FYI- Va. Mother Trying to `unadopt' Boy

[nextwife]

October 09,2006 | LORTON, Va. -- A woman is taking the unusual step of trying to unadopt her 15-year-old son, saying she learned of his troubled past only after he molested two younger children.


"You don't want to throw somebody away," said Helen Briggs, a longtime foster mother.
"But sometimes you have to."

Briggs, 57, said she did not know that the boy had lived in five foster homes since he was
16 months old, or that he had been physically abused by his alcohol- and drug-addicted biological parents and was possibly psychotically bipolar.

"I did not know any of that," Briggs said. "They just told me he was hyperactive."

Virginia policy mandates that caseworkers provide "full, factual information" about a child to adoptive parents. State child welfare advocates would not comment on the case because of confidentiality rules.

But records obtained by The Washington Post show some caseworkers do not believe Briggs' claim that she was not fully informed and think she may be trying to get out of having to pay child support.

After the youngster molested a 6-year-old boy and a 2-year-old girl in 2003, he was deemed a "sexual predator" by psychologists. That meant that if he remained in Briggs'
home, she could no longer be a foster parent to others or allow her three grandchildren in her home, so she chose to try to dissolve the adoption.


A judge granted Briggs's bid to relinquish custody, and the boy is back in foster care. But in Virginia, a child older than 14 must give consent, and the teenager wants Briggs to remain his mother.

Briggs, who with her husband adopted the boy when he was 9, is still required to pay $427 per month in child support.

Briggs said the state's failure to fully disclose the boy's background is tantamount to fraud, and she has asked politicians for help finding a way out of the situation.

"At first blush, you think, `What, you're trying to give up your kid? You're a jerk,'" said state Delegate David B. Albo. "Then you find this lady has received awards for all the foster work she's done. And that she never would have adopted the boy and put other children in danger if she had had the information that was withheld from her."

Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

[Ohiogal]

this story is sad and angering on many levels. And I highly disagree with the woman's quote about sometimes you just have to throw someone away. NEVER!

[HappyHusband]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

this story is sad and angering on many levels. And I highly disagree with the woman's quote about sometimes you just have to throw someone away. NEVER!

You're right. They should keep the boy in their home so he doesn't have to go outside the home to find victims.

[nextwife]

Originally Posted by HappyHusband

You're right. They should keep the boy in their home so he doesn't have to go outside the home to find victims.

Yeah, cause he can stay in his home and still find vistims.

Those morons at the state CFS division should NEVER have placed a child with his history in a home with younger kids. Especially without disclosure. This child needed a solo placement and intensive therapy all along- which he didn't get because they failed to disclose.

[FLMommy]

I don't blame the woman, although I have mixed feelings about "sometimes you have to throw someone away." If she's been a foster parent for years as the article stated, and consequently has put a ton of money into raising kids not her own, I am sure she wouldn't mind paying $400 some a month in child support. I don't think money is the issue, and I seriously hope noone is going to put that on her. If it is true that the state did not fully disclose this boy's condition to her, the state is to blame. The woman has a life and family as well, grandkids obviously that she would love to continue to see and have over, and it was her right to know what she got into. If she did know the information before hand, and made the choice to adopt the boy regardless, you cannot foresee he's going to molest other children, and in that case, in my opinion, she should not be able to unadopt him, just as a natural parent would not be able to.