[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". I said:

I disagree. I think it's OK to have adoption be about the adults involved. I had my own reasons for wanting to adopt. I HAD to have an excuse to stay home and not go on vacation. I WANTED to spend all my money on someone other than my dh. I COULDN"T stand the site of empty bedrooms. My grown kids didn't want to split their inheritance six ways instead of two and I wanted to piss them off. ONLY KIDDING, of course. The reason I adopted was VERY selfish! I LOVE BEING A MOM! I have two grown kids and couldn't stand the thought of not having the laughter of children (as well as the squabbling) fill my home. I had all this experience raising challenging kids and didn't want to waste it. I, I, I. I have tons of reasons to adopt and they all begin with I. They are all about MY needs. I have a NEED to be a mom!

I've said many times on this and other forums. 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?

[megsmom]

I think adoption should be about the parents both birth and adoptive and how well they can have a life long relationship, if an open adoption is what is desired, if they can't get along then the child will never benfit fully from the open adoption he/she is placed in. But it should be about the child and him/her having a stable and loving home also. It should be about everyone!
Shannon

[PinkRibbon]

Great topic.
I believe that the adoption should be about the best interests of the child, first and foremost. I don't think that the aparents needs are unimportant, but that they come secondary to the adoptee.
I am adopting because I want to parent. I don't want to save the world or even save a child, I want to prent a child. When friends or family tell me how unselfish I am, I'm quick to correct them. I remind them that I'll be getting something out of this as well. I have limitations and am not open to any child who's waiting. I would not be adopting if I wasn't going to get something out of it. I can't wait to be her MOM .

Rily, I responded to you in the other thread. And yes it is about the child!!! If having this child makes you and extened family happy..great!! It can only help the child!! If abmom places a child and an aparent adopts ....then who is it for....to make bmoms life easier, to fulfill aparents need to parent...which is more important? I say the one that is having lifelong decisions being made for them, the ones whose fate is at the adults decscretion....

Whether one gives birth to, or adopts a child , the childs needs always come first. That is one of the most amazing things I learned after having children...I was shocked at how my life and some of the things that I believed to be important were not any more. So, Yes its about the child, any child bio or not! If it is not then ...I question someones decisions to have children. Our needs to parent help the kids ...then there is no problem....if adults needs come first then yes...expect problems.

[St.Ives]

i think i agree with dpen. but then maybe im just biased because im an adoptee. i think the childrens needs must come first. i think if the adults dont make the childs need the top priorety then sometimes there own needs -the adults i mean- might conflict with the childs needs.
like maybe a birthmother cant afford to provide for a child financally. but she wants to raise her child anyway. she feels she NEEDS to keep her child with her. in this case it is importent that she look beyond her own needs and wants and do what is best for the child, which is relenquishment if she cant afford to provide.
adoptive parents sometimes might not want or need the birthfamily in there life -- im talking about open adoption here-- but it is importent that they set there own wants and needs aside and realize that it is in the childs best intrest to know his or her biological family. in a closed adption, the adoptive parents might not want the child to search or reunite. they might NEED the child not to. but again even though the child is grown up, many adoptive parents will put the childs needs ahead of there own and suport them in there search for biofamily. if parents are adopting because they need somthing from the child, i think that might be a mistake. because there is no telling what kind of person the child will be in five or ten years. maybe not what you expected or needed. then what?
i also agree in a way with the original post though-- that all parents usualy have chldren for partly selfish reasons. but many parents bio or adoptive end up disapointed when there children do not fill there needs or meet there expectations.

[Cricket8351]

I think that I am going to disagree here. I believe that adoption was created for children who for whatever reason did not have a parent to care for them. Somewhere down the line things changed and instead of finding homes for children, we are finding children for homes...especially infant adoption.

I think it is sad. I do think it is selfish. I have to include myself in this selfishness too. I (we) *wanted* to adopt a baby. Had we really wanted to help or "save" a child, we would have adopted a waiting child. We most likely will in a few years but still...it was all about what we wanted at this point.

Adopting an infant is not saving an infant. I mean very few ppl will turn down a baby...very few ppl that I know of anyway. Even folks who hadn't thought of adopting before...ask if they woudl consider adopting this cute little baby and I bet very few will say no.

I have heard figures like 40 families to every infant and that is probably close to accurate I would think. Definitely some competition.

Anyway after my rambling here I guess I should make a point...or do I even have one? My point is that I do think adoption should be about the child...it's not though. It is about who has the money to get what they want.

Just my thoughts...not even sure they make sense!

Cricket

)

[lucyjoy]

I think the child's best interest should always be considered. However, I chose to adopt because I wanted to be a mom.
Parents and children need to be matched together. If noone adopts then children stay parentless. If parents who really don't want to be parents adopt or adopt for the wrong reasons, the child often suffers for it. I don't think there is a way to divide this.

[camilleh]

I do think the child's best interests should be foremost, but this conversation made me think of advice my mother as given me over and over (and I do mean repeatedly! LOL) ever since I started on the road to become a mother.

Keep yourself mentally and emotionally healthy. If a child's parents are not mentally and emotionally healthy then the child will not be either. Of course, this all has to come in balance. There as to be REASONABLE give and take. The child is totally the center I think, but the parent's health is essential to the child.

You know those dumb refridgerator magnets that say "If moma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy"? There's truth in that I think.

[PinkRibbon]

Originally posted by camilleh
The child is totally the center I think, but the parent's health is essential to the child.

Your mom is a wise woman. I believe that as parents (or future parents) it's important to take care of our own needs so that you have enough to give to our children. Just like on an airplane when the flight attendant tells parents to secure their own oxygen masks before the child's. I also believe by taking care of ourselves we model for children the importance of that.

[riley6]

Ok, I think I'll use an example to get my point across. Forgive me if I still fail, although I think some of you do get it, but I'm REALLY tired. Worked 9 hours and had a RAGING child for a couple hours after dinner. I should be in bed, but I need my fix (boards) first. How pathetic am I?

Here it goes, say you have a beautiful little child available for adoption, for what ever reasons. You only want what's best for him.

Over here you have a wonderful family, two loving parents, a couple more beautiful children, a friendly dog, throw in a picket fence. This is the "perfect" family for any child to grow up into. The only problem is that they don't want another child.

See why it's not just about the child, it's also about the pap's and the family? They have to WANT to be parents to another child. They have to WANT to parent a child who isn't biologically related to them. The pap's have to WANT to go through the process to adopt the child. The pap's have to WANT to be educated about the needs of a child not born to them. The pap's have to have enough love in their hearts that they will treat this child no differently than if the child was born to them.

This is what I mean about adoption not JUST being about the child. We HAVE to care about the ap's too. We have to support them, just as much as we want to support the adopted person, bc it's going to affect HOW the child is raised.

Cricket said, adoption started out being about finding a family for a child. It's now about finding a child for a family. There are so many families who are out there who COULD adopt a child, but don't. And some of them, although they are wonderful loving homes, shouldn't, bc they don't have that desire to adopt and wouldn't have the unconditional love to give to "any" child.

A person shouldn't have to choose adoption only to provide a loving home for a child. A person should be able to adopt bc that child will fulfill a need for that person to be a parent. I did that for my dad. My biomom didn't have me to fulfill a need to be a parent. She had kids bc my dad wanted her to have kids. NEVER a good reason to become a parent. My dad WANTED to be a parent. What a GREAT reason to want to adopt! My kids fulfill a need in me to be a parent, and in turn I do what a parent is supposed to do, love, cherish, protect, and guide my kids.

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.

Riley,

I think we are coming from the same place. In all of it ...it is the child first...if parents just want a token child , then it is not about the child but their own selfishness...But if parents are adopting (or bearing) children because they want to put that child at the center of their lives and bring them up to be well adjusted adults(or attempt to anyway...the best laid plans CAN go aray)...enjoy them for who they are, not what you want them to be....then all is well. I think thats what you are saying and thats definitly what I mean!!

[riley6]

Whew, I said it, yes, that's what I meant. Now I can go to sleep I wanted my kids for selfish reasons (I love being a mom), but it's ok to be selfish if the kids will benefit from it.

[snow princess]

If abmom places a child and an aparent adopts ....then who is it for....to make bmoms life easier, to fulfill aparents need to parent...which is more important? I say the one that is having lifelong decisions being made for them, the ones whose fate is at the adults decscretion....

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.

like maybe a birthmother cant afford to provide for a child financally. but she wants to raise her child anyway. she feels she NEEDS to keep her child with her. in this case it is importent that she look beyond her own needs and wants and do what is best for the child, which is relenquishment if she cant afford to provide

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".

[amom4life]

Originally posted by riley6
I
I've said many times on this and other forums. 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?

Riley,
I've said the same thing here a few times myself. It doesn't even make sense that it is always ONLY about the child. I would have never adopted in the first place if I didn't have the strong desire to be a mother. That wasn't about the child only it was about my needs as well. If people want to call that selfish or wrong...fine. It's not going to change the facts. When we first started talking adoption it had nothing to do with saving or rescuing a child, it had everything to do with us wanting to be parents. The benefits go both ways it's not a one way street.

Who would be a mother if they didn't first have their OWN desire?

Our daughter that we adopted from Romania was more about her though than us. We didn't know who he/she would be, what type of problems, or much else. We saw a video of this horrid orphanage and knew we wanted to at least make a difference in one life if we could. And she actually would have died if she hadn't of been taken out of there. She was six when they took her out. She had a head full of lice, an extended tummy, she couldn't walk because they rarely took her out of her crib, and she was still only being given a bottle-no solid foods. She didn't even know how to chew.

She has come along way since then and is a beautiful 16 year old who is now going into 4th grade level (we homeschool), she taught herself to walk just by observing other children,but more than all she's learned she is just such a beautiful person who fills our lives with such joy. It kills me whenever I think of that place she came from that was called..."Orphanage for the Unsavagables."

With our present adoption it was a lot about us and our desires not just about the child. We wanted a new born, we wanted to experience raising a child from the beginning. To experience all the firsts (I have a bio son from a previous marriage) but my dh has never experienced raising a child from birth and this was something we wanted to do together. Of course these are not the only reasons we want to parent they go far deeper than than these.

Our children receive a lot of benefits from this couple's selfish desire to be parents.
Judy

[amom4life]

Originally posted by dpen6
then ...I question someones decisions to have children. Our needs to parent help the kids ...then there is no problem....if adults needs come first then yes...expect problems.

Okay this I completely agree with dpen6. Our children's needs DO come before ours. But this is really different I think than what Riley was talking about originally. I don't think she means that the children's needs don't come first. Only that adopting in the first place is not JUST about the child. It's about the parent and the child. There is a difference.
Judy