U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-18-2013, 04:36 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,855,795 times
Reputation: 1462

Advertisements

I found this article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111116267294

Quote:
Dr Tooley's study found that children with a step-parent were at least 17 times more likely to die from intentional violence or accident. A limited version of the study found that the rate could be as high as 77 times.

It found the risk was higher if there were no biological parents, such children being at least 22 times more prone. Most at risk were children under five.

Overall, Dr Tooley found that children with a single biological mother were no more at risk than children with both biological parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2013, 06:24 PM
 
1,097 posts, read 1,727,792 times
Reputation: 1590
Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
One would assume that homestudies would ask the above questions at the very least. Are you saying they didn't do that with you? They should have.
It's possible - I certainly don't know for sure - that trends in adoption effected these type of things. I have a dear friend who was adopted as an infant in the 50's. She shared with me her 'non-identifiable" info rcvd from a very old and respected adoption agency, still in business. In it it described all kinds of studies done on the bio parents, the child, and the adoptive parents. This was done during the period when "matching" was the way to go [match the child as closely as possible in as many ways as possible with the adoptive parents]. They had the adoptive parents down to a T, even saying that the adoptive mother would be great as a mother of an infant, but would have definite problems when the child began exhibiting normal moves toward independence and expressing that at about 6 yrs old. Spot on by the way. In fact all their insights were very good as she found after a long relationship with her still together birth parents.

I think that matching is no longer a major criteria, especially with the trend toward of open, international, & other adoption configurations. Perhaps they have backed off these extensive profiles and depend more on preparing adoptive parents for parenting ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 08:50 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,855,795 times
Reputation: 1462
In regards to unplanned pregnancies, there seems to be an assumption that unplanned pregnancy always means unwanted baby.

When a woman is being counselled re ADOPTION vs PARENTING, she is told that because she has an unplanned pregnancy, she is unlikely to be as good a mother as someone who has planned the pregnancy or planned to be a parent.

However, it seems that if a woman is being counselled re ABORTION vs PARENTING, it seems that they are told the opposite by prolife organisations:

http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionQa...apters/c32.pdf

excerpt:
Quote:
It is clear that mothers who initially believed their pregnancy to be ‘the worst thing that ever happened to
them’ came to feel about the same degree of affection for their children as the mothers who were initially
‘ecstatic’ about the pregnancy.

“Most women who were most regretful of the pregnancy now claim they would have the child again,
if given the opportunity, [whereas] one of every six mothers who were initially pleased with pregnancy
would choose not to have the child again.

“[They conclude] . . . initial feelings about pregnancy are predictive of how a mother will eventually feel
about her child to only a very limited degree.”
Quote:
Not much has changed since these earlier investigations. There is much that we still do not know about the sick psychology that leads to child abuse. One thing does stand out, however: Prenatally, these were not unwanted pregnancies, they were super-wanted pregnancies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 09:02 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,855,795 times
Reputation: 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Okay.
In regards to the win/win/win thing, I'll explain it this way:

In regards to birthmothers, the "win" situation would either have been to not get pregnant at all, be able to prevent pregnancy within a few days (morning after pill, Plan B etc) or to be able to raise the child. I doubt that there are many bmothers who are thrilled that they have gone through 9 months of pregnancy just for the fun of it, as I just said, either they would rather the pregnancy not happened or they could parent. Having gotten pregnant, they may feel that the best possible scenario in the circumstances is relinquishment but that is hardly a "win".

As for adoptees, there is not a single person alive who, if given the choice, would actively choose to be born into another family and raised in another. Before any of you reach for the smelling salts and "OMG, OMG, OMG, biology means nothing, I tell you, NOTHING!!!!!!!!", it has nothing to do with biology - I'm just saying that one would prefer a seamless passage from womb to adulthood. For those of you who grew up in happy biological families, would you have preferred to have arrived in your family via adoption - I doubt it. In your case, I get the impression that you hope your child will wish she had also been born to you as well as raised by you - having an extra family out there is something that many adoptees wish they didn't have to deal with or bother about. So, no, being adopted isn't a "win" situation, though many adoptees may believe that for them, it is the best available option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Chicago area
1,105 posts, read 2,898,689 times
Reputation: 2106
Quote:
Originally Posted by adoptedamanda View Post
first time poster but long time lurker. had to come out of hiding to comment on this post...

i believe that this quote comes dangerously close to blaming the victims (especially the part in bold) even with the qualifier...
I find your allegation offensive. My post was very clear that abuse is never the fault of the child in any circumstances. I grew up with a mentally ill alcoholic mother who was very abusive to me and my siblings until we were finally put in foster care so I'm the last person to blame the victim. If you thought I did that's on you. However, I like to think that I'm a realist and I don't hide my head in the sand from facts regardless what they are. Fact is that stress is a fairly common cause or contributor to abuse. That's widely accepted to be so. We also know that raising special needs kids can be stressful and since stress can lead to abuse special needs could indirectly correlate to abuse. That doesn't in any way, shape or form mean that it's the child's fault or that they are to blame in any way.

This doesn't really have anything to do with adoption per se. Special needs kids live in all sorts f families. But because of the difficult early lives many adoptees have had they often have special needs and I would assume, and much anecdotal evidence seems to indicate, that adopted kids in general are more likely than the rest of the child population to have special needs. And, like I said, this may explain why adopted kids are more likely to be abused than kids in similar families and why adopted kids in a blended family are abused when the bio kids are not. Again, this does NOT mean that it's the kids' fault or that they are bad kids but if you want to solve a problem you have to identify the cause. If special needs is an indirect cause or contributor to abuse we'd do everyone a huge disservice by not recognizing that. If we know that stress is the cause, or one cause, of abuse we can start working to relieve that stress that would prevent the abuse but that can't happen if we don't recognize it.

Finally, I'm not saying that stress or special needs definitely have anything to do with abuse of adopted kids. It's strictly a theory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Chicago area
1,105 posts, read 2,898,689 times
Reputation: 2106
Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
When a woman is being counselled re ADOPTION vs PARENTING, she is told that because she has an unplanned pregnancy, she is unlikely to be as good a mother as someone who has planned the pregnancy or planned to be a parent.

However, it seems that if a woman is being counselled re ABORTION vs PARENTING, it seems that they are told the opposite by prolife organisations:
Good point. I never thought about that. It's rather hypocritical isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 02:31 AM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,980,790 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
I'm referring to this bit:

One would assume that homestudies would ask the above questions at the very least. Are you saying they didn't do that with you? They should have.
One should be cautious when assuming. He is listing things that are discussed during a psych eval. We did not have one because we did not need one. The questions asked of us during the process were pretty comprehensive and no such evaluation was required for us. Others may have had to have one done however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 02:36 AM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,980,790 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
In regards to the win/win/win thing, I'll explain it this way:

In regards to birthmothers, the "win" situation would either have been to not get pregnant at all, be able to prevent pregnancy within a few days (morning after pill, Plan B etc) or to be able to raise the child. I doubt that there are many bmothers who are thrilled that they have gone through 9 months of pregnancy just for the fun of it, as I just said, either they would rather the pregnancy not happened or they could parent. Having gotten pregnant, they may feel that the best possible scenario in the circumstances is relinquishment but that is hardly a "win".

As for adoptees, there is not a single person alive who, if given the choice, would actively choose to be born into another family and raised in another. Before any of you reach for the smelling salts and "OMG, OMG, OMG, biology means nothing, I tell you, NOTHING!!!!!!!!", it has nothing to do with biology - I'm just saying that one would prefer a seamless passage from womb to adulthood. For those of you who grew up in happy biological families, would you have preferred to have arrived in your family via adoption - I doubt it. In your case, I get the impression that you hope your child will wish she had also been born to you as well as raised by you - having an extra family out there is something that many adoptees wish they didn't have to deal with or bother about. So, no, being adopted isn't a "win" situation, though many adoptees may believe that for them, it is the best available option.
Well, you certainly have a right to your opinion. I often don't agree with it, as in this instance, but it is your right to have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 05:58 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 984,274 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Well, you certainly have a right to your opinion. I often don't agree with it, as in this instance, but it is your right to have.
I'm confused, would you explain why you don't agree or what it is you don't agree with? With the exception of surrogacy, I don't know any parents who were jumping for joy that they couldn't keep their baby or considered it a win that they got pregnant when they didn't want to.

& given circumstances, adoption may be the best option available but who wouldn't prefer being raised by good parents that they were born to? Whether you rather you were born to your adoptive family originally, raised by your existing bio family, or born to a different hypothetical family altogether...

Some people say they wish they had been adopted because they grew up in abusive/neglectful family... but what they really mean is that they wish they were never abused or neglected. If they had the option to be born to a loving, healthy family they no doubt would choose that over being abused, then adopted. They also don't understand that:

1. Adoption obviously does not guarantee a life free of abuse or neglect.
2. They have no idea how challenging it can be to grow up adopted, even when you end up in most loving, nurturing adoptive family ever.

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 01-19-2013 at 06:18 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2013, 06:41 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 984,274 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigCreek View Post
That said, I can see how a child with RAD could stretch parental patience to the absolute limits, even for the best-informed, most compassionate, mature, and experienced parent.
I see the RAD/special needs theories as blaming the victims as well (although I am sure it is unintentional).

We know that there are many studies that show the correlation between abuse & children being raised by people who are not biologically related to them -- why are people so quick to overlook this & talk about how difficult/damaged adoptees can be instead?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:09 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top