a question for former Foster kids and/or adoptees/or anyone?

i do think that people on ya speak for foster kids when they really should be listening to them. our situation is totally different than other adoptees. most of us WANT to be adopted. for many of us, changing our birth certificate is necessary to keep us safe. it would have saved my life. had i been adopted and had my birth certificate changed i probably would not have had to give my daughter up for adoption. in fact i probably would not have gotten pregnant. i think thats called irony. when you are fearing for your life, a name change doesnt seem like the worst thing in the world. foster kids dont get taken for no reason. for a lot of us the abuse is pretty bad. also, i have no connection to my last name from birth. these people almost killed me and caused me so, so many problems...sharing a last name with people who loved me would have been great. but the last time i went into care, i was 14, anorexic and had a bunch of other problems. i was a problem no one wanted to bother with.

its not that i dont think newborn adoptees should feel pain, its just a different thing totally. i sometimes read what adoptees have to say about being reunited and having two families that love them. or even ones who arent..they still usually have one. we have none. it hurts to read that. its not that im not happy for them! its just that ill never even feel what its like to be wanted by one family. at all.

so sometimes we do feel a bit "out of the loop" here, because foster adoption is looked at as a last resort. we're "damaged", "broken", "not your own".

we really WANT to be "your own".

i know you didnt say it to hurt anyone, but you say that people should try having their own first, and then maybe adopt from foster care. we dont like being a last resort any more than you do and it probably hurt that poster to have it said so bluntly.

i know you probably didnt mean anything by it though.

thank you for asking what we think at least. most people never do.

eta: sjm, i understand where youre coming from, but youre speaking for us when you should be asking what we want. permanent guardianship is not the same thing. its also not an alternative to adoption. permanent guardianship to a foster kid just means "we'll keep you but youre not part of our family".

you dont realize what its like to not have a family AT ALL.

We adopted from foster care and it was always my plan to do so---IF the child could not go home. When my daughter hurts--I hurt because home to me is where she comes First. When she searched for her grave all day and couldn't find it she came to me crying and we found it. I felt that pain.

To the poster who wanted to be adopted and never got that opportunity I can feel that pain too. Reminds me of someone I talked to the other day who wants to foster teen only and adopt BECAUSE she Understands the pain. I wish you had found your forever family. My daughter was lucky she didn't end up sent to a home of some sort. She loved rainbows and the first rainbow in this town caused our phone lines to go crazy with the neighbors calls re" the rainbow. Sometimes it really does take a community to raise a child.

Sometimes guardianship is the only option---one parents rights has not been terminated, the child is over a certain age[here 14] and does not want to be adopted.---Even tho the FP's want to adopt it can't be done.

I spent a VERY short amount of time in foster care, and my best friend of 22 years spent a few years in foster care. I know that the time I spent with another family was intensely uncomfortable. I didn't want my own (abusive) family, but I didn't want someone else's family, either. My best friend was mentally abused by her foster carer, and she hated every single moment that she spent away from her parents. Even if she hadn't been abused in foster care, she still preferred her own family over anyone else's.

I don't think there's a tier system as far as who is more "deserving" of a home (forgive me if I'm misunderstanding that point...it seems that this could be a point the poser was trying to make). But there certainly should be a set of steps to be taken before ANY adoption occurs, whether domestic or international, foster care or infant. First and foremost, of course, parents should be supported in keeping their own children. This would eliminate a huge chunk of the "need" for adoption in the first place. If parents are unable to care for their children, family, close friends, and others in the community of origin should be explored, in that order. If none of those options are viable, then strangers can be considered. As a last resort, someone of a different nationality/race should be considered. And as a very last, bottom-of-the-barrel option, when every other possibility has been exhausted, families in another country can be explored, if they're willing to move to the child's country of origin. In those few cases where children need to be moved out of their country of origin for safety reasons, then a family in neighboring countries should be sought before taking the drastic step of completely cutting them off from their culture, country, language, etc.

It is my belief that if these steps are followed, most adoptions would never happen, and those that are necessary would be far more ethical, and far less damaging to the children involved.

