To think infertile couples should have priority

[Lil44]

I’m incredibly grateful to have been able to have my own family. However reading about the latest celeb who already has children adopting a baby makes me feel incredibly sad for infertile couples who are waiting to be able to adopt a much wanted baby. I kind of always assumed such (obviously suitable) couples had priority, seems not??

No I disagree. I realise I am incredibly fortunate to never have had fertility problems and I can't begin to imagine the difficulties that people face, but through my work as a foster carer I can see that it's about who is the best parent for the child. The priority is placing the child with the best suitable parents, not finding a child for an infertile couple. The child is always the priority and is at the forefront of everything. Often there will be physiological or developmental needs to be considered, and finding the parents who can provide a home for that child is paramount. The child is at the centre and not the prospective parents and that's the way it should be.

@Lil44 i understand what you are getting at and it could be an interesting debate, but unfortunately the first set of posters have jumped on you and set the tone to snipe without providing any debate, I’d probably just leave it, the sharks are circling.

Your thread title literally says infertile people should have priority.

How is that supposed to be interpreted?

Fertile or infertile is absolutely irrelevant, it’s about the best thing for the child.

There is nothing to debate. Adoption is not about righting the wrongs of infertility. Ever.

It’s about each child. The fertility of the adoptive parents is not a factor and should not be a factor.

First post nailed it, there's nothing else really to say.

Adoption isn't an alternative to having IVF or conceiving naturally. It's about the child, not the adults. End of.

No, that’s your twisted interpretation

Is it a twisted interpretation, or is it literally the title of your thread.

I had an adopted DB (he died in his late teens). I also have several biological full siblings. DB was the youngest.
There was no queue waiting to take him into their family, even at aged two. I'd argue that someone with DM's experience was a better fit than a first time parent. You haven't thought this through.

The first poster said the needs of the baby should take priority, in what way is that a shark circling?

The fact they adopted a baby makes me think it's likely you're talking about an American couple where things are very different?

I think for the thread is based on the false assumption that people are queuing up to adopt and there simply aren't enough children to adopt, so fertile couples are "taking" the children that would otherwise be going to infertile couples which just isn't true.

I am interested in hearing more though OP if you can expand?

Thank you, yes agree with you. It’s a shame people so ready to twist any discussion

How on earth do you think that priority would actually be put into practice OP?

I agree with everyone else yabvu.

Having read your opening post and your updates OP, I'm confused about what you actually are saying?

Genuinely btw, not being an arse.

I agree with you OP - assuming, as you've already said, that the infertile couple are good candidates.

Not sure why you're getting flamed!

I believe you are talking about a certain celebrity who has just adopted and is pregnant? If so that is the American system and an open adoption where the child was voluntarily relinquished and the birth mother was able to choose who would adopt her baby. Should she have had to choose off an infertile couples list first? If you are talking about the English system then the child is matched to the person or couple best able to meet their needs. Are you implying that some couples should be allowed to skip over that process, or that they should be the only ones allowed babies (usually a baby would be through Foster to adopt or concurrency as it takes time to get a placement (for adoption) order. Should all fertile couples be mandated to take children over a certain age? I'm afraid it just would not work.

I think that, all things being equal, those without children should take priority over those who already have children so from that point of view, yes I agree with you @AnarchismUK. However, I imagine that all things are very rarely equal and as PP's have already said, it is the needs of the child(ren) that are paramount, not the needs of the prospective parents, sad though that might be for infertile couples.

Is it right that there are less families/couples wanting to adopt or is the process so long and tiresome leading to stress people back out for their own mental health. One family I know has been going through the process for three years and another two. The first family is finding it really difficult and is thinking of choosing to leave the process. Something they told me as well they don't like children going to families of a different culture. And for example there is a lot of black children in care due to the lack of black families wanting to adopt but a white family is not able to adopt them.

That’s what the vetting is for.

In the UK there are currently four times as many children waiting for adopters as there are potential adopters.
Anyone who has applied and is suitable could adopt - there is no 'need' to prioritise infertile couples, as the pool of adopters is so small that anyone willing to do it, and capable of doing it, can. No one is 'missing out' unless they're not suitable for the child.

It is, of course, what’s best for the child. As it should be.

but the truth of the matter is that people who are parents already will have some level of advantage as they are “proven” parents, so their parenting can be assessed more easily.

In America, the system is very very different. Over here, not many babies are available for adoption in the first place, they are usually fostered and then adopted as toddlers because of how long the adoption process takes.