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??

Adoption is not there to heal infertile people. You are proposing a system which focuses on the wants of the adults rather than the needs of the children.

Technically speaking if the two couples where equal in money, free time and space.

The couple already parenting have an advantage over the infertile couple of already being parents, in that they all ready know exactly what they are getting into and have made their mistakes. A plus over a childless couple. Technically.

It's hard to adopt

And so it should be

For the child's sake

Celebs do seem to adopt a lot /easily - hoping it's not a money thing

You don't know how long they may have been on the l adoption register

Who are we talking about anyway

Which celeb is preg and adopting

Although I have to say that I do think it's ridiculous to get pregnant 'by accident' when you have JUST adopted a newborn. Totally selfish in my book, and smacks of 'we want a big family so sod everything else..our needs matter most'. It is selfish and irresponsible. I don't believe for a second it was an accident either.

There are plenty of kids who need adopting and there always will be.

This couple adopting doesn’t take away from anyone else.

They could have had a surrogate child but chose to have a child in need instead, which I think is wonderful and shouldn’t be seen as a negative thing.

However, I do agree that infertile couples should get priority for adoption and I assumed this was already a thing.

I assume you are also talking about having priority of young babies and not older kids, as these are not in short supply.

I used to think infertile couples should have priority all other things being equal but now I know more about the children being adopted for the last couple of decades or so in the UK. I have also known people who’ve relinquished their adopted children back to local authority care. The children put up for adoption are mostly sadly very traumatised and neglected and or exposed to drugs or alcohol in the womb. Their early experience has inflicted damage to the developing brain that often no amount of love and good parenting can ‘fix’. These days having an adopted child is therefore a very different thing to having a biological child for most people so there’s no reason infertile couples should think of it as a similar alternative.

As someone who was adopted, in the ‘olden days’ when we were not as damaged on average, I absolutely agree it is all about the child and if the necessarily rigorous process of adoption stresses you out then it’s doubtful you’d cope with a child with extremely challenging emotional and behavioural problems. Sometimes existing parents have more relevant experience.

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

I'm sorry you've been jumped on OP as you are clearly well intentioned but I think you misunderstand adoption. There really is no discussion to be had. As a pp said, available children outweigh potential adopters so if people are suitable, they can adopt. There is no need for a pecking order.

So what’s the order? Where do families with secondary infertility stand?!

I have an adopted friend who now does work in this area

She talks a lot about how growing up she felt she was a circle that her parents were desperately pretending could fit into a square hole. She wasn't their biological child and raising her wasn't the same as a biological child - rather than this difference being embraced, she felt it was resented and kept hidden. She never felt adequate, she felt she had to hide parts of herself.

The worst stories she tells me are of children adopted by supposedly infertile couples who then later unexpectedly end up having a biological child :(

I also think if an infertile couple see adoption as a way to have a baby of their own, they are being incredibly naive. I know a couple whose child was 1 by the time the adoption was completed. The child has FAS and 5 years later there are many challenges, but they knew and accepted that. It is not a route to a "dream" family

Nobody has priority. Everyone goes through the vetting process and, no matter what your circumstances, you are only ok to continue if you are proven to be capable of being a "good enough" parent.

The parent is matched to the child. The child comes first.

This.

I must say that in this country this particular case would be far from ideal if the mum became pregnant very shortly after the adoption. If it happened before the adoption order was made I think social services would try to find a new family. It’s not fair on the adopted baby because her attention will now inevitably be diverted and the adopted child needs extreme levels of stability until they are fully settled. Plus of course plastering it all over social media.

I believe this is about Joss Stone. She has two toddlers, a newly adopted baby who seems to have significant health needs AND she has just announced her pregnancy. But apparently it’s okay because she’s a great mum (according to her).

THere should be no priority of any candidate over another. There should only be whichever candidate is the best fit for the child concerned, regardless of fertility, sexuality, whatever you want to screen for.

@Lil44, do you imagine there's a sort of waiting list for prospective adopters to join that the infertile should get to queue jump ahead of those who could have a biological child? Kind of like waiting for a popular restaurant, and the next available table for two child gets allocated?

I wouldn't see adopting a child in the UK as "prize" for not being able to conceive. I imagine most adopted children aren't babies and many have endured great trauma and possibly have associated illnesses. I think it takes a remarkable person to adopt in this day and age. I admire people who do it.

This ma be a controversial view, but I think it's better for the child to be adopted by someone very wealthy, so celebs should get priority in my book. 🤷‍♀️

I don’t think it should be about parents getting priority if they are infertile but I think it is unfair on a child to be the adopted one if there are biological children. Some parents manage to treat them all the same but so many don’t and the child will know it. I think it would only be okay if the biological child was a lot older than the adopted child. I think it’s terrible to adopt and then get pregnant soon after and i think that if you do adopt you need to lock down contraception so that it does not happen and if you do get pregnant, to terminate.

Wow…..lots of judgment there!

"I kind of always assumed such (obviously suitable) couples had priority, seems not??"

What do you mean by this?

I am assuming you're talking about Joss Stone. It did make me think about a neighbour who was trying to adopt and they were told very very firmly not to risk getting pregnant. They were adopting because pregnancy was impossible..

I’m sure you have good intentions but surely you can see that the premise of adoption being about parents not children is problematic? any indication that the process serves to give parents a child, vs children a family is pretty grim, don’t you think?

Cough cough surrogacy. So interesting that it’s abhorrent to talk about parental wishes and needs for adoption and then bang, you can buy a whole baby if you want.

Adoption is very complex. It's done in best interest of child. So matching to families who are the most suitable. There is not a lack of children sadly, it's the other way round.

That’s a different point to be fair and not one I’m straying into with my comment.