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.

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.

You are correct in the context of biological children (exception being China)

But not in the context of families with non biological children. It is pretty common for foster families and adoptive families to be subject to a family size "cap".

In some places/cases that is overt, with specific numbers stated. In others it is implied and the formation of SuperTOK families does not occur because the family would not be considered suitable for the placement of yet more children on top of the ones they already have.

This is generally done to try and ensure that each child can receive adequate care and attention, and the parents can cope.

However in some states in the US the bar for adoption from overseas is very much lower than it would be for domestic adoption. And that lower bar includes a relatively laissez faire attitude towards the sheer number of children being placed in a family.

Because some kind of Disney Magic happens when the kids are foreign and all the usual concerns melt away, replaced with Happy Smiley magazine spreads instead of the more usual checks and balances that were created to prioritise the wellbeing of the powerless children in the equation.

Garlic, I've just read that full Reuters article (not graphic but a really tough read) - I had no idea there was such a thing as giving away adopted children for free online!

It really, really highlighted how important it is that adopted children go to the right home, not just someone who is prepared to have them.

The little boy given away to a paedophile and then fostered as one of ten children (many with, like him, special needs) and told he wasn't allowed to go to school for troubled kids because foster family didn't believe in outside schooling or therapy for children is really sticking with me.

Also the girl adopted from Russia whose adoptive mother wanted to be able to legally treat her like a faulty good when she found it hard to adapt.

I'm so glad that in the UK we are strict about these things.

I had no idea there was such a thing as giving away adopted children for free online!

It's a feature of large scale adoption for religious motivations. Like the family in the OP (In a single day the family in the OP got approval to adopt five children from two countries), many go for "job lots", returning from a country with several children in one go. That are added to an already large brood. Adjustment (for everybody) can be very hard going in that context, even for the most well equipped of people.

So the rate of failed adoptions is predicatably high. And as I understand it the giving away on the internet evolved as a means of dealing with that issue.

I think the "job lot" aspect is something that needs to be considered as an element that may lead to a sensation of "disposability" towards the children, which lowered barriers to the obvious risks of handing children over to strangers from the internet.

The article also states that social services either refuse to support the families, or expect financial support until the child is 18, or the families are in fear of social services investigations. The US children's services are in an absolute state. It's hard to believe when you compare it to the uk.

The whole process seems a complete mess. No checks to begin, during or after or any help or advice to go with it.

I think that there is a racist attitude that

white (American Christian) = superior better person
black (Non christian) = monkey Savage/ stupid

There is a definate level of contempt for these children's backgrounds shown. For example less strict checks (if any) and the assumption that any American family is going to be an improvement from where they have come from.

These families come across well in media and people who question these large families are slated as has happened on this thread.

reading that story has really made me smile, what amazing people who deserve so much respect :-)

In a single day the family in the OP got approval to adopt five children from two countries

And that's a further £50,000 bonus from Briggs's employer, First Data Corp.

Perhaps employers offering parental awards should institute some form of control procedures. In a country where everything's for sale & nothing for free, theirs is a compassionate policy but wide open to abuse.

(I read their parental benefits document; it was dated 2011 I think. It may have changed now, but probably not as it's still on their website.)

There is no way a family should adopt five children from two different countries all at once.

I have met some one in real life who adopted a little girl from China. The mother tried to learn mandarin so she could understand the culture where he little girl comes from. The little girl is happy and well adjusted and she attends a Chinese Saturday school. However she is an only child with no obvious special needs. The adoption has worked because the parents have put in the effort. There is no way the Briggs have the time to put in the effort needed for lots of children from different countries.

I cannot understand why do many posters think the Briggs are wonderful people. At best they are naive and at worst they are a bunch of narcissists who want brainwash impose their religion on as many victims as possible.

I am appalled that wealthy country like the US do not tightly control adoption.

In a country where everything's for sale & nothing for free, theirs is a compassionate policy but wide open to abuse.

It think it may be a tax deductable for the company. And tax deducatables seem to be quite popular over there. Not sure how it all works... but one family was fundraising to pay for another overseas adoption and were selling "pray for us" days. So basically, you bought a day when you could pray for them to have a another sucessful adoption (and no, it doesn't make any sense to me either). Anyway, under the "pay to pray" promotion, next to the price, were banners screaming TAX DEDUCTABLE!!

If that can be knocked off your tax bill then First Data's adoption benefit must surely qualify. In which case they probably don't mind if somebody claims it lots and lots of times. But... the biggest big wig of the company isn't exactly fundie material. So if this is all news to him and it raises questions for him, I suppose the bonus might come with "just for a few kids" strings attached in future.

I am appalled that wealthy country like the US do not tightly control adoption.

I think between variation in state laws, the outsourcing of home studies, the different regulations for Hague convention signatory countires and non Hague convention countries... so many "flexes" and blind spots have evolved in the system that maybe only a complete overhaul could fix it. And that would be an enourmous job. Plus, it does look a lot like an industry. So I'd expect lobbiests to do their best to fight any proposed tightened regulstion. Which is an added complication.

All home studies have to be approved by a central gov. agency. There has to be something going a bit bent there if it approves one where the intended father is in his 70s, the intended mother not far off her sixties and they waft through an application to adopt several toddlers/pre schoolers. With lifelong medical needs. The parents were desperstly fundraising just for the adoption costs, which doesn't square with having the sort on income/capital to provide for the children were the parents to suffer age related conditions in the shorter term, and their deaths in the longer term.

Perhaps as a stop gap measure greater scrutiny of home studies and random spot checks for accuracy and "true representation" might help. As well as a more risk averse consideration of the ability of parents to cope well with their adopted children's needs. Including the number of children they already have, the parental age and their health. Also economic health. If a family has long been "fund me" blogging in order to raise money to pay for the adoption, pay for medical treatment for their adopted children, pay for nappies etc.... maybe that isn't a solid enough economic foundation upon which you hand wave through subsequant applications to adopt.

I hink somebody more au fait with the ins and outs of the American system is better placed to pin point where exactly the weak spots are, but the above was certainly my impression of where perhaps there might be issues.

I much prefer the system in the Uk. Where the bar seems to be set as high for international adoption (Hague convention signing or otherwise) as it is for domestic. But there isn't the same "industry" vibe in the Uk, so I don't know how easy it would be to export the essence of it to a huge country, with several layers of laws and an industry who would perhaps strongly resist any changes that impact their bottom line.