Couple returns 9 year old adopted as infant

[Stephanie66]

Unless I missed something, this little boy was adopted as an infant through social services. The couple lives in a wealthy area north of Cincinnati and returned the boy to the county social services because he has some problems.

They have been charged with a few misdemeanors.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ohio-cou ... er-9-years

From the article:

Adolf Olivas, an attorney appointed by the court to protect the child's legal interests, told the Hamilton-Middletown Journal-News that the parents said the boy has aggressive behaviors and would not agree to get help.

The child is hurt and confused and doesn't understand what is happening, Olivas said.

"If your 9-year-old needs help, you get him help," Olivas told the newspaper. "It is not a question of a 9-year-old wanting it or not."

Exactly. Who allows a nine year old to "decide" if he wants help or not? And I have to wonder, based on that, if they were just normal nine-year-old boy things?

[Mama Mia]

Unless I missed something, this little boy was adopted as an infant through social services. The couple lives in a wealthy area north of Cincinnati and returned the boy to the county social services because he has some problems.

They have been charged with a few misdemeanors.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ohio-cou ... er-9-years

From the article:

Exactly. Who allows a nine year old to "decide" if he wants help or not? And I have to wonder, based on that, if they were just normal nine-year-old boy things?

This makes me wonder if parents ever voluntarily put older children up for adoption ( either biological or initially adopted ) . Is that a possibility? I realized that despite working extensively with social services my entire career it isn't something that ever came up. Yet there are a few parents who would have their older children removed for abuse or neglect, who i kind of wonder if maybe that was their actual goal...to not have to care for them any more.

Horrible for that poor little boy

[Jiraffe Jirl]

This makes me wonder if parents ever voluntarily put older children up for adoption ( either biological or initially adopted ) . Is that a possibility? I realized that despite working extensively with social services my entire career it isn't something that ever came up. Yet there are a few parents who would have their older children removed for abuse or neglect, who i kind of wonder if maybe that was their actual goal...to not have to care for them any more.

Horrible for that poor little boy

"Returning" older adopted kids isn't terribly uncommon, unfortunately. There are Internet sites devoted to rehousing children that have turned out to be too much work for the adoptive parents. I don't think it's typical for parents to give up their biological children.

I was adopted as an infant, and had a lifelong fear of being bad enough to be given away. This story is so tragic to me. This little boy didn't ask to be adopted, didn't ask to be born, and certainly did not ask to be pushed out of the only home he's known. I would love to hope that he finds a family to actually love him unconditionally, but the reality is he will probably not (older children with behavioral problems are low on the adoption totem pole) and even if he does, will be to scarred to fully embrace it.

And seriously, "would not agree to get help"?? At 9 years old kids often don't "agree" to do homework, share toys, take a bath, whatever. Being a parent means you are in charge and responsible.

[Stephanie66]

The family apparently has two other adopted children.

The neighbors described the child as a "bad seed". He apparently started a fire in the house and "tried to kill his parents."

The prosecutor didn't seem moved. So I don't know what the real story is, but if he were there biological son, they wouldn't be able to drop him off at social services.

[August]

"Returning" older adopted kids isn't terribly uncommon, unfortunately. There are Internet sites devoted to rehousing children that have turned out to be too much work for the adoptive parents. I don't think it's typical for parents to give up their biological children.

I was adopted as an infant, and had a lifelong fear of being bad enough to be given away. This story is so tragic to me. This little boy didn't ask to be adopted, didn't ask to be born, and certainly did not ask to be pushed out of the only home he's known. I would love to hope that he finds a family to actually love him unconditionally, but the reality is he will probably not (older children with behavioral problems are low on the adoption totem pole) and even if he does, will be to scarred to fully embrace it.

And seriously, "would not agree to get help"?? At 9 years old kids often don't "agree" to do homework, share toys, take a bath, whatever. Being a parent means you are in charge and responsible.

Normally they're adopted as older kids too, though.

Wasn't there a state with a safe haven law which accidentally allowed kids up to 18 to be relenquished? Aren't there also residential type places where kids who are a danger to other kids in the home can be sent?

I think the parents suck, but the child is possibly better away from them. I'll bet they're not good parents even when they're not throwing him away.

[Peas n carrots]

Normally they're adopted as older kids too, though.

Wasn't there a state with a safe haven law which accidentally allowed kids up to 18 to be relenquished? Aren't there also residential type places where kids who are a danger to other kids in the home can be sent?

I think the parents suck, but the child is possibly better away from them. I'll bet they're not good parents even when they're not throwing him away.

That would have been Nebraska that had that loophole. They closed that one fast.

I think our culture needs to redefine what adoption is. The current system cuts off the child's identity with their birth family and places it with the adoptive family. I think there is a notion that the adoptive child is instantly part of the adoptive family and because of it will integrate better - which we know is not necessarily true.

Personally, I think in most cases there needs to be something that is more permanent than foster care but not where the child relinquishes their birth identity. Permanent guardianship perhaps? That would also give parents who have children they are unable to care for some leeway when they are faced with situations they are unable to deal with, and the children a tie to their family/culture of origin. There could be an option at an older age for the child to take on the family name of the guardians with little red tape.

The adoption industry likes to paint placing children with "forever families" and sells that to prospective "buyers" (let's face it - it's a money making industry). However, it's not always a perfect fit, and this unrealistic rainbow farting unicorn point of view ends up hurting a lot of people - not just children and birth parents but also adoptive parents in unbearable situations. There needs to be a realistic approach to placing children with families and an out for situations that don't work that are less harmful to those involved. That is why I believe having a middle ground between adoption as it is done in the US and foster care is a better option for all parties involved.

[ILoveJellybeans]

They gave up their 9 year old?? Yeah, nine years old can be quite a sucky age, growing into teenage attitude, lol, but you don't just give your child away. Theres no excuse to just throw a child away.

Also, there are a lot of things children don't want to do. Some things are non negotiable, like going to school, doing homework, taking baths or seeing the dentist/doctor. This doesn't mean they don't have to do them. If you raised a child to only do whatever they want, and never made them do things that they don't like but are important, they would be out playing in the mud in a Superman costume, with bad teeth from eating candy for every meal, and not know how to read and write.

If you think your child needs therapy, its not their choice. They have to do it for their own good, and some day they will thank you for it.

[apple1]

Unless I missed something, this little boy was adopted as an infant through social services. The couple lives in a wealthy area north of Cincinnati and returned the boy to the county social services because he has some problems.

This is odd. This community is just next door to where I live. It does have some wealthy areas, but DEFINITELY not all. I would say overall, quite middle-of-the-road socioeconomically, overall VERY diverse, and a few lower income areas. (So not sure where "wealthy" came from).

ETA: Somebody was very selective in drawing boundaries to come up with that median income and that median home value. It might fit those parents, I have no idea. (I guarantee that it doesn't fit me). That community also borders the city of Hamilton, which has a lot of very low income areas. Also, the Butler County sheriff and the Butler County prosecutor are pretty well known for "rogue" behaviors that have made national news in the past, including a lot of stuff to do with illegal immigrants.

Anyway, I hadn't even heard this story, so it's been relatively quiet. (I admit I am not a news junkie). There must be more to this than is being told. ETA: The more I read, the more I think something is missing from this story.

[Stephanie66]

There is a news story online and they are outside of the parents house. It is indeed a very nice house and they are definitely upper middle to upper class, at least by the neighborhood and house.

The kid may well have some serious issues, I have no idea. But if he were their biological child, they wouldn't have the option to "return" him. That's what irked me. He was adopted as a baby, not a few months ago.

[patsymae]

That would have been Nebraska that had that loophole. They closed that one fast.

I think our culture needs to redefine what adoption is. The current system cuts off the child's identity with their birth family and places it with the adoptive family. I think there is a notion that the adoptive child is instantly part of the adoptive family and because of it will integrate better - which we know is not necessarily true.

Personally, I think in most cases there needs to be something that is more permanent than foster care but not where the child relinquishes their birth identity. Permanent guardianship perhaps? That would also give parents who have children they are unable to care for some leeway when they are faced with situations they are unable to deal with, and the children a tie to their family/culture of origin. There could be an option at an older age for the child to take on the family name of the guardians with little red tape.

The adoption industry likes to paint placing children with "forever families" and sells that to prospective "buyers" (let's face it - it's a money making industry). However, it's not always a perfect fit, and this unrealistic rainbow farting unicorn point of view ends up hurting a lot of people - not just children and birth parents but also adoptive parents in unbearable situations. There needs to be a realistic approach to placing children with families and an out for situations that don't work that are less harmful to those involved. That is why I believe having a middle ground between adoption as it is done in the US and foster care is a better option for all parties involved.

Adoption in the Muslim world is more like legal guardianship--you can raise a child, love a child, educate a child--but the child retains his/her own identity and biological (and inheritance) ties to his/her original family--no fake identity, no fake birth certificates, no pretending "as born to," no lies, no denial. That's what I would like to see adoption as in the US. Will never happen, for many reasons, including that as a nation we believe in commerce above people, and adoption is a huge (1.4 billion annually) industry, and because most (not all) adoptive and prospective adoptive parents want to "build their families" and possess exclusively, not just raise, children. Until, of course, it turns out the kid isn't what they had in mind after all ...

[AmericanAmigo]

There has to be a way in our country to make mental health services as easy to obtain as getting a leg set if you break it. I know how hard this can be. There may be serious issues that need to be addressed and the couple may be desperate. They could also be giving up and all the negative things people are saying. I don't know.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The family apparently has two other adopted children.

The neighbors described the child as a "bad seed". He apparently started a fire in the house and "tried to kill his parents."

The prosecutor didn't seem moved. So I don't know what the real story is, but if he were there biological son, they wouldn't be able to drop him off at social services.

Well, since they are being prosecuted, they weren't able to drop off an adopted child either.

FWIW, I have seen situations where parents sought placements through social services for their biological children. Sometimes, a parent simply wasn't able to physically care for a child any longer. I've had cases where an older boy was sexually abusing a younger sibling, and the two could not safely reside in the same home any longer. I've had cases where children would break the windows in their home, climb out, go to the local park and set fires. I've had cases where the parent/child conflict was so high, that it was not safe for the child to remain in the home. [i really don't like the notion of considering any child to be "demon seed", but some of the cases involved single moms who really were dedicated and loving, but didn't have a lot of money or resources since they were divorced from abusive and psychopathic exes. At some point, I did start wondering if some of the scary behaviors were genetic.]

There have also been cases here (Ontario, Canada) where parents voluntarily sought services for children with severe special needs. When the budget for this was cut a number of years ago, some parents felt that they had no option but to legally give up custody of their children to the child protection agencies, so that they could continue to get services.

I'm not defending giving up a 9 yr old - just pointing out that it's not just an issue with adopted children.

[Terrie]

A lot of this comes down to the truly crappy resources for such families. In some cases, you're basically told "Well, to get help for your child, you must give up custody to the state. We will then charge you with child abandonment and you will have to pay child support." That covers cases of both adopted and biological kids. Not all of them -- in some cases, it's nothing but scapegoating, or the middle ground -- the child has legitimate, but manageable, issues and the parents refuse to deal with them, because it's too "hard." But a large percentage are just parents with no resources available.

[Hisey]

I think our culture needs to redefine what adoption is. The current system cuts off the child's identity with their birth family and places it with the adoptive family.

I'm an adoptive parent and I've had the opposite experience. Everyone and everythng told me to remember and honor my kids' culture. I've seen adoptive parents go to real extremes to meet this "requirement" (like moving to the child's birth country without a job, or visiting once a year even when the child doesn't want to go that often).

I would've certainly honored my kids heritage without the reminders, but the message comes through loud and clear that you are the child's second family--and the first one needs to be remembered and honored. Often the kids themselves are like, enough!

Recently my youngest had a birthday. I asked her if she wanted to light a candle to remember her birth mother (we've done this in the past) and she said, "Nah." She's getting to the age where she doesn't want to discuss her birthfamily with me quite as much. But no matter how my kids respond, I continue to throw out occasional references and remembrances to keep the topic alive (like, "Wow, you are good at math. Dad and I are so bad at math, you must have gotten that from your birthparents.")

So no, I don't think there is an effort to cut the kid off from his past. Maybe 50 years ago, but not now.

I do think that if there was more support for adoptive parents such families might be more successful. I mean, I hear a lot of "it's a money making venture" or "she's a designer kid" or "they just want to cut them off from their past". Why do people say these things when they are so hurtful to the adoptive child (not to mention the parents)? That is just destructive to a family that might already be fragile.

The adoptive parents I know are nothing like that. The thing is, adoptive parents are walking into a situation that is already bad, and generally they have a desire to help as well as a desire for a child.

[Yes, there are residential homes where kids can be placed when they are out of control, but usually parents must give up their parental rights to have them placed there, as well as convincing the state that placement is needed. This is true for adopted or biological kids.]

