If it is the Adoptive Parent's responsibility to help biological families of their children...?

including internationally, as in my case, wouldn't that cause more of a problem as a whole by establishing a reason to make an adoption plan for a child because it would guarantee some sort of financial assistance, or welfare from the international adotpive parents?

This question stems from my prior question (is there a way to connect questions that are linked?): http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtspkQAJEXiuy8Hx8exKLZvsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080323072029AAjM6Fu
Additional Details
What about adoption specifically? Ofcourse charity and being thoughtful and helping out one another is awesome... can you answer my specific question regarding adoption and consequences of offering or helping the first/natural parents as "the right thing to do" issue. Thus, subsequently giving a convienient incentive for placing a child through international adoption.

Skeeter

Your question is a very complex one.

My first born son was adopted. We did open adoption so that
we can visit him and grow with him. We were just way to young and irresponsible at the time.

So, in my oppinion there is no responsibility to help the biological family out at all either within our country or another unless you want to do open adoption and help them out by doing what our son's adoptive parents have done for us. Be kind, caring, understanding and most of all good friends.

Samone

Even taking adoption out of the equation, we all have an obligation to help one another out. That's being a human. There's always going to be somebody less fortunate than you. And there's always something you can do to make someone else's life a little bit easier.

It doesn't have to be money. Sometimes it's just a little of your time. It's important our children see it to, and that they are encouraged to "pass it on". We all have a moral obligation to one another.

jgf5822

i agree with sunny.

i also think it's much more beneficial to help any mother keep her child, financially, or otherwise, rather than separating them from eachother.

why not help a mother keep her child, and watch them from afar, like we expect natural mothers to do with their kids who are separated from them by adoption?

tish

imo... many aparents are not too thrilled about this idea becaue it defeats the purpose: to adopt a child.

family preservation is usually not in the equation.

Gershom

I don't think that woman are going to be giving up their children with the expectation that Americans will be passing out gratitude payments for doing so for eternity.

Isn't this degrading the mothers of international adoptees to a level of being willing to "sell" their children? after the message is recieved that some of the families who adopt the children help out financially?

There are many other ways to contribute to a family, country, and community than passing around money and taking its children.

wynn

There is a very real danger (in international adoption situations) that if you go sending lots of cash directly to your son's family, their neighbors would see & it might influence them to relinquish. No one wants that to happen.

There are other ways of helping, though. When we send cash to our son's family in Asia, it's very small amounts. We knew right away to be careful because the first thing they did when we got in touch was ask us to build them a new house. Instead, we arranged for vocational training for the mom, then funded her business with a micro loan. We paid for school tuition for the other children, and sponsored medicine for them through an NGO.

Our children from Africa were old enough to tell us that if we sent money to their family, their dad would keep it for himself because he drinks too much and then beats up their mother & brothers. Fortunately, when we met our kids' family, we did ask for a tour of the large town nearby. We asked especially to see aid organizations & got the names & addresses of their directors. We send money to these organizations which help more than just our children's family, but do help in the area where our children are from.

You're right to be careful, but there are still things you can do.

opedial

Excellent thought. I have said though that I think it is NOT the AP's responsibility to help the bio families, it is no more their responsibility than anyone else on the street. It is, however, ALL of our society's responsibility to do what we can to create conditions that people who can, want and are able (by able I mean not addicted, not abusive etc.) to raise their children can do so. This is by having a good social infrastructure, and to rid of some of the for profit incentives and other stuff going on in the US.

If financial assistance for bio parents from AP's were the norm, I think that would for sure look like AP's are purchasing or bribing for the children. And we can all agree that is a BAD idea.

Good question!

Shelly P. Tofu, E.M.T.

Number one responsibility and focus is your child..

If you have the means to help others, fine.. but your child should come #1.. that's your only "responsibility"

GEE-GEE

It is not the responsibility of the adoptive parents to help out the birth families. I would feel like it is in some way buying a baby.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: