Reasons not to adopt

[Anon42153]

If facing years of fertility issues, and now realisation set in that biological child is not a possibility. Would you adopt? What would your reasons for not wanting to adopt be?

I think it's largely poorly funded children's service that leads to poor practice in adoption, and every other area of children's services. And that impacts on birth parents, adoptive parents, and children needing 'the system'.

There's no easy answer. Often, for children, adoption is the least worst option- it gives stability, permanence, belonging, a family. These are things all children deserve. While the child typically has lost the most, they can gain the most (a good childhood). This is something my children's birth parents didn't get. The loss experienced in adoption isn't glib, and loss is loss, it's not a competition of whose is greater. "Choice" is often an illusion.

For us as a family, it was the best leap into the unknown we made. I have no doubt at all that given the options available, it's the best thing for the children involved in our family. But this doesn't make it the right thing for every family, or every child.

For the record, I'm very impatient, and hate paperwork. I found the process deeply intrusive at times. I know it isn't for everyone. Adoption has required me to become a better person. However, that doesn't mean I'm special. Most parents grow when their child needs them to, that's being a parent.

@Casschops

People also need to stop saying "own child" it makes me feel like people do not view my son as mine. Im not about to hand him back.

We were asked to be honest about why we hadn't or didn't want to adopt. Maybe this doesn't belong in Adoption as it seems to be causing offence to people who did adopt,

silentpool and Casschops I think this is absolutely key, and it's really, really important for people to be utterly honest about their own feelings on this before they consider becoming and adoptive parent.

Casschops you sound like my mum, who saw all her children as hers, hers, hers absolutely. Same with me and my siblings - we're siblings, and it doesn't matter what other people think, because we know that we are siblings. It isn't a belief, it's an ordinary fact.

silentpool I've known other people who just cannot see adoptive relationships as having the same unbreakable bond as blood relationships, and while it can hurt to hear that, I really do value people who can be honest about it. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I am not even sure if it's something that people have any individual control over - either you need that genetic bond in your family relationships, or you don't. I don't, my mum didn't, my sister doesn't. My sister's ex did - I was in his eyes never his sister in law, their daughter is not my niece, etc etc. Now, he's an arsehole in many ways (hence him being my sister's ex), and it was unkind and damaging of him to treat me worse because of my supposedly not being a relative in his eyes, but the basic lack of familial connection - I am not sure that this was his fault. And when I see couples considering adoption, I think it's absolutely vitally important for each prospective parent to consider whether they can have that strong parental bond with a child that is biologically unconnected to them. For some people it's an easy yes, for others it will be an impossible no.

tl,dr I think it's really important that this difference is raised on threads like this, because it's something prospective parents need to be really honest with themselves about, without blame.

@silentpool I think that there is old but not extensive (I don't think) research to suggest that what you are saying is right in relation to parent/child - the theory was that both parent and child are hard wired to connect.. but I am not certain about that. I think that very significant bonds can be built without bio connections too, but it is something which needs to be built and not everyone achieves it - we know that because we are told that by some adoptive parents.

@percypetulant I think that you are stating the theory about the least worst option but it is just theory. The problem is that when things don't work, for example the adoptive parents don't cope, for whatever (understandable) reason) the closed nature of adoption in the UK means that it can be very isolating . I think that you are right, there are problems in the "system" and there are other problems to do with lack of research, guidance ...but also imo - about glib comments - there is also a culture of misinformation which impacts on the care the children get. It is not always true and it is a misleading and meaningless statement to say that all parts of the triangle come to adoption from a place of loss, imo.

Sorry, typos

@percypetulant most people I know are impatient, wanting to use their brains and hate paper work.. I think the poster who said that was being lighthearted

Adoptive parents are often dealing with their own losses, while trying to care for traumatised children in the kids of their own loss... It’s ridiculous to suggest we ignore or disregard loss in the adoption process for all parties, which does lead to poor practice dealing with a traumatised child is really hard, it is a question worth debating whether an adoptive parent who comes from a place of loss and is still in need of special care in relation to that loss and therefore suffering from unresolved trauma is in likelihood going to be able to cope.

A friend adopted and it did not go well at all. The social workers had not given them all the facts and it ended up not working out. There was a big investigation after and social services were said to have failed on 22 counts. My friend lost the children she considered her own

@ArcheryAnnie

silentpool and Casschops I think this is absolutely key, and it's really, really important for people to be utterly honest about their own feelings on this before they consider becoming and adoptive parent.

Casschops you sound like my mum, who saw all her children as hers, hers, hers absolutely. Same with me and my siblings - we're siblings, and it doesn't matter what other people think, because we know that we are siblings. It isn't a belief, it's an ordinary fact.

silentpool I've known other people who just cannot see adoptive relationships as having the same unbreakable bond as blood relationships, and while it can hurt to hear that, I really do value people who can be honest about it. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I am not even sure if it's something that people have any individual control over - either you need that genetic bond in your family relationships, or you don't. I don't, my mum didn't, my sister doesn't. My sister's ex did - I was in his eyes never his sister in law, their daughter is not my niece, etc etc. Now, he's an arsehole in many ways (hence him being my sister's ex), and it was unkind and damaging of him to treat me worse because of my supposedly not being a relative in his eyes, but the basic lack of familial connection - I am not sure that this was his fault. And when I see couples considering adoption, I think it's absolutely vitally important for each prospective parent to consider whether they can have that strong parental bond with a child that is biologically unconnected to them. For some people it's an easy yes, for others it will be an impossible no.

tl,dr I think it's really important that this difference is raised on threads like this, because it's something prospective parents need to be really honest with themselves about, without blame.

I've known other people who just cannot see adoptive relationships as having the same unbreakable bond as blood relationships, and while it can hurt to hear that, I really do value people who can be honest about it.

I'm one of the people who said I don't think I would feel an adopted child was really mine. It's not that I don't see adoptive relationships as having the same unbreakable bond as blood relationships. It's more that I don't think I, personally, would be able to build that bond. I absolutely see an adopted child every bit as much the child of their adoptive parents as I would see my children as mine.

I have a number of adopted dn's. I feel exactly the same about them as I do about the "blood" dn's. That said, I definitely prefer, and get on better with, some of them over others .

but the basic lack of familial connection - I am not sure that this was his fault.

That was very much his fault. It sounds like you ex-bil is simply a controlling arsehole. You and your sister are obviously sisters. It is not up to him, or anyone else, to define your relationship. Was he controlling in other ways too?

It's not a theory that adoption was the least worst option in my children's situation. It's true. Long term foster care, starting within birth family, any other option that currently exists was worse, in this situation. For adoption to not be the least worst option, all the humans involved would have needed completely different situations, backgrounds, resources, personalities, to be living in a completely different society.

It's not "just a theory"- adoption can be the least worst option that exists for some children. And then it absolutely is the thing that should happen. Because no one can right the world for one child/set of children, in time for their childhood.

Some people really care about genetics, and that's ok. Heck, some people even marry their first cousins! Other people form bonds that don't need genetic ties. They're not better than each other, just different, but the latter can make good adoptive families, those who care about genetics don't. It's good to own that.

My children are my children, whatever their genetic make up, they're my own children.

Some people dedicate hours to finding out about people they vaguely share DNA work on ancestry like sites.

People are different.

Some people really care about genetics, and that's ok. Heck, some people even marry their first cousins! Other people form bonds that don't need genetic ties. They're not better than each other, just different, but the latter can make good adoptive families, those who care about genetics don't. It's good to own that.

You said it much better, and much briefer, than I did, percy!

@percypetulant it really isn't "true" in the sense that we don't have any evidence about adoption outcomes and the 2018 enquiry found that due to the dearth of informing research and evidence, there is nothing to support the policy of adoption as it is done now. Whether it is the least worst option in any particular case depends on the people involved. Some LT foster carers provide loving secure permanence, de facto, some adoptive parents do not cope and their dc suffer as a result. Does the legal nature of adoption provide additional security to adoptees? I would say not, imo, but in general, again, it depends on the people involved. If I have misunderstood what you said, apologies.

They're not better than each other, just different, but the latter can make good adoptive families, those who care about genetics don't I think you can be good adoptive parents and think genetics are important at the same time and where the dc care about their genetic heritage, having that sensibility might be helpful. I also think that adoptive parents who don't care about genetics will of course need to be mindful that their ac might care deeply about their genetic heritage, though that might go without saying.

Everyone comes to the point of adoption from a place of great loss, birth parents, children and adoptive parents I think people need to stop saying this.

Agree. The losses suffered by the child are clearly huge. The birth parents are likely in many cases to have had totally shit lives, with very little chance of improving, many have had no real chance in life, through no fault of their own.
The adoptive parents on the other hand are by definition in a much more fortunate position or they would never have been approved. Some will have had fertility problems, which although very traumatic, can hardly be considered in the same light as the losses faced by birth parents and children in care. The adoptive parents will still have their jobs, support network, enough money to live a decent life, a nice home, reasonable mental health, no criminal record etc. All adoptive parents do it because they want to, which is definitely not true of the child or birth parents. Some adoptive parents choose adoption in preference to having biological children. To claim all 3 parties have suffered similar losses shows a lack of understanding, to put it mildly.

it is a question worth debating whether an adoptive parent who comes from a place of loss and is still in need of special care in relation to that loss and therefore suffering from unresolved trauma is in likelihood going to be able to cope.

Not necessarily suffering unresolved trauma, there are losses that come with parenthood regardless of how you come to be a parent. The adoptive parent is dealing with those losses while caring for a child going through their own loss - the ability to process your own stuff while being emotionally available to a newly placed child is key and yet little space is given to this in the adoption process. The placement of a child may bring up issues that were previously resolved - how we understand and make meaning of our life experiences change as over the life course and adoption is a significant change in life experience.

I agree prospective adoptive parents need to be stable, resilient and to have dealt with their own stuff, including the losses inerrant in infertility. That doesn’t mean they won’t be rocked when their child is placed with them, nor is that a failing or weakness, it does place significant demands on professionals to offer decent empathic support to the parent through that transition.

Some will have had fertility problems, which although very traumatic, can hardly be considered in the same light as the losses faced by birth parents and children in care.

I’d love you to explain to a woman who has suffered repeated miscarriage, infertility treatment and still birth that her losses aren’t comparable.

Not my story, btw, but not uncommon in the people I’ve supported through the adoption process.

No one said the losses were similar.

They said loss.

Adoptive parents are normal people, actually. They too may have had difficult lives. Some of the most empathetic adoptive parents have suffered huge amounts of loss.

I stand by my statement that adoption was absolutely the least worst option for my children, and that is true. I am not making that statement for every child and situation, but I think adoption can be the least worst option, not in theory, but in reality.

I don't think people who think genetics are paramount to familial ties would make good adoptive parents. That isn't to say I disregard my own, my family's or my children's genetic links. Those links exist, they're just not the only way to be family, for us. Family is more than genetics, for some people, shared genetic material is not irrelevant, it's just not necessary to the familial bonds.

Some people bond, and become a family. Some people find people they have DNA in common with, and include them in the family. Some people focus only on them, their partner, and their 2.4 children. Some people aren't content unless it's 20 at the dinner table, including second cousin Maggie. Every family and situation is different.

Which is a good thing. No one should be guilted into adoption because they're infertile. No one should be adopted when there's any better option (this is the UK legal position- it has to be the last resort. The least worst option, as decided by a judge. Not a theory. Someone impartial, looking at the the evidence and deciding, as a Draconian measure.) Adoption can be a good way to form a family. But it's not for every one who wants to parent, and it's not for every child who cannot stay with their birth parents.

The adoptive parents will still have their jobs, support network, enough money to live a decent life, a nice home, reasonable mental health, no criminal record etc.

Apart from the criminal record, adoption can challenge, or result in the loss of, all those things.

Often, a child's needs are such that there can be job losses, financial hardships. In our own case, difficulty with a bad apple social worker led to mental health problems, and deep loss. That nice home can have faeces smeared on the walls, or other challenging behaviours. It's hard to fit a job around a child who struggles with school, or childcare provision, especially when you're exhausted from therapeutic parenting. The LA usually offers no financial support, you're on your own pay adoption order.

I think you should check your own assumptions about adopters. They're normal people, not living in affluence, often left with less money than before, who are just as likely to suffer with depression etc, as any other parent. They're just normal people, who want a child, but can love beyond genetic links. They're not heros. And it's ok to not want to put yourself in that position, for any reason.

Adoption can be a good way to form a family. But it's not for every one who wants to parent, and it's not for every child who cannot stay with their birth parents.

Absolutely.

I also think that adoptive parents who don't care about genetics will of course need to be mindful that their ac might care deeply about their genetic heritage, though that might go without saying.

This is a very good point.

It's also the case that there's a difference between "doesn't care" and "thinks a genetic link is necessary to make someone family". It's possible to be deeply interested in genetic links and still not regard them as congruent with what makes you a family.

[quote takeoffyourboots]**@percypetulant* it really isn't "true" in the sense that we don't have any evidence about adoption outcomes and the 2018 enquiry found that due to the dearth of informing research and evidence, there is nothing to support the policy of adoption as it is done now. Whether it is the least worst option in any particular case depends* on the people involved. Some LT foster carers provide loving secure permanence, de facto, some adoptive parents do not cope and their dc suffer as a result. Does the legal nature of adoption provide additional security to adoptees? I would say not, imo, but in general, again, it depends on the people involved. If I have misunderstood what you said, apologies.[/quote]
Of course adoption provides additional security. Children in long term foster care can not be absolutely certain that they can stay in their foster family until they're adults qnd when they leave care they no longer have a legal relationship with the people that brought them up.

@archeryannie Exactly. There is a lot of ground between "sharing genetics makes us a family, and nothing else" and "no one should care about genetics at all." Most people are somewhere in the middle. But if genetics are really important to what you consider "family", then I don't think adoption is for (general, not you in particular) you.

I would doubt any UK adopter parents without an acute awareness of their child's genetic legacy and links.

It's whether family is limited to DNA, or whether you see beyond that, and how much you go beyond that is individual.

Answering the OP, it's ok to not adopt for any reason you choose.

Not necessarily suffering unresolved trauma we are talking here about those who have unresolved trauma, though, ie you are referring to those who come from a place of loss who have not recovered and who need support. I think possibly where you and I fundamentally differ is that you see the adopter needs you are talking about. at the level you are talking about, as normal, whereas I don't. Not everyone who wants to adopt is going to have the same neediness or the same unresolved losses. It is also a question of degree. Sometimes it is going to be in fact a failing and a weakness. Someone who is resilient, copes with life well, emotionally strong is going to be better at meeting the needs of a child. Someone who is not may not be emotionally available sufficiently, and traumatised children need more of these skills rather than less. How well someone copes and how strong they are is not to do with what that person has suffered, it is to do with how well they as an individual can cope, what coping skills and emotional intelligence they have as individuals developed.

I’d love you to explain to a woman who has suffered repeated miscarriage, infertility treatment and still birth that her losses aren’t comparable Adopter losses should not get equal consideration compared with the needs/losses of a child. Children's needs should come first and adopters need sufficient skills to be able to achieve this.

Many adoptees have said they feel responsible for the feelings of their adoptive parents, and some say that their relationships during childhood and adulthood with the adoptive parent have been dominated by the needs, thoughts and feelings of the adoptive parent. This is not how it should be, I don't think, and part of the problem might be being expressed here - being unrealistic expectations.

Anyway - I am going to leave it there - we clearly disagree on these points and can agree to differ.

@Frequentcarpetflyer adoptions disrupt, adoption relationships break down, so no, there is no additional security imo (and ime)