Long article about Badeau family in NYer

[Cleopatra7]

There is a long article on the Badeau family, a Christian family with 20+ adopted children, in the latest issue of the New Yorker magazine. It is availible online in its entirety:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/ ... -strangers

I have mixed emotions about this family. On the one hand, I think that the kids definitely are better off with the Badeaus than being stuck in the foster system. The Badeaus were/are willing to take in kids that would probably never be adopted otherwise: older children, disabled children, terminally ill children, children of color, sibling groups, etc. But at the same time, I wonder how much one on one time the children could have had with their parents, especially with "informal kids" (i.e., friends of the family, foster children, random refugee kids) coming in and out of the home at will. In one instance, one of the adult kids molested one of the teen girls who had severe cerebral palsy and intellectual disabilities (unlike the Duggars, the offending son was sent to prison, paid his debt to society, and seems to be on the straight and narrow). Many of the girls became teen moms, but managed to do well as adults and have successful marriages and jobs. I feel like the Badeaus definitely have their hearts in the right place, and do seem to honestly care about "the least of these," unlike the people we usually talk about here whose main concern is popping out conservative white Christian clones. But they also seem to have a "messiah complex" and it's simply not possible to save every special needs child out there. Yet at the same time, I know that many, perhaps all of the Badeau's children would have been infinitely worse of in foster care, bereft of any kind of "normal family life." I would be interested in hearing other people's opinions on this.

[Four is Enough]

I will have to read this later. There was a similar family in Baltimore, who did adopt and foster many of the "least of these". They were criticized in the extreme, but they also worked the system relentlessly to get things for their handicapped and needy children. Some people saw it as begging. I sort of saw it as getting the kids something they needed.

I'll be interested to read this later.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Thanks for the link. It was a good article - they included some pretty honest feedback from the grown kids, and discussed some of the serious issues in the family as well.

I don't know if you could sum up the family with just one word or opinion. Their hearts were in the right place, no question. They love the kids. They advocate for other kids. At the same time...they also had limits, and the article was pretty frank about some of those too, like the drinking, Abel's molestation of Alysia (he went to jail for 7 years) and their inability to prevent some of the kids from making some poor life choices. As the article says, there's a tension between feeling like you are responsible for all the children in the world, and doing a good job for the kids that you already have.

It's not a fundie family, in the sense that we often discuss. They are religious Christians, and they felt called to adopt, but the similarities end there. They realized that Sue hated being a stay at home mom and Hector really wanted to be a hands-on dad, so he stayed home and she was the breadwinner. They rarely punished the kids at all.

[friers57]

The interviews with the kids were pretty telling about how they felt about the huge family/constant adoptions. It made me think of Melissa Fay Greene's memoir No Biking in the House Without a Helmet http://www.amazon.com/No-Biking-House-W ... 0374533385 (not breaking Amazon link). She and her husband had 4 biological children and the adopted 5 more internationally. At one point in the book, when recounting how hard it was after they adopted their last two children she discussed that she wanted a family, not a group home. She is a journalist and in writing an article about mega families, she interviewed one family that felt like a huge family, where parents spent time with kids individually and it seemed like their house was really a home and another that functioned and felt like a group home. I wonder what growing up in the Badeau home felt like.

[Jana814]

Thanks for the link to the article. Very interesting.

[Tiny Bubbles]

Well that was interesting. Add my thanks for posting to everyone else's.

These parents don't sit right with me. I feel they should have been able to say no more often to adoptions when their house was full. I know their hearts were big enough to love more children, but I think the kids that were already at home with them probably needed a little more time and attention to really thrive. JMO, though. They're an interesting counterpoint to the mega fundie families.

[tapdancer493]

That was really interesting to read, and I'm glad the NYer included (a) interviews from the kids and (b) where the kids wound up as adults.

I actually think what the parents did was pretty selfish. Yes, they were adopting kids who might not have otherwise been adopted. But they were doing it because it was something they wanted to do. And it sounds like they considered the needs of the not-yet-adopted child before the needs of the children they already had. It's almost like they forgot that, in the long run, they were caring for real people, all of whom needed more attention than they probably got. For me, this was the first part that got me thinking "something's not right here"

Sue: It was almost like a high, that new time, getting to know them and the challenge of finding the right school and the right this and the right that. It’s something that, after everyone’s settled, you sort of miss, and you say, Oh, it’s time to do that again.

New children were particularly difficult, but everything was difficult, and she and Hector liked that. They never wanted an easy life. They were always exhausted and always broke, and they seldom had any time alone, but they knew that they were needed: they could give love and food and shelter to children who needed those things and who loved them back. They were doing God’s work. Their days were crowded and unpredictable, and charged with fervor and purpose.

It seemed as though they downplayed the abuse, especially reading Abel's account of it, blaming her in part. Obviously we have no idea what actually happened, but I found that pretty awful to read. I mean...

Abel: What I did was illegal, mostly because of her age and because she had cerebral palsy. They said that she comprehended at a third-grade level, but, if you knew her, nobody thought that. I felt like I let the whole family down, but it wasn’t like I attacked her or nothing like that.

To end my wall o' text, I think this is pretty telling

It wasn’t just the awful stuff that hadn’t worked out the way they’d hoped: Only a few of the kids still went to church. None of the kids had adopted kids of their own.

[mamallama]

Last time this came up I mentioned I know Sue (from the internet but I have met her in person.) One of the things that I respect about her is that she is very honest about her shortcomings.

It's interesting that someone mentioned selfish...In the early days of the internet I was on an adoption board on Prodigy (I'm adopted) that blew up over the statement "adoption is a selfish act". Having kids always starts of about being what you want and as you bond the things you do later might be selfless. Most adoptive parents had no problem with concept but a few were really adamant that they weren't selfish that they were doing a great thing. Those people always bothered me. One of the things I love about Sue is that she always presented the adoptions as about what she wanted. To me that tells the child that they're valuable and wanted. To say we adopted because the need was so great leaves a child with a huge debt to repay and devalues the child's contribution to the family.

The other things I can add are I've known her for 16 years and I've never seen her ask for money or even share specific hardships. Just "we're going through a hard time now we'd appreciate prayers if you're inclined. I didn't know about the Abel/Alysia at the time probably because Alysia was young and then the board we were on closed up and it's not the type of thing one puts on facebook. I do want to say that now all the living kids are living on their own and raising families and they are still very much involved with Sue and Hector. I think there's a lot more love there than the article reflected.

[Jana814]

These parents don't sit right with me. I feel they should have been able to say no more often to adoptions when their house was full. I know their hearts were big enough to love more children, but I think the kids that were already at home with them probably needed a little more time and attention to really thrive. JMO, though. They're an interesting counterpoint to the mega fundie families.

Agree!!

[tapdancer493]

Last time this came up I mentioned I know Sue (from the internet but I have met her in person.) One of the things that I respect about her is that she is very honest about her shortcomings.

It's interesting that someone mentioned selfish...In the early days of the internet I was on an adoption board on Prodigy (I'm adopted) that blew up over the statement "adoption is a selfish act". Having kids always starts of about being what you want and as you bond the things you do later might be selfless. Most adoptive parents had no problem with concept but a few were really adamant that they weren't selfish that they were doing a great thing. Those people always bothered me. One of the things I love about Sue is that she always presented the adoptions as about what she wanted. To me that tells the child that they're valuable and wanted. To say we adopted because the need was so great leaves a child with a huge debt to repay and devalues the child's contribution to the family.

The other things I can add are I've known her for 16 years and I've never seen her ask for money or even share specific hardships. Just "we're going through a hard time now we'd appreciate prayers if you're inclined. I didn't know about the Abel/Alysia at the time probably because Alysia was young and then the board we were on closed up and it's not the type of thing one puts on facebook. I do want to say that now all the living kids are living on their own and raising families and they are still very much involved with Sue and Hector. I think there's a lot more love there than the article reflected.

I'm the one who brought up selfish. Maybe that wasn't exactly the right word, and I don't really consider adoption/having children a selfish act. I just mean that the article said

Most people would think first about how an adoption would affect the children they had; but to Sue and Hector the need of the child who was still a stranger weighed equally in the balance.

and to me that doesn't seem like the correct people are a priority. The impact of yet another child on the kids you already have, especially with that many children, should really be the first thing you [general you] should consider. Later in the article a few of the children say they started to question adding more children to the family.

I'm sure they're wonderful people and I don't question their intentions in adopting (ok, well, I'm not religious so the whole God thing always makes me go :? a little). There were just a few things in the article that rubbed me the wrong way.

[TXGirlInAMaterialWorld]

I agree that their hearts were in the right place, but you should also use your head. I think that they should have reached a point where they realized they had taken on more than they could handle.

There is a family in my neighborhood who adopted two special needs children over 15 years ago. They realized that adding any additional adopted kids in the mix would take time away from the physical and emotional care of their children but knew there were still many children needing loving homes. So they started helping do information sessions, classes and fundraising to help other families adopt special needs children. When you walk in their house, they have a photo collage of all the families that have helped over the years and it really is quite stunning. I think realizing your own limits as a human being is sometimes the healthiest thing for all involved.

[2xx1xy1JD]

It's a delicate balance, your own family vs. the rest of the world.

I know that I, personally, have placed my own family first. We help some organizations that help children in need, but my kids and husband have been clear that they didn't feel that we should be taking in a foster kid now. My main responsibility is to them, and they are thriving. At the same time - I know for a fact that there is a dire need in my own community for foster parents, and that kids are harmed when good placements in their own community are not available.

So....I know that everyone needs to know their limits or they aren't helping anyone, but I'm also glad that people like Sue and Hector exist. They are doing the job that I'm not doing.