Against infant adoptions, and pro foster to adopt?

Question

I often hear it said that instead of infant adoption taking place, birthmothers should be encouraged to parent their children first to see if they can do it. The same people very often also advocate for foster to adopt, or at least foster care.
Ok, two questions.
1) Where do you think the children in foster care have come from? They are the result of people thinking they could be parents, but couldn't.
2) How many chances do you think a person is reasonably entitled to decide if they can be a parent? Do you really consider it fair to a child to disrupt their lives and attatchments for as long as necessary until a woman decides she wants to be a mother?

Answer 1

I personally think whoever says that the birthmom should try to parent her child first doesn't know a thing about adoption.

A) My birthmom didn't want a child at that time her life. Could she have done it? Probably, but she didn't want to. She felt I could have a better life elsewhere

and

B) it is traumatic enough for a child to leave their birthmom after nine months in the womb, why would anyone want to just let the child continue bonding knowing full well the birthmom likely won't be able to handle the responsibility?

Silly is my opinion lol.

Answer 2

I am a foster parent and I think that you have made a lot of statements which are to tough to deal with in a three second response.
I will however answer the initial question you ask - pro- foster to adopt?
Yes, but not for the reasons that you state, rather the concept of "fostering to adopt" means that there are many fewer transitions for the children. The child if taken at birth will only know one parent and if they are taken later the attachment will be divided only between the birth family and the foster-to-adopt family. This is a MUCH smoother transition since the world in foster care can be very unforgiving when the foster parents do not have adoption in mind, because children are moved and moved without too much consideration of the long term consequence.

Answer 3

I can only tell you what happened with our situation.

The birth mother was on drugs while carrying both of the boys (our adopted sons). Both of them were born with drugs in their system, one of them with sufficient levels that he had go through withdrawal while in a NICU. Her husband had left her and she wasn't holding down a job. The state case worker, the volunteers, and family members all worked with her to help her get clean, get a job, and become a responsible parent. She refused to take regular drug tests and often missed appointments, including some court hearings.

Almost a year after the boys were removed from her care the state case worker asked her to put the boys up for adoption. She agreed. She had been given dozens of chances and significant help, but she never took those opportunities.

Due to neglect and drug use, both boys have developmental issues and will need special education and medical care.

Answers to your non-questions:
1 - You are correct
2 - In our state, they are given one year. They can ask for an extension, which is usually granted if they can prove they are making progress. I think that is sufficient.

One final note, we felt very bad throughout this processes. We were placed in a position of wanting someone to 'fail' so we could adopt the boys. She was not a bad person, just someone ill equipt to be a mother of two little boys.

Answer 4

Many of us adult adoptees WERE in foster care. That;s the way they used to do it. I spent three months there against my firstmom's wishes. She insisted I be placed immediately with my adoptive parents and was promised that by her case worker and then the minute she signed the papers, I was off to foster care for THREE MONTHS while they terminated her rights early and illegally. Boy was she pissed when she found out I was in foster care! Of course it was 30 years after th fact so there wasn't much she could do about it anyway.
So I spent three months in foster care even though I was always slated to be adopted. A lot of us did. Maybe you did. Nobody had a problem with it then. Nobody worried about how my precious little psyche would be affected back then. What's the big deal now?
You know, we get to change our minds on a lot of things in life. Did I say ham? No I wanted tuna, that's ok right? But a woman can't change her mind on whether or not she can parent her own child?
Contrary to society and the media, not all "birthmothers" are horrible, terrible people. They are human beings who realized they may have made a mistake when they relinquished their child.
That is why most states have a period where a woman CAN change her mind legally. Because it is a huge decision.

And the reality is that most of the children who do end up in foster care are not the ones whose mothers ever considered relinquishing them as infants. There are documented studies on this. It's apples and oranges really.

P.S. I did NOT have a "bad adoption experience" but I still have many questions about infant adoption in America and it's ethics.

Answer 5

To me this is a rant looking to stir up trouble. As two to three people pointed out, natural mothers who place their children are responsible women. Not the women who have their children who had their children taken into foster care. Foster care and Infant adoption are two very very different topics. I too am all for foster care adoptions. I too am only for ethical adoptions. When I was adopted, my mother was forced. She and my father had no choice.

Once an agency finds out that a mother is considering adoption, they hound her. I see agencies who violate the rights of fathers consistently

Answer 6

Okay, the problem with this is, the women whose children end up in foster care by and large DO NOT consider relinquishing at birth. And the women who do relinquish at birth, by and large, their kids WOULD NOT have ended up in foster care.

