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's plenty of AMERICAN kids who need adopting.
"religiously motivated" to adopt only perfect infants...and to hell with any other children who need a home....
I thought all these religious people were against abortion because those unwanted children could be adopted out?????
But only the perfect ones are worthwhile, according to religious people????
What a load of bs. My son wasn't 'perfect' nor was he white. And just where the hell are the plenty of AMERICAN kids who need adopting? Have you kept up with this thread at all? If so, you would have learned that foster cares purpose is NOT to find adoptive homes for the children in their care. Their primary focus is family reunification. Let me break that down for you .....BLOOD IS BEST according to foster care.
I know (not heard of ) plenty of families who adopted children with various 'special needs' including cerebral palsy, missing limbs, major heart defects and the like. Most people who adopt are not looking for 'perfect' anymore then most people who give birth are looking for 'perfect'.
its because of the draconian adoption system we have here, all those idiots who shoot abortion drs do not see that if they eased regulation on adoption more people would adopt here and give up to adoption. They want to ease regulation on business to rape the people and stop abortion but once the kid drops out of the womb it can live in the gutter. This is the mentality of the right wing butholes.
What a load of bs. My son wasn't 'perfect' nor was he white. And just where the hell are the plenty of AMERICAN kids who need adopting? Have you kept up with this thread at all? If so, you would have learned that foster cares purpose is NOT to find adoptive homes for the children in their care. Their primary focus is family reunification. Let me break that down for you .....BLOOD IS BEST according to foster care.
I know (not heard of ) plenty of families who adopted children with various 'special needs' including cerebral palsy, missing limbs, major heart defects and the like. Most people who adopt are not looking for 'perfect' anymore then most people who give birth are looking for 'perfect'.
blood is best but it is also very very hard to have a 4 year old adopted.
It was then (1971) that the National Association of Black Social Workers condemned interracial adoption citing that adoptees were at risk for developing a poor racial identity due to lack of contact with role models of the same race. In the 1990s the placement of black children into non-black homes virtually came to a complete stop.
Well I'm Asian and adopted and, basically, my mom adopted me because she was desperate for a child, couldn't have her own, and I was pretty much her only option (her words, not mine). She said she tried adopting within the U.S. but there was too much red tape, and that most of the kids where either too old for her preferences or were likely crack babies. So then she tried outside the U.S., through a private agency, and many Asian countries tend to have more lax adoption policies. It was between me and little boy and she really didn't want a boy (though I'm not sure why), so I won out.
You guys are completely mis-informed on open adoptions. There is nothing that requires an adoptive family to provide access to the birthmother after the adoption process is completed. There is no legal ramifications, no legal avenues, nothing a birthmother can do if an adopted family who agrees to an open adoption, decides not to give access to the birthparents to see their child.
No such "power" to limit any such enjoyment exists. Its the adopted families choice to allow access, and the birth families choice to agree to continue to see the child after the adoption is completed. If either one of these parties decide they no longer wish to see, or allow the other party to see the children in question, thats their right.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The individual contractual agreement determines the amount of obligatory contact and cooperation. More and more birthmothers are being offered extensive "rights" in order to persuade them to relinquish their child for adoption. The adoption goes according to the birthmother's terms -- she has the goods. She can make any stipulation she wants in the contract, and desperate infertile couples will often go along because sharing a baby, they think, is better than no baby at all.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The individual contractual agreement determines the amount of obligatory contact and cooperation. More and more birthmothers are being offered extensive "rights" in order to persuade them to relinquish their child for adoption. The adoption goes according to the birthmother's terms -- she has the goods. She can make any stipulation she wants in the contract, and desperate infertile couples will often go along because sharing a baby, they think, is better than no baby at all.
As an individual who looked at open adoption, I can assure you that I am correct. All of the language in the world pre adoption, is not legally binding post adoption because once you take the child as "your own", the natural parent has no more legal rights to your child than a neighbor.
While there are contracts in place, they are not legally enforcable, they are simply in place to set a meeting of the mind and an agreement for a civil relationship during the period of time the child lives with you.
If what you claim is accurate, a birthparent could stop adoptive parents from moving away or other various methods to limit access to a birth parent, all of these are legal..
Once you relinquish your baby and the adoption is finalized, you no longer have any legal right to see your child or receive information. Open adoption "agreements" are not legally binding and they will not stand up in court. Adoptive parents hold all the parental rights. You will legally have no more right to see your child than any other stranger would. Even mediation and courts cannot help if they decide to move to another state.
They are now the sole "legal parents" and your child is considered legally as if born to" them, they have every right to "close" the adoption if they see fit.
It was then (1971) that the National Association of Black Social Workers condemned interracial adoption citing that adoptees were at risk for developing a poor racial identity due to lack of contact with role models of the same race. In the 1990s the placement of black children into non-black homes virtually came to a complete stop.
Which explains why there are tons of black children wallowing in our broken foster care system. I would think that it would be preferable for a black child to be raised by those of another race versus being shuffled around from foster home to foster home. Seems like the National Association of Black Social Workers have their priorities mixed up and millions of black childen in foster care are paying the price. Thanks for posting this Katiana.
Not being expert on this subject, I would just assume that they are trying to adopt any unwanted baby that they can find. AND...... China practices baby control, not the same thing as birth control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqua0
It is very unfortunate that the huge, growing middle class and wealthy in China do not adopt their own female babies.
While I am happy that a little girl has a better life here, I wonder if the white adoptive parents are trying to do the "diversity" thing?
Because if it was just about charity, there are so many children they could be helping right in this country.
I am not saying it's bad; I applaud they have such love in their hearts, but do you wonder about this?
I had to chuckle when I saw this thread. About a month ago I started a thread on the saome subject, after one day seeing a pair of yuppie couples outside my local coffee cafe cooing and ahh-ing as they watched an adopted little china girl march around wearing a Mao hat--replete with red star! My thread alluded to the fact that it seemed as if adopting chinese babies was the new trendy thing to do, like pit-bellied pigs a while back, and then I think it was the vietnamese hedgehog fad. Anyway, I created a firestorm of controversy with my thread, much of it hilarious from knee-jerk liberal humanist yuppies, like the ones I'm sure you're gonna hear from. LOL
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.
), so I won out.
Thanks for posting this Katiana.
