Reply With Quote
What if you found out he was a gay schwagger? And he wrote you a ticket for PI which you didn't feel was justified? And then forced you to get a HPV vaccination?
To me this is much like the war on drugs or a lot of things that require a license, imo. It is not really necessary and is not really justifiable.you kidding me?thats the first thing they care about
not every pedo has been caught and has a record, brah
What more do you want? So if they run a check on someone and they are clean, they are supposed to be able to make a judgment on them that they are or are not a pedo? Even though they have never gotten into trouble?
So you are saying there is just a ton of not caught pedo's lining up to get children from foster care? More than there would be in the average scenario with people who are just allowed to have children on their own?
What if you found out he was a gay schwagger? And he wrote you a ticket for PI which you didn't feel was justified? And then forced you to get a HPV vaccination?
It isn't justifiable to train parents on how to handle drug exposed/special needs/physically abused kids?
You are dumber than I thought.
Very little of the process is a background check.. that takes a few references and an FBI check. The rest is about training, and getting to know you to find kids that will be a match for your family.
You get the license after you have completed your training, paperwork, etc. Maybe I should call it a "certificate" to make you feel better.
Nothing positive to say there IMO.
I am not arguing that trying to keep bad people from adopting children is a bad thing. I just question the logic of requiring a license and making it such a lengthy process in certain scenarios.
Especially when most people are trying to do the right thing.
Of course it is justifiable to train parents on that. Does that mean that parents who did not go through that training would be bad parents? That is all I am saying.
It isn't justifiable to train parents on how to handle drug exposed/special needs/physically abused kids?
You are dumber than I thought.
Very little of the process is a background check.. that takes a few references and an FBI check. The rest is about training, and getting to know you to find kids that will be a match for your family.
You get the license after you have completed your training, paperwork, etc. Maybe I should call it a "certificate" to make you feel better.
Crofl at the dumber than I though throw away line.
It's not that lengthy, unless you are looking for a white newborn baby or you suck when they are interviewing you etc.
Also, DPG21920, there's a huge CYA factor. This is a gov't agency handing out kids, accountability is a big deal here. They do a great job in thousands of cases, but just one of those "slipped thru the cracks" cases pretty much obliterates it all.
find his daughter, romance her, impregnate her, then leave her
It is the Type I error vs Type II error argument and I understand that. I am just saying, that parents trying to adopt are mostly trying to do the right thing. Sure, there might be some bad ones that slip through, but not nearly as many that happen on a regular basis when people are just allowed to have babies on their own.
Parents don't all go through training and there are plenty of people that would learn and do a great job on their own because they are smart and loving people. Do I think it is bad to do screenings? No. Do I think it is bad to get special training on how to deal with specific types of kid? No.
Do I think it should be a mandatory thing and do I think if you did not require that there would be a ton of bad people and terrible parents adopting? No.
You can do the back ground checks for people who have been caught and eliminate them. Then for the good candidates, guide them and then let the parents who want to take care of kids do it. That is a good thing.
And then what if that baby grew up to be back up scrub PG for the Lakers that thought he was bad ass(and actually was when playing against the Spurs)...
because it is very likely that would happen.
What then?
This is the part of your argument that makes no sense. Why shouldn't it be mandatory to train parents who are going to be handling children who are coming from abuse/neglect/drug exposure, etc. There are medical/physical/emotional/developmental difference in them.. parents need to know how to handle it. It has to be mandatory. That's what the preparation/licensing is about.Do I think it should be a mandatory thing and do I think if you did not require that there would be a ton of bad people and terrible parents adopting? No.
how do you seperate the people that are trying to do the right thing from the people who are acting like they are trying to do the right thing?
Because what is the alternative? Keeping them for extended periods of time in foster care? Is that really a better scenario?
Parents who adopt children with these problems can do the same thing parents who have children naturally do; seek help and professional counseling.
Kori, I suspect that your and timvp's "work from home" status was a huge plus in the screening process. I know you said it will be 6 months until the actual adoptions occur, but is there a required stay at home and be together 24/7 time period?
That goes with all things in life. Fact is, children are an extremely tricky and sensitive subject. Rightfully so.
I am looking at it from a somewhat "colder" point of view. It is difficult to separate the great people from the people acting great. But I feel that if you run the checks and they come up clean that there is probably not a large percentage of bad people after that. I feel that mostly it would be good people trying to adopt.
Is the alternative better? Is keeping them in foster care with no family better?
Yes, foster parents have gone thru the same training and licensing they just aren't seeking to adopt.
Sometimes there's not a better alternative. Like you were asking earlier about why should crappy parents be allowed to have kids? How do you know they're crappy parents until they actually become parents? Lots of people become better people after kids, Some people are bad people but great parents, some people are great people but crappy parents...and some people become worse when they have the responsibility of a child and can't handle it.
Sometimes, what you have is the best of all possible worlds.
The 6 months to finalization is just a court thing.. like for divorce.
As far as working from home, they prefer at least one sah parent if you want children under 1...but there are exceptions.
I think you are making it out to be something that it is not. There is plenty of problems in the Foster Care system, even with their training.
Sure there are issues -- and some states require more training than others. But I think you are fairly ignorant about these types of kids' issues/needs. I'd rather have a trained foster parent handling a drug exposed baby than an average parent off the street, for example.
That is really my point. When you do the background checks and the training and this and that, you have to keep in mind the goal. The goal should be to get these kids to families.
With that in mind, how will you know, even after talking with someone for 6 months and making them take classes that they will be good or bad parents? Point is, that I feel that getting them to families is important and that the risks in scaling back on some things in order to expedite that process would be worth it.
its a calculated risk i'd be willing to take
I am not arguing otherwise. I have done quite a bit of research on the subject and my GF works with kids of this nature to a certain degree. I am not an expert, but once again, this was just a side thought of mine to begin with.
Would I rather have a trained foster parent? Yes. Do I think that means you have to do all of the things that are required in order to be successful? No.
I think that getting kids into loving homes is the goal. The parents will learn and do a good job because they love the kids and they will seek out the training on their own in order to solve the problems that will arise.
Just because you would rather have a trained parent versus an average parent off of the street, does not mean that the average parent off of the street will do a bad job and that the kids won't benefit more from being in their homes versus the foster care system for a long, long time.
why do you think foster care is so bad?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions