Relinquishment & adoption - damaging for the child??

Question

An AP said here - "Why can't some people understand that some women choose adoption?"

I get that - but why is that deemed to be OK?

A child - from birth - wants to be with the mother that he/she was born to. They're hard wired that way.

Scientific studies have shown this.

Is it only those that wish to adopt - that want to believe that women giving away their children - is OK - simply because they themselves want a baby of their own?

It is psychologically damaging to a child to be given away by their biological mother. It HURTS the child.

But people are OK with this?

Is it that the scars just can't be seen on the surface?

If a mother physically hits a child - that's not OK - but to psychologically hurt a child - that is fine?

Is it because people think that infants just won't feel that hurt so young? They'll 'get over it'?

Shouldn't relinquishment and adoption be about the BEST interests of the child?

Should relinquishing mothers perhaps pay for the therapy bills down the track?

Answer 1

The core of adoption is hurtful. Not being raised by your bio mom and dad is painful. All of the emotions of being "given" or "taken" away are painful. Yes adoption hurts like h**l. I watch my son grieve everyday. I watch him struggle with RADS. None of which is his fault, however it is his lot in life. Should he have stayed in an incredible abusive home, or perhaps in foster care where he was diagnosed with failure to thrive in order to keep him from feeling the pain of living with a healthy family that is not his family of origin?

Sometimes circumstances dictate that adoption is the only option.

He and his sister became crown ward no access when his mother realized that he was finally thriving with us. She could have kept fighting and lying about rehab, but she didn't. She knew she could not provide safety, even if she could provide financially. It is sad, but it is the truth.

In the end her final choice was to make sure her children were safe, that they would not be dangled over a balcony again, or hit or scarred or starved again. I think that was the most loving thing she could have done.

The fact she relinquished her children is something that my son holds onto as proof that she loved him enough to make sure no one would ever hurt him or his sister again.

Answer 2

I don’t think any birthmother  should pay for any type of therapy that the birthchid may need. If they need professional help then their family can pay for it if they seek their help prior to being a legal adult, after that it’s their responsibility to pay unless their family offers to help them.

People just need to be educated that having a single parent is fine, that there are ways to parent if they want too. No one should be forced to parent if they truly don’t want to.  Heather is right not every person is fit to be a parent there are many people in this world who sadly are not. Some people do not have the patient for kids, some simple don’t want to be a parent.  So if some expecting mother simple does not want to parent, or she she cant properly provide for the child and does not believe in abortion. Then she should be able to place her baby for adoption.  Its up to the child’s new parents to help the child in anyway he/she needs.

I agree money is not everything no parents should feel they have to place for adoption due to being poor. Having the luxury things aren’t important as long as the basics can be provided for. Totally different if a mother and her child are living down by the riverside in a cardboard box, can only afford a can of beans (Support Feed the Children) once a week or they’ve been living in their car for months. In this case the child needs to be placed into temporary care until the mother gets on her feet. The streets are no place for anyone to live let alone innocent children.

Not all adoptees have huge issues if any at all about being adopted. So I wouldn’t say its damaging to all adoptees some? Yes. Not all though.  I’m sure there are some who are saying well their just holding it in. I will not deny that there probably are some who are harboring issues/feelings but again that is not always going to be the case with every case.

Answer 3

You make it sound like adoption only exists because infertile couples want a baby soooo badly.   It is the biological parents that are choosing to put their babies up for adoption. Relinquishment is only those biological parents giving up their parental rights.  

Even if there were no adoptive parents out there, these biological parents would still give up their babies. That is how many children end up in orphanages and foster care.

Adoption is not a bad thing for all kids. Some children are absolutely fine and lead happy healthy lives. I know many adopted people and even adopted my son at birth.  I think each case is different but not all adoption is bad.

Answer 4

I love this question.  I figured, at first, that I wouldn't have anything to add, simply because there are so many who would come out and say what I'd like to - but much more eloquently, and from a place of personal experience.

But then I read BPD's answer (btw, lovely to see you again, dear!), and I thought of something I might be able to add.

I think that, in a perfect world, parents would become what their children need.  I fully understand that this is not happening in today's imperfect world (which is why WE are adopting), but that's my "this is the way it SHOULD be" spiel.  In a perfect world, your son wouldn't need to be adopted, wouldn't need to deal with all that loss, wouldn't need to ask why his parents didn't care enough to do what needed to be done for him.

And after this, I'm adding onto my source line.  I've got a new Gaia-ism!

Answer 5

There are moms who make an adoption plan because they know that they're not capable (financially, emotionally or whatever) of caring for that child.  Is it less damaging to allow the child to starve?  Is it less damaging to allow the child to be brought up by a crack addict?  Is it less damaging for the child to be brought up in an abusive home?

The point is that adoption is a necessary thing in our society.  In a perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary - all women having babies would be able to provide care for them & those who couldn't wouldn't get pregnant.  Unfortunately as Walgreen's says, we don't live anywhere near perfect.

When someone adopts a child, whether older or an infant, I hope beyond hope that they realize that there are going to be loss and abandonment issues to some degree or another.  The child is going to have to grieve their loss and deal with trust issues anew at every stage of development.  It's not a one time grief thing...they work through it as a child, then as an adolescent, then as an adult, etc. all through their lives.

I would call it issues they have do deal with and heal from.  I wouldn't exactly call it damaging as you have so melodramatically done.

Answer 6

I agree with a lot of the posters here, but I just wanted to add one thing. It seems to me like no one thinks about future damages. Even court judges, when determining best interests look at the now. The APs/PAPs are doing a great job raising that baby now. The baby seems to be doing fine now. People get so caught up in the present that they forget to look ahead to the future. I think people (not all of them, but a good amount) only realize the damage when it's staring them in the face years later, and I'm sure to get thumbs down for this, but by that time, the agencies have gotten their money, their "buyers" have gotten their dream and the only person who didn't benefit is the person everyone was supposed to be trying to protect.

Note that I'm only talking about infant adoptions. Foster care and foster care is a whole different ball game and while I think it is equally if not more damaging to the child, it is a necessity in that case.

Answer 7

You're nuts!  

My bios gave me up to my adoptive family because they loved me so much and it WAS in MY best interest.  I do not know my bios, but I know the circumstances about why I was given up and love them dearly for that.

Also, I am NOT psychologically damaged because I was not raised by my bios.

Answer 8

I hear what you are saying, and in some respects even agree with some of the things you said, but I keep coming back to our son's situation.  

His original parents CHOSE not to be parents.  They made the decision to neglect him prior to and immediately following his birth.  I understand our son's psychological need to be with his original parents, but his well-being and welfare actually depended on being with a family who would care for him and take care of his special needs.  Should he have been kept with his original family simply because he psychologically wanted/needed that?  Or should his physical health become more important in this situation?  I believe whole-heartedly that any suffering he would have done physically would have been far more traumatic in his case than the psychological issues he may some day have because of his adoption.  

This is just our story, but one that I know other families share.  I'm okay with adoption in our son's case because I truly believe (as well as his bio-grandparents) that in our son's case the best choice for his life was adoption.  While I do not condone the behavior of our son's original parents nor do I support some of the decisions they made, I do thank them every day for the choice they made to place him for adoption rather than continue to neglect/abuse him.  

Every adoption has a different story, so I think to just say that ALL adoptions are not in the best interest of the child is unfair...at least for our son's situation, adoption saved his life.

Answer 9

I think there are women (and men) out there that are not cut out to be a parent. My son's original parents fit into this category. I think if a woman truly feels she cannot raise her child she should look into adoption. But, an adoption plan should not be done until after she has the baby and has a time to truly know what she is doing. I also think whenever possible there should be an open adoption. I also believe that there should be a way for an open adoption to be enforceable.

I always wonder what my adopted sons life would have been like if his original parents decided to put him up for adoption. This is something the considered. But, his mother was shamed into keeping him. So, what she did instead was leave him with a man (his father) that beat the c**p out of him on regular bases. The abuse was documented by the time he was a year old. He has emotional and physical scars as a permanent reminder of what his father did to him. He has burn scars that are supposable from his mother. So, in my opinion, if they would have put him up for adoption when he was an infant, he would have had a much better start at life. Of course I would not have has the opportunity to be his mom, but I would have missed out on that if it meant he did not ever have to remember a time when he was afraid of getting beat for no reason. So, I think the physiological factor of losing a parent at birth would have been easier for him.

Now, if the ONLY reason a Mother is relinquishing her child is because she wants a better life with someone older, smarter, richer, etc...This in my opinion is not a good enough reason. She needs to receive whatever help is available for her to parent her child.

Answer 10

This is a great q

To add to the numerous opinions here, I agree with you for the most part. I was adopted and went through h**l trying to figure out why. Unlike all the necessary cases in which children are in danger (and that is much more understandable), my mother put me up for adoption at 3 years old because her new husband (who didn't know about me) didn't want me in their life. My grandmother was raising me and she died, so I was sent away. My father left my mother before I was born and took my sister with him.

My adopted parents are amazing and I wouldn't trade them for the world, but I ask myself everyday how a mother chooses to walk away from her child. When I got pregnant last year, I had a very difficult decision to make for all the reasons people have suggested (financial emotional, family ties etc) I knew adoption was NOT an option, because everyday of my life is filled with q's and I wouldn't want that for my child. True enough three are open adoptions now..but still. I kept my child and hurt a lot of people (my family etc - long story) in the process, but my child will always know that even though I didn't know if I would always be the best mother, I would always be there for her.

Abortion is a huge debate, yet adoption is not because it's seen as saving a life - the same way that physical abuse is dealt with more swiftly then emotional. I think that it is based upon each situation - I think that when an adoption is approved, all efforts should be made to provide as much information for that child as possible, so that if they have these q's, they have the explanation that they will need to help resolve their issues and feelings.

Answer 11

Please do not lump me in as one of your victims damaged by adoption.

I AM adopted and i am not damaged by the woeful self pity party that seems so rampant on these boards.  

You can use general terms -- some children may be hurt by the seperation but not all children are.

I do not believe the theories that you put forth.  I think Nancy Verrier is nuts.  I do not believe in the primal wound.

you can feel how you want to as an adoptee - i'm not trying to change that; however, please do not speak on behalf of ALL adoptees.  I am an adoptee and i am entitled to my feelings without you overstepping them to tell me how i am supposed to feel because of what some report or crackpot author writes.

Thanks.

Answer 12

Are they really saying that it's OK, as in no big deal?  Or, are they saying that since it's going to be done anyway, let's make the best of it and give the child a loving home?

Answer 13

You ask some very good...  and some very difficult questions.

They puzzle me, too.  

How do we go from "adoption comes from loss and can hurt the child" to "all adoptees who want reform believe that no woman wants to give up her child"?

When people "restate" your position to make it weaker, it's called a straw man argument.  It's a fallacy.  It's shoddy reasoning.  But it's a good rhetorical device to use when you don't have any other arguments.

Answer 14

Possum,

You know how I feel about this. I thoroughly agree with several posters (Phil, Anastasia, Gaia & Caitlin in particular) so I won't reiterate, but wanted to add and answer for your last Q about FP's paying for therapy.

In my case, I was promised a VERY open arrangement, for the first 4 years of his life, my eldest son called me "MamaKate". (HE called me that on his own, with NO prompting or anything - he chose that name all by himself.) After I provided him with his sister. His AM could not accept me as "MamaKate" anymore (not sure she ever could) and told me SHE was his ONLY mother and cut contact.