Of course there are exceptions, but on the whole, the WRONG WOMEN are relinquishing their babies.

I worked as a caseworker in state adoption for a while. And let me tell you... the kids who ended up in care?... their moms never considered placing them for adoption at birth.

I, on the other hand, DID relinquish my daughter at birth, and never ever would have abused or neglected my daughter had I parented. Just two years later I was successfully parenting my second daughter.

I'd be all for infant adoption if women who TRULY NEEDED to relinquished... and I AM all for it in those cases. But in a lot of cases, women who relinquish newborns simply don't need to. The common demographic of moms who relinquish newborns is this:

age: early to mid twenties
educational status: on the way to college or in college, with advanced educational goals
socioeconomic background: middle class

Are these the women who are likely to end up abusing their children, are these the women who are likely to have their kids removed if they don't relinquish? Um, no.

That's the problem. If you can figure out a way to get the women who are abusive to relinquish BEFORE they abuse, go for it. But at this point, that's not what's happening.

Answer 7

I only know of two kids that have been in foster care.. Both of their parents couldn't provide for them because they literally couldn't. Both got arrested for different charges.
One of them was a crack addict and the other was really heavy on pills.
Neither of them wanted to give their kids to foster but had no other choice in the matter.
My friend was put in foster care at 5 yrs old, she was still able to be adopted tho and was shortly after by her mother's sister... then when she was about 13 yrs old her mother showed up to take her back...
The other girl JUST got put in foster care recently (at the age of 14) because her mom was deemed a neglectful parent. (took em long enough)

My answer to "is it fair to the kids?".. HELL NO... BUT it's a lot safer than being with a mother that cant/wont care for them like a mother should.
Oh and I only think they should get ONE chance.

Answer 8

I feel that some are meant to be parents and some are not. Some are ready to be parents and some are not. It's not a fine line. It's pretty cut and dry.

These poor kids that are in foster care carry so much baggage with past things that happened to them. People wonder why they stay in foster care. Probably because the person who they should have been able to trust the most deceived and hurt them (either emotionally or physically) yet these same mothers want another chance. Nope. The kids should be first and foremost.

Answer 9

I think it's the best choice for all parties involved if the parent gives up the baby immediately. If she "fails" as a parent- then what does that mean for the baby? Neglect? Abuse?

Also, a mother that "tries it out" may be more inclined to keep the child out of guilt or social pressures. I don't think that is fair to the child at all.

Many children are in the foster care system because of abuse and neglect. Most infants willingly given up are through private adoption.

Answer 10

i am ALL for mothers giving away there children IMMEDIATELY. i think it is better for her, the child and the WOMAN who actually WANTS a child.
i think SOCIETY put too much pressure on a woman to be a 'mother'.
this is anonymous here... be honest how many woman here WANTED the child WHEN they had the child.
yeah, yeah, i know, i can hear the INDIGNATIONS now... 'i love my kids and i wouldn't trade them for a millions dollars'.
but, how much TIME are YOU investing in your child now?
children need more that food, water, shelter & clothing.& shoes. kids need more than cell phones. nikes, prada, PS2 and x-box. they need YOU. your attention. not the THINGS you provide.
do you know your child's friends. when is the last time you sat down at the dinner table with them ALL together & asked how was school, or so, tell me ABOUT the show you watched on tv. kids have changed from being beautiful flowers we cultivate in our garden to weed that just grow & grow.

personally i think we ought to have the "unofficial" policy they have in the orient. 2 kids per family.
common with single parents, or both parents working how much time is each child really getting?
yes, kids are time consuming. BUT, once youh ave committed to KEEPING the child (don't even get me started on the IRresponsible use of birth control- oh, imagine this to AVOID the UNwanted pregnancy in the FIRST place??) your RESPONSIBILITY is TO the child.. not to your s/o, your sister or even your mom. your primary concern is to be a REAL parent (not necessarily a friend just yet) and raise a emotionally secure & productive member of society.

chances. how many chances.
i realize people CAN change. i realize that parents have turned their parenting around & turnout to be okay.
but, i am NOT so sure the RISK is worth it.
what price can you put in the death ofeven one child BECAUSE society thinks the parent(s) should geta 2nd chance.
let's bring this home.... if YOU were that child would you WANT to go back to an abusive or neglectful parent.i wouldn't. so why should they?