Why wait for foster care?

Question

I am asking this question because I have read post after post about anti-adoption &to go through foster care. One poster just said in another question "You may not like to hear this, but I definitely do look down on adoptive parents. Unless they adopted from foster care, they essentially stole children from their parents..." (from MomMom)

This issue. Well really two, first children are not stolen, the birth parents give up their rights, and these birth parents I have to say made the toughest decision but it was their choice and they are probably the smartest. The reason - Children in Foster care have parents that can not take care of them, neglect, abuse, abandonment, etc. So if these parents would have admitted when they were pregnant that they could not be parents and given their child a chance with adoption, we would NOT have foster care. But no, the parents keep the children, to abuse them, have them taken and now we have roughly 800,000 children in US Foster Care.

Answer 1

If a sixteen-year-old girl is pregnant and know she can't afford to keep the baby and still graduate from high school on time, and probably not college either, then what is wrong with adopting the baby at it's birth?

We know a couple who has been trying to adopt for awhile now (they currently have a couple of foster kids that they've been trying to adopt) and it's not like they're walking around, asking pregnant women to give up their babies for them or going through the nursery at the hospital and stealing children right out of the bassinets! They're waiting in line for a case to crop up where a woman realizes that she can't provide for the child, whether it be financially, emotionally, or structurally. They aren't 'stealing babies.' That's actually something that's rather offensive to say.

Answer 2

The problem with adoption today is that it is driving up the baby brokering business whether we want to look at it or not. If complete adoption reformation takes place think of how many women wouldn't be coerced or tricked into giving up their child because they are poor, how many women wouldn't have their children stolen, and worst yet, how many children wouldn't be raped just to fill the "demand for babies". Like it or not this is happening and thank God there are people in this world that are trying to stop the selfish people driving the demand up for babies.    I'm not anti-adoption, but it has to be done in a way so that these crimes will not be committed.

I can't even begin to fathom why a person would look the other way and/or write it off as if its only a few cases. Its like someone ignorantly saying that the "holocaust" didn't happen or it was exaggerated. We are living in very unethical times in which people are only thinking of themselves and twisting it in their demented heads that they are doing "good" for a child or society. Those people are only kidding themselves and karma will catch up with them one way or another.

Answer 3

It is because of the abused kids in foster care that we need adoption, or something like it, to find homes for the kids who are in that sad situation.

But for women who, as you say, have to make a "tough decision"... why are they making it?  Is it because they don't feel they can afford it?  Because they are still in school?  Don't have support at home?

Why should these women, who obviously love their children, have to lose their babies forever because of a problem that should be able to be fixed?  Why do they have to supply the adoption machine with their children because they are poor, or attending college, or young?

So what if a girl is 17 when she gives birth...she has to lose the baby she loves forever because of her age?  She won't be 17 forever!  And the baby will not be a baby forever!  Why not find ways to HELP these women KEEP and PARENT their children?  Why is that SO HARD for people to comprehend and get behind?

Hmmmm...if they love their children so much that it's such a difficult decision, then obviously the WON'T be abusing their children.  They just are in a difficult situation and need HELP to get through it.  What the DON'T need is someone telling them that losing their child forever is the "brave" and "loving" thing to do.

Answer 4

Ignorance = bliss.

You must be very happy.

Answer 5

Let me make sure that I'm understanding your correctly.

You are saying that at least some of the parents that voluntarily relinquish their children at birth do so because they do not feel they are able or willing to be parents.  They come to this realization somewhere during the pregnancy  and/or after the birth of the child.  Because of this self-examination, the parents determine that adoption is the best choice for the child.  

If those same parents were somehow coerced into parenting, those children would probably wind up in the foster care system.  Conversely, if abusive parents came to the conclusion that they weren't able or willing to be parents -before- they abused/neglected their children and instead placed them for adoption, there would be less abused/neglected children  

Am I reading you right?

Answer 6

Why wait?  Because it's the right thing to do.  

