Well, after years of bumping gums about adoption on this forum
(and I think those years were 1994 - 1998, but I am fuzzy on the exact
time frame), I decided I needed to put my money where my mouth was. So
I went out and earned my MSW degree and I did.

I took a part time job at a maternity home. All I was doing was
oversight case management - going through the case files and making
sure that the young women served by the home were getting what they
needed, etc. In the 2 years I worked there, I saw about 70 young
women. All but two or three of them were either in foster care or they
were under the supervision of juvenile justice for some non-violent
offense, and they were allowed to stay at the maternity home instead
of the juvenile prison so that they would not have to be pregnant in
that kind of environment. The particular home I worked at was licensed
to care for young women and their babies until 2 weeks post delivery.
After delivery, they had to go elsewhere. There are "second chance"
homes around that house young mothers and their children up to age 5,
and they are primarily for teen mothers. Some of them went to those
homes. Others went to foster homes where they were placed together
with their babies. Others went to live with various family members -
grandmas and aunties.

The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist religious
group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I actually
started working there, but I guess I should have figured it out. Oh,
and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the ones in
DFCS custody.

While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through a
presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in
individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy to the
exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive? In
another era, with another population of girls, it might have been. In
the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place her child
for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it - she graduated
from high school a week before delivery and she probably had the best
shot of actually making a go of it, but she also was still in parental
custody and her parents were telling her that she could not come back
to them with her baby in tow. Choose between us! they commanded.

Two more had their children taken from them within a month or so of
birth, due to neglect/child endangerment issues. The rest are
presumably still parenting.

There are lots of good things to say about this agency. They do make a
sincere effort to teach these young women life skills and parenting
skills. They do give these young women at least a fighting chance.

But I have to share this tidbit .
In their fund raising literature, this maternity home trumpets that
they have saved 70+ babies from abortion. Like they were yanked out of
line down at the clinic, brought to the house, and talked into going
through with their pregnancies.
What cheese.
Because I don't think abortion was seriously an option for any of
these young women. Number one, I don't think any of them wanted one.
They think it's cool to be pregnant and/or parenting at 14, 15, 16. It
gives their lives meaning. They don't have big dreams, or realistic
dreams, and being a mother is one thing that they're pretty sure they
can accomplish.
And even if they wanted an abortion, how could they pay for it?
Medicaid hasn't paid for abortion since the 70s. When you're in foster
care, you don't have a whole lot of money to throw around. Maybe some
of the ones under jurisdiction of DJJ could have scraped together the
money, but they are the ones who most wanted to be pregnant, because
pregnancy saved them from jail.

It would be more accurate to talk about preventing child abuse. If the
maternity home has any impact, that would be the area. And they're not
totally successful in that, because some of these young women come
from such brutal circumstances that they just do not have the
emotional equipment to nurture someone else, and they probably will
never have it.

I'm quitting because it's become to difficult to do the other things I
have to do in my life that come along with being a mother and working
a full time job. But I'm also quitting because it's just too damn
depressing.

Gina Marie Wade

Thanks. This is great stuff and very important to what I'm writing about.
You may be hearing form me privately, if that's OK. BTW, did you work with
Hispanic teens at all? I have a reason for asking that.