Note, I said nothing above about foster care. However, the implication is there, simply because once the first option has been explored, then you've virtually eliminated all domestic infant adoptions, leaving only international and foster care.

As someone who is adopting from foster care, I can really only speak to my own experience with kids I've worked with previously who were in care. It is, at best, anecdotal, but take it for what it is worth, I guess.

I think that kids in foster care get pretty accustomed, after a while, to being told how to feel about things. Between abusive original families, possibly abusive/oppressive foster homes, social workers, therapists, judges...all telling them how they should/should not feel, and being labelled, over-medicated, shuffled around and rejected, through no fault of their own, I imagine it could get tiresome, and there is a good likelihood that their voices are usually drowned out by the din.

After all of this, they are again disenfranchised by the adoption community. I don't believe that what you say is wrong, Linny, by any stretch. I am a strong advocate for foster adoption. In fact, my advocacy for foster adoption is exactly the reason that I abhor private infant adoption in so many cases. Why should our kids sit in care with NO ONE, when we, as a society have FAILED THEM, while someone waits 8 years or whatever it is for a healthy white newborn who likely has at least one parent who is able to parent...? It makes my blood boil. These kids are not, and will never be, my second choice. It would not be terribly complicated for my husband and I to conceive. If I was willing to prepare myself for health complications from the start, I probably could. But we wanted to foster long before I ever thought I would have an issue. My husband's dream job is to become a youth worker, but it sadly does not pay enough to support a single person living on the cheap, much less a family. I would love to become a social worker one day. But right now, I'd like to be exactly where I am now, whether that means fostering, or foster adoption. This was our first choice. Even had fertility not been an issue, I'd say there's a very good chance that nothing would be different for us.

I say that they are disenfranchised by the adoption community because they are not truly adoptees. Even ones who were adopted generally do not share the feelings of adults who were adopted from birth, through private newborn adoption. Foster kids, as Darla mentioned, often have NO families. Not because they are not deserving, but because somehow, we live in a world where people can and do hurt their children. The reasons for that are many, but there are no excuses. These kids deserve better, and I think that maybe they don't fit the "adoptee mold" so they may not feel "heard".

Again, I certainly don't pretend to speak for them. But having worked with my fair share of kids in care, I can say that most would like even just one family. Or even just one PERSON that they can feel is "theirs".

While I don't believe that anyone is INTENTIONALLY implying that children in foster care are "second class citizens", in a setting like Y!A, where many of us (myself included) are generally opposed to infant adoption, they may wonder where that leaves them, and maybe even why they are always the "exception" to such a hard and fast rule.

First of all...your impersonator aka "Done" only posted that crap to get the last word and then cut out like a coward does. Good riddance if the account was deleted as promised but I see it wasn't.

Never in previous posts had she/he indicated this issue so I think they got nailed on Yahoo. The accusations, in my opinion, were unfounded and a last ditch effort to feel important.

Now...to your questions:

Do people really think that there is a "tier" system in adoption?

Yes I do. I believe private adoption is generally preferred by potential adoptive parents because it seems less tainted. That is based on the misconceptions about foster children. (guilty as charged until we initiated the process). And of course, the desire for newborns and who can pay for the "privilege". I get the impression and please correct me if I'm wrong...but foster care adoptions are more accessible to those who are not affluent because it's their only affordable choice. So that's another tier issue.

Certainly, infants are available for adoption in Canada from foster care so better education would help there. Our son was in foster care from birth. I know....we ended up with private adoption at 10 months but I'm speaking to the issue that he was originally placed with foster parents as a newborn. Rare...but it happens.

Whatever the case...when reunification efforts have failed or not allowed based on the situation...of course the children need to be adopted...that's the whole point isn't it?

I can't speak for those with foster care experience either as an adoptee or professional. But I can say that your question did not imply a "pain hierarchy".

I don’t know why I am answering -because it will most likely get reported-but……….

