Orphanages?

[paradoxy]

From another thread:

Re-establish an orphanage system for older children.

If good foster or adoptive parents cannot be found for a child, wouldn’t it be best for them to be placed in an orphanage, esp. one adjacent to a monastery? Are there such orphanages in the U.S.?

I know a few people who grew up in an orphanage, and they are stable, loving and mature adults now. They had good caretakers of both sexes and many friends throughout their childhood.

Any thoughts?

 

[paradoxy]

It seems to be universally accepted that a family setting is best for a child, but really good, practicing Christian foster or adoptive parents are very hard to find.

If REALLY suitable parents can’t be found, wouldn’t it be better for an orphan or abandoned child to be placed in an orphanage to be taken care of by dedicated professionals, or monastics?

 

[gardenswithkids]

It seems to be universally accepted that a family setting is best for a child, but really good, practicing Christian foster or adoptive parents are very hard to find.

If REALLY suitable parents can’t be found, wouldn’t it be better for an orphan or abandoned child to be placed in an orphanage to be taken care of by dedicated professionals, or monastics?

I agree. Like you, I know someone who lived in an orphanage for a while and who had nothing but good to say about it.

While some may object to the institutional nature of orphanages, the reality is that most children spend a great deal of time in school–which is a form of institutional care. When the combined cost of what the government pays for both foster care and education is combined, the money might be better spent on good orphanages with schools combined into them. Orphanages might combine care and education similar to how boarding schools used to do.

As a parent, if something happened to my husband and me, our first preference is for our family members to care for our children, But some children don’t have relatives willing to take care of them. In those cases, the children may end up in the foster care system. If it were for my children, I would much prefer an orphanage run by dedicated staff care over the current foster care system.

While dedicated foster parents may do everything to take the place of the parents, there does seem to be an extreme shortage of such foster parents. In an orphanage setting, even if not every staff member was a model Christian, the children may be exposed to others who are. Exposure to good, solid adults might not be the “hit or miss” of the current system. The staff might also find support from each other and needed breaks. I suspect the same types of people who make wonderful foster parents would also make wonderful staff at an orphanage–and at an orphange their positive influence would be greater as more children would be exposed to it.

The person I knew who spent time in an orphanage grew up to be a fine adult. While there may be some difficulty re-establishing the orphanage system, I wish someone would pursue it.

 

[dwc]

Orphanages are “out” in the current U.S. foster system. They have been replaced with group homes and residential facilities. The residential facilities are generally places where delinquents who are otherwise heading to juvenile prison and other minors who are seriously behavior disordered are sent. Group homes are for older teens who are supposed to be learning independent living skills while living with some supervision. Most of these kids have been in the fostercare system for years and bounced around back and forth between fosterhomes, attempts to return home that failed, and often stints at rehab.

I envision an orphanage such as one of our priest friends operates in Mexico. The children go there with the understanding that it is their home. There will be no attempts to return them to their parents, and they are not up for adoption. This is their home, and they are each others’ brothers and sisters. This gives them permanency. I think the lack of permanency for older children in our foster care system is a large part of the children’s anxiety and lack of ability to make a good adjustment.

Anyway, in this mexican orphanage the kids have chores and responsibilities. They are required to complete the equivalent of high school. There is a year of service after high school, spent at the orphange in some capacity. Then the orphanage offers vocational and skills training, college if the student shows aptitude and desire, and even professional school. The clinic doctor and nurses are all former residents who returned as adults to live nearby and work there, as are some of the teachers, and the current assistant director of the orphanage.

Many of the former residents come back at Christmas and Easter, they come back to get married and have their babies baptized. Like I said, it is their family.

It’s not perfect, but it sure beats what we offer kids who have not been adopted at a young age. I would keep the residential facilities for the kids with serious behavior problems, drug and alcohol addictions and criminal behavior, at least until/if the behaviors go away, so that the kids in the orphanage are not exposed to that.

