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??

Was the celebrity Joss Stone? Because she adopted in America where it is very different and private adoptions are much more common. In that instance the birth parents are able to chose the adoptive parents. In the UK, social services manage the whole process.

Adoption is not a family building tool for infertile couples (or anyone). It should be an absolute last resort in circumstances where every possible effort has been made to keep the child in the care of their birth family. Priority should be given to whichever person or persons are most suitable to care for the child, whether or not that’s an infertile couple. The child’s welfare is infinitely more important than any other consideration, including whether a prospective adoptive couple can have their own biological children.

The only priority should he what constitutes the best home for the child. This may include families who already have children, as many children in care may need someone experienced due to the levels of trauma they’ve been through.

It absolutely shouldn’t matter one bit if the couple have functioning reproductive systems or not and it’s frankly bonkers to suggest otherwise.

I’m an adopter and have three close friends who are also adopters - one chose to adopt rather than trying for a baby, another adopted after having a biological child, and the third adopted after egg donation for their first child. I chose adoption rather than IVF. What priority order should we have been in? Should a couple who had exhausted IVF be prioritised above me?

One could certainly make the argument that the current eligibility rules for adopting a child need to be revamped, but that's not because there are too many people trying to adopt and not enough babies/children. There is NO shortage of children/babies to adopt in either the USA or the UK. One could reasonably suggest that the methods used to screen the prospective parents are not in keeping with current cultures and lifestyles, but that does not mean that the solution is to hand out children based on a priority scale that does not include an assessment of the prospective parent's ability to care for the child.

How do you know a couple with a child is fertile. Their first may be adopted too.
Or, like us, after 2nd we were told unsafe for me to have anymore, which effectively makes me now infertile. If this hapenned after baby 1, we definitely would have looked at adoption, as we know we have lots of love to give,financially stable, flexible jobs which mean we can be there for key events for children, otherwise healthy, good support network.

Fostering probably bumps you up the queue for adopting. Have you thought about it? Hard work but fun.

But a child they adopt may have special,completely different needs to their biological children. How they parent their biological children is not really relevant.

America is a very large country with 50 States each with different adoption procedures and laws. Having said that, for the most part, in most States, the process looks very very similar to the process in the UK. It usually starts with fostering and this can last years before adoption is allowed. The courts always prioritize reunification of the bio family.

I agree with you in general OP, however an adopted newborn coming into an established family is also a wonderful thing. To have lots of siblings doting on them, I can imagine that's really lovely. I have to say, I appreciate parents adopting rather than going down the surrogacy route, which I think is personally a terrible thing. In this day and age when so many celebs are opting for surrogacy when they could so easily provide a home for an adoptive child (talking to you Kardashians..) is quite special x

@KimberleyClark I think it’s almost more of a self-confidence thing? With biological parents too, first time parents are a lot more anxious and prone to daft shit overall, then by the time they have a second they’ve learned the ropes. To put it in car terms, if you’ve only ever had a Mini Cooper, you probably won’t be amazing at driving a super car, but you’re more likely to be good at it than someone who doesn’t drive 🤷‍♀️

I don’t disagree. I also think adoption into a family who have biological children can also create difficult dynamics for the children. I’m thinking of a family I know in this situation where the older (biological) child resents the adopted child and is also treated more favourably…

I think I understand what you’re trying to say op, but I have to agree that infertility really shouldn’t be a factor. For many couples who experience infertility, they desire their own biological child and adopting isn’t something they are interested in. Adopting should be something people want to do, not a default position when they can’t have their own child.

Private adoptions are much more common though, as are babies available for adoption. That is what I was meaning.

This is just a completely terrible idea OP.

Agree.
@Lil44 some of the posters are just twisting this now, just looking for an argument.The tone has been set!

What a snotty comment !! The OP didn’t suggest that infertile couples skip suitability checks - merely that they might treasure the chance to adopt because they are infertile.

How ignorant.

Exactly

YABU. It’s about finding families for babies, not finding babies for aspiring parents.

Joss Stone adopted in America where there are more adoptable babies than there are willing parents. She is rich and has the resources to give.

Also her husband was adopted so it’s something they’ve always wanted to do. There’s nothing bad about that at all.

I am suspicious of celebrities but they seem a wholesome family.

Honestly? No. I don’t think that infertile couples should have priority over those who already have children.

No.
Fostering is not a 'try before you buy' shortcut to adoption.
Fostering is a skilled specialist role in and of itself. Some fosterers do go on to adopt their foslings, but that is not the same.
There is also foster to adopt / concurrent placement but that is something else again.

I don't think they should either but it's slightly irrelevant isn't it?

Firstly because, as has been said, there isn't a shortage of children to be adopted. So there aren't infertile people who can't adopt because there are no children left. And secondly because people keep saying "all things being equal", but realistically, how often is that going to actually be the case? Where the social worker (or whoever it is) really can't separate two couples/individuals and decide who would be best for a child?

What evidence do you have for such a judgemental statement?