To think infertile couples should have priority

Adoption is about the child, and where possible, guardianship with family is better, or if safe, reunification. Adoption is not about fulfilling the needs of infertile people.

Also, if we're talking about America , adoption there is highly unethical regardless.

Having fostered, I think that children who are available for fostering and children who are available for adoption have quite a small overlap. Very few children are adopted by their foster parents.

Fostering does show you have the grit to stick out the tough bits.

I’m not sure which celebrity you are referring to but in the UK babies and children are matched to the potential parent(s) social workers deem to be the best fit for that child. Whether the parent(s) are fertile or not is unlikely to be taken into account.

If a child is adopted through a UK agency but from another country then the process can be different and may depend on the adoption laws on that country, sometimes parent(s) can literally choose a child, in other cases the matching process may be similar to being matched with a child in the UK.

If the celebrity did not adopt their child in the UK or using a UK agency then the process may have been different again, for example in the USA the pregnant mother will often receive the details of potential adopters and will be the person to choose who adopts her baby, in that case it’s purely personal preference and up to her if she considers things like fertility.

I'm assuming this is about Joss Stone. The reason she has adopted is because her husband was adopted himself and she wants to help others. Seems a decent thing to do.

I do agree with you that it should be child centred. For the most part though I think that an adopted child is better off with parents who don’t already have a child and certainly with ones who don’t plan to get pregnant shortly after the adoption. This is because very few people are able to treat an adopted child exactly the same as a biological one and will often have a stronger bond with the biological children.

That’s a different point to be fair and not one I’m straying into with my comment.

Adoption is very complex. It's done in best interest of child. So matching to families who are the most suitable. There is not a lack of children sadly, it's the other way round.

Cough cough surrogacy. So interesting that it’s abhorrent to talk about parental wishes and needs for adoption and then bang, you can buy a whole baby if you want.

I’m sure you have good intentions but surely you can see that the premise of adoption being about parents not children is problematic? any indication that the process serves to give parents a child, vs children a family is pretty grim, don’t you think?

"I kind of always assumed such (obviously suitable) couples had priority, seems not??"

What do you mean by this?

I am assuming you're talking about Joss Stone. It did make me think about a neighbour who was trying to adopt and they were told very very firmly not to risk getting pregnant. They were adopting because pregnancy was impossible..

Wow…..lots of judgment there!

I don’t think it should be about parents getting priority if they are infertile but I think it is unfair on a child to be the adopted one if there are biological children. Some parents manage to treat them all the same but so many don’t and the child will know it. I think it would only be okay if the biological child was a lot older than the adopted child. I think it’s terrible to adopt and then get pregnant soon after and i think that if you do adopt you need to lock down contraception so that it does not happen and if you do get pregnant, to terminate.

This ma be a controversial view, but I think it's better for the child to be adopted by someone very wealthy, so celebs should get priority in my book. 🤷‍♀️

I wouldn't see adopting a child in the UK as "prize" for not being able to conceive. I imagine most adopted children aren't babies and many have endured great trauma and possibly have associated illnesses. I think it takes a remarkable person to adopt in this day and age. I admire people who do it.

THere should be no priority of any candidate over another. There should only be whichever candidate is the best fit for the child concerned, regardless of fertility, sexuality, whatever you want to screen for.

@Lil44, do you imagine there's a sort of waiting list for prospective adopters to join that the infertile should get to queue jump ahead of those who could have a biological child? Kind of like waiting for a popular restaurant, and the next available table for two child gets allocated?

I believe this is about Joss Stone. She has two toddlers, a newly adopted baby who seems to have significant health needs AND she has just announced her pregnancy. But apparently it’s okay because she’s a great mum (according to her).

I must say that in this country this particular case would be far from ideal if the mum became pregnant very shortly after the adoption. If it happened before the adoption order was made I think social services would try to find a new family. It’s not fair on the adopted baby because her attention will now inevitably be diverted and the adopted child needs extreme levels of stability until they are fully settled. Plus of course plastering it all over social media.

This.

Nobody has priority. Everyone goes through the vetting process and, no matter what your circumstances, you are only ok to continue if you are proven to be capable of being a "good enough" parent.

The parent is matched to the child. The child comes first.

I also think if an infertile couple see adoption as a way to have a baby of their own, they are being incredibly naive. I know a couple whose child was 1 by the time the adoption was completed. The child has FAS and 5 years later there are many challenges, but they knew and accepted that. It is not a route to a "dream" family

I have an adopted friend who now does work in this area

She talks a lot about how growing up she felt she was a circle that her parents were desperately pretending could fit into a square hole. She wasn't their biological child and raising her wasn't the same as a biological child - rather than this difference being embraced, she felt it was resented and kept hidden. She never felt adequate, she felt she had to hide parts of herself.

The worst stories she tells me are of children adopted by supposedly infertile couples who then later unexpectedly end up having a biological child :(

So what’s the order? Where do families with secondary infertility stand?!

Thank you, yes agree with you. It’s a shame people so ready to twist any discussion

I'm sorry you've been jumped on OP as you are clearly well intentioned but I think you misunderstand adoption. There really is no discussion to be had. As a pp said, available children outweigh potential adopters so if people are suitable, they can adopt. There is no need for a pecking order.

I used to think infertile couples should have priority all other things being equal but now I know more about the children being adopted for the last couple of decades or so in the UK. I have also known people who’ve relinquished their adopted children back to local authority care. The children put up for adoption are mostly sadly very traumatised and neglected and or exposed to drugs or alcohol in the womb. Their early experience has inflicted damage to the developing brain that often no amount of love and good parenting can ‘fix’. These days having an adopted child is therefore a very different thing to having a biological child for most people so there’s no reason infertile couples should think of it as a similar alternative.

As someone who was adopted, in the ‘olden days’ when we were not as damaged on average, I absolutely agree it is all about the child and if the necessarily rigorous process of adoption stresses you out then it’s doubtful you’d cope with a child with extremely challenging emotional and behavioural problems. Sometimes existing parents have more relevant experience.