if this is TLC's new show time to stop paying for cable

[jebandpunky]

Couple with 34 kids 5 of their own and 29 adopted almost 60 and still trying to adopt babies.And of course their all homeschooled.If TLC makes this their new show time to stop paying for . http://m.today.com/parents/national-ado ... 1D80298344

[Firiel]

Couple with 34 kids 5 of their own and 29 adopted almost 60 and still trying to adopt babies.And of course their all homeschooled.If TLC makes this their new show time to stop paying for . http://m.today.com/parents/national-ado ... 1D80298344

This is really interesting. It seems there are 26 people living there right now. To be fair to them, they seek out kids with disabilities and older children-- they aren't just adopting foreign babies.

On the one hand, it seems like they are giving some of these children a chance at a life with family and community by adopting from countries where kids with disabilities don't really have a future.

On the other hand, it's really too bad they are stripping the kids of their culture by changing their names, and it makes me feel that they haven't thought through the ethics of adoption. Additionally, what is the environment like for a child who is one of thirty? Can a strong parent-child bond form? It seems like this couple has genuinely good intentions, but it's a bummer that they feel THEY need to be the heroes. I bet more children would be helped if they donated to or started a non-profit to help improve the lives of disabled orphans in developing nations.

[ILoveJellybeans]

I take back my post on another thread about how "too many kids" is relative and there isn't really a concrete number for this as everyone can handle different amounts.......34 is too many. Especially when a lot of the kids have disabilities.

[brokenminded]

Is this the family who were on nanny 911. They had, at the time 25 adopted disabled kids. I remember just being beyond shocked.

[DGayle]

Is this the family who were on nanny 911. They had, at the time 25 adopted disabled kids. I remember just being beyond shocked.

Different family. That family only adopted boys.

[DGayle]

This is really interesting. It seems there are 26 people living there right now. To be fair to them, they seek out kids with disabilities and older children-- they aren't just adopting foreign babies.

On the one hand, it seems like they are giving some of these children a chance at a life with family and community by adopting from countries where kids with disabilities don't really have a future.

On the other hand, it's really too bad they are stripping the kids of their culture by changing their names, and it makes me feel that they haven't thought through the ethics of adoption. Additionally, what is the environment like for a child who is one of thirty? Can a strong parent-child bond form? It seems like this couple has genuinely good intentions, but it's a bummer that they feel THEY need to be the heroes. I bet more children would be helped if they donated to or started a non-profit to help improve the lives of disabled orphans in developing nations.

It sounds like they're adopting mostly kids old enough to have a say in their names.

Compared to where these kids were, in orphanages that were probably a lot more than 30 people with workers who had no time for them and were only there for a check, where these kids would have died, I'm not sure that it would have been ethical to leave the kids there just because of culture.

Unfortunately you can start those non-profits, but they won't change societies in a meaningful way. Kids with cleft palates will still be shunned, and countries without protections for kids without hands and legs will still be hell. Making orphanages more comfortable won't do terribly much in the long run. Even here in the US, where our foster system is leaps and bounds better, there are still lots of problems. Many kids still get left behind and having to fend for themselves. This is in a society where we are looked down on for treating someone with a disability as a lesser being. There already are non-profits trying to improve things, but those benefiting at the kids who are pretty healthy. Getting an education isn't going to help if no one will hire you because of a deformity. Even here in the US, some of those kids are going to have it rough.

Unlike the Duggars, who have tons of kids because of the personal glory, these people seem like they really care about the kids and are adopting out of love. Even if there isn't a lot of 1-on-1 time, those kids know they are loved and wanted and weren't just another baby pushed out of the clown car as part of a collection.

I'd rather that family get a TLC show. They'd probably use the money for those kids' needs, and to adopt more kids who have no chance where they currently are. Maybe they'd inspire people to consider adopting. I'm not sure why people are inspired by the Duggars (inspired to oppress their kids, maybe?), but this is a family to take inspiration from.

[Grimalkin]

It sounds like they're adopting mostly kids old enough to have a say in their names.

Compared to where these kids were, in orphanages that were probably a lot more than 30 people with workers who had no time for them and were only there for a check, where these kids would have died, I'm not sure that it would have been ethical to leave the kids there just because of culture.

Unfortunately you can start those non-profits, but they won't change societies in a meaningful way. Kids with cleft palates will still be shunned, and countries without protections for kids without hands and legs will still be hell. Making orphanages more comfortable won't do terribly much in the long run. Even here in the US, where our foster system is leaps and bounds better, there are still lots of problems. Many kids still get left behind and having to fend for themselves. This is in a society where we are looked down on for treating someone with a disability as a lesser being. There already are non-profits trying to improve things, but those benefiting at the kids who are pretty healthy. Getting an education isn't going to help if no one will hire you because of a deformity. Even here in the US, some of those kids are going to have it rough.

Unlike the Duggars, who have tons of kids because of the personal glory, these people seem like they really care about the kids and are adopting out of love. Even if there isn't a lot of 1-on-1 time, those kids know they are loved and wanted and weren't just another baby pushed out of the clown car as part of a collection.

I'd rather that family get a TLC show. They'd probably use the money for those kids' needs, and to adopt more kids who have no chance where they currently are. Maybe they'd inspire people to consider adopting. I'm not sure why people are inspired by the Duggars (inspired to oppress their kids, maybe?), but this is a family to take inspiration from.

I was thinking along the same lines. It might. It be the most ideal situation but better to Han a foreign orphanage with no hope of a future.

[DGayle]

I was thinking along the same lines. It might. It be the most ideal situation but better to Han a foreign orphanage with no hope of a future.

If they were adopting kids to put on stage, or to push into religion so that they'd be basically "buying" their arrows, then I'd feel different. But in this case, it's someone adopting a lot of kids out of a genuine sense of love and wanting to improve lives, and even though it's not the ideal situation, it's leaps above where those kids came from, and they're with parents genuinely wanting to improve their lives and who love them. No crap about having tons of kids because of God and Bible, just out of true love and wanting to help. Even if it's beyond what a lot of people see as reasonable, their intentions should be commended. They aren't like the Duggars and Bateses who just skip birth control. They're going out of their way to get these kids, and are living their lives to take care of them, instead of tossing them to other kids and running off to tea parties.

[sorchah]

While this is probably driven by the same "collect all the childrens!" desire that a lot of fundies seem to have, this is quite different because a lot of the kids had practically no chance of being adopted. Their quality of life is probably far better, even in such a household. At least now they have sufficient food and shelter and healthcare.

That said, it is hard for me to really see this as parenting. It seems like caring for that many kids would lead to a relationship akin to a teacher or social worker or something, even if that is her "job."

[lilwriter85]

Different family. That family only adopted boys.

Yup, that was the Silcock family.

[Pastors Daughter]

I've been reading Jeane's blog for years now (it is: blessedbyachild.blogspot.com) I like to follow the stories of families adopting children who were in difficult situations and see how their lives are changed for the better bit by bit when they are surrounded by security and love of a family and new opportunities in life (medical care, needed operations, therapies, education, the outside world, etc.)

I have been impressed that this family does not ask for donations for any adoption or other need. They have huge expenses to be able to do what they do, but to their credit they handle everything on their own, including providing many, many operations for their kids in the past and medical care for them. They definitely fall into fundy lite. Regular church attendance on Sunday but they are a normal Christian family (not size wise, of course), but in keeping life real and balanced. The only things which I have caution about is how one could truly homeschool that many well and be able to meet the needs of all the kids. The older ones help (too much I think) with schooling, cooking, and watching over the littles, but still.... Each child graduates when they pass their GED, and they do encourage outside employment afterward. No one has left the nest yet (of those adopted), but understandably all but one of the older ones were adopted as teens and still need some more time in a family before being able to leave. She has never written even once about SAHDs; the older ones are in the stage they are, and when they are able to leave they will leave.

Jeane and Paul strike me as actually a very heart warming couple who truly are trying to do all they can to help others. They have never shown any discipline or control issue red flags at all. I personally do not feel having a family this large is the best or wisest situation, but they are handling it well and the children do really seem to thrive.

[roddma]

It seems she feels her only purpose is to take care of kids. Trying to help these kids is noble, but there is only so much of a person to go around. It is like animal lovers who want to give every shelter animal a home. It is virtually impossible and can cause the pet owner to be overwhelmed.. I do agree they seem to mean well, but should think about their ages also.

[calimojo]

It seems less like a family and more like an orphanage or children's home.

Not saying that the kids are not getting most of their basic needs met, or that they parents are bad people, but obviously, with 34 kids, there is absolutely no way they can have a true parental relationship with them. They may be very loving, and they probably are definitely giving these kids a better life than what they had to begin with, though so no hating here. I just hope that they have lots of help

[apple1]

The only things which I have caution about is how one could truly homeschool that many well and be able to meet the needs of all the kids. The older ones help (too much I think) with schooling, cooking, and watching over the littles, but still.... Each child graduates when they pass their GED, and they do encourage outside employment afterward. No one has left the nest yet (of those adopted), but understandably all but one of the older ones were adopted as teens and still need some more time in a family before being able to leave.

I am not familiar with this family outside of this thread.

