When families un-adopt a child (2018)(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
When families un-adopt a child (2018)
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/11/children-who-have-second-adoptions/575902/
148 comments
https://archive.ph/6heWk
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not wanting your kids isn’t really a feeling you should act on, nor is it a feeling society ought to let you indulge.
"...a feeling society ought to let you indulge."
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.
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.
A kid is not better off in a home where they are wanted, necessarily.
Continuity may be more important, and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
Continuity may be more important, and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
If you simply go by the metric of putting a kid in the home where they are best off, then we can dispense with saying the biological or adopted parents are "necessarily" where the kid should be. We now know you don't think children are "necessarily" better off where they are wanted. Instead perhaps we can use your metric, and assign child to a home where they're "better off" after birth rather than to their biological parents or the person who wants to adopt them. This system could mean assigning the child to an entirely different country and culture at birth "in the interest of the child."
>Continuity may be more important
Continuity is not the only factor at play here. Continuity can turn into a bad thing where you're continuously somewhere where you aren't wanted.
> and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
The article is about families "un-adopt" a child. It's intellectually dishonest, and ignorant, to make this statement in the context of an article where it's so incredibly into the boolean "false" state of wanting.
>Continuity may be more important
Continuity is not the only factor at play here. Continuity can turn into a bad thing where you're continuously somewhere where you aren't wanted.
> and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
The article is about families "un-adopt" a child. It's intellectually dishonest, and ignorant, to make this statement in the context of an article where it's so incredibly into the boolean "false" state of wanting.
Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.
Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing. Moving kids out of homes they’re not in danger in is a bad idea, as the article explains.
Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing. Moving kids out of homes they’re not in danger in is a bad idea, as the article explains.
I reject the notion continuity with an unwanting parent is always the "best thing" and I've read quite a few anecdotes from people raised in such a situation that they wished the parents who didn't want them would yield to someone who did. Sure anecdotes don't prove it's always the case, but it shows it's not never the case either. Once again, continuity can turn into a bad thing if the continuous state is "unwanted." I'd rather spend at least _some_ time with people that want me than all my time with people that don't.
>>A kid is not better off...
>Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.
You're now contradicting yourself. Earlier you were worried about the kid being where they were better off. Now you say that's a terrible idea. You lack continuity.
>>A kid is not better off...
>Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.
You're now contradicting yourself. Earlier you were worried about the kid being where they were better off. Now you say that's a terrible idea. You lack continuity.
I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best off, I'm worried about moving kids out of situations that are "below the line" of tolerability. The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.
Your idea of moving children from home to home in a search for their "best" home is not a viable one, and you know that. The fact that you continue to argue is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally, not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
Your idea of moving children from home to home in a search for their "best" home is not a viable one, and you know that. The fact that you continue to argue is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally, not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing.
>I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best of
Again you contradict yourself. Earlier you were worried about what's "best." Now you claim you're not. The fact that you continue to contradict yourself is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally (nor with 'continuity'), not not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.
Spending a childhood with a family that doesn't want you presents the possibility of higher "problematic damage" than having the option to move to one that does.
>I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best of
Again you contradict yourself. Earlier you were worried about what's "best." Now you claim you're not. The fact that you continue to contradict yourself is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally (nor with 'continuity'), not not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.
Spending a childhood with a family that doesn't want you presents the possibility of higher "problematic damage" than having the option to move to one that does.
Given the number of children in foster care or worse, the choice isn't between being in a home where you're wanted and one where you're not wanted, it's being in a home where you're not wanted or not in a home. Which do you think is worse for a child?
False dichotomy. The unwanting family could seek a willing party to adopt the child.
If there are SO MANY willing parties, why are the foster and adoption systems overloaded with children? Where are all these good Christian families who want to adopt these children!?
If it's so hard to find people to adopt, why on earth would we limit the pool even further by ensuring people can be 100% sure they can handle and integrate whatever random child they end up with? That's an impossible task, and would vastly reduce the potential adopter pool even further.
Sometimes adoption process fails, and the family can't handle the kid, perhaps even after years in that family. You can't just shut them in together like trapped rats with no escape hatch to seek another family to adopt so the kid has some chance of being with a family that wants them.
Sometimes adoption process fails, and the family can't handle the kid, perhaps even after years in that family. You can't just shut them in together like trapped rats with no escape hatch to seek another family to adopt so the kid has some chance of being with a family that wants them.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
> When you are way in over your head, the way out is to push through the dip. A startup will have that moment.
Most startups fail. Most restaurants fail. Most businesses fail.
> A theatre production will have that moment.
4/5 theatre productions lose money.
Most startups fail. Most restaurants fail. Most businesses fail.
> A theatre production will have that moment.
4/5 theatre productions lose money.
> 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.
"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.
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.
[deleted]
Wish and do are different things. This is definitely one of those things you don't start unless your willing to finish it, no matter what.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>but reflects the reality of who we are as a culture and a race.
what does race have to do with this?
what does race have to do with this?
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.
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.
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.
This happened to my aunt and uncle.
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.
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.
Yep. Kinda breaks my heart that the girl mentioned in the first paragraphs was given back because the adoptive parents left church :/
> these kids ‘love Jesus’ and want to go to a traditional (i.e. straight Christian)
"These kids" don't want that.
"These kids" don't want that.
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.
But just because adults are saying that a child wants something, that doesn't mean the child doesn't want that thing.
Every offer finds a demand.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption/#article/part1
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption/#article/part1
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'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
Foreign adoption agencies are usually a nice income for poor countries. Turns out the "orphan" has parents who are still very much alive.
Parents want cute babies and toddlers to adopt not 10 year old local kids from abusive homes.
Parents want cute babies and toddlers to adopt not 10 year old local kids from abusive homes.
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 parents are blackmailed basically.
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 parents are blackmailed basically.
FYI the Easons in that article are now in jail for activities reported in the article. They both got 40 years.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1857440.html
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1857440.html
Upvoting because this article from reuters is chilling and worth reading as a complement.
“…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.”
I don’t even know where to begin here.
I don’t even know where to begin here.
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.
I really didn't get this part:
> 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?
I kind of feel like something is missing there.
> 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?
I kind of feel like something is missing there.
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.
Just speculation of course. My gut says if we knew all the details we'd have a harder time passing judgement on the parents.
According to the article:
> 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.
> 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.
There is a link on the article that provides a few more details.
https://wiaa.org/child/reese-placed/
> 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.
https://wiaa.org/child/reese-placed/
> 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.
That's still crazy. A 10 year old's opinion on this should be humoured, but not to the extent where they put her up for adoption.
[deleted]
The adoption was probably pushed through the church and it's a 'if you leave the church you have to give the kid back' sort of deal. Just a hunch.
[deleted]
The bigger red flag there is leaving their extended family for a secluded life imo. This has a wide range of possible interpretations.
This kind of sounds like the parents joined a cult... The secluded life, leaving extended family...
Of course, pure speculation, but this way of writing reminds me of what I've heard in the past from people in cults.
Of course, pure speculation, but this way of writing reminds me of what I've heard in the past from people in cults.
Baffling indeed, but I doubt further context would alter my conclusion that these parents are heartless scumbags.
> “This family has drastically changed their lifestyle and have left their faith and extended family for a quiet, secluded life.”
> 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?
Actually, it sounded to me as if the family went full-on Ruby Ridge, moving into an off-grid cabin in the woods, preparing for the rapture.
> 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?
Actually, it sounded to me as if the family went full-on Ruby Ridge, moving into an off-grid cabin in the woods, preparing for the rapture.
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.
They get cheaper as they get older. Child care for infants is extremely expensive, or the opportunity cost of staying home and watching them.
Are you thinking college? Despite what expensive selective private colleges want you to think, parents do not have to pay for it.
Are you thinking college? Despite what expensive selective private colleges want you to think, parents do not have to pay for it.
With that logic, a child can be super cheap if you just pay the bare minimum to live. No cars, no phones, no college.
What a weird list of bare minimums. What child requires a car or phone?
If they want one, surely they can get a job and pay for one?
If they want one, surely they can get a job and pay for one?
If those don’t qualify for bare minimums to you, I shudder to think about what you think are actual bare minimums.
I live in an area with sane public transport, and if my kids need to get somewhere I can also drive them.
The amount of children with cars in my area would be a singular percentage.
As to phones, why would your child require a phone? I'm sure there are some useful scenarios - obsessive tracking, easy contact, etc - but these aren't necessary. For hundreds of generations kids didn't have phones (and billions around the world still don't), and it's rarely an issue.
The amount of children with cars in my area would be a singular percentage.
As to phones, why would your child require a phone? I'm sure there are some useful scenarios - obsessive tracking, easy contact, etc - but these aren't necessary. For hundreds of generations kids didn't have phones (and billions around the world still don't), and it's rarely an issue.
[deleted]
Adoptive parent here.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
On the other hand, maybe the kind of person who would return a kid would not be a good parent to start with.
As an adoptee I can saying being a kids parent sometimes means giving them up for adoption.
That’s true for all parents.
That’s true for all parents.
Doesn't surprise me at all.
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.
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!
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!
Glad therapy worked for your wife.
My Dad simply used it as another venue to threaten me.
I'm always going to be a bit messed up. It's not really something I want to fix, if I could.
My Dad simply used it as another venue to threaten me.
I'm always going to be a bit messed up. It's not really something I want to fix, if I could.
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.
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)
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)
rayiner(3)
Talk about a "no good choices" situation.
My relatives adopted a child who went through something similar at age 4. She's okay now, but it took years to get to that point.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Note that they're not selling the children.
> Charities use images of children to sell the charity.
Note that they're not selling the children.
> 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).
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.
This is not unique to the US. For example https://www.rainbowkids.com/international-adoption/eastern-e...
Just search for photolisting you'll find it all over the place.
Just search for photolisting you'll find it all over the place.
Russia and Ukraine have a terrible problem with orphans.
Here's an example from Ukraine: https://deti.zp.ua/eng/list.php?keyword=sirot_net (if you find the US sites shocking, pls don't visit this).
Here's an example from Ukraine: https://deti.zp.ua/eng/list.php?keyword=sirot_net (if you find the US sites shocking, pls don't visit this).
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.
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.
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.
Unwanted pets, unwanted children. In the words of Prof. Farnsworth: "I don't want to live on this planet anymore".
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.
Y N
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.
Y N
In my country you break it you own it. You can't just return to sender your adopted kid like a goddamn Zalando package.
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 kinda like that idea.
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 kinda like that idea.
I know about a kid that was orphaned twice. Some of this stuff really breaks your heart, parent or not.
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.