Do you know that Long-term guardianship is NOT an option?
I am interested in the many posts I see that suggest that guardianship or long-term foster care is preferred over adoption. In UT, this is just not an option at all. There has to be extreme circumstances before the courts will even consider either of these choices.
The code reads that all "adoptable" children WILL be placed for adoption.
In other words, if a family chooses long-term foster care or guardianship, they MAY risk losing the child to another home that will adopt. The reasoning is that guardianship does not equal permanence. (legal reasoning not mine folks) Why do so many people suggest guardianship? is that really a legal option in your state?
Anonymous2009-10-13T08:28:50Z
Favorite Answer
Guardianship is legal jumble mumble for long term fostering. And while many people may believe this is a great option or way to avoid someone's 'identity' being stripped away, think about it from the child's perspective. Try explaining long term guardianship to a 10 year old. All they understand is that they aren't adopted, they aren't wanted by a family, no one wanted them to be their son or daughter. They are just living with people. Fostering is admirable but children need permanency. They need a life long family, a permanent home, they need to belong. If that's not a crucial part of this 'identity' that gets tossed around so often I don't know what is.
I have to agree about the birth certificate amendment, in part. I too don't see the need for a piece of paper to say I gave birth to a child. However, the certificate doesn't really say that. It lists parents, not biological parents who gave birth. The BC is needed for many legal aspects of a child's life - school, passports, etc - so it has to show who are the parents in charge of the child's legal affairs.
Long term guardianship is available in most states for a reason. For a government body to separate a child from a loving long-term foster care or guardianship situation is heinous. It is not in the best interests of the child to be thrown about different homes once they have formed an attachment. They risk the possibility of being unable to form attachments throughout life. The folks who came up with Utah's 'code' clearly hates children.
In my province, it is generally only recommended as a possible option if the child is first nations, and cannot therefore be adopted. Other than that, the ideal form of permanancy is considered to be adoption.
I am of two minds on this one. I do not believe the Birth Certificate should necessarily be amended the way it is. I just don't. I don't need the courts telling me I gave birth to a child to whom I clearly did not give birth in order to feel like a mother.
However, having spoken with many, many older foster children, they DO, in fact, wish they would be, or had been adopted. They have a myriad of reasons for this, but many (not all) of them simply feel that the family is "copping out" by only doing guardianship. They feel as though they are not wanted ENOUGH to adopt. This is, of course, in most cases, untrue, but from the perception of a child, abused by their natural family, and having been bounced around the system, I can understand their logic. Keep in mind, many of these children have come from horrific circumstances. They may have a lot of residual pain from their natural families and probably don't understand, at that stage in the game, why it would be important to maintain connections. As adults, we can understand why it might be important to do so, but they have a right ot be angry. These aren't private newborn adoptions, after all.
I can see the reason for both in the case of foster adoption. Long term foster care, however, is not a good idea in my opinion. Foster care is simply different than guardianship or adoption, and does not offer the same level of permanancy. Kids aren't stupid, and need to know that they're not moving again, so that they can start grieving/healing and forming attachments. It's not fair to keep kids in limbo in that situation.
I think the people that should be giving the most opinions on this should be people who spent a reasonable amount of time in foster care as older children. They are the ones who truly understand what it feels like to be on the other side of the coin.
I stand behind adoptees and their right to their own records and history. I am the first to recognize the painful effects of infant adoption, but foster care is just a totally different ball game. Talking to some of the grown adults on this board who aged out of foster care gives an entirely different perspective on the matter. Some (not all) of those kids have NO viable family unit whatsoever. They are, in my humble opinion, exactly who adoption is made for.
We have the same thing in various Provinces of Canada. Alberta, where I am, for one. As of 3-4 years ago families are prohibited by the Act from signing long term guardianship agreements for foster kids (even for First Nations children such as the one we adopted however what the Band chooses to do may be different from what is technically allowed).
All are considered adoptable (which I agree, all should be) but the agreements with foster parents are essentially day to day. The day to day period may stretch into when the child is 18 however that doesn't take away from the fact that formalized long term guardianship, with the supports and the sense of permanence that goes with it, is not an option. Of course, that doesn't apply with private arrangements (within families and not involving agencies) but with agencies or with CFS these long term guardianship arrangements are not an option.
What some people may feel that long-term guardianship is preferable to adoption is because a long-term guardianship does NOT strip away the adoptee's entire identity. A child who is cared for under a long-term guardianship still has access to all of their identifying documents and biological history like every other non-adopted person.
I believe the idea is that instead of changing a person's entire identity and then sealing it off from them for the rest of their lives, a long-term guardianship, aka for the rest of their lives, would be preferable as it would preserve the child's identity and documentation.
I'm not very well versed on the anti-adoption platform nor am I as educated as some of the people on here who advocate this, but this is the impression I've gotten. Obviously new policies would have to be put in place for this to work, but that's what reform is all about. Changing things to make them better.