Adoptive Parents Want To Return Son
The defining attribute of be a parent is that the welfare of your child is more important than anything else. Anything else.
When, in 2007, Melissa and Tony Wescott of Oklahoma adopted their son they became his parents. After the adoption they discovered that the boy had several mental disorders that required treatment. Of course, more than anything else, a boy with such problems needs the unconditional love of his parents.
The good news is that after a year of institutionalization the boy is doing better and the Doctors say he is no longer a danger to himself or anyone else. His parents, however, say they do not want him back and want to return him to the state like faulty merchandise. I wonder if they want a store credit or a cash refund.
The State, rightly, says no way. Parents are parents and there are no give backsies.
Parents all over the world deal every day with unexpected hardship and heartbreak due to the suffering of their children. I am sorry to say, in a world afflicted with the ravages of original sin, this is part of the deal. Even the Mother of God suffered tremendous heartache so none of us are exempted.
But the bottom line is that once you have signed on to be the parent, that's it, you are the parent. So stop worrying about yourself and start worrying about what is best for your child. I can say one thing unequivocally, running around to every news organization you can find talking about how you want to return your child is NOT in the best interest of your child.
Now its time for you to do two things, be a parent and shut up.
35 comments:
On the other hand, I think cases like this one are why it's so hard to find homes for kids once they're past the baby/toddler stage....
Because, if you adopt a 9 year old, you'd better be prepared for serious baggage-- after all, kids that age from loving, stable families don't come UP for adoption--
So, on one hand, once you adopt, it's permenant, but on the other, shouldn't the state have some duty to certify that the child is NOT an insane killer first?
Would you feel differently about this woman's situation if she had other, younger children in the home who might be at risk from her adopted son?
Dr. Ray (the radio guy) always warns parents that there are a lot of unexpected issues when you adopt and older kid, because chances are they've been seriously abused, or shuttled from foster home to foster home.
I think the main question in this case would be, did the state WARN the couple about the risks? Because it really would take a special kind of person and a phenomenal amount of grace to parent a child like that-- heck, even normal well-adjusted kids have moments that leave you wanting to scream like a crazy person!
I agree that the adoptive parents are behaving inappropriately and exacerbating an already bad situation, but (as Deidre mentioned previously) there may be some malfeasance on the part of the state/adoption agency as well. If the child's behavioral difficulties were not disclosed, I think that the parents are in a different situation legally. That doesn't change the overall badness of the situation, but I think that you are being somewhat naive if you think that there are not situations in which you would contemplate "giving back" an adopted child with previously undisclosed psychosis or schizophrenia who has stated that s/he wants to kill you. Don't be so quick to judge on this one! Some of these situations do not have a happy ending until the Eschaton.
Follow-up: here is what the state told this couple during the pre-adoption process:
DHS disclosure documents call the child "well-behaved" and "polite and well mannered." He is described as "respectful toward authority" and "makes friends easily." The papers say he has no "significant behavioral problems which would be considered abnormal for a child his age."
After listening to the short clip, the mother is really asking for help. I hear a plea for help. I believe she is honest and very fearful.
Please don't confuse issues here. I do not doubt that it is very difficult for the Wescotts, but what they are doing is wrong.
If they feel and can prove that the state did not fully disclose his needs, then sue them for the support that they need. Sure.
But if you are the parent, then you are the parent and going on TV talking about how you no longer want your son is not going to help the boy which should be the paramount concern.
If the State did something wrong it should pay for it, but not at the expense of the boy.
"But the bottom line is that once you have signed on to be the parent, that's it, you are the parent. So stop worrying about yourself and start worrying about what is best for your child. "
As an (adoptive) mother of two, I agree with this 100%, Patrick.
Adopted children do not come with "guarantees" any more than children do who are born into their families. When parents give birth to a baby they have no idea what the future holds, and the same is true for children who are adopted. State or private adoption agencies cannot guarantee the future physical or emotional health of a child. It doesn't work that way.
Stories like these sadly promote the notion that adoptive families are not "real" families and adopted children are not "your own". Adoptive families struggle every day with the stereotype that we are not permanent, real families. And stories like this are a big part of the reason that most people don't "get it".
A good friend of mine adopted a baby boy who was diagnosed with cancer 6 weeks after he came home. People actually asked me if me friend could "give him back". Nope, it doesn't work that way. You don't turn your back on your child.
I disagree. There are times when the child is too dangerous. There are been several instances of reliquishing an adoption that really were in the best interest of both parties.
Patrick, I completely disagree with you. So much so that I'm almost physically ill, but then again I've been a caretaker for a child with RAD.
"Because it really would take a special kind of person and a phenomenal amount of grace to parent a child like that"
It definitely takes a special kind of grace and personality. A child who has been seriously abused cannot simply be helped by "loving" they need structure and focus. They need stability from the parent despite what the parent faces.
These children divide families, pitting the mother against the father, till divorce is almost a given. The marriage must be solid, God centered in order to survive.
The state gets a nice bonus for every child it adopts out, they don't want to disclose the full medical and behavioral history.
The child then is sweet as butter to everyone on the outside, and a hellion with you. Everyone thinks you're crazy, doubts you and wonders what *you're* doing wrong since the child is just SO well behaved with them. Families become divided, fights break out and the child sits in the background and smiles a happy smile...
We tried to get help, begged the state, they sent CPS instead to see if we were abusing the kids, because we weren't giving enough hugs and were keeping things too structured. The kids were thriving (as much as they could), but they needed psychological help. Finally we told the state we'd give them back if they didn't help us...they sent help. They'd rather spend a few bucks on a therapist then have to deal with the children themselves. But even that was too much for them, after a few months and a trumped up abuse charges to stop giving us money (although the children were left with us evil abusers). The state only took them when they found out they could ship them to another state.
More than likely the state has already threatened them with abuse charges, the school thinks they're the problem, the family is shaky and everyone has judged them as unfit and wretched parents. She feels she has no where else to turn, wanting to get her son the help SHE CAN'T GIVE HIM.
I disagree with what this woman is doing, not because I don't understand, but because I know it will just make her a target. Either she or her husband will be accused of abuse, they will have their lives ruined and the child will probably be left with them. Abandoned by those who might help him, left with those who have no more resources to help him. Ah, but who cares, he'll probably just kill them in a couple years so their whining will stop and he'll be in jail.
Failed adoption are actually not that uncommon. I read a stat that in Canada, 1 in 6 adoptions "fail"-- the kid is sent back. There's a probation period to see if the kid gels with the rest of the family.
Oh, if it happens all the time I guess it must be O.K.
Walk a mile in that person's shoes, before judging.
Christina,
It is not my intention to minimize the pain such situations can cause. I suppose my point is that the same thing can happen in natural families as well.
State involvement, and obvious culpability in some cases, does not really change my point. A parent, whether natural or adoptive, is a parent and should only have the child's best interest in mind. I some cases this may mean institutionalization or other undesirable and difficult things.
Parents sometimes must make very difficult choices in the interests of their children particularly when they are not equipped to deal with seriously ill children, but they don't stop being their parents.
Either way, I am sorry for your difficulties and if perhaps I was too flippant in my comments, I apologize.
I'm the oldest kid in a family which adopted 11 kids of varying special needs, and honestly, you can't judge anyone in that situation unless you've done it yourself. Adopting a child with special needs is not the same as giving birth to a child with special needs. You have no idea what it can be like. One of my brothers is now in another home because he repeatedly beat my mother with broken furniture and a baseball bat. There's no lack of unconditional love in my parents house. I have the best parents in the world. But some of the problems that they attempted to deal with were above what they could handle, and it took years for some of them to come out. It's not the same as a birth child. You really have no idea. These parents may not be handling this situation the right way, but it's not how you are thinking.
Given that the child in question has attempted to -KILL- his adoptive parents repeatedly I'm not so eager to decry the parents on this one.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/tony-melissa-wescott-oklahoma-return-adopted-son/story%3Fid%3D9387389
The kid has tried to burn down the house a couple of times reportedly leaving a note reading "I'm sorry you have to die." They routinely were finding stolen kitchen knives and lighters under his mattress and were genuinely afraid for their lives.
If the story was "Adopted son murders parents and burns down house." What would we be saying then?
Now I do think that they should wait and see what he's like when he gets out of treatment.
Mostly it's just really sad that the state can't be bothered to provide any continuing support from this troubled family.
