Three children still missing from Hart family crash

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 

The limits of the jurisdictions of individual states do make the state-jumping thing a concern. An investigation is not the same as an open dependency, though. And if a case has been closed, there is still nothing stopping a family from pulling up stakes and moving at that point. It would be highly unreasonable to expect people to never move again just because they were investigated once upon a time. So many states do a bad enough job of keeping track of their own kids in the system, I'm not sure another layer of bureaucracy with interstate reporting would not result in more problems. It might not be unreasonable, though.

 

I agree that if a case is closed, there should be no restriction on moving.  I was talking about open cases where there is an investigation or ongoing monitoring.  I'm not even saying they shouldn't be allowed to move, I'm saying there should be someone somewhere working on the case until it is closed.  And a past child abuse conviction should follow people around IMO.

[Ravin]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

I agree that if a case is closed, there should be no restriction on moving.  I was talking about open cases where there is an investigation or ongoing monitoring.  I'm not even saying they shouldn't be allowed to move, I'm saying there should be someone somewhere working on the case until it is closed.  And a past child abuse conviction should follow people around IMO.

A past criminal conviction for which the person did the time, the case is closed, etc. is going to show up on a background check. Most jurisdictions that will expunge such things will only do so after a fairly long period of time with no new offenses. So if there was a new investigation in a new state, it's not going to stay a secret from the new state. It does follow one around. There is nothing in this story to suggest it didn't. Following them around and resulting in their kids getting instantaneously taken away during the early stages of a CPS investigation are not the same thing. And that's what it would have taken for this tragedy to be prevented, if it was a murder/suicide. Usually there has to be some clear sign children are in serious immediate danger to take the kids first and investigate more later. Without the clarity of hindsight, it's unlikely there was. After all, the family had weathered previous investigations and carried on. There was no way a CPS investigator could have known that this would happen.

[Scarlett]

I think he looked terrified in that photo where he was hugging the policeman.  But I imagined it was because he was being abused.  

Hind site is 20/20 and all that.  I don't recall seeing the photo when it was actually published.

[Liz CA]

2 hours ago, Ravin said:

Kids are too readily taken from their bio parents. The system is set up to favor rapid resolution when often the problems are chronic and deep-seated, though not necessarily insurmountable with time and patience.

 

 

This is the fine line those of us who work in this field are faced with daily. A young child taken from a dangerous situation, now placed in foster care with possibility of adoption bonds to foster parents, perhaps experiences for the first time stability, warmth, love and care and healthy boundaries. If the law provides the bio parent(s) years to rehabilitate themselves, we could be looking at ripping a child from a secure environment to be returned to bio parents whom s/he barely knows.

Here in CA, for children under 2 years, the case would be resolved within 18 months or less unless there are other mitigating circumstances. Sometimes bio parents need more time - or sometimes they still need to reach age of maturity but the one year old still needs parenting and an opportunity to bond with someone to hopefully avoid RAD.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Ravin said:

A past criminal conviction for which the person did the time, the case is closed, etc. is going to show up on a background check. Most jurisdictions that will expunge such things will only do so after a fairly long period of time with no new offenses. So if there was a new investigation in a new state, it's not going to stay a secret from the new state. It does follow one around. There is nothing in this story to suggest it didn't. Following them around and resulting in their kids getting instantaneously taken away during the early stages of a CPS investigation are not the same thing. And that's what it would have taken for this tragedy to be prevented, if it was a murder/suicide. Usually there has to be some clear sign children are in serious immediate danger to take the kids first and investigate more later. Without the clarity of hindsight, it's unlikely there was. After all, the family had weathered previous investigations and carried on. There was no way a CPS investigator could have known that this would happen.

I don't mean to say these reforms would have definitely saved these kids.  I think this case exposed the fact that these are possible loopholes that may be putting a number of kids in jeopardy.  I was thinking about a couple cases of foster parents abusing or murdering kids who were placed with them years after they were convicted of abusing other kids.  And while I agree that sort of thing comes up on a state background check, I'm not sure it comes up if you don't tell the investigators all the previous states you have lived in.

[goldberry]

On 4/8/2018 at 5:14 PM, Frances said:

I wish we had a nationwide integrated system for reporting abuse to help in these types of cases.

I know, why is there not?  And why can't it be established, like NOW?  

The article said: 

The parents appear to have been aided by limited communication between state agencies and the fact that no central nationwide registry exists for child abuse or child welfare reports.

[Scarlett]

47 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Hindsight is 20/20 lets a lot of people off the hook. 

One of the kids was 16 years old and only weighed 45 pounds. My 8 YO daughter weighs more than that. 

 

I was only referring to myself.....and I had no obligation or oversight over these women.

[Rosie_0801]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

No one needed to see through anything to pay attention to what the children said about abuse in their home and withholding food. 

Why didn't people listen to the children? 

I think most of the reasons boil down to people generally being more comfortable with denial.

[Farrar]

I do remember that photo and remember it made me uncomfortable at the time - not with him having done it, but with it being viral. I remembered thinking that it fit a white, liberal narrative too well - look, a good black kid hugging a white cop and asking for understanding - and in doing so it detracted from the systematic picture, which was really the issue. 

I don’t know how to tease out all the racial issues here though. I’ve known a number of great white parents of poc kids who were adopted... but none of them adopted their kids to save them, they just adopted kids to have a family - most of them were unable to have kids themselves.

[caedmyn]

3 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

No one would have had to see through anything to not place 6 children in the home of 20 something parents in rural Minnesota. 6 kids all at once is a lot of kids and these children came with a lot of baggage. 

Why were these children removed from their homes and why were they placed with this family? 

No one needed to see through anything to pay attention to what the children said about abuse in their home and withholding food. 

Why didn't people listen to the children? 

This case cannot be discussed without discussing race. You can't answer any of these questions without addressing the racial issues. 

 

According to one article the kids were placed with them 2 years apart...3 at one time and then 3 the 2nd time.  

I'm not sure why this *has* to be a race issue just because the parents were white and the kids were black.  Why didn't people listen to the (white) victims of that US gymnastics team doctor?   Why didn't people see the red flags for the (white) Turpin children?  Why are pedophiles' victims very often not believed when they report it?  I think in general people tend to have a hard time believing that other people really do these abusive things so it's easier to believe denials than accusations.  

 

 

[Sneezyone]

9 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

No one would have had to see through anything to not place 6 children in the home of 20 something parents in rural Minnesota. 6 kids all at once is a lot of kids and these children came with a lot of baggage. 

Why were these children removed from their homes and why were they placed with this family? 

No one needed to see through anything to pay attention to what the children said about abuse in their home and withholding food. 

Why didn't people listen to the children? 

This case cannot be discussed without discussing race. You can't answer any of these questions without addressing the racial issues. 

 

I have a personal pet peeve with adoptive parents sharing their childrens' back stories without permission or in a way that constantly paints their families of origin in a negative light. That is also a red flag for me. It’s not sharing funny/enlightening/endearing stories common to parents in general. It’s a way to improve their own social standing and glorification when compared to the ‘savages’ (I’ve actually seen this said) who once parented them.

[gardenmom5]

7 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I doubt new laws are needed. There are already laws on the books about abuse and adoption. Why make new laws when the existing laws were probably ignored? 

What can change here are attitudes. People should question the narrative of the savior white, liberal adoptive parents. Some people will never get it but others can be educated. 

 

I'd be interested in knowing what the laws/bureaucracy is in place for sharing information between states - but I also don't really want another federal bureaucracy.   

I doubt there is any - and each state has different rules on their books.  including how long something stays in their records and if it will ever be expunged, etc.

 

7 hours ago, SKL said:

People can question it all they like, and I'm sure many do.  But being a white liberal blabbermouth hippie while adopting is not a crime, so there is really nothing you can do about it until you have evidence of something illegal.

I think it can be hard to know when to report suspected neglect.  The fact that these folks were celebrated in the news would create a bias favoring the parents, regardless of color, because the news people must have been in the home etc. and would have noticed if anything seemed amiss (or one would think).  Also, with them on the news, that was an opportunity for people from their past to step up and say "things aren't all that rosy over there."  So you go into it thinking these folks are decent people, and it takes something pretty serious to change that.

That said, I don't think it's public knowledge how many times people called on these women.  We do know someone did call and that prompted them to flee.  We don't know that the outcome would have been different had more people called sooner.

 

don't think that was what was meant - it's also not an endorsement of being good parents.   re: the harts.   and they DID go around trying to present an image specifically of what wonderful people they were because they adopted black kids.

most adoptive parents are like anyone else in how they treat their kids - either bio or adopted.   (I have several sets of friends who've adopted multiracial kids.).  just trying to be the best parent to their kids they can be.   they don't stand on a soap box holding themselves up for others to look upon and "admire". (re: the harts)    iow: they're just living their lives.

[SKL]

53 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Race matters here because these children were removed from their homes and many within the AA community believe that CPS penalizes AA families. I linked to an article above that discussed this. Then the AA children were placed in a home in a virtually all-white community with very young parents who were unprepared to parent them. Even if the parents had not been abusive, the environment would expose the children to violence. This keeps happening to minority children. It's racism that causes the state to distrust minority parents and it's racism when the state believes white parents over the minority children. 

 

I don't understand why the environment would expose children to violence even if the parents had not been abusive.  In all statistical likelihood, they were removed from an environment that was much more likely to expose them to violence.

You're right, we don't know why they were removed.  However - and I've studied a lot of cases - I'm not aware of a trend toward permanently removing black sibling groups from their parents and making them available for adoption without there being significant long-term problems with the parents.  I did know of a mom who lost 5 kids due to drug abuse and other issues.  They let her keep her 6th baby against the strong advice of the social workers.  The baby was murdered within 6 weeks.  But the social workers must have been racist.

Racism does play a role at times, e.g. when a parent has been accused of neglect for letting a kid play at the park while she works nearby during summer vacation.  I believe race was a factor when a woman was charged because her 4yo darted in front of a speeding drunk driver as the family crossed the street with their groceries.  I'm sure it's a factor other times.  But I think it's quite a stretch to imply that nice black families are having their kids systematically snatched from them so they can grow up with dangerous white people.

You say why didn't people believe the kids - that is always a question.  It happens to kids of all colors when they report abuse.  However, we do know that people did report this family on multiple occasions.  They were investigated.  They were charged.  They were convicted.  They kept doing it anyway.  This also happens to kids of all colors.

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

I don't understand why the environment would expose children to violence even if the parents had not been abusive.  In all statistical likelihood, they were removed from an environment that was much more likely to expose them to violence.

You're right, we don't know why they were removed.  However - and I've studied a lot of cases - I'm not aware of a trend toward permanently removing black sibling groups from their parents and making them available for adoption without there being significant long-term problems with the parents.  I did know of a mom who lost 5 kids due to drug abuse and other issues.  They let her keep her 6th baby against the strong advice of the social workers.  The baby was murdered within 6 weeks.  But the social workers must have been racist.

Racism does play a role at times, e.g. when a parent has been accused of neglect for letting a kid play at the park while she works nearby during summer vacation.  I believe race was a factor when a woman was charged because her 4yo darted in front of a speeding drunk driver as the family crossed the street with their groceries.  I'm sure it's a factor other times.  But I think it's quite a stretch to imply that nice black families are having their kids systematically snatched from them so they can grow up with dangerous white people.

You say why didn't people believe the kids - that is always a question.  It happens to kids of all colors when they report abuse.  However, we do know that people did report this family on multiple occasions.  They were investigated.  They were charged.  They were convicted.  They kept doing it anyway.  This also happens to kids of all colors.

I’m not sure violence in the physical sense is the right way to think of it but there have been many, many adult transracial adoptees who’ve written and spoken about the difficulties placements like these create for the adoptee. And by ‘like these’ I don’t mean w/white parents, gay parents, etc. I mean parents who show no willingness or capacity to maintain or develop connections with the children’s community or culture of origin. 

[Ravin]

We have managed to improve the protections for Native American children somewhat because of their unique political status. To extend such protection on the basis of race would fly in the face of a whole lot of "the law must be color-blind" Constitutional precedent. One way to do that would be to give all children ICWA-level protection by raising the burden of proof for removal and termination of parental rights, setting placement priorities with extended family first, giving weight to placements based on cultural factors shared with family of origin (this one could be very problematic in the face of antidiscrimination laws), or at least willingness to foster connections with the child's culture of origin, and more strongly prioritizing keeping together sibling groups. However, such protections can backfire if the result is children get no permanent home at all.

[Sneezyone]

14 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Lagnuishing in foster care for life because of your race, which is what happens to many Native American kids because of laws, is not a protection. 

Is that the result of lineage or age?ICWA has been eroded in the last several years b/c of court cases. Foster care doesn’t provide permanence but it’s not necessarily a hell hole either. Within many cultures there’s a strong pre-existing tradition of informal fostering that doesn’t result in name changes or cultural disconnects, or abuse. It’s worth considering both what gained and what is lost when ties are permanently severed.

[Ravin]

20 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Lagnuishing in foster care for life because of your race, which is what happens to many Native American kids because of laws, is not a protection. 

This only happens in jurisdictions where they ignore best interests when there is not a priority placement available. ICWA has helped reduce the number of Native American families torn apart and the number of children taken from their families and culture, increased the pressure to get people help and reunify and make it more difficult to take kids away from their families of origin. Overall the impact has been an empirically positive one. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15607770

[Ravin]

The old system of kids languishing in foster care, hopping from placement to placement, for years and years as a matter of course was problematic.

That does not mean that the current system of rushing to permanence through foster-to-adopt is not problematic.

[Farrar]

Are there statistics on this - especially on African American kids adopted by white families? I've seen many families in that situation, but I've seen a lot more families where the cross racial lines were kids adopted by white families from abroad who were Latinx or Asian. I have the sense that those issues are more well-trod in the adoption community? I've known white parents of Asian adoptees who were very involved in trying to make sure their kids' heritage was something they had access to. The one time this made me uncomfortable was when a kid, who had a lot of other issues and was in the midst of getting a diagnosis on those issues, was telling teachers and peers at school that he was super interested in his heritage and telling his white parents that the school and others were always bringing up his race and heritage and he didn't understand why. So, as a result, the parents were super hostile about anyone helping him explore it or helping him be in touch with that heritage. Watching that dynamic play out made me very uncomfortable, but... there were so many things at play as well there.

I can easily imagine that white parents of African American adoptees, especially kids adopted at an older age from difficult situations (whether justified removals or not) wouldn't be as keen to have their kids involved in African American culture. For one thing, they went cross-city to get their kids, not halfway around the world, so the cultural differences don't seem important. But there could also be cultural superiority at work. :( Ugh. But I don't know that that's the case. Like, I definitely know that some parents make strong efforts not to fall into that thinking. But I don't know what the overall picture there is.

I think the reality is that cross racial adoption is here to stay and can be positive. It's just how can it be supported and discussed? 

[TravelingChris]

16 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

And assumptions that reports are just sour grapes.

 

Don't blame people for not seeing through an abuser's public persona.

Psychopaths are among the people who learn very well how to mimic emotions and gain people's trust often= why some of them are so able to get victims.

[shawthorne44]

 

I know of two foster parents who were told that the policy was to move foster kids every couple of years.  The policy was to pressure foster parents to adopt.  It doesn't take a degree in child development to know that is bad for kids.  Things like that need to change.  

 

[Ravin]

With the crunchy liberal side of things, I doubt it's so much "superiority" as "total obvliviousness." One, white people are often not taught to think of race and culture as intermixing things--the idea that African-Americans have distinct culture is something that a lot of people simply don't get. Second, people who think they are rescuing poor children often don't consciously see the problems with the FOO in terms of race--"but I have black friends and they aren't like that!" etc.

I do think the last few years have been consciousness-raising for many people--but those in their bubbles are still very insulated. 

The description of the mom encouraging her son to get over her fear of police and hug the guy for the picture in the article posted above makes my blood run cold, though. How oblivious can you be, while being involved in activism, not to see what you are doing? I guess it goes back to the whole "savior complex" thing? Again, a mindset that I have trouble wrapping my head around.

FWIW, I do think that there is dangerous ground to tread if we start thinking in terms of keeping kids with same race adoptive placements as being in their best interests. What about if the situation is flipped, with black parents and a white foster-adopted kid? Recognizing that the two situations do not have equal concerns is so far beyond the prevalent thinking in our justice system I don't even know where to begin. It absolutely is not something that should be a reason to keep kids in foster care or institutionalized. It is a good reason to place kids with extended family whenever possible--which many states at least try to do.  

[Tsuga]

On 4/8/2018 at 10:09 AM, Sneezyone said:

I don’t understand continuing to give these women the benefit of the doubt. Family annihilators come in all shapes, sizes, colors and sexual orientations. 

I don't think the mystery is coming from the racial or gender makeup of the family. It's that people who have foster kids often are already in contact with the system because their kids are already in the system, and because nobody was there.

It appears more and more that there's no other explanation for the car going over the cliff, however, I don't think anyone is defending these two. It's like when a baby dies being left in a car. Some people are quick to scream that the parents are murderers, and others will wait to judge because accidents do happen.

[Ravin]

5 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

 

I know of two foster parents who were told that the policy was to move foster kids every couple of years.  The policy was to pressure foster parents to adopt.  It doesn't take a degree in child development to know that is bad for kids.  Things like that need to change.  

 

Any state with a policy like that is flying in the face of the Federal regulations which must be followed to get much of their funding. Disrupting a placement is the opposite of the underlying purpose of encouraging permanency through adoption.

[Tsuga]

1 minute ago, Ravin said:

 

FWIW, I do think that there is dangerous ground to tread if we start thinking in terms of keeping kids with same race adoptive placements as being in their best interests.

Race-based placements are to me insane simply because race doesn't exist. There's just a bunch of coloring and characteristics that usually go together. I get that race exists in our minds, but for the purposes of something like this--there aren't defined enough lines.

And what about a white mom whose baby is black? Can she keep her own biological kid? Should they have taken me from my white mom and given me to the aunt whom I look like who is not white?

Would this factor into custody cases? "Well, the white looking kids go with the white parent, the dark kids go with the dark parent..."

I think the best thing would be to continue to emphasize possibility of a relationship with the birth parent except in worst-case scenario, so that kids stay in their communities. This would prevent more removal of kids from their heritage.

[Tsuga]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

Lagnuishing in foster care for life because of your race, which is what happens to many Native American kids because of laws, is not a protection. 

It doesn't happen to NA kids because of this law.

It happens because of a concentrated, intentional, documented effort to destroy their entire nation.

[TravelingChris]

20 minutes ago, Farrar said:

 telling his white parents that the school and others were always bringing up his race and heritage and he didn't understand why. 

 

 

Farrar, I know that this kid was playing off the school and the parents but I actually was tutoring a biracial child who was light caramel skinned with African type hair who was upset that the school had such an emphasis on Black History Month and kept insisting she was black.  She was a first grader, not adopted or fostered, but living with her natural white mother and her natural black father was not in the picture.  She also had ties with her white grandparents and older sister (I don't know what she looked like).  The mom had issues (I suspect she was a drug user/prostitute) but overall, the child was usually well cared for.  

As for adoptive parents of cross cultural children, I have met many of them.  I am trying to think of white parents with black adoptees and I can only think of one right now.   They were living in a multi-cultural, multi- race area and attending a church with a multi-cultural, multi-race congregation.  I just saw them at church and they seemed to be a happy family. THe one family I knew where having problems was a couple who adopted a Russian boy who lied and stole (and probably other issues too- those were just the ones I observed as he stole my phone).

[TravelingChris]

Ravin-  I completely agree with you about races being cultural/societal constructs.  And it is even dangerous in a lot of medical situations because diseases that affect primarily one group can often also affect some others too= sickle cell anemia, for one.  I have one that in this country, is much more common in AA and Latinas- lupus.  But worldwide, 21% are European and that is my heritage. ANd the other way too- as in MS which is most common in northern Europeans or those with that ancestry.

[Ravin]

30 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

Race-based placements are to me insane simply because race doesn't exist. There's just a bunch of coloring and characteristics that usually go together. I get that race exists in our minds, but for the purposes of something like this--there aren't defined enough lines.

And what about a white mom whose baby is black? Can she keep her own biological kid? Should they have taken me from my white mom and given me to the aunt whom I look like who is not white?

Would this factor into custody cases? "Well, the white looking kids go with the white parent, the dark kids go with the dark parent..."

I think the best thing would be to continue to emphasize possibility of a relationship with the birth parent except in worst-case scenario, so that kids stay in their communities. This would prevent more removal of kids from their heritage.

Recognizing that race is not an inherent biological characteristic is not the same as claiming it does not exist. Race is a cultural construct--a powerful one. It's as real as money, or religion, or the rule of law. Ignoring it while the mechanisms affecting people based upon it continue to oppress while claiming to be blind is one of the great absurdities of modern America.

This is why I have repeatedly said that preferences for family placement are a good thing.

Also, with regards to the earlier dig against ICWA made by kdsuomi: children do not fall under ICWA based upon race, but rather based upon their political status as member-citizens of indigenous nations, or eligibility for member-citizenship in an indigenous nation. That such membership is tied to ancestry in most cases does not mean it is about race (and is a whole other conversation, because white supremacy certainly played a role in how those requirements came to be for many tribes, but no one can change that but those tribes themselves). For some tribes that have ancestry roll requirements rather than blood quantum requirements, a child could have had a great-great-great grandparent who was on that roll, and every other ancestor was white, or black, and still be a member of that nation. Heck, I know people who are members of a tribe based on one-quarter blood quantum who most people wouldn't pick out of a crowd as native based on looks. There are other people who are all or nearly all Native American, but lack eligibility for membership in any Federally-recognized tribe because they lack sufficient ancestry from a single tribe or nation to qualify for membership in it. Such a person, as a child, would not fall under ICWA. It's not about race.

[Tsuga]

5 minutes ago, Ravin said:

Recognizing that race is not an inherent biological characteristic is not the same as claiming it does not exist. Race is a cultural construct--a powerful one. It's as real as money, or religion, or the rule of law. Ignoring it while the mechanisms affecting people based upon it continue to oppress while claiming to be blind is one of the great absurdities of modern America.

This is why I have repeatedly said that preferences for family placement are a good thing.

Also, with regards to the earlier dig against ICWA made by kdsuomi: children do not fall under ICWA based upon race, but rather based upon their political status as member-citizens of indigenous nations, or eligibility for member-citizenship in an indigenous nation. ... Such a person, as a child, would not fall under ICWA. It's not about race.

I agree about family placement. I think we are on the same page. I think that the cultural construct of children is really hard to argue, because while their physical and genetic characteristics exist at birth, their culture does not.

We are mestizo and so we are among the many native mixed people who would neither be protected nor harmed by a law on natives. And you can pick us out of a crowd. :)

I was more adding my 2c than trying to argue against you. I was arguing that race-based placements don't make sense for the exact reasons you say.

[Sneezyone]

45 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

Race-based placements are to me insane simply because race doesn't exist. There's just a bunch of coloring and characteristics that usually go together. I get that race exists in our minds, but for the purposes of something like this--there aren't defined enough lines.

And what about a white mom whose baby is black? Can she keep her own biological kid? Should they have taken me from my white mom and given me to the aunt whom I look like who is not white?

Would this factor into custody cases? "Well, the white looking kids go with the white parent, the dark kids go with the dark parent..."

I think the best thing would be to continue to emphasize possibility of a relationship with the birth parent except in worst-case scenario, so that kids stay in their communities. This would prevent more removal of kids from their heritage.

I’m certainly not arguing for race-based placement. I’m suggesting culturally-open and aware placements should be the norm. Presumably, in the scenario described, the child has maintained a connection to a part of his/her culture and family of origin. 

I just think it’s important to minimize losses, to the extent possible, for kids who are already experiencing a disconnection/adoption. And when I see people (as these moms did) essentially erasing or poo-pooing those connections it bothers me. I’m also not suggesting poverty or abuse or other income-related characteristics often imputed to blackness are culture either. 

There is, in truth, a distinct AA culture that’s not so different from others related to family structures/hierarchies, social gatherings, etc. Any given person may not share in all experiences or traditions but there’s usually enough that, upon meeting someone, we can find common ground and feel that connection. I don’t think matching families have to be the priority to achieve that level of cultural competence but it’s really sad when the culture itself is poo-poohed or devalued.

[Liz CA]

11 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

 Then the AA children were placed in a home in a virtually all-white community with very young parents who were unprepared to parent them. Even if the parents had not been abusive, the environment would expose the children to violence. This keeps happening to minority children.

 

 

Need clarification on the bolded. Are you saying that AA children placed in Caucasian homes are always exposed to violence? Are you saying that even if the Harts had not been abusive, the children would have been exposed to violence?

