Worst rehoming story (possibly) ever

[KateFowler]

This might just be the most awful rehoming story ever -- a fundie claims to have been "pressured" to adopt an older teen just 3 days from "aging out" of a grim foreign orphanage, gets the girl home, instantly decides the girl is better suited to a family with a "different personality type" and gets rid of her. The adoption agency that approved the family to adopt that specific kid? Agrees. The PAPs have the gall to think what they did is "for the best".

But adopters who rehome/disrupt ALWAYS say that... but I've yet to meet or read about a discarded adoptee who feels getting kicked out (particularly after having been brought to a new country, with a new language, on the other side of the planet who has been discarded before having a chance to learn to speak English!).

Read this. You will WEEP:

This was left as a comment on this blog:

http://badassamys.com/2015/03/21/rehoming/

Well written! You have touched on so many painful issues. Both adoption and disruption are so complicated that I feel it is wrong for anyone to say that disruption (in particular) is “always wrong†or “always right†(and I’m not suggesting here that you tried to say that, just offering up this thought). We had to disrupt the adoption of a teen, not as much because her anger and fear were a threat to younger, adopted children in our family, which they were, but more because staying in our family was *wrong* for *HER* best interests. I am amazed at how many people are convinced that staying in a “wrong fit†family is still the best for the child, especially an older child who was adopted at an older age, because we are so attached to the idea of “forever family†instead of the unique needs of the unique child. We adopted this child in an emergency health situation with basically three days to make the decision — she had serious health issues and was “aging out†of her country’s orphan care system in three weeks. She had personally never hoped to be adopted and was happy in her orphanage (because it was what she had always known, and as dysfunctional as it was, it was still her home, her family). She was angry, terrified, and depressed over what was happening to her in being adopted by foreigners from a different race and language. She also basically “had a bad first run†at experiencing family life for the first time in her life, and she was devastated and acted out with fear masked as anger. We recognized right away that she responded best to a particular personality type that no person in our family had, but even as people around us, including our professionally certified adoption counselor, began urging us to disrupt, we could not come to grips with the thought of letting her go. Surely, if we just tried harder, read the right book, attended the right conference, surely something would help. We could not bear the thought of disrupting. Finally our home study adoption agency director offered to do an in-home visit, and by the end of the two-hour visit she felt that disruption was “fully justified†in this particular situation — “fully justified†were her words, though she was against disruption in general. At that point, we began to consider disruption. When we found a second home that was far better suited for this child than ours had been (in about ten different areas of concern, including her need to be around teens her age who spoke her home language, as the language barrier was one of her biggest traumas in being adopted), both our home study agency and our placement agency stood by us all along the way. They helped us find legal counsel, offered suggestions for a smoother transition, were present on the day of the initial transition to respite care before traveling to the new home, followed up with us after the transition multiple times over the next two years, et cetera. Whereas we had adopted this child with just a single page of information about her strengths and weaknesses, personality type, and emotional needs (and there was no way to tell whether the birth country was “speaking truthfully†about any of her issues), we were able to provides the second family with dozens of pages of description about her strengths and weaknesses, personality, and needs. We gave them a three-ring binder full of medical information, school information and homework, and the contact information of pretty much every person in her “circle of experience†while in our family, including youth pastor, school teachers, English language learning instructor, medical providers, orphanage friends’ adoptive families here in the States, placement agency, home study agency, adoption counselor, etc.. The child began flourishing almost immediately in the second home, where they knew ahead of time what the potential stumbling blocks would be, and within just a few months she had made major steps forward that would probably never have happened in our home. I’ve read the Reuters’ reports and other horror stories and of course the Harris reports, and I fully realize that disruption is in some instances the absolute worst thing that could happen to a child, a “crack that widens,†as you have so eloquently put it, or even a “nail in the coffin†in some cases, but I have also seen with my own eyes that disruption, while far from ideal, can also be the step, even the sacrifice, that opens the way for a child to have a “second chance.†I often wish there were more dialogue about how sometimes a second family is what is best for the child himself or herself — that it’s not all about healing the first family, but can be about providing what’s best for the child herself. Sometimes I think we try to make the idea of “forever family†too sacred, too much of an idol — and yes, I do realize that many people will immediately suggest concern over the extreme alternative, that adoption could become a “trying on†or “shopping†experience, but don’t the majority of people who adopt genuinely WANT to bond with the child? I don’t think there is any danger of adoption becoming a casual “shacking up†except in unusual situations. There is a reason that most of us in the adoption world are idealists — we WANT the adoption to succeed — we wouldn’t have poured $40K or $50K into it if we’d thought we were just “trying on†the child to see if there was a good fit. We wouldn’t have announced to everyone we knew that we were adopting if we thought this was some light-hearted experiment. Our ideal and goal was “successful adoption.†Before we disrupted, I went to interview a family who had adopted four teens, now all adults, thinking that they would inspire me to “keep calm and carry on,†but what I learned instead was that for one of the teens, although she “had made progress,†she never fully accepted herself as a beloved daughter and continues to struggle as an adult with resentment of the adoptive family and with a sense of isolation and abandonment — in spite of not having experienced disruption. I didn’t want that for this child! I DESPERATELY wanted her to know that she is worth loving, and I knew in my gut that she would never feel that way in our home because of the depth of her rejection of our family–she had essentially sworn herself to hate us, all five of us, even the much younger child who was adopted on the same day she was, and her stubbornness (born from the need to survive in the orphanage) knows no boundaries. In her second family, where the mother has exactly that type of personality that we first noticed this child responding well to, and where she has adopted teen siblings who speak birth language, etc., she has come to acknowledge that she loves and is loved, and although she still has many rough edges and struggles in life, she is functioning in that home as a daughter and a family member. All of this to say that while disruption is far from ideal — sometimes, not always, maybe not even often, but sometimes the second chance, the second home, is what the child himself or herself needs most, and I wish there were more grace offered to families who reach this realization. I wish there was more acceptance of the possibility that what some children need most is a second chance. Sorry to write such a long comment, but this is a deeply tender subject for me. I grieve the loss of this child — I loved her — and I grieve what her adoption and disruption has done to her and to us. But even our adoption counselor (herself an adoptive mom of a troubled teen) and our adoption agency director could see that our family simply could not provide what she needed most, and there was no way anyone in the process could have foreseen that ahead of time, not until she was in country and in the home. I don’t advise disruption to every person who contacts me about their troubled adoption. I don’t think disruption is a “quick fix†to an unhappy home. We continue to struggle deeply, two years after the disruption, and our younger, adopted children will have big, difficult questions about the disruption as they grow up. Disruption is no “easy answer.†But I do believe strongly that for some children, disruption and a second chance/home really are in their best interest. Anyway, thank you for broaching the subject, and thank you for not condemning all who disrupt, as if adoption were full of unique stories and disruption were all the same story. Disruption is every bit as varied in nature and circumstance as is adoption, and to vilify all would be as wrong as to say that all foster families are harmful, just because the news mostly portrays the horrifying stories."

[Mama Mia]

I'm just curious as to your take on this one being especially bad? I read it and actually thought it was one of the only ones that didn't make me completely horrified .

She wasn't attached and bonded already, she is getting to be with other older children who speak her language. Wasn't shipped to a predator. The woman who disrupted isn't describing her as a horrible person, etc.

Again just curious because of the very different perceptions from reading the same info is always interesting to me.

Also, where is the " fundie" description coming from? Is there stuff I'm missing?

[DGayle]

I also can't figure out what's so bad in this case. The kid was about to age out and be dumped, and there was very little time to decide. Ideally an adoptive family can research a child's expected needs and evaluate their ability to meet them. This was an emergency situation where a decision had to be almost immediate, and on getting the child, realized quickly that her needs wouldn't be met in their home, and they located a suitable home where she'll be better connected to her culture. There really are times when disruption is for the best. This isn't a case of adopting a few kids, swearing they're possessed because the oldest peed the bed or whatever, and passing them on to a rapist while continuing to collect the checks for the kids and later publicly claiming to be the real victim of "demon-possessed" kids with the 5-year-old is raped.

In the case you posted, the older girl pushed against bonding, and since she's close to adulthood, she should have some say, and she's doing better in her new home. If anything, bravo to the first family to being attentive to her needs, and not just tossing her into some other random home, but finding a home where she is comfortable and with others who share the culture she needs to stay attached to.

[DGayle]

Just looked at the original blog post. What the hell? That blogger sympathizes with Rep. Harris. Harris and his wife gave the children to a RAPIST, continued collecting adoption checks, and then he claimed to be the real victim instead of the little girl WHO WAS RAPED. As a politician, he could have gotten help if he needed it, so I don't feel bad for him at all! I feel for the people like the replier who realized quickly that the child she had to make a quick decision about, who did the best she could, and then still tried to do right by finding a suitable, safe home. I DON'T feel for Harris! He claimed the girls were demonically possessed, and then GAVE THEM TO A RAPIST WHO THEN RAPED 1 OF THEM!

[blessalessi]

I don't know about worst ever, but there are serious concerns here for me...

She had personally never hoped to be adopted and was happy in her orphanage (because it was what she had always known, and as dysfunctional as it was, it was still her home, her family).

...

Sometimes I think we try to make the idea of “forever family†too sacred, too much of an idol

Why the everloving fuck did they ever get involved? They were not adopters, they were child traffickers.

[samurai_sarah]

From the link:

So how does one find him or herself in the impossible choice of keeping children in the home who are a danger to yourselves and the other children in the home or giving them to a rapist? I’m going to explain that in a few easy steps.

What the...what? :o

[August]

I don't know about worst ever, but there are serious concerns here for me...

...

Why the everloving fuck did they ever get involved? They were not adopters, they were child traffickers.

Because the adult institutions are beyond horrifying. I saw some stats about the adult places in Bulgaria and the life expectancy was ridiculously short. Better to be anywhere else but one of those.

I'm looking for where I read about ife expectancy, but this is a start

https://dumpinggroundsforpeople.wordpre ... stigation/

[nelliebelle1197]

Mods really need to change this title. This is no where NEAR the worst rehoming story ever. Going off what was posted (since that is ALL anyone here knows), it sounds like a happy ending for the girl. If being abandoned, raped, institutionalized or abused, which have all happened in rehoming stories, are better than this, then someone's meter is broken. The "mom" doesn't particularly pleasant or pleasant but how does going to a home where the teen is flourishing = worst story ever?

[ghost]

Mods really need to change this title. This is no where NEAR the worst rehoming story ever. Going off what was posted (since that is ALL anyone here knows), it sounds like a happy ending for the girl. If being abandoned, raped, institutionalized or abused, which have all happened in rehoming stories, are better than this, then someone's meter is broken. The "mom" doesn't particularly pleasant or pleasant but how does going to a home where the teen is flourishing = worst story ever?

The title refers to the link in the post that discusses Rep. Harris' rehoming cluster fuck which we have discussed in another thread. :dead-horse:

[ILoveJellybeans]

There is way worse.

Like someone gave away a preschool aged child who they had since being a newborn, because he didn't behave.

Or the kids who have been given to child molesters.

Or a kid who the parents adopted, kept for less than a year and then decided to get rid because the kid didn't immediately fit in, or had issues from all of the things that kids go through before they were adopted, like abuse, neglect, losing/being taken away from their parents, being passed around through different foster carers and never getting the opportunity to bond...

Or kids who were rehomed to complete monsters who beat them and neglect them.

[Evilbad]

Ok I'm not crazy, I was trying to figure out what was so bad about this story. She was moved with the support of the agency, worked to transition with the original family, and was put into a situation where she had people who spoke her language and the other kids were older, so the parents knew how to meet her needs better. I don't get the outrage at all.

[nelliebelle1197]

The title refers to the link in the post that discusses Rep. Harris' rehoming cluster fuck which we have discussed in another thread. :dead-horse:

Um, did you miss the OP's first paragraph in which she clearly states this particular ? Or do you know anything about the OP's dislike of international adoptions and how she feels children are better off living with no medical care and in filth in horrible orphanages? The title is obviously referring to the OP's opinion of this particular rehoming, no matter where she cribbed the headline. I am confused as to why you think differently.

[August]

Nelliebellie, it is admirable to assume the best of someone, but the OP makes no reference to the actual bad rehoming story. She ay have edited, but currently the first and second paragraphs summarise and condemn the story told in the quote, which is of the teenager adopted shortly before aging out to an adult institution. There's not a single reference to the POS politician who sent those poor kids to the pedophile.

This is a sad watch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs42-5HnQRQ

[polecat]

http://badassamys.com/2015/03/21/rehoming/

We adopted this child in an emergency health situation with basically three days to make the decision — she had serious health issues and was “aging out†of her country’s orphan care system in three weeks. She had personally never hoped to be adopted and was happy in her orphanage (because it was what she had always known, and as dysfunctional as it was, it was still her home, her family). She was angry, terrified, and depressed over what was happening to her in being adopted by foreigners from a different race and language.

