CRAZY SHIT PEOPLE SAY TO FOSTER PARENTS
Kara over at Matt and Kara Adopt wrote a post titled “Dude, really?” (very fitting) about the odd questions/comments she’s heard since she got pregnant. I’ve mulled over creating a similar post in the past about the crazy shit I’ve been asked/told about foster parenting Noah. So here it finally goes.
“Isn’t it going to be hard if you have to give him back?”
The response of snark: Yes, it’s going to be hard. Thanks for reminding me.
This was the thing we heard more frequently during the beginning of caring for Noah. The goal of foster care is reunification; the care is meant to be temporary. In our situation it didn’t turn out that way, but it was always something we were prepared for. We had that two week booze-filled European tour in our back pocket if that situation ever came about.
“How much money do you get to take care of him?”
The response of snark: Didn’t your mother ever tell you it was rude to discuss finances? or Enough to quit my job and move to beachfront property. That is exactly why we are doing this.
I’ve actually been quite open about this topic on this blog but, for some reason, it always through me for a loop when people asked me to my face. The real answer is that it doesn’t matter. There is never enough money when it comes to kids, everyone knows that. I blame that on the rising cost of college tuition. Oh, and the ungodly prices of milk in 2011.
“What are you going to tell him when he gets older about where he came from?”
The response of snark: We’re going to tell him we found him floating in a wicker basket in the Ohio River. We’re hoping he doesn’t pick up on the similarities to Moses during Sunday school.
What do you mean what are we going to tell him? We’re going to tell him the truth. I’m his aunt, J is his uncle, but we’re his forever parents. Will it get complicated? Yes. But love, that’s pretty simple. He’ll understand that.
“He looks like J. People won’t think anything about it.”
No, actually, he doesn’t. It’s impossible; they do not share a single piece of the same DNA. Does that make him any less of a son to J? Uh, no. And I hope that, regardless of what Noah looks like, that people won’t “think” anything about him being our child.
The cringe worthiest of all the cringe: “Why doesn’t his mom just take birth control (and/or get ‘fixed’)?”
This question has been asked, I’m sure, because Noah’s mother is my sister and everyone assumes we share a brain. Or at least that I had some telepathic connection to her psyche. And while I don’t condone violence, to all the people who asked me that question in the past, know that, despite my tight lipped smile and calm demeanor, I was giving you a swift mental kick in the face.
This question was typically asked while Noah was with me (since he’s with me A LOT). Why, oh why, would you speak of my child’s mother in that manner in front of him? Yes, he’s only three and doesn’t understand the topic being discussed and will have no recollection of the conversation once he does reach an age to understand, but he sees the line of sweat beading on my forehead. He sees me stuttering over my words and choking down my anger to deal with your unsolicited curiosity. My anxiety affects his anxiety and, for that, you should be ashamed.
To push past the rage that built up in me every time I heard this, and to hopefully change the topic of conversation, I would simply say, “I don’t know.” What I didn’t realize at the time is that response drew out even more commentary. This provided the perfect opportunity for that person to inject their views on the child welfare system and how the government and taxpayers shouldn’t carry the burden of other people and their “mistakes”.
The most alarming thing about these inquiries and the unsolicited commentary on the welfare system as a whole* is that these people are typically the same ones who blow up my Facebook feed up with pseudo-women’s rights posts about how restricting birth control and banning abortion would infringe upon their rights. Based on that, I thought we were on the same page regarding a woman and the autonomous right to control her own body. Whether a woman chooses or doesn’t choose to bring a child into this world is between her, her partner, and God. Let’s leave the government out of the equation. K? Thanks.
And not to go all Michelle Duggar on you guys but children are a blessing. Yes, I wish that all of Noah’s siblings had been brought into the world under better circumstances and that they had the opportunity to be raised alongside one another in a stable home with their birth parents but debating what could have been done to avoid our “situation” questions the value of my son’s existence and I will go to the mat (err, figuratively… remember, I don’t condone violence) with anyone about that. Raising Noah has been the most defining experience of my life and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that his other siblings have made similar impacts in the lives of their caregivers.
My response to those people started to evolve into a version of: “Well she has [had] a disorder. Just like how some people take prescribed medication or see a counselor for anxiety and depression, others self-medicate and surround themselves with the things that make them feel secure - whether that be drugs, another pregnancy, or inanimate objects (seen Hoarders, y’all?).” Then I would abruptly change the discussion by telling them some cute anecdote about Noah learning to say the word “bicycle” in which he would promptly chirp up with a very well enunciated “BI-SICK-KOOL” that would elicit coos, smiles, and the occasional applause.
*[Getting into the debate over the government’s role in child rearing and their support through welfare is too much to address in this post but I will say that until the government properly treats the underlying cause of some of these “issues” (poverty, under-education, substance abuse), that we can’t legitimately expect that people plagued by those hindrances can parent in a responsible manner.]
