We adopted two older kids (age 3 and 7) when we were in our 40s/30s.
It was very difficult and life changing in many ways. We sacrificed a lot to bring them into our lives.
But - we knew that going into it. It has caused stress and strain and high blood pressure. But I also got to carry my son off the field on my shoulders when he ran in the the finally touch down to cap off an undefeated season. To hear my daughter sing like Beyoncé.
We knew going into this it was going to be difficult. But we did it intentionally to save two lives from what was a life of poverty, instability, and abuse. We purposefully adopted through the State because we knew those were the kids in dire straights.
I want to say I can’t believe people would “return” adopted kids, but we saw a lot during adoption training. Parents in it for the money (you get a monthly payment if your kids are classified special needs). Parents asking questions about restraining and hitting kids. Foster homes filled to the brim with kids because there is a constant shortage of homes.
I hope most parents are improving the lives of those they adopt. But that 5% number is just devastating to see, but reflects the reality of who we are as a culture and a race.
How could you possibly know what an 15+ year commitment is like before going into it? Did you have kids prior to adopting?
I don't think it's weird at all some people wish they could 'return' their kids. It's virtually impossible to truly know what it's like until you're in it.
It probably isn’t weird to think about returning the kids…but it is certainly weird to do it. More than weird, it is disrespectful, cowardly, and inconsiderate.
When you decide to have kids by adoption or by natural birth—they should never be abandoned.
No matter what they do—you are with them for those ~18 years and hopefully many more.
Unlike a spouse—kids are dependents. And your commitment is to make sure they have someone they can depend on.
If you don't want your kids are you saying it's better off to keep them? Isn't adopting them out a way to make sure they have someone they can depend on?
Seems to me it's more "disrespectful/weird/cowardly/inconsiderate" to make some kid suffer for years living in a home where they're unwanted.
Everyone has a limit, until you've been pushed past it (and even after), you don't know exactly where it is, and of course it can change.
Every child will have a different impact on your limits, I can certainly understand how a person could be pushed past their limits, by their own child and more-so a relatively unknown child, and I have a lot of sympathy for people in those situations (even the most horrific ones).
As for "society", "they", give parents very little support, it may be different for foster parents but without researching much, I don't have much faith.
Whether society "ought" to be setup this way, that's a hard one, make it too easy and we self-select for a bunch of massive families with an endless bill of support.
My feel is we're erring too much on the side of a lack of support, especially less "social" (e.g. scandinavian countries) focused countries such as USA, UK, AU.
If "society" feels responsible for the welfare of these kids, then society should recognize a kid is better off in a home where they are wanted. This is so obvious I don't understand why it even needs explained.
“No matter what” covers a lot of territory. What if your adopted child seriously harms your new baby because they have severe attachment disorder? Are psychopathic, whatever?
Lots of children available for adoption have all kinds of problems that standard parents can’t deal with.
Abandoning is one thing. Recognizing you’re in way over your head is another.
When you are way in over your head, the way out is to push through the dip.
A startup will have that moment.
A theatre production will have that moment.
Pretty much everything will have that moment.
Kids too. My biological brother almost drowned me and we somehow worked it out.
Having kids is a very serious affair. They didnt choose to have you. You chose to have them. It is probably the most important arena in life. Time to step up to the plate.
Almost being drowned once can't possibly be compared to forcing a kid to spend 18 years with parents who don't want them. I'm sure there may even be significant trauma from your near death experience, and I'm very sorry you experienced it. But the feeling a child has from a life in an unwanted family has to be, often times, as bad or worse.
If the board or the executive of a startup sees there is no chance of success with the executive, that person ought to bow out or be replaced so the company can have a chance with someone who can and wants to turn it around. If the startup becomes unviable and bankrupt, sometimes it's better to bow out and gracefully transfer the assets to a more viable executive and/or business rather than force something that isn't going to work.
I'm not saying that people should give up easily, but I think it's brave that some families recognize the better option for everyone is to re-adopt the kid a family that wants them rather than force them to live somewhere that's headed towards a train-wreck.
> What if your adopted child seriously harms your new baby because they have severe attachment disorder? Are psychopathic, whatever?
"Whatever" covers a lot of territory. Do you think "standard" children of "standard" parents don't do that? Where do you think all the school bullies and little entitled pricks and princesses come from? Some of them even manage to get elected in the office for some bizarre reason.
> Abandoning is one thing. Recognizing you’re in way over your head is another.
Abandoning your child is already a widespread thing, you just don't even think about it that way. It's when one of the parents walks away because they're "in way over my head". It's essentially cancelling the contract and saying fuck this, I can't do it.
So I really don't know where are you going with this.
In our case (NJ in US), we went through extensive adopt/foster training provided by State government. They were very blunt about the range of potential issues, the fact that most adopted kids will have some level of attachment disorder, many have been abused or neglected, many will have health or other mental issues.
We were prepared for some pretty difficult potential scenarios.
As it was, we got very, very lucky. Our kids are incredibly healthy. They did suffer neglect and abuse (the latter in foster care), but we somehow handled it. The general rule is the number of years of neglect or abuse is the number of years the kids will take to recover. It was right on the money for us, at 13, our son who was adopted at 7, is finally showing signs of complete normalcy.
If the parents don't want the child, I don't see how the child is better off in a resented home than being adopted to someone who wants them. Un-adopting into another family that wants the kid sounds a hell of a lot better than living with those who don't want you.
But I guess that's my point. Who would resent an adopted child? That's what they signed up for. It's more on the adopters poor reasons for choosing to adopt. I'm not disagreeing with you, just highlighting that it's not really a solution, as the problem isn't the child.
Putting the kid into a family where they're wanted isn't a solution?
Anyone who thinks they truly know what they're signed up for when adopting or birthing a kid is a liar. You can't predict what an 18 year commitment will be like to a human you barely know (adoption) or can't know (birth). If the adopted parents don't want the kid I'd much rather them gracefully bow out than force the kid into a situation that isn't working out.
I went and googled the advertising page of the second chance adoption agency discussed in this article, and it's just heartbreaking. On one hand, I really can't imagine what these "parents" were thinking adopting these children in the first place - the reasons for rehoming go from "major lifelong medical care required" to "child doesn't get along with his siblings" - but, in any case, doesn't seem like many of the issues would have been unknown or that unexpected at the time of the first adoption. I also have the distinct feeling that few of these parents would give these kids up at the ages of 8-10 if they were their own biological children.
Of course, on the other hand, I can't help but think that these kids should be removed ASAP from a home where a parent would consider giving them up after caring for them for 8-9 years.
Just really sad all around, my heart goes out to these kids.
> Doesn't seem like many of the issues would have been unknown
You would be surprised of how dishonest, abusive and manipulative can be the adopting programs.
I know the case of a Spanish couple without children that adopted a Chinese girl baby. Some time later they discovered in a routinely health check (in Spain) that the girl has Down's syndrome, a fact that was know obviously but carefully hidden by the Chinese authorities.
Looking at the children up for adoption today, a large portion seem to come from families with many other siblings. Who would have thought that children with special needs require dedicated attention?!
The other thing I was surprised to see is how many of these kids ‘love Jesus’ and want to go to a traditional (i.e. straight Christian) family. I would think that any loving family is better than being unwanted, regardless of their religion and genders.
Sometimes they do. I don't know how to tell the difference between “child's desires are being listened to” and “people are speaking for the child” other than talking to them – and often, children don't feel comfortable speaking their minds even when they're assured it's safe to do so, so it's hard for me to tell even then. (Ymmv: I imagine skilled practitioners of social-fu can tell the difference.)
But just because adults are saying that a child wants something, that doesn't mean the child doesn't want that thing.
Wow. It is alarmingly easy to offload your child. People are adopting children because they look cute without understanding why the child was available for adoption in the first place. Usually it is because they have such deep mental health problems that they need a very time-consuming and expensive amount of care to bring their quality of life up to something reasonable.
