Why I’d rather adopt than have a biological child

[Ninegorgeousniecesandnephews]

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/11208986/Adoption-Why-Id-rather-adopt-than-give-birth-to-my-own-child.html

What are people’s views on this article?

[donquixotedelamancha]

Seems pretty straightforward, not unusual. Really just a puff piece to promote adoption and perhaps challenge stereotypes a little. What opinions were you looking for?

[darkriver19886]

I don't see any issue with the article.

[Moomooboo]

slightly irritating that she hasn’t actually adopted yet but apparently the process is so easy and straight forwards.... because matching with a child and going to panels are just so simple...!

Also why do you have to make it such a big thing that you don’t want biological children but want to adopt as a first option? Surely statistically it isn’t a first option for many?

Though I suppose anything that promotes adoption is great... think it could have been more sensitively written by an experienced adopter...?

Maybe I’m being very harsh. I enjoyed reading it...!

[AthenaMinerva]

Not a bad article and, yes, anything that gets people to think about adoption as an option for them is good.

But irritating that she brushes over the difficulties that most adopted children are likely to have with the old "all parenting brings its challenges" trope. It makes me want to scream that you can't have it both ways! You can't insist on adopters informing themselves about attachment issues, trauma and therapeutic parenting while at the same time pretending that it probably won't be much more challenging than parenting a birth child.

[donquixotedelamancha]

Also why do you have to make it such a big thing that you don’t want biological children but want to adopt as a first option?

There always has to be an angle. This year the Guardian want LGBT+++ adopters, religious adopters and I forget what the other one they asked for was. She's not wrong about the number of people who assume you can't have kids when you adopt.

Surely statistically it isn’t a first option for many?

I would (purely anecdotally) guess those for whom it's a first choice (like me) might be around 10%. There will be many more who can have kids biologically but choose not to for other reasons.

[TigerQuoll]

The article never actually said why adoption would be a first option, only that it isn't as bad as people might think.

There's lots of actual benefits - no baby stage (don't have to take a year off as the mother, no crippling 3-4 years of childcare fees, don't have to spend a year as a sleep deprived zombie), child's expenses covered for a few years until adoption so little impact on finances, child's issues known so you already have decided you can handle them instead of maybe getting an awful shock, and you get to be part of helping someone who needs it.

[AnObviousNameChange2019]

"A child may well come from a difficult background, but let’s face it, nobody has a perfect gene pool. And there’s no denying that parenting comes with its challenges, whatever they may be."

Of course nobody comes from a perfect gene pool but by having a bio child you can ensure that you're not drinking through pregnancy or using drugs and so would eliminate risk from those.
Also she's naive about the huge problems that witnessing or being a victim of neglect or abuse can cause.

@TigerQuoll I'm very curious as to your experience of adoption reading your talk of the benefits.

Many adoptive parents need to take at least a year off for adoption leave, they sometimes are then unable to go back to full time work or work at all in some cases.

The baby stage has often been missed, meaning you need to be filling a gap with children, for example bottle feeding to higher than expected ages.

The crippling childcare fees you mention may be needed if adopters are able to return to work, it's not unusual for young children/toddlers to be adopted.

Nor is being a sleep deprived zombie the exclusive honour of birth parents. Traumatised children can find separation at bedtime extremely challenging.

As for little impact on finances, in this age of cuts adopters are lucky to recieve any sort of allowance, and will often have to fight for funding for the support their children need as a consequence of their experiences.

Depending on the child's age at placement their "issues" will not necessarily be known so while adopters have decided they can handle what they know about, there is an awful lot of hope for the best with the chance of still "getting an awful shock".

[Ted27]

@tigerquoll I assume you aren't an adopter, your post is very misinformed.
Adopters are required to take adoption leave, very many take a year. Many are not able to return to work full time, if at all. Seven years in I still work part time, if nothing else that has a huge impact on my pension - hardly no financial impact.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that children's expenses are 'covered' for a few years before adoption. Most adoptions are finalised within a year, adoption allowances are hard to come by these days.
Unless you adopt a much older child like I did, their issues will probably not be known. Very many adopt babies and pre schoolers whose difficulties may not become apparent until they start school.
As for sleepless nights, children moving to new families is incredibly disruptive and traumatising, the idea that a newly placed child will be sleeping peacefully from day 1 is not my experience or that of any of the adopters I know.
No baby stage ? I adopted an 8 year old who needed significant babying and nuturing - believe me if nothing else its physically demanding dealing with an 8 year old who wants to be fed and carried.

[ifchocolatewerecelery]

@tigerquoll those who do foster to adopt do get an allowance while fostering but they are looking after a newborn who might or might not be returned to birth family, it's a slim chance but it's still there. They are looking after a newborn, attending regular meetings regarding the child and facilitating contact with birth family so even more stressful than having a birth child. All allowances stop when the adoption plan is agreed with the court.

Those who go straight to adoption have to taken a year off and rely on statutory leave payments that might be boosted by any additional money granted under their employer's policies like those on maternity leave do. Some people can negotiate a small time limited income from social services but social services don't regularly grant these and if you're child has significant issues you will be expected to try to claim things like DLA instead.

[Italiangreyhound]

TigerQuoll missing the first three plus years of my son's life is not something I'd ever feel happy about. Your list of benefits of adoption is totally wrong. All the things you think ate benefits are most likely sorrows for adopters.

[TigerQuoll]

I am in Australia so things are different. There is allowances from $25-40K / year depending on age (or a salary/allowance of $75K if you are an experienced therapeutic parenting team taking on a kid with extensive needs) - the child's needs are taken care of. Maybe not being able to return to work is worrying, but that's one benefit of adopting an older child - less likely to be a diagnosis later that throws everything off the rails?

But anyway, the problems you all had with my post doesn't change the fact that she didn't actually give any reasons for preferring adoption to having a birth child, only stating why it isn't as bad as people might think.

[Italiangreyhound]

I find it a rather an odd article. Why is someone who is not yet an adoper telling other people about adoption?

If it is a bid to recruit adopters why start from the position of those who can have children biologically and choose not to. That is surely the least likely demographic in adoption and unlikely to change.

Most adopters are people who cannot have a biological child or cannot have as many as they want to have. I think pretty much every single person I've actually met through adoption has fitted that except a small number of couples or singles who chose to adopt later in life having had older birth children.

Plus some could not have children because they were single or gay and chose not to go down the donor sperm route etc.

So picking someone as a spokesperson who is in a demographic most people will not fit into seems odd to me.

It's totally fine of course, people can and do adopt for a wide variety of reasons. But most adopters are people who can't have as many biological kids as they would have wanted.

I also wonder with the statistics about how many children are waiting to be adopted whether people might be misled into thinking about the ages of children awaiting families. If she is going to adopt a very young child then I cannot see she is going to make a big difference to the children awaiting families.

Just my thoughts.

[clairedelalune]

I actually agree with the sentiment of the article; I adopted 100% as first choice for the reasons she states (yes, I am single but adoption was always on the cards for me, I adopted alone as I was not in a relationship, which in hindsight I believe to be because deep down I wanted to adopt). I think the aim of the article is to make people think about why they have children and to question why some people see adoption as 2nd best. While I appreciate that most people want a biological link, it is something that I personally do not understand. Sandra Bullock has spoken often about the same thing.