You often hear that there are so many parents waiting for babies and yet it seems there are so many wee ones who are unadoptable because they don't fit the perameters of what the potential parents hope to have in an infant or child.

No, I sure don't think it better that they be shifted from home to home. Although, how do we make the requirements less stringent, while still finding healthy and happy homes for these kids?

I think that adoptive parents who really want to have a child but insist on it being a healthy, able, preferably white, infant need to examine their motivations for being a parent. Of course everyone wants their child to be 'perfect' - but there is certainly no guarantee of that when bearing a child so I don't see why it's such a demand in adoption. Of course I understand that some adoptive parents, like some birth parents, may not be equipped to handle a child with special needs. But at the same time, people cope. Nobody anticipates giving birth to a child with a disability. If anything, adopting a child with a disability give the parents a distinct head start in identifying the situation and preparing for it before the child 'arrives'.

A lot of people don't want to adopt an older child because they think that the child won't feel like it is 'their's'. This relates to what I said in the Handmaid's Tale thread. If children weren't treated like commodities who belonged to this or that parent, there wouldn't be this concern. In a time when families have extensions going in all directions (step-parents, step-siblings, parents' ex-spouses, etc, etc) why is it so difficult to embrace the concept of a child having both the family of origin and the family who raise it?

There is also a concern among some (not all) adoptive parents that children adopted in Canada, especially older children who remember their family of origin, will eventually return to that family. Lots of folks are adopting internationally, especially from China, where it can be almost impossible to trace birth families. This seems extremely selfish to me, and while some level of selfishness is inherent in wanting a child, it shouldn't preclude the child's future health and well-being.

I don't know if we could get past the selfishness factor when it comes to adoption. A friend of mine can trace everything back to selfishness.. even charity and volunteering "you're doing it because it makes you feel good". Know what I mean? I see your point about parents adopting from China and Russia, etc... BUT, what's the lesser "evil" in that situation? The self-satisfaction felt by adoptive parents, or, the child possibly living in an orphanage for most of it's life?

I totally know what you're getting at, and it makes me uncomfortable aswell, BUT, -there's that word again- Do the benefits not outweigh the costs?

I appreciate your point about the "lesser of the two evils" and certainly, no one likes to think of little babies in other countries hollishing in orphanages. I guess what I'm suggesting is that by adopting from abroad, we're effectively keeping children who are already here hollishing in foster care.

As well, it's naive to think that a child adopted from abroad will have fewer 'special needs' than a child with a disability adopted domestically. The particulars may be less visible and the disabilities emotional instead of physical, but the problems will still be there. Most adoptive parents aren't prepared for that eventuality; it's unfair, both to them and to the children that they adopt.

quote:

---

The particulars may be less visible and the disabilities emotional instead of physical, but the problems will still be there. Most adoptive parents aren't prepared for that eventuality; it's unfair, both to them and to the children that they adopt.

---

Very good point.

quote:

---

I think that adoptive parents who really want to have a child but insist on it being a healthy, able, preferably white, infant need to examine their motivations for being a parent. Of course everyone wants their child to be 'perfect' - but there is certainly no guarantee of that when bearing a child so I don't see why it's such a demand in adoption. Of course I understand that some adoptive parents, like some birth parents, may not be equipped to handle a child with special needs. But at the same time, people cope. Nobody anticipates giving birth to a child with a disability. If anything, adopting a child with a disability give the parents a distinct head start in identifying the situation and preparing for it before the child 'arrives'.

---

While I agree that it is sad that children with disabilities are not sought after during adoption, I hardly think it is fair to ask people to examine their motivations if they will only adopt an apparently healthy child.

To care for a child with a life-long disability is a task that no one would choose if they, indeed, had the option. Whether you are a birth parent or an adoptive parent, if you had a choice between a healthy or disabled baby you would probably want the healthy child. The difference is that birth parents often have only a choice between having the child or not having the child at all (genetic science not withstanding... but that's for another thread and another time). Adoptive parents have a choice between having a healthy child or an unhealthy child. Who among us would choose to adopt a disabled child (you don't have to answer that)? I'm not sure that I would so I cannot judge others who don't.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: dee ]