I know this will not be a popular opinion, because it's become "necessary" to demonize Sarah and Jen Hart's every move, every word, every picture, every perceived or ascribed motivation. They are now morphed from "saviors" and role models, into evil personified. I sure don't think that's the truth, either way. They were neither saviors and role models, nor evil personified, IMO. But that won't play well for most people, because it seems necessary to box them in as "all evil, all the time" so we can hate them *more* for driving off a cliff with the kids, who were isolated and exquisitely vulnerable.
To be sure, I think they were highly dysfunctional women who may have been "fine" together alone (before kids), but devolved into chaotic dysfunction as parents of far too many adopted kids with horrific and extremely difficult backgrounds. To me, that is the issue that precipitated the dysfunctional and chaotic years that ended up with Jen driving off the cliff.
There was far too much willingness by adoption authorities to allow them to adopt SO MANY kids from such awful backgrounds, at their young ages--20s-- with limited life experience.
Frankly, the first three were WAY too many for Jen and Sarah, IMO. They were NOT good candidates for adopting children from that kind of background-- and I don't need a social work degree to make that observation. Adopting
one child with that kind of background would have been about right (if at all), for 2 women who were far too young to have much life experience in their 20s, and NO parenting experience at all. Keep in mind that at their age, they would not have been eligible for international adoption at all in their 20s through most accredited, legitimate avenues. (And not just because they were lesbians-- but because of their age, length of marriage, lack of prior parenting experience, and apparently meager financial situation.) They did not appear to be open to using multiple professional resources to help the kids, and do not appear to have sought advice in parenting these kids from very difficlut backgrounds. They appear to be "winging it" with their ideas about what constitutes healthy family life, enforced isolation, "homeschooling" (we have no idea if, or to what extent they did any actual schooling beyond reading pleasure books), and their ideas about socialization and friendships (festivals, rallies, and protests), as well as their ideas about effective discipline and encouragement. Clearly, we can infer that Jen and Sarah did not appear to encourage or nurture any of the kids as individuals (by their report, as well as their advocates and critics), but related to the kids mostly as a group. (As they were taught to as teachers in their educational programs, IMO, which seems to be the only experience with kids that they had before the first foster child.)
I personally don't think they were "all evil, all the time". Nor do I believe hyperbole such as that they were "starving" the kids. I do believe they probably withheld, or controlled food choices and volume, which all parents do to some extent. I also believe they may have used food withholding as a "punishment"-- but without knowing WHAT they may have withheld, or when, or how long, I cannot buy into the fervor that they were "starving" the children. There is no evidence, none at all, that indicates "starving" children. Many, many, many adopted kids have "food issues", whether or not they had actual food insecurity at any point in their lives. Many, if not most, adopted kids from foster care or institutions (overseas) also have some degree of malnourishment, affecting their global development.
I don't believe the "eating garbage/ eating out of the garbage" story as it has been relayed by Jen about foster child "Lee". Nor do I fully believe Lee's story in the Seattle Times as "complete truth". Lee's story is decidedly one-sided, designed to present Lee herself, by her own words, in her own best image-- and that means she presented the story as idyllic, and herself in "full control" of her "out of control" behavior (she just called up the social worker and checked herself into foster care, like checking into a hotel on a vacation). Then everything was rosy and perfect, right up until evil Sarah and Jen "dumped" her at a "therapy" appointment. Just nothing at all sounds reasonable, plausible, or fully truthful about how that played out, IMO.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...rtbreak-though-not-the-way-some-might-expect/
As an example of the "eating out of the garbage"-- that could be viewed/ slanted/ presented in both an innocous way, as well as a pathological way, depending on the reality of the situation. For example, last week I threw away a bag of chips that still had a handful left at the bottom of the bag, but had been open a while. In my estimation, it was stale, and beyond it's best flavor. One of my kids pulled open the trash compartment in the kitchen, saw the bag, and said "mom-- those are still good, and we don't have any more chips right now!" Whereupon she retrieved the bag and ate them. We were both laughing. She happens to be adopted. She is also quite thin. Also happens to have a very healthy appetite, and eats healthy food most kids wouldn't eat (tofu and veggies for breakfast regularly).
So if one wanted to villainize me as a bad parent, and my teen as dysfunctional about food because she's adopted, one could say I wasn't feeding her enough calories, was "withholding food" because I didn't have any more chips in the house, and she is too thin, she was "starving", and "eating out of the garbage." Or a reasonable person would have laughed that a teenager with an healthy appetite and desire for junk food rescued a half empty bag of stale chips out of the trash, and went on to eat a healthy dinner.
See how that works? Perspective is everything.
Yes, Jen Hart definitely appears to have intentionally driven off a cliff with the kids in the car, after getting yet another visit from CPS. I don't think that means she and Sarah beat and starved the kids all the time. For whatever reason, they were prone to circle their wagons and isolate themselves and the kids to cope, rather than reaching out for help, and allowing the kids to grow and develop friendships and interests outside of the family. Their frustration at containing the ever growing, and very needy teens (psychologically, socially, and developmentally) created a perfect storm where Jen (and possibly Sarah) could not admit "failure" and reach out and accept help. So they chose to drive off a cliff instead. I actually do not believe they ever "hated" the kids-- they simply had no idea how to REALLY connect to them as wounded children with deep needs, and how to parent them. They knew how to relate to them as a group, as a teacher would do, and to take them on field trips. They had a "savior" mentality, IMO, and co-used the kids to massage and groom their own image on social media. They "shared" their hobbies and passions for politics and social justice with the kids, who were a captive audience who could not refuse or opt out of these ideas and opinions-- and had no skills or tools to voice any different ideas, IMO. IMO, what is crystal clear from all we have learned is that Jen and Sarah did not know how to PARENT individuals who came from very troubled backgrounds. That intense and private frustration, and and equally intense need to save face, IMO, is what led to Jen driving off the cliff. Not "evilness".
