Other Than Kin?

The choice of placement with a family member or blood relative is the simple solution that Foster Care agency’s bank on within their decision matrix. It is easy. “Ohh, you are a blood relative, you are our choice,” being the type of decision making made by the State when it comes to placement for adoption.

This is a reduction to the least common denominator for DHHS and adoption agencies. It has nothing to do with what is best for the child, it is a square peg and government agencies and their contract businesses involved in placement use it as a jack hammer to profit from placements while pretending they have no choice in the matter by saying, “blood relative” preference.

The state of Georgia just signed legislation into law that provides a small nick against this poor decision matrix. Under this legislation is a blood relative does not make an effort to adopt a child within six months, the State will consider the placement with the foster parents.

Jennifer Shinpoch, a foster parent who lost a child after fifteen months in Georgia said, “you’ve asked them to heal once” after removing them from an abusive or neglectful situation. “Are you going to ask them a second time to break another maternal and paternal bond?”

Generation Justice, engaged in political crusading to change how States make decisions regarding placement of foster children, is trying to get legislation passed in states that would allow children to be adopted by their first birthday.

Having first-hand experience with the court system regarding foster children and faulty adoption decisions, Stephanie and I went to court monthly. The lawyers, judge, and DHHS folks kept getting paid and the biological parents stayed in prison. Each court session the can was kicked and everyone got paid and paid and paid. It took twelve months before the biological parents severed their parental rights. Keep in mind these parents had 9 kids between them already and huge rap sheets!

Upon termination, DHHS management waited until they could get the agency and workers they wanted that would select family over foster parents for adoption. Two months later the choice was made and 89 days (if made within 90 days a bonus is paid) later the biological family was picked. No less than 10 people got paid for 17 months to drag the case out and then they removed the child and sent her to an aunt on the other side of the country, justified through lies and kinship.

The foster care system is not a solution to problem families. These families need intervention only available through the saving grace and mercy of Jesus. The State, an institution only capable of death and taxation, is not capable of getting involved with families and the specific dynamics that lead to abusive relationships. The Church must be involved because it has the only workable solution.

Christians must look at families in their communities as a mission field. It will not be easy. There will be failures and successes, but the Church must remove the State from aiding families in crisis.

Moving Forward

Rhys and Nora BFF (3871)
Let no one come between God and children.

The State run adoption and foster care system is a wreck. By design, the State is incapable of managing something as nuanced as children and parenting. The State cannot even prosecute war properly. The State is a hammer and sees all options before it as nails in need of smashing.

The State solution is to build a huge bureaucracy that grows every year.

The State is incentivized to remove children under any and all pretenses out of fear, because if a child is not removed and is injured or dies, the State is ridiculed in the press. In response the State trains its employees to steal children, especially if the family is poor. The safest option for the State is to remove children in any and all circumstances while creating a circus for the parents to navigate to get their kids back. Meanwhile the kids are traumatized, the family suffers, and the bureaucracy grows.

There is no easy answer. Some children are being harmed by unfit parents and historically there were two options:

  1. The family. A family would intervene to look out for its own. An uncle/aunt/brother/sister/grandparent would step forward and assist in the raising of children when their parents are/were incapable of raising their children either permanently or for a temporary period of time, such as entry into prison.
    • The State uses Foster Care in an attempt to mimic this natural system, but adds many requirements and an ocean of bureaucrats and buildings and automobiles. The State increases the layers of difficulty for families to navigate, costing the public great sums of money and the family time and money to meet State requirements.
  2. Faith-based care. Many faith-based orphanages were funded and run by religious organizations. The most well-known being the Catholic run orphanages, but they are not alone. Southern Baptists are also well-known for doing the same. There is a chance for abuse by those employed in this system, but it is not publicly funded by the State, compounding the issue through theft. Individual churches and para-church organizations will do a better job than the State. There are some great success stories of kids raised under these conditions who have been highly successful
    • The State makes attempts to mimic this system, supported by theft from the public and manned by an army of bureaucrats. The State has wrecked this system so poorly, the Federal Government pays $10,000 bonuses to adoption agencies for placements that happen within 90 days. One can only imagine the incentivized abuse this entails when destroying families and trafficking children results in bonuses being paid.

I want to state that either of the two above options or the State run bureaucracy currently in favor are simply chasing after the horses after the barn burned down. The root problem is the sinful behavior permeating society that rests on those least capable of defending themselves, because they have a built in love for their family. Government is toxic and creating a culture that is making criminals out of people who are not criminals with each new law and prohibition resulting in more kids being taken.

Under the State, more children are removed and their families hurt as the permanent bureaucrats have every incentive to make more behavior criminal and then to remove children and place them in the system to eventually sell on the open market for bonuses.

Under the two examples that exclude the State, fewer children are removed because it becomes the option of last resort. In either case, there is no good answer without first addressing the behavior of humans. As a society we must recognize the problem is sinful behavior. Placing new laws on the books and funding a bureaucracy through theft to enforce the law does not decrease criminality, it increases “criminality” while growing a State that sucks the blood and morals out of society.


  1. Decrease/end the State.
    • Begin shutting down whole agencies at the state and federal levels and the laws/infrastructure used to support them.
    • End income taxes
    • End property taxes
    • End the Federal Reserve
  2. Recognize that if a program is needed, people will willingly pay for it without government. Allow humans to choose and organize voluntarily without theft and coercion.
  3. Allow people and families to solve their own problems.
    • If it is wrong for me to do something, it does not become less wrong because a politician or their henchman do it.
    • People will naturally do this at the lowest level, they do not need to be coerced.
  4. I am reserving the right to return and add to this essay from this point forward and to make adjustments to the body as necessary. May God bless my efforts and thinking.

My First Novel

Ian Minielly’s first novel about a young lady discovering the past she was never told existed.

Emily’s Tears is my first novel. I began writing it in December 2018, after contemplating the story for a number of months. After tearing up through the first chapter, I decided to take a small break in hopes I could type with clear eyes after the passage of some time.

When I took up writing again in February of 2019, I changed the story and decided the story needed to be short enough for reading in one sitting. I set a personal goal to bring the reader into the emotion of a family experiencing this kind of trauma and figured if people read a typical book over many days and sittings, the full range of emotion would be dulled by the extended duration involved in the reading.

Therefore, with Emily’s Tears, I wanted the book to be short enough for reading in one or two sittings so the full emotional load would be felt by the reader. I would love to hear if Emily’s Tears accomplished this goal.