The Best Interest Of The Child
edited: Friday, May 23, 2003
By Lady By The Lake55
Posted: Friday, May 23, 2003
Become a Fan
This informative article could be placed under three different categories: legal, family, or children.
I am placing it under "Parenting".
The "Best Interest" of The Child : Redefined by the " Federal and State" Goverment.
The Biblical Perspective of Infertile
I am a paralegal by profession. However, I am also forced made "natural" mother by a simple judicial act by the State Juevnile system terminating my parental rights just because they believed to do what was in the "best interest" of my now twenty-four year old daughter, Rebecca Annalen Wesson.
I am not Rebecca's "birth"mother. I am offended by the Adoption industry to refer we "natural"mothers as some one with what Gork in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine would refer to as "womb-to-rent" and calling us "birth" mothers.
I am more offended by people who are not ordained by the Lord Our God, to be parents made parents. If it was not meant to be, it was not meant to be.
This article presents only the facts on State's Child Protective Services which in conjunction work side by side with State and Private Adoption agencies, to provide infertile couples with children.
We can look at this in two perspective ways: 1) by the legal standpoint and 2) the Biblical standpoint.
I will praise thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, and when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Thine eyes did see my substance yet being unperfect: and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance was fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. (Psalms 139:14-16)
No where in the Sacred scripture does it santify or approve of an earthly adoption. There is no biblical evidence to support this.
It does support a Spiritual adoption. This refers to as us all being branches grafted in to the Family of God, because we are all of the same human family and descendants of Adam and Eve.
The Royal Adoption refers to us being being restored to our natural state before the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
That is the State of Grace.
The Adoption, Child Protective Protection Services re-define the word Adoption
The definition of Adoption is "to take and make as one's own". This entitles the child which is legally adopted to have and hold as the same rights as any of the other natural children do in the family.
The difference is this: The adoptive parents can not say "this is my son or daughter, James and Jennie", because neither James or Jennie is their natural son or daughter.
The adoptive parents must assert in their dialog with others, "this is my adoptive son or daughter".
The fact remains that these people did not create or did the "adoptive" mother give birth to the child. This is not their child by "consanguinity" which means " related by blood" and "related by ancestory".
The relationship between "adoptive" parents and their "adoptive" children, rather adult adoptees want to face it or not is one that is created by a judicial act and by the state adoption laws in which the state they live in.
This relation between "adoptive" parents and their "adoptive" child is known as one established by "infinity" which means by marriage or a judicial act in a court of law.
The "Best Interest" Of The Child
'THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD IS MEETING HIS/HER PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, MEDICAL, PRIMARY EDUCATION AND SPIRITUAL NEEDS.. PROVIDING EMOTIONAL STABILITY, PROTECTING HIS/HER LEGAL RIGHTS AS WELL AS ASSURING SAFE HOUSING, FOOD,AND CLOTHING TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. SO THAT THE CHILD WILL ACHIEVE TO THE BEST OF THEIRS."
These basic and fundamental needs are best met by the "Natural" parents. Basic needs of life are Shelter, Food, Clothes, Health Care, and Education and if the child has special needs. The special needs must be absolutely met to ensure the special needs child grow up to be able to take care of his/her own self.
The Special Needs include: special education under an Individual Education Program for Special Needs children, and that the "natural" parents teach the child who has "special needs" his or her life-skill, independent living skills, and psycho-social skills.
Only if The Parents ask for social services through an authorized Child Welfare Service, must CPS workers become involved.
It is only natural for a mother and father to want the best for their child or children. If the parents ask for assistance it does not show that they are not fully capable of having care, custody, and control of their minor children. It shows that they want only the best for their children and they realize they need help with their children.
It is not a weakness to ask for help when one needs help. It is a sign of strength rather than weakness.
The weakness lies within the parents when they don't admit they need help and think they can take the bull by the horns and look it straight in the eye and deny that there is anything wrong with their child or children as the case may be.
When a parent does seek out help and assistance from Child Welfare Agency. It does not give a licenses for that Child Welfare Agency to come in run the parents life and that of the child as well. It does not give the CPS worker the right to dictate to the parents what they must and must not do and what they can and can not do, with their child or children.
Even as parents we all need a little help with raising our children to become "highly effective" adults one day. We as "parents" if we don't admit this than we seriously need to examine ourselves and ask ourselves are we "highly effects" parents.
Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote "It takes a Village to Raise a Child". WRONG Senator Clinton! It does not take a "Village" it takes a "highly effective" parent or parents to raise "highly effective" adult children now-a-days.
The Signs of A Dysfunctional Family
I do not know too many people accept a handful that did not come from one type of dysfunctional family or other.
I most certainly did. I, myself, was adopted shortly after my birth in 1955.
My name was changed to reflect I was a part but not a welcome part of a "natural" family.
My adoptive name was a reflection of a family member that was not actually a relative of mine.
My "adoptive" mother did her best to raise all six of us, -which included five of her own natural children- to the best of her ability. She was to say the least in part a "mommy" and the other part a "mother". So half and half is not all that bad.
