Reuniting Families and Fostering Immigrant Children

I expressed my concerns over migrant children being separated from their parents at the U.S. border in my last post, but I guess I'm not done because I have a few more concerns:

Concern #1: How are all of the children who have been separated from their parents going to be reunited with them?

June 20th's Executive Order will put a stop to separating families at the border but how will all of the families who have been separated be "put back together"?  It is my understanding that the U.S. government does not have any concrete plans to reunite these families.  However, I was pleased to learn that some businesses are taking a stand to prevent further separations:

-United Airlines, American Airlines, and Frontier Airlines are refusing to transport babies and children ripped from their parents; you can read about it HERE

And one business, My Heritage, is providing free DNA tests to help reunite separated migrant children with their parents.

It's refreshing to hear about businesses, organizations, and people making proactive efforts to reunite families, especially when there is so much heartache and debate surrounding this issue.  Maybe I need to take a break from watching the news or getting on social media- which leads me to my next concern:

Concern #2- Can we please stop politicizing children and come together regardless of our political party affiliation or loyalties and seek solutions for these children? 

I see the wisdom in Governor John Kasish's recent statement when he said, "This is a humanitarian crisis, so let's put politics aside, bring everyone to the table, and craft a real way forward."

I am not only concerned, but disturbed when people are more concerned about proving which administration's policy "created" the problem in the first place, rather than coming together to create solutions for these displaced children.  I think a good question for anybody who feels passionately about this crisis, including myself, should ask themselves is, "Where is my passion/anger/outrage coming from?  Am I more concerned about proving that I'm "right" or am I actively seeking solutions for displaced children or secure borders? (or whatever your biggest personal concern happens to be.)  

Perhaps I'm too idealistic or moderate, but I, for one, don't believe it's simply a dichotomy of "safe borders" versus "humane treatment for immigrants".  Both are valid concerns and not mutually exclusive.  Historically, administrations from both major U.S. political parties have enacted legislation to solve these problems.  Sometimes the legislation has been effective and other times it has created unintended consequences and more problems.

Some examples of major immigration legislation include the Flores Settlement Law, signed by Bill Clinton in 1997, which required unaccompanied minors who arrive in the U.S. to be released to their parents, a legal guardian, or an adult relative.  If there are no relatives available then a government agency appoints an appropriate adult to look after the child.  Although that particular legislation related to unaccompanied minors (versus minors traveling with family) such legislation focused on "family first".

In 2008 George Bush signed an anti-trafficking statute, The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection, which required unaccompanied minors to be transferred out of immigration centers within 72 hours.  The purpose of this bill was to protect immigrant children being brought over to the United States by sex traffickers and to provide such children a full immigration hearing (to decide if the child qualified for asylum or not).  As worthy and needful as this legislation was, it actually backfired and caused an increase in unaccompanied immigrant children from Central America (notably Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador where poverty and gang violence and crime are rampant).  This is because immigration cases are so backlogged that it could take years for a case to be heard.  In the meantime, these minors would be in limbo in the U.S.  

Fast forward to 2014 when Barack Obama tried to keep families together who crossed the border illegally into special "family detention centers".  This was a worthwhile goal but the unintended consequence was that it violated the policy of keeping children out of jail-like settings (even if they are with their parents).  A federal judge made the ruling and as a consequence, families were released into the United States pending notification of their immigration hearings.   This began the immigration policy sometimes referred to as "Catch and Release."

I use these examples to show that if one asks the question "Whose fault is this- the Republicans or  the Democrats?" you will not get a simple answer.  It's much more multi-faceted.  Both parties, under different administrations, have tried their best to deal with immigration and detention issues.  My hope is that policy makers can look into bipartisan and evidence-based practices in an attempt to discover what has worked and what has backfired and what policies or legislation will cause the least harm to children and families.

Concern #3- Reunification of displaced children and their families should take priority over adoption.

 The catchphrase and hashtag for advocates of not separating families at the U.S border is "Families Belong Together."

I am pro-family reunification IF it is in the child's best interest.  I am also pro-adoption provided it is done ethically.*

I've heard comments and concerns from those both within and outside of the foster and adoption community about how to go about fostering or possibly adopting an undocumented child (with parents or unaccompanied).  I have inserted myself into at least one of these conversations with the same information I shared back in this post:

 Which leads me to the question of:  What happens to children who are separated from their families at the border?

If I'm understanding the process correctly, These children are placed into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) who then turns them over to their Office of Refugee Resettlement whose job is to place " unaccompanied alien children" in the "least restrictive setting that is in the best interests of the child." while the parents of the children await prosecution of federal misdemeanor charges or until they can be united with a relative or placed in a foster home.  ORR has shelters throughout the United States which are run by non-profit organizations.  

  

  Each state has different ways of handling things but in my state the largest agency which places refugee children into foster care does so only after an extensive search for relatives has taken place- which could take years.  Because of this, most of the children available for placement are older rather than the babies and toddlers currently detained in "Tender Age Shelters"

  I'm aware of other agencies in states like Michigan, Texas, and California who place children in more of an emergency foster placement until family can be located.  And for any who are looking into fostering an unaccompanied alien child (I'm not a fan of the term "alien" but that's the legal term), here is a snippet of FAQ page from ORR:

Concerning ethical adoption practices and displaced children, I couldn't agree more with this statement made today from Chuck Johnson, CEO of National Council for Adoption, concerning Children Being Held at the Border:

"Children who are unaccompanied or have been separated from their parents or guardians at the U.S. border are not—nor should they be considered—candidates for adoption by American citizens. This is consistent with National Council For Adoption’s long-held position regarding the adoption of children in times of crisis, such as war, earthquakes, and other catastrophic natural or man-made disasters in which children are separated from their families.

"Adoption is only a possibility for children for whom parental rights have been terminated or for whom there is clear evidence that they are orphaned. Based on NCFA’s understanding of the status of these 2,000+ children, few, if any, meet these criteria. For those who would be eligible for adoption, there are a number of options that could provide them with permanent, family-based care. NCFA has always supported a continuum of child welfare outcomes that prioritizes (in order) family preservation, adoption by relatives, and domestic adoption in a child’s native country all before intercountry adoption options are considered. It is paramount that the identities of these children be clearly ascertained and who and where their parents are is verified.

"Our hearts are with these children and we hope that those involved in determining their futures will act with integrity, care, and compassion."

If YOU have experience advocating for or working with agencies that foster children from other countries please leave a comment or message me so that I can learn more as we seek for solutions for these vulnerable children!

 * In the event that anybody wants to leave a nasty comment or send me hate mail, save us both some time and read this first:

 I know there are anti-adoption/family preservation AT ALL COSTS critics who could make the argument, "But you've adopted- your kids didn't get to stay with their first families!"  To which I would reply, "Yes- I have adopted.  The birth mother of our oldest child went through an agency through her own free will and placed her child for adoption because it was important to her that her baby be raised in a family with a mom and a dad (among other things).  It was important to us that the agency we went through provided counseling to expectant parents considering adoption both pre- and post-placement.   

Our younger children were adopted through the foster care system after their mother relinquished her parental rights a year and a half after they were placed in our care.  During that year in a half they were in our care as foster children we supported the plan for reunification with their family and both biological parents were given more than one chance, with services provided, to get their children returned to their custody.

In addition to the children we have adopted who are no longer with their first families, we have been a resource to many other families (the majority of our foster children) in caring for their children while they work to get them back.

Problems & Possible Legislative Solutions to the U.S. Foster Care System & Adoptions

The last time I wrote about the Adoption Tax Credit was about five years ago.  I will be mentioning it again since last week I got word that the Adoption Tax Credit was at risk of being abolished under the proposed Republican Tax Reform.  I was happy to learn (just last night) that because of feedback and advocacy, the credit will now be staying!

Sometimes as a foster parent I feel like I have very little power in actually implementing real change in the foster care system.  After all, I'm not in a position of influence and lasting change often requires funding and legislation.  

I thought it was timely that last month in one of my graduate Social Work courses I had a short assignment following the completion of reading the textbook chapter on child welfare issues in which I was to answer the question,

"Identify three problems with the current children, youth, and family service delivery system.  What are some possible solutions?"

"Just three?" was my first thought. 😜 Before I even started reading my textbook chapter the first thought/pet peeve that came to my mind was: "I hate it when the best interest of children gets overlooked because the rights of bio family takes precedence!"  Which got me thinking, "What could change or what has worked in the past to solve this problem?"  Enacted time limits for the amount of time children stay in foster care so that they can have permanency is something that has worked- in theory at least.

Another possible solution for making sure that the best interest of children in foster care are met could be more involvement on the parts of their guardian ad liteums.  In over a decade of fostering I have only had two GALs make home visits on behalf of the children in my care.  And I don't think it's that GALs don't want to be involved, but it's probably the same principal with caseworkers: they have too large of a caseload to devote the individual time they would like to each case.  That is why I love hearing about CASA volunteers- Court Appointed Special Advocates.

Another problem with foster care that came to my mind is simply too few foster homes available.  But how does one solve that problem?  Awareness can be spread, but fostering is hard and is not for everyone, so I don't think anyone should become a foster parent out of guilt.

As for adopting from foster care, I know that the affordability is a big incentive and factor for families.  This goes back to the Adoption Tax Credit, which I mentioned at the beginning of this post.  If a family is going to bring another child into their home (or more than one child at a time in the case of sibling groups) that's KIND OF A BIG DEAL!  Especially if there is a high probability that the child will have special needs which can be time-consuming and expensive.  I know that when my husband and I were first exploring fostering or adopting from foster care, learning that adoption subsidies could be available and that insurance for the child would be provided through Medicaid came as a relief to us financially- especially when we debated whether or not to accept sibling groups as a foster adopt placement or to inquire on sibling groups who were already legally free for adoption.

Those are just a few of my thoughts about changes to the children, youth, and family service delivery system.  As for my school assignment, I tended to focus on specific acts of legislation enacted to deal with some of the problems that have and still exist in the foster care system which were specifically mentioned in my text:

Reading Response 3

Three problems with the current children, youth, and family service delivery system are: intervention when it is too late, children aging out of the foster care system with no permanency, and the overrepresentation of children of color who are placed in foster care and remain in foster care longer than white children.

Most interventions for families occur after the problems have occurred, so the services are residual in nature rather than preventative.  One solution to this is a focus on in-home services which deliver services to families before children have to be placed in foster care.  These services are also much less costly than have a child in an out-of-home setting.  The good news is that studies show that children who receive in-home services have lower rates of PTSD symptoms than children placed in substitute care.  (Ambrosino, p.348) The bad news is that research shows that any short-term gains achieved by in-home service don’t persist over time.

Each year 20,000 youth “age out” of foster care when they turn 17 or 18 because they are unable to return to the care of their parents and are not adopted.  Youth who age out of foster care are at a greater risk for substance abuse problems, homelessness, incarceration, teen pregnancy and even sex trafficking.  One of the solutions to this problem is child welfare advocates pushing for the age of when children are forced to leave foster care from 17 or 18 to 21 years old.  In 1986, PL 96-272 established the Independent Living Program which provided funding for states to strengthen services to youth 16 and older who either were in or had been in the foster care system. Another specific piece of legislation which was intended to help youth who leave foster care get extra support including access to health care, life skills training, housing assistance, and counseling was the Foster Care Independence Act, passed in 1999.

       Because African American children are more likely than white children to be placed in and remain in foster care, Congress passed the Multiethnic Placement Act in 1994 (Ambrosino, p. 365) which prevents children from being denied being placed with a foster or adoptive home solely on the basis of race, color, or national origin of either the child or the foster adoptive parent.  Other foster and adoption agencies have implemented special outreach programs to African American and Latino communities in an effort to recruit adoptive parents.

ANY FOSTER PARENTS, SOCIAL WORKERS, CHILD WELFARE ADVOCATES, CASAs, GALs or  especially CURRENT OR FORMER FOSTER CHILDREN READING THIS:  Is there anything else you would add to the list?  What do you see as the biggest problem or problems within the child welfare system?  And what are some possible solutions?