Full disclosure: I am well aware that most of these questions came out of general curiosity and actual concern for the task J and I were undertaking as new parents. I don’t honestly believe that any of the people who uttered these words meant for me to take offense. Still, STILL, why aren’t some people equipped with filters?
Any crazy questions/comments you’ve heard as a foster or adoptive parent?
UPDATE ON NOAH’S MOM
Last Monday I had lunch with Noah’s mother. She has completed treatment and is now in a sober living facility just a few miles from her treatment center. She is given passes to visit home to take care of some logistical things (child support hearings, etc) which is why she was in town at the time. It was the first time I had seen her since before she entered treatment last year. And, WOW, what a difference our interactions were. We had chatted on the phone a few times before that so I was already optimistic that our meeting would be positive. I can’t tell you how much of a difference treatment has made. I can only describe my previous interactions with her as being on an emotional roller coaster - mitigating dips into dark, angry tirades and hills of chatty, incoherent highs.
She is now pleasant and positive albeit even-tempered and serious. She spoke of the past as a dangerous period when she felt like nothing matter, when bad circumstances caused her to believe that all was lost. She spoke of a commitment to recovery rooted in her spirituality and a future of being a mentor to her older children and eventually a parent. We’ve been texting every couple of days since then. After so many years of having her lost, I finally feel like I have a sister back - an adult sister that I never got the chance to know. Granted, our conversations are still not the most normal - discussing treatment and court dates and adoption proceedings - but instead of receiving an urgent “I need your help!”, she’s found it easier to just say, “How is your day?”
She’s far from home so I’m still terribly afraid that she will become isolated, lonely, and depressed and that will lead her back to her previous life. I don’t want her to feel like all of her efforts were for nothing - that she will have no life with her children once she is able to gain some semblance of normality back home (if this is where she chooses to come). I’m not certain what I can do other than provide her with the positive emotional support I have during our conversations. But I’m still not certain what her recovery means in terms of her relationship with Noah. I’ve shared photos and videos of him with her and talked about his developmental milestones and achievements but she seems aware that she will never have the mother-son bond that was lost years ago. She seems okay with that but there is still so much more ground to cover. Do we call her “Mommy C”? Aunt C? Does she take on the role of birth mom like in some “traditional” open adoptions or is she integrated into our life as an aunt or a friend? So many questions still to answer. I suppose, for now, we’ll just continue working on what it means to be sisters.
SYSTEM FAILURES
Originally published March 8, 2012
——————————————
Thorn over at Mother Issues recently wrote an excellent post about the public adoption and foster care system and its many failures, specifically in regards to the support of familial ties. In it she writes: “If we care about families, which I’m not convinced we as a culture do, we need to support parents even when they’re poor or young or overcoming addiction or dealing with hard times.”
Noah’s mother is feeling increasing pressure from the case worker, the judge, and even her own court-appointed attorney to voluntarily terminate her parental rights to Brother E and Baby S. They may be right in saying that, in the long run, it will be best for those children (especially considering the fact that she has no relationship with them at all and they’ve bonded to the foster parents) but the reality is that she was never provided with the resources needed to be come a better parent. Sure, she made a lot of selfish decisions and decided to ignore a lot of the case plan recommendations but, as I’ve said before, addiction is a disease that requires patience, love, and an overwhelming amount of support to overcome its challenges. Even the most determined addicts would have a difficult time meeting some of the expectations of certain court-ordered case plans.
Obviously the goal of a case plan is to restore the parent to a healthy state so it has to be strict and demanding but when a person fails the plan the response from the case worker shouldn’t simply be: “Well, this doesn’t bode well for you.” It should be: “What do you need to be empowered to overcome these issues? What can I do to help you get back on track?” That support is simply lacking in the system and it leads to a lot of broken families and failed reunification. That may sound like I’m being a super soft liberal but, it’s actually quite the opposite. I mean, wouldn’t it be best for everyone if the child was returned to a healthy and stable environment with the biological parent rather than shuttled through a system on the tax payers’ dime? Some foster parents receive stipends even after children are adopted. Wouldn’t it be better to invest money into education, training, and substance abuse counseling for biological parents who are failing their case plans so that the long-term expense of providing a stipend for a foster child can be avoided?
There are obviously LOTS of instances where biological parents are unable or unwilling to parent their child and, of course, loving and committed foster parents should be identified and be able to adopt those children. And they should receive support from the government to do so. My issue is that reunification and maintaining familial ties doesn’t seem to be a priority in the system, at least in my experience. Recommendations from case workers, interpretation of law, and orders coming down from judges vary, even when the circumstances are the same case-by-case. We’re in a huge, convoluted mess where no particular policy or decision made by the court is ideal for everyone involved. What I see from where I’m sitting right now is that the TPR order will only be 100% benefical for Brother E and Baby S’s foster parents. Of course the children will benefit from it - they will be in a safe, happy, healthy, and loving home. The caveat is that they may or may not be raised to know their biological parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and grandparents and I see that as a major failure.
