Also I can't imagine what it's like to be a foster parent. "Here's a child, probably with some difficult issues and in desperate need of love and stability, that you need to parent, but don't love her too much or anything and don't get attached because she's not really your child at all and any stability you give her is kind of pointless because she's going to go away soon anyway. Also your opinion about what's best for her is meaningless." That would take a very specific kind of personality I think. I understand why so few people want to do it.
Our neighbors were foster parents in a previous state and are going through the process to get certified here. I've talked to them about it some and it's really amazing how dedicated they are. I can't imagine going through all of the emotions myself.
For a lot of foster families, with kids on the road to adoption from horrific situations into a loving home, there is a ton of satisfaction seeing a child placed in a loving, caring, stable environment and there is so much hope for the children.
For the children that go through reunification successfully, there is hope that all the counseling and training gives the parents at least some guidance and that social services stay at least on the fringe to make sure kids remain safe. There is always an underlying worry that the parents might revert, even if for a short while. If the kids are old enough, and the foster family was a good fit and stable, often the kids remain in contact, just to keep that little bit of stability in their lives because it was so important to them at that time.
For families that struggle, there is heartbreak.
Just like with your own kids, when they leave the nest, you hope they fly. The joy of seeing that happen outweighs the heartbreak by a mile. That's why families do it. They want to see the children safe and secure, and they want to do their part in seeing that it happens more often than not. It's why there are social workers, GALS, foster families and so many people willing to form a circle around children in crisis, despite the pay.
This articlereally shows that the father and family have been trying to get custody and the little girl back since 2011. I still feel terrible for the little girl, but lesssymathetic for the foster family after reading that.
ttt I do want to say that I hear what you're saying in terms of the number of placements. Your comments are a good reminder for me that I can be pretty jaded in terms of my experience--I'm over here thinking 'three placements is *below average* for a child on a concurrent plan', but I don't mean to discount the fact that each and every single placement is difficult on a child, and that all of the care providers should carefully weigh whether the benefits of a change of placement outweigh the cost.
At the same time, I think we could probably do a better job training foster parents about what to expect, and how the process usually works. Some foster parents got it--they understood that the initial goals were always reunification and family placement, and they worked with the caseworker in meeting those goals for the child. Many of the foster parents who were really skilled in respite care or intake placements didn't actually encourage the kiddos in their care to call them "mom". Sometimes they were 'grandma' or 'auntie', or whatever each family decided on, but they were always clear with the kiddos that they were there to keep them safe, fed, and loved until their family was ready to take care of them. They were really conscious about the type of bond that they were creating with the kiddo in a placement that was designed to be temporary.
On the other hand, I also saw parents whose goal was to adopt be placed with kids who weren't legally free for adoption, and then as I mentioned before, the interests are conflicting. But, there's always a shortage of foster parents, and so sometimes the hope is that a respite placement with a family who really wants to adopt is better than a facility placement. But sometimes, that can be disastrous, even if the foster family's heart is in the right place.
Then you bring ICWA into things--in the heart of CEP, let's not forget that one of the reasons ICWA was put into place was to address systemic racism that existed throughout child welfare in the 70's. It's been awhile, so check my facts, but I believe the statistic was that NA children were removed from their home at 3 times the rate of white/caucasian children, and were much less likely to be placed with a relative, even when one was available and interested in caring for the child and met the requirements of DHS. The reality was that in the 70's, NA children were removed from their bio parents and adopted by white parents at a really disproportionate rate. Additionally, a LOT of the removals were due to cultural issues and differences rather than safety threats. The assumption was that these NA kids would be "better off" with white parents than their bio parents. ICWA was the attempt to address all of those issues. Would it be better if we could look at things on a case by case basis? Well, sure. But I'm not sure how ICWA could be implemented on a case-by-case basis without the danger of repeating that institutionalized racism, honestly.
And I know this has been a wall of text, but the last thing I have to say on the matter is that even if Lexi's foster parents were 100% in the right here (I don't think they are), I find the way that they handled the transition to be absolutely abhorrent. Starting a hashtag, inviting a media circus to your home, and inviting the whole community to sing "How Great Thou Art" as you plead with God to "save Lexi" before the caseworkers arrive, and then screaming and falling to the ground crying is NOT in the best interests of the child. Ever. If they truly cared about the best interests of Lexi, this transition would have been handled in an entirely different way. It's like the Bible story with King Solomon and the baby. Those foster parents allowed Lexi to be cut right in half--because it seems to be about them, not about her.
If the timeline on this is correct, then I have less sympathy for the family. The father was in jail for one year and reunification was attempted. The Utah family has a relationship with Lexi, cited as familial and continued. I'm sure the article is biased in preference to the tribal rights, but if there is truth to the timeline, the Pages knew for several years that the child was under ICWA jurisdiction, which means family and extended family are preferred placements.
ETA: But again, the problem I have is that Lexi is NOT Native American. She has 1.5% heritage and as far as I can tell, her family claims only minimal heritage, if at all beyond custody matters. But even absent ICWA, family placements are preferred. I'd like to know why the family wasn't the initial placement. All of this furor would never have happened.
I know a large number of people who count themselves as aboriginal or native and have similar heritage. It is not for us to define someone else's culture. When the European heritage has been forcefully breed into you, when your culture is stolen, when your language is denied and all in your own country then the percentage is what it is. Milk and tea is still tea. I think this is a separate issue than the foster and adoption process that is common within these communities but the she is not native because she is only 1.5% is offensive
If the timeline on this is correct, then I have less sympathy for the family. The father was in jail for one year and reunification was attempted. The Utah family has a relationship with Lexi, cited as familial and continued. I'm sure the article is biased in preference to the tribal rights, but if there is truth to the timeline, the Pages knew for several years that the child was under ICWA jurisdiction, which means family and extended family are preferred placements.
ETA: But again, the problem I have is that Lexi is NOT Native American. She has 1.5% heritage and as far as I can tell, her family claims only minimal heritage, if at all beyond custody matters. But even absent ICWA, family placements are preferred. I'd like to know why the family wasn't the initial placement. All of this furor would never have happened.
I know a large number of people who count themselves as aboriginal or native and have similar heritage. It is not for us to define someone else's culture. When the European heritage has been forcefully breed into you, when your culture is stolen, when your language is denied and all in your own country then the percentage is what it is. Milk and tea is still tea. I think this is a separate issue than the foster and adoption process that is common within these communities but the she is not native because she is only 1.5% is offensive
I've been out of the child welfare field for about six years now, but when I was working, dealt with ICWA and ICPC placements frequently, and my understanding is exactly the same as WOT?* , has posted. Also, I feel like I remember reading that the out of state family has custody of a sibling? If that's the case, then it probably explains the ICWA placement--in my experience, ICWA highly favors placement with a sibling.
I will probably get flamed for saying this, but I don't feel bad for the P. family. I feel PISSED OFF that they put their own wants and desires above what was best for Lexi. Would it likely have been heartbreaking for them to have said goodbye to her in 2012 and sent her to live with her family? Yes. Absolutely. But when you're a foster parent, sometimes you do things that are really painful and hard because they are what's best for the child that you've taken into your care. I also believe, based on my experience and years of evidence, that it is almost always best for children to be placed with family whenever there is a willing family member available, especially one that has custody of a biological sibling.
So, if you want to talk about what would have been BEST for Lexi, what would have been in HER BEST INTEREST would have been for the P. family to yield to the recommendation of her therapist in 2012, wherein he recommended that what would be BEST FOR LEXI would be placement with her family (R. family), and an ongoing relationship with the P. family during that time of transition. The court documents say that the P. family was consistently reminded that Lexi's case fell under ICWA and that the planned adoptive parents were the R. family. They (DHS, R. family, P. family, therapists, tribe) created a FREAKING TRANSITION PLAN to move Lexi to the R. family in 2013, which I'm assuming was not followed because her placement was frozen when the P. family objected to DHS's concurrent plan in court.
I am noping the SHIT out of the way that the P. family handled this case, and I could seriously scream seeing all the support that the P. family is getting over social media. Because from where I stand, it seems that the best interests of Lexi was the last thing on their mind.
You don't think the fact that she had been through so many different families and suffered psychological harm as a result played a role in her parents not wanting her to be uprooted yet again after she had finally managed to form attachments?
I'm just not convinced that pulling her away from a family where she had been able to finally overcome her trauma was really in her best interests simply because her fathers wife's grandfathers niece had custody of one of her many half-siblings.
My nephew (step-brothers son) came to us at the age of 3. He had lived with a different relative since he was 5 mos old and fully believed she was his mom. But when she was unable to care for him anymore, as much as it broke her heart to admit it- she knew if he was going to be moved it had to be ASAP because the more time he spent with her the harder the transition would be. And I will quote her "sometimes the right things in life are not always easy." That is the mentality the Ps needed to have. The judge, the case workers, everyone worked hard to get nephew transferred to us and even though it was an in-state placement it still took 3 months. He has fully adjusted and now calls that other relative "aunt." Not saying it was an easy transition for him or that he fully understands, but transferring him to us as young as possible was the best thing to do, in his best interest, and everyone in our case understood that. I don't know why the Ps didn't.
But in this case, this child lived with her bio parents, who abused her. Then she lived with another foster family, more abuse. Then another foster family. Then another one. Then, finally, the Ps. When she came to them, she had signs of attachment disorder and other psychological issues, which they spent a long time working through and helping her, and finally she was bonding with them and thriving and had overcome those issues.
Then they're told "no, she has to go live with someone else now." I can see how they felt that this would be highly detrimental to her wellbeing, even aside from them loving her as a daughter and wanting her to stay with them. I don't think it's fair to say that they only cared about themselves and their own pain in having to give up a child they loved.
My question is, what is the benefit to her in leaving to go live with these other (distant) relatives? Like I said before, is DNA so superior to everything else that being with a biological half-sibling is critical enough to outweigh any psychological trauma she would incur?
I see a lot of benefits in her staying where she is (and staying where she was in 2013), a lot of risk and potential damage that could come from moving her, and little to no benefit to her wellbeing in moving her. Which leads me to believe that her wellbeing is not, in fact, the primary concern here.
Simply- It is the law that family placements come first. The Ps knew family reunification was the ultimate goal and took her in anyway, it wasn't sprung on them and it is how all cases are handled, period. Yes, some children are in foster care for a long time while the state works it out with families, and obviously it is hard, but that is the nature of fostering.
We live almost 6 hours away from family- by the time everyone in our family discussed and we decided that we would definitely taken nephew the county had already found a local foster family. It benefits the county to keep him in-county. And if the relative who had nephew couldn't keep him in the months it took us to get licensed, he would have moved to the foster family during that period. I cannot imagine the heartbreak if we had to then fight that family for custody. Family first is important and matters. The Ps thought they would be above the law, above the court rulings, and they were not. It's a shame it drug out for as long as it did.
But in this case, this child lived with her bio parents, who abused her. Then she lived with another foster family, more abuse. Then another foster family. Then another one. Then, finally, the Ps. When she came to them, she had signs of attachment disorder and other psychological issues, which they spent a long time working through and helping her, and finally she was bonding with them and thriving and had overcome those issues.
Then they're told "no, she has to go live with someone else now." I can see how they felt that this would be highly detrimental to her wellbeing, even aside from them loving her as a daughter and wanting her to stay with them. I don't think it's fair to say that they only cared about themselves and their own pain in having to give up a child they loved.
My question is, what is the benefit to her in leaving to go live with these other (distant) relatives? Like I said before, is DNA so superior to everything else that being with a biological half-sibling is critical enough to outweigh any psychological trauma she would incur?
I see a lot of benefits in her staying where she is (and staying where she was in 2013), a lot of risk and potential damage that could come from moving her, and little to no benefit to her wellbeing in moving her. Which leads me to believe that her wellbeing is not, in fact, the primary concern here.
Simply- It is the law that family placements come first. The Ps knew family reunification was the ultimate goal and took her in anyway, it wasn't sprung on them and it is how all cases are handled, period. Yes, some children are in foster care for a long time while the state works it out with families, and obviously it is hard, but that is the nature of fostering.
We live almost 6 hours away from family- by the time everyone in our family discussed and we decided that we would definitely taken nephew the county had already found a local foster family. It benefits the county to keep him in-county. And if the relative who had nephew couldn't keep him in the months it took us to get licensed, he would have moved to the foster family during that period. I cannot imagine the heartbreak if we had to then fight that family for custody. Family first is important and matters. The Ps thought they would be above the law, above the court rulings, and they were not. It's a shame it drug out for as long as it did.
I realize it's the law. My point is that the law doesn't seem to put the wellbeing of the child first. But I understand now that that is not the primary concern of the system.
You don't think the fact that she had been through so many different families and suffered psychological harm as a result played a role in her parents not wanting her to be uprooted yet again after she had finally managed to form attachments?
I'm just not convinced that pulling her away from a family where she had been able to finally overcome her trauma was really in her best interests simply because her fathers wife's grandfathers niece had custody of one of her many half-siblings.
That is not the foster parents decision though.
Yes I understand that. My point is that I don't think it's fair to say "oh the foster parents are just selfish and only care about their own feelings and don't care about what's best for the child, since the benefits of her being with her father's wife's grandfather's niece SO obviously outweigh any sort of trauma she might experience. .
This seems to undermine the very institution of adoption.
It's why open adoption is the norm now. It allows the child to maintain some connection to their original family. And yes in general it is why familial adoption is preferential in foster situations. Adoption is wonderful but it comes with challenges for all members of the triad including the children who loose their family of origin. Doesn't mean it isn't the best choice for some but it's stuff that a responsible a parent learns about and helps their child with. ETA: and historically adoptions were mostly familial. It really wasn't until the 20th century that closed non-related adoptions became the norm. (The early orphan trains were the front runner of this trend) By the 80s we began to see why this was and open adoption became increasingly common. So it's not so much that it undermines adoption as it undermines a particular type of adoption.
Yes, but it still seems to promote the notion that biological ties, however distant, are superior to everything else.
I could never be a foster parent, I would want to adopt every child. And in a situation like this - where this poor little girl had been abused, was in the midst of developing an attachment disorder, and had failed reunification attempts with her father - how can anyone blame the Page family for giving her the bonds that she so desperately needed? I understand that there was someone with a (very loose) family tie, and they had called dibs early on, but I just don't understand how that family didn't see how happy Lexi was and what good the Page family had done for her, and just stepped back. I think about my nephew, who I love dearly and see multiple times a week. If, God forbid, something happened, and he ended up in this same situation and I saw him develop such strong relationships with a family over the course of a few years, I hope I would have the strength and grace to do what's best for him, and allow him to stay where he is and just maintain a relationship with him. This other family didn't have a pre-existing relationship before this all started, and they are distant relatives. I just don't understand why they couldn't maintain a relationship with her, but allow her to stay put. I think the Page's likely could have handled things better, but I really don't fault them for trying to help turn this little girl's life around.
If the timeline on this is correct, then I have less sympathy for the family. The father was in jail for one year and reunification was attempted. The Utah family has a relationship with Lexi, cited as familial and continued. I'm sure the article is biased in preference to the tribal rights, but if there is truth to the timeline, the Pages knew for several years that the child was under ICWA jurisdiction, which means family and extended family are preferred placements.
ETA: But again, the problem I have is that Lexi is NOT Native American. She has 1.5% heritage and as far as I can tell, her family claims only minimal heritage, if at all beyond custody matters. But even absent ICWA, family placements are preferred. I'd like to know why the family wasn't the initial placement. All of this furor would never have happened.
I know a large number of people who count themselves as aboriginal or native and have similar heritage. It is not for us to define someone else's culture. When the European heritage has been forcefully breed into you, when your culture is stolen, when your language is denied and all in your own country then the percentage is what it is. Milk and tea is still tea. I think this is a separate issue than the foster and adoption process that is common within these communities but the she is not native because she is only 1.5% is offensive
That is why I stated (maybe in a later post?) that I also understand why ICWA was implemented, to repatriate (would that be the correct word?) or correct historical wrongs because of genocide, rape, removal from their native lands, forced Christianization, whitewashing of their culture, etc.
I am primarily European with a small amount of Native American blood. (Similar to Lexi, actually. Four or so Greats from a "marriage" back in the early 1800s.) I never connected with any portion of Native American heritage. I grew up seeing myself as "American" or "mutt" of primarily Italian/Irish/Anglo descent with just a tiny bit of Native American back there somewhere. It was kind of just thrown in there with the rest of the family history. (We also should acknowledge that I grew up in the 1960s with Cold War parents/Depression era grandparents, watching Neil Armstrong land on the moon, Apollo 13 wasn't a Tom Hanks movie, and a lot of "rah rah" patriotism and protectionism was going on which still sometimes colors my comments.)
