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

[KateFowler]

Actually, it kind of a is. A neurotypical, non-intellectually disabled kid who doesn't yet know her letters? After 2/3 of her life in an English-only home? Is a kid whose parents should be worried. (If for no reason other than that learning disabilities are really common, effective treatments exist & there's nothing to be gained by letting a kid think she's stupid).

If that kid went to public school, someone, son where would notice and attempt to do something about it -- like tell the kid's parents they should 1) get her tested and/or 2) consider holding her back for a year.

[Mama Mia]

Actually it kind of isA neurotypical, non-intellectually disabled kid who doesn't yet know her letters? After 2/3 of her life in an English-only home? Is a kid whose parents should be worried. (If for no reason other than that learning disabilities are really common, effective treatments exist & there's nothing to be gained by letting a kid think she's stupid).

If that kid went to public school, someone, son where would notice and attempt to do something about it -- like tell the kid's parents they should 1) get her tested and/or 2) consider holding her back for a year.

The bolded is the reason that I jump to conclusions with this poster :) . So far I've seen a lot of very harsh, very sweeping generalizations.

Yes, most almost 7 year olds know all their letters, and most are at least beginning to read independently. Like with most things regarding children, there's a pretty large range of normal when it comes to reading. I, personally, would want to know a lot more before I made any judgments.

For example -- what's the child's birthday and when did they have him start school? " Almost 7" could be anywhere from the summer after Kindergarten to a few months into Second grade depending on birth month and local cut-offs.

Is this a particularly squirmy and/or immature child who the parents decided to wait an extra year to start school? A not at all uncommon situation. And often a very successful strategy. 6 is not some magic number where all children are suddenly able to sit quietly at their desks for long periods of time.

I would certainly hope that no one is making a six year old feel stupid for not knowing all his letters yet. That would be pretty ridiculous. And, frankly, far more likely to happen in public school than at home.

Home Schooling can actually be a fantastic situation for children who are struggling academically or are just " young" for their age. It's easier to adapt materials to meet the child's learning style, curriculum grade levels can be adjusted up or down by subject, and there's often more individual attention.

Obviously there can be completely crappy homeschool experiences as well. And there are definitely some advantages to public school situations as well. I am by no means anti- public school. But assuming a child is behind his peers in a subject solely based on being homeschooled, or the particular approach to education, is a big stretch. Particularly with so young a child.

Edited, again. So I am reading on that blog and that little girl is enrolled in Independent Study, through a charter school, and working with a teacher regularly. There are samples of her writing, which look perfectly normal for her age, and show progress over time. She is also learning to read by sounding out words, and sometimes guessing, like children her age do. As her mother explains, she sometimes forgets the names of some of the letters. That's it. So what, exactly, is your problem with this kid again?

But that wasn't the example that I was talking about, regardless. I was referring to the two Tweens who weren't fluent in English after being in the country over two years. I pointed out that not being fluent in English after two years is also common for students in public school.

Eta: I'm really not defending the practice of international adoptions. I realize it's a very complicated issue, with lots and lots of complicating factors and often conflicting interests. And one I know virtually nothing about.

My initial impression is that the issues of severely disabled children who are truly available for adoption in orphanages are vastly different than the issues of non disabled or mildly disabled children in orphanages. Not because severely disabled children don't deserve the best of everything, and no one should have to settle for sub- par , but because there seems to be literally no alternative for these children as they grow into adulthood. Being adopted into a family structure, even an overwhelmingly sized non-ideal family structure -- gives these young people access to benefits like social security and Medicare. Best case they are able to still rely on their family for help and support as adults. But if they are kicked out of their marginally functioning institution type home at 18 they will be able to use those benefits to obtain a stable living situation - if they are able to function fairly independently they can rent a room or studio and have help through in home supportive services a few hours a week. If they need significant care they can use Medicare to pay for a skilled nursing facility. It's not nearly enough money or support, but it's something.

If they come from a country with no plan or income stream for severely disabled adults, and don't have their own family to care for them, then this certainly seems like their best chance to not end up on the street or warehoused.

Eta: it's the middle of the night and I am half asleep -- so I am aware there are probably a ton of errors in this post about education :lol:

[chaotic life]

My son was not reading at 7 despite homecoming at age 4. He W'mart trying but he had continued ESL issues that have only fully resolved in the last year. I home schooled him until last year, and my ESL consultant actually helped negotiate two of my sons entries into public school to assure they long-term ESK issues were properly addressed.

