Why does it seem like more people...?

Question

can recognize the loss involved in the returning of an adopted child to the system (a "failed adoption" )and so many of these same people fail to recognize the loss involved in the initial separation of mother and child?

Answer 1

I could never compare the two. I've lost 2 babies (not to adoption) and I know how bad that hurts. It would be better knowing that my son (should he have gone back to his first home) is alive, well and with people who loved him enough to consider adoption, and even more to reconsider.

Don't know if I would consider it failed, but no matter what happens, people are going to hurt. and it stinks

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

Tish, thanks for sharing, There is a girl at church who changed her mind too, and that's all people talk about. Although I'm an adoptive mom, i felt like I had to butt in and tell them that , that was HER baby and the "poor" aparents know their risks... now I'm a bad person too.

Answer 2

I think a lot of the reasons have already been covered in previous answers.  I think many people don't understand or don't believe in the reality of a primal wound, and it doesn't even occur to them that there is a loss to be recognized, especially if it is an infant adoption.    

I do feel especially sad and really worried about a child when I hear of an adoption disruption or dissillusionment because, not only has the child undergone the loss of their birthfamily, they are now in a compounding loss situation.  The kids who endure loss after loss after loss are much more likely to have really serious attachment issues way beyond the average adoptee grief and loss.  When I hear of one of those situations I find myself hoping beyond hope that the child will make it to someone who will be truly commited to them and be able to meet their needs in a way that will truly help them heal.

Answer 3

I think that some people still mistakenly believe that if the separation happens just after birth and/or cannot be remembered, then it doesn't have any lasting emotional impact on the small human being.  I say small human being, because I think that some people view babies as mere objects with only physical needs, but no true emotions.  This simply is not true, and this is why there is a significant impact on the small human when separated from it's mother at birth.

Enlightened people realize that this just isn't true, and that a very small human still has attachment and goes through loss at being separated from his or her mother.  Hopefully, society will become more aware of this, and validate the very real sense of loss and abandonment that adoptees live with.

Answer 4

Because they find it easier to relate to the plight of those who want a child and get one then those who have suffered adoption loss.  Think about it:  How many people do you know who have blissfully welcomed a child (born, adopted, whatever) into their families?  Hundreds?  How many do you see on TV, in movies, read about in books?  Thousands.  Naturally most people love their children and would hate to have anything take those children from them.

Now, how many adoptees and first mothers talk about adoption loss to their friends, families, etc?  How many do so in open forums like this one?  Some, not many.  How many books and films are about adoption loss?  How many people who aren't connected to adoption even know what's meant by the term?  Hardly any.

Most people want kids, love kids, and therefore want to believe adoptions mean happy endings for kids.  Most people also want to believe having a child means a happy ending for the parents, however they got the child, so they don't think about adoption loss as it affects the first mother either.  Our suffering, therefore, has the potential to shatter their illusions and hurt their feelings.  We are wet blankets, party poopers.  We spoil everything with our silly "adoption loss."  We probably just made it up to get attention.

Thusly, the whole thing becomes a vicious cycle.  Because we get responses like this when we tell our truths, some of us clam up and let the fairy tales roll on.

Answer 5

I think it's Willful Ignorance "Say it ain't so"  "la la la, I'm not listening!"  They just don't want to acknowledge it, sigh.

The separation of mother and child is a HUGE loss and trauma to both.

Answer 6

Partly I think it is stereotyping. There are a lot of negative stereotypes of first families, and mostly positive ones of adoptive families. So if you believe the stereotypes, it would also follow that it would be much worse to lose the "angelic" adoptive family rather than the "crack addict" first family. Of course that isn't true, but sometimes I'm afraid that is the perception.

Also, a lot of people don't recognize that a newborn or a baby can feel the loss of the first mother, though many adoptees say otherwise -- and who else would be the authority on this! I'm sure there are research studies also, but I don't have them at my fingertips right now.

And then maybe some people answering the previous question were thinking about the >compound< loss the adopted child would feel, not discounting the first loss, but adding a new one on top of it and feeling terribly sorry for that (hopefully hypothetical) child.

I personally think they can both be devastating losses for the adoptee. Or they can be not so devastating. The individual adoptee gets to decide that for her/himself. And heck, they get to change their mind as often as they like!

Answer 7

Hi Gershom,

There are some very good answers already given.  

I would like to say that in addition to those, another reason is that in order to keep society's perception of adoption-is-all-good facade, many people convince themselves that natural mothers simply don't feel anything for their babies, that they simply rejected them, tossed them away,never to be thought of again, and happily moved on with their merry lives.

Then they compound that with the idea that babies can easily be tricked into who their natural mothers really are by the old bait-and-switch trick if you do it early enough, it supposedly makes no difference to the baby.

By convincing themselves that A) mothers don't care and B) babies don't notice, then they are easily able to jump to the conclusion that nothing bad has even occured and adoption-is-all-good.  THEN, if something happens to the subsequent relationship, then THAT is the real tragedy in their minds, because, after all, those parents wanted a child, they couldn't have a child, now the attachment with the "only parent the child has ever known" is gone, so people more readily acknowledge that loss.

When that happens, it is actually the 2nd loss for the child, not the first.  They are both tragic.   I wish more people could see that.  There was a recent case in the news involving a diplomat and his wife who returned their 7 year old daughter whom they had adopted at birth!  This happened after they later had 2 biological children.  This sort of example highlights exactly the type of situation you were referring to.  It's sick and pathetic.  

Thank you so much for asking!  

julie j

reunited adoptee

Answer 8

gershom, you hit the nail on the head.  i swear, when i decided to cancel my aplan and parent MY son, it was as if i'd committed capital murder!  for about 3-weeks (including one week post-partum) i received DAILY phone calls from the adoption agency telling me that i was being unreasonable, selfish, and had basically caused these *poor* people so much grief.  i was even told (as i was healing from stiches) that the wife even contemplated suicide; and it was ALL MY FAULT!

although i would NEVER diminish the seriousness of suicide, i found it ironic that nobody cared that I might become suicidal if i'd gone through with the plan.  

all i remember was my father answering the phone and giving the counselor a piece of his mind, which ended with "don't call my f#cking house again!"

to this day, he apologizes for suggesting that i  make an adoption plan in the first place.

i think the whole "failed adoption/placement" thing is considered worse than bmother loss, because the very assumption of adoption denotes that pregnant women who make adoption plans don't want their children. hence, when we decide that "hey, maybe i DO want to parent the child that i gave birth to", it flips the paradigm of what adoption should be about.

also, i HATE it when every time a woman changes her mind and wants to parent, she's considered having "scammed", "manipulated" or caused the aparents a pain the same as the death of the child.

i think the whole failed adoption thing is more propaganda to authenticate INFANT (not foster care/orphan) adoption.

Answer 9

Beacause adopters have to wait sooo long and have such heartache waiting that it is infinitely more devastating to loose a child after all that time and work... All I had to do was hop into bed and hey, I can do that again whenever I want to right?

Answer 10

The mother/child example hurts their feelings.