Can we talk about adoption?

[SKL]

12 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I think it’s complicated, and I think there are all sorts of reasons for adoption.  I have seen some absolutely reprehensible stuff go on with children of refugees and asylum seekers, with for profit adoption centers basically seizing young children of asylum seekers separated from parents at the border and put up for adoption in white, Christian homes.  
 

In general, I am in favor of adoption, because kids need to belong and have the same status as other children.  But at the same time, I am not a fan of changing birth certificates.  That’s lying about the past.  Amend the birth certificate to include “adopted on x day” to allow it to serve its purpose.   But don’t lie about who gave birth to the child and what name they were given then.  

Nobody’s lying.  The birth certificate says I am my kid’s mother, which I am.  Also it is not a changed BC.  It is my kid’s only US BC.  Other documents hold info re what happened pre-adoption.

For all legal purposes, no additional info is needed by those who require my kids’ birth certificate.  Please explain why all sorts of external people need to know about my kid’s adoption?

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

There are also a lot of donor conceived adults speaking out against donor conception as well.  Especially those raised by LGBTQ couples or single mothers.  I have even seen some people who are very adamant about social justice in most areas insist that if you’re not in a traditional male-female relationship and able to conceive with only your own genetic material, then you have no right to have a child.

Now I don’t believe that really anyone has a “right” to another person, but I am very uncomfortable with saying that only a male-female two parent household should have children.  A lot of this is on TikTok and the comments are wild—but people truly feel this way and are lobbying for legal changes. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Mrs Tiggywinkle Again

[PronghornD]

18 minutes ago, klmama said:

Yes, absolutely.  And some of the training should also include instruction in child development, so parents can understand the difference between adoption trauma/attachment issues and the kid/parent conflict that is common in all families.

It is interesting that you brought normal child development up. In my opinion and my experience, parents are much more likely to erroneously discount their child's difficulties as NOT being adoption-related than to do the opposite. Generally, there are dozens of bystanders in any parent's life that will tell them that all toddlers have meltdowns etc. I cannot remember ever meeting an adoptive parent who blamed things on adoption that were really normal development.

I think in the vast majority of cases, when the primary caretaker parent believes something is wrong with their child, he or she is correct. Face it -- other people don't know your child like you do! And most of us parents really know quite a bit about child development from observing other similar age children, from knowing tons of children of all ages, from consulting books or websites, and even from having been children ourselves once upon a time.

[Corraleno]

24 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I am not a fan of changing birth certificates.  That’s lying about the past.  Amend the birth certificate to include “adopted on x day” to allow it to serve its purpose.   But don’t lie about who gave birth to the child and what name they were given then.  

Requiring adopted children to have visibly different birth certificates from biological children would force every adoptee to publicly disclose their adoption history, whether they want to or not, every single time they need to produce a birth certificate for something. 

Why is that anyone else's business? Why should adoptees not have a choice whether to disclose that? Why should they be subjected to rude questions from clueless people about why "their parents didn't want them" or whether they've ever met their birth family, or whatever, just because they want to enroll in a school or apply for a driver's license or a passport or a marriage license or something?

Adoptees who want access to their original birth certificates should have access to them, but they should also have the right to a birth certificate that looks just like every other child's birth certificate, rather than be forced to disclose their personal history to random strangers against their will.

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

Early 80s.  It was a closed adoption facilitated through an agency.  The agency was actually one of the few places at that time pioneering open adoptions—birth mom chose the family through albums and while the agency encouraged communication between the families, this was a situation where birth mom was a late teen and her ashamed parents sent her to live in another city with an aunt and they never told anyone.  They demanded she have a completely closed adoption, though birth mom left a letter for her that she could have at 18.  I do agree with friend that staying with even extended birth family, especially on her father’s side, would have been better. I have strangely become friends with her paternal birth grandmother and it would have been a lovely, warm home better suited for friend’s specific emotional needs(not my story so I’m leaving out lots of details).

More support for single moms is a very common theme among the anti-adoption crowd.  Free daycare, grocery and housing subsidies, subsidized job training or higher education, essentially giving the mom the money instead of a foster family or agency.  It is already in place as you say.  But if you read what this group is saying it’s a lot of hand holding.  I do agree that poverty isn’t a good reason for parents to lose or have to give up their children, but they also seem to overlook the reasons for that poverty. Which at least where I live is almost always drug use—people are losing kids because they won’t get clean, not because they’re poor.

Those systems aren’t in place tho. We have piecemeal support services that are temporary and limited. The first letter in TANF is temporary because there’s a lifetime cap. WIC covers birth to two. Private donors essentially stop giving for kids over 2 also.

[kbutton]

8 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Much of how we look at this is within the context/structure that currently exists, instead of considering how the context and structure could be changed.

Your original post makes a lot of sense. I would add that when things are critiqued, we need to understand how it it has already changed as well. For instance...

* How it's done now is not how it was done 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago. If people are testifying about how horrible it was 40 years ago, but those things have been fixed, then that trauma needs to be processed and fixed for those folks and not be imputed to current practice, if that makes sense. It's a hard enough topic without making a problem where none exists. If current law makes it harder for those people to get information, then that should be addressed vs. acting like younger adoptees have the same issues.

* International adoption...some people my age were found later to have been adopted via fraudulent means, though not on the adoptive parent end. I don't think adoptions routinely happen from this country anymore in the US, and that's at least partly because of knowing better now. And maybe a corollary...citizenship for kids adopted internationally has been smoothed considerable, IIRC, but people whose adoptive families dropped the ball sometimes have a problem. We can't impute the problem to new adoptions if it's been solved, but we can change things for those harmed in the past.

5 hours ago, Farrar said:

I think the image of what adoption "is" as centering parents who "need" a child and lauding the "selflessness" of "unwed mothers" who choose not to have an abortion (or legally cannot) is very much alive and well. I know these aren't best practices legally, but many people still think that's how adoption basically works. Many childless couples struggling with fertility are told "you can always adopt!" as if it's some simple replacement. Many people who get pregnant and do not want to have a child are told "you can just give it up for adoption, think of the good you could do another family!" 

These are ideas that really, really need to die. Not just become not best practices in the legal system, but also they need to end in our collective imagination. I'm with others that destroying all aspects of how we do adoption probably isn't the answer. 

I have read about pressure to give up a child combined with taking advantage of a young mother's lack of experience and vulnerability to get her to sign away her rights. I wonder if there are solutions that would help make the relinquishing mother more informed and protect her rights without creating an undue burden/extra hoops when the mother is not at all conflicted about relinquishing an infant.

It seems like at least some of the costs of an adoption could go toward ensuring those rights are known and that the mother relinquishing rights has had assistance to apply for support, etc.

Also, making it clear what is and is not meant in an "open" adoption if the bio mom wants one--does she really actually have any rights at all if the family decides to ignore her? If she really has none, then she needs to know; many of the stories I've read that sound tragic are ones that involve expectations (and potentially broken promises that were thought to have legal standing) around what an open adoption means.
 

4 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

I knew an adopted child who struggled mightily with adoption trauma. In her case, she longed for a family that was of the same race. 

A friend who speaks about her adoption trauma has hinted that this is part of it. It's hard to read between the lines. She was also adopted out of a country that was later found to be using adoption unethically and has had to reckon with a lot of angry adoptees later.

I do think that adoptive parents probably need support to be prepared if/when a child wants to know something about their birth family. Some see it as a judgment on their parenting instead of a reasonable curiosity, or they are just so anxious (possibly on behalf of their child) about it that they couldn't support their child. I know some who were supportive or even facilitated it.

I know adoptees who have searched for birth parents but were also very happy with their adoptive families. 

[Jaybee]

Our adoption agency required certain preparatory steps that we had to go through--books to read, online modules to go through, etc. But there was so much we didn't know and/or didn't really understand, especially about trauma. We made lots of mistakes. We have tried to be honest and to sincerely apologize for the things we have done wrong. We've tried to support and encourage. 

Someone above mentioned the "you can always adopt" phrase. That phrase bothers me too. Just on the surface level, adoption doesn't always happen quickly, easily, and when/how you want it to. But the phrase also feels a bit flippant about something that is deep and complicated. We are glad we adopted our son, whether things turn out the way we want them to or not. We want health and wholeness and strong bonds and the ability to have future solid relationships. But even if that doesn't happen, we provided a safe and healthy home for his growing up years, and we are here for him.

I confess that I have occasionally discouraged others from adopting. Not because we regret doing so--because we do not. But sometimes it has seemed that someone had very rosy colored expectations, and sometimes those people didn't handle it well when their expectations were not met in other ways, so I wasn't really wholehearted in my support of their adopting a child who might not fall into line with their family culture. 

I'm not sure where I'm going with all this...I have just thought about it a lot lately. If we were younger, we would probably adopt again. But I like to think we are a little wiser now and might avoid some of the mistakes we made before.

[Sneezyone]

33 minutes ago, Jaybee said:

 

I confess that I have occasionally discouraged others from adopting. Not because we regret doing so--because we do not. But sometimes it has seemed that someone had very rosy colored expectations, and sometimes those people didn't handle it well when their expectations were not met in other ways, so I wasn't really wholehearted in my support of their adopting a child who might not fall into line with their family culture. 

I'm not sure where I'm going with all this...I have just thought about it a lot lately. If we were younger, we would probably adopt again. But I like to think we are a little wiser now and might avoid some of the mistakes we made before.

Me too. Back before adoption.com’s forums imploded I was active and met most of my (now) aparent friends there. All of our journeys were different (foster-adopt, domestic private, international, tribal) but I saw some of the same troubling narratives/rosiness you describe, especially among those who were openly and proudly working in countries and with adoption facilitators who were known to be unethical (essentially, child traffickers). There was lots of tabula rasa, trauma uninformed talk.  For a while, there was almost a messianic fervor to diversify Christian families through adoption.
 

The narrative of a poor, drug-addicted, teen mother was inaccurate even then. Relinquishing mothers were often single parenting one or more children already and over the age of 25. Not sure what the stats are today. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Sneezyone

[kbutton]

48 minutes ago, Jaybee said:

I confess that I have occasionally discouraged others from adopting. Not because we regret doing so--because we do not. But sometimes it has seemed that someone had very rosy colored expectations, and sometimes those people didn't handle it well when their expectations were not met in other ways, so I wasn't really wholehearted in my support of their adopting a child who might not fall into line with their family culture. 

Oh my, yes! We know a family whose plans to adopt were derailed by the pandemic, and I keep hoping they don't pick them back up again now. It just doesn't seem like a good idea for them. I don't know that their expectations are rosy (lots of exposure to the inner workings of adoptive families), but the second part of the bolded fits. Lots of "my way or the highway" going on (and not in the steadfast consistency superpower way that can draw people in and give them stability IYKWIM--very few people are like that, though I've met a few!). 

I feel like a lot of people who adopt successfully refine their parenting a million times to grow productively with the challenges that crop up.

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Jaybee said:

Someone above mentioned the "you can always adopt" phrase. That phrase bothers me too.

Agree. I hear this lots and lots with my young adult kids and their friends. Most of them don’t want to go through pregnancy themself and say that they’ll “just adopt” instead. It always sounds to me like they think children are just a commodity they can get if they want one. My own kids’ experiences surrounding adoption are so positive that I can see how they ended up there, but it’s still not a good way of thinking. OTOH, they are bound to start running across this anti adoption stuff online as well, and their views are likely to change at that point. 

[Jaybee]

5 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I feel like a lot of people who adopt successfully refine their parenting a million times to grow productively with the challenges that crop up.

I don't know that *we* have parented successfully--we have certainly been humbled by our shortcomings. There has definitely been a lot of refining that has gone on!

[PronghornD]

Sometimes even the social workers don't have an understanding of trauma and attachment issues in adopted children. In one of my post-adoption reports that went back to my kid's home country, I got a somewhat negative evaluation because I was not "giving my child opportunity to separate." The social worker could not see my child's issues. (Like many orphanage kids, mine knew how to turn on the charm for strangers.) The social worker did not believe that my child was struggling and was not in any way ready for any significant separations. Each separation increased my kid's severe fear of sleep, so separating was kind of like shooting myself in the foot -- not something I would choose lightly during those early years.

I think we need more quality control on adoption social workers. They should know all about trauma and attachment and be ready to support parents as needed.

[Ottakee]

21 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Are you saying there is a state that doesn’t allow you to leave your money to whom you choose? 

But I believe that things like Social Security benefits, etc are for adopted kids, not guardianship ones…..for example a guardian dies and the child can’t get benefits off the guardians record like they could if they were adopted.

And what happens if the guardian dies and then the state becomes the child’s guardian again?    I am not sure a guardian of a state ward can put in a will who the back up guardian will be like an adoptive parent could.

Lack of permanency is hard on kids.  And also and forever having to explain why they have a different last name from their guardians, why they don’t live with parents, etc.     it can be a good option for older kids/teens that don’t wish to be adopted but can be very hard on younger kids.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Ottakee said:

But I believe that things like Social Security benefits, etc are for adopted kids, not guardianship ones…..for example a guardian dies and the child can’t get benefits off the guardians record like they could if they were adopted.

And what happens if the guardian dies and then the state becomes the child’s guardian again?    I am not sure a guardian of a state ward can put in a will who the back up guardian will be like an adoptive parent could.

Lack of permanency is hard on kids.  And also and forever having to explain why they have a different last name from their guardians, why they don’t live with parents, etc.     it can be a good option for older kids/teens that don’t wish to be adopted but can be very hard on younger kids.

That is a really good point.  I had not thought about SS.  I know some friends who were raising their grandkids….and adopted them for that very reason…..the grandfather got older and they knew they would need the dependent benefit to get them raised all the way.  

[Melissa in Australia]

I think someone who isnt involved with foster or adoption really has any idea at all. and dont know what they are talking about. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Melissa in Australia

[Scarlett]

Thanks everyone.  I knew I would get insightful and wise comments here. 
 

A few thoughts all over the map….
 

I definitely can see that guardianship and child consent for adoption just doesn’t make sense.  

I do think BC should reflect an adoption…as for a kid not wanting to feel different being adopted, that seems contrary to the idea of being open and honest.  But I don’t know.  I mostly don’t think a kids origins should be kept from them and maybe these days that isn’t  happening so much.

I think an open adoption should hold some legal teeth…and only revoked if cause is shown…..like addiction or abuse. 

And I agree that a majority of foster to adopt involves addiction issues with the birth family.  And there isn’t much of a way of dealing with that except to keep the kids safe and away from that. In fact, of the many friends I have who have adopted out of the foster care system, I believe they are all related to addiction. 

 

 

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I do think BC should reflect an adoption…as for a kid not wanting to feel different being adopted, that seems contrary to the idea of being open and honest.  But I don’t know.  I mostly don’t think a kids origins should be kept from them and maybe these days that isn’t  happening so much.

I don’t think the birth certificate issue is related to honesty or keeping anything from a kid.  A birth certificate isn’t what determines the kid’s identity, and it makes sense for a kid (or parent of a younger child) to be in the driver’s seat with who they talk to about what. People are horribly inappropriate with their questions.

My biggest issue with this whole discussion is the idea that it would in some way be better or more appropriate for kids to have a permanent guardianship rather than be adopted as full members of the family like every other member of the family. One of the things that offended me most as a kid growing up was, “is he your real brother?” I think it would have been a bad situation to have him somehow set apart as a kid from the other siblings rather than it always being just plain as day to all of us, “Of course he’s my real brother [ya dummy]” (that last part was always implied by tone of voice 😉). Guardianship would have been so othering of someone who is and always will be equally a part of the family as any of us.

 

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

 

My biggest issue with this whole discussion is the idea that it would in some way be better or more appropriate for kids to have a permanent guardianship rather than be adopted as full members of the family like every other member of the family. One of the things that offended me most as a kid growing up was, “is he your real brother?” I think it would have been a bad situation to have him somehow set apart as a kid from the other siblings rather than it always being just plain as day to all of us, “Of course he’s my real brother [ya dummy]” (that last part was always implied by tone of voice 😉). Guardianship would have been so othering of someone who is and always will be equally a part of the family as any of us.

 

Agree.  Just the other day my Dh got under my skin when he referred to my niece as adopted.  We don’t say that.   And in that conversation there was no good reason to bring it up.

[Momof4sweetkids]

Random thoughts based on fostering for a few years before bio kids(and hoping to foster again when the bio babies are a little older)

 

-One kiddo we had that moved to an adoptive home significantly benefited from the belonging of being officially adopted and sharing the last name. I think guardianship would have added more trauma. 

-Yes the system is broken. It took 6 months for one of our kiddos to be able to go to a safe, loving, local relative because CPS took so long in tracking relatives down. That should be so much faster.

-Since we fostered before having bio kids, we didn't totally understand normal 3 year old behaviors and attributed a lot to trauma that was probably just a 3 year old being 3...training is so important though. 

 

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Momof3sweetgirls

[Corraleno]

9 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I do think BC should reflect an adoption…as for a kid not wanting to feel different being adopted, that seems contrary to the idea of being open and honest.  But I don’t know.  I mostly don’t think a kids origins should be kept from them and maybe these days that isn’t  happening so much.

The only person who should have the right to decide how "open and honest" they want to be about their personal history, and with whom, is the adoptee. It is their story to tell or not.

The legal function of a birth certificate isn't to tell a child who his or her biological parents are, it's a government document confirming date and place of birth, along with the names of the legal parents, which also generally serves as proof of citizenship. Adopted children have two birth certificates, even when a child is immediately relinquished at birth; the birth mother signs the original birth certificate and then when the adoption is completed a second certificate is issued with the adoptive parents names. What possible justification can there be for insisting, against the wishes of many adoptees, that their birth certificate and proof of citizenship must inform everyone who reads it that this person's legal parents are not their biological parents? What purpose does that serve, other than to embarrass adoptees who may not feel like discussing their personal (often painful) history with some random DMV employee?

It's a sad fact of life that people ask incredibly rude and inappropriate questions about adoption. DD has been asked why her mother "just threw her away," and how she feels about never knowing who her "real" parents are. I've been asked "where I got her from" and "how much I paid for her." People are stupid. 

Imagine if marriage certificates were required to list prior marriages, and any time you wanted to apply for a joint mortgage or bank account or something, you had to show a marriage certificate that listed your ex-husband and listen to some nosy bank manager quiz you about your divorce. If your gut reaction is "that's none of their damn business," then you understand why adoptees should not be forced to include more than the names of their legal parents, just like your marriage certificate only needs to show the name of your current, legal spouse.

 

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Corraleno

[Carrie12345]

7 hours ago, KSera said:

My biggest issue with this whole discussion is the idea that it would in some way be better or more appropriate for kids to have a permanent guardianship rather than be adopted as full members of the family like every other member of the family. One of the things that offended me most as a kid growing up was, “is he your real brother?” I think it would have been a bad situation to have him somehow set apart as a kid from the other siblings rather than it always being just plain as day to all of us, “Of course he’s my real brother [ya dummy]” (that last part was always implied by tone of voice 😉). Guardianship would have been so othering of someone who is and always will be equally a part of the family as any of us.

I still firmly believe that that depends on ages, circumstances, individuals, and existing dynamics.

Had we attained kinship placement, or should we in the future (which would be yet different ages and dynamics), I would not encourage my niece and nephew to call their cousins siblings or aunt and uncle parents. I wouldn’t disallow it either, if that’s what felt right and good to them.

But, regardless of legal definitions, families can use whatever terms work for them. I mean, I only distinguish halves, steps, and others in online forums for clarity, and maybe once for context IRL. When I refer to “my parents”, it doesn’t matter that one is a step that didn’t adopt me. (Perhaps because I was an adult, lol, but still.)

Let’s keep in mind that the majority of children in foster care are not babies without conscious memories.

That may be just a small subset of a larger context, but it’s an important one.

[Scarlett]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The only person who should have the right to decide how "open and honest" they want to be about their personal history, and with whom, is the adoptee. It is their story to tell or not.

The legal function of a birth certificate isn't to tell a child who his or her biological parents are, it's a government document confirming date and place of birth, along with the names of the legal parents, which also generally serves as proof of citizenship. Adopted children have two birth certificates, even when a child is immediately relinquished at birth; the birth mother signs the original birth certificate and then when the adoption is completed a second certificate is issued with the adoptive parents names. What possible justification can there be for insisting, against the wishes of many adoptees, that their birth certificate and proof of citizenship must inform everyone who reads it that this person's legal parents are not their biological parents? What purpose does that serve, other than to embarrass adoptees who may not feel like discussing their personal (often painful) history with some random DMV employee?

It's a sad fact of life that people ask incredibly rude and inappropriate questions about adoption. DD has been asked why her mother "just threw her away," and how she feels about never knowing who her "real" parents are. I've been asked "where I got her from" and "how much I paid for her." People are stupid. 

Imagine if marriage certificates were required to list prior marriages, and any time you wanted to apply for a joint mortgage or bank account or something, you had to show a marriage certificate that listed your ex-husband and listen to some nosy bank manager quiz you about your divorce. If your gut reaction is "that's none of their damn business," then you understand why adoptees should not be forced to include more than the names of their legal parents, just like your marriage certificate only needs to show the name of your current, legal spouse.

 

 

This is all true. I guess I am still thinking of the past where the adoptee had no access to original bc.  

[Ann.without.an.e]

I haven't read all replies but many years ago my good friend who lives in Germany was telling me that she had a foster brother that was in their home since he was a baby but for some reason (because of German law or something?) he couldn't be adopted. He struggled so much with it. He would get very upset that he couldn't have their last name and that he was still considered a foster child. It caused him a lot of trauma and made him struggle over his identity. He couldn't be with his birth mom (abuse) but also wasn't legally a child of this family either. It feels to me that in most experiences, "this family chose me and has made me part of their family and I have an identity and place here" might be a lot less trauma than being sort of lost in the middle? 

ETA:  I think that once kids get a certain age, when removed from the home by the state, they should have a choice on whether they can even be adopted. 

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Ann.without.an.e

[pinball]

23 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

The anti adoption groups tend to dominate my feeds as well, and I am not really sure why, other than they’re very good at playing the algorithm.  I am not a birth mom or adoptive parent or adoptee, so for me I just watch and try to listen, but there is a lot of anger.  And they don’t seem to listen to other adoptees’ voices if their lived experience is different.  I’ve seen many comment that they are grateful they were adopted, that they remember or have met their birth family and it was not a good situation, and they are sad that it wasn’t but overall don’t feel traumatized by the adoption—and then are told by the creators that they either are lying to themselves or need more therapy to uncover their hidden traumas.

One thing I have noticed is that many have built a whole fantasy scenario about how much better their lives would have been with their birth families, and then(at least in one case that I follow) they have a massive mental health crisis when they reconnect with their birth families and are (a) either rejected by their birth mother or (b) the birth family tries to get money or housing or whatever out of them.

This sounds like a lot of the trans culture in social media…

[SKL]

4 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I still firmly believe that that depends on ages, circumstances, individuals, and existing dynamics.

Had we attained kinship placement, or should we in the future (which would be yet different ages and dynamics), I would not encourage my niece and nephew to call their cousins siblings or aunt and uncle parents. I wouldn’t disallow it either, if that’s what felt right and good to them.

But, regardless of legal definitions, families can use whatever terms work for them. I mean, I only distinguish halves, steps, and others in online forums for clarity, and maybe once for context IRL. When I refer to “my parents”, it doesn’t matter that one is a step that didn’t adopt me. (Perhaps because I was an adult, lol, but still.)

Let’s keep in mind that the majority of children in foster care are not babies without conscious memories.

That may be just a small subset of a larger context, but it’s an important one.

Adoption isn't the best option in every case, I agree with that.  If you're talking about older kids who don't and may never view their present nurturers as "parents," then fine, but that doesn't apply to kids who came into a family, with the clear intention of permanence, when they were babies or young children.

Current reality has many older children in foster or kinship care who are not and won't ever be adopted.  I don't think that's pertinent to the anti-adoption fuss brought up by the OP.

[SKL]

I also know some young people who were raised by their grandparents for whatever reasons, and they haven't been adopted.  They still have some connection with their bio mom as well as living with their bio family, albeit one generation removed.  It works for them.  That also doesn't change the fact that many kids do benefit from being legally adopted.

[SKL]

I'm confused about how some people are viewing the purpose of a birth certificate.

Do bio families refer to birth certificates to prove their parenthood to their children?

Nowadays, I don't know of any adoptive parents who aren't very open with their kids about their adoptions.  In fact, when my kids were little, I was more concerned that my kids would think everyone was adopted.  😛  We have a whole legal file full of documents about the adoptions.  I have shown these and read these to my kids since they were little.  My kids went with me to the judge who finalized their state readoption / name change which led to their current birth certificates.  My kids chose which parts of their story to include in their "about me" presentations in 1st grade.  We did birth mom searches when my kids were about 7yo, and I've shared age-appropriate information over the years.  We did 23andme DNA tests several years ago, and they were fascinated by the results.  My kids participate in an organization with camps etc. centered around the adoption experience.  This is all pretty standard for adoptive families these days.

So no, my kids are not gonna look at their birth certificate and think, "my mom lied to me!"  They are just happy their legal birth certificate facilitates their getting the same services as everyone else.  Imagine going to get your temps and being delayed because your documentation is different from what they expect.  (This has happened to some adoptees without regular state birth certificates.)  Imagine being told you are now going to have to wait months or maybe years for your paperwork to go through the system.  Tough luck!  Your'e adopted!  And Scarlett says everyone needs to know that.

[PronghornD]

49 minutes ago, pinball said:

This sounds like a lot of the trans culture in social media…

Why in the world bring this up? It is off topic and possibly offensive for those of us who have trans kids.

[pinball]

21 minutes ago, PronghornD said:

Why in the world bring this up? It is off topic and possibly offensive for those of us who have trans kids.

My post is pretty self explanatory.

Threads have tangents all the time. It happens. 🤷‍♀️
 

 

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Adoption isn't the best option in every case, I agree with that.  If you're talking about older kids who don't and may never view their present nurturers as "parents," then fine, but that doesn't apply to kids who came into a family, with the clear intention of permanence, when they were babies or young children.

Current reality has many older children in foster or kinship care who are not and won't ever be adopted.  I don't think that's pertinent to the anti-adoption fuss brought up by the OP.

I don’t intend to conflate all of the different circumstances revolving around children being raised by people other than biological parents, but when we are discussing language and legal procedures that apply to ALL of them, I do think each subset is pertinent.

[Splash1]

My whole life has been about adoption so I'm sure that influences my opinions and ideas.  My grandfather grew up in a Presbyterian Children's Home with his brother.  He was the youngest child to ever be placed there when his grandparents and father placed the boys there at 2 and 4.  They did not allow the boys to be adopted when a family inquired but said he already had a family, though they never once visited.  My grandfather ran away at 14 to go live with biological family who didn't want him and sent him away.  So he started working at 14 as an apprentice printer and was on his own.  His brother stayed at the children's home and graduated high school and they paid for his college degree.  I heard tons of stories about his growing up there and the family that wanted to adopt him but couldn't.  He often told me that kids belong in families not children's homes.

My husband and I adopted five children from South Korea.  I always wanted to adopt from a very early age and read everything I could get my hands on.  We researched all our options before choosing international adoption.  We were very uncomfortable with the "dear birth mother" model of most private adoption agencies and the idea of trying to sell ourselves as a better choice was extremely uncomfortable, I wanted to adopt a child that was in need of a home already, where I wasn't a part of the decision to relinquish. I was naïve.  We went to all the classes and read all the books, was on forums, discussion groups, etc to learn all we could.  My grandfather kept telling me to go get the baby because he was scared.  

Guardianship where the child isn't a permanent part of our family I don't think is healthy.  The child having to decide at some point they want to be adopted really doesn't work either.  Knowing my kids at say age 6, they would have said yes, at 12 maybe no, at 16 yes.  Growing up is hard and complicated enough without having to wonder where/who you belong to and feeling a part of the family.  

There was definitely trauma and you cannot convince me otherwise.  Looking back I can absolutely see how difficult this all was for them.  Some were obvious like the child who I couldn't put down at all for six months and would scream for hours like they were terrified. But also the one who slept almost all the time for the first three or so months to the point his brother asked if he was always going to be asleep.  Now in as younger adults making their way they are doing well, are healthy, know how to make healthy attachments but the transition to our family was hard.

Things that I think need to change.  

I would love for my children to have access to real, true information on birth family as well as health information.  I think this should be a right.  Now I know that most of the paperwork we have on birth families are pretty much lies or doctored to sound better for American ears. I asked at the time of adoption and was assured they weren't doing that any more but since kids have grown up and friends have searched and met families we have learned most is false on their report.

I think it would be wonderful to have access to well trained people through out our parenting journey that continue to train us and work with the parents and families before there is a crisis.

I think the "story" of the you're so wonderful for adopting, you saved them, etc mindset has to go.  We are not amazing or saints, or anything special.  We are just parents who love our children and want the best for them.

I think race mattered a lot more than we were told.  It has been hard for the kids to always be a walking advertisement for adoption when we're together.  They can never have that part of their life be private.  (well since four of the five are grown they don't always have to share but their names make it pretty obvious since there are pretty Caucasian sounding vs Asian. We did adopt all from Korea so they would have each other and not be the only Asian in the family.

Adoption is complicated and it affects different people differently.  Some of my kids struggle much more than the others.  They probably would have also struggled in their family of origin as some of their struggles can be tied to the prenatal conditions.  

Loud, angry adoptees get more attention.  We know many healthy, happy adoptees as well.  Kids attended heritage camp since before they could walk and built many friendships with other adoptive families so we've seen a wide range.

 

Parenting is hard, adoptive parenting is hard.  Growing up is hard, growing up in an adoptive family is hard. 

Just my rambling post 

 

[DawnM]

23 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

Early 80s.  It was a closed adoption facilitated through an agency.  The agency was actually one of the few places at that time pioneering open adoptions—birth mom chose the family through albums and while the agency encouraged communication between the families, this was a situation where birth mom was a late teen and her ashamed parents sent her to live in another city with an aunt and they never told anyone.  They demanded she have a completely closed adoption, though birth mom left a letter for her that she could have at 18.  I do agree with friend that staying with even extended birth family, especially on her father’s side, would have been better. I have strangely become friends with her paternal birth grandmother and it would have been a lovely, warm home better suited for friend’s specific emotional needs(not my story so I’m leaving out lots of details).

