If you were allocated a child and they had existing family what would you do.?

I am referring to international adoption and I am interested to find out peoples opinion about this. This is purely hypothetical.

What happens if you are allocated a child from a third world country and on their information sheet it says that this child is the youngest sibling of 5 children from a poor single mother. Due to poverty she decides to relinquish her youngest because she just cannot afford another mouth to feed. She keeps all the other children as they are older and are able to help her out.

As a PAP, would this bother you? Knowing that the only reason she gave up a child was due to poverty.

In my situation, my son was found abandoned with no clue to who his parents are, so I have never faced this sort of situation before. But I am just wondering what I would do if I was faced with the above scenario. To be honest, I would really struggle because I know if I refused the allocation chances are they would just offer the child to someone else. On the other hand I do not think my conscience could deal with the fact that all I had to do was help this poor mother out financially in order for her to keep her child.

Out of curiosity what would people do in this situation? Would you accept the allocation, would you go out of your way to help the mother or would you just refuse the allocation and let someone else deal with it.

Please note this is purely hypothetical, but it is something that probably happens a lot.

wynn

Thatâ€™s a really good question. A lot of agencies wonâ€™t let you turn down a referral for other than medical reasons so you need to talk to your agency before you sign a contract rather than waiting until you get a referral. In some countries agencies must agree to help place children relinquished through that countryâ€™s court system. They canâ€™t tell the government theyâ€™ll only place full orphans, or full sibling groups exclusively.

When I was in Ethiopia I travelled with another adoptive family and was with them when they met their daughterâ€™s family. We met the uncle who brought the infantâ€™s four older siblings to the meeting, so this is like the situation youâ€™re talking about.

Itâ€™s not right to assume that poverty alone makes someone give up the youngest child and keep the others. Both of the parents had died of AIDS. The uncle himself was dying of it because the medication had come too late. The reasons he told them for giving up his niece were that he couldnâ€™t care for an infant with his health, and because she was blind which in that community means a miserable future, but the paperwork said â€œpovertyâ€.

The adoptive family arranged with the pastor of a church in the nearest big town to send sponsorship money for both the uncle and the churchâ€™s charities. They also wrote down all their information and left copies of their adoption paperwork so that when the uncle dies and the four other siblings need a home, they could be adopted to live with their sister. If they donâ€™t want to leave their country, the sponsorship money will continue to go through that church to whoever is caring for the children. So thatâ€™s what they did in the situation you describe.

Itâ€™s a very complex question. For one thing, a lot of people are told that their child was the only child, or the parents are dead, or the child was found abandoned when that wasnâ€™t the case at all. When I found my eldest sonâ€™s mother she told us right out she lied to the orphanage when she brought him in. They told me what she said in good faith, but it wasnâ€™t true. My son wasnâ€™t her only child, she had previously placed a daughter who was somewhere in the US. When I found that family, they were told that their daughter was an orphan, but my sonâ€™s mom said she brought her daughter to the orphanage herself and then lied because she was afraid of getting in trouble.

So whatâ€™s the difference in international adoption â€“ knowing the child has other family, or saying that so long as you donâ€™t know for sure itâ€™s ok? Would we prefer to be told a child is abandoned because that makes everything easier? Or would we be willing to face some hard truths in order to have information for our children and a chance for them to reconnect with their family?

We went to Ethiopia the second time around and adopted school age siblings because in Ethiopia you can meet the first family and speak to them directly. Being willing to take sibilngs, we hoped we wouldn't be splitting up a family. With school age children, they can tell their own stories. But definitely, people have to think about situations such as you describe and be really aggressive in doing their own research and in dealing with their agencies.

Mei-Ling

My mom was in a very similar situation when she was going to adopt me.

She *almost* ended up giving me back - yes, breaking the finalization adoption law in the process. She *almost* did that.

But she didn't, for other reasons that I'm not about to broadcast here. Plus I'd get too emotional if I went into details here.

sweetjane

I am certain it happens a lot but, often, in international adoptions the aparents aren't given all of those facts or any personal history. Obviously, a child in that situation doesn't make for as 'nice' a story as an abandoned child with no parents or siblings. Childrens histories are routinely 'changed' to 'help' with placement. Sad but true. No, if an agency actually told me the truth, I could NEVER remove that child from his/her mommy just for her inability to afford her child.

anastasia beaverhausen-the real1

http://www.icasn.org/news/oct08/The%20Lie%20We%20Love.pdf

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: