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.

Yanbu
International adoption is problematic because there are issues such as children being sent to 'orphanages' when they are not orphans because their parents are poor and ignorant and believe they are getting a good education, when they are being abused and neglected. There is no rigorous system of vetting adopters or the provenance of children to be adopted and the system is absolutely ripe for abuse and child trafficking.
It can also be problematic for adoptees, many of whom adjust well but many who also don't. Being brought up outside your family and culture of origin is profoundly difficult for many children and causes huge identity issues.
Attachment issues are also very very real, parenting an adopted child can be far more onerous and emotionally demanding than parenting a birth child, which is why we have such strict rules in the uk about things like birth/adoption order, not trying for birth children whilst adopting etc. and why the assessment process is so strict. Assuming that these parents are equipped to adopt because 'it's better than what they came from ' is short sighted and wrong because lacklustre or Ill prepared adoptive parents can do further damage to children.

However the voices of people who understand adoption are a minority on this thread, so I'll stop now, and hope that someone has decided to think a bit deeper about the benefits of this kind of family.

I agree, you ANBU.

'Rescue' adoption of (often) non Christian children from abroad by Christian fundamentalists is often not in the best interests of the children. They're more interested in doing God's work than what's best for the child and it is t that uncommon for children to be re adopted on arrival or even sent back as they're simply not equipped to deal with adoption of an older child with multiple issues.

Frequently the children are not orphans and the parents have not consented to the adoption. They've been adopted because of poverty. Hugely uncomfortable with this.

What are the critical people actually doing rather than reading and forgetting?

Donating to Christian aid is an effective way of helping people out of poverty. Money goes a lot further if it's spent in countries like Ghana. Alternatively there are lots of organisations that allow you to sponsor a child if you want someone to write to.

I have had a look on the web and it costs £20 a month to sponsor a child. That is a hell of a lot cheaper and less work than adoption. I think it's may we'll be better for the child as well.

Exactly ReallyTired - it is to be hoped that those who criticise others are actually doing something themselves. I have been sponsoring children through PLAN since 1982.

Working as a social worker in my case mehi, is that worthy enough for you?

I expect that lots of you are doing things- but not all. Some read, condemn the couple and forget.

So they are basically running an orphanage but legitimising the children, making them the parents, so the kids have stability, and a right to stay in the country.

The article is full of love and compassion. They look happy - god only knows what lives they have left behind.

I feel film rights being sold, and good for them too.

mehi I what are you doing to help? I don't think the Briggs are helping those children.

I don't think that adopting a stupidly large number of children is virtuous. I also think children from non Christian backgrounds should not be placed with Christian fundamentalists. The children should have the option of going to school rather than being home educated.

Op on the face of it I agree with you and I'm place marking so that I can read the links after work tonight.

I'm a bit ?? after the radbury family thread that after they dared to have 17 biological children and were torn to shreds for it, people would think this is ok. But like I said, I'll read after work and post a more considered response.

5 of the children are their biological ones.

And the Ghanaian babies are relatives of one (or more) of their existing children.

I think what they are doing is amazing. They have improved the adopted children's lives.

It's a pity a heart-warming story is seen as a thin end of a wedge towards abuse.

I agree with OP and others. This story made me feel deeply uncomfortable.

And yes, I am not just criticising, I am doing something.

I'm torn. On one hand, I can see that many of these children may have died had they not been adopted and they do seem happy, well cared for, and educated.

On the other hand, I have seen some things about the quiverful movement that I am extremely uncomfortable with.

So, torn, on the fence, undecided.

I agree OP. And no, this wouldn't be allowed under the UK system, both because of the rules they have that ensure that children are absolutely at the heart of each decision (eg at least two years age gap between any new children joining the family and existing family members) and the range of countries listed.

Those who are saying that they know of international adoptions working well - I'm obviously glad, and know of a couple myself, but it's not a matter of chance it's because those parents have worked really really hard to make that happen, in some cases having had extensive training.

There are lots of ways to provide support to other children, including supporting charities who specialise in cleft palate surgery for example. And let's not pretend that the parents are raising all these children themselves , the older children have to be parenting the little ones as well.

(I'm an adoptive parent who also makes regular donations to charities working in this field, if that helps prove my credentials)

A short summary of issues with international adoption from Ghana

I think if they were honest about what they're doing really being running a children's home I'd have less of an issue with it (but still an issue with them being Christian fundamentalists who homeschool), but with the best will in the world you cannot adequately parent 34 (or even 23) children, especially not when many of them have complex needs. You just can't.

Adoption in the US is a huge money spinner. There are massive ethical concerns with this and that's before you even step outside the country and consider that 'orphanages' abroad are doing little more than baby selling.

My lack of involvement doesn't make this any less wrong.

Actually, no, I'd still have an issue with it, but at least they wouldn't be telling such blatant lies about being saviours of the little foreign Children.

They look amazing.

I knew straight away they'd be Quiverfull.

Homeschooling in itself is not bad - it's has been a perfectly normal way of educating children for thousands of years, and with a competent teacher there is no reason in the for a child not to be very academically and socially successful throughout their school career and later at university and beyond.

But the Quiverfull thing is essentially quite calculating and doesn't put anybody's needs first except "let's make more Christians!" and the sanity of everybody involved be damned.

I don't think we know they ar actually Quiverfull?

Let's face it, the vast majority if not all of those children were destined to spend their lives in substandard or down right emotionally harmful orphanages. What future did they have?

Yes, their new home is a bit like a children's home in terms of the number of kids and the general set up. But they have access to healthcare, understanding of whatever medical issues they may have had and general love from the family rather than isolation and fear.

Of course they are not in the same situation as they would be if they were living in a smaller family unit with birth parents. But it seems that many of the children were adopted at or after the age of 10 and the chances of adoption by small nuclear family unit were slim.

I did some Google searching and it would appear that they tried to adopted within the USA and were turned down (I think they tried in at least two different states and were turned down by both).

That said, and not knowing the ins and outs of their daily lives, I wish they were attending school and I do have a big issue with the quiverful concept.

Ideal of course would be for adoption and child care services in Ukraine/Ghana/Uzbekistan to be adequate and for their long term health and emotional welfare to be adequately attended to there.