She was young when she married my adoptive father in May of 1943, and approximately 10 months later after she and my adoptive father were married she became pregnant with my late brother,Larry, in March of 1944.
Larry was born in December of 1944. My adoptive father was off at war in Germany when Larry was born at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Larry was five months old when World War II ended and my adoptive dad got back from the war.
My adoptive mom lived with my adoptive father's parents, in which case I loved very much. They did treat me as "one of their own" grand children.
My adoptive father attended Law School in Lexington, Virginia from 1945-1948 and in December of 1948, my adoptive mom became pregnant with my second brother, Stanton King. She gave birth to him in Birmingham, Alabama, where they lived close to my grandparents.
Well in 1951, my adoptive parents moved from Alabama back to Georgia, in between Alabama and Georgia in May of 1951, my adoptive mom became pregnant with my late oldest sister, Lawreen, and she gave birth to her in Atlanta, Georgia in August of 1952.
Now between 1945-1947, my adoptive mom had a miscarriage & in between 1950-1951, right before she got pregnant with my late sister, Lawreen, she had a miscarriage.
I was adopted when my late oldest brother was nearly 9 years old, my second brother was only 7 years old, and late oldest sister, was nearly 3 years old.
The other members were not even born yet. They came after me. One being born in September of 1956 and the other in August of 1965.
My youngest sister, brother, and myself were all born in the State of Maryland.
My "adoptive" parents always argued in front of us. Sometimes my "adoptive"mom would come back and ask us if my "adoptive" father and she were to divorce who would we want to live with?"
My answer was my"adoptive" father. They never did divorce and she died in October of 1976 of dreaded cancer of the pancreas and he died in March of 1994, of alcoholism.
He died three months later after burying my step mom, Annie, who died of congestive heart failure in December of 1993.
Both "adoptive" parents were born and raised down in the Southern United States.
My "adoptive" father was born in Talledge, Alabama and My "adoptive"mother is Century, Florida.
My "adoptive" father was born in a large family. Three brothers and One sister. The youngest brother is dead and so is the only girl in the family. They died within two months of each other in 2001.
My "adoptive" mom was raised in a family of three. One sister and one brother. I think only my aunt, is still alive. My Uncle, -her brother-died of cancer in 2000.
My uncle's only child, a daughter, Lynne, was born in 1958 and died in the late 1990's of lupus diseases.
What made my"adoptive" family dysfunction was the fact that both "adoptive" parents had to embrace the high rolling society of Washington D.C. and they had to do as their comtemporaries did, take up drinking and smoking.
With that, came my "adoptive" mom's addiction to "valium" and drinking a lot alcohol and smoking cigarettes to make her look more sophisticated.
This she did to fit into the high society of Washington Socialites.
My "adoptive" parents were trying to keep up with the Jones' so to speak. This is something no one can do because material possessions does not bring us happiness.
My "adoptive" father drank, and then after he lost my "adoptive"mom in 1976, and nearly lost his life due to a diabetic coma and he pulled through stopped drinking for a number of years.
He started to drink again and never stopped drinking after my oldest sister, Lawreen, was diagnosed with cancer of the ovaries in 1980. She did not succumb to it until February of 1984, when she lost her battle.
My "adoptive" father did stop drinking from 1982-1984 and then when he found out his oldest "natural" daughter was dying of cancer of the ovaries that is when he continued to drink and never stopped.
I say "adoptive" father because he was an adequate provider of what his family needed and he worked very hard. However, he was never there for his children. None of us.
There is a vast difference between being a "father" and a "daddy" to one's children. The difference is not so much how much time you spend with your children, but what do you do with your children that is allotted to you.
It is quality not quanity here that matters.
Most summers were spent with my "maternal" grandmother, adoptive siblinlgs, and "adoptive" mom down south in Goodway, Alabama, where she had a farm.
On the way down to Alabama, we would stop by and see the various relatives.
If allowed to stay with them, stay one night and then be on our way.
Rarely did my "adoptive" father come with us and I have only vague recollection of the entire family being together accept on holidays.
My"adoptive" parents even marred our holidays with their perpetual drinking and arguing in front of us children.
To this very day, my second brother, Stan, does not celebrate Thanksgivng, Christmas, or Easter. He has vivid recollection of how our parents destroyed those holidays. He would just rather not relive the past.
Anna and I have been able to move forward only with extensive psyco-therapy which helps us to understand our past and not repeat the same mistakes with our children.
Our Best Interests would have served if someone would have taken us a way from our parents. Oh well, I would have become an orphan twice than.
The only thing my "adoptive" parents did for me is teach me how to take care of myself. They did not pass the buck on to some stupid agency that handles mentally and learning disabled adult child, as my own daughter, Rebecca's adoptive parents did to her.
My adoptive parents did not seek to retain my legal guardianship as Rebecca's did to her. She had no knowledge of the fact that her civil rights were being violated. She just assumed it was in her Best Interest. It is not!
I learned my psyco-social skills, independent living skills, and life-skills from those people who had the responsibility of doing so rather than by an agency because adoptive parents don't want to do it themselves.
