People against adoption, do you ever deliberate it's right?
I grew up in foster care, 13 different homes from birth to 18, most were virtuous, some bad and a few horrible. I've spend my entire childhood just wishing for a home and population to call my own. I grew up lonely, feeling unwanted, it was other so unstable, never knowing if I was going to have to move to another family and have to bond and adapt to that household.
I do agree with some points against adoption, mostly the pressure put of younger poor mothers to give up their child minus informing them of other options and AP that lie to their kids about where on earth they came from. But at the same time, it seem close to people think the birth mother maternal instinct will penny-pinching she will be this perfect wonderful mother. That as long as the kid stays with their birth mother that their life will be wonderful and person adopted dooms them to a horrible life and a ton of mental health problems. I grew up on the other side of the tracks, I wasn't lucky adequate be a healthy baby, I was a bi-racial crack babe-in-arms going though withdraw, kids like me are blacklisted babies, nobody wants us. I have foster siblings that were beaten, abused, neglected, sexually abused and worse. My own biological twin half sister be pimped out by my mother, at the age of 8, to support her drug addiction, one of the men she sold their bodies too, had HIV, they are both infected. They were lucky enough to be adopt by a wonderful family that worked very hard to backing them realize that they were not pieces of meat to be bought and sold. Both are doing very well right very soon outside of their disease. I was lucky enough to find them right before I turned 18, their adoptive parents took me within and gave me a place to stay when I turned 18 and had nowhere's to go. They supported me, help get a job and get on my foot, if not for them, I would been living on the streets.
I guess what I'm getting at, sometimes it's not other black and white. Some women have been deprived of the change to be wonderful mothers because they be pressure into giving up for adoption when they knew they wanted to keep that tot. A some women shouldn't be pressure into a keeping a child when they don't think they can raise it right or are mentally ready for the work.
The foster concern system being so full is proof that many, many times, first parents shouldn't be raise children. It's also proof that for those who are raising children, there needs to be more checks on them somehow.
It's a shame, but years ago, if a mother seem overwhelmed, or if she wasn't doing something right, or if it appeared that she was being abused, a neighbor would go over, ask if they needed minister to with the kids overnight so she could get some rest, and neighbors and friends worked with respectively other. Famiies weren't so scattered across the country, and had each other to work near.
Further proof-our son was born meth addicted. We were in a private adoption plan. His bio sister, born 11 months subsequently, and first mom changed her mind, has been taken by the state 2 times. Since I have no allowed relationship, and our son doesn't because he was adopted and not through the state, he doesn't either. I see their other children, who hold somber looks on their faces all the time, and then our little guy, who laughs, cuts up, and smiles 99% of the time. He wake up with a grin 3 miles wide every morning and nap.
I'm a firm believer that instigate adoption should be legally enforceable, and yet adoption should be supported, although never forced on anyone, don't say, "I'll help", and be in that for the first three nights, and then leave the mother and toddler.
I agree adoption is not black and white and it is necessary at times, like yours, it is not right to put kids through one foster home after another. These kids should be adoptable.
But for new borns born to infantile women whose only crimes, are youth,
no money and being unwed, they should stay with their mothers. Just because they don't reason they can raise it right, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't try. Giving your baby up is a lifetime of distress. I've been there.
Answers: "A some women shouldn't be pressure into a keeping a child when they don't think they can raise it right or are mentally ready for the situation."
A woman who keeps a child past birth is not obligated to keep that child if she afterwards decides to surrender it to adoption. A child can be surrendered any time up until the age of 18. We do not pressure mothers to keep children they truly do not want or love. What we do is encourage them to trademark this decision once they have recovered from birth, when it truly can be an informed decision.
Your story highlights tons problems with our current system. There is NO reason why a foster family ("surrogate care") cannot be lifelong, until the child is 18, if substitute care is required outside of the natural family. Transferring a young-looking child through 13 different homes is child abuse in and of itself. A child needs a consistent bond next to adults who will be there for a long time.
I have corresponded with social workers contained by other countries, who are shocked that we adopt children out of foster care. They consider this to be inhumane and unnecessary, when other permanent alternatives exist. They consider adoption to be something that an adult who have grown up in foster care can decide for themselves, that they are powerful of this decision as an adult.
Also, you should be informed that "crack babies" do not have to stir through withdrawal. This myth, promoted heavily in the media within the 1990s, confuses stimulant drugs with opiates. NAPW states: "The term “crack addicted baby” is no less defensible. Addiction is a scientific term that refers to compulsive behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By definition, babies cannot be “addicted” to crack or anything else. In utero physiologic dependence on opiates (not addiction), known as Neonatal Narcotic Abstinence Syndrome, is readily diagnosed, but no such symptoms own been found to occur following prenatal cocaine exposure." "
It also shows how there is far far too little within the way of resources to treat the illness of drug addiction. Your mother should have be helped so that she would have recovered. Health care is a essential human right, and her human rights were violated:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the form and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to shelter in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other drought of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
There is no way she should have have to prostitute herself or her daughter to get money for her addiction. The money should have been in attendance, to support her and her children, such that grinding poverty was not an issue.
Again, your story shows how impoverished mothers and their children are abandoned surrounded by our North American society, left to struggle and try to support themselves with FAR too few resources, and meanwhile government money go to the rich! Source(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efwk-pZSz…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health…
http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blo…
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/inde…
The problem with permanent fostering is simply this: what do you do near the child when he/she turns 18 and "ages out"? Anyone who thinks a person of that age is a responsible adult who can cause it totally on their own with no family support (especially emotional support) is dreadfully deluded. There may be an occasional exception to the rule who can handle it, but for most of them it's very unrealistic. I be a social worker for two years and I've seen that sad scenario play out more times than I care to remember. This is one origin why we try so hard to have a permanent plan for every child (either adoption or reunion), because kids desperately stipulation a stable family. Not just as children, but for the rest of their lives too, and especially in their 20's.
Some of them stir to college and continue to get a stipend for an extra three years as long as they do well, but they still own to deal with that stressful alone-in-the-world problem, and a lot of them don't succeed (partly because of that). I've see some very dedicated foster parents who love their foster children dearly and adopt them "informally" by continuing to treat them as their son or daughter even after they turn 18, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
I agree it would be better not to move children from home to home, but the problem near that is, when the foster parents tell you to come get them, what choice do you enjoy? No foster parent that I know of is going to accept a child without retaining the right to evict them if they become more of a "problem" than they're willing to business deal with.
The foster care system is far from perfect, but what culture sometimes don't realize is that sometimes there are no good choices, and sometimes there are simply no choices at adjectives. Not only that, but workers are severely overworked, underpaid, continually stressed, and constantly put in a position where no business what they do somebody is going to be howling for their blood (sometimes quite literally). And God help them if they make a mistake or an error surrounded by judgement, because then not only will they get fired and hold their public reputation ruined, but they may even be prosecuted and sent to jail. Would you take a job resembling that? Most people wouldn't, and I don't blame them.
Children in foster care can enjoy several different plans in place, based on their particular situation. Adoption isn't other the one selected. Kids are always consulted about adoption to see how they perceive about it, even the little ones. Their thoughts are always taken into consideration. Sometimes they remain in foster meticulousness, sometimes they're adopted, sometimes they're emancipated. . . lots of things can happen. Source(s): Former social worker
I would have to say that adoption is a wonderful entry, I can honestly say because there are a lot of associates willing to give and people feeling like to adopt. If there was not adoption today think of adjectives the babies in this world that would either be aborted or unwanted! Thanks to adjectives that adopt they can have families and know what it feels resembling to be called "parent" and "mom and dad".!!
I am sorry that you had such a horrible time as a child. I worked doing registrations for years in elementary,middle and high arts school and I saw how the foster care children were treated. Some of the students we enrolled didn't stay surrounded by the school long enough for us to get their files. When we got a foster care student in our academy, I always made sure that they faxed me the records IMMEDIATELY because they were normally gone before the week was out. It made me sick. Often, the reason they be transferred so quickly was because they would try and contact their natural parents.
It irritates me how general public feel free to speak to the thinking behind the voices of the anti-adoption folks, as if they ( and they alone) own the really, truly once and for all inside scoop on our thoughts. It is as bad here as the NCFA speaking on behalf of those 'poor birthmothers' who quiver contained by their boots lest their secret gets out! What rubbish! The BSE Mothers, at least, are contained by their 50's and 60's by now, and none of us fell off the turnip truck yesterday. We have see a lot in that time, and do NOT walk around next to rose-colored glasses. I believe that most all of us understand that sometimes children involve to be removed from their families, there may not be other family that can transport them in and there are indeed real, true orphans within this country.
