Why do they have foster-to-adopt?

[SKL]

For kids who are definitely not going back to their biological families, why do kids "in the system" have to be in foster-to-adopt for x time period instead of being adopted outright?

 

For those who have experience with this, what do you think is the ideal?

[NoseInABook]

To see if the child fits with the family well. If the placement ends up not working well for the child or the parents, they need to know in order to find a more suitable adoptive home.

 

I can see why they do it but it takes for-ev-er to adopt from foster care which is frustrating. Here, it's bare minimum a year long process to adopt and you'll often have a year plus of flat out fostering before the adoption process starts rolling. Most people I know who have adopted from foster care have 2 years into the relationship before they're able to finalize. I personally would like the adoption process to go quicker if you've already been fostering the child but here there's only one person who approved the adoptions for the entire state. (This is all coming from the perspective of a foster parent who recently reunified a child with bio family after having him over a year.) 

[texasmama]

In Texas, it is a legal requirement for children of any age to physically reside with a family for six months prior to consummating the adoption.  Some families doing foster care are willing to take on a "legal risk" child who is not yet freed for adoption.  Some families choose not to do this because it is hard on the heart if the adoption falls through, so they choose to only take into their homes kids who are legally free for adoption.  Some families only do foster care and never want to adopt.  These are "foster only families".  Some of these indeed do end up adopting their foster kids, but most do not.  I hope that helps answer your question some.  CPS and foster/adoption are driven quite a lot by the legal system, and the six months residency requirement prior to consummation makes all families in that waiting period "foster to adopt" and under a different set of rules in a different system, if you will. 

[Haiku]

I worked in foster care before I had kids. Honestly, one of the reasons we chose international adoption is because adoption from foster care in the US is a nightmare. IMO, it's because the whole system is focused on parental rights and not on what is best for children.

 

Ideally, children who are in a foster family that wishes to adopt them should be adopted immediately upon severance of parental rights. Kids whose foster family doesn't want to adopt them should be moved to an adoptive family during the severance process so that they can be adopted immediately upon severance. Kids whose parents' rights have already been severed but who remain in foster care should be adopted immediately upon identification of a suitable family.

 

More people would adopt from foster care were is not such a nightmare. I know several families who attempted repeatedly to adopt through foster care, gave up, and ultimately adopted internationally. Although I strongly believe that all kids everywhere deserve families and therefore have no problem with international vs. domestic adoption, I do have to ask: How can we even pretend we are adequately serving American children if we make the adoption process so arduous and unpredictable that families go elsewhere to find their children?

[SKL]

I had a friend who went through foster-to-adopt and it was so stressful, because even though the child was supposedly cleared for adoption, there was always this tiny chance that it would not happen.  I wonder how that is healthy for the relationship, knowing some third party could step in and break you apart even after more than a year of bonding.

 

I could understand a short waiting period to confirm compatibility, particularly of kids beyond infancy.  But the time lines seem pretty long.  Are there any states where the wait times are short?

[Ewe Mama]

Ugh. I could write a book on the horror stories of foster to adopt that we personally experienced or very dear friends of ours experienced.

 

In our case, paternity was uncertain. If it was one alleged bio father (#1) child would have been "immediately" adoptable, but the other alleged father (#2) would have to be ok'd by the county and then reunification would occur. Paternity testing established that bio dad #2 was in fact the father. Reunification was supposed to happen over the course of a few weeks during child's infancy. #2 started testing positive for drugs. When he realized he wouldn't get custody (after several months) he asked a relative to take the baby. Relative agreed. We lost placement after six months. Four months later, county calls us and asks to take baby back because relative's child was just diagnosed with severe autism and she can't handle baby now. We agree to take him back. #2 suddenly wants visitation and starts acting like dad of the year. As time passes, he starts testing positive again. Permanent custody is finally granted by the judge to the county, so we should be able to pursue adoption. #2 starts begging every relative and person he knows to express interest in taking baby, to drag out the process.

 

This is where it gets sticky. In our case, no one else from his family stepped forward. We were told #2 did not file an appeal to the judge's ruling and everyone does the happy dance and the ball starts rolling on formally adopting baby. Six weeks later, we find out #2 did in fact file an appeal on the very last possible day. After many months, it is determined that there are grounds for an appeal. In the meantime, #2 gets to have supervised visits again and continues testing positive. This goes on for many months before the case goes before the judge again. Again, permanent custody is awarded to the county. Again #2 appeals. This time, no grounds for appeal were found, so we were finally able to adopt. This entire process took three years. He was with us for his entire life (except those four months when he was with the relative). Because we live in a state that pushes for reunification under any circumstance, it is a very long, ugly process. We went through essentially the same process when we adopted his younger brother, but his adoption took four years and one month to complete, due to even more drama.

 

Some dear friends of ours almost lost their foster to adopt child when, after permanent custody was granted, some very distant relatives turned up and decided they wanted the child. It took another year of court battles and testimony before a doctor stated that the child could not live with the relatives due to his severe asthma and the relatives were indoor smokers. That wasn't the end of it either. The county then wanted to take the child from the foster to adopt family and place him with the family that had adopted the child's other half-siblings a year before. They were prepared to rip this little boy, who was almost 4 years old away from the only family he had ever known and give him to strangers. Again, a doctor testified that the environment would be unhealthy for him, due to asthma triggers. Our friends were finally able to adopt the child. They all suffer from PTSD because of it.

 

If people ask my advice, I always advise against it unless they already have bological or formally adopted children. So many things can and do go horribly wrong. In every case to which I have been privvy, it has been a nightmare.

 

Other states are probably less reunification oriented, so things may move more quickly (at least quickly compared to what we endured.). Six months is standard placement time before any type of adoption can occur in Ohio.

[Ewe Mama]

(This is all coming from the perspective of a foster parent who recently reunified a child with bio family after having him over a year.)

Noseinabook,

 

I'm so sorry about your loss. :grouphug:

[Katy]

Which states are the best?  I've heard good things about Texas (6 months and parental rights are severed), and terrible things about Kansas (where apparently the private system makes more money keeping kids in foster care and avoids adoption at all costs?).

[texasmama]

(((Hugs))) There are many horrible stories like those above.

 

It is so hard to answer that question, Katy. Texas is much better than it used to be due to the guidelines on timelines for permanency planning, but in the end, no state makes a good parent. I was on the inside of "the system" professionally for many years, and it is inherently broken in a way that cannot be fixed, IMO. Foster care exists primarily to keep kids safe and alive, but it cannot even always succeed at those basic goals.

[FaithManor]

It can take FOREVER in Michigan. This is a heavy reunification state. Most of them are though because the federal government gives a monetary bonus to the state for each reunification because the mantra is that this is best for the child. And yes, the appeals process is insane. So essentially they want prospective adoptive families to be in the system looking for legally free kids and then they place children with them that may never be legally free or may be reunified. They force people who weren't looking to actually be foster parents to become fosters. The adoption laws here changed a few years ago so you can't even adopt and American child through a private agency without applying for your foster license first.

 

It is absolutely extraordinary what it takes to sever parental rights. It would blow your mind how difficult it is. We have friends that foster and a six year old whose mother had been serving hard time in the state women's pen for assault with a deadly weapon - she had already been in and out of jail for numerous lesser crimes - and whose father was serving life for murder was "reunified" with the mother on appeal after she had served her sentence (they had him since he was 12 months old) because according to CPS and the judge, "Just because she wanted to hurt other people that didn't make her an unfit parent", was returned to the mother and before she'd had him even 90 days she beat him to death. They were heartbroken, destroyed....couldn't bear it, and issued a letter of intent to quit fostering asking for the other two foster to adopt children they had to be moved. The agency did not want to find a new place and asked the judge to intervene because what many people are never told when they join the system here in Michigan is that once you have your license and judge can FORCE you to keep it open for up to two years if they have a child placed with you that they do not want to move. Now, they tell you that once you issue a letter they are required by law to move that child, but in reality they can appeal it to a judge. They were forced to keep the children for another six months. Not good for the kids who needed to find a forever home, and not good for the foster parents and their children who were in counseling over what happened to that dear six year old. I know another couple that was forced to keep a predatory 8 year old after they had issued their letter to close their license. The child was so violent and sexually predatory that they had to place their biological children in the home of grandparents to keep them safe. The judge did not relent and this would have kept going if the dad had not taken a job offer in another state. They put their house up for sale and sent the listing to the court along with a copy of his job offer. Since foster children cannot be fostered, except for under vey special circumstances, by a resident of another state and they had every intention of dropping that child at the social worker's office and leaving as soon as the dad's new job began, the judge was forced to close their license.

