Take a look... I dont understand how it is always better?

julie j

Hi Bananarama,

It's not ok for anyone to hurt a child, be they adoptive parents, natural parents, or anyone else.

I don't think one can make the assumption that adoptive homes are always the more "loving" people. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. One can not assume that natural families do not love their children either.

To help you understand better, think of children as being meant to be raised with the parents they were born to. If there is any persuading going on, it's to NOT raise their children rather than to raise their own children because the normal course of action is raising one's own children.

For every sad case about a child who is hurt by their parents and others say it wouldn't have happened had they been adopted by someone else (the child might have been better off, they might not have been) there is another case of a child who was adopted and hurt and others are saying they would have been better off with their natural families.

The point is there are no guarantees with anyone. There is no way of knowing who is going to abuse a child before they do it. We cannot take away children before any crime has been committed. Some people who look like perfect parents on paper end up doing horrible things to children. Other parents who may be considered too young or too poor or too (fill in the blank) to be good parents may end up surprising you by becoming excellent parents once given the chance.

Nobody knows that they cannot successfully parent their child until they actually try. Therefore nobody can know that before the child is born.

Again, it is unacceptable to abuse children. There is no excuse for it. However, adoption is not the answer to child abuse nor is it a guarantee of lack of abuse. Hope this helps.

julie j
reunited adoptee

monkeykitty83

I don't think that anyone here would argue that a mother should parent no matter what. She shouldn't endanger her child. Children shouldn't be left in situations of abuse and neglect.

The thing is, a woman considering relinquishment isn't by definition dangerous. She may just be young, poor, lacking in support, confused about her options... but just lacking the confidence or the knowledge that she could be a good mother. If more women were encouraged to at least consider parenting their babies, fewer unnecessary separations would happen.

A child can be relinquished for adoption at any time. If in three months, or in a year, the mother still feels she isn't doing an adequate job of parenting, she can place for adoption. There's no time limit.

Once she places, the baby is gone. Forever. If she regrets adopting the child out, she has no recourse.

So if she isn't sure, isn't it better to err on the side of the decision that can be changed if she regrets it, unless the child's safety is at risk?

Saying a mother should CONSIDER keeping her child isn't the same as saying there is NEVER a situation where that separation has to happen. The majority of parents, both biological and adoptive, are not abusive. Why would we assume that any woman in a crisis pregnancy is in the minority of potential abusers? And if we accept that she probably isn't, why wouldn't we encourage her to consider parenting?

I don't think children should stay in unsafe and hurtful situations. But encouraging a scared and confused woman or girl that she has the ability to be a good mother isn't unsafe or hurtful. It's encouraging her to be a GOOD parent.

Parenting doesn't mean a child will be abused, and placing a child for adoption doesn't guarantee the child won't. In my opinion, parenting in safe and loving homes should be encouraged.

Neophyte

I agree with you on this. I don't really know what to say though. I mean how could people know how a child is being treated until something public happens? A lot of it will always go unnoticed.

Though if it was my choice, I wouldn't be forgiving about it. When a parent really screws up like that, the kid should be put up for adoption. It's detrimental to the kids to let them stay in that environment.

Randy B

Thats one of the major flaws when people use terms like "everyone", "every time", "always", "every one" and other such terms. There is always the exception and tragically this seems like just such an exception.

Its not always better for a child to remain with their birth parents and it's not always better for a child to be adopted or in foster care. When it is required though (either way), it's required.

Sly

Do you REALLY want to open this can of worms on here? Do you really think that we can't match your horror story for horror story? What about the Russian Adoptees who were murdered? There are whole entire websites devoted to that, and Russia has all but shut down in protest!

And, yes, I think that you are really trying to make someone mad. I think that actually you are trying to make a lot of people mad. Don't be coy! If you are trying to be confrontational, admit it. Otherwise it is just another specious question.

dalkmartin

well this is a sad story letting religion be the reason another child dies. i dont know where to draw the line because some religions are to far out and very unsafe for anyone who is sick. but how do you stop it in the name of religion? who knows all i know is that the mother does need mental health check bec there are alot of people out there in the world that should not have kids. i guess unless govt steps up it will continue. but if other people saw how bad this child was it is up to us as a human being to say something.

mom to be

The link you posted was very disturbing, as are the other cases that were posted in response. There are very bad natural parents and there are very bad adoptive parents, some people should not have children regardless of giving birth or adopting them. I think over generalizing is very harmful to everyone.

Jackie B

No, it's not always better and it's not always NOT better and in every situation, society, culture, all walks of life, adopted, biological, or blended families -- you are going to find some really sick people out there.

APs can post links to lots of stories about children being abused/killed/neglected by their parents.

Proponents of family preservation can also do the same with children who are in foster care or are adopted.

Anyone can find something, somewhere to support their view.

And most of the time, the examples are extreme. But in general, what is being presented are truly isolated cases.

Maybe I have too much faith in humanity, but I really do think most people do not advocate violence, abuse or neglect of children or adults for that matter.

Indian-vision

Abuse is pathetic whether its a natural parent or an AP who does it. It happens in both sad cases. You will find AP's that abuse (like flying monkey listed) and you have natural parents who abuse like the case you mentioned.

BUT...........

Some one asked " Why do you feel the need to single out those regarding natural families only though? "

Its because AP cases are always singled out on y/a and then everybody uses those cases to further their cause and say WHY ALL ADOPTIONS ARE UNNECESARY AND BAD !!!!!! I have read a regular say " I would like to see the Stats of who are more abusive - AP's or Natural parents........and i am sure AP's will be surprised by the Stats" (Implying abuse mostly happens in adoptive cases)

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: