NationStates Jolt Archive

"US parents try to 'unadopt' son
An American couple are reportedly trying to "unadopt" their 16-year-old son, saying the state did not tell them of his disturbing history of abuse.
According to the Washington Post, Helen and James Briggs adopted the boy six years ago, after Mrs Briggs - a foster mother - fell in love with him.

But in 2003 the boy, who cannot be named, sexually abused a six-year-old boy and a two-year-old girl.

Mrs Briggs said it was only then that she discovered his troubled past. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6035447.stm

A moral dilemma. Comments please.

why "unadopt" him. they could just put him back up for adoption....

not to mention, the kid is 16. He is an adult in two years. What, exactly, do they hope to accomplish?

"At first blush, you think 'What, you're trying to give up your kid?'", Virginia politician David Albo told the Washington Post.

"Then you find out this lady has received awards for all the foster work she's done. And that she never would have adopted the boy and put other children in danger if she had had the information that was withheld from her."

oh, and what a shining example of foster/adoptive mother, to say that because her son was abused, she never would have adopted him. Wonderful

65

"These shoes don't fit! I demand my money back."

"..but ma'am.."

"Don't 'But ma'am' me."

"But ma'am, that's a boy, not a pare of shoes.."

I actually have some friends that are in a similar situation. State agencies have a habit of not disclosing all the information to adoptive parents then harassing the parents when the troubles come to light.

She should have been given all the information.

However, if she wants to just get rid of him simply because she found out that he is troubled, I find it hard to believe she loved him in the first place. This is especially true when I read this:

But then psychologists labelled him a sexual predator, meaning she would have to give up being a foster parent, which she sees as her livelihood,

Sounds like she does this for herself, not for the children - just another way to earn a paycheck.

oh, and what a shining example of foster/adoptive mother, to say that because her son was abused, she never would have adopted him. Wonderful

If someone is going to adopt a child they should have the right to choose what sort of child they are going to adopt and to have all available information so they can make a judgement on wether they can provide a suitable home.

Not everyone has experience or the ability to care for a seriously disturbed child.
Not everyone has a home situation suitable for bringing such a child into - other children who would be put at risk for example.

In this case it seems she is prepared to care for the boy, but if he is with her then she will presumeably have to give up another child she adopted and will not be able to have her grandchildren over - by law.

When you adopt a child you have agreed to be their parent. With that in mind it is completely unethical to then abandon them, especially if they have had a scarred upbringing.

Well, it seems that she would not have originally wanted to give up on him except for the fact that her ability to be with other children, including her granchildren, was at stake, as well as the way she makes a living. She must have looked at it as choosing the lesser of two evils.

It's unfortunate for the teenager who was abused, but he is repeating a cycle and needs serious help before he should ever be considered safe around other children.

Can't she put him in a basket and leave him at the doorstep of a nice family?

If someone is going to adopt a child they should have the right to choose what sort of child they are going to adopt and to have all available information so they can make a judgement on wether they can provide a suitable home.

Not everyone has experience or the ability to care for a seriously disturbed child.
Not everyone has a home situation suitable for bringing such a child into - other children who would be put at risk for example.

In this case it seems she is prepared to care for the boy, but if he is with her then she will presumeably have to give up another child she adopted and will not be able to have her grandchildren over - by law.

If he is with her in her home, she will have these problems. It sounds as if the boy needs professional help beyond what she can give him. What she refuses to do is *pay* for it. She is worried about her checkbook, and simply adding another abandonment to his already long list of issues.

Meanwhile, a parent who specifically tries to adopt a child that doesn't have psychological problems simply shouldn't adopt a child at all. The fact that a child is being put up for adoption at all carries its own brand of possible abandonment issues. Depending on how a particular child reacts, any child can be disturbed. If a parent is not prepared to deal with any issues that come up, then that parent should not be a parent - period. Too many people think that adoption is about the parent. It isn't. It is about the child, and the child's needs.

On the other hand, she certainly should have been informed of his past - before she ever took him in as a foster child and definitely before she adopted him. Even if such information did not change her mind about bringing him into her home, she would have known that he needed special attention, and might have prevented the tragedy that later occurred.

Well, it seems that she would not have originally wanted to give up on him except for the fact that her ability to be with other children, including her granchildren, was at stake, as well as the way she makes a living.

Am I the only one who finds making a living off of the misfortunes of children deplorable? If foster-care checks are truly this woman's only income, she probably shouldn't be approved to be a foster parent in the first place.

Meanwhile, the article was clear that she has been able to give up physical custody of the boy already. What she is fighting for is not that, but giving up *full* custody, so that she doesn't have to pay child support for the boy she took responsibility for.

Am I the only one who finds making a living off of the misfortunes of children deplorable? If foster-care checks are truly this woman's only income, she probably shouldn't be approved to be a foster parent in the first place.

Meanwhile, the article was clear that she has been able to give up physical custody of the boy already. What she is fighting for is not that, but giving up *full* custody, so that she doesn't have to pay child support for the boy she took responsibility for.

Yeah, that is SOOO going to improve his outlook on life. It's a great message for all the other kids she fosters, too.

Of course, if the kid is a predator, he can't be around other kids, but that is no reason to just return him like a faulty piece of merchandise.

It's a horrible situation. If it were only MONEY she was looking for, she could sue and get money from the adoption agency to help defray the cost of his psychiatric care. The case is compounded by the fact that she TOOK him to a psychiatrist, who confirmed the "he is hyperactive and does not need to be on meds" story. (I was listening to this on the radio tonight). It's not the money so much as the being separated from her other family members.

Mrs. Briggs would have had to give up her foster daughter, her ward, and could not have her own grandchildren visit her because of her adopted son -- and had she been informed of the extent of his problems she might have chosen not to adopt him. While he's not a puppy or a pair of shoes, certainly I can feel sorry for her having to choose whether to give up other children she loves in order to care for a violent predator she never dreamed was being placed in her care.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100801151.html

It's a horrible situation. If it were only MONEY she was looking for, she could sue and get money from the adoption agency to help defray the cost of his psychiatric care.

Actually, according to the article, she can't. She had 2 years time after she found out about his history to file a wrongful adoption suit. She chose not to.

And the quote about how she "never would have brought him into her home" if she had known is obviously in error, as that is *exactly* what she tried to do after she found out.

The case is compounded by the fact that she TOOK him to a psychiatrist, who confirmed the "he is hyperactive and does not need to be on meds" story. (I was listening to this on the radio tonight). It's not the money so much as the being separated from her other family members.

Another thing that is obvious from the article is that she does not have to give up custody to keep from being separated from her other family members. She is not trying to give up physical custody of the boy. She has already done so. She is trying to give up official custody, which at this point means she is trying to give up paying child support.

(unless, of course, the article is actually wrong).

Mrs. Briggs would have had to give up her foster daughter, her ward, and could not have her own grandchildren visit her because of her adopted son -- and had she been informed of the extent of his problems she might have chosen not to adopt him.

I don't buy that. Even after he abused two younger children, she tried to bring him back into her home. Those don't seem like the actions of a woman who is simply concerned about her other wards. She waited for over two years to try and "unadopt" him, as it were.

While he's not a puppy or a pair of shoes, certainly I can feel sorry for her having to choose whether to give up other children she loves in order to care for a violent predator she never dreamed was being placed in her care.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100801151.html

Based on the information in the two articles posted here, that is obviously not the actual choice. To have him living in her home, she would have to do so. To be his parent, and to help get him the help he needs, she does not. She has chosen to give him up completely, to try and erase him from her life, when all she *has* to do is ensure that he is placed in proper care and be willing to pay for it - something I would expect of any parent of any troubled child.

This is a very sad situation. From what the Washington Post article describes, the boy seems dangerous to have around and is severely ill. It also seems like this woman was not given the information she needed to decide whether to adopt him in the first place, and the foster agency deserves blame for being cavalier about placing a child with such serious problems.

It's scary -- what they describe fits what I've read of the typical childhood profile of serial killers -- psychological effects of abuse and abandonment, often aggravated by brain injury and related mental illness. That boy will probably never be all right. But I don't see how "unadopting" him will help him at all. It is obviously just adding to his mental problems. If the foster agency wants to make sure he grows up to be a killer, they can keep up this pressure.

If the woman is telling the truth, then it seems the biggest problem is the part about not being allowed to keep her other kids. That's the part I don't understand. If the boy is not in the house, why can't other kids live there? There's information missing from these articles, I think.

As for the money, well, she adopted him. She bears the same responsibility for him that birth parents do, so... Maybe the state should be working with her on that, but as a motive for dissolving the adoption -- I don't know. It sounds plausible that she would, but it seems equally plausible that the state agency is trying to avoid having to pick up the tab for the boy's care.

Meanwhile, a parent who specifically tries to adopt a child that doesn't have psychological problems simply shouldn't adopt a child at all. The fact that a child is being put up for adoption at all carries its own brand of possible abandonment issues. Depending on how a particular child reacts, any child can be disturbed. If a parent is not prepared to deal with any issues that come up, then that parent should not be a parent - period. Too many people think that adoption is about the parent. It isn't. It is about the child, and the child's needs.


I completely agree with this.

Honestly, imagine if a mother tried to renounce all responsibility for her biological child in this way. "Oh, well, if I had known he was going to turn out to have a mental illness, I never would have given birth to him! So obviously I shouldn't have to be responsible for taking care of him anymore, right?"

I'm not saying the adoption agency was right in hiding the boy's past history from her - they weren't. But that doesn't in any way excuse the adoptive mother treating her child like he's a defective product she'd like to return to the store. Poor kid.

If he is with her in her home, she will have these problems. It sounds as if the boy needs professional help beyond what she can give him. What she refuses to do is *pay* for it. She is worried about her checkbook, and simply adding another abandonment to his already long list of issues.
Where do you suggest she should put the boy so as not to have the problems with her other children if she is not going to put him in her home. Or should she add another abandonment issue to her other fostered child.


Meanwhile, a parent who specifically tries to adopt a child that doesn't have psychological problems simply shouldn't adopt a child at all. The fact that a child is being put up for adoption at all carries its own brand of possible abandonment issues. Depending on how a particular child reacts, any child can be disturbed. If a parent is not prepared to deal with any issues that come up, then that parent should not be a parent - period. Too many people think that adoption is about the parent. It isn't. It is about the child, and the child's needs.
I partly agree, many (or most0) foster children will have issues of some sort, however if you limit the pool of potential foster parents only to those who are qualified to look after seriously disturbed children and with home situations suitable for putting such children into then you better start building orphanages as there are not many people with those abilities. OR you could allow foster parents with suitable abilities and suitable home situations to adopt children they are capeable of raising and reduce the number of kids in orphanages.
In this case there seems to be a very real risk the child could seriously harm the other child being fostered - and that although the mother seemd to want to keep the boy as he is now classed as a sex offense risk is seems she will have to give up one of the two children. Why should it be the girl? Why should she place the girl at risk? Why add a memorable abandonment to a girl she has cared for since an infant?

Is is about the childs needs. You should not adopt for selfish reasons. But in this case which childs needs come first?


On the other hand, she certainly should have been informed of his past - before she ever took him in as a foster child and definitely before she adopted him. Even if such information did not change her mind about bringing him into her home, she would have known that he needed special attention, and might have prevented the tragedy that later occurred.

Fully agree.

Where do you suggest she should put the boy so as not to have the problems with her other children if she is not going to put him in her home. Or should she add another abandonment issue to her other fostered child.

From the sounds of it, he clearly needs to be in an institution where he can be watched and treated. Putting him in such a clinic, as long as she makes an active effort to be a part of his life, is not abandonment at all - it is precisely what a loving parent would do - see to the needs of her child.

I partly agree, many (or most0) foster children will have issues of some sort, however if you limit the pool of potential foster parents only to those who are qualified to look after seriously disturbed children and with home situations suitable for putting such children into then you better start building orphanages as there are not many people with those abilities. OR you could allow foster parents with suitable abilities and suitable home situations to adopt children they are capeable of raising and reduce the number of kids in orphanages.

Here's the problem: How do you know whether or not kids will develop problems? Any child, no matter how "normal" they may seem at the time, may develop serious health problems (mental or otherwise) in the future. A parent who will then just give up was quite obviously not qualified to be a parent in the first place.

From the second article, it doesn't seem like there was much that the authorities knew that this woman didn't. She dealth with him pulling out his hair and becoming hysterical. He told her he heard voices. She dealt with him trying to run away, etc. And all this was before she adopted him. She knew the boy was disturbed, whether his full history was revealed to her or not.

Those who placed the boy with her didn't know that he is a sexual predator. He had not yet been diagnosed as such. And she obviously isn't trying to "unadopt" him because he is disturbed, but because he is a sexual predator, something he wasn't diagnosed with until *after* she adopted him.

In this case there seems to be a very real risk the child could seriously harm the other child being fostered - and that although the mother seemd to want to keep the boy as he is now classed as a sex offense risk is seems she will have to give up one of the two children. Why should it be the girl? Why should she place the girl at risk? Why add a memorable abandonment to a girl she has cared for since an infant?

She doesn't have to. Getting the boy the help he needs could quite possibly mean that he will not live in the home with her. In fact, he isn't living with her right now, so this obviously isn't the issue. The issue is that she has to pay for it, and she's trying to get out of that.

Is is about the childs needs. You should not adopt for selfish reasons. But in this case which childs needs come first?

Both of the childs' needs can be met. Neither needs to come first.

Am I the only one who finds making a living off of the misfortunes of children deplorable? If foster-care checks are truly this woman's only income, she probably shouldn't be approved to be a foster parent in the first place.

Well, in one way or another all livelihoods are based on profiting from the misfortune and suffering of others. Doctors, lawyers, bakers. That's what economists call demand.

It's really just a privatized form of orphanage, and if a particular family has the ability and the willingness to turn out reasonably well adjusted members of society, just not the finacial means, then I don't see the problem. Yes, it's horrible if a person who doesn't care about kids chooses that as their way to make money, because they'll be doing those kids a great deal of harm (via emotional neglect, not necessarily outright abuse.)