I have ALWAYS been here for my children - ALL FOUR of them. Should I still be responsible for T. & L./H.'s therapy?! I think the APs are responsible!! I beat myself up DAILY for having "not seen through the wool". I hurt TREMENDOUSLY over what has happened in my situation. I hurt for myself, my family, MOST OF ALL MY CHILDREN and yes, I even hurt for my APs who are not able to what THEY promised because I know they are acting this way because of their own issues. (Whether I will be able to fogive them remains to be seen.)

I could have and should have parented my children. I THOUGHT I was doing something "good" as SO many people told me when I considered it in the first place. NO ONE told me about the other side or how it could effect me and my kids. I am guilty of being too nice and not knowing things that were hidden from all us first parents 12 years ago. (...and in many cases still today.) I regret it every day and admit responsibility for my mistakes but I am NOT the one who took myself from my children.

I should add that if my children ever needed therapy, I would be more than willing to foot the bill. I am still their mother and I still love and care for them and want to do EVERYTHING in my power to ensure that they are happy and healthy and LOVED!

I know I have a relatively unusual situation which gives me a sometimes unique take on this stuff and just wanted to reiterate that every situation is different and there is no blanket solution.

You are ABSOLUTLY right about the damage that can be done and I wish that women were given ALL the information they need to make an EDUCATED decision for their (& their children's) circumstances.

Answer 15

Are you kidding?

What crazy studies are you reading?

Answer 16

i think that adoption IS damaging.  not only to the child, but certainly to the mother as well.

the problem is, was, and will always remain, infertile people want to parent.

until they stop wanting to parent, then it's basically "s***w you" to the mothers, no matter what is best for anyone.

Answer 17

I don't understand why anyone would give up their child.  Children and their biological mothers belong together.  Fact.

My son is my whole life and I would literally kill anyone who tried to take him from me.  

I don't have much money and can't give him luxuries in life, but his basic needs are all met and he's loved more than anything on earth.  I defy anyone to tell me a stranger would make him a better parent because they have money and I don't.  Money doesn't mean sh*t - all it does is create spoiled, brattish and materialistic children.

Unless the woman genuinely DOES NOT WANT her child then there is no reason on earth she should have to relinquish them.  Certainly not just to provide a childless couple with a baby.  I feel for those who cannot have children, as I suffered infertility before having my son.  But that does not mean that I would give up my most precious possession just to make them happy.

Answer 18

what if the bio parents did something very damaging to the child and the child is being adopted by relatives to keep him in the family... and he instantly bonded to those family members when he met them for the first time when he was 7 months old.  (1300 miles is why that was the first time he saw his adopted parents at that point)

Answer 19

im adopted i LOVE my life.

I LOVE my birth mom. I DONT know her.

my bm was NOT able to care for me!

i would have lived on streets! i know that much!

my grandfather was abusive.

my situation was a good one! i found a good home and hoenstly i am better off. i make around a 3.8 GPA and i have true tallents im aware of so how is that damage!? my A. Family gave me an amazing life!

yes, the idea that someone didnt want you is horrible but think of it like this. They wanted something better for you so they gave you up, the greatest sacrifice of love.

Answer 20

I don't believe adoption is damaging to a child, or at least all children. i turned out pretty normal. the only time i would say it could be damaging is if the adoptive parents refuse to talk about the bio-family, or about the adoption itself.

Answer 21

You are 100% no doubt correct. I was put up for adoptiom amd I deal with those things every day of my life. I think funding should go towards helping the mother keep the child rather than be put up for adoption.

Answer 22

You make it sound like birth mothers are heartless creatures who relinquish their children because they can't be bothered raising them.  In most cases, this is far from the truth.  Yes of course relinquishment is done for the best intrest for the child.  Why  would one put themselves through all that emotional agony if they weren't thinking of their child?  That makes no sense to me at all.

And no I don't think they should pay for your therapy.  You can only blame your parents up to a point.  After that, a person's phsyical and mental wellbeing becomes their own responsibility - one of the major responsibilities of adulthood.  Playing the blame game solves nothing.