General Discussion Thread No. 18

[Shazza]

Becoming a foster parent takes a very special person, I personally could not do it, as another poster mentioned I too would become to motionally attached and not let go, kudos to you Calikid for being one of those special people who has the love to give so many in need and then make them part of your family permanently. I have always had the greatest respect for you Calikid and the more I learn about you the more special you are to me and to all the children you have loved.:clap:

 

[CaliKid]

Thanks everyone. We got into foster parenting when I was in my 20s and turned to adoption- after the birth of our oldest son I ended up with fertility problems and couldn't have more children. Sixty-something children later, social services decided I was too confrotational because I wouldn't shut up over brainless decisions concerning my foster children, and I was given the choice to walk away or have my license taken away. It hurt too much to see children returned to birthparents who had no intentions of straightening up their lives. The damage these drug addicts due to their babies in-utero is monstrous, and all you have to do is look around you to see the results. Crime, violence, learning disabilities, mental retardation and even more drug addiction.

 

[txsvicki]

I think the poster was talking about some of the adoptive parents who just get the special needs subsidy and then starve the kids and disabled adults that they are supposed to care for, but thank goodness for the good ones who bond and love their kids. Personally, I would love to receive any form of subsidy or funds like a foster parent since mine are special needs, but grandparents and family get practically nothing in the form of actual money in my state.

 

[AfterMidnight]

EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!!

I was a foster parent for 10 years. I adopted 6 of the children I fostered (all prenatally exposed to methamphetamine), and no, I wasn't in it for the money. I was a foster parent because I knew I was making a difference in children's lives, giving them a safe place to live when their parents were so strung out on drugs they couldn't take care of themselves, let alone their babies. I have seen you wouldn't even in your wildest dreams be able to believe, much less understand.

As for having no ties, the ones we adopted were children we fell so in love with that by the time they were free, they already felt like our own kids. We couldn't have bonded with them more if they'd been our biological babies.

MOST foster parents take in children for the same reason, and the ones who "do it for the money" are the exception, not the norm. The foster mothers I know are selfless, wonderful women who value the health and welfare of their foster children as much as their own. In it for the money? What money? Most of us spend much more on our foster children then we get reimbursed by the state for. Multiple visits to doctors, therapy and testing appointments, special equipment, easy-to-digest (and expensive) formulas- the list goes on and on.

When you end up staying up night after night with screaming infants going through drug withdrawal, you couldn't pay me enough to make it worthwhile if my objective was getting rich. It is a thankless job, made even more difficult by social workers who have to follow arcane rules and sometimes put bureacracy ahead of what's best for the children. You have birthparents who think our time is at their disposal, and I had many a ruined holiday due to demands from these selfish people. I got into a lot of trouble with social services for going to bat for several of my f. children who were too young to speak up for themselves when their caseworkers wanted to send them back to mothers who were manipulating the system and, IMO, not ready to parent.

Four of my foster babies were profoundly premature, two of my adopted children needed physical and speech therapy, and two grew up to have ADHD and learning disabilities. My oldest adopted daughter was so traumatized by physical abuse she received at the hands of her mother that we had bonding issues resulting in major acting out when she was 15, but we NEVER gave up on her. We never wrote her off with, "hey, you're adopted, we don't care, good luck with your life". I love my children, no matter where they came from.

And for your information, it might take 9 months to give birth to a child, but in California it takes no less than 2½ years to legally free one through the court system. When you have a child whom you've watched grow from an infant and you are attached to that child and you worry about a relative popping up out of nowhere to lay claim to him or her, it seems like forever.

I suggest that you refrain from making assumptions on a subject you obviously know NOTHING about.

Don't get your panties in a twist! I know plenty of foster parents and some ought to be in jail. Of course there are some good ones, but some are horrid, grasping, greedy, viscious perverts and don't try to tell me there aren't any. No group of people are all bad or all good. If you're the salt of the earth, that's wonderful but not all foster parents are and many of them make the headlines.

 

[CaliKid]

Don't get your panties in a twist! I know plenty of foster parents and some ought to be in jail. Of course there are some good ones, but some are horrid, grasping, greedy, viscious perverts and don't try to tell me there aren't any. No group of people are all bad or all good. If you're the salt of the earth, that's wonderful but not all foster parents are and many of them make the headlines.

I never said there weren't any. In fact, I do know a few foster parents who shouldn't even be taking care of pets, much less children. But as you said:

A great many foster parents take in children for the money. ... they're just a source of income and the less they spend on the kid the more they have for themselves.

The bolding and underline are mine.

A great many foster parents are caring, wonderful people. It's only a few of them who are in it for the money or don't care about the children they care for.

 

[AfterMidnight]

I never said there weren't any. In fact, I do know a few foster parents who shouldn't even be taking care of pets, much less children. But as you said:

The bolding and underline are mine.

A great many foster parents are caring, wonderful people. It's only a few of them who are in it for the money or don't care about the children they care for.

So I gather we're talking about the numbers of good vs bad foster parents? I come from the greater Phila area and let me tell you, it would curl your hair. I'd rather my grandchildren lived under a bridge. . .

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings and I apologoize if I did. I know there are some good ones, but the ones who aren't scare me silly.

 

[CaliKid]

Personally, I would love to receive any form of subsidy or funds like a foster parent since mine are special needs, but grandparents and family get practically nothing in the form of actual money in my state.

That must be very hard on you because I know how difficult it is to care for special needs children, even with financial help.

 

[CaliKid]

Apology accepted.

Unfortunately, it's the ones who aren't good foster parents that we read about in the news. Foster parents who, as you say, are in it for the money and abuse the children in their care, or get angry and kill a child or accidentally leave one in a hot car on a summer's day.

You seldom hear about the good ones because they just go about their business doing their jobs.

Anyways, back to Madeleine.

 

[ThoughtFox]

October 30, 2007
Police return to McCann apartment in attempt to solve Madeleine mystery

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2766899.ece

Detectives were seen passing objects through the window of the front bedroom where Madeleine had been sleeping in the ground-floor apartment at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz.

Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, have claimed that the bedroom’s security shutter had been forced up and the window opened by the abductor almost six months ago.

and

Mr Rebelo was inside the Ocean Club apartment for three hours with five other officers yesterday evening. He walked the route to the nearby beach – past the town’s church – which had previously been marked by a British sniffer dog.

The officers were also seen outside the apartment of Sergey Malinka, a 22-year-old Russian computer expert who has been questioned twice about Madeleine’s disappearance. They also examined a road to the south of the Ocean Club and another leading to to main N125 route north of Praia da Luz.

. . .

 

[emery]

I can't see any elaborate, well-funded groups of pedophiles placing orders for certain types and financing sophisticated, high risk abductions

Just because you cant see it, doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
Playing pedophile rings down won't make them go away.

They exist- most everywhere.

Some articles I found on the topic.

Europe tackles pedophilia cases

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0309/p06s01-woeu.html

In Portugal, 10 people, including a former cabinet minister and a former ambassador, are awaiting trial on pedophilia charges linked to a children's home scandal that appears to have been swept under the carpet for decades.
Britain, U.S. break up online pedophile ring700 investigated; 31 children rescued as authorities shut global operation

[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19288057[/URL]

Thanks Desertpea for pointing me to those links.

I had heard about the ring in Portugal, but that isn't really the type of ring that is alleged to have taken Madeleine McCann. The ring described in the first link operated inside Portugal and preyed on Portugese orphans at an orphanage. They didn't abduct middle class children with parents and spirit them away to other countries. If anything, this tends to prove the point that pedophile rings who prey on children they do not know don't generally prey on children like Madeleine. They prey on vulnerable children who have no support system or protection.

As far as online pedophile rings go, I have no doubt they exist and are growing. But, I think they band together on the internet (as opposed to in the real world) primarily to share images of child *advertiser censored*. I don't think they've formed some sort of covert group that abducts western, middle-class children. They get the images they share by preying on their own children or the children of close friends or relatives. Or they go to third world countries and prey on street children.

The key sentences in the second link, for purposes of this discussion at any rate, are:

"It was unclear whether any of the rescued children had been reported missing, but authorities said the investigation was not linked to the widely publicized disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a 4-year-old British girl who vanished nearly two months ago in southern Portugal. "

I would venture to guess that almost none of the children rescued during that investigation was an adbucted child, or at least not a child abducted from a middle class western family.

 

[emery]

Welcome emery!

This is as good as place as any other thread to ask your questions.

Your point about the moms getting their hopes up and the agony of waiting is exactly my fear as well. I am praying that this story does not get spread around to much without positive ID on the little girl.

I wish I could answer your questions regarding pedo rings but I cannot. I have an 8 year old girl and every time I try to research that subject I end up very upset and frightened. It seems to me that pedophila is more prevalent everywhere and the internet has made it easier for them to share their sick pervision and form gangs (better word than groups or rings, IMO). I pray that Madeleine has not been taken into that world.

Thanks for posting, hope to see you around.

~peace

Thanks for the welcome colomom. I have a 4 year old son who is only a few months older than Madeleine. Her disappearance has really haunted me I suppose because they are so close in age and I can't imagine what it would be like if he disappeared while we were on holiday.

Also, I work in the judicial system and have seen enough internet child *advertiser censored* cases to be vary wary of the internet and to regulate closely my children's access to the internet. I also believe there are more pedophiles walking among us undetected than most people think. Of course, you could make yourself crazy thinking too much about it. But, I try to keep a watchful eye out and trust my instincts as a parent.

 

[ThoughtFox]

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...nths.since.madeleines.disappearance/14282.htm

Low-key service to mark six months since Madeleine's disappearance

On Saturday, the family of missing Madeleine McCann will hold a church service to mark six months since she was last seen in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.

Mr McCann explains in his latest internet diary entry: "We will be marking this milestone very quietly with an ecumenical prayer service for Madeleine and other missing children in the local Anglican church."

Also, From Paulo Reis:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/twitterings/177197.html

A teenager, who was with her family at Ocean Club, saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins talking, the night Madeleine disappeared – but she didn’t saw Jane Tanner or a man carrying a child. The girl wasn’t in the list of guests, as their presence at Ocean Club wasn’t registered with the management. Father and daughter have been in Portugal, recently, to help Policia Judiciaria in the reconstruction of what happened the night of May 3 and to give a formal statement to Police, according to a source close to the case.

Speaking to SOS Madeleine, the Irish teenager confirmed she saw Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins talking, for a few minutes, near the McCann apartment: “There was only the father of the little girl talking to another man.”

 

[twinkiesmom]

Originally Posted by AfterMidnight


The same applies for many adoptive parents, especially where some special needs children are concerned. Some adoptive parents are given aid for the child's care. Again, money in pocket - not spent on the child. Again, adoptive parents have no biological stake in these kids, and sometimes there isn't any bonding at all.

I don't believe one can equate fostering and adopting to going through in vitro with an actual birth process. Just my opinion of course.
_____________________________________________

Many biological parents are simply sperm or womb donors. Any crackhead can give birth...I suppose that makes them more special than those of us who have chosen to devote our lives to children who were discarded like garbage on the system.

 

[SleuthMom]

I think I opened a can of worms with my initial statement. My whole point is that it is silly to me to say that just because you gave birth to a child you are somehow more bonded to your kid than an adoptive parent. Same applies to someone who goes through invitro. When you really LOVE your child, it does not matter whether it came from your belly, the court system or wherever. Just because the Mc Canns went through invitro it means absolutely nothing to me.

You don't become a mom just because you can naturally can give birth but is about the decisions you make. They left their 3 kids alone for a whole week while they went out to dine with friends, this is the kind of decisions that shows what kind of concern/lack thereof they had for their own kids.

Children are NOT a "family accessory" and I personally believe the Mc Canns used those kids as such. Unfortunately, there are many "parents" out there who love to hear the comments about their beautiful kids and how nice and cute they look but they are not ready to take up the responsibilities attached to it.

 

[JMCDAD]

McCanns admit using Madeleine fund to pay mortgage
I don't think that was the purpose of this fund
Why would 2 doctors needs money to pay their mortgage anyway ?

 

[Rino]

They used part of the fund to pay on their mortgage?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306077,00.html

On the mirror forums they discuss the fund at length. Some very interesting points
1. the fund is not a charity, it is a business.
2. It was registered 12 days after her going missing. A very short time window. If a child is missing less that 11 days, why the need to set up a "fund" at all at that point rather than let the press, public and the police get on with the search? Additionally, since many high profile Europeans offerered millions to help find Maddie why not a charitable fund simply for the bookkeeping proceedures? And, as one pointed out, just how many in the public would be sending money to donate to help find a child missing merely days at that point?
3. A "fight fund" was alread established on May 17, to help with legal expenses - why? They were not even close to being names suspects yet.
4. Madeleine has been "trade marked" yuck!


http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=24313&highlight=search+maddie
Times OnlineOctober 30, 2007

Madeleine fund has stopped paying McCann's mortgageDavid Brown
The fund set up to help to find Madeleine McCann has revealed that it stopped paying for her parents’ mortgage after they were made official suspects in her disappearance.

