Who should and shouldn't be allowed to adopt? (foster care, orphanages, cost)

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by no kudzu

all these criteria should be used for ANYBODY to become a parent- not just adoptive parents. sometimes I cringe when I read about folks who are spitting out kids one right after another and not taking care of them.

But unfortunately you can't prevent people from procreating.

PAPs really should be held to a higher standard than most parents because they are requesting to take responsibility for raising a child who comes with experiences/losses/traumas/challenges that are unique to adoptees.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Lizita

I got to thinking about this due to a comment made in another thread. Who should be allowed to adopt? What should and shouldn't be considered? Should personality and viewpoints be considered or only circumstances such as ability to provide? What kind of personalities and viewpoints should be considered negative? Should people with little means be allowed to adopt? What about background? Should someone who have had psychosocial problems in the past be barred from adopting? What about people with alternative lifestyles, such as people who are part of unconventional religious group?

I run a small cat rescue so I do cat adoptions. Of course cats and children is very different and I'm not trying to compare the two. However, I think some points are similar. When someone contacts me about adopting one of our cats I have them fill out an application and then I visit them and ask more questions. Unlike many other rescues that will inspect people's homes and yards to ensure that it's safe and up to snuff and consider their finances to make sure they can pay for extensive vet care I'm looking for a particular personality and viewpoint on pets and pet care. I want someone who sees pets as family members whose welfare and happiness is important and who is willing to sacrifice and go out of their way to ensure that welfare and happiness. I could care less what their home looks like, what they do for a living, or any other circumstances unless of course it's something that is specifically bad like if they're living in filth. I believe that if the adopters have the "right" viewpoint, attitude and beliefs they will make the right decisions. At the same time the flip side applies. Even though someone may come across as nice, has a great home and great resources if he or she has an, to me, undesirable view of pets and pet ownership I will deny the adoption.

Should the same apply to people looking to adopt a child? If so, what kind of viewpoints are undesirable for adoptive parents?

You would have adopted to my adopted parents and you still would have missed it all. They look great on paper, they look great in real life. Behind closed doors, however, there were issues.

What was the biggest issue? What they were hoping for and what they got were two different things. She wanted a girl. They went through a lot of hell and time and being scrutinized. They got their girl. Me.

Unfortunately what they did NOT get was help. They knew my background and they thought they could handle it. They couldn't. It frustrated her. It was overwhelming for her. It was, indeed, disappointing for her that I was not what she was hoping for when they set out to adopt a girl.

How do you screen for that?

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by thethreefoldme

I'll comment more on the other questions you posed in the OP later, but first & foremost I wanted to say who I believe should adopt. Those who meet all of the objective criterion that Mark listed &:

1. Who prioritize what is best for the child over their desires, expectations, or insecurities.
2. Who expects the child's feelings about adoption to evolve over time & possibly well into adulthood.
3. Who is empathetic to the fact that (even for infants) adoption is not possible without loss & sometimes trauma.
4. Who has/plans to continue to educate themselves on the experience of adoptees & adoptee issues.
5. Who respects the child has another family & does not feel threatened by contact with anyone who is not a safety concern.
6. Who expects to help support & facilitate contact (does not anticipate the adoptee will be disinterested in contact).
7. Who does not feel entitled to someone else's child & instead views it as a privilege to be entrusted with parenting.
8. Who has fully resolved grief due to any fertility issues if they had them.
9. Who has/plans to continue to learn about race-related issues an adoptee may endure (if applicable).
10. Who plans to spot & learn how to nurture any natural traits, talents, interests that may be different from their own.
11. Who embraces differences, rather than denies them.

OMG, thethreefoldme nails it again. This is everything I was getting to in my post...everything. Every. last. thing.

This is what was not screened. This is what is not possible to screen. Maybe, just a thought out loud, if someone is going to adopt a child from a rough background, hell any background I suppose, maybe they should have to take some kind of class or go through meetings or whatever word I'm trying to think of, so that they learn to understand all of this BEFORE they adopt the child.

For example, in my case:

Agency: "Ok, here's the child. Here's her background. You have passed everything and we think this would be a good fit. Before you finalize the adoption, however, you are required to go to these sessions to learn (what was listed above). When you have completed those, we will finalize the paperwork with the courts."

I fully believe that we, myself AND the adoptive parents, didn't get what we deserved in regards to, "how to handle this". I hold them responsible for their treatment but not entirely. They didn't have a clue how to handle all of my demons.

[no kudzu]

The beauty of adopting a child you have fostered is the three months training required to be a foster parent.

When we went through foster parent training we were told less than 15% of participants finish the course. And it was not the agency who culled them out. It was the prospective foster parents themselves who determined fostering was not for them. some realities are too much for some folks. We finished the course but before the end determined fostering an older troubled child would not work for us.

In our class was a very naive woman who was a lesbian and a very "stereotypical looking" one at that. She was absolutely in love with a 9 year old boy she met while helping out with some sporting activities. She and her partner decided they would be his foster family and it would be successful not withstanding the fact he had already been in 3 foster families with a great deal of trouble. Her intentions were great but her expectations were skewed. During the class someone asked her how she thought she would get past the sexuality issue and right in front of the instructor(the same woman who would be very much involved with the kids placement) she answered "Oh I'll just tell them (partner) is my roommate." Instructor just smiled sweetly and the rest of us sat there with our jaws down to the floor. I was not surprised when the lovely young woman dropped out of the classes after only about 6 weeks.

[Jaded]

I think Mark's list is pretty comprehensive. Objective criteria can be measured, subjective ones often cannot.

Originally Posted by susankate

I also think education is very important and should always be part of the home study if it isn't already. It is my observation throughout the last few years that some prospective adoptive parents seem to have been well educated about adoption beforehand and others not so much. A mandatory booklet with ins and outs of the adoption process and also what adoption is all about might also be worthwhile to give to prospective adoptive parents so that they can read it and keep it as a guideline.

I wonder why private adoption agencies are allowed to have different criteria from the state agencies? Education sessions are mandatory in my state. You can't become approved without taking them. Yet, in private domestic adoptions, I don't believe this is a requirement.

Originally Posted by thethreefoldme

1. Who prioritize what is best for the child over their desires, expectations, or insecurities.
2. Who expects the child's feelings about adoption to evolve over time & possibly well into adulthood.
3. Who is empathetic to the fact that (even for infants) adoption is not possible without loss & sometimes trauma.
4. Who has/plans to continue to educate themselves on the experience of adoptees & adoptee issues.
5. Who respects the child has another family & does not feel threatened by contact with anyone who is not a safety concern.
6. Who expects to help support & facilitate contact (does not anticipate the adoptee will be disinterested in contact).
7. Who does not feel entitled to someone else's child & instead views it as a privilege to be entrusted with parenting.
8. Who has fully resolved grief due to any fertility issues if they had them.
9. Who has/plans to continue to learn about race-related issues an adoptee may endure (if applicable).
10. Who plans to spot & learn how to nurture any natural traits, talents, interests that may be different from their own.
11. Who embraces differences, rather than denies them.

This list would be hard and maybe even impossible to measure.

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

I do believe there should be federal minimums that each state has to incorporate into their own requirements for homestudy approval. I don't think that an adoption agency should also be a homestudy agency - some separation is needed when the bottom line of the business is on the line. How - no idea, my era it was the court who iniatiated a friend of the court investigation of the family.

Agree. Federal minimums at least (maybe there are??), and homestudies should be done by the state one resides in and not by private agencies who have been licensed by the state. This would be a good separation of interests. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by no kudzu

all these criteria should be used for ANYBODY to become a parent- not just adoptive parents. sometimes I cringe when I read about folks who are spitting out kids one right after another and not taking care of them.

Absolutely agree. Which is also why I dislike the idea of children raising children.

Originally Posted by thethreefoldme

But unfortunately you can't prevent people from procreating.

PAPs really should be held to a higher standard than most parents because they are requesting to take responsibility for raising a child who comes with experiences/losses/traumas/challenges that are unique to adoptees.

Interesting. Holding PAPs to a higher standard than biological parents who weren't and subsequently can't or won't parent? Ironically this is already done. We were told this (along with every other couple/individual in our pre-adoption classes) very matter of factly. "We hold foster and adoptive parents to a higher standard. We expect you to be 'super parents'. It isn't fair, but it's expected and required."

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

What was the biggest issue? What they were hoping for and what they got were two different things. She wanted a girl. They went through a lot of hell and time and being scrutinized. They got their girl. Me.

Unfortunately what they did NOT get was help. They knew my background and they thought they could handle it. They couldn't. It frustrated her. It was overwhelming for her. It was, indeed, disappointing for her that I was not what she was hoping for when they set out to adopt a girl. How do you screen for that?

^^This. In an old thread about Post Adoption Depression, this was discussed. It is a very valid point. How our agency (state) approaches this is by pointing out to PAPs that bio parents can't control what kind of child they create either. They really point out the danger in making the wrong assumptions about an adopted child and/or comparing them to your existing bio child/ren.

But this lack of support also speaks to when and where a child was adopted. Most public agencies today provide a lot of support and resources. 20-50 years ago, I'm not sure. I suppose each state has different support networks and resources. Maybe create a "best practices" of these resources to create a federal model?

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

OMG, thethreefoldme nails it again. This is everything I was getting to in my post...everything. Every. last. thing.

This is what was not screened. This is what is not possible to screen. Maybe, just a thought out loud, if someone is going to adopt a child from a rough background, hell any background I suppose, maybe they should have to take some kind of class or go through meetings or whatever word I'm trying to think of, so that they learn to understand all of this BEFORE they adopt the child.

Your bolded statement. True. Again, it would depend on when and where a child was adopted. Many issues discussed on this forum delve into specific era's that are simply no longer applicable with regard to how PAP's are screened and what is required to become an adoptive parent TODAY.

thethreefoldme has expressed very personal and subjective criteria. I think there is a fine line between screening for PAPs and screening for "perfect parents." No one or agency can do the latter.

[no kudzu]

There is no such thing as "perfect parents" just as there are no "perfect children". Still agencies, private and state can do much better at ferreting out the adults most likely to not do well.

Has anybody ever heard of a couple who was turned down for adoption during the homestudy process? I surely haven't. Seems to me it was all a formality. Now some countries have turned down people based on health and age but these folks never even get their foot in the door.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by no kudzu

The beauty of adopting a child you have fostered is the three months training required to be a foster parent.

I think PAPs should be required to have just as much education as foster parents -- like Three Wolves I think it should take place prior to approval for adoption to weed out people who have unreasonable expectations or are under the impression that adopting will be no different from raising children they gave birth to.

Education should be adoptee-centered & include discussions on adoption loss, when parents should initiate conversations about adoption, how children might process adoption differently at each developmental stage, potential challenges the child may have both while growing up & in adulthood (access to OBCs for example). It should also include discussions about the importance of contact/information for adoptees & how to address those things if it is not available to them.

PAPs who are open to adopting older children, children with special needs, &/or children who are a different race should be required to take additional classes that cover those specific issues.

[Siggy20]

Perhaps threefold's list could be something that could be touched upon in a mandatory class for adoptive parents along with other topics. I do think that education is key. We weren't required to take any sort of classes and now looking back at things almost 10 years later, I wish that we had. Even though I had done some research, it wasn't enough. Heck, I would even like to take some fostering classes at this point just to have more knowledge at my fingertips when dealing with my daughter. I'm sure that anything would be helpful.

I have a vague memory of someone failing a homestudy amongst one of my adoption board buddies. If I recall correctly, it was not having a steady source of income and the family not being in a good financial situation. Previous bankruptcy, etc. May have been more to the story but who knows.

[psr13]

Originally Posted by no kudzu

There is no such thing as "perfect parents" just as there are no "perfect children". Still agencies, private and state can do much better at ferreting out the adults most likely to not do well.

Has anybody ever heard of a couple who was turned down for adoption during the homestudy process? I surely haven't. Seems to me it was all a formality. Now some countries have turned down people based on health and age but these folks never even get their foot in the door.

I have.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by Jaded

Your bolded statement. True. Again, it would depend on when and where a child was adopted. Many issues discussed on this forum delve into specific era's that are simply no longer applicable with regard to how PAP's are screened and what is required to become an adoptive parent TODAY.

None of what I listed depends on when or where the child was adopted (with the exception of if applicable).

Laws have not changed since I was adopted & criteria for adopting in my state (or to my knowledge any others) has not changed, either. Why you assume otherwise I have no idea, but that is incorrect. I was not adopted during the BSE & clinging to the belief that "adoption is different now" couldn't be farther from the truth.

Originally Posted by Jaded

thethreefoldme has expressed very personal and subjective criteria. I think there is a fine line between screening for PAPs and screening for "perfect parents." No one or agency can do the latter.

What I posted was what is in the best interests of ALL adoptees (no matter when they were adopted, what age they were adopted, or where they were adopted from). No one expects people to be perfect parents, but all of the issues discussed on this thread so far are applicable & relevant today.