[usedtobe]

Found among the carnage left in my apparent initial kill-joy hijacking of an otherwise entertaining thread, I was asked: "Why not address both forms of bad parenting at the same time? How can you advocate for one group of traumatized kids and not the other? Especially when there are solutions that could address both forms of bad parenting without heaping scorn on one or the other."

Why? Because I was abused by my ADOPTIVE parents, not my BIOLOGICAL parents. The BIOLOGICAL child of my ADOPTIVE parents raped their ADOPTED child, but it was the ADOPTED child who was banished from an ADOPTIVE family, for speaking the truth. Rather than attack a single entity, the most obvious solution to address ABUSIVE parenting is to focus on an obvious culprit and source of statistical error. (Note :"bad" parenting is not an appropriate description for ABUSIVE. If it were a matter of Good v. Bad, no one would be able to escape the justice of retribution. NO ONE, not even myself, is intrinsically Bad or Good.) I single-out Adoption because that IS the subject-matter of this forum, is it not? Perhaps it is the term Support that misled me... silly me!

Regardless, since I seem to enjoy writing letters to myself, I will continue my self-absorbed thoughts...

For the sake, and on behalf of ALL children, it is a vial reflection of immoral proportions to limit root causes of trauma imposed on a child by that child's parents. Adoptive or Biological. However, it is the Adoption system that flouts the term, "What's in The Best Interest of The Child." It is the Adoption policy, responsibility and obligation to ensure the deliberate placement of a child into the care of adults who applied to assume the role of parent. It is a shame this aspect of tragic-irony is missed by so many. Not to mention the sad fact that key words are not read correctly. Adoption is not the same as Adoptive. I know the difference. One is an institution, the other is a title of one betrayed by a system. I don't make the rules, I only follow them, as per the contract signed by my ADOPTIVE parents.

So, at the risk of having further blasting admonishment by those who argue my points, it might behoove those persons to re-read the posts I wrote suggesting, illustrating, and asking for a unified support and avocation for ALL children traumatized by parents. Biological AND Adoptive. ALIKE. Perhaps with the blinders removed, those readers will recognize WHY I annoyingly insist I repeat my unlimited heaping scorn towards those who wish me to stop hijacking perfectly pleasant threads. I refuse to sit down and allow others insist on down-playing the direct affect and result adoption has on the increased likelihood of a child being placed in the arms of danger.

Facts are facts, whether I am criticized or not. I am just one person. Just one statistic. Go ask the millions of others who have been left abandoned on the left side of the road away from the adoption agencies that claim to support a child's best interest.

With the likes of the support found among those who wish to silence the messenger, who needs enemies?

Finally, I thank you all for proving my point far more eloquently than I ever could. One must read the lines, not between them to glean any insight. This is one topic ignorance cannot be allowed to find bliss.

Happy Reading to ALL!

[sugarbabysmommy]

Originally Posted by usedtobe

I refuse to sit down and allow others insist on down-playing the direct affect and result adoption has on the increased likelihood of a child being placed in the arms of danger.

Can you expand on this? I am interested to know from your perspective how my undergoing a homestudy which included inviting SWers into my home to conduct multiple interveiws, providing medical documents, child abuse clearences, FBI checks etc to have a child placed in my home means there will be an increased likelihood that any child placed with me will be placed in the arms of danger?

There are issues inherent in adoption, pain, anger, sadness, grief, and I will never downplay that these may be a reality for my child. So when you say arms of danger are speaking to a broad spectrum of experience in adoption including those above or are you speaking to the hatred and vileness that you endured?

[usedtobe]

I speak of the arms of those who by-pass the rigorous and lengthy back-ground checks, follow-ups, and interviews taken of every person ever known, seen or thought about by the parental applicant. It just so happens these are the same individuals who have the financial latitude and social elitism most adoptive parents do not have. It just so happens that those who are able to detour the required course & process of application & approval of request do so for a reason that might warrent a flag of concern. Contrary to the attacks made against me, I do not begrudge adoptive parents. Not in the least bit. I am envious that there are those adopted children who will never know what it is I have experienced as a fellow adoptee, but that is not at the fault of the parents who are committed to their responsibilty. It is the fault of an agency that has not been as committed to the well-being of an innocent child, as it should. I am envious I have never experienced that type of love, nor will I, based on my limited knowledge of such matters of the heart & soul. But that is the result of an agency's submission to corruption, money, power, and an imposing threatening influence. Not the family that gladly awaits whatever decision an adoption agency has to offer in terms of baby available for adoption.

It is not the responsibility of adoptive parents to police fellow adoptive parents. That's an absurdity that I fear some may think I suggest. It is the responsibility of those initiating the establishment of adoption agencies, and the recruits and agents they hire that need to be policed & regulated. Ideally, I think part of that input should be provided by members of the triad the agency supposedly represents.

I truly appreciate the opportunity to answer a Question, rather than defend an assumption.

[heartened]

One thing I've found interesting is that most of the abused adoptees I know were raised by wealthy adoptive parents who somehow managed to make their way through the vetting process of adoption agencies.

I've mentioned before that my uncle begged the agency to not place any more children with my parents - fat lot of good THAT did. My parents weren't guilty of bad parenting, they were abusers. They were as sick and twisted as the psycho adopters in Ohio who were locking their kids in cages.

If I'd seen no evidence of children still being placed in abusive homes (usually wealthy) even today, I'd not be so angry. If I could believe that sort of circumvention of the system ceased 20 years ago, I'd not be so angry.

But it still happens today and it will continue to happen until we make some MAJOR changes in adoption.

You want us to believe things have changed, we see evidence it has not. We still see people essentially buying babies and lip-service being paid to doing "appropriate" home studies.

I want follow up. I want adoptive parents to be FORCED to undergo repeat visits, every month for the first year, every three months for the second through fifth year and so on. Yes, I want them held to a higher standard - they are raising another woman's baby. You're darn right I expect them to be 1000 times better than the bio parents - otherwise, the bio parents might as well still parent.

Will they agree?

Russia can't even get parents to write their post-adoption reports.

But we're supposed to trust that adoption today is so much better across the board?

I don't think so.

I DO think that the kind of parents who post here are NOT the problem. Quite frankly, I believe these parents wouldn't be putting in the effort to learn like they do on this forum if they were the kind of loser abusers we're talking about. But are these parents representative of the majority? Seems to me there are thousands upon thousands of adoptions taking place every year - and not an equal number of members posting.

What kind of people are they? I don't know - and, the truth is, neither does anyone else.

When an adoptive parent like the freak who adopted Cindy Jordan's baby can write a book about how to manipulate a vulnerable woman into giving up her baby - and that book not only sells well but gets rave reviews from adoptive parents - that is a CLEAR indication to me that we're not talking "cream of the crop" types. We're talking about people willing to go to any length to get a baby.

And I, as an adoptee, am supposed to trust that things have changed?

No, I'm sorry, I'm just not convinced.

[Nicole28]

Hmm - this makes me wonder. What exactly does the homestudy involve? I guess I never stopped to think what happened before my adoption!

I know that a SW comes into the home, interviews the prospective a-parents....but what else? Enlighten me!

Nicole

[sneezyone]

Originally Posted by FH-heartened

I want follow up. I want adoptive parents to be FORCED to undergo repeat visits, every month for the first year, every three months for the second through fifth year and so on. Yes, I want them held to a higher standard - they are raising another woman's baby. You're darn right I expect them to be 1000 times better than the bio parents - otherwise, the bio parents might as well still parent.

I understand what you're saying, really I do, but adoptive parents are people too. They're not saints. Expecting them to be saint-like is just perpetuating another stereotype. No one knows what kind of parent they'll be until they actually are one. Until then, it's all academic. BTW - I really don't believe that DD's bmom thought herself in any way less than me as a mom/parent or placed with us so dd could have a better mom. I think she wanted dd to have the kind of mom that she is/was to her other children, the kind of mom she did not feel she could be with dd.

If adoptive parents are FORCED to undergo the level of scrutiny you propose (and I'm not saying that they shouldn't) then EVERY parent should be forced to undergo that level of scrutiny. The harms that come to a child from abuse are no different or less damaging b/c of the presence of a biological connection to the abuser. You could even argue that bioparent abuse is more damaging since the victim always shares the genetics and potentially the traits of his/her abuser(s) and will forever be torn between love and hate. At least you are free to hate the whole person since you share nothing biologically, KWIM? I don't think any child should be abused, ever. Every parent should be held to high standards. Biology should not give a parent a pass.

[sugarbabysmommy]

Originally Posted by usedtobe

I truly appreciate the opportunity to answer a Question, rather than defend an assumption.

I understand you much better. I had gleened these things from your other posts, but at times I admit to loosing track of your message and to beginning to feel under attack in broader terms as "another loathsome adoptive parent." (not your words I'm quoting) Your experience is so different from mine, from any child I grew up with, including from the adopted children I know... Then again I assume so since the only reality I can be sure of is my own. I am sorry your life was failed by persons who claim to hold the interest of the child at heart. I'm not saying sorry in a pittying pat you on the head, now go your merry way sort of way, but a genuine sorry from one person to another.

[sugarbabysmommy]

Originally Posted by FH-Nicole28

I know that a SW comes into the home, interviews the prospective a-parents....but what else? Enlighten me!

Nicole

I'd be happy to share what I can remember, but I don't want to side track the thread. If you start another thread, even on the general aparent forum, I would respond as I'm sure others would. I

[heartened]

Adrienne, you're going to expose one of my other prejudices here. LOL I DO think all parents should be held to these standards, bio or adoptive. But that is, unfortunately, unrealistic - policing parents (any parents) to this degree is not possible, I know that.

Keep in mind, I'm one of the people who loves the adage, "you need a license to own a dog, a license to drive a car, but any ______ can be a parent." Again, however, parental licensing is unrealistic. It is also easily corruptible, with enough money nearly anything can be circumvented.

I don't know what the answers are. I do believe the current system is not working as well as people want to think it is working. I also think that it is difficult to get a large number of adoptive parents onboard with serious adoption reform - because much of the reformation goes against their best interests as prospective parents.
That's not a "slam" on adoptive parents - major adoption reform on every level will likely result in a lot of childless couples remaining childless. But the truth is, I just can't get that worked up about it. It is not my job, or the job of anyone else (except agencies), to provide these people with babies. And if improving our adoption system means some people remain childless, I DO consider that an acceptable loss.

Unfortunately, again, it is not the super wealthy prospective parents who will suffer - it's the "average joes and janes" like the dads & moms on this forum who would make incredible parents, but just can't afford to make it happen who will lose out, as will the kids who could be loved by them.

Basically, I really believe that as long as there is even a penny involved in adoption, nothing much is going to change.

But then, I AM jaded and I AM cynical. I don't mean that sarcastically, I really am.

[sneezyone]

Eh, you're jaded, I (apparently) suck . No harm, no foul. I agree that parenting ought to require some sort of advanced training and ongoing supervision *heaven knows I could use help every now and again* but I agree, it's impractical. Personally, the values clarification process we went through when we adopted dd was incredibly healthy for us as a couple. Then again, DH and I took advantage of all those intrusive questions to really discuss and negotiate what kind of parents we would be. Not everyone who goes through the process does that, tho. So, here anyway, we agree.

Where we disagree is on how you should allocate scarce supervisory resources. Since we can't check out everyone or license all people before they become parents, how can you tell who needs it and who doesn't?? Basically, I don't think adoptive- or bio-parent status is a good proxy for parental fitness/health, a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff, KWIM? There must be better predictors of abusive behavior than the method by which children join their families. Prior alcohol/drug abuse, serious mental health issues, this sort of thing.

[heartened]

Originally Posted by sneezyone

There must be better predictors of abusive behavior than the method by which children join their families. Prior alcohol/drug abuse, serious mental health issues, this sort of thing.

What scares me is that, if I've read some of these posts correctly, there are agencies and homestudy agents (?) who try to disqualify adult survivors of abuse? Is that really so?

I think that at one time in this country there probably was a pretty high instance of the abused becoming abusers - I know my father was abused and I know that my molester was molested - but it seems as if that cycle is broken more and more today. Maybe because we're a little smarter, a little more aware, a little more likely to promote healing instead of silence?

I just cannot see how they can decide to disqualify parents for surviving abuse. Like you, I think there has to be a better predictor available - history of abuse, adoptive/bio, economic/social class - none of these strike me as particularly trend-oriented anymore.

History of drug/alcohol abuse, maybe - but then, I look at my step-father-in-law. He drinks, easily, a case of beer a day. I adore him, as does my husband. My husband credits his step-dad as being the influence which kept him from becoming a carbon copy of his father - trust me, that would have been undesireable. LOL There's no question step-dad is an alcoholic (and so old and alcohol-saturated that it would kill him if he quit) - yet his parenting skills were top notch if the way his kids and step-kids turned out is any indication.

Of course, the flip side of that is my ex-husband and his entire family. They're all alcoholics and mean drunks. The sad thing is that his sister and brother-in-law adopted two children 12 & 10 years ago. How the case workers managed to miss the rampant alcoholism in that family is beyond me. Here's my cynicism - they own a half a million dollar house and easily earn that same amount in a year.

I don't know - I guess I have to keep reminding myself that just because something "has been my experience," that doesn't make it a safe generalization. I'm still working on that.

[sneezyone]

Originally Posted by usedtobe

However, it is the Adoption system that flouts the term, "What's in The Best Interest of The Child."

Actually, the best interest standard is most frequently used/flouted in custody arrangements that have nothing to do with adoption, primarily divorce. As a measuring stick, it's no more useful in those cases than it is in adoption.

Heartened -
I really have no idea how or why people are disqualified from adopting. There is no uniform standard (and I'm not sure whether there should be since people are more than the sum of their parts). It is a conundrum. I heartily agree with you tho - money is certainly the least of things when it comes to good/effective parenting. I mean really...those housewives of beverly hills?? Or what about the spoiled daddy's girls??? *shivering* LOL!

[usedtobe]

<ahem...!>

Originally Posted by usedtobe

those who are able to detour the required course & process of application & approval of request do so for a reason that might warrent a flag of concern... It is the fault of an agency that has not been as committed to the well-being of an innocent child... that may result in an agency's submission to corruption, money, power, and an imposing threatening influence. .

It is the responsibility of those initiating the establishment of adoption agencies, and the recruits and agents they hire that need to be policed & regulated. Ideally, I think part of that input should be provided by members of the triad the agency supposedly represents.

---> I am grateful for the turn-around that has developed on this subject-matter. This has never been an issue about or against mothers & their children: it's about protecting the children of adoption, in every way possible. Those like myself are the children of closed-adoption. It was through the mistakes made by the agencies and the subsequent ill-effects on the children that brought attention to the need for Change & reform in terms of birth-record-keeping. We are the children who have had to suffer the consequences of that fall-out. But there are other mistakes and issues that have created unforseen problems and suffering, that only the adoptee of that era can tell, share & confirm -- NOW. The nature of abuses: physical, emotional, neglect, torment, torture, and rape, (or as I would say, is it incest if your brother isn't REALLY your brother?) is sensitive to begin with. Adding the emotional complexities of adoption to the already sensitive and fragile responses of the victims, it is sometimes too difficult for us to endure without periods of removal and retreat. I know for myself, the amount of guilt, shame, fear, and abandonment I have always felt from my abuse defies anything I can ever express in words. (so imagine THAT for a moment!) Oh what I wouldn't do just to have a simple primal wound!

But with wounds, we learn to stand. Then walk. For some, maybe the next step will be learning how to run. For others it's learning new ways to stand & walk. And yes, there are those who will never get beyond a crawl, but whatever progress is made, it's PROGRESS. The same is true for the established system of adoption. Steps have been made for improvement. And those steps are good. Certainly after all that time, there's room for more progress to be made so the children now won't have to experience our version of adoption. Ever.

[sneezyone]

HUH? I'm sorry Usedtobe - I'm trying, really I am, but I can't follow your thinking/writing most times. I get lost and that could totally be my fault. I'm *thinking* you're referring to my post about not taking advantage of the questions in a homestudy.

If so, not utilizing a homestudy to its full advantage is not the same as not having one or buying your way out of the requirement. Everyone has to go through the homestudy but, like anything, what you get out of it is what you put into it. You can require people to answer questions about themselves, their sex life, their goals and finances. But you will never be able to ensure that folks are taking advantage of what's being offered (counseling, personal exploration, etc.). Big, complex, bureauocratic systems are designed to ensure that a process is followed (all the checklist items are present and accounted for). They are not effective at ensuring the purity of one's heart or intention and never will be. Laws are always about having a fair, just, uniform process - not a fair, just, or uniform outcome. To expect the latter is to set yourself up for constant disappointment.

[usedtobe]

I forgot people can't follow my locamotive thoughts...

I was reading through the "conversation" between you & Heartened:

I just cannot see how they can decide to disqualify parents for surviving abuse. Like you, I think there has to be a better predictor available - history of abuse, adoptive/bio, economic/social class - none of these strike me as particularly trend-oriented anymore.

I really have no idea how or why people are disqualified from adopting. There is no uniform standard (and I'm not sure whether there should be since people are more than the sum of their parts). It is a conundrum. I heartily agree with you tho - money is certainly the least of things when it comes to good/effective parenting


To which I was re-inserting my thoughts on where and how Standards need to be established for the sake of the child's safe placement with authentically loving, caring parents. (And not the one's who have beat the system, just as they had beat the child...)