Are there really people who are anti-adoption??

[PeacefulChaos]

(OP here)

This is all so interesting!!  

 

I definitely, definitely see where a lot of these thoughts are coming from.  By no means am I against foster care or orphanages - I don't think my post came across as such, but I just felt the need to clarify.   (In fact -- and this probably will sound TERRIBLE to some people out there - but when I was a kid I used to think the idea of living in an orphanage was kind of cool.  I didn't get the whole gist of it, though; I was VERY young and an only child, so I had only seen fun, happy, movies that showed all these kids having fun together.  Nothing like the reality, I'm sure ;) - NOT that the reality is necessarily bad, either!!)

 I had no idea that the adoption industry was looked at in that light - honestly, I don't know much about the adoption industry at all.  I can definitely see why people would be against it - when I saw 'anti-adoption' I just jumped to the conclusion that people were against it in general.  

It's all very interesting.  I have no plans to adopt, for many of the reasons that have been listed in this thread (along with the fact that we're 'poor' :D ).  So most of these things aren't things that I will ever have to deal with personally, and it's just interesting to hear all sides of it.  

[I.Dup.]

The more I learn about adoption, the more wary I am; however, an acquaintance of mine just adopted 2 children from an orphanage in E. Europe where the kids really are on death row. They are incredibly malnourished, dying, age out and get sent to mental institutions where they almost certainly end up dead, etc. I can't imagine that those kids are better off in those orphanages than they would be in American homes.

 

I think the "juvenile delinquent" language comes from the very-real issues many adopted kids have, RAD just wasn't scientifically known about at the time. Many people still don't know about RAD until it's too late.

 

The majority of adoptions I have heard out have not been good experiences for the families, but I'm sure that is partly because those are the ones talked about. But I have heard enough horror stories just in my own little circle of acquaintances and friends that I'm not sure I could ever domestically adopt, and certainly not a child who had been affected by drugs/alcohol. I would consider special needs adoption from a foreign country, though. RAD really scares me. FAS really scares me.

[SKL]

If I had enough money to cover the costs of an adoption, that might be enough money to help keep the family together. I'm not a better person than a woman in Guatemala just because I have access to more disposable income, nor do I feel like the culture of the middle class US is superior to any other culture.

 

I don't automatically judge all adoptive families as "baby stealers" or completely rule out the possibility of fostering or adopting in the context of rescuing a specific child from an institutional setting, but when I hear "Aren't you going to adopt?" when I tell my infertility story, this is what I wish I could say without being accused of hating puppies and rainbows. ;)

 

The decision to relinquish isn't just about money.  Depending on the situation, having a baby out of wedlock can mean losing one's close relationships, never getting married, having to leave school and church and abandon hopes for a career that will keep her future (or past) kids out of poverty and illiteracy.  Some babies have special needs that cannot possibly be met in the local environment.  And some women simply don't want to parent.  Nobody thinks it's an easy decision, but that doesn't mean it's never the woman's free choice.  Taking away the choice certainly doesn't empower women (or children) in my opinion.

 

I've never heard anyone argue that a middle-class US parent is better for a child than his own loving biological parents.  However I have heard it argued that it's better to be adopted internationally than to grow up in a third-world orphanage, on the streets, in a brothel, in a dump . . . you get the point I think.  Some would also say it's better than being aborted, and it certainly seems better than being killed or left to die on a garbage pile.  (Though I did date a foreign-born man who believed it was better to let abandoned babies die than allow them to be adopted by Christians.)

 

That said, of course it's nobody's place to tell you that you should adopt.  Adoption is not for everyone.  But you don't have to respond by finding fault with adoptive parents.  You could just say "adoption is not something I'm interested in pursuing at present."  Nobody needs nor deserves an explanation.

[SKL]

Most people are surprised that 2.5% of American kids joined their families through adoption.  Many of these people will never tell you unless there is a reason to.  Not every adoptee / adoptive parent stands out in a crowd.

[Guest]

More info on this site:

 

http://terrilynnspencer.tripod.com/id2.html

 

and in this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Primal-Wound-Understanding-Adopted/dp/0963648004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381987891&sr=8-1&keywords

[Murphy101]

I could be wrong, but if wasn't reading Ethel as saying all foreign adoptions are stealing. I think it sounds more like she is wanting to see the birth families getting more choice. Yes, they might be giving the child up for reasons aside from money, but I'm also thinking that instead of $10k+ to an adoption agency but to helping a mother survive with her child for a couple years would go a long way to improving not just the baby's life, but the entire family's.

 

Or making an orphanage significantly safer and better for all the children in it instead of just the 1 being adopted.

 

I'm not anti adoption, but it greatly disturbs me that these additional solutions are not much spoken of and explored.

[SKL]

I could be wrong, but if wasn't reading Ethel as saying all foreign adoptions are stealing. I think it sounds more like she is wanting to see the birth families getting more choice. Yes, they might be giving the child up for reasons aside from money, but I'm also thinking that instead of $10k+ to an adoption agency but to helping a mother survive with her child for a couple years would go a long way to improving not just the baby's life, but the entire family's.

 

Or making an orphanage significantly safer and better for all the children in it instead of just the 1 being adopted.

 

I'm not anti adoption, but it greatly disturbs me that these additional solutions are not much spoken of and explored.

 

Many people do a combination of these things.  Unfortunately there is usually a middleman when you are trying to help someone without power in a developing country (or even in the USA).  Unless you're very hands-on, it can be difficult to be sure your gift is actually going to make a difference in the intended beneficiaries' lives.  But there are many programs people do trust, and adoptive parents are among the most enthusiastic supporters thereof, and often the organizers as well.

 

Nobody is in favor of stripping a baby from its loving mother, but the fact is that many women in every country choose not to parent.  Therefore it is not wrong to build a family via adoption, as long as steps are taken to reduce the risk of abuse/corruption.  Those in the adoption community know that there's a lot more involved than just paying a hefty fee.  There's a reason it can take years to complete an international adoption.

[SKL]

Or making an orphanage significantly safer and better for all the children in it instead of just the 1 being adopted.

 

This seems to ignore the fact that children benefit greatly from being brought up in a family.  There's a lot more to it than having enough food, a clean bathroom, an education, and not being beaten around.  When my kids are singing in front of a group and they have one person in the audience who is there *just* for them, that matters.  When my kids have a feeling/secret they only feel safe sharing with the person who will love them no matter what, that matters.  Knowing how to live in a family has important lifelong effects and will benefit my kids' kids and grandkids.  We tend to take many things for granted growing up in a family, so we don't always realize the value of this blessing.

 

Also, keep in mind that in developing countries, there may not be orphanages, or they may be state-run and not open to any influence by do-gooders from other countries.

[ElaineJ]

I have noticed that most of the articles/ commentary I have read on adoption lately are negative, often indictments of "the adoption industry". Although I agree that there are changes that need to be made in the process, the ethical issues involved are very complex and can easily be simplified into the vilifying large groups of diverse people with varying motives and practices. The very term "adoption industry", which seems to have become a standard label, is unfair, in my opinion. It implies a mass production of a product for economic gain. Yes, I do have an adopted child, and I do worry about the effect of this trend on his personal journey. I don't want strangers judging him or his background or making unwarranted assumptions about his experiences. Finding your identity as an adopted person can be challenging enough without that, and I feel that every adopted person has the right to have ownership of their own story without the obligation of others narrations. (Actually, I feel the same way about people projecting an "adoption is the wonderful salvation of a child!" narrative on someone else). I guess I wish that we could focus on specific changes rather than painting a black and white picture of adoption as a whole. And I do think that those actually involved in doing something to make changes or actually a part of the adoption triad are best able to speak into the situation. These are just my thoughts, and not intended as a judgement of anyone who has commented on this thread.

Elaine

[shawthorne44]

Do you mean  that they should be intentionally moved as soon as they get comfortable? When I was in graduate school in social work in the 1980s, that was already known to be harmful and the idea had been abandoned--or so I thought. Where is that still practiced? Best practice in foster care is to get a kid to a stable home as soon as possible and keep them in that same home until being reunited with the parent or adoption. Foster parents usually get first dibs on adoption if they want to. People do know how much stability means to kids' mental health. 

" It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all,:" is definitely the mantra. Better to bond with the foster parents and grieve that loss than to remain unbonded for long stretches of time. If kids are difficult, however, they can really get bounced around a lot.

 

I meant that they are moved as soon as they are comfortable and that is absolutely horrible. 