Marley


"Gina Marie Wade" <ginamariewade@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:hhj2tvcifcggco7mtchbi52rdutucftd8v@4ax.com... Well, after years of bumping gums about adoption on this forum (and I think those years were 1994 - 1998, but I am fuzzy on the exact time frame), I decided I needed to put my money where my mouth was. So I went out and earned my MSW degree and I did. I took a part time job at a maternity home. All I was doing was oversight case management - going through the case files and making sure that the young women served by the home were getting what they needed, etc. In the 2 years I worked there, I saw about 70 young women. All but two or three of them were either in foster care or they were under the supervision of juvenile justice for some non-violent offense, and they were allowed to stay at the maternity home instead of the juvenile prison so that they would not have to be pregnant in that kind of environment. The particular home I worked at was licensed to care for young women and their babies until 2 weeks post delivery. After delivery, they had to go elsewhere. There are "second chance" homes around that house young mothers and their children up to age 5, and they are primarily for teen mothers. Some of them went to those homes. Others went to foster homes where they were placed together with their babies. Others went to live with various family members - grandmas and aunties. The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist religious group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I actually started working there, but I guess I should have figured it out. Oh, and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the ones in DFCS custody. While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through a presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy to the exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive? In another era, with another population of girls, it might have been. In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place her child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it - she graduated from high school a week before delivery and she probably had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she also was still in parental custody and her parents were telling her that she could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose between us! they commanded. Two more had their children taken from them within a month or so of birth, due to neglect/child endangerment issues. The rest are presumably still parenting. There are lots of good things to say about this agency. They do make a sincere effort to teach these young women life skills and parenting skills. They do give these young women at least a fighting chance. But I have to share this tidbit . In their fund raising literature, this maternity home trumpets that they have saved 70+ babies from abortion. Like they were yanked out of line down at the clinic, brought to the house, and talked into going through with their pregnancies. What cheese. Because I don't think abortion was seriously an option for any of these young women. Number one, I don't think any of them wanted one. They think it's cool to be pregnant and/or parenting at 14, 15, 16. It gives their lives meaning. They don't have big dreams, or realistic dreams, and being a mother is one thing that they're pretty sure they can accomplish. And even if they wanted an abortion, how could they pay for it? Medicaid hasn't paid for abortion since the 70s. When you're in foster care, you don't have a whole lot of money to throw around. Maybe some of the ones under jurisdiction of DJJ could have scraped together the money, but they are the ones who most wanted to be pregnant, because pregnancy saved them from jail. It would be more accurate to talk about preventing child abuse. If the maternity home has any impact, that would be the area. And they're not totally successful in that, because some of these young women come from such brutal circumstances that they just do not have the emotional equipment to nurture someone else, and they probably will never have it. I'm quitting because it's become to difficult to do the other things I have to do in my life that come along with being a mother and working a full time job. But I'm also quitting because it's just too damn depressing. Gina Marie Wade

In article <hhj2tvcifcggco7mtchbi52rdutucftd8v@4ax.com>,
Gina Marie Wade <ginamariewade@alltel.net> wrote:
So I went out and earned my MSW degree and I did.


Congrats!

The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist religious group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I actually started working there, but I guess I should have figured it out. Oh, and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the ones in DFCS custody.


Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it. Otherwise these
girls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more of them
would have relinquished.

While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through a presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy to the exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive? In another era, with another population of girls, it might have been.


Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some.

In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place her child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it - she graduated from high school a week before delivery and she probably had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she also was still in parental custody and her parents were telling her that she could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose between us! they commanded.


Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to say that the
evil state had nothing to do with this?

It would be more accurate to talk about preventing child abuse. If the maternity home has any impact, that would be the area. And they're not totally successful in that, because some of these young women come from such brutal circumstances that they just do not have the emotional equipment to nurture someone else, and they probably will never have it.


Yep, these young women really do have the deck stacked against them
based on what happened to them early in life. Makes you realize how
lucky you can be and how much nurturing really matters.

I'm quitting because it's become to difficult to do the other things I have to do in my life that come along with being a mother and working a full time job. But I'm also quitting because it's just too damn depressing.


Sorry to hear it, Gina. Hang in there.




steve

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:57 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never>
wrote: The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist religious group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I actually started working there, but I guess I should have figured it out. Oh, and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the ones in DFCS custody.Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it. Otherwise thesegirls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more of themwould have relinquished.
Or, more likely, they would be spending their pregnancies in YDC
before going back to their dysfunctional families, and they wouldn't
relinquish - that decision would be made for them by DFCS.

While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through a presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy to the exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive? In another era, with another population of girls, it might have been.Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some.
Having adults with some degree of authority pontificate about the
rightness of a certain path of action would sway the "good girls gone
awry" of previous generations, but these girls are so used to grownups
lying to them about every little thing, they tune out automatically
when an adult opens his or her mouth. No matter what they have to say.
In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place her child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it - she graduated from high school a week before delivery and she probably had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she also was still in parental custody and her parents were telling her that she could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose between us! they commanded.Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to say that theevil state had nothing to do with this?

She was not in state custody. She was in parental custody. Her parents
told her that if she wanted to keep her baby, she would be emancipated
early and would not be welcome in their home.
I suppose you would clap them on the back for this?

