NationStates Jolt Archive

Some lady who's won awards for her work in caring for foster kids adopted one. The kid, now 15 years old, turned out to have been a kid toucher. He molested a little by and a two year old girl. The pedo problem child had been bouncing around between foster homes since his drug and alcohol addicted folks had abused him. He also was "psychotically bipolar". None of this was revealed prior to the adoption. Now, because Virginia law says a kid of 14 years or older must consent to having an adoption dissolved, they may be stuck raising this defective deviant.

Surely there is some institution this kid can be housed in. The adoptive parents shouldn't be saddled with a special needs kid. They should have been told the kid was a problem before he was adopted.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/09/unadoption.ap/index.html

I read that story. It's one of the most cold-blooded and heartless things I've ever read. Adopted or not, those are his PARENTS! :mad:

They disgust me. :mad:

I read that story. It's one of the most cold-blooded and heartless things I've ever read. Adopted or not, those are his PARENTS! :mad:

They disgust me. :mad:

They weren't told the kid had problems other than hyperactivity when they adopted him. It's not fair to them or to their grandkids to force them to harbor a pedophile in their home.

They weren't told the kid had problems other than hyperactivity when they adopted him. It's not fair to them or to their grandkids to force them to harbor a pedophile in their home.

It's no different from having a child and then finding out later on that it has problems, it's still your child.

I read that story. It's one of the most cold-blooded and heartless things I've ever read. Adopted or not, those are his PARENTS! :mad:

They disgust me. :mad:
I saw in another article on this that she is also fostering a girl she raised since an infant. And that if the boy stays with her she will have to give up the girl (by law) as the boy is a convicted sex offender.

Who should she give up - the boy or the girl?

They weren't told the kid had problems other than hyperactivity when they adopted him. It's not fair to them or to their grandkids to force them to harbor a pedophile in their home.

I think you must be thinking of buying a car, or owning a slave...

There ARE places the kid can be admitted to for help. Adoption is NOT and should never be a temporary legal agreement. The parents are wrong, they do need to find help for the kid.

What are you suggesting, that they should create a "lemon law" like they have for cars, for children?

It's no different from having a child and then finding out later on that it has problems, it's still your child.

It is different. In adoption you get to choose who you'll adopt. In childbirth it's a roll of the genetic dice.

I think you must be thinking of buying a car, or owning a slave...

There ARE places the kid can be admitted to for help. Adoption is NOT and should never be a temporary legal agreement. The parents are wrong, they do need to find help for the kid.

What are you suggesting, that they should create a "lemon law" like they have for cars, for children?

They were tricked into adopting a psychotic pedophile. Isn't it unethical to pawn off a defective kid as a normal kid? Considering the fact that he's put other children in danger and these parents can't foster or adopt more kids so long as this little kid toucher lives in their home, doesn't this actually hurt more kids?

Sounds like child services fucked up big time and the boy should be removed. He should of never been placed in a home with other children.

I saw in another article on this that she is also fostering a girl she raised since an infant. And that if the boy stays with her she will have to give up the girl (by law) as the boy is a convicted sex offender.

Who should she give up - the boy or the girl?

Neither. The law is wrong. That 15 year old boy needs help. He isn't a pedophile. He's a kid. An abused child who needs parent that CARE. :(

It is different. In adoption you get to choose who you'll adopt. In childbirth it's a roll of the genetic dice.

Let them sue. I'm all for a vigorous lawsuit. Maybe even criminal fraud charges.

Well, it's too late now. I say take both kids away. They're unfit parents.

As his legal guardians, they can have him admitted into a mental institution against his will since he's a minor. It may not be right, and this kid does need treatment. But honestly, what kind of treatment and care can the parents give at home anyway? Lock him up, I say.

Neither. The law is wrong. That 15 year old boy needs help. He isn't a pedophile. He's a kid. An abused child who needs parent that CARE. :(

Maybe he didn't have enough mud to play with as a child. :)

Maybe he didn't have enough mud to play with as a child. :)

Well, I had enough and I never molested kids. You might be onto something. :)

It is different. In adoption you get to choose who you'll adopt. In childbirth it's a roll of the genetic dice.

No it isn't. Anyway, they adopted the kid at aged 9 and then he started playing up at 14 and the want to blame the whole thing on his past? That's 5 years of their influence during one of the most important stages of a childs development that the woman is claiming hasn't mattered.

Well, I had enough and I never molested kids. You might be onto something. :)

*enjoyed making mud pies when younger*

*never molested anybody*

We may be onto something here. :cool:

Wait a minute...

her 15-year-old son,
the youngster molested a 6-year-old boy and a 2-year-old girl in 2003
adopted the boy when he was 9,
He was certainly troubled when he was adopted, but he wasn't a child molester. Since he's 15 and underage he's technically not a pedophile, right?

Wait a minute...




He was certainly troubled when he was adopted, but he wasn't a child molester. Since he's 15 and underage he's technically not a pedophile, right?

The boy needs help. That's obvious. But his parents trying to return him like faulty merchandise? Now that is truly sick! :(

I spent 3 years in the foster care system, which of course means that I am more entitled to an opinion than other people. ;)

I think that many people are portraying the parents as saying, "Oops, the kid's defective! Let's send him back to the kid dealership." In reality the issue is that these kind hearted people were among the few parents willing to adopt a child out of foster care.

They weren't warned whatsoever about his psycological issues. This isn't the same as having a handicapped child born to you and then wanting to get rid of him/her. First, they have every right to assume that, if they aren't told about an issue, it doesn't exist. Secondly, a problem as complicated a pedophilic tendencies isn't genetic. With genetic issues, like autism, it's noone's fault. In this scenario, someone else did something to this young man that caused these problems, and then the parents weren't told about it. In fact, this sort of problem is common in the foster care system. So his pedophilic tendencies are partially the fault of the commonwealth of Virginia. A more accurate metaphor for this scenario is this:

A married couple has a healthy boy. Unknown to the parents, for fifteen years, the commonwealth of Virginia facilitates all kinds of drug addicts and sex offenders in accessing and abusing their son. Now, complicated psycological issues have begun to surface. The parents are completely caught off gaurd, unsure as to whether the have the proper experience and resources to help him with his problems and fearful that these problems might cause him to hurt their other children. They ask the commonwealth of Virginia for assistance and now the same institution that created this problem is labeling them as uncaring unfit parents. Despite choosing to label these parents as "unfit" and "uncarring" the commonwealth of Virginia decides that the boy should remain in their custody.

It would be laughable if there weren't some poor young man stuck with parents who don't have the ability to help him with his complicated psycological problems.

There is simply no way they could have prepared for the fact that their new son would have these demons. Now there may be no alternative except to try to provide the best care they can to a child with problems that they do not have the experience or resources to deal with.

No it isn't. Anyway, they adopted the kid at aged 9 and then he started playing up at 14 and the want to blame the whole thing on his past? That's 5 years of their influence during one of the most important stages of a childs development that the woman is claiming hasn't mattered.

Even at that point, he might have still had these same problems, only that he was unable to express them (either in a positive or negative way) because 1. The parents weren't told about the his past, so there is no way they could have helped him express his problems in positive ways and 2. Before reaching puberty, he may have found it difficult to express his problems through negative actions. Just because these problems didn't surface in the begining doesn't mean they weren't there. Heck, if the parents had known about his past, they could have taken steps to prevent this.

Neither. The law is wrong. That 15 year old boy needs help. He isn't a pedophile. He's a kid. An abused child who needs parent that CARE. :(
a. The law is an ass, but she still has to make a choice based on that law. Which choice should she make?
b. If the boy sexually assults the girl should she still have to keep him, or the girl or both?
c. If the boy sexually assults the girl will it be her responsibility for having him in the same house?

am I sick and twisted for finding that article amusing? :eek:

Wow, Social Services failed miserably. The boy's file should have had "Note to self, tell potential adoptive parents that [boy's name] molested children on 2 occassions" in massive red letters on the front cover. And the back cover. And on every other page.

I saw in another article on this that she is also fostering a girl she raised since an infant. And that if the boy stays with her she will have to give up the girl (by law) as the boy is a convicted sex offender.

Who should she give up - the boy or the girl?

If it were an absolute "either-or", the boy has to go. (The girl did nothing wrong here...)

However, there is at least one other option... right?

If it were an absolute "either-or", the boy has to go. (The girl did nothing wrong here...)

However, there is at least one other option... right?

They're a bit vague on it, but it looks like as the boy is a convicted sex offender he is not allowed to be fostered in the same family as other children who may be at risk of him attacking them.

Surely there is some institution this kid can be housed in.
Like John Wayne Gacy's basement, for example.

No it isn't.
Prove it.

The boy needs help. That's obvious. But his parents trying to return him like faulty merchandise? Now that is truly sick! :(
Ummm, I am thinking here, if parents can't raise a child, that it's probably best that the child be given over to a competent agency.