Does this adoption story bother anyone else?

[Mergath]

Because the supports I reference are common, I am going to disagree with you.  The number of pamphlets I received at like EVERY SINGLE FREAKING STEP was crazy.

 

BUT, honestly, that doesn't matter.

 

From personal experience, I believe that because there are imbalances that we CANNOT erase, like life experience, like sheer finances, like access to a partner, there's not much else we change to act on the imbalance of power.

 

And, as such, I don't think that a police officer offering to adopt the baby of a drug addict who was LOOKING for someone to adopt the baby she was pregnant with and pumping drugs into through that pregnancy, automatically equals cop abusing power. 

 

 

I haven't heard about the medical bill angle and find it surprising since I thought in every state Medicaid covers pregnant women who lack health insurance. Mainly what I've heard about is birth mothers changing their minds. Obviously the prospective adoptive birth parents are devastated, but of course the birth mother has every right to do so.

 

Not always, or we wouldn't have so many situations where adoptive families feel like they have to pay for the pregnancy to ensure the mother gets appropriate prenatal care.

 

And with many states refusing to expand Medicaid, there are a lot of people who are low-income but can't get Medicaid or health insurance subsidies.

[HS Mom in NC]

  Also, the outcome is worse for the baby because s/he goes into medically fragile foster care, which is generally temporary, resulting in many disruptions that harm the baby.  Of course immediate private placement is no guarantee that the parents can overcome the drug abuse damage, but it's a better bet than serial foster homes.

 

Who told that that's true of newborn placements? They're wrong.  That's true of children over 2 but children under two are the most likely to stay in one home and be adopted. 

 

[SKL]

Babies under 2 are the most wanted adoptees, so there would've been absolutely NO PROBLEM finding a family with the appropriate training and child spacing to adopt that baby. 

 

 

I'm not sure how many qualified adoptive homes there are for medically fragile drug addicted newborns.

[HS Mom in NC]

It's my understanding that the woman was pregnant when he found her, and that they all went through the proper procedures while waiting for her to give birth.  From your bolded, do you have reason to believe she was in labor or had given birth at the time the officer said he would adopt?  Because that is not how I read the article.  It doesn't sound, from the article, like there were any police arriving on the scene of a dangerous situation?

 

 

 

Police arriving where a pregnant woman is shooting up is a dangerous situation to the child. It still doesn't show anywhere in this article how the woman knows the police officer outside of him showing up when she was shooting up, so we don't know why she's choosing to place her child with him other than looking at a photo of his family.   We don't have anything that shows she has options laid out and psychiatric care to assess what she wants when she isn't shooting up.

 

[Melissa in Australia]

I will not go into the discussion onadoption because in my country it is completely different and I have no idea how the system worked over there. Here parent drug use is not a factor in removing children.

 

But I will say that ANY female using drugs like heroin should be mandatory sterilised, or at least have one of those 7 year implants. I say this as the carer of children exposed inutero. The damage done to the children's brain is devastating

[HS Mom in NC]

I'm not sure how many qualified adoptive homes there are for medically fragile drug addicted newborns.

 

I personally know two in my social circles.  Foster care has different certifications for different families to handle different degrees of medical issues.  My husband's employee is married to a former nurse who is qualified and at their couples training there were other qualified parents.  Just because you don't know them or know of them doesn't mean they don't exist.   That's a piece of information that should've been included in this article, but you know how American reporters are: sloppy sloppy sloppy.

 

[Frances]

Not always, or we wouldn't have so many situations where adoptive families feel like they have to pay for the pregnancy to ensure the mother gets appropriate prenatal care.

 

And with many states refusing to expand Medicaid, there are a lot of people who are low-income but can't get Medicaid or health insurance subsidies.

But I thought pregnant uninsured women automatically qualifying for Medicaid existed long before the ACA? I've only heard about adoptive parents paying living and other expenses for birth moms in some private adoption cases. Or even finding them places to live with friends or family members. I do think that situation is very ripe for abuse and should not be allowed.

[Daria]

I'm not sure how many qualified adoptive homes there are for medically fragile drug addicted newborns.

 

Where are you reading that the child was medically fragile?

 

I know that in my urban area there is no shortage of people looking to foster/adopt infants and toddlers.  

[HS Mom in NC]

And when a pregnant woman is found abusing her born or unborn kids, the state takes the kids and supervises her pregnancy. At birth the child is removed into fostercare.

[HS Mom in NC]

Where are you reading that the child was medically fragile?

 

I know that in my urban area there is no shortage of people looking to foster/adopt infants and toddlers.  

 

It's a safe assumption that he child is medically fragile. 

 

In my homeschool group there's a fostadopt mom whose twin boys were taken by c-section at 7 months pregnant because the mother was an addict and the father was too. Had abused the mother so badly at 7 months, one twin had a fractured skull in utero and the other had broken ribs in utero.  They considered the drug exposure and the physical abuse to be far riskier the babies that being preemies. 

