AD rejected by family member, just need to offload really

[Dandelionandburdock1]

LO has been with us for almost 10 months since she was 9 months old.
My sister, my only sibling came to visit after a couple of months (she lives 40 mins away) bringing gifts and quite sweet with AD, but almost within minutes of arriving told me that her long term boyfriend of 20 years "finds this whole SITUATION (indicates to AD) very difficult which is why I've come alone. She completely took away the joy of her meeting her new Bruce for the first time and somehow made me feel guilty?!

Since then, we've only seen him once at my parents wedding anniversary which he couldn't have missed. Due to seating plan he was sat next to AD, who he barely acknowledged and no mention to me in our brief conversation. Not even a "congratulations how's it going?".

We usually see them at Christmas, this year it was a text from my sister suggesting a meet up half way, walk and "hot chocolate", the first time ever that we haven't had a proper family gathering at Christmas at someone's house with lunch, present giving, walk, tea etc.

She suggested day, time and place. I thought OK maybe this will be more neutral for her BF but no, when we got there she was alone. He'd "gone trouser shopping" for an evening wedding invite of people she'd never met at a venue she didn't know yet and said it was a last minute invitation.

I'm very hurt, been brewing on this all day that a grown man could not want to have contact with an 18 month old baby (who is frankly gorgeous) and not want to see his other half's sister, husband and kids (his only nieces and nephew)

They have no children of their own as "he couldn't love a child that wasn't biologically his" and they've been unable to conceive.

I'm wondering where this leaves us. I want to have it out with her but we're not that type of family and what good would it do?

Very sad for my daughter right now :(

Agree with all these wise views. I think once Christmas is out of the way a firm and open chat with your sis is in order, then BIL or both of them together.

There are lots of reasons why a person or family simply cannot adopt a child at a certain time, they could be material reasons e.g. practical, or emotional or other. As an adopter I, like others here, know that our children (who joined us by adoption) have birth parents and wider birth families (and in an ideal world they would have stayed within their birth family) but they could not stay within their birth families. So, for whatever reason, they were adopted by others, and we as adoptive parents love them and care for them completely because they are our children. So blood is not thicker than water, being related by birth is not the most important thing.

Perhaps what your BIL needs to do is think about what happened 10 years ago, and realise he was not at fault if he really felt he could not care for the child. He is not a bad person for not feeling able to adopt a child. Most likely adopting a child when one really feels unable to do so would be a monumentally bad idea (I am not saying it does not ever work out, but doing something you feel unable to do, or being 'guilted' into doing anything is really not doing to work most times!).

However, what he is doing now, blanking and rejecting a family member of his wife's family, is wrong. He cannot change the past but he can change how he behaves now.

I really feel he needs counselling to put to rest any feelings about the past, but that will be, of course, his choice. As your sister and he were together at the time, (you said long term boyfriend of 20 years) then there is a chance your sister either wanted to adopt and it caused a minor rift between them (which he fears will happen again) or she didn't want to and this fueled his resolve not to adopt. If either of them softens their 'attitude' or 'approach' to adoption this may impact on how the other feels about what happened in the past maybe.

Anyway, I don't know but I think it is for your sis and bil to work out. But 100% agree with others you need to ensure your dd is not affected by his or their issues.

It may be worth also talking to your mum and dad so they know your thoughts.

I haven't got anything to add to the above PP, I hope you can speak to your sister in the New Year and get past this but do remember that this is their issue and not something you should feel you have to resolve. If they can't get past it then accept that and move on without them.

I find the idea that there are people who wouldn't adopt on 'principle' really offensive combined. I can't imagine what kind of principles those would be.

But also you're on the adoption board. Talking to someone who's having an actual real life problem with someone with issues with adoption and I would have thought that might be reason enough to not to voice those kinds of opinions.

Mybloodykitchen, I think it is better generally to try to understand where people are coming from rather than take offence, although granted sometimes easier said than done. Do you disagree?

Many people who ttc get asked if they'd adopt and some say yes and some say no - those that say no will have reasons which do not make them bad people. Do you think everyone should want to adopt?

Sorry if I am missing the point... I usually try hard not to put things in a contentious way...

I'm in no way offended by any of the comments, but thank you for your support MBKitchen. I took Combined's comments in the spirit I believe they were meant.

in my journey so far (and I'm sure the same for most adopters) I've come across all sorts of opinions (mostly unsolicited, thankfully mostly positive towards adoption, but it's amazing how people feel it's ok to give them!)

