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??

I do agree with you that it should be child centred. For the most part though I think that an adopted child is better off with parents who don’t already have a child and certainly with ones who don’t plan to get pregnant shortly after the adoption. This is because very few people are able to treat an adopted child exactly the same as a biological one and will often have a stronger bond with the biological children.

I'm assuming this is about Joss Stone. The reason she has adopted is because her husband was adopted himself and she wants to help others. Seems a decent thing to do.

I’m not sure which celebrity you are referring to but in the UK babies and children are matched to the potential parent(s) social workers deem to be the best fit for that child. Whether the parent(s) are fertile or not is unlikely to be taken into account.

If a child is adopted through a UK agency but from another country then the process can be different and may depend on the adoption laws on that country, sometimes parent(s) can literally choose a child, in other cases the matching process may be similar to being matched with a child in the UK.

If the celebrity did not adopt their child in the UK or using a UK agency then the process may have been different again, for example in the USA the pregnant mother will often receive the details of potential adopters and will be the person to choose who adopts her baby, in that case it’s purely personal preference and up to her if she considers things like fertility.

Having fostered, I think that children who are available for fostering and children who are available for adoption have quite a small overlap. Very few children are adopted by their foster parents.

Fostering does show you have the grit to stick out the tough bits.

Adoption is about the child, and where possible, guardianship with family is better, or if safe, reunification. Adoption is not about fulfilling the needs of infertile people.

Also, if we're talking about America , adoption there is highly unethical regardless.

I can definitely imagine that would be incredibly difficult but I guess the issues you’ve raised would fall into the category of ‘what’s best for the kid’ as opposed to which parent is more ‘deserving’ (which is very much in line with my point)

Why not - because a baby who is unable to be cared for by their biological parents or other family members is not a commodity. The don’t exist to meet the needs of infertile adults. If anything it would be better that infertile couples were barred from adopting.

Thanks @Startinganew32

I'm sure it's already been said but - it's not about the needs of the adopters. It's about finding the best home for the child.

Infertile couples arw usually grieving and if they get pregnant then often don't care for the adopted baby. If they are grieving they can't adopt. A parent who has a child knows the score and wants to adopt for the right reasons. So no I don't agree with you

Just had a google

So the baby they adopted was 11w prem so 29w and now 7w

Amazed out of hospital tbh

She's just found out she's pregnant too so that might also be why the op is outraged.

Hit the nail on the head

No, the child’s needs should be the only consideration. Obviously the parents situation will massively impact that - would this child benefit more from being an only child, being in a big family, are the prospective parents trying to replace the fantasy baby they’ll never have, are established parents too blasé about the impact adoption can have on a child, etc etc. I don’t think it’s helpful to say “all things being equal” because this is too complex for situations to ever be equal.

But, from an entirely different angle, yes I find the American private adoption situation worrying. Partly because it does seem to consider needs/wants of prospective parents more than the UK system does. That particular case is not one which feels right to me. Not that they should never adopt, but not this baby right now.

Infertility can also heavily affect couples psychologically. That could have a bearing on adoptions.

I dunno, adoption for infertile couples if often the "fallback choice". With couples who already have biological children, they're not adopting because they want a child, any child, they're doing it to give a child a better life.

I can't get outraged about a small baby finding a new family to love it, whoever they are.

It’s very selfish to adopt a baby with high needs and then get pregnant immediately afterwards. How the hell will that poor baby feel when her attention is diverted from him in six months time? Things like this are big reasons for adoptions breaking down.

Or in the case of many celebrities, because they want to look good/have narcissistic personality disorder.

It does appear to have been a surprise.

As said up thread, the reason this couple have adopted is because the husband is also adopted. Nothing narcissistic about that.

I’m inclined to say fertile couples are more likely to be adopting to give a child in need a home than infertile couples who just want to satisfy their want for a child.

The same as any other baby where there is a very small age gap?

Fertility has nothing to do with adoption. It may be your reason for adopting, but it should not be a factor in the process. The focus should always be on what is best for the children. People's ability to have children doesn't come into it. These children aren't backup prizes.

It doesn't work like that in England, not sure about the US.

If you want to adopt you go through the assessment process (which takes ages) and then you are approved to adopt or not. Somewhere near the end you have the opportunity to express your preferences and say that you want to adopt a particular age group or that you don't want to adopt a child with a known disability, or who is a result of incest. Then you join the list of potential adopters. I believe the potential parents need to make sure they take contraception from this point onward even if they are definitely infertile.

Then when the court decides a child should be adopted, a social worker from the family funding team will go through the list and remove the people who don't want to adopt a child that age. Sometimes it will be decided that the child would be better off in a family where there are 2 parents, or a single parent, other children or not. Potential parents over a certain age (I think it's 45) will usually not be considered to adopt a very young child. I think the social workers will look for more local families first so that children can go to the same school but they will look all over the country if necessary to get the best match for the child. Potential parents will be matched faster if they are happy to adopt a disabled and traumatised 8 year old than if they want to adopt a baby with no known problems. However it's all about the child and the best outcome for them. It's important to remember that a child who is available for adoption had already been failed at least once.

This is how it should be but i imagine it must seem frustrating for people who see biological parents having children easily without anyone checking if they are suitable parents or not.