AR - Rep. Harris rehomed his adopted daughter to man who sexually abused her

[daisy7]

From the article in the OP:

In February, the Arkansas Times asked Rep. Harris to comment on the case and explain what became of the girls he and his wife had adopted. He refused, and stated that the Times was attempting to "smear" him. "It's evil," he said, becoming visibly upset.

When asked whether he rehomed his adoptive children with another family, he replied, "I'm not confirming that." When asked about the statements made in the State Police report in the Francis case, Harris said he hadn't read the file because of the disturbing descriptions of sexual abuse that they contain.

Harris then quoted Isaiah 54:17: "No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you."

"You don't know what we've been through this past year. You have no idea what my family has been through," he said emphatically. "I don't care what the people of Arkansas think about me. I don't care if I lose my position. I care what my wife thinks about me, and I care what my three sons think about me."

BBM. :sigh:

 

[mom2six]

I just don't get how relinquishing children to CPS is child abandonment but rehoming is not?

 

[K_Z]

Full disclosure- I'm a mom of both bio and adoptive daughters, so I have more than a passing familiarity with the many issues of adoption of older kids (our internationally adopted daughter was 7 1/2 when she came home, and has special needs.)

Something that's important to remember, these are all vulnerable kids, and it is NEVER the "fault" of the adopted child that the adoption is disrupted. Adoption disruption is parent centered-- "I/ we can't handle this child anymore". Representative Harris and his wife appear to be well educated, and quite socially knowledgeable, and involved with government, etc. There is no excuse for what he and his wife did, IMO. They could have, and should have, gone thru DHS if they could no longer parent those girls. There is no way a competent psychiatrist or competent doctor would "recommend" abandonment with permanent re-homing for vulnerable kids. This guy definitely knew the law, and what he SHOULD have done-- and he chose to avoid that intentionally. We don't know the whole story why just yet.

Unfortunately, “re-homing” exposes the dark underbelly of adoption. Many times the adoptive families of internationally adopted kids who “choose” to re-home their adopted kids are woefully unprepared, have tremendously unrealistic expectations, and/ or intentionally choose an adoption path/ method/ agency that is less rigorous than most mainstream agencies. (Sometimes because one of the parents has prior arrests, or history of substance abuse, or history of mental illness, etc.)

Some of the red flags that predict disrupted adoptions:

- adoption of more than one child at a time,
- adoption of unrelated kids at one time,
- many other kids already in the home,
- adoption out of “birth order”,
- “escorted” adoption of international kids to the U.S. (ie, the adoptive parent never travels to the birth country),
- adoption of kids with identified special medical, emotional, and behavioral needs,
- children older than age 4 when adopted,
- adoptive parent with limited education (no high school diploma, GED, no education beyond high school)
- limited or no formal adoption classes,
- parents with more than one divorce
- parents married less than 3-5 years
- parents who live in isolated areas with few easily accessible medical/ behavioral resources, or who move frequently,
- little to no in-home social services continuity and follow up after placement
- Both parents working/ child placed in daycare within days or weeks of adoption
"etc"

If you want to read more about adoption disruption, search under “factors which predict adoption disruption” and “adoption disruption and re-homing”, or similar. There is lots of information available.

Mommy blogger Anita Tedaldi had many of the above risk factors in her adoption of D. Adding to that, her husband was in the military and deployed for long stretches. Her bio kids (5 young bio daughters ages 8 and under; pregnant when D came home) had a lot of intensive activities (one was a competitive gymnast with practices in excess of 30 hours a week). Anita Tedaldi adopted D from Ethiopia—she never travelled there, he had numerous developmental and behavioral disabilities, as well as reactive attachment disorder, and some compulsions that were revolting to Anita and her daughters (D had coprophagia.) She privately “re-homed” D after 18 months, blogged about it, and was on the Today show. It's extremely clear that this family was never a good candidate for adoption of a child with so many special needs.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/terminating-an-adoption/?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/anita-tedaldi-woman-retur_n_307005.html

http://www.futureofchildren.org/fut...xml?journalid=66&articleid=455&sectionid=3122

As far as the Rep. Harris situation, I have a bunch of questions. First on the list is, did he and his wife foster-to-adopt? Was there a trial home placement before the adoption was finalized? Did this family go thru the standard classes? How much support and follow up did they receive once the girls were placed in their home?

 

[nightwatch]

I had no idea this re homing of adopted children took place. Thank you for posting this case. I hope Rep. Harris is charged and goes to jail, along with his wife. Heinous. Unconscionable. Cockroaches who scatter when the light comes on. I have more descriptives, but you all get the idea. IMO

I agree with you, I've been following a case since March of last year mentioned in the link below. There was/is actually a forum where adoptive parents would exchange info about re-homing.
There are too many loopholes, just shocking this type of thing goes on in the US. Jmo

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/re...-re-homed-after-reporting-dads-alleged-n57671

ciao

 

[Margo/Mom]

uggg, pardon me if this rehoming thing just sounds like a breeding ground for pedos to pass around the goods all perfectly legally. And really who is going to believe the kids? they are, after all, "damaged"

I have mostly heard of it in international adoption cases, where children may present with far more difficulties than parents anticipate. Because the adoption is international (sometimes chosen as a route to avoid home studies and bureaucracy and get "good" kids, who have not been previously hurt), there are no subsidies or other assistance (apparently this was not an international adoption) and even very well-meaning families find themselves SOL with savings and health insurance both depleted. "Rehoming" then comes into play as an under the table mechanism for passing kids along.

This one has piqued my curiousity--gonna have to do some reading.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Full disclosure- I'm a mom of both bio and adoptive daughters, so I have more than a passing familiarity with the many issues of adoption of older kids (our internationally adopted daughter was 7 1/2 when she came home, and has special needs.)

Something that's important to remember, these are all vulnerable kids, and it is NEVER the "fault" of the adopted child that the adoption is disrupted. Adoption disruption is parent centered-- "I/ we can't handle this child anymore". Representative Harris and his wife appear to be well educated, and quite socially knowledgeable, and involved with government, etc. There is no excuse for what he and his wife did, IMO. They could have, and should have, gone thru DHS if they could no longer parent those girls. There is no way a competent psychiatrist or competent doctor would "recommend" abandonment with permanent re-homing for vulnerable kids. This guy definitely knew the law, and what he SHOULD have done-- and he chose to avoid that intentionally. We don't know the whole story why just yet.

Unfortunately, “re-homing” exposes the dark underbelly of adoption. Many times the adoptive families of internationally adopted kids who “choose” to re-home their adopted kids are woefully unprepared, have tremendously unrealistic expectations, and/ or intentionally choose an adoption path/ method/ agency that is less rigorous than most mainstream agencies. (Sometimes because one of the parents has prior arrests, or history of substance abuse, or history of mental illness, etc.)

Some of the red flags that predict disrupted adoptions:

- adoption of more than one child at a time,
- adoption of unrelated kids at one time,
- many other kids already in the home,
- adoption out of “birth order”,
- “escorted” adoption of international kids to the U.S. (ie, the adoptive parent never travels to the birth country),
- adoption of kids with identified special medical, emotional, and behavioral needs,
- children older than age 4 when adopted,
- adoptive parent with limited education (no high school diploma, GED, no education beyond high school)
- limited or no formal adoption classes,
- parents with more than one divorce
- parents married less than 3-5 years
- parents who live in isolated areas with few easily accessible medical/ behavioral resources, or who move frequently,
- little to no in-home social services continuity and follow up after placement
- Both parents working/ child placed in daycare within days or weeks of adoption
"etc"

If you want to read more about adoption disruption, search under “factors which predict adoption disruption” and “adoption disruption and re-homing”, or similar. There is lots of information available.

Mommy blogger Anita Tedaldi had many of the above risk factors in her adoption of D. Adding to that, her husband was in the military and deployed for long stretches. Her bio kids (5 young bio daughters ages 8 and under; pregnant when D came home) had a lot of intensive activities (one was a competitive gymnast with practices in excess of 30 hours a week). Anita Tedaldi adopted D from Ethiopia—she never travelled there, he had numerous developmental and behavioral disabilities, as well as reactive attachment disorder, and some compulsions that were revolting to Anita and her daughters (D had coprophagia.) She privately “re-homed” D after 18 months, blogged about it, and was on the Today show. It's extremely clear that this family was never a good candidate for adoption of a child with so many special needs.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/terminating-an-adoption/?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/anita-tedaldi-woman-retur_n_307005.html

http://www.futureofchildren.org/fut...dex.xml?journalid=66&articleid=455§ionid=3122

As far as the Rep. Harris situation, I have a bunch of questions. First on the list is, did he and his wife foster-to-adopt? Was there a trial home placement before the adoption was finalized? Did this family go thru the standard classes? How much support and follow up did they receive once the girls were placed in their home?

Another adoptive parent here. Like you, I have primarily heard about rehoming in international adoption cases, with one factor being the reality that there are virtually NO supports for internationally adopted children. Further complicated as you note by parents who have high expectations that by adopting abroad (often at a high cost), they will not only bypass a system that might not accept them as parents, but also that somehow the quality of children available is "better." Some countries in fact make use of such naivete to pass along very needy children.

This is the first I have heard of rehoming in a domestic circumstance, which I would attribute to more careful screening of families, coupled with the availability of various supportive resources (never ideal, but certainly far more than is available to international families) to support children and maintain families. Further, there are legal means of "rehoming" a domestically adopted child who "fails to thrive" or otherwise evidences a serious mismatch between needs and family resources. And while not every childrens services agency is of the same quality, some take very seriously the task of avoiding disruptions.

Like you--I am just hearing of this and have many, many questions.

 

[K_Z]

I have heard of one disrupted domestic adoption in our area-- 2 1/2 year old, parental rights terminated, child in foster care for at least a year or more. Adoptive family was 3rd foster family, I think, and they did "foster to adopt." The bio-mom continued to be a disruptive presence despite TPR, and police were called a number of times. Sadly, that family disrupted, I think, due to their concerns about the bio mom and her relatives and friends (adoptive family had other young kids at home, too). Last I heard, the child (who now must be about 5) was still in foster care. Bio-mom is in and out of jail, from what I hear.

 

[Curiosum]

And, did the Harris' claim the adoption credit on their 2013 federal tax return even though they had given the girls away before the end of the year?

I suspect that their income is above the phaseout for the credit so this is likely irrelevant. However, if their income was below the phaseout, and they did attempt to claim the credit I'm not sure that is not allowed because apparently you can claim for expenses paid in adoptions that never go to completion/finalization.

For the record, I'm not in anyway stating that the Harris family made decisions I fully agree with. Having said that, I have had patient families who have adopted children through the US foster care system and been in a scenario where they and other minor children in their home were just not safe with the adopted child in the home. Sadly when they asked for help from their child welfare office they were not offered good viable solutions. So, while I'm not in favor of "rehoming" as described in this article I do realize that there are families out there who were really trying to help a child and give them a forever home but were not supported adequately (and in one case I know that there were aspects of the record which should have been disclosed to the adoptive parents before finalization but were not) by the system. I do not know the Harris family personally so I have no idea what their actual situation was.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I suspect that their income is above the phaseout for the credit so this is likely irrelevant. However, if their income was below the phaseout, and they did attempt to claim the credit I'm not sure that is not allowed because apparently you can claim for expenses paid in adoptions that never go to completion/finalization.

For the record, I'm not in anyway stating that the Harris family made decisions I fully agree with. Having said that, I have had patient families who have adopted children through the US foster care system and been in a scenario where they and other minor children in their home were just not safe with the adopted child in the home. Sadly when they asked for help from their child welfare office they were not offered good viable solutions. So, while I'm not in favor of "rehoming" as described in this article I do realize that there are families out there who were really trying to help a child and give them a forever home but were not supported adequately (and in one case I know that there were aspects of the record which should have been disclosed to the adoptive parents before finalization but were not) by the system. I do not know the Harris family personally so I have no idea what their actual situation was.

Yes--there are many situations where there are not true heroes and villains, but rather a lot of decent folks trying to make things work with limited resources. I have known of families going back to the public agency simply seeking additional information (generally to help confirm or deny a diagnosis of what is going on) only to receive the response, "do you want us to come get him/her?" In my own state, the granting of respite services to adoptive families varies widely by county, as do the levels of adoption support available (ranging from just the federal amount to twice that for a child with the same needs). There are various tensions between agencies and both foster and adoptive families.

