As CD's mother has re-entered her life, it is interesting to hear the responses of the people that I have been hearing from. Some people (granted, no one in our real life) believe it could be the "right thing" or even "great" for CD to return to her birth mother. It seems that some believe that having birthed someone makes them their mother and any other mother figure is simply not the "real" mother.
Some can't comprehend how anyone could believe that CD's mother, after not functioning as her mother for almost a year now, is still potentially more of an ideal family for CD than ours is. They don't understand why anyone assumes that somehow blood would be more ideal than a stable family who is completely crazy about her and has all the resources to provide for her and has been a family to her for almost a year of her two years of life.
I guess if I believed that blood is thicker than water I would not have imagined myself as an adoptive mother as a Plan A route rather than a backup to having (more) biological children. If I believed that blood was thicker than water, I would be loving my biological children more than my foster daughter, I would be more loyal to them, more committed to them, more invested in them. I'm not.
I signed up for a System that is the way it is. I accept that CD's mother has legal rights. I accept that she is capable of change and becoming a good enough mother to earn back custody of CD and even do a good job of raising her. I do not, for a second, believe that being genetically related to the person raising her will necessarily make CD's life better. It may spare her issues of loss and abandonment so I'll put that on the pro list, but life is fraught with all sorts of complications. Being an adoptee is not a factor in itself correlated with growing up miserable and poorly adjusted.
As a side note, the System supervisor and CD's law guardian believe that our adopting CD is what is in her best interest. That is what they will be advising the judge next month. One month of "hard work" on the mother's part has not changed that. These folks know CD's mother very well, know all sorts of things that I am not privy to and have been around long enough to see what happens when children are returned to their biological parents in all sorts of situations.
I will do everything I can to support CD with whatever decisions are made for her life by a court of law. This means that I will go out of my way to befriend her mother and help CD feel comfortable with her mother. I will continue to offer cues to CD that only encourage a relationship between her and her mother and I will encourage her to call her "Mommy R," look at pictures of her and play with the toys that she brings for her. I am doing this for CD. I love her and I am doing what is right for her because if she returns to her mother, she needs me to have helped with the transition, to teach her that her mother loves her and that her mother is good and safe.
However, I do not believe it is in CD's best interest to go back to her mother. Considering CD's mother's long history, one that dates back to an older child from whom she walked away, I believe that sending CD back to live with her is taking too much of a risk. The System would risk her mother destabilizing and once again putting CD in harms way. The System would risk CD going to her mother just to end up back in the System again only this time, much more traumatized from the moves back and forth.
I am not rooting for reunification. I am doing the right thing for CD so that no matter what happens I know that I did everything I could to be the best foster mother that I could be to CD. I went into foster parenting because I thought too many people were doing it wrong and I was confident that my family could do it right. We are just trying to do it right.
30 comments:
I too am not hoping for reunification - unless CD's mom somehow proved herself to be totally stable, loving, and caring and I was convinced there was next to no chance of CD ever being mistreated. I know that's a tall order for CD's mom, but I think she's "earned" the lack of trust in this scenario. There's no question she has legal rights and there's no question biology is an important factor in the parenting relationship (not just genetics, but family history and culture), but those factors are far less important than being part of a loving family regardless of genetic relationship.
What kind of standard does CD's mom have to meet in order to push off termination of parental rights? What standard does she have to meet to regain custody of CD? Does she just have to finish a couple of classes and show a willingness to care for CD? Or is more needed?
A month of interest doesn't even begin to make up for a year of neglect.
I'm also curious whether the fact that you and your family love and care for CD so much is a factor in CD's mom termination hearing.
This post breaks my heart - and shows that your home truly would be the best alternative for CD. You are truly putting her first, and how many bio Moms are just not able to do that?
I believe that CDs Mom probably does love her, but she is just not able to be the primary parent.
CD is thriving where she is. I sincerely pray that the judge will end this merry-go-round, and will act in CDs best interests.
To me, the reality is that just because you get pregnant, it doesn't mean that you are the best option for that child. Anyone can get pregnant. I think CDs Mom wants to be a good Mom, but has issues in her life that significantly affect her ability to parent and protect CD.
As for people who believe that biology = ownership... I am curious as to why they would think that the parent's 'rights' outweigh the 'rights' or best interests of the child. I realise that they are presenting the arguement that the child is better off in the family of origin, but truly they must acknowledge that some homes are toxic; some parent's are just not fit, and cycles of abuse and poverty repeat... Not all adoptee's are bitter about being adopted - especially when it truly has given them more opportunities in life.
