UNADOPTION

[Greegor]

http://childrensrightsandlaws.blogspot.com/2006/10/does-unadoption-signal-new-lower-tier.html

Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Does Unadoption Signal a New Lower-Tier Adoption?
In Virginia a long time foster mother would like to unadopt a young man
she recently adopted. (Read Article). The mom claims that her adopted
son came along with a host of issues that she was not aware of when she
adopted him. The mom claims that she only recently found out about his
past -- being abused by an alcoholic mother, possibly having
psychological problems, etc. The mom claims that she was only told that
he was hyperactive at adoption.

It turns out that her adopted son molested two young children. As a
result, his adoptive mom (a long time foster mom) can no longer foster
other children while he is in the house. This raises a particularly
interesting question: if she can "unadopt" her son, does this signal a
new lower-tier adoption?

As the law stands now, an adopted child is just as much someone's child
as a biological child. This was not always the case, and it is still
not necessarily 100%, but it is almost certainly the way the system
works. With biological child-bearing a parent is not aware of "who"
they are getting. Certainly they may be more knowledgeable about the
biological make-up of the child -- various genetic possibilities -- but
the parents do not know if their child will grow up to be
psychologically challenged or a Nobel Price winner. Parents need to
deal with and work with the children they have -- not the children they
wished they had.

On the other hand, it is a bad precedent to set for adoption workers to
mislead potential adoptive parents as to the truth about a child.
Granted, these workers may have warned the adoptive mom, the workers
may not have been aware of many of the issues, but let's just hope that
there was no malintent involved.

I'm concerned about the idea that parents can adopt a child and if that
child is not exactly what they hoped and dreamed for that the parents
can return the child. This denigrates adoption, parenthood, and the
security that adopted children obtain.
posted by eponcz at 7:14 AM

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:

No, he wrote nothing. He cut and pasted someone else's post. Something
he claims is felony quoting.

On the other hand, it's an interesting peice.

Kane

> http://childrensrightsandlaws.blogspot.com/2006/10/does-unadoption-signal-new-lower-tier.html
>
> Tuesday, October 10, 2006
> Does Unadoption Signal a New Lower-Tier Adoption?
> In Virginia a long time foster mother would like to unadopt a young man
> she recently adopted. (Read Article). The mom claims that her adopted
> son came along with a host of issues that she was not aware of when she
> adopted him. The mom claims that she only recently found out about his
> past -- being abused by an alcoholic mother, possibly having
> psychological problems, etc. The mom claims that she was only told that
> he was hyperactive at adoption.
>
> It turns out that her adopted son molested two young children. As a
> result, his adoptive mom (a long time foster mom) can no longer foster
> other children while he is in the house. This raises a particularly
> interesting question: if she can "unadopt" her son, does this signal a
> new lower-tier adoption?
>
> As the law stands now, an adopted child is just as much someone's child
> as a biological child. This was not always the case, and it is still
> not necessarily 100%, but it is almost certainly the way the system
> works. With biological child-bearing a parent is not aware of "who"
> they are getting. Certainly they may be more knowledgeable about the
> biological make-up of the child -- various genetic possibilities -- but
> the parents do not know if their child will grow up to be
> psychologically challenged or a Nobel Price winner. Parents need to
> deal with and work with the children they have -- not the children they
> wished they had.
>
> On the other hand, it is a bad precedent to set for adoption workers to
> mislead potential adoptive parents as to the truth about a child.
> Granted, these workers may have warned the adoptive mom, the workers
> may not have been aware of many of the issues, but let's just hope that
> there was no malintent involved.
>
> I'm concerned about the idea that parents can adopt a child and if that
> child is not exactly what they hoped and dreamed for that the parents
> can return the child. This denigrates adoption, parenthood, and the
> security that adopted children obtain.
> posted by eponcz at 7:14 AM

[Greegor]

It points out that foster adopters are being lied to about the pasts of
the kids.
And this can result in culpability for exposing other kids to dangerous
adoptees.



0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>
> No, he wrote nothing. He cut and pasted someone else's post. Something
> he claims is felony quoting.
>
> On the other hand, it's an interesting peice.
>
> Kane
>
> > http://childrensrightsandlaws.blogspot.com/2006/10/does-unadoption-signal-new-lower-tier.html
> >
> > Tuesday, October 10, 2006
> > Does Unadoption Signal a New Lower-Tier Adoption?
> > In Virginia a long time foster mother would like to unadopt a young man
> > she recently adopted. (Read Article). The mom claims that her adopted
> > son came along with a host of issues that she was not aware of when she
> > adopted him. The mom claims that she only recently found out about his
> > past -- being abused by an alcoholic mother, possibly having
> > psychological problems, etc. The mom claims that she was only told that
> > he was hyperactive at adoption.
> >
> > It turns out that her adopted son molested two young children. As a
> > result, his adoptive mom (a long time foster mom) can no longer foster
> > other children while he is in the house. This raises a particularly
> > interesting question: if she can "unadopt" her son, does this signal a
> > new lower-tier adoption?
> >
> > As the law stands now, an adopted child is just as much someone's child
> > as a biological child. This was not always the case, and it is still
> > not necessarily 100%, but it is almost certainly the way the system
> > works. With biological child-bearing a parent is not aware of "who"
> > they are getting. Certainly they may be more knowledgeable about the
> > biological make-up of the child -- various genetic possibilities -- but
> > the parents do not know if their child will grow up to be
> > psychologically challenged or a Nobel Price winner. Parents need to
> > deal with and work with the children they have -- not the children they
> > wished they had.
> >
> > On the other hand, it is a bad precedent to set for adoption workers to
> > mislead potential adoptive parents as to the truth about a child.
> > Granted, these workers may have warned the adoptive mom, the workers
> > may not have been aware of many of the issues, but let's just hope that
> > there was no malintent involved.
> >
> > I'm concerned about the idea that parents can adopt a child and if that
> > child is not exactly what they hoped and dreamed for that the parents
> > can return the child. This denigrates adoption, parenthood, and the
> > security that adopted children obtain.
> > posted by eponcz at 7:14 AM

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> It points out that foster adopters are being lied to about the pasts of
> the kids.
> And this can result in culpability for exposing other kids to dangerous
> adoptees.

Yes. Now what?

Sue?

Murder workers?

What is your solution?

Then there's that old bugaboo about who is lying and who is telling the
truth.

Suppose the adoptive parent is lying and they were told about the
child's past history?

I've seen a few such cases where indeed, in court it was discovered the
adoptive parent forgot, and the records showed that indeed he or she
had been told and given paperwork verifying the child's background.

But what is YOUR solution, Greg?

What would you do, by the way, with children that dangerous?

And where would the funding come from to do whatever you suggest?

Kane


>
>
>
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> >
> > No, he wrote nothing. He cut and pasted someone else's post. Something
> > he claims is felony quoting.
> >
> > On the other hand, it's an interesting peice.
> >
> > Kane
> >
> > > http://childrensrightsandlaws.blogspot.com/2006/10/does-unadoption-signal-new-lower-tier.html
> > >
> > > Tuesday, October 10, 2006
> > > Does Unadoption Signal a New Lower-Tier Adoption?
> > > In Virginia a long time foster mother would like to unadopt a young man
> > > she recently adopted. (Read Article). The mom claims that her adopted
> > > son came along with a host of issues that she was not aware of when she
> > > adopted him. The mom claims that she only recently found out about his
> > > past -- being abused by an alcoholic mother, possibly having
> > > psychological problems, etc. The mom claims that she was only told that
> > > he was hyperactive at adoption.
> > >
> > > It turns out that her adopted son molested two young children. As a
> > > result, his adoptive mom (a long time foster mom) can no longer foster
> > > other children while he is in the house. This raises a particularly
> > > interesting question: if she can "unadopt" her son, does this signal a
> > > new lower-tier adoption?
> > >
> > > As the law stands now, an adopted child is just as much someone's child
> > > as a biological child. This was not always the case, and it is still
> > > not necessarily 100%, but it is almost certainly the way the system
> > > works. With biological child-bearing a parent is not aware of "who"
> > > they are getting. Certainly they may be more knowledgeable about the
> > > biological make-up of the child -- various genetic possibilities -- but
> > > the parents do not know if their child will grow up to be
> > > psychologically challenged or a Nobel Price winner. Parents need to
> > > deal with and work with the children they have -- not the children they
> > > wished they had.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, it is a bad precedent to set for adoption workers to
> > > mislead potential adoptive parents as to the truth about a child.
> > > Granted, these workers may have warned the adoptive mom, the workers
> > > may not have been aware of many of the issues, but let's just hope that
> > > there was no malintent involved.
> > >
> > > I'm concerned about the idea that parents can adopt a child and if that
> > > child is not exactly what they hoped and dreamed for that the parents
> > > can return the child. This denigrates adoption, parenthood, and the
> > > security that adopted children obtain.
> > > posted by eponcz at 7:14 AM