Scared Parents Want to Return Adopted Child

[Zombies!]

It's being reported (http://www.news.com.au/world/scared-parents-want-to-return-adopted-child/story-e6frfkyi-1225813185171) that parents who adopted a foster child want to return him to the Department of Human Services after finding knives under his bed.

At the time they adopted the boy, documents disclosed by the Department of Human Services (DHS) indicated the boy "has no difficulty with attachments and he knows right from wrong ... He does not demonstrate any significant behavioral problems which would be considered abnormal for a child his age.

"(The child) has not received counselling services and these services have not been indicated as a need for him at this time. (The child) is developmentally appropriate."

However, doctors later diagnosed the boy with several disorders, including major depressive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and fetal alcohol syndrome.

These people agreed to adopt a foster child. Foster children often come with problems that sometimes remain undiagnosed for a while. However, they didn't agree to adopt a child with these sorts of issues, who is now keeping knives hidden in their home.

Where do you think the parents' responsibilities lie? Do they owe it to the boy to keep working with him, after all, they're now his parents and biological parents don't get to choose what personality traits/problems their children have. Or is their safety and the safety of those around them tantamount, and the boy should be sent back to care?

Personally, I don't know. Part of me feels that they are now responsible for him, but then how would I cope with an older child secreting weapons around the house?

[DoubleJ]

They're not his parents: They're fostering, not adopting. The child is still a ward of the state; the adults just feed/clothe him, etc. And as such the state owes it to them to let them know what they're getting into. Some people prefer to, and even specialize in, fostering kids with problems like that, and are far more qualified to do so. I have no problems with them taking a potentially harmful child out of their house to get the attention he needs.

[Zeener Diode]

Maybe the State should offer a money-back guarantee if the kid exhibits signs of "Omen-ous" proportions.

[Wretched Creature]

They're not his parents: They're fostering, not adopting. The child is still a ward of the state; the adults just feed/clothe him, etc. And as such the state owes it to them to let them know what they're getting into. Some people prefer to, and even specialize in, fostering kids with problems like that, and are far more qualified to do so. I have no problems with them taking a potentially harmful child out of their house to get the attention he needs.

As I understand it from the article, they are not just fostering; they have actually adopted this child, in which case they have chosen to take on all of the joys and sorrows that would arise if they had given birth to him. This would include dealing with illnesses such as fetal alcohol syndrome and PTSD. Many, many people find out several years (or more) into their biological kids' lives that they have severe problems, but they aren't generally allowed to return those children. The same rules should apply to these parents.

'Course, if it were up to me, they'd get smacked around a lot first :pissed:.

[severe delays]

If they are just fostering then I have no issue with them wanting him removed. Foster parents will care for specific types of children and it shouldn't be a problem if they say they can't handle a child outside of that group. For example, a foster parent who has cared for teenagers for decades might struggle if handed a newborn. Or a family who has only ever looked after able-bodied children might not be physically or emotionally equipped to deal with a child with profound disabilities. I think this case is no different and it is better for the child to be cared for by someone who can meet their needs properly.

On the other hand, if they adopted him then I'm in two minds. Yes, things were withheld or undiagnosed but they did make a committment to the child and that should be treated in the same way as a committment to a birth-child would be. There's really no way of knowing if the kid would have hidden knives etc anyway - sometimes risk-taking and asocial behaviours are just a temporary part of growing up.

[DoubleJ]

On a re-read, I think the last sentence threw me -- it's the only place they talk about foster children and I assumed that was the important part.

Since it appears they have adopted the kid things do get a bit thorny for me. On the one hand, yes a biological parent doesn't get to pick and choose... except for when they put a kid up for adoption. Which is kind of how this whole thing got started.

What confuses me is that the adoption process isn't quick by a stretch, so I'm wondering just what went on between the first meeting with the agency and the knives incident. But on the other hand some of the things that are wrong with the kid are congenital -- you don't develop fetal alcohol syndrome at age 10 -- so quite frankly I think the state knew the kid was messed up and lied to them. At the absolute least I'd say the state owes the parents any money for treatment that insurance didn't cover. And if they truly consider themselves unable to care for him at this point I think the child would be better off being returned to the foster program.

And I'm hoping that the quote from the post-adoption program was taken out of context, because anyone that sanctimonious needs to be slapped just on principle.

[Pamplemousse!]

It's true that a biological parent doesn't get to pick and choose, but they do get responsibility over the fomulative years too, so they kinda reap what they sow.

Sounds like this family agreed to adopt an older child after being assured he was normal and found out he was a scary, scary child. As I read it, they were lied to by the State, received a child with signifiacnt psychological and physiological problems of a sort that aren't consistent with those that're 'expected' from fostered kids... and now they're being told to suck it up.

If that's correct, then they absolutely should have the right to send him back for care by someone more qualified or to receive more support from the government in terms of high-grade treatment. If, on the other hand, they fostered him for years before adopting him, then yeah, they should have known what they were getting into.

[RedRosesForMe]

I have mixed feelings on this. First, I agree in theory that the parents should not be allowed to give up the responsibility that they took on when adopting this child. They should have fostered him first (you *can* return them in those situations).

However, my sister and BIL just 6 months ago gave up on a child they were thinking of adopting. The state had told them he was normal, didn't have any severe emotional problems or mental health issues. After almost a year (and a lot of heartache) they decided they couldn't. He had *major* mental health and emotional problems, was always getting expelled from school for fighting and disciplinary problems, and was too much for my sister and BIL to deal with.

The state basically lied to my sis and BIL, when they finally got their hands on some of his records they found out he'd been struggling with these issues for years. So I understand why the parents would be upset, if they'd been told the child was fine and then he starts hoarding weapons.

[Wretched Creature]

On a re-read, I think the last sentence threw me -- it's the only place they talk about foster children and I assumed that was the important part.

Since it appears they have adopted the kid things do get a bit thorny for me. On the one hand, yes a biological parent doesn't get to pick and choose... except for when they put a kid up for adoption. Which is kind of how this whole thing got started.

What confuses me is that the adoption process isn't quick by a stretch, so I'm wondering just what went on between the first meeting with the agency and the knives incident. But on the other hand some of the things that are wrong with the kid are congenital -- you don't develop fetal alcohol syndrome at age 10 -- so quite frankly I think the state knew the kid was messed up and lied to them. At the absolute least I'd say the state owes the parents any money for treatment that insurance didn't cover. And if they truly consider themselves unable to care for him at this point I think the child would be better off being returned to the foster program.

And I'm hoping that the quote from the post-adoption program was taken out of context, because anyone that sanctimonious needs to be slapped just on principle.

Fetal alcohol syndrome and PTSD can both go undetected for quite a while if one isn't specifically looking for them. The former is often not detected until the child reaches the more challenging grades in school and a learning disability becomes obvious.

There's not really enough information in the article to tell us if there were obvious signs that the kid had problems, so I don't think we can assume DHS was "lying" to anybody. Should they assume all kids in foster care need counseling? Probably--but there aren't many counties in the US that have enough cash even to keep up with known child abusers, let alone provide counseling to kids just in case they have hidden mental health issues.

There's also nothing in that article that demonstrates whether those problems are as insurmountable as the parents represent them to be. I kept an awful lot of strange things under my bed when I was a kid, and I haven't slaughtered any large groups of people yet; maybe the kid was having nightmares and wanted to protect himself. At what point is your kid so weird that he is no longer your kid?

I think it's obvious these parents did not properly prepare themselves for adopting a child, and I agree that the child will certainly be better off without their tender loving care. However, I am deeply offended by their attempt to return him to the county as if he were an "itchy sweater" when they have legally committed themselves to be his parents. I think the county should find another placement for him and that all ties with his adoptive parents should be cut with extreme prejudice. They should never be allowed to adopt or foster another child.

[Pamplemousse!]

I think it's obvious these parents did not properly prepare themselves for adopting a child, and I agree that the child will certainly be better off without their tender loving care. However, I am deeply offended by their attempt to return him to the county as if he were an "itchy sweater" when they have legally committed themselves to be his parents. I think the county should find another placement for him and that all ties with his adoptive parents should be cut with extreme prejudice. They should never be allowed to adopt or foster another child.

It's attitudes like that which stop people from fostering in the first place. I fail to see how someone is a bad person for saying 'You know, I was okay with helping a kid who needed stability and a warm, comforting environment, but I didn't sign up to be a de facto warden for a violent offender'.

Why should a foster parent have to accept a threat to their own safety?

ETA: What about if the family had other children? Would you say then that they should still put up with the potentially dangerous one?

ETA(again) - because I got distracted: Of course, if the only thing this kid did that's weird is hoard some knives, then that's a different issue. I'm assuming the kid was generally acting in unpredictable, aggressive ways...but if it's just some knives? Yeah, they're shitty parents who aren't suited for the job. Just knives on their own mean nothing: could be that the kid's hoarding them in case someone tries to attack him in the night or whatever other horrible thing his previous parents may have done - it doesn't, in itself, mean the kid's a raving psycho.

[Zombies!]

That's also why I'm partly conflicted by this story. News.com.au aren't really known for doing in-depth reports, so there's really not enough information to go by in this particular report.

But it did honestly get me thinking. In a way, I feel sorry for the kid. You're adopted into what you think will be your home and family for the rest of your life, and after a while you're shuffled back into the foster system. That's gonna screw up an already messed up kid bad style.

I think it does depend a lot on whether the state did or didn't know about his issues before hand. If they didn't know and in good faith released this child to their care as a "healthy" child, and these issues have developed/been diagnosed after the adoption then fair enough. The family should be working more to try and resolve them if they can. But if there is a known history of issues with this kid, and the state did conceal it, and the family aren't capable of dealing with it, then the state needs to be culpable for fixing it in some way.

[HoHoHo]

These situations always strike me as "no-win". If the parents do nothing and kid turns out to be a psycho hosebeast who harms others, kid will be removed from their care and they'll be under attack. If they admit that it's beyond their capacity to deal with kid's issues, they'll also be under attack. State will be under attack no matter what - probably with considerable justification.

It's entirely possible that there is no appropriate place for this kid. I don't know about Oklahoma, but there simply aren't any good longterm care options for teens with significant mental health issue here and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's the same in the US.

I suspect there is some mechanism by which the child can be returned to the care of the state. Natural parents are able to relinquish care of their children to the state so it's difficult to imagine that adoptive parents would be unable to do so. I certainly don't believe that compelling these parents to continue to be responsible for this child's welfare is going to produce outcomes which are in the child's best interests. The state saying "your problem, not ours" is going to make it even more difficult than it already is to find adoptive homes for older children with challenging issues.

It's cases like this one which make me wish that we hadn't been so quick to abandon all of the infrastructure for long-term institutional care.

I couldn't find any mention of how long the boy has been in the care of the Westcotts, or at what age and under what circumstances he came into state care.

What exactly are the parents of children (bio or adopted) supposed to do when they find themselves unable to cope with the demands of that child? It's easy to say that they should tough it out at all costs, but that's over-looking the harm which resentful parenthood will cause the child concerned - and possibly to others.

Does - and should - "being responsible" for a child mean caring for them on a day to day basis? Does institutionalising someone for whom you can no longer provide adequate care mean that you have abdicated your responsibility for that person? If the answer to either of those questions is "yes" there are an awful lot of people in society who have abdicated their responsibility for others in one way or another, but generally we accept that "responsibility" entails the right to delegate hands-on stuff to others - boarding schools would be illegal if it didn't, as would many nursing home placements.

And in this case, IMO the state DOES have a duty to both the child and the adoptive parents - the coming together of these parties was under the control of the state who matched this child and this family as the best fit. The state's approval was required in order for these people to become this child's parents. If the state's decision was wrong, the state cannot just walk away from responsibility for the outcome of its decision - it has a duty to the CHILD to make amends for its mistake.

[Wretched Creature]

It's attitudes like that which stop people from fostering in the first place. I fail to see how someone is a bad person for saying 'You know, I was okay with helping a kid who needed stability and a warm, comforting environment, but I didn't sign up to be a de facto warden for a violent offender'.

Why should a foster parent have to accept a threat to their own safety?

ETA: What about if the family had other children? Would you say then that they should still put up with the potentially dangerous one?

ETA(again) - because I got distracted: Of course, if the only thing this kid did that's weird is hoard some knives, then that's a different issue. I'm assuming the kid was generally acting in unpredictable, aggressive ways...but if it's just some knives? Yeah, they're shitty parents who aren't suited for the job. Just knives on their own mean nothing: could be that the kid's hoarding them in case someone tries to attack him in the night or whatever other horrible thing his previous parents may have done - it doesn't, in itself, mean the kid's a raving psycho.

No, no. As I mentioned previously, according to the linked article, we're not talking about foster parents. We're talking about adoptive parents.

If this were a case of foster parents wanting to give up fostering a child, I'd have no problem with it. According to the article linked in the OP, the boy has already been adopted by the people who now want to return him to the county like a pair of defective jockey shorts. If, like RedRosesForMe's sister and BIL, they were fostering him with hopes of adoption and then discovered they couldn't handle his problems, they'd be well within their rights to back out of it, and I wouldn't fault them for it at all. These people made a legal statement that they were making this child their son permanently, then reneged when they found out parenting him was more difficult than they expected it to be. Worst of all, they led this kid (who had already lost at least one family) to believe that he was their child and always would be. I wonder how he feels about himself now?

These situations always strike me as "no-win". If the parents do nothing and kid turns out to be a psycho hosebeast who harms others, kid will be removed from their care and they'll be under attack. If they admit that it's beyond their capacity to deal with kid's issues, they'll also be under attack. State will be under attack no matter what - probably with considerable justification.

It's entirely possible that there is no appropriate place for this kid. I don't know about Oklahoma, but there simply aren't any good longterm care options for teens with significant mental health issue here and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's the same in the US.

I suspect there is some mechanism by which the child can be returned to the care of the state. Natural parents are able to relinquish care of their children to the state so it's difficult to imagine that adoptive parents would be unable to do so. I certainly don't believe that compelling these parents to continue to be responsible for this child's welfare is going to produce outcomes which are in the child's best interests. The state saying "your problem, not ours" is going to make it even more difficult than it already is to find adoptive homes for older children with challenging issues.

It's cases like this one which make me wish that we hadn't been so quick to abandon all of the infrastructure for long-term institutional care.

I couldn't find any mention of how long the boy has been in the care of the Westcotts, or at what age and under what circumstances he came into state care.

What exactly are the parents of children (bio or adopted) supposed to do when they find themselves unable to cope with the demands of that child? It's easy to say that they should tough it out at all costs, but that's over-looking the harm which resentful parenthood will cause the child concerned - and possibly to others.

Does - and should - "being responsible" for a child mean caring for them on a day to day basis? Does institutionalising someone for whom you can no longer provide adequate care mean that you have abdicated your responsibility for that person? If the answer to either of those questions is "yes" there are an awful lot of people in society who have abdicated their responsibility for others in one way or another, but generally we accept that "responsibility" entails the right to delegate hands-on stuff to others - boarding schools would be illegal if it didn't, as would many nursing home placements.

And in this case, IMO the state DOES have a duty to both the child and the adoptive parents - the coming together of these parties was under the control of the state who matched this child and this family as the best fit. The state's approval was required in order for these people to become this child's parents. If the state's decision was wrong, the state cannot just walk away from responsibility for the outcome of its decision - it has a duty to the CHILD to make amends for its mistake.

You make a lot of good points. There are very few long-term options for kids that have serious problems, but most kids don't end up in the foster system because their parents use whatever facilities are available to get them whatever help is possible to give. Most of them don't throw up their hands and say, "Hey, it's no longer my child. Here, somebody else do this."

When you create a child through biologic means, there are no guarantees that you won't end up with a violent psychopath in your house, but people still want to be parents and the vast majority of them just soldier on through whatever problems come along with their kids. Even Jeffrey Dahmer's father, while acknowledging that his son had become a monster, never denied his responsibility or abandoned his child. People who adopt children of any age actually have an advantage in that they are able to at least have some exposure to the child's personality and make a relatively educated guess as to whether that child will fit into the family. In theory, they have the opportunity to conduct enough research and put enough thought into it that they should be held to at least the same standard that biological parents are.

Obviously, if the boy realistically represents a threat to himself, his parents, his theoretical siblings, or society as a whole, he needs to receive whatever treatments are necessary to keep him and everyone else safe. That might include institutionalization, a board and care home, or further foster care. It might also be something more simple like medication and weekly counseling. In any case, it should not be an excuse for his legally-bound parents-by-choice to abandon their responsibility to him.

I found a link to the Tulsa World article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20091206_11_A1 _Meliss955622) referenced in the news.com story. It adds some interesting information, in case anybody's interested.

[Veb]

I don't think there is any 'good' solution to this one. Hard information is kind of sketchy. I did some quick searching but the crux of the matter seems to be that the adoptive parents' claim that the boy's actual condition was substantially misrepresented. Which is a tactful way of saying somebody lied about about what they were taking on.

FWIW I saw a brief clip of an interview with them. They seemed both grieved and terrified. In the interview they stated he had told counselors that he intended to kill them, burn the house down while they slept, etc. Their concern wasn't over a burned trash can; it was his threat of murder/arson and lighters hidden in his room, as well as several butcher knives. He has harmed other kids and injured and killed animals. This is one seriously messed up kid who has already acted on his violent impulses. Far from 'expected to develop normally' as promised, he suffers from a whole slew of pretty serious mental/physical/emotional disorders.

Heaven knows the poor kid stated out behind the 8 ball. But it doesn't sound like the adoptive parents were given an honest picture of how serious his problems were. I can see why they'd be wary about mental health professionals' reassurances now. I can also see that they'd question their own ability to help him.

The whole mess seems to distill down to violations of trust. That poor kid's trust in his biological parents was violated in the worst way. If the adoption placement people did substantially misrepresent the boy's actual condition and prognosis then the adoptive parents' trust was betrayed from the outset. I'm not sure how much, if any, trust the boy was able to give his adoptive parents. It's pretty obvious the adoptive parents don't trust the mental health experts' reassurances now--and they simply don't trust that can keep themselves or others safe around the boy. To be honest, I'm not sure I could ever sleep soundly again either, knowing someone who once planned to murder me in my sleep was in my home every night--especially solely on the strength of word from people who lied to me before.

It seems to me the basic compact has already fallen apart because there's no essential trust left to work with. At this point all that remains is finger pointing and assigning blame. And of course that poor damaged boy remains, still in dire need of expensive, intensive help--that may or may not ever really heal him.

[Wretched Creature]

A depressingly good summation. I feel for the kid, and while I might seem unsympathetic, I feel for the Wescotts as well. I think they were well-intentioned but, like a lot of people who decide (actively or passively) to have children, they did not fully comprehend the commitment they were making.

[HoHoHo]

The thing I'm not understanding is how the adoptive parents could have been unaware of the FAS. Children born with FAS have quite distinctive facial features and the behavioural problems associated with it are known to intensify during and after puberty. Maybe the adoptive parents genuinely believed that they could love away problems which were only destined to become greater when the child reached a size and age where physical control of their behaviour was less and less possible.

The teenage years often seem to be the time at which parents of children with developmental and behavioural issues must accept the child is simply too physically big and strong for their previous behaviour management techniques to work - and the time at which many of those adolescents are placed in out-of-home care of some kind.

[Wretched Creature]

The thing I'm not understanding is how the adoptive parents could have been unaware of the FAS. Children born with FAS have quite distinctive facial features and the behavioural problems associated with it are known to intensify during and after puberty. Maybe the adoptive parents genuinely believed that they could love away problems which were only destined to become greater when the child reached a size and age where physical control of their behaviour was less and less possible.