My grandson's father is 1/4 Native American (my grandson 1/8). His father was the product of a rape and does not publicly acknowledge his heritage. His mother (a young tribal member living on a reservation) was told he died at birth and he doesn't want anyone to know differently in case she's still alive. Horrible story but not uncommon in the area at the time. He was adopted into a white family and Anglicized, so basically the poster child of why ICWA was implemented.)
Many tribes would not consider Lexi a member due to blood quantum guidelines. But if the family connects with this part of their heritage, and the Choctaw claim her as a member, that is their decision to make and not mine. I agree this was totally White Privilege on my part and I was viewing it through my own personal lens, so mea culpa.
ETA: I grew up with a "second father" who was a historian of the Southwest tribes, primarily Navajo and Zuni, and collector of artifacts (modern more so than historical before anyone gets riled up. lol.) I learned to appreciate the history but it was more from a kid's viewpoint that evolved, and an Anglo appreciation of another, different culture. As a tween/teen, I took classes and learned to make fry bread, moccasins and sand art, visited reservations throughout AZ and NM and explored cliff houses, went to pow-wows and watched them make jewelry (even had a ring custom-made while I watched. Still not happy that it was stolen by a "friend" who was house-sitting.) We have a fairly large population of Tulalip nearby but most . But my viewpoint was, again, colored by the expectation or knowledge of "percentages" of blood being accepted as tribal members due to my personal exposure and experiences.
I'm just really sad for this little girl who is waking up in a room that's not her old bedroom, with people who aren't her bonded family. I have a 6 year old daughter and this just breaks my heart. I'm unsure why this father's step-family are so invested in taking her. How can people live with themselves knowing they basically legally kidnapped her from her home? I could never take a child in knowing they were bonded with their foster family.
I'm just really sad for this little girl who is waking up in a room that's not her old bedroom, with people who aren't her bonded family. I have a 6 year old daughter and this just breaks my heart. I'm unsure why this father's step-family are so invested in taking her. How can people live with themselves knowing they basically legally kidnapped her from her home? I could never take a child in knowing they were bonded with their foster family.
But....it sounds like the foster family basically "kidnapped" her. They knew from the start she would and should go to relatives, whom she knew and had a relationship with. Instead of working on a smooth transition, they drug out the process as long as possible, hoping that the obvious trauma to the girl would convince the state that the law should be tossed out in her case. Since you brought up kidnapping (and although obviously it's not the same) - we wouldn't allow a couple who did actually snatch a baby to then just KEEP the child because they raised him or her for six or ten years and the child knows no other family. Jesus - think of the trauma THAT child would experience!
I'm just really sad for this little girl who is waking up in a room that's not her old bedroom, with people who aren't her bonded family. I have a 6 year old daughter and this just breaks my heart. I'm unsure why this father's step-family are so invested in taking her. How can people live with themselves knowing they basically legally kidnapped her from her home? I could never take a child in knowing they were bonded with their foster family.
But how could the foster family keep this child knowing that she was supposed to go to her biological family when she was younger and able to bond? Lexi was never intended to be a permanent placement. My heart breaks for her. Why should the step-family NOT be invested when effectively the foster family was keeping her and preventing a bond from being established? Why SHOULD they give up? How should the Pages benefit from breaking the rules set in place for foster care? They were a RESPITE placement, not a permanent one. (Which means it was supposed to be only a couple weeks while her "real" foster family was on vacation - so how could they "forge a bond" during respite care? They WANTED that child.) And they knew full well, when Lexie was a toddler, that the decision was in place to remove her. Why should the family simply give up, when they DO have a relationship with her and in their hearts also she was intended to live with them and her sister? And in the eyes of the law, as well, from the moment the father quit the reunification plan when she was two years old? The Pages KEPT her from them for over three very important years. They effectively kidnapped her.
How would you feel if that was your child and you wanted her back? That's what the Pages were doing to the biological family.
My granddaughter moved in with me when she was six. My other granddaughter lived with me from when she was six months until she was almost six before she was placed back with her mom, and moved back in with us permanently when she was eight. We still manage to muddle along.
There would be far less muddling along and heartbreak for Lexie if the Pages had followed the rules. And Lexie would have had three years to forge a relationship as it was intended.
I'm just really sad for this little girl who is waking up in a room that's not her old bedroom, with people who aren't her bonded family. I have a 6 year old daughter and this just breaks my heart. I'm unsure why this father's step-family are so invested in taking her. How can people live with themselves knowing they basically legally kidnapped her from her home? I could never take a child in knowing they were bonded with their foster family.
I sure hope you mean the foster parents in this case because the R family sure didn't kidnap her.
I'm just really sad for this little girl who is waking up in a room that's not her old bedroom, with people who aren't her bonded family. I have a 6 year old daughter and this just breaks my heart. I'm unsure why this father's step-family are so invested in taking her. How can people live with themselves knowing they basically legally kidnapped her from her home? I could never take a child in knowing they were bonded with their foster family.
I sure hope you mean the foster parents in this case because the R family sure didn't kidnap her.
Sorry I phrased it wrong, this is from the child's perspective. In her eyes, she's been taken from her brother and sisters and the people who she has known as her parents. In her eyes she's being taken to live far away where she will have little to no contact with the people that she knows as her family. At age 6, she doesn't know all the reasons why this is happening. She was brought out of her home, surrounded by crying and hysterical family and neighbors and put into a car and driven away. I feel terrible for her.
I sure hope you mean the foster parents in this case because the R family sure didn't kidnap her.
Sorry I phrased it wrong, this is from the child's perspective. In her eyes, she's been taken from her brother and sisters and the people who she has known as her parents. In her eyes she's being taken to live far away where she will have little to no contact with the people that she knows as her family. At age 6, she doesn't know all the reasons why this is happening. She was brought out of her home, surrounded by crying and hysterical family and neighbors and put into a car and driven away. I feel terrible for her.
I feel terrible for her as well. But the Pages kept her from her family. Not the other way around. If she was given to the R family when it was ordered, like they were supposed to as interim caretakers, then Lexi wouldn't be going through "missing her family" because she would have been properly placed with them as a toddler rather than "torn from the arms of her parents and siblings" at six. The relationship with the Pages would, and should have been less than they made it and by now they would have been a warm memory and she would have been secure with the R family and her sister. The Pages were never "her parents." They were FOSTER parents. They overstepped. Hugely.
I sure hope you mean the foster parents in this case because the R family sure didn't kidnap her.
Sorry I phrased it wrong, this is from the child's perspective. In her eyes, she's been taken from her brother and sisters and the people who she has known as her parents. In her eyes she's being taken to live far away where she will have little to no contact with the people that she knows as her family. At age 6, she doesn't know all the reasons why this is happening. She was brought out of her home, surrounded by crying and hysterical family and neighbors and put into a car and driven away. I feel terrible for her.
This wasn't exactly necessary. I mean, the other kids, sure, they don't know any better. But the aunt and uncle lying in the street? Stop it.
And I want to reiterate. The Pages were RESPITE caretakers. This former of foster parenting is the most interim. She was intended to be in their home for no more than 2 weeks to 1 month. There is NO WAY that a parental bond could have or should have been formed in that length of time. What this means to me is that THE PAGES WANTED HER FROM THE INITIAL PLACEMENT AND FOUGHT TO KEEP HER, from the day she was handed to them as a BABYSITTING JOB. Because that's what RESPITE care is about. NOT fostering, but caretaking while the assigned foster parents are unable to do so.
Any sympathy I had for them went out the window long ago.
I sure hope you mean the foster parents in this case because the R family sure didn't kidnap her.
Sorry I phrased it wrong, this is from the child's perspective. In her eyes, she's been taken from her brother and sisters and the people who she has known as her parents. In her eyes she's being taken to live far away where she will have little to no contact with the people that she knows as her family. At age 6, she doesn't know all the reasons why this is happening. She was brought out of her home, surrounded by crying and hysterical family and neighbors and put into a car and driven away. I feel terrible for her.
