Why is reunification the goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are like three recent threads from OPs who clearly don't understand the point of the foster system.

You know what? if you're the same person who was being rude to me on the thread I started (the one about adopting a young child through foster care) you should find something better to do with your time!

I actually DO know a thing or two about the foster system. I have fostered multiple children over the past 10 years and adopted two of them! I also WORK IN THIS SYSTEM. I am tired of you negative people anonymously replying to people who are simply asking questions about foster care/adoption.

This person is ASKING A QUESTION. Either answer it or MOVE ON! Can you not think of anything positive to say? or educational? or in some way helpful?

[Anonymous]

the law should not try and break up families, but help them look after their own.
Say a car accident with 2 dead parents and 3 live kids. Should the law prevent a family member from claiming the kids even if that family member is distant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the law should not try and break up families, but help them look after their own.
Say a car accident with 2 dead parents and 3 live kids. Should the law prevent a family member from claiming the kids even if that family member is distant?

The goal is to keep children with family first and foremost. If a relative ANYWHERE wants the children, they have priority. They actually search for relatives.

[Anonymous]

Because parents have a well-established constitutional right to parent their children.

[Anonymous]

OP, this isn't an issue of social worker bias - it is actually the law that reunification be the first goal. Children want to be with their parents - even when the parent(s) is harmful to them. The parent/child bond is powerful and deep and severing that connections is often extremely traumatic and damaging for a child.

Parents can have their children removed for many reasons. Some of the most common are drug addiction related problems, but a child can be removed from the home if one parent is abusive. So, imagine a scenario with an abusive/neglectful father. The child(ren) might be taken from the home. The mother might find a way to leave the relationship, establish herself independently and demonstrate her ability to protect and care for her kids. That can take significant time. But if she is able to rebuild her life - doesn't she deserve to parent her child? Doesn't the child deserve to be with his/her mother? Just one example of course, but there are lots of scenarios in which a parent can make changes that make it possible for them to parent again, or another family member can step up to provide a home for a child.

It is incredibly hard on the fostering family, sure, but terminating parental rights is a very, very serious matter and not one that is ever easy or without negative impact on a child (even in the cases where it is the best solution).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes children are removed from parents on false grounds. Social workers make mistakes too. Sometimes it is mothers illness, like post natal depression, which does not last a lifetime, sometimes a parent agrees to bring a child in. Not all drug addicts.

And sometimes they're removed for real reasons, but parents are able to get their acts together. Sometimes moms get the courage and help to leave an abusive spouse. Sometimes they get counseling and meds for their depression for the first time. Sometimes, sometimes, they are able to actually beat addiction. Reunification is the best because children should not just be ripped from their families for one mistake. Parents have a chance to get it right.

If you can't understand that you do more damage to a kid by ripping them from their families unnecessarily, then you should not be a foster parent. You need to respect the bio family. Even if you end up adopting the kid - you have to RESPECT THEIR BIRTH FAMILY.

[Anonymous]

In Montgomery Count the "foster to adopt" placement is called a risk placement -- the risk is to the foster parent, that they may come to love the child as their own (which happens incredibly quickly) but ultimately turn them back over to their bio family. That is a known risk when doing this, OP, and no one enters into this situation blindly. Your social worker should explain this to you.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes an adoption does not work out, the adoptive parents want out. That is called a disruption and it does occur. The older the child the higher the rate of disruption. The law cannot just make the children into 'legal orphans' when there is a family that wants to care for that child. And the state is not able to find a wonder permanent home for every child. Adoptees life is not full of roses.
Adoptions is when you need to provide a family to a child that does not have one, not to take away a child from a family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because foster care is not set up to meet you need to adopt. It is to help families be successful. The last resort is adoption. If something happened in your. Life and your child was placed in foster care, would you want the opportunity to get them back or would you allow them to be adopted by strangers who have a need for a second child.

+ a million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because foster care is not set up to meet you need to adopt. It is to help families be successful. The last resort is adoption. If something happened in your. Life and your child was placed in foster care, would you want the opportunity to get them back or would you allow them to be adopted by strangers who have a need for a second child.

I'm the "mean" poster from the other thread and I agree with this 100%.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks for the thoughtful responses. We are nowhere near the point of fostering yet but I am really asking a lot of questions. I can understand the high potential for reunification in cases where a parent is actively in treatment for addiction issues etc. I guess I was more unsure when it came to issues of severe physical abuse/neglect. I figure if a parent is acting that bad then they have such severe mental and emotional problems that it seems impossiblet o overcome. But I a PP made a point that almost all kids want to hope for the best in their families and maybe the devil you know is better than an unknown family. Very interesting topic and I have a ton a respect and admiration for foster families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for the thoughtful responses. We are nowhere near the point of fostering yet but I am really asking a lot of questions. I can understand the high potential for reunification in cases where a parent is actively in treatment for addiction issues etc. I guess I was more unsure when it came to issues of severe physical abuse/neglect. I figure if a parent is acting that bad then they have such severe mental and emotional problems that it seems impossiblet o overcome. But I a PP made a point that almost all kids want to hope for the best in their families and maybe the devil you know is better than an unknown family. Very interesting topic and I have a ton a respect and admiration for foster families.

I think often the severe physical abuse and neglect are related to the birth parent's addictions.

[Anonymous]

Not necessarily. Addiction is only one part of abuse/neglect. If birth parent was poorly parented-- then more likely than not they won't know how to be good parents unless they are taught. Addressing substance abuse is only one piece of the puzzle. The goal of reunification should be to address all the factors that lead to multigenerational dysfunction so the cycle can be broken.

[Anonymous]

The definition of "Reunification" can be quite broad. Social services contacted us with the invitation to adopt a baby girl from foster care on the basis that we had previously and privately adopted the little girl's older brother, and therefore we were considered family. The siblings met each for the first time when we brought our daughter home. We would say that we adopted from foster care, while social services has probably categorized this as a reunification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The definition of "Reunification" can be quite broad. Social services contacted us with the invitation to adopt a baby girl from foster care on the basis that we had previously and privately adopted the little girl's older brother, and therefore we were considered family. The siblings met each for the first time when we brought our daughter home. We would say that we adopted from foster care, while social services has probably categorized this as a reunification.

I don't think this is what "reunification" means in most counties though. To reunify would be to unify back with the same person/family they had been with.

Union is to come together.

Reunion is to come back together.