And if a person does not have the means to both work a job and raise a bunch of kids, then why should the caretaker not recieve enough money to keep food and shelter for all the occupants?

I've known a couple of foster parents who make their living on the stipend recieved from raising foster kids, and they put money away for their college educations, and even take them back in for a while after graduation until they get themselves established, with no support from the state.

To set out to make a living off of nothing but foster care may be suspect, but not horrible in itself. It's sort of how the polite, quiet guy who seems to have no friends, never throws a party, never plays loud music, never has a loud fight with a girlfriend that disturbs the neighbors... might be a child molester, it fits the profile. Or he might just spend time with friends in the next town and view his house as just a place to sleep when he's not out enjoying his life.

I completely agree with this.

Honestly, imagine if a mother tried to renounce all responsibility for her biological child in this way. "Oh, well, if I had known he was going to turn out to have a mental illness, I never would have given birth to him! So obviously I shouldn't have to be responsible for taking care of him anymore, right?"

I'm not saying the adoption agency was right in hiding the boy's past history from her - they weren't. But that doesn't in any way excuse the adoptive mother treating her child like he's a defective product she'd like to return to the store. Poor kid.

As horrid as it might seem -- people DO give up their kids for adoption for reasons just like this or even just because they find them inconvenient. (Not saying it's right -- just saying they do). So basically, she's got all the responsibilities of being his parent but can't give him up as a parent could.

I believe she did not get all the info -- she was never given a written report and the state of VA doesn't require one. Now come on... you get paperwork on a car you buy listing its history -- surely it would be important to give a prospective parent the medical history of their child, unless, as the article states, in cases as difficult as his, caseworkers sometimes play fast and loose with the rules just to get a kid off their hands and get a bonus for closing another case?

As horrid as it might seem -- people DO give up their kids for adoption for reasons just like this or even just because they find them inconvenient. (Not saying it's right -- just saying they do). So basically, she's got all the responsibilities of being his parent but can't give him up as a parent could.

Actually, she has all the same rights a biological parent would have. In VA, a child over a certain age must give permission in order for his parents to give him up. He is not giving permission. This situation could just as easily occur if she was his biological mother.

I believe she did not get all the info -- she was never given a written report and the state of VA doesn't require one. Now come on... you get paperwork on a car you buy listing its history -- surely it would be important to give a prospective parent the medical history of their child, unless, as the article states, in cases as difficult as his, caseworkers sometimes play fast and loose with the rules just to get a kid off their hands and get a bonus for closing another case?

I believe that she didn't get *all* the information. However, she quite clearly knew that he was disturbed. I think she is greatly exaggerating the extent of what was held from her, especially since she clearly admits that the majority of the symptoms that were supposedly "withheld" from her were exhibited by the boy while he was in her foster care - before she ever adopted him.

Her claims that she thought he simply had ADD or was hyperactive simply don't fly. Children with ADD generally don't try to pull all their hair out, complain about hearing voices, or constantly run away. And these are all behaviors that she observed *before* adopting him. Any claims she makes that she didn't know he was disturbed are either outright lies, or evidence of a naivete so deep that she most likely shouldn't have children in her care.

In fact, if any professional has been shown to be at fault here, I'd say it's the doctor who allowed her to take him off medications for mental illness, depression, and seizures because he was "just hyperactive."

There are too many holes in the story. In truth, I'm more inclined to believe the caseworkers than this woman.

why "unadopt" him. they could just put him back up for adoption....

not to mention, the kid is 16. He is an adult in two years. What, exactly, do they hope to accomplish?



oh, and what a shining example of foster/adoptive mother, to say that because her son was abused, she never would have adopted him. Wonderful

Once you adopt someone that individual is your child just as if you gave birth or as if you were the biofather. You have all of the obligations of any other parent, and the child has all of the rights of birth children. So you can't just put the young man up for adoption. The state or county would have to take you into court and have your parental rights dissolved. This is not done lightly. The real issue is did the Adoption Agency share all of the relevant fact of the case with the prospective parents. Even if they did not the Court still might not grant the change the status of the parents and child.

Am I the only one who finds making a living off of the misfortunes of children deplorable? If foster-care checks are truly this woman's only income, she probably shouldn't be approved to be a foster parent in the first place.

Meanwhile, the article was clear that she has been able to give up physical custody of the boy already. What she is fighting for is not that, but giving up *full* custody, so that she doesn't have to pay child support for the boy she took responsibility for.

Eh... I pretty much just skimmed the article, which is my fault for posting about something I didn't read thoroughly.

Anyway you look at it the whole situation is deplorable. On all sides. I keep thinking about how damaged this kid must be emotionally and mentally and it will probably just keep getting worse.

Sad for everybody involved. Being abandoned again will only make this boy worse, but you can't expect him to be allowed near other children.