Futhermore, my "adoptive"parents did not go down to Social Security once I turned 18, and file for Social Security Supplementary Income for me so they would not have to give me any financial help.
I filed on my own with the medical advice from psychiatrist and therapists. I was never told that if I did not apply myself there was not anything I could not do within reason.
My "own" daughter, Rebecca's, "adoptive" parents did exactly the opposite. They convinced her she was so developmentally disabled that she was severely limited into what she could and could not do.
Not exactly very encouraging and positive.
The Highly Effective parent does not do those kinds of things to their children i,e, natural or adoptive. They teach them everything they need to know, and they do not pass the buck on to some stupid agency to do it for them in which case they were suppose to do.
If Adoption is so good. Then why are so many more Adoptive parents screaming WRONGFUL Adoption years later and trying to reverse their adoptions and throw the children they promised to "make and take as their own" back into the Child Welfare System.
In some states- some adoptive parents are allow to file a law suit and sue the state adoption agency for whence they adopted their child and collect torts on them.
Torts refers to a civil suit whereas monies are awareded to the plaintiffs because of a willful act of wrong doing and lack of closure on the part of the other party.
What is Adoption now a bi-lateral contract between two consent parties: 1- The Adoption Agency and 2- The Adoptive Parents?
Did anyone ask the child if the child is able to speak for him or herself what do they consider is in their "best interest", especially in the cases whereas Child Protective Services get involved? No, noone did and will ever do, unless the laws change for the real interest of the child or children.
Ask any child of any age who do they wnat to be with and they will say, "Our Mom and Dad". They do know the difference between "Natural " and "Adoptive" and no one can brain wash them otherwise.
Some children like my daughter did not care if she did not have everything. All she knew is that she wanted to be my second ex -her dad- and me. She knew she would probably had grown up differently, which is the truth.
She did confront her "adoptive"parents and tell them "You know, you are not my "real" parents. - Lucie and Roy is."
Lucie, by the way is my adoptive name.
Only my close friends and boyfriends know me by my "natural" name -Karissa.
It is this name I am known by and only my adoptive family calls me "Lucie".
I did reprimand my daughter because although I do not believe in adoption, or any state involvement with the family unless absolutely established that they abused and neglected the child so badly, that they need to be removed for their "natural" parents care, custody, and control, that their natural parents have the absolute right to raise their own children the way they see fit and proper to do so.
I reprimanded Rebecca because she appeared ingrateful towards what her adoptive parents did for her. I explained in the simplest of terms she must apologize to them because she showed them disrespect.
I too was more or less reprimanded by a girl-friend of mine because she said, "Rebecca was correct in telling her adoptive parents what she did."
I did not disagree with her, it was the way Rebecca did it that I did disagreed, as Rebecca was placed up for adoption in 1983 and adopted in 1984 at the age of 5 years old.
CPS, the adoptive parents, and all the other interfering busybodies tried to brain wash her into telling that the adoptive parents were her mom and dad. She knew differently.
Through the years they even tried to poison her mind against her dad and me. This she did not buy. She refused to believe all the BULLSHIT lies that CPS, The Adoptive parents, and all the other interferring busybodies tried to feed her about what EVIL and BAD people we are.
In fact, it is the Adoptiveparents are evil and insecure and usually the adoptive parents are insecure because the adult adoptee will want to know about his or her natural parents and so forth and eventually if at all possible reunite with their "natural" families.
The "Best Interest" of the Children is best served by 1- reunification between the "natural" parents and their children. Thus the damage in which adoptive child go through with & by the Adoptive Child Syndrome will never happen to the child.
2- The State does not interfere in the private lives of it's citizens and the raising of the citizens children.
3- If the parents do ask for assistance. The parents are given the assistance with the understanding it is them that asked for the help and when they want to rescind the contract, the State CPS agency will butt out of their lives and affairs and not interfere anymore into their private lives.
More money needs to be alotted to the States for reunification purposes rather than for judicial purposes for terminating the rights of the "natural" parents and freeing the child or children up to be placed up for adoption.
Younger children may or may not bounce back from being legally severed from their "natural" mother and fathers care, custody, and control. They may very well be able to bond with someone else.
However, older children and likewise the parents whose rights have been terminated do not bounce back from this judicial act.
Older children may resent their new caretakers, and not bond. They do know the difference and will come later on looking to reestablish that bond which was so cruelty ended by an unnecessary act of law.
The best thing that could possibly happen is when the child gets of a lega age . He or she can bring a class action suit along with other children who became victims of CPS and were taken away from their "natural" families and CPS be made to explain rather the adult children agree or disagree with CPS why they did what they did and thought it was in their"best interest".
These adult children can then demand for an explaination that suits their needs, "WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN MY BEST INTEREST?" WHO DIED AND LEFT YOU TO PLAY GOD?". Thus the angry voices of all these adult children of CPS and of adoption will finally be heard.
The Natural family is one created by God and Nature and not by a judicial act and the adoption laws of any state.
As two psychiatrist told me once:
Children Belong with Their Parents
Parents are defined as the ones who give birth to the child through nature means not by an act of adoption.
Karissa Elizabeth Anne Lowell