Adopting a Snowflake

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by carnation

My husband and I did a seminar once for local couples interested in international adoption. There were 13 couples and ten had actually had domestic babies in their homes who were reclaimed by the birthmothers. They knew that the chances of that happening in international adoption were practically nil.

Some states say that the birthmom can reclaim the baby any time during 6 months, which happened to a pledge sister of mine who'd had a baby for several weeks, and others have varying amounts of time. We personally know a couple whose child was reclaimed after 3 years because the birthmother lied about who the birthfather was; the real BF got out of jail and found out he had a child and wanted her...and got her, despite his police record.

So-- I can see loads of reasons why families would choose to parent snowflakes and some have them carried by surrogate moms overseas; there's only so much heartbreak you can take.

Oh my word.

THREE years? Oh my. You know what though, as someone who has done a little research on adoption and read some about, I have heard of that scenario happening. Mom lies about dad to the agency (because she knows that dad has to sign off on it and knows he'd never agree to it if he knew she was pregnant.) Says he's dead or something. The adoption proceeds as if she is a single mom. A year or so later, dad hears through the grapevine that he has a kid. He gets pissed. Contests it in court and the adoption is overturned because the kid has a bio parent who never terminated his parental rights. Many times the adopted parents knew NOTHING about a dad so obviously they are crushed.

Sometimes dad is an upstanding citizen. Sometimes (like in the case of your sorortity sister) he's not.

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

Good job, KV, on your explanation. My husband & I are in the beginning stages of this whole mess right now & it's really intimidating. (We're sticking with infant adoption b/c we don't think that, as first time parents, we would be prepared to handle a lot of the issues that come with older child adoption. Also, the experience of parenting a baby is something that my husband would really miss if we went a different route.)

Good luck to you!

[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 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.

[KSUViolet06]

^^^What you're describing is really common practice in certain countries. In their orphanages, kids spend 24 hours/day in their cribs. No one picks them up. They don't get ANY sort of stimulation and they don't get the proper nutrition. Their brains just don't get the chance to develop the way it should, and it leads to some pretty serious developmental delays/disabilities. Sometimes, if the child is young enough, they can "catch up" (with the help of speech therapists, intervention specialists at school, etc.) but if they've been in that environment for too long, the damage is more pervasive.

[KSUViolet06]

^^^True story. A lot of times people think that all they need is to be able to love a child, all they need is love/etc. and everything will be ponies and rainbows. Not so. They have good intentions and really do want to be parents of kids with special needs, but it takes SO much more than your love and patience. A lot more.

[Low C Sharp]

Anytime someone has a child, no matter how it's conceived, there's a possibility of problems. If you can't handle that thought, you really shouldn't be having children in any way!

This is so important. Yes, the odds of a serious problem differ depending on how the child joins the family. But EVERY child presents the risk of catastrophic physical, emotional, or mental disabilities. Every parent takes the risk of having an adult child who can't care for him or herself. It is something a lot more people should think about before they have kids the old-fashioned way.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by greekdee

Okay, you guys need to clue me in -- I'm not getting what is so disturbing about the word "condition."

It wasn't one word, it was the whole phrase.

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

That type of interaction would have NEVER happened when say, my mom was a teen. They had the stories of girls getting pregnant and "going away" for 9 months. Then coming back after having given up their babies for adoption. No one ever talked about it. They never got to see their kids (until years later when they were adults.) It was all very hush hush and adoptive parents wouldnt dream of speaking to the birth mom. They got the bare minimum of info about the parents because everything was so discreet.

Closed adoptions have NEVER prevented the mother from telling the (usually) doctor who's facilitating the adoption "I have a family history of breast cancer, my dad's dad had a heart condition, etc etc." If the woman didn't share that, it's because she didn't know herself. If she was impregnated by a man she never saw again, it's pretty hard to know what his medical history is.

My cousin is adopted. It was through the family doctor and supposedly (this is what someone started to tell my mom in the grocery store one day, but she put her hands over her ears and said LALALALALALA) the mother was a teenage daughter from a prominent family in town. He has never had any interest in knowing who his bio parents were - I'm probably more curious about it than he is, just by virtue of writing this post. I know that there were some other cases where people wanted to keep adoptions closed, but they had to tell the kids because of the fear that they'd end up dating their half-siblings.

Have the information on file, but you don't have to look at it if you don't want to. I almost think that things have swung too far the other way nowadays, and there's a pressure to keep things open even if one or several of the parties (birth parents, adoptive parents, child) would really rather not.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Closed adoptions have NEVER prevented the mother from telling the (usually) doctor who's facilitating the adoption "I have a family history of breast cancer, my dad's dad had a heart condition, etc etc." If the woman didn't share that, it's because she didn't know herself. If she was impregnated by a man she never saw again, it's pretty hard to know what his medical history is.

They haven't- but hardly any adoptees I know have any medical history, be they domestic or international adoptees. A lot of adoptions go like this: "here's an apparently healthy kid, do you want to adopt him/her?" And people are so desperate for a baby that they don't ask any questions.

Sometimes the adoptive parents or adoptees do get some medical history later on. We had none on one of our girls at first but were able to get in touch with her birthfamily; good thing, because her birthdad died of diabetes in his 40s so she knows she needs to watch for it. (And now we are all big buddies with them on Facebook, haha.)

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by 33girl

My cousin is adopted. It was through the family doctor and supposedly (this is what someone started to tell my mom in the grocery store one day, but she put her hands over her ears and said LALALALALALA) the mother was a teenage daughter from a prominent family in town. He has never had any interest in knowing who his bio parents were - I'm probably more curious about it than he is, just by virtue of writing this post. I know that there were some other cases where people wanted to keep adoptions closed, but they had to tell the kids because of the fear that they'd end up dating their half-siblings.

Have the information on file, but you don't have to look at it if you don't want to. I almost think that things have swung too far the other way nowadays, and there's a pressure to keep things open even if one or several of the parties (birth parents, adoptive parents, child) would really rather not.

The operative phrase here is "through the family doctor." In smallish towns, there might be a lot of information (either confirmed or hearsay) about the birthparents. In locations where girls went out of town to have the baby, the information is very, very scant.

My HS Spanish teacher was very open about having given her daughter up for adoption--it was one of those old-style closed adoption where she gave birth and never saw the baby again. The girl reached out to her when she turned 18; they weren't been able to find the birth father at all.

Originally Posted by carnation

A lot of adoptions go like this: "here's an apparently healthy kid, do you want to adopt him/her?" And people are so desperate for a baby that they don't ask any questions.

Joan Didion's new book is coming out next month...she says that she and her husband got a call from their doctor (with whom they had been tentatively discussing adoption but hadn't made any decisions) saying that he had a healthy white newborn and if they wanted her. They weren't prepared at all and decided to just go on and do it.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by carnation

They haven't- but hardly any adoptees I know have any medical history, be they domestic or international adoptees. A lot of adoptions go like this: "here's an apparently healthy kid, do you want to adopt him/her?" And people are so desperate for a baby that they don't ask any questions.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

The operative phrase here is "through the family doctor." In smallish towns, there might be a lot of information (either confirmed or hearsay) about the birthparents. In locations where girls went out of town to have the baby, the information is very, very scant.

My point is just that you don't need to have an open adoption to know about the baby's medical history. There's nothing preventing the birth mother from writing down as much family medical history as she knows and giving it to the adoption agency, along with the baby. If that info doesn't get passed on, then the agency (or whoever the adoption facilitator is) is the one falling down on the job.

I understand being desperate, but you have to think at the same time. If you can't do that, enlist a lawyer or somone else who will do the cold hard thinking for you and pull you back if you're going to do something unwise. If you have $$$$$ to spend on all these other things, you have it to spend on a lawyer.

[carnation]

What you deal with a lot in international adoption (and sometimes domestic, especially if the father could be one of many guys) is that there's no way you're going to get any information. Ever. If you want a child, you take it.

Most adopting families I know wanted their child enough to deal with unknowns. Very often, scant or no information is a given. Furthermore, we know of many cases where birthparents have lied about their medical history.

It's a choice--do you want this child enough to deal with no information or the fact that it may be unreliable? Potential adopters, especially if they've been trying to give birth and/or adopt for years, are going to say, "YES!! When can I have her? Yesterday?"

[KSUViolet06]

^^^True. Church friends of mine have 2 kids from Vietnam.

They know zero about either of their birth families. They've tried and tried to find it but it's just not there.

There are a number of reasons for that. Medical recordkeeping isn't always on the level of what it is here in America, or the mom may have seriously just dropped the baby off at the orphanage and kept going, not wanting to identify herself. In some cases, the mom isn't even alive.

[greekdee]

I actually have some info about our adopted son, BUT he was 7 years-old when we adopted him, had been taken from his birth parents and placed in an orphanage when he was 5-years.

We were, however, warned not to fully trust the medical info we were given. Even if his immunization records were legit, there was the chance that the serum had been purchased on the black market, or that the serum the orphanage had been given was outdated.

He was supposedly given a battery of tests while in the Ukraine, but our pediatricians at home -- very familiar with Eastern Europe -- redid everything. HIV, TB, Hepatitis, -- he was retested for them all. They completely started his immunizations over. Said it would not hurt him and that way we would be absolutely sure he was properly immunized.

Now get this -- at the time we adopted, the Ukraine would not allow 100 percent healthy children to be adopted. They had to have some kind of medical diagnosis and it was pretty common for orphanage pediatricians to "find" something wrong just so the child could be adopted. We were told our son had mitral valve prolapse, an extremely common and non-life threatening cardiac condition, but enough to get him out of the country. Well, our regular pediatrician as well as a pediatric cardiologist do NOT detect it or see any diagnostic evidence of it...so his diagnosis was one of the fake ones listed in order to make him eligible for adoption.

I have copies of all the social service and court records pertaining to him and his siblings being taken from the biological parents. I have parents names, birth dates and a pretty good write-up of how lousy and negligent they were. (I also know things based on what our son has told us.) Our son has six bio siblings, all who had been adopted before him. (We would have never broken up a sibling group!) So far, we've found his two younger brothers, adopted and living outside of Naples, Italy. He has four older sisters who could be anywhere in the world. Records are sealed with cement, but I have their names and birth dates and will hopefully be able to locate them one of these days. The oldest would only be 20 right now.

As for family medical history, we were given no info on that.

[AXEling]

I was adopted at birth (closed adoption, and I'm American-born), and I don't know anything about my biological medical history (not sure if that's the terminology I'm looking for) or birth parents. My adoptive mother probably wasn't told anything about the birth parents' medical histories.

I emailed the adoption lawyers that handled my case and they told me I can't have any information about anything until I am 21 (about a year and a half away). I'd really like to know my medical history (what might I carry that can be passed to my children?), and plus it'd be kinda cool to potentially see what region my ancestors came from.