So why did they adopt her at all? She was happy where she was, she'd presumably formed bonds with people there, she was in her home country with others who spoke her natural language, and she did not WANT to be adopted. They totally blew off her needs so that they could satisfy their own desires to "save" a child.

ETA: I missed that she was being sent to an adult institution if not adopted. That does put this in a different light.

When we found a second home that was far better suited for this child than ours had been (in about ten different areas of concern, including her need to be around teens her age who spoke her home language, as the language barrier was one of her biggest traumas in being adopted),

I actually think this is not a bad outcome -- finding a place where she'd be with people who felt like home to her. People who shared her culture, presumably, and her language. She was probably much happier there than at this first home.

Whereas we had adopted this child with just a single page of information about her strengths and weaknesses, personality type, and emotional needs (and there was no way to tell whether the birth country was “speaking truthfully†about any of her issues),

Funny story ... when we were pregnant with our biological children, not one person gave us any information at all about their strengths, weaknesses, personality type or emotional needs. We had to figure it all out ourselves over time. Yes, I know that's flip, but this is what parenting is -- you're often thrown into something entirely unprepared. You figure it out as you go. If you know you're adopting an older child who perhaps has suffered trauma or has unique emotional needs, you damn well better be as prepared as you can be or just not adopt at all.

we were able to provides the second family with dozens of pages of description about her strengths and weaknesses, personality, and needs. We gave them a three-ring binder full of medical information, school information and homework, and the contact information of pretty much every person in her “circle of experience†while in our family, including youth pastor, school teachers, English language learning instructor, medical providers, orphanage friends’ adoptive families here in the States, placement agency, home study agency, adoption counselor, etc..

Well bully for you that you could do at least that much for her.

The child began flourishing almost immediately in the second home,

ETA again: Forgot to add my comment -- I think this happy ending, if this is indeed the truth, makes this most definitely not the worst rehoming story ever.

I didn’t want that for this child! I DESPERATELY wanted her to know that she is worth loving, and I knew in my gut that she would never feel that way in our home because of the depth of our family's rejection of her.

ftfy.

I grieve the loss of this child — I loved her

Telling, isn't it, how she uses the past tense here ... She doesn't *love the child, who is presumably still alive. She *loved the child. Once. Not know.

So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that yeah, honestly, I think disruption may be better for some kids in some cases. If a parent is incapable of actually loving and accepting a child they've adopted and instead blames the kid for everything that went wrong, as this person clearly does, they don't need to be that child's parent. But in a perfect world, disruption wouldn't even be a thing because people wouldn't adopt unless they were actually prepared to be a parent. I can't imagine one day just going, "Nope, never mind, don't want to be a mom anymore. Let's rehome our kids." It's just not an option personally and probably not legally either. So why are people tossing adopted kids around here, there and everywhere?

[nelliebelle1197]

Nelliebellie, it is admirable to assume the best of someone, but the OP makes no reference to the actual bad rehoming story. She ay have edited, but currently the first and second paragraphs summarise and condemn the story told in the quote, which is of the teenager adopted shortly before aging out to an adult institution. There's not a single reference to the POS politician who sent those poor kids to the pedophile.

This is a sad watch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs42-5HnQRQ

I am confused- I know that. The poster I am quoting was saying the title is referring to the Arkansas case. I was explaining the same thing to the poster I am quoting above who claims that Kate Fowler does not mean the title to tie to the more benign case.

I am not assuming the best- I know exactly what Kate Fowler is doing. She posted a fairly benign story with an outrageous title in order to make one of her bombastic arguments about how it is better for kids to die early in terrible orphanages than to come to the US.

I be cornfused now,. :nenner: .

[KateFowler]

Ok I'm not crazy, I was trying to figure out what was so bad about this story. She was moved with the support of the agency, worked to transition with the original family, and was put into a situation where she had people who spoke her language and the other kids were older, so the parents knew how to meet her needs better. I don't get the outrage at all.

My take on what was extra horrible about THIS specific rehoming incident was that:

(1) the adopting family felt "pressured" to "save" a kid three days from aging out of a foreign institution and went ahead and adopted the kid anyways

(2) immediately after getting the kid home, the adoption agency, the one that SPECIFICALLY approved this SPECIFIC family to approve this SPECIFIC kid said "yup, bad call! We should never have approved them in the first place", ie agency concurred this was an adoption that never should have happened in the first place.

(3) the re-homing adoptive parent who immediately gave up on the kid claiming it was "for the best", that the kid "flourished" in the second adoptive home. Justin Harris said that too... and his ex-kids ended up with a hold rapist. So I don't take the re-homers claims at face value. Go watch "Dan Rather's Unwantedin America", read "Reuters Child Exchange", any of the follow-up stories on discarded Ethiopian kids (mostly homeless or in foster care" or watch the devastating "Mercy Mercy" documentary (Danish with English sub-titles) for a rehomed international adoptee's take on the (horrific, devastating) impact of getting rehomed!

The fact the ex-adoptive parents are so damn cavalier about dumping a newly-adopted, not yet fluent in English kid is what makes this SPECIFIC rehoming incident extra awful!

[KateFowler]

I'm the OP and was referring to this story (insta-rehoming of an older, internationally adopted kid) as possibly the worst rehoming story ever.

Also, institutions right here in the US can be every bit as awful as ones overseas. As can foster care and group homes:

https://www.propublica.org/article/rape ... rm-efforts

[August]

I am confused- I know that. The poster I am quoting was saying the title is referring to the Arkansas case. I was explaining the same thing to the poster I am quoting above who claims that Kate Fowler does not mean the title to tie to the more benign case.

I am not assuming the best- I know exactly what Kate Fowler is doing. She posted a fairly benign story with an outrageous title in order to make one of her bombastic arguments about how it is better for kids to die early in terrible orphanages than to come to the US.

I be cornfused now,. :nenner: .

Now I wish we were both still confused. :shock:

[DGayle]

From the link:

What the...what? :o

http://wonkette.com/579216/ark-rep-just ... h-a-rapist

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/ ... abortions/

[Mama Mia]

My take on what was extra horrible about THIS specific rehoming incident was that:

(1) the adopting family felt "pressured" to "save" a kid three days from aging out of a foreign institution and went ahead and adopted the kid anyways yeah, God forbid a kid is saved from an absolutely hopeless situation in an adult facility - where she was likely to die young, after living in complete misery

(2) immediately after getting the kid home, the adoption agency, the one that SPECIFICALLY approved this SPECIFIC family to approve this SPECIFIC kid said "yup, bad call! We should never have approved them in the first place", ie agency concurred this was an adoption that never should have happened in the first place. Why on earth would it be better for them to wait if everyone KNEW it was a bad call right away? What would be gained? If it's clear, right away, to even the agency, that it wasn't going to work - why would you WAnT to put everyone through the misery of trying to make it work?

(3) the re-homing adoptive parent who immediately gave up on the kid claiming it was "for the best", that the kid "flourished" in the second adoptive home. Justin Harris said that too... and his ex-kids ended up with a hold rapist. So I don't take the re-homers claims at face value. Go watch "Dan Rather's Unwantedin America", read "Reuters Child Exchange", any of the follow-up stories on discarded Ethiopian kids (mostly homeless or in foster care" or watch the devastating "Mercy Mercy" documentary (Danish with English sub-titles) for a rehomed international adoptee's take on the (horrific, devastating) impact of getting

sure, that's true, they Could be lying or airbrushing the truth, but could be doesnT meant the are. If she's telling the truth, the other family does sound like a better match - primarily due to the language issue, and experience with older children.

The fact the ex-adoptive parents are so damn cavalier about dumping a newly-adopted, not yet fluent in English kid is what makes this SPECIFIC rehoming incident extra awful!

i think you're reading it that way because you seem to see virtually every international adoption situation as horrific, or at the very least, extremely lacking. No mAtter what the situation actually is. Many of these cases do seem quite horrific. I don't see how saving a young adult from a short and brutal life in institutional care, recognizing - right away-that the child would be happier elsewhere, and finding a family that was actually a good fit - is somehow horrible

I agree the " different personality type" focus is odd, but if even the basics of the story are correct, it does seem likely the young woman is happier elsewhere. I think that's also a really important point here . The girl seems to be the one who really wanted the move.

[KateFowler]

Or maybe, just maybe, there's plenty of disastrous, ill thought out, should never EVER have happened in the first place international adoption stories to go around.

All else aside, the life outcomes of aged-out American foster kids are pretty much on par with hose of aged-out Ukrainian, Russian, etc. orphans overseas, so I'm having a hard time seeing how dragging almost aged-out orphan to a foreign country where she doesn't speak the language and insta-discarding her improves her life in any way, shape or form.

This business of justifying the actions of this particular adoption agency and ex-adoptive family? Is what leads to international adoptions getting shut down from entire countries. Who are justifiably livid how US "forever families" treat adopted kids they tire of!

[formergothardite]

KateFowler, you are saying this is possibly the worst rehoming story ever, correct? So you are saying this is worse than the child who was rehomed and raped?

There are lots of problems with international adoption, but I wouldn't say that this is the worst rehoming story ever. Ideally I child would not be rehomed, but I would rather a child be rehomed with someone who loves and wants them than stay with people who don't want them and view them as a burden.

[nelliebelle1197]

Again, if you think this is the worst rehoming story ever, and if you think people are going to support that POV, then your agenda has completely overtaken reason.

[Sarietty]

(2) immediately after getting the kid home, the adoption agency, the one that SPECIFICALLY approved this SPECIFIC family to approve this SPECIFIC kid said "yup, bad call! We should never have approved them in the first place", ie agency concurred this was an adoption that never should have happened in the first place.

I question the adoption agency's immediate readiness to place this child elsewhere, especially considering the emergency circumstances in which the girl was placed in her first adoptive home. What are the odds of an immediately available alternate placement, perfectly suitable for this particular child's needs? We've seen that disrupted adoption often results in children being placed in homes that have not been properly screened and vetted. I can't help wondering if the second family was always the agency's first choice, but they were not eligible to adopt this child in emergency circumstances. The first family was able to do so, and the agency essentially used them as a conduit to get the child to the second home.

My suspicion is based on the fact that the agency did very little to support the family in which this girl was originally placed, even though the family had done their best to prepare themselves for adopting a teen. The family was not ready to give up, but the agency convinced them that disruption was in the best interest of the child. That doesn't sound like the actions of an agency that wanted the first placement to succeed. And it sounds as if the first adoptive family was easily convinced that their situation was hopeless, given the actions of professionals involved with the case. It's not hard to understand the family's feeling; they were counseled by people they trusted.

Adopting a teenager or older child isn't comparable to giving birth to a baby. The baby has no past history that can be known, while the older child does. And it's doubtless true that certain adoptive matches aren't good ones, either because the family can't provide for a child's needs, or the child doesn't mesh with that particular family. That's why three-day "emergency" matches should be avoided, if at all possible. The idea that a child can just be switched to a "better" home if the first one doesn't work out is pretty disgusting. And, in this case, the first adoptive parents weren't pushing for disruption. They wanted to commit to this girl, but were pushed to let her go elsewhere. They had paid the adoption fees and done the work to bring her over, and I can't help feel that they were unwittingly used as part of a scenario that basically does amount to trafficking.

The more I think about this situation, the more I agree that it is a particularly repellent example of disruption - and not because of any ill-intention on the part of the first adoptive family. It just reveals the tremendous potential for abuse and exploitation in such situations. An unscrupulous agency - and an agency that pushes for immediate disruption is unscrupulous - could easily move a child from an approved, vetted family into one that has not gone through a screening process. And this is done through the guise of doing what is best for the child.

[August]

Or maybe, just maybe, there's plenty of disastrous, ill thought out, should never EVER have happened in the first place international adoption stories to go around.

All else aside, the life outcomes of aged-out American foster kids are pretty much on par with hose of aged-out Ukrainian, Russian, etc. orphans overseas, so I'm having a hard time seeing how dragging almost aged-out orphan to a foreign country where she doesn't speak the language and insta-discarding her improves her life in any way, shape or form.

This business of justifying the actions of this particular adoption agency and ex-adoptive family? Is what leads to international adoptions getting shut down from entire countries. Who are justifiably livid how US "forever families" treat adopted kids they tire of!

Just because there are plenty of bad stories to go around doesn't mean they are all bad.

Regarding the bolded, you clearly have no fucking idea. Take Ukraine, which happens to be the subject of the doco I posted a link to, which happens to feature several men who've aged out of children's institutions. You might find it interesting to compare that to that doco about the teacher in NJ trying to find adult placements for her disabled students.

I'm pretty sceptical about international adoption, but you're making me want to scream with your obstinate refusal to actually think or listen to the actual people involved.