This is one reason that I look at the Stanley family saga (on another thread) with a skeptical eye as I hear many trying to cast DHS as bad people snatching up kids in order to garner magical money from the feds. Frankly I have never encountered a family faced with removal, however warranted, who did not place all the blame on either the agency, the judge, or some teacher, neighbor or relative who "called them in." And frankly, I have known of some reports that, on investigation, were simply overblown worries on someone's part (a dirty face that looked like bruising, or several cases of Mongolian markings on biracial infants being mistaken for bruises).

In the Harris's case, the most obvious explanation in my eyes is that the family was quickly overwhelmed by two girls with very high needs and felt that their other kids were endangered (traumatised kids can do some dangerous things: starting fires, leaving the house when the family is sleeping, threatening siblings or pets with knives). Despite the legal reality that working with DHS would have been the preferred option, they chose not to (fear of headlines? desire for a faster solution?). I cannot say that I have a lot of respect for Mr. Harris--but I do believe that I can understand.

 

[Rhett]

I am not implying in any way that this is the case with the Harris family but this "re-homing" situation leaves it way too open to abuse kids. How would anyone know? So many holes and cracks these re-homed kids could fall through. It may be the new way to aquire children for abusers.

 

[Curiosum]

I am not implying in any way that this is the case with the Harris family but this "re-homing" situation leaves it way too open to abuse kids. How would anyone know? So many holes and cracks these re-homed kids could fall through. It may be the new way to aquire children for abusers.

There have been cases where this has been exactly what has happened. While I do understand that there are some families that are caught in a bad place and I really think we need to do a better job at supporting all parents of kids in crisis I am not in favor of "rehoming" without at the least strict oversight (i.e.. where new prospective adoptive parents are subjected to at least the same background checks that the original parents were and if this is a disruption placement then I think it really does make sense to look carefully and consider if the new family will be in a better position to parent in the way this child needs or in a better position to at least keep the child in the home until adulthood).

 

[Curiosum]

Full disclosure- I'm a mom of both bio and adoptive daughters, so I have more than a passing familiarity with the many issues of adoption of older kids (our internationally adopted daughter was 7 1/2 when she came home, and has special needs.)

Something that's important to remember, these are all vulnerable kids, and it is NEVER the "fault" of the adopted child that the adoption is disrupted. Adoption disruption is parent centered-- "I/ we can't handle this child anymore". Representative Harris and his wife appear to be well educated, and quite socially knowledgeable, and involved with government, etc. There is no excuse for what he and his wife did, IMO. They could have, and should have, gone thru DHS if they could no longer parent those girls. There is no way a competent psychiatrist or competent doctor would "recommend" abandonment with permanent re-homing for vulnerable kids. This guy definitely knew the law, and what he SHOULD have done-- and he chose to avoid that intentionally. We don't know the whole story why just yet.

Unfortunately, “re-homing” exposes the dark underbelly of adoption. Many times the adoptive families of internationally adopted kids who “choose” to re-home their adopted kids are woefully unprepared, have tremendously unrealistic expectations, and/ or intentionally choose an adoption path/ method/ agency that is less rigorous than most mainstream agencies. (Sometimes because one of the parents has prior arrests, or history of substance abuse, or history of mental illness, etc.)

Some of the red flags that predict disrupted adoptions:

- adoption of more than one child at a time,
- adoption of unrelated kids at one time,
- many other kids already in the home,
- adoption out of “birth order”,
- “escorted” adoption of international kids to the U.S. (ie, the adoptive parent never travels to the birth country),
- adoption of kids with identified special medical, emotional, and behavioral needs,
- children older than age 4 when adopted,
- adoptive parent with limited education (no high school diploma, GED, no education beyond high school)
- limited or no formal adoption classes,
- parents with more than one divorce
- parents married less than 3-5 years
- parents who live in isolated areas with few easily accessible medical/ behavioral resources, or who move frequently,
- little to no in-home social services continuity and follow up after placement
- Both parents working/ child placed in daycare within days or weeks of adoption
"etc"

If you want to read more about adoption disruption, search under “factors which predict adoption disruption” and “adoption disruption and re-homing”, or similar. There is lots of information available.

Mommy blogger Anita Tedaldi had many of the above risk factors in her adoption of D. Adding to that, her husband was in the military and deployed for long stretches. Her bio kids (5 young bio daughters ages 8 and under; pregnant when D came home) had a lot of intensive activities (one was a competitive gymnast with practices in excess of 30 hours a week). Anita Tedaldi adopted D from Ethiopia—she never travelled there, he had numerous developmental and behavioral disabilities, as well as reactive attachment disorder, and some compulsions that were revolting to Anita and her daughters (D had coprophagia.) She privately “re-homed” D after 18 months, blogged about it, and was on the Today show. It's extremely clear that this family was never a good candidate for adoption of a child with so many special needs.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/terminating-an-adoption/?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/anita-tedaldi-woman-retur_n_307005.html

http://www.futureofchildren.org/fut...dex.xml?journalid=66&articleid=455§ionid=3122

As far as the Rep. Harris situation, I have a bunch of questions. First on the list is, did he and his wife foster-to-adopt? Was there a trial home placement before the adoption was finalized? Did this family go thru the standard classes? How much support and follow up did they receive once the girls were placed in their home?

To respond to your bolded while I don't believe in blaming small children I do think there are situations that arise where parents can't possibly continue to keep all children in the home safe if all children are to remain in the home. I'm not saying that was the situation in the Harris family (and given the ages of the children I find it less likely but I have personally seen scenarios where older children were abused by younger children so it is not impossible). As far as going through DHS, I completely agree that is what they should do and from what has come out in the media about this story I think that was what they initially tried to do but it sounds like DHS was not willing to take these children back and threatened them with abandonment charges if they pursued the issue. This could have led to them having their other children removed from the home. I can understand how they have felt like they were in between a rock and hard place.

To answer your questions, based on another poster's timeline, it appears that the girls were in the home for approximately six months before finalization and then another six or seven months after finalization before the rehoming. Altogether they seem to have been in the home from September 2012 through October 2013.

To just share a perspective. We have friends who adopted a child through foster care. She and her husband (who are both pediatricians) really devoted their life to this child. They read books on adoption, attachment, etc before even beginning the journey. Once the child was in the home they pursued various therapies and they kept this child's world small (the joys of practicing together they viewed that although they might not always see each other at least one could be available to their own child and one to the children of their practice with medical emergencies). This child who came into their home at age three was with one of them (no daycare) until she started kindergarten. They struggled with this child from the beginning and really struggled after the adoption was finalized when she was four (maybe it was the age, maybe the honeymoon was over both theories have some support). Over the years there were multiple visits to pediatric sub specialists, child psychiatrists, attempts at medication, etc but things continued to deteriorate. By the time she was six the wife tearfully admitted that they had decided not to have more because they were afraid of what their daughter might do to a younger sibling. She was their daughter and they loved her even if she wasn't in a place to love them and they felt that they had made a commitment to her. They had already rehomed all family pets by this time. When this child was nine the wife did conceive and although she couldn't fathom abortion she strongly considered placing her unborn child for adoption because she believed that might really be the best option. Their younger daughter was delivered at 34 weeks after the wife was physically assaulted by her then 10 year old daughter. The police and child protective were involved but once they were satisfied that the perpetrator really was the ten year old they wanted to consider it all a parenting issue. The DA refused to pursue assault charges against a 10 year old (which I truly believe that the mom only filed as a hail mary pass at help for her child or at least some measure of safety for the rest of the family) and in that state juvenile judges would not adjudicate. The parents made a final attempt to arrange for some kind of out of home group placement which was denied. They then made an attempt to disrupt the adoption were threatened with child abandonment charges (which would have likely resulted in removal of their infant and would have encumbered both of their medical licenses). Ultimately, they chose the best of a bad set of options and arranged to send their daughter to a therapeutic boarding school. The program costs them around $75K per year and even with both parents being physicians that is a struggle. Fortunately they had their house paid off before this happened so they have minimal housing costs and if both parents work full time and they live pretty frugally they can make it work. I know it is a struggle and I know that they both wish they had more time for each other and for their younger daughter who just turned three but they believe this is the only way they can ensure both of their kids are in a safe place and they are sacrificing a lot for that. If they didn't both have six figure earning ability, or if their younger daughter hadn't been blessed with decent health even in spite of her early and traumatic entry into the world this best of bad sept of options plan would not be financially possible. I can imagine that they are not the only family in this situation.

 

[MamaJoJo]

...To just share a perspective...

<RSBM>

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Curiosum]

Yes--there are many situations where there are not true heroes and villains, but rather a lot of decent folks trying to make things work with limited resources. I have known of families going back to the public agency simply seeking additional information (generally to help confirm or deny a diagnosis of what is going on) only to receive the response, "do you want us to come get him/her?" In my own state, the granting of respite services to adoptive families varies widely by county, as do the levels of adoption support available (ranging from just the federal amount to twice that for a child with the same needs). There are various tensions between agencies and both foster and adoptive families.

This is one reason that I look at the Stanley family saga (on another thread) with a skeptical eye as I hear many trying to cast DHS as bad people snatching up kids in order to garner magical money from the feds. Frankly I have never encountered a family faced with removal, however warranted, who did not place all the blame on either the agency, the judge, or some teacher, neighbor or relative who "called them in." And frankly, I have known of some reports that, on investigation, were simply overblown worries on someone's part (a dirty face that looked like bruising, or several cases of Mongolian markings on biracial infants being mistaken for bruises).

In the Harris's case, the most obvious explanation in my eyes is that the family was quickly overwhelmed by two girls with very high needs and felt that their other kids were endangered (traumatised kids can do some dangerous things: starting fires, leaving the house when the family is sleeping, threatening siblings or pets with knives). Despite the legal reality that working with DHS would have been the preferred option, they chose not to (fear of headlines? desire for a faster solution?). I cannot say that I have a lot of respect for Mr. Harris--but I do believe that I can understand.

I agree with much of what you have said. I think the reality is that a lot of agencies are overwhelmed and underfunded and although they may really be doing the best they can caseworkers are also sometimes caught between a rock and hard place when placements disrupt. We actually have three different sets of friends (in three different states) who have adopted through the foster care system. I shared one of their stoies in part of my response above. Another family had a more mixed experience and with lots of advocacy and efforts on their part they were able to obtain services for their child. Of course this was not without much heartbreak, stress, and struggle along the way. Their daughter is now technically a legal adult but still has a lot of challenges and may never be able to live without supervision.

The final set of friends have also struggled but they are in a state and region of a state with an amazing therapeutic foster care program which is integrated into other programs in the county. They have guaranteed respite, access to a 24 hour caseworker via pager, during the foster period and they still retain a caseworker after adoption until age eighteen (or maybe twenty one). I'm not saying this third family has had it easy at all because as their children have grown into their hearts their hearts have at times broken for the situations that these kids came from and through but I do think that they have had a level of support I didn't see there for either of the other families. I also think that perhaps by the luck of the draw, or perhaps because they have intentionally been given more complex medical challenge kids because the wife of this third family is a physician, they have adopted kids who were fully capable of attaching and assimilating into their family. They have always said that they always tell caseworkers they need to just see how things go before they can even think about adoption. They say let us give them a safe, warm, loving home where we can assure their needs are met now and let them start to heal maybe they are meant to heal into our family or maybe we are just meant to help them get to the point where they are able to transition to their forever family. I think it is a great approach and I think it is great that they take it and really look at the situation in terms of what works for the kid and for their family but I think they are able to do this because the caseworkers they work with respect them and their family and let it play out that way. They have made a difference for many children but only really adopted one so far. They are in the process of trying to adopt two children (siblings) now and they have an older son who technically aged out of foster care in their home but still considers them parents and raises his child to consider them grandparents. I think in some other situations caseworkers are overwhelmed and struggling with placement so they may be inspired to try to nurture along a failing placement until it gets to the crisis and disaster point. This third family has never had that experience but I know that is not the norm for foster parents all over.

 

[MyBelle]

There have been cases where this has been exactly what has happened. While I do understand that there are some families that are caught in a bad place and I really think we need to do a better job at supporting all parents of kids in crisis I am not in favor of "rehoming" without at the least strict oversight (i.e.. where new prospective adoptive parents are subjected to at least the same background checks that the original parents were and if this is a disruption placement then I think it really does make sense to look carefully and consider if the new family will be in a better position to parent in the way this child needs or in a better position to at least keep the child in the home until adulthood).

BBM. Maybe I've missed something but to me this case illustrates the very reason why that determination should not be made by the adoptive parents. The adoptive father didn't place the child with a new family "in a better position to parent," he placed her with his school employee he then fired, who then raped the child. Considering this man runs a school--and I question how much state/fed money he receives--he and his wife had an abundance of resources available to assist them handle a problem child. There needs to be forensic interviews with every child at that school to find out if they, too, were victims of the fired employee.

JMO

 

[thorpedo]

And, he did it after having the girls 6 months!! I'm curious if he adopted them close to his election. I gotta check the dates.

And likely for the paycheck, too. From http://www.nacac.org/adoptionsubsidy/stateprofiles/arkansas.html.
4. What is the maximum basic monthly adoption assistance maintenance payment in Arkansas?
Age Rate
0–5 $410
6–11 $440

 

[Curiosum]

BBM. Maybe I've missed something but to me this case illustrates the very reason why that determination should not be made by the adoptive parents. The adoptive father didn't place the child with a new family "in a better position to parent," he placed her with his school employee he then fired, who then raped the child. Considering this man runs a school--and I question how much state/fed money he receives--he and his wife had an abundance of resources available to assist them handle a problem child. There needs to be forensic interviews with every child at that school to find out if they, too, were victims of the fired employee.

JMO

I'm advocating for oversight (at a minimum) so it isn't just a scenario where the disrupting parents selects a new family but one where the caseworker and judge also vet the new parents (with additional considerations as needed based on the circumstances of the disruption--ie if the child needs a home with no other children then a wonderful family with two kids would not be a great option) and also have to sign off on the move and approve the adoption.

 

[K_Z]

Curiosum, thank you for sharing your friends' situations. That perspective really helps.

I agree with your post above, that a judge and social work need to be involved with any permanent rehoming situations. And I'll add that if the current situation in the adoptive home is unsafe, there needs to be a way to relinquish the child into emergency foster care while the re-homing/ adoption disruption is occurring legally. This is what is "supposed" to happen, whether it's a bio child or an adoptive child-- if families cannot handle them, there has to be an emergency safety net.

We all saw what happened in Nebraska with the liberal "safe haven" law interpretation there. And so states moved quickly to very narrowly define safe haven relinquishment/ abandonment laws. Maybe it's not a popular idea, but I'm of the opinion that no parents should be "forced" to parent "forever". There "should be" a mechanism in every state for a child in crisis to enter emergency foster care, at the request of the parents, without criminal penalty-- as long as the child has not been abused (which is tricky to identify in cases of children who self harm or confabulate, I know). And that same system should help identify management resources for families that are overwhelmed.

I just think any system that shakes a finger at parents and makes threats encourages either abuse bourne of frustration, or "creative abandonment."

Here's a story about residential camps for Russian adoptees (most of whom struggle with the behavioral and developmental effects of fetal alcohol syndrome, which is at a nearly 100% rate in that culture). One of our ENT's adopted a Russian born child in the early 80's, and has shared a lot of their frustrations.

http://www.families.com/blog/last-chance-ranch

http://www.ranchforkids.org/ranch.htm

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/12/the-ranch-for-kids/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/ranch-for-kids-montana-ad_n_1684001.html


*The Ranch project is not without critics and controversy-- one can google and read more if interested.

 

[MyBelle]

I'm advocating for oversight (at a minimum) so it isn't just a scenario where the disrupting parents selects a new family but one where the caseworker and judge also vet the new parents (with additional considerations as needed based on the circumstances of the disruption--ie if the child needs a home with no other children then a wonderful family with two kids would not be a great option) and also have to sign off on the move and approve the adoption.

We don't know that the child's behavior is the reason she needed a new home. All we know at this point is that the adoptive parents gave the girls away to a pedophile. A pedophile who apparently was vetted by DHS just as the adoptive parents were supposedly vetted. So I don't place a lot of faith in the capabilities of staff of Arkansas DHS.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

We don't know that the child's behavior is the reason she needed a new home. All we know at this point is that the adoptive parents gave the girls away to a pedophile. A pedophile who apparently was vetted by DHS just as the adoptive parents were supposedly vetted. So I don't place a lot of faith in the capabilities of staff of Arkansas DHS.

JMO

Ummm--there was no DHS involvement when the kids were placed with the pedophile (who is now in prison). In states that have moved to enact laws against rehoming, they require the involvement/approval of authorities (a judge, DHS) prior to a parent making any such placement.