Birth-First Parent Blog
- Adoption Blogs >
- Birth-First Parent Blog >
- Family Preservation Under Attack too?
07/01/07
Family Preservation Under Attack too?
Posted by : Jan Baker in Birth-First Parent Blog at 06:58 pm , 399 words, 111 views
Categories: Adoption Reform
Categories: Adoption Reform
Adoption is under attack - we agree on that fact. However, it also appears that groups that support family preservation are also under attack. I want to address attacks on the concept of family preservation from my perspective.
No one that I know supports family preservation at the expense of a child. In other words, family preservationists rarely, if ever, believe that a child should stay in a home where they will be in harm's way. None of the birth parents that I know personally who support family preservation lost their children to adoption because their parental rights were terminated due to abuse or neglect.
Family preservation means many different things just as the concept of adoption can. Few who support adoption believe that it is always the best solution to an unplanned pregnancy. Likewise, the people that I know who support family preservation are not against removing children from families who harm them.
SPONSOR
To lump all those call themselves family preservationists as anti-adoption is unfair and untrue. Undoubtedly some people who call themselves family preservationists have hidden agendas. It does not take a rocket science to know that being anti-adoption is not a popular stance.
However, some people who do champion family preservation are judicious in their support of keeping families together. Not all families can or should remain together. Give us a smidgen of credit for having the brains to understand that is sometimes the case.
As for carefully analyzing what people's true motives are, that does make sense. I advocate thoroughly educating yourself and not trusting surface appearances. However, if someone says that they are for family preservation, it is unfair to always assume that they are anti-adoption.
Many adoptive parents are equally supportive of original families remaining together when possible. That does not mean that they are anti-adoption anyone than birth parents who believe in maintaining family bonds when possible must necessarily be anti-adoption. It is simple common sense that families should not be separated unless it is necessary.
Adoption was created to fill the needs of children whose families were unable or unwilling to properly care for them. It was not created to separate families that could and should remain intact in order to fuel the supply of babies for the adoption industry. There is a huge difference.
Further Reading:
Family Preservation
Family Preservation Program
Keeping the Family Tree Intact
Photo by Jan Baker 2007
Comments, Pingbacks:
Comment from: lmg1567 [Member] 
Our county department of human services has taken a "families first" stance and have gone so far as to mandate that foster parents MUST deal with birth families in almost (99%) all cases. I think this does a disservice to loving foster parents who now face the needs of the often very traumatized children AND the often extremely hostile, resentful and needy bio parents. We were not trained to counsel these people and I personally don't feel it is in the best interests of the child to take this stance right from the get-go. It's another service for the parents and then who is really advocating for the child? I think anti-adoption or anti-reunification are just terms. Each case needs to be looked at individually and then assess the best case scenario and provide services accordingly. It's not ever going to be black and white.
Permalink
07/01/07 @ 19:35
Comment from: Jan Baker [Member] · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
· http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
"It's not ever going to be black and white."
Agreed! Family preservation to me means not separating mothers and babies when and if the mother can and wants to parent. I am referring to newborn adoptions.
I would agree that if foster parents will be dealing with birth parents, they need some training to succeed.
Agreed! Family preservation to me means not separating mothers and babies when and if the mother can and wants to parent. I am referring to newborn adoptions.
I would agree that if foster parents will be dealing with birth parents, they need some training to succeed.
Permalink
07/01/07 @ 21:10
Comment from: John [Member]
Jan, when you get into family preservation, you step over the line into older children in foster care, whether you intend to or not. Foster kids got there for a reason, either abuse or neglect.
Yes, sometimes the parents can get their act together, and if they can do it in a reasonable period of time, the family should stay together. Otherwise, there is no justification to putting the child back into an abusive or neglectful home, and family preservation would be in the worst intrests of the child.
Where the child has been removed for cause, family preservation should not be presumed to be the right course of action, it should have to be proven that this is the way to go. The kid has to come first.
Img1567, what a pig headed short sighted approach. If that is a county that does primarily fos-adopt, it would be interesting to know how many kids make it to the start of the adoption. My kids came from very abusive backgrounds, I would never have proceeded if it meant having to deal with their violent birthfamilies. John
Yes, sometimes the parents can get their act together, and if they can do it in a reasonable period of time, the family should stay together. Otherwise, there is no justification to putting the child back into an abusive or neglectful home, and family preservation would be in the worst intrests of the child.
Where the child has been removed for cause, family preservation should not be presumed to be the right course of action, it should have to be proven that this is the way to go. The kid has to come first.
Img1567, what a pig headed short sighted approach. If that is a county that does primarily fos-adopt, it would be interesting to know how many kids make it to the start of the adoption. My kids came from very abusive backgrounds, I would never have proceeded if it meant having to deal with their violent birthfamilies. John
Permalink
07/01/07 @ 21:45
Comment from: erin_d_a [Member]
Family preservation shouldn't enter into the foster care system nearly as much as it does, and much more than it does in newborn adoption. Newborns can bring big bucks, two year olds who have been molested and have post tramatic stress cannot bring in the money.
Let me say this. As a grown child of abuse family preservation should NOT be a higher priority than the safety of the child. In the foster care system, it often is, even though they say safety is more important.
Let me say this. As a grown child of abuse family preservation should NOT be a higher priority than the safety of the child. In the foster care system, it often is, even though they say safety is more important.
Permalink
07/01/07 @ 22:12
Comment from: Deb Donatti [Member] · http://open.adoptionblogs.com
· http://open.adoptionblogs.com
I think most of us understand that those who support family preservation do not mean that children should remain in homes with abuse and neglect. I also understand that newborn placements should be more ethical.
Where most of us come to logger-heads is actually over those newborn, voluntary placements.
I believe that they can be a good option. When a women truly considers if she is really able to meet her child's needs, she might find she can't. In that kind of situation a woman should be able to consider voluntary placement.
Why do I believe this? Because I have a child (who will be 5 years old in a few days) whose birthmother has never been able to consistantly parent, even with tons of support. She has enough to handle with her own issues in life. I feel like women who face issues that they know might take them years to resolve (or never), and who would find parenting impossible because of them, should be able to chose adoption.
How long should a child wait? I know with the issues that my daughter has, added to the issues of her birthmother, this was a recipe for future removal and foster care. Why wait for that to happen, why put a child through it? While I agree that many who probably should place a child for those kind of reasons generally don't, I am thinking it is because we encourage them not to, and we make them feel like they should not have to even consider it.
While adoption is not for everyone, people should not be told that it is not for anyone.
Where most of us come to logger-heads is actually over those newborn, voluntary placements.
I believe that they can be a good option. When a women truly considers if she is really able to meet her child's needs, she might find she can't. In that kind of situation a woman should be able to consider voluntary placement.
Why do I believe this? Because I have a child (who will be 5 years old in a few days) whose birthmother has never been able to consistantly parent, even with tons of support. She has enough to handle with her own issues in life. I feel like women who face issues that they know might take them years to resolve (or never), and who would find parenting impossible because of them, should be able to chose adoption.
How long should a child wait? I know with the issues that my daughter has, added to the issues of her birthmother, this was a recipe for future removal and foster care. Why wait for that to happen, why put a child through it? While I agree that many who probably should place a child for those kind of reasons generally don't, I am thinking it is because we encourage them not to, and we make them feel like they should not have to even consider it.
While adoption is not for everyone, people should not be told that it is not for anyone.
Permalink
07/01/07 @ 22:25
Comment from: miriam [Member] · http://www.growingjwards.blogspot.com
· http://www.growingjwards.blogspot.com
Informative post, great discussion in the comments. I really appreciate this forum. Now for my .02!
It belittles women to assume they are incapable of being responsible for (or even making) intelligent choices. While I understand that there are cases of coersion and pressure, I agree that a woman should be able to freely consider voluntary placement.
An ideal conversation doesn't remove adoption from the table, nor does it paint it as a ploy for money or a dangerous foray into shark-infested waters; it makes it one of several informed options. Informing folks on both sides of the "triad" can't help but improve the situation.
As a relative outsider new to the discussion, I would say that in the press, on the internet and in books published over the last three years, anti-adoption sentiment is on an upswing. I am also surprised to see almost no discussion of adoption in situations other than dire, yet I have heard statistics that seem to show middle class, professional women make up about half of the voluntary surrenders. It seems that is the demographic most concerned about giving fuel to a corrupt fire. Fair portrayal of each option serves the parents (both flavors) and the children in the end.