However, the foster care system is broken. It was designed to be a place where parents who be up against it had a place to temporarily keep their children due to illness, annihilation or otherwise until they could get on their feet again. It was NOT intended to be a chute to the waiting hand of the eager PAPs or a trial adoption!
Further, when a child is adopted, there is no have need of to change their name, seal their birth pass, lock their records away from them and their natural family, including siblings, forever. It is comical.
Rarely do I think adoption is the answer. Possibly one and only in situations where there is treat roughly or the child's family is unwilling and unable to parent and only next if other family members have be given the option to provide legalized guardianship.
My belief is that if at all possible - children should be kept with their own flesh and blood of origin.
good grief you wrote so much i dont even want to read it. but here is my take on adoption. i am against it if you have a child newly to give it away. thats what abortion is for. there are tons of kids without parents that involve homes. i dont think its right that people mainly want to adopt babies. they should tolerate the child also choose. someone who wants a home and needs it and is old adequate to choose their parents.
There are so many people who are so black and white on "family preservation" that they are unwilling to acknowledge that children obligation stability, love 100% percent of the time and these needs should come before that preservation. Any time there is demonstrated toxic nearest and dearest relationships, or physical abuse or evidence of not providing food, shelter and basics while spending money on your personal BS, or putting kids in an unsafe caregiver situation is there--the kids should be taken away. No exceptions. No do overs a short time ago because you are blood. Some people are not able to nor willing to parent. When you deliver a babe-in-arms, that baby becomes number 1. No exceptions. And kids need homes. Perm placement and Adoption is the best answer if that isn't the overnight case.
I do not think the biological mother is always the best resort.
But that doesn't mean I think we need to erase a child's identity and olden, separate him or her permanently from his or her larger family structure, and pretend as if he or she were born to other family.
That's what adoption in this country amounts to. There are other arrangements than the legal fiction that is adoption.
So yes, I'm other opposed to adoption. But that's not the same as always thinking the biological parents ought to be disappeared to raise the child.
I agree that it is absolutely not black and white.
There are some that say that children in foster assistance should never be adopted, because they will lose their identity. They believe they should be fostered long-term, instead.
While they might not be completely wrong, I'm hoping that this provides another perspective on the matter.
A dear friend of mine that I took some college classes with be in foster care and was adopt by his foster family when he was 14. He took their name, and said it be the first time that his last name meant anything to him. Sometimes when I read that kids should be fostered long permanent status, I think of him, and how relieved he was when someone saw him, at 14 and troubled, for what he was. A child who needed a loved ones.
Thanks for sharing. Source(s): soon to be adoptive mom - foster care
Hello, I just have to vote I went through a horrible childhood myself and have been competent to find myself by being a foster mom for the past two yrs. I've loved all the drug,abused,neglected and slow babies that own come into my home. I prayed for God to let us adopt just one or two. We loved them all. I just now stopped fostering due to the stress level of the workers I was brought an 8 wk old boy near two broke legs, two fractured arms and ruptured testicles and coke addicted and the workers wanted me to transport him to bond with his parents 3 days a week. I lost it, broke down! I went out and drank after my wknd position and was arrested. No achohol present but I failed a Breathalyzer. So they closed our home. Only to find out a week later adjectives charges were dismissed (I've never even had a speeding ticket) but its too late, I made a mistake and they will not reopen my home. My point within telling you this is there are people who long for a family circle. I had a son at 15 and I now have a 9 year antediluvian but it does not take away my pain of wanting to give a child a home. Without fostering and not seriously of money I just hurt for more children.I'm 40 now and would of loved to help for a moment girl that has been through our kind of former. If you like a surrogate mom , here to talk. kidstoluv@att.net Source(s): fostermom
Felicita gave an excellent answer.
No one here say it's black and white, either/or. No one would ever say it is best to stay with an abusive household. No one. That includes a natural family, an adoptive family, or foster relatives. Abuse happens in every type of family.
I am sorry for everything you have to endure from a system that is broken. Every child deserves a loving home. When their natural relatives cannot or will not do the right thing, then adoption IS in the best interest of the child, as long as the adoption is ethical. Source(s): realness
Related Questions:
How much does domestic adoption cost?
Should i allow him to adopt my child , yes or no?
Question for other foster parents.?
I do agree with some points against adoption, mostly the pressure put of younger poor mothers to give up their child minus informing them of other options and AP that lie to their kids about where on earth they came from. But at the same time, it seem close to people think the birth mother maternal instinct will penny-pinching she will be this perfect wonderful mother. That as long as the kid stays with their birth mother that their life will be wonderful and person adopted dooms them to a horrible life and a ton of mental health problems. I grew up on the other side of the tracks, I wasn't lucky adequate be a healthy baby, I was a bi-racial crack babe-in-arms going though withdraw, kids like me are blacklisted babies, nobody wants us. I have foster siblings that were beaten, abused, neglected, sexually abused and worse. My own biological twin half sister be pimped out by my mother, at the age of 8, to support her drug addiction, one of the men she sold their bodies too, had HIV, they are both infected. They were lucky enough to be adopt by a wonderful family that worked very hard to backing them realize that they were not pieces of meat to be bought and sold. Both are doing very well right very soon outside of their disease. I was lucky enough to find them right before I turned 18, their adoptive parents took me within and gave me a place to stay when I turned 18 and had nowhere's to go. They supported me, help get a job and get on my foot, if not for them, I would been living on the streets.
I guess what I'm getting at, sometimes it's not other black and white. Some women have been deprived of the change to be wonderful mothers because they be pressure into giving up for adoption when they knew they wanted to keep that tot. A some women shouldn't be pressure into a keeping a child when they don't think they can raise it right or are mentally ready for the work.
The foster concern system being so full is proof that many, many times, first parents shouldn't be raise children. It's also proof that for those who are raising children, there needs to be more checks on them somehow.
It's a shame, but years ago, if a mother seem overwhelmed, or if she wasn't doing something right, or if it appeared that she was being abused, a neighbor would go over, ask if they needed minister to with the kids overnight so she could get some rest, and neighbors and friends worked with respectively other. Famiies weren't so scattered across the country, and had each other to work near.
Further proof-our son was born meth addicted. We were in a private adoption plan. His bio sister, born 11 months subsequently, and first mom changed her mind, has been taken by the state 2 times. Since I have no allowed relationship, and our son doesn't because he was adopted and not through the state, he doesn't either. I see their other children, who hold somber looks on their faces all the time, and then our little guy, who laughs, cuts up, and smiles 99% of the time. He wake up with a grin 3 miles wide every morning and nap.
I'm a firm believer that instigate adoption should be legally enforceable, and yet adoption should be supported, although never forced on anyone, don't say, "I'll help", and be in that for the first three nights, and then leave the mother and toddler.
I agree adoption is not black and white and it is necessary at times, like yours, it is not right to put kids through one foster home after another. These kids should be adoptable.
But for new borns born to infantile women whose only crimes, are youth,
no money and being unwed, they should stay with their mothers. Just because they don't reason they can raise it right, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't try. Giving your baby up is a lifetime of distress. I've been there.
Answers: "A some women shouldn't be pressure into a keeping a child when they don't think they can raise it right or are mentally ready for the situation."
A woman who keeps a child past birth is not obligated to keep that child if she afterwards decides to surrender it to adoption. A child can be surrendered any time up until the age of 18. We do not pressure mothers to keep children they truly do not want or love. What we do is encourage them to trademark this decision once they have recovered from birth, when it truly can be an informed decision.
Your story highlights tons problems with our current system. There is NO reason why a foster family ("surrogate care") cannot be lifelong, until the child is 18, if substitute care is required outside of the natural family. Transferring a young-looking child through 13 different homes is child abuse in and of itself. A child needs a consistent bond next to adults who will be there for a long time.
I have corresponded with social workers contained by other countries, who are shocked that we adopt children out of foster care. They consider this to be inhumane and unnecessary, when other permanent alternatives exist. They consider adoption to be something that an adult who have grown up in foster care can decide for themselves, that they are powerful of this decision as an adult.
Also, you should be informed that "crack babies" do not have to stir through withdrawal. This myth, promoted heavily in the media within the 1990s, confuses stimulant drugs with opiates. NAPW states: "The term “crack addicted baby” is no less defensible. Addiction is a scientific term that refers to compulsive behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By definition, babies cannot be “addicted” to crack or anything else. In utero physiologic dependence on opiates (not addiction), known as Neonatal Narcotic Abstinence Syndrome, is readily diagnosed, but no such symptoms own been found to occur following prenatal cocaine exposure." "
It also shows how there is far far too little within the way of resources to treat the illness of drug addiction. Your mother should have be helped so that she would have recovered. Health care is a essential human right, and her human rights were violated:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the form and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to shelter in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other drought of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
There is no way she should have have to prostitute herself or her daughter to get money for her addiction. The money should have been in attendance, to support her and her children, such that grinding poverty was not an issue.
Again, your story shows how impoverished mothers and their children are abandoned surrounded by our North American society, left to struggle and try to support themselves with FAR too few resources, and meanwhile government money go to the rich! Source(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efwk-pZSz…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health…
http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blo…
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/inde…
The problem with permanent fostering is simply this: what do you do near the child when he/she turns 18 and "ages out"? Anyone who thinks a person of that age is a responsible adult who can cause it totally on their own with no family support (especially emotional support) is dreadfully deluded. There may be an occasional exception to the rule who can handle it, but for most of them it's very unrealistic. I be a social worker for two years and I've seen that sad scenario play out more times than I care to remember. This is one origin why we try so hard to have a permanent plan for every child (either adoption or reunion), because kids desperately stipulation a stable family. Not just as children, but for the rest of their lives too, and especially in their 20's.
Some of them stir to college and continue to get a stipend for an extra three years as long as they do well, but they still own to deal with that stressful alone-in-the-world problem, and a lot of them don't succeed (partly because of that). I've see some very dedicated foster parents who love their foster children dearly and adopt them "informally" by continuing to treat them as their son or daughter even after they turn 18, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
I agree it would be better not to move children from home to home, but the problem near that is, when the foster parents tell you to come get them, what choice do you enjoy? No foster parent that I know of is going to accept a child without retaining the right to evict them if they become more of a "problem" than they're willing to business deal with.
The foster care system is far from perfect, but what culture sometimes don't realize is that sometimes there are no good choices, and sometimes there are simply no choices at adjectives. Not only that, but workers are severely overworked, underpaid, continually stressed, and constantly put in a position where no business what they do somebody is going to be howling for their blood (sometimes quite literally). And God help them if they make a mistake or an error surrounded by judgement, because then not only will they get fired and hold their public reputation ruined, but they may even be prosecuted and sent to jail. Would you take a job resembling that? Most people wouldn't, and I don't blame them.
Children in foster care can enjoy several different plans in place, based on their particular situation. Adoption isn't other the one selected. Kids are always consulted about adoption to see how they perceive about it, even the little ones. Their thoughts are always taken into consideration. Sometimes they remain in foster meticulousness, sometimes they're adopted, sometimes they're emancipated. . . lots of things can happen. Source(s): Former social worker
I would have to say that adoption is a wonderful entry, I can honestly say because there are a lot of associates willing to give and people feeling like to adopt. If there was not adoption today think of adjectives the babies in this world that would either be aborted or unwanted! Thanks to adjectives that adopt they can have families and know what it feels resembling to be called "parent" and "mom and dad".!!
I am sorry that you had such a horrible time as a child. I worked doing registrations for years in elementary,middle and high arts school and I saw how the foster care children were treated. Some of the students we enrolled didn't stay surrounded by the school long enough for us to get their files. When we got a foster care student in our academy, I always made sure that they faxed me the records IMMEDIATELY because they were normally gone before the week was out. It made me sick. Often, the reason they be transferred so quickly was because they would try and contact their natural parents.
It irritates me how general public feel free to speak to the thinking behind the voices of the anti-adoption folks, as if they ( and they alone) own the really, truly once and for all inside scoop on our thoughts. It is as bad here as the NCFA speaking on behalf of those 'poor birthmothers' who quiver contained by their boots lest their secret gets out! What rubbish! The BSE Mothers, at least, are contained by their 50's and 60's by now, and none of us fell off the turnip truck yesterday. We have see a lot in that time, and do NOT walk around next to rose-colored glasses. I believe that most all of us understand that sometimes children involve to be removed from their families, there may not be other family that can transport them in and there are indeed real, true orphans within this country.
