Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read a blog from Rebecca at Fosterhood, who herself was adopted as a child and who has fostered with the intent to adopt 2 kids of her own.

Her view on this is that the parents were unprepared and never should have been allowed to attempt this adoption in the first place because of that unpreparedness. And who knows, maybe they are terrible people.

But the important thing, she says, is the welfare of the child, and for that she is grateful that these parents recognized they were in over their heads and gave the child another chance somewhere else. The outcome of that child, in that household, was not going to be good.

It's easy to bash this couple and I'm not defending them. But we don't really want the child to end up with them when they weren't able to take care of the kid. To want these parents to keep the child, given the parents they are, is to effectively root against the child.

Just another way of looking at the situation.

That’s great “I’ve read a blog”-lady. I’m also adopted and adopting a child and this was a massive failure. Failure of the adoption agency - who approves such a narcissistic public couple monetizing their adopted child? Other agencies would have declined this family. They said they were open to every special need in the book. But were obviously already stretched thin with their other kids. Yes it’s best if the child was rehomed but you know what would be even better? Adoption agencies and families NOT f*ing profiting off of the trauma of a child without any say in the matter. This was child trafficking. Their videos should be removed from YouTube.

We agree that it's in the child's best interests to be rehomed.
We agree that the adoption agency should never have allowed this couple to adopt in the first place.

You have additional opinions about calling this child trafficking and getting the videos removed from YouTube (fwiw I agree about the videos), but I'm not sure what you're so angry at me for when we mostly seem to agree here except for tone. Okay I guess.

But you know what probably would have been even worse? If this couple had been too embarrassed or stupid to admit that they were not equipped to deal with this child and had effectively abused the child for the rest of its childhood. The current outcome, while it never should have been necessary, at least provides a chance for the child to get the care that is truly needed. I understand your anger at the couple above all, but I don't think that you're recognizing that this isn't the worst that this case could have gone for the child, and I for one am grateful that this couple, whatever its faults, actually recognized its limitations and made a difficult decision that gives this kid at least a chance for the future.

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to know what kind of training the adoption agency required. I had friends that did a domestic adoption and were required to attend many classes about inter-racial adoption, even though one of the parents was the same race as the child. Did these parents have training on international adoption? On parenting special needs children, particularly children with neurological differences?
I agree the child is almost certainly better off without them which is probably why a professional recommended it. I am also curious whether the mom who is taking him was one pf his former service providers who formed a better attachment than the adoptive parents, as they said the new person has a medical baclground.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree they should lose the other children.

Because they gave up their adopted child that they couldn’t take care of due to his medical issues? There was no abuse or neglect. So no, they shouldn’t lose their other kids and it’ll never happen. But nice try.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read a blog from Rebecca at Fosterhood, who herself was adopted as a child and who has fostered with the intent to adopt 2 kids of her own.

Her view on this is that the parents were unprepared and never should have been allowed to attempt this adoption in the first place because of that unpreparedness. And who knows, maybe they are terrible people.

But the important thing, she says, is the welfare of the child, and for that she is grateful that these parents recognized they were in over their heads and gave the child another chance somewhere else. The outcome of that child, in that household, was not going to be good.

It's easy to bash this couple and I'm not defending them. But we don't really want the child to end up with them when they weren't able to take care of the kid. To want these parents to keep the child, given the parents they are, is to effectively root against the child.

Just another way of looking at the situation.

That’s great “I’ve read a blog”-lady. I’m also adopted and adopting a child and this was a massive failure. Failure of the adoption agency - who approves such a narcissistic public couple monetizing their adopted child? Other agencies would have declined this family. They said they were open to every special need in the book. But were obviously already stretched thin with their other kids. Yes it’s best if the child was rehomed but you know what would be even better? Adoption agencies and families NOT f*ing profiting off of the trauma of a child without any say in the matter. This was child trafficking. Their videos should be removed from YouTube.

Anonymous wrote:No one should use the word “adoption” when describing this family. They BOUGHT this child to make a profit and then SOLD him when things got difficult. Adoption describes loving families who actually care about their child.

Anonymous wrote:Agree they should lose the other children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the thread/don't know the family but I do believe when this situation happens it is not decided upon lightly and there are scarier reasons/details than we will ever know, as thankfully (though these people are social media whores it seems) they are trying to protect this child's privacy as much as possible by NOT sharing details. But if this is anything related to a form of attachment disorder or sociopath, be thankful that you cannot imagine.

-no judgement here.

The child had brain injury. They knew it on placement. This is not a attachment issue. Those things can be normal with brain injuries. The parents were not attached. Big difference.

Do you know for a FACT that they never got attached to him? You don’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the thread/don't know the family but I do believe when this situation happens it is not decided upon lightly and there are scarier reasons/details than we will ever know, as thankfully (though these people are social media whores it seems) they are trying to protect this child's privacy as much as possible by NOT sharing details. But if this is anything related to a form of attachment disorder or sociopath, be thankful that you cannot imagine.

-no judgement here.

The child had brain injury. They knew it on placement. This is not a attachment issue. Those things can be normal with brain injuries. The parents were not attached. Big difference.

Anonymous wrote:Well they should lose the other kids too. Unfit to parent is unfit to parent.

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to know what kind of training the adoption agency required. I had friends that did a domestic adoption and were required to attend many classes about inter-racial adoption, even though one of the parents was the same race as the child. Did these parents have training on international adoption? On parenting special needs children, particularly children with neurological differences?
I agree the child is almost certainly better off without them which is probably why a professional recommended it. I am also curious whether the mom who is taking him was one pf his former service providers who formed a better attachment than the adoptive parents, as they said the new person has a medical baclground.

Anonymous wrote:I read a blog from Rebecca at Fosterhood, who herself was adopted as a child and who has fostered with the intent to adopt 2 kids of her own.

Her view on this is that the parents were unprepared and never should have been allowed to attempt this adoption in the first place because of that unpreparedness. And who knows, maybe they are terrible people.

But the important thing, she says, is the welfare of the child, and for that she is grateful that these parents recognized they were in over their heads and gave the child another chance somewhere else. The outcome of that child, in that household, was not going to be good.

It's easy to bash this couple and I'm not defending them. But we don't really want the child to end up with them when they weren't able to take care of the kid. To want these parents to keep the child, given the parents they are, is to effectively root against the child.

Just another way of looking at the situation.