[twinmama]

I admittedly don't know much about adoption or the complex feelings and situations that arise from it... but why are people allowed to return adopted kids and not biological ones? Or is this the same as putting your child in an institution or something that bio parents can do too? I thought that when someone adopted a child, they were told that that kid is now in essence the same as if they birthed them themselves? I don't want to belittle the experience of an adopted child, I'm just curious if they are not considered the same as a biological child by the law for some reason?

From my know nothing about it, pie in the sky place I always assumed that once you adopted a child they were no different in the eyes of the law than a bio child. Plus in this case, he was with them since he was a baby. I know biology is a big deal, but they've raised him until now just as they would have raised a biological child. I can't imagine giving that up. Though I guess maybe they never fully attached to him? I wonder what they'd do if he was their bio child.

[PennySycamore]

Thank you, Hisey, for your very thoughtful post.

[louisa05]

I subbed in kindergarten today. When I got there, the principal came to talk to me about a child he was concerned would act out. He has only been at the school for a couple of weeks. His mother recently informed child protective services that she did not want him anymore. He came to this school after an uncle agreed to try taking custody of him--a very young single uncle. This was his bio mother. Father is long gone if he was ever there.

This is not something that only happens with adopted children. We just like to convince ourselves that bio parents have an innate attachment to their children that keeps them from doing this.

He was, for the record, a very sweet little boy who just needed love and attention to make it through the day. I was told that this has been extremely difficult for his teacher as he has bonded with her, but she has 16 other children to teach and care for all day as well. I can see as how it would be; he wanted all of my time.

[SpeakNow]

I'm an adoptive parent and I've had the opposite experience. Everyone and everythng told me to remember and honor my kids' culture. I've seen adoptive parents go to real extremes to meet this "requirement" (like moving to the child's birth country without a job, or visiting once a year even when the child doesn't want to go that often).

I would've certainly honored my kids heritage without the reminders, but the message comes through loud and clear that you are the child's second family--and the first one needs to be remembered and honored. Often the kids themselves are like, enough!

Recently my youngest had a birthday. I asked her if she wanted to light a candle to remember her birth mother (we've done this in the past) and she said, "Nah." She's getting to the age where she doesn't want to discuss her birthfamily with me quite as much. But no matter how my kids respond, I continue to throw out occasional references and remembrances to keep the topic alive (like, "Wow, you are good at math. Dad and I are so bad at math, you must have gotten that from your birthparents.")

So no, I don't think there is an effort to cut the kid off from his past. Maybe 50 years ago, but not now.

I do think that if there was more support for adoptive parents such families might be more successful. I mean, I hear a lot of "it's a money making venture" or "she's a designer kid" or "they just want to cut them off from their past". Why do people say these things when they are so hurtful to the adoptive child (not to mention the parents)? That is just destructive to a family that might already be fragile.

The adoptive parents I know are nothing like that. The thing is, adoptive parents are walking into a situation that is already bad, and generally they have a desire to help as well as a desire for a child.

[Yes, there are residential homes where kids can be placed when they are out of control, but usually parents must give up their parental rights to have them placed there, as well as convincing the state that placement is needed. This is true for adopted or biological kids.]

Thank you for your post! My sister was adopted as an infant. My parents have always been open with her about her adoption, and when she was younger we often went to events and Korean restaurants to help her learn more about her culture. As she got older, she began making it clear that she wasn't really interested in learning more about Korea or her heritage. My parents offered to take her on a trip to Korea this summer to celebrate her graduation from high school. She told them she has no desire and would prefer to go to Italy. It's not that my family isn't "honoring her culture." It's that she has made it clear that is not important to her. We cannot assume all adoptees have the same attitude toward an interest in learning about their biological parents and/or culture.

[BalconySmoker]

I've seen a lot of my clients "given up" to authorities before by their bio parents. However, it's usually in the form of sending their troubled child to Juvie, military school, a psychiatric facility, a developmental center, group home or a state school. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently.

In most of these cases, the parents are still the parents and still retain legal guardianship over the kids. They still love the kids and are involved with them. They just cannot house the children for whatever reason. Maybe the child is so violent or sexually aggressive that it's dangerous for everyone involved. Maybe the parent needs some time to get their own shit together. Maybe the child is severely disabled and the parents are too old or ill to provide care/treatment. In those cases, the parents frequently grieve and feel massive amounts of guilt for "giving up" their kids.

I can only think of one parent during my career who dropped off their bio child with DCFS and said "fuck it, they are your problem now" and relinquished their rights. She would have probably had the kids removed eventually anyway, she was a mess. But I can think of like 5 adoptive couples who did it. One to five is a pretty glaring difference.

What I don't get is this; why don't more adoptive parents attempt the first options rather than the second? I understand that psych centers are full to bursting, but a lot of these emotionally "difficult" kids are developmentally disabled as well. Even if it's only mildly so, many of these kids still qualify for services with state schools or DD centers. Or even in-home respite services. CPS isn't just for "taking kids away", it's for creating healthy families. They can help families on their last leg find these resources that I'm talking about.

I know what it's like to have a difficult child, so i'm not casting judgement on these parents who "surrender" their kids to the state. I have one child that is profoundly disabled intellectually, and to be frank I'm a little worried of what may happen once they are big enough to overpower me physically. But I have more options than just throwing them to the wolves. So do these adoptive parents.

[AnnieC 305]

That would have been Nebraska that had that loophole. They closed that one fast.

I think our culture needs to redefine what adoption is. The current system cuts off the child's identity with their birth family and places it with the adoptive family. I think there is a notion that the adoptive child is instantly part of the adoptive family and because of it will integrate better - which we know is not necessarily true.

Personally, I think in most cases there needs to be something that is more permanent than foster care but not where the child relinquishes their birth identity. Permanent guardianship perhaps? That would also give parents who have children they are unable to care for some leeway when they are faced with situations they are unable to deal with, and the children a tie to their family/culture of origin. There could be an option at an older age for the child to take on the family name of the guardians with little red tape.

The adoption industry likes to paint placing children with "forever families" and sells that to prospective "buyers" (let's face it - it's a money making industry). However, it's not always a perfect fit, and this unrealistic rainbow farting unicorn point of view ends up hurting a lot of people - not just children and birth parents but also adoptive parents in unbearable situations. There needs to be a realistic approach to placing children with families and an out for situations that don't work that are less harmful to those involved. That is why I believe having a middle ground between adoption as it is done in the US and foster care is a better option for all parties involved.

As someone who considered adoption I have to say that the whole misty "forever family" rainbow farting unicorn point of view only lasts until your first orientation meeting. At that meeting they make a few things abundantly clear:

1) You are shit. You are personally the bottom of the barrel in this relationship. They will say that the child is the only person who matters but in the next breath they will make it clear that the biological mother in the one who is really the queen. If they make the slightest bit of effort, a letter, a phone call, to stay in their child's life, no matter what havoc they've wrecked, then all bets on the adoption process are off. You need to stay in contact and allow them into your life as much as they want to be there regardless of how it affect the child or how it will affect you. You are not only adopting an older child, you're almost, and sometimes literally, bringing her addicted, mentally ill parent and her boyfriend as well. And don't you ever DARE consider having your adoptive child call you Mommy. You are NOT mom and don't you EVER forget it. You are just someone to sign the paperwork and cut the checks

2) The kids are broken. Irredeemable. They can't attach to anyone any more. They are nothing but wild animals who will lie, cheat, steal, break your heart, set your house on fire and kill your dog. Forget any dreams you have of them going to college or walking down the aisle or making you a grandparent. None of it will happen. They will fail out of every grade, be in and out of jail, run away as soon as you open the door and get knocked up as soon as they are in the double digits. You are asking for a world of trouble here, and you are going to get it.

3) There are no resources to help you and no money is available. Yes, we offer a stipend, but it's not nearly enough to raise a child. You had better be able to cover your own household costs, fully fund your retirement account, and provide triple the stipend for their care. Preferably up front if you can. The only therapy your child will get is thirty minutes with our intern every other week, the only pediatrician who takes Medicare is booked up a year out, and you are going to have to take so much time off work to go to meetings at the school to force them to give you services that one of you really should quit and stay home.

To be honest we left the first meeting utterly discouraged wondering why anyone would adopt. Since then we've been trying to get through the required 30 hours of classes but in the past three years they have yet to offer the last module. At this point we've just decided to skip parenting, the deck is just stacked too high against us.

So yes, I agree that there needs to be reform to the adoption process in this country.

[nelliebelle1197]

Back in the 1950s, my aunt and uncle adopted to children. One child grew up to become very attached to our family- there is no consideration or thought that he is even adopted. He even looks like my grandfather and uncle! He has never had a desire to seek out bio parents or know where he came from- as far as he is concerned, he came from us. His sister, whom I have never met!!, pulled away at a very early age and has searched for decades for the biological connection. Her contact with her parents is very distant. My mom has rarely met this niece. And of course, these types of situations where a sibling pulls away and distances herself while another is bonded happen in biologically connected families too.

In short, there is no magic right answer for adoption. Like any family, relationships depend on a complex series of events, attitudes, and yes, an individual's own biological makeup!

Something is off with this story. Adoption=the same legal relationship as a biological child. How on earth were these people expecting to return a child?

[Patsy]

As someone who considered adoption I have to say that the whole misty "forever family" rainbow farting unicorn point of view only lasts until your first orientation meeting. At that meeting they make a few things abundantly clear:

1) You are shit. You are personally the bottom of the barrel in this relationship. They will say that the child is the only person who matters but in the next breath they will make it clear that the biological mother in the one who is really the queen. If they make the slightest bit of effort, a letter, a phone call, to stay in their child's life, no matter what havoc they've wrecked, then all bets on the adoption process are off. You need to stay in contact and allow them into your life as much as they want to be there regardless of how it affect the child or how it will affect you. You are not only adopting an older child, you're almost, and sometimes literally, bringing her addicted, mentally ill parent and her boyfriend as well. And don't you ever DARE consider having your adoptive child call you Mommy. You are NOT mom and don't you EVER forget it. You are just someone to sign the paperwork and cut the checks

2) The kids are broken. Irredeemable. They can't attach to anyone any more. They are nothing but wild animals who will lie, cheat, steal, break your heart, set your house on fire and kill your dog. Forget any dreams you have of them going to college or walking down the aisle or making you a grandparent. None of it will happen. They will fail out of every grade, be in and out of jail, run away as soon as you open the door and get knocked up as soon as they are in the double digits. You are asking for a world of trouble here, and you are going to get it.

3) There are no resources to help you and no money is available. Yes, we offer a stipend, but it's not nearly enough to raise a child. You had better be able to cover your own household costs, fully fund your retirement account, and provide triple the stipend for their care. Preferably up front if you can. The only therapy your child will get is thirty minutes with our intern every other week, the only pediatrician who takes Medicare is booked up a year out, and you are going to have to take so much time off work to go to meetings at the school to force them to give you services that one of you really should quit and stay home.

To be honest we left the first meeting utterly discouraged wondering why anyone would adopt. Since then we've been trying to get through the required 30 hours of classes but in the past three years they have yet to offer the last module. At this point we've just decided to skip parenting, the deck is just stacked too high against us.

So yes, I agree that there needs to be reform to the adoption process in this country.

For 1, you live in America, right? I thought once the six weeks (ish) period is up, the birth mother had NO right to demand ANYTHING, and that there's maybe one state where "open adoption"s are even vaguely enforceable. I didn't get the impression this had changed at all? For foster care, sure, but not for adoption?

[AnnieC 305]

For 1, you live in America, right? I thought once the six weeks (ish) period is up, the birth mother had NO right to demand ANYTHING, and that there's maybe one state where "open adoption"s are even vaguely enforceable. I didn't get the impression this had changed at all? For foster care, sure, but not for adoption?

In theory. But they made it quite clear that if we didn't allow as much contact as the birthmother wanted they would terminate the adoption, and that if we set any limits or boundaries they would reject our application as we would be disrupting the relationship between the child and his birthfamily/heritage which meant we were bad parents and bad people.

Other people may have different experiences, but this is what the local social workers told us.

[Peas n carrots]

I'm glad to hear you do Hisey. Lots of parents aren't so interested though. Hana Williams springs to mind, or Laurel's children. Extreme cases, but not uncommon.

As someone who is adopted, it makes me angry that most states treat us as forever children. I have no way of accessing my original birth records and birth certificate...it requires my mothers permission.

Some kids are OK with their adoption and do not feel the need to look. Others never really bond and when they meet the bio family they click. Then you have some folks like me who never felt they belonged as an adoptee in their family (in my case an adoptee light) and when they met their bio family felt they did not belong their either.

What I'm saying is the child should be given access to their birth identity, and leave it up to them at an older age to be formally adopted if the wish. I think this too, would give some relief to overwhelmed adoptive parents - we judge them in the same way as bio parents, when in fact there is a lot of baggage that affects that relationship that wouldn't exist with bio kids.

AnnieC, are you adopting through foster care? What state are you in? It seems good that there is a realistic organization out there.

[AnnieC 305]

AnnieC, are you adopting through foster care? What state are you in? It seems good that there is a realistic organization out there.

Oregon and yes, we are. After our experience we considered a private agency instead but they're all in Portland. The ones that would work with us don't offer any services down here.