Why not abolish adoption and have family preservation?

Question

there must be someone, somewhere in the family that can help the mother. so why not support the child remaining in the family?

Answer 1

No one makes money if it's done that way...

Answer 2

While adoption will always be necessary in a small amount, you're right, it should be avoided at all costs.

But it's not a goal because attorneys & agencies make money off the backs of infants, and there is a big demand for the 'product' right now.

I just read in the paper today that cell phones might cause infertility in men!  More babies needed to fill those homes!

Answer 3

unfortunately some families are not considered fit to raise a child.

Answer 4

Well fortunately, adoption is abolishing itself to a large extent.  Since Roe v Wade and the realization that the sky high divorce rate does not guarantee an adoptive 2-parent family, the rate of domestic infant adoption as a choice for unplanned pregnancy has plummeted (less than 1% of unmarried women choose adoption).  Some former church-run "houses of shame", adoption mills for unwed mothers have been converted to family preservation centers with health care, day care, housing, job-training, and parenting classes.  These church people have realized that the most effective way to reduce abortion rates is to support parenting.  Beating women over the head with the very unappealing adoption "option" just doesn't work.

The negative impact of these changes has been the growth of unethical, high pressure pernicious adoption agencies and attorneys resulting in corruption and dirty tactics in the US adoption industry.

Adoption reform is deperately needed in the US but even more important is the need for social reform.   There will always be a need to provide respite care for children as some families are not equipped to provide children a healthy environment.

Adoption for profit must be abolished to put a check on the high pressure sales tactics that are used by adoption workers, attorneys, and some adoptive parents.  At the same time, clearer "ground rules" on respite care must be part of the reform movement.

Answer 5

Because that doesn't support current lobbies. Keep in mind that it hasn't been all that long since the government forcibly took Native American children from their families and dumped them into orphanages to be indoctrinated.

Answer 6

Because sometimes the mother does not want to raise the baby, and wants to move on with her life- if the baby stayed with a family member, he or she would be a constant reminder of what they wanted to move on from.  This would be especially true in rape cases.  There are also times when family members are in no better position to care for a child than the mother is, and the baby would be much better off with a loving, capable family.

Answer 7

because some women CHOOSE to give their babies up for whatever reason -- why make the family absorb the costs and responsibility for raising that child?

if the mother has a drug problem and the baby is born with high doses of meth in her system as were her older siblings, you're advocating abolishing adoption and forcing this child to stay in the family iwth a drug addicted mom?

oh my . . .*sigh*

eta:::::  there was a poster earlier today who stated her family was basically disowning her if she kept her bi-racial child ... your idea would mean the family would HAVE to take that child...a child they may resent . . hmmmmmm, not sure htat's in the child's best interests at all.

what about hte kids in foster care who have babies -- who's going to take care of that baby?  where's her family to take care of the baby?

Answer 8

That sound rosie and neat in the world of fairy tale!

Its not as easy as that though. Some women, CHOOSE to give up a child and DO NOT want the child in their lives. (not all women, but some do this).

It wouldnt be fair to the bio mother, nor would it be fair to the child either.

Cut all strings and leave the decisions til later in life for reunion.

There could be alot of things to consider in the family, and adoption may be best for the child.

Answer 9

If there is someone in the family who can raise a child or help raise a child, that's certainly preferable to losing a child from a family.  It's not going to be the case all of the time, but for the times that it is possible, it should be done.

Answer 10

What you'll notice from MOST first moms that you meet, is that their family is the #1 pressure when deciding to place a child for adoption. Almost everyone has someone who CAN help, but refuse to. Many people just don't value family like other do.

Answer 11

Maybe the mothers family was the last place she wanted to take the child.

Answer 12

What if the parents are deceased and their is no one willing or able to care for the child?

Answer 13

Family preservation has been the norm for about 14 years, if not more. Some families benefit from it, some don't. Not to name names, but one family I worked with (who will stay in my heart til the day I die) had repeated rounds of FPS and it didn't help. Our agency finally took custody when the youngest child told one of the FPS workers, "Boy hurt me. Boy burned me." "Boy" was a young adult, an uncle or cousin, and had burned the child on the upper thighs with a curling iron. It was the "family custom" to allow grandpa to have his way with all of the youngest children in the family. This young girl was "initiated" at the age of four months, and her abuse continued until she was six years old.

Mom is developmentally disabled (retarded), and to this day, doesn't understand that the state took her children away permanently, severed her rights and had the girls adopted. She also couldn't understand the basics of protecting her children from predators like her father in law. Her husband (much older than her) also liked to participate in the "family tradition", so how would the children have been safe if they had received 4-6 weeks of FPS services, when they needed to be completely re-taught that having s*x with the youngest family members was wrong???

I was their social worker for four years; the youngest child, who is now 19, will NEVER be normal; she is psychotic and a danger to herself and others, all from her family's "tradition". Ironically, it is her older sister who is scarier. She's quiet about her thoughts and feelings and she doesn't mind completely disrupting and blowing a family up in order to stay in the same state as her bio-family. Their older half-sister gave birth to her first child at 16, and, at the age of 10, had the hymen of an adult woman.

Ask the question again, but after reading the above.

Answer 14

This is not realistic take me for example my birthmother could not take care of herself,  let alone a baby, her mother would not care for me because I am bi-racial.  She clearly didn’t have any family that would help her. Birthfather wouldn’t even pay for a dna test to see if I was his biological child, so that speaks for him.  Not to mentioned it would have been damaging for me to have to grow up around racist family members.

Not every family can afford to care for a child; they may not be the best place for the child to be. Like that thing Biz posted about a child placed with blood grandparents and the child ended up dying and being poorly treated. Despite what some may think birth family is not always the best place for a person to be.  Someones parents may have died and they have no other family or any family willing to take them. Maybe they just don’t feel they are cable of parenting or just plain don’t want too. All people aren’t fit to be parents, and sometimes their family are also not fit to take the child.

In my case adoption was the best case for me, and I know there are others that fit in this category for whatever reason.  

To want to take away what is best for someone even more a child or baby is just wrong. Had I stayed with birthmother no doubt I would have been living on the streets with her, probably become a drug addict like her and a ho. If I ever saw her mother I would have seen that she favored birthmother’s first child(who lived with her mom), why because she was all white.

If someone is able to parent their child with help, or assistance and they want too then  all the power to them. However this is not the case for every family.

Answer 15

I am not saying that this would never work- but if I had a child that I know for financial or any other reason could not care for myself, I would place for adoption outside of the family- because it it would be very hard to have the child that you carried for 9 months living with a family member- that is only my opinion. Helping is one thing- however not all family members want to help support a grandchild or niece or nephew- etc.  Why not ask the question, why not abolish abortion, instead of abolishing adoption which helps the birth mom get on with her life, and also for those couples that cannot conceive to have a baby.- instead of having 4,000 abortions a day- just a thought- and I know that thought will not be liked by many.

Answer 16

God has allowed adoption so there should be no Human or Jinn laws forbidding what God has allowed. Sometimes the child is better off being adopted then living with a w***e or junkie mother or father. Sometimes the family enviroment isn't safe enough for the child. If the mother is unwed then there might be some families who do not care for the child.

Answer 17

If adoption had not been an option, I would probably still have daughter. The people in my family would have had no other recourse than to keep my baby.

Answer 18

Sometime preservation of the family is the last thing that is best for the child!!!

Answer 19

I would agree with that, but that is not always the case.  Not every family can afford to take in a baby, but that would be ideal to keep the baby in the family.

Answer 20

Because doing what is best for family preservation isnt always what is best for the child.  There are many people out there who cannot have children that would make absolutely great parents.  I agree that the idea of someone in the child's family adopting them would be great, but I dont think that is practical.

Answer 21

because sometimes people within that family do not want to support the child, and adoption will give that child a better life to be in a family with someone who will love her/him and cherish them for the rest of their life.  Adoption is NOT a bad thing.

Answer 22

the fact that people like you seem to REFUSE to accept is that there are women who get pregnant and do not WANT their children.. it's their choice!!

As long as people die adoption will be necessary...

you are an extremist who doesn't know what you're talking about

sure much should be done to preserve more families, enable children to stay with their biological family.. that's great!  BUT to say adoption should be abolished is ridiculous and juvenile thinking.. sorry.. the truth

and as much as people like you refuse to believe it, there ARE some (maybe not many) children who are MUCH better off being raised by loving people who are not related to them, whereas if they'd stayed with their biological mothers, their life would have been he**

there are people who ARE raised by their bio parents and their life is/was he**

NEWS FALASH..adoption is not the cause of all the world's problems..or even of all horrid childhoods!!

it should be about what's best for the child..

