Woman adopts child and then decides to return it

How horrible. I understand having a child that has violent tendencies, the need to put the rest of the family's safety first. The question that remains is did they seek help for the child and themselves? Did they try to learn the best they could to create a conducive family environment? Sounds unlikely. There are many services that help with that. IF they had done everything they possibly could to find help for this poor child and for themselves and THEN made the decision that they couldn't safely or properly care for the child, then OK. BUT, instead of sending him alone on a plane to a foreign country, they should have gone through our government angencies to adopt the child out or find a loving foster home for him.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For us to think the family should have just dealt with him, that would not be fair to the child. He obviously suffered himself in this situation and is better off not being with them in the long run.



I do have an issue with families adopting children from another country. We have so many children here in the U.S. who need a good home, the government is pouring out money for these children and some go running off to another country to adopt a child for some whimsical reason. These children here have the same wants and needs.


I actually knew a white couple who adopted two asian children and decided they weren't going to teach their kids they were adopted. Huh? They said they would talk to them about being adopted when the kids asked. Huh? To me, that is lying to your child! How confusing for the poor girl when she comes home one day , "Mommy, Sally says I'm not your real kid, you aren't my mommy! I called her a liar and said you are my mommy!"

Also, teaching a foriegn child about their culture should be important. At some point that child WILL want to know and will feel a piece of themselves missing without it. You cannot do that effectively if you are going to hide the fact they are adopted!


I, myself, have worked in the system for years now. I deal directly with some of our worst cases, violent children. I do understand the fact that families at some point realize they can no longer safely care for the child or put their family at risk. But there are much better, less traumatic ways of dealing with these situations than what a few of these families have done. It's an outrage to say the least and I hope there are some serious repercussions for their actions!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So every Russian mother and father are on crack, are alcoholics, whores and smokers?? Where do you get your information? And these videos? Please post them, I would like to see. But mind you, I will be quick to post the endless supply of videos of our children from the U.S. videotaping their friends as they beat up another kid in school, the clips from the kid who videotaped parts of CA city burning as his laughter is heard, which HE started, and much, much more.

I'm not Russian, but I was definitely offended by your blantant racism here. Sometimes it's easy to say things on the internet that maybe is best kept to ourselves.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your whole concept, well done!!

Most illegal adoptees do obtain illegal, false documents for the adopted child. A child not going to school is a huge red flag and is eventually reported by some suspicious neighbor, etc. I think the education aspect would boil down to a different topic. One of providing free education to all children, no questions asked. How that would play out, it's beyond me. Seeing schools require immunization records, yearly physicals, etc., that would make the no questions asked policy difficult. I think that would throw it into another field, another topic....free health care, no questions asked for children 18 and under. All very unrealistic, though and a burden on the taxpayers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now this I can agree with you on, 100%

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Randwolf: Originally Posted by Randwolf
"Award Guardianship to one or more qualified Guardian(s) for every Unwanted Child through Adoption, thereby providing said Unwanted Child with a Stable Adopted Family Life. Every Potential Adopter shall be screened and vetted by appropriate professionals to ensure beyond any reasonable doubt that said Potential Adopter is ready and able to provide the Unwanted Child with a Stable Adopted Family Life. This screening shall take place beginning at the time that the Potential Adopter expresses interest in Adoption of any Unwanted Child and shall continue throughout the entire Adoption process. Additionally, each Adopter shall be monitored by appropriate professionals during the entire time that they remain Guardian(s) of any Adoptee so as to ensure beyond any reasonable doubt that a Stable Adopted Family Life continues to be maintained for the Adoptee after they have been Adopted"

Well I don't believe in 'utopias' but...
Sounds good to me but I thought they did this regularly with adoptions in the US? Or do you mean specifically for foreign adoptions, if so then yes again I think the proposal sound.

RW: I would propose that we set up a system that would allow anyone to adopt - adult couples of "normal" childbearing age, older couples beyond traditional child-rearing age and single parents, all regardless of race, sexual orientation or religious preference. This should give us the largest pool of available Potential Adopters. As to Potential Adoptees, I strongly believe that we should start with those available here at home. (USA in my case)

I thought that homosexuals, single parent and the religious were all acceptable as potential adopted parents:shrug: Maybe it depends on the state or something but from what I understand they already adopt if they want so please correct me if I am wrong. As for older couples it would depend on how old, I mean it may not be wise to allow a 65 year old couple to adopt a very young active child, so I would think there should be some restrictions due to age.

RW: After this initial background check, the family should be left alone,

Ah no. Children who are adopted can test the family with a variety of outrageous behaviour that they may or may not understand. I think there should be follow ups for one year. Look at foster parents, they are followed up constantly on a regular basis for as long as they keep the child. I do not think the same should be done with adopted parents but to keep tabs on them for a year just to make sure things are going smoothly shouldn't be too much of a bother.

RW: Why is it more important that you be "certified" as fit to be a parent if you are adopting, but not if you "grow your own"?

Very good question indeed! I would imagine it has to do with the sense of responsibility towards the parentless child. Most parents will 'bond' with their natural born child in a way they may or may not with an adopted kid where they don't know where it comes from nor its previous experiences in foster care or adoption homes. Mind you if you hurt your own child the state will have no problem intervening, especially if a school or a neighbor drops a dime and calls social services.

RW:this "screening" process should be required regardless of the country of origin of the potential Adoptee, and could be enforced in any number of ways. The adopted kids could not get a social security number, go to school, etc. without the proper documents. Any medical care would require that all health practitioners check birth certificates and / or adoption papers, as the case may be, when performing treatment. If the parent(s) can't produce the required documents, the medical practitioner would be required to report this to the authorities.

I'm all for that!

RW: The downside to this would be a potential increase in the possibility of children not receiving proper education and medical care that they need, because the "illegal" Adoptor(s) may be afraid of getting caught. How are children of illegal immigrants handled now? I ask this because any child adopted from another country would, technically be an illegal alien at this point, if the parent(s) have somehow bypassed the screening process. Still, this represents an area of concern for me, and would appreciate any input you might have as to alternate methods of enforcing compliance with the screening process, provided you agree with the concept in the first place.

I think but not quite sure that illegal immigrant children are allowed to go to public school and hospital care. There are very few illegal adoptions really. I believe I told you of this woman in Cambodia who took a baby and has had her staff in addition to herself caring for the child. The little girl is gorgeous, gets a good education and spoiled beyond belief, but that's besides the point. Anyway this american woman isn't allowed to take the child to the US or even out of the country because she cannot claim the child on her passport. She cannot get a passport for the child at all because even if the adoption were legal by Cambodian standards the US does not recognize adoptions from Cambodia by american citizens. What she has done is have the Khmer family who works for her put the child in their name so if she gets a passport the Khmer staff member would have to travel with her which has its own complications. In the countries like Russia where the US recognizes the adoptions then they would have all the legal papers from the country where they adopted the child plus papers they would receive from the US embassy abroad.

 

@LucySnow
Original Proposition:

LS: Well I don't believe in 'utopias' but...


RW: I don't believe in utopias either, but I am at a loss for a better term. The proposal as it is written now would require unlimited resources, hence my use of the word Utopia. My intent is simply to describe such a world free of any constraints due to lack of resources - money, manpower, facilities, education, knowledge, etc. If you have a better word in mind, I will happily use yours instead...




LS: Sounds good to me but I thought they did this regularly with adoptions in the US? Or do you mean specifically for foreign adoptions, if so then yes again I think the proposal sound.


RW: I mean to specifically include adoptions from other countries, but I am also including the USA. While much of what I mentioned may "be on the books" now, some of it isn't and some of it is just ignored.

For example: "Additionally, each Adopter shall be monitored by appropriate professionals during the entire time that they remain Guardian(s) of any Adoptee so as to ensure beyond any reasonable doubt that a Stable Adopted Family Life continues to be maintained for the Adoptee after they have been Adopted."

This is a false statement, at least to my knowledge. If you know better, please correct me, but I don't believe that they follow up on an Adoptee from infancy till age of majority. Even if this policy were desirable, I think it would be an example of "limited resources" constraining an ideal.