Adoption Mommy Wars: International vs. Domestic, Newborn vs. Older Child, Foster Care vs. Private

Last year, a couple of weeks before Christmas while my husband and I were out shopping, he turned to me and said, “Why don’t we just adopt a child from Syria?”  His statement was due, in large part, to the current and ongoing refugee crisis and a result of reading and viewing horrific news almost daily about families forced to flee their homelands for safety.  My husband obviously knows that there’s no such thing as “just” adopting, but he was expressing his solution to a need.

“It’s not that easy," I began, “to adopt a refugee child.”  I continued to share what I have learned over the past couple of years on the topic:

‘It’s actually against U.N. Regulations to adopt refugee children from many countries because there has to be proof that no relatives exist.  That is a process which could take years.”

I continued, “The purpose of fostering unaccompanied refugee minors, however, is not to adopt but to help the youth adjust to a new culture, learn the language, and basically learn whatever skills are necessary for them to live independently as an adult.”

I purposely stressed the word “fostering” because providing refugee foster care is a topic I have discussed with my husband on more than one occasion over the past couple of years.  More than once I have contacted the director of an agency in my state which contracts with Catholic Community Services to provide foster homes for unaccompanied refugee minors.  I grilled the director with many questions about the requirements and training process to become a foster home and even the backgrounds of the youth who are available to foster.  This director was gracious and more than happy to answer all of my questions.

After much discussion, my husband and I decided that although fostering unaccompanied refugee minors is something that we would like to do in the future, for various reasons the timing is not right for our family right now.

My husband became angry after my response about not being able to adopt refugee children so easily.  He wasn’t angry at me, mind you, but at the inequality which some people (namely refugees and orphans) must face.  He retorted with a rhetorical question: “Then what good is it for a child to languish in an impoverished camp when there are homes who are more than willing to take them in?!”  Sometimes I wish more people were like my husband- when he sees someone in need or marginalized in some way he becomes very driven to make the situation fair.   

It was ironic that the month my husband and I had our aforementioned discussion was December- Christmastime- and there was also a feature story in Time Magazine about the lives of four different babies born in the war-torn region of Syria.  There will be further issues which follow up on how each baby and their families are faring.

Below is one of the covers of the magazine and I specifically remember that as I saw the picture I couldn’t help but think about another little baby boy from the Middle East wrapped in swaddling clothes over 2,000 years ago whose family was turned away because there was “no room in the inn.”

Doubtless there may be some reading this post who are thinking, “But why are you worried about children from across the world when there are hundreds of thousands of children right here in the U.S. foster care system who need homes?”  This brings me to an observation I’ve made about some members of the fostering/adoption/orphan care community (and I have to admit, I have been guilty of this kind of thinking myself at times):

I've noticed that sometimes people feel so passionately about a cause that they assume everyone should feel the same way- or perhaps they feel that a cause they are drawn to should take precedence over other similar causes. Of course this happens in a very general sense with a variety of issues but what I’m talking about specifically is those who have fostered or adopted from foster care and feel that their route to helping children or adopting is more noble or worthy than, say, a private domestic adoption.  Or those who are so concerned about orphans around the world that they push for international adoption but don’t focus on foster care adoption.  Which cause is “right” or "wrong”?  

In my opinion, anytime someone feels inspired to help another human being [especially children- who are the most vulnerable of humans] then it is a worthy cause.  Period.   Therefore, domestic adoption is right.  International adoption is right and worthy.  Foster care adoption is a right and worthy pursuit as well.  It’s not a contest or debate between which cause is worthiest or which way is best.  I do, however, feel strongly that certain individuals feel “called” to very specific types of adoption based, among other things, on what is best suited for their family.  Allow me to share an example:

I have a friend who is a mother to six children- more than one of her children has special needs (including Down Syndrome) and two of her children were adopted.  This friend, Rebecca, has become a huge advocate not only for adoption but for special needs adoption because of her family’s experiences.  I might add, her adopted children are a different race than her biological children so she’s well versed in the complexities of inter-racial adoption issues as well. I was delighted to learn that Rebecca is in the process of adopting an older child with special needs from China.

A major motivation for Rebecca advocating for the adoption of special needs children in China is the realization that many of these kids with special needs (which covers a huge definition and range of circumstances) run the risk of aging out of their orphanages as young as 14 years old and then they are left to live in an institution.  If these same children were able to live in the United States or another country they could have access to so many services not available to them, not to mention they could live in a FAMILY rather than an institution for the remainder of their lives.

Back to the point of this example: Shortly after Rebecca publicly announced her family's plans to adopt from China (Rebecca’s sister is also in the process of adopting an older child from China- how neat is that?!) she answered a Frequently Asked Question because she has learned from her experiences that people are bound to make judgments.  Although I love Bek’s humor and frankness in answering the question, I also thought it was very sad that she even had to say anything explaining or "justifying" her family’s plans to adopt:

Q. Why China? Aren't there enough kids in America that need homes? (unspoken, and sometimes spoken- "that seems selfish").

A. (Unspoken, sometimes spoken). None of your business! Actually, as Mak and her family are learning, being an "out loud" family means questions or comments are part of the package. Teaching moments abound. Why China? I don't know. Really. One year ago I had never spent ten seconds thinking about China. Every family is different. For my family, that's where our kid was.

I don't know any family that goes into adoption without thinking long and hard about what works for them. It's pretty personal. I know some people who have always dreamed of adopting from there. I bought a bubble blower that I happened to hand to a boy. A few other factors for us is that we live in a place that has lots of mandarin speakers, restaurants and close friends who are Chinese. Our boy won't lack for people to help him transition. Our cousin lives in our apartment and is not only the best auntie around, she also speaks mandarin!

And.. there ARE lots of kids in our country that need homes. If you have seven hours I can have that conversation with you. Kids in our foster care system often have lots of trauma before they are available for adoption. Not everyone is equipped to parent that kind of need. And the very last thing that is good for kids is to have a placement disrupted because no one was properly prepared. So, if you are going to float that question with anyone (especially me) the first thing I will ask you is either how many kids from foster care that YOU are adopting or I will ask something very intimate about your sex life. Like a person’s sex life, choices on building a family belong only to the people involved. Mostly, people are curious. And that's ok! It's fun though to play around with the crunchy people.

I happen to feel very passionately about foster care.  There is such a need for good foster homes.  However, I would never pressure anyone into fostering because it’s hard work and it’s not for everyone.  But like I mentioned before, I have been guilty myself of judging others for not recognizing the need of providing children in the United States with temporary or permanent homes.   Allow me to share one example:

A couple years ago a dear friend of mine visited Africa as part of a humanitarian trip.  As part of the services rendered she was able to visit an orphanage.  She immediately fell in love with the children she saw, especially those with special needs who could benefit greatly from advanced medical care and early intervention services available in the U.S.  Before returning home from her trip she confided in me that, as crazy as it sounded, she wanted to bring home one of the babies from the orphanage to adopt- Literally.

Of course, when I heard of my friend's plans I was like, “Whoa, Nellie!  I know you have contacts over there, but what agency do you plan on going through?  Is it a Hague Accredited Agency?  Otherwise, you could legally run the risk of human trafficking regardless of how worthy your intentions might be.  Adoption isn’t a process like picking out a puppy from a pound and taking them home.  There is a LOT of paperwork involved, research, and how are you going to get a home study approved so fast and background checks for all members of your family?”

My friend is extremely compassionate so her desire to bring relief to the orphans she interacted with came as no surprise to me.  After all, who wouldn’t be moved to bring home a child from an orphanage after visiting, right?  It was the way my friend was approaching the situation, rather than her desire to help, that concerned me. And here’s where I started to feel somewhat judgmental towards my friend (because I’m human and not perfect).  I thought to myself, “If she wants to adopt a child or provide an environment and opportunities to a child that they would not have otherwise why is it that she has to go halfway around the world to do that?  There are literally over 100,000 children in the U.S foster care system legally freed for adoption who would benefit from being in her home and in her family.  Are these kids not exotic enough or special enough?”

Fortunately, I recognized that I was being judgmental and so I settled down and just left it at “That’s AWESOME that she had a life-changing experience.  She wants to make a difference.  Good for her!”  And, in case you’re wondering, she didn’t end up adopting an orphan but she does have additional humanitarian trips planned in her future because of her experiences.

My point in sharing these stories and experiences is that it really is rather silly to argue about which path to adoption is best or most needful.  Every family or individual’s decision to adopt is a very personal one.  It’s kind of like- [going back to the plight of refugees, as I first started off my post]- when I see people getting into heated political arguments about “Which is better- to use our tax money to support homeless veterans or to provide relief for refugees?”  My personal feelings is that it’s not an either/or situation- how about BOTH!

So the next time you hear someone expressing a view (or you find yourself expressing a viewpoint) about which is “better/more needful”- adopting a child from another country, adopting domestically, adopting an infant, or adopting an older child- perhaps we can remember that ALL of them are wonderful options!

Adoption Finalization is Just the Beginning

I have a dear friend and fellow foster mom who recently attended a Permanency Hearing for her foster children after having them in her care for a year now.  To say that my friend and her family have been on a constant year-long roller coaster ride would be an understatement.  You see, I think all fost-adopt cases where parental rights have not yet been terminated are bound to have twists and turns and a few surprises thrown in which can be especially hard to deal with if you’re someone who thrives on predictability and stability.  (I happen to be a big fan of predictability and stability, aren’t most people?)

 In my friend’s case, the stability factor- not just for her own family but for the precious children in her care- can, at best, be described as “non-existent” as her case is an ICWA case.  As I watched my friend struggle with mixed emotions surrounding the case it brought back a lot of memories for me of cases past, specifically:

• Wanting the birthparents to succeed but knowing, given their past histories, that it isn’t likely.
• Wanting more than anything for the children in my care to end up in the safest, most loving situation possible.
• Not knowing if these children are going to be a part of your family in the long run
• Preparing myself and family members for the grieving process in the case that reunification occurs
• Feeling resentful when birthparents who have been given ample time, resources, and opportunities to meet the requirements of their Service Plans put forth very little effort and yet, are given another extension.  (I am certain that, in my friend’s case, parental rights would have been terminated long ago but the only reason the parents have been given repeated multiple chances and extensions is because it is an ICWA case)
• Feeling heartbroken for the children in your care when their parents don’t show up (again) for another required visit
• Feeling resentful when YOU are the one left to comfort the child post-visits as they grieve, rage, or regress
• Feeling extremely concerned when the birthparents express hesitation/annoyance/doubt at having to sit through all 2 or 3 hours of a weekly visit when THESE ARE THEIR CHILDREN and these children will very likely be returning to their 24/7 full-time care in a matter of months!
• Worrying that there has not been an effective transitional period planned which not only benefits the children but their parents as well

I think you get the idea of how my friend’s concerns echoed many of my concerns in the past.  And if you’re a foster parent you’re most likely nodding your head in agreement because you’ve been there.

One might figure that once parental rights are terminated in cases such as these or when the adoption is finalized that it marks the “Happily Ever After” or “The End”.  Although there is much relief at TPR or Adoption Finalization I have discovered that in actuality, it is just “The Beginning” of a lifetime of continued commitment to a child.

Yes, it is nice not to have caseworkers regularly come to your home to see if the kids are okay.  Don’t get me wrong- although the purpose of required home visits is necessary to ensure the well-being of children, sometimes as a foster parent it can feel a bit intrusive or even accusatory like, “We need to make sure that you aren’t doing anything wrong in your parenting.” 

It’s also a relief when you don’t have to document every scrape or scratch your child gets for fear of allegations of investigations.  My rambunctious three year old, whom we adopted from foster care two years ago, recently took a nose-dive from our coffee table onto our floor.  As soon as I heard her crying out and her nose started swelling up I took her to Urgent Care.  While I was checking her in at the reception area I experienced a state of automatic, momentary panic and I thought to myself, “Whom do I need to call to report this injury?   What extra paperwork do I need to fill out?”  And then I remembered, “I don’t have to report this to anyone because she is MY child.  She is no longer in state custody.”  It’s funny how fostering for over a decade can alter your thinking.

Even when the doctor came in to examine my little girl and started asking, “So, how did this happen?”  I became somewhat nervous.  Was I being scrutinized?  When I explained that she is very active and she was just rough-housing he casually replied, “Injuries like this are pretty common.”  I was put at ease and realized that the doctor was just trying to do his job and get information and that yes, accidents do happen even in the presence of the most vigilant parents.  [Incidentally, I also learned that x-rays on a nose can’t be taken until 3-4 days after the swelling goes down to see if the nose is actually broken or if the septum has been pushed to the side.  In our case, we lucked out because it was just a very bad sprain.]

Dealing with birth parent visits, court hearings, home visits by caseworkers, and extra paperwork at medical and dental appointments are issues that I don’t have to worry about anymore since we adopted our two youngest children from foster care.  But that does not mean that the “work” is done or that the hard parts are completely over.  Rather, I have found that there is a continuation of work and dedication in meeting the needs and issues that my children and I will face.   

My Adoption Truth: Grace and Sad

Terra Cooper is an advocate for adoption who is very active in using social media to promote a positive view of adoption. In an effort to educate others, Terra has created a hashtag campaign in which anyone impacted by adoption can share their experiences- whether that be through posting a picture on Instagram or writing a few words or paragraphs on Facebook or in an online forum- specifically related to one thought-provoking word such as "anticipation", "fear", or "trust", using the hashtag #MyAdoptionTruth.  Terra has compiled a list of over 70 different words to choose from as part of this campaign.

I've only shared my experiences with two of the words which seemed to strike a particular chord in me, but as someone who is naturally introspective and who prefers writing about my feelings rather than talking about them I've found that each word can make a great writing prompt and serves as a very effective tool in processing/analyzing/exploring any feelings related to adoption (or any serious topic for that matter). 

The other enlightening thing for me about sharing different perspectives is that as I've read the responses of others to a particular word I've been reminded that everybody's experiences are so vastly different.  Simply reflecting on one word can bring about so many varied responses.

Here's what I had to say about the words "Grace" and "Sad". 

What does Grace mean to you in adoption?

To me, the definition of grace is doing for others what they cannot do for themselves.  In light of this definition, it is truly through the grace of my children's birthmothers that I am able to be a mother myself.  That's HUGE!  I can never "repay" that grace but I can show my gratitude to my children's birthmothers and revere them and I can be ever mindful of what a gift my children are.

Lest anyone think by my response above that adoption is always bliss and conflict-free here is another response I shared when I reflected on the word "sad":

For clarification (or if you're new to this blog), all of my children are/were adopted and although their birthmothers relinquished their parental rights- each case was very different.  We adopted our daughter M. through an agency adoption after her birthmother chose us to be her parents and relinquished her parental rights just days after M. was born.  

However, we adopted our youngest two children, Jack and Jill, through foster care after they had been in our care for over a year and a half. Although Jack and Jill's first mother technically relinquished her rights, it was not because she necessarily chose us to be her parents.  Jack and Jill's mother relinquished her parental rights after two of her children were in state custody as our foster children for a year and a half and it became apparent that she would not be given any more chances and her parental rights would most likely be terminated through the process of a legal trial if she did not relinquish. 

Fortunately, during that year and a half of Jack and Jill being in our care as foster children we were able to develop a relationship with their first mother as we would interact with her at weekly supervised visits, team meetings, various appointments, and court hearings.  (Their birth father was initially involved in their case as well).  She gained our trust in caring for her children which {hopefully} made it easier for her to see her children being removed from her care, being raised by strangers, and eventually adopted. Guardianship or adoption by family members was not an option for Jack and Jill which is why we were able to adopt them.  They have been our only foster children to date where reunification, a kinship placement, or adoption by relatives was not a viable option.           

 What have been some sad moments for you in adoption?

It's sad to me that two of our children became a part of our family as a direct result of their birth family's addictions and other unsafe circumstances.  This sadness is compounded by the fact that any face-to-face contact with one of their birthparents is on hold for their safety.  

I know these two children are loved deeply by their first family and it makes me feel sad (and slightly guilty) that they joined our family at the expense of tremendous grief and loss by their first family. 

I may share some other adoption truths in future posts and would love to hear some #myadoptiontruth responses from others!

Before You Assume or Judge . . .

It's occurred to me that the last four posts I've written all share a common theme: judging and judgments- either through the formal legal process in an actual court of law or on a much more general level of making judgments and assumptions about others (or perceiving judgments from others which is also a form of judging).

As I wrote in this post: "People seldom know the whole story and yet they are so quick to judge and jump to conclusions and make judgments."  It's  impossible to make a fair judgement when we don't have all the facts.  

With that background, I'd like to invite any readers to consider the following scenario and pay attention to any judgments or assumptions that might arise within you:

A tired looking woman walks up to the receptionist area of the radiology department of her local hospital with a toddler balanced on one hip and a diaper bag hanging over the opposite shoulder. The woman reaches into the diaper bag and pulls out a piece of paper nestled among other papers. She seems to nervously hold her breath as she hands it to the employee behind the desk.  

Although the receptionist initially greets this woman and small child with a welcoming smile, as soon as she reads the order for "full body x-rays needed" accompanied by a handwritten note from the referring physician with instructions to call back and report the results immediately to the Children's Justice Center, her countenance and body language suddenly transform- whereas her lips were drawn up into a pleasant smile just moments earlier they are now fixed tightly into a straight line.  

Perhaps the most revealing clue into what the receptionist is thinking about the woman on the other side of her desk and this situation is what can be found in her eyes, or rather, what can't be found as she can barely make eye contact with the woman who brought this child in.  Consequently, the woman holding the child appears even more nervous and seems eager to offer up an explanation.

What were your assumptions about this situation?  Was it that this woman had injured her own child? After all, she appeared to be tired and a bit under stress.  And what logical reason could there be for an order of "full body x-rays" to be taken other than to assess for extensive injuries?  One or even two broken bones in children could easily happen as a result of an accident- but multiple broken bones seems awfully suspect.

Maybe you gave the woman the benefit of the doubt and thought that perhaps her boyfriend or husband or daycare provider injured this child?  Would it change your opinion on the matter if the woman had been poorly dressed and unkempt versus neat in her appearance or above average in her socioeconomic status?  Would it have affected your judgments about the situation or the people involved if I had mentioned that the child was a different color than the woman who brought her in or would that have even mattered?   Would you have thought less of the woman if she had used Medicaid as a form of insurance versus private insurance?

The woman in this particular situation was me- three years ago.  The child I was holding was my foster child and I was particularly worried about her since this was not the first time she had come into our care.  Just a few days earlier I got the call informing me that Rose's mother was not in a good place and because of that she had left her toddler in the care of some friends.

As for my tired-looking appearance that day at the hospital, I think that could be attributed to the transition of an overnight addition to our family, various meetings and consultations with caseworkers and DCFS staff- both in our home and over the phone- and taking an active toddler to 3 medical appointments where she is instructed to "hold still" for examinations- all within a 48 hour time span.  

As mentioned, at this point Rose had only been in our home the second time for a couple of days when her pediatrician expressed some concerns after I took her in for an initial doctor's appointment which led to further assessments at the Children's Justice Center which, in turn, led us to the hospital for x-rays as a precautionary measure.

The reason I share this story is because it was a time when I can vividly recall not only feeling judged but pretty much hated and despised.  I think the reasons for any judgments made that day were due largely because not everybody had access to the facts right away.

Back to my experience:  If you've never had the opportunity to take a small child to the hospital for full-body x-rays consider yourself lucky.  I probably appeared to be nervous that day because I was nervous for Rose's sake.  Unfortunately, nervousness can easily be mistaken or associated with guilt, so when I handed the script from the referring physician to the receptionist behind the desk and she looked over the orders I could sense immediate judgment from her towards me.  Maybe I was just reading into things but the receptionist's sudden and obvious lack of eye contact with me either led me to believe she suffered from poor social skills (which is highly unlikely for a receptionist) or that she surmised I was the one responsible for any possible injuries to this child.  After all, what reason would any doctor have for ordering full body x-rays on a small child not just to determine if the child had any recent broken bones but if she had suffered from any broken bones or fractures in the past?

When we sorted through Rose's insurance info and contact information I had the chance to explain to the receptionist that I was Rose's foster mother.  I'm not actually sure if mentioning that bit of information helped the receptionist's view of me or just disgusted her further.

A short time later I was called back into the x-ray room with Rose.  As we were getting settled in the room I could hear a couple of technicians consulting with each other behind a curtain: "Full body x-rays?"  She's just a toddler- this will be tricky."

Suddenly a somewhat peeved sounding voice adamantly piped up in what was probably intended to be a hushed whisper saying something to the effect of, "Should she even be allowed to be here with her?!"  Followed by more whispering and then, "Oh- that's the foster mom- we'll have her stay to help hold her down."

An x-ray technician with a look of relief stepped out behind the curtain and courteously extended her hand out to me as she introduced herself and gave me some instructions.  The tension I could sense from behind the curtain just seconds earlier- as well as any assumptions and judgments made about me- immediately dissolved.

We all judge whether we want to admit it or not.  I've mentioned many times before that one of the biggest struggles I've had to work on as a foster parent is not judging the birth families of our foster children.   Yes, they've made mistakes, but everyone needs a little more love and support and a little less judgment and criticism.

Birthfather's Rights

My state has certainly had a busy month making headlines with controversial legal battles in regards to adoption.

Last week the focus in the media was a particular case about birth father's rights.  Here's a brief synopsis:

http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/custody-battle-for--week-old-kaylee-heads-to-the/article_3b2572a4-0e6a-500d-8665-eb261c91450b.html

After much publicity on social media many have spoken out in favor of the birth father retaining/obtaining his parental rights.  One adoptive mother friend declared her feelings on the matter, expressing "I would NEVER agree to adopt a baby unless both birth parents consented."

My instinctive reply was "Absolutely."

Perhaps what was just as disturbing to me as the fact that this particular case seemed unethical were some of the critical comments and judgments heaped upon the baby's birth mother and her family, namely:

1)  Allegations or suggestions that the birth mother was "coerced" or forced by her parents into placing her child for adoption- another HUGE ethical issue.

2) The assumption/inference from others that because the birth mother chose to relinquish her parental rights and place her child for adoption she didn't care about her child.

As you can guess, any assumptions which equate adoption with abandonment or lack of love don't go over well with me.  Needless to say, some of my Mama Bear buttons were definitely pushed as I read a particularly scathing response to the case by one of my Facebook acquaintances.  Anyone who knows me well knows that I don't like contention, but I HAD to speak up.  This was my response:

As I mentioned earlier, I was one of the first to side with the birth father in this particular case.  But as I took a step back and looked at the issue of birthfather's rights from a general point of view (and not just under the framework of this specific case) I asked myself, "Would I NEVER really agree to adopt a child unless both parents consented?" (And I use the world "child" rather than baby because babies are not the only ones who are in need of adoptive homes).  After further consideration my answer was "no."

[In case any anti-adoption and/or family-preservation-no-matter-what! advocates want to send me hate mail accusing me of "stealing" someone else's children- Let me inform you that our oldest child's birthfather was not interested in sticking around to support his baby or her birthmother and although our youngest children's birthfather initially expressed the desire to relinquish his parental rights he never attended the follow-up court hearings regarding the permanency of his children and thus his parental rights were eventually terminated.]

So, what if, hypothetically speaking, my state had a law in which a birthmother could not place a child for adoption unless she had the consent of the birthfather?  One's first instinct might be to think "That seems fair enough!" but consider the following scenarios:

-A woman is raped.  She wants to place her her child for adoption but she can't because she cannot legally do so without consent of the birth father.

- A pregnant woman is unsure of who the father of her child is but she wants to place her child for adoption.

-A woman knows who the father of her child is but he is abusive and a danger to the woman and potentially to the (born or unborn) child.