 

I know several people who have been or are foster parents and they've all mentioned that as something they despise.  My impression was that it was SOP.  The kid's welfare doesn't take priority over the desires of the bureaucracy.  From what I have heard the idea behind it is that by moving the kids from loving homes that the foster parents instead adopt to stop it and therefore take the kids off the foster roll.  Or, when a great foster home takes a troubled kid and turns him around, then the kid is moved to a not so-great home so that another troubled kid can be turned around. 

 

We actually gave some thought to being foster parents.  We decided that we could happily jump through any hoops to make the kids safe.  Medicine safes, inspections, etc.  But then watching kids harmed for the sake of the bureaucracy?  I get homicidal just thinking about it. 

 

I have a cousin who has several special needs foster kids.  She mentioned the fact that they wouldn't be moved as a benefit to them being special needs.  So, the kids have joined the family completely and the extended relatives like me know them. 

[Mergath]

I have noticed that most of the articles/ commentary I have read on adoption lately are negative, often indictments of "the adoption industry". Although I agree that there are changes that need to be made in the process, the ethical issues involved are very complex and can easily be simplified into the vilifying large groups of diverse people with varying motives and practices. The very term "adoption industry", which seems to have become a standard label, is unfair, in my opinion. It implies a mass production of a product for economic gain. Yes, I do have an adopted child, and I do worry about the effect of this trend on his personal journey. I don't want strangers judging him or his background or making unwarranted assumptions about his experiences. Finding your identity as an adopted person can be challenging enough without that, and I feel that every adopted person has the right to have ownership of their own story without the obligation of others narrations. (Actually, I feel the same way about people projecting an "adoption is the wonderful salvation of a child!" narrative on someone else). I guess I wish that we could focus on specific changes rather than painting a black and white picture of adoption as a whole. And I do think that those actually involved in doing something to make changes or actually a part of the adoption triad are best able to speak into the situation. These are just my thoughts, and not intended as a judgement of anyone who has commented on this thread.

Elaine

 

It might not be pleasant for adoptive parents to think about, but there is an adoption industry, and much of it is corrupt and desperately needs reform.  The problem is that the people who are in the best situation to change it (adoptive parents) are also the ones benefiting from it as it is now.  It's the children and the bio parents who usually end up with the short end of the stick.  I became interested in it back when I found out I had a half sister that my father had given up for adoption, and researched even more when I first learned of the baby Veronica case.  It's heartbreaking.  You can find dozens and dozens of stories of young women who were coerced (even outright threatened, in some cases) into giving up their babies through crisis pregnancy centers, though if you're going to google it, you'll want a large box of kleenex first.  And this is happening right now, not forty years ago.  Fathers don't have the same rights as mothers in some states and their children are essentially stolen from them because they can't afford to fight the wealthier adoptive parents for their child.  Many adoption attorneys seem to think that adoption laws are suggestions and ignore them.  And with international adoptions, young children are sometimes literally stolen from their bio parents because adopting them out to wealthy foreigners is so profitable.

 

If things are going to change, it's the adoptive parents first and foremost that have to admit things aren't working the way they are, and push for reform.  But I doubt many of them are going to ask for more regulations that would have the effect of making adoption a lengthier and more difficult process.

 

And like I said before, I think adoption can be a wonderful thing for everyone involved, but the problems I mentioned above need to be addressed.

[SKL]

What makes people think those well-known corruption issues are not being addressed?  They are being addressed incessantly on many levels.  The actual cases of corruption and abuse are a tiny percentage of adoptions and should not be used as an excuse to taint adoption as a whole.  There is also corruption/abuse on the part of some birth mothers, by the way.

[SKL]

If things are going to change, it's the adoptive parents first and foremost that have to admit things aren't working the way they are, and push for reform.  But I doubt many of them are going to ask for more regulations that would have the effect of making adoption a lengthier and more difficult process.

 

Adoptive parents have pushed and do push for reforms.  However, adding more layers of bureaucracy in a developing country is rarely an improvement.  Corruption (demanding bribes) and the slow pace of official business in developing countries mean that most kids simply won't ever have a chance at a family.  The results are often tragic.  There are better ways.

 

This whole topic is like the blind men and the elephant.  Unless you're deep into the subject, you won't have a balanced picture of it.

[Mergath]

Adoptive parents have pushed and do push for reforms.  However, adding more layers of bureaucracy in a developing country is rarely an improvement.  Corruption (demanding bribes) and the slow pace of official business in developing countries mean that most kids simply won't ever have a chance at a family.  The results are often tragic.  There are better ways.

