Correct me if I'm wrong, but why is that bio family members cannot step in and adopt an infant that a mother..?

Randy B

I think a lot of it is because when birth parents deal with an agency it is a private transaction in so much as they are dealing with a private company. When they deal with social services they are dealing with the State and while the base requirements to adopt are the same there is not the same level of "business" involved. Both organizations want to ensure the child is placed in a good home however they operate under a different "business model".

Corn is not dog food! No wheat!

The operative word here is "voluntary".

Because she IS a "fit" mother, and can place her baby where she wants, the government doesn't interfere with that decision.

Why would a mother choose not to let a family member raise her baby? Well, plenty of people hate their mothers. Plenty of people are abused by parents. Plenty of people would rather not have anything to do with their own kin folk as long as they live.

Background.
If she's convinced she's not wealthy enough, educated enough, stable enough, chances are, her family is in the same situation she is. Why should she give a baby to someone just as poor, ignorant, and unstable as she is?

There are also plenty of other issues.
Grandma might have cancer and 6 months to live.
Grandma might have early Alzheimer's and not be fit to care for herself, much less a child.
Grandma might be living below poverty level and un-able to afford it.
Grandma might have a vicious, nasty boyfriend that maybe likes children just a little too much.

SJM

When a child is adopted through foster care, there is direct involvement by the state in the affairs of the family. The laws governing Human Services were written to at least give the appearance that there was an attempt made at family preservation before a stranger (or foster care) adoption. It's basically a check on a government agency. What if they weren't required to attempt permanent placement within the family? They could be accused of recruiting children for foster parents. In fact, foster to adopt families were controversial just a decade ago. How can family reunification be a realistic goal when the foster family is also a prospective adoptive family? There is a conflict of interest there for the worker assigned to the case. Lawmakers feel better knowing they've required an attempt to place within the family first.

Relinquishment through a lawyer or an agency is at least assumed to be a voluntary decision made by the child's parent(s). Therefore, there is no mandate for the state to interfere.

kitta

The infant adoption industry is controlled by a different lobby group, and that is why it is governed by a different set of laws.It is a private industry, for the most part, and is run by private interests, although the government legislates all of the laws, and all adoptions are processed through the courts.

The infant adoption industry operates on the premise that the best way to separate mothers from their babies is to move quickly and steer them away from sources of support in their own families.

Mothers are encouraged to 'explore their options' . They are told they can "choose without pressure'. But they are pressured. This means that they are invited to look at profiles of paps in an agency office or with a "birthmom bud" or "peer counselor" who will "help them' see how wonderful adoption is.

But they rarely get to work within their own family.

The idea is to separate the pregnant mother from her family members, and pit the mother against the father of the baby and all of the other family members. Mothers are even told that marriage to the father wouldn't be a good idea.

the sources of support who might work together to find a solution for the young mother, father, and baby are all separated.

This is the divide and conquer strategy.

Paps are presented as "having it all" while the mother and father are considered to be inadequate and the family members are seen as interfering. This is how agencies will view the family members.

Lori A

In my case it was my family that I was trying to protect my daughter from. They are the reason I surrendered her. Not necessarily my mothers actions, she was just too naive to see what was going on.

Serenity71

Kazi- In a lot of cases even in this day and age family members may not know the child even exists. In my kids case the extended family don't know about them. I guess their birth parents have their reasons, but we (Adoptive parents) have no influence or say in it. For the present thats just how it is. (I have a few ideas from what our girls birth mother has said to us as to why she chose not tell them. I just don't want to go into them here.)

I know that DOCS (Government dept.) do try very hard even with adoptions to place a child back into their biological family, if at all possible.

I actually think a non-related couple are a second choice and last resort in nearly all cases.Even placing a child for adoption, they push much harder for foster care or permanent care for children.

Felicita1

I am trying to help a set of grandparents right now.

The mother of their grandchild wants to surrender her baby. Grandma's son, the baby's father, wants to keep the baby -- and the mother, her parents, and the adoption agency are all pressuring him to surrender.

The paternal grandparents spoke to the adoption agency counselor and the counselor said that incest occurs in biological families so that's why the child should be adopted by strangers.

Agencies won't get paid the big money in the five figure range if a family member adopts, because that can be done very easily via a court petition and a custody hearing. They only get paid big money if the strangers on their list -- their paying customers -- adopt.

So, relatives are dissuaded from adopting.

thebluladybug

I think to respect the mother's wishes.

Indiana

i think it has to do with a woman choosing to put a child up for adoption and a child being taken from an unhealthy environment.
for voluntary surrender it's a mothers choice which is unquestioned because she is not wishing to raise the child
a child in foster care usually has reunification as the tong term goal so placing the child with family is the best option

Indian-vision

Our child's birth mom decided to keep the information about adoption from her extended family for some reason that i am not aware of .

From Corn is not dog food's answer and whatever information i have about her relinquishment it makes some sense.

rachelrmf@sbcglobal.net

This decision is in direct link as to why the baby was taken or given up. When the mother is given up rights on her own this is her choice, when DHS steps in it really depends on why they stepped in as to which family member they choose or if it is family who gets the child at all.

knittinmama

It is possible that in the case of your son (foster care) that his birth mother was determined by the State to be unfit (perhaps drug addict) and her mom would have agreed to not allow her daughter access to the child. Your son's social worker would know the history of his situation.

Wundt

When the mother volunteers to relinquish, (I think) CPS tries to honor her wishes. If she feels that her parents or other extended family would not make the best home, then it is reasonable that CPS take that into account. It might be that the mother blames her parents for the problems that lead her to relinquish in the first place and does not want her child to go through what she did.

We also adopted from foster care. In our case, CPS looked at several other biological family members as part of the overall process, but none of them wanted to adopt or would not have passed the home study. When the mother relinquished, she asked that the boys be placed with us because she had seen improvement in the boys while we fostered them.

sizesmith

Sometimes, it's considered in the best interests of the mother and child to adopt a child outside of the family, mainly for emotional healing.

Annabelle

Both are based on legality and not necessarily logic.

Grandparents technically have no legal rights to the child and therefore can not step in and prevent a relinquishment.

Social Services has a legal obligation to exhaust family resources before placing a child in foster care. (After the initial 30 day shelter period as it is generally allowable track down and do background checks on family members during this time) The parents can still oppose the relative placement if they wanted to and it would be up to the judge to decide.

â™¥Love my dogzâ™¥

Because if relatives step straight in and adopt no agency makes any money off the baby.
Also in foster care cases the child sometimes shouldn't be put with family as they are often just as bad as the parents.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: