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

[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.