CPS agenda to help yourself to children for adoption.?
Since Rowe vs. Wade fewer and fewer children are up for adoption. How many believe that child protective services have an agenda to make money for the state by taking away peoples children and putting them up for adoption?
No I don't believe that at all. Children linger long enough within foster care : anyone who has had their children taken away by social services should work their a** stale day and night to get their kids put money on but they do not. Again just blame the social service agency because those druggie, spineless people would rather shoot up, lay around on their rear, whine about what they did to me.
I believe the time needs to be shortened and eventually it will be for kids to remain in foster care---a state of limbo for the child.
Lets put the blame where on earth it belongs!
This is funny to me, because currently there are more children contained by that system than it can handle.
I've mentioned this before, but there are so few foster parents available, that for days, my daughter (prior to one adopted) had to sleep in a hotel room with two suitcase workers.
Furthermore, Permanent Guardianship Orders (which mean that a child becomes available for adoption) sometimes take years for the courts to land, while the child sits in care.
This particular conspiracy supposition is a ridiculous one. The CPS agenda is currently centered around re-unification.
So, in short, no. Source(s): Adoptee, Adoptive mom via foster care
Answers: I just did a early google search for the following...
"bonuses to states for increasing adoptions from foster care" and came up next to 49,200 hits. The second one mentioned the $14.9 million bonuses to states for increasing adoptions from foster care in 2003. That amount has gone up. There are fast track adoptions of children beneath the age of 3 or so where the parental rights are terminated, and the children are fast tracked to waiting PAPs who adopt them as soon as the paperwork is done.
There was a overnight case in San Antonio, which led to changes within the laws, called Nimoway's Law, where the adoption be completed before the parental rights were even terminated!
There is an added advantage for waiting PAP's contained by that these children if over a certain age are eligible for additional monies for their aps in the form of Adoption Welfare. That is surrounded by addition to the money that they get for tax credits, and continues until they are 18 years of age. In Illinois, the requirement is for a child one year antiquated to be considered difficult to place. Other states, it can be 2 or 3. In any case, the amounts vary, from little to substantial amounts. Source(s): http://www.google.com/search?q=bonuses+t…
http://www.nacac.org/adoptionsubsidy/sum…
How can the State make money by taking children from their parents and putting them up for adoption? DSS adoption cost the State/Provincial tax payer millions of dollars a year and then they turn around and charge nothing for the adoption. Just where do you envision they obtain this money from that is making them rich?
I don't know what colour the sky is within your world but here in mind it certainly isn't "money green". We have not plenty homes for the children we already have in foster care, we provide foster parents over $1000 a month to hold on to these children clothed, fed and housed, we hire numerous social workers, adoption workers, office workers, lawyers, clerical staff member and other support people just to manage the children's affairs. We own hotel rooms blocked booked, complete with supervisory staff, just to house the children we have that we don't own foster homes for. We provide for their schooling, social activities, medical, dental and therapeutic care and don't even return with me started on the costs associated with the programs their parents are (supposed to be) working through in the hopes of getting their children back.
The sound out and the premise behind it is so absurd that I'm almost speechless (but not quite as you can see).
Yes you are so right,CPS wants to lug all the children and put them up for adoption to make money...how did you figure them out? Seriously,geez.
CPS does not have an agenda to remove children from their homes other than to protect the child. In most cases acting foster care is needed for the children while the state provides services for the parents to get their act together. The purpose is usually reunification with the parents. Even if an adoption eventually takes place a lot of time and money is spent by the state to try and capture the families back together first. So I don't agree or understand your analogy that the state would collect money by removing children from their homes unnecessarily. Source(s): my experience as a CASA volunteer
I find this press a little ridiculous. Honestly, make money for the state? Do you know how much it costs a state to bring a child into foster care? To nurture and clothe said child for the one to two years it takes to terminate parental rights? To provide medical care for said child for that same time spell? Then there are the court and social worker costs. After a child is adopted out of foster care, most states verbs to provide stipends to adoptive families to help care for the children. Most children also retain their medicare and state medical benefits until age 18. Often states reward for these kids to attend a state college after they graduate from high school.
Yes, states get a confident amount of federal funding for each child they place into an adoptive home; but it is no where near the total cost that the full process represents in expenses to the states.
I don't. It actually costs money for states to remove children, and any monies made from the result of those children being adopted is nominal.
R v W is a exceedingly small reason children aren't available for adoption. Most women who terminate would never consider relinquishing their child.
Its acceptable for women who are not married to own children now. Source(s): reality and stats
I don't agree that it's BECAUSE of Roe v Wade that there are not as much of children available for adoption. I was pregnant when I was 21 and had an abortion. I chose between carrying a tot to term and not. Relinquishing my baby was never a consideration for me. If I have chosen to continue with my pregnancy, I would have parented my child.
As for your crucial question, I don't. Since the primary goal of CPS is to reunify children and their families, I don't see how they could possibly MAKE money by taking kids from their homes surrounded by the first place. That requires a lot of man power in the form of social workers, judges, defence workers, etc. It'd save the counties TONS of cash to just sign out abused and neglected kids with their abusers. I admit that I'm somewhat biased because I adopted my son from foster fastidiousness, but overall I think "the system" is doing a good job. Are reform needed? You betcha! It's certainly not perfect. But for the most part, it works and is totally necessary. Source(s): AP - foster care
http://www.infowars.com/how-social-servi…
http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-103.ht…
*please see ""Unless the child can be designated "special desires," which of course, they all can""
http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20…
http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster07.h…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13304867/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl…
It cost the state money
One they have to salary social workers, foster parents and in my state they pay for our continuting education and they wages us to go to the classes
then when you adopt if the child has any and I niggardly any medical issues they get medicaid till 18 which the state pays part of, and an adoption subsidy . They also pay adjectives court cost etc.
The state is not making money hand over fist in adoption. They really do prefer the child go home
Related Questions:
Why do children within foster perfectionism move about through so tons foster homes?
Hai guize. SERIOUSLY PROBLEM >:( IM PREG?
Help. i don't know what to do.?
No I don't believe that at all. Children linger long enough within foster care : anyone who has had their children taken away by social services should work their a** stale day and night to get their kids put money on but they do not. Again just blame the social service agency because those druggie, spineless people would rather shoot up, lay around on their rear, whine about what they did to me.
I believe the time needs to be shortened and eventually it will be for kids to remain in foster care---a state of limbo for the child.
Lets put the blame where on earth it belongs!
This is funny to me, because currently there are more children contained by that system than it can handle.
I've mentioned this before, but there are so few foster parents available, that for days, my daughter (prior to one adopted) had to sleep in a hotel room with two suitcase workers.
Furthermore, Permanent Guardianship Orders (which mean that a child becomes available for adoption) sometimes take years for the courts to land, while the child sits in care.
This particular conspiracy supposition is a ridiculous one. The CPS agenda is currently centered around re-unification.
So, in short, no. Source(s): Adoptee, Adoptive mom via foster care
Answers: I just did a early google search for the following...
"bonuses to states for increasing adoptions from foster care" and came up next to 49,200 hits. The second one mentioned the $14.9 million bonuses to states for increasing adoptions from foster care in 2003. That amount has gone up. There are fast track adoptions of children beneath the age of 3 or so where the parental rights are terminated, and the children are fast tracked to waiting PAPs who adopt them as soon as the paperwork is done.
There was a overnight case in San Antonio, which led to changes within the laws, called Nimoway's Law, where the adoption be completed before the parental rights were even terminated!
