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.
There are many Christians who push adoption for purposes of "rescuing" children. When the child is viewed as a "rescue" or a charity project, that's all wrong and creates the wrong relationship between parent and child. And a big chunk of the adoption industry in the USA is Christian-based organizations.
I see, wanting to give an orphan a home isn't the "right reason" to adopt, so children are actually better off being left in foster care or orphanages than adopted. And they're certainly better off without Christian parents.
I see, wanting to give an orphan a home isn't the "right reason" to adopt, so children are actually better off being left in foster care or orphanages than adopted. And they're certainly better off without Christian parents.
Sarcasm aside, back in late nineties I met several Christian families (defined rather loosely, as they all represented a very particular branch of Christianity that is borderline sectarian), which had adopted Russian "social orphans" explicitly for those Messianic reasons.
I am in no position to judge and evaluate all "what ifs" - all cases are unique, but I have to say I've often wondered if those children would've been better off - mentally and even socially - had they gone through regular Russian foster care system instead.
Sarcasm aside, back in late nineties I met several Christian families (defined rather loosely, as they all represented a very particular branch of Christianity that is borderline sectarian), which had adopted Russian "social orphans" explicitly for those Messianic reasons.
I am in no position to judge and evaluate all "what ifs" - all cases are unique, but I have to say I've often wondered if those children would've been better off - mentally and even socially - had they gone through regular Russian foster care system instead.
How much do you know about the "regular Russian foster care system"? BTW, Russia cut off American adoptions quite a number of years ago, in response to the Magnitsky sanctions. Americans who were in-country and who had met the children they planned to adopt but who had not gone through official court adoption procedures were cut off, the kids stranded. Russian government sanctioned cruelty...
If, as you implied, the children you met have some sort of mental issues, their fate in Russia would have been extremely harsh, more than likely.
In Russia and the countries which were part of the former USSR, children with special needs, be they physical or mental, are viewed as defective, an indication that the bio parents were sinners who were punished by having "defective" children, and in many case, kids with special needs which prevent them from speaking are viewed as having no sense of pain and no awareness at all. "Defectives" are viewed as being of no use to the State, so therefore they are useless.
Treatment is often based on these cruel and totally wrong notions, and special needs institutions and orphanages are often in isolated places and are poorly funded and staffed. Many, many children die of neglect, malnourishment, preventable diseases, abuse, and from lack of love in these places. Government policies are officially opposed to such treatment and neglect, yet enforcement is often scant.
Here are the names of two such places to research: Torez, in now-occupied Eastern Ukraine, and Pleven, in Bulgaria. The children and adults who were warehoused at Torez ( which prior to that had been improving due to a new director and a lot of assistance from charities, mostly western European and American) were hastily moved out when Russia troops occupied the area, and they were scattered among other orphanages and institutions where they are generally lost in the system.
The corrupt director of Pleven, whose sixth floor was like the lowest - or do I mean highest? - level of hell - was sacked upon media exposure of the horrors she caused, but is still around in an unofficial but influential capacity. I know a family who adopted a child with Down syndrome from Pleven - she was eight years old and weighed eleven pounds. DS was her only disability. She and the other children in her ward had been systematically starved and deprived of human contact and any exposure to the world outside their barred cribs.
Corruption is rife in such countries still, and although not all orphanages and institutions are this terrible and some changes have occurred, there is still much that needs to happen to change things.
I have fundamentalist relatives who adopted two siblings from Eastern Europe when the children were almost seven and nine. They are now in college. Before being adopted, they had been in a showcase orphanage for younger children, but had been separated most of the year prior to their adoption, as the older child aged out and was sent to an orphanage for the "feeble minded" over 100 miles away. Nothing wrong with that child's intellect - as their current college career reflects.
Had they not been adopted, it's likely these siblings would never have seen one another again, as the elder child would have been warehoused in a mental institution for life, while the younger would have aged out and been thrown upon their own resources at 16 or 17.
My relatives were unable to have bio children, but had always planned to adopt, regardless of whether or not they had bio. kids. Their children, now young adults have done very well and are greatly loved by both their adoptive parents and extended family. I am closer to them than I am to some of my bio. relatives.
Sure, there were a few bumps along the way, and I didn't always agree with some of my relatives' religious interpretations and child-rearing practices that were influenced by those beliefs - but nothing significant and no more bumps than would be likely to occur with bio. offspring. More joys than bumps, again, as is generally true of bio. families.
I do know that these siblings are far, far better off now than would have been the case had they remained in their country of origin. To their credit, their adoptive parents have always encouraged interest and pride in that country, as well as loyalty to the United States.
Last edited by CraigCreek; 04-29-2019 at 09:32 AM..
I see, wanting to give an orphan a home isn't the "right reason" to adopt, so children are actually better off being left in foster care or orphanages than adopted. And they're certainly better off without Christian parents.
No. No one should adopt "out of charity" and there should be no "missionary" feature to adoption.
Adoption should be about a child who needs a home, and adults who want to parent. Not rescue.
Craig,
Some of your points I don't disagree with.
My argument, though, was not nearly as broad - I simply pointed out that there are merits to Priscilla's statement that "rescuing" shouldn't be on the table as a consideration while making a decision to adopt AND, based on my personal experience, it is, in fact, quite often one of the driving forces for SOME Christian families, with catastrophic results. That is not to say it doesn't happen in non-Christian families (see "Rescuing Julia Twice"), or always happens with Christian families. But the point itself deserves more than a passing sarcastic comment.
Now, I do, in fact, have some understanding of the Russian foster care system, having worked with an "oligarch"-owned private foundation and an international NGO focusing on foster family-based childcare model. They were doing great things, awesome things, and I have a ton of respect for them.
One thing I found troubling, though, is that in order to promote the foster family model they basically villified the traditional system - and in doing so stigmatized the graduates. That I totally disagree with - and I see the remnants of that approach in many posts on these boards ("life trajectory", "prostitutes.and drug addicts", etc.)
Craig,
Some of your points I don't disagree with.
My argument, though, was not nearly as broad - I simply pointed out that there are merits to Priscilla's statement that "rescuing" shouldn't be on the table as a consideration while making a decision to adopt AND, based on my personal experience, it is, in fact, quite often one of the driving forces for SOME Christian families, with catastrophic results. That is not to say it doesn't happen in non-Christian families (see "Rescuing Julia Twice"), or always happens with Christian families. But the point itself deserves more than a passing sarcastic comment.
Now, I do, in fact, have some understanding of the Russian foster care system, having worked with an "oligarch"-owned private foundation and an international NGO focusing on foster family-based childcare model. They were doing great things, awesome things, and I have a ton of respect for them.
One thing I found troubling, though, is that in order to promote the foster family model they basically villified the traditional system - and in doing so stigmatized the graduates. That I totally disagree with - and I see the remnants of that approach in many posts on these boards ("life trajectory", "prostitutes.and drug addicts", etc.)
Thanks for the clarification - I am also involved with non-profits who serve kids in orphanages in Eastern Europe, so it appears we have more in common that first was clear. I agree that the drive to "rescue" should not be primary in most situations, and that love for children and the desire for them and to parent children should drive adoption.
The exception would be children like those I mentioned previously, kids with special needs who live miserable lives due to severe neglect and mistreatment, who have no future unless they are adopted by caring families.
In those cases, parental love is often preceded or accompanied by serious alarm and a sense of urgency to rescue - or rather, to save lives of children at severe risk of death by adopting them and provided the desperately needed medical care so that the same children can eventually thrive as much-loved children, in a family. Concern, determination and an intense desire to care for these children often precede love in such cases. But love soon follows.
Can't really argue with that.
If you're referring to some would-be adopters who want to adopt to save souls as "rescuers", that's a different matter. As I noted, my relatives who adopted are fundamentalists. They were concerned about their children's religious instruction and spiritual growth as well as with a plethora of other concerns, but their primary reason for adopting was because they wanted children, and they knew they could provide a better life for these children than they would have experienced had they remained in the system in their country of origin.
Yes, the young - often very young - orphanage "graduates" can break your heart, as can the graduation ceremonies. I am glad that Bible Orphan Ministry in Ukraine, which works miracles on a shoestring budget, works directly with these teens as well as with young families and children living in orphanages and institutions- see their Facebook for more info.
Craig,
Some of your points I don't disagree with.
My argument, though, was not nearly as broad - I simply pointed out that there are merits to Priscilla's statement that "rescuing" shouldn't be on the table as a consideration while making a decision to adopt AND, based on my personal experience, it is, in fact, quite often one of the driving forces for SOME Christian families, with catastrophic results. That is not to say it doesn't happen in non-Christian families (see "Rescuing Julia Twice"), or always happens with Christian families. But the point itself deserves more than a passing sarcastic comment.
Now, I do, in fact, have some understanding of the Russian foster care system, having worked with an "oligarch"-owned private foundation and an international NGO focusing on foster family-based childcare model. They were doing great things, awesome things, and I have a ton of respect for them.
One thing I found troubling, though, is that in order to promote the foster family model they basically villified the traditional system - and in doing so stigmatized the graduates. That I totally disagree with - and I see the remnants of that approach in many posts on these boards ("life trajectory", "prostitutes.and drug addicts", etc.)
It really depends about "rescue" and I have rethought my initial, broadly negative response.
When we adopted out second child, it was for "healthy selfish reasons". I could not have more children and we wanted more children. Since we had a boy, we wanted a girl.
The woman who gave birth to our daughter, lived in a culture that 23 years ago, did NOT accept children born out of wedlock. Or their mothers. Within her cultural context, the woman did the only thing she could do - she gave her baby up for adoption.
I don't feel that adopting a healthy infant is charity on any level.
Now, we know a few couples, who like ourselves, are empty nesters. They have made room in their lives, home and family for teenagers, who through no fault of their own, are notoriously hard to place. Many, despite what they have been through, are reasonably well adjusted, are good students and are functioning members of their new families. The adoptive families will be their for all of the tough times. Help to guide them in a selection of a college or a trade, be a source of advice, and financial support, and usher them into adulthood.
Children transitioning into adulthood do need guidance and a soft place to fall, when things go wrong.
I applaud what these couples are doing. Yet, I think applause is the last thing they want.
I think it's almost easier to love adopted children than biological children unconditionally. Biological children are a reflection of one's own genetics - I think I have more expectations of them. It seems easier to just unconditionally love children who have come into my life who are not my biological children, just as human beings, not as a reflection upon my own parenting and genetics.
I see, wanting to give an orphan a home isn't the "right reason" to adopt, so children are actually better off being left in foster care or orphanages than adopted. And they're certainly better off without Christian parents.
Children are better off being adopted by people who simply want to be parents. Not people who want to "rescue" or fulfill a duty to their Christian faith. And there is nothing wrong with Christians who want to adopt per se, but the Christian adoption movement is deeply flawed. And some of these big Christian families with ten, fifteen or more adopted children, are basically orphanages anyway since a big family like that is putting the child back into the orphanage environment from which he came. So it defeats their purpose of trying to "rescue" the child from an orphanage. It's very hard for a child in a family of ten kids to get the individual attention that he/she needs especially if they come from difficult circumstances already. I am familiar with some of these families. One I know of that has fifteen children, a mix of foster and adopted kids; even with both parents working from home, it's very hard to give each of these children what they need. And now they are looking for donated embryos to add to their family of 15 kids. It is deeply concerning. Also, some of these types of parents will seek attention from the media for their large, blended families.
Last edited by PriscillaVanilla; 05-01-2019 at 07:37 PM..
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.
