A reader responds to our post on the growing “anti-adoption movement”:
From what little I understand, it’s already pretty difficult to adopt a child, taking months and a lot of examination to prove that the prospective parents will supply a decent household, or whatever euphemism they’re currently using, for the child. And yet, any two idiots can have children regardless of their economic circumstances or emotional stability, and not only are they allowed to raise the children, our society demands it. Does anyone but me realize how fucked up this is?
A few adoptive parents share their perspectives:
Your post on the “anti-adoption movement” touched a really sensitive nerve. As a father who has two daughters by adoption – one through a private adoption and one through a public adoption – I know all too well the shortcomings of the adoption “industry.” I actually agree with many of the proposed reforms of the groups mentioned.
But like with many advocacy groups, they play free and easy with emotions to advance their cause. The home page of Origins-USA is a perfect example: “Every Adoption… begins with a tragedy.” It gets worse from there (“it feels more like a kidnapping”). This is the tenor of the movement – that adoption is, in essence, a sad, tragic, horrible suffering.
I recently went to an “adoption support group” of a couple hundred families, and the main theme seemed to be one of induced guilt – that the parents who adopted children should feel deep guilt at the tragedy our children have been subjected too. And here begins my rant:
Bullshit. The views of adoption started out a shame that both adoptive parents and birth parents kept secret, then moved to an openly celebrated “all is perfect and wonderful” good, and now seems to be moving towards a very public shame and tragedy. It is none of those things. Adoption is complex, with a million stories. Some are tragic, but most children who are adopted lead wonderful, well-adjusted lives. Many in these anti-adoption groups would paint the picture otherwise.
And yes, one of my daughters’ lives and adoption did begin with a tragedy. A tragedy of neglect, abuse and violence. One that she will be battling the demons of her whole life possibly. But there is no one in that story who should harbor guilt, our daughter the first among them. Should we as the adoptive parents feel guilt? Absolutely not. We are not saints or saviors, though we’ve taken on a herculean task we sometimes wonder if we can do, but absolutely feel no guilt about an adoption. Neither should the social workers.
The painting of adoption as a tragedy threatens to paint children and adults of adoption as broken, sorrowful people. That is, in and of itself, the real tragedy.
The other adoptive parent:
I’m a little conflicted on this one. My initial reaction is to be angry. It’s like when Russia put an end to foreign adoptions, saying that they’d heard too many stories of mistreatment at the hands of American parents. What a load of horse pucky. Are you seriously telling me that a kid is better off in a Russian orphanage than with a loving American family?!
Adoption is like anything else. Sometimes there are bad outcomes. But my experience as an adoptive parent, and as someone with a large circle of friends in similar circumstances, is that usually the outcomes are very good – especially when compared to the alternatives. Many birthmothers who give up their children are in screwed-up circumstances – poverty, drugs, crime, or are simply too immature to be a decent parent. On the other side of the equation are generally mature, well-educated adoptive parents who can provide a vastly superior level of security, education, and hopefully love and affection. These people have typically been through a long and wrenching period of dealing with their infertility issues, and being able to parent is an unbelievably precious gift after that ordeal.
That said, there are a couple things that I’m uncomfortable with. I remember talking to a pair of young birthparents who were so happy to know that someone would take their child and give him or her a good life. A couple of days later, they’d been contacted by a few other families, and a bidding war started. That’s an ugly term, but in this case it’s correct. That same lovely couple did a Jekyll/Hyde transition and were very clear that they wanted to cut the best deal that they could.
The other one that really burns me is foreign baby brokers. A poor South American mother gives up her baby for two hundred dollars to a local broker who charges five thousand to the American lawyer who charges another ten thousand plus a bunch of miscellaneous fees. Frankly, I can almost see giving the birth mother $20K to lift her out of poverty, but the idea of giving her a couple hundred bucks and a couple of profiteers the rest just drives me nuts. Not that all agencies are like that by any means, but it definitely happens.
Lastly, I believe in a full open adoption as long as all parties are sane enough to deal. Personally, we have an open-door policy to both birthparents and their families (within reason) and have actually vacationed with the birthmother’s family. I believe that it’s very important to hide nothing, to let the child drive the interactions, because it’s their well-being that should trump all.
Update from a reader:
Reading that article about the anti-adoption element really gets to me. See, I’m an adopted child. I had a good life with loving parents who I like to think did a good job raising me. One thing I seemed to miss in that article was a concern for the kids. Lots of concern for the people that gave up children for adoption (and they deserve plenty. Carrying a child to term is not easy, quick, or cheap, unlike an abortion), but none for the kids. I think the needs and well-being of the kids ought to be of more concern than that of the adults.
The Dish 