tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post7242641397305157402..comments2023-12-26T19:43:01.770-08:00Comments on FAMILY PRESERVATION not Adoption Separaration: The World Watches: Ethnocentric Cultural GenocideMirah Ribenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13626873757236976251noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-23693173116402020002009-05-09T10:02:00.000-07:002009-05-09T10:02:00.000-07:00Unless and until child care becomes such a priorit...Unless and until child care becomes such a priority that funding allows for each case to be looked at on an individual case-by-case basis, accidents will occur in either direction: children will stay w]too long in harmful environments (natural, foster and adoptive) and others will be removed far too quickly with little justification. I have personally witnessed both extremes of this among neighbors and schoolmates of my children.<br /><br />I have also read about children removed at birth simply because other children were removed prior. This allows no room for change, growth, rehabilitation - HOPE. Many today are being placed as you have stated for need of care parents cannot afford and that is a SIN in an industrialized nation! And it is happening more and more as the economy falters. That is an issue of national and state spending priority! We are not putting families first.<br /><br />Children should never be left in danger. But there are ways to ameliorate the danger or possible danger: drug rehabilitation that keeps babies with their others; anger management training; parenting classes; supervision; and temporary foster care that is truly temporary.<br /><br />I also hear from mothers in difficult situations who are scared to death to turn to their gvt for any financial aid because of the fear that their children will be removed if they cannot afford to provide them with all their needs. i have heard of kids taken from homes for the simple reason that there was not 3 days supply of food in the home when a social worker visited. This is flushing the baby with the bath water! It is NOT the way to fix the problem!<br /><br />Again, I do not know about your country but here it is well known that foster care is a hot bed of abuse including sexual abuse.AdoptAuthorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16916713887846028762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-9786120053202382712009-05-09T09:41:00.000-07:002009-05-09T09:41:00.000-07:00Jess,
We need all option but in the right order o...Jess,<br /><br />We need all option but in the right order of priority in practice and dollars spent on each option.<br /><br />The first priority must be family preservation. After that kinship care. I am not at all familiar with Canadian laws or practice but in this country there is an assumption that if the parents are incapable then the whole family is a wash. <br /><br />My book covers a non-profit, non-government program that is finding double-digit numbers of family members for kids aging out of foster care. Why are these family resources not soguht out earlier by the social services depts removing thse kids???<br /><br />My book also covers SOME of the programs that work to foster mother and child in need and provide in-home care rather than removal as a solution for every problem - even drug addiction. these programs have better success rates than tradition foster removals and are more cost effective - yet they are sparse.<br /> <br />The final option for any child who has absolutely no extended family capable of caring for him safely should be permanent legal guardianship - NOT adoption which severs all ties permanently and denies those adopted in the US (in most states) access to their original BC FOREVER! There is absolutely no need to do this in order to care for children in safe permanent ways within loving, caring families.<br /><br />All of this becomes perfectly clear when we see adoption and child care as being in the best interest of children - not in the best interest of those who want a child to fill *their* needs.AdoptAuthorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16916713887846028762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-51433829904808607652009-05-09T06:58:00.000-07:002009-05-09T06:58:00.000-07:00Just to add one more comment. It's true that the w...Just to add one more comment. It's true that the way services are funded, the $$ doesn't often go to addressing problems or needs in the first place and that sometimes the only way for kids to get some services is to come into care. However, there will always be a need for some children to separate from truly bad parents. I look at my best friend, taken into care numerous times because of rotten (and I mean rotten) parents, and wonder how restructured funding would have ever addressed their shortcomings. My friend later applied for and got all her reports from foster care. A tragic story. Abusive parents basically ruined her life. Not saying adoption was the answer either.Osolomamahttp://osolomama.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-71160852770615713592009-05-09T05:58:00.000-07:002009-05-09T05:58:00.000-07:00Actually, I have read a great deal of what is on y...Actually, I have read a great deal of what is on your list. I haven't read your book though, yet. Does it talk about the foster system too?<br /><br />"What I am saying about foster care stipends is that the same $$ could be given to moms or extended family members."<br /><br />The official position of Canadian provinces is to seek care with extended family first. We do have kinshp care in some (most?) provinces and it is paid for. However, this has not ruled out the need for stranger care, as you term it. So again I was asking, would money spent in the foster system guarantee that kids can stay with their original families? Not if the parents can't parent. And why not pay effective foster parents? It seems to me that we need all options--consulting extended family, kinship care, foster care.Osolomamahttp://osolomama.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-8140711651879056902009-05-08T19:55:00.000-07:002009-05-08T19:55:00.000-07:00I do not believe in simply accepting things becaus...I do not believe in simply accepting things because alternatives are difficult. Some call it idealism. I call it persistence. I will no more give up on family preservation as the best option as i would give up on world peace and an end to hunger as best.