Page 4 | Why are they in a hospital bed? (Adoption related)

FightingtheFoo · 2021-09-04T18:08:11+00:00

I just want to be clear this has nothing to do with the parents in question being a same-sex couple. I feel equally about surrogacy whether it's Kim Kardashian buying a baby or Pete Buttigieg. With that disclaimer: Why on earth is he posing in a hospital bed? I just find the absolute airbrushing out of the woman who actually carried, nurtured and gave birth to those babies for 9 months horrifying. [[https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1434167993769111552 https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1434167993769111552]]

PrincessNutella · 05/09/2021 19:10

In the US system, it takes a minimum of three months to a year once a child is actually placed in your home. The three months is for the government to visit and see how you are bonding, as well as for the birth parents to change their minds. Most adoptive children are not babies. There are large numbers of children in every state who need adopting but do not have homes, who are older. I would be astonished if that is not true in every country. Here is information on Indiana. I see no sense in placing a child in foster care rather than with adoptive parents--if the adoption is not finalized, then the baby will go back to the birth mother anyway, and if it is finalized, then the baby will be with parents who really wanted the baby, not foster parents who are caring, but who are less likely to be as enthusuastic as people who want to build a permanent bond with the child.

boobiegrabber · 05/09/2021 18:58

To clarify, 1470 out if a total of 1,663 where adopted from foster care (so the majority were not private, infant adoptions)

Applejuju · 05/09/2021 18:50

@NiceGerbil

Oh cool do you have a breakdown? I've been looking but I can't find one even on the Indiana gov site although I may have missed it obv

Although I did look it up before posting, this also comes from what I know personally.

In 2012, 1,663 where adopted in Indiana (www.in.gov/dcs/reports-and-statistics/dcs-adoption-statistics/ ) and 1470 where adopted from foster care ( childwelfaresparc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Indiana-ADOPTION-FACTS.pdf )

And from personal experience I find that it is rare for children to be adopted from foster care before two years of age, because children are really removed at birth, the families are usually worked with with the child still living in the house before a child is removed, and a child must be legally removed for a year before parental rights can be terminated and an adoption can take place.

NiceGerbil · 05/09/2021 18:30

Oh cool do you have a breakdown? I've been looking but I can't find one even on the Indiana gov site although I may have missed it obv

Applejuju · 05/09/2021 18:22

@NiceGerbil

Quick sum please do check if you want!

2k babies adopted Indiana every year
81k births

I make that 2.5 per 100 births adopted at birth.
Or 25 in every thousand

That tallies pretty well with the nearly 3 in every 100 children living in Indiana living in adoptive families of one sort or another.

Everything about those numbers shouts something going on there with this.

Many many of those 2,000 children are not babies. The 2,000 includes children who are adopted at all ages. Child who are wards of the state are very likely to be over 2 years of age when they are adopted.

For private adoption and surrogacy, the adoptive family gets their own room on the ward while the baby is looked after. Usually for at least 24 hours. The wait period for the birth varies by state, but usually at least 30 days before she can consent. It’s normal for the adoptive family to use the bed. They sleep in it! How surprising.

In rare cases, a child can become a ward of the state at birth. Usually because the parents have previously caused the death (or something else extreme) of another child. Even in those cases, the foster/adoptive family would not have a room (thru don’t even know a baby was born until they get a phone call from the state asking if they want a placement) and the adoption cannot be finalised for a year.

Driftingblue · 05/09/2021 17:41

When you adopt a newborn in the United States it os very common to be handed the newborn at the birth and get to take the baby home from the hospital. There is still a waiting period. It varies by state. In some states it is short. In some it is quite long. At any point during that waiting period the mother can change her mind and adopting parents will have to simply hand back the baby. It’s something you have to be prepared for when you adopt a newborn and it’s a big part of why many people choose surrogacy instead of adoption. I’m not arguing for surrogacy. I’m just stating a fact, that the waiting period is terrifying, but necessary.