However, the foster care system is broken. It was designed to be a place where parents who be up against it had a place to temporarily keep their children due to illness, annihilation or otherwise until they could get on their feet again. It was NOT intended to be a chute to the waiting hand of the eager PAPs or a trial adoption!
Further, when a child is adopted, there is no have need of to change their name, seal their birth pass, lock their records away from them and their natural family, including siblings, forever. It is comical.
Rarely do I think adoption is the answer. Possibly one and only in situations where there is treat roughly or the child's family is unwilling and unable to parent and only next if other family members have be given the option to provide legalized guardianship.
My belief is that if at all possible - children should be kept with their own flesh and blood of origin.
good grief you wrote so much i dont even want to read it. but here is my take on adoption. i am against it if you have a child newly to give it away. thats what abortion is for. there are tons of kids without parents that involve homes. i dont think its right that people mainly want to adopt babies. they should tolerate the child also choose. someone who wants a home and needs it and is old adequate to choose their parents.
There are so many people who are so black and white on "family preservation" that they are unwilling to acknowledge that children obligation stability, love 100% percent of the time and these needs should come before that preservation. Any time there is demonstrated toxic nearest and dearest relationships, or physical abuse or evidence of not providing food, shelter and basics while spending money on your personal BS, or putting kids in an unsafe caregiver situation is there--the kids should be taken away. No exceptions. No do overs a short time ago because you are blood. Some people are not able to nor willing to parent. When you deliver a babe-in-arms, that baby becomes number 1. No exceptions. And kids need homes. Perm placement and Adoption is the best answer if that isn't the overnight case.
I do not think the biological mother is always the best resort.
But that doesn't mean I think we need to erase a child's identity and olden, separate him or her permanently from his or her larger family structure, and pretend as if he or she were born to other family.
That's what adoption in this country amounts to. There are other arrangements than the legal fiction that is adoption.
So yes, I'm other opposed to adoption. But that's not the same as always thinking the biological parents ought to be disappeared to raise the child.
I agree that it is absolutely not black and white.
There are some that say that children in foster assistance should never be adopted, because they will lose their identity. They believe they should be fostered long-term, instead.
While they might not be completely wrong, I'm hoping that this provides another perspective on the matter.
A dear friend of mine that I took some college classes with be in foster care and was adopt by his foster family when he was 14. He took their name, and said it be the first time that his last name meant anything to him. Sometimes when I read that kids should be fostered long permanent status, I think of him, and how relieved he was when someone saw him, at 14 and troubled, for what he was. A child who needed a loved ones.
Thanks for sharing. Source(s): soon to be adoptive mom - foster care
Hello, I just have to vote I went through a horrible childhood myself and have been competent to find myself by being a foster mom for the past two yrs. I've loved all the drug,abused,neglected and slow babies that own come into my home. I prayed for God to let us adopt just one or two. We loved them all. I just now stopped fostering due to the stress level of the workers I was brought an 8 wk old boy near two broke legs, two fractured arms and ruptured testicles and coke addicted and the workers wanted me to transport him to bond with his parents 3 days a week. I lost it, broke down! I went out and drank after my wknd position and was arrested. No achohol present but I failed a Breathalyzer. So they closed our home. Only to find out a week later adjectives charges were dismissed (I've never even had a speeding ticket) but its too late, I made a mistake and they will not reopen my home. My point within telling you this is there are people who long for a family circle. I had a son at 15 and I now have a 9 year antediluvian but it does not take away my pain of wanting to give a child a home. Without fostering and not seriously of money I just hurt for more children.I'm 40 now and would of loved to help for a moment girl that has been through our kind of former. If you like a surrogate mom , here to talk. kidstoluv@att.net Source(s): fostermom
Felicita gave an excellent answer.
No one here say it's black and white, either/or. No one would ever say it is best to stay with an abusive household. No one. That includes a natural family, an adoptive family, or foster relatives. Abuse happens in every type of family.
I am sorry for everything you have to endure from a system that is broken. Every child deserves a loving home. When their natural relatives cannot or will not do the right thing, then adoption IS in the best interest of the child, as long as the adoption is ethical. Source(s): realness
Related Questions: