You've seen this one, right?
Oct. 9th, 2006 03:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgAccording 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.
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.
