To think infertile couples should have priority

The adopted baby has serious health conditions?

Absolutely not. The needs of an adopted child can absolutely not be compared to those of a child who is not. They are far higher. And also the age gap there will be would not be possible biologically because her baby is 7 weeks and I presume she is 3 months pregnant or so (given that she’s blabbing all over social media about it).

If she’s adopting a premature baby then she needs to be very careful about contraception. It’s not that difficult to avoid getting pregnant. She should also have thought carefully about keeping the baby - I would not have done so in her position. She has a premature adopted baby with serious health conditions. She will now have a newborn and it will be impossible for her to focus anywhere near the amount of attention needed on the little adopted boy. Adopted children have much higher needs than other children. You really have to take that time out to bond fully with them and make them feel secure and attached. Having lots of biological children who are all close in age isn’t great either because this boy will be at risk of feeling like an outsider.

The title of your thread is ‘AIBU to think infertile couples should have priority.’

and you went on to say ‘I kind of always assumed such (obviously suitable) couples had priority, seems not??’

So the poster hasn’t twisted anything.

Very, very few people want to adopt. Surely there are not enough people coming forward for social workers to even think about who is infertile or not? Also, I think those who struggle with infertility are grieving the fact that they will never experience being pregnant or getting to raise their own biological children. I don't think adoption is usually the answer they are longing for. I think that to adopt you need to want to help a child who is need of a home and to be able and willing to work through the complex challenges that come with it.

It doesn't work like that in England, not sure about the US.

If you want to adopt you go through the assessment process (which takes ages) and then you are approved to adopt or not. Somewhere near the end you have the opportunity to express your preferences and say that you want to adopt a particular age group or that you don't want to adopt a child with a known disability, or who is a result of incest. Then you join the list of potential adopters. I believe the potential parents need to make sure they take contraception from this point onward even if they are definitely infertile.

Then when the court decides a child should be adopted, a social worker from the family funding team will go through the list and remove the people who don't want to adopt a child that age. Sometimes it will be decided that the child would be better off in a family where there are 2 parents, or a single parent, other children or not. Potential parents over a certain age (I think it's 45) will usually not be considered to adopt a very young child. I think the social workers will look for more local families first so that children can go to the same school but they will look all over the country if necessary to get the best match for the child. Potential parents will be matched faster if they are happy to adopt a disabled and traumatised 8 year old than if they want to adopt a baby with no known problems. However it's all about the child and the best outcome for them. It's important to remember that a child who is available for adoption had already been failed at least once.

This is how it should be but i imagine it must seem frustrating for people who see biological parents having children easily without anyone checking if they are suitable parents or not.

Fertility has nothing to do with adoption. It may be your reason for adopting, but it should not be a factor in the process. The focus should always be on what is best for the children. People's ability to have children doesn't come into it. These children aren't backup prizes.

The same as any other baby where there is a very small age gap?

I’m inclined to say fertile couples are more likely to be adopting to give a child in need a home than infertile couples who just want to satisfy their want for a child.

As said up thread, the reason this couple have adopted is because the husband is also adopted. Nothing narcissistic about that.

It does appear to have been a surprise.

Or in the case of many celebrities, because they want to look good/have narcissistic personality disorder.

It’s very selfish to adopt a baby with high needs and then get pregnant immediately afterwards. How the hell will that poor baby feel when her attention is diverted from him in six months time? Things like this are big reasons for adoptions breaking down.

I can't get outraged about a small baby finding a new family to love it, whoever they are.

Infertility can also heavily affect couples psychologically. That could have a bearing on adoptions.

I dunno, adoption for infertile couples if often the "fallback choice". With couples who already have biological children, they're not adopting because they want a child, any child, they're doing it to give a child a better life.

No, the child’s needs should be the only consideration. Obviously the parents situation will massively impact that - would this child benefit more from being an only child, being in a big family, are the prospective parents trying to replace the fantasy baby they’ll never have, are established parents too blasé about the impact adoption can have on a child, etc etc. I don’t think it’s helpful to say “all things being equal” because this is too complex for situations to ever be equal.

But, from an entirely different angle, yes I find the American private adoption situation worrying. Partly because it does seem to consider needs/wants of prospective parents more than the UK system does. That particular case is not one which feels right to me. Not that they should never adopt, but not this baby right now.

Hit the nail on the head

She's just found out she's pregnant too so that might also be why the op is outraged.

Just had a google

So the baby they adopted was 11w prem so 29w and now 7w

Amazed out of hospital tbh

Infertile couples arw usually grieving and if they get pregnant then often don't care for the adopted baby. If they are grieving they can't adopt. A parent who has a child knows the score and wants to adopt for the right reasons. So no I don't agree with you

I'm sure it's already been said but - it's not about the needs of the adopters. It's about finding the best home for the child.

Thanks @Startinganew32

Why not - because a baby who is unable to be cared for by their biological parents or other family members is not a commodity. The don’t exist to meet the needs of infertile adults. If anything it would be better that infertile couples were barred from adopting.

I can definitely imagine that would be incredibly difficult but I guess the issues you’ve raised would fall into the category of ‘what’s best for the kid’ as opposed to which parent is more ‘deserving’ (which is very much in line with my point)