 

[SeekerJen]

So many children are shunted from foster home to foster home, sometimes more than once per year, only to be booted out of the system when they turn 18- regardless of whether or not they have completed school, learned any life skills, or have any means to provide for themselves. So many others are abused in foster homes. We have had several cases here in Michigan in the past couple of years where children have been tortured and killed in their foster homes.

The state pays out so much money to place these children, employ case workers, pay the foster parents, etc. I doubt it would be any more expensive to pool the resources and provide these children with a stable orphanage environment where at least they could receive a decent education and life skills in a safe place.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In many states, the authorities practice “rotating” children, moving them periodically to another foster home. The idea is that children and foster parents shouldn’t get attached to each other – makes it too hard to move them later.

And all it costs is depriving the children of the two things they desperately need – love and stability.

 

[jmcrae]

In many states, the authorities practice “rotating” children, moving them periodically to another foster home. The idea is that children and foster parents shouldn’t get attached to each other – makes it too hard to move them later.

And all it costs is depriving the children of the two things they desperately need – love and stability.

And then we stand there with our fingers in our mouths and wonder why these kids engage in inappropriate attention-getting behaviour.

I’m with you - what kids need most is a stable and dependable adult, or preferably two adults, one of each sex, who is there for them no matter what, unconditionally.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And then we stand there with our fingers in our mouths and wonder why these kids engage in inappropriate attention-getting behaviour.

I’m with you - what kids need most is a stable and dependable adult, or preferably two adults, one of each sex, who is there for them no matter what, unconditionally.

Absolutely – and say what you like, there is **not **a shortage of parents willing to adopt. The problem is, there’s so much red tape that it takes years, and it costs about as much to adopt a child as it would to put that child through college.

 

[jmcrae]

Absolutely – and say what you like, there is **not **a shortage of parents willing to adopt. The problem is, there’s so much red tape that it takes years, and it costs about as much to adopt a child as it would to put that child through college.

Quite right. Society is already paying the price of this negligence. I wonder when “the system” will finally wake up and realize that it’s not working?

One thing they tell us when working with abused women and getting them out of the abusive situation - the first problem they need to solve before they can get their lives back is the problem of “no home address” - we have to get them someplace that they can call “home” (even if it is just a rooming house) so that they can get training and a job, and new friends, new spiritual community, and new neighborhood community.

Why do we not realize that “no home address” is just as much of a problem for displaced children as it is for displaced adults?

A well run orphanage would certainly be a better solution than foster care, since an orphanage would at least have a physical address and location that would be a “base of operations” from which to stabilize one’s activities - going to school, going to church, participating in sports, getting part-time work, etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Quite right. Society is already paying the price of this negligence. I wonder when “the system” will finally wake up and realize that it’s not working?

One thing they tell us when working with abused women and getting them out of the abusive situation - the first problem they need to solve before they can get their lives back is the problem of “no home address” - we have to get them someplace that they can call “home” (even if it is just a rooming house) so that they can get training and a job, and new friends, new spiritual community, and new neighborhood community.

Why do we not realize that “no home address” is just as much of a problem for displaced children as it is for displaced adults?

A well run orphanage would certainly be a better solution than foster care, since an orphanage would at least have a physical address and location that would be a “base of operations” from which to stabilize one’s activities - going to school, going to church, participating in sports, getting part-time work, etc.

I agree to a point. In our local Wal-Mart and other stores, there are bulletin boards – and there are always pictures of adorable kittens or puppies “up for adoption.”

Where is there a similar “bulletin board” showing children? Where do we publicize and push for adoptions? Why do we put obstacles in the way of parents who want to adopt?

I think the orphanages should be there – but the vast majority of children should be adopted into loving homes within a month or less of becoming eligible.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree to a point. In our local Wal-Mart and other stores, there are bulletin boards – and there are always pictures of adorable kittens or puppies “up for adoption.”