[SKL]

Where are you reading that the child was medically fragile?

 

I know that in my urban area there is no shortage of people looking to foster/adopt infants and toddlers.  

 

When a woman is so drug-addicted that she is living in a tent and shooting up on the road in front of cops, ....

 

Also the story indicated the child was born drug-addicted and still needs treatment.  It is pretty common for these kids to have severe and lifelong problems - physical, behavioral, and mental.

[Mergath]

But I thought pregnant uninsured women automatically qualifying for Medicaid existed long before the ACA? I've only heard about adoptive parents paying living and other expenses for birth moms in some private adoption cases. Or even finding them places to live with friends or family members. I do think that situation is very ripe for abuse and should not be allowed.

 

I think it varies from state to state. Where I live the Medicaid income limits for pregnant women are very high, but being pregnant and uninsured doesn't automatically mean you qualify. And some states I've seen have much lower income limits even for pregnant women.

 

And that's part of the problem- it's a crapshoot depending on a ridiculous number of factors. If the law was that, if you're pregnant you automatically get Medicaid, period, we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

 

Not to mention that even if you qualify, in some places actually getting Medicaid is a nightmare. Certain states have made it ridiculously hard. Mountains of paperwork, required appointments that might be an hour away, requirements for documents that a homeless addict probably doesn't carry around with her...

[Frances]

I will not go into the discussion onadoption because in my country it is completely different and I have no idea how the system worked over there. Here parent drug use is not a factor in removing children.

 

But I will say that ANY female using drugs like heroin should be mandatory sterilised, or at least have one of those 7 year implants. I say this as the carer of children exposed inutero. The damage done to the children's brain is devastating

Yes, it often seems we are focusing on the issue much too late in the game, after an innocent child has already been born to a drug addict. My first thought when reading the story was that I hoped the birth mom got long term birth control ASAP after giving birth.

[HS Mom in NC]

Ok, I see what you mean.

 

But, he met her on September 23rd, the baby was born on October 12th.  That's almost 3 weeks, certainly time for everyone to step back and review the options.   That doesn't mean that all those options were automatically laid out on 9/24....but it's not like he showed up on the 23rd, then walked away with a baby on the 25th.  We don't have anything showing what she was counseled in.....but we also don't have anything to say she wasn't.  And given that she participated in the article so willingly I have a hard time automatically putting her down as someone who was completely unaware of any of her options at all. 

 

I didn't say she wasn't aware at all-that's an extreme. I also wouldn't consider 3 weeks time to get sober, have some psychiatric evaluations, and with a clear head review options.  Sorry, but that's nonsense. Its not enough time to get the adoptive parents prepared to adopt with a complete homestudy and classes on dealing with addicted babies.

[SKL]

I didn't say she wasn't aware at all-that's an extreme. I also wouldn't consider 3 weeks time to get sober, have some psychiatric evaluations, and with a clear head review options.  Sorry, but that's nonsense. Its not enough time to get the adoptive parents prepared to adopt with a complete homestudy and classes on dealing with addicted babies.

 

As you noted, much is not included in the story.  The baby was in the hospital for some time after birth.  The adoptive parents apparently had enough time to get a homestudy etc. because they have the baby now.  We do not know what safeguards were put in place to ensure the woman didn't feel coerced.

 

To your point about getting sober and psych evaluations etc. - you can't force a person to get sober or get evaluated.  The woman needed to decide and she decided to hell with it.  We don't know when she made this decision ultimately.  We also don't know that even if she wasn't on drugs, she would decide to parent the baby.

 

Reality is that if this cop hadn't made the choice he made, it is almost certain that this baby would have been taken from the mom at birth and she would have had even less control over the situation.

[eternalsummer]

I will not go into the discussion onadoption because in my country it is completely different and I have no idea how the system worked over there. Here parent drug use is not a factor in removing children.

 

But I will say that ANY female using drugs like heroin should be mandatory sterilised, or at least have one of those 7 year implants. I say this as the carer of children exposed inutero. The damage done to the children's brain is devastating

 

In the US this would function like eugenics and there would be a massive outcry (from the left and the right, perhaps for different reasons)

[madteaparty]

Nm

Edited December 2, 2017 by madteaparty

[HS Mom in NC]

As you noted, much is not included in the story.  The baby was in the hospital for some time after birth.  The adoptive parents apparently had enough time to get a homestudy etc. because they have the baby now.  We do not know what safeguards were put in place to ensure the woman didn't feel coerced.

 

No, we don't know, that's why it's disturbing.

 

To your point about getting sober and psych evaluations etc. - you can't force a person to get sober or get evaluated.  The woman needed to decide and she decided to hell with it.  We don't know when she made this decision ultimately.  We also don't know that even if she wasn't on drugs, she would decide to parent the baby.

 

Right.  So why is she choosing who to adopt her baby to? She's not in a mental state to decide anything important. Her last decision was to shoot up while pregnant. 

 

Reality is that if this cop hadn't made the choice he made, it is almost certain that this baby would have been taken from the mom at birth and she would have had even less control over the situation.

 

That's why temporary placement with foster care is the better option that letting a drug addict at the end of her pregnancy think on it for a few weeks and made the call.   No one in her situation can be rational and weigh something as huge a placing a baby permanently with someone else.  Fostercare's stated goal is reunification if possible so they provide services to help. They also have people who have been scrutinized and trained to handle addicted babies. If the cop's family had already been certified and trained that's fine, but we still have a family that had already considered a placement and decided not to because of the age of they youngest kid already in the home.  That kid was still young, so we have what appears to be adoptive parents allowing their emotions to override a very reasonable, and in many expert views, advisable decisions. 

 

The private adoption option shouldn't be for substance abusers. It creates serious, reasonable doubt about what the mother would've wanted had she been given a chance to sober up and get some mental health treatment-soemthing the state provides.

 

 

[Melissa in Australia]

In the US this would function like eugenics and there would be a massive outcry (from the left and the right, perhaps for different reasons)

Unfortunately Here In Australia too. I think it is time that society as a whole starts looking at the way drug use affects the child instead of the big push to make drug use socially acceptable. Here people can get free methadone, drug injecting sites are being set up, media is going on and on about how all drug use should be leagalised........ I could go on and on.

 

Children's brains are being destroyed, many children's brains, when is something going to be done . By the time they are conceived the damage is already happening.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Melissa in Australia

[Mergath]

Unfortunately Here In Australia too. I think it is time that society as a whole starts looking at the way drug use affects the child instead of the big push to make drug use socially acceptable. Here people can get free methadone, drug injecting sites are being set up, media is going on and on about how all drug use should be leagalised........ I could go on and on.

 

Children's brains are being destroyed, many children's brains, when is something going to be done . By the time they are conceived the damage is already happening.

 

Keeping addicts safe by providing things like methadone and clean needles isn't about making drug use socially acceptable. It's about keeping the person- and the fetus, if they're pregnant- as safe as possible. I mean, if someone is pregnant and is using, forcing them to use dirty needles in a dangerous location isn't exactly going to make the baby healthier.

 

And criminalizing addiction has never worked as a way to prevent it.

[SKL]

That's why temporary placement with foster care is the better option that letting a drug addict at the end of her pregnancy think on it for a few weeks and made the call.   No one in her situation can be rational and weigh something as huge a placing a baby permanently with someone else.  Fostercare's stated goal is reunification if possible so they provide services to help. They also have people who have been scrutinized and trained to handle addicted babies. If the cop's family had already been certified and trained that's fine, but we still have a family that had already considered a placement and decided not to because of the age of they youngest kid already in the home.  That kid was still young, so we have what appears to be adoptive parents allowing their emotions to override a very reasonable, and in many expert views, advisable decisions. 

 

The private adoption option shouldn't be for substance abusers. It creates serious, reasonable doubt about what the mother would've wanted had she been given a chance to sober up and get some mental health treatment-soemthing the state provides.

 

We can agree to disagree.  I believe that the multiple disruptions that typically occur in the foster care solution outweighs the theoretical benefit of giving a drug addict mom more time to change her mind than other birth mothers get.

 

My friend who is a social worker has seen babies die because of the "second chance, she decided to get clean" theory.  So maybe that affects my opinion too.

[sassenach]

I didn’t read anything in that story that concerned me. It’s actually pretty amazing considering all the alternatives.

[Melissa in Australia]

Keeping addicts safe by providing things like methadone and clean needles isn't about making drug use socially acceptable. It's about keeping the person- and the fetus, if they're pregnant- as safe as possible. I mean, if someone is pregnant and is using, forcing them to use dirty needles in a dangerous location isn't exactly going to make the baby healthier.

 

And criminalizing addiction has never worked as a way to prevent it.

believe me that here the media is doing a push to make all drugs socially acceptable It is on the radio regularly.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Melissa in Australia

[Carrie12345]

As written, I think it's a positive story, but I absolutely recognize that the story version may not match the reality.

 

As for the wife's end of things... I don't know.  My reflexive thought was "She's gonna kill him!" But I've actually been labeled as someone who would nonchalantly fold extra children into our household without missing a beat.  Dh has jokingly told friends suffering from sleepless nights and little relief to just plop their babies in our living room and I wouldn't even realize I was handling an additional one.  We spent a few years braced to have relatives' little ones show up at our door, so it wasn't entirely a joke.  When babies need care, I want to care for them.  In those days, if my husband told me he met someone with a baby that needs to be raised, I probably would have leaped to do it.  Not so much today, but when my kids were younger and my life revolved almost entirely around parenting.

 

The ethical end is stickier, but I'm just trying to imagine being in the wife's shoes.