I have to say, after watching the video and reading some more on this case, I think you're way off base. RAD alone is an extremely serious disorder, and topping it off with FAS, PTSD, MDD, among? Wow. I'm sorry, but I can't fault these people. The woman certainly does NOT come off as callous and uncaring. Sometimes removal from parents IS in the best interest of the child.
Disturbed children DO murder their adoptive parents. They DO murder, rape, and abuse other children and adults. It happens, it's real, and I don't blame them at all for saying that they're completely overwhelmed and incapable of parenting this child. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that a year of institutionalization has "cured" him.
You're trying to compare this situation to a blood child, and that's extremely unfair. Because if he had been their natural son, he would NOT have these disorders. You don't get RAD out of the blue, it happens from extreme neglect and abuse. It's inexcusable to place a child like that for adoption without full disclosure. Absolutely inexcusable.
My heart breaks for that poor kid and what he must have gone through. But don't make the adoptive parents the bad guys, please. The blame belongs only on the person that abused this child.
For those defending the adoptive parents: how does going on TV an announcing to the world that you don't want your child help? Is that going to help the child, or exacerbate the problems he has?
Adoptive parents should know going into an adoption that there is a high probability of emotional issues that will arise, especially with older children.
I'm not saying that they're wrong that they can't handle him, or that they're wrong to be afraid, or that they're wrong to want him out of the home...but they should still be acting like parents, which means not just protecting themselves but acting in the best interests of the child.
Why would a loving, caring parent go on national TV with this?
I could say a lot about this as an adoptive parent myself. All that I will say, is that these folks should be handling this much more discreetly, because what they are in is actually a very uncommon situation, and by publicizing this, they are doing a disservice to many older foster children in need of loving parents, and to any prospective parents who may now be afraid to step out in faith to love a child in need. I repeat - this is NOT COMMON - Dr. Ray warns you to be practical and expect certain frustrations, but also acknowledges that the stereotype of older foster child as serial killer is way out of line.
I'll add that the most humble and loving father I know is an adoptee. And the most unstable, drug-addicted psychopath I know was raised from birth by her natural parents with every privelege and opportunity in the world. Nothing but trouble from age 12 to 28, and counting. You never know what you're gonna get.
I'm also not saying adoption is easy, or that everyone is called to it. But I am saying that we Catholics and other Christians should heed our Lord's command to care for the widows and orphans. That was not just a suggestion for the extremely wealthy and/or infertile. If the culture of death is going to continue killing in the womb and abandoning after birth, then the culture of life must be prepared to sacrifice our own treasure and comfort in order to give them love. Please at least prayerfully discern, and do enough real research to find out the truth of these matters instead of being influenced by common perceptions in the culture and media.
As Patrick said in the original post, it's not about you, it's about them.
With all due respect: have the people who are writing in with defenses of "adoption returns" really thought through the idea of "it's so horrible to have an uncontrollable child, people should have the right to return adopted children"? Take the idea that Patrick already mentioned: would you be prepared to do this to your natural child?
Please try to keep these ideas clear and straight: having a son/daughter remanded into the custody of the police and/or psychological ward of a hospital is one thing (and may be necessary, in extreme circumstances); disowning him/her is something completely different. I see no reason, whatsoever, why "disowning" would ever be necessary. No one is suggesting that "return for refund" and "take no action and wait to be killed by your child" are the only two options, people! Have some sense!
This particular case tugs the heartstrings, but it doesn't justify what the adoptive parents are trying to do; A for intent, F for implementaion. "Buyer's remorse" is a filthy phenomenon to infect parenthood. It goes to show what decades of IVF and other malformations of sacred sexuality can do to us, if we only wait, I guess...
But biological parents lose custody of their children sometimes too, like what already happened with the biological parents of any adopted kid.
So in fact, even biological parents SOMETIMES give up on the parenting-projects, several different reasons. It's more commonly problems of the PARENTS though, than problems of the kid.
I think it's horrible that the State does not always disclose everything to foster or adoptive parents. Instead they should disclose everything and help the foster or adoptive parents in helping the child. Some people I know have been through a lot because they were not given the full disclosure on one of the children they adopted. Had they been told everything, they would have gotten the child into the therapy she needed and still adopted her. Since they were not told, they were unprepared, and it nearly tore their family apart, to give an understatement. But they never sought to unadopt her, despite the difficulties. Not disclosing these things does a diservice to the parents and to the child, who isn't getting the help he needs.