It's very sad for these children, and it's not even one that is easy for a government to solve. It's not like health insurance where the government can throw more money at the problem - these children need very dedicated, caring parents who are willing to adopt, which is a rare thing to find.
It is terrible. My parents were foster parents to two girls at different times. One was from a foreign country and had been previously adopted. A history of abuse and fetal alcohol syndrome meant lots of behavioral issues. We ended up all getting locks on our bedroom doors. It was extremely stressful and gives me some sympathy for the family that originally adopted her. Goes without saying that the kids get worst part of the deal. In those two cases they both ended up in group homes. The article mentions the foreign agency being honest but in this case the adoptive parents were lied to about the child’s condition
Not so easy choice. Parents that do it are disqualified for adoption programs in the future.
So if your adopted children start showing strong psycho traits, or a undisclosed medical condition that only the very rich could manage and you are a mother past your reproductive age or your partner is sterile the choice is -this- child and maybe another in the future, or no child at all, ever.
“…the Internet is a reflection of society, and people are using it for all kinds of communications and to tackle all sorts of problems, including very complicated issues such as this one.”
Note that the article is from 2013, and this is very much in line with Facebook’s stance overall: that they are just a forum for expression, and not in the business of policing speech. That stance has only softened, really, in the past few years.
> But according to the information provided by her parents, “This family has drastically changed their lifestyle and have left their faith and extended family for a quiet, secluded life.” It is their hope that “a different family will step forward who can provide her with the socialization and continued relationship with God that she desires.”
So they're saying that they are getting rid of her because she is too religious at the age of 10 to fit into their lives?
It sounds a bit like the family might have been ostracized from their church, friends, and extended family after leaving their faith. Those relationships may have been critical to the child's wellbeing, covering up poor parent/sibling relations. Or losing them caused behavioral issues all around.
Just speculation of course. My gut says if we knew all the details we'd have a harder time passing judgement on the parents.
> In other posts with more pictures, the reader learns that Reese is the youngest of four daughters; the other three are the biological children of her parents. She gets straight A’s. She loves her parents and her sisters.
But I agree, I wasn't passing judgement, I just thought that the motivation was a bit specious, and to specifically call out personal religious preference when talking about a 10 year old is super weird.
> This is a child with no special needs but wants to be in a family who goes to church. She loves to sing praise songs and read her Bible. She and her parents want her to be in a family that does this. She gets along with everyone and has no major behavioral problems. Her parents want her to be in a family that is involved in church, and church related activities.
A child starts getting very expensive after age 10. Most likely, this child had served its purpose in their lives and the parents are done with their parenthood phase. It is time for someone else to take over while they travel the world and enjoy the finer things in life child free. It is possible they were just pressured into being parents by their extended family, but they didn’t really want to be.
It's even more heart-breaking than that - this girl is the youngest of 4 daughters. Her 3 older sisters are biological children and presumably are being kept by the parents.
I read this before I adopted, and it didn’t make any sense to me then.
Having now adopted, I’m willing to make a value judgement and say this absolutely horrific. It induces horror. I’m my kid’s parent.
Horrific, but I'm not surprised this happens. I have four biological kids. I know that parenting is hard. That's actually an understatement. I've often wondered how much harder it is when you don't have the biological connection and evolutionary drive to help slog through the hardest parts. To be very candid, I have moments where I feel like having kids was a bad decision, but I know that I'd still give my life for them. I can only speculate about how adoptive parents might feel at the hardest times.
Edited to add: I guess biological parents are the ones putting kids up for adoption in the first place, obviously. So the biological connection and evolutionary drive doesn't do much for some people.
> I've often wondered how much harder it is when you don't have the biological connection and evolutionary drive to help slog through the hardest parts
Fun my experience it hasn’t been one iota more difficult (2 biological and one adopted child) to deal with the hard parts. There’s never been a point when it even crosses my mind that one kid is ‘of me’ and the other isn’t…
I am an adoptive mother for 7 months already. I love my son very much and the fact that he carries somebody's else genes does not bother me at all. My son is from Thailand and I am Russian so we look very different. Still, not a problem The important thing here is that I take care of him and he accepts this care. (I do not have biological children and yes, parenting IS hard)
>So the biological connection and evolutionary drive doesn't do much for some people.
