Monday, December 21, 2009

VIDEO: Christmas Brings Some Insanity

Oklahoma Couple Want to Return Troubled Adopted Son to State

Photobucket

"It's not like we are trying to return an itchy sweater,"



Melissa and Tony Wescott are afraid of their son. They're so afraid of the boy they adopted that they're trying to have Oklahoma law changed so that they can return him to the state's care.

"He tried to burn our home down. The note said, 'I'm sorry you had to die,'" Melissa Wescott told "Good Morning America."

She said she and her husband have found butcher knives under his mattress and lights hidden in his bedroom.

The Wescotts' 11-year-old son has been locked up in a psychiatric hospital in Tulsa, Okla., for nearly a year. But now doctors say he's not a danger to himself or anyone else, and the boy is scheduled to be released from the hospital next month.

Despite the doctors' opinion, the Wescotts say they are so afraid of having him back home that Melissa plans to stay awake at nights while her husband sleeps.

Adopted Son Diagnosed with Several Mental Health Disorders

The trouble started shortly after the couple -- who couldn't have children of their own -- adopted the boy in 2007. His behavioral problems became so severe that he needed inpatient care.

Within a year of the adoption, the Wescotts told the Tulsa World, the child was diagnosed with reactive detachment disorder, disruptive behavior disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and fetal alcohol syndrome.

The parents said the boy became violent toward other children and nonresponsive to adults, hurt and killed animals and ran away regularly, requiring help from police.

So they're trying to return him to the care of the state's Department of Human Services, but the state says adoptive parents should be treated no different from birth parents.


Adoptive Parents Treated the Same as Biological Ones, State Says

"A parent is a parent," Karen Poteet, who runs the state's post-adoption program, said. "It doesn't matter where the child came from."

Poteet says all parents are warned that the children they are adopting were abused or neglected and that the symptoms of that treatment could manifest themselves years later.

Poteet, who adopted two sisters in 2001, knows that all too well.

"My children were abused from the moment of conception because their birth mother chose to drink the entire pregnancy. That's no fault of my children," she said.

But the Wescotts say their son needs more care than they can provide. They are afraid to let him back into their home. If they don't, though, they could face felony child abandonment charges.


"It's not like we are trying to return an itchy sweater," said Melissa Wescott, who said she loved her son "unequivocally."

She said she believes loving him means letting him go.

Poteet said the last thing adoptive children need is to be rejected by another family, although that's rare.

Groups Tries to Change Law

There are 11,0000 children in Oklahoma's adoption system. This year, only 13 adoptions have been dissolved -- an expensive and lengthy legal process that's similar to a divorce.

The Wescotts can't afford it, so they're trying to have the law changed.

The Wescotts are part of a group seeking changes in state law that would allow adoptive parents to return custody of foster children to the state in certain circumstances.

"If a family can show that they have exhausted every resource ... every opportunity they can ... to save their families and this is what they're left with, then I think they should have this as an option," said Tina Cox of the Adoptive Parent Support Group. "No one should be held hostage in their own homes."


A Oklahoma legislative task force is evaluating issues involving adoptions of children in state custody.

Advocates of changing the law say adoptive parents should not be punished if their children have major disabilities that were not known or disclosed ahead of time.


"We knew what we could handle and what we couldn't," Melissa Wescott said, adding that they requested a child who wasn't "violent or acting out sexually."

DHS disclosure documents call the child "well-behaved" and "polite and well mannered." He is described as "respectful toward authority" and "makes friends easily." The papers say he has no "significant behavioral problems which would be considered abnormal for a child his age."

Poteet said adopted children have to have people who will stand up for them.

"If we don't do it, who's going to do it?" she said.



FUNNIES


PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket

Sticking out your tongue ruled illegal in Italy

Photobucket
Italy's highest court of appeal affirmed the illegality of insulting someone by sticking your tongue out at them.

The case brought before the Cassation Court involved a farmer whose tongue gesture was captured by a cellphone camera held by the neighbor with whom he was arguing. The farmer, Carlo O., had been convicted by a justice of the peace of insulting the neighbor.

The Cassation Court let stand the conviction and ordered Carlo O. to pay his neighbor's court costs of $1,863.81. He will also have to pay damages, which will be set in a different trial.

Italian courts often find people guilty of offending someone's honor.

JOKE: THE RENTAL PROPERTY

Photobucket

One evening, after attending the theater, two gentlemen were walking down the avenue when they observed a rather well dressed and attractive young lady walking ahead of them.

One of them turned to the other and remarked, "I'd give $250.00 to spend the night with that woman."

Much to their surprise, the young lady overheard the remark, turned around, and replied, "I'll take you up on that offer."

She had a neat appearance and a pleasant voice, so after bidding his companion good night, the man accompanied the young lady to her apartment.

The following morning, the man presented her with $125.00 as he prepared to leave.

She demanded the rest of the money stating, "If you don't give me the other $125.00, I'll sue you for it."

He laughed saying, "I'd like to see you get it on these grounds."

The next day, he was surprised when he received a summons ordering his presence in court as a defendant in a lawsuit.

He hurried to his lawyer and explained the details of the case.

His lawyer said, "She can't possibly get a judgment against you on such grounds, but it will be interesting to see how her case will be presented."

After the usual preliminaries, the lady's lawyer addressed the court as follows: "Your honor, my client, this lady, is the owner of a piece of property--a garden spot--surrounded by a profuse growth of shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified length of time for the sum of $250.00. The defendant took possession of the property, used it extensively for the purposes for which it was rented, but upon evacuating the premises, he paid only $125.00, one-half of the amount agreed upon. The rent was not excessive, since it is restricted property, and we ask judgment be granted against the defendant to assure payment of the balance."

The defendant's lawyer was impressed and amused by the way his opponent had presented the case. His defense, therefore, was somewhat different from the way he originally planned to present it.

"Your honor," he said, "My client agrees that the lady has a fine piece of property, that he did rent such property for a time, and a degree of pleasure was derived from the transaction. However, my client found a well on the property around which he placed his own stones, sunk a shaft, and erected a pump, all labor performed personally by him. We claim these improvements to the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount, and that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for the rental of said property. We, therefore, ask that judgment not be granted."

The young lady's lawyer answered thus: "Your honor, my client agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property. However, had defendant not known that the well existed, he would never have rented the property. Also, upon evacuating the premises, the defendant removed the stones, pulled out the shaft, and took the pump with him. In doing so, he not only dragged the equipment through the shrubbery, but left the hole much larger than it was prior to his occupancy, making the property much less desirable to others. We, therefore, ask that judgment be granted."

In the Judge's decision, he provided for two options: "Pay the 125.00 or have the equipment detached and provided to the plaintiff for damages."

The defendant wrote a check immediately.

digitalpoint

Geo Visitors Map

~WHIRLED GNUS~

Followers

Blog Archive