[notch656a]

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.

[iancmceachern]

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.

[notch656a]

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.

[iancmceachern]

That's what I'm getting at. You don't get to. It's the same with having a kid via birth. You don't just get to say this sucks halfway through and give up. It's not as of the system works well, it's not as if it's all fairy tales and sunshine. The kids don't just go into another perfect situation. Put another way its not a better situation for the kid, only an out for the parents.

[notch656a]

There is no perfect situation. These are families that "un-adopt a child." They don't want the kid. It stands to reason the kid will (or at least may) be better off if the family that doesn't want it, can find one that does.

>Put another way its not a better situation for the kid, only an out for the parents.

You say this as if it's fact. I don't buy that a kid is always better off (or same) to be with someone who doesn't want them.

>You don't just get to say this sucks halfway through and give up.

You do, and part of the reason for this is because society decided adoption is better than not giving a release valve for situations where parenthood isn't in the interest of the involved parties. The alternative, banning these adoptions / re-adoptions, could result greater risk of dangerous and abusive situations. If you don't allow someone to exit a situation that they see going into a train-wreck, you seal the fate of the kid and the parents going into the train-wreck; better to give these persons an out.

[iancmceachern]

I'm not saying any of that. Just that it's flat out wrong to adopt a child, then give up because it's not what you expected. That's what it is (parenthood). This isn't a job, soccer team or a friendship, it's family.

[notch656a]

If you expected to be able to adequately care and integrate a child into your family, but you are unable to do so, then it makes sense a guardian may choose to adapt to the situation. If reality turns out the child can't be integrated or stay integrated with the family, I'd rather the guardian seek adoption from a family that wants them than let the situation slowly devolve into a train-wreck where they're unwanted.

Simply framing it as any sort of 'not expected' misrepresents the array of situations here.

It may be 'wrong' but at least everyone is better off. Part of life is knowing when to do something others consider 'wrong' so you can achieve the outcome that is 'right.' We shouldn't just shut off the ability to re-adopt out a kid and seal them in with an unwanting family like a trapped rat.

[msrenee]

I feel like the solution is to screen adoptive parents much more thoroughly. It is incredibly traumatic to find out that the people you live with and depend on don't want you around any more. Whether you think the parents at that point should nut up or find a new placement for the kid, it's already messed the child up just knowing that they might lose their home and family. Why are people able to adopt 17 kids and live off the government checks? That's an actual example from this series of articles. Why is that ever allowed to happen?

If the adoptive parents are screened more thoroughly, and given resources and help getting through the tough parts, we would see a lot less of this.

[notch656a]

You would see less, but it would still happen. There has to be some release valve other than putting the kid and parents into a corner like trapped rats, where risk for exposure to neglect/child abuse/trauma skyrocket. If you simply say a kid can't be re-adopted out by someone who's had them for X time, you're basically sealing the fate of some kids.

[msrenee]

I agree that there should absolutely be a way to rehome children whose families aren't able to handle the situation. The point of the article was that it needs to be tracked and regulated much, much more thoroughly. The article focuses on these online groups where people advertise these children and hand them off to interested strangers with basically no safety checks in place.

It seems like this often happens with parents who have had enough issues with the authorities in the past that going through more legitimate avenues would trigger an investigation that would likely see all of their children removed from the home. Which is why I think the root of the problem is people who are not qualified being allowed to adopt children, often way more than any reasonable person could hope to care for.