[amom4life]

Originally posted by riley6

That's not to say there aren't wrong reasons to want a child to fulfill your life. If my life was empty and I expected a child to fulfill that void, it would be wrong to adopt. If all my friends were having kids and I wanted to fit in and needed a child to fulfill that missing person in my life, that would be wrong. If I wanted a cute little token to fulfill me getting attention when I went out, that would be wrong. If I could never make it in sports, music, school, or other area in my life and thought a child could fulfill that missing part, that would be absolutely the wrong reason to adopt a child.

But if my life is great and I'm missing that special little someone to share it with, or my life is already fulfilled, but I have so much extra love and devotion to give to someone, why can't I selfishly choose a child to adopt and commit to? And in that case, adoption isn't about the child (bc there is NO child), it's about the pap and their needs. IMO, that's ok.

Well stated Riley! And I guess I must be the S-L-O-W-E-S-T typist on this forum!

Judy

[RiverGal]

Originally posted by snow princess
DPEN - I have to say I dont think placing a child for adoption makes a "bmoms life easier" - it didnt mine, nor have I yet talked to a bmom who has felt that way.
Maybe I am wrong in my interpretation of the post, but I thought dpen was posing it as a question and not a fact.


St.IVES - I cant say I agree with you on saying what is best for the child is relinquishment if the mother cant' afford to provide -not in today's times - there are many programs out there to help single moms get on their feet and raise their child if that is what they want. And to most moms it is "wanting to raise their own child" more than a "need to raise their own child". Cool point, Princess, but if mom is able to secure that help, then she CAN afford to support the child, but not everyone qualifies for PA. Then there are those of us who have relinquished because we looked PAST the immediate "quick fix" and saw the broader picture ~ as in the mid to distant future. I do agree with you (in my situation) that I certainly wanted
to parent my birthdaughter more than I needed to.
I could go on about why I see my situation that way, but I don't want to hijack the thread.

As for the original question, I really think Riley and dpen are basically on the same wavelength. Both agree that the needs of the child are primary. I think Riley is just looking further past the the initial "hierarchy" to the parental rewards (which is most often a given).

It's nearly 3AM and, although I know what I mean, I'm not sure I'm actually getting it across. I best go to bed and pick it back up tomorrow. Am I even close???

Deb

[snow princess]

DPEN - I have to say I dont think placing a child for adoption makes a "bmoms life easier" - it didnt mine, nor have I yet talked to a bmom who has felt that way.

MISSINGLINK - she may have been posing it as a question - I was just stating that placing a child for adoption is to make bmoms life easier is not the reason most of the bmoms i talked to have placed for - placing didnot make their lives easier -

[Rowan]

Hi

From a birth mothers perspective,

I am sorry to sound harsh but I did not place my child so that a childless couple could benefit, I know it is the logic that is commonly used :- "you did so well, you should feel good about it...you gave a childless couple the chance to have a child etc..." I am sorry - but I did not and I would not dream of it, although I am happy that they have the chance to be happy and who am I to deny that to anyone - but lets face it, not many folk have a baby to give away to others so that they can in turn be happy.


(Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for the adoptive parents of my child although I have never met them, I think that they are so lucky and I am so grateful for their care of my son although I have yet to know who they are etc... I would ike to ba able to thank them. I am happy for them that they could have him and that they did have the opportunity of having a child).

However, if there was any way I could have kept my child with me and have been able to give him the life that he deserved - I would have.

Not many birthparents in their right mind would give their chidren to others to raise if they did not feel it was absolutely crucial or necessary for the child's benefit.

It certainly was not for my own benefit I can assure you, I have spent half my life without the most preciious person who ever touched my life and I do not have any clue of what became of him. Yes, in my more selfish moments I truly truly wish he was with me no matter what sort of mess we were in at the time.

During the time I knew that the adoption was really going to happen and there was no way back - my first instinct was to take my child and run and run and never stop. Despite all this I kept my head somehow and tried to do my best for him and his life and it was the only thing that carried me through it.

As somone said in an earlier post : the child comes first then the aparents are secondary (which is undesputable and will always be my view or I would not be in this position now visiting adoption sites), - do you really think the selfish part of me wants to come a very poor last in that line? Do you think that facing the fact that I may never set eyes on my child again ever or never even know if he is ok - is something that anyone would put themselves through if they did not have to consider their child's happiness foremost?

So in answer to the question - yes - the child's best interests should the only real reasons for adoption whether the adoption is forced or deliberate. From a large percentage of bmothers point of view - it is and can only be 'the only reason why'.

[bromanchik]

Originally posted by riley6
I didn't want to change the thread before, so I'm posting this here. The statement was made that "far too often adoption seems to be about the adults involved....not the children".

Adoption is NOT just about the child. It's about the family, including the parents. Yes, the child should benefit, but show me a parent that doesn't benefit by being blessed by a child?

Since I am the one usually saying the latter, let me explain.Too often the needs and desires of the adults involved supercede that of the children. Adoptive parents and birthparents do "only what they are comfortable with" without thinking at all how it will effect the child. This includes cutting each other off, not telling the child they are adopted, not giving them all of their information, adoptive parents making promises to birthparents they do not intend to keep to get a baby,.... you get my drift.

Certainly, adoptive parents need to have the desire to parent. I do not expect apathy from any parent. However, in becoming a parent you need to put your child's needs above your own. And there are many parents, both by birth and adoption, who do not do this. Just ask the late discovery adoptees, or the adopted people who's adoptive parents or birthparents are withholding information about them. Or the children who wonder where their birthmother disappeared to. We will see fall out from the self directed behavior of the adults. I am seeing it already.

[St.Ives]

i think it is also importent that we not confuse what is with what should be. adption is a money driven industry. i can admitt this, and i am not antiadoption i am proadoption. but somtimes in any business, human needs get lost or become secondery. what im saying is that many agencys may put the adoptive parents needs first because they are the ones paying. not the child and certainly not the birthparents. this may be the norm, but it doesnt mean that it is how things should be.

[PinkRibbon]

Originally posted by St.Ives
i think it is also importent that we not confuse what is with what should be. adption is a money driven industry. .

I think that's more true for the adoption of foreign and domestic infants, than for those adopting special needs, older children from the foster care system.

[RiverGal]

Originally posted by Rowan
...do you really think the selfish part of me wants to come a very poor last in that line? Do you think that facing the fact that I may never set eyes on my child again ever or never even know if he is ok - is something that anyone would put themselves through if they did not have to consider their child's happiness foremost?

How beautifully spoken. I could have written this, as you echoed my feelings.

Deb

[cindy123456789]

I may go about this in a round about way, but I do have a point. Yes, and no is my answer. I remmebr one of the first adoptees I met, as an adult she was an angry one. Her adoptive parents adopted her in her view so that they would "look good to others" I never met her adoptive parents, so i have only her side. I don't think parents should adopt due to any form of pressure from the outside. They should adopt for the child. However, they should not adopt if they do not want to raise children, and only feel they should do it. That kind of peer pressure from others leads to unhappy adoptees and unhappy adoptive parents. So yes, an adoptive parents does need to have the I's, such as I want to parent, I know what lies in store, I am content with the decesion, I want to help other children. And no, a parent should not adopt to blend in, to fit in, to make friends, etc, though these things may happen after adoption, it should be about the child and building a family. There is room for I's, especially, I have a lot to offer and teach a child, though not just material things. I hope I made myself clear, and didn't upset anyone.

[Rowan]

So yes, an adoptive parents does need to have the I's, such as I want to parent, I know what lies in store, I am content with the decesion, I want to help other children. And no, a parent should not adopt to blend in, to fit in, to make friends, etc, though these things may happen after adoption, it should be about the child and building a family. There is room for I's, especially, I have a lot to offer and teach a child, though not just material things. I hope I made myself clear, and didn't upset anyone.

My post was working on the basis that the 'I's that you mentioned were already established.

Also the point I was making was that - if the adoption of my child (or any child) was organised upon the basis that they were adopted due to their needs and welfare being put first and foremost then - what was the point of me going to all the heartbreak of trying to give my child the best life possible by relinquishing him to others who do not put him first and foremost?

As a birthparent I did just exactly that or at least tried to - I completely EXPECT (as in they better had) adoptiive parents to put their adopted children's needs first - which I am sure many do and am also sure a few do not unfortunately, both scenarios which I am sure also happens in non adoptive families, I suppose to be fair. I do expect that little bit more though from adoptive parents (rightly or wrongly).

[3girls1boy]

First let me say that a child adopted or biological should always be the first priority in their parents lives. The best interest of the child should always be the basis for every decision.

