Why are adopted teens more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems?

[susankate]

Originally Posted by no kudzu

[/color]

I think Oleg is just trying to point out that in genetically related families, there are more likely to be similarities because of inherited traits than in adoptive families. That's not to say that adoptive families don't have similarities with each other (eg my amom and I do have a love of a particular boardgame) but just pointing out that genetics may play a role in our thinking patterns although our views may be different.

Because each generation is a different generation, it is true that many people do not have the same views as their parents but at the same time, many people do have similar "thinking patterns" to their genetic parents (i.e. their way of processing things). Do my nephews have the same views as their parents? Actually older nephew is the image in all ways of his father but younger nepher though more like my asister, has different views to her, however, I would say he processes his thoughts in a similar way to her.

Of course, as you point out, there are those that aren't anything like their genetic parents at all.

I do agree that the wider environment and peer groups, eg work/school, are certainly instrumental in helping us form our views and helps to make what makes us us as well as nature and nurture.

Having said that, despite the fact that I only met my bfamily 3 years ago, I definitely have much more similar "thinking patterns" to my bfamily than I do my afamily - I just "get" their way of doing things in a way that my amom doesn't get me and vice versa. I was really surprised by that. That doesn't mean I don't love my afamily because of course I do and, in fact, I get on well with them. However, we are very different.
In fact, one thing meeting my bfamily has done had made more clear what is nurture, what is nature and what is environment. That is my own particular situation and others views may be different.

Please note that my above view at no time is saying that "nature is everything" - however, I do believe that nature, nurture and environment are important and as an adoptee who has now connected with the "nature" side, it has added a dimension to my life and understanding of self.

Btw it is my observation that sometimes when some adoptees reunite and dislike each other, it is not because they are different but because they are too much alike (this can sometimes be revealed when the adoptee is telling their story).

Note that I am trying to use words like "some" rather than "all" and "can" rather than "is" so that I don't get replies implying that I'm saying "all" adoptees "are" such and such.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by markg91359

I'm going to make one more effort to try to get you to acknowledge the obvious point in my post. If I don't, this discussion is over. Of course, I have said that abuse happens among all groups of people. I also agree that there have been some abusive parents who must have made it through a home study. All this proofs is that the process isn't "fool proof". We don't need statistics to prove that point.

Mark, it has become very clear to me that you continue to misrepresent what I have said. First by claiming that I implied biological families are superior to adoptive families. Now you keep insisting my point is that the screenings do not work even in some cases, which I never said. Again, I think you felt defensive & jumped to conclusions, so you're right that there is little point in continuing this dialogue.

The fallacy in your argument is that you would suggest that if one person who is an abuser makes it past this screening process that that proves that the system is worthless and no better than what we would get if we simply picking parents at random. That's nonsense and anyone with a brain in their head knows better. That's my obvious point. If you don't acknowledge that much, there's not any point in continuing this dialogue.

This was not a fallacy in my argument, because it was not my argument.

When have I denied that there are some cases of adoptive parents who are responsible for child abuse or neglect?

You didn't, but you have minimized it several times.

You've really got me wrong here. Adoption is first and foremost about the best interests of children. My problem is I see it differently than you do. Your position seems to be that until we can guarantee a virtual 100% likelihood that all adopted children can be raised in a home that is free of abuse and neglect than we shouldn't have any adoption.

No, that was not my position. Another misrepresentation.

Yes, sadly a few adoptees will end up in less than desirable homes. However, thousands more will end up in homes that represent a social, cultural, and material improvement in their former circumstances.

A few adoptees? This is what I mean by insulting & minimizing.

Ending or greatly restricting international adoption is not going to result in a betterment for thousands of children in the Third World. Its going to leave even more in circumstances of deprivation, poverty, and even hunger. Where will the money come from to provide for these children in their home countries? Who is going to pay the bill to upgrade living conditions in these nations? Do you have any answers for these questions at all?

Adoption does nothing to solve these problems & in fact contributes to it as the business inherently relies on the most vulnerable people in those nations. So yes, restricting adoption does & HAS resulted in a betterment for children/families in those countries. Please educate yourself on these issues if you are genuinely interested in knowing better/doing better.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Its difficult for me to assess exactly where you stand. However, I have seen my share of people in the past who argued quite vigorously that they didn't want to "end adoption" they simply wanted to "reform it".

If someone's idea of reform are policies that have the practical effect of ending 95% of adoption through tighter regulations and controls than they are not really supporting "reform". They are supporting ending the process.

I have talked to people who were quite anti-adoption in my past and while I felt these people were very misguided, I did appreciate their candor and their honesty. I don't appreciate people who claim to want reforms when they are actually doing everything they can to stop all adoptions because deep down what bothers them is that the whole thing just seems "unnatural" to them. I think that is what largely motivates many who oppose adoption. Its not a question of numbers. Its not even a question of abuse or neglect. They just think its "unnatural" for one family to raise a child born to someone else. It freaks them out. Public policies and laws should never be made by "gut reactions" and things that are purely emotional. It always leads to bad laws and unnecessary suffering by innocent people.

If you are truly against adoption, you'd gain points with me by simply admitting the truth.

Please do not continue to jump to conclusions & misrepresent everything I am saying, or accuse me of lying.

I am NOT against guardianship. I am NOT against children being raised by other families if that is what is truly necessary. One can be for those things & against adoption. I really don't know how I could be any more clear.

EDIT: & no Mark, it is not all about abuse... my OP had much more to say than the one comment I made about abuse, but you derailed the conversation by making it all about how adoptive parents do not abuse as much as non-adoptive families.

[sheena12]

The question posed by the OP asks why adopted teens "have more problems than" non adopted teens. I do not think that is the case, I have read no reliable unbiased data that supports this and in addition, this thread has spun far away from it's original question.

It seems to me, that people who refer to them selves as "adult adoptees" do have problems. And the etiology of these problems in not always adoption. Some families have problems, and all problems, big or small are amplified by the angst of adolescence.

People who have these problems tend to self identify as "adult adoptees" and a bad experience does not make one an expert in the subject.

Those who are well adjusted and happy in life to not go around calling them self "adult adoptees" as though they are adult children of alcoholics or survivors of the holocaust.

What do they call themselves? They call them selves people.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by sheena12

It seems to me, that people who refer to them selves as "adult adoptees" do have problems. And the etiology of these problems in not always adoption. Some families have problems, and all problems, big or small are amplified by the angst of adolescence.

Not all problems are caused by adoption, but some are. & it is very offensive for you to judge an entire group of people like you are doing here. I am an adult, I am an adoptee & there is NOTHING shameful about that. To say there must be something wrong with people who identify that way is really demeaning & patronizing.

People who have these problems tend to self identify as "adult adoptees" and a bad experience does not make one an expert in the subject.

No, but a good experience doesn't make you an expert on the subject either. Education & research does.

Those who are well adjusted and happy in life to not go around calling them self "adult adoptees" as though they are adult children of alcoholics or survivors of the holocaust.

Wow, really? You are really getting out of hand here. You do not have to insult an entire group of people in order to make your points. I'm pretty sure this is a violation of the terms of service.

[JustJulia]

The thread has run its course.