Couple returns 9 year old adopted as infant

[Full enough quiver]

I think some people ditch their adopted kids because they can. If you're a shitty parent, you could use the adoption as an excuse "oh, he's a bad seed." You can blame the birth family for that. When it's your biological kid, people might be less inclined to think that way. If he's evil, it's your genes to blame. I've heard a lot of people say that about adopted kids, how their behavior is somehow in their genes because their birth parents may not have been good people. This pisses me off, because my daughter's father is not a good person, but that is no reflection on her. He made bad choices, she is absolutely perfect. My sister blames her sons' fathers for their "issues". She hasn't so much as bothered with a phone call to check on her boys. She said she "just couldn't handle them", especially the oldest, who has "severe behavioral problems". It's been 6 months, and all I see is normal little boy behaviors, (they're actually amazingly well adjusted, all things considered) easily managed with gentle correction. I've spent the last 6 months loving the heck out of them, and it seems to be working. Maybe there just wasn't the bond with this boy from the beginning, so when he got difficult, it was easy to get rid of him. Or maybe the kid really is some kind of bad seed. It happens, although I have my doubts.

[Peas n carrots]

I think some people ditch their adopted kids because they can. If you're a shitty parent, you could use the adoption as an excuse "oh, he's a bad seed." You can blame the birth family for that. When it's your biological kid, people might be less inclined to think that way. If he's evil, it's your genes to blame. I've heard a lot of people say that about adopted kids, how their behavior is somehow in their genes because their birth parents may not have been good people. This pisses me off, because my daughter's father is not a good person, but that is no reflection on her. He made bad choices, she is absolutely perfect. My sister blames her sons' fathers for their "issues". She hasn't so much as bothered with a phone call to check on her boys. She said she "just couldn't handle them", especially the oldest, who has "severe behavioral problems". It's been 6 months, and all I see is normal little boy behaviors, (they're actually amazingly well adjusted, all things considered) easily managed with gentle correction. I've spent the last 6 months loving the heck out of them, and it seems to be working. Maybe there just wasn't the bond with this boy from the beginning, so when he got difficult, it was easy to get rid of him. Or maybe the kid really is some kind of bad seed. It happens, although I have my doubts.

My mother hated my bio dad, and I think she ended up taking it out a lot on me subconsciously. I think I was her 3rd wheel...she got married to my step dad who is a great guy, and had my 3 younger half sisters...but yeah I felt like I was inconvenient in her life and that I was a constant reminder of that bad period in my life. I acted out a lot, and in restrospect I think it was because of the intentional and unintentional anger she had towards me. I think that happens sometimes, and I wonder if that is what has happened with your sisters kids?

[Full enough quiver]

I think that's part of it. Also, we grew up in a home where boys were very favored,(and consequently very badly behaved), and all us girls carried a lot of resentment toward our brothers, and boys in general. All of us wanted daughters, and with the exception of these two, we got them. My sister has always been very vocal about wanting a daughter, she wishes they had been girls, wanting to keep trying for a girl, etc, so when her daughter was born two years ago, I believe her mistreatment of the boys got worse. I think wanting a certain gender is ok, I very much wanted a girl myself, and being mildly disappointed when you don't get what you want, is normal. But then you move on, and love the kids you've got. It's very sad, and it can't be healthy for my niece either. If I'd been aware of it, I'd have offered to take them then. Fortunately, I've worked very hard to get over my issues with men, and am able to be a loving mother to little boys. I wish my sister could do the same.

[louisa05]

I think that's part of it. Also, we grew up in a home where boys were very favored,(and consequently very badly behaved), and all us girls carried a lot of resentment toward our brothers, and boys in general. All of us wanted daughters, and with the exception of these two, we got them. My sister has always been very vocal about wanting a daughter, she wishes they had been girls, wanting to keep trying for a girl, etc, so when her daughter was born two years ago, I believe her mistreatment of the boys got worse. I think wanting a certain gender is ok, I very much wanted a girl myself, and being mildly disappointed when you don't get what you want, is normal. But then you move on, and love the kids you've got. It's very sad, and it can't be healthy for my niece either. If I'd been aware of it, I'd have offered to take them then. Fortunately, I've worked very hard to get over my issues with men, and am able to be a loving mother to little boys. I wish my sister could do the same.

My aunt had six boys. She would have dearly loved to have had a daughter, but she adored her boys and was a wonderful mom. And she just spoiled her nieces with every girly thing since she had no girls at home. That is how you do it the right way.

[Stephanie66]

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.

Birthmoms hold the cards until the adoption is final. Once they have terminated their rights, that's it. Game over.

I don't agree that adoptive couples should lie to a BM about the amount of contact, but from what I have seen on some of the adoption shows, some of the birth moms seem to be asking for some ridiculous things. They aren't the parents anymore...they don't get to make decisions.

[BravaAmica]

Birthmoms hold the cards until the adoption is final. Once they have terminated their rights, that's it. Game over.

I don't agree that adoptive couples should lie to a BM about the amount of contact, but from what I have seen on some of the adoption shows, some of the birth moms seem to be asking for some ridiculous things. They aren't the parents anymore...they don't get to make decisions.

But once the adoption is final, do the legal parents *have* to honor the birth mother's requests? Because if I thought they were outrageous or obnoxious, I wouldn't bother honoring them after the adoption is final and the birth mother's rights are terminated.

[Mama Mia]

But once the adoption is final, do the legal parents *have* to honor the birth mother's requests? Because if I thought they were outrageous or obnoxious, I wouldn't bother honoring them after the adoption is final and the birth mother's rights are terminated.

Wow, I think it would be beyond unethical to tell a birth mother you agree to honor certain requests, until you get your hands on her baby, and then throw them out the door once her rights were terminated. That's just appalling.

If I was the birth mother and the adoptive parents knowingly lied I would not only be devestated and furious that they were not honoring their word, I would also be very worried sick for my child to be raised by people that shady.

[tigerchild]

But once the adoption is final, do the legal parents *have* to honor the birth mother's requests? Because if I thought they were outrageous or obnoxious, I wouldn't bother honoring them after the adoption is final and the birth mother's rights are terminated.

Yes, sadly, people can lie through their teeth to the birthmother until they get the prize baby, and then do whatever the hell they want.

However, when the child finds out about this, and in this day and age it's highly likely that they will, there may be repercussions. But who cares about being ethical and honest, if it nets you what you want, I guess.

[tigerchild]

I am always torn with stories like this.

On the one hand, it's good that they didn't kill him.

On the other, I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that they didn't make it clear to him (because nobody hides these thoughts as well as they think that they do) that he was defective trash in the eyes.

I don't think adopted or bio kids should be treated differently in the eyes of the law when it comes to relinquishment when the parents can't handle it. But honestly, I really don't know if there's a good answer or a good solution here. :(

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I am always torn with stories like this.

On the one hand, it's good that they didn't kill him.

On the other, I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that they didn't make it clear to him (because nobody hides these thoughts as well as they think that they do) that he was defective trash in the eyes.

I don't think adopted or bio kids should be treated differently in the eyes of the law when it comes to relinquishment when the parents can't handle it. But honestly, I really don't know if there's a good answer or a good solution here. :(

This is kinda where I'm at on these stories, too. At least don't kill the kid - because sadly, there are too many cases where a parent just cannot deal at all (with biokids too) and there is no help and so... they kill the kid, or abandon the kid in a way that the kid isn't found and so dies horribly alone. Far too many horror stories have made the news.

Kids are people in their own right, they have their own rights and their own histories too. If their parents just can't handle parenting and desperately want out, it seems to me there should be somewhere for them to abandon their kids safely. Some "orphanages" in various places in the world are exactly that, in fact. The kids have parents and know that their parents couldn't deal and abandoned them there to age out, even. But in the US, what do such parents do?

Meanwhile we've had various letters to the editor about the need for open adoptions or getting people their birth information, who were adopted decades ago now but records are still sealed. It seems that the issue (at the time) was that the birthmother never wanted her "secret" (of having this hidden kid) found out, and so had the records sealed for her privacy. But now the baby is some middle-aged normal citizen adult, goes to the city hall and can be told "well, yes, there's records but you can't see them." It just seems crazy to me, but then I guess it's a contract from way back when so legally it's sticky or...

At least in the modern days I'd hope that even if birth parents have their rights officially terminated and whatever (even if they have some ruling that says they can't ever meet with the kid as a minor), the fact of their existence and who they are is made known. If the kid later wants to find them, well, the kid is free to do so. The fact of the matter is, that's the kid's origin, they should be able to know that. It's just a fact that happened.

Separately from this though... Slate has an article this week about adoptions gone horribly wrong, about the Hana case and some other cases of Ethiopian children adopted into evangelical families in Washington state. One of the stories in there involves a now adult man who was thrown out by his adoptive family, it's a long story but he's now an adult, and yet those adoptive parents somehow still keep his birth certificate (from Ethiopia, presumably) AND his PASSPORT (now American) from him.

He's an adult - how is that remotely legal? I presume the guy is just naive and doesn't realize he should take them to court or whatever? Or maybe I'm mistaken? But it seems to me there's no way in hell one adult can hold another adult's passport and not give it up, in the US? Just sounds crazy to me.

[maybeizfundie]

(Parenthetically, my brother is one of those adopted kids who wanted *nothing* to do with his country of origin. From the time he was able to communicate as a toddler, he made it clear to my parents that he was an "American boy" and had zero interest in anything related to where he was born. All of the Korea-related stuff they had gotten for him, he packed neatly into a box and buried in the attic. He actively avoids Korean restaurants and chose not to participate in any Asian groups at his college. His job allows him to travel the world, but he has not yet set foot in Korea, even though he had several opportunities to do so.)

Anyhoo, on topic...to me it seems like there is so much more to the story than headlines. The very little information that is in the stories implies that they had difficulties with their son for many years, but that he had moved beyond "difficult" into "scary" territory at some point. Obviously since there have been charges, what they did was illegal. But I am really wondering what other options were available to them?

[tigerchild]

My mother never forgave me for not being able to magically heal her enormous pain from being infertile. Constant reminder. At her worst, she even told me straight up that I ruined her life because I wasn't good enough because I wasn't really hers and if only she'd been able to have "her own" children, she would be happy. (Of course, I know that's not true either. Frankly, she's fucked up and mentally ill, and any biological child she had would have suffered the same sort of abuse I did.)

But yeah, I do think parental resentment and unresolved grief can play into scapegoating a child and even provoking some reactions--but it's not like there are not organic reasons for mental illness and other issues in a child. I do have a friend and several acquaintances dealing with children with profound and violent mental illness (yes I know most people who struggle with mental illness are not violent, but there are SOME and I happen to know people who are having to deal with it in children that are very much loved and biologically theirs).

In my observation, the services available to these families are shitty to nonexistant. One of the families has been bankrupted. There are chronic shortages of beds in pediatric treatment facilities or even programs. And then, the shaming begins. While I don't know the acquaintances very well, I do know my friend and I am 99 percent sure that she and her husband are not at all abusive. I have pretty good radar for abusive sick people, having grown up with them, and she is not that. After seeing the hell she goes through, an educated, proactive, absolutely relentless advocate for her child, and seeing the suffering he and their whole family is enduring--while it NEVER EVER excuses violence or murder, I do have some degree of empathy for how someone less dedicated and less capable than her could find themselves there or sorely tempted.

But yeah, I too think there's more to this story. And being the evil angry ungrateful horrible adoptee that I am, when I see that an adopted child is singled out like this vs. bio children (if they are bio children, and if they are younger, which may definitely not be the case here) I do kind of instinctively wonder if the child was scapegoated because they no longer filled their bandaid purpose or didn't live up to the rainbows and unicorn farts (thank you, previous poster :) ) expectations of the parents. I really hope that is not the case here. It's complicated.

[Peas n carrots]

I think that best sums it up...adoption is complicated.

I too agree that the birthmother may not be someone you like having around (obnoxious is a relative term), unless the birth mother has demonstrated violent behavior she should not be completely cut out if she wants to participate in the child's life. I find it pretty appalling that folks willingly lie to these women to get what they want whether they are "obnoxious" or not. It's a blood relative of your mother for a crying out loud! I believe my favorite term for those adoptive parents are "adoptoraptors."

Adoption is about finding a home for a child, not finding a child for adoptive parents. The triad is too often focused on the adoptive parents and "completing" their family. That is why I proposed a different system that would take the money out of it (thus catering to the adoptive parents) and would connect the child to their heritage yet gives them permanence and stability within the guardian family.

[fundiefun]

It took my mom's friend close to two years to get her son admitted to a residential treatment center since he was adopted through foster care and they couldn't afford out of pocket costs for private treatment. It took leaving a paper trail of bad behavior and cops being called to the home and him threatening to rape a teacher for the state to take it seriously and pay for his care. There needs to be more help for these kinds of cases where parents who otherwise hit a breaking point of desperation especially if their only means of help are treatment centers they can't afford. Many caseworkers in these kinds of cases like my mom's friend's son basically said he's your problem deal with it even though they made it clear with his history and paper trail he needed help.

