When families un-adopt a child (2018)
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
It was very difficult and life changing in many ways. We sacrificed a lot to bring them into our lives.
But - we knew that going into it. It has caused stress and strain and high blood pressure. But I also got to carry my son off the field on my shoulders when he ran in the the finally touch down to cap off an undefeated season. To hear my daughter sing like Beyoncé.
We knew going into this it was going to be difficult. But we did it intentionally to save two lives from what was a life of poverty, instability, and abuse. We purposefully adopted through the State because we knew those were the kids in dire straights.
I want to say I can’t believe people would “return” adopted kids, but we saw a lot during adoption training. Parents in it for the money (you get a monthly payment if your kids are classified special needs). Parents asking questions about restraining and hitting kids. Foster homes filled to the brim with kids because there is a constant shortage of homes.
I hope most parents are improving the lives of those they adopt. But that 5% number is just devastating to see, but reflects the reality of who we are as a culture and a race.
what does race have to do with this?
I don't think it's weird at all some people wish they could 'return' their kids. It's virtually impossible to truly know what it's like until you're in it.
When you decide to have kids by adoption or by natural birth—they should never be abandoned.
No matter what they do—you are with them for those ~18 years and hopefully many more.
Unlike a spouse—kids are dependents. And your commitment is to make sure they have someone they can depend on.
Seems to me it's more "disrespectful/weird/cowardly/inconsiderate" to make some kid suffer for years living in a home where they're unwanted.
Sometimes adoption process fails, and the family can't handle the kid, perhaps even after years in that family. You can't just shut them in together like trapped rats with no escape hatch to seek another family to adopt so the kid has some chance of being with a family that wants them.
Continuity may be more important, and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
>Continuity may be more important
Continuity is not the only factor at play here. Continuity can turn into a bad thing where you're continuously somewhere where you aren't wanted.
> and the state of “wanting” a child in your home is not some simple boolean value. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.
The article is about families "un-adopt" a child. It's intellectually dishonest, and ignorant, to make this statement in the context of an article where it's so incredibly into the boolean "false" state of wanting.
Two parents, ideally their parents, is best. Absent that, continuity is the next best thing. Moving kids out of homes they’re not in danger in is a bad idea, as the article explains.
>>A kid is not better off...
>Shuffling kids around based on whichever home would be “best” for them according to an evolving situation is a terrible idea.
You're now contradicting yourself. Earlier you were worried about the kid being where they were better off. Now you say that's a terrible idea. You lack continuity.
Your idea of moving children from home to home in a search for their "best" home is not a viable one, and you know that. The fact that you continue to argue is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally, not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>I am not worried about a kid being where they are theoretically best of
Again you contradict yourself. Earlier you were worried about what's "best." Now you claim you're not. The fact that you continue to contradict yourself is a product of your inability to discuss this rationally (nor with 'continuity'), not not due to some genuine concern for doing what is, overall, best for these children.
>The goal of having these adopted children thrive is secondary to the goal of raising them to the age of 18 with the highest chance of avoiding problematic damage.
Spending a childhood with a family that doesn't want you presents the possibility of higher "problematic damage" than having the option to move to one that does.
Everyone has a limit, until you've been pushed past it (and even after), you don't know exactly where it is, and of course it can change.
Every child will have a different impact on your limits, I can certainly understand how a person could be pushed past their limits, by their own child and more-so a relatively unknown child, and I have a lot of sympathy for people in those situations (even the most horrific ones).
As for "society", "they", give parents very little support, it may be different for foster parents but without researching much, I don't have much faith.
Whether society "ought" to be setup this way, that's a hard one, make it too easy and we self-select for a bunch of massive families with an endless bill of support.
My feel is we're erring too much on the side of a lack of support, especially less "social" (e.g. scandinavian countries) focused countries such as USA, UK, AU.
Lots of children available for adoption have all kinds of problems that standard parents can’t deal with.
Abandoning is one thing. Recognizing you’re in way over your head is another.
"Whatever" covers a lot of territory. Do you think "standard" children of "standard" parents don't do that? Where do you think all the school bullies and little entitled pricks and princesses come from? Some of them even manage to get elected in the office for some bizarre reason.
> Abandoning is one thing. Recognizing you’re in way over your head is another.
Abandoning your child is already a widespread thing, you just don't even think about it that way. It's when one of the parents walks away because they're "in way over my head". It's essentially cancelling the contract and saying fuck this, I can't do it.
So I really don't know where are you going with this.
A startup will have that moment.
A theatre production will have that moment.
Pretty much everything will have that moment.
Kids too. My biological brother almost drowned me and we somehow worked it out.
Having kids is a very serious affair. They didnt choose to have you. You chose to have them. It is probably the most important arena in life. Time to step up to the plate.
If the board or the executive of a startup sees there is no chance of success with the executive, that person ought to bow out or be replaced so the company can have a chance with someone who can and wants to turn it around. If the startup becomes unviable and bankrupt, sometimes it's better to bow out and gracefully transfer the assets to a more viable executive and/or business rather than force something that isn't going to work.