You are emphatically ill informed on the legacy of ESL issues on international adoptees. Sadly, so are most adoptive families who are homeschooling too. Children in their birth language until 7-9 actually do NUcH better and advance quicker once adapted to English. Younger adoptees lose the fluency of a birth language and actually have to start over. At 8, my ESL consultant had me using Mad Libs and lists just to get my son writing fluently in English. We had him tested for learning disabilities under her guidance when he was not spelling by 10. He had no learning disabilities but it was six years submerged in English before she felt testing was warranted.

Not everyone can get lucky and make friends of a trained ESL expert from one of the top programs in the country. But, I had guidance for years of homeschooling and integration into public school of three international adoptees, and it was the one who came home at four who in fact did struggle more, just like she said from the beginning it would be.

Also, you absolutely need to add Lydia Schatz to that list. Beaten to death by her adoptive parents under the guidance of Michael Pearl himself.

[KateFowler]

I guess it varies from kid to kid, but, wow, four years is a helluva long time to become fluent in a second language -- even more so for internationally adoptees, who've likely lost their mother tongue within the first year.

On a sabbatical year, my sister and I got thrown to the wolves in a private, Spanish-only Catholic school in Colombia... speaking not a word of Spanish, we were fluent by the end of the year. (At nearly-5 and 6 yrs old, sending us to a far-flung boarding school was a non-starter).

My eldest started two-way immersion kindy at 4 and was fluent enough by 5 to WRITE "soup on the inside dumplings, please" in Mandarin (thereby enabling our family to order said dumplings at the best hole-in-the-wall dumpling place, owned by a Seinfeld-ian Soup Dumpling Nazi who speaks no English and requires you to WRITE your order, ie VERBALLY ordering dumplings in Mandarin isn't good enough).

[2xx1xy1JD]

I guess it varies from kid to kid, but, wow, four years is a helluva long time to become fluent in a second language -- even more so for internationally adoptees, who've likely lost their mother tongue within the first year.

On a sabbatical year, my sister and I got thrown to the wolves in a private, Spanish-only Catholic school in Colombia... speaking not a word of Spanish, we were fluent by the end of the year. (At nearly-5 and 6 yrs old, sending us to a far-flung boarding school was a non-starter).

My eldest started two-way immersion kindy at 4 and was fluent enough by 5 to WRITE "soup on the inside dumplings, please" in Mandarin (thereby enabling our family to order said dumplings at the best hole-in-the-wall dumpling place, owned by a Seinfeld-ian Soup Dumpling Nazi who speaks no English and requires you to WRITE your order, ie VERBALLY ordering dumplings in Mandarin isn't good enough).

It's different, because you and your child each still had your first language. Losing a first language makes it HARDER, not easier, to gain mastery of a second language.

This was actually one of the findings that surprised me when my mom was doing her M.Ed. (she taught special ed and ESL). It's actually much better for children if their families continue to speak their first language at home. The kids will pick up English from peers, media and school. They don't need to learn broken English at a fairly low level from their parents. It's much better for them to learn to communicate at a much more sophisticated level in their first language.

I saw this with my husband's family. Some of it may also be related to personality and aptitude, but it was a running joke that Girl 1 was the first in the family to be good in English. My husband and his siblings were all born here. They are all very intelligent, university-educated professionals, but English was never an easy subject for any of them. Their parents each left their own native countries as children, went to school in a second language (that they both shared), and English was their 3rd language. After 50 years here, English is still a bit of a struggle for the parents, even though they use it at work. They never really developed advanced language competency in any language, and then they raised their children in their least competent language.

[Palimpsest]

Are we talking about the Finding Magnolia family here? If so, I've always considered Mary one of the more informed and sensitive intercountry adopters. At least she doesn't blog all the details of her children's traumas but seems to pick what she says and how much she discloses carefully. I appreciate that because when people blog way too many sensitive details of their children's lives (adopted or not) I can feel very uncomfortable. I'm strange like that. :D

That said, I only check her blog every few months. From memory only, she was doing a modified Charlotte Mason curriculum and had several tutors for Zenashi. I honestly can't see red flags there and the children have never seemed isolated. I do vaguely remember that I thought starting Zenashi with French when her English was still shaky might have been overload. I guess they have now moved to London so the routine has been interrupted.

I don't have any problems with homeschooling when done properly (and obviously not as a way to hide abuse!) I do believe that it is very hard work to homeschool well and not everyone is a good teacher. Neither of my parents were good teachers of their children although we were homeschooled on and off when we were in elementary school. It's a good thing we mostly were in regular school.

To get back to topic, I am very uneasy about the Brigg family. I don't see how they can take care of all those children with disabilities adequately without outside help coming in, let alone homeschool them decently.

Why are they (IMO) signing a deal with the devil and allowing their family to be filmed for TLC? Money? I hope TLC covers this story with some degree of dignity, which is not what they are known for. I am strongly against Reality TV's exploitation of minor children and invasion of their privacy without consent.

[Mama Mia]

I guess it varies from kid to kid, but, wow, four years is a helluva long time to become fluent in a second language -- even more so for internationally adoptees, who've likely lost their mother tongue within the first year.

On a sabbatical year, my sister and I got thrown to the wolves in a private, Spanish-only Catholic school in Colombia... speaking not a word of Spanish, we were fluent by the end of the year. (At nearly-5 and 6 yrs old, sending us to a far-flung boarding school was a non-starter).

My eldest started two-way immersion kindy at 4 and was fluent enough by 5 to WRITE "soup on the inside dumplings, please" in Mandarin (thereby enabling our family to order said dumplings at the best hole-in-the-wall dumpling place, owned by a Seinfeld-ian Soup Dumpling Nazi who speaks no English and requires you to WRITE your order, ie VERBALLY ordering dumplings in Mandarin isn't good enough).

Damn it, I had a detailed post written out and it got eaten ! I hate that.

Basically--- I think you are taking your own, non-typical, experiences and generalizing them to what you think should be considered normal - and running around like chicken little if someone else's experiences are different.

I think you are taking completely normal child and family experiences and turning them into signs of neglect or serious problems because you are biased against the families experiencing these issues.

Obviously most children couldn't write a complicated sentence in a second language at age 5. Most 5 year olds can't write a complicated sentence in their first language.

It's strange, because you kept talking about incidents that demonstrate that you or your children learn new things quickly -- but you can't seem to grasp that if you have a range of " normal" development or skill acquisition, children will fall at all different points along that range. Which certainly seems like a simple concept.

After reading this thread, and the Finding Magnolia posts, I paid particular attention when my almost six year old granddaughter was reading to me. She is almost exactly a year younger and a grade behind the little girl you were so worried about. Almost 6, winter of kindergarten, compared to almost 7, winter of 1 st grade.

She was able to fluently read simple sight words and quickly figure out new words that had the same base as known words. With new letter combinations she would use a combination of sounding out, guessing by context, and asking for help. She mostly struggled with silent letters and letter combinations that made specific sounds -- ch, th, etc. She also occasionally would confuse " b" , "d" and "p" . When there was a word that started with a capital ""G" , she said

" what's that letter called again?"

She's in the advanced reading group at her top rated public school. Her teacher told her parents she is definitely ahead in reading. She seems to be pretty much exactly where the other little girl is in reading progress. I really, really, really doubt that the same exact skill set would go from " "excellent and advanced" to "omg, what aren't people worried this child is soooo far behind! Her education is being neglected" in one school year. That is patently ridiculous. And that's without taking into account the language acquisition issues.

I get that you really, really hate international adoption , or at least the families you rip apart -- but you really aren't doing your cause any favors when you try to convince people that perfectly NORMAL behavior is somehow cause for alarm.

[nelliebelle1197]

Oh, come on Mama Mia. Give KateFowler the benefit of the doubt. You are usually better at understanding new(er) posters than this. We all have to learn to add qualifiers on hot topics and in the heat of argument many of us, even veterans at FJ, forget. :)

Not to put words in her mouth, or defend her unnecessarily, but KateFowler seems remarkably well informed about problems in the US with the Evangelical "Adopt an Orphan for Jesus" Craze that has done untold harm to many children adopted domestically and internationally. And, yes, the tendency for Fundies to homeschool has helped to hide serious issues with many of those inadequate SOTDRT, HSLDA cognizant, child-collecting, Pearl advocating abusers.

I agree with her. This is certainly not an indictment of homeschooling in and of itself. It is an indictment of the use of homeschooling by a select (and often Fundie) few to hide abuse and resist educating children AND adopted children. I said a few, but a "few" is way too many. It is hard for adoption agencies to screen for these people because they will outright lie about their methods of discipline and they look like squeaky clean well-meaning saintly "Christians."

Are you familiar with Homeschooling's Invisible Children's Adoptee abuse page? http://hsinvisiblechildren.org/themes-i ... /adoption/

These are all tragic cases of the abuse of adopted children that involved homeschooling and reached courts of law. Some of them may even sound familiar to you. Goodness knows how many of cases were fortunately disrupted before death and serious injury got involved. Goodness only knows how many other cases of abuse are out there that have not yet been identified. Because, yes, homeschooling helps to hide children away from mandated reporters.

I'll add to KateFowlers list: The Beyond Rubies bitch. The one who advocated loudly for Christians to adopt and then treated her own adopted children appallingly. No education, free labor, and then dumped when they objected.

This poster has been pretty awful in some other threads. There are reasons it is easy not to give her the benefit of the doubt. She has had horrible things to say about the Musser family's son's death. She typically shows up in threads about adoption and paints the universe with one broad brush and doesn't take into account any other POV. There are reasons to be wary of her in a discussion.

[Palimpsest]

This poster has been pretty awful in some other threads. There are reasons it is easy not to give her the benefit of the doubt. She has had horrible things to say about the Musser family's son's death. She typically shows up in threads about adoption and paints the universe with one broad brush and doesn't take into account any other POV. There are reasons to be wary of her in a discussion.

You may be right, but other people have had very rough entries into FJ and turned into valued members - mentioning no names. :) I have not back-tracked on her posts and probably won't have time to do that soon.

Adoption is a very tricky and painful issue. People definitely bring their own experiences into discussion of it. Any criticism of adoption is angrily shut down in many fora and discussion boards, so critics do tend to shoot from the hip and paint with a broad brush to try to get their points made. FJ is not usually like that, and a broad brush is not appreciated or needed. New posters learn by experience.

This poster has done her homework on intercountry adoption but is focused on the horrible and tragic cases. As I said earlier, every intercountry adoption that goes bad threatens all intercountry adoptions so they should never get dismissed as outliers.

I really don't think all adoption is bad or all intercountry adoption is bad. I do think adoption reform is vitally needed both domestically and internationally. I bring my own experience as an adult adoptee (less than optimal but not bad) to the table in those discussions and have been known to lose my cool totally.

I usually prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. That said, before someone calls me out on it, I remember calling someone a troll on one of the Bill Gothard threads really fast. That poster really did get up my nose! :lol:

[nelliebelle1197]

You may be right, but other people have had very rough entries into FJ and turned into valued members - mentioning no names. :) I have not back-tracked on her posts and probably won't have time to do that soon.

Adoption is a very tricky and painful issue. People definitely bring their own experiences into discussion of it. Any criticism of adoption is angrily shut down in many fora and discussion boards, so critics do tend to shoot from the hip and paint with a broad brush to try to get their points made. FJ is not usually like that, and a broad brush is not appreciated or needed. New posters learn by experience.

This poster has done her homework on intercountry adoption but is focused on the horrible and tragic cases. As I said earlier, every intercountry adoption that goes bad threatens all intercountry adoptions so they should never get dismissed as outliers.

I really don't think all adoption is bad or all intercountry adoption is bad. I do think adoption reform is vitally needed both domestically and internationally. I bring my own experience as an adult adoptee (less than optimal but not bad) to the table in those discussions and have been known to lose my cool totally.

I usually prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. That said, before someone calls me out on it, I remember calling someone a troll on one of the Bill Gothard threads really fast. That poster really did get up my nose! :lol:

I get you, but there are two people on here now I am wary of and this is one of them (the third one seems to have disappeared). I think different opinions are good and I have no problem listening to them as long as the different opinionator listens back or does not run away when challenged. It is those that don't that raise my eyebrow....

[chaotic life]

As someone already reiterated, language acquisition is significantly hampered when you lose your first language. This phenomenon is worse when the child is too young to retain their own fluency, which is generally under age 7-8. Additionally, conservational English and academic English are very nearly two different languages entirely. A child who is conversationally fluent can still be academically struggling, which makes it harder because most educators now see and hear fluency and fail to grasp that fluency will not translate to the classroom, especially the written work. Four years is not nearly enough time for an ESL student who lost their primary language to be fluent in reading and writing English. It takes 8-10 years for most kids in those unique circumstances to achieve that level of integration.

Kate Fowler has some very valid and good points about adoption, including international adoption. But she paints all adoption in broad strokes of black and white with no shades of grey and no possibility that adoption could EVER be the right solution for any situation. She has no grace for adoptive families and only contempt. I find your arguments pedantic and lacking in actual experience.

I have one adoption in which I questioned the ethics, and still lack sufficient answers. I did not send my son back because of those circumstances, and know first hand from his birth father that adoption as it is understood here in the US was infact his desire for my son. We have an open international adoption with that child's family because when I was uneasy with the answers we were given, I found his family. I also used the lessons learned in that adoption to do things differently and solidly more ethically in my three later adoptions. There are times when adoption most assuredly IS the best answer for children, though I would agree that it should be a last resort and always about the best interests of the children and not finding children for families.

Judging all adoption and all adoptive families is terribly easy from an armchair observation. It's much different to live it and see the nuances that exist than to judge it from the outside.

I am tremendously grateful for the gift of my children. I am also acutely aware that their journey to my family was about grief and loss for each of them. I have fought for ethical adoptions and spoken out against unethical practices. I have, in fact, contacted both the orphan visa processing center AND US embassies abroad when necessary. I have taught kindly but firmly to potential adoptive families that we are responsible for the ethics we fund with our dollars always. I have held the hands of countless parents after adoption to provide peer support and help them navigate the dance of attachment with grace and love. I have opened every one of my adoptions I was able, and encouraged my children to hold onto everything they can, even in acts that necessitated loss for them.

Nothing can nor will be gained by villianizing all adoption and all adoptive parents.

[patsymae]

As someone already reiterated, language acquisition is significantly hampered when you lose your first language. This phenomenon is worse when the child is too young to retain their own fluency, which is generally under age 7-8. Additionally, conservational English and academic English are very nearly two different languages entirely. A child who is conversationally fluent can still be academically struggling, which makes it harder because most educators now see and hear fluency and fail to grasp that fluency will not translate to the classroom, especially the written work. Four years is not nearly enough time for an ESL student who lost their primary language to be fluent in reading and writing English. It takes 8-10 years for most kids in those unique circumstances to achieve that level of integration.

Kate Fowler has some very valid and good points about adoption, including international adoption. But she paints all adoption in broad strokes of black and white with no shades of grey and no possibility that adoption could EVER be the right solution for any situation. She has no grace for adoptive families and only contempt. I find your arguments pedantic and lacking in actual experience.

I have one adoption in which I questioned the ethics, and still lack sufficient answers. I did not send my son back because of those circumstances, and know first hand from his birth father that adoption as it is understood here in the US was infact his desire for my son. We have an open international adoption with that child's family because when I was uneasy with the answers we were given, I found his family. I also used the lessons learned in that adoption to do things differently and solidly more ethically in my three later adoptions. There are times when adoption most assuredly IS the best answer for children, though I would agree that it should be a last resort and always about the best interests of the children and not finding children for families.

Judging all adoption and all adoptive families is terribly easy from an armchair observation. It's much different to live it and see the nuances that exist than to judge it from the outside.

I am tremendously grateful for the gift of my children. I am also acutely aware that their journey to my family was about grief and loss for each of them. I have fought for ethical adoptions and spoken out against unethical practices. I have, in fact, contacted both the orphan visa processing center AND US embassies abroad when necessary. I have taught kindly but firmly to potential adoptive families that we are responsible for the ethics we fund with our dollars always. I have held the hands of countless parents after adoption to provide peer support and help them navigate the dance of attachment with grace and love. I have opened every one of my adoptions I was able, and encouraged my children to hold onto everything they can, even in acts that necessitated loss for them.

Nothing can nor will be gained by villianizing all adoption and all adoptive parents.

Suspect that I'm the one of the three that another poster talked about--my feelings about adoption are known on this forum and I'm neither surprised not upset that adopters don't like them. That said, not everyone who criticizes the adoption industry--and it is an industry--is attacking individual parents who may have adopted in good faith (and you admit that you yourself question the ethics of one of your adoptions), or are saying that all adopters are bad people or that they don't love the children they have adopted.

"There are times when adoption most assuredly IS the best answer for children, though I would agree that it should be a last resort and always about the best interests of the children and not finding children for families."

I respect your statement and couldn't agree with you more.

It's that "bests interests of the children" that gets sticky. Best interest to not be with poor parents? Best interest to be an American? SWIM?

[nelliebelle1197]

Suspect that I'm the one of the three that another poster talked about--my feelings about adoption are known on this forum and I'm neither surprised not upset that adopters don't like them. That said, not everyone who criticizes the adoption industry--and it is an industry--is attacking individual parents who may have adopted in good faith (and you admit that you yourself question the ethics of one of your adoptions), or are saying that all adopters are bad people or that they don't love the children they have adopted.

"There are times when adoption most assuredly IS the best answer for children, though I would agree that it should be a last resort and always about the best interests of the children and not finding children for families."

I respect your statement and couldn't agree with you more.

It's that "bests interests of the children" that gets sticky. Best interest to not be with poor parents? Best interest to be an American? SWIM?

If you are referring to my comment, it is not you! Promise. The other ones are some combination of racist, classist, homophobic and disabled-phobic. I have made no bones about boxing their ears whenever their true colors show through.

[Mama Mia]

I have a general question regarding the opinions regarding international adoption, domestic infant adoption and domestic adoption of older children from foster care. Maybe people could give me their feedback, because I'm confused on this aspect.

It seems, from the limited amount I've read, that many, many people are strongly against domestic infant and international adoption because they feel that the money/time/resources should be put into helping mothers and children remain together.

But the same people ( I think) often advocate for domestic adoption from foster care. I'm not getting why they wouldn't be advocating, instead, for the money/time/resources to go towards family preservation/reunification efforts in the states?

Wouldn't it be mostly the same issues that lead to family disruption anywhere in the world --- poverty, abuse, addiction, mental illness etc. ?

I guess I don't understand why foster-adoption would be pretty much assumed to be a good thing if it's coming from one area of the world, but not another. Something's just not clicking for me.Could someone explain the reasoning, or point me to good blogs, articles, etc. on the subject? Thank you.

[Firiel]

I have a general question regarding the opinions regarding international adoption, domestic infant adoption and domestic adoption of older children from foster care. Maybe people could give me their feedback, because I'm confused on this aspect.

It seems, from the limited amount I've read, that many, many people are strongly against domestic infant and international adoption because they feel that the money/time/resources should be put into helping mothers and children remain together.

But the same people ( I think) often advocate for domestic adoption from foster care. I'm not getting why they wouldn't be advocating, instead, for the money/time/resources to go towards family preservation/reunification efforts in the states?

Wouldn't it be mostly the same issues that lead to family disruption anywhere in the world --- poverty, abuse, addiction, mental illness etc. ?

I guess I don't understand why foster-adoption would be pretty much assumed to be a good thing if it's coming from one area of the world, but not another. Something's just not clicking for me.Could someone explain the reasoning, or point me to good blogs, articles, etc. on the subject? Thank you.

[nelliebelle1197]

I'm not sure I can answer because I'm not against international adoption-- just aware (as you are!) that certain organizations are not honest/ethical in regards to international adoption.

But I think the idea (whether this is correct or not, I don't know) is that a child in foster care here has already received efforts to keep the family together but that the parents chose not to accept :P that help or chose not to work with CPS to improve in things. Again, whether that is correct or not probably varies case-by-case, but I suspect that's the general thought process.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I have a general question regarding the opinions regarding international adoption, domestic infant adoption and domestic adoption of older children from foster care. Maybe people could give me their feedback, because I'm confused on this aspect.

It seems, from the limited amount I've read, that many, many people are strongly against domestic infant and international adoption because they feel that the money/time/resources should be put into helping mothers and children remain together.

But the same people ( I think) often advocate for domestic adoption from foster care. I'm not getting why they wouldn't be advocating, instead, for the money/time/resources to go towards family preservation/reunification efforts in the states?

Wouldn't it be mostly the same issues that lead to family disruption anywhere in the world --- poverty, abuse, addiction, mental illness etc. ?

I guess I don't understand why foster-adoption would be pretty much assumed to be a good thing if it's coming from one area of the world, but not another. Something's just not clicking for me.Could someone explain the reasoning, or point me to good blogs, articles, etc. on the subject? Thank you.

[KateFowler]

I'm not against international adoption -- or domestic adoption, for that matter. Done right, it provides a loving family for a kid who'd otherwise go without (after family preservation efforts have been exhausted & no relatives are interested/deemed capable of raising a particular kid).

I think there are 3 separate adoption issues:

1) Foster care: Here in NY, the law says bioparents have 17 mos to complete their "reunification plan"... that's pretty much never enforced. The solution is to enforce it.