[Stephanie66]

Wow, I think it would be beyond unethical to tell a birth mother you agree to honor certain requests, until you get your hands on her baby, and then throw them out the door once her rights were terminated. That's just appalling.

If I was the birth mother and the adoptive parents knowingly lied I would not only be devestated and furious that they were not honoring their word, I would also be very worried sick for my child to be raised by people that shady.

Usually, the agency informs the birth mother or parents that their request is outrageous/obnoxious. I remember one wanting to take her kid to baseball games and such, popping in and out as she pleased. The agency said no, she needed to reconsider adoption altogether, or reconsider her expectations.

I agree it would be completely immoral to lie to a birth mom about the amount of contact, etc. But there is no legally binding contract and no written contract. If a birth mom started stalking me or acting strangely after the adoption was completed, I would run for the hills.

[Mama Mia]

Usually, the agency informs the birth mother or parents that their request is outrageous/obnoxious. I remember one wanting to take her kid to baseball games and such, popping in and out as she pleased. The agency said no, she needed to reconsider adoption altogether, or reconsider her expectations.

I agree it would be completely immoral to lie to a birth mom about the amount of contact, etc. But there is no legally binding contract and no written contract. If a birth mom started stalking me or acting strangely after the adoption was completed, I would run for the hills.

My concern would be if "acting strangely" or "stalking" translated to " I told the birth mom she could have contact, but I'm jealous of the contact, or she doesn't look/act/believe/live" exactly as I'd like, so I'm going to cut off contact because I'm uncomfortable.

I completely understand there being an issue with popping in and out with no schedule. But don't understand what is obnoxious about taking the kid to baseball games.

[patsymae]

Adoptive parents who renege on open adoption agreements (and they are legion, and very few are for legitimate safety reasons) seem to forget that children grow up, and anyone over age 10 with access to the Internet can pretty much find anybody they want. I know of several cases in which the adopted person re-connected, found out that the adoptive parents had lied to the birthparents, and stopped contact with the adoptive parents altogether.

For now, the law may be on the side of the liars and users, but time isn't.

[Coconut Flan]

But it seems to me there's no way in hell one adult can hold another adult's passport and not give it up, in the US? Just sounds crazy to me.

The parents could hold onto the actual original passport but there is nothing stopping an adult from filing for a new one or a replacement. All identity documents can be replaced. However, I've found many young 20s incredibly naïve or lied to by their parents that the certified copy the parents hold is the one, true birth certificate or whatever. I've helped quite a few of them get their own certified copies and they are shocked that the true original is held by the state not their parents.

[thekate]

The parents were indicted on misdemeanor counts of non-support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... o_complete

[Hisey]

The issue should be "what is best for the child?" And all children are different.

Some can handle contact with their birthparents, some want to avoid the whole topic because they can't deal with it, some want something in between. These needs should be respected--even in a five-year old--and the adults around them should adjust to give the kid what he needs.

So it's not about a birthmother's requests, before or after the adoption. It's not about the adoptive parents feelings about the birthmother. It is about what the child needs.

If it were me, I'd avoid making promises to a birthmother before the adoption. THis is especially true if it was the adoption of an infant, since you don't know what type of child he will be (most adoptions do not involve infants, though). However, if I HAD made a promise to a birthmother, and then saw it was not in the child's best interests, I guess I"d have to break that promise, with a respectful explanation why I was doing so. There has to be some level of trust, and the BM hopefully will trust the adoptive parent to make a good decision.

Why does the adoptive parent get to make that call? Because the law and the birthparents have given the adoptive parents that right. They cant' take away that power, give it back, then take it away again. They can't say, "Feed and clothe and care for this child 24/7, get to know him better than anyone, but if we don't like your decision about the baseball game, we are going to overrule it." That would not be in the child's best interest, and would certainly be demoralizing for the adoptive parent who is caring for the child.

Of course, some adoptive parents may make poor, selfish decisions. There is no way to prevent that from happening. But ultimately, the child does best if there is one set of parents with decision-making power that is stable and consistent throughout his childhood. It's important for society to respect that, in order to help adoptive families remain strong and stable (which is ultimately the best thing for a kid).

[Mama Mia]

The issue should be "what is best for the child?" And all children are different.

Some can handle contact with their birthparents, some want to avoid the whole topic because they can't deal with it, some want something in between. These needs should be respected--even in a five-year old--and the adults around them should adjust to give the kid what he needs.

So it's not about a birthmother's requests, before or after the adoption. It's not about the adoptive parents feelings about the birthmother. It is about what the child needs.

If it were me, I'd avoid making promises to a birthmother before the adoption. THis is especially true if it was the adoption of an infant, since you don't know what type of child he will be (most adoptions do not involve infants, though). However, if I HAD made a promise to a birthmother, and then saw it was not in the child's best interests, I guess I"d have to break that promise, with a respectful explanation why I was doing so. There has to be some level of trust, and the BM hopefully will trust the adoptive parent to make a good decision.

Why does the adoptive parent get to make that call? Because the law and the birthparents have given the adoptive parents that right. They cant' take away that power, give it back, then take it away again. They can't say, "Feed and clothe and care for this child 24/7, get to know him better than anyone, but if we don't like your decision about the baseball game, we are going to overrule it." That would not be in the child's best interest, and would certainly be demoralizing for the adoptive parent who is caring for the child.

Of course, some adoptive parents may make poor, selfish decisions. There is no way to prevent that from happening. But ultimately, the child does best if there is one set of parents with decision-making power that is stable and consistent throughout his childhood. It's important for society to respect that, in order to help adoptive families remain strong and stable (which is ultimately the best thing for a kid).

No offense, but I think that giving that kind of control to a 5 year old ( absent abuse, of course) is a huge set up for failure and hurt feelings for everyone involved. A 5 year olds feelings change moment to moment, and I don't see how it would be any more fair to allow a small child to refuse contact with the birth parents if it was already arranged, than to allow the same child to move in with the birth parents because mom and dad are mean that day and the child hates them. If the child is having a really hard time than the answer is to try to adjust the contact to make it as comfortable as possible - not eliminate it.

If the adoptive parent made a promise to the birth parents regarding attending baseball games, then reneges on that promise without real cause ( like actual abuse ) , they are sending a horrible message to the child.

If the adoptive parent isn't comfortable with whatever arrangement the birth parent wants the time to say so is before taking custody of the child. IMHO, If a promise is made it needs to be honored unless it is truly unsafe, to do otherwise teaches the child really bad messages about honesty and integrity.

[nelliebelle1197]

The issue should be "what is best for the child?" And all children are different.

Some can handle contact with their birthparents, some want to avoid the whole topic because they can't deal with it, some want something in between. These needs should be respected--even in a five-year old--and the adults around them should adjust to give the kid what he needs.

So it's not about a birthmother's requests, before or after the adoption. It's not about the adoptive parents feelings about the birthmother. It is about what the child needs.

If it were me, I'd avoid making promises to a birthmother before the adoption. THis is especially true if it was the adoption of an infant, since you don't know what type of child he will be (most adoptions do not involve infants, though). However, if I HAD made a promise to a birthmother, and then saw it was not in the child's best interests, I guess I"d have to break that promise, with a respectful explanation why I was doing so. There has to be some level of trust, and the BM hopefully will trust the adoptive parent to make a good decision.

Why does the adoptive parent get to make that call? Because the law and the birthparents have given the adoptive parents that right. They cant' take away that power, give it back, then take it away again. They can't say, "Feed and clothe and care for this child 24/7, get to know him better than anyone, but if we don't like your decision about the baseball game, we are going to overrule it." That would not be in the child's best interest, and would certainly be demoralizing for the adoptive parent who is caring for the child.

Of course, some adoptive parents may make poor, selfish decisions. There is no way to prevent that from happening. But ultimately, the child does best if there is one set of parents with decision-making power that is stable and consistent throughout his childhood. It's important for society to respect that, in order to help adoptive families remain strong and stable (which is ultimately the best thing for a kid).

Amen, sister. This is exactly right. It may not be in the child's best interest to have a birth parent popping around two or three times a year. You never know if the feelings of the biological mother are going to change over time either - what she wants when she is pregnant may not realistically be what she wants to give when she is moved on with her life. How fair is that to a child (full disclosure- I know a case where the parents allowed the biological mom to visit and even hung her photos. Seven years in, she has pretty much disappeared after three years of steady contact. The girl never wanted to visit with the mother and would beg the fathers not to let her come over, so it is for the best. She found the situation very confusing and upsetting as a young child). Blood relationships do not necessarily create a family.