Woman adopts child and then decides to return it

@Lucy

Thank you.

Well, that's one route to go, but if we were to make some fairly substantial changes regarding foreign born Adoptees, it would seem to me that this would be a good opportunity to step back and take a look at the big picture. As I mentioned, if you wish to constrain the conversation to this matter alone, then I have very little to say - simply include them (Foreign Adoptees) in the system as it now exists. Whatever the SOP is for follow-up monitoring / visitations and other requirements,just add these Parents to the Roster. Of course we would need to establish some sort of application / notification system so that the Government would know when such an adoption takes place. Any ideas?

No, but I can certainly see implementing a law requiring that potential Adoptive Parents must apply for some sort of "permit" through a State agency prior to bringing the child back home to America. This we can control - you can't even bring edible fruit back through customs, so I'm pretty sure that a customs agent would be able to spot a child and request to see the this permit. Basically, anyone bringing back a child would have to present a permit or US birth certificate. Don't you think that would pretty much cover this issue?

Now look a little deeper - if the prospective parents are required to apply for a permit prior to bringing a child back, then we would have the opportunity to "pre-screen" them in whatever fashion we like - just like we currently do for domestic adoptions. Some Adoptees would probably still slip through the cracks, but I would wager that this approach would catch about 90+% of attempts. When you follow that with the need for all public health and educational systems to verify the same permit, it would become extremely difficult to maintain the facade. Your thoughts?

I believe most of this is set-up in the previous post, once you have a handle on the child's existence and status, just plug them into the existing system.

If we include the permit idea, haven't we now pretty much emulated the system currently in place for domestic adoptions, yes?

I hesitate to bring this up again, but feel compelled to point it out. A serious amount of money would be required to put this system in place - initial discussions by the powers that be, establishment of the criteria and procedures for issuance of these hypothetical permits, training of customs agents and other personnel involved in the process, additional office space, salary for those who are to manage the project, etc. It may look simple, cheap and easy, but I have found that such things rarely are. I am not trying to imply that the additional expenditures are not worth it, simply attempting to remind you that cost is something that simply can not be ignored. It need not be addressed within the scope of our discussion if you wish not to. But, if any of these ideas were to actually come to fruition, funding will have to be considered. But don't you think it may be worth it? Someone would have to perform an actual "cost/benefit" analysis, but my gut says you could make it work - maybe even save money in the long run.

You are correct - it "came out of nowhere", but I think this type of technology could be used to reduce existing expenditures - thereby potentially freeing up some funds for your "foreign born Adoptees" proposal. Think of it like this - if you are in charge of security for a large commercial building with many rooms, and you have been given three basic possibilities:

• Put a guard in each room - very effective, very costly.
• Have one guard "do rounds" periodically - very ineffective (thieves can easily out wit such a system), very cheap.
• Have one guard sitting in front of a bank of monitors which switch / rotate from room to room - well, what would your take be on the effectiveness vs expenditures involved in this situation? (If you care to voice an opinion)

See, I was actually trying to help you here. When I am involved in a serious conversation such the one we have going, I often try to put myself in the other person's shoes - how would I handle it, justify it, prove my position, if I were you? From this Gedanken came the web cam idea - a cheaper way of monitoring low to medium risk adoptions, freeing up some resources. So again, while it may "have come from nowhere", I am still flabbergasted by your reaction. Do you understand now?

These are all good questions, but a lot would depend on how the overall system is set up. If we create a system in which pre-screening is possible and required, similar to the pre-screening done for native born Potential Adoptees, perhaps there would be relatively few of these cases.

The fewer there are, the easier it is to implement a system that takes individual circumstances into consideration. For example, does the child have any relatives already living in the USA? Does the child have easily contacted relatives in the country of origin? What is the age of the child? Along with many others.

On the other hand, if it occurs so frequently that we are forced to adopt a revolving door policy, than you are left with two basic alternatives - place the child into the foster system currently existing in the US, or send the child back to the country of origin's counterpart to our foster system.At this point your favorite subject rears its ugly head again (money), and me thinks it would cause the politicians to lean toward the latter policy.

As to the rest of your post, as well as general observations, I think we would need to clear a few things up before continuing. You stated at the beginning of our discussion that you "don't believe in Utopias", yet your comments seem to indicate that you're not directly looking at the real world either. If you really believe that a discussion on a problem of this magnitude can ignore fiscal issues you are either a fool (which I don't believe), a starry eyed idealist or are not aware of the amount of money it would take just to incorporate foreign born children into the existing system. After they have already been brought back into the States. This, unfortunately leads us to the even shadier world of politics. If these "enhanced" programs are to be funded by tax money, then political deals have to be cut - you have to get the votes to get your program through the various Budgetary agencies, maneuver the murky waters of Special Interest groups that may not like the idea of bringing in "furriners" to start with, etc. - and I do mean etc., etc. - nearly ad infinitum.