Answer 23

I agree that adoption should be a very very last option after all other avenues of caretaking in the best interests of the child have been exhausted.

As a society we should all be working towards abolishing adoption. Adoption isn't the best thing for a child, or else everyone would be adopting "out" their children. Adoption should happen only in extreme cases where people cannot for whatever the reasons care for their children.

Instead of family members adopting them, they should be adopting the mothers /fathers and helping to raise their new grandchildren.

You don't here often of expecting mothers being adopted by richer PAPs and the paps helping to raise their new grandchild, but that would ideally be a more humane thing to do in many circumstances.

Science has proven to us that the mother/child bond is something that shouldn't be broken unless the mother is broken herself and cannot raise the child ie abuse, drugs, unfit etc. Severing that bond so carelessly the way America does is really sad.

Social workers should be working towards making adoption happen less. We all should. Because its not ideal. We need to be addressing many different areas in our "family values" in our culture to heal it, to keep families intact, preserve them and the well being of our children.

It doesn't take a perfect world to address the corruption in the adoption industry. Once addressed the adoptions would fall into the hundreds per year in my opinion. Then the foster children/youth would finally be giving priority to stable, permanent homes.

Answer 24

My son's maternal grandmother challenged our son's adoption several times. Our son's first mom did not want her anywhere near him. Our son's maternal grandmother was fresh out of prison when our son was born. She challenged the adoption out of spite to her daughter. All her children grew up in foster care. When she challenged the adoption of our son, she still had her own 11 year old son in foster care. Our son's bio father was her drug dealer. He was a 37 yo man (our son's first mom is 23) who already had multiple warrants and court cases against him that involved not paying child support. When we tried to serve him termination papers, he avoided us because of the warrent against him. When we finally did serve him, he contacted our son's first mom. He thought the papers were for child support and threw them in the trash.

Our son's first mom was also dead set against foster care because of her experiences with the foster care system.

In short, many first moms choose adoption because they want a life for their child that is better than what was provided to them by their family members. If this is the case, why would you ever think it would be a good idea for a child to be raised by grandparents when they did such a poor job of raising their own children? Why would you want a women to raise a grandchild when her own children were raised in the foster care system? This makes no sense.

ETA: All the information I just provided to you was told to us by our son's first mom. It's not my opinion at all. I don't even know the women. I could also go on and on about the problems on her dad's side of the family as well. Basically, she is the mother. Shouldn't she be the one to choose what is best for her son? She knows her family better than anybody else and if she doesn't think they are fit to raise her child, shouldn't her decision be honored and respected?

ETA: Also, the family is not the #1 factor in pressuring a women to adopt. They are the #1 factor in a women choosing to parent. My son's adoption agency has had 3 women who initially chose adoption, choose to parent. They ended up choosing to parent because their parents talked them into it. This is a fact. Most grandparents have a very hard time with adoption because they lose all connection to their grandchild. This is also very big in the African American and Mexican culture. They believe heavily in family preservation. In this day and age, grandparents rarely are the ones convincing their children to adopt. They are usually the ones convincing to parent.

Recently, I went out to eat with the people who work at my son's adoption agency. They had a mom drop off her 3 week old baby with them for the day because she was having a mental breakdown. Her parents had convinced her to parent instead of adoption but were not helping her at all like they promised. Very sad!

Answer 25

Because some families just shouldn't be preserved!

When mom is living with an abusive husband who may or may not be molesting his daughter and then the daughter goes out and finds a nice drug dealer for a boyfriend that gets her pregnant and then beats her because he doesn't want to be tied down and she returns to her abusive home...

Do you really want another child to grow up in this situation?

Answer 26

some families can't conceive and its a great option for them!

Adoption is a h**l of a lot better than abortion- it gives that human being a shot at life. Let that child light up someone elses life

Answer 27

I have met some of my biological family, and honestly they are not who I am.  Now if I had been adopted by a biological family member I'm sure i wouldn't know any different.  But I wasn't, and I'm happy for who I am, and who my parents raised me to be.  

Why would you put a child with a biological family member that might feel obligated to care for a child, when there are people who want to be a child's parents and not just someone who took them in?  I can see making sure the biological parents are sure they want to put their baby up for adoption, but why force other family members to parent their child when they don't want to?