|
Post by chinababe on May 6, 2008 17:52:01 GMT 10
Sally They can't really help that as often it is country requirements. Also I would think that even LA and PC would be hard to anyone in cancer remission. You must normally be cancer free for 5 years, I know a girl that was and within 6mths of starting the adoption process her cancer return and they had their file closed.... Flossy I can see how ICAS might have perceived you incorrectly in terms of racial approaches. But then it's there job to sort of push for racial diversity I guess. I know that when we went through times between education classes and approval that they had some staff changes and I really believe that there is a new breed of workers coming through. One woman that was a real pain has gone to work in the foster care system out in Morringtion. (YA!!!!!!!! far away from me!) I found one girl very helpful and our SW was great! I actually look forward to seeing her again for our re-approval and will be devastated if it's not her. As ICAS sub-contacts for their home social worker studies. I personally didn't find them as bad as people say, however my DH found them more painful than me but he had a very usual upbringing so he has issues with ANYTHING bruecatic (sorry SP?) in nature.
|
|
|
Post by flossyinoz on May 7, 2008 9:36:43 GMT 10
China,
I know it is the duty of care of all agencies including DHS to make sure only "fit" applicants (whatever that may mean) get through, but sometimes it is the way of putting it. But as we know there are also non DHS agencies which have very strange criteria and ways of evaluating people, see Kim's case.
And when we were attending the ICA session that was before the enquiery and the "dusting out" of personnel and procedures. And I think due to the flood of applicants ICA does want to send a lot accross to the local stream as international adoption does seem to be the "in thing" due to Angela Jolie and Madonna.
I just object to the fact that LA and PC are soemtimes classified as the "not so glorious" options. We live in Australia, should we not first and foremost help the children in our country before going abroad even if it is not the "in thing".
China, don't get me wrong - everybody should go for the program and country they feel most comfortable with and none of them should be classified better or worse than the other - that is what I want to bring accross.
I am glad you are on this forum, so that we have a specialist for ICA as we have people going through LA and PC applications. This forum is for everybody applying for any adoption/pc program in Australia and diversity here is really good.
Flossyinoz
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on May 7, 2008 13:47:55 GMT 10
China, it wasn't that they didn't qualify that was the problem, it was the way they were spoken to that was the issue. Rude!!!
I hear what you're saying Flossy re: LA being the less 'in thing' to do, but I would have preferred ICA myself if the process wasn't so long. My reason for this is that children will always be looked after in Australia - they're not going to die because they don't have parents, whereas children in orphanages in poorer nations have a very uncertain future. So we thought that was the best way to help a child and build our family simulatneously.
But now that ICA has been ruled out for us (for now) and the options are PC and LA - we are happy with either, but feel that PC are in 'less demand' and less likely to be placed in a permanent home so have a slight preference there. We particularly think this with siblings, and feel we're in a good position to take them when others wouldn't be.
So all in all it's entirely personal I suppose. That and being practical!
Thankfully we are all different and want different things. Hopefully this will lead to the most ideal matches for ALL of us - us, our partners and our future bubbas.
Sal x
|
|
|
Post by flossyinoz on May 7, 2008 14:34:25 GMT 10
Sal,
Kids in Australia may not die (at least not most of them) but they may suffer "irreparable physical or mental damage", this probably applies more to pc than to adoption as in adoption the willing parents to be far outway the kids.
And there seems to be a trend also in well to do nations that young mothers rather let their kids die or dump them on a tip or hide them in the freezer than putting them on the doorstep of an orphanage or hospital like Baby Catherine which is the far more responsible thing to do.
I am referring to a recent killing spree in Germany where dead infants/toddlers are apparently being found almost every day and there have been cases like this here as well.
I know this is a slightly different topic, but just to clarify that all is not well in Australia and other wealthy nations as well.
Flossyinoz
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on May 7, 2008 16:51:31 GMT 10
I'm not suggesting all is perfect here - but compare a 2 year old in an orphanage in India that may or may not get sufficient nutrition to survive to the age of 5, to that of a 2 year old child here in foster care waiting or not for a permanent family. Neither are ideal, but the 2 year old in Aust is leagues in front of the Indian child in every imaginable way.
I know, that whole Germany killing spree is gob-smacking - I think it started with a woman in 2006 who had given birth 8 times completely drunk then left all babies to die... it's completely sick.
I too thought Baby Catherine's mother was treated unfairly in the media and at least had the courage to do what she thought was best for her baby (not just herself).
You can also throw in the developed nations rate of abortions - it's completely staggering how many are conducted each year in Australia... I'm not an anti-abortionist, but the rate in Australia is beyond careless....
|
|
|
Post by chinababe on May 7, 2008 19:06:44 GMT 10
I can see what you both mean, Flossy you are right in the fact that when people discuss adoption often the general public think the only options are ICA. So I can see where your coming from. I can also understand what Sally is saying about ICA kids but I can also see what you mean about PC kids and the harm and damage they fall under. I guess for us, when we started we read maybe too much stuff about parents if their 40's (my DH) not being considered for a LA placement (which seems to have changed a bit after we started) and we weren't at that stage ready to consider PC - idiots that we where I guess for us at the time we also had a preference for adoption because it wasn't going to involve DHS or family law court long term in our lives. But obviously like many of us here we now realise that perhaps we are actually more skilled for this type of parenting that we thought. I mean we even talk now about the concept of foster care in the future with the possibility of it being left open for the concept of PC with it. But even then our preference will be for a non-anglo saxon child - LOL I guess this is reverse racism! Or maybe it's just got to do with the fact I don't look overly anglo-saxon anyway! Lots of cultural throw backs in my family history I think - between me and my nephew we need someone in our family that looks like us! How ironic that nearly all my egg donors has blonde hair and blue eyes!
|
|
|
Post by michelle76 on May 7, 2008 21:58:50 GMT 10
Hello Ladies,
I actually found ICAS team quite professional and personable. They gave a very honest upfront presentation on the situation and were quite open that they are trying to divert couples to local adoption, permanent care and foster care.
We had just not considered local because we thought there would be 10 times the number of couple on the approved list.
We went to the permanent care information session tonight. Our plan is to get approved for adoption and then relook at permanent care next year, as we will only have to attend the training to be added to permanent care list.
I'm open to permanent care if that is were fate leads us but at this stage I'm keen to see if we are meant to be parents to a local bubba.
May all our dreams come true
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on May 8, 2008 13:34:05 GMT 10
That's great Michelle!
All the best for your LA education sessions!
Sal x
|
|