What I was saying was people who were adopted as infants and newborns share separate feelings than those who grew up in foster care. My problem was the adoptees on here speaking as if they know what is best for children in foster care or what children in foster care want-without any info on the system or ever knowing a former foster child- that is what annoys me. I think that children should be adopted through foster care, but making it some kind of complete last choice goes along with the feeling of -how you put- being a 2nd class citizen.

I adopted my kids from foster care.

When we started planning for our family we decided to foster to adopt instead of having biological children. It was from day one Plan A for us. Every single one of the other foster parents I know have bio kids. I have met couples that couldn't have kids that started the MAPP classes but all 4 dropped out.

Adoption thru foster care is not usually a route for infertile couples. After years of failed treatments to conceive they want a sure thing or at least a close to sure thing. Foster care is not a sure thing unless you want teens.

Why are people who always planned on adopting "yuck"? You say how terrible it is if adopting is Plan B, but yet they're bad for planning on it? You can't have it both ways. Saying you should only adopt through foster care also gives the impression that the APs are saving the child, which you ALSO think is wrong. Seeing the pattern here? And if NO adoptee is a second class citizen, then why should non-foster kids who need a home be denied one? Face it. Availability of a home for a child isn't going to impact whether a birth mother relinquishes. They don't have psychic powers to see exactly who would be willing to adopt the child, and they don't surrender so someone can adopt. They surrender the child because they cannot or will not care for the child, regardless of which couples wish to adopt. You don't have to like me, but even YOU have to see the logic here. I don't hate birthmothers. They aren't neccessarily bad people. I have NO problem with them as a demographic. The problem I have is when people- be they birthmother, AP, or anything else- cannot take responsibility for their actions and pawn it off on someone who doesn't deserve it. It isn't their actions in surrendering-it's the blame game you so love to play.

Hmm. I spent some time in 'the system' as a teenager. After my amom died, I refused to live at home. I was 15. Eventually, I was adjudicated. I didn't go to foster care. Most of the reason I wasn't at home was due to the trauma associated with the death of my amom, and I wasn't willing to let someone else pretend they were my mom. I was a fairly intelligent kid, stayed one step ahead of my social worker, and managed to be placed on independent living and was sent to college at the age of 16. In order to achieve that, I had to get my GED which is no longer a possibility (at least in my state) if you're under 18, get a job, find a place I could afford that also offered at least minimal supervision (the YWCA), and be accepted into college. I enrolled in a junior college. I was, nonetheless, still adjudicated and in the system. The LAST thing I wanted was to be adopted again. Of course, I'd already played that gig, and I was pretty sure I was old enough to take care of myself. Skip the sappy 'new mommy' crap.

But then, I see teenagers coming on here now wanting to be adopted because they got into an argument with their parents. I guess it's an individual thing? I can only speak for myself. I would have rather dealt with a pencil-pushing social worker than to have been adopted again.

I didn't completely understand the point of the response you received, but I don't personally think adoption itself ever solves any problem. There are, of course, young children in the system who would benefit from permanent placement in a good, private home that is compatible with their needs. But I don't think there is ever a need to strip a person of their identity in exchange for providing their basic needs. That's always a bad exchange. There has to be a better way. Permanent guardianship would be a better solution, IMO. If the safety of the child is an issue, a name change may be in order, but never, ever, ever in exchange for basic needs.

ETA: The original poster already responded before I even submitted this answer, but my answer still stands. And again, I wasn't in foster care, but social services did try to place me in a 'specialized' foster home. I just wasn't deemed suitable. As an adoptee, I had too many issues to function in another pretend family environment. It was decided I would reject any and all foster parents. If I hadn't taken the initiative to get on independent living, I would have ended up in RTC, and I did spend time in a youth shelter until I could make IL work.

Oh, and as a side note, my natural mother was horrified when she learned this happened and no one called her.

I'm confused. How is promoting adoption from foster care treating foster kids as second class citizens? Surely it's pointing out that they shouldn't be seen as such because we're (those who are) suggesting that they DO get helped before the cute ickle babiwabies?

And yes, I have read Done's reply, and I'm still confused. <g>