of the SBC).  I'd say they are conservative but not fundie - youth groups, pictures of kids in shorts, contemporary Christian music, etc.  The older kids are all enrolled in public schools, too.

[Jingerbread]

I don't think it's automatically insensitive to tell the kids they can call them mom and dad.  We don't know if they kids have been asking for a mommy and daddy, which could make this a dream coming true.  We don't know if the exact words were more, like, "It's okay if you want to call us Mom and Dad."  We're getting a brief recap of what happened, in a brief article.  Even the fundie kid-collectors aren't taking in so many siblings at once.  I don't see this family as being insensitive, and really can't feel okay calling them that because of one quote that was probably much shorter than it really happened and when we don't know what they kids have been asking for.