TO - you and your family are amazing. It is a testament to your parenting skills that your boys are so well adapted, and are able to cope with this situation so well. I hope and pray that CD will be in your care forever. God Bless you.
"there's no question biology is an important factor in the parenting relationship "
I disagree. That is how most families are created but it doesn't have to be and biology is obviously no guarantee. Some bio parents simply don't bond with their children, don't attach and don't care for them.
Perhaps you can't relate to it because you have never bonded as a parent to a child who isn't biologically related to you, but ask adoptive parents who are also bio parents. They feel as I do. There is *no* difference. There is no inferiority in the bond, love, attachment, there is no second class status to the bio children. It doesn't take some kind of effort, it happens naturally and it happens in days, weeks and sometimes months, but not years.
If I lose CD, I will be grieving the loss of a child who has my whole heart.
The judge sets the standards. He decides whether the standards are met. It is very subjective. And its been 17 months (not a year) of child endangerment before the year she spent with us in addition to the 10 months of abandonment before she returned. Right now that makes 27 months, all the months that CD has been alive (minus the most recent one, but she hasn't had to care for her).
The fact that CD has a loving pre-adoptive home would make it easier to terminate the rights of the mother. However, if the mother is "good enough" then she is. It is not a competition about which is the better home.
Are you saying you think the biological component is irrelevant? I think it's important, but not the be all and end all of the situation. As I said above, being a loving parent is far more important than being (just) a biological parent.
I'm not at all saying you love CD any less than your bio children, far from it.
All I'm saying is that if you had a choice between 2 equally loving parents, the biological parents would be better. I think you would agree with that. Thus, there is "something" to the biological relationship even if it's merely a bond based on looking the same, a shared culture and history, or an evolutionary imperative to watch over our genes (I think there's more to it than that, but at a minimum there's that).
Maybe this is pushing things into an area you don't want to go, but here's another question. CD is obviously white as it would seem you are as well. Clearly a loving family is preferred over a same-race parent (not bio, just same race). But, isn't conventional wisdom that if you have 2 equally loving homes, you place the child in a same-race family? Assuming you agree with that, doesn't that also tend to point to the importance (all else discounted) of a biological relationship?
I think it's hard to quantify what the "something" is to the bio relationship, but I feel there is that "something." Again, I think the example of where you have 2 equally loving families, you would prefer the bio one, supports the point even if indirectly.
IMO, the race issue is* solely* because of society, stigma and racism, *not* biology! The bond, love etc would be equal for me, I have no doubt, it is the challenges that society creates that makes it less than choice A. Of course, especially where you and I live, there are hundreds of multicultural families doing incredibly well and creating a society in which their children, for now, are protected from societal racism. There is an entire support network two towns over from where I live, when I say hundreds of families belong, I mean hundreds.
As far as all else created equal, I do not think it is genes that makes a family. Period. Equal is equal as far as I am concerned and your hypothetical doesn't exist.
Well, of course the hypothetical doesn't exist, that's why it's a hypothetical. :)
Yes, the race issue gets into biases, prejudices, and racism. But, there are those who think (rightly or wrongly) that a child is "robbed" of his/her identity by being raised in a different-race home. I suppose there are those who would say the same thing about culture, religion, or nationalism.
I don't think genes make the family. We definitely agree about that. But, I do think it adds something. I have no doubt you'd love any child regardless of race, religion, culture, nationality, etc. just as much as any of your bio children. That's not my point at all. My point is that there is something special about a biological relationship. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what it is though. Maybe it's just that stronger starting point whereas another child is necessarily a "stranger" to some extent or maybe it's simply easier to "get" a bio child since you see characteristics in him/her that you and/or your spouse have. But, I do think there's something there - not that it trumps anything else though.
After all, why do you think that as a society we strive to reunite children with their bio parents? Do you take that as an indication that society values the "blood"? Do you think that's wrong? If it is wrong, should we simply look to who is a better parent for a child, period end of story?
JS, I ththink you are doing a good job of arguing for why it would be best for you to stick to bio kids.
Personally, I think there is something really special about the foster parent and adoptive parent relationships with their children too. Whatever is" special" in the bio one may be different but no more or less special than a child that the universe matched you up with to love as your own. I will never take forgranted one day of having CD in my life. That is pretty special to me.
Well, we're certainly going to be sticking to the bio kids for the foreseeable future. Whether that changes after we're done with our bio family only time will tell.
I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for what you and your family are doing (and what all foster and adoptive families do). I don't mean to denigrate it at all. If anything, I think it's greater than the bio parenting situation as it takes so much more to make the decision you have made.
