You've seen this one, right?

[kyburg]

According to the Washington Post, Helen and James Briggs adopted the boy six years ago, after Mrs Briggs - a foster mother - fell in love with him.

But in 2003 the boy, who cannot be named, sexually abused a six-year-old boy and a two-year-old girl.

Mrs Briggs said it was only then that she discovered his troubled past.

We were warned about this by DCFS, during MAPP training. And TIES training. And every time we discussed the placement process.

We were warned to ask, ask and keep asking...until we could find nothing else to ask about. Because the stones left unturned could be many, and what was left to chance could be heartbreaking.

In this case, there's a lot of difference between 16 months, and sixteen years. The whole process has been in the works for...wait for it...three years.

"She had wanted to bring the boy home after his sex offender treatment, following the case in 2003.

But then psychologists labelled him a sexual predator, meaning she would have to give up being a foster parent, which she sees as her livelihood, and would no longer be able to allow her three grandchildren in the house or keep a young girl she had fostered from birth.

There's the rub. You can't provide services at home any more.

So, you choose. She's liable for child support at this point, but to keep providing for the children 'with a chance,' she has to distance herself as legally possible from this kid. She had two years from the original adoption to file a case; she did not. She could provide on her own - so, it wasn't necessary. You can see it from that perspective.

When you can't provide anymore, that's when you look to these choices.

She wants a retroactive abortion. She wants a means to provide for the children she has - and failing that? She wants to provide for the children she can keep. Not child - children, plural.

This case is a train wreck no matter how you look at it - she's been paying child support for three years, I don't think that's it.

The kid can get services, regardless. She gets to keep the balance of her family intact.

The casualty is the family unit - and no, I would not allow this woman to adopt again. She might be a fantastic foster parent - but that's it.

Parenting is one of those things you can choose to jump into, allowing for the "no matter what." When you stop getting help for the sickest, most broken of the kids?

You choose. A modern Sophie's Choice - and what a nightmare.

Comments

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I'd allow her to adopt again. Assuming that a "perfect" parent would stand by a sexual predator child to the extent of kicking the other children she cares for onto the street and never having her grandchildren over again - there's a lot of people out there who aren't the "perfect" parent but who are damn good ones.

Long story short, this woman would be an excellent parent to lots of kids out there who need an excellent parent.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

You know what I'd like to see?

I'd like to see her keep the kids - and place the troubled one where it would do the most good, without having to choose. Saying that at this point she didn't know? Pretty weak. This kid had been in treatment almost since day one with medications that set my head reeling. One very broken kid - VERY broken.

(Ghad. How would you like to be called a sexual predator before the age of 18? Sheesh!)

But knowing that - and I guess I'd have to admit I don't believe the "we didn't know" defense right now - I wouldn't allow another adoption. Nope. Foster all you like - you have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you don't know when you're in above your head with a child with special needs, when it's for keeps.

Shall I make book now that's the judgment that gets handed down?

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

(Ghad. How would you like to be called a sexual predator before the age of 18? Sheesh!)

Sometimes age-peer sexual involvement is mislabeled as predation. On the other hand there are genuine sexual predators who are under 18. Once I sat in on the probation hearing of a man who had committed 15 rape-burglaries when he was about 16. he finally got caught, incarcerated until 18, then released again. Another rape-burglary immediately afterwards landed him in jail for all of 7 years.

That man was definitely a sexual predator as a juvenile.


Foster all you like - you have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you don't know when you're in above your head with a child with special needs, when it's for keeps

But then why not just say she can't adopt special-needs kids?

[bellacrow.livejournal.com]

I just read about this case

"In 2003, when the boy was 12, he sexually molested a 6-year-old boy and a 2-year-old girl still in diapers. She said it was only then, as she waited outside the courtroom for his sexual battery hearing and caseworkers handed her his psychological profile, that she found out just how damaged the boy had been when he came into her life."

There's no win/win in this sad case ;-( He's very broken, and when he becomes an adult, he'll be passing on his abuse. I wonder if he's not BPD.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I don't know. That kind of activity from a 12-year-old can be just normal sexual exploration. It depends on what was done. A lot of kids are curious, that doesn't mean they're sexual predators. Just about every kid does sexual exploration of some kind. True, this kid did it w/younger children, but that may just be who was around. I think it's very hard to say without more information whether this kid is normal or not.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

The sheer amount and type of medication would preclude any "normal" judgement. This case is going to be a matter of management for the rest of his life - and closely watched management at that.

You won't ever know if was normal sexual exploration (and yeah, my molestation at age 7 was definitely in that catagory by a 15 year old next door. Normal for him, NOT normal for me) - you have to take it that the experts have made that call for you and that's that. Whatever he did, it was Bad - bad enough to be arrested, tried and labeled a predator for.

Discussing it in the open probably would make most people ill.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

you have to take it that the experts have made that call for you and that's that. Whatever he did, it was Bad - bad enough to be arrested, tried and labeled a predator for.

I can't assume that means it is actually bad.

I did a paper on this a few years ago - children being wrongly put into sexual predator categories due to childhood experimentation. There are many cases of children being tried, convicted, and labelled as "predators" for life for what was normal sexual experimentation (or certainly not sexual predator-level behavior).

This was discussed in a class I was in on sentencing policy. A woman who works with sexual predators discussed juvenile classifications with our group. One of the points she made was that if an older child is with a younger child all the time, they will probably sexually experiment with that child, because they will sexually experiment with whoever is around. Same for incest - if all you are with are siblings, that's what's probably going to happen. Kids are curious and they haven't internalized all of society's mores yet.

Later I did a paper on juvenile sexual offenders. I did research on it, and it turns out that while adult sexual predators often acted out as children, most juveniles who commited sexual improprieties did NOT grow up to be offenders. Children of 12 may well not KNOW what is "wrong" to do sexually. BECAUSE THEY ARE 12. That doesn't mean they are sexual predators.

Like I said, there are definitely instances of sexually predatory behavior (particularly with older teens). But I do not at all automatically trust that the justice system has discerned correctly whether a 12-yr-old is a sexual predator or not. there have been too many instances of non-discerning behavior.

For another thing, there are badly written laws in many states. A 12-yr-old experimenting w/a 6-yr-old may be inappropriate, or even criminal, but it is not nearly the same as a 30 yr old doing the same things with a 6-yr-old. Yet the laws often treat the 30-yr-old and the 12-yr-old the same.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Y'see, that's the suck part of it.

Because this is part of custody case, and so forth and so on?

We'll never know. I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt - but on paper, with the few facts known? It's the classifications that are creating the headaches. And since nobody is interested in the Truth, just the liability - you see the results!

It just gets to be too much work to pay attention to the details - and that's just Wrong on so many levels it hurts.

[bellacrow.livejournal.com]

I respectfully disagree. I cant label that normal sexual exploration with a 2 year old. I dont think it's with a 6 yr old either.

I'm a retired Jr High/H.S. teacher and I have a minor in child psychology. I think the age spread is far too wide and the toddler ... shouldnt have been touched at all during "normal" exploration.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I respectfully disagree. I cant label that normal sexual exploration with a 2 year old. I dont think it's with a 6 yr old either.

I'm not saying it's necessarily appropriate. Just that a normal 12 yr old might be tempted to, e.g., play "doctor" w/a younger child. Kids are curious.

You're talking about a 12 yr old. A sixth grader. Yes, they sometimes do things that are sexually inappropriate. It's not abnormal.

[turandot.livejournal.com]

Most legitimate sexual exploration with other children occurs when the kids are peers: i.e., they are both on a similar cognitive level, which I believe was her point. I'd be willing to excuse it as simple exploration if say, he was 7 and the other child was 6 or 5, but with a 12 year old and 2 year old? Most sixth graders have no interest in exploring the bodies of 2 year olds. That alone makes the child in question atypical.

I hate throwing the labels "normal" and "abnormal" for children as much as you do, mainly because there is no such child, but most children behave predictably and appropriately for their age in many situations. I don't know the specifics on this case, but cognitively speaking, even if your average 12 year old might not understand a good deal of conventional appropriate social boundaries, s/he will still understand about not touching much younger children in a state of undress, unless you're helping them dress, and even then only if it's clear that they need assistance (I worked daycare over the summer with pre-school teachers who did not have summer childcare for their own kids, and thus brought them to work: the older children understood that clearly, and they were younger than 12).

f they don't understand that, then they have either been victims of the same lack of boundaries, and therefore are acting on the premise that what was done to them was typical behavior, or their capability to grasp the concept is obviously impaired. Which means that no matter how you choose to look at it, he's going to need extra help understanding those concepts, if he ever gets them at all.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

Most sixth graders have no interest in exploring the bodies of 2 year olds.

How do you know?

Let's just say I know people who did some such looking out of curiousity when they were teenagers, and they are totally normal adults now. I think our ideas of what is "normal" for children are shaped by society's conception of "appropriate", not by what is actually the norm for children.

Children are curious about the bodies of the opposite sex. Depending on thier upbringing and socialization, they may never have seen such bodies. In a circumstance like that a child may well be interested in looking or touching, even w/a younger child.

I admit that there is some behavior that would be seriously harmful - e.g. actual sexual intercourse or the like. I don't know if it's abnormal or not for a prepubescent child to be interested in such activities w/a much younger child; probably, but I have no actual scientific evidence.

But either way, we don't know that the activities here were of that nature. we're told that "something" happened. We don't know what. I think there are plenty of "things" that this child could have done w/the 2 and 6 yr olds that would not have been abnormal, let alone predatory.

[turandot.livejournal.com]

I don't really have time to go into details, but I can tell you this: I know by direct observation of children of different ages interacting together in the same environment (moreover, as a future educator, it's paramount for my professional development to inform myself about the age appropriate development of children).

I think the bottom line is that you assume this tween has done nothing more but "looking", but I find that assumption pretty naive. There had to be a little bit more than that to cause any given adult to actually resort to involving the authorities in the matter.

When the authorities became involved, there had to have been psychological testing on the tween by court appointed psychologists. The label wouldn't have been applied to the child if such testing hadn't occurred, and I'm willing to grant the testers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the results. That is, unless otherwise proven differently, the child psychologists involved probably knew what they were doing while testing, and as average skilled child psychologists they would know better than to apply certain labels unless the testing administered warranted that conclusion.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I think the bottom line is that you assume this tween has done nothing more but "looking",

You are putting words in my mouth. I do not assume anything, and haven't in any of my comments. I said _IF_, and described different scenarios. It is YOU who are assuming that the child did "more" than looking or touching. I simply pointed out that we've no evidence it was more.


I think the bottom line is that you assume this tween has done nothing more but "looking", but I find that assumption pretty naive. There had to be a little bit more than that to cause any given adult to actually resort to involving the authorities in the matter.

I think THAT assumption is naive. You may be an educator, but I'm a lawyer, and I've specifically done legal research on juvenile sexual crime. Certainly many adults can, and do, overreact to juvenile sexuality. There are many cases of this, some famous. Anyone who believes that parents always act rationally has never seen hockey parents. There are also people who are "required reporters" (probably you, if you are an educator) who do not have a choice of when the authorities are or are not involved. Any qualifying behavior must be reported.


When the authorities became involved, there had to have been psychological testing on the tween by court appointed psychologists.

Where did you get that idea? A criminal trial doesn't involve any psychologists necessarily.


The label wouldn't have been applied to the child if such testing hadn't occurred

?? you're ignorant of sexual predator law. Of course such a label can be applied w/out psychological testing, and generally is. Do you know how people get the label of "sexual predator" under the law?

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Did you see this in today's news?

http://www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts/?uc_full_date=20060927

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

Hm - seems kind of dumb to me. They weren't under any obligation to participate in the study. They could have just said no. That being the case, what possible "rights" were violated? What a bunch of whiners.

Definitely that shows how much parents can overreact.

[bluemoonpnw.livejournal.com]

I won't care for kids who have been sexually abused. Made one exception for a couple weeks, never again. Ever.