-The birthfather cannot be located.

-The birthfather can be located but he is in another state, country, or in prison.

-A birthfather has no intent of supporting the birthmother or their child.

Each potential adoptive situation is different and I realize that none of the above scenarios apply to Colby Nielsen's case.  However, it is important for all of us to keep in mind the reasoning behind Utah's adoption laws as stated by an attorney in the news article I referenced at the beginning of this post:  

“This law, meant to protect mothers and babies with an absentee father, is an absolute travesty and disgrace in a situation like this,” said local attorney Erin Byington, who presented the Nielsens before Hutchins took the case. “If a father does not file a paternity action, specifically stating certain things by affidavit, prior to the mother signing her relinquishment for adoption (not court action, just a signature,) the father loses all ability to fight the adoption and seek custody. It doesn’t even matter if he’s on the birth certificate, or even if he physically has the baby in his care. This cannot possibly be the intended result of this legislation.”

[Un]Just Removal of a Child in Foster Care

I live in a conservative state but even I was surprised when I learned of a judge's recent order for the removal of a foster child in my state from their current foster home based solely on the fact that the child's foster parents are lesbians:  http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/us/utah-judge-same-sex/index.html

NOTE:  Before I get bombarded with comments or e-mails from anyone wanting to argue for or against same-sex marriage, let me be clear that a debate on that matter isn't the purpose of this post. I know how I feel about the issue and I respect the right for others to have a different opinion.  My objective is to share what I know as a foster parent and to discuss what I feel are just and unjust reasons for the removal of a child from a foster home.

When I first read about this particular case and Judge Johansen's order I jumped to a few immediate conclusions, such as,"Surely there is more to the story that is not being reported!" and "Is it possible that the bio parents are in opposition to this placement which could have some bearing on the judge's decision?"

As more of the story has come out in the media I've learned that the sole basis for the judge's decision to remove the child from her current foster home is from him stating that "research shows that children fare better in heterosexual homes."  

Whether homosexual, heterosexual, black, white, or anything in between, here are my personal justifications for removing a child from their foster home.  My criteria are really pretty basic and fall into two categories:

Just Reasons for Removing a Child from a Foster Home:

1) Neglect or Abuse (Alleged or Substantiated)

2) Reunification with the Child's Biological Family

Unjust Reasons for Removing a Child from a Foster Home:
-Basically anything other than #1 and #2 listed above, which surely includes sexual orientation of the foster parents.

As a foster parent I can tell you that the licensing process is very extensive- as it should be.  Foster parents come in all shapes and sizes but they must meet certain qualifications before they can even begin the licensing process.  Foster parents may be straight or gay, married or single, but they cannot be in cohabiting relationship.   

The foster mothers in the middle of this legal battle are legally married which qualified them for foster care licensure in the first place.  After undergoing background checks, hours of training, home safety inspections, extensive interviews and paperwork, and providing references attesting to their character, Hoaglund and Peirce were approved by the Division of Child and Family Services to be a foster and adoptive family in the state of Utah.  

I can also tell you that checking up on foster families continues well after the initial licensing process and is particularly evident as caseworkers make required home visits on a regular basis to ensure that a foster child is safe and cared for in their foster home.  If DCFS or even the bio families of a child in foster care should ever have concerns for the well-being of the child, these concerns would surely be brought up and discussed at a Team and Family Meeting, mentioned to the legal representation of the parties involved, and reported to a judge at the child's next hearing.  That is the part of this story that had me puzzled- their appeared to be no valid cause for removal of this child by DCFS, the child's legal representation, or the child's birth mother and her legal representation.  In fact, the child's birth mother was in favor of having her child remain in the care of her foster mothers.

I learned very early on in my fostering experiences that judges hold a tremendous amount of power. I've been in courtrooms where DCFS and the child's Guardian ad Liteum both strongly argue for one action (terminating parental rights or discontinuing unsupervised visits, for example) and yet the judge is the one who has the final say and is free to go against any testimony or evidence presented, leaving caseworkers and foster parents- the ones who spend the most time with the foster child and who really get to know not only the child but the background to their case- scratching their heads and thinking about the final court order, "Are you freaking kidding me?"  "How is this decision in the child's best interest?".

Any foster parent will soon discover that although we want so badly to advocate for the needs of the children in our care and to be a voice for what is in the child's best interest, as foster parents we have very little say and virtually no legal rights when it comes to determining a child's placement.  That is because fostering isn't about us as the foster parents but it's about the child.

Fortunately, DCFS had the best interest of this child in mind and their experience (and the research) has shown that more moves for a child equates with more trauma for the child. Accordingly, the Division filed a motion with the judge to stay his court order.  Were he to decline, the agency said it would petition the court of appeals.  

As news of this case unfolded I tried to put myself in the shoes of this foster family- given days notice that the child they had been caring for would be removed and placed in another home solely because of their sexual orientation.  I kept thinking to myself, "If a judge ordered one of our foster children to be removed based solely on the sexual orientation of my husband and I, I would be outraged!  I would find it to be nothing less than blatant discrimination and we would most likely be pressing and praying for an appeal."

Not only that, but we know all too well how heartbreaking it can be to have to say goodbye to the foster children we've welcomed into our home- whether they've been with us for weeks, months, or nearly a year.  For that reason alone my heart went out to this foster family.  Peirce and Hoaglund have had their foster baby in their care for three months now.  If this baby is in a safe and loving home, why move her?

And now for the good news: About halfway through writing this post I received word by way of local Breaking News that Judge Johansen revised his order and the baby girl will be remaining with her foster family a result of DCFS's motion.

Furthermore, if I read correctly, parental rights of the birthmother were terminated at this hearing as well, which means that Peirce and Hoaglund could very well be able to adopt their foster baby next year.

I'm certain this is just the first of many cases to come of the rights of same-sex couples to foster or adopt now that same-sex marriage is legal in my country.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with same sex marriage I think we can all agree that loving, nurturing homes produce loving, nurturing children and there are many children in need of such homes on a temporary and permanent basis.

Age Requirements to Foster and Adopt

In my last post in conjunction with National Foster Care Month I listed links to information about requirements for fostering and adopting (Just in case somebody thinks, "I can't foster because I'm single/I don't own my own home/I'm gay, etc.)  

Good foster parents come from a variety of backgrounds but I believe the most important requirement or common denominator that effective foster parents share is that of love and concern for the well-being of children.

At the finalization of our recent adoption of our foster children I was reminded of a few legal requirements to adopt, having to do with age.  I mention these in case there is someone out there who thinks, "I'm too old to adopt." but also because I thought they were interesting.

Although things will vary by state, I think the general requirement is that you must be 21 years of age or older to foster or adopt.  This rule is sort of a no-brainer but I thought it was funny when the guardian ad litem at our children's adoption finalization turned to my husband and I and asked, "Both of you are 21 years of age or older, correct?"  We both answered in the affirmative and the GAL even admitted to being a little embarrassed to have to ask such an obvious question.  (Maybe 10 years ago I could have passed for 21 but now- not so much.)  She then asked another required question:  And are you both at least 10 years older than the children you're adopting?  (Which means we'd have to be at least 12 years old).  "Yes", we unequivocally responded.

I thought that was interesting because I've had people ask me more than once what the age limit is to adopt and the answer is "As long as you're in good health- there is NOT an age limit" provided you are at least 10 years older than the child you are adopting.  Therefore, a 25 year old could adopt a 15 year old but a 25 year old could not adopt a 16 year old.  

Another question which the judge asked both my husband and I separately at the adoption finalization is: 

"Do you give your consent to this adoption?" which is a necessary question but was also hard for me to fathom how two spouses could get to the point of being in a courtroom together for an adoption finalization in the first place when one of them does not actually consent to the adoption.  Perhaps this requirement stems from issues with step-parent adoptions.

I was also reminded that older children who are adopted must consent to the adoption. What an extremely important piece of legislation!  According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, nearly all states requires that older children give their consent to be adopted with the requirements varying by state.

Although it didn't apply to our case, if the child(ren) we were adopting were 12 years of age or older they would have had to have given their verbal consent to the judge before being adopted by us.  In some states children as young as 10 years old must give their consent and in some states the age is 14 years old.  I have heard of sibling groups from the same family in foster care where some of the siblings chose to be adopted while other siblings preferred not to be adopted and technically "age out" of the system.

National Foster Care Month 2015

It's May- which means it's also National Foster Care Month!

AdoptUSKids has some great information on fostering and adopting, as well as an extensive photolisting of Waiting Children.

If you are reading this and would like to learn more about foster care, click on any of the following:

Common Myths About Foster Care

Who Can Foster and Adopt

Completing A Foster Home Study

And check out this inspirational guest post- "You Have the Power to Change a Life Just the Way You Are" written for the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption by Madeleine Melcher.

Post Foster-Adoption Paperwork & New Names

It's been a month since we were able to adopt our foster children and I've discovered that the paperwork doesn't end when the adoption is finalized.  In fact, in some cases that's when the paperwork just gets STARTED!

The good news is that is took less than a month for us to get Jack and Jill's amended birth certificates with their new names* mailed to us.  I had heard it could take several weeks so that was a nice surprise.

The bad news is that we recently got a letter from their insurance informing us that their benefits would be cut since they didn't have the correct social security numbers attached to their names.  The reason they didn't have the right social security numbers attached to their names is because a post-adoption specialist who came to our home prior to their adoption strongly suggested that we not only notify the Social Security Administration of their new names right away but that we actually request new numbers to be reassigned to them because, in the worker's experience, it is not uncommon for bio parents or families of foster children to sell their children's information for quick cash- specifically in the cases where the bio families have a history of drug addiction and/or poverty.  Very sad. 

I had heard of cases of adoptive parents claiming their adopted/former foster children as dependents on their taxes only to be held up from receiving any refunds or deductions because their child's bio family also claimed the children- even after parental rights had been terminated, but being desperate enough to actually sell your child's social security info was disheartening for me to hear.  

Nevertheless, better safe than sorry, right?  We followed the advice of the post-adoption specialist and requested new numbers for our children.  We showed the SSA our children's updated birth certificates but must now wait for the new Social Security Cards to be processed with their new names and numbers before we can notify their insurance in order for their benefits to continue.

*New Names- Renaming a child at adoption can be a very controversial issue.  It's also a very personal issue.  With our recent adoption we decided to keep Jack's first name but change his middle name.  Although his first name is not one we would have necessarily chosen ourselves, it fits him well and it has grown on us.  Plus, he's 2 and a half years old and it's what he's used to.

As for Jill, (Jack and Jill are pseudonyms), I'll just come right out and say it: We were honestly never fans of her first name to begin with.  Not that it should matter what other people think either, but whenever someone asked us what her name was and we'd tell them they would either ask us to repeat it because they'd never heard it before or they would pause a little more than necessary and diplomatically explain, "Well . . . that's an interesting name" with extra emphasis on the word interesting.

However, it wasn't our right to name Jill when she was first placed with us so we continued to call her by the name her birthparents chose for her ever since we brought her home from the hospital at just three days old until the months prior to adopting her.  We decided to change her name to a similar-sounding name to her birth name and she is able to say it in her toddler babble as well as she was able to say her birth name.  There really hasn't been much confusion.  Occasionally Jack or our oldest daughter will lapse into calling Jill by her previous name but she'll answer to either- it's kind of like having a nickname that you also go by.  No big deal.  Our biggest concern has been How do we tell her birthmom we changed her name?  Honesty is the best policy and if Jill's birthmom wants to call her by her birth name that's her choice.

I have made it a point to keep any identification with my children's birth names- as well as other important documents with info about their birth family- set aside for them if they wish to see it or have it in the future. 

As for our oldest daughter, we never had to change her name after we adopted her because we and her birthmother picked her first and middle names out together after she was born.  That's one advantage of adopting a newborn through a private adoption with their birth parent's wishes as opposed to adopting foster children who have had a longer history with their biological families.  Neither is "right" or "wrong" of course- they're just different paths with pros and cons to both.