[Busyfostermom]

Is there really such a word? As an adoptive mom I don’t believe in such a word. Who/what gives a social worker the right to label a child that way? Does it matter that the child is born and is not going to live a full long life? Does it matter that the child will be a lot of work and cause someone a lot of heartache? Does that child not deserve to be loved, held and cared for by a mom and dad and not just nurses and doctors? Does that child not deserve to live what days she has with a loving family who gives her their heart and soul everyday?

I heard about this little girl. She was born very sick and was thought to not live long. I was told she was “Unadoptable”. The social worker said she did not think anyone would want to adopt her because she had so many health issues. I told her “I want to adopt her!” I asked the social worker what she looked like. I said “Is she cute? I bet she is.” The social worker said “Well, she’s a baby and looks like a baby.” I did not understand that answer. When I first saw this little girl she made my heart melt. She had just come back from UCLA where she had heart surgery. She was still heavily sedated and had tubes and wires everywhere. I looked at her and thought “This is my daughter Bryanna and I love her!” There was still so much I had to learn, go through, experience and deal with before she would actually be able to come and be a permanent part of our family.

I have much more on the day to day struggle with Bryanna to share as well as with other little ones we had the pleasure of meeting through our foster/adoption journey. I am willing to share, just let me know.

[Gryph]

We've adopted 2 older teen boys labeled unadoptable. Basically, the agency had given up trying to find an adoptive home and planned on other living arrangments. They each had their challenges that made them very hard to place. One was to grow up in residential/group homes. The other was expected to grow up in foster care.

[aimeek]

I am really new to all of this - waiting on first placement - BUT I do not think that that word should be allowed. Everyone deserves someone. Especially children. Seems kind of sad to me, has the cw become so hard hearted that a baby just looks like a baby?
I believe in the Bible and it says we are to take care of the orphans - foster children are "orphans"

[Lorraine123]

I do believe that word should be alloweed. I believe that there are children who cannot live in a family setting. Some children can only live in an institutionalized type environmental. I'm not necessarily talking about medical special needs, but emotional and behavioral needs.

[mom2behappy]

God Bless You, your wings are visable. may you continue to do the work He has planned for you..

[Busyfostermom]

I do understand that there are some children that are hard to place because they have been abused to the point they can't function in normal society. I just feel a newborn who is not going to live for very long deserves to be fought for and not labeled "Unadoptable". She did pass away at the tender age of 9 months and I would do it all again! She deserved to be loved and even though she fought everyday to stay alive I loved her with all my heart and soul. When she was in the hospital the doctors said she would probably never be able to be without the NG. Three days after we got home she had her Ng removed. I just believe in Bryanna's case that she did what doctors were saying she would never do. She was a happy baby and it showed! She deserved a chance and we gave what we could for as long as we could.

[Guitarmom]

Oh God Bless you for being willing to take in the "unadoptable" !!! I'm sure if must have been hard, but worth every minute.
I agree- every child deserves a family.

[waited2long]

I also disagree with the term "unadoptable".
I feel there is a family out there for every child, but the families do not know about the children, or how easy it really is to adopt them.
There are a number of families throughout the country that adopt only "special needs" children. I've seen many specials about these families on Discovery Health and the Learning Channel. These families all have experience with the needs and health issues of the children they adopt.
I would bet they think there is NO such thing as an unadoptable child.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by Lorraine123

I do believe that word should be alloweed. I believe that there are children who cannot live in a family setting. Some children can only live in an institutionalized type environmental. I'm not necessarily talking about medical special needs, but emotional and behavioral needs.

I hate to say it, but I agree with you. There are some children who are so uncomfortable in the close confines of family life that they shouldn't be forced to endure it. Many kids who have grown up in institutional care just don't have the skills to live in a nuclear family----they hate it, and really want to go back to congregate living. For those kids, group homes can be a positive, nurturing environment.

[shycar]

Busyfostermom you brought tears to my eyes and many memories. I also agree that just becouse a baby might not live long should not be considered "Unadoptable". When I read about your sweet Bryanna I cried. My daughter also has lots of medical problems. She came to my home as a healthy 2 day old baby (as a foster placement with no hopes to adopt). At 10 days she was admitted to the hospital for two huge heart defects. The doctors told me she might not survive, that I did not need to be involved. Friends told me to just walk away and tell the sw to deal with it, to find a new home if she survived. I looked down at the sweet angel with tubes in every single place on her body. I looked around the room and see mommies and daddies with their baby and she had no one but my hubby and I, her b-mother only came once to see her. We stuck through. Yes she might die during or after, but atleast she had someone by her side who loved her and cared for her. I was there day and night and juggling my other fosther children and a husband. I never missed a day to see her. I was there for her 9 hour surgery. I was there for her recovery. I picked her up and took her home with oxigen tank and bags of medication and medical supplies. Every day I was scared for her life. I woke up every hour at night to make sure she was breathing and was ok. I took her to doctors every week for 6 months of her life. Doctors were sure she needed two more surgeries and were not sure she would make it out of those. At first she was not gaining waight and was talking about a g-tube. When things moved to adoption I told sw that I wanted her, that she was my daughter in my heart. She was glad to hear becouse she was considered "Unadoptable". Judge kept asking if we were sure that she might not live a long life. We were sure. Well 7 months later she begun to really grow and look healthy she was off oxigen and was down to 3 meds. By the time she was adopted she went from -10% on the charts to the 50%. She is walking and climbing things and is starting to talk (no and doggie is her fav). We just had test done and her heart is now healthy and no surgeries are planned for the future. Sure she has special diet, but she is healthy and alive. Im so glad she is our lives. She is our sunshine and we love her so much. No matter how long she lives, I am blessed with the days I do have with her. Im so glad Im stubborn and did not listen to people, if I did I would not have been so blessed in my life with her.

[athikers]

I've not heard the term "unadoptable" applied to medically fragile children before... only emotionally/behaviorally disabled children. Interesting. I think it IS an appropriate term, even if just to be a red flag to the potential adoptive parent that this will be a VERY DIFFICULT child to raise (for whatever reason).

[Barksum]

I've heard the term applied to a variety of children. 'Hard to place' is, I think, a more common euphemism nowadays.

It used to be that kids with ANY kind of medical/physical issue were 'unadoptable'. They used the phrase 'hard to place' for kids with red hair, non-caucasian, or 'older' (older than 6 month old infant) children. Children weren't generally adopted from foster care, especially when they were older than 1 year old. This was back prior to the mid-1970's. Kids just became foster kids...and that was IT.

Now we have special recruitment practises for 'harder to place' and special needs adoption. And yet...no matter how far we come, there are always children whom we as a society seem to consider as 'unadoptable'. 'Oh, no one will want THIS child because ____________.' So I guess having the term unadoptable is good in that it gets our ire up.

We see that term and get indignant...and then we do something. More people now work to find homes willing to have children with such high needs, or create safe, supervised group environments for kids who can't function in the close confines of family life. So 'unadoptable' works as a motivator to eliminate the need for the word.

[stevenstwin]

Another voice for agreeing that some children really ARE unadoptable. Most of this thread is about medically fragile children - so I totally agree that THEY are adoptable, to the right family. But those of you who say there is someone for every child -have you had any experience with severe RAD? I'm talking here about children who are violent - threaten adults with knives, set fires, kill family pets, get arrested over and over again for violence in the community (if they're teens), are at high risk to sexually assault family members....(and if you say "so don't take in one of these children if you have younger ones" I have to tell you that I've heard of a few cases where the foster MOTHER has been assaulted). These children are definitely in the minority...but I do believe that "unadoptable" would be an accurate term. I am parenting an attachment disordered teen right now -and thank God is disorder is "moderate" and he's shown signs of real healing. But you really can't know what it is like till you've seen it close up- I truly used to believe that "love heals all". It doesn't. I know of adoptive parents who have given their lives over to helping a RAD child heal...only later, when the kid is older, to have to have that same child that they have loved and nurtured for YEARS committed to a residential treatment facility or even removed by the police for the safety of the family members.

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

I hate to say it, but I agree with you. There are some children who are so uncomfortable in the close confines of family life that they shouldn't be forced to endure it. Many kids who have grown up in institutional care just don't have the skills to live in a nuclear family----they hate it, and really want to go back to congregate living. For those kids, group homes can be a positive, nurturing environment.

[Mared2chuck]

"Unadoptable' For medical reasons??? Seems cruel to say a child or baby deserves not to feel love or compasssion while struggling to live. I don't believe a child is unadoptable for those reasons. From what I have read about RAD for those reasons yes I believe it. From my experience with the foster care system it creates these children. The shuffling back and forth and giving the bio parent every chance to parent even when it isn't in the best intrest of the child. Keeping a child in the system for years instead of allowing them to have a perm place. I think the system is far from perfect... When dealing with lives I think we should expect more.. FEW children are born with attachment disorder it is created by attaching and bonding only to be taken away. I was lucky with my son he was with a loving foster family before he came to my home. He still at 4 months noticed a difference and I respected that. I wasn't a stranger to him but I wasn't there day and night either. So far he is the picture of health. Unforunately his half brother and sister may not be so lucky. His sister has been moved again and again. The last time I saw her a few months ago she was an extreamly difficult child. I feel so sorry for her. So I understand the word to a certain extent. I hope for a future where rad is no longer an issue but until then I am afraid I understand. God bless

[twinspirit]

While going thru the process of classes etc..other foster and adoptive parents told us 'newbies' not to adopt or foster beyond the age of 5 years because they are 'lost', and 'unadoptable'. Can you imagine if all of us newbies were to heed that advice? Wouldn't that feed into the cycle of children feeling unwanted and unloved?

Also, when we were matched with our twins at 20 months, THEIR CW wrote them off and said they wont amount to much, just a trade. That is a direct quote. My DH is an Electrician..and he took great offense to that AND was insulted on behalf of our twins and we hadn't seen a picture of them yet.

It really comes down to us, as the parents, what we can physically and emotionally handle. We all have our talents, uniquness, strengths and weaknesses.

So yes, perhaps to some a child is considered unadoptable, to others, quite the opposite. But for SW's to say these things about children is pretty careless. There has to be a better way to convey the level of care required.

Every child deserves to know love, security and a sense of belonging. Sw's certainly should NOT be closing peoples hearts before they even get started.

My 2 cents for what its worth.

T