Adoption is supposed to be about homes for children who need them, not children for people who want them.

How can you deem someone an unfit parent when she hasn't even given birth yet?

Answer 7

I totally get what you are saying. For instance someone who abuses drugs while pregnant and would probably lose that child to foster care, could place that child for adoption rather than in foster care at the risk of multiple homes.

One woman from Y/A is a perfect example. She was so scared that her child would have been abused just as she was that the place her for adoption. Because of her age, her family could have had unwanted influence over what would have happened to the child at home even abuse.

You make a good point. If only there weren't a need for adoption or foster care, but there is. All we can do is push for a better system and advocate for ethical and needed adoptions.

Answer 8

you are totally right on.

Answer 9

people are idiots, why do you listen?  the only time i'm ever against adoption is when people hide the fact the kid was adopted and treat it like a dirty secret, from pretend pregnancy on.  and even then it's still better for the kid to be adopted than not.

saving kids from foster care is great but people must also realize that this is very hard, and these kids often suffer serious mental difficulty.  if people want to adopt a baby from someone who's giving it away, why not?

Answer 10

People who are abusive are not thinking of others, or how their actions will feel toward others.

People who give their children to others to be raised "so that they will have a better life" make those decisions because they DO love and care for their children.  

Unfortunatley, that love is misplaced, because the person who DOES care what another human being will feel will most likely NOT abuse their kids (which means that the vast majority of the mom's who give their children up for adoption, voluntarily, would NOT be abusive if they parented instead).

Kids don't need substitute families unless abuse or neglect is involved, and the two types of people you're comparing aren't comparable to each other.  Unfortunately, the first parents who abuse their kids want to keep them - while the first parents who won't abuse their kids think they're doing something good for their children by giving them to others.

I'm sure there is some overlap between these two sets of people, but the percentage would be VERY small, considering, again, that abusive people DON'T CARE about others' feelings, and so they would not have the wherewithall to plan ahead to not abuse someone.

Answer 11

Most natural parents give up their children due to a lack of resouces.

I bet your children's parents given the money you spent on the adoption could have/would have kept their children.

Answer 12

The law of supply and demand.

Couples look to adopt.  That creates demand.  Others, seeing dollar signs, look to find a supply to meet the demand.  Thus, young women are pressured into giving up their children by adults who either don't care or have bought into the "win-win-win" lie of adoption.  

The math is simple.  Adoption does not operate to take care of children.  It operates according to market forces.

Answer 13

Hi Renee,

First i have to say that Mommom is an extreme.  I tend to ignore extremes at both ends and find the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Second, the more i learn about adoption the more i learn adoption is a complicated mess.  The more i learn the more i lean towards foster care adoption.  I totally get that these are the kids that truly need parents. The other reason i lean towards foster care adoption is by default.  (seeing problems in both domestic and international adoptions)

Domestic adoption--coercion makes me want to hurl.  I do believe that many young women are made to feel inferior to the "paps".  I do believe that many of these young women believe lack of resources is a viable reason to place a child for adoption.  I don't.  Every time i hear of an open adoption promise being close my heart breaks.  These are just a few of things i want "fixed" in domestic adoptions.  Until these things are dealt with i can not in good conscious recommend them.  I do believe in a woman's free choice.  If she is fully informed and encouraged to parent but still feels she wants to place her baby thru adoption, then fine that is her right.  At least in my mind.  But all other options should be explored first.

International adoption.  Ugh.  Kidnapping, coercsion, starvation, poverty, violence, corruption etc.  my mind is mush on this subject.  On top of all this the memory of holding my DD just skin and bones as she collapsed in my arms due to disease and malnutrition.  Remember she was in great health according to Ethiopian standards.  I have never ever seen a child in this condition it was a frightening sight.  Throwing money at this problem doesn't fix it.  I wish it did.  

So you see i am back to foster care.  Foster care is my only sanity in adoption at the moment.