GIna Marie

In article <ap7atvkcs7bngn5p28c1koqmee2i41gs25@4ax.com>,
Gina Marie Wade <ginamariewade @ alltel . net> wrote:

Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it. Otherwisethese girls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more ofthem would have relinquished. Or, more likely, they would be spending their pregnancies in YDC before going back to their dysfunctional families, and they wouldn't relinquish - that decision would be made for them by DFCS.


Yep, that's a possibility as well, and even more unfortunate for
everyone. I don't complain when a group that's doing outreach like this
gets paid by the state for providing a needed service. Even if they're a
fundamentalist religious group.

Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some. Having adults with some degree of authority pontificate about the rightness of a certain path of action would sway the "good girls gone awry" of previous generations, but these girls are so used to grownups lying to them about every little thing, they tune out automatically when an adult opens his or her mouth. No matter what they have to say.


No question that if all one has ever heard is a lie, one will have
trouble hearing something that is true. For the young women in that
situation, life is going to be a very harsh teacher, I'm afraid.

Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to say thatthe evil state had nothing to do with this? She was not in state custody. She was in parental custody. Her parents told her that if she wanted to keep her baby, she would be emancipated early and would not be welcome in their home.
I suppose you would clap them on the back for this?


Absolutely not -- I've always thought that parental coercion in matters
like this was awful. It goes to the root of just what life in that house
had to be like before the young woman became pregnant. It's exactly this
kind of coercion in the 50's and 60's that caused so many
relinquishments.




steve

"Gina Marie Wade" <ginamariewade @ alltel . net> wrote in message
news:ap7atvkcs7bngn5p28c1koqmee2i41gs25@4ax.com... On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:57 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist religious group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I actually started working there, but I guess I should have figured it out. Oh, and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the ones in DFCS custody.Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it. Otherwise thesegirls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more of themwould have relinquished. Or, more likely, they would be spending their pregnancies in YDC before going back to their dysfunctional families, and they wouldn't relinquish - that decision would be made for them by DFCS. While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through a presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy to the exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive? In another era, with another population of girls, it might have been.Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some. Having adults with some degree of authority pontificate about the rightness of a certain path of action would sway the "good girls gone awry" of previous generations, but these girls are so used to grownups lying to them about every little thing, they tune out automatically when an adult opens his or her mouth. No matter what they have to say. In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place her child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it - she graduated from high school a week before delivery and she probably had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she also was still in parental custody and her parents were telling her that she could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose between us! they commanded.Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to say that theevil state had nothing to do with this? She was not in state custody. She was in parental custody. Her parents told her that if she wanted to keep her baby, she would be emancipated early and would not be welcome in their home. I suppose you would clap them on the back for this?

Does "emancipated early" have any formal/legal basis, or is it simply a
euphemism for throwing someone out of the home, disowning them?

Helen
GIna Marie

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:2SiBb.123$HR.382@news.indigo.ie... "Gina Marie Wade" <ginamariewade @ alltel . net> wrote in message news:ap7atvkcs7bngn5p28c1koqmee2i41gs25@4ax.com... On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:57 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:> The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist religious> group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I actually> started working there, but I guess I should have figured it out. Oh,> and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the ones in> DFCS custody.Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it. Otherwise
thesegirls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more of themwould have relinquished. Or, more likely, they would be spending their pregnancies in YDC before going back to their dysfunctional families, and they wouldn't relinquish - that decision would be made for them by DFCS.> While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through a> presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in> individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy to the> exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive? In> another era, with another population of girls, it might have been.Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some. Having adults with some degree of authority pontificate about the rightness of a certain path of action would sway the "good girls gone awry" of previous generations, but these girls are so used to grownups lying to them about every little thing, they tune out automatically when an adult opens his or her mouth. No matter what they have to say.> In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place her> child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it - she> graduated from high school a week before delivery and she probably> had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she also was> still in parental custody and her parents were telling her that she> could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose between us!> they commanded.Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to say that theevil state had nothing to do with this? She was not in state custody. She was in parental custody. Her parents told her that if she wanted to keep her baby, she would be emancipated early and would not be welcome in their home. I suppose you would clap them on the back for this? Does "emancipated early" have any formal/legal basis, or is it simply a euphemism for throwing someone out of the home, disowning them? Helen GIna Marie

It's a legal classification. A minor can go to court and be emancipated. I
went to high school with people who did this.

Marley

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:6dkBb.171077$Ec1.6556066@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:2SiBb.123$HR.382@news.indigo.ie... "Gina Marie Wade" <ginamariewade @ alltel . net> wrote in message news:ap7atvkcs7bngn5p28c1koqmee2i41gs25@4ax.com... On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:57 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: > >> The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist religious >> group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I actually >> started working there, but I guess I should have figured it out.
Oh, >> and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the ones
in >> DFCS custody. > > >Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it. Otherwise these >girls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more of them >would have relinquished. > > Or, more likely, they would be spending their pregnancies in YDC before going back to their dysfunctional families, and they wouldn't relinquish - that decision would be made for them by DFCS. >> While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through a >> presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in >> individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy to the >> exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive? In >> another era, with another population of girls, it might have been. > > >Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some. > Having adults with some degree of authority pontificate about the rightness of a certain path of action would sway the "good girls gone awry" of previous generations, but these girls are so used to grownups lying to them about every little thing, they tune out automatically when an adult opens his or her mouth. No matter what they have to say. > >> In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place her >> child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it - she >> graduated from high school a week before delivery and she probably >> had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she also was >> still in parental custody and her parents were telling her that she >> could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose between
us! >> they commanded. > > >Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to say that
the >evil state had nothing to do with this? She was not in state custody. She was in parental custody. Her parents told her that if she wanted to keep her baby, she would be emancipated early and would not be welcome in their home. I suppose you would clap them on the back for this? Does "emancipated early" have any formal/legal basis, or is it simply a euphemism for throwing someone out of the home, disowning them? Helen GIna Marie It's a legal classification. A minor can go to court and be emancipated.
I went to high school with people who did this.

How does it benefit them - do they get assistance to rent accommodation, or
towards their education? Are they made wards of court?

Helen

Marley

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:OxkBb.135$HR.372@news.indigo.ie... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:6dkBb.171077$Ec1.6556066@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:2SiBb.123$HR.382@news.indigo.ie... "Gina Marie Wade" <ginamariewade @ alltel . net> wrote in message news:ap7atvkcs7bngn5p28c1koqmee2i41gs25@4ax.com... > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:57 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> > wrote: > > > >> The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist
religious > >> group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I
actually > >> started working there, but I guess I should have figured it out. Oh, > >> and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the
ones in > >> DFCS custody. > > > > > >Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it. Otherwise these > >girls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more of them > >would have relinquished. > > > > > Or, more likely, they would be spending their pregnancies in YDC > before going back to their dysfunctional families, and they wouldn't > relinquish - that decision would be made for them by DFCS. > > > >> While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through a > >> presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in > >> individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy to
the > >> exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive? In > >> another era, with another population of girls, it might have
been. > > > > > >Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some. > > > Having adults with some degree of authority pontificate about the > rightness of a certain path of action would sway the "good girls
gone > awry" of previous generations, but these girls are so used to
grownups > lying to them about every little thing, they tune out automatically > when an adult opens his or her mouth. No matter what they have to
say. > > > > >> In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place her > >> child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it - she > >> graduated from high school a week before delivery and she
probably > >> had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she also was > >> still in parental custody and her parents were telling her that
she > >> could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose between us! > >> they commanded. > > > > > >Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to say that the > >evil state had nothing to do with this? > > She was not in state custody. She was in parental custody. Her
parents > told her that if she wanted to keep her baby, she would be
emancipated > early and would not be welcome in their home. > I suppose you would clap them on the back for this? Does "emancipated early" have any formal/legal basis, or is it simply
a euphemism for throwing someone out of the home, disowning them? Helen > > GIna Marie It's a legal classification. A minor can go to court and be
emancipated. I went to high school with people who did this. How does it benefit them - do they get assistance to rent accommodation,
or towards their education? Are they made wards of court? Helen

They don't get anything. They are legal adults and independent of thier
parents, and the parents have no financial responsibility towards them.

Marley Marley > >

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iOkBb.171196$Ec1.6559372@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:OxkBb.135$HR.372@news.indigo.ie... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:6dkBb.171077$Ec1.6556066@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:2SiBb.123$HR.382@news.indigo.ie... > > "Gina Marie Wade" <ginamariewade @ alltel . net> wrote in message > news:ap7atvkcs7bngn5p28c1koqmee2i41gs25@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:57 GMT, Steve White
<steve@spam.me.never> > > wrote: > > > > > >> The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist religious > > >> group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I actually > > >> started working there, but I guess I should have figured it
out. Oh, > > >> and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the ones in > > >> DFCS custody. > > > > > > > > >Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it.
Otherwise these > > >girls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more of
them > > >would have relinquished. > > > > > > > > Or, more likely, they would be spending their pregnancies in YDC > > before going back to their dysfunctional families, and they
wouldn't > > relinquish - that decision would be made for them by DFCS. > > > > > > >> While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through
a > > >> presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in > > >> individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy to the > > >> exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive?
In > > >> another era, with another population of girls, it might have been. > > > > > > > > >Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some. > > > > > Having adults with some degree of authority pontificate about the > > rightness of a certain path of action would sway the "good girls gone > > awry" of previous generations, but these girls are so used to grownups > > lying to them about every little thing, they tune out
automatically > > when an adult opens his or her mouth. No matter what they have to say. > > > > > > > >> In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place
her > > >> child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it - she > > >> graduated from high school a week before delivery and she probably > > >> had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she also
was > > >> still in parental custody and her parents were telling her that she > > >> could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose
between us! > > >> they commanded. > > > > > > > > >Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to say
that the > > >evil state had nothing to do with this? > > > > She was not in state custody. She was in parental custody. Her parents > > told her that if she wanted to keep her baby, she would be emancipated > > early and would not be welcome in their home. > > I suppose you would clap them on the back for this? > > Does "emancipated early" have any formal/legal basis, or is it
simply a > euphemism for throwing someone out of the home, disowning them? > > Helen > > > > > GIna Marie It's a legal classification. A minor can go to court and be emancipated. I went to high school with people who did this. How does it benefit them - do they get assistance to rent accommodation, or towards their education? Are they made wards of court? Helen They don't get anything. They are legal adults and independent of thier parents, and the parents have no financial responsibility towards them.

Then what is the point of the exercise?

Helen
Marley Marley > > > > > >

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:hPuBb.206$HR.728@news.indigo.ie... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:iOkBb.171196$Ec1.6559372@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:OxkBb.135$HR.372@news.indigo.ie... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:6dkBb.171077$Ec1.6556066@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message > news:2SiBb.123$HR.382@news.indigo.ie... > > > > "Gina Marie Wade" <ginamariewade @ alltel . net> wrote in message > > news:ap7atvkcs7bngn5p28c1koqmee2i41gs25@4ax.com... > > > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:57 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist religious > > > >> group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I actually > > > >> started working there, but I guess I should have figured it out. Oh, > > > >> and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the ones in > > > >> DFCS custody. > > > > > > > > > > > >Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it. Otherwise > these > > > >girls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more of them > > > >would have relinquished. > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more likely, they would be spending their pregnancies in YDC > > > before going back to their dysfunctional families, and they wouldn't > > > relinquish - that decision would be made for them by DFCS. > > > > > > > > > >> While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit
through a > > > >> presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in > > > >> individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy
to the > > > >> exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive? In > > > >> another era, with another population of girls, it might have been. > > > > > > > > > > > >Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some. > > > > > > > Having adults with some degree of authority pontificate about
the > > > rightness of a certain path of action would sway the "good girls gone > > > awry" of previous generations, but these girls are so used to grownups > > > lying to them about every little thing, they tune out automatically > > > when an adult opens his or her mouth. No matter what they have
to say. > > > > > > > > > > >> In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place her > > > >> child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it -
she > > > >> graduated from high school a week before delivery and she probably > > > >> had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she also was > > > >> still in parental custody and her parents were telling her
that she > > > >> could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose between us! > > > >> they commanded. > > > > > > > > > > > >Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to say that the > > > >evil state had nothing to do with this? > > > > > > She was not in state custody. She was in parental custody. Her parents > > > told her that if she wanted to keep her baby, she would be emancipated > > > early and would not be welcome in their home. > > > I suppose you would clap them on the back for this? > > > > Does "emancipated early" have any formal/legal basis, or is it simply a > > euphemism for throwing someone out of the home, disowning them? > > > > Helen > > > > > > > > GIna Marie > > It's a legal classification. A minor can go to court and be emancipated. I > went to high school with people who did this. How does it benefit them - do they get assistance to rent
accommodation, or towards their education? Are they made wards of court? Helen They don't get anything. They are legal adults and independent of thier parents, and the parents have no financial responsibility towards them. Then what is the point of the exercise? Helen

To legally live independent of the parents. Not just anybody can do it, I
suppose. The people I knew were still in high school, had jobs, and lived
in their own places. It's been so long I don't remember the details, but
there was abuse in the home, broken marriages, whatever. The kids wanted to
be on their own and could do it, so the courts let them.

Each state has its own rules on how one becomes emancipated, but here is a
general definitio:

emancipation
n. freeing a minor child from the control of parents and allowing the minor
to live on his/her own or under the control of others. It usually applies to
adolescents who leave the parents' household by agreement or demand.
Emancipation may also end the responsibility of a parent for the acts of a
child, including debts, negligence or criminal acts. Sometimes it is one of
the events which cuts off the obligation of a divorced parent to pay child
support.
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp

Marley


Marley

Top: It is so sad, but I suppose there are circumstances when it seems to be
the only answer. I can't ever imagine throwing disowning a child, whatever
their age.

Helen


"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:U6vBb.424943$0v4.20409205@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:hPuBb.206$HR.728@news.indigo.ie... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:iOkBb.171196$Ec1.6559372@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:OxkBb.135$HR.372@news.indigo.ie... > > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:6dkBb.171077$Ec1.6556066@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message > > news:2SiBb.123$HR.382@news.indigo.ie... > > > > > > "Gina Marie Wade" <ginamariewade @ alltel . net> wrote in
message > > > news:ap7atvkcs7bngn5p28c1koqmee2i41gs25@4ax.com... > > > > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:57 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist religious > > > > >> group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until I actually > > > > >> started working there, but I guess I should have figured it out. > Oh, > > > > >> and of course, they received the foster care per diem for
the ones > in > > > > >> DFCS custody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it. Otherwise > > these > > > > >girls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more
of them > > > > >would have relinquished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more likely, they would be spending their pregnancies in
YDC > > > > before going back to their dysfunctional families, and they wouldn't > > > > relinquish - that decision would be made for them by DFCS. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through a > > > > >> presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate
in > > > > >> individual counseling on "decision making." I was not privy to the > > > > >> exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it
coercive? In > > > > >> another era, with another population of girls, it might
have been. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some. > > > > > > > > > Having adults with some degree of authority pontificate about the > > > > rightness of a certain path of action would sway the "good
girls gone > > > > awry" of previous generations, but these girls are so used to grownups > > > > lying to them about every little thing, they tune out automatically > > > > when an adult opens his or her mouth. No matter what they have to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to
place her > > > > >> child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about it - she > > > > >> graduated from high school a week before delivery and she probably > > > > >> had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she
also was > > > > >> still in parental custody and her parents were telling her that she > > > > >> could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose between > us! > > > > >> they commanded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to
say that > the > > > > >evil state had nothing to do with this? > > > > > > > > She was not in state custody. She was in parental custody. Her parents > > > > told her that if she wanted to keep her baby, she would be emancipated > > > > early and would not be welcome in their home. > > > > I suppose you would clap them on the back for this? > > > > > > Does "emancipated early" have any formal/legal basis, or is it simply a > > > euphemism for throwing someone out of the home, disowning them? > > > > > > Helen > > > > > > > > > > > GIna Marie > > > > It's a legal classification. A minor can go to court and be emancipated. > I > > went to high school with people who did this. > > How does it benefit them - do they get assistance to rent accommodation, or > towards their education? Are they made wards of court? > > Helen > They don't get anything. They are legal adults and independent of
thier parents, and the parents have no financial responsibility towards
them. Then what is the point of the exercise? Helen To legally live independent of the parents. Not just anybody can do it, I suppose. The people I knew were still in high school, had jobs, and lived in their own places. It's been so long I don't remember the details, but there was abuse in the home, broken marriages, whatever. The kids wanted
to be on their own and could do it, so the courts let them. Each state has its own rules on how one becomes emancipated, but here is a general definitio: emancipation n. freeing a minor child from the control of parents and allowing the
minor to live on his/her own or under the control of others. It usually applies
to adolescents who leave the parents' household by agreement or demand. Emancipation may also end the responsibility of a parent for the acts of a child, including debts, negligence or criminal acts. Sometimes it is one
of the events which cuts off the obligation of a divorced parent to pay child support. http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp Marley Marley

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:JhDBb.223$HR.711@news.indigo.ie... Top: It is so sad, but I suppose there are circumstances when it seems to
be the only answer. I can't ever imagine throwing disowning a child, whatever their age.

