Arkansas Blog

So the basic argument is...any home is better than no home.
Tell that to the young men placed with one of the first homosexual couples in England to be approved to foster. One article states "With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems. Google "Ian Wathey" or "Craig Faunch" if you want the sordid details.

But the fact that someone abused a position of trust and power is not news. That can occur, unfortunately, in any type of care setting. What is news is that the caseworkers watching over
Faunch and Wathey were hesitant to report the men or take action because they feared being branded as intolerant or homophobic. Now that is a problem. The Arkansas Times has already jumped on DHS for failing to place foster kids in the care of one woman quickly enough (as if being a foster parent is a right rather than a privilege). Imagine if a caseworker were to exercise his/her judgment and continuously place kids in the care of married couples rather than the homes of unmarried or homosexual couples because he/she believes it provides a more stable environment. Or refused to place a teen in the throws of puberty in a homosexual home for fear it would cause confusion in the young person. That will merit a cover story for sure.

And if Initiated Act One fails, foster kids are put into the care of unmarrieds or homosexuals and God forbid something were to occur here as it has in London, the media coverage that results will surely cause the Governor to flip on this issue again.

ARK. BLOG: Classic straw man argument here. No, no one has argued that any home is better than no home.

Do you think abuse doesn't occur at the hands of heterosexuals or married couples? Of course it does. Sit in family court some day for tale after tale that will curl you hair, most often men abusing related female relatives. That's why you do a home study. That's why you evaluate people seeking to be foster parents. To the best of our knowledge, the foster child deaths this year all occurred in homes of heterosexuals. The converse of your illogical argument is that all married applicants must be viewed as qualified. Of course they are not. They shouldn't be blanket accepted any more than any other form of home should be blanket denied.

And, to set the record straight about the woman we mentioned who wanted to be a foster parent: The problem wasn't the speed with which the state acted. The problem was the state didn't respond to her application AT ALL and that she was eliminated from consideration by a state partner for her refusal to sign their discriminatory "oath."

"So the basic argument is...any home is better than no home."

Did you even READ the press release, KnockKnock? Your summation of the argument of the press release is ludicrous.

These "adults who experienced foster care as children" say that "children without families would welcome the caring permanent presence of any loving, qualified, stable adult." Over and over again, their statement says that they are looking for loving and nurturing homes for children.

In what universe do those statements translate into, "any home is better than no home"?

The case you cite is not an argument against placing children in homes headed by same-sex parents--unless we want to use the far more numerous cases in which children placed in homes headed by opposite-sex parents are abused as an argument against placing children in "traditional" homes.

The case you cite is an argument for screening any adoptive couple to be as sure as possible that they are "loving, qualified, and stable" and capable of providing loving and nurturing homes for children.

By the way, are you yourself an alumnus of a foster home, as are those writing this press statement? If you aren't, on what basis do you consider yourself more qualified to comment on good adoption policies than these adults who experienced foster care as children?

Knock Knock

"So the basic argument is that any home is better than no home"????????????

How the hell did you get that from the letter?

DID YOU NOTICE THE WORD "QUALIFIED"?

Well go back and reread it before you embarrass yourself further.

Qualified is mentioned FIVE times! Qualifying is saide once. Notice evaluated is also stated.

I am waiting for your reply after you read the entire letter and explain how you came up with your summary.

I expect never to get a sufficient reply from you because there is not one.

You are one sick puppy!

Where do I read "any home is better than no home" into the article?

"...children without families would welcome the caring, premanent placement of any loving, qualified, stable adult."

This blanket statement is such BS. You cannot tell me that a 15 year-old teenage boy in Arkansas who is naturally attracted to women longs to be placed in a loving, qualified, stable, homosexual home. This polyana view totally discounts common sense. And the article assumes placement in a home assures stability for post-18 foster children. Sadly, many times the contact with a family ends when the state paycheck stops coming. And if that 15 year-old boy objected to such a placement, tough. He has no say in the matter. Professionals know what is in his best interest, and he is sure to love it if he only gives it a chance.

"Until Arkansas has reached the point at which there are more qualified families taking in kids than there are children who need homes, the state should not limit the qualified pool of parents even further."

Fair point. But what if Arkansas does one day have enough married couples willing to foster kids? Then (according to the above statement) foster homes led by unmarried or homosexual couples would no longer be needed, right?

"The process of identifying and qualifying potential parents for needy children should be left to qualified professionals." What if the professionals choose to place kids in married homes, believing such placement would be in a child's best interest? What if the state then decided to restrict the application process, the way it has in the past, believing that to be in the foster child's best interest?

After November 4th such hypotheticals will no longer be necessary.

ARK. BLOG: More baloney. All the hypotheticals you raise are equally applicable if homes are limited to married couples. (Is marriage proof that one or both in a couple is NOT gay, by the way?) The system still turns on a careful evaluation process and the best effort to get sound environments for kids who need them and places in which the kids are most comfortable. The Initiated Act merely guarantees that the pool of potential homes will be smaller. Kids will suffer to serve the bigots.

Knock-Knock - your theory is an argument for more case workers to work for DHS (there should be an initiative to increase funding to hire more caseworkers and decrease the case load if the family council were really concerned about the welfare of children). Abuse takes place because it is allowed to take place. (keep in mind that most sexual abuse is committed by persons who do not identify as gay or lesbian). There are QUALIFIED, LAW ABIDING, LOVING, people out there who would love to be foster parents who are being taken out of the pool. I am married under California, Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts law but not under Arkansas law - does that make me unqualified? According to this initiative yes. My wife and I make a great living by Arkansas standards, we are both well educated and pay our taxes. We own our home and will be debt free in five years. We have two cars and three dogs. Our families love us both and we think the world of them. To us the only thing missing is a child who needs to be in a supportive environment. We don't meet the qualifications because we haven't been married for two years. Once we meet that standard we fully intend to apply as a potential foster care provider if this initiative doesn't pass.If this initiative passes we will move to another state and apply in that state - probably a state that recognizes our relationship and doesn't see us as a threat. That's a shame considering that I grew up in Arkansas and I love this state.

jonesvegasnative,

I don't doubt the qualifications of you and your partner. I don't doubt your sincere desire and ability to care for a child. What I doubt is the belief that every foster child...especially a teen...wants a loving, stable home NO MATTER WHAT. I was teased for wearing a retainer to school. I can only imagine the verbal barbs a teen with two mommies or two daddies would be be forced to endure. Being assigned to a homosexual home would be a deal killer for some kids. The problem is those kids won't have a choice. And just because an elementary-aged kid hasn't developed the ability to reason and recognize a relationship that may be loving and caring but is by the majority of Arkansans' definition not normal does not make it right. California, Massachusetts, and New York we ain't.

Once again, KnockKnock, you're making sweeping assumptions about what foster children want and don't want, in the face of statements made by ACTUAL foster children who are now adults.

I have to ask again if you yourself were a foster child.

If not, on what basis do you assume you have more insight into what children want in a foster home than these adults who have been foster children have?

Knock-knock,

I think you are way off base here. I happen to know at least two couples my own church congretation that are stable, loving, same-sex households and have children. One is a male couple married in Canada who are raising a young boy they adopted there, and the other is a female couple with two children (I assume through artificial means since one is the birth mother). Both of these families, as I said, are stable, loving families with well adjusted children. As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and because of them, I am against this ammendment. If I saw evidence that QUALIFIED same sex couples would not be good foster parents, I would be against. But the evidence I see with my own eyes is that same sex couples can be good parents and good foster parents.

I believe it is time we accept the fact that homosexual men and women are HUMAN BEINGS and therefore deserving of ALL rights given to heterosexual men and women. If we are truly a nation that strives to live up to our own Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men are created equal..." that's everybody, gay/straight, protestant/catholic, male/female, white/not white(to encompass all people), Christian/Muslim...EVERYBODY!

As someone raised in Arkansas, I think it's time we join the rest of the universe in opening our eyes to this. We need to stop living in the past if we want others to stop looking at us as "ignorant hill folk". I will be voting against this, just like I voted against the ammendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage or equal civil union status.

251,913 of your fellow Arkansans joined in in voting "for" gay marriage.
753,770 of your fellow Arkansans voted against gay marriage.

Again, California, Massachusetts, and New York we ain't. And the majority doesn't want to be.

Also, I see only one former foster child quoted in the Foster Care Alumni of America press release and it fails to specify if she was raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents. Although not a foster child I have been trained by the state to be a foster parent, welcomed a teen into our home and helped launch him into adulthood. What are your credentials MuddlingThrough?

251,913 of your fellow Arkansans joined you in voting "for" gay marriage.
753,770 of your fellow Arkansans voted against gay marriage.

Again, California, Massachusetts, and New York we ain't. And the majority don't want to be.

Also, I see only one former foster child quoted in the Foster Care Alumni of America press release and it fails to specify if she was raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents. Although not a foster child I have been trained by the state to be a foster parent, welcomed a teen into our home and helped launch him into adulthood. What are your credentials MuddlingThrough?

I am an attorney who has represented children in foster care for many years. I am also a trained CASA volunteer and know a fair amount about the foster care system. The foster care system in Arkansas is a disgrace. There are FAR too few families who have FAR too many children in their care. Kids coming into the system in my county are shipped all over south Arkansas despite a law that requires the AR D.H.S. to keep kids in their home school district if possible. Children are forever harmed by the inadequate system we have. Bad foster families are allowed to continue being foster parents due to the shortages of homes. Foster parents know that if they don't like a kid they get they can just dump them back into the system and get another kid due to the great need for foster homes. This overcrowded system discourages foster parents from doing the real work of a parent by giving unconditional love to kids and working with them to overcome their problems and limitations. Initiated Act 1 is shameful given the current state of foster care in Arkansas. Last year for the first time the MAJORITY of children born in America were born to single mothers. To say a single person is not qualified to raise a child is to say that the majority of newborn children are in a bad place. We need hundreds more foster families and I wish those persons who claim to be concerned about these children would do more by becoming foster parents. I think the real agenda here for many of the supporters of the act is discrimination against homosexuals. Foster kids already have enough issues to deal with, don't do anything to make their lives harder in any way by limiting the number of possible good loving foster families in order to push a political agenda even if you agree with the agenda.

Again, KnockKnock, did you even read the press release to which you're responding?

It states explicitly that the group making the statement is a "national association for adults who experienced foster care as children."

And because of your intent interest in seeing that foster children receive the best care possible, I would also have expected you to click on the link helpfully provided by Max Brantley with the press release.

If you had done that, you would read the following about this organization: "This vision for Foster Care Alumni of America was developed by alumni of foster care-adults who once were in foster care. Alumni leaders from around the country first proposed creating an independent 501(c)(3) alumni-led organization in November 2002 and the idea has grown into what is now our organization."

And you would also read, "As adults, we have had time to reflect upon our experiences and make sense of them. We emerged from the foster care system with the passion to dedicate our hearts to making a positive difference, and this desire has often dictated our professional careers."

Please inform yourself. Too much is at stake here--too many young persons who desperately need love and encouragement are being turned into victims in hateful political battles--for us to make our decision on the basis of prejudice.

THIS STATEMENT AGAINST INITIATED ACT 1 WAS MADE BY ADULTS WHO WERE THEMSELVES FOSTER CHILDREN.

They care about foster children. Do you?

To quote you, knock-knock, "251,913 of your fellow Arkansans joined you in voting "for" gay marriage. 753,770 of your fellow Arkansans voted against gay marriage.
Again, California, Massachusetts, and New York we ain't. And the majority don't want to be."

Why do I suddenly feel shame and disgrace here...

If we were to follow your logic:
A. Gov. Faubus was right in mobilizing the National Guard to blockade Central High. That's what the majority wanted.

B. The US should never have passed Women's Suffrage, since the majority did not want it.

C. The Jim Crowe Laws should still be in effect, because it's what the majority wanted.

Sometimes the majority is wrong...

Great point, Arkansas Hillbilly. And, it won't be long before this majority is replaced with younger, more open-minded folks. History bears this out for us, just as you have noted.

Well I'm not a lawyer or a history expert, but MuddlingThrough made a good point despite what he intended. Basically 1 in 4 voted for equal marriage rights just a few years ago. 10 - 12 years ago that number would have been more like 1 in 10. A poll conducted by the University of Arkansas did a random poll of 754 adults in October asking if people approved our current ballot initiative.

(http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arkansas_Unmarried_Couple_Adoption_Ban_%282008%29)

53 percent approved
42 percent rejected it
5 percent had no opinion or refused to answer

With that trend "the gay population" needs about 4 more years for people's general attitude to change toward more tolerance. In the mean time laws may be passed here and in other states, but it only takes 13 states to ratify "same-sex marriage" and a U.S. Constitution Amendment won't be possible. Why you may wonder; because it takes 38 states to amend their state's constitution with something supporting any proposed U.S. Constitution amendment. Today same-sex marriage is legal in 3 states and many other countries abroad. Federal law will continue to grow toward equality because people are becoming desensitized with this issue, just as the numbers in our own state seem to represent. A couple of good historical examples are the Equal Rights and Civil Rights movements. Federal law will eventually have homosexuals as a protected class just as age, sex, race, and etc. Just like with the ERA and Civil Rights Movement federal law will eventually void the Arkansas State Law (i.e. the marriage amendment) and thus would "force homosexual to get married" (yes legally) to adoption in this state. If not that would be discrimination.

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but history shows us the trend, and the numbers support this view. Simply said this is just a matter of time. And yes you will be able to "Muddle Through" it because your children will be the ones that implement these changes.

We are all people, some better suited to raise children than other, let the professional do their job and say who is best on a case by case basis. That is their job, they are trained to do it; not a grass root group or the state legislature.

NLRGuy - I can appreciate your comments and too hope that equality is the way of the land in the near future. The issue is that the ERA has not been passed by the necessary number of states and it still takes an act of congress and 3/4th's of the states to pass a constitutional amendment.

On Act 1 however, I hope that we don't have to hurt children in the process. This act is potentially harmful in many ways: it tells people that they are less than, children who currently are in single single parent households are less than (the list of things they are more prone to is ridiculously exaggerated by the proponents of this initiative), it forces people to take a paranoid view of the world and could potentially influence custody proceedings in courts.

The overall effect of this initiative is not just to strip people of their rights but to also float a political balloon that could potentially be used in the elections in 2010 when there are a number of Gubernatorial races in this country. That is what the marriage issue was used for in 2006 - it is a rehash of the politics of fear. Don't be surprised to see it on the ballot in states that allow their laws to be created by the initiative process.

My parents are divorced and my mother-in-law is widowed. If my wife and I die, does this measure prevent my daughter form being adopted by any of our parents since none are currently married? This really concerns me and I'd like to know the answer.

Thanks,
Jason