Adopting a Snowflake

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So, your definition of "attack" has really gone downhill, huh?

...

Oh no I attacked you.

...
...
...

I'm a horrible, horrible person for ellipsising you.


lol

iLaughed

Originally Posted by txAOII_15

makes me think of frozen yogurt...

I thought of frozen goats.

As much trauma as a child in the foster system has likely faced (and for the record, I believe "traumatized" is much more accurate than "damaged" or "in bad condition"), I think I would like to adopt an older child one day. I would hope that, as a mental health professional, I would have more tools than just lots of love under my belt but it would still be a struggle. The kids I work with have made this a really passionate issue for me. I hope it's something I can handle and I hope my future husband feels the same.

[greekdee]

I agree 110 percent with everything Carnation has said. One of my children is adopted from the Ukraine -- he was 7-years-old when we adopted him and is 15 now. He is a wonderful young man and such a blessing to our family. We can not imagine life without him............

HOWEVER

Not everybody has a positive experience with adoption. We became friendly with a family in our community who also adopted from the Ukraine a few years before we did. In this case, a 10-year-old boy who was very gregarious and loving when they met him at the orphanage, but turned into a terror within weeks of coming into their home. He was VERY physically violent towards the adoptive mother and other children in the home (two biological, three adopted), pushed their grandmother down the steps, tried to strangle the family cats, started fires inside the house several times and became a chronic runaway. He had a condition called Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), meaning he was not able to bond with people and was most likely a full-fledged sociopath. They tried everything to help this child and make him part of the family. Psychologists finally determined that this boy could not function or survive in a normal, typical family. They ended up getting him re-adopted by another family -- a pastor and his wife in California who had adopted 15 boys with RAD...it was like their mission or calling. They had little success with helping him, though. He did manage a slight relationship with the pastor, but completely blew off the wife. He was extremely promiscuous as a teenager, had several drug overdoes, lied, stole, you name it.

It is tragic beyond words, but he had been so neglected and so abused in early childhood, that he had emotionally shut down and there was no reaching him. It is a sad, sad situation that you see sometimes in the world of adoption. Well meaning people with huge hearts want to ride in and be the white knight who saves these children, thinking love will be enough. Well, they can't and it's not. Sometimes the affects from abuse and neglect are just too deep and devastating.

As for Carnation's use of the word "damaged", she's right -- it is a frequently used term within the adoption realm. I also agree that it is used to impart just how deeply scarred some children are from abuse and neglect. Potential parents need to be real about it...not entertain fantasies about whisking a child from an orphanage or foster care, lavishing them with love and we all live happily ever after. You hope and pray it works out, and do everything you can to promote, nurture and support such an outcome, but sometimes it doesn't happen, no matter what you do. People also have to realize that adoption is not always just about them and the child. It impacts everyone in their household, and beyond it to an extent. There is so much that has to be taken into account, and people willing to try to give a child a better life deserve to know exactly what they may be facing so that they can properly prepare.

Trust me, the word "damaged" as a descriptive term is nothing compared to what you'll see and hear once you begin the long and winding road of international adoption. (Can't speak for domestic, since I have not gone that route). Tragic stories, appalling conditions, pathetic adults, greed, corruption...oh, it is not for the faint of heart. It was, without a doubt, the biggest step of faith I have ever taken in my life.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by greekdee

I agree 110 percent with everything Carnation has said. One of my children is adopted from the Ukraine -- he was 7-years-old when we adopted him and is 15 now. He is a wonderful young man and such a blessing to our family. We can not imagine life without him............

Cool.

HOWEVER

Not everybody has a positive experience with adoption. We became friendly with a family in our community who also adopted from the Ukraine a few years before we did. In this case, a 10-year-old boy who was very gregarious and loving when they met him at the orphanage, but turned into a terror within weeks of coming into their home. He was VERY physically violent towards the adoptive mother and other children in the home (two biological, three adopted), pushed their grandmother down the steps, tried to strangle the family cats, started fires inside the house several times and became a chronic runaway. He had a condition called Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), meaning he was not able to bond with people and was most likely a full-fledged sociopath. They tried everything to help this child and make him part of the family. Psychologists finally determined that this boy could not function or survive in a normal, typical family. They ended up getting him re-adopted by another family -- a pastor and his wife in California who had adopted 15 boys with RAD...it was like their mission or calling. They had little success with helping him, though. He did manage a slight relationship with the pastor, but completely blew off the wife. He was extremely promiscuous as a teenager, had several drug overdoes, lied, stole, you name it.