I was reluctant to tell one of my dear friends that we were planning to adopt as she had made her feelings clear on the subject (not that she was against adoption, but that she felt adopting was very risky, doomed to fail, also could not personally love a non biological child as much as her BC etc) not realising that we were already mid assessment and I didn't want to hear ANY negative viewpoints (who would?).

Here's the funny thing - no adoption is not an option for her, but she's ended up being the most supportive of all my friends, including my best friend and referee who promised to visit every week and has visited only once in 10 months (busy with new boyfriend)

My friend who had a negative attitude to adoption admits she has completely changed her perspective and is utterly in love with my AD (soon to be her god daughter).

The difference between my friend and my sisters long term boyfriend is that my friend has always wanted to know my daughter and has tried very hard to support us and be involved and my sisters boyfriend is actively cutting us out of his life for whatever reason. And I'm trying to understand where this is coming from.

Not wanting to adopt is different to not wanting to do it on principle. Principle implies there's a moral judgement behind it. And you make it clear that these are lovely intelligent people so what exactly is their principled objection to the way I've put my family together?

And it's not the first time you've shown yourself to be no friend of adoption here tbh. Which is a bit strange given how much you are here...

OP, I was very relieved to hear that.

Mybloodykitchen, this is the second time you have taken issue mid through someone else's thread. Where did I show myself to be no friend of adoption? I don't know anything about your family choices so how can I comment?

And I don't mean to derail your thread dandelion :)

Sometimes I think we just have to accept that we can't change what others do only how we react to it. So if you're thinking that there's some magic solution to this ( and blaming yourself for not being able to find it for your dd) it might help to think that you can't 'bring him round' and accept that and concentrate on how you make sure it doesn't affect your dd.

I have a relative who is just awful for reasons which have nothing to do with adoption and it helps me to just accept that she's doing the best she can, it's not up to me to fix her and I have to keep her at arms length so it doesn't affect my children.

Good luck :)

I can't see how combined has shown herself to be no friend of adoption here at all. I think that is a rather unkind comment.

I think that not wanting to adopt is fine. Just as not wanting to have birth kids is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are usually speaking from their own perspective about what they feel for their own lives. So kitchen I would not take it personally as any kind of judgement on how you put your family together. I think combined is just trying to be helpful, in explaining what others have said.

I have a few friends who did not want to adopt.

One was the male partner of a couple who by this point, I think, already had one birth child. I think his wife was open to it but he was not. In his case I think he felt he could not love an adopted child as much as his birth child.

As mum to a birth child and one who joined our family by adoption, and as a regular reader of these boards, I know this is not true of many families. Many, many families love all their children, however they come. I expect my friend's husband would have too, but that was his choice.

Other friends were a couple who had a birth child and they had seen a family situation (maybe family or friend of the family) where there had been an adoption and it had gone badly and been a very negative experience of adoption.

I think on principle can have a moral component but it does not always have.

idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+principle

1. On moral or ethical grounds.
2. According to a fixed rule or practice.
3. on general principle. For no special reason, in general

Sometimes it is about the individual who feels they themselves may not be up to the 'task' of parenting a child who may be harder work than the average.

But I do agree it is a funny way to phrase it.

We may never know why people will not do something, because even if they tell us their reasons, they may not completely be honest or may not even know their own reasons.

The reality of your situation Dandelion is that your BIL is hurting you and your child by his views. That is quite different to someone who may says they don't want to adopt. He is showing a level of prejudiced against your child which is, quite frankly, very hard to fathom. I think he needs to find help to put all this to rest in his own mind and move on.

You said "...although my sister gave the impression that they were incredulous at being put in the awkward position of being asked..." Sounds really odd to me. Almost like there is still more to the story. Why would anyone even resent being asked? It is very strange.

Anyway, I hope you find the strength and the right words to show your sister and her partner how this situation is not a long term tenable one for you. Bless you.

I was asking why these high minded brilliant folk have principled objections to adoption.

AFAIK the only principled objection you could have to adoption (that is the family choice if mine I was referring to) is that you've decided, on principle, to be an arsehole. But do correct me if your made up friends have some other system in mind for dealing with children in care.

I cross posed with Kitchen. I agree with keeping people at arms length and not feeling a need to 'fix them'! I have a terrible 'need' to fix others, but it is about me and not them and sometimes I just need to butt out.

I think Dandelion has the best of intentions and wants this sorted, and it may be it can't be. I would have hated it so much if my sis or her husband had acted like this Dandelion. It is totally unacceptable, But it also feels like there is more there and unless they are willing to find a way 'through' the crap, then I think you need to step back.

Good luck.

I think you are applying a meaning to principle that may not really be there. Possibly, (just a guess) but saying 'I don;t want to' makes someone feel bit lame but 'on principle' sounds removed. I don't know. My friends never used that term. They used 'reasons' why it would not work for them. In face I don't think people need reasons not to do something like adopt.

It's not unkind Italian. It's an observation. I have seen it several times. Subtly but it's there. And it makes me wonder why she /he/it is here, commenting on behaviours and parenting techniques that she has no knowledge of and giving very little about herself in return. It might just be prurient interest, it might not.

And she makes a clear distinction between people who wouldn't adopt for these principled reasons and those who wouldn't because they know their own limitations so it's clearly a moral/ethical thing. You'd have to twist the English language a great deal to get one of your other dictionary definitions in there :)

I may be wrong, but I think in Islam there are barriers to adoption, and an objection 'in principle' to the very essence of a child leaving one family, and becoming part of another. I may be wrong, but I think it's a "cannot compute" type thing.Also, things like when a male child got to adulthood, their adoptive mother would have to wear a headscarf etc, or a female child couldn't be alone in the room with her adoptive father. I would not be so brutal as to take issue with a muslim who said they objected to adoption 'in principle'.

I have relatives in a European country where domestic adoption does not exist. This decision is made by the government, on a point of principle- a child of that country is always part of their birth family, and cannot, legally, be part of a different family, however they live. My relatives are aware things are different here, and actually some of them think the UK has it right. But some don't, and object to adoption on principle.

mybloodykitchen can you really not see that some people may have different ideas and opinions to you, and yet still be nice people?

However, all my relatives are excited for us, because the respect our system is as it is, and they're not arseholes. OP, I'm sorry you're having to go through this. It really is your BiL with the problem, and he's not behaving like a normal person.

Well, we'll have to agree to differ, kitchen. It doesn't bother me what reason people have for not adopting as long as it doesn't affect my family.

Yikes, Jidget I would personally struggle with those views!

I did know a Jewish woman who told me she could only if the child were Jewish.

Luckily for me we are Christians and Christianity is pretty pro adoption.

Still, if discussing adoption with anyone who held the views expressed above I think I think I'd just have to move to a different topic of conversation and not want to even spend time on those views. I definitely think the UK has it right and places where there is no domestic adoption are wrong. On principle!

PS I realise my last two posts clash so maybe it would bother me more than I think!

I think I might make a distinction between an 'academic' conversation between work colleagues or a conversation on line, and someone close to my family, at maybe a picnic or party engaging me in conversation. If that makes sense? The 20:24:22 post would be the work colleague or on line and the 20:29:46 one would be the picnic or party one.

If that makes sense!

Italian I think if you start from a child centered place, then yes, of course we have it right!

If you start from an adult centered place (and, there are a lot more adults in the world, and you do spend more time as an adult than as a child, so I can see that if you think like that, then...) it is more logical to focus on the 'rights' of birth mothers/fathers, and then the 'rights' of adult children in terms of identity. They do have long-term foster care, which is similar in terms of stability and love. There is an ethos that the parents should always have the chance to turn their lives around, and fix things, and get their children back. I see it as a feature of an ever hopeful, and forgiving society. I suppose it's a 'blood's thicker than water', too.

I don't agree with it, but I can empathise with those that think like that, and sort of follow their logic. I realise they're starting from a different core value system to me. However, I feel our societies core value system has changed over time, and not that long ago, our society was more 'adult centered', and while adoption existed, it certainly wasn't ethical at all times- just consider the unmarried mother's homes in the 50's and 60's. Compared to the system of "baby stealing" that did occur in the not so distant past here and nearby, I can see that a system of long term foster care may have appeared a better option.

I try and make it a point of my own principle to see how people's internal logic goes, and how they get to their position, and understand that, rather than assuming they're horrible people. Although, some people are just horrible. Usually the worst are those who never try to understand people can think differently, and yet be nice people, though!

Italian- yes! Of course, it's fine for some of my relatives to not believe in adoption in principle. It's absolutely not fine for them to say that to me, or my children!

That would be like disagreeing with sex before marriage in principle (plenty do), which is fine. However, being a cow to children conceived outside marriage is clearly not fine, nor is making comments, or things awkward at family functions!

Does that make sense?

Of course I can see that people can have different ideas to me and still be nice people!

I'm not on the ivf board telling people how I know lots of lovely people who think ivf is wrong though. I'm not on the SN board disagreeing with people who have children with differing needs and telling them how it is. If I were you might question my motives.

And I think if these 'friends' were disagreeing on religious grounds that might have been mentioned. But we had principles instead. And I can't think of a principled objection to adoption.

Well, I thought I'd explained how some people have a principled objection to adoption. I should have saved the typing energy, sigh.

combined02 wasn't saying whatever you think she was saying.

Well I just don't buy it. I just don't think there is this big diverse group of people sitting around discussing how they object on moral and religious principle to adoption. I think what she means is 'I have some principled objections to adoption'. Which is fine. But just say that then. and maybe go and say it somewhere else where you're not saying it to a group of adopters

And unless you're her I guess you don't know any better than I do what she was saying. I found what she said offensive - if you say 'I know many high minded folk who think this particular thing is wrong' you at least imply that that is a reasonable view to hold and how could that NOT be offensive in this case about this thing?

Yes JJidgetbones your later post makes perfect sense and I agree..... but.....

Whether one starts from an adult or child centered place I don't think it makes sense to focus on the needs of the parents above the needs of their child! The child in the scenario will become an adult one day and will live their life with the results of that decision.

Re 'the 'rights' of birth mothers/fathers, and then the 'rights' of adult children in terms of identity.' There is no right to identity that trumps the right to care and love in childhood. Any child can turned adult can seek out and identify with their birth family, if they choose. but the lessons of self love and self resilience and self worth, learnt through being brought up in a loving family one is part of, are vita. many in foster care may get this too, but why should there be any risk for the sake of parents who have abdicated their right to parent?

Long-term foster care may be similar in terms of stability and love but it is not adoption.

Re "There is an ethos that the parents should always have the chance to turn their lives around, and fix things, and get their children back. I see it as a feature of an ever hopeful, and forgiving society. I suppose it's a 'blood's thicker than water', too."

Personally, I totally disagree with the idea the child must wait for the parents to get themselves together - because it puts children's lives on hold at their expense. They must stay in temporary care, which may be long-term or may end up being permanent (until adulthood) instead of settling into a fully loving and accepting family who will make their new child as much of a priority as any other children they may have. What right does any society or any person have to deny that to a child or to deny the legacy of that to an adult?

I am very glad that you don't agree with it. I cannot really empathise with it myself because 'those that think like that' may follow 'their logic' but it is at a cost, a cost to another desperately needy human being. And we cannot put our logic above the needs of others.

Re I realise they're starting from a different core value system to me. I am afraid they might be starting from the point of view (please correct me if wrong) that a child is a sort of beloved property, that no one can deprive a parent of. I could be wrong, but I can see no other reason to selfishly put a child's needs above one's own than that of thinking the child does not have their own independent rights.

The 'unmarried mother's homes in the 50's and 60's' are utterly appalling and an evil manifestation of the church being overly concerned with the morality of sex (and remember I am a Christian so I am not rejecting the Christian faith altogether!).

Those systems did not put the needs of the child above the needs of the parent (usually just the mum) they ran roughshod over both mum and child's needs. Possibly because of that evil the Irish government now is so reluctant to allow a child to be adopted out of an impossible family situation. So the evil legacy continues!

If it is 'baby stealing' verses long term foster care then yes, the later is a better option. I would argue it is not a case of baby stealing or foster care. And besides, in the UK, social services are struggling to find foster carers, long or short term, so realistically, as the state pays for foster care, it is not going to be a possibility in most places.

I certainly don't think those who hold different views to me are horrible people, I just think their ideas are based on a false premise, that a child 'owes' something to a family and blood is thicker than water, well it may be, physcially, but family who are neglectful or abusive lose the right to parent ... they will always be biological family/parents, but those children can become part of a new family...

And...yes, agree, some people are just horrible! But most people on mumsnet adoption boards are lovely.

I guess I feel stronger about it that I thought!

But I do agree with Jidgetbones, when I say Kitchen I also think combined really wasn't saying whatever you think she was saying. And I don't think combined was saying their own option.

But anyway, interestingly I've enjoyed chattingJidgetbones. And i can think of one reason, religious or otherwise why people would say they disagreed with adoption, and it is like your thoughts Jidgetbones that for some the birth parent child connection cannot be 'broken' and I totally disagree with that view for all the reasons stated above.

And I really didn't mean to hijack your thread dandelion - I hope you can find a way to make it work either through sorting it out or through reduced contact.