Additionally, while most states "technically" permit same sex couples to adopt, there are not only a couple of hold-outs, such as Utah and Florida (on and off) - Wiki source* On top of that, I highly suspect that many states find "unofficial" ways to discourage same-sex couples from adopting. Also, if you check the same Wiki cited earlier, not all countries operate like the US.




LS: I thought that homosexuals, single parent and the religious were all acceptable as potential adopted parents. Maybe it depends on the state or something but from what I understand they already adopt if they want so please correct me if I am wrong. As for older couples it would depend on how old, I mean it may not be wise to allow a 65 year old couple to adopt a very young active child, so I would think there should be some restrictions due to age.


RW: Again, see my previous comments regarding sexual orientation - although much progress has occurred in recent years, IMO much unofficial discrimination still occurs on this basis. Read the Wiki, Arkansas recently passed a law that effectively allows gays and lesbians to adopt, as long as they are not co-habitating with one another - isn't that a hoot?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I would assume the same type of discrimination still occurs towards single parents adopting. Something causes the red tape to be greater (By the way, there is a great deal of information at the following link for prospective single parents):

As to the age thing, I agree with you - some common sense would have to be involved, on a case by case basis. But mid sixties seems acceptable. (even older in certain cases)


LS:Ah no. Children who are adopted can test the family with a variety of outrageous behaviour that they may or may not understand. I think there should be follow ups for one year. Look at foster parents, they are followed up constantly on a regular basis for as long as they keep the child. I do not think the same should be done with adopted parents but to keep tabs on them for a year just to make sure things are going smoothly shouldn't be too much of a bother.

RW: This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree, although I might be persuaded that one more surprise follow-up visit may be warranted. Other than that, why should a family with an adopted child be treated differently than a family that "makes their own"? Do you think every child born to every parent should be assigned a case worker "to keep tabs on them" for the first year after birth? After all, "natural" children are just as capable of "test[ing] the family with a variety of outrageous behavior that they may or may not understand." There seems to be a major inconsistency here...




LS: Very good question indeed! I would imagine it has to do with the sense of responsibility towards the parentless child. Most parents will 'bond' with their natural born child in a way they may or may not with an adopted kid where they don't know where it comes from nor its previous experiences in foster care or adoption homes. Mind you if you hurt your own child the state will have no problem intervening, especially if a school or a neighbor drops a dime and calls social services.


RW: You do realize that you implying that the same "bonds" can not form between parents with adopted children having behavioral problems vs those with natural children, right? I am not really qualified to say, but this would seem to be insulting to adoptive parents. :shrug:

As to the other, that is my point indeed - thank you for helping me make it:
"Mind you if you hurt your own child the state will have no problem intervening, especially if a school or a neighbor drops a dime and calls social services." - LS

I agree, and this is what I am trying to get across - either we are too harsh on adoptive parents, too easy on "regular" parents, or don't trust the existing Child Services system in any event. Personally, I believe the system already in place for "natural" children is quite adequate to handle families including Adoptees. In fact, if you believe some of the horror stories that circulate around, a case could be made that they are too intrusive in any event...




LS: I'm all for that!


RW: Well - yes. That would seem to fit the pattern. I kind of get the feeling that you are mostly in favor of more government intrusion into a family's personal life rather than less.




LS: I think but not quite sure that illegal immigrant children are allowed to go to public school and hospital care. There are very few illegal adoptions really. I believe I told you of this woman in Cambodia who took a baby and has had her staff in addition to herself caring for the child. The little girl is gorgeous, gets a good education and spoiled beyond belief, but that's besides the point. Anyway this american woman isn't allowed to take the child to the US or even out of the country because she cannot claim the child on her passport. She cannot get a passport for the child at all because even if the adoption were legal by Cambodian standards the US does not recognize adoptions from Cambodia by american citizens. What she has done is have the Khmer family who works for her put the child in their name so if she gets a passport the Khmer staff member would have to travel with her which has its own complications. In the countries like Russia where the US recognizes the adoptions then they would have all the legal papers from the country where they adopted the child plus papers they would receive from the US embassy abroad.


RW: This is exactly the sort of thing I think we were discussing way back when as making the whole process more "efficient" all 'round. Wow.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As to the number of "illegal" adoptions, you might want to have a look see at the statistics site I link to below...




Also, I came across a site with an enormous amount of statistics on adoption.
Statistics of Adoption by Lori Carangelo

I'm not necessarily entirely comfortable with the author though, here are some reviews / comments from a blog:
Paradise Preoccupied



*Note: While Wiki is not my favorite source, some of this stuff is just plain hard to find from a more reliable source.

 

@Randwolf

But it wouldn't require unlimited resources, a family pays for their children whether they be adopted or not. The system that presently exists does monitor future parents of adopted children and foster children though the same measures are not in place for adoptions that have been organized outside of the US. So no it does not require a utopia.

Of course you are probably correct that the system isn't perfect when it comes to following the law to the last letter there is still a system in place, flawed as it may be there are sill guidelines.

I know of no law that stipulates that adopted parents should be monitored for the life of the child but there should be such 'intrusion' for the length of a year. Remember that even foster parents who are payed to take care of unwanted children are regularly monitored for as long as they have the child. I am not advocating long life government involvement, simply a hands on approach to ensure as much as possible that the child and the family are finding its ground in settling in.

Discrimination against gays is a societal and cultural issue in general so of course it will show up in all institutions but that is changing even if it seems at a slow pace.

RW: why should a family with an adopted child be treated differently than a family that "makes their own"? Do you think every child born to every parent should be assigned a case worker "to keep tabs on them" for the first year after birth? After all, "natural" children are just as capable of "test[ing] the family with a variety of outrageous behavior that they may or may not understand." There seems to be a major inconsistency here...

Well this I know from talking with professionals who arrange adoptions, not in the States but in Cambodia and they are mostly Italian NGO workers. From what I understand there is not always a natural bonding between an adopted child and their new parents especially if the child isn't adopted as an infant or if it is physically different from the parents which is why the Italian government goes to great expense to monitor overseas adoptions. Having said that I have been told that the type of 'testing' of the new parents is not similar to that of a natural born child who may test their parents. From what I have come to understand there is this state where the child is testing to see if it will be accepted under all circumstances. They have been abandoned and expect to be rejected and so they test them, rarely in adoption homes have they been treated as that 'special loved one' so they behave in ways to see how far their new family will actually accept them. I hear this is quite common.

Do I think all parents should have to go through a monitoring system? No. But adopted children are indeed special, their needs are different, they do not have the natural sense of kin and placement within a family unit. They are alone. They know they are alone. They have internalized abandonment and rejection. This can happen to a child of natural parents but it isn't as common as it is in adopted children. Another phenomenon related to me is that these kids can sometimes overcompensate, they will try to be 'extra good' in an uncanny sense as they fear any kind of 'bad behaviour' will lead to a rejection especially if the family has their own children in the household. They feel they have to measure up, be more than the others because of a sense of not really 'belonging'. If the family is especially loving and in tune to what can occur it is usually resolved within time, if the family has no idea of what is going on with the child then they can become frustrated, impatient and disappointed. Its not easy. I know a woman, not the one I mentioned before, who has a Khmer child who was born with all sorts of issues which didn't present themselves until the child was four or five. The mother is dealing with it in a way that any natural mother would deal with it. Does she ever get so frustrated that she wishes the child would disappear? Yes. Does she ever show this? No. She's just like any mom taking the good with the bad and spending a lot of money to make sure this little girl named Bopha receives the best care possible for all of her issues. When I go into their home what I witness is a family, like any other family but evidently this isn't always the case. Sometimes a newly adopted child can breed resentment in their new parents who are feel guilt and are ill equipped to deal with the situation, its at those times they will need help and intervention, for themselves as well as the child. You don't need constant monitoring, what you do need are realistic expectations of what can go wrong and providing enough information so the parents can know when its time to ask for help and let them know that it is not a failure on their part or the child if they need to seek help. Its about availability of outside intervention I am speaking of specifically.

RW: RW: You do realize that you implying that the same "bonds" can not form between parents with adopted children having behavioral problems vs those with natural children, right?