Puppies and kittens aren’t children, obviously - there is less harm done if an unsuitable person adopts a cat or dog than a child. Pets are also easier to train and care for than children.

Where is there a similar “bulletin board” showing children? Where do we publicize and push for adoptions? Why do we put obstacles in the way of parents who want to adopt?

A certain number of obstacles are necessary. For example, I am sure you would agree with me that a couple wanting to adopt should be a man and a woman who are married to each other, and that they do indeed have a stable home that is welcoming to children. Not meeting these conditions ought to be a reason to refuse them permission to adopt a human child. A puppy or kitten - sure. But not a human child.

However, I totally agree with you that the amount of red tape that is out there right now is ridiculous. There is no need for a family to have to go through the kind of trouble that is out there right now, regarding adopting a child. It should not be such a long drawn-out procedure, and there is no reason the process should take so long.

I think the orphanages should be there – but the vast majority of children should be adopted into loving homes within a month or less of becoming eligible.

True. I would prioritize it thus:

1. (Best) - Child is living with his biological mother and father, who, even more ideally, are married to each other.
2. Child is living with at least one biological parent or blood relative (aunt, uncle, grandparent) in a stable and safe environment.
3. Child is adopted by a loving married (heterosexual) couple. (Perhaps relatives or friends of his biological parents.)
4. Child resides in a well-run and stable orphanage.
5. (Last resort) Child resides in a well-run care facility that is looking after his or her serious mental/physical health needs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Puppies and kittens aren’t children, obviously - there is less harm done if an unsuitable person adopts a cat or dog than a child. Pets are also easier to train and care for than children.

But you would think there would be at least as much emphasis on finding good, stable homes for children as for puppies and kittens.

A certain number of obstacles are necessary. For example, I am sure you would agree with me that a couple wanting to adopt should be a man and a woman who are married to each other, and that they do indeed have a stable home that is welcoming to children. Not meeting these conditions ought to be a reason to refuse them permission to adopt a human child. A puppy or kitten - sure. But not a human child.

But does it take years to determine if those conditions exist? Does it cost tens of thousands of dollars?

However, I totally agree with you that the amount of red tape that is out there right now is ridiculous. There is no need for a family to have to go through the kind of trouble that is out there right now, regarding adopting a child. It should not be such a long drawn-out procedure, and there is no reason the process should take so long.

I think if the process were open – if we knew how many children were awaiting adoption, and where, and who to contact, and if the process were streamlined, there would be very few children left without loving parents.

True. I would prioritize it thus:

1. (Best) - Child is living with his biological mother and father, who, even more ideally, are married to each other.
2. Child is living with at least one biological parent or blood relative (aunt, uncle, grandparent) in a stable and safe environment.
3. Child is adopted by a loving married (heterosexual) couple. (Perhaps relatives or friends of his biological parents.)
4. Child resides in a well-run and stable orphanage.
5. (Last resort) Child resides in a well-run care facility that is looking after his or her serious mental/physical health needs.

No argument there – but first, last and always, the aim should be to provide a loving, secure home.

 

[jmcrae]

But you would think there would be at least as much emphasis on finding good, stable homes for children as for puppies and kittens.

At their end, certainly - you’d think.

But does it take years to determine if those conditions exist? Does it cost tens of thousands of dollars?

I can’t see it taking any longer than six months - one two-hour meeting each month, in even the iffiest cases (like if they suspect someone of lying to them - ie: the couple can’t seem to remember when they got married, or where the wedding took place, or the man can’t remember his boss’s name or the address of where he works - so they would set up a follow-up meeting for the next month, and see whether any details of the story change in a weird kind of way), and I don’t understand why the evaluation can’t be made by a team consisting of a social worker, psychologist, and child welfare worker, whose wages are paid by our tax dollars. It shouldn’t cost the individual anything (unless they decide to retain a lawyer to come with them to the meetings and help them with the paperwork), and the most it should cost the government is (12*3) worker hours - even if they’re paying $100.00 an hour (which I consider unlikely) that’s $4800.00, and that would be at the very, very top of my estimate. There is absolutely no reason to get into five digits, in my opinion.

