Where do these "anti-adoption" people expect the children to go if they are not adopted?

Question

This was posted as an answer to another question, "Where do these "anti-adoption" people expect the children to go if they are not adopted? Have a heart, give a kid a chance."

In a world with adoption reform, where would children go?

Answer 1

How about, omg here it comes... They could go....

WITH THEIR PARENTS!

or

WITH THEIR FAMILIES!

kinda like where every non-adoptee gets to go.

Answer 2

People that are anti-adoption are crazy.  I'd probably be a drug addicted nothing (or dead)  if I wasn't adopted by my parents.  My biological parents are drug addicts.  My adopted parents are awesome.

Answer 3

Wow, maybe I'm behind the times, but I didn't know there were actually people who were against adoption, kind of sad, really.

Answer 4

Hi Tobit,

Thanks for asking about those in favor of adoption reform.  This is what I think would happen:

If people stopped adopting infants today who do not really need to be severed from their families, then that would leave the foster children as the ones who would benefit from the adoptive homes that are available.  In fact, if there are 140,000 children in foster care right now, and there are many times more than that PAP's on waiting lists to adopt, that would take care of all the needy children in America today.

That is the true reason that child services exist, to serve the children who truly NEED to be adopted.  It is about finding the best qualified homes that would benefit each individual child who has a need for one.  It is not about looking for ways to create more children to fill the order demands from needy parents who are looking for children.  Instead, foster children are currently constantly being overlooked and shuffled around while prospective adoptive parents shell out big bucks for a different child they perceive as more worthy of being in their home.

In a world of adoption reform, there would be FEWER children needing to lose their families in the first place.  That would be a blessing.  That would be a cause for celebration!  It is a GOOD thing when fewer children are in need of alternative parenting.  I realize that runs counter to the goals of adoption businesses whose profits are maximized when larger quantities of children are placed.  I maintain they have misplaced priorities.

People are mistaken if they believe that there is a surplus of healthy,white infants being abandoned who have no place to go and nobody to care for them.  That's false.  Although there may be long waiting lists at adoption agencies, it's full of names of PAP's who are overly-selective in what they find acceptable in a child.  It's not because there is a shortage of children available now.  If anyone believes there are too many unwanted babies who cannot find homes, that's simply not the case.  

That's why those in the adoption industry must increasingly resort to new tactics in order to attract people who ordinarily would not have considered giving their children to adoption.  Those in favor of reform would like to see that reduced if not eliminated.

I could go on & on about other benefits to the child of reform such as kinship adoptions before stranger adoptions, retaining as much of a child's identity as possible when adoption is necessary, guardianships, & restoring equal rights to adult adoptees.  Those are all separate, important, and lengthy issues best reserved for another question.

Finally, I know it's been clarified before, it's worth saying again, spotting ways to improve services to children or to keep families together is NOT anti-adoption.  It in no way means children should be abused or left on the street.  Those are the children currently in foster care that few want.  Those are exactly the ones that adoption reform would target to better serve!  We are advocates for the children.

julie j

reunited adoptee

(& former foster child)

Answer 5

It's late and I should be in bed, but I'll give a quick answer, anyway.  The question is "In a world with adoption reform, where would children go?"

My short version answer:

The children without families would be adopted into families.  The main difference is that they would retain all of the same rights as non-adopted people.

Adoption reform is not "anti-adoption."  Because it's about making adoption better, it's actually quite pro-adoption.

Answer 6

Most of them?  Within their family.

I don't think any single person on here, whether pro-adoption, anti-adoption, or anywhere in between, would rather that their OWN children be adopted out to strangers if they were to die.  You'd all rather have your children go to a relative, or close family friend, someone the child knows, someone you know.

Not one single person here would want that for their own children.  Nor would your children really want to go to strangers' homes, if something happened to you as a parent, right?

So if adoption by strangers would not be your preference for your own child, then why is it always ok for other kids?

Yes, there are situations when that can't happen.  And adoption (or some type of permanent placement) will always be necessary for some kids.

