Wednesday, May 11, 2011

I guess I am "that" blogger.

A thread from a forum I visit really bothered me earlier today.  I know I can come off pretty judgy at times, so I was careful to chose my words.  I read and re-read my post before I hit the button.  So when I got home and checked up on the forum, I was a little sad that my post was taken as a flame.  I can see now my words didn't help, I should have just "walked away".  But I couldn't. 

I never thought I would bring a discussion I was part of on a forum, here to my little parcel of cyberspace.  But I am genuinely puzzled, and more than a bit dismayed.  My intent here is not to bash anyone, I well and truly mean that.

The issue was this:  DCFS refused to place with a pre-adoptive family because the family lived two doors down from a convicted sex offender.  The offender is a member of this family. 

Lots of empathy was given for the lady of the post, because quite simply her dream had been crushed.  Not through fault of her own, but because of a family member's predatory nature.  I cannot imagine the grief she feels right now.  DCFS licensed her, knowing FULL WELL about the offending family member.  Strung her along for a long while, making her belive she had a shot at bringing a child into her home.  In THAT, DCFS majorly fucked up.  Of course, I don't know DCFS' side of things.

What got my goat were all the people coming out in support of this woman to complain (she should for what DCFS did to string her along), to find a new agency, and general "this is bullshit" type support.  She then minimized the offending behavior.  At this point I will stipulate:  I very much believe that there are MAJOR differences in levels of sexual offenses.  Statutory rape is one I have take some issue with.  But if you fuck with kids, even if it never became physical, I have a major problem with that.  Dude got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

So herein lies my confusion.  Do people really think it's okay to let the most TRAUMATIZED children of our society live two doors down from a convicted sex offender?  Really??

People were trotting out the fact that we ALL live very close to sex offenders.  True, I know and completely agree with that.  That under that reference no one should be allowed to foster.  Ummmm....okay, disconnect for me.  Most people don't live two doors down from a  family member who is also a sex offender.  And that they still keep in contact with.

Am I wrong?  Would any of you, as a DCFS worker take that risk?  I am NOT out to flame anyone, so if you have a view that is different from mine, please tell me why.  The one good quality I like to think I possess is an open-mind and a willingness to learn something new.


  1. I think you were on target and the only reason I didn't comment on that particular thread was because I would really not say nice things and you know....kicking a person when they are down is never fun even if there is truth to it.

    If I worked for DCFS I would not have licensed them period as bad as that was worse to string them along.

    I have a big problem with people blaming "stings" saying that they target lonely well. Wrong is wrong no matter how lonely you are. ok sorry end rant....bowing out now

  2. I read it, and just moved along, otherwise I would have been torn to shreds. As Dannie said I wouldn't have liscensed them to begin with and tell them why. I mean to string the family along like they did was a major "no no"

  3. I guess I'm feeling judgy today, because my view is the same as yours. I understand DCF's position. I think they were horrible to string along the prospective adoptive family, although it may not have been as egregious as it sounds. I know it very well could be as bad as it sounds, but it may be that the family's worker who homestudied them thought it wouldn't be an issue because it's not an issue for her. Maybe she knows the family so well because of classes and the homestudy process and she knows they'd never put a child at risk. But she's not a placement worker. The child's placement/adoption worker is the one who has to live with herself regarding where she places a child for adoption and she likely doesn't know the family at all. And if you're talking about a young child, there may be lots of families in line so why take the risk?

    As for differences in levels of sex offenders, I'm with you on that too. My cousin's husband ended up on the registry here, way back when it first started, because he had been a stupid 19 year old who peed in public. When the registry started they went back and told him he needed to be on it because he's been charged with lewd and lascivious behavior. That's different than a grown man trying to have sex with a teenager. I get entrapment and all of that, but you can't be caught up in a sex sting if there are some lines you would never cross, like having sex with a kid.

  4. Karen,

    I wouldn't say The days have passed and I have mentioned a hypothetical to people, basically the same details. Everyone of them said something akin to "why the hell would DCFS put themselves on the line for such a risky placement?"

    What happened to your husband is just ridiculous. The common sense lacking in some of our laws is just incredible.

  5. Just want to clarify that it was my cousin's husband, not mine. We wouldn't have been allowed to adopt through DCF is it was my husband. And I agree that common sense is lacking in many areas.

  6. Gotcha...that was a complete "duh" moment for me. :)

  7. I disagree on this. However, the sex offender should move to an area where there's no kids in my opinion. Or just kill him/herself lol