To think that no one should be allowed to adopt 34 children

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30386348

It is impossible mother 34 children. I feel that it immoral to adopt so many children. 34 children stops being a family type enviroment and more like an orphanage. I feel it impossible to give sufficient attention to so many children. It's not like a normal family as many of the children are close in age and have complex needs. No one naturally has 34 children.

I have no idea how a triple post happened!

Adopted children sometimes suffer from attachment disorder. International adoptions of older children can be harder because of having adapt to a new culture. It is hard as an adult to emigrate and leave everything you know. International adoptions of older children can fail.

I feel a better way of helping those children would be to sponsor them. The ideal would be for the children to be fostered in their own community. where appriopiate children should be able to have contact with their family. Children need to learn and keep up their own language and culture.

What a load of shit. DH was adopted from a different culture and raised by white parents and he is very loving with no issues surrounding the adoption. He considers his adoptive mother his real mother and has never felt upset over not living in his home country.

In fact I can list numerous examples of people I know personally that were adopted over seas and they're very happy with their adopted families. A few weren't, but you know what? Even biological children aren't always happy in their families either.

OMG, Mutters, I've just started reading the links from the article you posted. It makes me sad that my first thought on seeing the story was "Something's wrong here - what's in it for them?" and still sadder that cynicism is usually justified. But I wasn't expecting quite such an insane backstory! It's horrible. Thank you for making me aware of this.

ReallyTired - Yes. There are better ways to support deprived children, and more generously-spirited ways for sure.

What an amazing family I saw this a couple of days ago and I can't believe you have started an AIBU about it

The photos of the family are lovely and no, not a traditional family but it looks like a lovely environment to bring up children in, especially considering how some came to be adopted. The Christmas spirit is well and truly alive with you, eh Op?

Mutters does have a point. I remember "Quiverful" families being discussed a lot on here a few years back.

I'm not going along with the whole cultural continuity thing, by the way, because some of my family members were adopted from rotten orphanages in war-torn countries far away. They had some identity issues growing up, but nothing like what the kids they left behind had to face.

What Mutter's highlighted is a fanatical wave of mass adoptions and subsequent abuse.

It sounds as though many of the children would of been starved or beaten to death, had they not gone for adoption.

So had they not of been adopted, they would be dead.

It was up to the countries involved, it seems to be mainly the Ukraine, whether these children are up for adoption or not and what happens to them, if they aren't adopted.

There are children around the world being left to die of neglect and starve to death, or given to abusers to eventually be killed.

Out of everything that happens, I don't think this "family" can be condemned.

We (the UK/US etc) governments/ UN etc need to work to end child cruelty, but this will be a long time coming, meanwhile these children need placements, that at least keep them physically safe.

Would I rather be in an Orphanage or with a massive slightly different family if I had to chose?

It doesn't matter if this family is nice or not. I expect they are or they wouldn't be media friendly.

One nice seeming family in a magazine is not the best basis upon which to decide there isn't a HUGE issue with an adoption system when it permits large scale overseas adoptions in a single family, of children with an immense range of physical, mental and emotional needs .... to the point where it becomes a popular "thing" for growing numbers of families to aspire to.

Particularly if it becomes a "thing" in groups such as the Quiverful. A community where it is not unknown for homeschooling to be an instrument of social isolation from the greater community as well as intentionally providing educational poverty for girls, with large doses of religious indoctrination and a certain thrall for overtly punitive "godly" dicipline programmes such as The Pearls.

Especially if the system DOESN'T have the rigourous system of oversight required to ensure the children's welfare.

The bar for measuring wether or not this is appropriate in terms of child welfare or not should not be "well it's better than Africa". The bar needs to be "would this be acceptable for an American/British child". Becuase the alternative is to relegate these children to a second class adoptee status where they should just be grateful for what they get, while hoping they end up with a family equipped to cope and aren't The Pearl's Biggest Fans.

I can remember the "cultural" argument being put forward when the scandal of children being tied in cots in Romania and in put in dying rooms in China.

Those children didn't and never would have a culture. They were being damaged to the point that they would be incapable (or dead) of accessing/understanding most aspects of the culture that they should of been, being nurtured under.

They look very happy, loved and cared for. Far better in that environment than in orphanages with even larger numbers of children but no love and probably no real future

... The bar for measuring wether or not this is appropriate in terms of child welfare or not should not be "well it's better than Africa". The bar needs to be "would this be acceptable for an American/British child". Becuase the alternative is to relegate these children to a second class adoptee status where they should just be grateful for what they get

Absolutely.

It's not about these children being 'second class adoptees'. That would imply large scale families cannot be beneficial to children. It seems they can! When viewed from a 'conventional family' perspective, alternate family structures are not taken into account. Many larger families (not necessarily adoptive) are run differently to smaller families. This doesn't mean they are less beneficial, in fact, I believe they can be much more so. The older children in this family probably do help out with the younger family members. This isn't necessarily detrimental to either family member. Having lived in a country where very large families are commonplace, I have seen how close, enriching, supportive and protective that environment can be.

I do think that if trying to prove a point, this family is not a good example of 'large adoptive families being wrong'. They really seem to be doing just fine.

I'm sure this isn't always the case, equally, I'm sure we could each very easily dig up many examples of conventional families who have failed their children.

In the interests of fairness, I've also read Jeane Briggs's blog and her daughter Mya's. The Briggs don't sound like the tragically dysfunctional adopters in the other stories I read - they sound extremely peculiar to me, but then they would! I dislike her emphasis on obedience to all persons with greater authority (because, for a small child, everyone has greater authority): You be respectful to authority even if they are not to you. ... You must obey them even if you are being treated wrong or unfairly.

She is a trained nurse and teacher. Mya posted a picture of herself writing in a schoolbook. So they are being taught. Paul Briggs's employer pays employees $10,000 for each child they adopt. They also provide medical benefits for employees' children.

I don't think you can compare quiverfull type family to a large scale "family"
In countries were large families are common place are often multigenerational. The children grow from babies in these families and do not have the emotional baggage of adoption. In a large extended family very few children have major special needs. Even then in a lot of third world countries children Sen are abandoned because the parents cannot cope either financially or looking after ten other children.

I did not know about quiverfull families before this thread. Mutters link was heartbreaking. I have the feeling these children are being collected like trophies by some Quiverfall families. Sadly you cannot save every child in the world. Donating money to a suitable charity would help more children than adopting a stupid number of children. There are good orphanages and foster care in many third world countries. There are charities that do amazing work. Some even support children to stay within their own families.

I feel you cannot judge a family from one article. We have no idea if those children's needs are met. Having worked with children who are in care and have complex needs I am sceptical. Children with attachment disorders, learning difficulties, psychological problems need a lot of one to one. It is wrong to expect the older children to look after the younger ones. Children from war zones need the chance to be children themselves.

I believe that hell would freeze over before a UK social worker would approve a home study for that number of children to be adopted by one family. Being from Africa is not a reason for second rate care.

YABU.

Yes it isn't a 'normal' family, what's what's normal anyway?

Thoese children certainly look and sound happy and well cared for. Several of the older ones have attended university, which suggests the education they are providing home schooling is at least adiquet.

It sounds as though they only look to adopt children that aren't going to be adopted or fostered into their local comunity. And they do say that those with any family keep in contact with them.

At the end of the day all that matters is that those children are in a much better place than they came from.

OP do you really believe that if the couple had donated the same amount of money it has cost to raise those children to a charity that it would have enabled 29 children to grow up healthy, happy and loved, with three meals a day, a decent level of education, clean clothes, and presents at Christmas?

the UK system is not the only system and it is far from perfect. Countries like Denmark allow adoptions by Danish white parents of children from Ethiopia. No worries about the children looking different from the parents. In Spain it used to be quite normal to adopt Chinese girls.

What this family are doing is commendable, as most of those children would otherwise be dead. The little ones would have never had a culture, and the ones who were adopted as teenagers will surely appreciate that they are much better off now

My first thoughts after reading this was bless them. They're doing a wonderful job and clearly love it. 34 may seem excessive but these people clearly love having children around and what makes them amazing is taking on so many from all over the world and giving them a new life. I think they're doing something fantastic and commend them for it!

I don't think adopting three month old infants from Ghana could be considered ethical (or neccessary). Ghana is a country without a well established centralised adoption system. It is the latest African country to become popular with the US adoption crowd for the sourcing of infants and it is ripe for a huge child trafficking scandal, look at Ethiopia, Liberia, DRC all of whom have banned or severely limited adoptions after trafficking scandals.

Also three month olds? relinquished because of poverty and/or stigma, in the UK we have sympathy for mothers who were forced in the 1950's to place by circumstance and society. Do Ghanaian birth mothers deserve less compassion? do we repeat the past, in other countries, mimicking our own history?

Children don't deserve poor care because they are adopted. The standard isn't 'better than where they came from', the standard is 'in their best interests, the best option available' taking into account needs for genetic connections, identity as well as medical care, food, shelter. I have read this family's blog for a long time. They are falling into 'child collecting' adopting multiple children from Ghana in a very short time. There is nothing wrong with ethical international adoption. There is a lot wrong with multiple adoptions some of very young children from a country with a limited history of IA in a region where there have been multiple trafficking scandals.

I agree with you ReallyTired. You cannot provide for 25+ children's emotional, physical and educational needs adequately as a parent and it should not be allowed.

I also agree with ReallyTired, it just seems a bit off to me. I dont think a couple should be able to adopt that many children.

I think that if the children themselves were reading these comments they would be upset that some people would rather they hadn't been offered a happier alternative.

You have no idea whether that's true Mehitabel and it feeds into the myth of the 'grateful adoptee' the idea that children are adopted to save them rather than to benefit their parents and should be grateful. If you read adult adoptee writings you realise many are enormously conflicted about international adoption it is not straightforward.

Unless people are prepared to step in themselves and actually do something I don't think you can criticise when you really don't know.

I think these people have done an amazing thing. These children have a great home and they are a family. I really don't understand your problem