The teenage years often seem to be the time at which parents of children with developmental and behavioural issues must accept the child is simply too physically big and strong for their previous behaviour management techniques to work - and the time at which many of those adolescents are placed in out-of-home care of some kind.

In milder cases of FAS, the facial characteristics are not as obvious and can fall within what most people consider "normal" appearance. From the Tulsa article, I gather the bio parents had substance abuse problems that might have included illegal substances, so any alcohol issues could have seemed minimal by comparison to, say, rampant crack or heroin addiction.

[HoHoHo]

A depressingly good summation. I feel for the kid, and while I might seem unsympathetic, I feel for the Wescotts as well. I think they were well-intentioned but, like a lot of people who decide (actively or passively) to have children, they did not fully comprehend the commitment they were making.

IMHO, they are honouring that commitment by admitting that the situation is beyond their capacity to deal with. They are trying to arrange someone who is equipped to deal with these issues caring for the child. I can't fault them for that when so many of the murder rampages which make headlines are committed by individuals who clearly needed serious intervention for years before committing their crimes and whose parents either did nothing to get that help or stopped trying to get it after the first several refusals. Sometimes being a responsible parent is as much about letting go as it is about holding tight.

Even here, where the cost of institutional care would be much less of a factor than in the US there are simply not the places available for all who need it - whether in aged care, long-term psychiatric care, spinal injury care. To me, it reads like the Westcotts are hoping that the state will be forced to fund the cost of paying for whatever care is most appropriate for their child - are they abandoning their child or are they willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that their child gets the care and resources he needs and deserves? I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't think there's some kind of bright line test that can be applied to whether they are being selfish or selfless.

[Wretched Creature]

IMHO, they are honouring that commitment by admitting that the situation is beyond their capacity to deal with. They are trying to arrange someone who is equipped to deal with these issues caring for the child. I can't fault them for that when so many of the murder rampages which make headlines are committed by individuals who clearly needed serious intervention for years before committing their crimes and whose parents either did nothing to get that help or stopped trying to get it after the first several refusals. Sometimes being a responsible parent is as much about letting go as it is about holding tight.

Even here, where the cost of institutional care would be much less of a factor than in the US there are simply not the places available for all who need it - whether in aged care, long-term psychiatric care, spinal injury care. To me, it reads like the Westcotts are hoping that the state will be forced to fund the cost of paying for whatever care is most appropriate for their child - are they abandoning their child or are they willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that their child gets the care and resources he needs and deserves? I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't think there's some kind of bright line test that can be applied to whether they are being selfish or selfless.

I can't speak for the situation in OK, but here in Minnesota there is a considerable amount of assistance available for treatment of adopted children with disabilities. One of my siblings has adopted a special needs child, and all of her intensive speech and physical therapy is paid for by the county, in addition to daily visits by a personal care assistant and a generous amount of respite care per year. Her parents are only responsible for her normal medical care and the regular expenses of raising a child. (Now, I'm not sure if there would be comparable coverage if her disability consisted of what society defines as a "mental illness," :sciencefail: but that's a completely different bag of fish.)

Just IMHO, if these people were truly selfless, they'd be trying to change the law so children like their son could get the help they need, not change the law that requires them to live up to their legal obligations to the child they adopted.

[IronHorse]

Meh. If said kid was biological, the parent would probably be sending him off to someplace that could care for him. Homicidal kids don't stay with their parents very often.

[Muskrat Love]

My brother had two foster children for a while that he was thinking about adopting, butt hey both had fetal alcohol syndrome and still had severe behavioral and developmental problems after he had fostered for them for a while, and he returned them. I don't see why these people chose to adopt before they had spent enough time with the children to see if they had any problems they couldn't deal with.

[Anacanapuna]

I won't make a judgement about this particular couple because I haven't the legal or professional background to make that decision. I will point out, however, that even birth parents can literally disown a child who is a danger to himself and them. Just because you gave birth to the kid doesn't mean you have to wait helplessly for him to stab you to death in your sleep. Yes, having children does mean a huge commitment, but everyone has the right to be safe in their own homes.

[Wretched Creature]

I won't make a judgement about this particular couple because I haven't the legal or professional background to make that decision. I will point out, however, that even birth parents can literally disown a child who is a danger to himself and them. Just because you gave birth to the kid doesn't mean you have to wait helplessly for him to stab you to death in your sleep. Yes, having children does mean a huge commitment, but everyone has the right to be safe in their own homes.

I don't know of any place in America where you can "disown" a minor child. You can abandon them, face neglect or endangerment charges, and force another relative or the state to take over their care. You can go through a formal procedure to surrender them for adoption. In some states you can "emancipate them" at some point in adolescence (age 16 in MN, I believe).

[HoHoHo]

I don't know of any place in America where you can "disown" a minor child. You can abandon them, face neglect or endangerment charges, and force another relative or the state to take over their care. You can go through a formal procedure to surrender them for adoption. In some states you can "emancipate them" at some point in adolescence (age 16 in MN, I believe).


A quick Google of "relinquishing parent rights" returns many hits. Looks like this is something regulated by the individual states and that most require court approval in order for the rights and responsibilities of the parents to be terminated.

[Icantfindanamethatwontbemadefunof]

I imagine the scenario went like this
"Hey, are those knives?"
"Why yes they are!"
"And you, and teenage boy (who are in no way fascinated with metal, or pointy things at all) was stowing these under your bed! And in a stunning twist of events, you evidntly have PTSD and are addicted to alcohol. OMG11!!!1! This could obviosuly not be the work of quack doctors giving the us an excuse as to why our teenage foster son likes knives, or anything..."
"Um. Right. How conviently specific"
"DON'T SAY ANYTHING!"
"What?"
"WHERE YOU FROM?!"
"What?"
"I AIN'T NEVER HEARD OF NO COUNTRY CALLED WHAT! THEY SPEAK ENGLISH IN WHAT?"
"WHAT?"
"ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"
"DON'T BURN ME"

[Wretched Creature]

A quick Google of "relinquishing parent rights" returns many hits. Looks like this is something regulated by the individual states and that most require court approval in order for the rights and responsibilities of the parents to be terminated.

That would be the "going through a formal procedure to surrender them for adoption" that I mentioned.

[Anacanapuna]

That would be the "going through a formal procedure to surrender them for adoption" that I mentioned.Which is what I was talking about. My father was a policeman for 30 years, and on more than one occasion he helped remove children of all ages from homes where either they were in danger or they were endangering other family members. "Disown" was simply a general term that I meant to cover all other contingencies.

I'll consult my Black's Law Dictionary next time, OK?

[Falcon]

The article linked to in the OP left out a lot of details. It wasn't just that they found knives under his bed...it's that he tried to kill them by trying to burn the house down, kills animals, runs away, and is violent towards other children:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/tony-melissa-wescott-oklahoma-return-adopted-son/story?id=9387389

As for the tangent on biological parents wanting to give up kids they find unmanageable, that was quite a problem last year in Nebraska. They wrote a "safe haven" law intended to protect infants from being abandoned, but the wording led to people dropping off teenagers at hospitals. Some parents even coming from out of state to do so:

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/another_teenager_abandoned_und.html

As for the parents, I have mixed feelings about what they're doing, but don't think I have nearly enough information via the news to really form an opinion about their specific case. Maybe they *have* been trying very hard to work through this and have been blocked at every turn, and now feel desparate and want the state to take more responsibility during the fostering/adoption process.

They would still seem incredibly naive to me, though. I guess it doesn't seem like it should be news to prospective adoptive parents that problems may crop up down the line that weren't known about earlier. I imagine that's one reason why a lot of couples spend tens of thousands on fertility treatments rather than adopting. How often do you truly know what a child was subjected to in utero, or in their early years, that could leave lasting damage? If I were going to adopt, I'd want to know those circumstances, or I'd want to be someone who knew how to work with kids with serious problems and had the resources to do so.

I kind of wonder if these parents thought they'd find a "cheap" kid to adopt through the foster care system, for example, rather than going through more expensive adoption routes (where maybe more would be known about the child). What were they doing going down this road in the first place? Maybe it's that I don't know very much about "the system," but my first thought when I hear "foster child" is a kid who has been through a hell of a lot and who probably needs a lot of extra care and help to get through it.

[Wretched Creature]

Which is what I was talking about. My father was a policeman for 30 years, and on more than one occasion he helped remove children of all ages from homes where either they were in danger or they were endangering other family members. "Disown" was simply a general term that I meant to cover all other contingencies.

I'll consult my Black's Law Dictionary next time, OK?

Um, sure! Feel free to use whatever references you like when responding to comments not addressed to you.

Yes, police do remove children from homes sometimes for a number of reasons. Most of them do not end up being relinquished for adoption by their parents, or "disowned." This is why we have Family Court systems, to help families work these problems out.

[Icantfindanamethatwontbemadefunof]

Um, sure! Feel free to use whatever references you like when responding to comments not addressed to you.

Yes, police do remove children from homes sometimes for a number of reasons. Most of them do not end up being relinquished for adoption by their parents, or "disowned." This is why we have Family Court systems, to help families work these problems out.

Usually when you say "court" it doesn't help people resolve their problems ina civilized, nicely manner. Usually, it's just to help one person a) get money or b) put someone in jail.

[Anacanapuna]

Um, sure! Feel free to use whatever references you like when responding to comments not addressed to you.What the hell does that mean? You quoted my post. My first post on this thread was in response to the OP, and unless the rules have changed, OPs are indirectly addressed to anyone who wants to respond.

All I said, in the very first place, was that I believe there are legal remedies for people whose children pose a direct threat to them. The first step, as my many hears as a journalist covering police activity taught me, was to call the police. It was and still is my understanding that even biological parents have the right to have minor children permanently removed from their care and responsibility. I did not in any way indicate this was an easy, quick, or enjoyable process.

If the way I phrased it somehow raised your hackles because of issues in your own life, that's your problmem, not mine.

[Wretched Creature]

What the hell does that mean? You quoted my post. My first post on this thread was in response to the OP, and unless the rules have changed, OPs are indirectly addressed to anyone who wants to respond.