I'm not saying that people should give up easily, but I think it's brave that some families recognize the better option for everyone is to re-adopt the kid a family that wants them rather than force them to live somewhere that's headed towards a train-wreck.
Most startups fail. Most restaurants fail. Most businesses fail.
> A theatre production will have that moment.
4/5 theatre productions lose money.
Anyone who thinks they truly know what they're signed up for when adopting or birthing a kid is a liar. You can't predict what an 18 year commitment will be like to a human you barely know (adoption) or can't know (birth). If the adopted parents don't want the kid I'd much rather them gracefully bow out than force the kid into a situation that isn't working out.
>Put another way its not a better situation for the kid, only an out for the parents.
You say this as if it's fact. I don't buy that a kid is always better off (or same) to be with someone who doesn't want them.
>You don't just get to say this sucks halfway through and give up.
You do, and part of the reason for this is because society decided adoption is better than not giving a release valve for situations where parenthood isn't in the interest of the involved parties. The alternative, banning these adoptions / re-adoptions, could result greater risk of dangerous and abusive situations. If you don't allow someone to exit a situation that they see going into a train-wreck, you seal the fate of the kid and the parents going into the train-wreck; better to give these persons an out.
Simply framing it as any sort of 'not expected' misrepresents the array of situations here.
It may be 'wrong' but at least everyone is better off. Part of life is knowing when to do something others consider 'wrong' so you can achieve the outcome that is 'right.' We shouldn't just shut off the ability to re-adopt out a kid and seal them in with an unwanting family like a trapped rat.
If the adoptive parents are screened more thoroughly, and given resources and help getting through the tough parts, we would see a lot less of this.
It seems like this often happens with parents who have had enough issues with the authorities in the past that going through more legitimate avenues would trigger an investigation that would likely see all of their children removed from the home. Which is why I think the root of the problem is people who are not qualified being allowed to adopt children, often way more than any reasonable person could hope to care for.
We were prepared for some pretty difficult potential scenarios.
As it was, we got very, very lucky. Our kids are incredibly healthy. They did suffer neglect and abuse (the latter in foster care), but we somehow handled it. The general rule is the number of years of neglect or abuse is the number of years the kids will take to recover. It was right on the money for us, at 13, our son who was adopted at 7, is finally showing signs of complete normalcy.
Of course, on the other hand, I can't help but think that these kids should be removed ASAP from a home where a parent would consider giving them up after caring for them for 8-9 years.
Just really sad all around, my heart goes out to these kids.
The other thing I was surprised to see is how many of these kids ‘love Jesus’ and want to go to a traditional (i.e. straight Christian) family. I would think that any loving family is better than being unwanted, regardless of their religion and genders.
"These kids" don't want that.
But just because adults are saying that a child wants something, that doesn't mean the child doesn't want that thing.
You would be surprised of how dishonest, abusive and manipulative can be the adopting programs.
I know the case of a Spanish couple without children that adopted a Chinese girl baby. Some time later they discovered in a routinely health check (in Spain) that the girl has Down's syndrome, a fact that was know obviously but carefully hidden by the Chinese authorities.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption/#article/part1
It's very sad for these children, and it's not even one that is easy for a government to solve. It's not like health insurance where the government can throw more money at the problem - these children need very dedicated, caring parents who are willing to adopt, which is a rare thing to find.
Parents want cute babies and toddlers to adopt not 10 year old local kids from abusive homes.
So if your adopted children start showing strong psycho traits, or a undisclosed medical condition that only the very rich could manage and you are a mother past your reproductive age or your partner is sterile the choice is -this- child and maybe another in the future, or no child at all, ever.
The parents are blackmailed basically.
I don’t even know where to begin here.
> But according to the information provided by her parents, “This family has drastically changed their lifestyle and have left their faith and extended family for a quiet, secluded life.” It is their hope that “a different family will step forward who can provide her with the socialization and continued relationship with God that she desires.”
So they're saying that they are getting rid of her because she is too religious at the age of 10 to fit into their lives?
I kind of feel like something is missing there.
Of course, pure speculation, but this way of writing reminds me of what I've heard in the past from people in cults.
Are you thinking college? Despite what expensive selective private colleges want you to think, parents do not have to pay for it.
If they want one, surely they can get a job and pay for one?
The amount of children with cars in my area would be a singular percentage.
As to phones, why would your child require a phone? I'm sure there are some useful scenarios - obsessive tracking, easy contact, etc - but these aren't necessary. For hundreds of generations kids didn't have phones (and billions around the world still don't), and it's rarely an issue.
Just speculation of course. My gut says if we knew all the details we'd have a harder time passing judgement on the parents.
> In other posts with more pictures, the reader learns that Reese is the youngest of four daughters; the other three are the biological children of her parents. She gets straight A’s. She loves her parents and her sisters.
But I agree, I wasn't passing judgement, I just thought that the motivation was a bit specious, and to specifically call out personal religious preference when talking about a 10 year old is super weird.
> So they're saying that they are getting rid of her because she is too religious at the age of 10 to fit into their lives?
Actually, it sounded to me as if the family went full-on Ruby Ridge, moving into an off-grid cabin in the woods, preparing for the rapture.
https://wiaa.org/child/reese-placed/
> This is a child with no special needs but wants to be in a family who goes to church. She loves to sing praise songs and read her Bible. She and her parents want her to be in a family that does this. She gets along with everyone and has no major behavioral problems. Her parents want her to be in a family that is involved in church, and church related activities.
I read this before I adopted, and it didn’t make any sense to me then. Having now adopted, I’m willing to make a value judgement and say this absolutely horrific. It induces horror. I’m my kid’s parent.
Edited to add: I guess biological parents are the ones putting kids up for adoption in the first place, obviously. So the biological connection and evolutionary drive doesn't do much for some people.
Fun my experience it hasn’t been one iota more difficult (2 biological and one adopted child) to deal with the hard parts. There’s never been a point when it even crosses my mind that one kid is ‘of me’ and the other isn’t…
That doesn't follow at all. You can make zero assumptions about the why of that decision for any individual case nor how gut-wrenchingly difficult it is or is not. Nothing.
That’s true for all parents.
My dad's wife hated me, so I got kicked out at 15. Didn't stop my Dad from showing up at school and my job to threaten me.
The joys of adulthood, I deal with my horrible family when I want to. If you gave a bad family, it's imperative you estrange yourself.
In my 20s I made the mistake of trusting these disgusting people. Of course they lied to my face, stabbed me in the back, and asked me to co-sign a home loan afterwards. So my credit stays locked.
Trust is a luxury I can't afford.
Also, many step parents end up treating those kids like shit. If your not going to treat your step kids fairly, since you don't want to do it, don't date a single parent.
You have a bit of a catch-22, anyone mature enough to become a step parent will understand how much of responsibility it is. Thus, they'll be reluctant to do it.
Someone who lacks that maturity, will be much more eager to become a step parent as a condition of a new relationship.
I know I can't guarantee I'll be a good step parent. It's just an insanely hard thing to do, which takes a person stronger than myself.
So I don't date people with kids. I'd sooner die alone than put someone else though what I went though.
Your story seems similar to my wife's, especially the part about being tricked into debt. We've managed to clear things up after many years of she and her brothers struggling. Good luck!
My Dad simply used it as another venue to threaten me.
I'm always going to be a bit messed up. It's not really something I want to fix, if I could.
I might say that your family only has the power to haunt you that you now give them. Truly being able to say "you are no longer of significance to me" might lead you a place that you had not expected.
Everyone decries the falling fertility rate. Let’s talk about how many kids who are in foster care every year (~400k in the US), who are in toxic homes, or who are homeless. We have a long way to go.
(I donate to non profits who subsidize voluntary permanent birth control and who advocate for the childfree)
Just search for photolisting you'll find it all over the place.
Here's an example from Ukraine: https://deti.zp.ua/eng/list.php?keyword=sirot_net (if you find the US sites shocking, pls don't visit this).
Those interested in adoption should be _so_ interested, that they're willing to go meet in-person with an agency who can introduce them to the children.
Charities use images of children to sell the charity.
> Charities use images of children to sell the charity.
Note that they're not selling the children.
That's what everyone would like... except that even if they are sloppy (not saying that they are) there's still a lot of children that are never going to be adopted. Do you believe that's better? Spoiler: it's not, because you're making sure most children will have a disfunctional adult life (growing up without a family is extremely hard) instead of allowing more children to live a normal life, but with the increased probability of a few living with bad parents (the number of cases where that's worse than no family at all is probably very small).
The privacy question is based on permission from the parent. Many kids model and similiar bios would be available in that setting available publically.
I remember talking to a couple who had adopted a child. They told me that there would be more placement if the process wasn’t as difficult and insanely expensive as it is now. A lot of people who want to adopt a child are basically forced to go to foreign countries because it’s too hard at home in the US. No need for Facebook ads.
I have seen the same with animal rescues. Some are very difficult to deal with (mostly because of bad prior experiences) so people go to breeders. In one way it's understandable but when you think about it it's unproductive and self-defeating to punish people for misbehavior of others (people also do this in relationships).
Kids raised in state facilities get chewed up and spat out, according to statistics.
I bring this up not to give anyone a free pass, but simply to say that I can well imagine there are cases where well-meaning people discover they are in way over their heads. Clearly it should be the goal of the system to not place a child into that situation in their first place, but I can see where it happens. As for some of these other stories where the adults are clearly just a bunch of jerks... again, would seem like the system should avoid that situation, but there is such a backlog of kids needing homes that it isn't hard to understand why it happens.
I'm a parent. Y/N I'm adopted. Y/N
With that out of the way, people need to realize that the adoption pool is biased to kids with severe issues. Mostly because some portion of kids were places on adoption because of genetic issues, and the rest will probably develop issues as a result of adoptio. Only the very best of parents are even considering adoption from said pool.
I was surprised the failure rate is only ~5%. We can hope for better but -i think- 5% can be celebrated.
Y N
But they said, everyone cared for the children. Many families would have a whole bunch of half siblings, but they were always cared for by the grater family, even if the parents themselves werent able to do so.
I kinda like that idea.