 

This whole topic is like the blind men and the elephant.  Unless you're deep into the subject, you won't have a balanced picture of it.

 

The results of children being stolen to sell to wealthy western families is tragic, too, and happens all too often.  And yes, I'm sure there are better ways.

[SKL]

The results of children being stolen to sell to wealthy western families is tragic, too, and happens all too often.  And yes, I'm sure there are better ways.

 

You don't know it happens "often."  You don't know the safeguards already in place.  You don't know the hearts of adoptive parents.

 

Most US adoptive parents are not wealthy, by the way.  They run the gamut including plenty of working-class folks.

 

[Mergath]

You don't know it happens "often."  You don't know the safeguards already in place.  You don't know the hearts of adoptive parents.

 

Most US adoptive parents are not wealthy, by the way.  They run the gamut including plenty of working-class folks.

 

 

There are websites with lists of the pictures and info for these kids.  Yes, it does happen too often.  And compared to the bio families in these situations, any US family that can afford to adopt is wealthy.

[mommaduck]

What makes us think that those issues aren't being addressed? Veronica Brown, Baby Deseray, and multiple other children taken across state lines illegally and not returned when family HAS stepped up to care for them. Irish children illegally taken to a South American country to force an adoption, because now that those children are in another's "possession", isn't that what's better for them? Loopholes and encouragement of lies to get around getting the father's signature or to get around other "stumbling blocks". Allowing people that aren't qualified to adopt from one area, and possibly considered high risk for various reasons, to adopt through another area. When attorneys brag about how they are targeting a particular people group because they are "easy to place" and he makes tens of thousands off of the adoptions. When state governments feel they have the right to overrule another state's laws (SC believing they are above OK) and play politics within their parties behind the scenes to get their way rather than the governor defending the people of HER state.

[SKL]

OK, well, I guess the OP has gotten her answer.  Yes, there are people who are anti-adoption.

[mommaduck]

And there are people that are pro-adoption, but are anti-corruption.

[J-rap]

Some people think overseas adoption is ethnocentric (the idea that "life is better in America") or is at least careless in the way it severs a child's ties with his/her home country/ethnicity/heritage. Some feel the same way about transracial domestic adoption.

 

Bill Gothard thinks adoption is dangerous because of generational curses or some such nonsense. 

 

Hmm...interesting about Bil Gothard's stance on adoption.  It helps explain why friends of ours never adopted even though their greatest desire was to have children.  Very, very sad that he is spreading that attitude. 

 

Are there even orphanages that exist anymore in the U.S.?

[mommaduck]

There are private children's homes. I've had online friends that have been houseparents at about three of them. One of them they worked at for YEARS, adopted one girl from their house after she came of age (she wasn't adoptable as a minor), and they finally left after much corruption, legalism, etc...the home later was under investigation due to a man in authority that had committed sexual offenses. A friend of my daughter's was sent there. I tried to warn her godmother and the priest's wife, but they wouldn't listen. She would tell them she was fine because she knew that's what they wanted to hear, but she would tell my daughter that she was VERY, VERY unhappy there. Last I knew, she's still there :( I also know that there are a lot of anabaptists that will adopt minority children as a way of "bringing Christ to the heathens". Yes, amazing that thought still exists. Many of these children grow up and find themselves back on the outside of the community again, because they simply don't fit and are not fully welcomed into the community. One lady I knew that was adopted, with many others, into an anabaptist family was always reminded that she was not truly theirs, but how offensive it is that she would want to know about the family that gave her up for adoption/foster care. She fought hard for her place in the community (helps that she's white), but she is also very different from the rest of the community (gasp! She's "odd" because she thinks and actually has opinions as a woman! Yep...those that are female and have a brain are suggested that they go on anti-depressants....it's hard to keep sanity in an insane asylum, or community in this case).

[Murmer]

Yes there is an anti-adoption camp.  Many of them have very valid thoughts and opinions especially those that are part of the adoption triad (adoptee, birth parent, adoptive parent).  Many of the them came from an era of very closed adoptions and lying.  

 

Yes there are issues with the adoption industry....look at the amount of money directors of non-profit adoption agencies get (6 digit figures or more).  Many members of the triad are left flying in the wind after the exchange of a child.  Continuing education, counseling and support are very important and yet not considered part of the adoption process for many agencies.  

 

But there have been changes and there will still be changes.  The open adoption movement has done wonders...just before coming to this site I got off Facebook where I had just relayed the message to my dd's birth grandmother telling her my dd loved her.  My daughter knows, has met, and we encourage her to have a relationship with her birthfamily.  As of right now we are the middlemen merely because she cannot read or right but we do not discourage her from having a relationship with them in any way.  

 

Adoption is not the perfect answer just as WIC/EBT/Sponsoring an expectant mother or abortion are not the perfect answer because we are not one size fits all.  But the conversation and the feelings of those in the triad need to be considered, discussed and changes need to continue to be made. 

[beaners]

I could be wrong, but if wasn't reading Ethel as saying all foreign adoptions are stealing. I think it sounds more like she is wanting to see the birth families getting more choice. Yes, they might be giving the child up for reasons aside from money, but I'm also thinking that instead of $10k+ to an adoption agency but to helping a mother survive with her child for a couple years would go a long way to improving not just the baby's life, but the entire family's.

 

Or making an orphanage significantly safer and better for all the children in it instead of just the 1 being adopted.

 

I'm not anti adoption, but it greatly disturbs me that these additional solutions are not much spoken of and explored.

 

We do support an organization providing help to the orphanage the child we are hoping to adopt lives in.  BUT - If we were to instead donate all the money we are spending on the adoption process, that wouldn't change the fact that people who could live independently or semi-independently here will be institutionalized for their entire lives in that country.    

[mommaduck]

Oh, there is also an Orthodox boys home that several people I know support.

[LMV]

I have a lot of varied thoughts on this topic.  

*I don't agree with coercion in any form.  However, I do think that in some cases biological parents are just not willing or able to raise their own children.  I think we have to be careful to not let children be casualties of what is politically correct but not truly safe.  I also think that we need to realize that while there may be pressure for one to place a child for adoption there is also pressure in the opposite direction and this can be equally dangerous.

*I think transparency in the adoption process is sometimes lacking.  I also realize that resources are sometimes limited, and caseworkers are overburdened.  Sometimes I think caseworkers are forced to make the best with what they have to work with.

*I think adoptive parents sometimes have unrealistic expectations in many ways.  I also think biological parents sometimes have unrealistic expectations in many ways.

*I think the extremes of the situation are what get media attention and what everyone talks about.  The means of the situation or even the modal situation are often much different.  

 

 

 

One of my brothers came into our family through the foster care system.  At this point, I can't imagine my life (or my kids' lives) without him.  I also know that his childhood was not easy.  He loved his biological mom dearly but she wasn't in position to make the decisions and choices that enabled her to provide him with a safe home.  That was a sad reality but it was hers and his.  In an ideal world his mother would have been in better place and able to make choices that allowed her to provide a safe home to her son, my parents always acknowledged that.  I believe that if my parents had been able to somehow get her to that place they would have done.  They had no desire to "steal" her son.  They would have happily stepped back if that wouldn't have just left another child to fall through the cracks.  My brother believes this too but there were rough periods to get there.  My father was an incredibly loving and patient man--that helped a lot.  

 

We have adopted one daughter through the foster care system.  The adoption process took almost four years.  She has been fortunate as she has been with us since she left the hospital and we've been her only foster parents.  Even so, the process has been  long and difficult.  In all ways she is our daughter and we could not love her more if I had given birth to her.  Her biological parents were abusive and nearly killed her on several occasions.  I suspect that eventually they would have killed her if someone hadn't intervened.  One of her parents actually pled guilty to the assault and battery charges, relinquished their rights, and went off to prison.  The other parent spent years playing criminal and family courts against each other while thwarting orders of protection and making things much more difficult for our daughter than they should have been.  I will admit that at times I was a little torn because I know that if someone was trying to take one of our children away I would fight with anything and everything but I've also never raised a hand to any of our children and as the process played out it was hard for me to see that it was motivated by anything other than this parent's desire to torment and torture any way possible.  Among other concerns this parent's attorney raised was the class bias of our adoption.  Yes, DH and I are both professionals and we have a good income and a nice home.  However, our daughter's biological parents also had a good income and a nice home.  While our annual income was significantly greater than theirs, their annual income before one of them went to prison was six figures and in no way inadequate for raising her.  This was not a relevant issue to raise.  When the adoption finally went through a major weight was lifted from our daughter.  She admitted to us that she knew intellectually it was silly in a way, she knew that nothing in our relationship was different when the judge signed those papers than it had been twenty minutes earlier but she felt symbolic security that the law was promising she would never have to see them again.  In an ideal world no child would need symbolic security that she would never have to see those who abused her again. 