But for most, trying to find a suitable placement within the child's own family, FIRST, would be the route to go.

Answer 7

probably a group home that would not be a good- or if adoption was presented to birth moms with as much negativity as one this forum- there would even be more abortions than there already are- which by the way is 4000 a day in the USA alone- and that is FAR to many.

Answer 8

My perfect world

United States

foster care system would have first priority into adoptive homes.

there would be no pre-birth relationships between mother and child

all pregnant women would be encouraged to parent, and given the resources necessary by their govt. in order to do so.

If after parenting for a standard time at least a month, allowing time for hormones to settle and balance from the birth.

allowing time for eye to eye bonding with their child, for comfort and rhythym to set in. We all need experience before we're comfortable with anything. Becoming a parent is a whole new world worthy of chance of getting used to.

If then she doesn't want to parent, allow her to surrender through the state.

period. no revoke. no turning back. no placement choices with any families the state handles everything.

This takes any chances of surrendering out of obligation to paps and prebirth relationships and bills paid, impossible

it allows paps to not be taken advantage of

it allows a mother to give it a chance, and know there are no turning backs. No its permanent, children can't be left and taken and left and taken and passed around, thats when we develop RAD for good reasons. for survival.

Then let the state arrange an adoption and absolutly NO PRIVATE ADOPTIONS, no non profit agencies, only state run. Take the MONEY out of adoption.

Adoptees would have open records and unconditional access to them.

no name changes unless the adoptee expresses a desire to change his/her name without outside influence.

By 2010 its expected to be 18 million orphans from parents who died of AIDs in Africa. I think some large scale community run homes for these orphans need to be built and invested in. To provide for these children.

I don't necessarily believe that removing them out of the country and into a home in america is the only positive alternative to starvation and death. I think that if we adoptees are expected and reported to adjust to different families and find familiarity.  

that if given the means necessary, there is no reason that we couldn't find that same comfort and trust in a structured group home environment that honors their truths and reasons for being there and provides for them entirely. There is no reason to live in shame, the american govt. encourages us too as does the society.

Who says having to learn a new culture, family, language, and country is better than that? what makes it better?

For the price of one adoption you could teach an entire commmunity to grow through this organization http://www.telefood.org

Family preservation first

adoption last with the adoptees needs first at all times.

Answer 9

I have to wonder if you are talking foster children or infants.  If foster care children, they would still be there.  No one is rushing to adopt American foster kids.  If we are discussing infant adoption, the mothers and fathers would be raising their children.   I am not anti-adoption but I am adoption reform.  The reason I feel that is because of how my own natural mother was treated.  I feel that way because the current industry is based on greed, coercion, and deception.  I have run into 15 cases in the last year where this has happened.  If the mother can't or won't raise her child, then the father should if he wants to.  If that doesn't work, other family members should be allowed first choice. Then within the community and Then outside of the community.  

While we are at it, lets take the money out of it.  Lets stop scamming adoptees and their families.  Let us dictate the relationships.  The states and the agencies/attorneys need to stay out of our personal relationships.  Only in adoption are we governed as potential threats to each other.

Answer 10

Tobit, did you answer the original question? Only those of you who are anti-adoption can answer this. I regret not seeing the first question. I would love to have read the "responses". What is so wrong with someone asking for people to "have a heart, give a kid a chance"?

The only suggestions I've read from the anti-adoptionists is that the tax payers should foot all their bills for having unprotected s*x and paying for them and the unplanned/unwanted child(ren) until adulthood. So what is your suggestion, since you are anti-adoption?

eta: hi julie, I don't think that's what Tobit's question was.

Answer 11

probably some kind of group home like what they have for the children now. there are so many children it the system now because not too many ppl want to adopt older children, they want baby's.

Answer 12

"They" want them to stay with the biological parents who (gasp!) can't or don't want to care for them.

or...  ??

I'll be waiting for the rest of the answers, hopefully you get some real ones.