That sounds like the woman cares about the kids that are neglected. I don't see any invocation of genetics. She adopted like 6 kids from drug addicts. How many foster kids have you taken in?
-
-
Replying to @FakeMeows @CasualThonker and
Given that we're talking about human parents, not animals, I would consider it far more praiseworthy to be able to brag about helping six parents keep their kids than adopting those six kids, and find focusing on the latter option to be an obvious sign of conflict of interest
2 replies 4 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @FakeMeows and
What's really appalling, and part of what makes the foster care system so intensely fraught, is that if we gave struggling parents even the resources we gave foster parents, huge numbers could keep their kids.
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @Eristae @FakeMeows and
Public adoption through the foster system doesn't have the same overwhelming level of perverse incentive as private adoption (especially international adoption) But it's really hard not to see the system as still a transfer program of poor kids to rich families
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
The way adoption support payments is fundamentally perverse First you screen the adoptive parents to make sure they have adequate income and don't need the money Then you give them support payments anyway, to make extra sure the adoption goes through and is successful
1 reply 4 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
In many, many cases you could prevent the problem from arising in the first place and greatly reduce the trauma and disruption to the kid's life by doing the exact opposite (finding any parent who DOES need money because they DON'T have adequate income and just giving it to them)
1 reply 2 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
As it is, adoption support payments are just this incredibly obvious example of "rich getting richer" policies in our society "Do you need money? No? Good, have some money"
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
While I understand your point, please be careful. There is an issue in child welfare where states will subsidize children in care of strangers - but not children in care of kin. But we know that children do better with kin (including fictive kin).
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @isotriajayne @Eristae and
The perverse bias here that "existing families" need to be held responsible for their ability to provide but *new* families are given access to all kinds of benefits they aren't (because now the state is held responsible for creating that family)
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @isotriajayne and
Gee what if we understood the state, whose laws and policies comprehensively structure the basic fabric of society down to the smallest detail, as responsible for creating every family in the first place (& therefore similarly obliged to aid them)...
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes
Right, and the sheer perverse double standard that foster/adoptive parents are treated as performing an altruistic public service - hence being outright paid to do it - but other parents' parenting is just part of their "private life"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @hurricanexyz31 and
I get so upset at foster/adopting child being treated as a heroic act of charity. Even if the child hasn't been stolen unjustly (as is often the cast), that's not what making a family is.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Eristae @arthur_affect and
*as is often the case, not cast. Meep.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.