I'm not trying to be contrarian here or just argue for the sake of arguing. I'm trying to understand what, if anything, is special about the biological relationship and why we, as a society, choose to value it so much. Is it just societal bias or a fear or discomfort for family situations which aren't the norm? I think it's an interesting sociological question.
I tend to think there is something there, but I'm not quite sure I can put my finger on it.
I'll ask again, if you care to think it over and respond:
"After all, why do you think that as a society we strive to reunite children with their bio parents? Do you take that as an indication that society values the "blood"? Do you think that's wrong? If it is wrong, should we simply look to who is a better parent for a child, period end of story?"
Children suffer greatly when they get torn away from they parent they knew (by definition, that is usually the bio parent). Fact is, most people don't want to raise other people's biological children. Many will go through hell and back with fertility treatments rather than make my choice. I am not the norm for human nature in that way. I don't get the needing a mini me thing, needing the pregnancy, wanting an extension of myself. In fact, I am glad my boys did not inherit my multitude of bad parts and I am saddened that they have my eye sight and asthma and hope that there are other things they wont inherit from me. CD is more beautiful, energetic and incredible than I could ever hope to be. I could not have birthed a more incredible little girl.
But I digress. People are generally not interested in adopting. Those who do are a very small minority and most who do do it because they could not conceive a bio child. There is no world in which we can simply place children in the" best" homes and pretend that is separate from biology. The home where there is the greatest bond, the unconditional love, the lifelong commitment is generally the bio one even if they have problems and are far from perfect. Most foster parents are not interested in adopting. By definition that generally means that bio parents are the best there is for most children. With over 100K children waiting for adoptive homes in this country, those who have not found families and many who never will, we certainly won't be in a position any time soon of being able to choose parents for even children who have no parents at all.
JS,
I think the bio family issue is a bit of a cultural constraint, and is historically a necessity... What I mean is that in some cultures a baby is the communities child - they might actually bond to another woman rather than their natural mother, and that person becomes their primary female role model. (I will look up the name of the tribe I am specifically thinking of , although I know there is more than one social group for which this is true.). The nuclear family is a social construct that was historically needed for survival, and I can understand how you percieve that there is a genetic "link" (for example, how do some people that are adopted, but have never been told, KNOW that they are adopted?). In some situations, for some people, there is a link. Society (at present) reinforces this value.
However, just because there are two loving homes, doesn't mean that a child would be better off with the bio parents. CDs Mom probably does love her... Lets pretend that we can measure how much TO and CD's Mom love CD. Let's say that it is equal. By your hypothesis, CD would be better off with her mother... But at TO's house CD has a permanent father figure (not Dad's that come and go and may have substance abuse problems etc), she has brothers (who are very well adapted), she has animals, and stable housing (Bio Mom seems to move frequently), more finances (not the be all and end all, but provides opportunities)...
CDs Mom is 'being the best Mom she can be', but she does not have the skill set/intuition/parenting ability of TO.
So - the love is equal, but in terms of what is best for CD... Well... My vote is a solid TO!!!!
Not to mention that CD has been raised for a year in this home, that she had bonded significantly with this family, that she calls TO MOM... What if she was able to maintain contact with her birth Mom, but be raised in this wholesome family?
I have step kids - and I honestly don't think I could love them anymore than I do. I care about them more than I could ever express. I don't think of them as step-kids. In my mind, they are MINE. They know their Mom. They visit with her. But that doesn't mean that they have not bonded with me, and we aren't a family. When a child asks you to adopt them, because they see you as their parental figure, I think it says a lot about 'what constitues a family'.
I understand that you are trying to ferret out if biology should matter, and weigh in on decisions... I know that your point is - all things being equal, the bio parent should prevail... But the reality to me is that 'all things are not equal'. And I TRULY believe that an adoptive bond can be every bit as strong as a bio bond.
On the side, there is an article on line right now about how a Mom never bonded with her daughter... If you express interest, I can post the link... Just because you are a bio, doesn't guarantee that you are the parent of the child.
Anon,
Interesting and very true. If one studies anthropology, there are fascinating alternatives to the nuclear family in other cultures and in different periods in history.
As for mothers who don't connect with their children, they are everywhere. Dont even get me started on fathers. One would have to be blind not to see them.
just wait until her man gets out of jail. this is almost textbook. ive seen it hundreds of times during my years "in the system"
this is the story i have seen:
"the man" disappears and all of a sudden mom wants the kids. shes gotta have something to "love her." court sends the kids back home....lalalala, things are *ok* for awhile...