But I have an opinion based on common sense. As opposed to the quoted comment above, I personally have concerns about everything that is part of daily life. No parents are capable of financially supporting (without outside help), basically maintaining sufficient housing and transportation (cleaning, normal maintenance, and repair), cooking and the associated cleanup, overseeing bathing and doing laundry, etc, etc, in and of themselves. They either would have to have a massive amount of outside help and/or coerce the older or more capable kids into caring for the other kids and doing the majority of the work. That's just fact. So - without knowing more - I am convinced that this situation spins on this enforced "parenting" by the older or more capable kids. Not fair to them. And they are adding "homeschooling" into this mix? REALLY???????

Notice I haven't even mentioned parental love and affection.

[Pastors Daughter]

But I have an opinion based on common sense. As opposed to the quoted comment above, I personally have concerns about everything that is part of daily life. No parents are capable of financially supporting (without outside help), basically maintaining sufficient housing and transportation (cleaning, normal maintenance, and repair), cooking and the associated cleanup, overseeing bathing and doing laundry, etc, etc, in and of themselves. They either would have to have a massive amount of outside help and/or coerce the older or more capable kids into caring for the other kids and doing the majority of the work. That's just fact. So - without knowing more - I am convinced that this situation spins on this enforced "parenting" by the older or more capable kids. Not fair to them. And they are adding "homeschooling" into this mix? REALLY???????

Notice I haven't even mentioned parental love and affection.

I agree with you apple1; this is what I was saying.

--They are completely supporting themselves financially.

--They do not have any outside help with schooling, housework, or child care except her bio married daughter who lives nearby; she is over quite a bit and helps. However, the daughter has 8 young children herself (4 bio and 4 adopted from Ghana) so that is only adding more to the mix.

--The older kids must do WAY TOO MUCH to help. Responsibility and chores are a good thing, but not to this extreme. There is no way this much could be accomplished every day without distributing too much work to the older ones. It really concerns me that they are now adopting two more infants who are extremely disabled from Ghana. The care of their blind, very mentally disabled 10-year-old seems to be mainly in the care of their 22-year-old (adopted as a teen). It couldn't be done without the help of the older adopted teens and early 20-year-olds so in my opinion it shouldn't be done in spite of all the overflowing loving intentions.

[lilah]

34 for kids is too many. There is no way the parents can adequately bond with every single kid.

[Marianne]

I grew up in foster care, and I'm sure I received more love and affection than this children. At least, in foster care or foster family, we were (maximum) 8/10 children, not 34.

Love multiplies. Not time. There's no way this parents can be present to all the children.

[Mango]

I do sometimes wonder if this model of orphanage/children's home is where things are headed in the future, frankly. What makes me sad about it is that it removes any possibility that the children could be adopted into a situation that they'd get more of a one-on-one relationship with their parental figures, but OTOH, maybe it's better than being shuffled from foster home to foster home and having the possibility/likelihood of developing long term relationships with SOME carer?

[DGayle]

I still find it too hard to be too hard on people who adopt kids not to be little arrows, but to try giving them stability and love. They're doing this out of love, not religion. It's not ideal. It can't be. Much 1-on-1 isn't possible. Where those kids came from, they weren't going to get that either. At least now they will have 1 home they won't be bounced out of, and they know someone wants them in this world. It's not like the parents are trying to hatch as many biological eggs as possible like Michelle. They're not putting more mouths out there. They're doing what they can to try taking care of the mouths already out there needing help that noone else is going to help beyond tossing into an orphanage.

Solution to fundies who want a lot of kids is to adopt some kids already needing homes. What can you say to people who adopt a lot because they want to help? Let those kids stay unwanted in orphanages? If they were birthing X kids and counting, I'd be very against this, but I can't look down on people doing the harder thing because they want kids to get some stability and love. It's not ideal, but it's fuck loads better than where they came from, and they aren't being adopted to be little arrows.

[DGayle]

I do sometimes wonder if this model of orphanage/children's home is where things are headed in the future, frankly. What makes me sad about it is that it removes any possibility that the children could be adopted into a situation that they'd get more of a one-on-one relationship with their parental figures, but OTOH, maybe it's better than being shuffled from foster home to foster home and having the possibility/likelihood of developing long term relationships with SOME carer?

People aren't lining up to adopt special-needs kids. If someone else had adopted that handless, legless baby (for example) into a better home instead of, say, a baby girl missing half her face and both arms and a leg, then that girl still needs a home. Every kid who's adopted is another who isn't. The chance of any of those kids ever getting adopted instead of eventually dumped into the adult world with no chance of survival in countries without disability help is so tiny that I'm surprised some countries haven't resorted to euthanizing kids. No, I DON'T support that, but these kids are basically sentenced to death as it is. Every home that wants them out of real love means they have a chance to live. Whoever else would have adopted that baby will adopt another kid, so 2 kids get a chance.

