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.
MirrenC, you stated that your birthparent did not want to raise you and married a man who, even as an adult, does not care for you and is verbally abusive to you. But then you also state that you cannot say for sure what type of home you would have been in had you not been adopted out or if abuse would have occured with your biological mother. Given the facts of the situation you now have, it seems your birthparent was thinking of your best interest when she adopted you out, and her decision proved right.
You cannot judge the road not traveled. She would not have married that man if she had kept me; there is no way he would have married a woman with a child. I agree that it was probably for the best that I was adopted, although I don't see it as a win-win-win.
You cannot judge the road not traveled. She would not have married that man if she had kept me; there is no way he would have married a woman with a child. I agree that it was probably for the best that I was adopted, although I don't see it as a win-win-win.
I'm not judging. Are do you mean that rhetorically? Well, I don't know how you are interpreting my comment to you, but the bolded lines above, in your own words, actually supports my comment. I have no doubt you don't see it as a win-win-win, I didn't say that no one suffered a loss. I only meant that for her, it was the right decision and at the time of your birth, her decision would have been the only one that could have been respected and honored. Further, you had parents who loved and cared for you. In your situation, the adoption process worked.
And yes, even in successful cases, I still believe that the process overall is flawed and can be improved. Linmora is correct, no one is arguing this point.
So adopted children ARE more likely to be abused? Sorry -- not being argumentative, just confused about what you're saying .....
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.
That is exactly what she is trying to imply from her paper napkin analysis. Without actual numbers, it is merely speculation in my opinion which is fine. Everyone is entitled to have them but don't try to pass it along as fact when they are not.
I will say that several folks seem to have amnesia in what they said or implied about the higher abuse rates in adoptive families. Love to see this myth dispelled. It is quite gratifying.
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.
What I take that to mean is that given the statistical demographics of adoptive families, plus the "want" demonstrated by their adopting in the first place, they should have had a lower abuse rate than birth families as a whole; but were the same. Is this right?
I also took from it that in families where biological and adopted children co-exist, any abuse is more likely to be on the adopted child. I don't know if that is a valid conclusion on my part from this or not!
What I take that to mean is that given the statistical demographics of adoptive families, plus the "want" demonstrated by their adopting in the first place, they should have had a lower abuse rate than birth families as a whole; but were the same. Is this right?
I also took from it that in families where biological and adopted children co-exist, any abuse is more likely to be on the adopted child. I don't know if that is a valid conclusion on my part from this or not!
Yes, based on their demographics (or at least the three I listed) and the screening process one would expect the abuse rate to be lower than the abuse rate of a population of parents that has a lower income, is younger etc.
I have no idea whether or not there exists a correlation between "wanting" a child and abuse, but there may be one. I would suspect that wanting a child would have also correlate negatively but I have no idea.
As for the last part about adopted children in a family with biological children, again, I have no reason based on the statistics I have seen elsewhere or the Washington State Report, to think that. I would need to see numbers to make that sort of extrapolation.
Yes, based on their demographics (or at least the three I listed) and the screening process one would expect the abuse rate to be lower than the abuse rate of a population of parents that has a lower income, is younger etc.
I have no idea whether or not there exists a correlation between "wanting" a child and abuse, but there may be one. I would suspect that wanting a child would have also correlate negatively but I have no idea.
As for the last part about adopted children in a family with biological children, again, I have no reason based on the statistics I have seen elsewhere or the Washington State Report, to think that. I would need to see numbers to make that sort of extrapolation.
I only noticed that the report thought 'wanting' a child and going through the adoption process should have assumed they would be less likely to abuse, and found that that was apparently an assumption they shouldn't make.
I didn't see any broad stats in the report. I guess I read into it [not a good thing] that language barriers, coping behaviors in the child being misinterpreted or seen as "bad behavior", etc - basically not behaving in a manner that bio kids did, made the parents more frustrated and more likely to abuse than with bio kids. Basically expectations not met influenced parental response negatively. But there were no numbers - so no valid conclusion.
I'm not judging. Are do you mean that rhetorically? Well, I don't know how you are interpreting my comment to you, but the bolded lines above, in your own words, actually supports my comment. I have no doubt you don't see it as a win-win-win, I didn't say that no one suffered a loss. I only meant that for her, it was the right decision and at the time of your birth, her decision would have been the only one that could have been respected and honored. Further, you had parents who loved and cared for you. In your situation, the adoption process worked.
And yes, even in successful cases, I still believe that the process overall is flawed and can be improved. Linmora is correct, no one is arguing this point.
I think it is up to Mirren to decide whether the "adoption process" worked. Actually, all the above shows is that the end result was good for Mirren, the "adoption process" itself is a different issue and is rather more complicated than your summing up above.
In regards to what Rebecca said on her blog, the following is one of the things she hates about adoption:
Quote:
One of the things I hate about adoption is that in many cases it breaks something in such a way that it can never be repaired. And what it breaks is one of the most basic, primal, and sacred building blocks of human relationship: the bond between a parent and child. The adopted life begins with this break and is built upon the cracked foundation.
To some adoptive parents, the above is one of the things they actually love about adoption.
Really? I would have thought a psychological evaluation would be vital in all cases.
Did you have one? If so, what did it involve?
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.
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.
Huh?
