Are adoptees replaceable?

Question

I was recently reading an article from the New York Times about the decrease in adoption agencies across the nation. Here is a quote from the article that bothered me and I wanted thoughts from others on this:

"For couples like Susan and Jim Paulson of Lafayette, Colo., what began as an aching desire to have another child turned quickly into a nightmare.

In 2006, with their son Quinn, 2, dying from a degenerative neurological disorder, the Paulsons decided to adopt a third child. Their first-born, a boy, now 6, would be lonely without his brother, they reasoned. And so would they."

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think that this couple looked into adoption for the wrong reasons if based soley on this quote. What is your opinion?

and if anyone wants the entire article its here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/11adopt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Answer 1

Actually, people who can have their own biological children do exactly the same thing pretty commonly.  I don't see why adoptive parents would be any different.

What I get from this article though is that unlike some of the agencies locally, people have to pay everything up front. Nothing is put into escrow.  I can see that as a huge problem perhaps even a red flag.

Answer 2

I know that my sister-in-law attended adoption training with us. It was about 2 years after her only child "Jennifer" was killed by a drunk driver... She was told that they would not even pass her home study until at least 5 years after the accident and that they would want to see some serious Therapy and Greif therapy first.

She was flat out told that she would not be permitted to adopt a child if there was any suspicion that the adoption was to fill a need of grief or replacement.

My sister in law had actually decided that she didn't believe she was going to be going forward with adoption because she had decided she was doing so for the wrong reasons and that she needed to get over the loss of Jennifer before even thinking of such an option.

We do however name her as our children's guardian in our will....after all she is trained and she would best understand our children's loss if that were to ever happen...

*

Answer 3

I think you're right, Gersh, that this is not a good motivation for adopting, or for having another child biologically for that matter.  Losses should be grieved before proceeding with having another child, and no child should be brought into a family with the job of replacing another child.  And it does sound like they want to replace this child in a very specific way.

Also, the nature of international adoption is that country programs can change requirements, close, etc., and adoptive parents should ask about an agency's policy on money refunds, transfers, etc. in that event.  That's international adoption 101.  Plus Nepal was always a "risky" program, and they should have been aware of that.  Their agency should have made them aware of that, but they should have taken responsibility to know that, too.  I'm sorry their son died, but as far as the adoption goes, they were just desperate, tried to adopt in a risky, desperate manner, and now they're whining.

Answer 4

Are you a parent? After you lose a child there is a hole in your heart! I'm sure they didn't look into adoption just to  REPLACE their child.

They lost a child. They wanted another one. There is nothing wrong with that.

Parents adopt for MANY MANY MANY reasons.

Would you think it is wrong for someone to adopt a child because of miscarriages? Are they trying to replace the children they lost?

I think you are reading the article all wrong. My heart goes out to this couple. They lost a child. That is something horrible to go through. I admire them for stepping past their pain to adopt a child.

When someone adopt a child they are saving one of the many many many children who could end up in foster homes, homeless and so on.

You left out a lot of the article and it seems you are not reading it correctly either:

This couple lost a child. They want to adopt. Not ONLY was their first SON hurt from the loss of this child but so were they.  They ended up trying to adopt a baby GIRL. "waited for the arrival of a baby girl from Nepal."

So it is nothing like you are looking at it. They were not trying to REPLACE their son. If they were why did they pay "$11,000" to try to adopt a girl?

You seriously need to reread this article. I think it is sick that someone would read this and get the idea that a family is trying to REPLACE their dead son. I mean that sick and heartless that someone would think that.

This family already lost a son and there is no need to try to accuse them of something like this. Read the article with an open heart this time.

Answer 5

I saw this article on another list and I found that part deeply disturbing on so many levels. I do feel very sad for them that their son died. That is a horrible, life-altering loss for any parent (or sibling). And I feel bad for them and outraged at the agencies that take money knowing that they are about to go under. I have to say, though, that I'm really glad the adoption of the girl to "replace" their dying son did not go through. I think it sends a horrible message to all of their children.

I mean, think of poor Quinn (and I can't tell if he was adopted or not, on initial reading I thought yes, but later I was not so sure). He knows he is dying. What a terrible thing for a child to face. He needs his family there for him, helping him to go through the stages of grieving and helping him with his pain and just BEING there for HIM -- not halfway across the world adopting his replacement sibling.

And then the older brother, that they were supposedly thinking of. What the heck kind of message does that send to him? "We really want you to have a sibling, honey, so since this one is dying we'll just go pick up another. " What if he gets sick? Or even just misbehaves? And towards the end it portrays him as continuing to ask when "his new sister was coming home, that she would be able to play with him all the time." Um, is that what they told him? Because that doesn't really sound like a baby sister, more like a favorite cousin. And shouldn't he get a chance to mourn his little brother before just substituting another "playmate"?

And then the poor little girl they were trying to adopt. Imagine the impossibility for her in that situation. She would be coming from a situation of loss and fear, and most likely physical and sensory and love deprivation. She would need a fully committed, loving family, ready to devote a lot of time and attention to helping her to thrive. But instead she would come into a family with a dying brother, a family that would be  (otherwise rightly) concentrating on him. And after he died she would be his "replacement" in the family structure. And she would know this, oh yes. And she would be in a family whose mourning was blocked because they chose to replace their son instead of (or at least prior to) mourning him. So I'm not sure they could open their hearts fully to her at all, because she would have come into their family just when they were hardening their hearts.

In my opinion, what this family needed was counseling, from a really good hospice team. Then after a couple of years, they might consider adopting. Instead they got sucked in by an unscrupulous adoption agency, just looking for their cash in a last ditch effort to stay afloat. What an appalling person that woman running the agency must be -- that simply disgusts me that she would prey on people like that. And use vulnerable children to do it. Simply disgusting and I'm so glad she is out of business.

Answer 6

I don't think it would be a good idea to adopt (or give birth to) another child while one child in the home is dying.  Quinn (in this article) needs the support and attention of his parents in the last days of his time on Earth.  Likewise, the 6 year old needs the support and attention of his parents while he grieves for his younger brother.  In my opinion, this is WAY too much for the Paulsons to reasonably take on the responsibility of parenting another child, adopted or otherwise.  

I think that the home and family of perspective adoptive parents should be relatively "normalized" before the family should proceed with the adoption process.  

However, Gersh, I do question the title of your question, "Are adoptees replaceable".  In my opinion, it should read "Are children replacable." The article says that the Paulsons are adopting a third child, but it doesn't specify whether the two other children entered the family via adoption or not.  

Either way, does it matter?

ETA: I agree with Erin.  Nepal is a very "risky" program, meaning it isn't established, isn't predictable.  The family should have been aware of this before they started and should have been informed of the process for changing adoption programs.  I agree, International adoption 101.

Answer 7

I saw this artical too. I was pretty horrified when I read it. I can't imagine any responsible person allowing an adoption into a home with these circumstances. At least allow some time to grieve and make sure they are all functioning properly before placing a vulnerable and sensitive child in this situation!

While I understand their explaination (i guess?!), I am very concerned about several issues. Among other things these really bother me:

1.) The idea of looking for an adoptee while your child is dying I found to be rather heartless. I felt that this dying child was being pushed aside for a "less defective" model.

2.) Are they thinking that "a playmate" will distract their surviving child (and themselves) from the death of his sibling? Can we say "emotional slavery"!!?

3.) What about bringing a new child into a grieving home? Is this a good way to give the care that will be needed for both children during all this change in  their little lives? What about possible bonding issues?

4.) What's wrong with playmates from the park, church, school, etc.? Are they trying to teach their chldren that when someone dies you can just go out and get a new one and everything will be fine? That only "family" is acceptable for social interaction?

5.) How will the adoptee feel about being not only adopted, but being a "replacement" for their dead "sibling"? Talk about pressure!

These people seem like they are in denial about Quinn's condition and their emotions that will likely follow his death. They also seem to be unconcerned about the feelings of both thier biological children and their potential adopted child. I hope they have hospice involved to help!!

And ABSOLUTLY NO ONE IS REPLACABLE!

Answer 8

I got the same feeling that I believe the author of the OP seemed to get.  Talking of a playmate for my surviving child or that I would be lonely, would never occur to me when making a decision to either adopt or have a child biologically, especially when one of my children were dying at the time.  I can't fathom looking beyond the child that was in front of me, needing me in their last days to something else, especially another child.

I felt bad enough getting a second dog as a companion for our other dog.

Of course they would miss the child and the older child would be lonely.  But, if that is their reason for adoption, then that adoptee will feel the anguish of not meeting certain needs if they and the other child do not get along.

Answer 9

There is probably more to it than just this one quote.  This family is undergoing a very traumatic experience with the pending death of their child.  If their way of dealing with the grief and loss is to invite another child into the family, it is really their decision and none of us really have any business making a judgement of them.  If they were a friend of mine, I would offer my support and my love and hope for the best for the entire family.  As a matter of fact, I wish them well anyway and if this new child helps them heal, then I hope they heal quickly.

Answer 10

I don' t think this is indicitive of adoption....they could just as easily (easier maybe) had a bio child for the same reason.  (I mean, what agency is giving them a child while they are going through this?  Not a legit one!!)

But for the general questions, my children are not replaceable.  I have only parented them for a month and could not imagine any three other children coming to my home and being my children.  If something happened to one of my children, I would never say "let's get another one".

I also think people often have bad motivations for having children, both bio and adoptive, the one key difference is we as adoptive parents are qeustioned about our motives and hopefully counselled through bad decisions, where bio children can be born for oh so many wrong reasons.  

Good question though.

Answer 11

Yes I would say it was the wrong reasons. That said it seems a lot of people have kids for the wrong reasons whether they adopted or have biological kids.  You’d think they’d want to grieve the loss of their child before thinking of adopting or conceiving again.

Answer 12

I must say I find it shocking to hear that someone could even consider adopting a child for this reason while their own child is dying. The thought of my son dying makes me want to die myself, I certainly can't imagine lining up the next child in his place.

However, unless you've been through it, you can never understand the grief of a bereaved parent or what on earth they must go through, so I don't think we should judge. Plus, that is a three line article, I imagine there is a huge amount more to that story that we don't understand, and you know what the press are like, they bend and twist anything to make it sound more interesting and provoking to the public. So I would hesitate to judge them. But I know where you were coming from though.