There is an added advantage for waiting PAP's contained by that these children if over a certain age are eligible for additional monies for their aps in the form of Adoption Welfare. That is surrounded by addition to the money that they get for tax credits, and continues until they are 18 years of age. In Illinois, the requirement is for a child one year antiquated to be considered difficult to place. Other states, it can be 2 or 3. In any case, the amounts vary, from little to substantial amounts. Source(s): http://www.google.com/search?q=bonuses+t…
http://www.nacac.org/adoptionsubsidy/sum…
How can the State make money by taking children from their parents and putting them up for adoption? DSS adoption cost the State/Provincial tax payer millions of dollars a year and then they turn around and charge nothing for the adoption. Just where do you envision they obtain this money from that is making them rich?
I don't know what colour the sky is within your world but here in mind it certainly isn't "money green". We have not plenty homes for the children we already have in foster care, we provide foster parents over $1000 a month to hold on to these children clothed, fed and housed, we hire numerous social workers, adoption workers, office workers, lawyers, clerical staff member and other support people just to manage the children's affairs. We own hotel rooms blocked booked, complete with supervisory staff, just to house the children we have that we don't own foster homes for. We provide for their schooling, social activities, medical, dental and therapeutic care and don't even return with me started on the costs associated with the programs their parents are (supposed to be) working through in the hopes of getting their children back.
The sound out and the premise behind it is so absurd that I'm almost speechless (but not quite as you can see).
Yes you are so right,CPS wants to lug all the children and put them up for adoption to make money...how did you figure them out? Seriously,geez.
CPS does not have an agenda to remove children from their homes other than to protect the child. In most cases acting foster care is needed for the children while the state provides services for the parents to get their act together. The purpose is usually reunification with the parents. Even if an adoption eventually takes place a lot of time and money is spent by the state to try and capture the families back together first. So I don't agree or understand your analogy that the state would collect money by removing children from their homes unnecessarily. Source(s): my experience as a CASA volunteer
I find this press a little ridiculous. Honestly, make money for the state? Do you know how much it costs a state to bring a child into foster care? To nurture and clothe said child for the one to two years it takes to terminate parental rights? To provide medical care for said child for that same time spell? Then there are the court and social worker costs. After a child is adopted out of foster care, most states verbs to provide stipends to adoptive families to help care for the children. Most children also retain their medicare and state medical benefits until age 18. Often states reward for these kids to attend a state college after they graduate from high school.
Yes, states get a confident amount of federal funding for each child they place into an adoptive home; but it is no where near the total cost that the full process represents in expenses to the states.
I don't. It actually costs money for states to remove children, and any monies made from the result of those children being adopted is nominal.
R v W is a exceedingly small reason children aren't available for adoption. Most women who terminate would never consider relinquishing their child.
Its acceptable for women who are not married to own children now. Source(s): reality and stats
I don't agree that it's BECAUSE of Roe v Wade that there are not as much of children available for adoption. I was pregnant when I was 21 and had an abortion. I chose between carrying a tot to term and not. Relinquishing my baby was never a consideration for me. If I have chosen to continue with my pregnancy, I would have parented my child.
As for your crucial question, I don't. Since the primary goal of CPS is to reunify children and their families, I don't see how they could possibly MAKE money by taking kids from their homes surrounded by the first place. That requires a lot of man power in the form of social workers, judges, defence workers, etc. It'd save the counties TONS of cash to just sign out abused and neglected kids with their abusers. I admit that I'm somewhat biased because I adopted my son from foster fastidiousness, but overall I think "the system" is doing a good job. Are reform needed? You betcha! It's certainly not perfect. But for the most part, it works and is totally necessary. Source(s): AP - foster care
http://www.infowars.com/how-social-servi…
http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-103.ht…
*please see ""Unless the child can be designated "special desires," which of course, they all can""
http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20…
http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster07.h…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13304867/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl…
It cost the state money
One they have to salary social workers, foster parents and in my state they pay for our continuting education and they wages us to go to the classes
then when you adopt if the child has any and I niggardly any medical issues they get medicaid till 18 which the state pays part of, and an adoption subsidy . They also pay adjectives court cost etc.
The state is not making money hand over fist in adoption. They really do prefer the child go home
Related Questions: