I read the whole thing, and the one thing that stuck out to me the most is that this Diane Baird is an disgusting person. I had such a visceral reaction to this article, and her use of pseudoscience to take advantage of foster parents and rip children away from their birth parents is absolutely horrific. The more factors you load onto one variable (in this case, eye contact), the less it means, and she uses people's lack of understanding about that to draw absolutely insane conclusions that no competent and ethical psychologist would.
She's apparently made it her life's work to abuse the vulnerability of both bio and foster parents by leveraging her "knowledge" in a way that favors kids being permanently separated from their bio family. There are certainly circumstances that warrant that kind of separation, but she and that lawyer's office seem to be leading a campaign of child separation. That's pure evil.
Yeah wow. What a horrible person. She has no care for the children's well-being as evidenced by the conclusion where she attributes the child doing well to "heroing on".
This is such a horrible situation for all involved. Understandably the birth parents and blood relatives want to have the right to raise their kids especially when they clean up their act and find themselves in a better place to raise their kids and make things right for their family.
On the other hand I imagine it has to be heartbreaking to foster a child who was unwanted or removed from an abusive situation and raise them for several years like your own only to have a court come in and tear that child that you were raising and caring for away because you're not their real parents.
I know a lot of people who foster. There’s generally two situations, ‘foster to adopt’ and ‘emergency placements.’
Emergency placements are when a 13 year old shows up in the middle of the night with a trash bag holding the sum total of their belongings because they were in a dangerous situation and while the courts figure things out they need a place to stay for a couple weeks.
Long term fosterage is often done with the hope to one day welcome the child legally into your family. I know two different young couples who raised infants into toddlers and had to ‘give them back’ to families who were strangers to the child.
They knew the risks, that doesn’t mean it hurts any less
I'd imagine it is incredibly hard, and that entering with the knowledge the arrangement will only be temporary is unlikely to make handing back a child any easier emotionally, but from the article it seems some foster parents have been using the foster system as a means to circumvent the far more onerous adoption system, rather than merely finding themselves alarmed that a child they took in is being returned somewhere they believe to be unsuitable, and willing to fight such a return.
Have no issue with the latter, even if their beliefs happen to be incorrect (that's for the courts to sort out), but the former is an intentional manipulation of the lives of vulnerable children from the outset - before a placement has been initiated, before attachments have formed within a foster family, before the foster parents know any details of the lives of the biological parents & before any indications could have arisen that it would be in the best interests of a particular child to remain with their foster parents.
The whole area is a maze of incredibly difficult decisions, and I don't think there are obvious solutions, other than to remind judges in the family courts to be particularly cautious about the advice of experts & the behavioural theories they invoke.
Eirich and any firms like his doing this, along with "Ms Child" (as her surname Baird ironically means...) should take a decidedly long walk off a very short peer. This entire venture on both their parts is obviously motivated by nothing other than financial gain. It's exploitative and harmful to everyone involved. They should be sued by all the families involved if you ask me.