It belittles women to assume they are incapable of being responsible for (or even making) intelligent choices. While I understand that there are cases of coersion and pressure, I agree that a woman should be able to freely consider voluntary placement.
An ideal conversation doesn't remove adoption from the table, nor does it paint it as a ploy for money or a dangerous foray into shark-infested waters; it makes it one of several informed options. Informing folks on both sides of the "triad" can't help but improve the situation.
As a relative outsider new to the discussion, I would say that in the press, on the internet and in books published over the last three years, anti-adoption sentiment is on an upswing. I am also surprised to see almost no discussion of adoption in situations other than dire, yet I have heard statistics that seem to show middle class, professional women make up about half of the voluntary surrenders. It seems that is the demographic most concerned about giving fuel to a corrupt fire. Fair portrayal of each option serves the parents (both flavors) and the children in the end.
Permalink
07/02/07 @ 00:27
Comment from: Angela [Member] · http://ukraine.adoptionblogs.com/
· http://ukraine.adoptionblogs.com/
Jan, I think "Family Preservation" is overloaded. It is being used differently by different people.
I don't have fond thoughts toward the phrase either. And this is because of my exposure to the foster care system.
I would venture to say that many folks first run into this phrase via foster care.
The majority of times that I see "Family Preservation" used outside of foster care/abuse complaints/crisis intervention... it is used by anti-adoption folks.
Try googling for the phrase "Family Preservation" and the first 5 pages are all about foster care programs or social welfare charities. They provide after school tutoring, adult reading classes, etc...
The vast majority of these different government and private groups are set up to prevent children from entering the foster care system.
A women in crisis with a pregnancy... A woman who contacts an adoption agency herself... She has just stepped outside of the majority of "Family Preservation" programs. And this is because her child isn't at risk to be placed into foster care.
Long comment to explain why I find it puzzling when you use the phrase... And you don't understand why you have just pulled foster care into the conversation.
I don't have fond thoughts toward the phrase either. And this is because of my exposure to the foster care system.
I would venture to say that many folks first run into this phrase via foster care.
The majority of times that I see "Family Preservation" used outside of foster care/abuse complaints/crisis intervention... it is used by anti-adoption folks.
Try googling for the phrase "Family Preservation" and the first 5 pages are all about foster care programs or social welfare charities. They provide after school tutoring, adult reading classes, etc...
The vast majority of these different government and private groups are set up to prevent children from entering the foster care system.
A women in crisis with a pregnancy... A woman who contacts an adoption agency herself... She has just stepped outside of the majority of "Family Preservation" programs. And this is because her child isn't at risk to be placed into foster care.
Long comment to explain why I find it puzzling when you use the phrase... And you don't understand why you have just pulled foster care into the conversation.
Permalink
07/02/07 @ 08:50
Comment from: soblessed [Member]
I am Roman Catholic. I believe in the indissolubility of my marriage; I believe in the sacrifice of each family member for the health of the family and I believe in the Church's charge to be consistently open to life in your marriage. I believe deeply in the family's place as the basic unit of society and I believe that the reason we face so many of the societal ills we do is because of the general attitude of disrespect in our society towards families. We are not a family-friendly society.
So, yes, I support family preservation. But when people who are negative about adoption use the term "family preservation", they often use it to mean "reduction/elimination of adoptions". In the context of foster care (which is certainly the first place I heard the term cointed), it often is used as a rationale for abused children to return to abusive parents.
Should women who want to parent be "allowed" to parent? Of course they should. That is a positive spin to the term "family preservation". But those who are using the term negatively, as in reducing/eliminating adoptions and returning kids to abusive parents, are (this is my opinion only) far, far louder than those who feel that expectant parents who want to parent should. In other words, at least from what I see in the adoption world, "family preservation " is more often heard within a negative conotation than a positive one. Also, those who feel anti-adoption don't want "anti" associated with their name. It's negative. Many groups and organizations do this. "Anti-life" becomes "pro-choice"; "anti-abortion becomes "pro-life" and, IMO, "anti-adoption" can often become "pro-family" or "family perservation".
All this to say that, no...I DON'T think that family preservation is "bad" at all or the people who support it are anti-adoption. For me, though, what it DOES mean is that I am cautious when I hear the term used. I don't think it can be assumed that everyone who uses the term uses it in the way I do.
So, yes, I support family preservation. But when people who are negative about adoption use the term "family preservation", they often use it to mean "reduction/elimination of adoptions". In the context of foster care (which is certainly the first place I heard the term cointed), it often is used as a rationale for abused children to return to abusive parents.
Should women who want to parent be "allowed" to parent? Of course they should. That is a positive spin to the term "family preservation". But those who are using the term negatively, as in reducing/eliminating adoptions and returning kids to abusive parents, are (this is my opinion only) far, far louder than those who feel that expectant parents who want to parent should. In other words, at least from what I see in the adoption world, "family preservation " is more often heard within a negative conotation than a positive one. Also, those who feel anti-adoption don't want "anti" associated with their name. It's negative. Many groups and organizations do this. "Anti-life" becomes "pro-choice"; "anti-abortion becomes "pro-life" and, IMO, "anti-adoption" can often become "pro-family" or "family perservation".
All this to say that, no...I DON'T think that family preservation is "bad" at all or the people who support it are anti-adoption. For me, though, what it DOES mean is that I am cautious when I hear the term used. I don't think it can be assumed that everyone who uses the term uses it in the way I do.
Permalink
07/02/07 @ 10:17
Comment from: lmg1567 [Member]
John - this paricular county has lost MANY foster families since implementing this program. We're all supposed to be on board and not say anything negative about the program. If we do we're "red-flagged" as difficult so why bother? People transfer their license to another agency, finish up adopting the kids they can in their homes and head for the hills! Our case went on for two years and the minute they gave the mom my cell number and we started arranging visits on our own, she bailed. Until then it was one step forward, three steps back. It didn't help that we had a brand new worker -we were so blessed to be her VERY FIRST case :) - who was completely snowballed by this mother.
I guess I don't get why "family preservation" is so controversial, women have been having babies and going on welfare to support those children for years (very cynical of me, I know, I just happened to run into alot of them). I don't really think we need alot of advocates to tell us we can keep our babies if we really want to, that's a personal decision. I am all about family and no, families don't get the respect they once did, I just read an article yesterday that said the divorce rate is going down - because fewer people are getting married to have children!! That's the backward thinking that keeps us adopting and foatering.
I guess I don't get why "family preservation" is so controversial, women have been having babies and going on welfare to support those children for years (very cynical of me, I know, I just happened to run into alot of them). I don't really think we need alot of advocates to tell us we can keep our babies if we really want to, that's a personal decision. I am all about family and no, families don't get the respect they once did, I just read an article yesterday that said the divorce rate is going down - because fewer people are getting married to have children!! That's the backward thinking that keeps us adopting and foatering.
Permalink
07/02/07 @ 11:06
Login To AdoptionBlogs.com
Search
Sponsors
Related Discussions
Related Sites
Our Blogs
- Editor's Blog
- Adoptee
- Adopting a Sibling
- Adoption News
- Adoption Search
- Adoptive Parenting
- Africa Adoption
- Birth-First Parent
- China Adoption
- Christian Adoption
- Crisis Pregnancy
- Ethiopia Adoption
- Foster Adoption
- Foster Care
- Guatemala Adoption
- Haiti Adoption
- Hoping to Adopt
- International Adoption
- Jewish Adoption
- Kazakhstan Adoption
- Korea Adoption
- LDS Adoption
- Older Child Adoption
- Older Parent Adoption
- Open Adoption
- Parenting Children with Special Needs
- Reactive Attachment Disorder
- Russia Adoption
- Stepparent Adoption
- Transracial/Transcultural Adoption
- Ukraine Adoption
- Viet Nam Adoption
Our Bloggers
Misc
Who's Online?
- Guest Users: 82
adoptions |
adopting.org |
adoption.org |
adoption wiki |
reunite |
parent profiles
Adoption Media, LLC 1995-2007. This site should not substitute personal professional, legal or medical advice. The accuracy and personal applicability of this information is not guaranteed. By using it you agree to the terms of service, including jurisdiction and limitation of liability provisions.