On the face of it this seems ludicrous. A baby born to a mother living in a high-risk environment but then adopted by a low-risk family would likely do far better in their life than the inverse.
On the face of it this seems ludicrous. A baby born to a mother living in a high-risk environment but then adopted by a low-risk family would likely do far better in their life than the inverse.
We didn't end up fostering, for unrelated reasons.
They showed us studies that even infant adoptees tended towards the educational achievement of their genetic parents, not their adopted ones, for example.
Again, I don't even know if it's right or wrong, but the agency we were working with thought we should know that.
EDIT: Okay, here's an example: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/adoption-and-genetics-imp_b_4...
And reading that I'm reminded of the agency we were going with: PACT in Berkeley.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici...