In all the sensationalism of the murder of one adopted child in Florida and the torture of her twin brother, nobody is asking the important questions. . .
How on earth did the "evil" Barahonas qualify to be foster and adoptive parents?
There were multiple complaints against these licensed, state-approved parents. Why does DCF give such latitude to state-approved, licensed foster and adoptive parents when they are accused of abuse or neglect, and is so harsh against real parents for equal or lesser accusations?
Was this permanency plan for these children considered a positive outcome by the agency?
What steps is Florida DCF taking to improve their discernment regarding which people to license as foster or adoptive parents?
My prediction, these questions are too hard, and DCF will continue on with business as usual. Isn't it interesting when DCF makes a mistake this horrible, it's "too bad, so sad." But when parents make a much lesser mistake, DCF comes down on them with righteous terror.
Foster care should be superior care, at least superior to the child's family home. Evidently DCF disagrees.
I find it obscene that the same evaluations and measuring sticks applied to biological parents accused of relatively minor things are not evidently applied equally to foster parents. IE: a parent is accused of failing to provide a safe and secure home. While the children languish in a foster home, the parents are subjected to incessant psychological evaluations, and the dubious results of those tests and the opinions of the psychologists is used in court to support the claim of a need to continue foster placement. I am hard pressed to believe that a person capable of this sort of abuse/torture would not appear abnormal on the MM testing which SHOULD be required before entrusting children to non-family homes. If the same screening used on bio parents were applied to fosters BEFORE approval, maybe monsters like this would be spotted. That would, however, presume the state would CARE enough to screen their alternate parents. When in doubt about a motive, follow the money. MOST of the victimized kids are never discovered. I am sure that the profit margin is such that an occasional discovery is considered a collateral loss.
ReplyDelete