Parents, first parents, are not evil

I hate to give links to blogs when I am being critical of what they have said or what their commentors have said.

I have read files containing descriptions of abuse that have made me vomit. Certainly they have made me give up any idea that G-d is in control of the details of this world. As far as G-d goes, there are two main possibilities: there is no G-d; or for various reasons G-d has decided not to interfere. If I believed that there were a divine plan that included or required that a small child be raped, I would think that the divine planner was a sadistic demon. I would believe it my moral obligation to fight against such a demon, and if he were all-powerful and told me I would go to a fire pit of torment if I did not join his side, I would hope I had the courage of Job (who was NOT patient) and would respond "I know my redeemers lives," and you, demon, are not that redeemer. I would hope that, like Job, I would have the strength to believe in a G-d that was just even if one respected religious leader after another showed up at my door to convince me to repent and bow down before the so-called G-d of suffering.

There are people who should never have had children. People who have done terrible things to children. Often our child welfare system does not work well. Children go unprotected. Children are sometimes, perhaps many times, sent back to parents who are still unable to keep those kids safe.

But we have no right, absolutely no right, to assume without knowing that any particular parent is evil, incompetent, or undeserving. If we have only half the story, then we have only half the story.

So take this story: a child goes into foster care at age two. Even though the foster family moved to a different state, the mother still visited with him every other week. Amazing. So many mothers are overwhelmed by their lives and by the condemnation they fear from the people they will have to deal with that they cannot make themselves go. This mother did. She kept visiting. It took her eight years, but she pulled it off. She turned her life around and got her son back.

There are lots of details that were left out. Eight years is a long time to be with one family and not be adopted. The foster mother being interviewed makes it sound like she just didn't get around to it because she thought it wasn't necessary. I doubt it. If the child was having regular visits with his mother, it is likely that it wasn't possible. It is likely that the court would not have allowed her to adopt. Not that it would have made a difference if she had been able and chosen not to.

Choosing to remain the foster parent when one can adopt makes a lot of sense in a lot of situations. It does mean however that a social worker can show up on day and say, "The judge decided Johnny can go home! Pack his things. Say goodbye."

In other words, she always knew this would happen.

Which does not ease her pain one bit. I would never tell her her, "Well, you knew this could happen" as though that would make her feel better or as though her feelings were not completely justified. Of course she is heartbroken. Her grief is real, and deep, and potentially life-altering.

And I feel very sad for her that the mother has decided she can have no contact with the boy she has raised for eight years.

But I will not leap to judgment. I will not say that it was wrong for a mother to be reunited with her son after eight years.

Perhaps the people who rush to judge are right. Maybe the mother should not have been reunited with her son. Perhaps, even though visits were regularly kept, even though she did whatever else the judge expected of her, perhaps she still should not have been reunited with her son. Maybe.

I don't know.

Which is precisely my point.