More support for single moms is a very common theme among the anti-adoption crowd.  Free daycare, grocery and housing subsidies, subsidized job training or higher education, essentially giving the mom the money instead of a foster family or agency.  It is already in place as you say.  But if you read what this group is saying it’s a lot of hand holding.  I do agree that poverty isn’t a good reason for parents to lose or have to give up their children, but they also seem to overlook the reasons for that poverty. Which at least where I live is almost always drug use—people are losing kids because they won’t get clean, not because they’re poor.

Yes, or mental illness.   It is far more complicated than some would like to believe.

 

[DawnM]

And can I tell you about my sweet 18 year old who made me cry?   He told me over Christmas break that he now knows what he wants his first tattoo to be.   He wants to put his adoption date.

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by DawnM

[Ottakee]

One birth certificate issue came about because in many areas adopted children were not given the right to see their original birth certificates and they wanted to know that part of their history.

my adopted kids have both certificates…original and adoption one

[PronghornD]

2 hours ago, pinball said:

My post is pretty self explanatory.

Threads have tangents all the time. It happens. 🤷‍♀️
 

 

I guess I find most thread tangents a lot more relevant. Your comment seemed odd and irrelevant, however self explanatory it might be. Just a little off-the-wall attack on trans people. That is the explanation I see.

Edited January 19, 2023 by PronghornD

[Harriet Vane]

1 hour ago, DawnM said:

Yes, or mental illness.   It is far more complicated than some would like to believe.

 

Yes, this.

I will add as a tangent--it is actually much harder to lose custody of kids based on mental health than it is drug abuse. It's easy to keep requiring drug tests and to record those results. With mental health, there's always a spectrum of those who function and manage the basics of daily life well (I have dear friends in this category), those who are not able to function, and those who may have episodes that need support but who do function well the majority of the time. The courts in my current state tend to value reunification above all else to an extreme, so when there are no drug issues, children are reunified with abusive parents even when parents perpetrated egregious abuse/neglect and are demonstrably severely mentally ill and not functioning. It's completely heartbreaking.

[pinball]

23 minutes ago, PronghornD said:

I guess I find most thread tangents a lot more relevant. Your comment seemed odd and irrelevant, however self explanatory it might be. Just a little off-the-wall attack on trans people. That is the explanation I see.

Well, like the post I quoted, there is a large social media presence for both trans and anti-adoption; both groups speak out against those from their own group who don’t agree with them and both groups think everything will be perfect “if”…if they’d stayed with their birth families for anti-adoption group and if they were the opposite sex for the trans group.

[Carrie12345]

29 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

Yes, this.

I will add as a tangent--it is actually much harder to lose custody of kids based on mental health than it is drug abuse. It's easy to keep requiring drug tests and to record those results. With mental health, there's always a spectrum of those who function and manage the basics of daily life well (I have dear friends in this category), those who are not able to function, and those who may have episodes that need support but who do function well the majority of the time. The courts in my current state tend to value reunification above all else to an extreme, so when there are no drug issues, children are reunified with abusive parents even when parents perpetrated egregious abuse/neglect and are demonstrably severely mentally ill and not functioning. It's completely heartbreaking.

Yes.

For over 20 years I’ve watched a person mask when she needed to, but it’s just that - a temporary mask.

And not just that person, but she’s the most relevant.

[PronghornD]

6 minutes ago, pinball said:

Well, like the post I quoted, there is a large social media presence for both trans and anti-adoption; both groups speak out against those from their own group who don’t agree with them and both groups think everything will be perfect “if”…if they’d stayed with their birth families for anti-adoption group and if they were the opposite sex for the trans group.

Sure, there are some parallels. This is the Internet age and the youth of today are often prone to black-and-white thinking! But pointing out random negative similarities between minority groups -- I don't see that adding anything positive to the discussion of adoption. Your point may be self-evident to you but not to me.

Edited January 19, 2023 by PronghornD

[Rosie_0801]

If you want to talk about trans issues, make another thread.

[wathe]

10 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The only person who should have the right to decide how "open and honest" they want to be about their personal history, and with whom, is the adoptee. It is their story to tell or not.

The legal function of a birth certificate isn't to tell a child who his or her biological parents are, it's a government document confirming date and place of birth, along with the names of the legal parents, which also generally serves as proof of citizenship. Adopted children have two birth certificates, even when a child is immediately relinquished at birth; the birth mother signs the original birth certificate and then when the adoption is completed a second certificate is issued with the adoptive parents names. What possible justification can there be for insisting, against the wishes of many adoptees, that their birth certificate and proof of citizenship must inform everyone who reads it that this person's legal parents are not their biological parents? What purpose does that serve, other than to embarrass adoptees who may not feel like discussing their personal (often painful) history with some random DMV employee?

It's a sad fact of life that people ask incredibly rude and inappropriate questions about adoption. DD has been asked why her mother "just threw her away," and how she feels about never knowing who her "real" parents are. I've been asked "where I got her from" and "how much I paid for her." People are stupid. 

Imagine if marriage certificates were required to list prior marriages, and any time you wanted to apply for a joint mortgage or bank account or something, you had to show a marriage certificate that listed your ex-husband and listen to some nosy bank manager quiz you about your divorce. If your gut reaction is "that's none of their damn business," then you understand why adoptees should not be forced to include more than the names of their legal parents, just like your marriage certificate only needs to show the name of your current, legal spouse.

 

 

Agree that BC is not about biology.  
If it were, then paternity is wrong on BC quite often  - the BC names the person who claims paternity, which may have nothing to do with biological paternity.   Not a rare thing.

(a bit of a tangent, since this nothing to do with adoption, but still a relevant point, I think)

[plansrme]

I would like to thank Correlano and SKL for their contributions to this thread, which has included some pretty nasty (subtle, but nasty) things about adoption and adoptive parents. The premise of this thread, that DNA matters above all else and that a DNA-free parent-child bond is inherently inferior, either for the child or the parent, is preposterous. If DNA is that important to you, please don't adopt. 

[Storygirl]

I'm an adoptive parent, and my siblings are both step-parents with beloved grandchildren. DNA does not matter.

For people who think it might, it can be helpful to remember that the one that they love the most, who is a foundation of the defined family-- their spouse -- is not biologically related at all.

Love transcends boundaries. All children deserve love.

[PronghornD]

Some of those who have not had adopted relatives may not understand the bond between adoptive parent and child and how important it is to the well-being of all involved. When my younger brother died in a car accident at the age of twenty-five, some people actually said, "But he's not your real brother" -- as if we grieved less because he was not born into our family. And my child had to deal with a little Chinese school classmate who for a while (even after I asked the mom to talk with her) would repeatedly say something like, "Are you talking about your real dad or your fake dad?" She didn't say the same thing about my kid's mom, probably because I was right there and she knew she was crossing a line.

Imagine these two incidents under the current system. Then imagine them under a system in which adoption was not allowed. For most children who lack functional parents, adoption is a good thing. You just have to vet the parents right and provide good training and support.

Edited January 19, 2023 by PronghornD

[Emba]

5 hours ago, Splash1 said:

 

I think the "story" of the you're so wonderful for adopting, you saved them, etc mindset has to go.  We are not amazing or saints, or anything special.  We are just parents who love our children and want the best for them.

Yes this. I cringe every time anytime says these things. 

[Melissa in Australia]

7 minutes ago, Emba said:

Yes this. I cringe every time anytime says these things. 

Context is everything. A couple of months ago the twins paediatrician rang me out if the blue. He said exactly those things to me. He said he is seeing what the alternative is, children being shifted from home to home with no permancy until they are so damaged that there is no hope for their future at all. He said that what we are doing is very special and we are wonderful people and how rare what we are doing is. 

 

[TechWife]

On 1/17/2023 at 9:51 PM, Scarlett said:

I think 6 is too young to give consent.  
 

And the value of permanence has to be weighed against the loss of identity. 

I’ve known adopted children nearly all my life.  They all have an identity. Adoption doesn’t remove personhood or the ability to relate to others as people. 

The big underlying question behind this movement is “What makes a family?”

 

[pinball]

39 minutes ago, PronghornD said:

Some of those who have not had adopted relatives may not understand the bond between adoptive parent and child and how important it is to the well-being of all involved. When my younger brother died in a car accident at the age of twenty-five, some people actually said, "But he's not your real brother" -- as if we grieved less because he was not born into our family. And my child had to deal with a little Chinese school classmate who for a while (even after I asked the mom to talk with her) would repeatedly say something like, "Are you talking about your real dad or your fake dad?" She didn't say the same thing about my kid's mom, probably because I was right there and she knew she was crossing a line.

Imagine these two incidents under the current system. Then imagine them under a system in which adoption was not allowed. For most children who lack functional parents, adoption is a good thing. You just have to vet the parents right and provide good training and support.

Im confused here. What does her size and ethnicity have to do with this?

if by little, you mean age…like a *young* girl, maybe she didn’t have the appropriate words to express what she meant.

[Emba]

26 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

Context is everything. A couple of months ago the twins paediatrician rang me out if the blue. He said exactly those things to me. He said he is seeing what the alternative is, children being shifted from home to home with no permancy until they are so damaged that there is no hope for their future at all. He said that what we are doing is very special and we are wonderful people and how rare what we are doing is. 

 

You’re right, context is everything. The comments you heard came from someone who had seen presumably a lot of what you’ve dealt with and how .  Their judgement of your character and how what you’ve done has benefitted your kids is based in experience and fact. I’ve only heard these sorts of comments from strangers and near-strangers when it first comes up that my kids are adopted. 

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, pinball said:

What does her size and ethnicity have to do with this?

I took it to mean like a “little friend” at Chinese school. If I refer to my young child’s “little friend” it has nothing to do with their size but their age, and if someone refers to Chinese school or Hebrew school, I take it to mean where they go (usually outside regular school hours) to learn Chinese or Hebrew.