 

The system is utterly broken. It is abusive of the already suffering children who enter the system and abusive of the families that open their homes to hurting kids.

 

Now that said, I'm still in favor of a six month placement before an adoption can be finalized and no penalty for choosing to disrupt. The reality is that there are many children in the system who are so badly damaged by what their bios have done to them, that they are too mentally ill to function in a regular family. They need 24/7 care and the intensity of constant contact with professionals with special training and that means they would be better served with PROPER residential care than being adopted which may destroy the family they join. But, Michigan doesn't have proper residential either and no desire from politicians to fund it so the broken, ridiculous, stupidity marches on with everyone just trying to do the best they can in the wake of the disaster. I do predict at time in which there really won't be foster care. Families are leaving the system in droves and well, the system can't really recruit too many new ones. There simply won't be anyone to take these children and they'll be left with their bios. At that point, I would imagine that Michigan would hastily start some sort of orphanage system that will become the blight of the nation! We don't have enough money to do ANYTHING even halfway much less right with the economy the way it is here so it will be horrible. Sigh......

 

Yes, I'm jaded. I used to do respite care for foster families that had especially tough kiddoes that were placed through Whaley Children's Center. It was an eye opening experience and I have the scars on my body to prove that not every child should be placed in a home....some of them REALLY need residential treatment in the long term.

 

I'm rambling! Sorry.

[Melissa in Australia]

((hugs))

[shawthorne44]

These stories are really scary.  I can not imagine.  I knew about lesser evils.  Basically, the needs of the CPS coming before everyone else including the kid.  

 

We have one child, and it looks like that is all I can have.  DH and I talked about fostering-to-adopt.  We would be an excellent home for a ... not too damaged kid.  That sounds horrible, but we aren't ready to handle some things.  Even if the kid would be a perfect fit, the thought of bringing CPS into our lives gives me the willies.  We are a family that should have nothing to fear from CPS, but I know that has very little to do with anything when CPS is involved.  

But, if CPS was run with common-sense and restraint and with the child's interest at heart.  Then we would probably be a foster or foster-to-adopt family at this moment.  

 

[kiana]

Man, Faith, that sounds like such a complete and utter nightmare.

[KrissiK]

It's crazy, that's for sure. I'm not sure if this is federal or just state, but in California, kids need to be in adoptive placement before parental rights are revoked. The reason - " the state doesn't want to create orphans". Some counties in CA are heavy into reunification, others are more pro-adoption. We've worked with both. We got very lucky with our adoptions, although they do take forever. Sometimes the stupidest technicality can delay things. Our daughters had their .26 hearing (revocation of parental rights) delayed twice because bio dad was not served with notice correctly. I'm not sure of all the ins and outs of that. But it delayed us another 3 months. And our other daughter, I don't want to divulge private info, but suffice it to say, it should have been the quickest process ever. Really. But the social worker actually told me they shelved her file because they knew she was in a stable home and had other more urgent things to take care of. So, that one took a year and a half to finalize, when it should have taken 6 months.

[RebeccaS]

It's crazy, that's for sure. I'm not sure if this is federal or just state, but in California, kids need to be in adoptive placement before parental rights are revoked. The reason - " the state doesn't want to create orphans". Some counties in CA are heavy into reunification, others are more pro-adoption. We've worked with both. We got very lucky with our adoptions, although they do take forever. Sometimes the stupidest technicality can delay things. Our daughters had their .26 hearing (revocation of parental rights) delayed twice because bio dad was not served with notice correctly. I'm not sure of all the ins and outs of that. But it delayed us another 3 months. And our other daughter, I don't want to divulge private info, but suffice it to say, it should have been the quickest process ever. Really. But the social worker actually told me they shelved her file because they knew she was in a stable home and had other more urgent things to take care of. So, that one took a year and a half to finalize, when it should have taken 6 months.

Yep.  That happened to us.  Took us nearly an extra year after permanent custody.  There was a water main break in the building and social services had to move during cleanup and repairs.  Since our case wasn't urgent, it got pushed to the back.  Frustrating for sure.  

[Mom2OandE]

In our case both of our kiddos came from a birth mother who was a "repeat offender." She had multiple children in the system and never did the work to get them back. After years in the system they were in multiple foster homes and eventually adopted after TPR. Obviously, this is not ideal. So, when our children were placed in the system they wanted them with parents whose intention was to adopt. They went from their emergency placement to our home. It took 9 months for TPR and then we filed for adoption which took another nine. It took so long because once TPR occures they still need to do a social summary plus we had a issue with dd due to her being Native American. DS has never known true foster care as he stayed in NICU and came home at seven weeks. Dd unfortunately did bounce around as a newborn then went back to bio mom than emergency care all in ten months. She definitely suffered and even at that young age it took years of therapy to come through it.

[Haiku]

I have the scars on my body to prove that not every child should be placed in a home....some of them REALLY need residential treatment in the long term.

 

I absolutely agree that not all kids will thrive in families. But I still think that every child deserves a family and no child should be left to linger in state care. Ideally, there would be enough support for families who adopt these kids that the children could be adopted AND receive the care they need, with the state picking up the tab for anything beyond what the family's insurance will pay for. Kids need a permanent place to go when their residential treatment ends, and children deserve to have a family that's committed to them even if they can't have them in their own home. I believe that parents will make better decisions for children than caseworkers will.

[Anne in CA]

This whole thread is so eye opening. I love kids, but I guess fostering is never in the cards for me. My dh's uncle and his wife had their only foster child removed in Oregon because they were treating the child just like he was their own and it made the social worker nervous. He never got a permanent placement and was never reunited with his parents. He considers them his only family now that he is an adult, but he was removed from the when he was nine and could have had eight years in a loving, stable home. So sad.

[Haiku]

I remember that when I was 12 I had a friend who was 9 who lived with a foster family. I actually didn't know that the family was a foster family. They treated him just like their other children. One day he stopped coming to school, and no one would tell me why. Years later I discovered that the foster family expressed interested in adopting him, but he wasn't legally free for adoption, and the caseworker decided the family was "too attached." So she moved him.

 

That's right. He was moved because he was loved too much.  :cursing:  :crying:  :banghead:

[NoseInABook]

The agency did not want to find a new place and asked the judge to intervene because what many people are never told when they join the system here in Michigan is that once you have your license and judge can FORCE you to keep it open for up to two years if they have a child placed with you that they do not want to move. Now, they tell you that once you issue a letter they are required by law to move that child, but in reality they can appeal it to a judge.

 

Um, whoa Nelly. I am licensed in Michigan and I've never heard of that happening before. My jaw just hit the ground. Our private agency requires 30 days to find a new placement for the child if you issue a letter. I've never heard of any child being left in that placement for longer than that 30 day period so this blows my mind.

 

Thank you, Ewe Mama. It's tough to raise a baby from 5 weeks to 14 months of age then have to send them back to a really unfortunate situation. Even worse is that we're Mama/Daddy in his eyes and we're unable to see him now despite bio mom's reassurance that she would definitely let us see him after he was reunified. :( Fostering really stinks sometimes but I'd do it all over again for him and am awaiting a call for another so clearly, I think the kids are worth it. 

[Ewe Mama]

Thank you, Ewe Mama. It's tough to raise a baby from 5 weeks to 14 months of age then have to send them back to a really unfortunate situation. Even worse is that we're Mama/Daddy in his eyes and we're unable to see him now despite bio mom's reassurance that she would definitely let us see him after he was reunified. :( Fostering really stinks sometimes but I'd do it all over again for him and am awaiting a call for another so clearly, I think the kids are worth it.

 

I understand with all my heart.

 

I wanted to die when we had to let our little guy go. We had only had him for seven months, but it hurt so much, all I could do was cry and pray for him and his safety.

 

I hope you are blessed with "a keeper" very very soon. :grouphug:

[LNC]

We had a wonderful foster to adoption experience of our medically fragile baby, now 16yo. They attempted reunification but his care was too overwhelming. The birthmom testified at a hearing that she would rather I raise him. I was sad for her. I loved her as I got to know her. We had 2 foster babies who went to their grandparents. I believe foster parenting and adoption is about loving the birth family imo.

[Elisabet1]

Because it takes time to do the paperwork and court hearings and such. The worker will "guess" that this child will be released for adoption and place that child in a foster-to-adopt home. It is probably easier to get foster homes if the children can be adopted. Really, there should be due process when a family is severed from a child. It would not be right if a child could be removed from a home and immediately be adopted. There are still adopt-only routes for foster kids, if you do not want to foster. And foster-only foster homes. So, the old traditional routes are still available. 

[prairiewindmomma]

KS *can* be a trainwreck.  When Brownback was elected governor, he essentially privatized or closed or merged as many state agencies as he could. The foster care system was privatized. Guardian ad litems have impossibly huge caseloads. The family courts are overburdened.  A permanency plan is supposed to be put into place within 30 days of a child being placed into care, but the presumption of unfitness (barring other issues like previous convictions, etc.) is TWO YEARS of not being able to comply with the reintegration plan (it's one year if "substantially neglected" or "willfully refused").  There is a huge push to try to push to finalization earlier as a lot of research is out there about how children need permanency....but I don't think any real change is coming any time soon. The child in need of care code was revised fairly recently and the funding isn't there to push it through on the court side.

[AimeeM]

As others have stated, to make sure the family is a good fit. A child in foster care has suffered abuse and/or neglect that a typical infant immediate placement hasn't usually suffered - this often comes with special considerations and needs, and not all children will fare well in all homes; some children need to be only children, others need to maintain contact (or be placed with) siblings or extended biological family; some children need ongoing therapies (actually most seem to), and many have special needs related to either jumping foster placements through the years (attachment issues) and/or the abuse/neglect suffered in their bio home.

[Carrie12345]

I don't want to defend ridiculous nightmares and red tape, so please know that.

 

On the other hand, we've been in a situation where we absolutely 100% want/ed to be the placement for specific child/ren.  Due to several circumstances, it was a toss up as to whether that would be doable within regulations.  Had it not been and had parental rights been severed, we would have turned our lives upside down to meet regulations for the long term, but it would have taken time.  The idea that strangers might be able to outright adopt before we could adapt would tear me apart.

 

Fortunately, it didn't even come close to that. But it DID make me think about the pros and cons of the system!

[poppy]

This thread is heartbreaking.

[shawthorne44]

I am much less bothered by a foster-to-adopt process, then removing a foster kid because the parents said the word adoption.  

 

[FaithManor]

KS *can* be a trainwreck.  When Brownback was elected governor, he essentially privatized or closed or merged as many state agencies as he could. The foster care system was privatized. Guardian ad litems have impossibly huge caseloads. The family courts are overburdened.  A permanency plan is supposed to be put into place within 30 days of a child being placed into care, but the presumption of unfitness (barring other issues like previous convictions, etc.) is TWO YEARS of not being able to comply with the reintegration plan (it's one year if "substantially neglected" or "willfully refused").  There is a huge push to try to push to finalization earlier as a lot of research is out there about how children need permanency....but I don't think any real change is coming any time soon. The child in need of care code was revised fairly recently and the funding isn't there to push it through on the court side.

My sister worked as a social worker in Kentucky and had as many as 75 cases on her desk at any time. She was supposed to make home visits to each family and the paperwork after each visit took up to four hours to complete. Some of these families were over an hour away from her office so adding in commute time, how is someone supposed to do weekly visits? How can one coordinate care for 75 placements every month? Between court appearances, staff meetings, etc. and the fact that not every family is going to be there when you stop by as these were supposed to be impromptu visits, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! But, Kentucky had privatized some portions of the system and profit is the name of the game. The company paid a mere $15.00 an hour for Social workers with a bachelor's degree, and only $18.00 for those with master's and the insurance was crappy. The state wanted to pay nothing, and the company was determined to make a big profit. Where does that leave the child? You can guess...living in hell.

 

Michigan's caseloads are not that bad. But, they are still too heavy. Funding is the name of the game and it's not politically glamorous to campaign on a platform of "spend more money on foster care and social workers". Our culture is NOT pro-child and what happens to children in care is something the general public and politicians alike prefer to never think about if they can possibly help it. Out of sight, out of mind.

[LostSurprise]

My friend had a positive story (that doesn't negate the negative ones but I feel it's important to see many stories). 

 

She and her husband, in their 50s, signed up as Adopt-Only. They did all the paperwork and the studies. They were open to taking a larger sibling group. They were open to some special needs. They had it written in their record that they would not foster-to-adopt, they would only take children to legally open to adopt. While their caseworker did offer them some "soon to be available to adopt" children, they always refused, nicely. Because they refused it did take longer to find a child. I think they were fairly lucky the first time and a child in the area was available, but the second time I know they had 2 or 3 possible family groups which eventually didn't happen because all the releases for adoption were not done. Many times they were encouraged to foster these children "until the paperwork was worked out" but that was not their choice. 

 

The first child came from an foster home and his mother, although she gave him up to the system willingly at birth (she has several other children) didn't get around to releasing him formally until he was almost 2. The foster family did not want him so my friends got him when the release for adoption was formal (no fostering). The second child came directly from her home to my friends. She has very light special needs. She was an international adoption as a baby and they didn't think they could handle her medical needs. In this case, the original adoptive family met the new family. Then my friend spent a few hours with the little girl to gauge her needs. Then she came to their house for an afternoon. Then she was here permanently. If anything, I felt it was too fast. 

 

I just want to say that some people, in some states are able to adopt without fostering, even if the system itself is set up for fostering over adoption. 

[prairiewindmomma]

I was at a guardian ad litem conference a few months ago and the presenter asked for a show of hands who had over 300 cases on their case loads. Several hands went up. No kidding. Most people had between 150-200, but there were many who had over 300. I agree...too many!

[Seeking Squirrels]

We really want to adopt and can't afford international or private. But DH does not want to do foster to adopt. He doesn't think he could handle the uncertainty and having a child we've bonded with taken away.

 

Does anyone know how the process usually goes in Utah? If we're a state that drags it out he'll never agree.

[FaithManor]

I was at a guardian ad litem conference a few months ago and the presenter asked for a show of hands who had over 300 cases on their case loads. Several hands went up. No kidding. Most people had between 150-200, but there were many who had over 300. I agree...too many!

 

I CAN'T EVEN WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND THAT!

[prairiewindmomma]

No kidding, especially since national recommendations are that you have no more than 100 child clients (meaning including sibling sets as many cases have multiple children involved). 

 

 

[Spryte]

For kids who are definitely not going back to their biological families, why do kids "in the system" have to be in foster-to-adopt for x time period instead of being adopted outright?

 

For those who have experience with this, what do you think is the ideal?

 

Did your question get answered?