I still think it’s better for the baby and to be with the intended parents during that period even if they might get their hearts broken because it’s better for the baby. If the baby returns to the mother, then the baby’s experience is no different whether the time was spent in foster care with random foster parents or potential adoptive parents, but it the baby stays, the baby gets that extra time with the adoptive parents.

StarshipsAreMeantToFly · 05/09/2021 17:35

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Oh for goodness sake.

The picture is intended to imitate the traditional picture of a tired-but-relieved woman sitting up in a hospital bed with a baby. In those pictures, she is in bed because she has either given birth vaginally (exhausting!) or has just had surgery, and she is a patient.

People are finding this picture instinctively disquieting because when two men have a baby, whether through adoption or surrogacy, we know neither of them has been through labour, so why are they lying on a hospital bed as if they're patients? If it was two women, you'd naturally assume, unless told otherwise, that at least one woman had given birth, and the other was being a loving partner supportive her wife/partner.

As it is, it is setting off the subliminal faking-illness alarm that many people with a bit of life experience have.

Yes unless one of them are ill it's very odd to be sat in the bed

NiceGerbil · 05/09/2021 17:33

Quick sum please do check if you want!

2k babies adopted Indiana every year
81k births

I make that 2.5 per 100 births adopted at birth.
Or 25 in every thousand

That tallies pretty well with the nearly 3 in every 100 children living in Indiana living in adoptive families of one sort or another.

Everything about those numbers shouts something going on there with this.

ZuttZeVootEeeVro · 05/09/2021 17:27

@MummyJ12

You simply have not differentiated *@CloseYourEyesAndSee* between the US and U.K. which surprises me if you are a social worker. It also surprises me that if you are in that career. You’re not more supportive of adoptive parents and adoption…..

You are being very unfair to closeyour, she hasn't said anything remotely unsupportive of adoptive patents. You are reading things that aren't there.

CloseYourEyesAndSee · 05/09/2021 17:23

@MummyJ12

You simply have not differentiated *@CloseYourEyesAndSee* between the US and U.K. which surprises me if you are a social worker. It also surprises me that if you are in that career. You’re not more supportive of adoptive parents and adoption…..

You've totally misunderstood my posts. Completely. I've also said nothing at all about adoptive parents. I'm not sure why you are taking my posts personally and making them about you. They really aren't.

MummyJ12 · 05/09/2021 17:19

Stepping away from this thread now. It’s too upsetting.

MummyJ12 · 05/09/2021 17:18

You simply have not differentiated @CloseYourEyesAndSee between
the US and U.K. which surprises me if you are a social worker. It also surprises me that if you are in that career. You’re not more supportive of adoptive parents and adoption…..

KobaniDaughters · 05/09/2021 17:14

So in the US a birth mother has up to 30 days to change her mind, she also has the option to sign away parental rights when she is discharged from hospital. Even then, the baby is officially a ward of the state until a year after birth when the adoption is finalised

Sorry but it’s just not a capitalist case of “get pregnant and be paid to adopt your child”
That doesn’t happen

CloseYourEyesAndSee · 05/09/2021 17:10

@CloseYourEyesAndSee

And is that always in the best interests of the mother and child? How often does that lead to several miserable years on benefits with a damaged older child ending up in the care system with little, if any chance, of a permanent secure home?

I don't understand your point. Girls and women don't tend to relinquish their babies in the U.K. because they don't want to
So how would it be better for them to hand their babies over for adoption when they don't want to? Are you suggesting that babies would be better off with wealthy adopters than lower income mothers? What makes you think that babies will end up in the care system rather than being cared for largely happily by their own parents or families? It's a weird, social engineering, classist false equivalence.

@MummyJ12 I assume you mean this post? How on Earth have you read this as me conflating your U.K. and US adoption system??

NiceGerbil · 05/09/2021 17:08

It's not about this specific case.

It's about the stats laws commercial involvement in Indiana that I for one had no idea about until yesterday and I'm very very taken aback by what I found last night.

CloseYourEyesAndSee · 05/09/2021 17:07

@MummyJ12

Your post at 11:38 *@CloseYourEyesAndSee* certainly didn’t differentiate….

Please quote it, I can't find it

I'm a social worker in the U.K. so please point out if I've conflated the two systems as that would be a grievous error of communication on my part.

CloseYourEyesAndSee · 05/09/2021 17:07

@MummyJ12

Do we definitely know that it was a voluntary situation here? From the Twitter link, that the OP posted, the details weren’t known.

Even in America I don't believe you can adopt newborns removed from parents without a legal process being followed!

These babies were most likely born through surrogacy not adoption anyway.

MummyJ12 · 05/09/2021 17:05

Your post at 11:38 @CloseYourEyesAndSee certainly didn’t differentiate….

CloseYourEyesAndSee · 05/09/2021 17:02

@MummyJ12

Totally agree on the US situation, but I really don’t appreciate people who don’t understand the system over here and think it’s the same. Nicegerbal had some really good points I thought but it’s really not ok that she posts she’s “judging hard” I take offence to posts like that with no clarity is all

Who has said that they think the system here is the same? I haven't read one post that says that

MummyJ12 · 05/09/2021 17:02

Do we definitely know that it was a voluntary situation here? From the Twitter link, that the OP posted, the details weren’t known.

CloseYourEyesAndSee · 05/09/2021 17:00

@MummyJ12

Not many people understand adoption or the adoption process. In the U.K. the birth parent or parents will have been granted absolutely every single chance and opportunity to prove that they can meet their baby’s or child’s needs before being removed. It can happen and does that a mother who is on the sixth or seventh child (all of whom are in the care system or have been adopted after all else has failed) gives birth to that child and the baby is taken by the new parent under the Foster to Adopt scheme. I ask myself, how many chances do people want to give these birth parents who lead chaotic lives and can’t even look after themselves never mind a child or children? My DD is adopted, it took us 6 years to heal her because she was so traumatised after only 14 months of being with her birth mother. Birth mother went on to have another child, they didn’t take the baby into care straight away, they gave her every chance AGAIN to prove that she could parent. After a year and the child nearly dying of neglect, the child was taken into the care system again and adopted but again showed signs of the same trauma. Are some people of the opinion that she should be given another chance? Because if anyone is then they do not understand the implications and consequences. Please don’t judge unless you know the full story, which you never will. So just don’t judge!

What does that have to do with the discussion around relinquished babies for adoption? Why are you conflating the two very different groups of mothers?

TurquoiseBaubles · 05/09/2021 16:57

@MummyJ12

Yes but *@NiceGerbil* where is the evidence to support that in this particular case? You have to be careful in your posting so it’s not a blanket response to every situation.

If the parents are taking the babies home straight from the hospital, the birth mother has not, by definition, been given time, space and support to make an informed, non-pressured, carfully considered decision.

TurquoiseBaubles · 05/09/2021 16:56

Though I suspect from reading further about this case that we aren't actually talking about adoption . Twins are exceptionally unusual in adoption, they are exceptionally common in surrogacy.

MummyJ12 · 05/09/2021 16:55

Yes but @NiceGerbil where is the evidence to support that in this particular case?
You have to be careful in your posting so it’s not a blanket response to every situation.

TurquoiseBaubles · 05/09/2021 16:54

I agree with NiceGerbil. As the mother of adopted children, I wish they could have stayed with their birth parents. They were adopted only because they couldn't stay. And even though they were both voluntarily relinquished (a long time ago now), they could not be placed with me until they had been in foster care for a few months to give the parents (both birth mother and father) time to change their minds, or change their circumstances. Even after placement, the birth parents could not sign the final order, nor could we, until more time had passed.

In the US mothers can effectively sign away their rights before the baby is born, the adoptive parents can leave with the baby within hours or days. A system that discourages change of mind, that discourages a baby staying with the mother who has given birth, which removes the possibility of breast-feeding and which doesn't allow post-birth counselling at a minimum isn't fit for purpose.

I agree that often birth parents in the UK are given too many chances and the children suffer. But in the US birth parents are often given no choice at all, and those children suffer too.