Oh Fathers

I was watching a special on LOGO about adoptive gay parents and it reminded me of a feeling I once had as a kid while watching some local, televised pitch to adopt animals from a shelter. I remember the shelter had these cats and dogs that were in many ways perfectly cute, but some had issues, such as they were old or were not recommended for households with children or were blind or had medical concerns. I remember it was made clear that if you wished to adopt them, there was some kind of fee to be paid to the shelter—probably just the Humane Society—in the neighborhood of $30 because you could not take them without getting them all their appropriate shots. My feeling as a kid was, "Wait, why would I want some old one-legged cat if I have to do extra stuff to get it, like pay $30, when I can get a perfectly nice, four-legged kitten for free from any cardboard box set up in any yard along my street?" FREE KITTENS was the most commonly seen sign in my 'hood growing up, then I went to college and it was FREE MANDELA and now working as a magazine publisher it's just FREE.

Now, kids are not kittens, but it seems like it's the same catch—there are tons of kids who are already born, some of whom have issues, and even though anyone can crawl on top of someone of the opposite gender and wind up with a kid free and clear, if you want one of these less desirable kids, these kids who agencies practically have to beg you to adopt, you have to go the extra mile. You have to prove to them you have a safe home and one that is conducive to child-rearing; you can't be a felon; you gotta know CPR. I'm pretty sure the percentage of birth parents who know CPR is far lower than the percentage of Americans who would definitely vote for Hillary Clinton (it's 22%...which gave her the highest "would definitely vote for" among Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, by the by), and we all know that felons have babies—lots of them. But because the state is involved and can not be party to a FREE KIDS mentality any more than they can be party to a FREE KITTENS one, all these hoops must be jumped through by prospective parents.

It would seem to me that unless a prospective parent has extremely diabolical motives (which in most cases would be easy to ferret out...such as if a wannabe daddy arrives sporting a vintage Aaron Carter tee and visible tumescence), he or she or they are probably extremely strong candidates for parenthood just by measure of their perseverance. One of the men in this special said the exact right thing, which was (paraphrasing), 'I'm sure the ideal is to have a mom and a dad and both sets of grandparents, but...' And that's the truth of it—yes, maybe having both parents and a huge family is the ideal, presuming those parents and that family are supernaturally kind, loving and stable. But no one has perfection, and isn't it just possible that many mom/dad teams are inferior to many dad/dad and mom/mom teams?

I'm not against the strict methods of adoption agencies, but I can't take seriously anyone out there who could honestly argue that a child should be left in an orphanage or in foster care rather than be placed with loving parents—or a single loving parent—of any gender who have done everything but stand on their heads and sing the Canadian National Anthem to "qualify" as parents in a world where so many birth moms and dads had kids way too young to be ready for them, use their kids as bargaining chips in ugly divorces, get their kids into the child beauty pageant circuit and/or make them feel each and every day that they were a mistake from the beginning. FREE KIDS it is, except it should be read in the way FREE MANDELA was read—these kids who are waiting for adoption need to be liberated from that existence and society and the law should do anything and everything to assist in that goal.

Comments

[Lisa]

I'm a former foster child, and current child advocate.

It's a lot more complicated than you might think. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 has improved things somewhat... but different states interpret it each in their own fashion.

Of the many things that complicate life for a child who never asked to be in foster care:

1.) Social workers, who come in all varieties, from the passionate and diligent to the jaded and unfit.

2.) Foster parents who also come in all varieties, from the loving and nurturing to the abusive and exploitive.

3.) Adoptive families with realistic (or not so realistic) expectations.

4.) Biological parents who might want what's best for the child, might want to punish their child or might even report feeling betrayed by their child if the child desires an adoptive family.

5.) Lawyers and judges who may or may not be familiar with the helpful recommendations of the PEW Commission.

6.) State policies... and money. Money, money, money. Bureaurocratic loopholes.

It's very sad. But I refuse to believe that reform is not possible. I am committed to making a positive difference in foster care in my state.

I'm also a member of FCAA (Foster Care Alumni of America), an organization of former foster children who are committed to using our experiences to positively transform the nationwide foster care system.

Please feel free to visit my blog sometime: http://sunshinegirlonarainyday.blogspot.com/

[Matthew Rettenmund]

Thanks, I will. I see all your points. It's a crazily sticky situation, and I was only commenting on one aspect of it. It's good there are some sunshinegirls out there to combat all the rainydays!