 

 

 

 

[mommaduck]

I saw one four year old boy get kicked back to foster care from a potential adoptive family, because he didn't immediately fall into line with the Ezzo type parenting. Uhm, this child had been sexually abused and kicked around his entire four years...and you will kick him back within months because he doesn't do everything immediately when told? yeash...some people have no business being foster parents.

[Parrothead]

My mother-in-law. On several occasions she vocalized her disapproval of adopting knowing full well my sister is adopted. She said having an only child was my parents' cross to bear. Hmmmm..... So for the child being abandoned is their cross???? She is equally opposed to mothers giving up children for adoption.

 

After the last comment out of her mouth, it was almost a year before I went to her house again. I told my dh if she ever said another word, she was going to get an answer. He thought it was a good idea if I stayed away, too.

A cross to bear? Well, then!

[HRAAB]

A cross to bear? Well, then!

 

My parents never saw having an only child as 'a cross'; they had hoped for more children, and it didn't happen.  They were sad, but never, ever saw it as a cross.  I was 8 when my sister was adopted.  They considered adopting again, but they were older at the time and decided not to.

 

My mil thought they were cheating God out of the cross he gave them.  She had 14 children.  She was also offended by mothers that would give up children for adoption.  She would NEVER EVER do that.  So easy to judge others.....

 

At 91 she's mellowed a lot, and I do get along with her now.  It took quite a few years, though.

[Renee in NC]

I meant that they are moved as soon as they are comfortable and that is absolutely horrible. 

 

I know several people who have been or are foster parents and they've all mentioned that as something they despise.  My impression was that it was SOP.  The kid's welfare doesn't take priority over the desires of the bureaucracy.  From what I have heard the idea behind it is that by moving the kids from loving homes that the foster parents instead adopt to stop it and therefore take the kids off the foster roll.  Or, when a great foster home takes a troubled kid and turns him around, then the kid is moved to a not so-great home so that another troubled kid can be turned around. 

 

We actually gave some thought to being foster parents.  We decided that we could happily jump through any hoops to make the kids safe.  Medicine safes, inspections, etc.  But then watching kids harmed for the sake of the bureaucracy?  I get homicidal just thinking about it. 

 

I have a cousin who has several special needs foster kids.  She mentioned the fact that they wouldn't be moved as a benefit to them being special needs.  So, the kids have joined the family completely and the extended relatives like me know them. 

 

I am a Guardian ad Litem, and I work within the court system determining what is in the "best interests" of children who are in "case management."  This is NOT procedure in our area.  Re-unification is almost always the goal, followed by kinship placements (which doesn't always mean blood relative,) then foster homes, with group homes and shelters as a last resort.  No one wants to move a kid unless absolutely necessary.

 

There are terrible social workers out there.  There are terrible agencies (in terms of the local social services office.)  I don't think the system as a whole is broken, but rather is doing the best it can do under the circumstances it operates under.

[Wheres Toto]

There's a boys orphanage near where I live that's been there a really long time - "a residential treatment facility for adolescent boys, whose parents, for a variety of reasons are unable to care for them. Our boys have mild to moderate emotional, behavioral or social problems."  All the boys are referred through DYFS.  I've been there a few times since they do a lot of community programs - Easter Egg Hunts, Halloween Parties, etc. and I worked with someone who volunteered there often.

 

There's a bit of adoption in my family - family adoptions, international adoptions, foster care adoptions - although I have not adopted.   I can definitely see that there needs to be some revision of the way things are handled - often it doesn't seem in the best interest of the child, bio-parent or adoptive parents.

[Kari C in SC]

I am not anti adoption. Having said that, my sister and brother in law adopted 3 kids from Guatemala 11 years ago. My sister in law was very optimistic about giving them a better life, etc. she believed there would be work ahead, but she really had know idea until she was in it. There were many problems with the one teenage girl. I won't share here, but it was not good. Then the teenage boy killed my sister in law by stabbing her many times. It was planned and well thought out. He showed no remorse and was diagnosed with RAD. I am still not against adoption, but I think that my sister in law had rose colored glasses on. In the end, it cost her her life. I would caution anyone when adopting older children that there may be a long road ahead. It may be completely worth it, but go in with eyes wide open.

[Pamela H in Texas]

and you will kick him back within months because he doesn't do everything immediately when told? yeash...some people have no business being foster parents.

 

 Of course it is true that some people have no business being foster parents.  And expecting that kids will just fall into line to one family's rules, opinions, values, standards, etc immediately is definitely an issue.  At the same time, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to live with a dysregulated preschooler who absolutely refuses to mind AT ALL or goes out of his way to be disruptive (possibly not intentionally but I assure you that it is still challenging).  

 

My newbies are rocking our world.  Majorly.  I believe the one's behavior is intentional (related to attachment disorder, I believe).  I don't believe the other one's is (I believe that one has behaviors and "routine" to process trauma).  Regardless, it is what it is and it is challenging ALL of us.  Their dysregulation (especially after visits with a certain parent) is extremely dysregulating to the rest of us which puts us all off our game and it is a giant snowball of challenge.  I went to my son earlier saying, "I need an extra calm amygdala to help calm all these amygdalas going nuts in this house."  Only in a house built with people from trauma and attachment issues, huh?  

 

Anyway, be careful judging.  A four year old most certainly can wreak havoc.  Hopefully the little guy found a home who could better meet his needs.

[LMV]

 I am still not against adoption, but I think that my sister in law had rose colored glasses on. In the end, it cost her her life. I would caution anyone when adopting older children that there may be a long road ahead. It may be completely worth it, but go in with eyes wide open.

 

I'm very sorry for the experience and loss your family suffered.  I do think you raise a good point that families really need to evaluate their abilities and the child's needs realistically before deciding to proceed with adoption.  I think this is true for any adoption.  Our daughter  went into foster care when she was nine.  She came to us as a medically fragile therapeutic placement but the caseworker admitted that she didn't see any way that any judge would consider returning her to her parents.  That was just too risky.  Initially our goal was to help her heal at least physically and help her get to a place where we could see if she could see herself becoming part of our family.  We went in with an open mind and open hearts but we both acknowledged that is very possible that what we were meant to do was help her get healthy and into a position where she was ready to find a different forever family.  Physically she healed a lot in the first six months and she started to adapt and attach into our family.  DH and I had some conversations and did some praying and got to a point where we were ready to talk to her about adoption.  If she hadn't started to adapt and attach into our family and we hadn't started to see her as our child then instead of telling the caseworker we were ready to talk about adoption we would have been asking the caseworker to evaluate if she could be ready for a regular foster adopt placement.  I do think that attachment is a two way street.  For it to work both the child and the parents have to get to a place of general positive regard, unconditional love, and respect.  I think it's ok (and probably realistic as we should have more emotional maturity and better overall emotional health) for parents to get there before the child does but I think there need to be some signs that the child is forming an attachment.  If they aren't then that needs to be addressed somehow.  Sometimes that is best addressed by acknowledging that the placement isn't a good fit.  

 

Our daughter is now thirteen.  She knows we love her and she loves us and her siblings.  I don't think she is secure the way our older daughter was at this age and I do worry about that.  I'm encouraged that she is much further along than she was a year ago and so much further along than she was two years ago.  I trust and believe that she will continue to grow and heal even more over the next few years.  

[LMV]

I saw one four year old boy get kicked back to foster care from a potential adoptive family, because he didn't immediately fall into line with the Ezzo type parenting. Uhm, this child had been sexually abused and kicked around his entire four years...and you will kick him back within months because he doesn't do everything immediately when told? yeash...some people have no business being foster parents.

Some foster parents have unrealistic expectations.  Some foster parents struggle. However, I tend to think that unless we're involved in the situation we often miss some significant pieces of it.  It sounds like the child wasn't a good fit for this family. Obviously there is always an adjustment period (and sometimes a honeymoon period too) and some children do not transition well and may regress or escalate with transitions but if there is still disconnect after several months then it may be in everyone's best interest for them to pursue a different placement for the child.  I realize that some caseworkers may try to support (or perhaps even force) a failing placement because they just don't see another option. If caseworkers can actually provide constructive support they may be able to help the children and parents adapt together and create a better fit.  This can be a positive thing. If there isn't constructive support in many cases forcing the placement  just  results in delayed, but often magnified, fallout and perhaps greater damage to the child.  This is not a positive thing.  Some people lack the skills to be good parents but I'm not sure that acknowledging that a child is a poor fit is an example of someone who has no business being a foster parent.  Honestly, I think that both of our two foster daughters would have been better served if their foster parents had acknowledged much earlier that they were a poor fit.  Instead there was a lot of resentment, some abuse, and ultimately a placement that disrupted in a very traumatic fashion. 

[LMV]

 Of course it is true that some people have no business being foster parents.  And expecting that kids will just fall into line to one family's rules, opinions, values, standards, etc immediately is definitely an issue.  At the same time, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to live with a dysregulated preschooler who absolutely refuses to mind AT ALL or goes out of his way to be disruptive (possibly not intentionally but I assure you that it is still challenging).  

 

My newbies are rocking our world.  Majorly.  I believe the one's behavior is intentional (related to attachment disorder, I believe).  I don't believe the other one's is (I believe that one has behaviors and "routine" to process trauma).  Regardless, it is what it is and it is challenging ALL of us.  Their dysregulation (especially after visits with a certain parent) is extremely dysregulating to the rest of us which puts us all off our game and it is a giant snowball of challenge.  I went to my son earlier saying, "I need an extra calm amygdala to help calm all these amygdalas going nuts in this house."  Only in a house built with people from trauma and attachment issues, huh?  

 

Anyway, be careful judging.  A four year old most certainly can wreak havoc.  Hopefully the little guy found a home who could better meet his needs.

 

Hugs, Pamela!  :grouphug:

[mommaduck]

Some foster parents have unrealistic expectations.  Some foster parents struggle. However, I tend to think that unless we're involved in the situation we often miss some significant pieces of it.  It sounds like the child wasn't a good fit for this family. Obviously there is always an adjustment period (and sometimes a honeymoon period too) and some children do not transition well and may regress or escalate with transitions but if there is still disconnect after several months then it may be in everyone's best interest for them to pursue a different placement for the child.  I realize that some caseworkers may try to support (or perhaps even force) a failing placement because they just don't see another option. If caseworkers can actually provide constructive support they may be able to help the children and parents adapt together and create a better fit.  This can be a positive thing. If there isn't constructive support in many cases forcing the placement  just  results in delayed, but often magnified, fallout and perhaps greater damage to the child.  This is not a positive thing.  Some people lack the skills to be good parents but I'm not sure that acknowledging that a child is a poor fit is an example of someone who has no business being a foster parent.  Honestly, I think that both of our two foster daughters would have been better served if their foster parents had acknowledged much earlier that they were a poor fit.  Instead there was a lot of resentment, some abuse, and ultimately a placement that disrupted in a very traumatic fashion. 

 

No, I knew this family very personally. I'm glad he didn't stay with them after some other things I later found out.

[Melissa in Australia]

spam reported

[Jenny in Florida]

The decision to relinquish isn't just about money.  Depending on the situation, having a baby out of wedlock can mean losing one's close relationships, never getting married, having to leave school and church and abandon hopes for a career that will keep her future (or past) kids out of poverty and illiteracy.  Some babies have special needs that cannot possibly be met in the local environment.  And some women simply don't want to parent.  Nobody thinks it's an easy decision, but that doesn't mean it's never the woman's free choice.  Taking away the choice certainly doesn't empower women (or children) in my opinion.

 

Not to mention I can already see the risk of some unintended consequences with the idea of giving a birth mother money to "keep her family together." I can't help wondering how many poor, desperate women might see getting pregnant as a revenue source and then end up keeping children they have no real interest in raising.

 

 

I have no skin in this game. I'm not adopted, and nor is anyone close to me. I haven't adopted children, although I did consider it more than once when I was younger. I was quite close to two teenaged girls who experienced unintended pregnancies. One kept her child, while the other was "encouraged" by her mother to go to a residential facility for unwed mothers and then give up the baby for adoption. (This was in the 1980s, by the way.) Neither story has an especially wonderful outcome.

 

Bottom line, I don't think it's as simple as folks at either of the extreme ends of the conversation want to make it. As SKL says, I believe what women and families need is a full range of choices and support for the choice each individual makes.

[mom@shiloh]

We knew a young couple who very much wanted children but didn't think they'd be able to conceive because of the wife's medical history.  We have five adopted (overseas) children and I kept encouraging them to consider adoption.  I found out later that they were opposed to adoption because of a "not our kind" mentality.  I'm not sure if they were influenced by the likes of Gothard, but I think it's a definite possibility.  It makes my blood boil to think that the whole time that they were interacting with our children, they considered them inferior.  

 

So. yes.  There are anti-adoption people out there and they're not just older people.