Adoption: Safe, Legal and Rare

[REP]

Adoption is often brought up as an alternative to abortion, when in fact it is no such thing. The alternative to abortion is continuing the prgnancy; the alternative to raising a child is surrending for adoption - two different things; two different decisions to make.

I was reading some yahoo's post about the horrible post abortion trauma blah blah blah and it reminded me that abortion doesn't have any long-term psychological sequelae, as C. Everett Koop was forced to admit in the Koop Report (and has been found repeatedly in numerous other studies) but adoption does. Here's the abstract of one study:

J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1999 Jul-Aug;28(4):395-400

Postadoptive reactions of the relinquishing mother: a review.

Askren HA, Bloom KC.

Deer Valley OB/GYN, Mesa, AZ, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature addressing the process of relinquishment
as it relates to the birth mother. DATA SOURCES: Computerized searches in
CINAHL; Article 1 st, PsycFIRST, and SocioAbs databases, using the keywords
adoption and relinquishment; and ancestral bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION:
Articles from indexed journals in the English language relevant to the
keywords were evaluated. No studies were located before 1978. Studies that
sampled only an adolescent population were excluded. Twelve studies met the
inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data
were extracted and information was organized under the following headings:
grief reaction, long-term effects, efforts to resolve, and influences on the
relinquishment experience. DATA SYNTHESIS: A grief reaction unique to the
relinquishing mother was identified. Although this reaction consists of
features characteristic of the normal grief reaction, these features persist
and often lead to chronic, unresolved grief. CONCLUSIONS: The relinquishing
mother is at risk for long-term physical, psychologic, and social
repercussions. Although interventions have been proposed, little is known
about their effectiveness in preventing or alleviating these repercussions.

Med J Aust 1986 Feb 3;144(3):117-9 Related Articles, Links

These findings are echoed in study after study. My question: why are so many so eager to foist this kind of terrible pain on so many women?

[politicat]

1. short answer? because in their minds, women are vessels, not people.

What we feel, think, believe and do is not important as long as we're servicing the sperm.

Adoption is no cake walk for the kids, either. I advocate in court for children who have been adopted by adoptive parents with unrealistic expectations and end up abused out of it. Often, they're abused in therapy in a non-APA approved method called "attachment therapy." Children have died under these methods that include restraint, forced feedings, compression to simulate "birth". Children have also been starved and forced to work at manual labor under conditions that we would never put an adult in.

Most of the kids who get subjected to this are "hard to place" kids, older, minority or disabled kids. They're often separated not only from their natal families, but from their adoptive families and placed in "respite" homes for weeks, months, or years on end. In these homes, they are locked in their rooms - rooms that are tiled, lit from the outside, and contain only a bare mattress - whenever they are not cleaning, forced to sit perfectly still for hours on end in uncomfortable positions, or being homeschooled. They're frequently over-medicated, have little access to legitimate medical care and little access to dental care. Were these children adults, we'd call their treatment torture. Since they're children, it's called therapy.

for more information, please see: http://www.childrenintherapy.org/

Pcat

[REP]

7. More Links

http://home.att.net/~judy.kelly/thesis.htm
http://search.boston.com/globe/metro/packages/adoption/partone_a.htm
http://www.cubirthparents.org/booklet.pdf
http://www.openadoption.org/
http://www.capitol-college.edu/troxler/essay11.html
http://www.adopting.org/BirthmothersViewOfAdoption.html
http://www.birthpsychology.com/birthscene/adoption.html

[SillyGoose]

31. Why are you so against adoption as a choice for women?

Adoption IS a choice and it may be a good choice for some women. It may not be the right choice for some, but it has proven to be the right one for others.

You paint a horrible portrait of children who are placed for adoption that is not altogether true.

Why can't you accept that adoption remains a viable alternative to abortion?

[cjmr]

2. My story

I could have a 19 year old child now. I don't. I aborted him/her. For some reason I think it was a girl.

At any rate, every time I see a 19 year old girl who looks/sounds/acts like I did at that age, I have a psychological reaction. A sorrowful reaction. A grief reaction.

But apparently that isn't traumatic or long-term...

[Jackie97]

4. I'm sorry about your grief.

I really am. However, you don't think that outlawing abortion would be the answer to your problems, do you? That's like saying that adoption should be outlawed because some women are suffering from giving a child up.

I'm not saying that you're against abortion being legal. I'm just making a point. I would thik that counseling is the best answer for women suffering from whichever decision.

[Djinn]

5. plenty of women suffer as a result of childbirth too

I've never seen anyone suggest banning that. Those who advocate the banning of abortion based on "women's trauma" don't seem to realise that forcing someone to give birth is going to be pretty traumatic too.

Actually they DO realise that they just couldn't give a shit.

[REP]

6. Seek Therapy

Your concerns would be best addressed by a trained professional, not by anonymous members of a discussion board.

[cjmr]

9. Sorry, the original post just really pissed me off.

I wasn't looking for therapy--just lashing out.

[REP]

13. If Scientific Data Piss You Off, Please Seek Help

Lashing out like this won't bring you the relief you so desperately seek. I'm so sorry that a thread on adoption brought back such memories for you.

[cjmr]

15. Scientific data regularly piss me off...

For instance, I am pissed off to see the ozone hole growing and the number of "bad air" days in my area rising.

I am pissed off every time someone releases yet another study showing that women still make less than men in the same field.

It wasn't the data in this post that pissed me off.

[Elise]

24. Look

I am pro-choice, but not happily so.

I do it by rationalizing that life begins at birth.

I do it because I don't want another woman to die at the hands of a backstreet butcher.

I do it because I believe in choice.

Please, cjmr, don't let other people lay trips on you for your reaction to your abortion. It is NOT abnormal, although you could very well benefit from counseling in order to get over your feelings of guilt, regret and losss. Again, THAT is not abnormal either.

Sucks when people with agendas try to lay trips on others who simply express feelings.

:pals:

[REP]

25. Yes, She Brought Her Agenda To This Thread

And it does suck that some people want to drag their personal dramas everywhere, no matter how irrelevent they are.

Take a look at the studies I posted; they are not anecdotal and may be of interest.

[RUDUing2]

8. so if you had continued the pregnancy and put the child up for

adoption wouldn't you do the same thing? Wouldn't that also be trauma and long term?

Personally I could not handle putting a child up for adoption..everyday wondering if that child was being abused..sexually, physically or psychologically..worrying that they were living in a hell that I could do nothing about.

Yes most adoptee's wind up in good families...but not all..and how do you know that your child ends up in a good situation and not in hell?

To each their own..but this notion that adoption is the *perfect* solution for unwanted pregnancies and that it has no down side..is naive to say the least.

[cjmr]

10. Let me try this again...

What I was trying to say is that it is crap to say that no woman has ever suffered trauma because of abortion.

Just as it is equally crap to say that surrendering a child for adoption is a trauma free decision for those who make it.

Just as it is equally crap to say that adoption is always the best choice for everyone or that abortion is always the best choice for everyone.

I guess I did a pretty lousy job of that, though, to judge by the responses.

FWIW: I was a scared teenager at the time--knowing what I know now, I would gladly take the 80% + chance of my child being in a good, loving, adoptive home over the 100% reality of them not existing at all.

[RUDUing2]

11. I don't think that most people think that abortion never causes

trauma, but rather that it is not as prevalent as the anti's claim and that it is not necessarily the abortion that causes it, but rather the emotional personality of the woman...any type of pregnancy outcome can cause trauma and long lasting effects..whether it is abortion, adoption, miscarriage, stillbirth, or taking your baby home with you...the problem is that the anti's want to claim that *only* abortion* causes trauma and that it *always* causes it...which is a blatant falsehood.

[REP]

14. Help Me Out Here

I don't recall posting a study that showed *no* woman ever had a negative reaction to abortion, do you? Here's one you might find interesting:

Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says

New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.

The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.

Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."

[China_cat]

21. Please show me where

anyone said any of the following;

no woman has ever suffered trauma because of abortion.
surrendering a child for adoption is a trauma free decision for those who make it.


And no one said that anything is always the best choice for everyone.

We make the best choices with the information and circumstances we have available to us at the time. If that causes us later pain and angst, we work through it and not try to take it out on everyone else who made different choices.

[politicat]

16. I'm sorry for your grief, but that is an abnormal reaction.

You need to seek counseling. Strong, unfading grief is not healthy.