I’m not saying that Brother E and Baby S should be returned to their biological parents or that they shouldn’t be adopted at this point. There really is no stopping that train. The circumstances leading up to this point have led us to the inevitable. Still, as a person advocating for what is best for all the children involved (including my own, Noah), I have to look back at all the factors that contributed to this mess and say that something has got to change in the system so that this doesn’t continue to happen to other families. Of course Noah’s parents should be held accountable for the decisions that they made that led to DCBS’s involvement and their continuing inaction that resulted in the placement of all the children in permanent homes but I don’t think that either of them will ever be able to live without that regret and shame. However, the system needs to be held accountable for its inability to provide families with the resources needed to keep children together. If that means throwing the biological parents in jail when they fail to complete certain court-ordered elements of their case plan (because that is essentially what motivated C to get clean over these past six months), then so be it.
Thoughts?
MORE VENTING AND FUMING ABOUT THE SYSTEM
Originally published March 14, 2012
——————————————
I stumbled across this blog post criticizing the child welfare system in Kentucky yesterday while I was perusing a few foster parent and adoption resource sites. I can’t substantiate any of its claims (except maybe through my own anecdotal evidence!) and it seems to be focused on one county in particular, but the claims are alarming nonetheless. It refers to findings of a 2007 study which probably evaluated the system in 2006, over five years ago. Many, many things could have changed since then but, still, I was interested in finding that particular study. The writer mentioned that they were unable to locate it and, of course, I wasn’t able to either.
However, my Google search did land me on this particular official report from the Program Review and Investigations Committee in 2006. On page 34 of this report, in the section that defines caregivers, two particular titles jumped out at me: Licensed Relative Caregivers and Resource Parents. These are two terms I have never heard spoken from any social worker, judge, or anyone on the case that I’ve communicated with over these past two and a half years. From the report:
“The least used relative care option is the relative as licensed resource parent. Such a relative must complete all the training required of resource parents, as well as the background checks and home study. Once licensed, the relative would receive the usual foster care reimbursement of $600-$660 per month depending on the age of the child. Additional funds would be available for advanced levels of care and for extra expenses. Children in foster care automatically qualify for Medicaid and free school lunches.”
I am unable to find any further information on “Licensed Relative Caregivers” or “Resource Parents” within my state so I’m not even certain whether they are still accepted titles/programs. Most of the information on the entire welfare system is not shared with the public or is only published in highly esoteric written law that the average Joe cannot decipher.
However, this concept is the EXACT one I presented to Noah’s case workers time and time again when discussing possible placement of Brother E and Baby S. I asked over and over again whether any type of assistance was offered to help offset the high cost of raising two additional infants in my home. I was told that the only assistance that I could even apply for would be K-TAP, which is based off income (and you have to be near-poverty to receive it) since the children were “dependency” cases and not children removed from a home due to abuse or neglect. Kinship care (the $300 monthly stipend) wouldn’t have even been offered, supposedly.
So why was it never mentioned that I couldn’t become a licensed relative caregiver? Especially when I specifically asked about this type of licensing. When considering placement of Brother E and Baby S, I asked whether it was possible to take them in as relative caregivers first and then become a licensed foster parent, eventually adopting them under the SNAP program if reunification wasn’t an option (which would provide continued financial assistance after the adoption). This is the exact response I received from the social worker after she “spoke to the attorney on the case” about all of my questions:
“The children would not qualify for the SNAP adoption program. The SNAP adoption program is for children who have special needs, and at this time Brother E nor Baby S have special needs.”
Hmm. Well, I wasn’t asking whether they qualified for at that exact moment but, nevertheless, the cabinet’s own website defines a SNAP eligibility as:
“The children are considered special needs because they have a physical or mental disability, have an emotional or behavioral disorder, have a recognized/documented risk of physical, mental or emotional disorder, is a member of a sibling group consisting of two or more children to be placed together…”
I am just so completely floored by the incompetence of the people working within the system. How is it possible that I am aware of more laws and programs than those working directly in the system? Am I missing some major disconnected piece here that proves that the social worker does, in fact, know more about the limits and restrictions of the system than I do? Maybe I’m just misinterpreting the guidelines of these programs?
I’m not even certain what this information or these findings really provide me (if it’s true that we would have qualified), considering that Brother E and Baby S are near adoption with their current foster family. I can’t go back and retroactively apply a solution to all of these missteps to our situation to make it any better. But SOMETHING has to be done to better equip social workers with the knowledge needed to make the best possible recommendations to the court for placement and to ensure that siblings are kept together, that reunification is the ultimate goal, and that family is given priority.
