Reply With QuoteNo, the other one. *blush* I was on my phone and assumed this was in News maybe?
Sorry! Hahaha.
Registered User
You mean just like the one we're in now Nelle? :P
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
Registered User
I think they prefer one parent to be home for at least a year whatever the age of the child.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
oh, very ninja
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of adopting crisis orphans - there's just too much moral hazard, you know?
It is extremely difficult to adopt in Aus though, I sure most potentials probably give up.
Registered User
I phrased that sentence wrong Kate, what I meant was a child that doesn't go to school requires a foster parent at home, whereas a child that goes to school - which is strongly encouraged by the department as it provides a sense of stability - does not require a foster parent to be always at home ITMS. I wanted a baby or toddler, which meant I had to give up work as per the dept's policies, but I don't have to for a school age child.
While I understand what you're saying M, I don't really feel like there's a moral dilemma - I want to adopt/foster a child, and bring them into a stable environment. If they are currently living in an environment where relatives are tempted to sell them for financial gain, wouldn't that environment be pretty toxic? Of course, I suppose there's always the issue of children being kidnapped and sold, which of course I don't want any part of. But I think even when going through slow, expensive, legitimate channels, that danger still exists, and that would be a risk we'd have to be aware of. Which is pretty much the same as long term fostering or permanent care - there's always the possibility that the parents may pop up again and want their child back.
WRT adopting in Australia, as early as 5 years ago it wasn't an option for us, being JW's. This may have changed now, and I'm researching it. But I know quite a few couples who had to adopt internationally because they weren't allowed an Australian child while they were practicing JW's
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
I didn't think PC kids could be claimed back.Side issue here I know.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
stupid internet ate my reply
Basically, there is a hazard because there is demand and there is money to be made and we are dealing with the most vulnerable of the vulnerable.
I don't doubt your motivations at all, btw, it's just a sticky situation.
Registered User
Depends on what stage of the paperwork you're at Nelle - from what we were told last year, a child will very VERY rarely go straight into permanent care. Generally the procedure is to find them an appropriate foster home, and get a court order for 6-24 months. Then the court needs to be revisited at the end of the court order, for the same amount of time. On the third time, if the child has been in continuous foster care with the same family, permanent care can be put on the table. I'm guessing this is because the preference will always be for a biological family, provided there are no preventable risks to the child. Having said that, it has happened in the past that babies are given a court order keeping them with the foster family until they're 18 years old, it all depends on the circumstances.
Yeah Marcellus, always bad apples. I know you don't doubt me
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
Oh right - we're talking about newborns here! I know it's rare for babies to go into permanent care, and it's more like 24 months at the youngest. I just thought that once it was called 'permanent care' then the biological parent isn't in a position to change their mind.
Registered User
Yeah, you'd think eh! It's one of the reasons I don't mind the thought of fostering so much, I thought that you couldn't get more permanent than permanent, but you can. The thing that bothers me the most is that I'd never wanna give the kid back y'know?
Registered User
Keike is being not able to adopt because you are JW a religious reason or an Australian rule??? Excuse my ignorance please.
WRT adopting in Australia, as early as 5 years ago it wasn't an option for us, being JW's. This may have changed now, and I'm researching it. But I know quite a few couples who had to adopt internationally because they weren't allowed an Australian child while they were practicing JW's
O/S adoption is so hard movie stars throw a lot of money at it to make things happen quickly, so many people can provide these kids with so much it's really sad.
Registered User
An Australian rule. Back then I was told it was because of our stand on blood transfusions, but it could be different these days as our kids are just given whatever the doctor orders, parents don't have that much say anymore.
Registered User
Keike, what the? can you clarify your last post. which kids are given whatever the doctor orders?
Registered User
On adoption - the last Plan magazine we got had a really interesting article on why intercountry adoption after natural disaster really isn't the best option for orphans, as hard as it can be to understand. Sadly I don't have it anymore, gave it to the kids at work to "read" but if you search a little, you might find it.
Registered User
Sorry, very overtired last night and came across more jaded than intended. 5-10 years ago, when JW parents refused blood transfusions for their children and requested different treatments, on the whole they were listened to. Occasionally a doctor or hospital would try to get a court order, sometime successfully, but it was always only for the treatment. Whereas particularly in the last 5 years, it has become a LOT more common for hospitals to threaten making a JW child a ward of the state in order to receive the treatment the doctor wants to give them. This is not just in the case of blood transfusions either - for instance my friend who was trying to find other alternatives to her son being fed by a tube. When she asked if there was an alternative, the doctors immediate answer was 'You might as well allow it, because if you don't we'll make him a ward of the state and do it anyway'. I know personally of 1 experience in WA where the parents had refused blood transfusions on their child, it was a non life threatening situation, and the doctors just waited until there were no parents with him and gave him the transfusion anyway. I've read of several other experiences, all over the world, with similar outcomes.
I'm not sure why it appears to be getting worse, but it leaves me in no doubt that if I were ever in that situation with a biological child or an adopted child, I'd have a fight on my hands to be listened to. I do realise that fostered children are different however, and I doubt I would have the right that have anything to do with their medical treatment, DOCS probably deals with that. Does that clear things up?
Registered User
Ooh, shall Google it now, thanks
Registered User
Keike, re the religion and medical treatment issue, are you allowed to refuse medical treatment for a foster child if it is against your religious beliefs because they already are a ward of the state? There seems to be a distinct difference to the way other people and JW's are treated when it comes to foster care
Registered User
I wouldn't think so Trill. At the foster seminar we were all told to contact DOCS as soon as a foster child had to go to the doctor, so that they were always up to date. I imagine normal sicknesses are one thing, but as soon as the hospital got involved there would be a DOCS representative there who would assume control. That would be for anyone, because while we're encouraged to treat them as our kids, until there's a court order, they're not OUR kids y'know?
I think fostering is not gonna be a problem because of that, it's adopting and possibly permanent care that may be an issue, I'm not sure.
Bookmarks