On Apr 7, 7:27*am, "dragonsgirl" wrote:
"Marley Greiner" wrote in message

...







"Greegor" wrote in message
...

G The thing where Holt Inc said the kids had 4
G different mothers (here) but over there in Korea
G said they could have all been siblings, that
G revealed them to be liars.

BW Possibly a mistake in records?

Why two different stories then?
Aren't "doctored records" extremely common
when it comes to adoption for profit outfits?

Holt is nonprofit, but yes. *You can never tell what's "true" in adoption
records. *That's one reason the adoption indutry wants to keep them
sealed--though Holt supports records access for the obc.

Well, that's absolutely the truth...you can't tell what is true and what is
not in adoption records.
I've known of people who received their records to find out so many things
that were completely false...though their records were social service
records from foster care prior to adoption, and then adoption through
states.
I often wonder what my grandson will find in his DFS records once he is old
enough to obtain them...if the state will even let him have them at all.







big cut

BW I would like to see cases where temporary foster
BW care has included forced relgion of any kind, and 'social
engineering'.

Actually, Betty, that term came from literature
inside of the Social Work/Child Protection industry
I believe.\\

Adoption as we know it today *grew out of Progressive *era ideas of social
reform. *It is very much linked to eugenics. *Social engineering is a
given
and much has been written about it. Regina Kunzel's book, Fallen Women,
Problem Girls is an excellent resource.

big cut

BW I have looked at my own state's web site many
BW times and never saw a child who was not free
BW for adoption unless there were extenuatig
BW circumstances in which termination was
BW inevitable, such as when a parent is
BW in carcerated long term.

How would YOU know the parents were incarcerated?
The adoption web sites never describe the
circumstances of removal.

Betty, This HAS taken place, but the agencies got
so severely criticized for it and so widely that
I bet that does not happen very much.

My children often attended school with children in group homes and i foster
care who were 'soon to be' eliible for adoption. *Father unknowns and
incarcerated mothers who were quickly coming to their twelve month deadline
and no progress in their cases.
My state's laws on termination are spelled out very clearly...once a removal
occurs the parents/s have 12 months to comply with DFS directives or
termination process begins. *I think that this was the only bad statute in
the DJMFCA.



When I attended the National Council for Adoption (I know!) conference
last year, Heidi Cox from Gladney talked about picking up baybees from
incarcerated women, especially Hispanic women in county jails who would be
going up the river. (So much for their Grade A designer white baybees!)
Current welfare practice makes it very difficult for women in jail to
preserve their families. *If the parents aren't married, and there is no
maternal family support, the father most likely will not get custody and
the kid is put into the adoption mill.

It's also pretty hard for a father to prove that he is the father of a
child.
I've heard it said many times that in my state, when a child is placed in
foster care the hunt for the father begins (in cases where there is no legal
father). *Once a 'potential' is located they are asked to willingly give a
DNA sample. *I they refuse then the courts issue an order.
Time is crucial in this because *if* the father willily submits to DNA
testing with the hope that they will be able to establish paternity and get
custody, they have little hope if their test comes back beyond six months
from the date the child is placed in care.
This is because the state will recommend that a child remain in a home in
which they have been deemed to have bonded and six months with a family
seems to be the 'magic time frame'.
Even if a father beats that six month deadline (which is hard to do because
when the state pays for DNA testing it is a long process) they may not be
able to get custody, or even placement, because once a child is in state
care the standards go up considerably, along with demands. *It's not a
simple matter of *'ok, I'm the father and I'm also the non offending parent,
so give me my child'. *And really...it should be. *Fathers are simply added
to the case and have the same requirements of them as if they were abusive
or neglectful and their actions led to the placement.
It's really quite unfair.

There are actually many things that I find quite wrong with social services
in adoption. * *In fact, the man who was supposed to have adopted my
grandson almost got screwed royally by social services, so this is a case
that I know of first hand. *He was named by DFS as a 'potential' father for
the child. *We wanted the child placed with this man and his wife. *The
state did not want to place him with this family. *Various reasons...all
pretty trivial IMHO (the reasons that I was given, I know not what other
reasons they may have had) so DFS demanded that before they would place my
grandson with this family the man would provide a DNA test showing he was
NOT the father. *The catch? *DNA tests thrugh DFS take up to three months to
get back, and I was advised that for the child to remain in care for that
amount of time would initiate a petition for him to remain in the foster
placement citing 'having bonded' with the foster family. * I solved that
problem by paying for a private agency to do the testing on my own dime and
had the results back in one week. *The adoption fell through, and three
years later DFS placed him on the new father's registry, even though he was
proven NOT to be the father of the child.
When I received notice of this I immediately called the man's wife and asked
her if they had received same notice. *She said no. *I advised her to get an
attorney immediately because his parental rights to my grandson were going
to be terminated by the state. *She didn't find that distressing at all
until I explained to her that forced termination by the state made one
legally unfit to parent, and that if his rights were terminated that could
cause him to lose custody of his own bio children as well as end the current
adoption process they were going through with their own granchild. *I
explained to her that I was not, in any way, saying that this is what would
happen, but that the forced termination certaily made it a possibility and
that he needed to get an attorney to respond to his name being placed on the
registry for termination of rights.
Now why? *Do tell, why was it necessary for this man, who proved that he was
not the bio parent of this child, to be placed on this registry and his non
existent rights terminated without even so much as a letter to him saying
so?

Had this all gone through and later he had his own children removed from his
care and was denied adoption of his granchild this would have been
completely WRONG. *The series of events should have never played out this
way and are indicative of all the possible things that can go wrong with
adoption, social services, and laws governing social services and adoption
through the state.

Betty flipped from "the state can do no wrong" mode to
"CPS is all screwed up" mode again.

She learned that from Dan Sullivan.

Cedar Rapids and Iowa City had 8 teenagers
ranging from 14 to 17 who apparently all ran
away at the same time.

The missing persons site has no pictures.
Since they're runaways they don't qualify for Amber Alert.
It's getting bare minimum news coverage.