To wonder why more people don't adopt?

[adoptionthoughts]

Recently I've started thinking maybe adoption is a route for me. I've always said I wouldn't do it but recently I'm having a change of heart as I think about it and logically it makes a lot of sense for a variety of reasons.

I'm struggling TTC, but this is something I'm thinking about irrespective of whether or not I eventually manage to have biological kids.

I also think giving a child a life they may not have otherwise had is a really nice thing. Also, why add to a climate change problem when there are so so many children I wanted across the world - the more I think about it the more logically adoption makes lots of sense. It means you don't get the physical problems from childbirth, it means you are providing a life for a child that may have been in foster care and many other positives.

Am I being naive? Why does hardly anyone do it? Why are we only happy with children if it's related to us by blood? I'm not trying to be funny here I'm genuinely asking to see why to see if I'm crazy to consider it.

I appreciate the children up for adoption often come from trauma often, which is concerning in terms of how that trauma may play out in later life but I'd likely want a very small baby (not saying this eradicates this but I think is reducing the risk). And also, the same can happen with biological kids you never know how they will turn out.

I'd like to hear from not just those that have adopted but also those that haven't and wouldn't as to why?

@Xero

The process of finding your child is not materialistic or shallow. The matching process is about ensuring that a prospective adopter can meet the needs of individual children and maximising the chances of a successful adoption.
I am a single adopter. At the time of matching I was 46, there were no other very young children in my family or friendship circle. For a whole host of practical reasons, including my ability to provide a financially stable home for my future child, it made sense to adopt one child, not a sibling group, of school age. It also made sense to look for a child with no medical conditions. My son has ASD and a learning difficulty, these were conditions that I felt I could support.
I know an absolutey amazing adopter who has adopted several children with life limiting conditions who have died. Such conditions are way beyond what I could support and would have been disastrous for all involved.
You are quite rightly considering the potential impact on your existing child. That is no different to any other consideration.

I think it's a little sad to read how materialistic adoption choices are. It is kind of shallow to pick and choose what you prefer. Because adoption is essentially about giving a the poor abandoned kid a loving home.

It is about giving a child a home, to do that you need to know your limits. I knew I didn’t want an infant or toddler, I knew I would like a girl and a boy, though would have taken two girls/boys if they were the right children. I knew I couldn’t cope with significant physical disabilities - my DH and I are older parents and wouldn’t by physically able to cope with moving and handling into retirement. It’s not materialistic to set boundaries for yourself. As it was our children met our matching considerations pretty much perfectly.

@Xero

I think it's a little sad to read how materialistic adoption choices are. It is kind of shallow to pick and choose what you prefer. Because adoption is essentially about giving a the poor abandoned kid a loving home.

Yes, to everything Ted and Jellycat have said about knowing and stating your limits but it's not like you just pick out the child you want. The ball is firmly in the court of the family finding social worker to choose the best family for the child. Adoption is finding families for children, not children for families.

@ivfbabymomma1

I was adopted at 6 weeks old with absolutely no traumatic background (my birth mum was just 15 and made the decision she was too young fair enough) and I still feel I have some traits others don't because of it which I keep hidden and aren't obvious at all. So if I do imagine the children who have come from terrible circumstances...

Same as me. As I said up thread. Children adopted very very young are still very effected by it. I was with my adopted family by around 6 weeks and adopted at 6 months. But I grew up with an emotional detachment from my adopted family. I'm just not sure I ever felt the same attachment as my (very independent) kids feel to me . They have that security of knowing exactly who their parents are.

@Xero

I would adopt someone older and I've given fostering a lot of thought too. But I have a 3 year old boy and have to consider how it would impact on him. I would think it was best to wait until he was a little older but when I'm not sure.

I think it's a little sad to read how materialistic adoption choices are. It is kind of shallow to pick and choose what you prefer. Because adoption is essentially about giving a the poor abandoned kid a loving home.

As for 'what the trauma might lead to' parents who wish to adopt have to accept that they have a role to play in supporting that child in a way that can reduce the likelihood of problems in adulthood or make it worse when they drop em like a hot brick.

It's a good thing that the adoption process is as rigorous as it is, because it's about trying to get it right for the child, to prevent the adoptive parents also giving up on them.

What do you mean by ‘materialistic’ and ‘shallow’? It’s crucial to think carefully and rationally about what kinds of needs you can cope with, whether you or your partner, if there is a partner, can afford to take significant time off work, what, if you’re a single adopter, you would do if your adopted child couldn’t cope with you working FT, and your finances, work flexibility etc will obviously impact on what age and need level of child you could adopt, or whether a single child or a sibling group.

I don’t think anyone should wade in with the idea they’re nobly ‘giving the poor abandoned kid a loving home’.

This very sad news story shows an example of things going wrong post-adoption. I hope everything works out for the little boy and the couple:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59943642

It is only sensible for adopters to think what they can or cannot cope with. It isn't the same as a birth child because here you are making an active choice to bring a child with specific known issues into the family.

Adopters have different skills and backgrounds, some might feel they couldn't cope with e.g. a child born as result of rape (eg if they were raped themselves previously) where as others might feel that wouldn't be an issue for them. You have to be able to talk to your child about their life story.

It does no one any good to place a child with a family who can't cope.

You have to be realistic when adopting about what situations/backgrounds you can and cannot cope with, to avoid the adoption potentially breaking down. There is nothing materialistic about it, it's just being realistic. There is no room for altruism in adoption, that's one of the first things our social worker told us. To people who were adopted as babies but still grew up feeling detached from their adoptive families, that is a very sad situation, but what is the answer? Would those people have preferred to be brought up in a children's home instead of being adopted?

It always makes me laugh that people who've never adopted nor have any intention to adopt are the first to lecture people on how they shouldn't be so selfish and selective. It's not materialistic to choose the child who you think you could offer the best life to. Would I love a severely disabled child or a child with severe emotional difficulties any less, absolutely not! Do I commit to prioritising my child if such problems weren't obvious initially but then arise? absolutely. Would I quit my job to support this child? You bet! But would I CHOOSE to turn my back on a career I've spent years studying towards and care for a child with complex needs that I have virtually no experience with? Quite possibly in place of people who DO have vast experience in these areas. NO! This would lack pragmatism and actually quite a selfish thing to do as I likely couldn't give this child the support they need as effectively as some other adopters despite my hero complex. It's prudent not materialistic or selfish to be honest with yourself about which children you can give the best life to. Believe me most people with half a heart want to take every child in care home with them when they see their profiles but they know it's simply not possible

@ivfbabymomma1

Of course you do and it actually makes me feel quite angry when people assume that babies "don't remember" or "are nut affected".

You only have to see a newborn with their mother to see the extraordinary bond. For that to be severed can only be traumatic. Just because the baby cannot articulate their distress or grief does not mean they are not feeling it. Of course they do.

At least with open adoptions the child knows where they come from, good or bad. Open adoptions are all about the child, closed adoptions are all about the adoptive parents.

There was a sorry today about a very young mother who died soon after giving birth. The photographs of her holding her BEAUTIFUL little boy are just heartbreaking. That baby is undoubtedly adored and cherished by his mother's family, and his loss will be offset by his connection with grandparents, but it will also colour his every moment , a child who only got a few weeks with his mother.

*story

My dear late friend was a foster carer. She always took teens as she was classified disabled and couldn't get up in the morning due to her condition. She made such a difference to so many lives as her teens often stayed until they were 18+ when they then got their own places or went to uni.

She fostered primary age child with long term intention to adopt, she had her chronic condition under control in mornings and a taxi took the child to school. Unfortunately by the time she was end primary she was still smearing her bedroom walls, wouldn't talk to any adult about her past after years of therapy and was still having authorised contact with the drug addicted mother - therapist though this was why she wouldn't open up about past abuse, ss know she was sexual abused by at least two of her mothers partners. The child ended up going back into the system. I do wonder if they had cut all contact the child may have recovered more

@sweetbellyhigh

Open adoptions are all about the child, closed adoptions are all about the adoptive parents.

Would you like to explain what you mean by this as it doesn't reflect my experience at all.

[quote sunshineandskyscrapers]@sweetbellyhigh

Open adoptions are all about the child, closed adoptions are all about the adoptive parents.

Would you like to explain what you mean by this as it doesn't reflect my experience at all.[/quote]
What is your experience?

Mine is of investigating this issue for a feature article.

The resounding message was that open adoptions are the way forward.

Closed adoptions are for the benefit of the adoptive parent, and play into the fantasy of acquiring a child with "a clean slate".

But of course all of us have our own stories when we arrive into this world, and open adoptions acknowledge the importance of respecting this.

That's absolute bollocks about open vs closed adoptions. I would gladly allow my AD to have contact with her BPs IF I felt it was in her interest. However they had contact with her whilst she was in her foster care and either didn't turn up to said contact or turned up and were more interest in talking to each other. They've also had letters every year since we adopted her and not bothered writing back to a single one. I'm absolutely for open contact with the right parents but only if it's safe and beneficial. I hold no resentment towards my daughter's BP's but sorry 18 years of flakiness and apathy are not going to benefit my daughter and are simply not worth the security risk. They've had more than enough chance to show her that they care

Because adoption is essentially about giving a the poor abandoned kid a loving home.

@Subulter the vast majority of children placed for adoption aren’t abandoned - they’ve been purposely removed from parent who for many varied reasons can’t care for them. They are usually loved and wanted, but parents don’t have the capacity to care for them.

Mine is of investigating this issue for a feature article.

Excellent, you’ll know much more then that adoptive parents or someone with 25+ years experience in child protection. Open adoption can be incredibly harmful for children and in some cases very dangerous. Each case on a case by case basis.

Closed adoptions are for the benefit of the adoptive parent, and play into the fantasy of acquiring a child with "a clean slate".

Given my kids were 4 and 6 when placed, there’s no clean slate fantasy happening here , just the knowledge that my kids would be actively harmed by direct contact with their birth mum.

@jannt86
That's absolute bollocks about open vs closed adoptions.
Thank you. That's what I was hinting at.

@sweetbellyhigh you're not even using the terminology correctly, and if I understand correctly you have no first hand experience of adoption?

If @sweetbellyhigh is writing a feature length article I hope you don’t include tripe like that.

How offensive and ridiculous!!

Do you not understand why children are adopted? The threshold is incredibly high!!

Have you read the news recently? If the level of abuse is so high you would like children to maintain contact with the very people who have abused them???

But thanks so much for the judgement and potentially spreading the judgement to others with your feature length article!

@sweetbellyhigh

Do you think that if Arthur or Star had survived the actions of their parents, it would have been beneficial to them to have had ongoing contact with their abusers ?

closed adoptions are all about the adoptive parents.

They’re really not, we attempted some contact with birth mum, the trauma that caused my son was awful, it got to the point where he would just be in freeze around her, he didn’t move, speak, eat or drink, once sessions ended he would be physically sick, he would scream, hit and kick. It would take him a good three weeks to sleep through the night again, it would take days for him to eat properly. We would then have one good week until it was contact yet again. It was really the only time we used the car, he then started being sick the moment he was in the car and he would scream for the entire journey, it wasn’t a quick journey, it was multiple hours.

It obviously depends on the individual situation. I know a woman with a severe eating disorder who had her kids removed. She was basically starving her kids. She does see them once a month. Because although they were at real risk if living with her, they do benefit from seeing her regularly. She is their mum and loves them and they love her.

My dads cousin and her husband are very well off and lovely, they couldn't have kids and adopted 2, a boy and a girl, they were both very small babies when they were adopted, the daughter is mid teens now and she has a lot a lot a lot of issues which stems from things that happened when she was a very small baby that she won't even remember now, but it still effects her, just something to be mindful of, just because it's a very small baby doesn't mean it hasn't suffered long lasting traumas. Also there's no such thing as a 'perfect baby/Chiild' when it comes to adoption