To think infertile couples should have priority

One could certainly make the argument that the current eligibility rules for adopting a child need to be revamped, but that's not because there are too many people trying to adopt and not enough babies/children. There is NO shortage of children/babies to adopt in either the USA or the UK. One could reasonably suggest that the methods used to screen the prospective parents are not in keeping with current cultures and lifestyles, but that does not mean that the solution is to hand out children based on a priority scale that does not include an assessment of the prospective parent's ability to care for the child.

I’m an adopter and have three close friends who are also adopters - one chose to adopt rather than trying for a baby, another adopted after having a biological child, and the third adopted after egg donation for their first child. I chose adoption rather than IVF. What priority order should we have been in? Should a couple who had exhausted IVF be prioritised above me?

The only priority should he what constitutes the best home for the child. This may include families who already have children, as many children in care may need someone experienced due to the levels of trauma they’ve been through.

It absolutely shouldn’t matter one bit if the couple have functioning reproductive systems or not and it’s frankly bonkers to suggest otherwise.

Adoption is not a family building tool for infertile couples (or anyone). It should be an absolute last resort in circumstances where every possible effort has been made to keep the child in the care of their birth family. Priority should be given to whichever person or persons are most suitable to care for the child, whether or not that’s an infertile couple. The child’s welfare is infinitely more important than any other consideration, including whether a prospective adoptive couple can have their own biological children.

Was the celebrity Joss Stone? Because she adopted in America where it is very different and private adoptions are much more common. In that instance the birth parents are able to chose the adoptive parents. In the UK, social services manage the whole process.

In America, the system is very very different. Over here, not many babies are available for adoption in the first place, they are usually fostered and then adopted as toddlers because of how long the adoption process takes.

It is, of course, what’s best for the child. As it should be.

but the truth of the matter is that people who are parents already will have some level of advantage as they are “proven” parents, so their parenting can be assessed more easily.

In the UK there are currently four times as many children waiting for adopters as there are potential adopters.
Anyone who has applied and is suitable could adopt - there is no 'need' to prioritise infertile couples, as the pool of adopters is so small that anyone willing to do it, and capable of doing it, can. No one is 'missing out' unless they're not suitable for the child.

That’s what the vetting is for.

Is it right that there are less families/couples wanting to adopt or is the process so long and tiresome leading to stress people back out for their own mental health. One family I know has been going through the process for three years and another two. The first family is finding it really difficult and is thinking of choosing to leave the process. Something they told me as well they don't like children going to families of a different culture. And for example there is a lot of black children in care due to the lack of black families wanting to adopt but a white family is not able to adopt them.

I think that, all things being equal, those without children should take priority over those who already have children so from that point of view, yes I agree with you @AnarchismUK. However, I imagine that all things are very rarely equal and as PP's have already said, it is the needs of the child(ren) that are paramount, not the needs of the prospective parents, sad though that might be for infertile couples.

I believe you are talking about a certain celebrity who has just adopted and is pregnant? If so that is the American system and an open adoption where the child was voluntarily relinquished and the birth mother was able to choose who would adopt her baby. Should she have had to choose off an infertile couples list first? If you are talking about the English system then the child is matched to the person or couple best able to meet their needs. Are you implying that some couples should be allowed to skip over that process, or that they should be the only ones allowed babies (usually a baby would be through Foster to adopt or concurrency as it takes time to get a placement (for adoption) order. Should all fertile couples be mandated to take children over a certain age? I'm afraid it just would not work.

I agree with you OP - assuming, as you've already said, that the infertile couple are good candidates.

Not sure why you're getting flamed!

Having read your opening post and your updates OP, I'm confused about what you actually are saying?

Genuinely btw, not being an arse.

How on earth do you think that priority would actually be put into practice OP?

I agree with everyone else yabvu.

The fact they adopted a baby makes me think it's likely you're talking about an American couple where things are very different?

I think for the thread is based on the false assumption that people are queuing up to adopt and there simply aren't enough children to adopt, so fertile couples are "taking" the children that would otherwise be going to infertile couples which just isn't true.

I am interested in hearing more though OP if you can expand?

The first poster said the needs of the baby should take priority, in what way is that a shark circling?

I had an adopted DB (he died in his late teens). I also have several biological full siblings. DB was the youngest.
There was no queue waiting to take him into their family, even at aged two. I'd argue that someone with DM's experience was a better fit than a first time parent. You haven't thought this through.

No, that’s your twisted interpretation

Is it a twisted interpretation, or is it literally the title of your thread.

First post nailed it, there's nothing else really to say.

Adoption isn't an alternative to having IVF or conceiving naturally. It's about the child, not the adults. End of.

There is nothing to debate. Adoption is not about righting the wrongs of infertility. Ever.

It’s about each child. The fertility of the adoptive parents is not a factor and should not be a factor.