Don't think anyone will deny such things.

It is tragic beyond words, but he had been so neglected and so abused in early childhood, that he had emotionally shut down and there was no reaching him. It is a sad, sad situation that you see sometimes in the world of adoption. Well meaning people with huge hearts want to ride in and be the white knight who saves these children, thinking love will be enough. Well, they can't and it's not. Sometimes the affects from abuse and neglect are just too deep and devastating.

I don't think anyone is past receiving help, but it isn't something that every family or even that any family can do safely or at all.

As for Carnation's use of the word "damaged", she's right -- it is a frequently used term within the adoption realm.

Which doesn't make it right. But that really wasn't the only phrasing objected to.

I also agree that it is used to impart just how deeply scarred some children are from abuse and neglect.

Yes, so does "batshit crazy." Neither of these are phrases that we would encourage people to call their children. The "adoption community" is pretty obviously NOT mental health professionals, and they shouldn't have to be, but they should be aware of what they're saying. And perhaps, more importantly, be aware that their children will read it or something like it one day.

Potential parents need to be real about it...not entertain fantasies about whisking a child from an orphanage or foster care, lavishing them with love and we all live happily ever after. You hope and pray it works out, and do everything you can to promote, nurture and support such an outcome, but sometimes it doesn't happen, no matter what you do. People also have to realize that adoption is not always just about them and the child. It impacts everyone in their household, and beyond it to an extent. There is so much that has to be taken into account, and people willing to try to give a child a better life deserve to know exactly what they may be facing so that they can properly prepare.

All still true.

Trust me, the word "damaged" as a descriptive term is nothing compared to what you'll see and hear once you begin the long and winding road of international adoption. (Can't speak for domestic, since I have not gone that route). Tragic stories, appalling conditions, pathetic adults, greed, corruption...oh, it is not for the faint of heart. It was, without a doubt, the biggest step of faith I have ever taken in my life.

And it's awesome that you did. However that doesn't make talking about the condition of a child as if she were a sofa on Craigslist a good thing.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes, so does "batshit crazy." Neither of these are phrases that we would encourage people to call their children. The "adoption community" is pretty obviously NOT mental health professionals, and they shouldn't have to be, but they should be aware of what they're saying. And perhaps, more importantly, be aware that their children will read it or something like it one day.

The adoption community includes adoptive parents, birthparents, adoptive children, and all professionals who work with them, including in a big way mental health professionals. No one--but no one--cares if you think it's a proper term. Sometimes intense terms must be used, and not only in the adoption field, to describe the depth of what has been done to some children. Although no one uses these terms around the children, they are certainly used because if you had seen what many of us have seen, you would not be able to come up with a synonym for it. If no one has tried to do that in the last several years of selecting better names for certain terms (i.e., "mentally handicapped" instead of retarded), it''s probably not going to happen.

Until then, DF, you can go blathering on as usual about a field you know nothing about and making a fool of yourself as well as the joke of private messages ("OMG, go to the ________ Forum, get a load of Drole's verbal diarrhea.")

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by carnation

The adoption community includes adoptive parents, birthparents, adoptive children, and all professionals who work with them, including in a big way mental health professionals. No one--but no one--cares if you think it's a proper term. Sometimes intense terms must be used, and not only in the adoption field, to describe the depth of what has been done to some children. Although no one uses these terms around the children, they are certainly used because if you had seen what many of us have seen, you would not be able to come up with a synonym for it. If no one has tried to do that in the last several years of selecting better names for certain terms (i.e., "mentally handicapped" instead of retarded), it''s probably not going to happen.

