Do you think this is fair about adoption?

Question

Myself and my husband have been long time foster parents, since before we had bio kids. I was an adoptee myself, so felt 'qualified', if you will, to understand the bond that can exist between parents and children who aren't genetically related.

Anyway, I hear and read of many people wishing to adopt children, and many do adopt through the foster system. But, and it's a big but, do you think it's fair that people get to adopt straight up, without 'fostering' the child first?

We've adopted 1 foster child so far, with another adoption in the pipeline, but we've gone through all the hard yards that come with fostered children initially, with our children and many many others.

Why do some parents expect to be able to just walk on in and have a straightforward adoption without first fostering, or even serving the foster-to-adopt side of the program?

I could be mistaken, but it sometimes seems a little selfish to me. What do others think, or what have your experiences with this been?

Answer 1

Quite frankly, I could NEVER be a foster parent - but I am interested in adopting from the state one day.  I feel awful for all the kids that are stuck there because they are too old - or for other reasons.  

But as I said, I could never be a foster parent.  When you're a foster parent, there is ALWAYS a chance that someone will come in and snatch the kid away.  Maybe it isn't likely, but I've already lost one child that way, and I know for a fact I could never live through losing another.  It was simply too painful.  It also wouldn't be fair to any kid I was "fostering to adopt" because my fear of being hurt would keep me from loving them properly.  

However, under your conditions, I wouldn't be allowed to adopt any child.  Is that fair to the kids languishing out there without "forever families"?  I understand what you're saying about making sure that the parents fit first, and I think there does need to be more preparation of adoptive families (and most espescially, follow up suppor after), but I don't think making them foster first is the way to go.  I'm not sure how many people there are like me in the world, who could never bring ourselves to whole-heartedly love a child we could lose, but even if I'm the only one - is it fair to the kids to cut out any homes?  

In economic terms, there is a severe surplus of "adoptable" children floating in the system, and a severe shortage of adotive families.  (For all you 'baby stealer' accusers, I'm NOT talking about infants, I'm talking about children in foster care who have been abandoned by their parents or removed from homes because of abuse)  In such a case, I don't think it's wise to turn away ANY (safe) possible homes.

Answer 2

I would be afraid as a foster parent that I may eventually lose the child I came to love, if there was a reason the adoption couldn't go through.  If you adopt straight out you don't get to "test drive" the child but it will be your child without threat of losing him.  Plus alot of people think that the foster system is just a revolving door of kids coming in and out, some of them possibly troubled.  There is probably a lot of misunderstanding and plain lack of understanding about the way it works (I certainly don't udnerstand it at all!).

Answer 3

Well, I think it is not really fair but thinking that sometimes people have to much of a hard time fostering a child and then having it go back. Well, except for the reason above they should do something. Some people get attached and then they would be depressed and suicidal if the child left because its there child for the time.

Answer 4

Yes it is fair... not everyone can foster. I admire what you do but I imagine it is very hard to let go of a child that you have become attached too not knowing exactly what home they are going to.

At the end of the day what matters is that a child has a happy, secure and loving home and if that comes through fostering then adoption or adoption alone then it doesn't matter.

The children should be put first.... not the 'parents'

Answer 5

My relative had what you term a 'straight up' adoption. His daughter was passed over by many couples due to her heart defect.  Behavior was not one of her issues.  She gets heart surgery (all paid for by the state) and follow-up care (also paid for) and then it's all on them.

Not everybody wants to foster children.  MN doesn't require that you foster first, adopt later, unless you choose to.  On the other hand, when you read the list of kids, a fair number have had failed adoptions, so I'm probably wondering, as you are, if these families fostered first.  If so, I'm sure the adoption was less likely to fail as they would have known what they were in for.

Answer 6

Hello.  I am one of those parents doing straight adoption.  We do not have biological children and can not have them.  We went through the same training classes as the foster parents.  Here were my problems with fostering.  

1.) I do not have children and want them desperately.  I do not think I could stand it when the children left my home.  Yes, I understand that they "may" become eligable for adoption, but again they may not.

2.) I work full time.  If I were able to stay at home the situation may be different.  I don't think it's fair to sign up to foster, then dump them in day care everyday.  That's not helping the child.

After waiting for 2 1/2 years, we have finally been matched and are proceeding with adopting two siblings through the foster care system.  Once we take custody of the children, we are going to go and get our foster license.  At this point, I feel I have my own children, and can now handle the foster kids leaving.  I know it still won't be easy, but I will have my two.

I hope this makes sense to you.

Answer 7

I work with foster and adoptive families.  Many families choose not to foster because they cannot stand the thought of letting children go.  When we match a family with a child we make sure they are the right fit.  They have several visits over a couple of weeks to get used to each other.  After the adoptive placement the child has to be in the home for six months before the parents are able to adopt.  That way if they are not the right fit, they will know it.  I don't think it's selfish of them, I think it is being cautious.  If their heart is not in fostering, then the child won't benefit from them.

Answer 8

Some women WANT thier babies to go into a STABLE home. There is something too temporary about foster care that some can't handle. If thier heart isn't in it, then it's not right for them. I'm considering foster care, but not to adopt.

Adoption in itself IS selfish, no matter how you look at it, but so  is EVERYTHING we do. If we adopted ONLY for the childs' benefit, they what kind of care would thay really get. I'm an adoptive mom, but I'm not a hero, I wanted a son and he needed a mom. I thank God he didn't go into foster care first, he needed intensive care and would have cost the government a ton to pay for his care. Also he needed suctioning every 20 min. for 4 months and I doubt that some temporary caregiver could have given him the 24hr care he deserved (And I didn't get a per deim to do it, 'cause it's want moms do).

How 'bout this...... tell the government that youll cover the child's medical costs, living expences and all the things parents do.... you know to be selfless.

-----------------------------

As far as making sure it's a "right match" that is why there is a post placement study done BEFORE finalization.  Our son was 18 months old when it was final and the process was far from a "just walk on in" experience. it was trying and stressful and worth every bit of it. Please try to educate yourself on this and don't think that you're any different than us (people who walk in and get a baby). You want to be a mom....... We all do.

Answer 9

i have never have any experiances with this, but i do think that the adult should have to foster the child before just adopting them... it will allow them to know whether or not they will have a good bond, and whether or not the child will be happy in the home, it gives them time to get to know each other and form a relationship rather than just jumping right into it with adoption, also fostering first allows others to supervise and make sure that it is a good and safe environment for the child before permantly placing the child in the home... the only time i think adoption is really okay is if the mother or father leaves a relationship and allows someone else to adopt their bio kid, (for example my dad had two children before he had me and my brother, and when him and his wife split he let their moms new boyfriend adopt them so he didn't have to pay child support... yea i know what a man right lol..., so they were raised by their bio mom and adopted dad, or if it's an agreed adoption between two people and it happens at birth... anyway in doing what you're doing is the right thing so just keep on doing it, and be proud of yourself for helping so many other children.

Answer 10

I think that it is fair to adopt straight away. When u adopt a child your doing it for life and that child is your own. People shouldnt have to foster first to adopt, its not like try before u buy! Social workers are there to make sure that every little thing is looked into and checked before anyone adopts a child and my personal opinion is that the chiild is more secure being adopted and not fosterd. i am adopted and was never in foster care and i love my adoptive parents very much as in my eyes, they are my real parents and blood doesnt make the connection, love does.

Answer 11

Here is my two cents.

Fostering takes a huge commitment as well as a genuine desire to do what is best for a child. Not what is best for yourself. Loving a child with the knowledge that they may leave your home is harrowing to say the least.

Adoption takes a huge desire to be a parent often with little or no concern about the child as an individual. It is most often about adults fulfilling their own, perceived,  need to parent.

In saying this I am in no way saying adopters are only out for themselves, many aren't. I am generalizing the act of adoption as it fits into today's society; the procurement of a child or infant to raise as one's own.

If every adopter had only a child's best interest at heart, with no ulterior motives, then fostering and/or fostering to adopt would be the obvious choice. That just isn't the case. When adopting the goal is to raise a child in your "forever" family with no possibility of reuniting a broken family.

Answer 12

i was adopted and from my point of view i do not think that it is fair for someone to just adopt w/o going through the foster care program first............it's not just about how attached you get to the child when they are in your care it also depends on wether not that child has a connection with you as well.........there have been a many homes i have been i where i did not want to leave cause i was attached and then other homes where they did not allow themselves to get attached cause they knew that the chances of adoping me was slim to none..........it is not about the foster parents when it comes to adopting it is about the child and how comfortable and safe they feel with who they are with.........you can't expect a child to go to a home and be like "oh gee this is great the home i always wanted" the first time you met them, that is not how things work and people nee d to understand that...........fostering is about giving a child the care, love and affection that they need to thrive in life and fostering is about getting them ready to be adopted, to try and show them what bonding is all about and how it feel to truelt be loved by people that care about you......now if it is like both parents died and aother family member wanted to out right adopt then yes but other then that i would have to disagree that is truley not fair to the child and after all that is what fostering is about the child not how the parent will feel if he/she leaves

Answer 13

Adopters don't want to have to give the child back.  Plain and simple.  Foster parents, on the other hand, have the capacity to love the child AND do what's right if the situation arises when the child can and should be reunited with the n-family.

Answer 14

I was adopted myself and I don't see any reason why parents who wish to adopt should be required to foster children first. I'm very grateful that they adopted me right away. I was a permanent member of my family from day one. Children aren't commodities or merchandise that parents can "test drive." Don't we open up a new set of problems if parents find the going getting tough at times and decide they don't want to be bothered? What's to stop them from "returning" a child then? What if the child develops a serious illness and it becomes expensive to provide for him/her? Do we require other parents to "prove" their worthiness before allowing them to have children biologically?

I believe this kind of thinking would create too many  problems and serve no meaningful purpose.