Much ado about Gabriel

With the family who loves him and cares for his needs.

Blood is not thicker than water.

The grandmother in Mexico, by all accounts, is a nice woman who would be able to love him and care for his needs. Gabriel has a large extended family in Mexico.

The fact that the boy is half Hispanic was the deciding factor, I think, because "cultural" issues are always list toppers when making these decisions.

But, by being culturally sensitive to his Hispanic side are we being culturally insensitive to his Caucasian side?

Typically I would come down on the side of the foster family but his family in Mexico seems to be really great.

I do wonder, though, why his biological parents wishes that the child be adopted by the foster family weren't taken into greater consideration.

Here's a link to the most recent newspaper article:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/119458411367450.xml&coll=7

Thanks for that link, because your original post confused me.

First you said both the biological parents wanted the foster parents to adopt him, then you said the mother didn't know about Gabriel's existence and was thrilled to look after him. Very confusing.

Frankly, I think this is all a very confusing matter. I don't know where to fall on this issue, unless I knew more about the extended family's circumstances. Will Gabriel get a better education in Mexico or the USA? Would he do better in Mexico or the USA?

Evidently Gabriel (despite his pre-natal disadvantages) could have a good life with either his grandmother or his foster family.

I'm inclined to vote for the foster family, simply so the kid won't have a major cultural shift, but when he's a bit older, allow visits with grandmother.

Evidently Gabriel (despite his pre-natal disadvantages) could have a good life with either his grandmother or his foster family.

I'm inclined to vote for the foster family, simply so the kid won't have a major cultural shift, but when he's a bit older, allow visits with grandmother.

Foster parents.

He started out with them when he was 4 months old. Bonding at 4 months old is different from bonding at 2 years old.* The fact that he bonded with his foster parents shouldn't be taken as evidence that he can just bond with anyone (and 3 years later, he can be taken away from his grandma and sent to, hmm, Switzerland -- why not!). The fact that he bonded with his foster parents means he bonded with his foster parents, and that breaking that bond will be traumatic. If they are doing a good job, he should stay with them, IMO. The grandma can be part of his life without having custody.


*Comment based on this piece of idiocy from the article:

I'm not really sure that that is idiotic.

Attachment issues, as they've been explained to me, develop because a child's needs aren't being met on a consistent basis. Since Gabriel has lived with his foster family his needs have been consistently met since he was four months old so there is a good chance that attachment issues won't present themselves in future relationships.

My gut reaction is to side with the foster parents but I was thinking that my personal experience led me to feel that way.

This is really a rock and a hard place situation.

The foster care program has become the gateway to adoption for a lot of people who might not otherwise have the resources to adopt. I think it was initially set up though to provide a refuge for kids until their family could be reunited.

Complicated stuff.

He has passed his major critical period for attachment in the foster parent's care. If they have been good parents, it is likely to be very traumatic for him to leave them.


By the same token, for some kids (and there is no way of telling that now) blood DOES seem to be thicker than water, and they can be very distressed later in life about not being raised by blood family.


If I were the poor bastard assessing this, I would be keen to do an adult attachment interview on all the prospective parents (status of ADULT attachment predicts the likely attachment of the child) and look at a few other things.


I don't think we can make a rational choice on the information given.


If he does have a good bond with the foster carers, it IS nuts to think he will easily bond with the grandmother because of this!!! It means a good attachment might be broken for the sake of an unproven one, and losing those attachment figures will have a terrible impact on the poor little fella.

Thank goddess I don't have to make such an awful decision.

Of course there is no guarantee that he will bond with the grandparents.

In my rather jaded opinion I'm unsure that there is evidence that he has truly bonded with the foster family. How are these things judged? I would have sworn that, at two, Mo was bonded with us. And I do think he has bonded with us but I know there are still attachment issues with him. So..... I don't know.

I didn't have time to get to the editorial page of the paper this morning but as I expected there was a lot of chatter about this there - both in opposition and support.

One writer mentioned the fact that this child is an American citizen and to send him to Mexico might violate his Constitutional rights.

I imagine this could lead to a HUGE legal battle.

For that I feel doubly sorry for Gabriel. It will be his history and a matter of public record. I can forsee that this could make trouble for him as he grows up.

Personally I'm hoping that both sides can sit down and hammer out some kind of agreement.

How could his biological mother not be aware of his existence?

As both a biological and adoptive mother - I know that it would be cruel and counterproductive to any future relationship to keep my adoptive child from her biological family if they desired to meet her or she desired to meet them. And if I waited until she was older, and she found out I'd fought to keep her from good people who loved her too - how might our relationship be affected? A child is not a possession.

You never know which way it will go- just because you feel a certain way or know information about biological relatives- doesn't mean your child will see it the same way...and if they perceive that you are keeping them from knowing who and what and where they came from- it can cost you that relationship.

Actually, I'm more interested in meeting my daughter's biological family than she is- but if it were the other way around- I'd NEVER act as an impediment to that. I feel it's her right- and a totally natural desire. If I were her- (someone who'd been adopted) I know that I wouldn't rest until I'd met my history. I'd afford her that same respect...

I definitely agree about hammering out some kind of an agreement.

I do think that Gabriel's and Mo's situations are different because Gabriel's foster parents were primary/exclusive caretakers from 4 months on. You and Mr. B were in Mo's life but were not primary caretakers, and Gabriel would be losing his primary caretakers in a similar way that Mo lost his (though Gabriel's foster parents are probably doing a much better job).

aidan, "mother" was a typo in the original post, boomer meant "grandmother" there.

It sounds like the issue is less about meeting the biological grandma than about giving her sole custody (and taking custody away from the people who have been raising Gabriel since he was 4 months old).

I do agree with this from dlowan, though:



It sounds like it's going to be a mess pretty much no matter what, though, poor kid.

It appears that the paternal grandmother told the authorities that she wanted to take over Gabriel's care when he was about 10 months old (seems from the article it was roughly 6 months after he went into foster care that she was contacted by state officials).

I understand that there is paperwork to get through (understatement), but it seems that it would have been a good idea to put a bit of a rush on the assessments and relationship development for Gabriel and his family.

I'm generally a proponent of 'blood', and I know that we've got at least one active poster who's raising his grandchildren as result of a situation similar to Gabriel's, but it's not a one-size-fits-all situation.

~~~

The 'mother' confusion comes from the original article I think where the 'mother' referred to is the mother of the biological father. It was that mother who was unaware that her son had a son.

~~~

Given Gabriel's pre-birth influences, he is quite lucky that he is loved and wanted by more than one family. I'd be terrified to take over the care of a child whose parents were drug-users at the time of conception and pregnancy.

Good points.

I hadn't figured out that the grandmother was contacted when Gabriel was only about 10 months old -- you're right, that's what it seems to say in the article. (The Brandts took over care in January 2006, then the grandma was contacted in June 2006.) That changes things somewhat, for me. If she was available, and interested, after Gabriel was in the Brandt's care only 6 months, what was the hold-up? Would seem to be a less-big deal (if still a big deal) at 10 months vs. two years (or 26 months, as he evidently is now).

It also makes me view the Brandts a little less sympathetically -- they knew that there was a blood relative who was interested in adopting him and it seems like they should have realized that it was extremely likely that the relative would get custody, and if that was going to happen it seems like sooner would be better than later.

But 6 months is also plenty of time for THEM to have developed enough of an attachment that going for custody at all costs might have seemed worth it...

Points up dlowan's point about various additional details (that we don't have) pushing things in one direction or another, I guess.

Poor kid.