That doesn't follow at all. You can make zero assumptions about the why of that decision for any individual case nor how gut-wrenchingly difficult it is or is not. Nothing.
My dad's wife hated me, so I got kicked out at 15. Didn't stop my Dad from showing up at school and my job to threaten me.
The joys of adulthood, I deal with my horrible family when I want to. If you gave a bad family, it's imperative you estrange yourself.
In my 20s I made the mistake of trusting these disgusting people. Of course they lied to my face, stabbed me in the back, and asked me to co-sign a home loan afterwards. So my credit stays locked.
Trust is a luxury I can't afford.
Also, many step parents end up treating those kids like shit. If your not going to treat your step kids fairly, since you don't want to do it, don't date a single parent.
You have a bit of a catch-22, anyone mature enough to become a step parent will understand how much of responsibility it is. Thus, they'll be reluctant to do it.
Someone who lacks that maturity, will be much more eager to become a step parent as a condition of a new relationship.
I know I can't guarantee I'll be a good step parent. It's just an insanely hard thing to do, which takes a person stronger than myself.
So I don't date people with kids. I'd sooner die alone than put someone else though what I went though.
Consider going to therapy. Sometimes, the scars are not as deep as you initially thought.
Your story seems similar to my wife's, especially the part about being tricked into debt. We've managed to clear things up after many years of she and her brothers struggling. Good luck!
I definitely feel resonance for your position that estrangement is sometimes the best option, and is the one sure way to end a pattern of abuse that cannot otherwise be broken. I was lucky that my parents used it so much in my youth that when it came time for me to use it on them, I had seen many examples.
I might say that your family only has the power to haunt you that you now give them. Truly being able to say "you are no longer of significance to me" might lead you a place that you had not expected.
If the opening story about the 10 year old being put up for adoption 9+ years after being adopted as an infant is true, then I'm speechless. What an incredibly destructive, hateful thing to do. On the one hand, I don't think you should be able to do such things to a child. On the other hand, this is such a clear signal of how inappropriate you are as a parent that I guess the answer is to take the child as quickly as possible and seek to minimize the ongoing damage that is almost certainly already occuring.
It's terrible, but on the other hand I wish my parents / step parents had been courageous enough to do it rather than cowardly trying to make my life hell instead.
The more resources available for parents who shouldn’t become parents to stay childfree, the better.
Everyone decries the falling fertility rate. Let’s talk about how many kids who are in foster care every year (~400k in the US), who are in toxic homes, or who are homeless. We have a long way to go.
(I donate to non profits who subsidize voluntary permanent birth control and who advocate for the childfree)
I just can't get over the fact that it's somehow legal in the US to advertise young children for adoption on the (public) web, complete with portrait photos and descriptions of their personalities and backgrounds.
Advertising to the biggest audience means the greater the choice between parents for the kid. This isn't a bad strategy. If more people got facebook ads for kids they could adopt there would be more placement.
The privacy question is based on permission from the parent. Many kids model and similiar bios would be available in that setting available publically.
“If more people got facebook ads for kids they could adopt there would be more placement.”
I remember talking to a couple who had adopted a child. They told me that there would be more placement if the process wasn’t as difficult and insanely expensive as it is now. A lot of people who want to adopt a child are basically forced to go to foreign countries because it’s too hard at home in the US. No need for Facebook ads.
Adopting a healthy infant is difficult and expensive because there is more demand for these babies than supply. We don’t need more adoptive families for heathy infants. Adopting an older child is a different situation entirely. It sounds like you are describing a family who was pursuing a healthy infant exclusively.
That could be. I think they adopted a 2 year old. But in any case the process should not be made difficult or especially expensive (why?). It turns away a lot of well intended people.
I have seen the same with animal rescues. Some are very difficult to deal with (mostly because of bad prior experiences) so people go to breeders. In one way it's understandable but when you think about it it's unproductive and self-defeating to punish people for misbehavior of others (people also do this in relationships).
What’s the alternative? I assume that you’re not suggesting that one signs up for adoption and gets assigned a random child. So the alternative is agents with access to the inventory (children) and clients (potential parents). I don’t understand why that’s better than letting clients browsing inventory by themselves.
Referring to children as "inventory" is implies all sorts of negative things. Adoption isn't the same as a transaction where you peruse the "inventory" for a new hot tub or something.
Those interested in adoption should be _so_ interested, that they're willing to go meet in-person with an agency who can introduce them to the children.
The biggest problem agencies have is getting parents to come down. By advertising with pictures people will emotionally bond with a specific child which will prompt them to go through the long, expensive agency adoption process.
Charities use images of children to sell the charity.
Yeah, that still strikes me as gross and undignified, and I don't buy the premise that you need to show specific images of specific children that are available for adoption _right now_ to increase the rate at which parents come down.
> Charities use images of children to sell the charity.
> Those interested in adoption should be _so_ interested
That's what everyone would like... except that even if they are sloppy (not saying that they are) there's still a lot of children that are never going to be adopted. Do you believe that's better? Spoiler: it's not, because you're making sure most children will have a disfunctional adult life (growing up without a family is extremely hard) instead of allowing more children to live a normal life, but with the increased probability of a few living with bad parents (the number of cases where that's worse than no family at all is probably very small).
I have no issue with clients browsing inventory. But for privacy reasons that inventory should be very well controlled. Preferably in person. So no online access.
I guess your solution is to not advertise at all and instead have more children in state facilities, where abuse and neglect is orders of magnitude more likely.
Kids raised in state facilities get chewed up and spat out, according to statistics.
Giving up any child seems like child abuse to me once you consider the mental trauma of a child who has to live with the fact that there is nobody to love and care for them.
Between high school and college I was a camp counselor. Had a camper who had been adopted out of a horrific situation somewhere in Central America. Was put into a home where I'm sure they were well-intentioned, but completely in over there heads as to the level of mental and emotional trauma this little guy had been through. I don't think he even made it through the full week of camp, and I would strongly suspect he ended up institutionalized somewhere.
I bring this up not to give anyone a free pass, but simply to say that I can well imagine there are cases where well-meaning people discover they are in way over their heads. Clearly it should be the goal of the system to not place a child into that situation in their first place, but I can see where it happens. As for some of these other stories where the adults are clearly just a bunch of jerks... again, would seem like the system should avoid that situation, but there is such a backlog of kids needing homes that it isn't hard to understand why it happens.
The title sounds like it’s going to be discussing a general adoption phenomenon, but the example it starts with is just crazy religious people in utah. I don’t think that normal-minded people can learn anything applicable from people whose minds and lives are dominated by superstitious delusion.
These sort of forum posts should come with 2 disclaimers.
I'm a parent. Y/N
I'm adopted. Y/N
With that out of the way, people need to realize that the adoption pool is biased to kids with severe issues. Mostly because some portion of kids were places on adoption because of genetic issues, and the rest will probably develop issues as a result of adoptio. Only the very best of parents are even considering adoption from said pool.
I was surprised the failure rate is only ~5%. We can hope for better but -i think- 5% can be celebrated.
I knew someone from Cuba, and they said they had a very loose way of doing relationships. Basically everyone was cheating, much drama, etc. pp.
But they said, everyone cared for the children. Many families would have a whole bunch of half siblings, but they were always cared for by the grater family, even if the parents themselves werent able to do so.
I don't really understand the negative tone here. Of course there are cases where parents will want to give up a child, for good or bad reasons. Of course that applies to adopted children too. I've heard wildly varying things about how much screening is applied to adoptive parents - some people complain about a lack of screening, others about a hugely expensive and complex process. None of those wringing their hands seem to have a positive proposal to make things better.