[Liz CA]

17 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

There is, in truth, a distinct AA culture that’s not so different from others related to family structures/hierarchies, social gatherings, etc. Any given person may not share in all experiences or traditions but there’s usually enough that, upon meeting someone, we can find common ground and feel that connection. I don’t think matching families have to be the priority to achieve that level of cultural competence but it’s really sad when the culture itself is poo-poohed or devalued.

 

I agree with this. I have seen children placed in homes where the foster parents where of a different culture and yet they flourished, their connections were fostered and they seemed to grow up feeling secure and loved.

[Ravin]

38 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

Need clarification on the bolded. Are you saying that AA children placed in Caucasian homes are always exposed to violence? Are you saying that even if the Harts had not been abusive, the children would have been exposed to violence?

African American children growing up in the U.S. A. are exposed to violence. I suspect the point was that the placement meant that they had less shelter from that exposure than they would have had with culturally relevant protections and understanding in place, in a place where they were less racially isolated. Safety in numbers and all that. 

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

Are there statistics on this - especially on African American kids adopted by white families? I've seen many families in that situation, but I've seen a lot more families where the cross racial lines were kids adopted by white families from abroad who were Latinx or Asian. I have the sense that those issues are more well-trod in the adoption community? I've known white parents of Asian adoptees who were very involved in trying to make sure their kids' heritage was something they had access to. The one time this made me uncomfortable was when a kid, who had a lot of other issues and was in the midst of getting a diagnosis on those issues, was telling teachers and peers at school that he was super interested in his heritage and telling his white parents that the school and others were always bringing up his race and heritage and he didn't understand why. So, as a result, the parents were super hostile about anyone helping him explore it or helping him be in touch with that heritage. Watching that dynamic play out made me very uncomfortable, but... there were so many things at play as well there.

I can easily imagine that white parents of African American adoptees, especially kids adopted at an older age from difficult situations (whether justified removals or not) wouldn't be as keen to have their kids involved in African American culture. For one thing, they went cross-city to get their kids, not halfway around the world, so the cultural differences don't seem important. But there could also be cultural superiority at work. :( Ugh. But I don't know that that's the case. Like, I definitely know that some parents make strong efforts not to fall into that thinking. But I don't know what the overall picture there is.

I think the reality is that cross racial adoption is here to stay and can be positive. It's just how can it be supported and discussed? 

I didn’t want to ignore this. It’s been a long time since I looked at these issues very closely, almost 15 now, when DH and I were evaluating our own limits and preferences. 

I did find this link tho, which I think does a good job of summarizing some of the history, schools of thought, and areas of scientific inquiry where transracial adoption is concerned. It also might give some context for the confusing behaviors PPs have seen in kids they know personally.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366972/#!po=28.0142

[gardenmom5]

11 hours ago, SKL said:

I don't understand why the environment would expose children to violence even if the parents had not been abusive.  In all statistical likelihood, they were removed from an environment that was much more likely to expose them to violence.

You're right, we don't know why they were removed.  However - and I've studied a lot of cases - I'm not aware of a trend toward permanently removing black sibling groups from their parents and making them available for adoption without there being significant long-term problems with the parents.  I did know of a mom who lost 5 kids due to drug abuse and other issues.  They let her keep her 6th baby against the strong advice of the social workers.  The baby was murdered within 6 weeks.  But the social workers must have been racist.

Racism does play a role at times, e.g. when a parent has been accused of neglect for letting a kid play at the park while she works nearby during summer vacation.  I believe race was a factor when a woman was charged because her 4yo darted in front of a speeding drunk driver as the family crossed the street with their groceries.  I'm sure it's a factor other times.  But I think it's quite a stretch to imply that nice black families are having their kids systematically snatched from them so they can grow up with dangerous white people.

You say why didn't people believe the kids - that is always a question.  It happens to kids of all colors when they report abuse.  However, we do know that people did report this family on multiple occasions.  They were investigated.  They were charged.  They were convicted.  They kept doing it anyway.  This also happens to kids of all colors.

people not believing kids complaining "something is wrong" in their home, is hardly new.   abused kids for years have complained they weren't believed.   re: larry nassars victims.   years ago (80's) - sesame street had a snuffeluppagus who was only seen by big bird.  they thought it was funny to have no one believe big bird about his friend.   they got a heck of a lot of letters complaining about the message they were sending kids about adults not believing them.   especially abused kids.   so, for months they would run the story line that one adult believed him - and was waiting around to try and meet snuffy - but always missed him.  the message was - the adult believed even without "proof".

2 hours ago, Tsuga said:

Race-based placements are to me insane simply because race doesn't exist. There's just a bunch of coloring and characteristics that usually go together. I get that race exists in our minds, but for the purposes of something like this--there aren't defined enough lines.

And what about a white mom whose baby is black? Can she keep her own biological kid? Should they have taken me from my white mom and given me to the aunt whom I look like who is not white?

Would this factor into custody cases? "Well, the white looking kids go with the white parent, the dark kids go with the dark parent..."

I think the best thing would be to continue to emphasize possibility of a relationship with the birth parent except in worst-case scenario, so that kids stay in their communities. This would prevent more removal of kids from their heritage.

 

or the very recent case in florida of the indian mom with the white boyfriend whose mother manipulated both the tribe and the hospital to take the baby from the (non-reservation) hospital and run.  because indian grandma didn't want the baby anywhere near a white man.  (there were many who violated the law/policy - from the tribal police to the hospital staff - but that doesn't get the baby back if they can't find her.)

 

[SKL]

17 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

This isn't directly aimed at you Farrar, I'm just using your quote because this is something I keep hearing- about some of these behaviours as being typical of kids who came out of the foster system......Can we talk about this a little further? I'm not familiar with adoption or fostering really- we never have nor do we have any friends that have, so this statement sort of surprised me. It seems like maybe training people to expect issues and overlook certain behaviors because they're a result of trauma, fostering or other things rather than an indication of abuse leaves the kids even more open to falling through a crack? I get that kids can have bad behavior issues, but it seems like training teachers to view these issues as "kid" issues rather than potential abuse issues is going to leave a lot of kids in a lurch. They're already vulnerable, and it just seems like that view makes it way too easy to pass off abuse as a kids' behavior issue rather than a parental issue. I know there is a fine line, and I've read about the RAD kids and whatnot, but at what point do we give the kid the benefit of the doubt and look a little closer at the parents?  

The one article upthread had one of the women blaming bruises on falling down the stairs. How many adolescents fall down stairs? And did no one really notice the missing front teeth of the one child? I mean really. It's like an excuse out of a bad 80's Farrah Fawcett movie. "Oh I walked into a door." 

I guess I'm curious about how much is overlooked, or how often teachers and/or others in a similar position like camp counselors or coaches are told to overlook certain things as being typical of fostered kids with abusive pasts (I'm assuming these kids were abused and not orphaned into the system......). I just feel like it leaves the kids completely exposed to being targeted by abuse. They're already so vulnerable and it's pretty obvious that abuse of children is a global issue, with no country or organization being exempt- not churches, not schools and teachers, not sports, etc. The mindset that these kids are prone to food issues or lying would seem to paint a target on them for other potential abusers, because who is going to believe them, and probably even as much, after what they've been through are they really going to bit the literal hand that feeds? 

It's really upsetting that in this day and age, there is still NO totally safe, or even mostly safe place for children. I know there's probably no answer. This is just one of those stories I can't shake. I think because these kids weren't chained in a cage or locked in a basement. They were out on social media, being traipsed around at rallies to the glorification of their sadistic mothers while no one did a thing to help them. It's just so f-ed up. 

It's really a complicated issue.  It is true that kids who are adopted have a higher rate of many mental health problems and also of being abuse victims.  (The rate increases with the number of custody disruptions and the age at placement.)  There is probably much interplay between the two statistics - a child who is very troubled can be impossible to manage with the usual discipline methods, so some people will up the discipline until it is abuse.  This can be reduced by giving adoptive parents much better training and support throughout the years.  However, it can be scary to ask for help and really hard to know what kind of help to request.  There is a huge amount of judgment out there from people who don't get it.

And yes, kids with adoption-related emotional issues do sometimes present or talk as if they were maybe being abused / neglected.  Like the "always hungry" of a food hoarder who is actually in danger of health problems from over-eating.  I know one mom whose kid started hollering (at a party) "don't hit me again" when she had never ever hit him in his life.  Some kids engage in self-harm which may look like abuse or may be suspected to be a symptom of torture.  Adoptees also have a high rate of suicide / attempted suicide.  And yet, we know for sure that some adopted kids are abused.

Reporting is tough because it's hard to know whether the child and parents are going to be treated fairly / helped vs. just traumatized.  The last thing an adoptee needs is another disruption.  Maybe it would help if there were a special section of CPS that specialized in adoptees, so they could look at a situation through an educated filter.  But all I ever hear about is how they are under-resourced, so I don't see that happening.

[SKL]

Regarding the discussion about cultural continuity ....

First and foremost, I don't think we know that that has anything to do with this case.  I don't know that the moms didn't care or didn't try to help the kids connect with / celebrate their culture of origin.  The fact that they adopted two sibling groups of all AA children could indicate that they were considering their kids' needs to have someone to share that with at home etc.  I haven't heard any proof that they were unaware or disdainful of the potential need to connect.  (Obviously talking about before they took the kids off the grid all together.)  The crying photo with the cop was weird, knowing that it was forced, but the fact that they were at a blm rally says something too.

Second, this is another complex issue, but based on my observations and experience being in the interracial adoption community, this is something that needs to be largely child-led.  Opportunities, information, and openness need to be provided, but children will differ in the degree to which they are interested, and this also changes for each child over time.  It's wrong to assume my kids are going to prefer friends with similar skin color or family backgrounds.  It's even more wrong to assume they will like Hispanic food or Latino music or prefer Latina role models.  Being an adoptive parent, like any other kind of parent, is often more about listening to our kids than anything else.

This is another thing that is easy to judge from the outside.  People like me went into this thinking of all the ways we were going to keep the connection for our kids.  We bought Mayan dolls and bought toys that spoke Spanish.  I could fill a book.  Some of that was valued by the kids, but most of it wasn't.  And that's OK.

[Sneezyone]

So, I’m going to try to explain my feelings WRT my own family, which might be a total fail but please know that I'm not trying to dig at anyone.

I grew up living near and interacting with a very large extended family. Both sides of my family are very different. One side is more learned, traveled and high-income. The other side is more coarse and working class. Both sides, however, are multi-racial. We moved away from family when my sister was very young so she didn’t get the benefit of building meaningful/shared relationships with our family. I did.

I learned things like, who gets served first, who wont eat soul/southern food, who preps the best dishes, etc. My sister did not. Where I learned what hot topics will trigger Uncle J to blow his top, my sister did not. I knew not to play Scrabble with my aunts (they are cut throat); my sister did not. Cousin C, like her mother, is a bully so I steered clear. My sister did not. You get the idea.

My sister often struggled to find her place and feel comfortable at family gatherings. She had no shared experiences on which to draw and didn’t know all the small, hidden ways that we communicated with each other or the unwritten rules of behavior. For ex. no, ma’am, you cannot sit down to play dominoes/card games with your paternal elders unless/until you are invited. It wasn't the stuff of life that made us family. It was the deep, meaningful, regular, common interactions with this diverse group of people that made the difference between my comfort and her discomfort. It was knowing the songs they liked, the dances they performed, the speech patterns and being comfortable with it (not necessarily enjoying or participating).

When you’re immersed in a diverse family like this (which is really like most families, no?), you begin to realize that the things that make you family aren’t your skin tone, hair texture, favorite foods, income, occupation, etc. Family is not something you have to try to be, it’s just who you are. It took my sister a lot longer to figure that out and find her way amongst them than it did for me. It’s not that it couldn’t be done but that it was harder for her and she had lots of stumbles along the way. Her relationships with them will never be as free and easy as my own.

With that said, I’m not just part of my immediate family. I have a black American identity/family as well. Despite the many variations in this family there are many commonalities as well. In my maternal family, they substitute Scrabble and bridge for spades and whist, but the rules of engagement were the same...enter at your own risk.

What I’ve seen in the writings of many adult transracial adoptees reminds me of this dynamic. Some of them struggle to see themselves as part of a larger ethnic family. Sometimes they sense adoptive parent discomfort (even when it may not be there). Sometimes, they reject what they’ve heard/seen of the family. Sometimes they feel rejected by the family when they do make contact. I think, though I could be wrong, that some don’t see it as inclusive because they haven’t grown up knowing or seeing that there’s no one way to be a part of it. They see/define the family by its stereotypes (the things people observe when they peek in the window) and either fail to, choose not to, or take longer to see that the culture is so much more than that.

OK, so to strain the analogy even more, could my mother and father have let us choose whether we wanted to attend these family gatherings and get to know our family culture? Sure, that’s a perfectly valid choice, rather like unschooling I think. Would it have been even harder for us to find our place within our family if they had? Most definitely. Do people walk away from their families, of course! They may experience it and decide they hate it. I still think it's important to know it for what it is though.

There are many different ways these things can turn out and many ways parents can approach things. There’s no guarantee of anything and many lines of inquiry/study with no solid conclusions. At the same time, I just know that it’s sad to watch people, as I did my sister, struggle to find commonality with people who could enrich their lives tremendously.

As for this Hart family, I think it's hard to argue that the parents weren't intentionally isolating these kids, using them as props, and sharing their stories for their own gain and not that of the children. They uprooted them multiple times in a very short period of time, something no trauma mamas that I know would willingly do.

[KrissiK]

I have enjoyed reading through this tread.  I am an adoptive mother of 5 children, adopted in three separate adoptions through the foster care system. One of our children is bi-racial, and the other 4 are Hispanic, which is the dominant culture in our area. As I read through this thread I had something to say in my mind about most posts. It is a hard thing to discuss, because there is nothing hard, fast, or regular about adopting or foster care. All three of our adoptions were as different from each other as can be. All of our children’s back stories are different, the way the system dealt with them in foster care, the social workers we dealt with.... everything was literally flying by the seat of our pants. It was a very difficult time in my life because the system can be abusive and traumatic to foster/adoptive parents as well.

[Farrar]

3 hours ago, texasmom33 said:

This isn't directly aimed at you Farrar, I'm just using your quote because this is something I keep hearing- about some of these behaviours as being typical of kids who came out of the foster system......Can we talk about this a little further? I'm not familiar with adoption or fostering really- we never have nor do we have any friends that have, so this statement sort of surprised me. It seems like maybe training people to expect issues and overlook certain behaviors because they're a result of trauma, fostering or other things rather than an indication of abuse leaves the kids even more open to falling through a crack? I get that kids can have bad behavior issues, but it seems like training teachers to view these issues as "kid" issues rather than potential abuse issues is going to leave a lot of kids in a lurch. They're already vulnerable, and it just seems like that view makes it way too easy to pass off abuse as a kids' behavior issue rather than a parental issue. I know there is a fine line, and I've read about the RAD kids and whatnot, but at what point do we give the kid the benefit of the doubt and look a little closer at the parents?  

The one article upthread had one of the women blaming bruises on falling down the stairs. How many adolescents fall down stairs? And did no one really notice the missing front teeth of the one child? I mean really. It's like an excuse out of a bad 80's Farrah Fawcett movie. "Oh I walked into a door." 

I guess I'm curious about how much is overlooked, or how often teachers and/or others in a similar position like camp counselors or coaches are told to overlook certain things as being typical of fostered kids with abusive pasts (I'm assuming these kids were abused and not orphaned into the system......). I just feel like it leaves the kids completely exposed to being targeted by abuse. They're already so vulnerable and it's pretty obvious that abuse of children is a global issue, with no country or organization being exempt- not churches, not schools and teachers, not sports, etc. The mindset that these kids are prone to food issues or lying would seem to paint a target on them for other potential abusers, because who is going to believe them, and probably even as much, after what they've been through are they really going to bit the literal hand that feeds? 

It's really upsetting that in this day and age, there is still NO totally safe, or even mostly safe place for children. I know there's probably no answer. This is just one of those stories I can't shake. I think because these kids weren't chained in a cage or locked in a basement. They were out on social media, being traipsed around at rallies to the glorification of their sadistic mothers while no one did a thing to help them. It's just so f-ed up. 

SKL addressed some of this stuff with more nuance than I feel like I can, but I'll say I never felt like I was getting a training that encouraged me to overlook signs of abuse. It was more like, here are some behaviors that are common among some adopted kids that you may be thinking are huge problems or "weird" but are actually totally within the realm of being normal parts of transition and here's why. I guess I thought of it more as being like learning to recognize that stemming behaviors are normal for some non-NT kids and don't need to be stigmatized or given special negative attention in and of themselves. I think... a child who is always hoarding food and always asking for food is different from a child who is literally saying, "my parents don't feed me" or coming to school showing signs of actually being underfed. Like, in this case, the girl going next door and begging for food and saying don't tell my parents... that I might give the benefit of the doubt because maybe the parents are trying to work on these issues, etc. But her saying, they beat me, they don't feed me... more concerning. Like, way more. And her being so thin that she seems to have not gone through puberty and to be so underweight... majorly concerning. None of that is within the realm of normal.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

So, I’m going to try to explain my feelings WRT my own family, which might be a total fail but please know that I'm not trying to dig at anyone.

I grew up living near and interacting with a very large extended family. Both sides of my family are very different. One side is more learned, traveled and high-income. The other side is more coarse and working class. Both sides, however, are multi-racial. We moved away from family when my sister was very young so she didn’t get the benefit of building meaningful/shared relationships with our family. I did.

I learned things like, who gets served first, who wont eat soul/southern food, who preps the best dishes, etc. My sister did not. Where I learned what hot topics will trigger Uncle J to blow his top, my sister did not. I knew not to play Scrabble with my aunts (they are cut throat); my sister did not. Cousin C, like her mother, is a bully so I steered clear. My sister did not. You get the idea.

My sister often struggled to find her place and feel comfortable at family gatherings. She had no shared experiences on which to draw and didn’t know all the small, hidden ways that we communicated with each other or the unwritten rules of behavior. For ex. no, ma’am, you cannot sit down to play dominoes/card games with your paternal elders unless/until you are invited. It wasn't the stuff of life that made us family. It was the deep, meaningful, regular, common interactions with this diverse group of people that made the difference between my comfort and her discomfort. It was knowing the songs they liked, the dances they performed, the speech patterns and being comfortable with it (not necessarily enjoying or participating).

When you’re immersed in a diverse family like this (which is really like most families, no?), you begin to realize that the things that make you family aren’t your skin tone, hair texture, favorite foods, income, occupation, etc. Family is not something you have to try to be, it’s just who you are. It took my sister a lot longer to figure that out and find her way amongst them than it did for me. It’s not that it couldn’t be done but that it was harder for her and she had lots of stumbles along the way. Her relationships with them will never be as free and easy as my own.

With that said, I’m not just part of my immediate family. I have a black American identity/family as well. Despite the many variations in this family there are many commonalities as well. In my maternal family, they substitute Scrabble and bridge for spades and whist, but the rules of engagement were the same...enter at your own risk.

What I’ve seen in the writings of many adult transracial adoptees reminds me of this dynamic. Some of them struggle to see themselves as part of a larger ethnic family. Sometimes they sense adoptive parent discomfort (even when it may not be there). Sometimes, they reject what they’ve heard/seen of the family. Sometimes they feel rejected by the family when they do make contact. I think, though I could be wrong, that some don’t see it as inclusive because they haven’t grown up knowing or seeing that there’s no one way to be a part of it. They see/define the family by its stereotypes (the things people observe when they peek in the window) and either fail to, choose not to, or take longer to see that the culture is so much more than that.

OK, so to strain the analogy even more, could my mother and father have let us choose whether we wanted to attend these family gatherings and get to know our family culture? Sure, that’s a perfectly valid choice, rather like unschooling I think. Would it have been even harder for us to find our place within our family if they had? Most definitely. Do people walk away from their families, of course! They may experience it and decide they hate it. I still think it's important to know it for what it is though.

There are many different ways these things can turn out and many ways parents can approach things. There’s no guarantee of anything and many lines of inquiry/study with no solid conclusions. At the same time, I just know that it’s sad to watch people, as I did my sister, struggle to find commonality with people who could enrich their lives tremendously.

As for this Hart family, I think it's hard to argue that the parents weren't intentionally isolating these kids, using them as props, and sharing their stories for their own gain and not that of the children. They uprooted them multiple times in a very short period of time, something no trauma mamas that I know would willingly do.

 

I get what you are saying, and I don't disagree.  That said, kids who are available for adoption often don't have the option to experience childhood the way you describe yours.  For those kids, foster parents (from whatever ethnic background) do the best they can.  To the extent there are AA foster families available to mentor AA children, I am all for that, but I would not deny a child an available placement just because of anybody's skin color (or gender etc. etc.).

I do think the Hart moms were isolating the kids and moving them far too often, but I don't assume that this was something they planned or that could have been predicted when they took custody.  (Though, of course I don't know enough to judge whether they were properly screened.)  I'm not trying to excuse the Harts, but I am responding to some comments regarding any white people adopting nonwhite kids.  I think most adoptive parents do a reasonable job, just like most bio parents do.

[SKL]

Also - from the perspective of an adopted kid, in their heart it may be more important to be part of a nuclear / extended adoptive family than to be part of an ethnic group / community.  The feeling of belonging is relevant on many levels.  Many of us get to take it for granted, but an adopted kid has to build it up on each of those levels.  What's most important to him at a given time will depend on things outside anyone else's control.

[Ravin]

7 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

people not believing kids complaining "something is wrong" in their home, is hardly new.   abused kids for years have complained they weren't believed.   re: larry nassars victims.   years ago (80's) - sesame street had a snuffeluppagus who was only seen by big bird.  they thought it was funny to have no one believe big bird about his friend.   they got a heck of a lot of letters complaining about the message they were sending kids about adults not believing them.   especially abused kids.   so, for months they would run the story line that one adult believed him - and was waiting around to try and meet snuffy - but always missed him.  the message was - the adult believed even without "proof".

 

or the very recent case in florida of the indian mom with the white boyfriend whose mother manipulated both the tribe and the hospital to take the baby from the (non-reservation) hospital and run.  because indian grandma didn't want the baby anywhere near a white man.  (there were many who violated the law/policy - from the tribal police to the hospital staff - but that doesn't get the baby back if they can't find her.)

 

The scenario you describe in Florida has nothing to do with ICWA. Non-Indian parents of Indian children have the same rights Indian parents do, and ICWA does not cover custodial disputes between parents. Issues between biological parents are outside of the purview of ICWA.

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, Ravin said:

The scenario you describe in Florida has nothing to do with ICWA. Non-Indian parents of Indian children have the same rights Indian parents do, and ICWA does not cover custodial disputes between parents. Issues between biological parents are outside of the purview of ICWA.

as I said - the hospital and the tribal police didn't follow the law or policy.  (the retired tribal police chief was livid when he found out about this.)

if the hospital had followed the law, the would have made it go through the legal system instead of just handing over the baby.   the tribal police - backed grandma and went to the hospital - which was outside their jurisdiction and lied to get the baby.

neither party followed the law.  

[Ravin]

7 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

as I said - the hospital and the tribal police didn't follow the law or policy.  (the retired tribal police chief was livid when he found out about this.)

if the hospital had followed the law, the would have made it go through the legal system instead of just handing over the baby.   the tribal police - backed grandma and went to the hospital - which was outside their jurisdiction and lied to get the baby.

neither party followed the law.  

Familial kidnappings happen all the time. Not sure what that has to do with anything, including any of the rabbit trails from this thread.

[umsami]

AP and Daily Mail are reporting that the driving Mom was drunk, and that her wife and at least two of the kids had high levels of Benadryl in their system.

 

I'm wondering if there was any domestic violence in their relationship.  It wouldn't surprise me. :(

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5613925/Police-Woman-drove-SUV-family-cliff-drunk.html

[Ravin]

So the kids and passenger mom had all taken benadryl, maybe to sleep during the nighttime drive. Driver mom consumed alcohol (maybe while stopped at the pull-over), then took them over the cliff.

[unsinkable]

56 minutes ago, Ravin said:

So the kids and passenger mom had all taken benadryl, maybe to sleep during the nighttime drive. Driver mom consumed alcohol (maybe while stopped at the pull-over), then took them over the cliff.

Oh my gosh. Kind of like Diane Schuler. Those poor kids.

[unsinkable]

http://www.oregonlive.com

There are links to several stories re the crash, including interviews with some of the kids' biological mom. 

I don't even know what to say.