I know a couple that adopted a teen. They were aware going in of many problems (she had been institutionalized for years) and they went very slowly through the process. The teen acted perfect for the first few months, then began manipulating and pitting the parents against each other, lying, stealing, threatening violence, tearing apart the house, etc. They held on for a few more months (all the while the child was in therapy, indeed had been in therapy for years), until finally even the therapist told them to send her back. It broke their hearts, but even with every type of help available the situation became unbearable. Just short of the finalization of the adoption, back she went.
The couple are wonderful people. They aren't quitters, and had raised biological children. I think they just didn't know their limits. When I heard the litany of problems this teen had I had an idea of the gravity of the situation. I just can't judge them for letting her go.
These damaged children need prayers. I don't know what the ultimate solution is and suspect that there may not be an answer to the plight of many of these kids.
Gretchen, I agree that they need prayers, and, unfortunately, I agree that there may not always be a good answer.
Some friends of ours adopted a little boy who had severed RDD. These were wonderful, prayerful parents who quickly found themselves living in fear for themselves and for their other children. It was the saddest situation you can imagine when they had to have the adoption dissoved. The parents consulted therapist after therapist and were told over and over that this child needed a special home, could not be around other children, etc. They were devastated.
For those who think this is the same as having a biological child with special needs, keep in mind that for children born with special needs - the parents may have years of good times and special memories before mental illnesses make themselves known. For older, adopted children with RDD - it is almost immediate that the child begins pushing back against the parents who want only to love him/her. They don't have 10 years of bonding and Christmas' and birthdays to look back upon. After seeing what my friends went through, I will not question these parents who have nowhere else to turn. After enduring infertility to have their dreams of parenting shattered - I know this decision must be killing them. Please don't judge these parents. None of us can understand the hell they are going through.
Oops, meant RAD, not RDD
I'm seriously trying not to go into "full rant" mode, here...
Look: I empathize with what the parents are suffering; it's horrible, no one would (or should) wish that on anyone, I assume the parents entered this in good faith, and it certainly sounds as if the state dropped the ball terribly. I also repeat what I said, earlier: it's not at all wrong to seek police or other institutional protection/intervention, if a child (whether biological or adopted) becomes dangerous to self or others.
That being said: I get a "seaweed-down-the-back" sort of revulsion-feeling when I hear people say, "They're really suffering; don't judge them!" With all due respect: that's the sort of creeping proportionalism which seeks to legitimize abortion for rape/incest victims (or for parents of a baby with Trisomy 13, etc.). No one's saying that the parents set out to be shallow or cruel. But I'm saying, as clearly as I know how, that abandoning your newly adopted child is wrong... and shutting off your head in order to follow your "heart" (which, in modern times, means "emotions/passions") is no answer to these tough issues. Saying "I can't bring myself to blame them, because I can't imagine what they've endured" (or, worse: "I suffered something just like that, and I say that we can't blame/judge them!") is an attempt to have your heart do an end-run around your head... which results in many of the horrific evils that we have today.
Think about this: haven't we heard from (perhaps otherwise-well-meaning) people the plaintive cry, "You've never been raped! How dare you judge her for choosing not to continue that pregnancy"? Haven't we heard the same with cases of in-utero children with supposed "gross fetal abnormalities"? "You haven't faced that, so don't judge!" How about in-vitro fertilization? "You don't know what it's like to be infertile! Don't judge, and don't throw your abstract theology at a heart in pain!" The problem is, "abstract theology" is the compass which points to True North, while our foolish hearts (Jeremiah 17:9) lead us in every other direction. I say this again, in all earnestness and with no sarcasm: have some sense! This "follow your heart" way leads to destruction, no matter what your sympathies (good-hearted though they are) might say. No, the parents aren't evil; but they're making a terrible mistake. Is that so difficult to accept?
Call me insensitive, if you like. (You'd be wrong.) Go ahead and try to dismiss my experience as "someone who just doesn't know/understand/etc." (B.S.) But the fact that our culture doesn't treat adoption with the sacredness that it treats natural birth is no reason to think that our culture is doing rightly. It means that our entire culture has missed the mark. These children are no more "returnable" than you are.
First time visiting the blog...the "Jimmy Carter apology" post brought me here.
Addressing the topic at hand, I would simply ask: what is adoption?
Is not the very existence of adoption a recognition by society that sometimes it is entirely appropriate for a parent to part with a child? Do we not encourage many single mothers who would otherwise abort their babies to instead give them up for adoption?
Indeed.
I must confess, however, that after reading the headline and the first couple paragraphs of the post I was (sadly) ready to condemn the parents as well. Now, having watched the video and read briefly the situation of this poor child and his adoptive parents, I feel embarrassed to have even considered pretending that I understood their situation.
I'm a lawyer who deals with a variety of legal areas where this kind of situation comes up (family law, bankruptcy, etc.). I've had more than one family tell me stories like this. Sometimes the entire rest of the family sleeps inside a locked room out of fear of the out of control child. Eventually, the child has to be institutionalized. Unfortunately, there just are mental illnesses so severe that there is no other way to deal with them. Once the parents and CPS finally figure out that institutionalization is the only possible answer, the only question is who is going to pay for the institutionalization until the child turns 18. I know of one family that is paying double the statutory amount of child support until the child turns 18. They tried their best, and they aren't shirking their duty. And, technically, the child is still legally theirs. But there was no other way. I, too, was skeptical the first 10 times I heard stories like this. They are very, very rare as a percentage of all adoptions. But, like every other bad thing in life, they do happen. Once the child is institutionalized, it's kind of moot whether the legal papers are changed to remove the adoptive parents as legal guardians. The fact is that the child leaves their home, because there is just no other choice.
Doug wrote:
Addressing the topic at hand, I would simply ask: what is adoption? Is not the very existence of adoption a recognition by society that sometimes it is entirely appropriate for a parent to part with a child?
In a backward and wayward world, yes; once upon a time, it was primarily for the sake of orphans--children whose parents left them through death, and not through parents repenting of their parenthood. But even in the other cases: do you seriously suggest that, because society "recognizes" a practice (i.e. tolerates it), it's therefore morally licit? Many countries with "legal" abortion would use similar arguments to defend the practice (e.g. Canada, USA, The Netherlands, etc.)... which should make you hesitate to use such an argument, I think.
Do we not encourage many single mothers who would otherwise abort their babies to instead give them up for adoption?
Certainly... in order to avoid an even greater evil. If the parents in question were entertaining only two options--either give up their adopted son, or kill him--then I would assent to the fact that relinquishing the child was indeed preferable. But you're equivocating if you go further and imply that the original choice was somehow "good" in the objective sense. No one with any sense would regard "giving up for adoption" as being better than having the mother and father conceive the child within holy marriage, and keep and love that child unto death. Let's not make pragmatism the yardstick by which we decide moral goods!
I must confess, however, that after reading the headline and the first couple paragraphs of the post I was (sadly) ready to condemn the parents as well. Now, having watched the video and read briefly the situation of this poor child and his adoptive parents, I feel embarrassed to have even considered pretending that I understood their situation.
"Feel compassion for" their situation, you mean... or, perhaps (though it'd be worse): "sympathize with and/or agree with" their situation. "Understanding" has nothing especially to do with agreeing with something, unless that "something" is agreeable and good, which this decidedly is not.
Anyone with any rightly-ordered human feeling will certainly ache for the parents in question (and I said as much, already); but that simply doesn't translate into "their decision is therefore a right one". "Heartache" is not synonymous with "moral imperative"; and appeals to emotion are not adequate tools with which to settle grave moral issues like this.
Anonymous @ December 25, 2009, 9:39 AM wrote:
I'm a lawyer who deals with a variety of legal areas where this kind of situation comes up (family law, bankruptcy, etc.). I've had more than one family tell me stories like this. Sometimes the entire rest of the family sleeps inside a locked room out of fear of the out of control child.
Yes... and it's horrific when that happens.
Eventually, the child has to be institutionalized. Unfortunately, there just are mental illnesses so severe that there is no other way to deal with them.
True enough. (You'll note that this fact was already mentioned, above.)
Once the parents and CPS finally figure out that institutionalization is the only possible answer, the only question is who is going to pay for the institutionalization until the child turns 18.
Here's where you go off the tracks, I'm afraid. "The only question" for whom? For secularists whose only concerns are the ramifications under a particular civil/legal system? I assure you, anyone who's concerned with the moral dimension of this issue would have far more concerns than that. The moral dimension (i.e. the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action) was the point of the original post...
In fact, your own comment betrays the fact that you've restricted your consideration to "tactical" concerns (abstracting from moral concerns), when you limit your consideration to "the years until the child reaches age 18"; are you unaware of the fact that parenthood entails moral responsibilities that go far beyond the beginning year of legal adulthood?
I know of one family that is paying double the statutory amount of child support until the child turns 18.
Are you listening to yourself? You're describing the financial cost of the child's welfare as if you'd describe the cost of a traffic ticket! Aside from the fact that the "statutory amount" is an arbitrary limit set by civil government (and praise God that my parents didn't feel that they were entitled to withhold anything beyond that amount, for my brother and me!), and not diminishing the real financial burden you describe, surely you can see that a portrayal of a situation purely in those (financial) terms is rather a shallow way to view it? It betrays a "child = commodity" mentality which is the antithesis of human dignity!
They tried their best, and they aren't shirking their duty. And, technically, the child is still legally theirs. But there was no other way.
Perhaps. But you imply (in your wording) that their hands are washed of the affair when the child turns 18. Legally, perhaps; but legality has never been the measure of morality for any sane person.
I, too, was skeptical the first 10 times I heard stories like this. They are very, very rare as a percentage of all adoptions. But, like every other bad thing in life, they do happen.
Of course... but we're talking about the moral gradient of "washing one's hands of an adopted child"; it's quite possible to acknowledge every last scrap of pain and suffering, while still saying that the "hand-washing" decision is simply wrong.
Once the child is institutionalized, it's kind of moot whether the legal papers are changed to remove the adoptive parents as legal guardians. The fact is that the child leaves their home, because there is just no other choice.
See above. If you were concerned only with civil details, and if humans had no more dignity than did any rock, tree or feeder pig, then you'd be right; but "legal guardianship" is not the whole of--nor even the most important aspect of--the issue. That's why Christians regard adoption, marriage, and other "family-causing" actions as covenants, and not mere contracts (i.e. exchange of goods).
I am aware of a situation in which one of two boys adopted at age 7 and 9 wound up killing his parents at 15 or 16. These boys had already been through much abuse and rejection before the adoptions. The other one had already been institutionalized due to dangerous and violent behaviors. The young man killed his father with an ax. His mother came down in her robe and saw this and he turned and chased her, pulling her robe off of her so that she was running naked through the woods in the winter; she was hit and kept running, so that there were bloody footprints in the snow.
A younger child in the family came downstairs and saw the scene with the dead father, the axe, and all the blood. That child lost both her parents that day.
Any families who take such children ought to be provided with intensive family counseling from the beginning, therapy for the children, respite care, and whatever other help can be offered.
It ought to be recognized that some children are so damaged that they cannot be adopted.
I imagine that if this child is kept in an institution, the woman will maintain her legal tie to him and even visit him regularly. But now they want to force her to take him home, and she is in fear for her own life, and she doesn't want to be responsible for the harm caused by his molestation of other children. She tried to do a good thing, and now she is in an impossible situation. Give the poor woman a break! Does she have to die to satisfy you? How many children should bear psychic scars from being sexually molested (one of my daughters was raped by a disturbed 12 year old when she was 9) by a mentally ill boy because the state wants to return him to a situation of inadequate supervision to save money? And anything but 24 hour a day in line of sight observation by an adult who has immediate back up from other adults is often inadequate in a case like this.
Susan Peterson
Susan,
That's a horrifying anecdote, beyond question. But if you're trying to use it (and your other comments) to convince me that the parents should be entitled to police/medical intervention which could safeguard their basic safety, then you're trying to convince someone who already agrees with you. See my earlier comment, above.
Any families who take such children ought to be provided with intensive family counseling from the beginning, therapy for the children, respite care, and whatever other help can be offered.
Absolutely true.
It ought to be recognized that some children are so damaged that they cannot be adopted.
That's possible... but I'd be leery of being too quick to make such a judgment call. Again, it'd be useful to ask yourself: "what would I do with the child of my body, if this were to befall them?" The answer should be the same.
I imagine that if this child is kept in an institution, the woman will maintain her legal tie to him and even visit him regularly.
You imagine (though I don't know how you can imagine it with certainty). You might even be right. If so, then most of my objections would dissolve.
But now they want to force her to take him home, and she is in fear for her own life, and she doesn't want to be responsible for the harm caused by his molestation of other children.
Think again: what would you do if the boy were your biological son? If police protection is needed, so be it (see above); but demonizing the child is a real danger for the indignant defenders of the parents, here.
She tried to do a good thing, and now she is in an impossible situation. Give the poor woman a break! Does she have to die to satisfy you?
Wow. Let me try that rhetorical device on you, Susan, and see how you like it:
"Susan, do all of the RAD children of the world have to be rounded up into concentration camps (and perhaps euthanized) to satisfy you?"
Let's avoid the hysterical-sounding accusations, shall we?
How many children should bear psychic scars from being sexually molested (one of my daughters was raped by a disturbed 12 year old when she was 9) by a mentally ill boy because the state wants to return him to a situation of inadequate supervision to save money?
Answer: none. I note, though, that you instantly assume that "the state" (by which you really mean the people who worked with the boy) are interested only in shameful financial advantage; and you assume that they can't possibly know what they're saying, when they judge the boy to be ready to leave institutional life. What conditions *would* satisfy you personally, Susan, that any given child with RAD, etc., could be ready to return to "mainstream life"? Or do you think they should all be improsoned indefinitely, by definition?
And anything but 24 hour a day in line of sight observation by an adult who has immediate back up from other adults is often inadequate in a case like this.
It can be. It can also be the case that thus-and-so child could benefit from the "non-institutional" life without spreading mayhem wherever he goes. You recited some horror stories of "RAD adoptions"; anyone with the research resources could match you, case for case (and probably far in excess of yours), with horror stories from natural-born children who turned on their parents, siblings, etc.
Let me say again: I fully agree that all necessary resources should be given this family to ensure (as much as possible) basic safety of everyone; but you go farther, I think, and imply that a complete "do-over" is not only allowable, but necessary. In that, I think you are quite mistaken.
If you people would stop being stupid and realize that adoptive children are not really the children of the adoptive parents. The adopted child can never be yours. You have no connecting blood line. You share not commone genes, and you have no natural relations. All you have is a piece of paper like the one you get when you adopt a pet. The only real and true connection you have is that piece of paper. You're not related in any fashion. You share nothing genetically. You can never be related no matter what you do. An adopted child is just that... an adopted child. His real parents and relatives are still out there somewhere. Your relatives can never replace his relatives. His genetic line connects with theres and not yours. The traits that he inherited come from his biological parents not the adopted parents so he can never be your child no matter how much you want him to. His life's blood is tied to his real parents so stop all the foolish talk out there. Your adopted child can never be your child. What traits (blood, genes, etc) do you share except a piece of paper that says you've adopted him. I got the same thing when I adopted my dog but my dog can never be a human. He's still a dog that I adopted. And adopting him does not make him related to me... he's still a dog. I didn't give birth to him so he can never really be mine.
I adopted an 11 y.o. boy from foster care. He came with his own baggage. Now that I'm his dad helping him with his baggage is my responsibility. When I signed the papers before the judge she told me that I know had all the responsibilities and privileges of parenthood. So do the Westcots. While they may have a case to demand additional support from the state for the care of their son, by going out and publicly attempting to return him because he isn't what they hoped he would be is just another form of child abuse. I would hope they never are permitted to adopt another child.
Does anyone know what it is like to have an adopted child who sets buildings on fire, tries to run you down with a tractor, says he is going to kill you and you have other children? I have a cousin in law who had 2 children and they adopted a baby boy and a baby girl. They were told by the state they were fine but they were not. Both were fetal alcohol syndrome babies. The boy was a physchopath and the girl turned out to be on drugs and a prostitute. The mother suffered a nervous breakdown. Now if ever there was a case where these 2 babies should not have been adopted this was. The adoption agency lied! So you self righteous people who think kids should return to the home and terrorize the entire family I hope you have the same problem and let's see how you handle it!
Post a Comment