All I said, in the very first place, was that I believe there are legal remedies for people whose children pose a direct threat to them. The first step, as my many hears as a journalist covering police activity taught me, was to call the police. It was and still is my understanding that even biological parents have the right to have minor children permanently removed from their care and responsibility. I did not in any way indicate this was an easy, quick, or enjoyable process.

If the way I phrased it somehow raised your hackles because of issues in your own life, that's your problmem, not mine.

Heh, no hackles raised/life issues over here. You?

Seriously, though, the post you replied to was one I had made in response to HoHoHo discussing the number of hits that come up when googling a certain phrase.

In a previous post, I did take issue (pretty mildly, I think) with your statement that people could just "disown" their children, and perhaps that is the post you meant to reply to. I don't claim it never happens, but it is far harder than most people think it is. The government wants children to have parents--even if they don't live with them. Even if they are institutionalized or set loose to wander the streets, somebody needs to be their parent of record.

I think what I find most disturbing though is the implication that there are no choices other than a) dumping the kid off on somebody else, or b) waiting "helplessly for him to stab you to death in your sleep." (No, I'm not saying you are making that claim, just using your phrase to illustrate the point.)

[Muskrat Love]

I don't know of any place in America where you can "disown" a minor child. You can abandon them, face neglect or endangerment charges, and force another relative or the state to take over their care. You can go through a formal procedure to surrender them for adoption. In some states you can "emancipate them" at some point in adolescence (age 16 in MN, I believe).

There was a state a couple of years ago that re-wrote their Baby Moses law so that it did not have an upper age limit on when you could drop your "baby" off at the fire station or hospital, and many parents were taking advantage of it to get rid of much older children. They since re-wrote the law, but for a while you could drop off your teenagers with no paperwork and not be responsible for them anymore.

[The Futility of Nihilism]

What is Nebraska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law), Alex?

[Dragonlady]

I knew a man whose son was a prenatal cocaine exposure child. The boy was 8 when I knew him. He set fires, was frequently violent and threatened to kill or harm other children or people. His father could find no help for him. The schools didn't want him there, foster care refused him unless he was beaten or sexually abused. A well known home "for troubled boys" sent him back home after 4 months, stating that he was too hard for staff members to deal with. I believe the child was and is, a sociopath. The man had two other boys, one older and one younger to raise. What should he have done? The childs doctor said he would need life long monitoring in a controlled environment. Last I heard the boy was in prison, at 18. So perhaps he will get that after all.

[Wretched Creature]

There was a state a couple of years ago that re-wrote their Baby Moses law so that it did not have an upper age limit on when you could drop your "baby" off at the fire station or hospital, and many parents were taking advantage of it to get rid of much older children. They since re-wrote the law, but for a while you could drop off your teenagers with no paperwork and not be responsible for them anymore.

Yeah, that was a major FUBAR, wasn't it? I think their original intent was to stop the "baby in dumpster" phenomenon, but they pulled a Y2K and ended up with a bunch of kids they had no facilities for.

I knew a man whose son was a prenatal cocaine exposure child. The boy was 8 when I knew him. He set fires, was frequently violent and threatened to kill or harm other children or people. His father could find no help for him. The schools didn't want him there, foster care refused him unless he was beaten or sexually abused. A well known home "for troubled boys" sent him back home after 4 months, stating that he was too hard for staff members to deal with. I believe the child was and is, a sociopath. The man had two other boys, one older and one younger to raise. What should he have done? The childs doctor said he would need life long monitoring in a controlled environment. Last I heard the boy was in prison, at 18. So perhaps he will get that after all.

Sounds like a terrible experience for dad and all of the kids, but this was the biological father, right? He didn't adopt the boy after having (presumably) a chance to get to know him and even have him evaluated. It sounds like the boy you're talking about could have benefited from one of the long-term residential programs HoHoHo referred to earlier. These were pretty much phased out, in great part (if I recall correctly) during the Reagan administration.

[RedRosesForMe]

They would still seem incredibly naive to me, though. I guess it doesn't seem like it should be news to prospective adoptive parents that problems may crop up down the line that weren't known about earlier.

<snip>

I kind of wonder if these parents thought they'd find a "cheap" kid to adopt through the foster care system, for example, rather than going through more expensive adoption routes (where maybe more would be known about the child). What were they doing going down this road in the first place? Maybe it's that I don't know very much about "the system," but my first thought when I hear "foster child" is a kid who has been through a hell of a lot and who probably needs a lot of extra care and help to get through it.

When my sister and BIL told me they were going to go through the foster system because it was so much less expensive and older kids get neglected since everyone wants infants, my first reaction was "WHOA Nelly- you're getting into a mess there. Those kids have a *lot* of behavioral problems that you might not have the time/resources to deal with." They were certain, though, that they'd be able to find a kid who didn't have too many problems, and that they'd be able to overcome them. And they thought they had- the state left out a *lot* of information in their foster son's file when they first placed him.