As an abuse survivor, my father never ever would have given me up.  I was his property.  He owned me.  He brought me into this world and he could take me out of it too.  You see with abusers its always about them.  Never once did he think of what was best for me.  It was all about Him.

The parents who actually put the child first and think its in the child's best interest to be raised by "better" people are probably the parents who should raise the child themselves.  

Phew!  Sorry that was long.  You asked why foster care and those are my personal reasons.  All the best:)

Answer 14

I agree with you to a point.  I also disagree with agencies who are in the adoption business.

I have adopted a baby boy (by the way, he and I are both white), through private adoption.  I am still in the process of trying to go through the state to get approved to be a foster parent, however, they are so slow, it's a miracle the kids aren't 35 when they get placed.  I know for a fact that if I hadn't already had an adoption plan in place before he was born, that 1:  by her own admission, she was planning on leaving him at the hospital, and 2: that she did a dose of meth the day he was born, and foster care would have taken him away the day he was born, for a minimum of 30 days, because of her drug use.  

Yesterday was a year to the date of her moving in with me to prepare us both for the adoption.  I also found out yesterday that she is pregnant again.  For my son's sake, and the new baby's sake, I pray that she chooses to place this baby, because she refuses to work, hasn't been stable for her 5 year old (who I've heard is in foster care, one of the reasons I'm still persuing that), and I've heard she "occasionally" uses.  To me, one time is too many, and I'm thankful that my son seems to be fine even though she did the drugs.  I've tried to help her, I've sent her clothes, both dressy and work, and I've done a lot to get her to be able to get on her own two feet.  She didn't bother to get medicaid, and just stuck the hospital with the bills.  She's lived in 5 different houses (or campers) since my son was born in September of '07.  The baby's father lost his job due to drug tests for cocaine, meth, and marijuana (I'm good friends with the boss who told me).  Tell me I stole a baby, and I'd not only be hurt, but I'd be rightfully mad.  I even told her if she changed her mind before he was born, that I'd provide everything I'd bought for him (clothes for a year, all baby necessities, even a 2 month supply of diapers and wipes).  All that I asked was since I already loved him too, that she let me see him.  I offered open adoption, and she doesn't bother to come see him.  

Chances are, if she'd kept him, within 5 years he'd be in foster care, and he would have been past the "marketable (don't kill the messenger-I'm quoting the social worker from DHS) age".  What kind of trauma and emotional damage would he have gone through.  

I will always allow her to see him if she wishes.  I will never put her down to him.  I will not try to obtain the new baby, but will open my arms actively if I hear that she wishes to place him.   I have offered to let her move in my extra home, which she doesn't do.  I believe it sometimes (not always), is ignorant people who say uneducated things about AP's.  Her first words when I met her, and the father's exact words to my fiance were, "We are so relieved, we didn't know what to do.  We were going to just leave it at the hospital."  If you still think I'm a thief, bite me!

Answer 15

I see your point. It is frustrating to see this mentality that all kids are better with their bio parents when thousands of kids languish in the foster system.  Obviously not ALL kids are better off or lead better lives merely because they are related to someone.  This view seems naive.  Biology does not conquer all.

It is not politically correct to say but many of those who relinquish would have made great parents and many who keep their kids should have considered adoption.  I saw this when I worked in a mother-baby unit.  The most messed up girls never even considered adoption while some of the most grounded and mature women chose to relinquish their babies.  I NEVER saw a baby snatched or stolen.  I did see teens who were like 13 convinced to adopt.  Coercion?  Hard to say.  But the majority who gave up their kids did so with a great deal of thought.  Many were educated and in their 20's.  They probably would have done fine raising their kids, and their kids never would have ended up in the foster system.

So, basically we are talking about two groups of people here. Adoption does not necessarily decrease foster rates. The kids in foster care usually come from parents who never even considered adoption.  

What gets me the most is post after post of glamorizing this mother-child bond beyond recognition.  This sense that all kids, NO MATTER WHAT, are happier and healthier with bio parents is just not realistic.  The 800,000 foster kids you speak of are proof of this.