 

Overall, the ethics surrounding addiction and pregnancy/birth are murky.  Judgment calls are difficult.  Addiction doesn't strip a person's human rights, but there's no denying the consequences when pregnancy is involved. (Actually, that's not entirely true. I've seen a woman speak out against advocating sterilization and/or long term birth control because she says her children born while she was using have no long-term affects. Which, apparently, means there's some sort of conspiracy to steal healthy children... or something. So there are people who deny the consequences.)

[meganrussell]

I think it's a sweet story. The alternatives that could have happened could have been far worse - giving birth in that tent on the street, baby being neglected and die, baby being sold for drugs, etc... Why does it matter if the mom didn't have "choices"? Her baby is in a loving home with parents who will care for her. The mom obviously didn't want to get clean for the sake of her baby. I don't see how anyone would have a problem or concern about this story. I don't see an abuse of power at all - just a police officer who has children of his own and compassion for the unborn baby of a heroin addict.

[Word Nerd]

I think your assessment of the situation is incredibly cynical. I am not sure where you got the idea he would have charged them if she hadn’t agreed to let him adopt the baby or where the coercion occurred.

[MedicMom]

I know a paramedic who did something similar. The process was the same as any other adoption—home studies, lawyers, a judge signed off on it. The birth mom in this situation didn’t just hand the baby to the police officer. It doesn’t work that way.

 

I don’t know how there could be coercion. He couldn’t go arrest her a month later for seeing her shoot up. And police officers don’t charge people with anything; that’s up to the district attorney or a town justice, depending on where you are and the seriousness of the charges.

 

I don’t know about everywhere else, but a baby here who is found with drugs in their system goes to foster care unless a family member steps up, one who has been vetted by social services. They also spend at least a few days in the NICU automatically. We have a large homeless population here as well, and babies born to homeless parents go to foster care. This baby was not going home with the birth mom no matter what.

[Guest]

My biggest issue with this story is that this child’s history is being put on display. Her story is out there for the whole world to google without her consent, forever. Her privacy is being sold so the masses can have a feel good moment.

[fralala]

It's not just the teen mother with an accidental pregnancy who needs support and resources; it's also the mother of five who hasn't gotten more than an hour of interrupted sleep in months and has to care for 2 babies under the age of 2, one born addicted to heroin. I hope these adoptive parents have that kind of support and resources, for themselves and for their other children. Lots of dear friends and a generous extended family.

 

I guess if we can add to the potentially bothersome list of elements of this adoption situation, we could add the disregard of the four biological children's needs or feelings about the situation to the list. At least with a pregnancy or traditional adoption there is an extended period of time to adjust older children and prepare them for the shift in the family, even if they don't get a say in the matter.

 

I also am not a huge fan of the either the shaming tactics taken by the police officer. Not because I'm a bleeding heart liberal but because I do think the job of the police is to enforce laws, not to bully or berate people who have been found breaking it. He overstepped the boundaries of his position while in uniform. If the idea of adopting a child affected by his mother's heroin use in utero occurred to him, he should have shelved that for later. Totally inappropriate.

[shawthorne44]

A friend of ours has a niece that is continually on drugs or pregnant.  The niece does at least get clean while pregnant, so she has that going for her.   But, her children don't have a stable home because she'll get clean for 6 weeks, ask for her kids back and say "I'm clean", and she gets them.  Then a month later the police find the kids in some horrible situation, like sleeping in a parked car at night in a bad area of town while mom and boyfriend are incoherent with drugs.   Note, she isn't homeless, she is on some program that gives her an apartment for being disabled, disability being a druggie.  But, they couldn't wait to get back to apartment to do the drugs they had just bought.   

 

The only one of her children that has a good home is the oldest and that was because you could say she was coerced into giving up that child.   Apparently, if you give birth while having a CPS case open, they automatically take the newborn.   But, because she gave up the oldest, the case was closed and she was allowed to keep the newborn until the next horrible situation.  So, when you talk about coercion of druggie pregnant women, I think of those sweet children.  

[mamaraby]

So, when you talk about coercion of druggie pregnant women, I think of those sweet children.

And yet I can simultaneously be concerned about both the children and the potential coercion of the mother. My capacity for concern is broad enough that it can be both/and and not either/or.

 

Yes, Mergath, the story bothers the heck out of me.

[Spryte]

The county doesn't do home studies in private situations. A private agency usually does them.

Just an aside:

 

This must vary by state or county. Our county does home studies for private adoptions, and international as well. Though one can hire an agency also.

[City Mouse]

Police officers adopting babies from random people they have arrested seems to be a rather rare occurrence, so I don't think this is a big problem that needs to be legislated, but maybe it would make a good episode of Law &Order SVU or another police or lawyer TV show.

 

I do think it is an interesting discussion and brought up some points I had not thought about previously.

