Posted on 02/27/2018 3:17:47 PM PST by SMGFan
Mom Lynda Cruz paid $50,000 to adopt alleged school shooter Nikolas Cruz from his “drug addict” biological mother when he was just 3 days old, and then dropped another $15,000 on his younger half-brother, Zachary, when she found out the troubled mom was pregnant again, according to a report. “Nik’s biological mother was just a complete screw-up, drug addict and thief,” former friend and neighbor Trish Duvaney told RadarOnline. “I even said to Lynda: ‘You don’t know the mother’s background.’ Both children were born after one-night stands. The birth mother, she didn’t even really know who the two biological fathers were.”
Lynda was about 50 at the time, and she and husband Roger Cruz were struggling to adopt a child because of her relatively advanced age, Duvaney said.
“So she went to a lawyer and did it to where you pay the biological mother’s expenses,” she said. “You’re not directly giving money to the birth mother.”
Lynda ponied up $50,000 to get Nik, now 19, directly from the hospital when he was 3 days old — and another $15,000 to later adopt Zachary, now 18, Radar reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
So much for baby Moses.
“I don’t hear many traveling salesman jokes any more, there aren’t as many traveling salesmen.”
But you gotta admit...that’s a good one! ;)
****But there are some things you can’t control. This is -— as we all know -— even true of our own biological children****
We can control who we adopt from. Stop adopting from Drugged out mothers.
God bless you.
From a “dreg” who is grateful for being adopted. True my birth mother was in good health but in 1958 I am sure unwed pregnant women were considered dregs by many
I am grateful for your adoptive parents. They did not adopt from a druggie mother and you turned out fine. Win-win.
A 4 month old already crawling. That’s unique.
Same here :(
I don’t disagree that those words don’t perfectly describe this killer. I believe this guy had the concept of right and wrong, even called the police on himself, but when that failed whatever hope left in him was torched and he exploded in rage at pretty much all humanity.
I remain convinced at minimum he is brain damaged (from mother drug user) as well as possibly his brother, who reports are now saying was himself the target of “half” of those police encounters at the home.
These two weren’t right, from the beginning. Just no one gave a damn enough to get him in permanent treatment.
The worst part is they want to disarm us based on bad decisions and inaction by a few incompetent or lazy people (in this case the FBI, local law enforcement, and the school itself). In Sandy Hook a mother thought she could bond with her troubled son by teaching him how to shoot at a gun range, then leaving guns around for him to use on children (she paid with her life for those decisions). Enforcement of current gun laws combined with the tiniest bit of common sense should address these problems.
When your school has a policy that a certain student isn’t allowed on campus “with a backpack” (I believe he’d had bullets in the pack earlier), then you know the shooter already - you’re just hoping for the best.
I’m married to a man who was adopted, and we have bio and adopted children.
With my experiences with adoption, there is not a reliable indicator for which ones will grow into healthy, productive adults and which ones won’t.
But those woman will still have babies, and those babies need to be cared for. So because some will grow up maladjusted, we doom all of them? That sounds a little concentration campy.
You may be a bit behind the times, then.
There are several very reliable indicators for "at risk" kids these days, and not just adopted kids, either.
It turns out there are some things that are literally hard wired into their brains based on their care during early development.
We agree. The problem begins with crazy druggies MAKING more crazy oeople. Career addict? Sterilization for males and females. Prevents misery for everyone. Dealing with successive generations of crazy is crazy.
That is an unjustifiable leap.
However, that is why I recommend a diligent assessment of what ones family can handle before adopting children known to be at risk. Not everyone can handle such children, and no, sometimes love is not enough. There ARE families that can manage such children, though.
did it to where you pay the biological mother’s expenses,”
Anyone know what became of this ‘mother’? Did she go on to make and sell more damaged kids? Were her ‘expenses’ rehab or more drugs? Odds are the sperm donor was a druggie too. Probably both produced more like Cruz.
But indicators are not guarantees. You can’t just institutionalize all children born to drug addicted mothers because that’s an indicator that they will be mentally ill or evil.
I agree with you that adoption isn’t something to be taken lightly, and that love is often not enough.
Unfortunately, social services often doesn’t reveal the entire known history on children, and they are often less than supportive after an adoption, when a family is struggling with a child. There’s also a huge societal stigma surrounding broken adoptions.
I’m just wondering what people propose to do with these infants and children? Once they are born, they need to be raised. Either they are raised in families, which I think gives a chance to the ones that can make it in life, or they are raised in institutions, which tends to do even more damage.
Agree 100%. While being adopted can be complicated, in this situstion and Sandy Hook, where the shooter was not adopted, there was so much appallingly inept and stupid behavior by parents, guardians, and law enforcement, that the stigmatization of adopted people by many people is appalling.
Years ago I knew a couple that fostered two teenage daughters with the hopes of one day adopting them. It turned into a nightmare for them, they had to constantly watch them and couldn't leave them home alone because the older one would constantly try to beat up the younger one. They finally had to return the older one to the system because she just could not be controlled.....
What’s with you and all the hyperbole? I don’t know of anyone seriously talking about institutionalizing all at risk children.
And no, there are no guarantees, but it’s pretty silly to expect them. That doesn’t mean a well informed decision is all but impossible. Failure to receive a guarantee is no excuse for doing nothing.
You did hit on an important issue that desperately needs change, though. Social services seems to be supremely concerned about everyone in the adoption process except those that are actually helping society by adopting. That’s why many go overseas to adopt. They may not get any guarantees, but they also don’t have to worry about failed biological parents, with government assistance, meddling in their lives. The adoption process needs to be made much friendlier and transparent for those parents doing the adopting than being so concerned about the privacy of failed biological parents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.