Are people who are so against adoption also against foster parents?

Question

I'm just wondering what the actual issue is, is it just that they themselves had bad experiences, and want to see the whole thing banned, or is it that they just don't think anybody but bio parents should raise a child, whatever the cost to that child may be?

Answer 1

Okay, one more time...

I'm not against adoption.

I'm upset about the way adoption is currently PRACTICED in the U.S.

I'm not against foster care. Children need adults to provide for them, and sadly, too many biological parents abuse or neglect their children... so the kids end up in the system... so of course foster parents are needed!

I absolutely do not want to see all adoption banned. I don't even want to see voluntary-relinquishment infant adoption banned. I think women need to be able to have that choice, the choice to relinquish their child at birth.

I just think the system is screwed up and desperately in need of reform, so that pregnant women aren't taken advantage of, so that adoptive parents don't go through the heartbreak of failed placements, so that fathers' rights are more protected, so that corrupt lawyers and agencies aren't able to profit off adoption, etc.

Some of my best friends are adoptive parents.

I've been a caseworker for kids in foster care.

I do NOT think adoption is inherently bad. I think it has issues, that's all.

Answer 2

Hi,

To answer your question, one needs to understand the difference between adoptive and foster homes.

Remember that the true purpose of adoption is to find homes for the children who really need them.  It is not to find babies for adults who are infertile!

Foster children are already in the system so yes, obviously they do need permanent homes as soon as they are legally available for adoption and suitable homes can be found.   In the meantime, they stay with foster parents.  Fostering is not intended to be permanent care.  It is very different from adopting the child.  In foster care, the child retains their true identity, and the foster parents do not pretend to be the parents of the child.  

On the other hand, the babies of pregnant women who are solicited by the adoption industry & by desperate infertile couples, these babies are not in the system.  In almost every case, they could be parented by their natural mothers or members of her family.  

It would be safe to say that those couples who want to become adoptive parents are very well aware that there are already plenty of children waiting for homes now.  Apparently they do not want those children who are in foster care. Thus, a demand is created for additional babies. Hmm... Now were could they find more babies?

Every child has a right to be taken care of.  After all, they didn't ask to be born.  We should always serve the children's needs first.  And yes, there are infertile couples who are asking for the privilege of becoming parents.  Does that mean there is a corresponding right for them to take the babies (who would otherwise be just fine) away from expectant mothers in any manner they deam acceptable, in order for them to "complete their perfect forever family"?  I think not.

When you throw in there the distasteful aspect of all the money that is exchanged in the process, along with the intangible, immeasurable costs to the child, you will see that there are indeed many differences between fostering and adopting.  

So it's not so much that adoption itself needs to be banned.  It's more about the way it is done.  Several major changes need to take place to improve it.  Nobody is going to tell you that children in foster care should not be taken care of.  So no, the problem is not that foster care should be banned either.  The issue is that adoption should be improved, and since there are already plenty of children available in foster care, if somebody really wants to become a parent, they should look into those options first.  Hope that helps clarify the difference for you.

julie

Answer 3

They see things too much... different people has different thinking.

You may not know what is their next step...

Adoption - is good for the children when they met the good parents. They are very poor things without any parent love... so what you think.

Foster Parent - do you think they willing to do so? They might have some personal problem.

Who care what others think. Most importantly, is how you think.

Answer 4

i think the best way to really understand this, is to get pregnant (rape is optional), pick out the adoptive parents, let them promise it'll be an "open adoption" and wine and dine you for 9 months and 6 weeks (or whatever time it takes for the papers to be finalized), and then come back and tell us how you feel. until you've done this, you will never understand.

raising a foster child is completely different. that's a wonderful thing to do and by all means, adopt some of these children who don't have parents or have been abandoned.

Answer 5

I'm a foster parent, and I don't think anybody is 'against' me.  Some people obviously have the usual misconceptions such as you do it for the money (?), all foster parents are abusive, etc, but overall I think most people are just the opposite.

If anything, I think it's really unfair to the kids in foster care, who are constantly given the impression from others that they should be grateful to their foster families for 'rescuing' them.  That drives me nuts!

I don't think only bio parents should raise a child at whatever cost, I think all children should have their rights considered, and everything should always be done with their best interests in mind.

Hope this helps.

Edit to Add:  Gershom, in response to your answer about Australia's system, you're correct.  There is no falsification of records, hidden info, and certainly no private 'agency' adoptions in Australia.  All domestic adoptions (such as they are) and international adoptions are managed through the department for that state or territory.

Answer 6

First, I don't think that it is correct to label someone who concerned about unethical infant adoptions as against adoption or anti-adoption.  I am not against adoption so most of your questions do not apply to me.

I have no direct experience with foster care - only know what I hear from others - mostly positive stories about parents providing a family for children who need a home.  I have read news stories about some negative stuff about foster parents but have the impression that these instances are in the minority.  I think a far bigger problem is the ineffectiveness of the court system in terminating parenteral rights.  How does a system determine which parents deserve a second chance to provide a decent home for their children and which parents see their children as their property and are using the foster system as free babysitting so they don't have to do the day to day grind of childcare (well - THEY see as a burden, most of us see it as a blessing)?  I don't know and our courts seem to be doing a lousy job.  In my opinion, too many deadbeat parents are allowed to drag termination cases through courts for years.

Answer 7

i've heard stories about kids in foster care where the children were as abused or neglected as they were by their biological families. I've also heard of people who take the money that the government gives them for taking the kids in and spend it on other things besides the things they kids need.

by the same token, i've heard great things about foster parents who later permanently adopted the children they were raising. I think it depends on the people who are adopting the kids and their motives.

Answer 8

lol. I am wondering if this is directed to me, since I am not an advocate of adoption. I will answer as best as I can. I do not believe that children who NEED homes seperate from their natural families shouldn't be given them. I believe wholeheartedly that they deserve a safe, secure loving family to raise them, like all children deserve. What I do not support is the name changes, falsified "amended" birth certificates, sealed records, extreme fee's that differ according to race. I believe that foster children should have top priority to homes, over infant adoption. i am a huge advocate for foster homes and foster parenting and will offer my home to foster children when my children are older. Either that or a pregnant mother who just needs a place to live while she gets on her feet so she can KEEP her child and not surrender due to poverty. Poverty should NEVER be a reason to separate mother and child. Money should NEVER be proffitted off of adoption, because that brings in alternative incentives for placing babies instead of childres needs being first. Which is why i do not support private adoption agencies. Or adoptions handled privately by a lawyer. I think they should be completly run by the state like in Australia. Where a mother has to try parenting first, and then has to completly surrender her rights so she knows theres no chance of getting her baby back and then the state places the child with a family. That illuminates all pre-birth relationships w/ PAP's which cuts out any obligation to surrender, no fee's paid out of paps pockets to the expecting mother so she makes a complete informed decision on her own, without outside pressure from private agencies, or potential adoptive parents to surrender her child.

Its a far more ethical approach to adoption in my opinion than in the United States. And is truly putting the children first. If a family is healthy, and stable then the child should be left with them.

Alot of coersion goes on in modern day surrendering of infants, there is an incredible lack of support, and lack of encouragement twords parenting for young mothers in our society these days. Many aren't even informed of the long term effects of separation on an infant when he/she loses its mother.

I don't believe children should be sacrificed at any parents expense, adoptive or biological. I am a huge advocate for child rights, thats who I care about the children and I believe first and foremost they should be given the best possible treatment.

Sealing our records from us, without our permission something that happens to all adopted people is a violation of our human rights. Its a coverup for the scandalous nature that goes on in adoption in the US. In holland, records are opened to kids 12 and above, australia has the birth certificates amended so that the biological parents and adoptive parents are both on them. And adoptees are given complete access to this at 18 I think ( aussies correct me if i'm wrong on that, but I believe it to be accurate w/out my research infront of me )

There is really SO SO SO much that is corrupt in Adoption in the United States currently that its in desperate need of reform. Infant adoption has gone out of control and sadly it has left the foster children, the children removed fom their families, the children who REALLY need stable homes, who really need security, they are being left behind. Forgotten and not prioritized. When infants who would be just fine with their mothers who gave birth to them, are being manipulated from the hands of their first families when they didn't need to be in the first place.

That is why, amoung other reasons, I'm against adoption, in a nutshell.

Its not like I think children should be left to die.... lmao....its that children need to be put FIRST, and in America, thats NOT happening.