<br /><br />In the U.S. there are tax benefits given to adopters on the pretense that it helps get the kids in foster care adopted. However, there are no such stipulations put on the benefits.<br /><br />No, I do not think $$ is the answer to all problems. That is why I do not think that financial advantage should be the criteria in child removals and adoptions. <br /><br />What I am saying about foster care stipends is that the same $$ could be given to moms or extended family members.<br /><br />For more of my research and conclusions I strongly suggest you read my book.<br /><br />I also urge you to read others'research, listed at:<br />http://tinyurl.com/p22ydlAdoptAuthorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16916713887846028762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-32457162572217406642009-05-08T17:49:00.000-07:002009-05-08T17:49:00.000-07:00Not sure what benefits you're speaking of, though ...Not sure what benefits you're speaking of, though there is a new IA credit for Canadians. Don't really think this is an incentive to adopt. If I were to reform IA, I'd start with the $$ charged for the adoption itself. Personally, I never got a penny and didn't want anything. <br />Re: fostering, you're asking about kids coming into the system for a whole variety of reasons: <br />Would the $$ redistributed to original families address all the problems of kids in foster care? If so, how do we know this? <br />What would be your rationale be for stopping payments to effective foster families?<br />Poverty strains all relationships and all families, but unfortunately, in our societies it's not likely to be eliminated soon. You can change the whole system and make it Scandinavia—and there's good evidence that their system is more humane, more kid- and family-friendly, and less violent and dysfunctional than ours, but how much traction would you really have in the US where even universal health care seems to be a tough sell?Osolomamahttp://osolomama.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-48645455969168032322009-05-08T16:30:00.000-07:002009-05-08T16:30:00.000-07:00Are you OK with gvt benefits for adopters? And su...Are you OK with gvt benefits for adopters? And subsidies paid to strangers to foster instead of using the same funds to help families remain intact?AdoptAuthorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16916713887846028762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-3555435652663767982009-05-08T16:22:00.000-07:002009-05-08T16:22:00.000-07:00The full quote was taken from your post:
"It is a...The full quote was taken from your post:<br /><br />"It is a relatively recent shift, notes Solinger—since the Reagan administration—that Americans have begun thinking that unless a woman has enough money and resources, she has no business being a mother."<br /><br />I also don't know of any government policies that "encourage young woman to think of early motherhood as a career destination somebody else pays for." <br /><br />I just don't want there to be any.Osolomamahttp://osolomama.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-46125293604415002742009-05-08T13:57:00.000-07:002009-05-08T13:57:00.000-07:00Yes, Madonna is now allegedly working to help sing...Yes, Madonna is now allegedly working to help single mothers adopt.<br /><br />Read: single mother with money have some alleged "right" to take the babies of UNWED mothers without.<br /><br />What have we become as women and as human beings?AdoptAuthorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16916713887846028762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-1205305687929345492009-05-08T13:50:00.000-07:002009-05-08T13:50:00.000-07:00". . .unless a woman has enough money and resource...". . .unless a woman has enough money and resources, she has no business being a mother."<br /><br />Where does this quote originate from?<br /><br />The U.S. is sadly lacking in health care as well as child care and many other supports for families in crisis that the rest of the industrialized world provides its citizens.<br /><br />I wholeheartedly support access to birth control and sex education that includes the preventable causes of infertility. Having said that, we will always have to deal with failures of birthcontrol as well as rape.<br /><br />We do not - and should not - however have a financial litmus test for who was a "right" to be a parent. What is needed is for the U.S. to fill in the gaps - NOT to punish struggling families more by removing their children from them.<br /><br />I know of no individuals or gvt policies that "encourage young woman to think of early motherhood as a career destination somebody else pays for." <br /><br />On the contrary, I know of gvt policies and benefits that encourage the redistribution of children via adoption under the guide of helping special needs children but with no stipulation tat it be used that way.<br /><br />Society in general has been lulled into believing that material "advantages" are optimal over kin connections.AdoptAuthorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16916713887846028762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384966947084602158.post-70809780555303844032009-05-08T12:44:00.000-07:002009-05-08T12:44:00.000-07:00I support the residency requirement totally and it...I support the residency requirement totally and it would be great to see her actually do it instead of wanting everything on her terms. Latest is that she's starting an adoption campaign. Like we need this. Look who's trumpeting adoption now--Focus on the Family (save the souls for Christ) and Madonna. Everyone else has moved on to discuss reform. <br /><br />". . .unless a woman has enough money and resources, she has no business being a mother."<br /><br />Now this is a bit of a sticking point for me when it comes to the developed world. Like it or not, this is a free-enterprise non-collectivistic society that expects people to take care of themselves to a great degree. In your country, you guys don't even have free health care. Socially, we do not live in tribes, unless they're of our own making. So in general, I would agree with the principle that if you don't have the resources to parent--social, emotional, financial--you should avoid parenthood. Where's the birth control discussion in all the adoption discussion, Mirah? Let's not make the babies to begin with and let's not encourage young woman to think of early motherhood as a career destination somebody else pays for.osolomamahttp://osolomama.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com