Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's why prospective adoptive parents go to such length to find a baby to adopt. That's why they make business cards and bumper stickers, write "Dear Birthmother letters" and even advertise on Craigslist. Everything and anything that could help them become parents. I think, based on heartache and devastation many of these parents have been through, it's understandable that they are desperate and willing to go far to get their family. They are not the evil, despicable people they are sometimes portrayed as. The industry, yes, it can turn your stomach and I'm sure there are prospective adoptive parents that just have a sense of entitlement and want what they want but I don't think most are like that and it doesn't hurt to understand what they've been through and see it from their point of view too.
OK ..... ^^ this ^^ is the actual thread topic. Let's please get back to that.
Again, it is like biological parenting. Ask a parent who has adopted as well as has bio kids. Other than the physical birth, no difference. Actually, even then, the parents cannot control the genetics of the child (I'm talking infants/newborns). Older children are another story, of course. And, not all adoptees come with a negative history as you claim. The actual process of adoption also involves the state basically documenting the unfitness of the biological parents in some cases. So your argument is weak on this point. Biology has NOTHING to do with parenting. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to become pregnant. Our bodies are geared toward natural reproduction...that is not what this thread is about. I am speaking of the language of adoption and that the phrase "best interest of the child" is politically correct at best, dangerously misleading at worst.
Thanks for asking me.
No, there is a definite difference between my daughter who is adopted and my daughter who is biological. Yes, I adopted her as an infant. No, she doesn't have a "negative story" per se, but I definitely think there was grief and trauma in her being separated at a a day old from her biological mother.
Right there is one difference. A baby is born already knowing the smell, sound, and heartbeat of its mother. They are bonded almost instantly, and it's very instinctual and primal. My daughter was removed from that familiarity and thrust into the (although loving) arms of a stranger- me. I ached for her and shed a lot of tears at the confusion and loss she must have felt at such a young age. I spent my entire maternity leave holding her and keeping her close, bonding with her and creating an attachment to replace what she had lost. Yes, we are very attached now, and she knows me by sound and smell and I can tell I comfort her. But unlike that first moment with my bio daughter, where we were instantly bonded, instantly connected, because she instinctively recognized me, my adopted daughter was essentially robbed of that.
None of this means I don't love her madly and deeply and with as much strength as I do my biological daughter. I do, and I have since I first saw her. But that doesn't change the biological connections between a baby and her biological mother, and I see no point (and much harm) in trying to ignore that and pretend that there is no difference.
I also recognize myself (and my husband) in our bio daughter. I can tell when she's upset because we share the same characteristics and temper. I do not have that with my adopted daughter because she has her own set of genetics that are not related to me. I have to recognize that with her, I'm learning everything new- there are no previous connection from me or my husband or other family members that can help me to understand her. I am blessed to have her other parents in our lives, though, and they often tell me how they used to be/are now and that helps a great deal in seeing those characteristics in my daughter and understanding her. For example, she has the same "0-60" personality her first mom tells me she has. Super happy when she's happy, but instantly very upset when she's upset. And then she can instantly change again. Neither my husband or I are like that. Or, how she bites her lower lip randomly (or so I thought), which is something I noticed at one point and mentioned to her first mom, who told me she has this habit herself when she is nervous or overwhelmed.
Maybe it is because I'm a biologist by education, but I do not at all discount the role genetics and biology has in either of my children. Not my adopted child, and not my biological child. As such, yes, I see a difference in parenting between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded
Absolutely not true. They are involved actually to "CYA." In international adoptions particularly, the states avoid being party to any mishandlings involved...sort of "buyer beware." The removal of children is social welfare, the placement of the child is much more complicated and nuanced. It is not a public concern because the "public" loves these children...rather it is better to be "match maker" than "grave digger." If children were left to fend for themselves we'd all be in trouble, it is in the best interest of society, but not an absolute concern.
Again, legal process and intentions are not synonymous here. The courts don't deem anything on anyone. They are merely the decision makers. The social workers, sometimes children, attorneys, parents, family members...these are the character witnesses that matter. If no one identifies the problem, no court will ever decide on the child's fate. This happens a lot. Not every child is "saved." All the courts do is review the facts that have been presented to them.
The whole reason adoptive parents are literally vetted to the hilt is to determine if it is in THEIR best interest to adopt and raise children. In biological parenting, this isn't necessary. Although given the number of children in foster care, it should be! No on gives expecting parents IQ or Psychological tests...think about it. Yet, their children are the one's that non-biological parents end up raising; often times trying to reverse past wrongs. Just because you CAN have a child, doesn't mean you SHOULD. In adoptive parents' cases, they are demonstrating that they want children in the very basic meaning of parenting. The few sickos out there who adopt a child to simply torture them will meet their fate in the end.
I'm not sure who told you that, but that's not true. Prospective adoptive parents go through a process to ensure the safety of a child. The parents are investigated to determine if they are capable of providing what a child needs, if they are financially and medically secure, and if they can provide a safe and secure home. They also serve to help the social worker and/or agency connect them with the appropriate type of family. During our homestudy (which was completed after we brought our daughter home, actually, because our adoption was made without an agency connection- we just used them to complete the process), the social worker was talking to us about how we intended to address the fact that our daughter was of a different race. After we talked about it for a while, she mentioned that she had worked with another family a few years back who had answered the questions in an inappropriate way that led her to recommend they not be matched with a child of a different ethnic background than themselves. She did not feel it would be in the best interests of the child to be placed in that environment.
They don't do a criminal background check to ensure it is in the best interests of the parents to adopt. They are doing it to ensure they are not placing a child in a dangerous home. It is for the benefit of the child, not the adult.
Adopted children are indeed wards of the state until their adoption is finalized. Our paperwork does indicate that when we brought our daughter home, the agency was her actual legal guardian, and they allowed us to take her into our home and would be monitoring our care. Until the adoption was finalized, she was not our legal daughter.
As for the "few sickos," well, I don't care how few they are. It's unacceptable. Adopted children are more likely to be abused than biological children (see recent Washington State investigation- I can't look up the link now). The whole reason for all the homestudies and paperwork PAPs must go through is to protect the best interests of the child, not the PAPs. The fact that this process is flawed and sometimes fails does not change its intent or purpose; it simply means we must improve it and make it better.
No, there is a definite difference between my daughter who is adopted and my daughter who is biological. Yes, I adopted her as an infant. No, she doesn't have a "negative story" per se, but I definitely think there was grief and trauma in her being separated at a a day old from her biological mother.
Right there is one difference. A baby is born already knowing the smell, sound, and heartbeat of its mother. They are bonded almost instantly, and it's very instinctual and primal. My daughter was removed from that familiarity and thrust into the (although loving) arms of a stranger- me. I ached for her and shed a lot of tears at the confusion and loss she must have felt at such a young age. I spent my entire maternity leave holding her and keeping her close, bonding with her and creating an attachment to replace what she had lost. Yes, we are very attached now, and she knows me by sound and smell and I can tell I comfort her. But unlike that first moment with my bio daughter, where we were instantly bonded, instantly connected, because she instinctively recognized me, my adopted daughter was essentially robbed of that.
None of this means I don't love her madly and deeply and with as much strength as I do my biological daughter. I do, and I have since I first saw her. But that doesn't change the biological connections between a baby and her biological mother, and I see no point (and much harm) in trying to ignore that and pretend that there is no difference.
I also recognize myself (and my husband) in our bio daughter. I can tell when she's upset because we share the same characteristics and temper. I do not have that with my adopted daughter because she has her own set of genetics that are not related to me. I have to recognize that with her, I'm learning everything new- there are no previous connection from me or my husband or other family members that can help me to understand her. I am blessed to have her other parents in our lives, though, and they often tell me how they used to be/are now and that helps a great deal in seeing those characteristics in my daughter and understanding her. For example, she has the same "0-60" personality her first mom tells me she has. Super happy when she's happy, but instantly very upset when she's upset. And then she can instantly change again. Neither my husband or I are like that. Or, how she bites her lower lip randomly (or so I thought), which is something I noticed at one point and mentioned to her first mom, who told me she has this habit herself when she is nervous or overwhelmed.
Maybe it is because I'm a biologist by education, but I do not at all discount the role genetics and biology has in either of my children. Not my adopted child, and not my biological child. As such, yes, I see a difference in parenting between the two.
I'm not sure who told you that, but that's not true. Prospective adoptive parents go through a process to ensure the safety of a child. The parents are investigated to determine if they are capable of providing what a child needs, if they are financially and medically secure, and if they can provide a safe and secure home. They also serve to help the social worker and/or agency connect them with the appropriate type of family. During our homestudy (which was completed after we brought our daughter home, actually, because our adoption was made without an agency connection- we just used them to complete the process), the social worker was talking to us about how we intended to address the fact that our daughter was of a different race. After we talked about it for a while, she mentioned that she had worked with another family a few years back who had answered the questions in an inappropriate way that led her to recommend they not be matched with a child of a different ethnic background than themselves. She did not feel it would be in the best interests of the child to be placed in that environment.
They don't do a criminal background check to ensure it is in the best interests of the parents to adopt. They are doing it to ensure they are not placing a child in a dangerous home. It is for the benefit of the child, not the adult.
Adopted children are indeed wards of the state until their adoption is finalized. Our paperwork does indicate that when we brought our daughter home, the agency was her actual legal guardian, and they allowed us to take her into our home and would be monitoring our care. Until the adoption was finalized, she was not our legal daughter.
As for the "few sickos," well, I don't care how few they are. It's unacceptable. Adopted children are more likely to be abused than biological children (see recent Washington State investigation- I can't look up the link now). The whole reason for all the homestudies and paperwork PAPs must go through is to protect the best interests of the child, not the PAPs. The fact that this process is flawed and sometimes fails does not change its intent or purpose; it simply means we must improve it and make it better.
Brava! Well put, and factually informative. Great post!!
No, there is a definite difference between my daughter who is adopted and my daughter who is biological...
Right there is one difference. A baby is born already knowing the smell, sound, and heartbeat of its mother. They are bonded almost instantly, and it's very instinctual and primal...
But that doesn't change the biological connections between a baby and her biological mother, and I see no point (and much harm) in trying to ignore that and pretend that there is no difference...
Quote:
and of course you see you and your husband in your bio child. Did you really say this?
I also recognize myself (and my husband) in our bio daughter. I can tell when she's upset because we share the same characteristics and temper. I do not have that with my adopted daughter because she has her own set of genetics that are not related to me.
Maybe it is because I'm a biologist by education, but I do not at all discount the role genetics and biology has in either of my children. Not my adopted child, and not my biological child. As such, yes, I see a difference in parenting between the two.
I'm not sure who told you that, but that's not true. Prospective adoptive parents go through a process to ensure the safety of a child. The parents are investigated to determine if they are capable of providing what a child needs, if they are financially and medically secure, and if they can provide a safe and secure home. They also serve to help the social worker and/or agency connect them with the appropriate type of family. During our homestudy (which was completed after we brought our daughter home, actually, because our adoption was made without an agency connection- we just used them to complete the process), the social worker was talking to us about how we intended to address the fact that our daughter was of a different race. After we talked about it for a while, she mentioned that she had worked with another family a few years back who had answered the questions in an inappropriate way that led her to recommend they not be matched with a child of a different ethnic background than themselves. She did not feel it would be in the best interests of the child to be placed in that environment.
They don't do a criminal background check to ensure it is in the best interests of the parents to adopt. They are doing it to ensure they are not placing a child in a dangerous home. It is for the benefit of the child, not the adult...
As for the "few sickos," well, I don't care how few they are. It's unacceptable. Adopted children are more likely to be abused than biological children (see recent Washington State investigation- I can't look up the link now). The whole reason for all the homestudies and paperwork PAPs must go through is to protect the best interests of the child, not the PAPs. The fact that this process is flawed and sometimes fails does not change its intent or purpose; it simply means we must improve it and make it better.
You really should not have adopted if you can calmly state that you feel your bio child needs different parenting than your adopted infant baby. Seriously, I don't know how you slipped through the cracks, but this is the most horrifying statement I've ever heard made from a person who has both bio and adopted kids and they adopted at infancy.
When you find the link, I'm waiting. As I stated before. The homestudy process in language states for the best interest of the child; I never discounted that. However, in reality, when you go through a homestudy, you are experiencing what most bio-parents take for granted. The financial records, personal references, child raising classes, etc. It is for YOUR benefit as an adoptive parent, and it is often presented as only being necessary for the benefit of the child. There really isn't any arguing with this fact.
A few sicko's unacceptable? Well, tell that to the social workers who have to deal with the bio-parents and their sicko ways when removing these children. My only point was that it is impossible to foolproof the adoption process and likewise some adoptees, just as it is impossible to know that all bio-parents are sane and worthy of parenting.
You really should not have adopted if you can calmly state that you feel your bio child needs different parenting than your adopted infant baby. Seriously, I don't know how you slipped through the cracks, but this is the most horrifying statement I've ever heard made from a person who has both bio and adopted kids and they adopted at infancy.
When you find the link, I'm waiting. As I stated before. The homestudy process in language states for the best interest of the child; I never discounted that. However, in reality, when you go through a homestudy, you are experiencing what most bio-parents take for granted. The financial records, personal references, child raising classes, etc. It is for YOUR benefit as an adoptive parent, and it is often presented as only being necessary for the benefit of the child. There really isn't any arguing with this fact.
A few sicko's unacceptable? Well, tell that to the social workers who have to deal with the bio-parents and their sicko ways when removing these children. My only point was that it is impossible to foolproof the adoption process and likewise some adoptees, just as it is impossible to know that all bio-parents are sane and worthy of
Honestly, I didn't even finish reading this.
I'm good. Quite confident in my parenting. Our social worker actually thought we were handling the adoption of our daughter wonderfully. She and the agency made a particular point of discussing with us that parenting a bio child and an adopted child cannot be viewed as the exactly the same in terms of life experiences and the way they came to us. It was actually a discussion in our mandatory training class. Our adopted daughter is adopted. I cannot make that go away, and I absolutely feel no need to. I'm am completely ok with her as she is, but it sounds like you are the one who is not ok with it. That's not really my problem as you are not in our real lives (if you were, you wouldn't be for long as I won't have that negativity around my daughters).
So then. I don't find you to be someone worth responding to, so that's all I have to say about that.
You really should not have adopted if you can calmly state that you feel your bio child needs different parenting than your adopted infant baby. Seriously, I don't know how you slipped through the cracks, but this is the most horrifying statement I've ever heard made from a person who has both bio and adopted kids and they adopted at infancy.
What is truly horrifying is that there are so many PAPs/APs who want to deny that adoptees have different needs from biological children. Tiff did a great job of explaining why & it is comforting to know she really gets it.
Parenting from a place of denial is not healthy & does not help the adoptee in the long run because it creates coginitive dissonance. As someone who was raised to be "as if born to" my adoptive family, I can say that yes, it did create problems for me despite their good intentions. My reality was often invalidated by the assertion of more PC beliefs (ie: you are no different from biological children).
Quote:
You are taking your biology major too seriously. There is no instinct or primal anything until that baby bonds with another human being.
This is just not true. There are plenty of studies of newborns to confirm what Tiff has said. I actually thought this was common knowledge? You should read Nancy Verrier's Primal Wound if you're interested to learn more about the impact of separation of mother/baby & the adoptee experience.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 01-21-2013 at 06:35 AM..
What is truly horrifying is that there are so many PAPs/APs who want to deny that adoptees have different needs from biological children. Tiff did a great job of explaining why & it is comforting to know she really gets it.
Parenting from a place of denial is not healthy & does not help the adoptee in the long run because it creates coginitive dissonance. As someone who was raised to be "as if born to" my adoptive family, I can say that yes, it did create problems for me despite their good intentions. My reality was often invalidated by the assertion of more PC beliefs (ie: you are no different from biological children).
This is just not true. There are plenty of studies of newborns to confirm what Tiff has said. I actually thought this was common knowledge? You should read Nancy Verrier's Primal Wound if you're interested to learn more about the impact of separation of mother/baby & the adoptee experience.
(Thank you.) I had thought the "as if born to" junk disappeared decades ago.
" While it is difficult to make sweeping statements about such a large and diverse group as adopted persons, it can be said that adopted persons generally lead lives that are no different from the lives of nonadopted persons; however, they have experiences that are unique to being adopted, and these experiences may have an impact on their lives at various times." https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_adimpact.cfm
What I find horrifying is the insistence of PAPs and APs to stick their heads in the sand regarding the possible negative effects adoption may have in their child. I choose not to be this way, and so I recognize that parenting my child who is adopted will often be very different from parenting my child who is biological. Research clearly supports this, as do ethical agencies who truly are seeking to help adoptive families through the entire process (not just make a ton of money and walk away).
As for the biological connection between mother and baby, again, research supports this. And I lived it with my first.
And the entire field if prenatal and perinatal psychology.
Biology plays a huge role in attachment. As I said, I feel very securely attached to my adopted daughter, and I feel she is to me. However, that does not change that she was initially robbed of the biological attachment that would have happened naturally with her first mom. It also means I must be conscious if the documented effects this may have on her as she gets older.
Again, it might be be ause I lived it with my first (which is why I resoj des to the question as both a bio mom AND an adopted mom) but I do not discount at all the biology involved in my adopted daughters life.
You really should not have adopted if you can calmly state that you feel your bio child needs different parenting than your adopted infant baby. Seriously, I don't know how you slipped through the cracks, but this is the most horrifying statement I've ever heard made from a person who has both bio and adopted kids and they adopted at infancy.
Every child needs different parenting as they are unique individuals with different needs, wants, and personalities. This cookie cutter knee jerk reaction that adoptees are exactly like other children does them a disservice. They inherently have some different needs. And the proof is in the pudding, some of the adult adoptees here are stating that they had unique needs. You are not an adoptee and are telling people that if they plan on meeting those needs they shouldn't adopt. WHAT?
This is not unique to adoption. My sibs are not the same race as I am, they had some needs based on that, that I did not have. Thank goodness my father (and later on I) recognized this and raised each child based on their own needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What??