Kids deserve permanency, bioparents deserve a fair shot at getting their act together -- and 17 mos seems reasonable.

2) International adoption: My fundamental issue is limited to "sending countries" that are desperately poor with, errr, let's call it "governance-challenged" that make ethical adoptions virtually impossible. It's a predictable, Roshomon-like cycle of shutting down one country for cause (baby buying) only to have another one with even weaker laws open up:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/09/12/ana ... on-crisis/

Laws are needed. A lack of them allowed Mary & Staci to adopt from Ethiopia a second time. After adopting an Ethiopian kid terribly traumatized by an adoption that involved some incomplete/seemingly falsified paperwork, fully aware their first parents were capably raising their siblings).

My understanding is that ethical international adoptions from places with fewer poverty/governance issues -- like Serbia and Bulgaria. There are waiting lists of paper-ready local families for healthy/young kids, efforts to place older/disabled kids and foreign families are sought only for the kids who can't be placed domestically.

(There are around 30-40 American kids -- mostly male, mostly healthy, mostly African-American -- adopted by foreigners each year. Two of whom are my adorable godsons, adopted by my Canadian BFF and her hubby, as newborns, from VT social services as no US family could be found).

3) Domestic infant adoption: My issue is that matching pregnant ladies (she's not a "birthmom" til she gives birth and relinquishes) is, in and of itself, coercive -- PAPs calling her "our birthmom", her fetus "our baby", making not-legally-enforceable open adoption promises, bitching about getting "ripped off" if mom elects to parent, laws letting a woman still exhausted/medicated from giving birth consent to adoption, etc. Pregnant ladies should be offered help -- and it already exists (Medicaid, WIC), so all that's needed is a social services agency to help with logistics -- and several months to change their minds. Short-term support for a new mom can make a huuuuge difference (and the moms that relinquish? Will do so if they WANT to. There's no downside!).

[Palimpsest]

I don't get it either. I first of all have been shocked at how many people feel biology is so important. My personal experiences with my paternal biological side (which I do not know and have no desire to ever know) and those of several adoptees in my close family are vastly different (it runs 2:1 on NOT wanting to meet the biological family or finding that family to be just awful). I think a number of the loudest critics (not ALL, of course) have zero experience with adoption other than an anecdote or a random acquaintance or child collector blogs.

I think also too it comes from zero exposure to social services (again, generalizing) and how things really work in social services. And how truly terrible some biological fathers and mothers really are. It is so easy to say social services should keep families together when you don't realize how underfunded and shattered the social safety net is in the US- the complexity of what people need to keep their families together from funded social work to funded income, education, jobs, housing, food and other social programs is overwhelming, and that is not even getting into living wage, affordable healthcare and protection in consumer issues, and we in the US do not have a culture that supports the common good and general welfare of the lower middle class and the poor (and frankly, the middle class). Period. I work in it everyday and I dare anyone to tell me our safety net is working.

What I have never understood is the rush by certain white people to go overseas when there are so many kids here in the US of all ages who need families. I think there is a little racism involved- somehow, it is better to have a kid of a different color who is foreign or a white disabled kid rather than a brown one.

What I can't countenance though are the people who refuse to see anything other than their own side on this. The back and forth in the Gayby thread really pushed me to think through some things. I still don't agree that biology is primary, but I think it definitely has more of a role than I had thought before. Each set of circumstances for all parents and the child are so different one cannot generalize on this issue. I think we all agree the unethical adoption agencies are bad, but I can tell you for sure not all the children adopted out are yearning for their homeland. So what is the answer? There isn't one because this situation has no logical or just answers in one size that fit all. The issues and outcomes are too large, varied and complex for a simple solution.

[Mama Mia]

So, basically, whatever people's individual opinions regarding adoption overall ----

Foster adopting is generally seen as the least questionable alternative, because it is the least likely to have been coerced and most likely to have followed a standardized legal process. Plus there is very little doubt these children actually need homes.

While domestic infant adoptions have a higher likelihood of pressuring a young woman who may have just needed resources and time to adjust. And international adoption is more likely to be due to parents who have no resources, a different understanding of relinquishment, and outright illegal and unethical adoption brokers.

Does that sound about right? Thank you for all the responses. Something just hadn't been clicking for me before.

My personal take, from a long time spent working with CPS involved families ---- I think it's really, really complicated. On the one hand there really are some just awful, awful parents out there who should not be raising kids. And watching kids cycle through foster care homes back to mom when she has it together for a bit -- and then pulled again when she blows it ---- over and over is just heartbreaking. On the other hand I think everyone tends to underestimate how much on going support and resources are needed for really struggling families. Or what would be most effective.

For example, while a family is involved with CPS they might be getting counseling and respite care and all sorts of emotional support. Once the plan is completed all that goes away ( generally) . I think a really effective ( and inexpensive) support would be for each family to continue to receive 10 hours a week of childcare. That would keep a stable link to the outside world in their life, who is also a mandated reporter, who can give parenting tips and feedback. And it's enough of a safety valve for a really fragile parent.

[KateFowler]

This poster has been pretty awful in some other threads. There are reasons it is easy not to give her the benefit of the doubt. She has had horrible things to say about the Musser family's son's death. She typically shows up in threads about adoption and paints the universe with one broad brush and doesn't take into account any other POV. There are reasons to be wary of her in a discussion.

Ummm, Susanna Musser's actions are empirically AWFUL and deserving of scorn!

Susanna not only let her adopted son Tom-Tom drown (unsupervised) in the bathtub, her daughters Verity and Katie WATCHED HIM DIE FROM 18 inches away!! The girls were on their little plastic potties:

"Katie and Verity were both on their potties and witnessed the trauma, although they seem to have been oblivious to the significance of what they saw. Still, they saw it, the household was in turmoil for a while, and Tom-Tom disappeared. The older kids had already been gone all week. Suddenly, people are disappearing. What is happening?"

Monstrous. Monstrous. Monstrous actions.

[patsymae]

So, basically, whatever people's individual opinions regarding adoption overall ----

Foster adopting is generally seen as the least questionable alternative, because it is the least likely to have been coerced and most likely to have followed a standardized legal process. Plus there is very little doubt these children actually need homes.

While domestic infant adoptions have a higher likelihood of pressuring a young woman who may have just needed resources and time to adjust. And international adoption is more likely to be due to parents who have no resources, a different understanding of relinquishment, and outright illegal and unethical adoption brokers.

Does that sound about right? Thank you for all the responses. Something just hadn't been clicking for me before.

My personal take, from a long time spent working with CPS involved families ---- I think it's really, really complicated. On the one hand there really are some just awful, awful parents out there who should not be raising kids. And watching kids cycle through foster care homes back to mom when she has it together for a bit -- and then pulled again when she blows it ---- over and over is just heartbreaking. On the other hand I think everyone tends to underestimate how much on going support and resources are needed for really struggling families. Or what would be most effective.

For example, while a family is involved with CPS they might be getting counseling and respite care and all sorts of emotional support. Once the plan is completed all that goes away ( generally) . I think a really effective ( and inexpensive) support would be for each family to continue to receive 10 hours a week of childcare. That would keep a stable link to the outside world in their life, who is also a mandated reporter, who can give parenting tips and feedback. And it's enough of a safety valve for a really fragile parent.

I love what you have to say about family support. Countries that provide social support for families have far lower adoption rates than the U.S.

As for foster adoption, certainly there are some parents that absolutely should not have custody of their children, and there are indeed horror stories. But there are fewer than adoption rates would indicate, and as you note there would be even fewer if social supports were available. And unfortunately, the foster system is not immune from bias and even outright corruption--for example, see youtube.com/watch?v=9ETfgoSmTHI and related reports.

As others have said, the focus needs to change to finding homes for children who really need them and away from finding children for people who want them. IMO, money has to be taken out of the equation completely--no adoption-only agencies, no "adoption professionals," no pre-birth matching and "eparent expenses," and no rewards for state agencies that expedite TPR. As long as there is a huge "customer base" of people who want other people's children and are willing and able to pay in order to get them, and people can make money by brokering adoptions, the system won't change.

[patsymae]

And to get back to the original topic, while I don't at all want to judge these people as persons, and I do agree that some severely disabled children would face a bleak future in cultures that reject (for lack of a better word) the disabled, I have to wonder what CPS would do if faced with a U.S. family with 34 non-adopted (widowed Duggar and Bates types marrying each other?) children, most of whom are severely disabled, older disabled ones caring for the younger disabled ones, none of them enrolled in school?

My guess is that most of them would be removed from that home.

And fundies would applaud that because it's against God's will or something for society to provide services (ebil socialism).