 

In our state, once a child is "definitely not going back to their biological family" they are adoptable. That means the biological parents' rights have been terminated. Generally they are adoptable to approved foster families, or other families with current home studies, though I suspect current foster families are more in the minds of DSS social workers, so may get first chances if a move must be made.  And (in our state) preference is given to the foster family with whom the child resides. There is no restriction that the kids stay "in the system" for a time period between having their legal relationship to birthfamily severed and being adopted (in my state, that may not be true in others).

 

Our DD was available to technically adopt within days of her birth, as both bioparents voluntarily signed TPRs and released her to DSS to place.  in our state, there is a grace period in which a birthparent can change her/his mind, so that is a possibility, but the adoption paperwork can begin at TPR.  In our case, DD came home from the hospital with us, TPRs signed, and adoption paperwork filed.  We waited out the grace period as happens with any domestic adoption in our state, and then proceeded.

 

Our state is another state that aims for reunification with birthfamily, and that means that kids can be in foster care while their bioparents work to make changes, etc.  If the bioparents don't succeed, then rights are terminated.  But that can take time, so the kids are in the system while that's happening.  If there is no birthfamily to adopt the child, then the child is adoptable by non birthfamilly members.  After birthfamily, our state gives next preference to the current foster family, to reduce the amount of moves for the child(ren).

[Lucy]

In my state, an infant who enters the system (edited: is supposed to) be on a permanent plan by 9 months.  They older children's cases can be drug out longer.  for those of you considering it, know that you will hear the sad stories much louder than the happy ones.  I have 2 friends with sad stories - kids given to other families, but I also have many more friends with very happy ones.  My neighbor adopted twin infants.  Another friend has adopted four kiddos - her only struggle has been getting the tribe 2 of her kids belong to sign off, but they did eventually.  Another adopted 2 dds within a year of getting licensed.  I have a foster child now, and I fully realize it could very well not end in adoption.  But it may!  And honestly, I love this child so much - that as much as a heartbreak it would be to give them up, I know it's worth it to give them a safe, loving start in life.  I have experience with kids who were not given a good start and the effects last a very long time. 

 

Love always brings the risk of heartache, but it is never wasted.

 

Adoption and Fostering isn't for everyone, but if you feel any leaning toward it, it's worth the time and effort to really explore it before you decide.

[Tap]

We have dd7 through the foster system.  Ours situation is a little different than most.

 

She is my great-niece. She was removed at birth, spent 0-5mo with my mom and was then placed with us. There was zero intention of it being permanent on either side.  Her parents were trying to get her back and we were only doing it to keep family out of the foster system until they could. Relatives are usually easier to care for legally, but since we crossed state lines from Oregon into Washington we had to go through the foster system in both states with an 'interstate compact'. We were asked to take her at 2mo, but it took 3 months to get a foster license and to get her into our care (a speed record according to the case worker).  The case worker approved and dd actually came to us on a 'visitation with bio-aunt' for a month before everything was completely final with the state shhhhhh.  LOL  

 

We were technically listed as a Foster to Adopt home, so that she wouldn't be removed and placed in one, if things started to go bad with the parents.  And since it did go bad, It worked out in our favor in the end.

 

Her parents ended up continuing to make bad decisions and the state offered her up for adoption to us at 18 mo.  The parents did not sign away parental rights but the state was set to terminate rights based on the case information.  We requested a change in plans, from adoption,  to a permanent guardianship filed in Oregon.  Her bio-parents remain on her birth certificate and bio-dad pays child support to the state for her care.  Oregon is unique in that permanent guardianship is just as binding as an adoption, so the parents cannot contest the guardianship after the fact.  We agreed to send pictures once a year if they are requested in writing, and we have 100% control over the other factors in her life including whether or not she has visits with bio-parents, medical decisions, and can sign for military/marriage for her. We often say she is adopted just to avoid confusion on how we are her permanent family, not just visiting.  Bio-dad has been a good part-time dad, and has a standing visitation every Sunday and is devoted to his girl.  Bio-mom (my niece) hasn't been around since she was about 2yo and has never requested pictures or contact.

 

We finalilzed just before she was 2yo.