The Find Madeleine fund, which has raised £1.09 million from public donations, agreed to make two payments on the McCann’s £460,000 home in Rothley, Leicestershire.

However, the payments stopped when Kate and Gerry McCann were made suspects on September 7. The fund also ruled that it would not help to pay the couple’s legal bills.

 

[Rino]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SleuthMom
I think I opened a can of worms with my initial statement. My whole point is that it is silly to me to say that just because you gave birth to a child you are somehow more bonded to your kid than an adoptive parent. Same applies to someone who goes through invitro. When you really LOVE your child, it does not matter whether it came from your belly, the court system or wherever. Just because the Mc Canns went through invitro it means absolutely nothing to me.

You don't become a mom just because you can naturally can give birth but is about the decisions you make. They left their 3 kids alone for a whole week while they went out to dine with friends, this is the kind of decisions that shows what kind of concern/lack thereof they had for their own kids.

Children are NOT a "family accessory" and I personally believe the Mc Canns used those kids as such. Unfortunately, there are many "parents" out there who love to hear the comments about their beautiful kids and how nice and cute they look but they are not ready to take up the responsibilities attached to it.

Absolutley. Well said. I don't think it was you that opened that can of worms

CaliKid, what a wonderful way to spread love and caring, god bless you.

I know several natural parents who should have their kids taken and we read everyday of natural parents who belong and are in jail. The entire debate is meritless imo.

 

[ThoughtFox]

According to the Times, these are the purposes of the Maddie Fund:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2771369.ece

The full objects of the Find Madeleine fund are:

1.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on Thursday May 3, 2007;

1.1.2 To procure that Madeleine’s abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice;

1.1.3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family.

1.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

So it does say "financial assistance" for the family, which would mean helping them pay their mortgage.

But that article also says the fund isn't paying for the house anymore.

 

[gord]

On the mirror forums they discuss the fund at length. Some very interesting points
1. the fund is not a charity, it is a business.
2. It was registered 12 days after her going missing. A very short time window. If a child is missing less that 11 days, why the need to set up a "fund" at all at that point rather than let the press, public and the police get on with the search? Additionally, since many high profile Europeans offerered millions to help find Maddie why not a charitable fund simply for the bookkeeping proceedures? And, as one pointed out, just how many in the public would be sending money to donate to help find a child missing merely days at that point?
3. A "fight fund" was alread established on May 17, to help with legal expenses - why? They were not even close to being names suspects yet.
4. Madeleine has been "trade marked" yuck!
.

hmm whats your point - are you saying the fund is in some way a ruse to make lots of money for the Mcaans - I am not sure what you are trying to imply

the charity things is explained here

In England & Wales, registered charities are required to demonstrate public benefit. Because Madeleine’s Fund is currently focussed on searching for one child, Madeleine McCann, it cannot register as a charity. However, it may be able to register as a charity in the future.

At the point the Fund starts to focus on abductions generally, public benefit may be demonstrable and the Fund may be able to register as a charity.


In my mind the fund was set up as quiclk as it was in order to gain maximum impact in the early days - everything I have ever read says that as early as you can and as loud as you can - the mcaans with help decided they were not going to sit back and just wait - they were going to do something - or at least try - what is so wrong with that ?

From what I can see - the directors of the fund are independent and following very open and clear guidlines - with auditors as all limited companies HAVE to do when they register their accounts .

There is an article on the front page of THIS site that says if the unimaginable happens and a child of your goes missing then it is up to YOU to do what you can - do everything possible -

 

[JMCDAD]

According to the Times, these are the purposes of the Maddie Fund:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2771369.ece



So it does say "financial assistance" for the family, which would mean helping them pay their mortgage.

But that article also says the fund isn't paying for the house anymore.

I wouldn't have as much of an issue if these were lower or middle class folks that live paycheck to paycheck, but 2 doctors ?
One doctor's salary is usually enough to live a pretty good upper middle class to wealthy life, but 2 doctors salaries....??
and you need to take money from a fund that is set up to help find your daughter...??