...but then "the man" comes back home. mom no longer needs the kids.
and guess where the kids go back to?
foster care.
because i do believe in reunification, i would post-pone TPR and "watch" the behaviors of the biomother for months. if she continues to work her case plan, attend her visits, etc then increase the visits, etc.
i would also cut the gift-giving. love cant be bought...
BUT -- one mess-up, TPR immediately.
crap, i should be a family court judge ;)
Anon,
That is how I expect things to go unless there are factors of which I am unaware (and there may be, I was told that there is a lot that they are not allowed to tell me about the first 17 months of CD's life and about her mother).
I just don't know what it would do to CD to lose her current family after a year and a half or more. Reality is, visits are just scary for her, it would take much more than an hour or 5 a week to create a parent-child bond with a two year old and the longer this gets drawn out, the older she gets, the harder this will all be for her. Perhaps it is too much for me to want CD to come out of all this unscathed.
Oh, and she was a half hour late Monday for her visit, is that a mess up?
yes. TPR... if no good reason like severe injury or death.
assuming CD realizes that the woman is some type of "mommy" -- a half-hour to a child is eternity.
thoughts going through the head of a child waiting for a visitation...
"i must not be important, my mommy R cant get here on time"
"i hope mommy R is ok. maybe she is not coming."
"mommy R must not like me. i did something bad"
"where is mommy R. why is she not here? did i do something wrong last time"
"what is happening?"
"mommy R doesnt want to spend that much time with me. she doesnt come on time."
"im scared sitting in this office with these people. where is my mommy? any mommy?"
;0
CD is too young to understand that "Mommy R" is a "mommy" like the women that pick up their children from daycare are their "mommies." To her, "Mommy R" is some lady whose name is "Mommy R." She won't grow into understanding that Mommy R has some connection to her for quite a few months still.
I hope it helps that she is not waiting for a mommy. She is now sitting with me until "Mommy R" comes and she kicks and screams when I leave her with Mommy R simply because she is a stranger. She is at a tough age for all this.
Your internal dialogue would make complete sense for even many three year olds but CD is still an early two.
FACT: It takes a VERY devoted and special and giving person to extend themselves as far as you are doing to someone who isn't their blood. I don't think you should minimize how special you and your husband & kids are in doing that. If the opposite were true than everyone would be a foster parent and there wouldn't be homeless people etc..
Tikun Olam,
I commend you so much for doing all that you can to make a difficult (impossible?) situation the best that it can be for CD.
Whether or not reunification is theoretically best is a difficult question. Whether it is best in a specific situation is not as difficult, and in this specific case for CD, it seems obvious to this distant observer that it is not.
Wishing for the best, especially for one special little girl,
Kathy
Very interesting that this post came on the same day as one I read earlier called "Birth Parent Bias" (eyesopendedwider.blogspot.com) ...and I nodded my head through both of them. It's really a tough spot, a balancing act, and I'm really glad I'm not a judge! I'm experiencing my first placement and have known since I got them they were "going home soon"...and that was over 12 months ago. Their situation is very different than yours since their mom at least has been "present" the entire time. I can't imagine what you are going through, but am also in a place where I need to present their mom in a positive light and help with the transition home as much as I can. The girls (and their brothers) are also at a different age than CD which I think makes a difference too in whether or not reunification is "in the best interest of the child". Thinking about you and your family during this time.
Mama blah blah, I don't really think so. I think that anyone who is capable of loving their own children would quickly love one who wasn't blood if they gave themselves the chance. If someone goes home with the wrong baby from the hospital and they don't know, they love the child they have. There is no less of an instinct to bond and love in those situations. Id bet the house that there is no qualitative difference between loving the bio kid who comes home vs. the nonbio who comes home accidentally. The difference is psychology not biology. If more people realized that nonbio would not prohibit that same love, perhaps more people would give it a try.
You are raising an important issue here.
Before I read foster/foster children blogs, I would have thought that "birth family" was per se the best option.
Now I understand that Cild protection services place children in foster care for a reason, i.e. that a quite high amount of neglect and/or abuse has to happen before a child is taken away from the birth family.
So now I am quite on the same wave lenght as you.
My main concern would be that children would be placed back with their birth families, it works for while, it goes wrong again, the children have to be taken out again and placed with a new foster placement.
So there is my question: would you consider renouncing taking more foster children in case CD goes back with her mom, so as to be on "stand by" in case CD would have to be placed in foster care again?
Would it make sense for foster families to keep places for the children they once fostered so that a new placement does not have to be with a new family, but would mean going back to a family who fostered them already?
The System, at least in my state, does approach the last foster family that the child is with if they return to the System.
