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.

Oh well, the children look happy in the photos so everything must be ok

That is a valid point. A media friendly gloss of positivity does not always represent reality.

The family in the story below had some great pics and quite a following.

The mother in this, very positive, article was dead six months or so later.

She died in a an RTA, that her husband described as a depression realted tragic death. I don't think it is beyond the relmes of possibility that her family circumstances may have been an exacerbating factor in her illness, and possibly the final outcome.

I think one thing that needs to be factored in as an additional stressor, in an already stressful set of circumstances (TOK, overseas adoption, SEN) is that many of the adoptive mothers can be between a rock and hard place in terms of genuinely choosing this for themselves. Their community culture surrounds them with messages of

-submission to your male spouse's choices

-giving yourself over to God and if you let him he will solve everything, and unsolved issues are down to you not letting God in properly.

-making god happy with the adoption of and biological production of very very large numbers of children

-many with additional/complex needs

-who are all at home, all day everyday, becuase you homeschool them.

-And due to your gender the bulk of the care, grind, slog falls on you.

-With no end in sight, cos just as your littlest/newest arrival reaches a degree of needing you less instensely... the plan is that you get another one. Or two. And on and on and on.

You have to ask how that might impact the capasity of somebody to take care of all the children, particularly if they are careful not to overload the older female children with childcare, and how their mental state might decline to a point where it is potentially a risk factor for their own wellbeing and that of the children.

There is a reason why in an offical group home situation nobody is expected to be at work and on call 24/7, 365 days of the year.

Burn out is not to the benefit of the carer or their charges. And it doesn't have to end in suicide for thing to get FUBAR.

Sorry FamiliesShareGerms, I chopped off your face when I quoted you, which sort of misrepresents your meaning. And makes my post underneath your quote look connected to what you said in a way I didn't intend.

IOW, I understood what you meant, and was agreeing with you.

Just so we're clear.

That's OK Mutters

I read the articles on the bbc a few days ago, and my initial thought was "just how much different is it, being in that family to living in an orphanage/children's home?". It's got to be pretty much like an institution when you're dealing with that many children, feeding, cleaning and caring for them all. With 34 kids to look after you're hardly going to able to spare the time to bond with any new arrivals, so the children probably still aren't getting the parental role models which you might expect upon adoption. Their relationship is probably pretty similar to a house master in a boarding school or something. And homeschooling? How effective is it going to be, with that many kids, a good proportion of whom you're trying to teach in a second language?

Obviously they're now in America and have access to healthcare; their chances in life certainally look better, assuming that they get their GED. But as someone else said, the Radfords were lambasted for choosing to have 18 kids, people saying it was selfish and the children were likely neglected and practically raising themselves, with the older girls being forced to help with the little ones. But yet this is ok?

One of my parents committed suicide. I'm not aware of the correlation between adoptive parents committing suicide, being any higher than that of suicide in natural parents.

It sounds, in a way, positive purely on the basis that quite a few of the children are of a similar age and/or from a similar cultural background to each other. That kind of socialisation would be less likely within the typical school cohort, and it also makes it sound more plausible that the adoptive parents are providing them with some form of appropriate cultural education. It seems to be implied that at least one of the older children has gone on to adopt for themselves, and I also imagine that a fair few of the older siblings are on board with raising the younger ones, so it's not exactly like two adults going it alone, although legally speaking, they are. Even a large and busy family is preferable to the certain misery of being an unwanted child in a country which cannot or will not provide institutionally for your needs.

One of my parents committed suicide. I'm not aware of the correlation between adoptive parents committing suicide, being any higher than that of suicide in natural parents.

This.

Although, biting off more than you can chew and stress can exacerbate any mental illness.

Quiverfull families are a very small minority of people in the US, and they mostly focus on using women as chattel and baby vessels. I haven't heard so much about them focusing on adoption, it's not frowned upon as far as I know. But generally, they want their own children and as many as possible.

34 kids is a lot of children, yes. But if the home is nice, they have the finances, and the family is supportive, then there's nothing wrong with it.

It might be a better alternative for many of their adopted children because of the horrific circumstances of their background but it's more orphanage than family. I still don't think it's good enough and really they would only be better than living in a third world orphanage or worse. Compared to local peers they're much worse off.

There may be a justification for adopting children into a substandard environment because there's no alternative but there's no excuse for purposely bringing five biological children into that situation.

No child is going to have their emotional needs met in those circumstances. And they're all homeschooled so deprived of a normal social experience with their peers and a decent education (don't tell me you can take care of 30 plus kids and educate them to a reasonable standard with all their varying ages and abilities, that's impossible), the parents have created their own cult.

Some people are addicted to having the largest number of kids, whatever way they collect them, it's wrong to have more than you can properly care for.

The things that stood out for me that they seemed to have jumped into this with very little preparation,

That when a country changed it's rules they weren't able to adopt (why did stricter rules make them unsuitable?) similarly that they clearly go to countries where there are few checks instead of adopting closer to home (again why?)

I knew they were quiverful as well, tbh. One of the ways you can tell is the relentless positivity and smiley photos. They believe it's an actual send to hell sin for children to be negative about their father and his decisions. Being unhappy or expressing dissent even when someone is wronging you would be considered being disobedient (and therefore not loving your father and being majorly sinful) the discussions about each child being adopted will have been a farce because the only option allowed is to agree, with a smile on your face.

People that have left quiverful consider the way they were raised to be spiritually abusive, even from parents that weren't otherwise abusive and were trying to do the right thing by God and their children. There's so much more beyond having lots of children and it's so incredibly messed up.

34 children in a loving children's home with extra staff could be fabulous.

But 34 children in a quiverful family is awful.

I'm not aware of the correlation between adoptive parents committing suicide, being any higher than that of suicide in natural parents.

Nor am I.

But then, I very much doubt that any stats on adoptive parents in general would give you much insight when it comes to single family large scale adoption for religious motivations. Particularly since the movements that promote large scale adoption (regardless of a parent's ability to cope) also have a higher than average tendency to view depression (and inability to cope) as something you pray away rather than treat as the doctor ordered.

I don't think comparisions to adoption in general, domestic or overseas , are all that useful. There is more different than there is similar in that there are significant factors that are unique to a small sub group. It makes more sense to compare large scale single family adoption to a religiously run group home setting.

Would a group home be granted a licence if the set up included kids in double figures, some with additional and medical needs, where the intent was for the children to be looked after (and educated) by one full time carer, (caring, or on call 24/7/365) and one part time carer who spent the bulk of his day out, fundraising to keep the home up and running and everybody fed.

And if not, why not ?

Might there be concerns about the immense, unrelenting pressure on the primary care giver in terms of their physical and mental ability to cope and their ability to provide adequete care/education for all the children ?

Throw depression in the mix and might there be concerns that the large number of children and the lack of downtime could be contribututory factors, or worsen the mental state to a point of crisis ?

If it would be deemed an unsuitable and inadequate set of conditions for a group home setting, what is it specifically about the legal process of adoption that suddenly renders the set up adequate and/or desirable?

My friend adopted two children but they had to send the older one back (into care.)

Those children seem happy and grateful.

I think it is unfair to describe this particular family as quiverfull or fundamentalist. I have never had the impression they are either. Bible believing Christians yes, but I am not sure their primary motivation for adoption is even religious. They seem 'addicted' caught up in endless adoptions and unable to stop.

It is interesting that at least one and I think two of their adult birth children are estranged from them while two others are repeating the pattern and adopting multiple children. I wonder what causes those different reactions to their parents' actions

I am tired of the idea that children should be 'grateful' for adoption. Grateful for being abused/neglected/abandoned? Grateful for receiving their basic right of a family? It is biologic children in healthy intact families who should be grateful.

The children will look how they are told to look. Isn't that the point?

Sandberry, Jeane Briggs herself uses the word 'quiverfull'. She also shares strong views on total obedience - even to those who treat you disrespectfully and unfairly.

but I am not sure their primary motivation for adoption is even religious

"Our faith is the reason we do this"

Christian Post article from when they had 29 children.

I am tired of the idea that children should be 'grateful' for adoption

Seconded.

Have they changed their names? It's just occurred to me on reading the list of names that it's fairly unlikely that they are their birth names. That's appalling.

They're also 58 and 59. Realistically they are not going to be able to provide the ongoing care that the Younger children may need. If they do adopt the twin babies then they'll be pushing 80 by the time the twins are adults. Abandoned in the bush my arse.

Surely people know something about US fundamentalist mass overseas adoptions, and how problematic it is that they are essentially unregulated, quick and cheap, and undertaken for the express purpose of harvesting more 'heathen' souls for Jesus, rather than from the desire to love and bring up a child? And that you get extra Brownie/Jesus points for a child with SN?

Another problem that someone else touched on up the thread is that sometimes the children adopted aren't in fact orphans at all, but have been placed temporarily in care due to a family tragedy or because family can't look after them for the moment - sometimes living, involved parents are falsely told the 'adoption' is temporary and will help the child get an education. Although that education can then involve nothing but being read a Bible stories by an older sibling, and an adoptive family without the money for SN extra assistance, but, hey, they'll pray over little X, so that's ok. In a rigidly fundamentalist community without any contact with outsiders like teachers who are in a position to notice mistreatment.

I can't believe anyone would think this kind of adoption is a good idea.

Would a group home be granted a licence if the set up included kids in double figures, some with additional and medical needs, where the intent was for the children to be looked after (and educated) by one full time carer, (caring, or on call 24/7/365) and one part time carer who spent the bulk of his day out, fundraising to keep the home up and running and everybody fed.

Probably not but many medium to large families regularly exceed the 'ofsted' ratio of children to adults, fortunately that ratio is not applied to families.

Hester, thanks for clarifying!

Actually, I hate them. You just don't change a child's name. That's adoption 101. That's the only thing those kids had to call their own and they took it from them.

Fuckers.

e thread is that sometimes the children adopted aren't in fact orphans at all, but have been placed temporarily in care due to a family tragedy or because family can't look after them for the moment - sometimes living, involved parents are falsely told the 'adoption' is temporary and will help the child get an education.

Or given that the adopters are being paid what is, for them, a huge sum, it is very possible that the children have been sold, either by their parents or,removed from the parents for sale.

It also concerns me that they were deemed unsuitable adoptive parents in their own country, yet people think it is "lovely" that they were able to buy these foreign children.

Even if they are amazing parents to these children. (and many aren't) questions still need to be asked.

Why on earth wouldn't you change a child's name?

Naming your child is a basic want, surely (as evidenced by the numerous threads on here about this name or that name - hugely personal.)

I am glad the UK has strict rules about adoption and insist that potential adopters pass a home study. Excepting lower standards for overseas children is racist. Unless there are checks then the child may well be placed in a worst environment than their third world orphanage. Not all third world orphanages are dying rooms.

In the US there is outstanding health care for the rich as you need to pay private health insurance. It is often difficult for people with pre existing conditions to get cover. I realise that this is less of an issue for the Briggs as they have an excellent income. However other Quiverfall families may struggle with health cover for 23 children. If the children have a subsistence standard of living and don't go to school there are few advantages of living in the USA.

Why on earth wouldn't you change a child's name?

An older child has a past that should be respected. How would you like it if someone else wanted to change your name.

Personally I have no respect for a past that would place me in foster care then adoption.

How would you like it if someone else wanted to change your name?

I'd be delighted if I was part of a family that wanted me.