Adopting a Snowflake

[carnation]

Five of ours are adopted but there are several reasons why many people don't adopt. For starters, a lot of the kids (international and domestic) are badly damaged emotionally--even by very young ages--and lots of people don't have it in them to rescue them. I can not blame them...plus some of these kids would tear your family apart. You can't always know if the social workers are telling you the truth about the kids either; some don't because they want the children placed.

Also, some adopters want infants and in this country, it's costing $25-$40K now. International adoption can be cheaper but the kids are rarely young babies anymore. And that's if you get one; there are many scammers out there who'll fake a pregnancy or create an imaginary child and take your money and run.

State governments will tell you about the thousands of children who are available. I read a paper this week on one state that claimed that-- but once you subtracted all the kids whose relatives were fostering them, those who couldn't be adopted because of extenuating circumstances, yadda yadda, the number of actual available children was 313. And who knows what condition those children were in?

We have not regretted adoption for one second and I would do it again in a blink. However, we have also been through adoption hell with lying agencies, scammers, people who jacked up prices, etc. I can see exactly why potential adopters would choose adopting a snowflake over adoption.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by carnation

And who knows what condition those children were in?

...

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

...

Really? You're going to attack the adoptive mother of FIVE children for pointing out that not every set of potential parents is ready/able to adopt an emotionally troubled child?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Really? You're going to attack the adoptive mother of FIVE children for pointing out that not every set of potential parents is ready/able to adopt an emotionally troubled child?

I think it was more that the phrasing makes them sound like they were used cars rather than children.

[AnotherKD]

Depending on the costs, absolutely. The old-fashioned way isn't working, I can't take the drugs required for IVF, and the nest egg we've saved to care for a child would be decimated by traditional adoption. I don't care for the term "snowflake" either, though.

[carnation]

Re: terminology...I can't think of how else it could be phrased and I don't really care if someone thinks that wasn't PC. For a child to be taken from his or her parents, something horrible has almost always happened that has very often impacted that child emotionally...I mean, it is HARD to have a child TPRed in most states. Some children are resilient, others are not and so often, love is not enough to undo what's been done.

I would venture to say that after almost 30 years of being involved in the adoption world, I know whereof I speak. People can and do argue nonstop about the correct terminology to use in adoption but the fact remains and we have personal knowledge of this both for us and other couples we know well: the emotional and other damage done to adopted children while they were with their first families can be *massive*, even though it may not show up at first. Not all families can or should try to deal with it.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by carnation

Re: terminology...I can't think of how else it could be phrased and I don't really care if someone thinks that wasn't PC. For a child to be taken from his or her parents, something horrible has almost always happened that has very often impacted that child emotionally...I mean, it is HARD to have a child TPRed in most states. Some children are resilient, others are not and so often, love is not enough to undo what's been done.

I would venture to say that after almost 30 years of being involved in the adoption world, I know whereof I speak. People can and do argue nonstop about the correct terminology to use in adoption but the fact remains and we have personal knowledge of this both for us and other couples we know well: the emotional and other damage done to adopted children while they were with their first families can be *massive*, even though it may not show up at first. Not all families can or should try to deal with it.

That's a super defensive post to something that actually just made me giggle.

Should've asked for the CarFax.

[carnation]

It's not defensive. It's the pure, unvarnished truth and people need to know about it.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by carnation

Re: terminology...I can't think of how else it could be phrased and I don't really care if someone thinks that wasn't PC.

"And sometimes those children are too physically, mentally or emotionally damaged for even the most caring and loving and financially stable of possible parents to deal with."

I thought of that and I'm not even really awake yet.

If you want to rip on the state for lying about conditions or inflating figures, then do that, but don't make the children sound like 1997 Impalas. It's not their fault.

[carnation]

No, it's not, and I'd like to rip on some birthparents for damaging them. I want to rip on some workers for lying to so many fine families that I know of who were victimized and then blamed because they tried their best but couldn't do it.

Adoption, particularly of an older child, is not for some people. Demand all the paperwork you can get and talk to the former foster parents.

That said, your child can end up with problems, whether he/she is biological, adopted, "snowflake", you name it, and you may or may not be responsible for those.

And--the terminology I used, including "damaged", is frequently used in the adoption world. Not in places where the children can see it, of course, but in literature, research, and in frank talking in the adoption world. It is needed to convey the seriousness of what has happened to certain children, and "flossing it up" helps no one.

[33girl]

Well, "PC" is more for things like "differently abled." My mom (who was in a wheelchair) heard that once and basically said "That's stupid. I'm in a f'ing wheelchair."

I don't think "PC" applies to the comment we are discussing at all, whether you like the term PC or not.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Really? You're going to attack the adoptive mother of FIVE children for pointing out that not every set of potential parents is ready/able to adopt an emotionally troubled child?

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

...

Oh no I attacked you.

...
...
...

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

Originally Posted by agzg

That's a super defensive post to something that actually just made me giggle.

Should've asked for the CarFax.

lol

Originally Posted by 33girl

"And sometimes those children are too physically, mentally or emotionally damaged for even the most caring and loving and financially stable of possible parents to deal with."

I thought of that and I'm not even really awake yet.

If you want to rip on the state for lying about conditions or inflating figures, then do that, but don't make the children sound like 1997 Impalas. It's not their fault.

This.

And mostly I think adopting an embryo is value neutral, it's as good or bad as having IVF oneself or having a child in vivo. But it's not at all like adopting an actual child, infant or otherwise. I guess if you see embryo as 'person' you're saving a life.... maybe. There's no guarantee that the embryo would 'take' after all. Which is why IVF parents fertilize so many in the first place, and implant more than one. This shit's expensive and multiple procedures increase the cost significantly.

But 'snowflake' is stupid as is whining about being "PC" when this was nothing of the sort.