I think if the process were open – if we knew how many children were awaiting adoption, and where, and who to contact, and if the process were streamlined, there would be very few children left without loving parents.

I agree with you.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

True. I would prioritize it thus:

1. (Best) - Child is living with his biological mother and father, who, even more ideally, are married to each other.
2. Child is living with at least one biological parent or blood relative (aunt, uncle, grandparent) in a stable and safe environment.
3. Child is adopted by a loving married (heterosexual) couple. (Perhaps relatives or friends of his biological parents.)
4. Child resides in a well-run and stable orphanage.
5. (Last resort) Child resides in a well-run care facility that is looking after his or her serious mental/physical health needs.

I would like to modify this list a bit. 4. and 5 are almost interchangeable.

1. Child is adopted by a loving (possibly civil married) same-gender couple.
2. Child is adopted by a loving single person.
3. Orphange
4. Care facility

 

[NMJenny]

However, I totally agree with you that the amount of red tape that is out there right now is ridiculous. There is no need for a family to have to go through the kind of trouble that is out there right now, regarding adopting a child. It should not be such a long drawn-out procedure, and there is no reason the process should take so long.

Actually, for children who don’t fall into the “baby” category, I think the biggest obstacle to adoption isn’t the red tape with the prospective parents, but rather the hassle involved into terminating parental rights and making the children eligible to be adopted in the first place. Our current social services system seems to go to extreme measures to keep open the possibility that a child can be returned to its home, even when there is little or no chance that this will ever happen. By the time that everyone has finally agreed to opening up the possibility of adoption, the child is too old to be easily placed, or has been in and out of foster care for years, with the resulting problems which make them very difficult to place.

I agree that a good, well-supervised orphanage would be far preferable to much of the current situation. There are good, loving foster parents in the system, but they are unfortunately too few to take care of all the children needing them…

 

[jmcrae]

1. Child is adopted by a loving (possibly civil married) same-gender couple.

Because of the fact that same-gender couples statistically tend to change partners quite frequently, this would be no better than (and probably worse than) foster care, since the child would be shuffled from situation to situation along with whichever adoptive parent gained custody of him, whether legally or by kidnapping, so I wouldn’t recommend this any more than I would recommend foster care, and actually probably less, since the child is even more likely to be exposed to immoral and criminal activity in this setting than in foster care, which is already bad enough as it is.

A traditional heterosexual marriage stands a better chance of staying together at least long enough for the child to reach an age of independence - heterosexuals, even in our divorce-prone age, don’t change partners nearly as frequently as homosexuals.

1. Child is adopted by a loving single person.

I would only do this if the single person were biologically related to the child, and other options were not available, for whatever reason.

Single people have to work outside the home, which means leaving the child in daycare or home alone - a well-run orphanage would actually be a more stable alternative to this situation, when you think about it, since although it has the same disadvantages as a daycare (many kids per care provider), it has the advantage of stability - they aren’t going to go out of business when the owner’s youngest child reaches school age and the owner decides to get a “real job,” etc.

 

[Gardening_Mommy]

Most children in the foster care system are not up for adoption, especially babies and infants, because there have been horror stories of children whisked out of homes and quickly adopted before the birth family was given any chance to straighten out. Unfortunately, this has morphed into a long, complicated series of steps between the child being removed from the home, repeated attempts or at least considerations of being returned home, termination of parental rights (more court dates and waiting periods if the parents can’t be found anymore or are unwilling to sign away their rights), etc.

By this point, the child is no longer an infant, they are a grade-schooler probably struggling with some significant attachment issues.