You seem to care an awful lot about what I say.

And you also seem to think that adoptees don't exist in the forums where adoptive parents write/speak/read etc. How many adoptees are reading your words now?

Until then, DF, you can go blathering on as usual about a field you know nothing about and making a fool of yourself as well as the joke of private messages ("OMG, go to the ________ Forum, get a load of Drole's verbal diarrhea.")

Oh no, not the private messages! Anything but that!

You call people trash and talk about children like they're furniture (oh and what was that about your daughters not being allowed to join certain GLOs?). Pardon me if I don't nominate you for the sainthood or give a shit about how you fill your PM box.

[carnation]

lol! Whatever.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by carnation

lol! Whatever.

You're really not convincing me that you don't care. But take your cookie for trying.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by carnation

Sometimes intense terms must be used, and not only in the adoption field, to describe the depth of what has been done to some children. Although no one uses these terms around the children, they are certainly used because if you had seen what many of us have seen, you would not be able to come up with a synonym for it. If no one has tried to do that in the last several years of selecting better names for certain terms (i.e., "mentally handicapped" instead of retarded), it''s probably not going to happen.

I agree with you regarding the larger point. These are common phrases in the adoption world. Just as all of our fields of expertise/communities have common terminology and phrases that others hear or read and might say "that sounds horrible."

One thing that I have noticed is there are a lot of websites that describe certain types of adopted children as being in bad condition. That can be interpreted in different ways. Youth and young adults live on the Internet now so it is not impossible for them to read that stuff. That can especially apply to kids who grew up being treated as though they are damaged by either their families or their schools. That happens a lot. This doesn't make the terminology inherently flawed. This is about potential outcomes/consquences regardless of intent and every field of expertise, discipline, communities, etc. has things to consider in that regard.

That can be neither here nor there but, as with all fields of expertise and disciplines, there can be a shift in how adults-of-today discuss these matters in comparison to how the adults-of-tomorrow may discuss these matters.

[greekdee]

Honeychile and Pinkyphimu...you are both right on, thank you. Yes, there needs to be honesty and yes, there is a fairy tale ideal that some people get caught up in.

As for honesty: the woman who helped us facilitate the U.S. side of our international adoption got into that type of work because of being lied to when she and her husband adopted. They adopted a beautiful 7-month-old girl from Russia. They were told she had been born just a little premature, but was perfectly healthy. Got her back home to Atlanta only to learn that she had severe cerebral palsy. They were, of course, heartbroken that their little girl was so ill. They were also in no way prepared to cope financially and almost went completely under due to the massive medical bills that continue even today, over a decade later. Their financial condition has improved, but during the first five years, they were pretty close to living on a cardboard box under a bridge. Would they have adopted had they known the baby was so ill? I don't know, but can say that honesty in such cases would not stop everyone from adopting. While we were in the Ukraine, we met a family from Maine who were on their third adoption of a child with special needs -- a little boy about 3 years who was missing part of a leg and part of an arm. Adopting special needs children was where their hearts were led, and they were emotionally, physically and financially up for the challenges. Honesty is so key in making sure children are placed with the best families for their needs.

As for the fairy tale: my oldest son has a friend whose older brother was adopted from Russia at age 9 years. The family was so excited about bringing this boy into the family...couldn't wait to take this kid who had been dealt a bad hand and make up for his past. Pour on the love, give him every opportunity, make his wildest dreams come true. Their hearts were so very much in the right place, but their heads were in the clouds...as the mother finally admits now. Sad fact: not all adoptive children are sweet, sad, motherless angels who just need love. This kid was a cold, unappreciative, selfish, narcissistic, MEAN little shit who put that family through grief after grief. Did they love him? Yes. Get him therapy? Oh yes, lots of it. Last spring, he turned 18 and pretty much said, "kiss off -- I'm going back to Russia." And he did, as though the past 9 years never happened. He is living over there with a cousin, I believe. His family here in America is
shell shocked.

Okay, you guys need to clue me in -- I'm not getting what is so disturbing about the word "condition." I hear that all the time, in the schools, at the pediatrician, pretty much everywhere and applicable to everyone. When one of my son's dislocated his elbow during football practice, the first thing the ER doc said when he came in with X-rays was, "let's talk about your son's condition." One of my friends was just told by her son's high school counselor that he is in pretty good condition for getting accepted to UGA. I have always heard it as a word that merely references the state of someone or something. No more, no less.

Granted, I have not been on adoption-related websites in quite a long time. Is "condition" used in a negative way on them?

[carnation]

Originally Posted by greekdee

Granted, I have not been on adoption-related websites in quite a long time. Is "condition" used in a negative way on them?

No, pretty much same as always.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by greekdee

Okay, you guys need to clue me in -- I'm not getting what is so disturbing about the word "condition." I hear that all the time, in the schools, at the pediatrician, pretty much everywhere and applicable to everyone.

Granted, I have not been on adoption-related websites in quite a long time. Is "condition" used in a negative way on them?

I'm not quite sure what the hullabaloo is either, unless people are just piling on someone.

With adoption, you have to be completely honest. Some people are not equipped (financially, emotionally, tempermentally, what-have-you) to have anything other than a drug-free infant of their same race. For some people, having an older child or one of a different race is a loud indicator to the rest of the world that they're unable to have a child.

One of my former co-workers and his partner are going through the foster care system to adopt. They're looking for kids of any age or race--his partner is a social worker and is familiar with resources available to them, and they're not exactly fooling anyone by having a kid of the same race. The funny thing is, they're getting nothing but requests to have them take in babies!

The family I grew up next door to adopted a daughter a long time before we moved in. She was 5 and had grown up in a brothel in England. They had the resources to take care of her, but back in the 60s there wasn't much education or support for children who had seen the things she had, much less for the families who adopted them. She ended up having terrible behavioral problems, along with a drug addiction in her early teens, and it almost ripped their family apart. For the sake of their three older children they ended up having her live with her grandparents in a much smaller town. Fortunately, she was able to thrive there. Horror stories like that are becoming much more rare because agencies are being more open and parents are much more educated, but not everyone has the time or patience to see something like that out. Today, people are much more open about what an adoptee's pre-adoption life may have been like so people can make an educated decision.

Originally Posted by honeychile

Fast-forward to sixth grade. Sister & Husband were called in to talk to the school psychologist. Daughter was high functioning, but would never be able to live alone. You see, before she was adopted, Daughter had never had anything to eat other than cold milk and orange juice. She had never been out of a crib. So, while she was healthy physically, the deprivation of much needed nutrition didn't allow her brain to function properly.

That actually sounds pretty tame for a Ceacescu-era baby. Remember, a lot of families brought babies and toddlers home who never quite started thriving and then learned that they had been given HIV through tainted needles (it was believed that giving blood transfusions to babies would make them look more "robust" to potential adoptive parents). Of course, anti-retrovirals weren't as developed as they were now, so the children more often than not died terrible deaths at a young age.

A few weeks ago, New York Magazine had an article about women having babies into their late 40s and 50s. Most of the women, obviously, had gone through IVF with donor eggs. I don't remember if any of them used snowflakes, though.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by greekdee

As for Carnation's use of the word "damaged", she's right -- it is a frequently used term within the adoption realm.

I don't think anyone objected to "damaged" at all, I think they objected to:

the number of actual available children was 313. And who knows what condition those children were in?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

iLaughed


I thought of frozen goats.

As much trauma as a child in the foster system has likely faced (and for the record, I believe "traumatized" is much more accurate than "damaged" or "in bad condition"), I think I would like to adopt an older child one day. I would hope that, as a mental health professional, I would have more tools than just lots of love under my belt but it would still be a struggle. The kids I work with have made this a really passionate issue for me. I hope it's something I can handle and I hope my future husband feels the same.

If he doesn't we can co-adopt together, cg. (Though really, I DO want to foster at some point. I just have to see when i can fit the training in first.)

Oh gods why am I posting and not sleeping/studying. My comp exam is on THURSDAY.