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 01-17-2013, 08:15 PM
 
1,516 posts, read 1,848,599 times
Reputation: 3121

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
It is basic math 101.

If you have a mean, and take out one end of the sample contributing to that mean, than it will shift.

If I had a mean size of apples, and took all the small apples out, than the new average size of apple will change. And even without knowing the size of the apples you can reliably predict which way the change in size will occur.

Same thing here.

If I have a mean rate of abuse for biological families, and then take out the families that have a higher rate of abuse (younger, poorer, less likely to be married families) than the rate of abuse will go down.

That is the group that should be compared to adoptive families, as it is a fact that adoptive parents are older, wealthier, and more likely to be married.

So if they averages are the same now, when you take out the group that is more likely to be abusive than the rate of abuse for those wealthy, older, married biological families will be lower in comparison to their equivalent adoptive families.
Thanks for the math lesson!! Being an Engineer in my working days, I enjoy these little games with numbers. You are very creative in your arguments to convince us that abuse is some prevalent thing in adoptive families. Even if you are correct, are the results statistically significant? Until you see the actual numbers, you are speculating.

Always get a kick out of your posts and have learned to not take you so seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-17-2013, 08:21 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,863,745 times
Reputation: 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
No, neither me or my husband had to have one. When the agency was going over the process with us I wanted to ask if one was done did that automatically disqualify someone from adopting, but didn't. I'm still curious about this.

They do an extensive background check however, and, they actually check with all your references (my friends told me). I imagine that if anything popped up in these realms, a psychological evaluation would be done.
I would have assumed that the following sort of evaluation would be compulsory at the very least:

psychological evaluations of the adoptive parent - Adoption Doctors

It seems to me that the majority of adoption abuse cases seem to take place because of expectations not being met so some sort of evaluation to make sure the applicants have their feet on the ground should surely be mandatory. The problem is that many of the evangelical churches are encouraging their congregation to adopt and many people are doing so without really knowing what they are doing. As a result, there is quite a bit of unofficial disruption where new families are found via a network. Some people do it via their blogs, i.e. they will say they know someone who needs to find a new family for their new child and their regular readers will try and help find new families. Thus, disruption figures may be considerably higher than the official figures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2013, 09:26 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,863,745 times
Reputation: 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
I have no doubt you don't see it as a win-win-win.
I just wanted to say that I don't believe there is any such thing as a win/win/win situation in the adoption - at the very best it is a win/best available option/best available option.

It is always a compromise of some sort. That's not to say that compromises are always bad as compromises can end up being better than the default.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2013, 10:10 PM
 
1,097 posts, read 1,734,380 times
Reputation: 1591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linmora View Post
Thanks for the math lesson!! Being an Engineer in my working days, I enjoy these little games with numbers. You are very creative in your arguments to convince us that abuse is some prevalent thing in adoptive families. Even if you are correct, are the results statistically significant? Until you see the actual numbers, you are speculating.

Always get a kick out of your posts and have learned to not take you so seriously.
This seems unnecessarily dismissive - and as the discussion was about 1 particular report, I didn't see it being extrapolated to cover all adoptions or convince anyone of some universal truth one way or the other. There was no math in the report. It was the state trying find explanations for and safeguards against some pretty disturbing incidents.

Trying to understand why an adoptive parent who went through a rigorous process of actively seeking a child, would abuse that child, contrary to the usual statistical expectations, is certainly not painting all adoptive parents as abusive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 01:13 AM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,987,537 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
I would have assumed that the following sort of evaluation would be compulsory at the very least:

psychological evaluations of the adoptive parent - Adoption Doctors

It seems to me that the majority of adoption abuse cases seem to take place because of expectations not being met so some sort of evaluation to make sure the applicants have their feet on the ground should surely be mandatory. The problem is that many of the evangelical churches are encouraging their congregation to adopt and many people are doing so without really knowing what they are doing. As a result, there is quite a bit of unofficial disruption where new families are found via a network. Some people do it via their blogs, i.e. they will say they know someone who needs to find a new family for their new child and their regular readers will try and help find new families. Thus, disruption figures may be considerably higher than the official figures.
I don't understand your link. The article just re-states what I said about it not being mandatory. The author goes on to discuss the cases where it may be required. But to re-answer, no, psychological evals are not mandatory. And, there is no proof that they will reduce abuse in adoptive families. As far as churches encouraging their congregation to adopt, I don't see a problem with this either. Every state has its rules and regulations and every adoptive parent in these respective states will encounter their state's statutes and will need to comply prior to being approved. And, I don't understand what you mean by disruption?

Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
I just wanted to say that I don't believe there is any such thing as a win/win/win situation in the adoption.
Okay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 03:52 AM
 
16,600 posts, read 14,084,987 times
Reputation: 20563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linmora View Post
Thanks for the math lesson!! Being an Engineer in my working days, I enjoy these little games with numbers. You are very creative in your arguments to convince us that abuse is some prevalent thing in adoptive families. Even if you are correct, are the results statistically significant? Until you see the actual numbers, you are speculating.

Always get a kick out of your posts and have learned to not take you so seriously.
I have never said it was prevalent in either population. And it easily proven by going back and reading my posts. Never did the word prevalent come up.

All I have said, and proven, is that if you compare the population of adopted families, to the equivalent population of biological families that there will be a higher rate of abuse in the former.

As for statistical significance, if you want to claim that your status as an engineer makes you an expert on statistics than you should know that since we are talking about population and not samples here than any difference is statistically significant. You do know that right? I mean I may only be a research scientist but they did teach us that.

The fact that you are unwilling to admit that any abuse of adopted children by a population that undergoes the screening that adoptive parents do, is a sign of a problem, is most telling of all. You are the one incapable of looking at adoption objectively, likely because you participated in it. And that is fine, but it is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, to claim that my logic, and statistical analysis is wrong just because you dislike the findings.

The current system of screening adoptive parents is far more than the equivalent biological parents go through and yet, the rate of abuse done to adopted children is higher. Something should be done to change and unify the screening process to protect adopted children. Until then we do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticism from other nations that want to limit our ability to adopt their children.

Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 01-18-2013 at 10:50 AM.. Reason: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 05:34 AM
 
1,516 posts, read 1,848,599 times
Reputation: 3121
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
I have never said it was prevalent in either population. And it easily proven by going back and reading my posts. Never did the word prevalent come up.

All I have said, and proven, is that if you compare the population of adopted families, to the equivalent population of biological families that there will be a higher rate of abuse in the former.

As for statistical significance, if you want to claim that your status as an engineer makes you an expert on statistics than you should know that since we are talking about population and not samples here than any difference is statistically significant. You do know that right? I mean I may only be a research scientist but they did teach us that.

The fact that you are unwilling to admit that any abuse of adopted children by a population that undergoes the screening that adoptive parents do, is a sign of a problem, is most telling of all. You are the one incapable of looking at adoption objectively, likely because you participated in it. And that is fine, but it is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, to claim that my logic, and statistical analysis is wrong just because you dislike the findings.

The current system of screening adoptive parents is far more than the equivalent biological parents go through and yet, the rate of abuse done to adopted children is higher. Something should be done to change and unify the screening process to protect adopted children. Until then we do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticism from other nations that want to limit our ability to adopt their children.
Again, without the actual numbers, you are playing the speculation game and that all it is. Referring to what I bolded, we don't know if this is true or not. This is what you want others to believe and your opinion.

About your comment of me denying abuse by any sector of the population and not looking at adoption objectively....yeah right. If you actually read my posts, you will see that I'm all in favor of reform. This much discussed Washington report has some very good commendations which I agree with. I think that every single person on this thread agrees that abuse in any form is unacceptable and it does happen. If there are holes in the process like the homestudy process discussed in the report, yes, this needs to be rectified. There are people out there that do horrible things and somehow they slip through the cracks and become adoptive parents. We all recognize this. Even if we implement the best of screening though, there will always be people that slip through and do knuckle headed things like forgetting a young child in a car. Just read about the Colorado mom who left her two sons in an overheated car for 90 minutes while she visited a male friend. They both died. Had these been two adopted children, you can be assured that this would have been a much larger incident. However my point is people will always do idiotic things and you can't prevent all abuse or negligent things from happening. There is certainly room for improvement though and that is what many of us have been discussing in a positive way.

Sorry but I think that I'm a bit more objective about adoption than you are. Not going to argue the numbers game with you anymore although I will keep correcting people when they make statements about higher rates of abuse in adoptive families as compared to biological ones.

Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 01-18-2013 at 03:15 PM.. Reason: Edited quoted comment and your response to it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 06:06 AM
 
1,014 posts, read 987,358 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
No, they are abused at the same rate as children who live only with biological families.

But when you look at the population of biological families compared to adoptive families, adoptive families have higher incomes, are older when they become parents, and tend to be more likely to be married.

If you compare just those wealthy, older, married families, to that equivalent subset of biological families (aka controlling for those factors) than the abuse rate of biological families goes down (since it is a measurable fact that those factors are negatively correlated to abuse) and the adoptive parents will stay the same. Therefore the rate of abuse in adopted families compared to their equivalent in biological family will be higher.

Exactly.

Not all adoptive parents are abusive, of course. But here we have people who are generally privileged, older, stable, married, preparing for a child, that abuse at the same rate as those who generally are not -- instead of burying our heads in the sand, we should be trying to determine why & how to prevent this if possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 09:43 AM
 
1,516 posts, read 1,848,599 times
Reputation: 3121
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post
Exactly.

Not all adoptive parents are abusive, of course. But here we have people who are generally privileged, older, stable, married, preparing for a child, that abuse at the same rate as those who generally are not -- instead of burying our heads in the sand, we should be trying to determine why & how to prevent this if possible.
Where are you getting your numbers?

This was brought up before however I think we need to look at adoption as a whole. Adoption doesn't just include generally privileged, older, stable families familes. Adoption can happen in many ways---step parent adoptions, adoptions by other family members, adoptions through foster care, domestic adoptions, international adoptions, etc. People of all economic situations adopt for various reasons. Around our adoption time, there was an adoption surge of single women adopting babies from China in our local area. These were church supported adoptions and I questioned one adoption in particular since I knew the woman and she was not the most stable person, had no support structure, was not in the best of health, etc. Frankly, I was a little surprised that she was allowed to adopt.

The Washington State report stated that children were most likely to be abused by a step parent I think that it is misleading to point the finger only at the "privileged, older, stable, married, preparing for a child" demographic and say there is a problem. Again, without the numbers, we are only guessing.

This thread is getting to be a bit depressing for me so going to bow out. I have enough on my plate right now since my daughter is acting up again. Again, you all can believe what you want to believe. No one is arguing or burying their head in the sand regarding reform and improvements. More controversial posters like Sheena and myself agree with this report. We agree with you!! Improvements are certainly needed, especially in the area of homestudies. Any process can be improved.

/bows out
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 10:15 AM
 
125 posts, read 131,871 times
Reputation: 110
I found an article written by doctors and social worker that considered raw data from cases in which maltreatment of a child led to death, and what the composition of the children's families looked like. It was published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in 2001.

Household Composition and Risk of Fatal Child Maltreatment

The abstract:

Objective. Approximately 2000 children die annually in the United States from maltreatment. Although maternal and child risk factors for child abuse have been identified, the role of household composition has not been well-established. Our objective was to evaluate household composition as a risk factor for fatal child maltreatment.

Methodology. Population-based, case-control study using data from the Missouri Child Fatality Review Panel system, 1992–1994. Households were categorized based on adult residents’ relationship to the deceased child. Cases were all maltreatment injury deaths among children <5 years old. Controls were randomly selected from natural-cause deaths during the same period and frequency-matched to cases on age. The main outcome measure was maltreatment death.

Results. Children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 8.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6–21.5). Risk of maltreatment death also was elevated for children residing with step, foster, or adoptive parents (aOR: 4.7; 95% CI: 1.6–12.0), and in households with other adult relatives present (aOR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1–4.5). Risk of maltreatment death was not increased for children living with only 1 biological parent (aOR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8–2.0).

Conclusions. Children living in households with 1 or more male adults that are not related to them are at increased risk for maltreatment injury death. This risk is not elevated for children living with a single parent, as long as no other adults live in the home.


[emphasis mine]

This is one article, but certainly provides food for thought, backed up by real numbers. If you want to read the article, you can buy a .PDF on the Pediatrics Web site.
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.

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