Sorry, that should have been "throwing out/disowning a child"..


Helen
Helen "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:U6vBb.424943$0v4.20409205@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:hPuBb.206$HR.728@news.indigo.ie... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:iOkBb.171196$Ec1.6559372@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message > news:OxkBb.135$HR.372@news.indigo.ie... > > > > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > >
news:6dkBb.171077$Ec1.6556066@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > > > "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message > > > news:2SiBb.123$HR.382@news.indigo.ie... > > > > > > > > "Gina Marie Wade" <ginamariewade @ alltel . net> wrote in message > > > > news:ap7atvkcs7bngn5p28c1koqmee2i41gs25@4ax.com... > > > > > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:57 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> The major funding for the home came from a fundamentalist > religious > > > > > >> group and anti-abortion groups. I didn't know this until
I > actually > > > > > >> started working there, but I guess I should have figured
it out. > > Oh, > > > > > >> and of course, they received the foster care per diem for the > ones > > in > > > > > >> DFCS custody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Housing and food cost money. Somebody had to pay for it. Otherwise > > > these > > > > > >girls really would have been in a jam, and (I suspect) more of them > > > > > >would have relinquished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more likely, they would be spending their pregnancies in YDC > > > > > before going back to their dysfunctional families, and they wouldn't > > > > > relinquish - that decision would be made for them by DFCS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> While living at the home, each of the girls had to sit through a > > > > > >> presentation by an adoption agency and had to participate in > > > > > >> individual counseling on "decision making." I was not
privy to > the > > > > > >> exact curriculum, but I could figure it out. Was it coercive? In > > > > > >> another era, with another population of girls, it might have > been. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Explaining the facts of life does seem coercive to some. > > > > > > > > > > > Having adults with some degree of authority pontificate
about the > > > > > rightness of a certain path of action would sway the "good girls > gone > > > > > awry" of previous generations, but these girls are so used
to > grownups > > > > > lying to them about every little thing, they tune out automatically > > > > > when an adult opens his or her mouth. No matter what they
have to > say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In the two years I worked there, only one girl opted to place her > > > > > >> child for adoption. I had really mixed feelings about
it - she > > > > > >> graduated from high school a week before delivery and she > probably > > > > > >> had the best shot of actually making a go of it, but she also was > > > > > >> still in parental custody and her parents were telling
her that > she > > > > > >> could not come back to them with her baby in tow. Choose between > > us! > > > > > >> they commanded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Eeeek! Another case of grandparental coercion! You mean to say that > > the > > > > > >evil state had nothing to do with this? > > > > > > > > > > She was not in state custody. She was in parental custody.
Her > parents > > > > > told her that if she wanted to keep her baby, she would be > emancipated > > > > > early and would not be welcome in their home. > > > > > I suppose you would clap them on the back for this? > > > > > > > > Does "emancipated early" have any formal/legal basis, or is it simply > a > > > > euphemism for throwing someone out of the home, disowning
them? > > > > > > > > Helen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GIna Marie > > > > > > It's a legal classification. A minor can go to court and be > emancipated. > > I > > > went to high school with people who did this. > > > > How does it benefit them - do they get assistance to rent accommodation, > or > > towards their education? Are they made wards of court? > > > > Helen > > > > They don't get anything. They are legal adults and independent of thier > parents, and the parents have no financial responsibility towards them. Then what is the point of the exercise? Helen To legally live independent of the parents. Not just anybody can do it,
I suppose. The people I knew were still in high school, had jobs, and
lived in their own places. It's been so long I don't remember the details,
but there was abuse in the home, broken marriages, whatever. The kids
wanted to be on their own and could do it, so the courts let them. Each state has its own rules on how one becomes emancipated, but here is
a general definitio: emancipation n. freeing a minor child from the control of parents and allowing the minor to live on his/her own or under the control of others. It usually
applies to adolescents who leave the parents' household by agreement or demand. Emancipation may also end the responsibility of a parent for the acts of
a child, including debts, negligence or criminal acts. Sometimes it is one of the events which cuts off the obligation of a divorced parent to pay
child support. http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp Marley Marley