[Marianne]

I do sometimes wonder if this model of orphanage/children's home is where things are headed in the future, frankly. What makes me sad about it is that it removes any possibility that the children could be adopted into a situation that they'd get more of a one-on-one relationship with their parental figures, but OTOH, maybe it's better than being shuffled from foster home to foster home and having the possibility/likelihood of developing long term relationships with SOME carer?

I do not believe that a child who goes from an orphanage to a structure with 20 or more children can learn to integrate. When you are in the foster care/orphanage, you develop attitudes, behaviors different from other children, in areas like food, interractions with other children , with adults ... I am no longer in foster care since years, I am well integrated into society, but I still have this behaviors, this way of seeing things, and it is sometimes a handicap in my daily life. As it is for my friends. An adopted child needs to stop this behavior, or at least to limit them, control them How can he do that when he goes into a structure with 20 or more children ? How parents can be attentive to his behavior, his words, his learning ?

Being shuffled from foster home to foster home to foster family is an horror. I would like to sue the social system for that, because I think that what we (the children of foster care) did live, is psychological abuse. But being in a family of 34 children, is to be the same as in foster care, with stability.

[treemom]

If you are a child of 30 odd other siblings, many who have special needs...how is that different from institutionalization?

[Burris]

:rawr:

I've been reading Jeane's blog for years now (it is: blessedbyachild.blogspot.com) I like to follow the stories of families adopting children who were in difficult situations and see how their lives are changed for the better bit by bit when they are surrounded by security and love of a family and new opportunities in life (medical care, needed operations, therapies, education, the outside world, etc.)

I have been impressed that this family does not ask for donations for any adoption or other need. They have huge expenses to be able to do what they do, but to their credit they handle everything on their own, including providing many, many operations for their kids in the past and medical care for them. They definitely fall into fundy lite. Regular church attendance on Sunday but they are a normal Christian family (not size wise, of course), but in keeping life real and balanced. The only things which I have caution about is how one could truly homeschool that many well and be able to meet the needs of all the kids. The older ones help (too much I think) with schooling, cooking, and watching over the littles, but still.... Each child graduates when they pass their GED, and they do encourage outside employment afterward. No one has left the nest yet (of those adopted), but understandably all but one of the older ones were adopted as teens and still need some more time in a family before being able to leave. She has never written even once about SAHDs; the older ones are in the stage they are, and when they are able to leave they will leave.

Jeane and Paul strike me as actually a very heart warming couple who truly are trying to do all they can to help others. They have never shown any discipline or control issue red flags at all. I personally do not feel having a family this large is the best or wisest situation, but they are handling it well and the children do really seem to thrive.

It sounds as if Jeannie Briggs and her family mean well, but I'm disturbed by htheir attitudes - towards schooling the children, towards developing individualized plans for each one, and towards the children as people.

In the OPs artcle, Jeannie Biggs makes this statement: “Nobody is going to want this child -- can we bring him home?â€

What these twwo have created is not a novel family; it's an orphanage where children at all skill levels are being homeschooled; where - according to the article - they buy a lot and some on credit.

No legitimate childcare organization would be allowed to operate under-staffed, to add yet additional children when food is on credit

Thst these people are not asking for private monies isn't a defense of their lifestyles - not unless the state government gives them 50k a month.

If these two were so concerned about the welfare of disabled foreign nationals, they'd be helping other people finance the cost of overseas adopions.

It doesn't occur to these sainted hoarders that other potential parents - those considered unsuitable by virtue of age or income - could raise two or three children apiece in a more suitable atmosphere than any pair could raise 20+. Moreover, this wouldn't be acceptable let alone applauded if the children involved weren't (a) disabled, (b) foreign-born, or © older.

[Pastors Daughter]

:

What these twwo have created is not a novel family; it's an orphanage where children at all skill levels are being homeschooled; where - according to the article - they buy a lot and some on credit.

No legitimate childcare organization would be allowed to operate under-staffed, to add yet additional children when food is on credit (snip)

While I agree with Burris that given their adoption desires their funds should be directed toward helping other families be able to adopt hard-to-place children instead of taking in yet more to their own home, please do note that they are not buying anything on credit. This family is totally self-sustaining without outside financial help or government assistance. The only mention of credit is that the husband has a very lucrative job with a credit card processing company.

[TXGirlInAMaterialWorld]

In my opinion- that is not a family, but a group home. I think their idea to give all these kids a family is great- but in reality the kids are not receiving the attention they need and quite frankly deserve. I also think homeschooling them is tragic- the disabled children would receive a great deal of assistance and therapy in public school that a homeschooling situation just does not provide. In the end, it will hinder the academic, physical and emotional progress these kids will achieve.