To ignore these real world considerations means that we are operating at the level of a wishing well - close your eyes, make a wish, and throw a penny into the well. You might even have more success that way. So now we have come full circle back to the beginning.

I am interested in carrying on a discussion concerning natural born children, natural born adoptees, foreign born adoptees, foreign families with young children immigrating to the states, etc.

As you may have already gathered, I am for treating all of the above as equally as possible, under whatever system is set in place.

I am very libertarian when it comes to social issues - abortion, sexual orientation, drug use, etc. Fiscally, I tend to be quite conservative. It is sometimes (even often) difficult for me to balance these issues, but hey, I do what I can with what I got...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If I had my magic wand, I would probably set up the system outlined at the bottom of this post, for all of these (and more) reasons.

Reasons:

• Provide a suitable home for as many children as possible, ideally all of them.
• Prevent child abuse.
• Prevent child neglect.
• Identify and deal with child molesters and abusers, whether physical, emotional or both.
• Promote emotional stability within families.
• Teach coping skills to all children and their parents.
• Give every child the opportunity to maximize his or her abilities.
• Reduce, or at least maintain, existing expenditures while working to achieve these goals.

(And several / many, more.)


Tough mission, in my opinion, but most radical changes start with an exchange of ideas. A very, very rough version of the process: These ideas (can) lead to a proposal, which in turn can lead to a referendum at some level which might cause a formal Bill or equivalent document prepared for negotiation at the Federal and finally to a vote. (stand by while I beat my dead horse, please...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) This all takes a lot of money, even if the bill or rule is not even accepted! Then you get to wait awhile and do it all over again, and again, and again, and again...


For our purposes here, I believe we would be somewhere between the idea stage and the "proposal" stage:

So, although we have general consensus on our goal, we still have bridges to be built with regard to our differences.

For example (correct me if I am wrong about this) I want to at least allude to funding while you do not believe it relevant at all.

And so forth...

Once these differences in opinion are ironed out, we would then hire a professional writer that specializes, at least in part, in translating English into "Legalese" - someone similar to Fraggle, for example. This doesn't come cheap either, especially when you are playing in the "couple of private persons" league - i.e. you and I. After this, we would be in possession of a ~50 page professional document outlining our ideas in great detail. (Yes, I realize that sounds kind of oxymoronic, but I am quite tired and would like to get this post back to you before I turn into a pumpkin.)

After we get through all these issues, we would then need the political know-how and the political connections to proceed. If there is enough interest, the proposal would be amended and changed yet again to fit the proper format for submitting a bill to the floor. (A few more steps in there but I hope you get the general idea) The whole thing is a complete pain in the ass, but I have participated to a very limited degree in the past. The Federal "Telemarketing Act", for example, has twelve words in it that originated from my very own pen and ended up making their way, unchanged, through all the steps and became law.

Well, "rule" technically, as the concept was promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission which is empowered to create these types of rules which then have the force of law.

Anyway, my point is that it is a long and arduous process to get anything done, especially if inter-agency cooperation is required. You need a lot of people involved (let's not forget the Lobbyists, for example). And so on and so on...


After these new rule(s) are established, then the "real" work starts - implementation. And all of this stuff applies whether we are addressing only alien children or just native children or even all children.

I have no idea if you were interested in any of that "armchair legal / political stuff" at all, but I wanted to give you some idea of what would be involved. Or maybe you already knew this, and more, maybe even a lot more than I do. I still felt the need to point out that to say "I think foreign born children should be treated the same as native born children when it comes to adoption" is one thing. To think through the whole process and understand what is involved, to devise some mechanism of paying for any change in governmental policy and procedures is a daunting task, no matter how you cut it. Not even mentioning the implementation phase...


As far as my personal position goes, I think we have covered it before, but I'll run through it again, as there are nuances which have changed.

The first question I would ask: Does the government need to be involved at all?
If "no", we're done. If "yes", then we start discussing "how" and "to what degree".

To arrive at an answer to this, I can tell you my default answer to any question regarding Governmental intervention is no, with the exceptions of defending our sovereignty, ensuring fair elections, and building / maintaining interstate infrastructure (e.g. Interstate highway system). Although I'm sure I could come up with a couple more tasks which could only be handled by government at the Federal level, saying no is still my knee-jerk reaction. This is ideally speaking, of course, and I am aware that the real world doesn't work that way. Right now though, I believe we are completely and totally inundated with unnecessary and redundant laws, rules, departments, czars, etc. I would love to see about half the government we currently have, but this is just ranting... Sorry.

In the case at hand, I can see some need for governmental influence, but I'm not necessarily sure it couldn't be handled at the state level. However, that approach has some potential problems I can already see on the horizon. For example, what if one state just flat prohibits foreign adoptions but another encourages them? Will the "prohibitive" state recognize adoptions of children that occurred in another state? Plus any number of other inconsistencies in a similar vein. So, I'm convinced, perhaps it should be handled at the Federal level.

I think that the pre-screening standards should be relatively relaxed though, as "natural" birthing requires no investigation or licensing at all. So basically, in a lot of cases, we are simply punishing and discriminating against infertile couples. I believe this to be wrong and totally unfair. Hence the "relaxed" standards - after all, it would be hard to imagine a hell worse than where some of these kids come from. So if the caseworker doesn't pick up on any signals that are accepted as psychological clues identifying someone unsuited to parenting (drug and alcohol abuse, reported past physical or emotional abuse of another human, animal abuse, etc.), then let them have the permit. From that point on, let the existing Child Services system handle it. As you pointed out, neighbors are pretty eager to call anonymous "tip hot-lines" to report child abuse. Same with teachers, doctors and other professionals that come into contact with the child.


Lucy, you have given me a lot of interesting points to chew on, so my position may very well shift somewhat as time goes on.

Having gotten through all that, here is a summary of my current position:
*****************************************************
I believe that a couple that desires to adopt should be thoroughly "screened" beforehand as to their suitability as parents. This would apply to parent(s) seeking both "native" and "foreign born" Potential Adoptees. If the pre-screening does not detect any potential problems, then the adoption "permit" should be issued. If parent(s) attempt to circumvent the law, they should not be allowed through customs until they can produce said permit. After a period of time being allowed to correct honest problems such as "lost" permits and the like, child services should intervene and return the child to its native country (USA or other) and made a ward of the state. If a country refuses reentry to the child, then they would be granted US citizenship and made a ward of the State. They would then be "back in the existing system", at least as far as America goes.

If a problem is later reported, regardless of whether the child is "native" or "foreign born", then a caseworker should be assigned and an investigation initiated. If the caseworker determines there may be a problem with this family, then a hearing in family court would be appropriate. If the verdict is "guilty, then the family should be monitored in some way, to whatever extent a judge and / or jury sees fit. Most likely some sort of escalating scale: 1st time - monthly caseworker visits or webcam monitoring, 2nd time - both monthly visits and webcam monitoring, 3rd time - both weekly visits and webcam surveillance, etc., culminating in removal of the child. This scale would not be absolute of course, because the initial offense can vary over a wide spectrum. We have the exasperated mother who slaps a young child's face, hard, twice and in public vs some sadistic S.O.B. that somehow slipped through the cracks and now gets his kicks by burning kids with lit cigars. So, allowance would have to be made for these types of differences, and none of the terms mentioned here are intended to supersede other remedies the State may already have.
*****************************************************

Sorry, Lucy, it's getting quite late again tonight, so this will probably be my last post for today - but I will check back tomorrow..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Woman adopts child and then decides to return it

It probably didn't match the new furniture.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Superstar Madonna with latest must-have fashion accessory

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reminds me of Angelina Jolie...seemingly to every poor country's she's been to she's getting herself a bit of that country by adopting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Randwolf

Before I begin I have to say I am overwhelmed by how precise and effective your suggestions would be if implemented. :worship:

RW: Whatever the SOP is for follow-up monitoring / visitations and other requirements,just add these Parents to the Roster. Of course we would need to establish some sort of application / notification system so that the Government would know when such an adoption takes place. Any ideas?

Sorry for the late reply but I've been a bit busy. I do think the government is notified, or they should be, when the embassy is involved in issuing papers to the adoptive parents so they can travel with the child back to the US.

RW: if the prospective parents are required to apply for a permit prior to bringing a child back, then we would have the opportunity to "pre-screen" them in whatever fashion we like - just like we currently do for domestic adoptions.

Hehe. I never even thought of that. Its a damn good idea! Then the next phase where they must show the permit when re-entering the States as you also suggested would kick in. Damn good idea!!! But I still don't understand why it would cost so much extra money if its plugged into the existing system. I mean it may mean investing in new staff or re-training of existing staff. The immigration officers would only need to recognize what the new permit papers are necessary. I mean who pays for the agencies costs covering in country adoptions?