[ealp2009]

I understand these concerns and I think it is a good thing to think about. However, the reality is babies have been born on the street and died and if the baby doesn’t die it is immediately taken from the mother and put in foster care. Babies in foster care are at a huge disadvantage to those that are immediately adopted. Further, in my state people are not lining up to be foster parents to drug addicted babies. There is a huge shortage of people willing to foster any kids. Yes, a drug addicted newborn is more “desirable†to most foster parents than a teenager but there is still a shortage. Further, the baby is not going to be a newborn for very long the average time a child is in foster care is 2 years so the baby is going to quickly become less “desirableâ€.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TechWife]

So you don't think there's a problem with adoptions where the adoptive parent is in a position of authority over the birth mother and could conceivably punish her if she changed her mind? That's what bugs me about this story. 

 

I do. It isn't just that he could possibly go back and arrest her for using at the time he first met her, it's the fact that police officers have a lot of authority when they are on the job and can do quite a few things that the average citizen can't do. He could conceivably "stalk" her, watching for any misstep. He could go to many lengths to make her life miserable. 

In this situation, the mom would not have been allowed to keep the baby.  It is unlikely she would have had any say in who did get to adopt her baby if it hadn't happened this way.

 

The difference with a shoplifting mom etc. is that those kinds of things would not generally require the mom to give up her kid.

 

If there were a trend of this happening, I could see placing some extra safeguards in there.  But I don't hear of this happening much.  I've heard of firemen adopting kids out of bad situations they discover on the job, but I haven't heard of cops doing it.  I also doubt coercion to adopt in exchange for no charges would generally work, since birth moms can change their minds long after it would be too late to arrest them.  Unless they were habitual offenders (and thus likely to lose their kids one way or another), the cops couldn't retaliate by arresting them long after the fact.  The other thing is that the birth fathers generally have a right to say no to an adoption.  And of course the adoptive cop parent would have to go through lots of vetting (like all adoptive parents do).  I guess I can't see the bad outweighing the good here, but again, if it came to that, additional restrictions could be placed on the practice.

 

If the baby was born addicted to drugs, the baby would have been taken to the NICU where they would have gone through the detox process. The average NICU stay for a baby born addicted to drugs is 27 days. During that time, social services would have been working with the mom. She would have been offered rehab, ongoing counseling, required to attend parenting classes and would have had many home visits. She may or may not have been able to complete all of the requirements prior to the baby's discharge. If not, then the baby would go into foster care while the mother continued to work on them. After a time she may or may not have been allowed supervised visits in the hospital or at an agreed upon place. Eventually, visits would be unsupervised. There would be ongoing drug testing. The father, if known, would also been given the same opportunities. It is quite possible, should it come to both parents surrendering their rights or having them terminated by the court, that the social workers and judges are asked by the birth mother to have the child adopted by current foster parents. They can also contact relatives, who can be considered as potential foster or adoptive parents. So yes, the birth mother could potentially have a say. 

 

 

 

After the baby was born addicted, CPS would become involved. Which could lead to foster care/adoption with her having no say.

She may still have a say - see my info above. 

 

Is that how it works if you're in custody for abusing your unborn baby?

 

See the information above. Parents aren't stripped of their rights immediately, it's a long process. 

 

Crisis pregnancy centers aren’t nearly as predatory as Planned Parenthood. Only one has people dying by being there, but they don’t count in the power imbalance situation because they can’t speak up. They only count if someone decides they’re wanted enough to allow to live.

 

There are some surrogacy and adoption situations that seem really problematic morally, but this really isn’t one of them even as an archetype.

 

In my experience trying to help family members, crisis pregnancy centers provide minimal services to mothers who choose to keep their child. I even talked to one that said once the mother passes the point of a legal abortion in their area, they don't continue outreach. Another told me that once a mother signs up for Medicaid, she will likely not get an abortion and they don't tend to "concentrate" on those mothers.  The three I talked to were solely focused on abortion prevention, not supporting and helping families once they had the baby. They are focused solely on the pregnancy, not on the actual family. 

 

Well OK, she probably did have a chance to choose another parent then, but she seemed to really like this one.

 

In reality, living on the street, she probably would have checked into the hospital giving birth to a sick baby and having no adoption plan in place.  I haven't heard of birth moms in that situation having the right to choose birth parents.  Also, the outcome is worse for the baby because s/he goes into medically fragile foster care, which is generally temporary, resulting in many disruptions that harm the baby.  Of course immediate private placement is no guarantee that the parents can overcome the drug abuse damage, but it's a better bet than serial foster homes.

 

How much do you know if you like someone when you are shooting up drugs? 

 

I'm not sure how many qualified adoptive homes there are for medically fragile drug addicted newborns.

 

 

There are foster parents who care for medically fragile children. Personally, I know someone who cares for medically fragile children and they are with her until the parents regain custody -sometimes for years. Because there are fewer foster homes for medically fragile children, they don't bounce around as much as other children might. If there is no appropriate placement for a medically fragile child, then they remain in the hospital or are placed in a group home for medically fragile children (they do exist). 

 

When a woman is so drug-addicted that she is living in a tent and shooting up on the road in front of cops, ....

 

Also the story indicated the child was born drug-addicted and still needs treatment.  It is pretty common for these kids to have severe and lifelong problems - physical, behavioral, and mental.

 

Yes, just like children born to healthy parents do. 

 

My biggest issue with this story is that this child’s history is being put on display. Her story is out there for the whole world to google without her consent, forever. Her privacy is being sold so the masses can have a feel good moment.

 

I have a huge problem with this as well. 

Edited December 2, 2017 by TechWife

[Miss Peregrine]

 

If the baby was born addicted to drugs, the baby would have been taken to the NICU where they would have gone through the detox process. The average NICU stay for a baby born addicted to drugs is 27 days. During that time, social services would have been working with the mom. She would have been offered rehab, ongoing counseling, required to attend parenting classes and would have had many home visits. She may or may not have been able to complete all of the requirements prior to the baby's discharge. If not, then the baby would go into foster care while the mother continued to work on them. After a time she may or may not have been allowed supervised visits in the hospital or at an agreed upon place. Eventually, visits would be unsupervised. There would be ongoing drug testing. The father, if known, would also been given the same opportunities. It is quite possible, should it come to both parents surrendering their rights or having them terminated by the court, that the social workers and judges are asked by the birth mother to have the child adopted by current foster parents. They can also contact relatives, who can be considered as potential foster or adoptive parents. So yes, the birth mother could potentially have a say.

 

I'm pretty familiar with the process as the above is almost exactly my son's story, except his hospital stay was 4 times that.

 

The birth parents did not have a choice in who took care of their child, before or after adoption. The social workers and court decide that.

[TechWife]

I'm pretty familiar with the process as the above is almost exactly my son's story, except his hospital stay was 4 times that.

 

The birth parents did not have a choice in who took care of their child, before or after adoption. The social workers and court decide that.

The social workers and court decide, but birth mothers can make requests, especially when it comes to relatives.

 

ETA: Here, kinship placements, whenever possible and in the child’s best interest, are given preferenceover traditional foster homes. They are also given preference for adoption.

Edited December 2, 2017 by TechWife

[Miss Peregrine]

The social workers and court decide, but birth mothers can make requests, especially when it comes to relatives.

Well sure, but it's a just a request. "Say" implies they have a part in the decision.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Miss Peregrine

[TechWife]

Well sure, but it's a just a request. "Say" implies they have a part in the decision.

“Say†means they can talk, hence request.

[Daria]

I'm pretty familiar with the process as the above is almost exactly my son's story, except his hospital stay was 4 times that.

 

The birth parents did not have a choice in who took care of their child, before or after adoption. The social workers and court decide that.

 

Was your child removed by CPS?  

 

In my experience, parents who have made contact with private agencies during the pregnancy are able to continue with that plan, which includes some choice of parents.  

 

A child who is removed involuntarily is, obviously, a different situation.

[SKL]

The social workers and court decide, but birth mothers can make requests, especially when it comes to relatives.

 

ETA: Here, kinship placements, whenever possible and in the child’s best interest, are given preferenceover traditional foster homes. They are also given preference for adoption.

 

And in the present case, if this woman had a relative or friend she wanted to adopt her baby, she could and would have said so.  Didn't look like that was the case here at all.

[rutamattatt]

As an adoptive parent of a child exposed in utero, there is a lot about this story that bothers me now, but wouldn't have raised a red flag for me before our own experience.  

 

Before our adoption experience, I would have said this man stepped up and did a good thing by providing this young woman with a safer, viable alternative to whatever she had (or had not yet) planned for her unborn child.  There was not any coercion as she could refuse the offer as easily as she could accept it.  There are laws in place to keep things on the up and up to prevent coercion or an unsafe/unwise adoption plan from going forward.  

 

 

Because of our adoption experience with our daughter,  I now agree that there is a large potential for at least perceived imbalance of power in the situation.  Would the officer have walked away with no repercussions for the birth mother if she hadn't agreed to an adoption with his family?  Probably.  But could the mom perceive it differently in this situation?  Heavens, yes.  We oversee adoption based on laws, but adoption is so affected by emotions, and emotions are fluid.  I don't remember off the top of my head how it was worded, but the end of the article indicated that the birth mom felt positive about the adoption.  Those feelings may change, and while a finalized adoption can't be undone, she may someday wish she had someone to advocate for her, help her in rehab, and support her in making a parenting plan.  (And perhaps she had those opportunities and the article just doesn't highlight that.)  

 

Maybe I am too cynical, but anytime I see an adoption story like this presented as a brief article tied up with a big, red "everyone was happy about the adoption" ending, it chaffs my heart a bit.  This is just the beginning of the story of this young birth mother, her child, and her child's family.  Are the legalities set in stone?  Yes.  Are the feelings about the adoption set in stone?  No.  And those matter to everyone involved as well.  

 

This is a "thing" for me as an adoptive mom, so forgive me if I don't explain my thoughts very well.  I just hate when the world soaks up these "feel good" adoption stories, because  there are so. many. layers. to adoption that maybe don't appear as "feel good", but that are just as valid and important and beautiful.  We are raising our daughter who has life altering issues from prenatal alcohol exposure, who longs for her birth mom regardless of her experiences with her, and who tries to connect with us as authentically as she is able.  Our adoption is hard...but because of stories like this that stay on the surface of something so complicated, people seem to forget that just because an adoption is hard, it doesn't mean it isn't GOOD.  Adoption is complicated - as is parenting any child - and simplifying it down this much does everyone involved a disservice.  

 

 

[Daria]

I think your assessment of the situation is incredibly cynical. I am not sure where you got the idea he would have charged them if she hadn’t agreed to let him adopt the baby or where the coercion occurred.

 

The question isn't whether he would have actually done so.  It's whether she might have believed he would have.  

 

The fact that a group of educated people on the internet, who aren't hugely emotionally invested in this, can disagree about whether there was a possibility of this happening, is a pretty good indication that a distraught woman under the influence might be confused or think it could happen.  

 

Coercion is a huge a problem in adoption.  There are times when people engage in actions that are obviously wrong.   There are also times when the enormous power differential in adoption leads to birth mothers feeling pressure, even when no one intends for that pressure to happen.  I think this has the potential to be one of those situations, and thus, at the very least, it shouldn't be held up as a wonderful story in the media.

 

My biggest problem, however, is the way this story invades the child's privacy.  

 

I had a child in my class whose adoptive mother shared with me at the fall parent teacher conference that her child, who had some learning issues, had been born drug exposed.  I thanked her for sharing, and kept the story private, while continuing to teach her child.  That information didn't change my teaching in any way, and he grew and learned and made progress in my class.  He was a wonderful little boy. 

 

The next year, the day after parent teacher conferences, the child's new special education teacher came storming into my room.  She asked me if I'd known that he had been drug exposed.  When I replied that yes, mom had shared that with me, she demanded to know why I hadn't told her.  I told her it wasn't my story to tell, and asked her what she would have done with that information.  She told me "Well, if I'd known, I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to teach him.  Everyone knows 'those kids' are too damaged to learn." The following summer, he was back in my class for summer school.  Not only had he not learned anything that year, but he'd lost some of what he'd learned in my class.

 

The reality is that stereotypes about infants who are exposed to drugs in utero are an enormous problem.  There's no way I would share that information publicly about my child unless my child was old enough to participate fully in a conversation about ways that decision could impact him. 

[Miss Peregrine]

In this situation, the mom would not have been allowed to keep the baby.  It is unlikely she would have had any say in who did get to adopt her baby if it hadn't happened this way.

 

 

 

 

Why do you say that?

 

She would have been able to go to an adoption agency and have a say in selecting the adoptive parents.  

 

 

Was your child removed by CPS?  

 

In my experience, parents who have made contact with private agencies during the pregnancy are able to continue with that plan, which includes some choice of parents.  

 

A child who is removed involuntarily is, obviously, a different situation.

 

 

The bolded was what I was talking about. If she hadn't gone anywhere else prior to giving birth and made a plan, CPS would have been involved and she would have had no say. 

[Miss Peregrine]

As an adoptive parent of a child exposed in utero, there is a lot about this story that bothers me now, but wouldn't have raised a red flag for me before our own experience.  

 

Before our adoption experience, I would have said this man stepped up and did a good thing by providing this young woman with a safer, viable alternative to whatever she had (or had not yet) planned for her unborn child.  There was not any coercion as she could refuse the offer as easily as she could accept it.  There are laws in place to keep things on the up and up to prevent coercion or an unsafe/unwise adoption plan from going forward.  

 

 

Because of our adoption experience with our daughter,  I now agree that there is a large potential for at least perceived imbalance of power in the situation.  Would the officer have walked away with no repercussions for the birth mother if she hadn't agreed to an adoption with his family?  Probably.  But could the mom perceive it differently in this situation?  Heavens, yes.  We oversee adoption based on laws, but adoption is so affected by emotions, and emotions are fluid.  I don't remember off the top of my head how it was worded, but the end of the article indicated that the birth mom felt positive about the adoption.  Those feelings may change, and while a finalized adoption can't be undone, she may someday wish she had someone to advocate for her, help her in rehab, and support her in making a parenting plan.  (And perhaps she had those opportunities and the article just doesn't highlight that.)  

 

Maybe I am too cynical, but anytime I see an adoption story like this presented as a brief article tied up with a big, red "everyone was happy about the adoption" ending, it chaffs my heart a bit.  This is just the beginning of the story of this young birth mother, her child, and her child's family.  Are the legalities set in stone?  Yes.  Are the feelings about the adoption set in stone?  No.  And those matter to everyone involved as well.  