As for the rest, CD bouncing back and forth could ruin her for life. I just don't want to even entertain that possibility.
Cd's mother will very unlikely remain in the state anyway as is her MO, so even if she came back into the System, it is highly unlikely it would be in my state.
Can the Case Worker be honest with Mom about how chances are that eventually CD will come back into care, and what the consequences might be to CD at that time? Can the CW talk to Mom about the consequences of moving CD now that she is attached to her (your)family? I feel like it is not honest, and damaging the way the system is currently run - and the way the parents are favored in the system. I wish the system was set up to honor the best interests of the child - regardless of what that means to the adults/others. I know that things are not so cut and dried... But this is a human life.
As a biological parent, I feel that I have a _slight_ advantage over non-biological parents: I get my kids' quirks, because some of them were my quirks, and I remember being a quirky kid. It gives me a little extra insight into what my kids are thinking, and why they are doing such quirky things sometimes.
But you've been a biological parent, too, so you know all about this, and how much or how little advantage it gives you!
Back in the day, parents owned their children. Now, they own their children unless they do something really egregious. I am astounded sometimes at situations that kids I work with are in and they* haven't* beenremoved! An old post of mine tells of a kid who tried to get taken to a psych unit by bringing a knife to school just so he wouldn't have to go home to his abusers!
The law is not so far from what it was. As my husband keeps reminding me when he reads the comments here, people really need to understand that the focus is more on the parent's rights to their property than what is best for their child.
The CW can say whatever she wants. I know that she has told Cd's mom that if she can't do it, we want to adopt her.
Anon, I still very much am a bio parent to two boys ages 13 and 9. They are both very unique individuals and just happen to not look like me and honestly, I don't see much of myself in either of them other than some general stuff. They are great kids. Often its the kids that are just like their parents that have it rough in the relationship actually, the parent projects so much on those kids! My gender alone actually gives me more in common with CD than what I have in common with my boys.
And hey, the only person in my house that gets my love of shoes is my little nonbio child.
"Those who do are a very small minority and most who do do it because they could not conceive a bio child."
I suppose that this is a big problem with foster care and adoption: people want to adopt for the wrong reasons, and many children in the foster/adoption system are different from what those parents expect.
By the way: One could ask oneself if the "license" system for foster care / adoption does not also exclude many valid foster families.
What I want to say is: many people would perhaps be prepared to take in a foster kid/adopt if need arises. Let's say: if a family member for some reason cannot raise their children, most people are ready to "jump in". I suppose this would be the case for friends and neighbours too, even if there is no blood relationship.
However, I understand that the foster care system excludes those potential candidated (whic are not blood related), because they have no license.
One psychiatrist had a quite promisind appoach of involving neighbours and friends to keep adult patients out of stationnary care. This approach might also work for child education, but it would not work within the current foster system.
Grandnanny,
In my state, the bio parent is asked to propose family and/or friends that could take the child in if it is determined that the child needs to be removed. There is an expedited licensing process that happens. Often teens I work with are taken in by their friends' parents actually and the System deems that appropriate after doing an inspection of the home.
CD's mother had no one to offer. Her living situation did not offer her "neighbors" or a community. She is estranged from much of her family and the bio father won't acknowledge CD's existence. This is not uncommon. If you know how much it takes for the System to remove a child, you could probably imagine that the bio parents involved often have difficulties with interpersonal relationships and therefore have no social support.
There is no world in which we can simply place children in the" best" homes and pretend that is separate from biology. The home where there is the greatest bond, the unconditional love, the lifelong commitment is generally the bio one even if they have problems and are far from perfect. Most foster parents are not interested in adopting. By definition that generally means that bio parents are the best there is for most children.
WOW. That was a brilliant, brilliant response. I'm pro-adoption reform and am critical of most adoption practice within infant/international adoption, but became wary of the argument that adoption is wrong because families should be biological when someone rightfully told me that relying on biology is dangerous. (I'm still very much an adoption critic, but I do it from a "ethics" angle now, not a "but nature intended it to be this way" angle.)
I've been thinking a lot lately about things we attribute to biology that are actually cultural, like gender and race, and was trying to figure out a way to address the fact that families are cultural, not biology, without sounding like I think it's okay to tear up biological families or that I think it's okay to switch babies around in hospital without telling the mothers or that it's no big deal that poor families who love their children are forced to give them up because they can't afford to feed them.
You did that brilliantly here, showing how families are cultural without dismissing biological bonds.
I hope you don't mind if I link this comment sometimes in the future. It's really good.
Lika, Sure. Anyone is welcome to use what I write as long as it is kept in the context it was meant.
Post a Comment