Pcat

[StoryTeller]

17. I think cjmr has a valid point.

It really bothers me to see other people try to diminish this point or invalidate it because they don't like the implications. Have we walked in her shoes? Do we have ANY right at all to say that because she experiences grief over what happened that she must not have been "emotionally healthy" before the pregnancy or that she has an abnormal reaction now? That's a really arrogant assumption. We know nothing about this situation other than what she has graciously shared with us.

Any of you who have lost a child would understand what she is saying. The closest I've come is losing a sister, and there are still certain things that can trigger feelings of sadness in me. The grief is different than when the loss was fresh and it isn't a debilitating emotion. But it's still an emotional reaction.

I would have to really study a range of these scientific studies and would want to talk with many women who have had abortions before I come to the conclusion that there is no lasting emotional effect from an abortion. I believe that such a generalizing, blanketed statement is far too simplistic to be applied to complex, unique human beings.

Anything related to pregnancy has the potential to have a lasting effect on that woman, whether positive or negative. Miscarriages, abortion, and even difficult but successful pregnancies all carry emotional price tags. Don't blow off someone's honest sharing of her own experiences just because it's contradictory to what you'd prefer to believe.

Thank you for sharing your story with us, cjmr.

[politicat]

18. I'm not blowing it off.

Individual reactions to traumatic experiences - be they car accidents, rape, abortion, giving a child up for adoption, miscarriage, house fires, or loss of a loved one - are individual reactions. Each of us reacts to these situations in a different way.

To use the example of the death of a loved family member or friend, we usually have a series of emotions starting with denial, progressing through anger, guilt, bargaining and into acceptance and remembrance. This process takes a few years with some, and a few months in the case of a long illness with others. Those of us who have lost someone to a lingering illness deal with a lot of the early stages before we actually lose someone. Regardless, it's still a traumatic time and it's not easy.

However, the series of emotions can get hung up, and that's when professional help is recommended. When one has experienced a traumatic emotional situation and cannot get past the anger after months or years, then that is an aberrant response. Anger, as an example, that lingers and does not progress into one of the other stages is not healthy.

I lost a wanted child, so you know, I've been there. It's been five years, and I do still think about how things would have been different if my health had allowed me to become a parent. However, it's not something that can be changed, and so acceptance is the only healthy response to past decisions that cannot be changed. It's fine to say "Had I known then what I know now, I would have done X differently." It's not healthy to have not made peace with the past and accepted that we're not omniscient.

/hijack.

Pcat

[REP]

19. See Study Posted Above

There have been many studies; I have posted one above. I can provide more if you like, but they all come to the same conclusion: abortion has no significant long-term emotional sequelae in women who were psychologically normal before their abortion. Women with negative emotional sequelae tend to have been psychologically abnormal before their abortion.

You can see the same abnormal grief reactions in infertile or subfertile women who wish to become pregnant over IVF/GIFT cycles that fail or even phantom pregnancies. Is their grief real? Of course. Is it a normal reaction? No.

[WildClarySage]

20. I'm not dismissing her experience, or anyone's

but I don't believe that a person's individual reaction to an event can speak for all people to the extent of being legislated or incorporated into public opinion. It is a fact that many of the people involved in adoption experience grief and loss, sorrow and a variety of emotional distress. This doesn't mean that adoption should be outlawed. It means that our society would be better served by assisting those individuals who would benefit from it, and by validating the experiences of those who are not distressed by it.

[China_cat]

22. My daughter died at 5 days of age 38 years ago.

Yes there is a bit of sadness left at times. But the grief she's describing is unhealthy.

[Jackie97]

3. It's all about saving the baaaabeeee to them.

I'll admit that most anti-abortion people are probably unaware of these problems for women who give children up for adoption.

Some of them are aware though. I've heard that anti-abortion centers that deal with women giving their babies up for adoption often do what they can to try to help the women get through their grief.

However, in the long run, I think that anti-abortion people will always care more about saving the "baby" than anything else. They talk about post abortion stress syndome (which probably isn't real) to make it look like they are sympathetic toward women (which makes their cause more appealing). I think in some of their minds, they are caring toward women, and they think that their deciding that it's best for all women not to have abortions is best for them. Otherwise, there's no purpose in trying to use sympathy toward women to appeal to others.

However, this really does come down to saving a "baby" in the end.

[Modem Butterfly]

12. Thank-you for posting this

I'm an adult adoptee, and I deal with th consequences of adoption every day. Adoption is NOT a simple solution, and there are psychological repurcussions for everyone, especially the adoptee. The simple minded, "adoption, not abortion" mantra from the anti-choice crowd comes at the expense of many larger issues.

http://www.quantumparenting.com/articles/15/

[all.of.me]

27. Thank you

This is my very first post here at DU. I've been reading about election results mostly, but ventured over here tonight.

I, too, am an adult adoptee. You are the only one who has addressed this end of the ordeal. I could write a book in response, but mainly I wanted to support what you said.

Yes, we deal with it every day. It doesn't matter if you were put with a good family or a bad one (mine was not so great...). When you are deprived of contact and bonding with your mother, you begin to suffer trauma 45 minutes later. The damage is done that quickly. They wonder why babies in orphanages scream their guts out. They are grieving!

I have been in and out of counseling since I was 19, battled alcohol, and have had a string of unhealthy relationships. I'll be 51 in a couple weeks, and I am just coming to terms with this grief, because I recently located my mother. She does not want to talk to me (that is her own grief), but I have a new sister I am getting to know via email and phone. This contact is the ONLY thing that has soothed me in all these years.

I had several abortions when I was younger - one was poor timing, three others were birth control failure. I was not mature enough or in solid enough relationships to have any of those children. I was in conflict, though, with my choices - abort or relinquish. It was traumatic. I did what I had to do at the time.

When I talked to my sister for the first time a couple months ago, she told me I could have been aborted, but our mother said no. My heart sank when I heard this. I almost was not here! What an odd feeling that was!

That just added to the conflict I feel about abortion and adoption. My adoption experience was not great - it left a lot of emotional scars. Abortions are not easy, but they were necessary for me at the time. I've been on almost all sides of this issue, and I have to declare that we do what we need to in the moment. The important thing is to be able to choose.

I do have two beautiful girls now. They are 10 & 14. I never look back in regret. I think I saved some kid from my drunken immaturity and rage. I don't dwell on it. I was a different person then.

The Primal Wound by Nancy Verrier is the best book for understanding the issues adoptees deal with.

Geneva T

[NorthernSpy]

23. adoption is a sacred cow in our society

And if anyone wants to test the verity of that statement, try telling people that you consider adoption to be not so much a heartwarming nexus of love and sacrifice as a sinister modern-day flesh trade that turns humans into commodities.

And then stand back.

:nuke:

[REP]

26. I Agree With Both

So often, adoption seems not to be about providing help to a needy child but about getting something they want, and women no more than vending machines.

"The biological mother is just a womb," the brother of the adoptive mother said<.> "She can have a child again. My sister cannot...The boy has become my sister's entire world." - a quote from a case where a woman wanted her child returned to her. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/436827.html

[iverglas]

28. I did ;)

"try telling people that you consider adoption to be not so much a heartwarming nexus of love and sacrifice as a sinister modern-day flesh trade that turns humans into commodities."

It was about the first time I'd articulated the idea, not having put a lot of thought into it before. But listening to the tale of how my then-manfriend's Type A sister and brother-in-law had acquired a baby (a lifestyle accessory they had thitherto been unable to produce for themselves, although they did so promptly after adopting one), about 20 years ago, I said pretty much just that. He was not impressed.

On the same 100-mile car ride, we had a large argument about something my brother had published ... and by the time we got where we were going, the relationship had pretty much ended ... which was what it was destined to do anyhow.

[Jackie97]

29. And I'd like to buy that cow....

Seriously, I'm seriously considering adopting a child one day instead of doing things the "natural" way. Children who need a family are already a commodity, and adoption is a wonderful thing.

What I won't do is try to make people give birth to children so those who can't have them can adopt a baby as opposed to the "unperfect" older or foreign child.

If couples want a child so badly, then they should consider adopting the children that we already have who need homes. Don't wait for some poor woman to have to give her child up at birth. That's harder and harder to find.

[REP]

30. "Domestic Adoption "Baby Boom" - Exploiting Women and Families in America"

Marion, IA (PRWEB) June 9, 2004 -- The recent headlines must give hope to people who want to adopt a baby: "Local adoption agency has rare openings" and "Catholic Charities expands its adoption program". The first article describes a domestic adoption "baby boom"; the second article announces an expansion in a domestic adoption program. But by announcing domestic adoption "baby booms" these agencies might as well be announcing their role in the exploitation of United States citizens.

Not only do mothers who lose children to adoption have life-long problems so severe that some commit suicide as a result, but there is also a higher rate of suicide, childlessness, divorce, alcoholism, and other addictions among adoptees than the norm in society.

Those who profit from adoption blame the adoptees' problems on genetics. If genetics is the cause, the collection of statistical data might clear up any doubt. In the many cases where mothers married their adopted-out child's father and had other children, it could be determined what percentage of the kept children experienced the same problems as the adopted-out ones.

According to statistics compiled on adoption.com the mothers who lose babies to adoption "often come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. These women come from intact families." (Stolley, 1993) These mothers and their families are more likely to be naïve than to be genetically defective. Told "everyone benefits" from adoption and in the absence of any real information, they may think it's true. In poorer families, younger "adoptable" children and babies are systematically taken under the guise of child protection. The poverty frequently follows divorce or is related to medical problems of some family member. Most of the mothers have jobs. And although the people who know these moms may see a caring, wonderful, competent individual from the perspective of the government they are only a source of babies for adoption.

The fact that adoptees and natural mothers frequently have serious problems due to separation is well known to experts.

In a paper entitled "CHALLENGING THE SILENCE OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMUNITY ON ADOPTION ISSUES" published in the Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, Vol. II, No. 2. April 2002, Douglas B. Henderson (University of Wisconsin, Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychology) discusses some of the reasons for the experts silence on the issue: Professionals not wanting to admit to failure, the money to be made in adoption, and an unwillingness on the part of adoptees to appear ungrateful to their adopters are a few.

He explains the techniques used by the National Council For Adoption, which represents the agencies that profit from adoption, to silence others: "...the NCFA has attempted to marginalize and pathologize anyone who reports that adoption experiences are problematic. Setting themselves up as the national experts on adoption, while actually representing not the adoptees and (natural) parents who have lived adoption but rather the agencies making money on adoptions, the NCFA has long accused anyone who criticized adoption practices as being 'antiadoption.'"

With all that is known by experts about the ill effects of separating family and of the secrecy in adoption, it remains that adoption is a very lucrative business. Thanks to lobbying efforts we now have government funding for Infant Adoption Awareness training, maternity homes, adoption counseling, subsidies and other aid for adopters, and so-called "safe havens" where a frightened mother unsure of how to get real help may leave her newborn son or daughter. In some states there are adoption aid "Choose Life" license plates, with proceeds going toward advertising and adoption services.

Those in the health professions can become an "Adoption Specialist" after a free three-day training program. There is no requirement that this training inform trainees of the life-long emotional consequences of surrender/adoption to mother, child or other family members.

By implementing the Adoption University@ curriculum in schools both mother and father may be influenced to "choose" adoption before they are even expecting. All risks are hidden and the implementation of this training in a group setting makes it possible for an opposing viewpoint to be squelched by the group.

The joy and pride of parents and grandparents who have maintained hope, worked through their issues and kept their children is very evident. But with all the adoption training now implemented, a pregnant mother is likely to encounter teachers, doctors, nurses, counselors and others who will not mention the joys of motherhood, but instead will pressure her to surrender all parental rights and will speak of surrender in glowing terms to her parents as well. Her baby's father is unlikely to support her when adoption has been presented as "better" than taking responsibility for his own child.

A young pregnant mother or her parents may be lured by a "dorm" with "park-like setting", "beautiful swimming pool" and "cozy fireplace". Separated from family and society to aid in "decision-making" and repeatedly hearing "It's your choice" the mothers will leave this maternity home still bleeding from childbirth saying "It was my choice". With their thoughts constrained by the carefully chosen phrases provided by the adoption industry, it'll be years before they comprehend that in the their best interest and the best interest of their child the risks of adoption should have been disclosed and the choice to keep children they give birth to should have been promoted.

Other coercive tactics used to obtain babies include having prospective adopters chosen in advance and even present at the birth (and we wouldn't want to disappoint them, would we?).

more

[SillyGoose]

32. Adoption is a viable alternative that may be right for some.

Why not accept that it is, in fact, a choice, that some prefer to make?

[NorthernSpy]

33. my perspective differs from most people's

Why not accept that it is, in fact, a choice, that some prefer to make?

Because I advocate recognizing the kid's right not to be abandoned by the parent. If children aren't property, then why are they transferrable at the parent's discretion in the first place?

I'm going to be blunt about this: we tolerate parental abandonment of children because doing so "frees up" -- that is, allows into commerce -- a relatively small number of healthy white infants and toddlers. Such children can then be transferred to affluent white couples who would like to become parents, but who are incapable of reproducing naturally. It is those affluent whites whose interests are really, if tacitly, considered paramount in this issue.

One consequence of failing to recognize the rights of the child is that a larger number of older, disabled, and/or nonwhite children can be abandoned to the state by their parents with impunity. Another consequence is that an incentive is created for the state to take kids away from impoverished parents, even if no abuse has occurred.



http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_16639.shtml

The follwing is a recent press release (reproduced in full -- no copyright issue):

Adoptions Stall, More Legal Orphans Created by Failed Federal Law, National Child Advocacy Group Says"

The number of foster-child adoptions has stalled, even as the number of "legal orphans" continues to grow as a result of a failed federal law, a national child advocacy organization said Wednesday.

Worst of all, according to the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, there still are more children in foster care now than when the so-called "Adoption and Safe Families Act" was passed, and those children continue to languish in foster care for as long as they did before ASFA became law.

"ASFA was built on a foundation of false premises," said NCCPR Executive Director Richard Wexler. "As a result, it has backfired, actually worsening the nation's foster care crisis." Data from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families show that only 49,000 foster children were adopted in federal fiscal year 2003 - slightly less than the totals for 2002, 2001, and 2000.

"It appears that ACF was fully aware of these dismal results at least as early as October," Wexler said. "But they were not made public until after the annual National Adoption Day events in November, so no one would notice the bad news, and the public could be fooled into thinking ASFA was working." The figure was not made public until November 23, three days after the "Adoption Day" events, and 11 days after NCCPR filed a Freedom of Information request for the data.

Meanwhile, because ASFA requires child welfare agencies to petition for termination of parental rights for every foster child in care for a specified time (with certain exceptions) even when no adoptive parents are available, terminations of parental rights have far outrun actual adoptions.

"Since ASFA became law, there have been 117,000 more terminations than actual adoptions. As a result, as some of us predicted in 1997, ASFA is creating a generation of legal orphans, with no ties of any kind to birth parents, and little hope of adoption either," Wexler said.

Even worse, Wexler said, the number of children trapped in foster care remains higher now than when ASFA was passed. "When ASFA became law, there were 520,000 children trapped in foster care on any given day. In the following years, that figure actually increased, peaking at 567,000 in 1999. Even now, the most recent data available show that on any given day 523,000 children are trapped in foster care. And they are trapped for an average of 33 months - just as long as they languished in care before ASFA."

The figures are similar for so-called "waiting children" - children for whom parental rights have been terminated or for whom adoption is the "goal" in the case plan. "That number also rose after ASFA became law, and there still are more such children now than when ASFA passed," Wexler said.

ASFA backfired because the assumptions of its proponents were wrong, Wexler said. "ASFA was based on the myth of the `Vast Family Preservation Conspiracy,'" Wexler said. "Congress was told that children were languishing in foster care because agencies supposedly were making repeated desperate efforts to help their birth parents."

"Congress also was told that huge numbers of childless adults were desperate to adopt foster children and would rush to do so, just as soon as the supposed efforts to keep families together were stopped."

"Thus, ASFA, it was said, with its promotion of adoption at all costs, its assault on family preservation, and its payment of cash bounties to states for increasing adoptions, would empty out foster care."

"But there was no Vast Family Preservation Conspiracy," Wexler said. "On the contrary, the family preservation movement is dedicated to keeping children out of foster care whenever it is safe to do so, and, when children must be placed, finding them safe, permanent homes as soon as possible."

"The real reason children languish in foster care is not because agencies do everything for birth parents. It's because they do almost nothing for birth parents. Contrary to the common stereotype, most parents who lose their children to foster care are neither brutally abusive nor hopelessly addicted. Far more common are cases in which a family's poverty has been confused with child `neglect.'"

"The birth parents get no help, and the children are filed away in foster care and forgotten as overwhelmed caseworkers rush on to the next case."

As a result, ASFA made the real causes of the foster-care crisis worse, Wexler said. "It reinforced a take-the-child-and-run mentality in the nation's child welfare agencies. The number of children taken from their parents increased each year, peaking at over 300,000 in 2002, further overwhelming the system."

"Meanwhile," Wexler said, "the supposed army of childless, middle-class couples desperate to adopt foster children didn't show up."

"All those children coming in the front door outweighed the small increases in adoptions in ASFA's early years. And that small increase could have been accomplished through other means, without all the damage caused by ASFA."

"ASFA encourages states to do a lot of bad things, but often it doesn't require states to do them," Wexler said. "There is flexibility if states choose to use it. The only states and localities actually succeeding at child welfare are those which make that choice and embrace safe, proven programs to keep families together. These model systems not only are taking away far fewer children, they also are improving child safety."

"More states should follow their example, and Congress to face up to its mistake, learn from these systems and undo the damage caused by ASFA."

[Jackie97]

35. Yeah, but...

"Because I advocate recognizing the kid's right not to be abandoned by the parent."

If somebody doesn't want to be a parent, then don't force them on the child. This could be a parent who wants their kid or it could be a parent who was forced to give birth because they were a minor. The minor might or might not want to keep the baby once he/she is born. My idea of not treating a child like property is not to keep them with bad birth parents or to tear them away from good birth parents. It's also not to tear them away from adoptive families two or three years after their birth parents (sorry about the decision or not) abandons them.

Going by your article and REP's, it sounds like they need to do a lot more to make sure that parents actually want to give their child up for adoption. Otherwise, it really is an adoption industry, and it makes me wonder about the morality of the desperate people wanting a child out there. Hopefully, the majority of them are not willing to adopt a child by tearing them apart from their family. Now, they might not realize this is the case. Some would argue that they should make sure (even though it's never occured to anybody).

I understand that poverty and deliberate neglect isn't the same thing. However, it doesn't make a difference if the child can't get all the food he/she needs does it? Like I said, get these parents into a job program where they can get paid better money. Help them in any way they possible so their kids won't end up in foster care.

But can I say something that's not politically correct? If one is too poor to raise a child, then they really should have an abortion or adopt the child out. There's no way I would have a child of mine grow up without having enough to eat. I see that as irresponsible. Okay, flame away.

[WildClarySage]

36. I think that responsiblity goes further than material goods

and that parents who are not able to care for their children properly have a moral (note, moral, not legal) obligation to refrain from having children- but that society has a moral (and perhaps legal) obligation to assist families in need to care for the material needs of their kids.

[Jackie97]

37. That sums up the way I feel.

I don't want to say that really poor people shouldn't have kids (and sound prejudice), but nothing seems more important than the welfare of kids to me on these issues. I'm all for helping the poor not be poor anymore and for assisting families who are poor, but let's show some responsibility here.

Just for the record though, there are plenty of poor families that can still provide for their kids.

[REP]

38. How Many Rich Women Giving Up Babies For Poor Infertile Couples?

Why doesn't it work that way, I wonder, if it's such a freely made choice many jump at the chance to make?

[Jackie97]

34. Good article.

Thanks for sharing that. It does disgust me that there are some people out there doing what they can to create an adoption industry. Chances are, it's mostly white babies they want, right?

I do have to point out a few things about the article though.

First, just because there's a higher rate of suicide along with other problems with adoptees; that doesn't mean that adoptees typically go through these problems. The article acts like adoptees are doomed. What about the kids who grow up in orphanages? I imagine that they're even worse off.

Second, the article talks about how Child Protective Services will take kids away from the poor families. I've also read that this is done with black families (which tend to be poor). I can't speak for black neighborhoods because I don't know them. However, I did grow up poor, and I knew quite a few child abusers and neglecters growing up. Child Protective Services doesn't do crap about it. They're hardly ever willing to take a child away. I don't care how neglectful a parent is. I don't care how physically abusive they are. That's just the reality of the situation. It's also the reality that poor people are more likely to neglect or abuse their kids. Neglect comes from not having enough money to actually raise a kid. Abuse comes from being more stressed out as a person who probably does a lot of physical labor, from not reading up on many ideas of how to discipline children, and from seeing physical punishment as a traditional idea. Not that physical punishment is abuse, but physical abuse often comes out of physical "discipline". The truth is that there are not enough programs to help the poor, single mothers (the ones most known for abuse) out of their poverty situation. We need programs that will train them in a high demanded job, so they can work at a better job to better support their kids. We also need more classes that teach all the different ways to handle one's kids. We have them in my hometown, but mostly for those already accuse of abuse. We need them for people who just want to take them as well, and we need them to be effective.

I guess I'm trying to say that there's more to that child protective issue than the idea of an adoption agency. Did you know that really far right wingers (who often want parents to get away with doing what they want to their kids) preach this same message? The left and the right obviously have a common concern. Maybe they could get together and come up with ways to work this problem with the adoption agencies and child protective services out (besides dismantling child protective services).

[all.of.me]

39. ...

"First, just because there's a higher rate of suicide along with other problems with adoptees; that doesn't mean that adoptees typically go through these problems. The article acts like adoptees are doomed. What about the kids who grow up in orphanages? I imagine that they're even worse off."

Most of us do, though. Losing your mother is a trauma, and for most of us, is our very first experience. My mother never saw me. My first experience was good bye and abandonment. The rest of my life has been coping with that trauma, which was pre-verbal.

Yes, kids in orphanges suffer the same trauma. It's not only being separated from your mother, your lifeline, with whom you never get to bond. It's a very artificial environment! You have no genetic mirroring, no one ever looks or acts like you, and there is a lot of secrecy around it. I was born in 1954, and it was a secret we all had to keep. My birthmother told NO ONE! Today she is 78, grossly overweight with severe diabetes. Her children suffered from her secret - they are pretty messed up. My adoptive mother lied all the time. I had to lie all the time. Unless you're part of this triad, you can't understand how hard it is for all of us. It's a very unique set of circumstances.

I highly recommend reading The Primal Wound by Nancy Verrier, a psychologist, especially if you are considering adoption. She has two daughters, one adopted, one biological. She saw a difference in their behavior and began to study it. She shows all sides of this equation - adoptive parent, adoptee, birthmother. This book is the bible that has helped many of us heal. I cannot stress enough how messed up adoptees are.

Geneva T

[iverglas]

40. orphanages

There have always been, and will always be, children in need of parents for reasons other than the fact that their birth parents relinquished them.

There indeed are some children who are so abused they must be removed from their parents' home and parents who are so incompetent that their children must be taken from them (or that the parents relinquish the children). There are also children whose parents die, children with special needs that their parents cannot cope with (even assuming that the appropriate supports were available), and so on.

After all, orphanages are, by definition, for "orphans": kids who don't have parents. They originated in a time when society wasn't in the habit of removing children from their parents, or assuming responsibility for children parents did not want or could not care for.

Those kids would undoubtedly be better off in many cases if they were placed with extended family members rather than strangers, but that is not always possible or appropriate either.

Those are the kids that Dave Thomas, the late founder of Wendy's restaurants, had in mind in his campaign to encourage adoption, I believe.

http://www.davethomasfoundationforadoption.org/html/about/index.asp

The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption is a non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity dedicated to increasing the adoptions of the more than 150,000 children in North America’s foster care system. Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy’s International, created the Foundation in 1992 in support of the vision that every child deserves a permanent home and a loving family. The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption focuses on increasing adoption awareness while supporting model adoption service programs.

Vision: Every child will have a permanent home and a loving family.
Mission: Dramatically increase the number of adoptions of waiting children in North America.

That's not to say that every kid in the foster care system should be there (rather than with his/her parents or other family), or should be placed for adoption (rather than working to return them to their birth families, if those families still exist) -- but it's hard to argue that for those who are there by necessity and have no parents or family to whom they can be returned, adoption is not better than the alternatives.

And it really is a completely different matter from the production of children specifically for the adoption market, which is what adoption as an "alternative" to abortion is really all about.

Having a child and then becoming, or proving one's self to be, unable or unwilling to care for the child is one thing. The child has to be cared for, and adoption is likely the best way of doing that. But having a child knowing that one has no desire or ability to rear the child, and intending to abandon responsibility for the child, is quite a different thing.

That's not to say that women (and their partners) who do this are necessarily "irresponsible". Probably most of them are effectively brainwashed by the people and system that are after their babies, and believe that they are doing a good thing (both by having the child rather than terminating the abortion and by relinquishing the child rather than keeping it), even knowing the pain it causes to themselves.

And the fact that our societies encourage this delusion, which is so destructive to both parties, is the problem.