I'm still having trouble with the in home surveillance cameras. It would be a can of worms when it comes to privacy laws etc. I don't know I would have to ruminate a little over that one. I mean I'm still freaking out at the level of street surveillance in the UK, and that's not even in ones home!!

RW: if it occurs so frequently that we are forced to adopt a revolving door policy, than you are left with two basic alternatives - place the child into the foster system currently existing in the US, or send the child back to the country of origin's counterpart to our foster system.At this point your favorite subject rears its ugly head again (money), and me thinks it would cause the politicians to lean toward the latter policy.

Ahh! Now we are at the crux of the matter. These are serious questions. I believe that if you adopt a child then it should carry the same nationality as the adoptive parents, now if there is a problem with the family keeping the child then the national services should kick in. I bet if the state were forced to deal with botched foreign adoptions in terms of cost of care for a child given back to a system then they would make damn sure that the adoptive parents are responsible. Can you imagine the outrage if there are too many foreign adopted kids being thrown into an already overtaxed social services?

RW: If you really believe that a discussion on a problem of this magnitude can ignore fiscal issues you are either a fool (which I don't believe), a starry eyed idealist or are not aware of the amount of money it would take just to incorporate foreign born children into the existing system. After they have already been brought back into the States. If these "enhanced" programs are to be funded by tax money, then political deals have to be cut.

Okay. I understand that this will take money, everything has fiscal constrains but if the US finds incorporating foreign adoptions into its system such a problem of giant financial magnitude then they should just not allow foreign adoptions. Otherwise it sends the message, one that the Russians are now grappling with, that the US is not willing to take responsibility for the acts of its citizens when it comes to adopted children born outside the US, which I find unfair. For example I was horrified when I learned that men who had gone down on charges for child molestation or sexual abuse in the US were allowed to keep their passports and exit the country to go elsewhere (like cambodia) to do the same thing. I mean they have megan's law in the US, so why allow a child molester the right to a passport? But now I rant. Back to point, if its adopted by american parents then the child should be american right? (lol. I don't understand why my text font has suddenly changed.)

RW: Anyway, my point is that it is a long and arduous process to get anything done, especially if inter-agency cooperation is required. You need a lot of people involved (let's not forget the Lobbyists, for example). And so on and so on...

I agree that its a lot of work trying to implement a new program in regards to foreign adoptions but if it doesn't happen then not only are children put at risk but the US citizens risk being banned from other nations from adopting. Its in their interest to integrate the process into their own system. Poorer countries like Malawi will never be able to control adoption as they are already overwhelmed with a corrupt system where its all too easy to pay your way through the process (just look at Madonna and Jolie), so it is up to the US to protect these kids from developing nations by having a more stringent system in place regarding their citizens, matching the appropriate parents with the appropriate children, or if that's too complicated then simply making sure they have appropriate parents or guardians as candidates for adoption. I find your suggestions excellent and would really help curtail these botched adoptions.

RW: I still felt the need to point out that to say "I think foreign born children should be treated the same as native born children when it comes to adoption"

Couldn't agree with you more!

RW: Does the government need to be involved at all?

YES!! Absolutely. Its unreasonable to think that proper protocols will be handled overseas. Some of the lobbyists should be all those responsible people who want to adopt overseas. Isn't it in their interest to know that when they finally do adopt that they will be assisted IF necessary and that they will not be given a bad name because there were cases of inappropriate candidates able to adopt and cause another international incident? It should be a matter of 'only those applicable need apply'. By the way you mentioned that you believe that any new rules can be regulated on a state level. Wouldn't that simply lead to inconsistency where some states have stringent measures and others are lax? For that reason I also agree that the federal government can set a standard to be implemented in all states. Thing is this would also mean that their normal adoption protocols are standardized in all states? Do you know if adoptions regulations differ from state to state?

RW: I think that the pre-screening standards should be relatively relaxed though, as "natural" birthing requires no investigation or licensing at all. So basically, in a lot of cases, we are simply punishing and discriminating against infertile couples.

Well I see your point on this one but I was hoping that it would mean bringing the best of infertile couples or single parents to the table. I have to think over this one. I don't believe that anyone has the right to neglect or abuse their kids but under the current system I think it may be easier to get away with some form of abuse in a foreign adoption setting. No one will be able to ensure complete control over how people raise their kids adopted or not but to me dragging a kid from a foreign country who already has abandonment issues, changing their name, thrusting them into a new environment and then rejecting them to send them back is well, sloppy work on the part of the governing nation that allowed for the adoption in the first place. Its interesting that there are very few botched adoptions within the US as compared to foreign adoptions so this is why I think they need to be integrated into the system.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!