anxiety...
Having just seen this movie, I thought I'd drop in to see if anyone had anything of interest to say about it. This particular thread sounded as if it might offer something along those lines. Unfortunately it degenerated into one which amounts to no more than attacks on the posters themselves, rather than an attempt to come to grips with what the movie was about. And I think you played a significant role in that result. But I would like to turn the page and direct attention to your criticism that "This film is so out of touch with reality." (With respect to your opinions about the actors, I can't say they are worth commenting on and leads me to believe your opinion of the movie affected your opinions of the actors.)
Before I get to that, I should comment on one thing where you've shown your bias that Foster Care would be "best for the child" in cases like this. I think you failed to appreciate that this particular foster care arrangement came to a different conclusion. Thus, I don't see why you would feel sorry for her. Indeed, the movie didn't take a negative view of foster care at all. This is a minor point, since your overarching view is that the state would not have sided with Sam and this movie was unrealistic on that basis. (Thus, your argument is not so much that it should not have sided with Sam (which, of course, would be your opinion), but (presumably based on your experience with cases like this) they wouldn't.)
First, the movie was based on the real experience in the lives of Down Symptom folks derived from numerous visits to L.A. Goal, which is an organization that knows, on an intimate basis, the real-life experiences of these folks and what they are capable of and not capable of. According to them, the movie did not sugar-coat these realities.
Second, you seem to think that the state would, in general, using shelters, foster care and/or subsequent adoption, succeed in providing a better environment than anything that could be provided by Sam (or any other with his syndrome). This is problematic. To be sure, when the state gets involved, the number one consideration is "protection" of the child, presumably from some abusive parent. This model drives the state to take extreme measures to determine whether the parent should regain custody, despite that the law requires them to return the child as the first option. Thus, the parent has to go through considerable hoops to win that return. Any deviation winds up as a potential risk in returning the child. For that reason, I think, the state winds up denying the return more than they are able to realistically place. This results in overcrowding and otherwise poor conditions in shelters, as well as solicitous foster care, which do it solely for financial reasons (and to make others believe they are doing something wonderful). (Of course, this isn't always the case, but where there are incentives, such things happen.)
It used to be that parents (or a parent) would have two years to show they are good parents deserving the return (and this is probably still the case for older children -- though if they do return, it doesn't mean that their time away from their parent has actually been best for them, but, if I'm right it was Hillary Clinton who reduced that time to 6-months for infants, in order to be able to make them more adoptable). My daughter went through that difficult process with her children and did in fact regain custody, but it was touch and go and makes you wonder whether the state should have all that control over our children. Though we saw for ourselves that there were abusive and uncaring parents and didn't really care that the state took away their sons and daughters (indeed, they may even have been gratified that they did), there were also many cases where parents had to fight like hell to try to regain custody. In such cases, it is an extraordinary ordeal that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Since you apparently speak from experience, it would have helped had you learned something from it, since what you've written doesn't actually demonstrate it.
James
reply
share