I however think adoptive parents are held to a higher standard sometimes ( and I am not even saying by anyone on this forum) in their desire to have children. I adopted because I wanted a child, I was driven to parent, just like most parents biological or adoptive. I had no alturistic ideals of saving a child, I didn't seriously consider waiting children, I wanted a baby. I didn't care about the baby's heritage or anything else, but I was intimidated at the thought of parenting an older child. At least with a baby we were both starting out from the beginning.

We went through a non-profit agency where the fees were $2000, so I don't feel like only the wealthy were allowed to adopt in our case. This pittance helped all 4 of us in counseling before the adoption and for the last 13 years. One of the sw has retired and still opens her heart to all of us, and works towards our daughter's happiness.

This child was not created for me or my needs to parent, her birthparents were looking for a home and family for her. They choose me- putting their child first. When they choose me I began to put their child, my child first. Her well being and happiness is the touchstone we use to make all our decisions. Her adoption makes it so all four of us have extra responsiblity as parents to sustain relationships with each other. We believe this is in her best interest.

My last child was added to our family not out of our needs, but his. I didn't look for him, was overwhelmed at the possiblity of parenting another child and all the complications that came with him, however, we saw we were his best option, if not only. It took me longer to feel like his mother, but I kept building this relationship because it was in his best interest. We are also trying to forge a relationship with his birth family.

The end result is the same for both these kids, and my 2 bios, I love these children and would do anything to give them a good life. I feel really honored that my life led me to being part of the adoption experience. It has forced me outside of my comfort zone and made me grow as a person. I think my daughter's birthmom shares this. I think adoption- specifically open adoption- is a wonderful thing. Lisa

[MNelson]

In my mind, adoption is driven by the needs and desires of adults. Children do not make the decisions in adoption (or parenting for that matter), so there has to be an essential self-serving motivation by adults to make anything happen. That self-serving motivation may be the good feeling one gets from making a difference in someone's life.

That being said, those needs and desires of adults should not violate the needs and desires of children, nor should they stomp on the rights of other adults. So if there is a conflict of those needs and desires ... the kids win. No contest.

I agree totally with Riley6, you don't want people adopting children who aren't driven to do so. So just the fact that there are waiting children needing a family, does not mean that Donald Trump should adopt children just because he has the means to (sorry if I offended any Trump fans )

[RiverGal]

Originally posted by cindy123456789
...such as I want to parent, I know what lies in store, I am content with the decesion, I want to help other children. I have a lot to offer and teach a child, though not just material things.

With this type of mindset, it would be difficult to imagine the child being anywherebut first. This is a good example of a healthy balance of needs being met for both the child and the aparent.

Deb

[PinkRibbon]

Originally posted by Plareb
In my mind, adoption is driven by the needs and desires of adults. Children do not make the decisions in adoption (or parenting for that matter), so there has to be an essential self-serving motivation by adults to make anything happen. That self-serving motivation may be the good feeling one gets from making a difference in someone's life.

I agree with you about the process or adopting, but I think the act of parenting any child needs to be in the interest of the children primarily but not exclusively. It's in a child's best interest to have parents whose own needs are met and who are at least reasonably happy and fulfilled a good portion of the time because then those parents are able to give more fully to their kids.
I've wanted to adopt for 8 years but only began the process when I was in a place where I knew I had what it took to be able to give fully to that child, because I knew that my desires to parent were secondary to me being sure that I was able to parent effectively while taking care of my own needs.

[amom4life]

Originally posted by PinkRibbon
I agree with you about the process or adopting, but I think the act of parenting any child needs to be in the interest of the children primarily but not exclusively. It's in a child's best interest to have parents whose own needs are met and who are at least reasonably happy and fulfilled a good portion of the time because then those parents are able to give more fully to their kids.
.

I agree Amy. I think it's so important to a child's well being and security that they "see" that their parents love each other and have a good stable relationship.

While I DO believe that a child's needs should usually always come first(not if it's just some selfish thing that they can live without.) I don't agree that they should be the center of the families universe. They are a welcomed, loved, and cherished member of the family, but they are not the only part. I believe when we do this we are instilling selfishness in them and they grow up to be all about me, me, me. A family is a team where every member's needs, wants, and desires need to be nurtured so all will be healthy in body, mind, and spirit.
Judy