 

This is a "thing" for me as an adoptive mom, so forgive me if I don't explain my thoughts very well.  I just hate when the world soaks up these "feel good" adoption stories, because  there are so. many. layers. to adoption that maybe don't appear as "feel good", but that are just as valid and important and beautiful.  We are raising our daughter who has life altering issues from prenatal alcohol exposure, who longs for her birth mom regardless of her experiences with her, and who tries to connect with us as authentically as she is able.  Our adoption is hard...but because of stories like this that stay on the surface of something so complicated, people seem to forget that just because an adoption is hard, it doesn't mean it isn't GOOD.  Adoption is complicated - as is parenting any child - and simplifying it down this much does everyone involved a disservice.  

I would like to see a well written story on this, as well. That's not the norm for media, unfortunately.

[SKL]

 

Maybe I am too cynical, but anytime I see an adoption story like this presented as a brief article tied up with a big, red "everyone was happy about the adoption" ending, it chaffs my heart a bit.  This is just the beginning of the story of this young birth mother, her child, and her child's family.  Are the legalities set in stone?  Yes.  Are the feelings about the adoption set in stone?  No.  And those matter to everyone involved as well.  

 

This is a "thing" for me as an adoptive mom, so forgive me if I don't explain my thoughts very well.  I just hate when the world soaks up these "feel good" adoption stories, because  there are so. many. layers. to adoption that maybe don't appear as "feel good", but that are just as valid and important and beautiful.  We are raising our daughter who has life altering issues from prenatal alcohol exposure, who longs for her birth mom regardless of her experiences with her, and who tries to connect with us as authentically as she is able.  Our adoption is hard...but because of stories like this that stay on the surface of something so complicated, people seem to forget that just because an adoption is hard, it doesn't mean it isn't GOOD.  Adoption is complicated - as is parenting any child - and simplifying it down this much does everyone involved a disservice.  

 

Also an adoptive mom here and I can relate to much of what you are saying.  I too cringe with some of these "feel good" stories that seem to imply it's all sunshine and rainbows.  I often think, hmm, in all likelihood this is going to be a tough road, and I hope the folks involved are tough enough for it.  Being in the adoption community, I know of many stories that started out great but didn't stay that way.  I agree that it's messy AND still good.

 

That is why I am trying to be rational here.  The situation in the OP, had the cop not been involved, was not a situation that was going to end well.  The chances of that birth mom changing her life within 1 month (or less) to a situation that would give her real options for her baby were essentially zero.  The woman has made her choices in getting pregnant and getting her baby addicted to drugs and not getting clean.  The baby has no choice.  The baby's well-being is not going to be statistically improved by giving this mom unlimited time to make a plan for the baby.  Statistically this baby is better off with a vetted, stable adoptive parent.  There are many other cases where I would not say this, because I do believe it's almost always better for biological ties to be preserved.

[Daria]

The bolded was what I was talking about. If she hadn't gone anywhere else prior to giving birth and made a plan, CPS would have been involved and she would have had no say. 

 

I agree with you that that's what would have happened.  But there are ways that she could have made a plan, that didn't lead to him being the adoptive parent.  He could have provided help in that.

 

So, the choice wasn't between the police officer and not having a choice.  There were other options, and the police officer could have helped her know that.

 

I'm not saying that he's some kind of villain.  I am saying that he shouldn't be held up as a model for what to do, because there are better options.

 

This article perpetuates a number of misconceptions,

 

-- that infants who are drug exposed are "unwanted" and that there aren't families waiting to adopt them.

 

-- that pregnant women who choose to place their babies for adoption can't have choice and agency in that process.

 

-- that coercion is OK, if it can be justified by a happy ending.  

[Word Nerd]

Again, where is the evidence there was coercion, much less that the story promotes or justifies it?

[2squared]

The bolded was what I was talking about. If she hadn't gone anywhere else prior to giving birth and made a plan, CPS would have been involved and she would have had no say.

Yes, and that plan would have had to start more than three weeks before birth, which apparently hadn't happened.

 

Once born, CPS would be involved and the mother wouldn't have a say in anything. She may offer up her thoughts like any other citizen at that point, but she gave up her opportunity to impact the result by not coming up with a solution before birth.

 

Also, in our state, once the courts have severed your parental rights with a child, CPS will automatically take future children as well. ** My dh works with these situations, and they are beyond terrible. A very, very low percentage (nearing 0%) is drug addicted parents are able to turn their lives around enough to keep their children once the children have been placed in foster care. The real tragedy here is the children, and prefer laws and procedures that protect their rights over the parental rights. My dh is devastated every time his clients lose their kids, but it's always a better situation for the kids and the parents have had numerous opportunities to change the outcome. The kids don't have five, ten, twenty years to wait.

 

**involuntarily. If parental rights are terminated voluntarily, then future children are not taken automatically.

Edited December 2, 2017 by 2squared

[Miss Peregrine]

Yeah, she was "hoping" someone would adopt her daughter. Much different than looking for someone.

 

Again, the article/video are poorly done.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Miss Peregrine