The red tape isn’t fun, but it’s there to try to protect the children from further abuse or neglect. The costs are not really prohibitive; many children in state foster care qualify for waived fees and other financial incentives to try to get them settled into loving, permanent families. Plus, the federal government will refund a little over $10,000 in adoption expenses and there are various charities and organizations that will help you with loans or grants for adoption.

Most people adopting want an infant or at least a preschooler, so that they have some more control over the child’s early formative years. Many potential adopters are scared away from adopting black children by negative comments from social workers or agencies. Unfortunately, most of the kids in state foster care are black (or other minorities, but black children have the hardest time being placed) and not infants.

Yes, there are plenty of people out there who would love to adopt a cute, white infant with little or no medical issues (wait time: probably a year or more). There are even plenty of people who open their hearts and homes to white children with severe disabilities like Downs Syndrome (what few escape abortion, anyways).

There are very few people willing to adopt children who were forcibly removed from their home because of sexual or physical abuse, neglect, etc. Some of these children are severely traumatized and require a tremendous amount of therapy to deal with what was done to them.

There are very few people willing to adopt black children, because people like the National Assoc. of Black Social Workers have convinced them that that would be irresponsible, somehow condescendingly racist, impossibly hard to do right, etc.

And that is why there are so many children in the foster care system in the U.S.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Richard Mckenzie wrote a book about growing up in an orphanage. In addition to his own experience he interviewed other adults who lived in the same orphanage.

I think this is the same gentleman who wrote an article I read in a magazine 10 or more years ago. It changed my understanding of orphanages and I see it as something that could be a serious option if it were available.

Here’s a link to an article featuring McKenzie. The statistics given are interesting. A sample:

**D****ivorce. **The percentage of white Americans, in 1990, who had been divorced at least once was 36 percent for the 45 to 49 age group, and 29 percent for the 50 to 54 age group (the only age groups for which data could be found).The divorce rate for the Barium Springs alumni who responded is 20 percent.

• **Education. **The Barium Springs alumni surpassed their age group in the general population at every rung of the educational ladder:

• **High School Graduates. **The Census found that 73 percent of Americans 45 and older had high school diplomas in 1993.
  About 88 percent of the alumni had such diplomas, a 21 percent higher graduation rate

Stability is underrated when it comes to raising children. I swear if I hear one more person say “children are resilient” will scream.

 

[BlestOne]

I am a former foster parent and I happen to live in a town where they have a program that basically forces foster parents to adopt older kids. I can only tell you what my experiences are. I took in troubled teens. They stayed with me until either they were ready to move out on their own or one of us requested them to leave. Yes, I have kicked kids out of my house when I knew they had no intention to follow rules I set for them. There was never the option to adopt any of these kids either. The first thing I did with these kids is get them evaluated for personality disorders and mental problems… the next was to get each and every one of them in some type of counseling. Either with their natural family or by themselves. Most of the kids I had were really good kids… but the ones who weren’t…omgosh!!!

Anyway, with all that experience with teens, I thought this new program coming to my town was a good fit… until I interviewed the director. As time went on, I came to be very glad I passed on this program. Basically they had kids whose parents were in jail or abandoned them and put them in this program. You got a house and a salary to raise these kids. If the kid had siblings, they tried to keep them together. All sounds good so far…but… First, they wanted you to take group vacations… and they wouldn’t let you deviate from their itinerary, then they started pushing people out that didn’t adopt these kids. We found out some of these kids didn’t want to be adopted and my friends foster son had a mother that had really straightened up while she was in prison and was working to get all her kids back. When they started pushing my friend to adopt, she found out the mom had gotten all the kids back except her foster son. They purposely kept the foster mom and the natural mom away from each other and told the foster mom all kinds of lies. When she found out the truth they cut her salary in 1/3! This was because she was no longer open to adopting this boy. They outright fired her when she helped the mom get her last child back. It was all about numbers. This was a Clinton initiative several years ago… to get kids adopted out of the foster system… well it isn’t always what is best for the kid!!!