My sister and BIL aren't idiots, but they were certainly optimistic and probably a bit naive, and the state didn't think to warn them their foster son had serious problems. I was expecting it, though, because when I was 18 a good friend's parents got into fostering (because they wanted to have legal custody of their son's girlfriend's younger brother- mom was a neglectful alcoholic). They ended up taking in other kids, not just son's girlfriend's younger brother. And I got to see first hand, not just what the abuse had done to these kids, but also years of living in institutions or being shunted from foster parent to foster parent. It wasn't pretty, and not many people could handle it.

Luckily these folks were dedicated- the dad already worked with problem children at school, so he had some experience, and the mom took all sorts of childhood development classes. But a lot of people, especially those who are just desperate to have a child like my sister and BIL, probably wouldn't be able to cope.

I do suspect that the state acted dishonestly, though. Kids don't suddenly try to burn the house down without some previous indications that there are problems, so I'd be curious to see what former foster parents or caseworkers have to say about this child.

[Dragonlady]

Sounds like a terrible experience for dad and all of the kids, but this was the biological father, right? He didn't adopt the boy after having (presumably) a chance to get to know him and even have him evaluated. It sounds like the boy you're talking about could have benefited from one of the long-term residential programs HoHoHo referred to earlier. These were pretty much phased out, in great part (if I recall correctly) during the Reagan administration.

He is the bio-dad, but the lack of services is what I was trying to question here. If HE couldn't get help, the adoptive parents in the OP probably can't either and I can't say I blame them for taking any avenue left open to them. My friend didn't even have that.

[Wretched Creature]

He is the bio-dad, but the lack of services is what I was trying to question here. If HE couldn't get help, the adoptive parents in the OP probably can't either and I can't say I blame them for taking any avenue left open to them. My friend didn't even have that.

I guess we won't ever find out what services they would be able to get for the kid. I do think, though, that if they really wanted to do what is best for their adopted son (as they claim), they would be trying to change the system to provide more assistance to them in helping him, not to allow them to give him back.

If anything good comes out of this, it will be that maybe a few people will think more carefully about what being a parent really means before they rush out and try to "rescue" a foster child through adoption. Most of these kids are going to need therapy of some sort, and some of them might never be able to overcome their pasts.

[Guinastasia]

IIRC, didn't someone on the Dope say they were starting to have a problem with their step-son, (gradually, he was ever so slowly becoming violent), and then they got really worried when he was caught at school smearing his feces all over the bathroom stall? (Kid was something like 8, and he wasn't mentally retarded or anything like that)

[Veb]

I do think, though, that if they really wanted to do what is best for their adopted son (as they claim), they would be trying to change the system to provide more assistance to them in helping him, not to allow them to give him back.
I might be too cynical and/or tired, Creature. (Which is why I'm sincerely grateful there are so many other people out there making decisions too, however tentative and qualified). I'm not sure the adoptive parents, rightly or wrongly, believe that realistically, responsibly they have time to change the system. But I'm also just off reading Columbine, a horrifying--and heartbreaking--account of a "perfect storm" kids, schools and caring, responsible parents who didn't see subtle signs of psychopathy in their children clearly enough to prevent a massacre. What about parents who reluctantly know the very real potential for catastrophic violence in a child they love but realize they can't realistically mitigate, control or contain? Where does/will the full force of responsibility land?

My perspective is admittedly skewed at the moment. Hindsight isn't just 20/20; it's brutal.

Of course the primary failure of responsibility lies with the biological parents. Unfortunately careless assholes can and do breed and leave others to salvage the children they toss aside. The "system", a.k.a. the underfunded, overloaded caseworkers shuffled the damaged child onto an adoptive family--probably with equal parts deception and sincere hope it'd all somehow work out okay. Either way, the severely, unfairly damaged kid is offloaded. The adoptive parents--maybe naive, maybe deliberately misled--nonetheless KNOW, however belatedly, that they can't, are simply not able, to prevent the very real damage the poor kid can inflict on others?

I'm not sure there are any clear answers. And that's the problem.

[Wretched Creature]

Of course the primary failure of responsibility lies with the biological parents. Unfortunately careless assholes can and do breed and leave others to salvage the children they toss aside. The "system", a.k.a. the underfunded, overloaded caseworkers shuffled the damaged child onto an adoptive family--probably with equal parts deception and sincere hope it'd all somehow work out okay. Either way, the severely, unfairly damaged kid is offloaded. The adoptive parents--maybe naive, maybe deliberately misled--nonetheless KNOW, however belatedly, that they can't, are simply not able, to prevent the very real damage the poor kid can inflict on others?

I'm not sure there are any clear answers. And that's the problem.

You're right, of course. The only real solution to the whole mess is to have been able to intervene with the biological parents many years before this case came to light. What's so ineffably tragic is that this particular kid ends up paying twice for their incompetence, while they apparently walk away carefree. At the very least, this case file would be a useful bit of required reading for parents hoping to adopt a child from foster care.

I think it would be great to come up with some way to force people to realistically appraise their life skills each time they take the risk of conceiving a child. I'm thinking of that pig-shaped gadget overweight people (or their "friends") put on the refrigerator door, the one that oinks loudly each time the door is opened :science:.