Adopting despite having a biological child?

[1horatio]

So, this isn't something urgent (DD is still an adorable little baby and we definitely have time) it's just something DH and I have been talking about.

We definitely want more children, but we just don't think they have to necessarily be our own biological children. There are no indication of any reproductive health issue. although I will admit that pregnancy wasn't exactly 'fun' for me. But I don't want you to think that I think of adoption as an 'easy' way out or anything, being pregnant again is definitely an option.

I just don't see why we have to 'create' a new child when other children need a home.

So, do you think adopting despite already having biological child is a good idea? Or having an other biological child and adopting? It isn't disrespectful, right?

(Btw, if this sounds insensitive, English isn't my first language, I'm not trying to be.)

I think selfish reasons are some of the best reasons to adopt. Having a child by any method is best for selfish reasons. You really, really want a child. Those are the very best reasons for having a child, selfishly wanting one desperately.

Every child deserves parents who yearn for it selfishly! No child needs parents who see parenting them as "the good thing to do". This is what I was meaning by asking "is altruism enough?"

So, in a slightly bizarre way, I think I'm saying selfish= good, altruism= bad, which is not quite what I mean!

I hope any future pregnancy goes well for you, and your friend recovers.

giraffe

That's not what I meant. I didn't give birth to DD for charity reasons. DH certainly did not impregnate me for charity reasons. So why would we adopt a child for 'charity'?

I meant that it would be very selfish to adopt a child if other parents could better provide (maybe because they have a background in medicine) the specialised care a child may need.

I don't think you'd be given a child instead of better parents. I suspect that unless you have a skill, in the current climate, you could be in for a long wait.

Did I misunderstand? I thought you were considering adoption over pregnancy for charity reasons? Obviously, you've now said you're planning a birth child instead.

"We are lucky enough to be in a very blessed situation and there are already so many children that don't have what we could offer." This sounded like "we will get a rescue cat instead of a bred kitten" to me. So viewing adoption as a charitable act.

When I think adoption has the best chance when you ache for a child. When done because you want really want to adopt. Because the child doesn't want to be adopted. They want what most children get, their birth family to be able to parent them, that's what they really want. So I feel someone in the relationship has to really want adoption, for themselves, even if it weren't their first choice.

I don't think altruism will make that relationship work.

I completely get what giraffe is saying. Lots of people think adoption is 'saving' a child. Imagine being that child. No one wants to be a charity case do they?

I know someone who constantly says admiring things like 'oooh you're doing an AMAZING job with her', 'it's just INCREDIBLE what you're doing'. She doesn't say that about my older birth child. And dd is too young to understand this right now so I haven't had to smack this woman in the mouth just yet

So giraffe is just checking that you're not one of those people. Because they don't get very far, we hope, and you'd be wasting your time.

we will get a rescue cat instead of a bred kitten

I honestly understand why you are checking or thinking this. I do not see charity as a main reason for DH and I having theses thoughts.

However, I can't deny that this does play a role. The dear friend I have mentioned before in this thread was a child that should have never have been with her parents. My mother shouldn't have been with hers (well, just not with her father, who terrorised the whole family) and I still see how this affects the family today. So, I'd be lying if I said that the thought of more people opening their homes to children with these experiences doesn't play a role.

So, I guess that's how I meant this.

However, as somebody that used to have a rescue cat... that's in no way how I see adoption.

And I do think that when DD/DC are older this is something DH and I will seriously consider.

I see why you are objecting to parents who see themselves as the saviour and why you ar asking these things.

I also think that you're reaction was quite condescending. But seeing as I'll simply assume you have the wellbeing of children at mind that's ok, I guess.

No, condescending was the wrong word.

Because even if somebody had taken in my friend (or my mother and her siblings) for charity reasons and to give themselves a pat on the back.... That would have still been so much better than what they actually got.

But taking someone in for charity reasons isn't adoption. That just isn't what adoption is. It's not being a Victorian benefactor taking on a deserving ward. I'm sorry if that sounds condescending. But I'm not sure you 'get' it. My children are best with me because they are my children. One birth, one adopted. But they're mine, and equal. They're not best with me because of my finances (pmsl) or education. But simply because they are mine.

I'm not sure altruism is the best path to that being claimed, that belonging, that unconditional familial bond. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I don't think altruism is enough, no matter how horrendous the previous circumstances of the child are. Research now shows us that, actually, it's often not true that 'anything' is better than imperfect birth families, which is why the criteria for removal is so high, and why our children are so scarred. I don't think charity reasons can sustain an adoption.

I agree.

Charity alone is not enough. Certainly, yes.

As I said, we do know that we want at least one other child. But if 'charity' (the rather personal reasons I've mentioned above) does play a reason then that doesn't mean it isn't enough combined with the very real and actual wish for another child.

Claiming that it cannot be a component. That makes about as saying that parents who can't have children and therefore adopt just 'settle' or go for a 'substitute'. Which is also a completely ridiculous thing to say. Although they may not have adopted of they could have biological children that does not mean they see their child as a 'substitute' right?

So, just because there is the very real component of not wanting any other child to go through what loved ones went through (a reason why we give to charities) that does not mean it would be the sole reason for adoption. Or even the main reason. I know how to 'do charity'. We already do that.

Many who adopt with birth children (like me) were not able to have as many birth children as they would have liked. Although, personally, we really did also want to adopt so there are often a whole range of mixed motives and mixed emotions. A whole range of mixed motives and emotions. Yes, that's also the truth in our case.

Saying that altruism, or more like not wanting an other child to go through what loved ones went through, (in the case of my aunt and uncle also in the foster system, they were ultimately removed but DM as the oldest was too old)can't be one reason is imo wrong.

I hope I made myself clear.

Altruism can be a reason, but I think it's a reason that if it's on your list of main reason, needs robust challenging.

Claiming that it cannot be a component. That makes about as saying that parents who can't have children and therefore adopt just 'settle' or go for a 'substitute'. - I don't get this logic at all, that's saying 2+2=cupcakes. Most people admit that adoption was their 2nd or 3rd choice way of having children, I don't deny that.

So, just because there is the very real component of not wanting any other child to go through what loved ones went through (a reason why we give to charities) that does not mean it would be the sole reason for adoption. Or even the main reason. I know how to 'do charity'. We already do that. "not wanting any other child to go through what loved ones went through"- I don't understand this as a reason for adoption. Campaigning for children's rights, lobbying against abuse and for increased support and social services funding, yes. But not adoption. Because you would be adopting a child from the care system. Unless you think you are rescuing a child from a terrible care system? (I think foster carers would object to the idea that adopters 'rescue' a child from foster care. What adopters offer is stability, permanence and belonging- for me it's the belonging that's key here.)

So, yes, altruism can be a reason. But not such a big reason it's so important to you that you mention it repeatedly when you ask about adoption.

I hope I made myself clear.

I meant that saying:
Oh, you adopted because you cannot have children... so, that's just a substitute for a real kid?

Is just as wrong as saying:
Oh, charity was a reason? Well, you obviously see it like adopting a kitten.

Even if there was no charity component at all we most likely would have considered adoption (also because I'm bi and knew that the chance of me being in a relationship where one partner may not produce sperm would be high. So, in some way adoption has been always on my radar. Just like thoughts about sperm donations, donor contracts etc).
Because it is one way to have a child and we do want an other child.

Whereas many openly admit they would have never considered adoption if they could have biological children. So, I think there is a very clear and open double standard here.

I'm sorry, adopted children are real?

People (adopters, social workers) would also robustly challenge anyone who came on here saying "I am infertile, so I thought I'd adopt a baby and it'll be just like having a biological child, and I'll never mention adoption at all." Because that would be madness.

Sorry, love. If you can't cope with little old me questioning your motives from my keyboard without getting funny with me, you'd have a tough time getting through the adoption process.

Of course not. Obviously!!And yet you could go online and find statements like this... (which actually where I found this statement, whilst googling opinions about adoption)

Just like they are quite obviously not kittens!! And I hope I made it clear I do not see them this way.

And it's not like I went on here and said...
Yeah, I think I want to do 'some good' today. So, adoption, am I right?

I repeatedly stated that we want at least one other child anyway.

Horatio, I'm confused as to why you seem to be getting so chippy with giraffe. If you adopt in the U.K., the questioning of your motives, suitability, expectations, precisely what types of disability/abuse/neglect you feel you could deal with etc etc is robust, to put it mildly.

I think I'm getting chippy because I started this thread the wrong way and conflate my feelings about my dear friend and the very real possibility that she may not get to raise her son with the quite different topic of adoption.

Which is my fault,

Hotatio I think you are correct that you have two 'issues' here but also some mitigating factors.

A) your two issues are ... You might be asked/able to care for a dear friend's son (if she cannot); which you would wish to do, but really hope won't happen. And secondly you were asking here about adoption - when you can personally, biologically, have another child (as far as you know).

These are two very different situations and I think some of the confusion is that these two situations are so different.

B) I do wonder if, as English is your second language some of the way you are expressing yourself may have some posters a bit confused, maybe.

C) You seem to be conflating a problem within birth families, as happened to your relatives, with adoption. Children in the UK are removed from the care of parents because they are unsafe not because there are people to adopt them. Although, of course, some will go on to be adopted.

Adopting can be a very good/kind/lovely thing to do but being able to adopt a child (especially if you have no other way of being a parent or having another child) can be a pretty amazing thing too.

So I think the 'issue' with regard to having a birth child and adopting is whether the prospective adopter has the ability to have more birth children verses simply having a birth child. If an adopter has the ability to have more birth children British social workers will want to question this to understand motivations.

Does that all make sense?

(From an adopter with a birth child)

I hope your friend will be ok Horatio. It is good your husband understand. I really hope for the best for all of you.

Ps as an adopter I never think our son is lucky to have ended up with us! However, I do think we are fortunate to have ended up being mum and dad to our son.

I imagine your son is about as lucky to be with you as DD to be with us.

Which,,, when she is a teenage she may say she is very unlucky...

Your post basically says it all.

I do imagine the language is a barrier. Especially emotional stuff is incredibly difficult in English. It isn't even my 2nd language, more like my 3rd/4th... sigh.

Hope the future seems clearer soon.

I think it's a lovely idea, and I hope it works out for you.

bluesky, I think it makes more sense to have our discussion here, rather than derail the poor woman's thread who is planning her pregnancy.

I'm not afraid of anything.

Hyperemesis does not mean someone is prepared to therapeutically parent a traumatised child.

I wish you every luck in adopting. Please do come back and tell me just how wrong I am about everything after you've adopted your traumatised child, won't you?