NBC - Rehoming

Something else to be considered - it is illegal in Washington state to place an ad seeking to find an adoptive home for a child. Other states may have that law on the books - it was originally put into place to stop the black market adoptions in my era so that only licensed adoption placement facilities could advertise... [url=http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2010324789_webbaby21m.html]Local News | Craigslist adoption ad: A plea by young mother-to-be? A scam? | Seattle Times Newspaper[/url] Kind regards,Dickons

dmarie, sadly this kind of thing does happen. Biological parents hand their kids off to strangers if they can't handle them, too. I work with kids and I hear of this all the time. Children are left with a "family friend" who really isn't a friend or known to the family at all. Any parent, biological or adoptive, should have to go through proper channels if they need for someone else to raise their child. You're right, it's no different. I don't necessarily have a problem with finding prospective parents online. How is it any different than something like Parent Profiles that allows expectant parents to find prospective adoptive parents for their unborn child? It has to go through proper channels, though, (home study, lawyers, follow up visits by SW etc.) or it's abandonment IMO. I don't think anyone's arguing that it should be okay to hand kids over in a parking lot to someone you met online without going through all of the proper vetting etc.

[URL="http://www.blogher.com/we-cannot-excuse-parents-who-kill-autistic-children"]This[/URL] popped up in my FB feed today. I find it interesting that the autism community is having a similar discussion. In this case the biological parent killed their autistic child in one case and attempted in another. But the article is primarily outrage over the fact that so many are saying they understand, they understand how hard it is, when you feel you can't cope, when your child is violent, when you need help you can't find. Sound familiar?I agree rehoming even unethically seems better than death. But in the autism article and in unethical adoption rehoming , these actions need to not be understandable.Instead, we need to raise the roof with our shouts that this is wrong and we need to provide services to help these families. I wish there was something like what Dickons shared from the UK here in the US. Maybe instead of arguing over an article, it's time we demanded better for our adoptive families.

Maureen has a nice take on this today. [url=http://www.blogher.com/we-cannot-excuse-parents-who-kill-autistic-children]We Cannot Excuse Parents Who Kill Autistic Children | BlogHer[/url]"The information in the Reuters’ 5-part series is disturbing because of several elements. Isn’t adoption supposed to provide a child with a “forever family”? What was the adoption agency role in preparation? What is the adoption agency responsibility for post-adoption services, and for assisting the family in cases where a child may need (another) new family? How common is this practice of handing over a child with a notarized power of attorney to virtual strangers in a parking lot?"

Very common. No, it's not about having a child find a "forever family," it's about an adoption agency wanting to make money and a family thinking that they can take a child from another country to "complete our family."

From the New York Daily News: More than a decade ago, when foreign adoptions were booming, Priscilla Whatcott spoke out about her experience with her damaged Russian daughter and the perils faced by Americans who adopt from overseas. In Congressional testimony and media accounts, she couched the case as a consumer-rights issue: Adoption agencies, she warned, face no repercussions for failing to disclose pre-existing problems of children they place. Today, 16 years on, Whatcott still compares adopting Inga to buying "a pig in a poke" or being "sold a bill of goods." From Reuters: Whatcott's solution was tougher liability laws. "Clearly, we would have avoided much of this heartache and tragedy if consumer protection laws pertaining to international adoption had been in place," she wrote in testimony submitted to Congress in 1999.Ӕ Whatcott also said that her family refused to pay for Ingas care and hid their money under the bed to hide their assets from Michigan officials. Among the many, many issues on this subject, this points out two: 1) there were resources available, but the adoptive parents didnҒt want to pay for them, and 2), the aparents saw themselves not as parents, in the way the term parentsӔ is commonly understood, but as consumersӔ of another countrys children. I agree with the posters who said that outrage is the appropriate reaction, and it especially should outrage decent adoptive parents. I also agree that some of the posts seem to be glossing over or even attempting to justify some pretty abhorrent actions. Yes, some biological parents are abusive, even crazily abusive (thatҒs why children go into foster care and become available for adoption). They shouldnt be the standard that adoptive parents are held toҗits like saying why are you prosecuting me for one murder when other people are serial killers. Sets the bar pretty low. In the case of Inga, whom the WalcottҒs removed from Russia, she is now, after 5 rehomings,Ӕ a functioning 27-year-old who is attached to the final family that took her indespite Priscilla Walcottגs stated (to an AP reporter) that sometimes she thought the best solution was for God to take her, it turns out that the best solution for Inga was not death but to eventually, excruciatingly wind up with someone who acted like a real, loving parent. I thought I could be open-minded, and in some ways I am ( posts on this and other forums from really decent families who stepped in and seriously parented a ӓre-homed child, but have to say it turns me off to see aparents who adopted internationally and then abandoned the childԗlegally or notbeing portrayed as the victims. Of the systemחwhich systemthe one that they were perfectly willing to go along as long as they thought they could get what they want?חor of the children. Pig in a poke indeed. Absolutely there needs to be much more education for potential adoptive parentsand absolutely that isnגt going to happen as long as the adoption industry is driven by the profits that can be made by consumersӔ willing to pay for their product.Ӕ So first, the profit motive needs to be eliminated entirely. Second, there needs to be a change in the egocentric mindset that any American familyno matter how dysfunctional or abusiveחhas to be better than what a child will endureӔ in an orphanageӔ in their own country. Third, the burden on dysfunction in the family needs to be put on the adoptive family, not the child. Your adoptive child maybe screwed upor maybe just doesnגt like you and that doesnt mean she had RADҗthe child is not the villain here. The child is someone that you took into your home under the understanding (pretext?) that you would act as an actual parent. Adoptive parents are not the victims of children who never asked to go to their home in the first place. Kid has bad behavior? Kid (as one post from another forum I read is 2-years old but now Im pregnant and the stress is affecting me and my husband-of course I am asking for how to rehome?)җtough. Why the hell did you adopt this kid in the first place? It is not the childs place to complete a family. It is not the governmentҒs place to ensure that you havent bought ғa pig in a poke. One child a week on one website. I donԒt believe for a minute that all of them were advertised because they were violent and the families were in fear of their lives, and I also dont believe that the families advertising these children had there best interests in mind.

I realize I linked to the wrong article in my comments about Maureen's post. [URL="http://lightofdaystories.com/2013/09/12/to-npr-pbs-news-media-dont-ask-me-dont-quote-me/"]This[/URL] is maureen's post.The quotes were right but I miscopied. Sorry for any confusion.

Now this [URL="http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/23421226/re-homing-parents-go-online-to-find-new-homes-for-kids"]article[/URL], referencing a FB group second chance adoptions, I think is a little misleading. It lumps second chance adoptions into the Reuters report. Second chance is a program of Edited To Remove Agency Name. They require proper homestudies and adherence to ICPC. The problem I have is that this group publicly posts pictures of the children and detailed history including ages, country adopted from and the problems. That info needs to be shared, but publicly? that part bothers me. So, I'll go on record stating that I don't think it's always wrong to dissolve an adoption. And done properly, I can support. I do wonder though, how many of these situations were originally adopted through XXX and how many are just families glad to find an agency to try and help them. And how many of these situations could have been avoided with proper training and post adoption support. Several of the children listed are either in RTCs or have been. It's really quite sad.

This blows my mind. I can understand being wary of alcohol exposure before birth & placement, and choosing not to accept a placement of a child who might have exposure issues, but by 4 1/2 months I was so completely in love with both of my children that they could have sprouted a second head & it wouldn't have changed a thing. (Heck, by 4 1/2 *days* I was probably already in that place.) I don't like to judge, but I just can't wrap my head around it.

There is a difference in the perspective of the public-at-large, though. You do occasionally read about parents who advertise looking to place/sell their (biological) children. It makes news. People repost the links all over Facebook & talk about what kind of a monster would advertise her own child on craigslist. When adoptive parents disrupt, the typical response from outside the adoption world is one of sympathy for the poor, struggling adoptive parents who tried their best but the child was just too damaged. The extreme cases - the boy who was sent back to Russia springs to mind - get a negative reaction, but this series marks the first time when I've seen a widespread negative reaction from outside the adoption community. And even still, the negative reaction is less "how could they advertise their children on craigslist?" and more "they really should have checked out the person they were giving their kid to." Adoptive parents need to be better prepared. There need to be services and support available - and affordable - for families adopting children from circumstances that are likely to create difficulties in the children's adjustment and attachment. Disruptions should be extraordinarily rare, but without that preparation and support, they are inevitable.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/governments-call-u-track-foreign-adoptees-205845313.html]Governments call on U.S. to track foreign adoptees - Yahoo News[/url] Kind regards,Dickons

Exactly Meghann! It's incomprehensible. I can't wrap my mind around it either. I loved Sweet pea so much from the very beginning I couldn't imagine losing her! Nothing that came up would have mattered. Again, I do understand someone with an older child who has such significant needs that they sadly realize that another family might be more equipped to meet. I also understand a family that has to protect other children in the house who are in danger. I don't know what THIS particular family's excuse was.

Exactly Meghann! It's incomprehensible. I can't wrap my mind around it either. I loved Sweet pea so much from the very beginning I couldn't imagine losing her! Nothing that came up would have mattered. Again, I do understand someone with an older child who has such significant needs that they sadly realize that another family might be more equipped to meet. I also understand a family that has to protect other children in the house who are in danger. I don't know what THIS particular family's excuse was.

I ran across something yesterday. Hadn't noticed this line of thinking before... A friend was asking me, the adopted one:rolleyes:, for advice. She is worried about one of her neighbors. She suspects the parents are neglecting or abusing the child. Sees and hears her on the screen porch nearly all day, she apparently isn't attending school. Has heard lots of yelling and doors slamming. Hears the child crying, she's 10. Yesterday she hopped the fence and went to talk to the young girl on the porch who lives behind her. The girl said they wouldn't let her inside, she's being punished for being bad, she'd wet the bed. OK, so not good at all IMO. I tell my friend YES ABSOLUTELY CALL CPS. Friend says she didn't think she should since this girl was adopted, and she didn't want to mess that up, being that adoption is so lovely, and adopted parents don't do that sort of thing, she'd hate to break up this family and see the child put in foster care.... :grr: WTH!!