I understand what you're saying here. And this is exactly why any time there is a transition like this, the caregivers (new and old), caseworker, therapist, and other treatment providers come together to create a transition plan in order to minimize trauma to the child. It outlines exactly how the transition should take place, what should be said by both the old caregivers and the new, details that may help the child feel comfortable in their new placement (bedtime routines, lovies, etc). I can all but guarantee you that a transition plan was created in this instance, and I can also all but guaran-fucking-tee that the foster family did not follow the transition plan as laid out. They *chose* to create a dynamic that would make the child fearful and confused. They *chose* to act outside of what was in her best interest in this really difficult situation.
It's why open adoption is the norm now. It allows the child to maintain some connection to their original family. And yes in general it is why familial adoption is preferential in foster situations. Adoption is wonderful but it comes with challenges for all members of the triad including the children who loose their family of origin. Doesn't mean it isn't the best choice for some but it's stuff that a responsible a parent learns about and helps their child with. ETA: and historically adoptions were mostly familial. It really wasn't until the 20th century that closed non-related adoptions became the norm. (The early orphan trains were the front runner of this trend) By the 80s we began to see why this was and open adoption became increasingly common. So it's not so much that it undermines adoption as it undermines a particular type of adoption.
Yes, but it still seems to promote the notion that biological ties, however distant, are superior to everything else.
This, and your other statement regarding the system not being about the best interest of the child, is why I can't foster parent.
I have first hand experience since my parents fostered. The state made horrible choices with a couple of boys that lived with us for 3-4 years that resulted in them both having run ins with the law, attempting suicide multiple times, and more. The idea that the biological connection between them and their sister was the priority for their placement subjected them to years of abuse and trauma that they wouldn't have experienced in our home (the boys) and the sister's foster home. But in the separate homes they had monthly visits and a connection to each other. And no abuse.
Sorry I phrased it wrong, this is from the child's perspective. In her eyes, she's been taken from her brother and sisters and the people who she has known as her parents. In her eyes she's being taken to live far away where she will have little to no contact with the people that she knows as her family. At age 6, she doesn't know all the reasons why this is happening. She was brought out of her home, surrounded by crying and hysterical family and neighbors and put into a car and driven away. I feel terrible for her.
I understand what you're saying here. And this is exactly why any time there is a transition like this, the caregivers (new and old), caseworker, therapist, and other treatment providers come together to create a transition plan in order to minimize trauma to the child. It outlines exactly how the transition should take place, what should be said by both the old caregivers and the new, details that may help the child feel comfortable in their new placement (bedtime routines, lovies, etc). I can all but guarantee you that a transition plan was created in this instance, and I can also all but guaran-fucking-tee that the foster family did not follow the transition plan as laid out. They *chose* to create a dynamic that would make the child fearful and confused. They *chose* to act outside of what was in her best interest in this really difficult situation.
Transition plan: April 12, 2012. The Pages were included in the process. Page 8 of the court documents. Lexi had been with the Pages for 16 months and was 3 years old. Early enough and soon enough to transition much more easily.
I understand what you're saying here. And this is exactly why any time there is a transition like this, the caregivers (new and old), caseworker, therapist, and other treatment providers come together to create a transition plan in order to minimize trauma to the child. It outlines exactly how the transition should take place, what should be said by both the old caregivers and the new, details that may help the child feel comfortable in their new placement (bedtime routines, lovies, etc). I can all but guarantee you that a transition plan was created in this instance, and I can also all but guaran-fucking-tee that the foster family did not follow the transition plan as laid out. They *chose* to create a dynamic that would make the child fearful and confused. They *chose* to act outside of what was in her best interest in this really difficult situation.
Transition plan: April 12, 2012. The Pages were included in the process. Page 8 of the court documents. Lexi had been with the Pages for 16 months and was 3 years old. Early enough and soon enough to transition much more easily.
You're right--I saw that one too. I'd bet was likely revised in 2015 or 2016 once the appeal was finalized given the difference in Lexi's age/routine (a revision probably wouldn't have been included in the court documents). Regardless of whether we're talking the 2012 plan or a likely subsequent plan, the P. family almost *certainly* did not follow the therapist's recommendations for the type of transition that would cause the least amount of trauma to Lexi.
If she was with them only as respite care, why did it extend beyond that? I understand that the initial order to begin transition didn't occur until 16 months of time with the Pages. Trying to figure out why there was such a long period if it was supposed to only be 2-4 weeks?
If she was with them only as respite care, why did it extend beyond that? I understand that the initial order to begin transition didn't occur until 16 months of time with the Pages. Trying to figure out why there was such a long period if it was supposed to only be 2-4 weeks?
That's what I've also tried to figure out. My *guess* is that they spoke with the second foster parents and the social worker and they agreed to transfer the placement while she was in the Pages' care. The other alternative is that the second family decided they didn't want her back and the social worker asked if the Pages wanted to keep her. Or some combination of the two. That's why I look at it from 'they were respite and they *wanted* this child." It generally takes some sort of affirmative action on someone's part for it to change. My feelings, based on their actions and the short timeline initially, is that they were the pro-active in wanting to keep her. "But we can do so much for her, without counseling even!"
@starlily, I'm going to address your comment even though I don't see it. I'm aware that I'm differentiating between foster and respite caregivers. In the foster care system, they are two different things. Foster is long term; respite is to give the actual foster parent a break or to cover if they need to travel and the child cannot go. It's the absolute in temporary care. The fact of the matter is that, unless a child is free for adoption (and Lexi was NOT free) then as a foster you love them, you care for them, you take them to their appointments, you set up counseling, you feed and clothe them and you do everything that a parent would do for a child. But the truth of the matter is that they are NOT your children. Eventually you have to give them up, no matter how much you don't want to. They are not yours to keep. This is the underlying theme in foster parenting. Unless and until the child is available, you bond but you don't BOND, because they will leave. That's why counseling is so imperative - and freely funded in our case.
My trainer for foster licensing cared for hundreds of children in her career, and adopted 13 (iirc) of them, several of them Native American through ICWA (and while she is white, she is considered extended family because of this as well.) My brother and his wife have fostered for thirty years and have adopted three (sisters and an older "unadoptable" boy) of the many (at least 100) they have fostered, including infants to mothers newly released from prison (they were licensed placements for newborns born to the incarcerated mothers and were even required to bring the babies to the prison for visitation with the mothers). I was a foster parent and went through the system, including reunification and adoption processes. I intend to relicense as a respite caregiver when the girls are older and we have some empty rooms again because they are so sorely needed.
The babies and children are loved, and then they are passed on. It's heartbreaking but it's important. And it's very important to differentiate between available and not. That's why I'm emphasizing the importance of their role here as foster parents and not "real" ones. Lexi was destined to go elsewhere, from the beginning. The Pages didn't follow the rules they signed on for.
ok, thank you. I had a terrible reaction to this originally, but the more I read on it, the more not clear it becomes. I was originally comparing it to the Veronica case, but that was so different, mainly because the adoptive family was planning to adopt her right from the start, and Veronica's mom made the adoption plan.
I would love to know why the Pages dragged it out. Was there something about the intended family's situation that made them not comply? If we speculate that it's truly that they were ignoring the orders just for the sake of keeping her, well, that's terrible. I would like to hope taht there was something going on to make them do that. IDK though obviously.
That transition was terrible, just awful. Even the Veronica transition was not that kind of a shitshow, and I had zero respect for that biological dad.
I also don't understand how the ICWA helped her here. I guess because the family she is going to includes her half sister, who is presumably Native American?
ok, thank you. I had a terrible reaction to this originally, but the more I read on it, the more not clear it becomes. I was originally comparing it to the Veronica case, but that was so different, mainly because the adoptive family was planning to adopt her right from the start, and Veronica's mom made the adoption plan.
I would love to know why the Pages dragged it out. Was there something about the intended family's situation that made them not comply? If we speculate that it's truly that they were ignoring the orders just for the sake of keeping her, well, that's terrible. I would like to hope taht there was something going on to make them do that. IDK though obviously.
That transition was terrible, just awful. Even the Veronica transition was not that kind of a shitshow, and I had zero respect for that biological dad.
The R family had a relationship with Lexi, from the earliest part. The Pages were aware of the R family. They didn't know the R family well enough, not nearly as well as the social workers who interviewed them, the prior social workers who placed the sister with them, or anything else, including the professionals in the case, to decide what was in Lexi's best interest. Foster parents are NOT kept apprised of ongoing issues or situations. In this case, they actually had more knowledge of the potential adopting family than most foster families, but they didn't KNOW them beyond visits with Lexi and Skype conversations between them and Lexi.
The fact of the matter is, they didn't want to give her up. The end.