Should some parents who adopt be required?

Question

to stay at home?

When we adopted, we were urged to ensure that one parent stayed home with the child for at least six months and learned that there was once a requirement to that effect that was recently lifted by our program country.

The discussion re. RAD prompts me to wonder if some or all adoptive parents should be required to make this commitment.

I want to be very very very clear, I do NOT ask this to suggest that a full time parent would prevent RAD. However, I AM surprised that in the few incidences I've encountered the family chooses to remain a two career family when the children clearly could use more support/supervision and time.

Answer 1

I gave my baby in open adoption to a family of my choice three years ago with the understanding that one parent would switch from full time work to part time. I felt that this was the optimal situation for my child and had the family refused, I would have looked into another family as potential candidates to adopt my baby boy. It was important to me to find the ideal environment.  

Answer 2

I think that having one parent stay at home would be a phenomenal idea!  FMLA actually allows for one year of unpaid leave without risk of job loss for anyone who works at a qualifying employer.  

Unfortunately, not all families can manage to survive on only one income.  Single parents couldn't survive at all!  So, then it becomes this question.  Is an adoptive home where both parents have to work better than not being adopted at all?  In some cases the answer might be no.  Some children might be getting better resources at the current time than they could have in a single parent household, or a household where both parents had to work.  On the other hand, there are alot of cases where almost ANYTHING is better than the situation the child is in currently, and having a stay-at-home parents is the last priority on their list.  

It's all a matter of degrees.  I do think that encouraging the parents to stay home, where it is possible, is important.  Too much emphasis is given to careers these days, and our children are sacrificing for it.  Unfortunately, in some cases it's not possible without having to live off other people's taxes (if you could even DO that) - and so I don't think it should be an absolute requirement.  

Answer 3

I do not think people who adopt should be required to have one parent stay at home.  Are adopted children more "important" than biological children?  If a family is able to afford having one parent at home and that is what the parents desire, then yes I think it's a great idea to have someone home with the kids while they're young, but this is good for adopted AND biological kids.  If a family cannot afford that and/or neither parent would be happy staying at home, then I think it's ridiculous to try to require this.  Having a stay-at-home parent does not make one family better than a family where both parents work.

Are you against single men and women adopting?  

Answer 4

In your case, the less time you spend near your children, the better.

Answer 5

I think it depends on the family and if that family can survive on one income.  When my husband and I adopted our 2 children, I was for the most part a stay at home mom, unless I had a free lance music job. However , that said, I don't think it is any more necessary for an adoptive parent to stay home than a biological mom or dad.  A biological family is not mandated to have one stay at home mom or dad.  If it is possible, I think it should be that way, however, in this day and age, sometimes it takes a 2 income family.

Answer 6

I think that would be a fair and reasonable requirement for international adoptions. But I also think it would be completely ineffective in combating RAD if the adopted child is over 3 months of age.

My parents adopted a child from Russia 11 years ago and they had never even heard of RAD, so they were completely unprepared, but I don't think that made a bit of difference. Not to seem biased, but my mom really couldn't be a better mom and she stayed home with all 7 of us and never went back to work because she is so committed to parenting. My parents have never put my brother on drugs and have gotten lots of RAD therapy for him(what a joke) and he is still unbelievably SCARY! I don't think there is any way to prepare adoptive parents for this reality.

Absolutely they should be educated about it though. I think that it is a very very bad thing to bring a child with RAD into a family with existing kids because it really doesn't benefit the adoptive child, and it's just too hard on the rest of the family.

Answer 7

Personally, I think a SAHP (mother preferably), should be required for ALL children, adopted or not.

Answer 8

In Canada we have a one year paid maternity leave, & the same for adoption. You are not worrying about your job because it is guaranteed under the law.

This give the new parent(s) time to bond and adjust to parenthood.

Answer 9

I think it's always advisable, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it should be required for every family. I think it would be a good thing for every family to consider-- or at least to consider trying to arrange work schedules so at least one of the parents is home at any given time. Depending on the age of the child, though, I also think they need interaction with other children; once past the infant stage I think they should be exposed to other children once they've made the initial transition and feel comfortable in the home.

In cases of some special needs, it might need to be required for parents of a specific child to stay home full time.

Answer 10

I think that would be great for all children, adopted or bio.  It would be wonderful if a parent could stay home until the children have graduated.  Unfortunately this is not possible in most house holds.

I luckily have a flexible schedule so that my children aren't in daycare for 40+ hours a week.  This makes it so we are raising our children more than a daycare provider is.  We are able to provide a lot (too much if you ask the teenagers) of supervision and support to our children.

Answer 11

Initially I thought no, there is no need to add that 'rule'.  However, I think it is very important for the AP's to understand that if you adopt a child & then throw them into childcare that you may have additional bonding issues.

My mom recently told me that it took about six months to get me to even recognize them as being more than just caretakers.  She told me that they had to ask all the friends and family not to come by for a while as I would go to anybody as I couldn't separate any stranger to my own 'parents'.  I would refuse any type of hug by turning my back to them for a long time...it's a very real issue.

I think at this point we can try to provide information to the AP's but it still doesn't guarantee that they will read it or acknowledge it.  However, on the flip side some AP's who may not have realized it to be an issue will realize that it may be better to stay home with the child for an extended period of time until the child has adjusted (if they are able to).

I guess the answer to your question would be is that no it shouldn't be a requirement for one to stay at home 'forever' but I think if they're smart that they would highly consider that there will be an adjustment period that they should stay home.  Since each child differs it would be hard to put a specific time period...maybe a minimum requirement of 6 months to a year.

Answer 12

who cares

Answer 13

Personally, I think it totally depends on the child.

Answer 14

No, adoptive parents shouldn't be required to have a stay at home parent....if a child needs additional care, then the child should be placed in a home that will provide that care, and--if necessary--not be placed in a home with 2 working parents.

Our child has no significant problems, but we were 'chosen' to be his placement for various reasons, but a big plus was that I stay at home. I think it made our wait shorter for foster care. I don't think everyone can afford to stay at home....it is very difficult and stressful at times trying to pay bills and put food on the table. But, I also think that everyone can afford to cut back in their expenditures in some ways. I know I never thought we could make it work, but 2 years later the bills are paid and the lights are still on. We barely scrape by, but I told myself long ago that I never wanted to live my life for a paycheck. Waking up to our son and knowing that he is in the best possible care and that he is developing so well is far more wonderful than any job and salary that would keep me from him for 40+ hours a week.

<<adoptive mommy through foster care.

Answer 15

Well, I happen to know that my biological mother was guaranteed that my adoptive mother would stay home with me.  It's one of the reasons she relinquished, she didn't want me growing up in daycare.

And my adoptive mom DID stay home with me....until my adoption was finalized. Once those papers came through, she was free and cleaar to work.  Nice eh?

Seriously, less than a week after we went to court, she was working again.  See, she figured out during those 18 months stuck at home with my older brother and me, that taking care of little kids really wasn't her "thing".

I understand and I'm actually quite grateful, we had a great nanny (my agrandma).

But boy, was my biological mother pissed when she found out that my mom didn't stay home with me.

"What the h**l did I put you up for adoption for? MY mother could have raised you!"

Yeah, she was pissed.

So I guess it really depend on what these "birthmothers" are being promised.  If they are being promised a stay at home mother as part of this "better life" for their child then IMO, those adoptive parents had better deliver.

Answer 16

I think education and more support for nfamilies would be a solution.  Adoption just adds to the problem.    

Answer 17

Knowing my son had rads I quit my job the week before he was placed with us. He was 3 at the time and so not in school. I cannot imagine what would have happened had i put him in daycare.

Staying home might have been the worst thing for us financially, but it was the best thing for my son.

Answer 18

I think parents should stay home with their newly adopted children for a little bit of time, at least, just to bond.  

As a single adoptive mom to my son, I was able to stay home with my son for six weeks.  My job gave me a very hard time, but I did it. anyway under FMLA.  I wish I could have stayed home longer, but I could not afford it.

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

I'm not sure if a parent staying home forever witht eh child is always a good thing, unless that also includes alot of socializing activities for the child.  You know part time day care or something like that.  My son is thriving in his daycare.

Answer 19

ok the only comment i have is  "choose to remain a two career family..)  Not everyone can afford one income.  I have a college degree and so does my wife.  We have  student loans, one car, insurance etc.  We happen to make it on one income because we inherited a house with no mortgage.  If we had rent or mortgage she would have to work.  So yes the child may need more support/supervision but they can't offer it with out  loosing everything.  

I know the next argument is that they spent so much on the adoption.  Many people save for years on that or take out loans so they continue to need to work to stay afloat.  This is true with parents with bio children with disabilities.  It would be better in certain cases where if a parent stayed home they would develop better but they just can't do it