Yes I am but it doesn't occur with all adoptive parents, sometimes even to the surprise of the new caregivers they do not bond with the child in a way they would with their own. It happens more often than is discussed but that does not mean that there are not responsible, loving caregivers who take a child and bond with it and think of it as 'their family' come what may. The love is there and the care is there. I have seen this often in Cambodia but there are also those who go to Cambodia, adopt a child and then find they are completely unable to cope with the situation and then say 'who the hell is this kid anyway?'. Then they blame culture or 'differences' and all sorts of bullshit, this is why there needs to be a monitoring system for the adopted. Why? Because these kids are born without kin, they are thrusted out of their culture, they live in families that look different, they are sometimes made to feel different. Its worthy of special attention precisely because you don't want to scar a child with another rejection and another abandonment which they will then internalize and think it is their fault, their defect and live in shame.

 

BTW, New parents ARE monitored for the first year (and longer) in Australia. Its not by DOCS but rather by the health system, you think the only thing those community nurses are looking for is wether the child is growing its baby teath on time? HA, they are looking for signs that the child is being well looked after, that the parents are coping ect and if they ARNT then they get DOCS involved to provide extra surport.

 

I believe in Aussiland you have a universal health care program that allows for a more hands on approach. Am I correct? What are the features of care for new mums and dads in Australia? I know only a little of how things work there.

 

Yes we do have UHC, further more there is goverment policy in place that all new babies are seen within within a month (i think) by a community nurse, who also checks the mother for signs of PPD as well as checking that the parents are coaping ect and they have access to other goverment services to refer the parents on to if they need further help themselves as well as for the child

 

Adopting from within the US is dangerous. For all you know, the mom might change her mind at the last minute. Or the previously unknown bio-dad may pop up years later and take the child you've raised away from you. Consider the case of baby Richard, in which a couple adopted an infant only to have bio-dad show up later to contest the adoption:

The Warburtons fought to keep the child. The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois upheld Kirchner's paternity of the child and his right to intervene in December 1991, but a subsequent ruling declared him an unfit parent and permitted the adoption to proceed, because the request to block the adoption occurred more than the 30 days after the child's birth required under Illinois state Adoption Law, Article I. Otakar filed an appeal with the Illinois Appellate Court. The Circuit Court ruling was upheld. An appeal was filed with the Illinois Supreme Court who agreed to hear the case.

Three years after the birth of the child, in June 1994, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Circuit Court of Cook County and the Illinois Appellate Court had wrongly terminated Kirchner's parental rights, and the adoption was improper. Under Illinois law, courts can only consider a child's best interests if a biological parent is determined to be unfit. Justice James Heiple issued the order requiring that the child be removed from his home and turned over to Kirchner, whom he had never met. The Warburtons filed petitions with the United States Supreme Court seeking to stay and overturn the enforcement of the Illinois Supreme Court decision, however, these petitions were denied.

In January 1995, Kirchner, seeking enforcement of the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus. The petition was granted. On April 30, 1995, Danny Warburton / Kirchner was transferred from the Warburtons to the care of his father as television and print reporters documented the event. The child never saw or spoke with his adoptive parents again.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Richard_case

 

I don't understand why people adopt unborn babies. Especially since the mother has up to three days to change her mind. Which could very well happen no matter how much that 16 year old claims she doesn't want it, giving birth and seeing it could change her perspective. You put in all of the money and care and in the end get nothing but disappointment and a broken heart. I don't get it, why take the risk?

 

Perhaps not "unlimited" resources - more like "unreasonable" and/or "unlikely". There is some finite limit at which people will stop spending money to make sure that adopted children are "safe" and "happy". I believe (without checking sources) that many agencies, NGOs, etc. are already underfunded and struggling to stay alive. (in business)

Do you disagree with this? Are you of the opinion that there are more resources available than there is demand for these types of services? I can't see you maintaining this opinion - you're too smart.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If there are not enough resources available under current conditions, wouldn't the implication be that extra money would have to be "found" (somehow) if we are to increase the amount of care, monitoring, enforcement, etc. over and above today's state? If so, where would you propose that we obtain these funds? The normal sources - taxes, charitable contributions, endowments, etc. seem to be tapped out. Especially with today's recession / depression, I would expect difficulties in allocating more money to this cause - but, maybe I am mistaken. It certainly would be "nice" if there was more money, labor, etc. available than required...

I agree - guidelines by the boatload exist - the trick is translating them into reality.

First of all, I never said "life of the child", I said "until age of majority". Or maybe that's what you mean by "life of the child, as opposed to life of the person - I guess you could interpret your statement to read "end of childhood" if you angle the paper just right under proper lighting...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, I know of no such law either. This was originally intended as a question - forgetting for a moment constrictions imposed by resource availability, do you think it would be advisable for some sort of agency to investigate an adopted child's lifestyle from newborn to eighteen? (US age of majority - for the most part)

Ummm, I think I could make a case that these situations should be more closely monitored than outright adoption. Why? Because, as you pointed out, "foster parents who are paid to take care of unwanted children"

Well, "as much as possible" would, in fact, imply daily monitoring until age of majority, would it not? But, again, we are constrained by "available resources", right? If this does not describe your position, then what, exactly, is your position? It seems to me that it boils down to an arbitrary number of days - 365 seems appropriate to you, right? Why not 180? Or 730?

Agreed.

I would tend to agree with you on this, if I'm reading you right... I believe that Adoptees, by their very nature (with the exception of newborns) will tend to have more emotional and psychological issues - statistically speaking. I'm just not convinced that semi-constant presence of a social worker will do a lot to alleviate the problem. Ultimately, IMO, it should be left to the parents to deal with - this is why you and I both agree that there should be significant "screening" done prior to allowing the adoption in the first place. Beyond that, we are now simply arguing about "degrees" of assistance / intrusion. (depending on your point of view)

Why not? Wouldn't this be helpful, using the same logic you use to defend "monitoring" of Adoptees? How could it hurt? Plus, if I read Asguards post correctly, (always a tricky endeavor j/k), Australia does just that, and for one year, same as you are suggesting for Adoptees.

Wouldn't this depend upon the age of the Adoptee? I would think that the degree of the negative behavior that you describe would generally tend to directly correlate with the age of the child when they are adopted. Would you agree with this? (e.g. Would a 3 day old infant know the difference until the parents decide to tell them?)

(emphasis mine) Have you ever met a parent? (just kidding) However, I would say that this statement would be equally true if applied across the entire spectrum of parents.

Note that this is beyond your suggested length of monitoring time. (One year)

Same as any other family, right?

Again, same goes for many families consisting only of "naturally" born children.

Same for "normal" families.

I contend said "availability" is contingent upon available resources. If being a social worker (or whatever equivalent term you prefer) paid $1,000,000.00 a year, I am quite sure there would be an over-abundance of "availability of outside intervention". Couple that with a few billion dollars worth of advertising (TV, newspaper, etc) and everyone would know that this sort of help is available. But, sadly, the resources are not available.

Happens with biological parents as well - just not as often.

I would wager that it happens even more, percentage wise, with "natural" families. Even disregarding the relatively lower rate of reporting, look at how many families do encounter situations where either a parent, child, or both end up in counseling, institutions or jail (for abuse, etc.). I would be much more likely to side with your proposal if it was meant to apply across the board - including children living with their biological parents. I think it's the inconsistency thing that bothers me the most...

I can understand this, and would agree. Blaming "culture" is much easier than shouldering the responsibility of your own parenting skills (or lack thereof) that led to such a bad situation. Also, children with no other immediate kin, especially if racial differences are in play, are probably much more likely to have issues. However, I think the same applies to all families. (except the racial part, of course) To a child, I would imagine the worst nightmare possible would be abandonment. This is going to vary with age of the Adoptee of course - I would think an infant would be more resilient to changes in the family structure than, say, an eight year old. But do we know this for sure? Are there field studies available to dispute or back up this notion of mine? I don't know, wondering if you have heard of any?


As an aside, I did think of a potentially economical solution to what you are seeking. What if adoptive families were required to install web-cams in several rooms of their homes as a condition of adoption? Then you could employ monitoring on a random basis or 24/7 if necessary. Intrusion into privacy? Of course - but then again, so are weekly visits from a social worker. At least this way you wouldn't be interfering with the family's schedules, and they would have no time to prepare or "fake" things as they may under the current situation. We have this technology, why not utilize it? I mean, there is precedent - think of all the "cam girl" (porno) houses out there on the net now - just cams for voyeurs to watch chicky's regular daily routines. Watching adoptive families would certainly represent a more noble use of these cameras, yes? What do you think of this idea?

Now, having said all that, I am strongly against putting web cams in an adoptive family's home - just to be clear...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@Randwolf

Well I wouldn't worry about the Italian NGO's in Cambodia if I were you, they seem to be doing just fine and there are more Italian's adopting Khmer babies than those from other nations. Why do you think the resources allocated to checking adoptions beforehand and for a limited time after 'unreasonable?

Why is it that they are able to do so in other nations? Is it that the US has run out of funds? Where does the US get money to check on welfare recipients and foster parents? Surely the constant monitoring of those groups cannot compare to the limited time frame it would take to monitor a child once it has been adopted. How much money does the state pay to pay for foster families to keep unwanted children? How much does the state allocate to adoption homes that keep children up until they are 18 years of age? How much money is then spent on those who are left to shelters once they are 18 years because they have no place to go and no job?

RW: Do you think it would be advisable for some sort of agency to investigate an adopted child's lifestyle from newborn to eighteen?

Never even suggested such a thing. I said there should be such monitoring for the anywhere from six months to a year. They do this in the UK for example and it doesn't take daily monitoring, nor does it take daily monitoring to check up regularly on foster parents which is already done in the US. I still maintain that no such monitoring need be done for the unadopted child, Australia has universal health care as they do in Europe which is why they can afford such services. The US for all its wealth seems unable to even provide adequate health and public services but I guess that is a problem the US citizens will have to deal with in their own way.

The frustration, impatience and disappointment in adoptions differ than that of a natural child as there is already evidence that the hormones involved in labour and birth play a key role in helping initiate bonding with the baby.

RW: Note that this is beyond your suggestion of length of monitoring time.

Yes but this parent didn't need monitoring in that sense. She had well bonded with the child before the problems such as ADD began to show but she also had the resources to care for the child but that aside she lives in Cambodia and raises her child in Cambodia, I was speaking of children that are adopted and brought back to the States where they have laws governing adoptions for american children but do not seem to implement the same laws for foreign adoptions. There are sketchy laws regarding adoption in Cambodia which is why the US doesn't allow them.

Yes there have been studies investigating cross cultural and cross racial adoptions and yes age plays a part but what is more significant is the particular culture where the new child is being raised. So for example a child being raised in a homogenous society, say South Korea, where there are more likely to come across bias for not being 'one of them' will have more problems adjusting than say if they are being raised in the UK. This is true in S. Korea even for children born into a bi-racial family.

Your extreme ideas of web cams and such in families has nothing to do with what i was suggesting. What I am suggesting is that the same guidelines used to monitor adoptions and fostering in the US be used for foreign adoptions. I am not sure where you hyperbole is coming from but it certainly isn't being prompted from any of my posts.

 

Every child should be returnable. It would be a great way to get them to behave. Unwanted children should be raised by the state. What's wrong with a nanny state? We should make that happen literally. How about we make that compromise with the pro-lifers? Outlaw abortion, but make parental guardianship of all minors optional.

 

@Lucysnow
Geez, Lucy, you seem to be getting a little aggravated here, which was not my intent. I truly thought we were having a productive conversation regarding how to better the existing adoption system, both for foreign born and domestic children, of all ages.

Silly me.

As to the hyperbole accusation, I actually thought the web-cam idea to be a potentially viable, useful and economical solution, if one were to decide that monitoring should be increased in length of time or "intensity". It wasn't meant as "hyperbole", but your reaction suggests that you think it overboard, or out of hand. I hereby withdraw my suggestion - bad idea.

As to the rest, I guess you are content with things as they are - which is fine. And no, the US hasn't "ran out of funds", again I was operating under the false pretense that we were discussing potential ways of improving existing systems. I now understand that this is not the case at all. I apologize for misinterpreting your intent.

Nothing to improve here... So, no discussion needed, but thanks for your time. Have a great day!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No you seem to be missing my point. There are standards in regards to adoption in the US, these standards cannot be monitored by adoptions that take place overseas even when they recognize adoptions from certain countries. My question is why can the US not monitor a new foreign adoption when the parents return to the US ensuring a minimum standard that may not be required or followed abroad. In the circumstance of a foreign adoption I am advocating a period of parent child monitoring the way they would if the adoption or fostering occurred in the US.

I don't understand where all you other concerns are coming from as to cost and web cams etc.:shrug:

 

Lucy, as I tried (very hard) to explain, changing existing systems (for the better, at least) would cost more money / resources - that's all. Then I thought we were discussing hypothetical ways of streamlining the system, making it more efficient and more economical, so as to provide a way of ensuring the safety of adopted children, whether they be foreign or domestic born.

In fact, that has been a major issue on my side, if you read back through the posts - I'm looking for consistency, both between domestic and foreign born children, as well as "natural" vs adopted children.

I don't know why the whole "web cam" thing hit you so bad - it truly would allow monitoring of an adopted child's lifestyle (for however long), from a central location, simply by requiring adoptive parents to place cams in the common living areas. (NOT bathrooms, bedrooms, etc.) This use of technology would potentially save a lot of money, freeing it up for use in other areas - say, oh, monitoring of parents that choose to adopt foreign born children. Do you see where I'm coming from now? I know it's a radical idea, but I felt comfortable enough at the time to throw it out to you for input. I was wrong - what else do you want me to say?

I still think this idea would beat once a month (or whatever) "visits" by case-workers by a long shot. The parents would never know when they were being monitored, and it would be something they gave their consent to, in writing, prior to adoption. Why do I sense that you feel the whole idea of "web cams" was meant to be hyperbole aimed at insulting you? I was actually kind of proud of myself when the "light bulb" went off in my head on that one...

Anyway, if your position is just a simplistic view that American citizens who adopt foreign born children should be subjected to the same scrutiny currently applied to domestic children, then I agree with you wholeheartedly. Period.

There would be a need for some additional funds to appropriated to pay for this, but that's all.

I, on the other hand, was trying to discuss a larger problem, involving overall reform of the adoption system in the USA, and perhaps other countries as well. I did not realize that this was beyond the scope of what you were trying to address until late in the game. As soon as I did get a grasp on where you were coming from, I immediately apologized for taking up your time, granted your point, and wished you a good day. (or night, I guess, as the case may be).

That's really all there was to it...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@Randwolf

I have nothing against your suggestions, I thought they were quite good in regards to having a better system but I wasn't really suggesting an overhaul of the present system simply that the US can initiate the same system they already have in place.

The US doesn't have control in how other countries operate their legitimate adoption protocols, home's, screening etc.

So once a family has adopted and returned to the States I'm suggesting that there is a monitoring system such as already utilized for in country adoptions and fostering.

The web cam thing seemed to come out of nowhere and had nothing to do with my comments. You go on to ask me whether web cams should be in their homes but I don't see why.

Overall adoptions in the US are another story but sure we are free to discuss that. I was speaking of foreign adoptions where there are more loopholes etc. and more chances of disaster. Such as what one does if they decide they cannot keep the child as the cases outlined in the OP. Does the child stay in the States for re-adoption based not the fact they were adopted by US citizens? If they are to be returned to their home country what are the protocols? How and why they should be returned to their home countries etc.

RW: In fact, that has been a major issue on my side, if you read back through the posts - I'm looking for consistency, both between domestic and foreign born children, as well as "natural" vs adopted children.

Well then we are arguing the same point as far as consistency. This is am also suggesting but I don't see why it would add up to extra costs, they are not screening the family from the very beginning as they have already adopted, they would only be monitoring to make sure it is going smoothly and offer assistance if it is not.

Now go an build a case as to why you find it necessary to have the same scrutiny applied to children born into families. Would it mirror that of Australia? Outside of monitoring the health of new babies and their mums I don't really agree with it, but I would like to hear what your full case is. Its helpful if we distinguish between what we are discussing as I have been solely focused on foreign adoptions.